Recent findings (Beilock & Carr, 2005) have demonstrated that only individuals with a high working memory capacity (WMC) “choke under pressure” on math problems with high working memory demands. This suggests that performance pressure hinders those who are the most qualified to succeed, because it consumes the WMC they usually rely on to achieve superior performance. This puts into question the use of performance in high-pressure situations as a means of distinguishing individuals with lesser or greater WMC potentials. While addressing several limitations of past research, we offer evidence that such choking (1) occurs only in individuals with high WMC, because of their anxiety-ridden perceptions of high-stakes situations, and (2) is not confined to tasks involving acquired skills and knowledge, but encompasses fluid reasoning abilities or intelligence (Gf). These findings have strong implications for assessments of people’s intellectual capacities in academic, clinical, work, and research settings.
Ashcraft, M. H., &Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 224–237.
Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 5–28.
Baron, R. M., &Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,51, 1173–1182.
Barrett, L. R., Tugade, M. M., &Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind.Psychological Bulletin,130, 553–573.
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,46, 610–620.
Beilock, S. L., &Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 701–725.
Beilock, S. L., &Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and “choking under pressure” in math.Psychological Science,16, 101–105.
Beilock, S. L., Kulp, C. A., Holt, L. E., &Carr, T. H. (2004). More on the fragility of performance: Choking under pressure in mathematical problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 584–600.
Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A., &Kiesner, J. (2005). Why do women underperform under stereotype threat?Psychological Science,16, 572–578.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The measurement of adult intelligence.Psychological Bulletin,40, 153–193.
Croizet, J.-C., Després, G., Gauzins, M.-E., Huguet, P., Leyens, J.-P., &Méot, A. (2004). Stereotype threat undermines intellectual performance by triggering a disruptive mental load.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,30, 721–731.
Daneman, M., &Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.
Desmette, D., Hupet, M., Schelstraete, M.-A., &Van der Linden, M. (1995). Adaptation en langue française du “Reading Span Test” de Daneman et Carpenter (1980) [A French version of M. Daneman and P. A. Carpenter’s (1980) Reading Span Test].L’Année Psychologique,95, 459–482.
Engle, R. W., &Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. H. Ross (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 44, pp. 145–199). New York: Academic Press.
Eysenck, M. W., &Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory.Cognition & Emotion,6, 409–434.
Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., &Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,77, 1011–1025.
Kane, M. J., &Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 336–358.
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., &Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 189–217.
Killeen, P. R. (2005). An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests.Psychological Science,16, 345–353.
Lynn, R., Allik, J., &Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on three factors identified in Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices.Intelligence,32, 411–424.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.Psychological Methods,7, 83–104.
Raven, J. C., Raven, J. E., &Court, J. H. (1998).Progressive matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Rhodewalt, F. (1990). Self-handicappers: Individual differences in the preference for anticipatory self-protective acts. In R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S. Berglas (Eds.),Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn’t (pp. 69–106). New York: Plenum.
Rosen, V. M., &Engle, R. W. (1997). The role of working memory capacity in retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 211–227.
Schmader, T., &Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,85, 440–452.
Schmidt, F. L., &Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.Psychological Bulletin,124, 262–274.
Shah, P., &Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 4–27.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., &Lushene, R. E. (1970).Manual for the State—Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.American Psychologist,52, 613–629.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., &Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype threat and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). San Diego: Academic Press.
Unsworth, N., &Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid abilities: Examining the correlation between operation span and Raven.Intelligence,33, 67–81.
van der Ven, A. H. G. S., &Ellis, J. L. (2000). A Rasch analysis of Raven’s standard progressive matrices.Personality & Individual Differences,29, 45–64.
This research was supported in part by a graduate fellowship from the Conseil Regional PACA to the first author and by CNRS Grant JC 6082 to P.H. The article is based on a doctoral dissertation by D.G. under the supervision of P.H. and J.-P.C. at the University of Aix-Marseille 1.
About this article
Cite this article
Gimmig, D., Huguet, P., Caverni, J. et al. Choking under pressure and working memory capacity: When performance pressure reduces fluid intelligence. Psychon Bull Rev 13, 1005–1010 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213916
- Journal ofExperimental Psychology
- State Anxiety
- Stereotype Threat
- Reading Span
- High Work Memory Capacity