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

The study investigates how athletes define and assess clutch performance—positive performance under pressure—amid inconsistent definitions in the literature. Key debates concern whether clutch performance requires increased performance (e.g., Otten, 2009) versus maintained performance in pressure contexts (e.g., Hibbs, 2010), and what benchmark performances should be compared against (career average, season average, same-game performance, etc.). These definitional ambiguities have hindered measurement and theoretical development in clutch research. The study aims to explore athletes’ perceptions of (1) the performance level required to constitute a clutch performance and (2) the benchmarks against which such performances are assessed, to provide definitional clarity that can support theory and measurement advances.

Prior work on clutch performance reflects definitional divergence: Otten (2009) positions clutch as performance increments under pressure, while Hibbs (2010) argues that performing to one’s ability despite pressure (with impact on outcome) suffices. Archival analyses across sports (baseball, basketball, tennis) often find limited evidence for players whose performance rises under pressure, contingent on the benchmark used (career, season, game segment, projected performance). This heterogeneity complicates cross-study comparisons and understanding of clutch. Qualitative research has focused on characteristics of clutch episodes and psychological states (e.g., clutch states; Swann et al., 2017a,b, 2019) rather than how athletes themselves judge performances as clutch or the benchmarks employed. There is no specific theory of clutch performance, and definitional clarity is needed to underpin measurement and theory. The present study addresses gaps by examining athletes’ own assessment criteria and benchmarks using event-focused interviews.

Philosophical approach: Realist ontology with constructionist epistemology, acknowledging socially constructed knowledge of performance under pressure and employing reflexive thematic analysis. Design: Qualitative, event-focused, semi-structured interviews conducted as soon as possible after a positive performance under pressure to maximize contextual detail and recall. Participants: N=24 athletes (19 male, 5 female); mean age M=27.13 years (SD=5.78); countries: Australia (n=22), New Zealand (n=1), Ireland (n=1). Sports: football/soccer (n=6), rugby union (n=4), rugby sevens (n=4), half-marathon (n=2), rugby league (n=2), 5000 m running (n=1), golf (n=1), basketball (n=1), camogie (n=1), triathlon (n=1), submission grappling (n=1). Expertise ranged from recreational to competitive-elite. Sampling and recruitment: Purposive sampling of athletes who subjectively or objectively performed well under pressure; recruitment via in-person event attendance in high-pressure contexts (n=12) and snowball sampling (n=12). Procedure: Ethical approval obtained. Interviews mostly remote (Zoom n=3; telephone n=19; in-person n=2) to enable rapid scheduling (14 during COVID-19). Rapport-building steps implemented. Consent obtained; interviews audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Timing: Interviews conducted on average M=93.08 hours post-event (SD=43.18; range 24–192 hours). Duration: M=46.29 minutes (SD=11.26). Interview schedule: Four domains—(i) concept understanding of clutch and performance under pressure; (ii) overall event reflections; (iii) chronological recall of performance segments and perceived pressure; (iv) post-event judgment criteria and benchmarks used. Analysis and rigor: Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2013, 2019a). Abductive coding—drawing on existing definitions while allowing novel insights (e.g., goal achievement as assessment criterion). Transcripts checked for accuracy; critical friends engaged across guide development, interviewing, coding, and theme generation. Information power framework guided sample size (Malterud et al., 2016), considering narrow aims, dense sample specificity, theory use, dialogue quality, and cross-case analysis.

Three themes emerged: 1) Clutch performance is assessed against goal achievement: Athletes primarily judged clutch by the extent of self-referenced goal attainment under pressure, focusing on process goals (execution, effort, timing, decision-making) and performance goals (e.g., target times), rather than solely outcome (win/loss). Goals could be set pre-event and evolve moment-to-moment in response to situational demands; athletes often assessed multiple goals (micro and macro). 2) Clutch performance exists on a performance spectrum: Some athletes viewed clutch as increased performance (often via heightened effort, assertive communication, decision-making), while others emphasized maintaining typical performance level under pressure. The perceived level of pressure and goal demands modulated where performances fell on the spectrum—suggesting clutch is not binary. 3) Different benchmarks are used to assess clutch performance: Athletes varied in benchmarks—some compared to previous performances (recent game, prior peak seasons), while others assessed the performance in its own context without external comparison, reflecting situational dependence. Contextual data points: N=24; M_age=27.13 (SD=5.78); interviews at M=93.08 hours post-event (SD=43.18); average interview length M=46.29 minutes (SD=11.26).

Findings directly address whether clutch requires increased or maintained performance and what benchmarks are used. Athletes’ assessments centered on achieving self-referenced goals under perceived pressure, indicating clutch is situational and context-dependent. This reframes the increased-vs-maintained debate by shifting from external benchmarks to goal achievement as the core criterion. Where increases were noted, they often reflected greater effort/intensity or improved decision-making rather than enhanced skill metrics, aligning with evidence that clutch involves “doing more” rather than “doing better.” Benchmark use was heterogeneous; many athletes relied on contextual evaluation of the performance itself, suggesting archival comparisons to past averages may miss the athlete’s perspective of pressure and goals. Conceptually, this supports defining clutch performance as the extent of self-referenced goal attainment during an appraisal of increased pressure and differentiating between clutch moments (micro, specific episodes) and clutch performances (meso, event-wide). Measurement implications include prioritizing athlete-reported pressure appraisal and goal achievement over solely archival proxies.

This study clarifies the definitional boundaries of clutch performance by showing athletes judge clutch primarily via self-referenced goal achievement under pressure, with performance existing on a spectrum shaped by situational demands and goals. Benchmarks vary, and assessments may rely on the performance itself rather than historical averages. Contributions include a refined, athlete-centered conceptualization that can underpin theory and measurement, and a distinction between clutch moments and clutch performances. Future research should: (a) refine which goal types best capture clutch; (b) develop and validate measures that assess pressure appraisal and goal achievement; (c) test definitions across sports, expertise levels, and cultures; and (d) employ cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental designs to understand antecedents and interventions that facilitate clutch.

- Expertise range: Inclusion of recreational to competitive-elite athletes may limit generalizability to top-tier contexts with distinct performance demands (e.g., funding pressures). - Sport composition: Predominantly team sports; team dynamics (cohesion, climate, psychological safety) may influence perceptions of pressure and clutch. - Cultural context: Mostly Australian participants; perceptions may differ in other sporting cultures (e.g., North America) where “clutch” has distinct cultural salience. - Qualitative design: No quantification of theme prevalence; reliance on self-report may limit alignment with archival proxies of pressure and performance.