A systematic review of ironic effects of motor task performance under pressure: The past 25 years

Figures & data

Figure 1. The systematic mapping review process flow diagram.

Table 1. Summary of study quality assessment using mixed methods appraisal tool¹.

Reference(s)	Category of study designs	Methodological quality criteria^2
		SI	SII	1	2	3	4	5
Bakker et al. (2006, Study 2)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Barlow et al. (2016, Study 1)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Barlow et al. (2016, Study 2)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Binsch et al. (2010a)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Binsch et al. (2010b)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
de la Peña et al. (2008, Study 1)	Quantitative (randomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Dugdale and Eklund (2003)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Can't tell
Gorgulu (2019a)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Gorgulu (2019b)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Gorgulu (2019c)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 1)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 2)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 3)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 4)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Gorgulu et al. (2019, study 5)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Gorgulu and Gokcek (2021)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Gray et al. (2017)	Quantitative (randomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Liu et al. (2015)	Quantitative (randomized)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Oudejans et al. (2013)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Wegner et al. (1998, Study 1)	Quantitative (randomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Wegner et al. (1998, Study 1)	Quantitative (randomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Woodman and Davis (2008)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Woodman et al. (2015, Study 1)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes
Woodman et al. (2015, Study 2)	Quantitative (nonrandomized)	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes	Yes	Can't tell	Yes

Notes: (1) The quality of the reviewed studies were assessed according to the methodological criteria developed by Hong et al. (2018) using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 18. Table S3 provides a comprehensive evaluation of the included studies’ quality; (2) The response category ‘Yes’ means the study satisfied the methodological criterion, ‘No’ means the study does not satisfy the methodological criterion, and ‘Can't tell’ means cannot tell whether the study satisfied the methodological criterion. The response category 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 corresponds to 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 of MMAT methodological quality criteria for randomized control trial and nonrandomized trial studies, respectively; (3) Abbreviation as follow: S = screening question.

Figure 2. PRISMA 2020 screening process flow diagram.

Table 2. Summary of sample characteristics, study characteristics, and experimental manipulations procedures of the included studies.

Reference(s)	Study design	Motor task	Sample characteristics				Settings (lab/field)	Experimental manipulation procedures
			Sample size (F/M)	Mean age (SD)	Participant skill level: ^1Mean (SD)	Competitive standard
i. Anxiety-based manipulations
Barlow et al. (2016, Study 1)	Within-subject	Soccer penalty shooting	67 M	20.55 ± 1.92	Trained	Colligate	'Field’ (Flat Astroturf surface)	Content: players completed IPIP before the experiment. Players took penalty kicks towards three distinct penalty shooting zones (target, ironic, non-ironic) under HA and LA conditions after receiving AI. Before their first shot under LA and HA, similar procedures (i – iii) to the Woodman et al. (2015, Study 1) were used. HA manipulation: AI (‘ … not to hit the ball to the right post’), financial incentive (FI^2), ego-threatening instructions (ETI). A human observer recorded players’ performance. Order effects: fixed non-ironic zone. Trial Block: 2 (LA: 20, and HA: 20). Duration: 2-min break between conditions. Testing: players completed the test individually. Conditions: HA and LA; Neurotic and non-neurotic participants.
Barlow et al. (2016, Study 2)	Within-subject	Dart- throwing	45 M 28 F	22.82 ± 4.07	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: similar content as Study 1 in dart-throwing but participants completed the task while they wore Polar HR. A human observer recorded participants’ performance. HA manipulation: AI (‘ … not to hit the top right quarter of the dart board’), FI, ETI (‘you will score zero point … ’) and social evaluation instructions (SEI). Order effects: counterbalanced zones. Trial Block: 3 (warm-up: 15, LA: 24, and HA: 24). Duration: 2-min break between conditions. Testing: participants completed the test individually. Comparator: HA and LA; Neurotic and non-neurotic participants.
Gorgulu (2019a)	Within-subject	Air-pistol shooting	33 M 24 F	27.49 ± 3.45	Elite 9.59 ± 6.48	International union	'Field’ (indoor shooting range)	Content: participant shot air-pistol from 10 meters range towards three distinct zones (target, ironic, non-ironic) under LA and HA condition after receiving AI while they wore Polar HR. Before their first pistol shooting, similar procedures (i – iii) used in Woodman et al. (2015, Study 1). They completed RSME right after their final shot in each condition. Anxiety manipulation: AI (‘ … not to shoot the top … ’, FI, and ETI. Order effects: counterbalanced ironic error zone across participants. Trial Blocks: 3 (Warm-up: 15; LA: 30; & HA: 30). Duration: 60-min (5-min break between trial blocks). Testing: participants completed the test individually. Conditions: HA and LA.
Gorgulu (2019b)	Within-subject	Basketball free-throw	37 M	22.30 ± 2.89	Highly trained 8.74 ± 2.45	Colligate	'Field’ (at players’ training indoor facilities)	Content: players threw free throw task towards three distinct zones (target, ironic, non-ironic) from the free throw line under HA and LA conditions after receiving AI. Before their first free throw, similar procedures (i – iii) used in Woodman et al. (2015, Study 1 & 2). HA manipulation: AI (‘ … not to miss the shot … ’), FI, ETI and SEI. Order effects: unreported. Trial Blocks: 3 (Warm-up [meant for familiarizing players with the scoring system]: 10 throws; LA: 15 throws; HA; 15 throws). Duration: 5-min break between each trial block. Testing: players completed the test individually. Conditions: HA and LA.
Gorgulu (2019c)	Within-subject	Tennis serving	20 M 12 F	20.81 ± 2.20	Highly trained 8.37 ± 2.32	Colligate	'Field’ (Indoor facilities)	Content: players served towards three distinct zones under HA and LA conditions after receiving AI. Before their first pistol shooting, similar procedures (i – iii) used in Woodman et al. (2015, Study 1). Instructions repeated halfway through. A video camera recorded players’ performance. HA manipulation: AI (‘ … not to serve into the net or out’), FI, ETI and SEI. Order effects: Counterbalanced the right and left serving sides. Trial blocks: 3 (Warm-up [meant for acquainting players with the scoring system and serving zones]: 10; LA: 20; HA: 20). Duration: 10-min break between each trial. Testing: players were tested individually. Conditions: HA and LA.
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 1)	Within- subject	Reactive motor task	32 M 21 F	19.62 ± 2.09	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: participants reacted to a series of color balls (target and ironic error balls) using a table tennis racquet under HA and LA after receiving AI while they wore ECG and EMG electrodes. Before participants reacted to their first ball, similar procedures (i – iii) to Woodman and colleagues (2015, Study 1) were used. HA manipulation: AI (‘ … not to stop the blue balls’), FI, ETI, and SEI. Like Gorgulu (2019c), the instructions reiterated halfway through across anxiety conditions. Order effects: randomized balls before the start of the test and then fixed as the same random order. Trial Blocks: 3 (Familiarization: 10 balls; LA: 30 balls; HA: 30 balls). Duration: 60-min (5-min break between the two trial blocks). Testing: participants completed the test individually. Conditions: HA and LA.
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 2)	Within- subject	Reactive motor task	21 M 19 F	22.65 ± 6.3	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: the tasks, materials, measures procedures and anxiety manipulation were analogous to Study 1, but new ball was introduced as non-ironic error ball, which contained no instruction. Order effects: fully counterbalanced balls. Trial Blocks: 3 (Familiarization: 15 balls; LA: 45 balls; HA: 45 balls). Duration: 75-min. Testing: participants completed the test individually. Conditions: HA and LA.
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 3)	Within- subject	Reactive motor task	24 M 17 F	22.63 ± 3.92	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: the tasks, materials, measures procedures and anxiety manipulation were analogous to Study 1 and 2, but the AI was flipped into ‘ … not to let go the blue balls.’ The third ball was neither accompanied by instruction nor point value. Order effects, trial Blocks, duration, testing, and comparator: like Study 2.
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 4)	Within- subject	Reactive motor task	17 M 7 F	25.58 ± 4.52	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: the tasks, materials, measures procedures and anxiety manipulation were analogous to Study 1, 2, and 3. The third ball was attached with instruction and point-value, introducing dual-error scoring system simultaneously with the ironic error ball. Order effects, trial Blocks, duration, testing, and Conditions: like Study 2.
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 5)	Within- subject	Reactive motor task	16 M 7 F	23.43 ± 3.62	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: the tasks, materials, measures procedures and anxiety manipulation were like Study 1, 2, 3, and 4. The AI was analogous to Study 3. The third ball was attached with scoring values like Study 4. Order effects, trial Blocks, duration, testing, and Conditions: like Study 2.
Gorgulu and Gokcek (2021)	Within- subject	Volleyball serving	43 F	14.51 ± 1.35	Highly trained 5.40 ± 2.38	Colligate	'Field’ (indoor volleyball court)	Content: before testing, players wore a polar HR. Players served a series of balls towards three distinct serving zones (target, ironic, non-ironic) under HA and LA conditions after receiving AI. Prior players’ first serving the ball under both anxiety conditions, similar procedures (i – iii) to Woodman and colleagues (2015, study 2) were used. HA manipulation: AI (‘ … not to hit the net or the ball out’), reward, ETI, and SEI. Order effects: Unreported. Trial Blocks: 3 (Warm-up [to familiarize the task and instructional sets]: 5 servings, LA: 10 servings and HA: 10 servings). Duration: 60-min. (5-min. break between HA and LA). Testing: players completed the test individually. Conditions: HA and LA.
Gray et al. (2017)	Within-subject RCT	Baseball pitching	24 M	23.25 ± 1.5	Highly trained 12.0 ± 1.8	Colligate	Field (a wall projected batter)	Content: before testing, pitchers assigned randomly to two groups (ironic, target pitchers), wore HR Polar, equipped with motion trackers. The target zone was illustrated to target pitchers and both the target and ironic zone were displayed to the ironic pitchers graphically against a virtual batter standing under LA (2 low-pressure phases) and HA (pressure phase) conditions after receiving AI. Before pitchers first ball under all pressure phases, pitchers: (i) received instructions; (ii) completed the self-reported IAMS twice; and (iii) received specific instructions including the set-up of a video camera under HP. HA manipulation: AI (‘ … avoid trying to throw the ball in … ’), FI, ETI, SEI, and video filming instructions. Pitchers received verbal feedback regarding their pitching score (not their pitching speed) and could see their final ball hitting location. Order effects: target (black quadrant) and the red ironic zone locations were randomized across trials. Trial Blocks: 3 (pretest: 30 throws, pressure: 30 throws, and posttest: 30 throws Practice: 5 throws). Duration: unspecified but pitchers were given 15-min break between each trial block. Conditions: HA and 2 LA, ironic and target pitchers.
Oudejans et al. (2013)	Within-subject	Climbing a wall and Dart-throwing	20 M 20 F	21.3 ± 1.85	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: participants threw a series of darts under HA (high positions on the wall) and LA (low positions on the wall) after receiving NI and AI conditions. They wore a HR polar after baseline dart-throw. Participants’ dart hits were attached with scoring points. Instructions repeated following every third throw across anxiety conditions. Participants completed a new anxiety thermometer (VAAS) after each trial condition and STAI A-Trait inventory after they come down of the wall. They completed a warm-up dart-throw (between 6 to 18 darts). HA manipulation: AI (‘ … not to hit less than … ’), NI (‘ … try to hit the bullseye’) and climbing the wall at high position. Order effects: counterbalanced height and instruction conditions. Trial blocks: 2 (baseline: 24 darts; trial/test: 98 darts). Duration: 60-min with unspecified break time. Testing: participants completed the test individually. Conditions: HA and LA; NI and AI.
Woodman and Davis (2008)	Within-subject	Golf-putting	38 M 31 F	21.1 ± 4.77	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: before testing, participants wore HR polar. Participants completed the putting task under LA (baseline) and HA (test) conditions after receiving AI. Before testing participants (i) received the task instructions; (ii) filled MRF-3; (iii) their HR was recorded again; and (iv) completed 5 familiarization putts. Instructions repeated just before their first putt in the test condition. HA manipulation: FI. Order effects: unreported. Trial Blocks: 2 (Baseline: 10 putts; test putt: 10 putts). Duration: unreported. Testing: participants completed the test individually. Conditions: HA and LA, high and low anxious.
Woodman et al. (2015, Study 1)	Within-subject	Hockey penalty shooting	40 M	20.25 ± 1.06	Trained	Colligate	Field	Content: participants kicked hockey penalty shots towards three zones (target, ironic, non-ironic) under LA and HA conditions after receiving AI. Before their first shot, participants (i) received their first instruction; (ii) completed self-reported MRF-3; and (iii) reminded the instructions once again. They completed 15 warm-up shots. A human observer recorded participants’ performance. HA manipulation: FI and ETI. Order effects: HA and LA counterbalanced. Trial Blocks: 2 (LA: 30 shots; HA: 30 shots). Duration: 2-min break between blocks. Testing: participants completed the test individually. Conditions: HA and LA
Woodman et al. (2015, Study 2)	Within-subject	Dart- throwing	45 M 28 F	22.82 ± 4.07	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: before testing, participants wore HR Polar. The procedures were analogous to Woodman et al. (2015, Study 1). They completed 15 practice dart-throws. HA manipulation: FI, ETI, and SEI. Order effects: the ironic error zone was rotated clockwise by one quadrant for the succeeding participants. Trial Blocks: 2 (LA: 24; HA: 24 throws). Duration: 2-min break between blocks. Testing: participants completed the test individually. Conditions: HA and LA.
ii. Dual task-based manipulations
Bakker et al. (2006, Study 2)	Within-subject	Soccer penalty shooting	10 M	21.2 ± 2.10	Highly trained 11.8 ± 2.66	League	Lab	Content: players took penalties from 2.48 meters against a virtual stationary goalkeeper without run-up with foam ball under CL after receiving PI and two AIs while players wore an eye-tracker. Players had time to get used to the experiment. A camera recorded participants performance. CL manipulation: time pressure (1 second), AIs (‘ … the goalkeeper could not reach the ball’; ‘ … not to shoot next to the goal’), and positive instruction (PI; ‘make sure to hit the open space’). Order effects: counterbalanced the three experimental instruction conditions. Trials: 30 fully randomized (5 clips-by-6). Duration: unspecified. Testing: players completed the test individually. Conditions: NI, PI, 2 AIs condition.
Binsch et al. (2010a)	Within-subject	Soccer penalty shooting	32 M	24.2 ± 7.4	Highly trained 14.6 ± 10.2	League	Lab	Content: players took penalties from 2.83 meters towards a virtual goal and goalkeeper on a large screen under CL after receiving two experimental instructional conditions while they wore an eye-tracker. Instructions repeated to players before their first shot in each trial. Players completed 20 warm-up shots on a black screen A video camera recorded participants performance. High-CL manipulation: time constraint (1 second), AI (‘ … not to shoot within reach of the keeper’), and PI (‘ … to pass the keeper’). Order effects: randomized trials and counterbalanced the experimental instruction conditions. Trial blocks: 3 (TB1: 10 shots; TB2: 10 shots; TB3: 10 shots). Duration: unspecified. Testing: players completed the test individually. Conditions: NI, PI, and AI conditions.
Binsch et al. (2010b)	Within-subject	Soccer penalty shooting	32 M	21.8 ± 2.1	Highly trained 12.6 ± 4.7	League	Lab	Content: players took a penalty against a virtual goal and goalkeeper from 2.83 meters without run up while they were equipped with eye-tracker under CL after receiving AI and PI. Players received the experimental instruction conditions before each trial followed by a presentation of stimuli. Players completed 20 warm-up shots followed by 10 practice shots. A video camera recorded participants performance. High-CL manipulation: time constraint (1.5 seconds), AI (‘be careful not to shoot within reach of the keeper’), and PI (‘be careful to shoot into the open space’). Order effects: randomized trials and counterbalanced the experimental instruction conditions. Trials: 5 clips-by-5 trials). Duration: unspecified. Testing: players completed the test individually. Conditions: NI, PI, and AI conditions
de la Peña et al. (2008, Study 1)	Within-subject RCT	Golf putting	24 M 24 F	21.5 ± 3.8	Trained	Colligate	Lab	Content: before ‘load block’, participants received extra information and AI. They completed 4 practice putts. High-'load’ manipulation: visual distracters, audio distracters, CL (i.e., to ‘memorize an 8-digit sequence of random numbers and rehearse the sequence of numbers loudly’ while putting), self-presentation/incentive (they would ‘receive extra class credit for video recording of their putting accuracy’), and AI (‘don't putt the ball short’). Order effects: ‘load’ and ‘no-load’ trial blocks were counterbalanced. Trial Blocks: 3 (baseline: 10 putts, ‘load'/Block 2: 10 putts, and ‘no-load'/Block 3: 10 putts). Conditions: baseline ‘load’ and ‘no-load’ conditions.
Dugdale and Eklund (2003)	Within- subject	Stability (balance) task	16 F	19.25 ± 1.06	Highly trained 12.66 ± 3.87	Colligate	Lab	Content: dancers completed balance task on the wobble board under CL after receiving AI and PI. They completed familiarization wobble board training for 3 days under the supervision of a dance instructor before the experiment. High-CL manipulation: arithmetic task (i.e., ‘counting backward from 1,000 by sevens mentally’, in which they were asked to report the lowest digit and received verbal feedback on their rehearsal accuracy), AI (‘try not to let the wobble board wobble’), and PI (‘hold the wobble board as steady as possible’). They were asked to reiterate the given instruction before each trial. Order effects: counterbalanced conditions. Trial Blocks: 5 trials-by-4 conditions. Duration: within-conditions: 50 seconds break; between-conditions: 30-min break; each trial lasted for 20 seconds. Testing: dancers completed the test individually. Conditions: HCL and LCL; AI and PI.
Liu et al. (2015)	Within-between subject (RCT)	Upper limb motion steadiness	40 M 40 F	20.20 ± 1.52	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: participants assigned randomly to four groups. They completed the task under CL after receiving positive and negative self-talk cues with their dominant hand while their fingers were attached to SCL sensors. Before testing, they completed 10 practice trials and were requested to state the aim of the task and repeat aloud the given self-talk cues for 10 seconds. After they started the experiment, they were instructed to ‘try to hear the cue words.’ They completed a short post-experimental attentional focus manipulation survey and received temporal feedback on their performance at the end of the experiment. A video camera recorded participants’ performance. High-CL manipulation: fake time constraint, extrinsic reward (i.e., gift card), AI (i.e., suppressive self-talk—'don't shake’), and PI (‘Go steady’). Order effects: baseline and test trials were counterbalanced. Trial Blocks: 2 (baseline: 10 trials, test: 10 trials). Duration: between trials: 30 seconds break; between blocks: 5-min break. Testing: participants completed the test individually. Conditions: baseline, HCL and LCL; AI, PI; F, M.
Wegner et al. (1998, Study 1)	Within-subject RCT	Golf putting	42 M 41 F	Not reported	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: participants completed putting task under CL and two visual monitoring (VM) conditions following AI. Participants completed undisclosed amount of warm-up putts with no instruction condition before testing. High-'load’ manipulation: CL—concurrent memory task (i.e., rehearsal of a six-digit number, in which participants were asked to recall right after each trial block), distracter (i.e., VM), and AI (‘don't overshoot the glow spot’). Order effect: counterbalanced baseline and experimental trials. Trial Blocks: (Baseline: 15 putts; Trial: 15 putts). Testing: participants completed the test individually. Conditions: baseline, ‘load’, ‘no-load’, VM, no-VM.
Wegner et al. (1998, Study 2)	Within-subject RCT	Swinging of a handheld pendulum	42 M 42 F	Not reported	Novice	Not applicable	Lab	Content: participants completed a body movement task by holding a pendulum steady over the center spot following AI. High-'Load’ manipulation: PL (i.e., holding a 2.2 kg brick in the non-pendulum hand), CL (i.e., ‘count digit number backward mentally from 1,000 by threes’, in which they were asked to report the last number), AI (‘do not move it sideways’), and PI (‘hold the pendulum as steady as possible’). Participants in the prevent-sideway-movement condition were shown the to-be-avoided direction. Order effects: unreported. Trial Blocks: 5 trials (single block trial). Duration: each trial lasted 30 seconds and 30 seconds break after each trial. Conditions: ‘load’, ‘no-load’, PL, CL, AI, PI.

Note: (1) Mean and Standard Deviation in years of playing experience; (2) Participants were informed that they will receive monetary award if they accumulate the highest point in the condition or if they perform entirely on the target; (3) Abbreviations used as follows: F/M = female/male; LA = low anxiety; HA = high anxiety; HP = high pressure; LP = low pressure; IPIP = international personality item pool; HR = heart rate; RSME = rating scale of mental effort; MRF = mental readiness form; IAMS = immediate anxiety measurement scale; STAI = state-trait anxiety inventory; VAAS = visual-analogue anxiety scale; ECG = electroencephalography; EMG = electromyogram; SCL = skin conductance level; CL = cognitive load; PL = physical load; AI = avoidant instruction; NI = neutral instruction.

Table 3. Summary of outcome measures and primary outcomes reporting under cognitive load manipulation when given avoidant instructions.

Reference	Outcome measures	Overall scores (^1p values, effect size^2)	Cohen's d^2	Mean and SD
i. Anxiety-based approach
Barlow et al. (2016, Study 1)	Soccer penalty shooting	^3p < .001 (for target performance) ^3p < .01 (for ironic error) ns. (for non-ironic error)		MTP = 11.17 (2.91) MIPE = 3.91 (2.09) MNIPE = 4.62 (2.29)
Barlow et al. (2016, Study 2)	Dart throwing	^3p < .001 (for target performance) ^3p < .001 (for ironic error) ns. (for non-ironic error) p < .05 (for POI)		MTP = 3.92 (2.72) MIPE = 2.87 (1.83) MNIPE = 7.44 (2.74)
Gorgulu (2019a)	Air-pistol shooting	p = .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .23 (Anxiety × Zone) ns. (for non-ironic error) ^4p = .54 (ns. for POI)
Gorgulu (2019b)	Free throw shooting (basketball)	p = .05, ${\eta }_p^2$= .19 (Anxiety × Zone) ns. (for non-ironic error)		MTP = 6.43 (1.58) MIPE = 4.43 (1.53) MNIPE = 4.13 (1.47)
Gorgulu (2019c)	Tennis serving	p = .001 (Anxiety × Zone) ns. (for non-ironic error)		MTP = 10.12 (2.53) MIPE = 4.92 (1.85) MNIPE = 4.91 (2.08)
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 1)	Reacting to color balls	p = .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .34 (Anxiety × Zone) ns. (for non-ironic error)
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 2)		p = .19, ${\eta }_p^2$= .04 (Anxiety × Zone) ns. (for non-ironic error)
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 3)		^5p = .25 (ns.), ${\eta }_p^2$= .03 (Anxiety × Zone) ns. (for non-ironic error)
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 4)		p = .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .31 (Anxiety × Zone) ns. (for non-ironic error)
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 5)		^5p = .19 (ns.), ${\eta }_p^2$= .07 (Anxiety × Zone) ns. (for non-ironic error)
Gorgulu and Gokcek (2021)	Volleyball serving	^6p < .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .31 (Anxiety × Zone) sig. (for non-ironic error)		MTP = 2.38 (1.38) MIPE = 2.54 (1.54) MNIPE = 5.07 (1.90)
Gray et al. (2017)	Pitch throwing performance	^7p < .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .66 (for both groups)
		ns. (Group × Pressure)
		p < .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .67 (for ironic pitchers)		MPRP = 2.1 (1.2) MP = 5.8 (1.4) MPOP = 2.8 (1.5)
	Pitching velocity	ns. (Group × Pressure)
	Pitching kinematics	^8p = .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .75 (Group × Pressure)
		^9p = .002, ${\eta }_p^2$= .25 (for target pitchers’ LFLP)
		^9p < .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .32 (for target pitchers’ EFA)
		^9p < .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .49 (for target pitchers’ PAAD)
		^10ns. (Group × Pressure)
Oudejans et al. (2013)	Climbing a wall and dart throwing	p < .01(Position × Instruction)	f = .53
		^11p < .01, 95% CI [-.50, -.11]		MNILA = 5.68 (1.25) MNIHA = 5.56 (1.30)
				MAILA = 5.78 (1.20) MAIHA = 5.25 (1.34)
Woodman and Davis (2008)	Putting distance (in cm)	p < .005, η^2= .24 (Coping style × Condition)
		p < .05, η^2= .39 (for repressors)	d = .99	MBB = 9.51 (12.51) MTB = 44.18 (47.92)
Woodman et al. (2015, Study 1)	Hockey penalty shooting	p = .01 (Anxiety × Zone) ns. (for non-ironic error)		MTP = 10.78 (3.53) MIPE = 7.86 (3.48) MNIPE = 11.53 (4.25)
Woodman et al. (2015, Study 2)	Dart throwing	p < .001, η^2= .25 (for Anxiety × Zone) ns. (for non-ironic error) ^4p < .001 (for POI)		MTP = 3.92 (2.72) MIPE = 2.87 (1.83)
ii. DT-based approach
Bakker et al. (2006, Study 2)	Gaze location	^12p < .0001 (under AIs and PI)
Binsch et al. (2010a)	Shooting distance	^13p < .00, r^2= .50 (from the keeper)
	Fixation duration	^14|p < .00, r^2= .43 (on the keeper)
Binsch et al. (2010b)	Shooting distance	^15p < .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .30 (from the keeper) (Group × Condition)
	Onset of final fixation (in ms)	^16p > .25 (Group × Condition)		MIR = 214 MNIR = 225
	Duration of final fixation (in ms)	p < .01, ${\eta }_p^2$= .18 (on the open-goal space) (Group × Condition)		MNI = 224 (79) MAI = 129 (68) MPI = 206 (56)
		^17ns. (compared to ironic participants)
de la Peña et al. (2008, Study 1)	Putting performance (in cm)	p < .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .40 (under ‘load’ plus AI)		MBB = 197.99 (13.93) MTB2 = 215.14 (21.94) MTB3 = 205.20 (18.74)
		^18p < .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .29 (for first putt)		MBB = 193.60 (43.43) MTB2 = 231.20 (48.57) MTB3 = 203.82 (48.73)
Dugdale and Eklund (2003)	Balance performance (in SI)	p < .025, ${\eta }_p^2$= .29 (for Instruction)
		p < .001, ${\eta }_p^2$= .70 (for CL)
		p < .171, ${\eta }_p^2$= .12 (ns. Instruction × CL)	^19d = .72
			^20d = .30	MPI = 1486.33 (430.96)
				MAI = 1611.30 (408.96)
Liu et al. (2015)	Stability performance	^21p < .11, ${\eta }_p^2$= .04 (*Attention × CL × Phase)
		p < .05 (for high CL AI group)	d = .38	MTB – MBB = .38
		p < .03 (for high CL PI group)	d = .44	MTB – MBB = .29
		^22p = .08 (for low CL AI group)	d = .34	MTB – MBB = .30
		^23p < .12 (for low CL PI group)	d = -.30	MTB – MBB = .23
		^24p < .004, ${\eta }_p^2$= .11 (for Phase × Gender)
		p < .39		MMBB = 4.47 (.83) MFBB = 4.42 (.81)
		p < .75 (for female)		MTB = 4.39 (.87)
		^25p < .002 (for male)	d = .44	MTB = 4.86 (.92)
Wegner et al. (1998, Study 1)	Putting distance (in cm)	^26p < .06, MSE = 5523.13		MM = −11.67 MF = 19.61
		p < .05 (under CL plus AI for first putt compared to without CL)		MCL = 20.79 MnCL = 11.43
		p < .07 (‘Load’ × VM)		MVML = 32.87 MVMnL = −9.07 MnVML = 8.71 MnVMnL = −13.78
Wegner et al. (1998, Study 2)	Stability performance	p = .05 (‘Load’ × Instruction × Direction)
		^27p = .01, MSE = .01		ML = .59 MnL = .50
		^2^8p = .01, MSE = .01		ML = .59 ML = .47
		^29ns. (for ‘Load’ types)

Notes: (1) We adhered to specific regulations for extracting p values, i.e., we extracted interaction effect p values for the statistically significant main effects. But for the nonsignificant interaction p values, we extracted mean scores if studies conducted and reported post-hoc analysis; (2) We did not calculate effect sizes for any study's primary outcome, we rather presented the effect sizes as reported by each study; (3) The significant p values for regression on neuroticism moderation as per Judd et al. (2001) methodology; (4) The reported nonsignificant p value showed that elite athletes’ shooting performance in the ironic error zones were neither significantly far away from the target zone nor significantly too close to the ironic error zone across both anxiety conditions regardless of ironic effects; (5) The nonsignificant p value showed that participants let more target balls go than ironic error and non-ironic error balls across anxiety conditions; (6)The significant p value showed that Participants’ target and ironic performance were unchanged regardless of ironic effects; (7) Pitch thrown in the target zone; (8) The significant interaction p value for MANOVA on four kinematic variables; (9) The significant interaction p values for follow-up ANOVA analyses on each kinematic variables (except for the maximum upper torso rotational velocity); (10) For ironic pitchers; (11) Post-hos analysis for performance under HA when given AI; (12) The significant p value for chi-square on group level; (13) Under both experimental instruction conditions compared to NI condition; (14) Players fixated longer under AI compared to PI and NI conditions; (15) Post-hoc analysis revealed that ironic participants shot the ball closer to the keeper under AI compared to PI and NI conditions compared with no-ironic participants; (16) Post-hoc analysis showed that participants who showed ironic effects tended to start their final fixation earlier (before ball contact) on the open-goal space compared to the no-ironic participants; (17) Shooting performance was unaccompanied by shorter final fixation on the open-goal space in the AI condition compared to the PI and NI conditions for no-ironic participants; (18) Focused on comparing the results with those of Wegner et al. (1998, study 1); (19) The effect size d value computed descriptively for performance under high CL and AI compared to low CL; (20) Performance under high CL and AI compared to PI; (21) The nonsignificant p value showed that authors’ assumption of performance under high CL was unsupported; (22) Groups showed declined performance; (23) Groups improved their performance considerably; (24) The single significant interaction effect reported involving gender; (25) Poor performance in the test block compared to in baseline block; (26) A marginally significant p value for sex difference; (27) Participants exhibited extra movement errors when they tried to avoid the to-be-avoided direction under ‘load’ compared to without ‘load’; (28) Participants committed more movement errors under ‘load’ when given AI compared to under ‘load’ when given PI; (29) The nonsignificant main or interaction effect on CL and physical load indicated that the incidence of ironic movements errors were not specifically relied on either CL or physical load; (30) Abbreviations used as follows: TP = target performance; IPE = ironic performance error; NIPE = non-ironic performance error; POI = precision of irony: Woodman et al. (2015) conceptualized it as measuring arc-length from the closest non-ironic error zone and radial error, i.e., the radial distance from the target zone. PRP = pre-pressure; P = pressure; POP = post-pressure; LFLP = leading foot landing position; EFA = elbow flexion angle; PAAD = pitch-body axis angular deviation; BB = baseline block; TB = trial/test block; IR = ironic; NIR = no-ironic; OS = ‘open-space’ condition (as PI); NI = neutral instruction; AI = avoidant instruction; TB3 = ‘no-load’ block in de la Pena et al. (2008, Study 1); SI = stability index; CL = cognitive load; nCL = no-CL; M = male; F = female; MSE = mean standard error; L = ‘load’; nL = ‘no-load’; VM = visual monitoring load; nVM = no-visual monitoring load; *Attention, CL, gender, and order were used as a between-subject factor, whereas phase (BB and TB) used as a within-subject factor in the repeated measure ANOVA analyses.

Table 4. Summary of cognitive load measurements and outcome reporting (Mean, SD, ¹p values, effect size²).

Reference	Condition	Anxiety (MRF-3)			HR (bpm)	HRV		MA (μV)	ME
		CA	SA	SC		SDNN (ms)	r-MSSD (ms)
i. Anxiety-based
Barlow et al. (2016, Study 1)	LA	9.07 (1.82)	8.69 (2.05)	4.16 (2.09)
	HA	7.30 (2.19) ***^1	7.33 (2.17) ***	5.25 (2.49) ***
Barlow et al. (2016, Study 2)	LA	8.10 (2.48)	7.63 (2.60)	5.46 (2.06)	85.83 (12.72)	75.34 (18.93)	40.63 (15.48)
	HA	6.37 (2.86) ***	6.09 (2.57) ***	6.17 (2.22) p = .004	96.03 (14.20) ***	64.34 (18.93) ***	35.05 (15.27) ***
Gorgulu (2019a)	LA	6.56 (2.48)	6.18 (2.27)	6.23 (1.93)	81.75 (18.15)	65.13 (21.75)	46.38 (25.41)		82.65 (19.40)
	HA	8.24 (2.25) ***	7.83 (2.64) **	5.20 (1.97) **	94.58 (16.40) *	53.47 (22.63) **	31.33 (18.47) **		98.43 (20.35) ^3ns.
Gorgulu (2019b)	LA	4.75 (2.29)	5.43 (2.37)	6.70 (1.59)
	HA	7.86 (2.09) ***	8.18 (1.82) ***	4.48 (1.72) ***
Gorgulu (2019c)	LA	5.00 (1.54)	4.81 (1.92)	7.43 (1.74)
	HA	7.87 (1.97) ***	8.21 (1.71) ***	4.25 (1.52) ***
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 1)	LA	4.96 (2.69)	5.47 (2.58)		92.85 (15.28)		44.19 (27.51)	27.01 (11.89)
	HA	7.35 (2.58) ***	7.45 (2.18) **		95.44 (14.39) *		33.53 (17.33) **	29.59 (13.81) *
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 2)	LA	4.77 (1.95)	5.25 (2.03)		90.59 (16.36)		59.29 (33.54)	23.31 (10.55)
	HA	7.40 (2.3) ***	7.55 (1.72) ***		92.81 (15.61) ns.		47.84 (26.02) **	25.22 (12.42) ns.
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 3)	LA	4.85 (2.4)	5.14 (2.44)		87.36 (12.30)		50.35 (23.82)	23.45 (12.67)
	HA	7.29 (2.00) ***	7.46 (2.00) ***		91.23 (14.03) ***		41.43 (18.92) ***	25.29 (15.17) *
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 4)	LA	3.70 (2.21)	4.29 (2.25)		85.69 (17.37)		56.30 (32.96)	47.33 (33.10)
	HA	6.66 (2.61) ***	6.33 (2.40) ***		90.46 (20.03) ***		21.28 (9.06) *	22.09 (9.62) ns.
Gorgulu et al. (2019, Study 5)	LA	5.69 (1.91)	5.21 (1.85)		80.91 (11.26)		49.92 (24.94)	20.25 (7.67)
	HA	6.82 (2.20) *	6.56 (2.27) *		86.11 (14.88) *		39.48 (21.75) *	20.40 (7.47) ns.
Gorgulu and Gokcek (2021)	LA	4.96 (2.69)	5.47 (2.58)	6.03 (1.95)	133.14 (29.71)	63.99 (26.87)	27.01 (11.89)
	HA	7.35 (2.58) *	7.45 (2.18) **	5.00 (2.23) ^4ns.	137.80 (27.13) ^5*	57.40 (22.23) ^5ns.	29.59 (13.81) ^5ns.
^6Gray et al. (2017)	Pre-test	1.9 (.7)			83.6 (5.2)
	Pressure	3.0 (.7)			88.7 (5.9)
	Post-test	2.1 (.3)			84.4 (5.5)
		***, ${\eta }_p^2$= .48^2			***, ${\eta }_p^2$= .29^2
^7Oudejans et al. (2013)	LP	1.90 (1.26)			109.25 (16.31)
	HP	3.84 (1.75)			111.98 (18.52)
					*, f = .33^2
^8Woodman and Davis (2008)	^9Baseline	7.91 (1.97)	7.27 (1.79)	7.45 (2.62)	83.09 (9.46)
	£50 putt	8.82 (1.78) ns.	7.82 (2.72) ns.	8.73 (2.15) ns.	96.91 (12.34) ***
Woodman et al. (2015, Study 1)	LA	6.83 (2.46)	6.38 (2.49)	6.80 (2.09)
	HA	8.50 (1.90) ***	7.83 (2.30) ***	5.23 (2.02) ***
Woodman et al. (2015, Study 2)	LA	6.37 (2.86)	6.09 (2.57)	6.17 (2.22)	85.49 (12.96)	^10726.52 126.55)
	HA	8.10 (2.48) ***	7.63 (2.60) ***	5.46 (2.06) **	97.79 (16.15) ***	641.46 (99.22) ***
ii. DT-based
	Phase	PP			Mean	Cohen's d
Liu et al. (2015)	Baseline Test	p < .03, ${\eta }_p^2$= .06 (CL × TB)			^111.05 for HCL	50^2
					.30 for LCL
		p = .26, ${\eta }_p^2$= .02 (Phase × CL using SCL)

Notes: (1) p values: ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05; ns. = nonsignificant; (2) Effect sizes as reported by the studies; (3) The nonsignificant p value signifies that ME did not correlate to any of the physiological indices; (4) Participants’ self-confidence did not change across anxiety conditions; (5) The association between HR and HRV is contradictory; (6) CA was measured using the IAMS; (7) CA was measured using STAI; (8) Authors used MRF-3 and HR scores to classify participants’ coping style; (9) For repressors; (10) R-R interval mean values; (11) HCL group perceived high pressure compared to LCL group, indicating the effectiveness of the CL manipulation; (12) Abbreviations used as follows: MRF = mental readiness form; CA = cognitive anxiety; SA = somatic anxiety; SC = self-confidence; IAMS = immediate anxiety measure scale; STAI = state-trait anxiety inventory; HR = heart rate; HRV = heart rate variability; MA = muscle activity; μV = microvolts; ME = mental effort; r-MSSD = root mean square of the successive differences; SDNN = standard deviation of NN intervals; ms = milliseconds; bpm = beat per minute; LP = low position (as low anxiety); HP = high position (as high anxiety); TB = trial/test block; CL = cognitive load; HCL = high cognitive load; LCL = low cognitive load PP = perceived pressure; SCL = skin conductance level

Barlow, M., Woodman, T., Gorgulu, R., & Voyzey, R. (2016). Ironic effects of performance are worse for neurotics. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 24, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.12.005

 Google Scholar

Binsch, O., Oudejans, R. R. D., Bakker, F. C., Hoozemans, M. J. M., & Savelsbergh, G. J. P. (2010a). Ironic effects in a simulated penalty shooting task: Is the negative wording in the instruction essential? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 41(2), 118–133.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Binsch, O., Oudejans, R. R. D., Bakker, F. C., & Savelsbergh, G. J. P. (2010b). Ironic effects and final target fixation in a penalty shooting task. Human Movement Science, 29(2), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2009.12.002.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de la Peña, D., Murray, N. P., & Janelle, C. M. (2008). Implicit overcompensation: The influence of negative self-instructions on performance of a self-paced motor task. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(12), 1323–1331. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410802155138

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dugdale, J. R., & Eklund, R. C. (2003). Ironic processing and static balance performance in high-expertise performers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(3), 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2003.10609102

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gorgulu, R. (2019a). An examination of ironic effects in air-pistol shooting under pressure. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 4(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk4020020

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Gorgulu, R. (2019b). Counter-intentional errors of basketball free throw shooting under elevated pressure: An educational approach of task instruction. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n2p89

 Google Scholar

Gorgulu, R. (2019c). Ironic or overcompensation effects of motor behaviour: An examination of a tennis serving task under pressure. Behavioural Sciences, 9(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9020021

 Google Scholar

Gorgulu, R., Cooke, A., & Woodman, T. (2019). Anxiety and ironic errors of performance: Task instruction matters. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 41(2), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2018-0268

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Gorgulu, R., & Gokcek, E. (2021). The effects of avoiding instructions under pressure: An examination of the volleyball serving task. Journal of Human Kinetics, 78(1), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2021-0039.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Gray, R., Orn, A., & Woodman, T. (2017). Ironic and reinvestment effects in baseball pitching: How information about an opponent can influence performance under pressure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 39(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0035

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Liu, S., Eklund, R. C., & Tenenbaum, G. (2015). Time pressure and attention allocation effect on upper limb motion steadiness. Journal of Motor Behavior, 47(4), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2014.977764

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oudejans, R. R. D., Binsch, O., & Bakker, F. C. (2013). Negative instructions and choking under pressure in aiming at a far target. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 44(4), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.7352/IJSP.2013.44.249.

 Google Scholar

Wegner, D. M., Ansfield, M., & Pilloff, D. (1998). The putt and the pendulum: Ironic effects of the mental control of action. Psychological Science, 9(3), 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00037

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Woodman, T., & Davis, P. A. (2008). The role of repression in the incidence of ironic errors. The Sport Psychologist, 22(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.22.2.183

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Woodman, T., Barlow, M., & Gorgulu, R. (2015). Don’t miss, don’t miss, d’oh! Performance when anxious suffers specifically where least desired. The Sport Psychologist, 29(3), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-0114

 Google Scholar

Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., & O’Cathain, A. (2018). The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bakker, F. C., Oudejans, R. R. D., Binsch, O., & Van Der Kamp, J. (2006). Penalty shooting and gaze behavior: Unwanted effects of the wish not to miss. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 37(2-3), 265–280.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar