The Effects of Psychological Momentum on Judging and Actualising the Affordances of Interceptability and Returnability
Le résumé fourni par la source
The aim of this research was to examine the effects of psychological momentum (PM) on the judgement and the actualisation of certain affordances. In Study 1, during both the baseline and post-manipulation session, participants either judged the interceptability of virtual balls falling along a screen or actually had to intercept them using a hand-held slider to control an on-screen paddle. Between these sessions, PM was experimentally manipulated through either a positive or negative scoring scenario during an “interception match” against an opponent. In Study 2, the procedure was adapted to an ecological setting on the tennis court, where we investigated PM effects on both the judged and actual returnability of balls launched by a ball machine. Across both studies, athletes’ judgements of interceptability and returnability varied as a function of PM valence. Relative to the Negative PM condition, participants judged a greater number of balls as interceptable and returnable in the Positive PM condition. However, empirical support for a corresponding effect of PM over both the actualisation and jugdments of affordances emerged only in the ecological setting of Study 2. To advance our understanding of perception–action processes and the role of PM in sports, these findings underscore the importance of examining both judged and actualised affordances across different contexts.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- The Effects of Psychological Momentum on Judging and Actualising the Affordances of Interceptability and Returnability
- Date Crossref
- 16/07/2025
- Éditeur
- Center for Open Science
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.