Domain Specificity, Task Specificity, and Expert ...

This article was downloaded by: [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] On: 11 August 2015, At: 03:47 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Domain Specificity, Task Specificity, and Expert Performance a

a

b

Mark A. Williams , Julian D. Ward , Paul Ward & Nicolas J. Smeeton

c

a

Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences , Liverpool John Moores University

b

Department of Psychology , Florida State University

c

Chelsea School , University of Brighton Published online: 23 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Mark A. Williams , Julian D. Ward , Paul Ward & Nicolas J. Smeeton (2008) Domain Specificity, Task Specificity, and Expert Performance, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79:3, 428-433 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2008.10599509

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions

Williams, Ward, Ward, and Smeeton Research Note—Psychology Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport ©2008 by the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 428–433

Domain Specificity, Task Specificity, and Expert Performance Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 03:47 11 August 2015

A. Mark Williams, Paul Ward, Julian D. Ward, and Nicolas J. Smeeton

Key words: anticipation, expertise, playing position, postural cues

A

generally held view in expert performance is that experts possess domain-specific rather than general skills. There is limited, if any, evidence to suggest that experts and novices may be differentiated on such general measures of performance as intelligence quotient, memory recall, visual function, or choice reaction time (see Williams, Davids, & Williams, 1999). In a review of expertise and expert performance research, Ericsson and Lehmann (1996) concluded that the evidence for skill transfer from one domain to another is not conclusive. As a result of extended engagement within their chosen domain, experts acquire specific representations and mechanisms that support superior performance within, and rarely extend beyond, that domain (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). To improve performance in a given domain, individuals need to engage in deliberate practice activities that are challenging and facilitate development of the skills governing successful performance (see Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993). The cognitive representations experts acquire in their activity domain enable them to anticipate future retrieval demands, predict the outcome of a situation, and adapt rapidly to situational changes (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). For example, there is considerable empirical Submitted: December 4, 2006 Accepted: August 14, 2007 A. Mark Williams and Julian D. Ward are with the Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences at Liverpool John Moores University. Paul Ward is with the Department of Psychology at Florida State University. Nicolas J. Smeeton is with the Chelsea School at the University of Brighton.

428

Williams.indd 428

evidence to suggest that expert performers demonstrate superior anticipation skill when compared with less expert and novice counterparts (e.g., see Williams, North, Hodges, & Barton, 2006). This ability to anticipate future events is an essential component of performance in many domains, such as law enforcement, automobile driving, military combat, and sport. For instance, expert drivers are able to anticipate hazardous traffic situations more effectively than novices by fixating further ahead in the road (see McKenna & Horswill, 1999), whereas high-level pilots anticipate future flight demands, such as in the approach to landing, by fixating relevant instruments (i.e., airspeed indicator) and the runway aim-point more frequently than student pilots (Kasarskis, Stehwien, Hickox, Aretz, & Wickens, 2001). In many racket sports, such as tennis and squash, experts are able to anticipate an opponent’s intended shot direction by fixating on relatively deterministic and proximal postural cues (such as trunk/hip rotation) before using more distal cues (e.g., racket) to confirm their initial perceptions (e.g., Williams, Ward, Knowles, & Smeeton, 2002). An important issue is whether every expert exhibits these skills within the domain or whether an individual’s role or position in that domain more accurately characterizes expertise. The latter would certainly be in keeping with a long-term working memory of expert performance (see Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). This theory predicts that expertise is acquired as a result of specific adaptations that occur through extended exposure to unique demands of practice and performance. The notion of specificity is already fundamental to training theory in the biological sciences (Elliott & Mester, 1998). In soccer, for example, there is evidence to suggest that the physiological demands imposed on athletes during match play vary markedly as a function of positional role (Drust, 1999), leading to the development of positionspecific fitness training programs (Reilly, 2005). Such

RQES: September 2008

8/19/2008 6:39:29 PM

Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 03:47 11 August 2015

Williams, Ward, Ward, and Smeeton

issues have hardly been addressed in the psychological sciences, particularly in relation to the specificity of perceptual-cognitive skills. Although there is evidence to suggest that different perceptual-cognitive strategies may underpin successful performance in defensive and offensive situations, respectively, in soccer and across the various macro(e.g., 11 player vs. 11 player situation) and microphases (e.g., 1 vs. 1, 3 vs. 3, and goaltending situations) of the game (see Helsen & Starkes, 1999; Savelsbergh, Williams, van der Kamp, & Ward, 2002; Vaeyens, Lenoir, Williams, Mazyn, & Phillppaerts, 2007; Williams & Davids, 1998), there have been no reported efforts to examine whether different positional roles engender contrasting perceptual-cognitive skills. An interesting question is whether those who play in defensive and offensive positions, respectively, in soccer differ in their anticipation skill because of the unique demands they may encounter during competition. Those in defensive positions have been shown to use a more exhaustive search of the display, presumably to remain aware of all potential options to the player in possession of the ball; skilled offensive players display more selective search behavior, because they are in possession of the ball and have greater control over the action to be taken (e.g., see Vaeyens et al., 2007; Williams & Davids, 1998; Williams, Janelle, & Davids, 2004). A related question is whether the notion of positionspecific perceptual-cognitive skills interacts with the type of situation in which players engage. Typically, defensive players engage in situations focused on defending the proximal third of the field (i.e., the part closest to their own goal area), whereas, in contrast, offensive players engage in situations focused on attacking the opposing goal and occur in the final third of the field (i.e., the part furthest from their goal and closest to the opposition). The question is whether greater position-specificity in relation to anticipation skill is apparent when defensive and offensive players view situations filmed from each of these unique perspectives. The varying demands of positions and situations are likely to result in the development of slightly different knowledge structures for each group of expert soccer players. Unfortunately, while several researchers have tested participants’ anticipation skill using filmed simulations (e.g., Williams & Davids, 1998), there have been no reported attempts to specify the positional role participants typically engage in during competition or the types of situations presented, making it difficult to discern whether anticipation is position-specific, situation-specific, or both. In this study, we used a film-based anticipation task to examine whether expert soccer players who primarily occupy offensive or defensive positions differ in their ability to anticipate the outcome of common game scenarios. If expertise is sport- rather than position-specific,


Williams.indd 429

those in defensive and offensive positions, respectively, are not expected to differ in their anticipation performance, given that the two groups are matched in relation to their playing level and soccer experience. The expert players are expected to demonstrate superior anticipation performance when compared with novice players. If, on the other hand, expertise is position- as well as sport-specific, differences in anticipation performance would be expected between offensive and defensive players in line with the task demands typically placed on each position. We expected these differences would be most pronounced when players performed in a situation consistent with the position they typically played during matches. The skilled offensive players were expected to demonstrate superior anticipation when viewing offensive play sequences (i.e., what will a team-mate do next?), whereas the defensive players were expected to be better at anticipating defensive sequences (i.e., what will an opponent do next?).

Method Participants Three groups of male soccer players agreed to participate. They included 11 expert defensive players (M age = 23.1 years, SD = 3.5), 11 expert offensive players (M age = 22.2 years, SD = 2.3), and 10 novice players (M age = 22.2 years, SD = 4.3). The experts had been playing soccer for at least 10 years; over 50% had previously played at a professional club, and at the time of testing all were playing at a semiprofessional level. The defensive players had played an average of 387 (SD = 113.6) games in this position and 120.9 (SD = 103.2) in others (i.e., midfield, forward, goalkeeper), whereas the offensive players had played an average of 430.9 (SD = 122.6) games in this position and 105 (SD = 90.2) in other positions. It was not possible to recruit a pure sample of specialist defenders and attackers, as all players have some exposure to other playing positions. The novice players had played the game infrequently and on a recreational level, averaging fewer than 75 (SD = 25.4) games; none expressed a strong positional preference, indicating they had performed in various different positions in their limited exposure to the sport. The research was conducted under the university’s ethical guidelines, and informed consent was obtained prior to participation. Stimuli The soccer action sequences were taken from nontelevised matches involving professional players from English Premier League and Nationwide Division Two

429

8/19/2008 6:39:29 PM



reserve teams. The matches were filmed using two video cameras (Panasonic F-15, Uxbridge, UK) from similar vantage points in the stadium. One camera provided a view of the action from a defensive player’s perspective (defensive situation) so that attacking sequences moved toward the camera, and the player viewing the action would be defending (i.e., the near goal). The second camera captured attacking sequences from an offensive player’s perspective (offensive situation) such that each play sequence moved toward the goal the participant viewing the action was attacking (i.e., the far goal). The action sequences were filmed from an elevated position (approximately height 15 m) behind the goal (approximate distance 10 m) to ensure the participant saw all players’ positions. The camera angle is illustrated elsewhere (e.g., see Williams et al., 2006). Three experienced soccer coaches ensured the offensive and defensive situations represented the typical offensive and defensive sequences observed during match play. These coaches held the UEFA B Coaching Licence and had more than 10 years of experience in the game. Only those sequences for which there was total agreement were included in the test film. Each film sequence lasted 5–15 s and ended 120 ms before the player in possession of the ball was going to shoot, dribble, or pass it. The final test film consisted of 6 practice and 24 test trials. Three practice and 12 test trials for each of the defensive and offensive situations were presented. The defensive and offensive situation stimuli were presented in blocks of six trials with the presentation order counterbalanced across participants. Half in each group viewed the offensive situations in the first and third blocks of six trials, whereas the other half viewed these situations in the second and fourth blocks. The reverse order was used for defensive situations. A total of 8 film sequences ended with a shot, 6 with a dribble, and 10 with a pass, with this allocation equally distributed across the two situation types. An intertrial interval of 10 s was used. The test session took approximately 20 min to complete.

tion they attempted to anticipate teammate’s intentions. Immediately after the clip concluded, a black screen was presented for 10 s, during which participants were required to indicate the player’s next action. Dependent Measures and Statistical Analysis The participants’ response accuracy scores were recorded. This measure was the percentage of trials in which they correctly anticipated the player’s action at the end of the clip. Response accuracy was analyzed using a factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) in which group (expert defensive players, expert offensive players, and novice players) was the between-participants factor and type of situation (offensive vs. defensive) the within-participants factor. There were no deviations from normality or homogeneity in the data set. Significant effects were followed with post hoc Tukey tests. Omega squared and Cohen’s d values are presented as measures of effect size as appropriate. The alpha level for significance was set at .05.

Results ANOVA showed a significant group effect, F(2, 29) = 52.01, ω2 = .33, p < .01. Post hoc analysis revealed that the expert defensive players were more accurate than the expert offensive players (d = .82) and novice players (d = 2.13). The expert offensive players were also more accurate than the novice players (d = 1.16), p < .01. There was also a main effect for the type of situation, F(1, 29) = 20.33, ω2 = .14, p < .01. Participants were more

Procedure The action sequences were presented using a video projection system (Sharp Vision XG-NV2E, Manchester, UK) and 2.7-m x 3.7-m screen (Cinefold, Spiceland, IN). Participants viewed the stimuli in a seated position 4 m from the screen in a darkened room such that the image subtended a visual angle of approximately 18º. Participants were required to view the action sequences and anticipate whether the player who possessed the ball at the end of the play was going to pass, dribble, or shoot the ball toward the goal. In other words, in the defensive situation, participants attempted to anticipate an opponent’s intentions, whereas in the attacking situa-

430

Williams.indd 430

Figure 1. The mean accuracy scores (in %) and standard error bars for the three groups on sequences filmed from the perspective of offensive and defensive players, respectively.


8/19/2008 6:39:30 PM


accurate when viewing action sequences presented from the perspective of a defensive player compared with an offensive player (d = .96), p < .01. The Group x Type of Situation interaction was not significant, F(2, 29) = .43, ω2 = .00, p > .05. The mean accuracy scores and standard error are presented in Figure 1.


Discussion We examined the extent to which expertise is sport- and/or position-specific. The ability of expert offensive, expert defensive, and novice soccer players to anticipate the outcome of play sequences presented as offensive and defensive situations was examined. We expected that the skilled players would demonstrate superior anticipation when compared with novice players, highlighting the sport-specific nature of expertise. Moreover, we predicted that perceptual-cognitive skill in soccer is specific to the player’s position within the team. To examine the latter issue, we tested whether equally skilled and experienced defensive and offensive soccer players would differ in their ability to accurately anticipate sequences filmed from offensive and defensive perspectives, respectively. Any differences in anticipation skill as a function of playing position were expected to be particularly pronounced in situations consistent with players’ roles and the situation they would typically experience during match play. As predicted, the two groups of skilled soccer players were more accurate in their predictions than novice players. This finding would support an extensive body of previous work in this area (e.g., see Ward & Williams, 2003; Williams & Davids, 1998; Williams et al., 1994). The proposal is that when compared with their novice counterparts, experts develop more elaborate cognitive representations and complex retrieval structures in long term memory as a consequence of prolonged deliberate practice and domain-specific expertise (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). The absence of a significant interaction between group and situation type was unexpected. We had predicted that position-specific differences would be more exaggerated when the type of situation concurred more closely with those normally encountered during matches. It appears that skilled defensive players are more accurate in their anticipation judgments irrespective of the situation. At least two explanations may be proposed. First, it may be that defensive players continually engage in anticipatory judgments during a match to read opponents’ intentions to ensure they (and their teammates) are well positioned to deal with any eventuality that may arise (i.e., “what will happen next”). In contrast, the ability to anticipate teammates’


Williams.indd 431

and opponents’ intentions may be less important for a player who typically plays in an offensive position. Offensive players usually have the ball, and their task is to decide the best action to take (i.e., “what should I do with the ball?” as opposed to “what happens next?”). In other words, expert defensive players may develop position-specific representations and predict the options available to an offensive player who possesses the ball (see Diderjean & Marméche, 2005). In support of the above arguments, researchers have shown that skilled players use a more extensive and exhaustive search when presented with film sequences requiring an anticipatory judgment compared to when skilled offensive players view simulations that require comparable offensive decisions (see Vaeyens et al., 2007; Williams & Davids, 1998; Williams et al., 2004). Although it may be necessary on occasion for an offensive player to anticipate a teammate or opponent’s intentions, such judgments are likely to be less prevalent, and the costs associated with making an incorrect decision are less in an offensive compared with a defensive role. One proposal is that the skilled defenders attend to the same cues or use similar strategies irrespective of the situation. Nowinski and Dismukes (2005) argued that although maintaining task similarity across conditions facilitates memory performance, a more critical issue is the ability to use the same cues or processing strategies across tasks. Similarly, others have proposed that judgments across similar task situations are mediated by common underlying principles (Holyoak, 1995). Because skilled defenders’ superiority over skilled offensive counterparts was maintained across both situation types, similarity in processing strategy may be the crucial factor. In principle, our findings are consistent with Ericsson and Kintsch’s (1995) assertion that experts build a situation model to derive context-specific expectations that guide subsequent action, planning, and evaluation. The offensive situation, and typical behaviors and cognitions in which they engage during such situations, may have resulted in a different situation model for offensive players compared to defensive players in defensive situations. These findings lead us to tentatively conclude that expertise in soccer is largely position-specific in addition to being sport-specific and, to a lesser extent, situation-dependent. An alternative explanation is that the task in this study did not capture the essential characteristics of offensive play. The simulations of offensive sequences may have been less realistic than those filmed from the perspective of a defensive player. The offensive sequences were filmed such that the players were located at the far rather than near end of the field. This filming procedure required the camera to zoom in toward the action to try to create realistic simulations that mimic

431

8/19/2008 6:39:30 PM



what an offensive player would typically experience during a match, whereas a wider viewing angle was used to film sequences from a defensive perspective. However, the skilled players recorded higher accuracy scores than the novice players, providing some validity for the test sequences. Moreover, Ripoll, Petit, & Le Troter (2005) reported that filming from a position closer to the player’s perspective did not alter performance when compared to the type of simulations used in the current paper. Another possibility is that a task requiring the offensive players to anticipate their defensive counterparts’ intentions may be a more realistic test of the current hypothesis than asking players to anticipate their teammates’ actions. These issues are worthy of further investigation. The expert offensive players were more accurate in their perceptions than novice soccer players. Although expert defensive players may develop more intricate and elaborate representations to support anticipation when compared to expert offensive players, the latter group nevertheless benefit from their extended involvement in soccer-specific practice and match play when compared with less skilled and comparatively inexperienced players. It appears that general practice within the sport helps develop requisite knowledge structures, whereas specific practice in a particular positional role is necessary to further refine and extend these structures. In the future, researchers should endeavor to collect process-tracing measures, such as eye movements and verbal protocols, to identify the specific mechanisms mediating expert performance and the way underlying representations differ across playing positions and situations. Also, the extent to which the development of perceptual-cognitive skills is specific to certain playing positions (e.g., full-back, central defender, central midfield player, striker) rather than merely offensive versus defensive players merits investigation. Another interesting issue relates to the age at which players should be required to specialize in a particular positional role. Should early specialization, not only in a sport but also to a position within that sport, be encouraged? Such issues clearly warrant further study, because there are potentially significant and wide ranging implications for developing expertise (see Baker, Côté, & Abernethy, 2003). In conclusion, we have provided tentative evidence to suggest that developing perceptual-cognitive skills, such as anticipation, is specific to an individual’s task or position in a sport. It appears that skilled defenders demonstrate superior anticipation when compared with equally skilled and experienced offensive soccer players, irrespective of the situation presented. This finding would suggest that perceptual-cognitive skill in soccer is to some degree position- as well as sport-specific, largely influenced by each individual’s role within that domain.

432

Williams.indd 432

References Baker, J., Côté, J., & Abernethy, B. (2003). Sport-specific practice and the development of expert decision making in team ball sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 12–25. Didierjean, A., & Marmeche, E. (2005). Anticipatory representation of visual basketball scenes by novice and expert players, Visual Cognition, 12, 265–283. Drust, B. (1999). Analysis of work-rate in soccer. Sports Exercise and Injury, 4, 151–155. Elliott, B., & Mester, J. (1998). Training in sport. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245. Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence on maximal adaptations on task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Helsen, W. F., & Starkes, J. L. (1999). A multidimensional approach to skilled perception and performance in sport. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 1–27. Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Problem solving. In E. E. Smith & D. N. Osherson (Eds.), Thinking: An invitation to cognitive sciences, (Vol. 3, pp. 267–296). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kasarskis, P., Stehwien, J., Hickox, J., Aretz, A., & Wickens, C. (2001). Comparison of expert and novice scan behaviors during VFR flight. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus OH: The Ohio State University. McKenna, F. P., & Horswill, M. S. (1999). Hazard perception and its relevance for driver licensing. Journal of International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 23, 36–41. Nowinski, J. L., & Dismukes, R. K. (2005). Effects of ongoing task context and target typicality on prospective memory performance: The importance of associative cueing, Memory, 13, 649–657. Reilly, T. (2005). An ergonomics model of the soccer training process. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 561–572. Ripoll, H., Petit, J.-P., & Le Troter, A. (2005). The relevance of using realistic simulated environments for the study of decision making in sport. In T. Morris, P. Terry, S. Gordon, S. Hanrahan, L. Ievleva, G. Kolt, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of 11th ISSP World Congress of Sport Psychology. Sydney, Australia: International Society of Sport Psychology. Savelsbergh, G. J. P., Williams, A. M., van der Kamp, J., & Ward, P. (2002). Visual search, anticipation and expertise in soccer goalkeepers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 279–287. Vaeyens, R., Lenoir, M., Williams, A. M., Mazyn, L., & Phillppaerts, R. M. (2007). The effects of task constraints on visual search behavior and decision-making skill in youth soccer players. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 147–169. Ward, P., & Williams, A. M. (2003). Perceptual and cognitive skill development in soccer: The multidimensional nature of expert performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 93–111.


8/19/2008 6:39:30 PM



Williams, A. M., & Davids, K. (1998). Visual search strategy, selective attention, and expertise in soccer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 111–128. Williams, A. M., Davids, K., & Williams, J. G. (1999). Visual perception and action in sport. London: E. & F.N. Spon. Williams, A. M., Hodges, N. J., North, J., & Barton, G. (2006) Perceiving patterns of play in dynamic sport tasks: Investigating the essential information underlying skilled performance. Perception, &, 317–332. Williams, A. M., Janelle, C. J., & Davids, K. (2004). Constraints on visual behavior in sport. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 301–318. Williams, A. M., Ward, P., Knowles, J. M., & Smeeton, N. J. (2002). Perceptual skill in a real-world task: Training,


Williams.indd 433

instruction, and transfer in tennis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 259–270.

Authors’ Note Please address all correspondence concerning this article to A. Mark Williams, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, The Henry Cotton Campus, 15-21 Webster Street, Liverpool, UK L3 2ET. E-mail: [email protected]

433

8/19/2008 6:39:30 PM