Repeated-measures study reveals interactive effects of hedonic tone and perceived control on performance in elite shooters, highlighting the value of individualized self-regulation strategies.
According to multi‑states (MuSt) theory, athletes experience eight distinct performance states arising from the 2 × 2 × 2 interaction of perceived action control (low/high), hedonic tone (pleasant/unpleasant), and performance outcome (suboptimal/optimal). This study tested the full interaction in elite shooters, extending prior research that examined perceived control and hedonic tone separately. Ten elite male shooters (5 pistol, 5 rifle) each performed 120 shots (1,200 total observations). Before each shot, they rated their hedonic tone; immediately after, they rated their perceived control over a self‑identified core shooting action component. Actual shot scores were recorded. Mixed‑effects logistic and linear models tested categorical (dichotomized) and continuous predictors, including quadratic terms and random slopes for individual differences. All eight states were empirically present. Quadratic relationships emerged for both perceived control and hedonic tone: moderate levels were associated with the highest probability of optimal performance, while very low and very high levels were less beneficial. A significant perceived control × hedonic tone interaction was found on continuous performance scores, indicating that pleasant hedonic tone amplifies the benefit of perceived control. Significant individual differences in the effects of both predictors were observed, supporting the idiographic nature of performance states. The findings provide the first direct evidence for the full 2 × 2 × 2 interaction as predicted within MuSt theory. To consistently achieve excellent performance, practitioners should adopt personalized, multidimensional approaches to help athletes identify their individually optimal levels of perceived control and hedonic tone, and use targeted self‑regulation strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robazza et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: