_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ Report Information from ProQuestDecember 01 2014 22:44_______________________________________________________________

Documento 1 de 1 IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL-LEVEL CHESS PLAYERS' PERFORMANCE WITH ANACCEPTANCE-BASED PROTOCOL: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Enlace de documentos de ProQuest Resumen: This study compared an individual, 4-hr intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy(ACT) versus a no-contact control condition in improving the performance of international-level chess players.Five participants received the brief ACT protocol, with each matched to another chess player with similarcharacteristics in the control condition. Experimental participants showed significant reductions in thebelievability and interference of general, unpleasant private events during competitions as well as reductions inthe frequency of the treated counterproductive reactions to private events (FCR). Also, as indicated by anobjective chess performance measure (ELO performance), all participants in the experimental conditionimproved their performance during the 7 months after the ACT protocol in comparison to the 7 months prior;however, none of the control participants improved their chess performance. Pretreatment levels and initialchanges in FCR and believability significantly predicted the effect sizes on chess performance in theexperimental condition. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Enlaces: Buscar en Linceo + Texto completo: Headnote This study compared an individual, 4-hr intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)versus a no-contact control condition in improving the performance of international-level chess players. Fiveparticipants received the brief ACT protocol, with each matched to another chess player with similarcharacteristics in the control condition. Experimental participants showed significant reductions in thebelievability and interference of general, unpleasant private events during competitions as well as reductions inthe frequency of the treated counterproductive reactions to private events (FCR). Also, as indicated by anobjective chess performance measure (ELO performance), all participants in the experimental conditionimproved their performance during the 7 months after the ACT protocol in comparison to the 7 months prior;however, none of the control participants improved their chess performance. Pretreatment levels and initialchanges in FCR and believability significantly predicted the effect sizes on chess performance in theexperimental condition. Key words: acceptance and commitment therapy, chess performance enhancement, experiential avoidance,cognitive fusion Chess is widely considered to be the sport with the most intellectual content, with decision making being themain aspect of chess play. In addition, competitive chess is demanding, with standard tournaments consistingof 9 or 10 games with 4- to 6-hr playing sessions and often two sessions per day. Chess players have to maketheir moves within a limited time without the possibility of moving back. Because just one mistake can cause aquick defeat, chess is often considered to be mental boxing. Accordingly, it is not surprising that chess players'cardiovascular activity and other physiological indexes are similar to those indexes shown by people whopractice sports involving more physical activity (e.g., Kríz, Vokál, &Krízová, 1990; Pfleger, Stocker, Pabst,&Haralambie, 1980). Psychological skills training (PST), the mainstream approach in the field of sports performance enhancement,emphasizes that negative thoughts and emotions obstruct the person from achieving his or her optimalperformance (e.g., Hardy, Jones, &Could, 1996; Whelan, Mahoney, 8t Meyers, 1991). PST proposes that thosethoughts and emotions must be reduced to perform optimally and promotes using control-based techniques(e.g., imagery, self-talk modification, arousal control). However, no evidence about the efficacy of thesetechniques for improving chess performance has been published. Moreover, the empirical status of PST

techniques is unclear considering that none of them can be considered an empirically validated procedure toenhance sport performance (see Gardner, 2009; Gardner &Moore, 2006, 2007). An alternative to PST has recently emerged from work conducted involving acceptance-based therapies.Specifically, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT; Hayes, Strosahl, &Wilson, 1999) is a psychologicalintervention, based on a contextual approach to human language and cognition (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes,&Roche, 2001), that has been adapted for enhancing sports performance (see Gardner &Moore, 2007, for thedescription of a protocol largely based on the ACT model). ACT emphasizes the role of cognitive fusion andexperiential avoidance in limiting people from living the life they want. Cognitive fusion refers to the tendency toact according to the content of private events, such as thoughts, memories, sensations, and the like. Cognitivefusion is relevant because it often leads to experiential avoidance when a person does not have the skills todistance him- or herself from the aversive/unwanted private events (Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, &Dymond, 2001;Luciano, Rodríguez, 8t Gutiérrez, 2004). Experiential avoidance refers to following a rule to avoid and/or escapeaversive private events, like unwanted thoughts, memories, sensations, and so forth. Experiential avoidancehas been largely suggested as a core strategy in most psychological disorders and has led to an increase inhealth problems (Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, &Lillis, 2006; Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, &Strosahl, 1996;Luciano &Hayes, 2001; Ruiz, 2010). In the field of sports and intellectual performance, experiential avoidance can become problematic because thefeared private events are typically extended in the long term, and most important, the performer may attempt toescape from them instead of doing what the actual situation requires. Recent research supports this idea. Bondand Flaxman (2006) found that participants' levels of experiential avoidance predicted their performances inlearning a new software program, as well as their general mental health and work performance. Zettle,Petersen, Hocker, and Provines (2007) showed that participants with high levels of experiential avoidanceevaluated the induced sensations of a task that simulated the effects of alcohol intoxication as moreuncomfortable and performed worse on a challenging perceptual-motor task. Gooding and Gardner (2009)found that level of mindfulness, which in some ways can be seen as the opposite of experiential avoidance,significantly predicted game free-throw percentage in basketball players. Finally, López et al. (2010) haveshown that participants with high and low levels of experiential avoidance had a similar performance on a highcognitive demand task after viewing a neutral film; however, participants with high avoidance performedsignificantly worse after viewing a discomforting film. The mediation analysis conducted by López et al. revealedthat experiential avoidance had an impact on the performance by decreasing participants' reportedconcentration on the task. In contrast to PST, the ACT model considers that it is the counterproductive reaction to private events duringcompetitions, and not the unwanted private events by themselves, that causes a reduction in sportsperformance. Accordingly, ACT proposes changes in the functions of private events, rather than in their content,by accepting unwanted private events as they surface while the person is focusing on the relevant cues of thetask. The evidence concerning the efficacy of acceptance-based strategies in enhancing sports performance isgrowing. To date, they have been effective in three small controlled studies involving canoeing (Fernández,Secades, Terrados, García, 8t García, 2004), chess playing (Ruiz &Luciano, 2009), and golfing (Bernier,Thienot, Codron, &Fournier, 2009), and in case studies targeting swimming, weightlifting (Gardner &Moore,2004), and springboard (Schwanhausser, 2009), as well as playing basketball (Gardner &Moore, 2007),lacrosse (Lutkenhouse, 2007), and chess (Ruiz, 2006). In the context of chess performance, the aim of the ACT studies conducted to date was to improve performanceby teaching players to be present with the thoughts and emotions that surfaced while playing and to choose toremain as value oriented as possible in every step of the game. Ruiz (2006) found that after the implementationof four ACT sessions with an international-level chess player, the reported interference and believability ofunwanted private events in decision making was reduced, and the player noticeably improved his performance

according to an objective chess performance measure (ELO points). Ruiz and Luciano (2009) compared theefficacy of a group ACT intervention, applied over 5 consecutive days, given to seven promising young chessplayers, versus a no-contact control condition. The ACT condition showed that there was a statisticallysignificant improvement in results during the 9 months of follow-up, compared to the 9 previous months, with asignificant improvement in chess performance in five out of seven chess players. Pretreatment levels of chess-related experiential avoidance predicted the effect of the intervention: The more avoidant participants were, thegreater effect the intervention had. Although a detailed explanation of the ACT intervention is out of the scope of the present work (see Hayes&Strosahl, 2004; Hayes et al., 1999; Wilson &Luciano, 2002), a very brief description of this approach in chesswill be presented. For example, imagine that during a competition chess players think, "I am winning," or "Thistournament will be great," when the actual chessboard position is favorable for them. Chess players will oftenfuse with these thoughts (i.e., take them literally), without acknowledging that they are only thoughts and notfacts. Consequently, chess players may play in accordance with the thought, "I am winning," instead of payingattention to the game position. An ACT intervention would promote defusion by allowing chess players todifferentiate between themselves and their thoughts and, thus, to bring themselves back to the actual task (i.e.,to pay attention to the actual chessboard position). Another example of the role of cognitive fusion and experiential avoidance in chess is wasting time because ofindecision during competition. For instance, chess players may delay their next move because of uncertainthoughts about what will be the best move. Although spending more time to think seems logical, the problem isthat this subtracts more time from their moves later in the game, which may prove to be more crucial.Consequently, when uncertainty shows up, thinking too much is paid off in the short term by avoiding theconsequences of a particular choice. However, in the next phase of the game, the decrease in time increasesthe likelihood of mistakes. In other words, chess players are fused with the literal content of their uncertainties,and their actions are more directed toward short-term escape or avoidance of such thoughts rather than astrategic long-term focus on the game. An ACT intervention would promote participants' realization of both theshort- and the long-term consequences of avoiding such uncertain thoughts and would promote defusing fromthem in order to allow chess players to make better choices in every moment of the game. The current study advances over the previous chess study of Ruiz and Luciano (2009), which compared anacceptance intervention applied to promising young chess players in 6 hr, by evaluating the effect of a brief,intensive, individual ACT protocol applied in 4 hr (over 2-3 sessions) to adult, international-level chess playersversus a no-contact control condition. Five participants in the experimental condition received the brief ACTprotocol. Each participant was matched to a chess player with similar characteristics. These matchedparticipants were only followed in their chess performance and constituted the no-contact control condition. Method Participants Ten international title chess players took part in this study. Possible volunteers to receive the experimentalprotocol were recruited through an e-mail that explained the research aims. Five chess players volunteered toreceive the protocol and form part of the experimental condition. Inclusion criteria for participants in thiscondition were the following: (a) participants must have received the International Master or International GrandMaster title; (b) participants must have failed to improve more than 40 ELO points during the last 2 years (ELOpoints are the measure used by the International Chess Federation, FIDE, to establish the international ranking,and they are calculated by applying mathematical formulas as indicated in the next section); and (c) participantsmust have been committed to training and competing in the upcoming year for the same amount of time as theyhad in previous years. Three participants were Latin Americans, and the remaining two were Spaniards; all ofthem were men who ranged from 23 to 50 years of age. All the participants were top-ranked players in theirrespective countries.

With the purpose of forming the control condition, five chess players who had characteristics similar to thoseshown by each of the participants in the experimental condition were selected from FIDE's database. Thecriteria that established the similarity between participants in both conditions were as follows: (a) same gender,(b) age difference of no more than 2 years, (c) same International Title, (d) difference in ELO punctuation of nomore than 30 points (this ensured that both players were at roughly the same level; i.e., if both players play 100games, the higher rated player should theoretically win no more than 55 games, with the lower rated playerwinning no fewer than the remaining 45 games), (e) equivalent frequency in playing competitions during the last12 months, and (f ) similar geographic zone (e.g., tournaments in the south of Spain). Only one chess playerwas matched to every experimental participant because the precise specifications of the criteria made it difficultto match all experimental participants to more than one person. Measures The ELO performance rating was used as an outcome measure. The ELO performance rating is a theoreticalindex (EIo, 1978) largely used by FIDE to establish chess skill level through consecutive games. Reliability andvalidity of this mathematical index noticeably increases as a function of increasing the number of games. TheELO performance rating was obtained for each participant by analyzing the data from competitions, provided byFIDE's database, in which participants played at least four games. An overall ELO performance rating wascalculated for the 7 months before and after the intervention. The criterion for pre-post change was establishedto be a difference of more than 40 ELO performance points because such a difference would allow participantsto obtain half a point more in standard nine-games tournaments, which usually raises them to significantly betterclassifications. Also, several chess players and qualified chess trainers agreed that achieving mastery ensuresa significant increase in tournament positions (Ruiz &Luciano, 2009). Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II). The AAQ-II (Bond et al., 2011) is a seven-item generalmeasure of experiential avoidance and psychological inflexibility. An initial ??-item version of this questionnaire,which has psychometric properties that are very similar to those in the final version, was used in this study.Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never true) to 7 (a/ways true), with higherscores indicating greater levels of experiential avoidance. The Spanish translation of the AAQ-II has goodinternal consistency and a one-factor structure (Ruiz, Langer, Luciano, Cangas, 8t Beltrán, 2011). The meanscores were 32.23 (SD = 9.85) for the nonclinical sample and 46.22 (SD = 12.21) for the clinical sample. Basedon accumulated experience using this questionnaire, the within-subject criterion for pre-post change was set asa 15% reduction in AAQ-II scores. Chess Counterproductive Reactions Questionnaire (CCRQ). This questionnaire was designed for this study todetect experiential avoidance in chess (Ruiz &Luciano, 2009). Fifteen items were created based on barriersdetected during chess playing (e.g., Krogius, 1972; Nunn, 1998; Rowson, 2000). Items were either a sentencedescribing a psychological barrier (e.g., "I am too nervous for performing optimally in the most important gamesof the tournaments") or a sentence describing avoidance behaviors in the presence of such barriers (e.g., "I feelafraid and begin to play defensively or to offer a draw"). Each item was rated on a 9-point Likert scale rangingfrom 1 (never) to 9 (always). Higher scores indicate a higher frequency of counterproductive reactions duringcompetition. CCRQ scores were used to select the five most frequent counterproductive reactions for eachparticipant, and these were specifically addressed in the protocol implementation. The average frequency of thetreated counterproductive reactions to problematic private events (FCR) was then used for process analysis.The validity of the CCRQ was explored with a preliminary sample of 18 high-level chess players. Despite thesmall size of the sample, results showed a strong positive correlation between the CCRQ and the AAQ-II (r =.614, p = .004, one-tailed) and a negative correlation between the CCRQ and ELO rating (r = -.443, p = .037,one-tailed). Based on accumulated experience using this questionnaire, the within-subject criterion for prepostchange was set as a 25% reduction in the FCR scores. Private events' interference and believability. Participants rated the interference and believability of private

events during normal and difficult moments of competitions on a 10-cm visual assessment scale with "not at all"and "completely" in the left and right extremes, respectively. Interference questions asked participants to ratethe degree to which thoughts, feelings, memories, and so forth, impeded them from doing their best during thedifficult and normal moments of competitions. Believability questions asked to what degree participants believedthose thoughts, feeling, memories, and so forth, during both moments of competitions. The scores of theinterference and believability questions were averaged for both normal and difficult moments. As with the FCRscores, the withinsubject criterion for pre-post change was set as a 25% reduction in the average interferenceand believability scores. Acceptance-Based Protocol The experimental protocol was similar to the one used in Ruiz and Luciano (2009), which is also described indetail in Luciano, Valdivia- Salas, Gutiérrez-Martínez, Ruiz, and Páez-Blarrina (2009), and was based on Hayeset al. (1999) and Wilson and Luciano (2002). It was designed to (a) promote the experience of creativehopelessness in the context of a valued trajectory and (b) practice acceptance in such a context by means ofcognitive defusion. Both components were applied to each of the five most frequent counterproductivereactions, as assessed by the CCRQ for each participant. Creative hopelessness exercises involved severalinteractions in which the protocol looked for the participants to realize the consequences of their reactions tounwanted private events in both the short and the long term. Defusion exercises involved teaching participantsto differentiate between the person who is having the unwanted private events and the very private events asthey emerge. Defusion was promoted through multiple-exemplar training with multiple thoughts and sensations.The interactions involved in creative hopelessness and cognitive defusion components will be illustrated withthe most frequent and counterproductive reaction found in this study: "spending too much time figuring out thebest move because of uncertainty." This process was similarly repeated with the other remainingcounterproductive reactions. Functional analysis of the chess problems and creative hopelessness in the context of a valued trajectory. Thepsychologist asked several questions in order for participants to experience in that moment the consequencesof the counterproductive reactions. A typical sequence of questions and answers follows: (a) What are thesensations or thoughts you do not like while playing in competitions? (The participant said, "Uncertain thoughtsor having fear of making mistakes"); (b) What do you do when these thoughts show up? (The participant said,"Think too much and not move"); (c) What are the reasons for thinking too long? (The participants said, "Toavoid mistakes"); (d) How do you feel when doing that? Do you have the feeling of reducing uncertainty? (Theparticipant said, "Mostly in such a moment, but it comes back"); (e) Do you feel as if you are experiencinguncertainty more frequently while playing chess? (The participant said, "Yes, I am really worried about this");and (f ) You know what it is like to play well. Would you describe your playing in that way? (The participant said,"Not really. It could be much better"). All participants thought that what they were doing was the best strategy;however, they recognized that they played with acceptable quality during the first phases of the game but withpoor quality in later ones. Subsequently, the experimenter proceeded by introducing the "man in the hole" metaphor (Hayes et al., 1999;Wilson &Luciano, 2002) as an analogy for the paradoxical rules the participants were following when dealingwith uncertain thoughts. The aim of this metaphor was to help the chess player realize the consequences ofoveranalyzing chess moves by establishing a physical relation between trying to dig himself out of a hole,making the hole deeper and putting himself even further away from getting out. The participants connected thatwith what they were doing (e.g., one of the participants put it this way: "Yes, although thinking too much issomething I like because it makes me feel secure, and it seems like a good idea, the fact is that it makes myhole bigger..,. Yes, uncertain thoughts return many times during the game and I am wasting time. I am beingrushed and playing poorly. . . .What can I do?"). The swamp metaphor (Gutiérrez, Luciano, Rodríguez, &Fink, 2004; Hayes et al., 1999) was then introduced to

promote the acceptance of uncertainty within the context of trying to obtain an optimal performance. Participantswere told that sometimes playing is like crossing a swamp in order to achieve what you value and thatsometimes it is necessary to be willing to walk through a humid, dirty swamp full of insects, mud, and disgustingsmells. In other words, pragmatic chess playing sometimes involves fully experiencing uncertain thoughts whilemoving within a prudent amount of time. Participants were then told that according to what they were experiencing, the sensations of uncertainty wouldcontinue to appear whenever they chose to play chess. Consequently, two options would be available: (a) beingwilling to play while having doubts or (b) trying to control the doubts. Participants were asked what they wantedto choose. All participants chose the first option. The defusion component of the protocol was thenimplemented, to help participants move while having doubts. Practicing defusion through multiple exercises. The aim of this practice was to promote the ability to experiencethe seif as a context for all private events: to learn to differentiate between the person who is having the thoughtor sensation and the thought or sensation itself, and as these private events emerge, to learn to bringthemselves back to the relevant actual task. To undertake this goal, a physical metaphor and an experiential exercise were used. The physical metaphorwas implemented as follows. The participant was told that making a good use of time is like choosing to walk acertain route, for example, moving toward the room exit. Then, when the participant began to walk, thepsychologist stood in his way and said the thoughts that the chess player had typically derived during thegames (e.g., "You have to figure out the best move, if not you are going to lose"). The participant then tried tododge the psychologist, but the psychologist stood again in his way. The exercise finished when the participanttook the psychologist's hand (as if it the psychologist would be his uncertainty, his fear of making a mistake oroverthinking the play) and continued on his path as if he were making a move with his uncertain thoughts. The "leaves on a stream" exercise was then introduced (Hayes et al., 1999) by inviting the participant todifferentiate the thoughts from the person who was having them. Each participant was invited to recall particularmoments in which he had experienced uncertainty, doubts, wasted time, and so forth. He was asked to fullyconcentrate on one of these thoughts; notice who was having the thought; and imagine that he put the thoughton a leaf in a tree, that the weight of the thought caused the leaf to fall into the river, and that the river swept theleaf away with its current. Finally, the participant was asked to bring himself back to the actual task by noticinganother thought. The same exercise was repeated with at least five other problematic thoughts. At the end, the participant wasasked to notice that he was more than his thoughts and that he was in charge of responding to the gameposition and not to his thoughts. Finally, each participant was invited to practice noticing any thought that mightshow up and bringing himself back to the relevant task during future games and tournaments. The protocol wasfinished once creative hopelessness and defusion exercises were implemented with the five counterproductivereactions. Procedure Figure 1 shows an overview of the procedure. A between-conditions design was used with five participants ineach condition. First, five participants were recruited to participate in the experimental condition. Another fivechess players were then selected for the nocontact control condition (see the Participants section for selectioncriteria). The ELO performances obtained from FIDE's database from the last 7 months were calculated. Nointerventions and no questionnaires were given to no-contact control participants, but their performance wasassessed during the study. The acceptance-based protocol was delivered by the first author. He is an experienced chess player and waspreviously trained and supervised in ACT by the second author. The protocol was implemented during atournament in two to three sessions (one session per day), depending on the tournament's characteristics. If theplayer's tournament had two games per day, there were three sessions lasting around 75 min each, and if the

player's tournament had one game per day, there were two 2-hr sessions. Although the number of sessionsvaried, all protocols lasted 4 hr in total. The tournaments' organizers introduced the psychologist to each experimental participant when they arrived totheir respective tournaments. The psychologist then explained that the aim of the intervention was to determineand help to resolve the problems that typically emerge during chess games. All experimental participantsconfirmed their participation in the study. They were then asked to complete the two questionnaires (first theAAQ-II and then the CCRQ) and the interference and believability questions with the purpose of selectingindividual intervention targets. Finally, the psychologist and each participant set up an appointment for the firstsession in order to implement the protocol. Each chess player and the therapist selected the five most frequent counterproductive reactions and thethoughts/sensations preceding these reactions using the participant's CCRQ results. These five reactions werethe focus of the treatment. The most frequent counterproductive and common reactions across all participantswere the following (from most to least frequent): (a) not moving because of doubts, (b) not being focused on thegame because of negative thoughts (e.g., "This tournament will be a disaster"), (c) not concentrating andplaying in an unfocused manner because of "feeling anxious" about a lack of time, (d) relaxing and notconcentrating due to thinking that "the game is won," (e) losing concentration because of "being worried" aboutother non-chess problems, and (f) changing playing style to avoid "losing as in other games." Upon finishing the protocol implementation, experimental participants were told that they would receive somequestionnaires by electronic mail. The AAQ-II and CCRQ questionnaires, as well as the interference andbelievability questions, were sent at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last session. All participants returned thequestionnaires. The chess results of the participants in both the experimental and the no-contact controlcondition were followed during the 7 months after the intervention. Integrity of the Protocol Implementation All intervention sessions were audio -recorded and rated by two trained raters for adherence to the treatmentprotocol, including the specific questions for the functional analysis and the number of counterproductivereactions and the exercises and metaphors for generating creative hopelessness and defusion. Raters weredoctoral students with formal training in ACT. An interobserver agreement of 100% was obtained for allsessions with regard to the main characteristics of the protocol. Results Outcome Measures Table 1 shows that participants in both conditions did not differ in their average 7-month pretreatment ELOperformances in tournaments (control and experimental means were, respectively, M = 2,461.6, SD = 67.79,and M = 2,431, SD = 48.6, with no significant differences according to the independent sample t test, p = .44).However, average 7-month follow-up ELO performances in tournaments were statistically different, favoring theexperimental condition (p = .03; control: M = 2,451.4, SD = 73.91; experimental: M = 2,501.4, SD = 50.36).Regarding within-group comparisons, only the experimental condition showed statistically significant resultsbetween pretreatment and follow-up (p <.01). The effect sizes of the experimental condition were relevant forboth within conditions (d = 1.42) and between conditions (d = .79). Descriptive within-subject analysis indicated that all experimental participants improved their performanceduring the 7 months of follow-up with respect to the corresponding same number of games played during the 7months before the intervention (number of games for Pl to P5, respectively: 47, 45, 79, 45, and 29; see Figure2). The increased progress in ELO performance exceeded the criterion for pre-post change (i.e., an increasegreater than 40 ELO performance points) in all the participants, with a range of individual effect sizes from d =.5 to d = 1.24 (see Table 1). There were no relevant improvements in the average ELO performance in the no-contact condition (number of games for Pl to P5, respectively: 47, 36, 37, 43, and 54). Moreover, one of theparticipants (PlO) showed a significant decline in his performance. No statistically significant differences were

found in the number of games played during the 7-month follow-up (experimental condition: M = 49, SD =18.28; control condition: M = 43.4, SD = 7.44; U = 10.5, p = .33, one-tailed). Process Measures Pretreatment AAQ-II scores for all participants except one were low (for Pl, P2, P3, P4, and P5, respectively,26, 23, 19, 22, and 48). Table 2 shows that only the participant with a high score at pretreatment (P5) exceededthe criterion for pre-post change at the 6-month follow-up (i.e., at least a 15% reduction; participant decreasedfrom 48 to 24), whereas P4 showed an increase of more than 15%. All experimental participants progressivelymet the FCR criterion for pre-post change (see Table 2). For Pl to P5, the pretreatment to 6-month follow-upFCR changes were, respectively, from 7 to 3.8, from 6.6 to 4, from 4.8 to 2, from 4.8 to 3.6, and from 7.4 to 5.2.Differences between pretreatment and the 6-month follow-up were statistically significant (z = -2.02, p = .02,one-tailed), and the effect size was very large (d = 2.02). Table 2 also shows that three of the five participants reached the criterion for pre-post change in interference ofprivate events during competitions at the 6-month follow-up (Pl: from 69 to 38; P2: from 48 to 17; P3: from 47 to27). P5 showed a decrease from 57 to 45 points and P4 an increase from 14 to 26. Differences betweenpretreatment and 6-month follow-up were significant (pretreatment: M = 41.8, SD = 23.39; 6-month follow-up: M= 26.1, SD = 15.62; z = -1.76, p = .04, one-tailed). Four of the five participants showed the criterion for pre-postchange in believability of private events at the 6-month follow-up (Pl: from 75 to 19; P2: from 44 to 11; P3: from45 to 19; P5: from 66 to 33; see Table 2). P4 showed an increase from 12 to 27 points. Differences were alsostatistically significant from pretreatment to the 6-month follow-up (pretreatment: M = 43.3, SD = 27.52; 6-monthfollow-up: M = 18.8, SD = 11.47; z = -1.75, p = .04, one-tailed). The effect sizes were large in both interference(d = .79) and believability (d = 1.16). Exploratory Process Analyses According to the characteristics of the current study (e.g., small sample, no-contact control condition), onlysimple linear regression analyses with one independent variable were conducted to explore possible processesof change. We analyzed whether both pretreatment measures and early changes at the 3-month follow-uppredicted the effect sizes of the intervention. Changes at the 1-month follow-up were not taken into accountbecause some chess players (Pl, P2, and P5) did not play any new tournaments during that period (about 80%of games were played between the third and seventh months); therefore, these participants' scores in chess-related measures were not expected to significantly change. According to a previous study (Ruiz &Luciano,2009), it was expected that the intervention would show higher effects in participants with high scores in FCR,believability, and interference of private events. Likewise, early decreases in those measures were expected topredict the individual effect sizes of the intervention. Pretreatment scores in FCR, interference, and believability of private events significantly predicted the individualeffect sizes of the intervention (FCR: β = .96, p = .005, one-tailed; interference: β = .97, p = .003, one-tailed;believability: β = .96, p = .005, one-tailed); however, AAQ-II scores did not (β = .54, p = .18, one-tailed). BothFCR and believability decreases at the 3-month follow-up significantly predicted the individual effects of theintervention (FCR: β = .91, p = .016, one-tailed; believability: β = .81, p = .048, one-tailed). Interference andAAQ-II decreases did not reach statistically significant levels of prediction (interference: β = .78, p = .061, one-tailed; AAQ-II: β = .56, p = .16, one-tailed). Discussion Practical Significance of the Results The main and objective variable used to analyze the impact of the experimental protocol is ELO performance.Accordingly, the data obtained during the 7 months before the intervention showed that participants in bothconditions performed at roughly the same level. However, all experimental chess players improved theirperformance up to 40 ELO performance points (the criterion for pre-post change) during the 7 months after theimplementation of the acceptance-based protocol. Consequently, all of these participants obtained better

classifications in tournaments during follow-up. On the contrary, this effect did not occur in any of the no-contactmatched participants, who only showed the typical small fluctuations in ELO performance that are the norm inchess players' careers after they reach a certain level of play (EIo, 1978; Rowson, 2000). Based on this finding,we can assume that the change achieved in the experimental participants might be evaluated as relevant in thechess context. However, it might be argued that the change in the experimental participants' ELO performance was the resultof an experimental artifact instead of the protocol. This might be due to the fact that the no-contact participantsdid not have any interaction with the experimenter and did not respond to the questionnaires that theexperimental participants were given. Additionally, there might be motivational differences between participantsin both conditions because of the different means of recruitment. Although this is a clear limitation of this study,given the literature about enhancement of sports performance, we do not believe that the unusual and relevantchange in ELO performance would have occurred simply because these participants responded to thequestionnaires or interacted with the experimenter. In spite of this, further research with better control conditionsis needed to isolate the effects of the acceptance-based protocol. Process Analysis The general experiential avoidance scores, as measured by the AAQ-II, remained relatively the same after theintervention. Two interrelated reasons might be relevant here. One is that the AAQ-II is a general questionnairethat has proved its utility in measuring processes of change in the clinical arena (see Hayes et al., 2006; Ruiz,2010). However, the AAQ-II might not be sufficiently sensitive when experiential avoidance is not a generalizedstrategy but is instead centered on specific areas of one's life, as is the case for most chess players. A secondreason is that the participants' AAQ-II scores in this study were low at preintervention. In support to this lastpossibility, it is worth noting that only the participant who had a high AAQ-II score at pretreatment (P5) showeda significant reduction in this score. Because the other four participants showed low AAQ-II scores atpretreatment, a floor effect could explain why their scores remained at roughly the same level. Accordingly, itseems that future research should incorporate an adaptation of the AAQ that is more sensitive to specificprivate barriers such as the ones analyzed in this study, instead of a general questionnaire such as the AAQ-II.This strategy has been followed in other areas where versions of the AAQ that have been adapted to addressspecific problems have been used (e.g., in tobacco addiction [Gifford et al., 20041, diabetes [Gregg, Callaghan,Hayes, &Glenn-Lawson, 2007], and pain [McCracken, Vowles, &Eccleston, 2004]). When looking to chess-related measures, we found significant reductions in the FCR, interference, andbelievability scores. We also found that higher pretreatment scores for all of these measures significantlypredicted the individual effect sizes of the experimental condition. This might suggest that previous levels ofchess-related experiential avoidance and cognitive fusion could be moderators in the ACT intervention. Inaddition, initial changes in FCR and believability scores also predicted the effect sizes of the experimentalcondition. This suggests that reductions in FCR and believability scores could be the process of changeinvolved in the ACT condition. However, although both suggestions are consistent with the ACT model, theyshould be considered as preliminary and somewhat speculative because formal mediation and moderatoranalyses cannot be carried out with the design used in this study. With respect to the individual results, all participants except P4 showed consistent changes in the processmeasures with the ACT model. Although P4 showed an improvement in chess performance and a reduction inFCR scores, he also increased his interference, believability, and AAQ-II scores. This might be related to thefact that his scores in these measures were very low at pretreatment. Strengths and Limitations The main limitations of the current study are that the number of participants was small and that the participantswere not randomly assigned into the two conditions. In addition, the condition used to contrast the effect of theacceptance-based protocol was a no-contact condition. These limitations might be relevant to the study for a

number of reasons. First, positive expectations and higher motivation by subjects in the ACT condition, ifpresent, could have led some subjects in that condition to improve performance for reasons beyond theirexposure to ACT. Second, we did not know what effect the presence of the psychologist acting as experimenteror the administration of the questionnaires had on the participants' performances. Finally, some of the measures(CCRQ and the interference and believability questions) have no established validity and reliability, and thusobserved changes on these measures could occur for reasons other than the ACT intervention. To balance these limitations, this study was conducted considering most of the relevant features recommendedin sport psychology research (e.g., Martin, Vause, &Schwarzman, 2005). For example, participants competedon a regular and organized basis, performance was measured directly with a reliable and valid chessperformance measure, participants were international-level chess players, and the follow-up was relatively long. Conclusion In spite of the aforementioned limitations, the current study extends and advances the results obtained by Ruizand Luciano (2009) with promising young chess players. The present results show that a brief 4-hr ACTintervention can be sufficient for reducing counterproductive reactions during chess competitions and forimproving internationallevel chess players' performance. Considering the results of this study and other recentones in sports performance enhancement (e.g., Bernier et al., 2009; Fernández et al., 2004; Gardner 8t Moore,2004, 2007; Lutkenhouse, 2007; Schwanhausser, 2009), we can suggest that brief acceptance-basedinterventions could be useful for improving human performance when experiential avoidance, in a context ofcognitive fusion, is present during performance. Therefore, ACT emerges as a potential alternative to PSTinterventions. Contrary to PST, ACT adopts a functional-analytical approach to cognition. Accordingly, ACTdoes not look for changes in the content of private events but in the discriminative functions of thoughts andsensations in a way that allows the participants to respond more effectively to task demands. Future studies arerecommended to compare the differential efficacy of ACT versus PST interventions in sport psychology. References References BARNES-HOLMES, D., HAVES, S. C., &DYMOND, s. (2001). Self and self-directed rules. In S. C. Hayes, D.Barnes-Holmes, &B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory. A post-Skinnerian account of human language andcognition (pp. 119-139). New York, NY: Plenum Press. BERNIER, M., THiENOT1 E., CODRON, R., &FOURNiER, J. F. (2009). Mindfulness and acceptanceapproaches in sport performance. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4, 320-333. BOND, F. W., &FLAXMAN, p. E. (2006). The ability of psychological flexibility and job control to predict learning,job performance, and mental health. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 26, 113-130. doi:10.1300/J075v26n01_05 BOND, F. W., HAYES, S. C-, BAER, R. A., CARPENTER, K. M., GUENOLE, N., ORCUTT, H. K., ... ZETTLE,R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II: A revisedmeasure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 676-688. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007 ELO, A. (1978). The rating of chess players, past and present. New York, NY: Arco. FERNÁNDEZ, R., SECADES, R-, TERRADOS, N., GARCÍA, E., &GARCÍA, J. M. (2004). Efecto de la hipnosisy de la terapia de aceptación y compromiso (ACT) en la mejora de la fuerza física en piragüistas [Effect ofhypnosis and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) in improving canoeists' physical strength].International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 4, 481-493. GARDNER, F. L. (2009). Efficacy, mechanisms of change, and the scientific development of sport psychology.Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 3, 139-155. GARDNER, F. L., &MOORE, z. E. (2004). A mindfulness-acceptance-commitment-based approach to athletic

performance enhancement: Theoretical considerations. Behavior Therapy, 35, 707-723. doi: 10.1016/30005-7894(04)80016-9 GARDNER, F. L., &MOORE, z. E. (2006). Clinical sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. GARDNER, F. L., &MOORE, z. E. (2007). The psychology of enhancing human performance. The mindfulness-acceptance-commitment (MAC) approach. New York, NY: Springer. GIFFORD, E. V-, KOHLENBERG, B. S-, HAYES, S. C-, ANTONUCCIO, D. O-, PIASECKI, M. M.,RASMUSSEN-HALL, M. L., &PALM, K. M. (2004). Acceptance theory-based treatment for smoking cessation:An initial trial of acceptance and commitment therapy. Behavior Therapy, 35, 689-706. doi: 10.1016/50005-7894(04)80015-7 GOODING, A., &GARDNER, F. L. (2009). An investigation of the relationship between mindfulness, preshotroutine, and basketball free throw percentage. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4, 303-319. GREGG, J. A., CALLAGHAN, G. M., HAYES, S. C-, &GLENN-LAWSON, J. L. (2007). Improving diabetes self-management through acceptance, mindfulness, and values: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 75, 336-343. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.2.336 GUTIÉRREZ, o., LUCIANO, C., RODRÍGUEZ, M., &FINK, B. (2004). Comparison between an acceptance-based and a cognitive-control-based protocol for coping with pain. Behavior Therapy, 35, 767-783. doi:10.1016/30005-7894(04)80019-4 HARDY, L., JONES, G., &GOULD, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory andpractice of elite performers. New York, NY: John Wiley &Sons. HAYES, S. C., BARNES-HOLMES, D., &ROCHE, B. (EDS.). (2001). Relational frame theory. A post-skinnerianaccount of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic. HAYES, S. C., LUOMA, J. B., BOND, F., MASUDA, ?., &LiLLis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitmenttherapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 1-25. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006 HAYES, S. C., &STROSAHL, K. D. (2004). Apracticai guide to acceptance and commitment therapy. New York,NY: Springer -Verlag. HAYES, S. C., STROSAHL, ?. a, &WILSON, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy. Anexperiential approach to behavior change. New York, NY: Guilford. HAYES, S. C-, WILSON, K. G-, GIFFORD, E. V-, FOLLETTE, V. M., &STROSAHL, K. D. (1996). Experientialavoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1152-1168. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.64.6.1152 KRÍZ, M., VOKAL, E., &KRÍZOVÁ, M. (1990). Odraz psychického zatazenia na niektoré somatické abiochemické paramètre u atypického sportového odvetvia [The impact of psychological stress on somatic andbiochemical parameters in an atypical sports discipline]. Ceskoslovenske Zdravotnictvi, 11, 479-485. KROGIUS, N. v. (1972). La psicología en ajedrez [The psychology of chess], Barcelona, Spain: Martínez Roca. LÓPEZ, J. C-, RUIZ, F. J., FEDER, J., BARBERO-RUBIO, ?., SUARE Z-AGUIRRE, J. J., RODRÍGUEZ, J. ?.,&LUCIANO, C. (2010). The role of experiential avoidance in the performance on a high cognitive demand task.International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10, 475-488. LUCIANO, C., &HAYES, S. C. (2001). Trastorno de evitación experiencial [Experiential avoidance disorder].International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 1, 109-157. LUCIANO, C., RODRÍGUEZ, M., &GUTIÉRREZ, o. (2004). A proposal for synthesizing verbal context inexperiential avoidance disorder and acceptance and commitment therapy. International Journal of Psychologyand Psychological Therapy, 4, 377-394. LUCIANO, C-, VALDIVIA-SALAS, S-, GUTIÉRREZ-MARTÍNEZ, 0-, RUIZ, F. J., &PAEZ-BLARRINA, M. (2009).Brief acceptance-based protocols applied to the work with adolescents. International Journal of Psychology andPsychological Therapy, 9, 237-257.

LUTKENHOUSE, J. M. (2007). The case of Jenny: A freshman collegiate athlete experiencing performancedysfunction. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 1, 166-180. MARTIN, G. L., VAUSE, T, &SCHWARZMAN, L. (2005). Experimental studies of psychological interventionswith athletes in competitions. Why so few? Behavior Modification, 29, 616-641. doi:10.1177/0145445503259394 MCCRACKEN, L. M., VOWLES, K. E., &ECCLESTON, c. (2004). Acceptance of chronic pain: Componentanlaysis and revised assessment method. Pain, 107, 159-166. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2003.10.012 NUNN, J. (1998). Secrets of practical chess. London, England: Gambit. PFLEGER, H., STOCKER, ?., PABST, H., &HARALAMBiE, G. (1980). Sportmedizinische Untersuchung anschachspierlern der Spitzenklasse [Sports medical examination of top class chess players]. MunchenerMedizinische Wochenschrift, 28, 10411044. ROWSON, J. (2000). The seven deadly chess sins. London, England: Gambit. RUiz, F. J. (2006). Aplicación de la terapia de aceptación y compromiso (ACT) para el incremento delrendimiento ajedrecístico. Un estudio de caso [Application of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) forimproving chess performance. A case study]. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 6,77-97. RUiZ, F. J. (2010). A review of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) empirical evidence: Correlational,experimental psychopathology, component and outcome studies. International Journal of Psychology andPsychological Therapy, 10, 125-162. RUIZ, F. J-, LANGER, A. L, LUCIANO, C-, CANGAS, A. J., &BELTRAN, I. (in press). Measuring experientialavoidance and psychological inflexibility: the Spanish translation of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II.Psicothema. RUIZ, R j., &LUCIANO, C. (2009). Eficacia de la terapia de aceptación y compromiso (ACT) en la mejora delrendimiento ajedrecístico de jóvenes promesas [Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and improvingchess performance in promising young chess players]. Psicothema, 21, 347-352. SCHWANHAUSSER, L. (2009). Application of the mindfulness-acceptance-commitment (M AC) protocol withan adolescent springboard diver. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4, 377-395. WHELAN, J., MAHONEY, M., &MEYERS, A. (1991). Performance enhancement in sport: A cognitive-behavioral domain. Behavior Therapy, 22, 307-327, doi: 10.1016 /30005-7894(05)80369-7 WILSON, K. G-, &LUCIANO, M. c. (2002). Terapia de aceptación y compromiso (ACT). Un tratamientoconductual orientado a los valores [Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). A behavioral treatmentoriented to personal values]. Madrid, Spain: Pirámide. ZETTLE, R. D., PETERSEN, C. L., HOCKER, T. R., &PROVINES, J. L. (2007). Responding to a challengingperceptual-motor task as a function of level of experiential avoidance. The Psychological Record, 57, 49-62. AuthorAffiliation Francisco J. Ruiz and Carmen Luciano Universidad de Almería AuthorAffiliation This research was partially supported with l+D+i funds from Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Spain(SEJ05845), and Junta de Andalucía, Spain (Research Group HUM-1093). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Francisco J. Ruiz, Departamento dePersonalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, 04120, Universidad de Almería, Almería, Spain. E-mail:frj939@ual.es Materia: Chess; Renovation & restoration; Cognition & reasoning; Studies; Emotions; Human performance;Intervention;

Título: IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL-LEVEL CHESS PLAYERS' PERFORMANCE WITH AN ACCEPTANCE-BASED PROTOCOL: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Autor: Ruiz, Francisco J; Luciano, Carmen Título de publicación: The Psychological Record Tomo: 62 Número: 3 Páginas: 447-461 Número de páginas: 15 Año de publicación: 2012 Fecha de publicación: Summer 2012 Año: 2012 Editorial: Association for Behavior Analysis International, The Psychological Record Lugar de publicación: Portage País de publicación: United States Materia de publicación: Psychology ISSN: 00332933 CODEN: PYRCAI Tipo de fuente: Scholarly Journals Idioma de la publicación: English Tipo de documento: Feature Características del documento: Graphs Tables References ID del documento de ProQuest: 1030424417 URL del documento: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030424417?accountid=14609 Copyright: Copyright The Psychological Record Summer 2012 Última actualización: 2014-07-05 Base de datos: ProQuest Research Library

BibliografíaCitation style: APA 6th - American Psychological Association, 6th Edition

Francisco, J. R., & Luciano, C. (2012). IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL-LEVEL CHESS PLAYERS'PERFORMANCE WITH AN ACCEPTANCE-BASED PROTOCOL: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS. ThePsychological Record, 62(3), 447-461. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/1030424417?accountid=14609

_______________________________________________________________ Contactar con ProQuest Copyright 2014 ProQuest LLC. Reservados todos los derechos. - Términos y condiciones