Was it a clutch performance? A qualitative exploration of the definitional boundaries of clutch performance

Clutch performance—broadly positive performance under pressure—has attracted longstanding research and media interest but remains ambiguously defined. Key definitions diverge on whether clutch requires improved performance (Otten, 2009) or the maintenance of ability despite pressure and with impact on outcome (Hibbs, 2010). This divergence affects measurement (e.g., whether “clutch performers” exist in archival analyses) and hinders theory development, as predictions depend on what is being defined (increased vs. maintained performance). Another unresolved issue is the benchmark against which performance is judged (e.g., career average, season average, same-game performance). The present study aimed to clarify these definitional boundaries by exploring athletes’ perceptions of (1) what performance level constitutes a clutch performance (increased vs. maintained), and (2) what benchmarks athletes use to compare performances when judging them as clutch. An event-focused qualitative approach was selected to capture athletes’ context-dependent assessments soon after a successful performance under pressure.

Prior work presents conflicting definitions: Otten (2009) frames clutch as superior performance increments under pressure, while Hibbs (2010) defines it as performing to one’s ability despite pressure, with consequential impact on outcomes. Archival studies examining clutch across sports (baseball, basketball, tennis) often find little evidence for performance elevation in pressure moments when using statistical benchmarks (e.g., Wallace et al., 2013). However, conclusions depend on the adopted definition and benchmark; under a maintenance criterion, interpretations might differ. Benchmarks have varied widely: career averages, prior seasons, same season, projections, same-game comparisons, and teammate-relative metrics, complicating cross-study synthesis. Qualitative research has typically explored characteristics of clutch episodes or psychological states (e.g., flow vs. clutch states) rather than how athletes decide a performance was clutch or which benchmarks they apply. The literature thus indicates the need to ground definitions in athletes’ perspectives, clarify performance thresholds, and standardize or justify benchmarks.

Philosophical approach: Realist ontology with constructionist epistemology, acknowledging a single reality but socially constructed knowledge; researchers adopted a reflexive stance given prior work on clutch performance. Design: Qualitative, event-focused semi-structured interviews to capture context-rich, chronological accounts shortly after a successful performance under pressure. Participants: N = 24 athletes (19 male, 5 female; M_age = 27.13, SD = 5.78) from Australia (n = 22), New Zealand (n = 1), and Ireland (n = 1), spanning competitive-elite to recreational levels and sports including soccer (n = 6), rugby union (n = 4), rugby sevens (n = 4), half-marathon (n = 2), rugby league (n = 2), 5000 m (n = 1), golf (n = 1), basketball (n = 1), camogie (n = 1), triathlon (n = 1), submission grappling (n = 1). Inclusion required a recent objectively or subjectively successful performance under pressure. Interviews occurred on average 93.08 hours (SD = 43.18) post-event; mean duration 46.29 minutes (SD = 11.26). Sampling and recruitment: Purposive sampling via (1) in-person recruitment at high-pressure events (finals, knockouts), and (2) snowballing through contacts. Recruitment avoided using the term “clutch” to reduce bias; pressure experience was confirmed. Procedure: Ethical approval obtained; interviews were conducted in person (n = 2), via Zoom (n = 3), or telephone (n = 19), with rapport-building strategies. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and accuracy-checked. Interview guide: Explored (i) perceptions of clutch/performance under pressure, (ii) reflections on event performance, (iii) chronological recall of pressure/performance fluctuations, and (iv) how performance was judged and against what benchmark. A shared working definition—positive performance under pressure—was established for discussion. Sample size rationale: Information power considerations (narrow aims, dense specificity, theory use, strong dialogue, cross-case analysis) supported N=24. Analysis and rigor: Reflexive thematic analysis with abductive logic; initial coding to single ideas, organized into themes. Critical friends engaged throughout (guide development, interview feedback, code/theme review). Emphasis on transparency and reflexivity to enhance rigor.

- Three themes described how athletes assess and define clutch performance: 1) Clutch performance is assessed against goal achievement: Athletes primarily judged performances by the extent to which self-referenced goals were achieved under pressure. Goals included process goals (e.g., effort, positioning, communication), performance goals (e.g., time targets), and broader role-based contributions. Goals were set pre-event and also changed or emerged during the performance in response to situational demands; athletes evaluated success across multiple goals at different temporal levels (micro to event-level). 2) Clutch performance exists on a performance spectrum: Some athletes viewed clutch as increased performance (often manifesting as increased effort, assertiveness, decision-making intensity), while others emphasized maintaining typical performance level under pressure. The perceived degree of pressure and the athlete’s goals/role shaped where a performance sat on the clutch spectrum. 3) Different benchmarks are used to assess clutch performance: Some athletes compared to prior performances (recent or historical personal standards), whereas others assessed the performance on its own contextual merits without explicit benchmarking, focusing instead on goal attainment within the specific situation. - Descriptive details: N = 24 athletes; mean interview timing ≈ 93 hours post-event; sports spanned team and individual contexts; findings emphasize situational, athlete-centered evaluation criteria rather than fixed statistical thresholds.

Findings address the core questions by showing athletes primarily use self-referenced goal achievement to judge whether a performance under pressure was clutch, rather than strictly requiring increased output or a fixed external benchmark. This athlete-centered, context-dependent assessment helps reconcile definitional tensions: clutch can involve either increased or maintained performance depending on situational demands, goals, and perceived pressure, and its evaluation may not require comparison to historical averages. The work suggests refining clutch performance as goal-dependent under an appraisal of heightened pressure, aligning with foundational views of pressure as inherently goal-driven. It also nuances the nature of “improvement,” indicating that increases may manifest in effort or decision-making rather than measurable skill metrics alone. Conceptually, distinguishing clutch moments (micro, situation-specific goals) from clutch performances (meso, event-level assessment) clarifies links to clutch states and guides future theorizing and measurement. Methodologically, results caution against relying solely on archival proxies for pressure and performance comparisons, underscoring the value of athletes’ appraisals in defining clutch.

The study clarifies definitional boundaries of clutch performance by demonstrating that athletes judge clutch primarily by the extent of self-referenced goal achievement during heightened pressure. This reframing moves beyond the binary of increased vs. maintained performance and decouples assessment from mandatory historical benchmarks. Contributions include: (i) a contextual, goal-based criterion for clutch performance; (ii) recognition of a performance spectrum shaped by goals and perceived pressure; and (iii) identification of heterogeneous benchmarking practices, including performance-internal assessment. Future research should refine goal-based definitions (e.g., specifying which goal types best represent clutch), distinguish clutch moments vs. performances, develop athlete-centered measures, and test across broader sports, expertise levels, and stakeholder groups to inform theory and applied interventions.

- Sample composition: Athletes ranged from recreational to competitive-elite; higher-level athletes may face distinct performance demands (e.g., funding, selection pressures) that influence perceptions of clutch. - Sport context: Predominantly team-sport participants; team dynamics (cohesion, climate, psychological safety) may uniquely shape pressure and performance assessments compared to individual sports. - Cultural context: Majority Australian athletes; perceptions may differ in cultures where “clutch” is more entrenched (e.g., North America). - Generalizability: Qualitative design supports conceptual generalization rather than statistical generalization; findings are context-dependent and open to refinement. - Archival comparability: The goal-based, appraisal-dependent conceptualization challenges traditional archival benchmarking, limiting direct comparability with prior archival studies.