Emotion regulation and motor performance: an integrated review and proposal of the Temporal Influence Model of Emotion Regulation (TIMER)

ABSTRACT

Adaptive regulation of emotions is imperative for successful sport performance. However, the lion’s share of mainstream emotion regulation (ER) literature is founded on perspectives prioritising mental health, not performance. Consequently, ER strategies are predominantly classified as adaptive or maladaptive based on effectiveness in achieving targeted mental health outcomes. These conventional mental health classifications can catalyse misapplication of ER strategies within sport and other motor performance contexts when (1) ER motives are instrumentally directed towards performance enhancement and (2) Minimal consideration is given to the consequences of ER on the coordination and execution of motor actions. Herein, we review the current state of relevant ER research within and outside of sport contexts. We also present a novel conceptual framework, the Temporal Influence Model of Emotion Regulation (TIMER). TIMER proposes that ER strategies exert distinct, temporally dependent demands upon perceptual-cognitive and motoric resources. These unique regulatory profiles influence subsequent motor performance outcomes. Critically, the degree to which regulatory strategies are appropriate or ideal varies given environmental constraints along with performers’ affective and performance goals. The model includes testable hypotheses to guide theoretical and applied research in the domain of ER within sport and other motor performance contexts.

KEYWORDS:

• Affect
• emotion regulation
• sport performance
• motor behaviour
• expertise

Sport routinely requires performance within affectively salient environments. Substantial empirical evidence implicates the critical role emotional responses exert upon the motivational orientations (Elliot, Eder, & Harmon-Jones, 2013), cognitive functioning (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007), physiological responding (Lang & Bradley, 2010), and motor execution mechanisms (Beatty, Cranley, Carnaby, & Janelle, 2016) that underlie expert performance in myriad sport and other motor performance domains (Baker & Young, 2014). Given the fundamental and pervasive influence of emotions, optimal performance often requires athletes to effectively and efficiently regulate their experienced emotions. Research efforts have considerably advanced understanding of emotional experience and subsequent regulatory efforts as they relate to individual and collective performance outcomes (Friesen et al., 2013; Lane, Beedie, Jones, Uphill, & Devonport, 2012; Ruiz, Raglin, & Hanin, 2015). Despite these advancements, existing theoretical accounts are limited in specifying the influence of emotion regulation strategies on the underlying motor actions requisite to attain ideal sport and performance outcomes.

Herein, we provide a conceptualisation of how emotion regulation strategies mechanistically influence the coordination and execution of motor skills underlying athletic performance. We begin by reviewing major findings from basic research efforts that specify the manner in which emotional experience alters psychophysiological mechanisms fundamental to successful motor performance. Next, we summarise extant emotion regulation literature including prominent theoretical approaches, neural mechanisms, and temporal characteristics of specific emotion regulation strategies. A novel conceptual framework, the Temporal Influence Model of Emotion Regulation (TIMER), is then proposed. Our overarching aim is to provide an innovative, integrative structure for advancing knowledge related to the effectiveness of specific emotion regulation strategies as applied within sport and other performance contexts in which success is dependent on the optimised execution of skilled motor actions. We conclude by offering reflective commentary on potentially fruitful lines of future research framed and tested within the context of TIMER.

Emotions influence motor behaviour & attentional control

As operationalised within this review, emotions constitute affective experiences that arise from automatic or conscious appraisals of specific internal or external stimuli (Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, & Zhang, 2007; Gross, 2014a; Hajcak, MacNamara, & Olvet, 2010; Harmon-Jones, Bastian, & Harmon-Jones, 2016; Mauss, Bunge, & Gross, 2007; Mikels et al., 2005; Tamir, 2016). Emotions, in turn, elicit evolutionarily driven psychophysiological responses emerging from a biphasic (defensive and appetitive) motivational system facilitating approach or avoidance behaviour (Bradley, Codispoti, Cuthbert, & Lang, 2001; Harmon-Jones, 2003; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1990). The basic parameters of qualitatively distinct emotions can be deconstructed into dimensional measures of hedonic tone (pleasant or unpleasant) and arousal (intensity / motivational force). Dimensional conceptualisations of emotion have emerged as the predominant paradigm utilised within contemporary research investigating emotional experiences and their effects upon motor performance (Beatty et al., 2016; Fox, Lapate, Shackman, & Davidson, 2018). However, we highlight the distinct influence of discrete emotional experiences on motor performance in instances where published research exists.

Extensive evidence supports the premise that emotions function to elicit and optimise evolutionarily advantageous motor actions. Highly arousing emotional stimuli elicit physiological cascades that result in elevated skin conductance, increased pupil dilation, and modified heart rate (Amrhein, Mühlberger, Pauli, & Wiedemann, 2004; Khalfa, Isabelle, Jean-Pierre, & Manon, 2002; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1998). Following exposure to emotion eliciting stimuli, activation in cortical and subcortical brain regions associated with perceptual, cognitive, affective, and motoric processes ensues (Coombes, Corcos, Pavuluri, & Vaillancourt, 2012; Hariri, Mattay, Tessitore, Fera, & Weinberger, 2003; Perciavalle et al., 2013; Pereira et al., 2010; Sabatinelli, Lang, Keil, & Bradley, 2007). Collectively, the psychophysiological consequences of emotions elicit modification to the preparation, initiation, and execution of motor behaviours influential to individuals’ survival and prosperity.

Experimental studies consistently demonstrate unpleasant emotional states (anger or threat) generally facilitate faster initiation of motor actions compared to pleasant emotional states (happiness or desire: Beatty et al., 2016). Emotional reactions also influence the magnitude of force generated. More specifically, highly arousing emotions (pleasant and unpleasant) facilitate a general increase in force production (Elliot & Aarts, 2011; Schmidt et al., 2009) with unpleasant emotional stimuli inducing increased force output in defensive-oriented movements (e.g. threat: Coombes, Cauraugh, & Janelle, 2006; Flykt, Lindeberg, & Derakshan, 2012; Puca, Rinkenauer, & Breidenstein, 2006). The ability to accurately maintain control of force output over extended durations tends to improve under emotionally arousing motivated states compared to non-emotional states (Coombes, Gamble, Cauraugh, & Janelle, 2008; Naugle, Coombes, & Janelle, 2010; Naugle, Coombes, Cauraugh, & Janelle, 2012). These findings with rather simple, upper extremity movements are upheld when considering more complex, whole body movements. For example, high arousal experiences of anger, happiness, and desire facilitate overt approach behaviours, whereas high arousal experiences of threat and sadness elicit avoidance behaviours. In both instances, overt approach and avoidance behaviours were measured through directional changes in centre of pressure displacement velocities during gait initiation and stepping velocity during locomotion (Fawver, Hass, Park, & Janelle, 2014; Gross, Crane, & Fredrickson, 2012; Naugle, Hass, Bowers, & Janelle, 2012; Naugle, Hass, Joyner, Coombes, & Janelle, 2011; Naugle, Joyner, Hass, & Janelle, 2010).

Physiological changes elicited by emotional states also serve to heighten senses, direct attention, and guide information processing (Lang & Bradley, 2010). However, the perceptual-cognitive modifications elicited by emotions can facilitate or undermine goal-directed motor performance. These emotion induced cognitive and motor performance consequences have been described in Attentional Control Theory (ACT: Eysenck et al., 2007) and subsequent Integrative Model of Stress, Attention, and Human Performance (IMSAHP: Vine, Moore, & Wilson, 2016). ACT proposes emotional stimuli are processed by a goal-directed attentional system and a stimulus-driven attentional system (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002). When highly arousing stimuli disproportionately activate the stimulus-driven system and performance demands exceed available cognitive resources, processing efficiency is disrupted and goal-directed performance suffers. This effect is hypothesised as particularly potent in individuals experiencing heightened levels of anxiety.

Drawing from the constructs of challenge and threat states (for detailed reviews see Hase, O’Brien, Moore, & Freeman, 2019; Jones, Meijen, McCarthy, & Sheffield, 2009), Vine et al. (2016) forwarded the IMSAHP to further account for the influence that emotion induced modifications to attentional control and processing efficiency exert upon subsequent visuomotor performance. According to IMSAHP, when the stimulus-driven attentional system disproportionally taxes cognitive resources, performers are more likely to perceive performance situations as threatening to physical health, social status, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and identity (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). Unless emotion regulation strategies can be effectively implemented, these states of perceived threat are hypothesised to result in a cascade of psychophysiological responses culminating in heightened distractibility from performance dependent cues and hypervigilance to detect subsequent threatening stimuli. More specifically, perceived threats modify gaze strategies by generally increasing fixation quantities, decreasing fixation durations, and increasing saccade distances (Bradley, Houbova, Miccoli, Costa, & Lang, 2011; Causer, Holmes, Smith, & Williams, 2011; Janelle, Singer, & Williams, 1999). Ultimately, the distraction from performance dependent cues is predicted to disrupt successful execution of motor tasks that underlie optimal sport performance outcomes. Substantial experimental evidence indeed demonstrates that increased emotional and task demands disrupt individuals’ cognitive processing efficiency (as characterised by narrowed attention and heightened distractibility) that results in delayed motor responses and deteriorated movement accuracy (Causer, Vickers, Snelgrove, Arsenault, & Harvey, 2014; Causer et al., 2011; Coombes, Higgins, Gamble, Cauraugh, & Janelle, 2009; Ducrocq, Wilson, Vine, & Derakshan, 2016; Easterbrook, 1959; Janelle & Hatfield, 2008; Janelle et al., 1999; Murray & Janelle, 2003; Vine et al., 2016; Williams, Vickers, & Rodrigues, 2002). In contrast, when competitive environments are perceived as a challenge (e.g. individuals appraise competition as an opportunity to demonstrate competence, obtain personal growth, achieve success), performance in perceptual-cognitive and motor behaviour tasks typically improves (Hase et al., 2019)

Extant research indicates, under ideal conditions, emotions induce physiological modifications altering attentional focus, motor initiation, and motor control conducive to evolutionarily advantageous motor performance (Beatty et al., 2016; Blakemore & Vuilleumier, 2017; Lang & Bradley, 2010; Vine et al., 2016). However, emotional states disrupt performance when emotional experience results in heighted distractibility away from cues critical to attainment of performance goals. Consequently, emotion regulation strategies are often necessary to optimise attentional allocation towards performance relevant stimuli.

Emotion regulation

Emotion regulation maintains similarities with the related, but broader, psychological constructs of affect regulation, mood regulation, and coping. A comprehensive review of the parallel and distinguishing characteristics across these related constructs is beyond the scope of the current review (see: Compas et al., 2014; Crocker, Tamminen, & Gaudreau, 2015; Gross, 2014a; Koole, 2009). However, emotion regulation is most commonly distinguished as the automatic or volitional processes by which emotions (distinct from general affect or mood) are modified to increase, decrease, or otherwise qualitatively alter emotional experience (Braunstein, Gross, & Ochsner, 2017; Gross, 2014a). In so far as coping is generally regarded as the volitional cognitive, behavioural, or emotional strategies utilised to manage stress and adapt to environmental demands that may disrupt performance (Compas et al., 2014; Crocker et al., 2015; Nicholls & Polman, 2007), emotion regulation is distinct. While emotion regulation efforts can be utilised to cope, emotion regulation strategies exclusively target the regulation of emotional experience purposed towards attaining immediate hedonic (experiencing pleasure or displeasure) and instrumental (performance) goals (Koole, 2009; Tamir, 2009, 2016). Consequently, the current review heavily emphasises literature that specifically investigates emotion regulation efforts within motor performance experiments or sport performance studies.

Emotional experiences progress through a cyclical process that includes exposure to emotional stimuli, attention to the stimuli, an appraisal, and finally, physiological and / or behavioural responses. The consequences of these physiological and behavioural responses reshape the environment and subsequent emotional stimuli, update attentional biases, influence future appraisals, and ultimately modify downstream physiological & behavioural responses (Baumeister et al., 2007; DeWall, Baumeister, Chester, & Bushman, 2014; Gross, 2014a; MacLeod & Clarke, 2015). Importantly, regulatory strategies can be applied at each phase of emotional experience (see Figure 1). Situation selection strategies may be applied early to approach or avoid emotional environments (e.g. Gaudreau, Blondin, & Lapierre, 2002). When an emotional situation is unavoidable, individuals may modify the physical, external characteristics contributing to emotional aspects of their environment by implementing situation modification strategies (Grandey, 2000). Attentional strategies may be applied to the attention phase, with individuals directing their attention towards or away from emotional stimuli (Bebko, Franconeri, Ochsner, & Chiao, 2011; Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2011). Individuals may later employ cognitive restructuring strategies during the appraisal phase to change their thoughts or reinterpret perceptions of the emotional environment (Blechert, Sheppes, Di Tella, Williams, & Gross, 2012; Goldin, McRae, Ramel, & Gross, 2008; Urry, 2010). Finally, individuals may employ behavioural responses during the response phase of emotional experience (Goldin et al., 2008).

Figure 1. An original illustration of J. J. Gross’s (2014a) modal model of emotion and process model of emotion regulation.

Meta-analyses have quantified the overall effect size of studies examining the efficacy (i.e. changing experiential, behavioural, and / or physiological responses to emotion) of specific emotion regulation strategies that comprise the regulatory families of attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Webb, Miles, and Sheeran (2012) reviewed 306 emotion regulation experiments and concluded that attentional distraction from emotional content, cognitive reappraisal of emotional stimuli, and the suppression of emotional expressions effectively regulate emotional experience. In comparison, focusing attention on emotional content, reappraising one’s emotional response, and suppressing emotional thoughts were deemed ineffective regulatory strategies in that these strategies failed to consistently down-regulate emotional experience. In a similar but smaller review of 34 experiments, Augustine and Hemenover (2009) determined that attentional distraction, cognitive reappraisal, and expressive suppression effectively regulate emotional experience. Additionally, the analysis identified additional effective response modulation strategies including physical exercise, emotional expression through journal writing, and acting happy.

Regulating emotions influences motor performance

Although extensive efforts have been made to better understand how athletes may apply arousal and emotion regulation strategies to enhance sport performance outcomes (Crocker et al., 2015; Friesen et al., 2013; Lane, Beedie, et al., 2012; Nicholls & Polman, 2007; Ruiz et al., 2015; Rumbold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2012; Tenenbaum, Edmonds, & Eccles, 2008), limited research exists investigating the relationships between emotion regulation strategies and the underlying motor behaviour fundamental to successful performance in sport. In a rare exception, Bresin, Fetterman, and Robinson (2012) explored how predispositions to regulate emotions influence the ability to perform motor control tasks. Following the priming of hostile thoughts, individuals who reported higher levels of personal self-control performed a targeting task more accurately than individuals scoring lower in self-control. Although this preliminary work suggests individuals may regulate emotional experience to maintain or improve motor performance, Bresin and colleagues did not explicitly instruct participants to employ emotion regulation strategies during performance of the motor task.

Combining evidence from the affective motor sciences and emotion regulation literature, Beatty, Fawver, Hancock, and Janelle (2014) conducted an experiment investigating the impact of common emotion regulatory strategies on motor performance. Participants viewed emotionally evocative stimuli and were tasked to consistently produce a targeted ballistic force. Participants completed the task in emotion regulation conditions that included no regulation, expressive suppression, emotional expression, and attentional distraction. Consistent with related research (Beatty et al., 2016; Coombes, Cauraugh, & Janelle, 2007; Coombes et al., 2009), participants responded more quickly to unpleasant stimuli (threat) than pleasant stimuli (desire) during trials in the non-emotion regulation condition. However, when regulating emotions, the response bias disappeared. Further, the regulatory strategies induced divergent response time, rate of force production, and movement accuracy consequences. Specifically, the attentional distraction and emotional expression strategies delayed motor response initiation, increased rates of force production, and increased force error relative to the non-regulation and expressive suppression conditions.

Research investigating the modulatory effects that emotion regulation strategies exert upon motor performance is in its infancy. However, emerging data indicate regulatory processes modify the effect of emotions on motor outcomes, and regulatory strategies differ in their benefits and costs to motor execution. Initial evidence suggests that individuals who report a general tendency to manage their emotions throughout daily living are able to maintain targeted motor control under heightened emotional states (Bresin et al., 2012). Furthermore, initial evidence suggests that regulating emotional experiences mitigates the influence of emotions on motor reaction times with divergent consequences to movement speed and accuracy (Beatty et al., 2014). These observed variations are reflected in distinct regional and temporal activation patterns of perceptual, cognitive, and motor neural networks during the execution of emotion regulation strategies. Such data highlight the complex and interwoven relationship between emotional experience, emotion regulation, and motor performance and provide insight into the potential mechanisms that drive changes in motor behaviour observed following the implementation of emotion regulation strategies.

Temporal characteristics of neurophysiological response during emotion regulation

The perception, appraisal, regulation of emotional stimuli, and ultimately the motor actions individuals generate to respond to emotional situations involve functionally connected brain networks, including the prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, amygdala, and motor cortex (Coombes et al., 2012; Frank et al., 2014; Keay & Bandler, 2001; Kravitz, Saleem, Baker, & Mishkin, 2011; Morawetz, Bode, Derntl, & Heekeren, 2017; Ochsner & Gross, 2014; Schmidt et al., 2009; Sesack, Carr, Omelchenko, & Pinto, 2003; Vaillancourt, Thulborn, & Corcos, 2003). The temporal characteristics of emotion regulation strategies are espoused to influence the efficacy of regulatory efforts such that antecedent-focused strategies (situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, and cognitive change) are hypothesised to regulate emotions more effectively than response-focused strategies (Gross, 2001). Goldin et al. (2008) identified unique activation patterns associated with regulating emotions while viewing emotional videos of 15s durations. Relative to expressive suppression (a response modulation strategy), employing cognitive reappraisal increased early period (0–4.5 s) recruitment of pre-frontal networks associated with cognitive control, and resulted in reduced amygdala activity at late periods of video viewing (10.5–15 s). Cognitive reappraisal also reduced self-reported levels of emotional experience. In contrast, expressive suppression resulted in increased recruitment of pre-frontal networks, and increased amygdala activity at late periods of video viewing (10.5–15 s). This result is consistent with evidence demonstrating that expressive suppression strategies, although briefly effective, lead to an eventual increase in physiological reactivity associated with heightened emotional arousal (Gross & Levenson, 1993; Roberts, Levenson, & Gross, 2008), and a reduction in cognitive performance on secondary tasks (Richards & Gross, 2000).

Results from experiments employing EEG to extract the late positive potential (LPP) provide further indication that regulatory strategies vary in terms of the temporal characteristics of neural activation in the brain (Proudfit, Dunning, Foti, & Weinberg, 2014). The LPP indexes coordination of frontoparietal networks involved in attention (Moratti, Saugar, & Strange, 2011), affective experience (Foti & Hajcak, 2008), and emotion regulation (Blechert et al., 2012; Hajcak, Dunning, & Foti, 2009; Krompinger, Moser, & Simons, 2008). The LPP is an event-related potential (ERP) that generally sustains a positive voltage. When compared with neutral conditions, emotional stimuli increase LPP positive voltage values. Regulation strategies, in turn, reduce the positivity of the LPP. Importantly, the attentional characteristics of regulation strategies appear to modify the timing of these LPP voltage reductions. When instructed to attend to non-emotional content of visual stimuli, participants’ LPP values showed reductions at time points ranging from 300 to 600 ms following the initiation of the attentional strategy (Hajcak et al., 2009; Thiruchselvam, Blechert, Sheppes, Rydstrom, & Gross, 2011). Reappraisal, in comparison, elicited reduced LPP values around 1500–1700 ms after strategy initiation (Thiruchselvam et al., 2011).

Although attentional deployment strategies provide a short-term efficiency advantage, cognitive reappraisal provides an efficacy advantage over time. Specifically, Thiruchselvam et al. (2011) re-exposed participants to emotional stimuli in a non-regulation condition and found that LPP values for stimuli that were reappraised in previous conditions reduced at earlier time points (800–1400 ms). Conversely, LPP values actually increased for the stimuli that participants previously utilised attentional deployment to regulate. Thus, cognitive reappraisal appears to provide lasting regulatory effects by modifying individuals’ perceptions of emotional stimuli. In contrast, effective attentional deployment requires implementation of the strategy during every exposure to the emotional experience.

The shared brain networks associated with emotional perception, appraisal, regulation, and motor actions highlight the potential of emotion regulation strategies to improve human motor performance within emotionally salient environments. However, understanding the appropriate context to apply specific regulation strategies is essential. Extant literature indicates emotion regulation efficiency and efficacy varies by strategy across the full time-course of emotional experience. Importantly, attentional deployment and expressive suppression are relatively efficient and effective strategies during early periods of emotional experience. In contrast, cognitive reappraisal requires a substantial investment of cognitive effort during early periods in emotional experience, but these early investments result in improved and enduring affective, physiological, and cognitive benefits. Collectively, data indicate that temporal constraints of performance environments along with emotion regulatory goals should be considered when implementing regulatory strategies within emotional, motor performance contexts.

Temporal Influence Model of Emotion Regulation (TIMER)

Within emotionally evocative environments, the ability to adaptively regulate emotions is imperative for individuals seeking to successfully execute motor actions. However, limited empirically based recommendations exist to guide the implementation of emotion regulation strategies aimed towards optimising motor performance. Mainstream emotion regulation literature primarily defines regulatory effectiveness as the reduction of unpleasant emotion (e.g. anger, disgust, fear, sadness) or the increase of pleasant emotion (happiness, desire, contentment: Augustine & Hemenover, 2009; Webb et al., 2012). Further, existing research frequently labels emotion regulation strategies as adaptive or maladaptive (e.g. Bebko et al., 2011; Isaacowitz, Wadlinger, Goren, & Wilson, 2006; Sloan, 2004); classifications founded on mental health perspectives where long-term adaptive emotional functioning is the primary goal (Gross & John, 2003). Of critical importance, consideration of instrumental emotion regulation motives is needed when evaluating the efficacy of emotion regulation efforts within settings wherein performance outcomes are the primary and immediate goals (Lane, Bucknall, Davis, & Beedie, 2012; Stanley, Lane, Beedie, Friesen, & Devonport, 2012; Tamir, 2016; Uphill, McCarthy, & Jones, 2009).

The appropriateness of specific emotion regulation strategies may be counterintuitive. That is, strategies historically viewed as maladaptive (e.g. expressive suppression) or that intentionally upregulate unpleasant emotional states (e.g. intentionally increasing anger) may actually provide performance advantages (by means of minimising motoric noise or increasing approach-oriented motor behaviour: Beatty et al., 2014; Bonanno, Papa, Lalande, Westphal, & Coifman, 2004; Fawver et al., 2014; Tamir, 2016). Similarly, strategies typically categorised as adaptive (e.g. attentional distraction) and hedonic shifts classified as optimal (e.g. intentionally decreasing the experience of threat), may prove detrimental to contextually specific performance goals (eliciting increased cognitive load, slowing the intiation of motor actions, or reducing force output: Beatty et al., 2016, 2014; Flykt et al., 2012). Within performance contexts, emotion regulatory effectiveness should therefore be defined by the strategy’s ability to attain emotional states and arousal levels that optimise individual’s motor actions and subsequent performance outcomes.

The Temporal Influence Model of Emotion Regulation (TIMER) asserts that emotion regulation strategies influence motor performance as a consequence of each strategy’s unique, temporally dependent perceptual-cognitive and motor demands. The degree to which regulatory strategies are classified as appropriate or ideal will vary as a function of environmental constraints, individualised hedonic objectives, motor performance goals, and the individual’s expertise in executing emotion regulation strategies. Applied within appropriate contexts, and with adequate skill, emotion regulation strategies can effectively facilitate desired emotional, motor, and ultimately, performance outcomes (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1. Central Tenets of TIMER.

1.	Emotion regulation strategies exhibit unique temporal, perceptual-cognitive, and motor demands.
2.	The pool of effective emotion regulation strategies is constrained as the competing temporal, perceptual-cognitive, and motor demands of distinct sport tasks increase.
3.	Motor performance will diminish as demands of the performance context and emotion regulation collectively exceed performers’ available resources.
4.	When performers’ available resources meet or exceed performance and emotion regulation demands, performance will improve if regulatory efforts result in emotional states that facilitate individual & task-specific, optimal motor consequences.

Table 2. Fundamental predictions of TIMER.

1.	In Time Abundant contexts, Pre-Performance phase: Emotion regulation strategies leveraged to increase task-focused, approach-oriented, emotionally motivated states will increase the probability of successful performance during subsequent Active Performance phases.
2.	In Time Constrained contexts, Self-Paced tasks: Emotion regulation strategies that exert greater demands on performers’ available resources will disrupt performance at a greater magnitude than emotion regulation strategies that require fewer resources.
3.	In Time Constrained contexts, Externally-Paced tasks: As task predictability decreases, emotion regulation efforts that direct attention to performance irrelevant content will decrease performance efficacy, while strategies that direct attention to performance relevant information will increase performance efficacy.
4.	In Time Abundant contexts, Post-Performance phase: Emotion regulation strategies that enhance recovery from previous performance efforts, facilitate mental health, and optimise psychological factors implicated in skill acquisition will increase the likelihood of successful, future performance efforts.
5.	Emotion regulation expertise diversifies the repository of emotion regulation strategies that can be effectively utilised within Time Constrained contexts due to greater processing efficiencies afforded by skill automatisation.

Performance psychology research often differentiates performance contexts into pre-performance, active performance, and post-performance phases (Bertollo, Saltarelli, & Robazza, 2009; Birrer & Morgan, 2010; Cerin, Szabo, Hunt, & Williams, 2000; Cohen, Tenenbaum, & English, 2006; Gaudreau et al., 2002; Robazza, Pellizzari, & Hanin, 2004). Within TIMER, pre-performance and post-performance phases include the periods that occur before and following active engagement in the planning and execution of motor skills, respectively. Active performance encompasses the engagement in planning and execution of motor skills. TIMER organises broader emotion regulation families under the respective phases of performance within which at least one effective strategy is proposed to exist (Figure 2).

Figure 2. An illustration of the Temporal Influence Model of Emotion Regulation (TIMER). J. J. Gross’s (2014a) families of emotion regulation are organised under the performance phases within which select strategies emanating from these families are hypothesised to effectively regulate emotional experience and enhance motor performance.

A fundamental feature of TIMER’s organisational structure is the consideration of temporal constraints within performance phases as well as the temporal, perceptual-cognitive, and motoric resources consumed by distinct emotion regulation strategies (Table 3). TIMER proposes that within temporally abundant contexts (pre & post-performance phases), a wider range of regulatory strategies can be effectively applied (Figure 2 and Table 3). In contrast, only the most efficient strategies can be implemented effectively in temporally constrained contexts (active performance phase).

Table 3. Proposed taxonomy of emotion regulation strategy & effectiveness within sport performance contexts.

ER strategy family	Meaningful constraints & demands:			Predicted optimal application by performance phase, task, & environment
	Temporal	Perceptual-cognitive	Motoric	Pre-Perf.	AP-SP-HP	AP-SP-LP	AP-EP-HP	AP-EP-LP	Post-Perf
Situation selection	✓	✓	✓						✓
Situation modification	✓	✓		✓					✓
AD-Perf. irrelevant (ADpi)		✓		✓					✓
AD-Perf. relevant (ADpr)		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Cognitive change	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
RM–relaxation	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓
RM–emotional expression	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓
RM–expressive suppression	✓	✓					✓

Note: ER = Emotion Regulation; Pre-Perf. = Pre-Performance phase; AP-SP-HP = Active Performance phase, Self-Paced High Predictability task; AP-SP-LP = Active Performance phase, Self-Paced Low Predictability task; AP-EP-HP = Active Performance phase Externally-Paced High Predictability task; AP-EP-LP = Active Performance phase, Externally-Paced Low Predictability task; Post-Perf = Post-Performance phase; ADpi = Attentional Deployment – towards performance irrelevant stimuli; ADpr = Attentional Deployment – towards performance relevant stimuli; RM = Response Modulation.

From a practical point of view, individual differences in available resources are considered. Children, adolescents, aged populations, and individuals experiencing psychophysiological fatigue are limited in their ability to engage in cognitively demanding strategies with the same skill and efficiency as healthy adults (Craik & Bialystok, 2006; Hamilton et al., 2009; McRae et al., 2012; Wagstaff, 2014). Subsequently, individual differences likely influence the cache of regulatory approaches that could be applied effectively within temporally constrained contexts. Relatedly, expert performers exhibit more efficient and automatic motoric and perceptual-cognitive skill execution within their domain of expertise (Mann, Williams, Ward, & Janelle, 2007; Singer, 2000; Yarrow, Brown, & Krakauer, 2009). These phenomena potentially provide expert performers a larger pool of cognitive resources that could be utilised to execute a diverse repository of emotion regulation strategies effectively within temporally constrained contexts.

TIMER asserts that expertise can also be obtained in the application of emotion regulation strategies. Similar to other mechanisms contributing to motor and sport expertise (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016), emotion regulatory experts would exhibit more automatic and efficient application of contextually optimal regulatory strategies. This hypothesis is supported by research investigating the occurrence of automatic emotion regulation that seemingly increases the efficiency of emotion regulation execution (Mauss, Bunge, et al., 2007; Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2011). In the sections that follow, extant literature is examined that have collectively shaped TIMER’s predictions (see Table 2). Further, with an aim towards initiating discussions related to the testing and implementation of TIMER in sport, sport focused studies in which psychological skills were utilised to regulate emotion are reviewed and framed within time abundant and time constrained contexts.

Regulating within time abundant contexts

Pre and post-performance phases (Figure 2 and Table 3) range from short-periods (seconds or minutes) to relatively long-periods (hours, days, months). For example, shorter pre and post-performance phase periods might include the break between plays in American football, the time between a called foul and shooting a basketball free throw, or a brief stoppage in play during an Association football match. In contrast, longer periods may include the hours, days, or months leading up to competition. It should be noted that even relatively shorter pre-performance and post-performance phase periods provide substantially more time for emotion regulation compared to active performance. The relative abundance of temporal resources inherent to pre and post-performance phases allows for the effective implementation of regulatory strategies that require more temporal, cognitive, and motoric resources.

Performers’ regulatory goals should focus on the attainment of ideal emotional and arousal states that facilitate performance when applied to long-period pre-performance phases, or short-period pre/post-performance phases (Lahart et al., 2013; Robazza et al., 2004; Totterdell & Leach, 2001). Importantly, performance-focused regulatory goals may, at times, diverge from the emotion regulation strategies advocated for affective health. For example, unpleasant emotional states experienced during the pre-performance phase have been shown to facilitate successful performance outcomes for some individuals (Lane, Beedie, et al., 2012; Robazza & Bortoli, 2007). Thus, these individuals would likely benefit from regulatory goals that diverge from traditional, affective health guidelines and instead seek to attain an ideal unpleasant pre-performance emotional state such as anger.

The wealth of research identifying effective regulatory strategies in the context of affective, mental, and physical health (Berking & Wupperman, 2012; Gross, 2014b) is also accommodated within TIMER. These fundamental health considerations are proposed to apply to the long-period, post-performance phases when performers’ goals shift from enhancing imminent performance to the recovery from past-performance. Theoretically, effective health-focused emotion regulation during post-performance recovery periods should ultimately enhance future performance, albeit indirectly, by influencing distal psychological factors (e.g. attributions, self-efficacy, self-esteem, outcome expectations, intrinsic motivation) that stand to optimise psychological states requisite to successful skill acquisition and attentional focus during skill execution (Janelle & Hatfield, 2008; Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016). Given the established literary canon specifying effective emotion regulation aimed at improving affective health (e.g. Augustine & Hemenover, 2009; Davie, 2008; Webb et al., 2012), the remainder of the discussion focuses on regulation strategies aimed to directly improve performance outcomes.

Time abundant situation selection

In J. J. Gross’s (1998, 2014a) process model of emotion regulation, situation selection is proposed as an effective strategy for regulating emotions such that individuals may select to avoid or approach situations they predict will elicit emotional experiences. In non-sport performance settings, situation selection strategies manifest throughout daily living. For example, a commuter driving home from work may opt for a less stressful route (Mesken, Hagenzieker, Rothengatter, & de Waard, 2007) or an elderly individual afraid of falling might choose to avoid buildings or walking paths that fail to provide adequate compensatory tools (e.g. hand rails, ramps: Higgins, Janelle, & Manini, 2013). In sport settings, an athlete may seek out, or avoid, social interaction with coaches or teammates that arouse or subdue emotional experiences (Gaudreau et al., 2002; Pellizzari, Bertollo, & Robazza, 2011). By dictating the emotional environments experienced, situation selection strategies provide a particular advantage by antecedently offering performers considerable control over impending emotional experience.

Time abundant situation modification

Although situation selection is a powerful regulatory strategy, many emotional situations are unavoidable within competitive environments. In these cases, performers may employ strategies that modify their environment and the probability of subsequent emotional outcomes. To enhance emotional arousal and achieve the heightened states commonly reported in successful sport (Cerin et al., 2000) and military performance (Lane, Bucknall, et al., 2012), individuals may hang motivational posters, quotes, or photos in their staging area, they may interact with peers to heighten or attenuate the collective emotional arousal (Niven, Totterdell, Stride, & Holman, 2011; Tamminen & Crocker, 2013), or they might inject arousing music into their environment (Bishop, Karageorghis, & Loizou, 2007).

Time abundant attentional deployment

Performers in pre and post-performance phases may choose to modify their allocation of attention to distract from or focus on emotional components of their environment to respectively attenuate or enhance emotional experiences (Ferri, Schmidt, Hajcak, & Canli, 2013; Webb et al., 2012). No known investigations have specifically examined the effect of attentional deployment strategies (as defined in the emotion regulation literature) to modify emotions in pre and post-performance phases. However mental imagery (Lane, Beedie, et al., 2012; Wakefield, Smith, Moran, & Holmes, 2013), relaxation techniques (Pawlow & Jones, 2002; Pellizzari et al., 2011; Uphill et al., 2009), and music (Bishop et al., 2007; Karageorghis, Terry, Lane, Bishop, & Priest, 2012) have proven effective in aiding performers when applied during pre and post-performance phases. Each of these techniques contains attentional deployment components and are often utilised to indirectly regulate emotional experience. For example, mental imagery interventions are associated with motor performance improvements in athletes (Beauchamp, Bray, & Albinson, 2002; Smith, Wright, Allsopp, & Westhead, 2007; Wakefield et al., 2013), rehabilitation patients (Grangeon, Revol, Guillot, Rode, & Collet, 2012; Holmes, 2007; Lebon, Guillot, & Collet, 2012), and medical professionals (Wright, Hogard, Ellis, Smith, & Kelly, 2008). The performance benefits elicited by mental imagery have been proposed to result from imagery experiences that emulate actual performance by incorporating environmental, task, timing, emotional, and attentional features (Holmes & Collins, 2001; Wakefield et al., 2013). Performers seeking to down-regulate emotional experiences may employ imagery that focuses attention on emotionally neutral components of skilled execution of upcoming or previous performances. In contrast, if performers prefer to augment emotional arousal, their imagery could involve performing motor skills while concurrently directing attention to experienced emotions.

Time abundant cognitive change

To date, emotion regulation research has been dominated by investigations evaluating the efficacy of cognitive change strategies. Cognitive change strategies are robust and effective in the up and down-regulation of emotional states (Webb et al., 2012). Cognitive change strategies involve modifying appraisals of emotional stimuli, and appraisals of the ability to manage the demands of the emotional environment (Gross, 2014a; Leroy, Grégoire, Magen, Gross, & Mikolajczak, 2012). For example, performers may decide to view the external, emotionally stressful performance environment as an opportunity to evaluate their skill development, as opposed to a threat of failure and unpleasant social evaluations (Vine et al., 2016). Performers may also apply cognitive change to reappraise their internal emotional states as facilitative to performance, in lieu of appraisals defining experienced emotions as unpleasant obstacles. Indeed, anecdotal and qualitative evidence obtained from highly skilled performers frequently cites heightened arousal levels of both pleasant and unpleasant emotional states as facilitative to performance (Cerin, 2003; Cerin et al., 2000; Robazza & Bortoli, 2007). Athletes also utilise cognitive strategies to achieve their desired emotional states leading up to and following sports performance (Bertollo et al., 2009; Lane, Beedie, Devonport, & Stanley, 2011; Pellizzari et al., 2011). Limited, but promising evidence suggests that the use of cognitive change strategies in pre-performance contexts facilitates improvement on subsequent motor performance (Robazza et al., 2004).

Self-talk is a well-researched psychological skill that can also be utilised as a means of cognitive change through the implementation of verbal self-dialogue targeting performance, thoughts, and emotions, while providing motivational or instructional foci to future performances (Tod, Hardy, & Oliver, 2011; Vealey, 2007). Research suggests that self-talk facilitates improved performance within a variety of motor performance domains (Devonport, Lane, & Lloyd, 2011; Rogerson & Hrycaiko, 2002; Tod et al., 2011). Consistent with Martin, Moritz, and Hall’s (1999) four-component model, and Guillot and Collet’s (2008) Motor Imagery Integrative Model in Sport (MIIMS), mental imagery may prove efficacious in implementing cognitive change strategies. By employing mental imagery, performers can predictively ‘experience’ upcoming emotional performance states or relive a previous performance, and subsequently reappraise these emotional experiences to achieve optimal emotional states (Bertollo et al., 2009). Similarly, implementation intentions that direct individuals to generate ‘if-then’ plans to deal with potential adversity (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006) have proven effective in improving motor performance when the performers’ self-generated implementation intentions included plans to regulate emotional experiences perceived as detrimental to performance (Achtziger, Gollwitzer, & Sheeran, 2008).

Time abundant response modulation

Response modulation strategies modify experiential, behavioural, and physiological responses to emotional stimuli (Gross, 2014a). Evidence indicates several response modulation strategies are capable of regulating emotional states. Popular strategies include physical exercise, listening to music, expressing emotions, suppression of emotional expressions, volitional consumption of mood altering drugs, and relaxation techniques (Augustine & Hemenover, 2009; Bishop et al., 2007; Buckman, Yusko, Farris, White, & Pandina, 2011; Goldin et al., 2008; Lee, Josephs, Dolan, & Critchley, 2006; Martens & Martin, 2010; Stephens, Atkins, & Kingston, 2009; Webb et al., 2012). Although expressive suppression and drug use effectively regulate emotional experience, over-reliance on these strategies also elicits long-term affective, mental, and physical health disruptions that are likely comorbid to long-term motor performance disruptions. Few investigations have specifically assessed the efficacy of implementing response modulation strategies within pre and post-performance contexts to improve motor performance. Research has, however, identified that relaxation strategies can effectively regulate emotions and facilitate successful motor performance (Maynard & Cotton, 1993; Maynard, Hemmings, & Warwick-evans, 1995; Pellizzari et al., 2011).

Regulating within time constrained contexts

Within the active performance phase (Figure 2 and Table 3), TIMER classifies motor tasks in terms of pacing (self-paced vs. externally-paced) and predictability (high vs. low: Gentile, 1972; Poulton, 1957; Singer, 2000). Self-paced tasks are those in which the performer maintains considerable control over motor initiation. Examples include a golfer performing a tee shot, a volleyball player executing a serve, or a basketball player shooting a free throw. In contrast, externally-paced skills are executed under environmentally determined temporal constraints and include peripheral signals that define the advantageous timing of motor response execution. For example, batsmen hitting a pitched or bowled ball, footballers making a pass, or basketball players executing a jump shot must rely on myriad sources of temporally dependent information to execute motor responses at precisely the right time.

High predictability tasks include contexts in which the performer has a considerable degree of control over variables that influence motor execution and are negligibly influenced by environmental characteristics. Conversely, low predictability tasks include those in which the performer’s skill execution is highly dependent on rapidly changing environmental and task demands. For example, a golfer performing a tee shot under ideal weather conditions would enjoy high predictability, but if high wind gusts arrive, predictability would be reduced dramatically. Predictability can also be influenced by the actions of opponents. For example, the predictability an Association footballer experiences while attempting to strike a ball on goal will vary substantially given the density and actions of defenders. As a task’s pacing and predictability characteristics advance towards external-pacing and low-predictability, performers are required to devote substantial cognitive resources towards continual assessment of the environment and selection of optimal motor plans. These increases in cognitive load subsequently influence the initiation and execution of selected motor actions (Singer, 2000).

Regulating emotions during motor skill execution requires the concurrent performance of multiple tasks. Simultaneous regulation of emotions and execution of goal-directed motor actions operate as dual tasks which tax physiological resources (Beedie, Lane, & Wilson, 2012; Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007) and neural networks associated with perception, attention, and decision making (Coombes et al., 2012; Goldin et al., 2008; Kanske, Heissler, Schönfelder, Bongers, & Wessa, 2011; Ochsner & Gross, 2014). Although secondary tasks often disrupt skilful motor performance (Rémy, Wenderoth, Lipkens, & Swinnen, 2010), regulating one’s emotions may be necessary to maintain optimal emotional states that facilitate successful performance (Uphill et al., 2009). Within more temporally abundant contexts (e.g. self-paced, high-predictability tasks), individuals can successfully accomplish multiple tasks by efficiently scheduling tasks, and / or sequentially focusing available resources to the completion of one task at a time (Wickens, 1992). In contrast, individuals within temporally constrained environments (e.g. externally paced, low-predictability tasks) must concurrently employ perceptual-cognitive and motor resources to the performance task and emotion regulation efforts (Janelle et al., 1999; Pashler, 1994; Wickens, 1992). This can be accomplished by flexibly switching resource allocation from task to task (Meyer & Kieras, 1997; Wickens, 1992). However, the efficiency and effectiveness of concurrently performing multiple tasks is negatively influenced when the resources necessary to accomplish each task are shared (Eysenck et al., 2007; Lavie, Hirst, de Fockert, & Viding, 2004; Wickens, 1992). Consequently, the temporal, perceptual-cognitive, and motoric constraints inherent to externally paced and low-predictability tasks likely limit the availability of contextually effective emotion regulation strategies to those that can be efficiently and quickly executed. Therefore, selecting the least intrusive emotion regulation strategy is extremely important.

Emotion regulation within self-paced tasks

The overwhelming majority of emotion regulation research conducted within sport and motor performance contexts has focused on describing the regulatory strategies applied by performers during pre and post-performance phases. Principles and best practices emerging from this research can be effectively applied to self-paced, high-predictability skills given the abundance of temporal resources. Accordingly, and as detailed previously, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation strategies have been shown to be highly effective when applied within self-paced, high-predictability skills.

Within self-paced tasks, performers may incorporate regulatory strategies into preparatory routines (Lidor, 2007) and psychological skills programmes (Balk, Adriaanse, De Ridder, & Evers, 2013). For example, Bertollo et al. (2009) interviewed 14 elite Italian pentathletes to determine the coping strategies implemented during competition. The pentathletes reported employing emotion regulatory strategies during self-paced, high-predictability skills by incorporating self-talk to engage in thought stoppage, relaxation to regulate arousal responses, and attentional strategies directing attention to performance relevant cues (e.g. focusing on shooting targets, and kinaesthetic processes of skill execution). Similarly, Cohen et al. (2006) report implementing a psychological skills training programme with two highly experienced collegiate golfers that led to improved performance. The programme incorporated self-talk to engage in cognitive reappraisal and thought stoppage; and relaxation strategies to shift attention away from heightened arousal and back towards performance relevant information. More recent experimental efforts have replicated findings indicating performance advantages associated with the implementation of cognitive reappraisal immediately preceding a self-paced putting task executed under performance pressure (Balk et al., 2013).

Emotion regulation within externally-paced, high-predictability skills

Time constraints and cognitive demands increase in externally paced settings. In such contexts, the time and resources available for effective regulatory options decreases substantially (Figure 2 and Table 3). Promising recent research has examined the efficacy of emotion regulation strategies utilised in time constrained performance environments. Beatty et al. (2014) conducted an experiment examining the effects of response modulation (expressive suppression and emotional expression) and attentional deployment (a challenging arithmetic task) strategies upon an externally paced, high-predictability motor task. Expressive suppression provided regulatory and motor performance advantages within such contexts, while emotional expression and the attentional deployment strategies disrupted motor performance.

Although the attentional deployment strategy implemented by Beatty et al. (2014) detrimentally impacted motor performance, attentional deployment strategies take many forms and likely elicit divergent performance consequences. TIMER differentiates these strategies as attentional deployment performance irrelevant (ADpi) and attentional deployment performance relevant (ADpr) strategies. ADpi strategies include cognitive strategies that direct individuals’ attention towards secondary tasks and away from emotional content. For example, laboratory studies have instructed individuals to perform arithmetic tasks (Beatty et al., 2014; Kanske et al., 2011), letter memory tasks (McRae et al., 2010), and tasks directing participants to think about unrelated and unemotional content (Balk et al., 2013; Thiruchselvam et al., 2011). In contrast, ADpr strategies direct attention towards performance relevant, emotional or emotionally neutral content (Ferri et al., 2013). When employing ADpr strategies, a performer may allocate visual attention to a cue such as a single location on a basketball hoop (Vine & Wilson, 2011), the seams on a pitched baseball (Shank & Haywood, 1987), the path of a clay pigeon (Causer et al., 2011), or the hand and arm of a cricket bowler (Müller, Abernethy, & Farrow, 2006). By directing attention towards emotionally neutral, performance relevant cues, performers would be able to minimise emotional distractions by allocating available resources to the task and away from performance irrelevant, emotional stimuli (Singer, 2000).

TIMER proposes that ADpr strategies can be utilised to efficiently and effectively regulate emotional experiences without eliciting the motor performance deficits observed when employing ADpi strategies (Balk et al., 2013; Beatty et al., 2014). Further, TIMER predicts that ADpr strategies will likely facilitate improved performance. For example, Vickers and Williams (2007) found that shooting accuracy during high-pressure performance conditions was positively correlated with the longer duration quiet eye periods of elite biathlon marksmen. Importantly, evidence indicates that quiet eye training programmes, directing participants to attend to ADpr cues, can improve motor performance within anxiogenic environments (Vine & Wilson, 2011). Further, such strategies have been shown to effectively regulate emotional experience in non-sport/motor tasks (Ferri et al., 2013).

In addition to visually directed ADpr strategies, performers could also direct attention to key kinaesthetic qualities of performing motor skills (Khoshnoodi, Motiei-Langroudi, Omrani, Ghaderi-Pakdell, & Abbassian, 2006; Klein & Posner, 1974). Coombes et al. (2012) provided initial, albeit indirect, evidence that ADpr strategies may facilitate motor performance during sustained skill execution. Participants were tasked with producing and maintaining a force equal to 15% of their maximum voluntary contraction in the absence of visual performance feedback and exposure to emotionally evocative stimuli. fMRI data revealed increases in activity of a functional circuit between the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and ventral premotor cortex during emotional conditions. This activation pattern indicates that participants may have maintained accurate motor performance by devoting increased attention towards the kinaesthetic properties (i.e. ADpr) of the motor task during exposure to emotional stimuli. In contrast, Wagstaff (2014) found that participants instructed to suppress unpleasant emotional experiences performed a cycling task slower, with reduced power output, reduced maximum heart rate, and increase in perceived exertion. These data suggest that directing attention to the suppression of performance irrelevant emotional experiences (ADpi) likely distracts performers and disrupts optimal motor performance.

Emotion regulation within externally-paced, low-predictability skills

To date, no known experimentally controlled investigations have explicitly investigated the efficacy of emotion regulation strategies utilised during externally paced, low-predictability performance contexts. Qualitative research indicates that successful performers may be able to cope with disruptive emotional states by refocusing attention on performance relevant (ADpr) cues (Nieuwenhuys, Hanin, & Bakker, 2008). Nieuwenhuys et al. (2008) reported qualitative data from a series of ethnographic, phenomenological interviews conducted with an elite Dutch competitive sailor. The interview revealed when the sailor performed poorly during active sailing, his coping relied heavily on cognitively demanding strategies (e.g. self-talk, thought stoppage). During successful performance, the sailor relied on ADpr coping strategies (e.g. refocusing attention to the wind). This anecdotal evidence is consistent with research highlighting the need to efficiently focus attentional resources towards performance relevant cues when temporal constraints and cognitive demands increase within the performance environment (Janelle, 2002; Janelle & Hatfield, 2008). Considering that emotional stimuli are particularly potent in capturing attentional resources (Eysenck et al., 2007; Pessoa, Kastner, & Ungerleider, 2002; Schupp et al., 2007), performers should train to develop expertise in implementing ADpr strategies (Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2011) within temporally constrained, emotionally salient performance environments.

Emotion regulation expertise

Expertise and expert performance emerges from extensive, deliberate, and domain specific practice (Ericsson, 2007). Over the course of dedicated training, sport specific motor, attentional, and decision-making skills are refined and enhanced to enable consistently superior performance. Although expertise is exemplified by consistent superior performance, empirical research (Baumeister & Showers, 1986; Beilock, Bertenthal, McCoy, & Carr, 2004; Beilock, Carr, MacMahon, & Starkes, 2002; Mesagno, Harvey, & Janelle, 2012) indicates that individuals can temporarily lose the ability to perform at their highest level, even when biological systems are healthy. Substantial evidence indicates that emotional states often evoke performance lapses due to the associated increase in demands placed on physiological, attentional, and cognitive systems. Given the growing body of research illuminating the interaction between emotional experience, emotion regulation efforts, and motor performance (Beatty et al., 2014; Bertollo et al., 2009; Gröpel & Mesagno, 2017; Lane, Thelwell, Lowther, & Devonport, 2009; Meyer & Fletcher, 2007; Nieuwenhuys et al., 2008), consideration of the development of emotion regulation expertise is also warranted.

Consistent with Meyer and Fletcher’s (2007) operationalisation of emotional intelligence, and Hanin’s (2011) concept of emotional expertise, TIMER proposes that emotion regulation expertise is defined by performers’ abilities to consistently employ effective regulatory skills within appropriate performance phases. Skill optimisation results from the culmination of highly motivated individuals that engage in persistent, purposeful training over an extended time period (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016). Importantly, TIMER proposes that emotion regulation expertise is imperative to facilitate successful motor performance consistently within emotional environments. For example, two performers may follow identical practice regimens, both devoting congruent amounts of systematic training to develop the necessary motor, attentional, and decision-making skills to perform expertly. Yet, if one individual develops context specific emotion regulation expertise, this individual would undoubtedly be better prepared to perform and succeed within emotionally salient environments.

Evidence suggests that the ability to successfully regulate one’s emotional experience is determined by inherited genetic factors as well as life experiences (Canli, Ferri, & Duman, 2009). Developmentally, cognitive reappraisal skills improve from childhood through adulthood (McRae et al., 2012). These improvements appear to be linked with the development and refinement of pre-frontal neural architecture involved in cognitive abilities; a malleable process influenced by physiological maturation and practice (Craik & Bialystok, 2006). Similarly, individuals who more commonly employ expressive suppression in emotional situations have been shown to possess increased anterior insula volumes (Giuliani, Drabant, Bhatnagar, & Gross, 2011). Denny and Ochsner (2014) provided empirical evidence that multiple sessions of reappraisal training results in sustained reductions in the self-reports of experienced unpleasant emotional states and daily stress. Research has also specified that attentional deployment regulatory abilities improve in individuals who engage in a variety of attentional training programmes (Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2011).

Anecdotal evidence provides additional support for the notion that deliberate emotion regulation practice can enhance emotion regulation abilities and in turn, contribute to improved performance. Elite level athletes report consistently employing emotional control strategies within competitive settings (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002), a characteristic that has been shown to differentiate top and lower-level rugby union players (Andrew, Grobbelaar, & Potgieter, 2007). As mentioned earlier, a sample of international level Italian pentathletes reported intentionally creating emotionally evocative training conditions during live training and mental imagery training sessions in order to practice performing while experiencing and regulating heightened emotional states (Bertollo et al., 2009). These training approaches are consistent with theoretical frameworks that collectively point to emotion serving as feedback that consequently shapes future appraisal and behavioural tendencies – a phenomenon that can be leveraged to optimise training environments and skill acquisition (Baumeister et al., 2007; Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016).

Research collectively indicates that the cognitive and attentional skills required to employ emotion regulation strategies can be trained and improved. Importantly, and in the context of TIMER, the training of emotion regulation strategies likely leads to increased automaticity of emotion regulation, and subsequently requires less cognitive effort (Jackson et al., 2003; Mauss, Bunge, et al., 2007; Mauss, Cook, & Gross, 2007; Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2011). Therefore, expertise development in emotion regulation skill would likely free cognitive resources that could be allocated to the perceptual-cognitive tasks of attending to critical cues, executing complex decision-making processes, and ultimately initiating trained motor actions quickly and accurately. It is important to note however, that while automaticity during performance is ideal, automaticity during training is detrimental to skill development (Ericsson, 2007). Indeed, performers should strive to continually challenge their skills (including regulatory skills) during training to foster skill development and refinement (Carson & Collins, 2016).

Summary of predictions, implications, & future directions

Emotions motivate and modify the motor actions critical to optimal sport performance. Emerging evidence specifies that the manner by which individuals regulate their emotions also influences performance. TIMER proposes that emotion regulatory effectiveness in motor performance contexts is determined by (1) the temporally distinct perceptual-cognitive and motor demands of selected regulatory strategies, (2) the contextually specific temporal, perceptual-cognitive, and motor demands associated with specific skill execution, (3) the ability of specific emotion regulation strategies to facilitate the allocation of perceptual-cognitive resources to contextually specific performance tasks, and (4) an individual’s skill at employing regulatory strategies (see Tables 1 and 2). Our hope is that the proposed TIMER framework will inspire efforts to test the model’s predictions in a manner that will advance development of tailored, context-specific emotion regulation programmes for athletes and other performers.

Complementing existing retrospectively derived data (e.g. Gould et al., 2002; Lane et al., 2011), future investigative efforts should explore whether and how environmental modifications (e.g. music, smells, temperatures) and psychological skills (e.g. mental imagery, self-talk, implementation intentions, relaxation) can specifically target and regulate emotional experience during pre and post-performance sport contexts. A need also exists for research focusing on long-duration post-performance recovery periods, applying traditional (affective health) regulatory goals to this period, and assessing the long-term consequences to performers’ abilities to recover and prepare for future performances (Lane, Beedie, et al., 2012; Robazza et al., 2004).

While limited research exists directly informing the application of emotion regulation within pre and post-performance contexts, even less is known about the application of emotion regulation strategies within active performance. Existing experimental work supporting the categorisation of regulatory skills within the active performance phase relies solely on data obtained from laboratory-based, externally-paced, high-predictability experimental motor tasks (e.g. Beatty et al., 2014; Wagstaff, 2014). Complementing existing observational studies (e.g. Nieuwenhuys et al., 2008), future basic and applied research is needed to examine TIMER predictions within self-paced, externally-paced, high-predictability, and low-predictability contexts of active performance.

Of particular interest, it remains unclear whether and how attentional deployment emotion regulation strategies can be applied effectively to regulate emotional experiences and enhance motor performance. Accordingly, a critical need exists to identify how ADpr and ADpi strategies influence motor performance relative to other emotion regulation strategies. A key component of this line of research is the need to measure performance modulation in terms of the micro-components of sport movements (e.g. motor response time, movement speed, movement accuracy) in addition to sport performance outcomes.

TIMER also provides a framework by which the efficacy of emergent regulatory strategies and related constructs (e.g. mindfulness) can be tested across the full spectrum of competition phases. For example, mindfulness principles assert that athletes’ engaging in non-judgemental awareness (attention) of external and internal stimuli may effectively deconstruct the affective components of stimuli without reliance on resource taxing cognitive efforts directed towards changing experiential interpretations (Gardner & Moore, 2004). Given their underlying attentional mechanisms, mindfulness approaches could be further classified within TIMER as ADpr or ADpi thus affording greater granularity to investigators seeking mechanistic explanations for observed performance effects following mindfulness interventions. Considering the increasing popularity in applying mindfulness principles to sport and tactical performance contexts (Gardner & Moore, 2017), it is critical that future research determines the specific performance contexts in which mindfulness can effectively attain hedonic goals and enhance (not disrupt) the attainment of instrumental performance goals.

Findings from future efforts will augment existing psychoeducational training programmes designed to enhance performance by further specifying how specific emotion regulation strategies influence motor and sport performance outcomes. Relatedly, empirical evidence documenting the development of emotion regulation expertise is nearly non-existent. Research specifying how performers develop emotion regulation skills, and how emotion regulation expertise development can be facilitated in performers of all age groups and performance skill levels is crucially needed.

Conclusion

Within this review, we proposed the Temporal Influence Model of Emotion Regulation (TIMER) in an effort to synthesise and organise existing literature related to the examination of regulating emotional experience within the context of motor and sport performance. Of particular value, TIMER is the first known theoretical model to forward testable hypotheses related to the efficacy of emotion regulation strategies relative to the temporal, perceptual-cognitive, and motoric demands of sport performance contexts and the achievement of instrumental motor performance goals. Our hope is that TIMER will inspire investigative efforts to advance our understanding of how specific emotion regulation strategies influence the motor performance components that shape sport performance outcomes. Additionally, we hope TIMER will help inform the development of empirically based guidelines for emotion regulation prescription and training programmes in sport.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Editors and anonymous Reviewers for their critical eye, constructive comments, and valuable suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.