

A Mental Strategy to Shrink the Gap

Between Your Best Playing and What
Happens Under Pressure
By Noa Kageyama, Ph.D.

A Mental Tweak to Reduce the Gap Between Your Best Playing and What Happens Under
Pressure

For me, the days leading up to an audition or competition were often way more stressful and
unpleasant than the actual event itself. And inevitably, I’d play some funky mind games in an
effort to relieve some of the pressure of doing well.

Like trying to convince myself that I didn’t care if I won the prize or passed the audition. And
brainstorming all of the reasons why winning may not be such a good thing.

With my Juilliard audition, for instance, I thought all of the possible downsides of going to
school in the city. Like the constant traffic noise. How gross the subways get when it rains or
snows. The lack of intramural sports. A dining hall that wasn’t all-you-can-eat. You know, all
the important stuff.

Of course, that didn’t do much to relieve any pressure. And I don’t know that trying to lie to
myself helped me perform any better either.

There is, however, a different kind of mental technique – known as “cognitive reappraisal” – that
does seem to help us get to a better emotional place, and perform closer to our best.

What does that look like, exactly?

Loss aversion and choking

A team of Cal Tech and Johns Hopkins researchers have published a series of studies over the
last few years that have continued to add to our understanding of why we sometimes choke under
pressure.

1
In a 2014 study (Chib, Shimojo, & O’Doherty), they found that people who were high in loss
aversion1 tended to choke when there was more money to gain by performing well (e.g. If you
perform well, you’ll win $100). But curiously, when the situation was flipped, and they had to
perform well in order to avoid having money taken away from them, they performed much better
(e.g. If you perform poorly, you’ll lose $100).

Which sounds like the opposite of what you’d expect, but an MRI component of the study
suggested that it was as if the participants’ brains kind of flipped during performance, seeing the
prize as something they had to lose if they failed. A little like going into an audition, and feeling
the pressure build as you think about how great an opportunity it is, and stressing about how
perfectly you’ll have to play in order to avoid losing the Instagram-perfect future that your brain
has gotten attached to.

Anyhow, this finding led the researchers to wonder if it would be possible to get into a more
optimal headspace by simply imagining that they were performing to keep what was already
theirs.

Gain vs. loss

They started with 42 participants (Dunne, Chib, Berleant, & O’Doherty, 2018), and gave them
some time to learn a challenging new motor skill (a task akin to learning a new tricky move in a
computer game).

The next day, participants returned for some testing. With real money at stake – as much as $100
if they could perform the skill accurately.

To test out the gain vs. loss mental strategy, they asked the participants to approach half of the
performance attempts from a play-to-keep-your-money perspective. Like so:

When the word Loss appears on screen, you should regard the monetary incentives shown at the
beginning of each round as “your” money. Imagine the amount, in cash, sitting in your pocket as
you complete the round. Imagine that, if you are successful on the round, you will get to keep
your money, but if you are unsuccessful, you will have to give this money to the experimenter.
Imagine how it would feel to lose this money. You should continue to think about the incentives
in this way throughout each round until you see the word Gain appear on screen.

On the other half of their performance attempts, they were asked to adopt a play-to-win-some-
money perspective:

When the word Gain appears on screen, you should imagine that you begin each round with no
money in your pocket. Regard the monetary incentive as an amount of money that you have the
opportunity to win. Imagine that if you are successful on the round, the experimenter will give
you this money, in cash, but if you are unsuccessful you will end the round as you began—with
nothing. Imagine how it would feel to gain this money. You should continue to think about the
incentives in this way throughout each round until you see the word Loss appear on screen.

2
In reality, of course, they didn’t already have any money in their “account,” and would only win
money if they performed successfully. Which the participants were reminded of, before they
began.

So did this imaginary framing of the situation do anything?

Results
The short answer is yes.

It didn’t matter so much when there wasn’t much money at stake ($0-$75). But when they were
playing for more money ($100), and adopted the play-to-win perspective (i.e. I have nothing and
need to perform well to win $100), they tended to perform worse.

Meanwhile, on the performance attempts when they adopted the play-to-keep perspective (i.e. I
already have $100, and I get to keep this if I perform well), they performed pretty close to their
best.

While performance dropped by 6.7% in the play-to-win scenario for the individual with an
average amount of loss aversion, performance dropped by only 1.5% in the play-to-keep
scenario.

So what are we to do with this information?

Pre-experiencing success
Well, this reminded me of a story my mom once told me when I was nervous before a big
performance.

When she came to the US, her first job was as an instructor in the Japanese department at Cornell
University. Though she could obviously speak Japanese, her English wasn’t great, she didn’t
have much teaching experience, and being not a whole lot older than her students, she was
understandably nervous going into her first class.

To prepare herself mentally, she visualized what a successful class and semester would look like.
She envisioned a classroom of smiling students, who were fully engaged. She saw them coming
up and thanking her at the end of class. And imagined them expressing their gratitude for her
help, and saying how much they enjoyed the course when the semester came to an end.

She visualized this scenario repeatedly, to the point that it no longer seemed like such a stretch.

And, wouldn’t you know it, this is exactly how things played out.

Her students were grateful, engaged, and she found that approaching each new class of students
assuming they would love her teaching, worked much better than going into a new class

3
expecting to have to prove herself. In fact, when she married my dad and they moved to Ohio,
her boss asked if she would consider flying in to continue teaching.

As a kid, I kind of rolled my eyes and didn’t quite see how I could engage in this kind of make-
believe – but the study suggests that there may be something to this.

How could this be applied to performing, exactly?

Engaging mindset vs. proving mindset

Well, imagine walking into a concert hall full of people who you believe are primed and ready to
love whatever you’ve prepared for them. Where you have nothing to prove, and your job is
simply to keep them engaged, sharing the little nuances and details that you think are cool in the
music you’re playing.

Alternately, imagine walking into a concert hall filled with people who are sitting back and
waiting for you to prove yourself to them. Whom you need to win over, by demonstrating that
you’re worthy of their approval and attention.

Feel any different?

Whether it’s the audience in your next performance or recital, an audition committee, or
competition jury, if a proving mindset makes us tighten up and spiral off to the bad place inside,
maybe it’s worth giving ourselves permission to adopt an engaging mindset. And imagining that
we already have their attention and positive regard.

After all, there’s no way for us to know – let alone change – what’s really going on in their
heads. Heck, for all we know, the slight frown on their face has nothing to do with our Mozart,
and simply means they’re pondering how best to rearrange their sock drawer and spark more joy.

Reference
Chib, V. S., Shimojo, S., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2014). The Effects of Incentive Framing on
Performance Decrements for Large Monetary Outcomes: Behavioral and Neural Mechanisms.
Journal of Neuroscience, 34(45), 14833–14844.

Dunne, S., Chib, V. S., Berleant, J., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2018). Reappraisal of incentives
ameliorates choking under pressure and is correlated with changes in the neural representations
of incentives. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 14(1), 13–22.

4
About Noa Kageyama, Ph.D.

Performance psychologist and Juilliard alumnus & faculty member Noa Kageyama teaches
musicians how to beat performance anxiety and play their best under pressure through live
classes, coachings, and an online home-study course. Based in NYC, he is married to a terrific
pianist, has two hilarious kids, and is a wee bit obsessed with technology and all things Apple.
\

© Bulletproof Musician | Disclosures | Credits