Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1983 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1983, Vol. 44, No. 1, 195-200 0022-3514/83/4401 -0195$00.75

Factor Analysis of Peak Performance:

The Full Use of Potential
Gayle Privette Ted Landsman
University of West Florida University of Florida

This study identified factors associated with descriptions of peak performance,

which was denned as behavior that exceeds the probable or predictable. A ques-
tionnaire was developed to elicit narrative and quantitative reports of experiences
of peak performance and similar examples of modal functioning. Research par-
ticipants were college students in introductory psychology and creative arts classes
and students in adult education classes who reported such experiences. Respon-
dents' narratives were evaluated by trained judges, and accompanying quantitative
data also collected from these 90 participants were factor analyzed. Differences
were assessed by t tests and discriminant function analysis. The data corroborated
peak performance,as an identifiable psychological entity. A multidimensional
factor structure of peak performance emphasized clear focus, intense involve-
ment, intention, and spontaneous expression of power. Respondents considered
psychological involvement with other persons unimportant to their peak perfor-
mance.

Acts of superior performance arouse wide-
spread interest, yet there have been few sys-
tematic attempts by social scientists to ex-
amine superior performance as a generic ex-
perience. Most related studies have instead
focused on specific types of superior func-
tioning. For example, Maslow (1971) inves-
tigated a valued moment—the peak experi-
ence; Jourard (1971) studied self-disclosure;
Buber (1958) described the I-Thou relation-
ship; May (1975) explored creativity in con-
temporary life, and Rogers (1977), the mean-
ing of personal power. Although 20 years ago
Landsman (1961) suggested the value and
feasibility of rigorous research on positive
experiences, there have been few such studies
because, in part, of the inherent difficulties
in measuring subjective phenomena.
Because the current literature reveals little
systematic research on superior functioning,
the purpose of this study was to examine peak
performance as a positive generic experience.
Peak performance is operationally defined as
behavior that goes beyond the level at which
a person normally functions, or modal be-
havior. Thus, peak performance is more ef-
ficient, more creative, more productive, or
Requests for reprints should be sent to Gayle Privette,
Department of Psychology University of West Florida,
Pensacola, Florida 32504.
in some way better than ordinary behavior.
Although this performance does not neces-
sarily exceed that of other people, it surpasses
what could be predicted for a person in a
particular situation and may occur in any
facet of human activity: intellectual, emo-
tional, or physical.
It is well documented that occasionally,
and perhaps surprisingly, individuals exhibit
superior behavior. For example, an average
student may write a superior theme, a me-
diocre athlete may play an outstanding game,
a deed of courage and bravery may be per-
formed by an undistinguished citizen. Be-
cause many people experience isolated events
of surpassing the expected and thereby tran-
scend their own average behavior, it is sug-
gested that humans universally possess po-
tentials that, under certain conditions, result
in superior functioning.
The conditions under which peak perfor-
mance occurs appear to be quite varied. To
illustrate the variety of contexts, three ac-
counts taken from the original data of this
study are reported. A respondent vividly re-
called a saxophone recital:
All of a sudden nothing seemed to matter except the
music.. . . The things I practiced seemed to just come
out. I never thought about which fingering I would use
or when I would breathe. It just came out naturally. All
I thought about was expressing myself in the way that

195
196 GAYLE PRIVETTE AND TED LANDSMAN
I thought the piece should sound. I never noticed there
was an audience after the first eight bars of music. Not
until I was finished did I even realize there was someone
listening. Even now I don't remember their applause but
only my feeling of satisfaction in playing the piece the
way I actually felt it should be played.
An entirely different kind of peak perfor-
mance is portrayed by the report of a fire in
which several farm animals were trapped:
The barn caught fire from a brush fire! The children
were safe, but animals in an adjacent shed were not.
There was a lot of smoke and heat from the raging fire.
I had no tools, and the oak boards were thick—nailed
with twenty-penny nails! I pulled at a board with my
hands, and it came off with ease as if a wrecking bar was
being used. The animals were free. After the fire died
away it took five minutes to straighten the nails and re-
move them from the oak plank. The pen was singed but
not burned. On inspection we verified that the oak board
was well attached to the locust posts, and removing it by
hand was virtually impossible. But it happened to me.
The third excerpt involves a different type
of activity and a different setting. A respon-
dent described bowling a game of 213, which
far exceeded his average score of 130:
For some reason, everything was working beautifully—
me, the ball, and the p i n s . . . . At the time it all seemed
very unreal. There was no push or force to urge me on.
It all began as part of a very relaxed situation. As long
as I was relaxed, everything seemed to click, and I could
make no mistake or do nothing wrong. It was an elating
experience.
Common to these diverse activities was an
unusually high level of performance. The
persistence of such reports suggests the fol-
lowing major questions: What, if any, con-
ditions seem to facilitate the release of latent
potential? Are there psychological conditions
that are common to all experiences of peak
performance?
The Problem
This exploratory study was designed to
identify common factors associated with de-
scriptions of peak performance and to dif-
ferentiate peak performance from modal or
usual performance. Implicit in this study are
the following assumptions: (a) Humans uni-
versally possess latent potentials, which, un-
der certain conditions, may be released and
may result in superior functioning, and (b)
peak performance is a psychological entity
and can be recognized in events of otherwise
dissimilar behavior.
Method
Development of a Questionnaire
The first step in the study was the development of a
questionnaire for collecting quantified descriptions of
peak performance and for evaluating these experiences.
For this preliminary work, graduate students in coun-
selor education, who tend to be relatively sophisticated
in observing and reporting subjective experiences, were
asked to write reports of personal experiences of peak
performance. A content analysis of these narratives iden-
tified each separate descriptor that, with other variables
suggested in the literature, provided the items of the rat-
ing scale. Pilot administrations were used to identify am-
biguities and to test revisions of items. Test-retest ad-
ministrations (N = 39) indicated the reliability of indi-
vidual items and provided a basis for selecting items
included in further analyses. Of the 74 items used in the
rating scale, 40 were sufficiently reliable and relevant to
include in the analysis. The items are presented in an
abbreviated form in Table 1.
The completed questionnaire consisted of (a) an open
question asking for a narrative description of a personal
experience of peak performance, (b) the rating scale for
peak performance, (c) an open question concerning an
experience of modal functioning, and (d) the rating scale
applied to the modal event. The following description
and instructions were given to respondents.
(a) The question asking for a narrative description of
peak performance was as follows:
As you do your work and other activities each day,
you usually know just about how well you will do. But
there have been times when you—and maybe other
people—were surprised by how well you did some-
thing. I am interested in knowing about one time when
you did something that you didn't know you were
capable of doing.
This experience might have been special enough to
be noticed by other people. Or it might have been only
an everyday task in which you "out did" yourself. It
doesn't matter how important it was to other people.
The main thing I am interested in is that you did
something better than you ordinarily would expect.
Please describe an experience of this kind. Tell me
what you did. Include'in your description all that you
can remember about how you felt at that time. Use
the back of this page if you need more space.
(b) Instructions for the rating scale for peak perfor-
mance were,
Following are statements that may be important to
your experience of doing something unusually well.
Answer each statement to show how important you
think it is or was for your actual experience which you
described.
1 = unimportant or did not exist in your experi-
ence;
2 = slightly important to your experience;
3 = fairly important to your experience;
4 = very important to your experience;
5 = extremely important to your experience.
 PEAK PERFORMANCE
(c) The question asking for a description of average
performance was,
You have just described an experience in which you
did something unusually well. Will you describe
briefly one experience that you consider average for
you in the same activity.
(d) Instructions for the rating scale for modal func-
tioning were identical to those for Part b, with "your
average level" replacing "doing something unusually
well."
Collection of Data
Using the questionnaire, respondents narratively de-
scribed a personal event of peak performance and also
rated the importance of each of the 74 items to that
event. In addition, the respondents repeated this process
for a parallel event that characterized their modal level
of performance. These narrative and quantitative de-
scriptions provided the basis for comparing peak and
modal factors.
Respondents
Study respondents, distinct from those participating
in the preliminary phase, were chosen to avoid homo-
geneity, to allow for screening of data, and to ensure
adequate performance on the questionnaire. These re-
spondents, after screening, included 30 college students
in introductory psychology; 30 college students whose
majors were music, art, and theatre; and 30 persons en-
rolled in adult education classes. These respondents pro-
vided both diversity of responses and ease in adminis-
tering the questionnaire. Students in introductory courses
probably represent the total college population, whereas
students majoring in performing arts may be more cre-
ative and have specialized interests in peak performance.
Individuals in adult education courses represent a pop-
ulation external to college yet are in a classroom envi-
ronment, which encourages the completion of the ques-
tionnaire. Respondents included 33 men and 57 women,
ranging in age from 16 to 65 years with a median age
of 20 years.
Treatment of Data
Narratives were analyzed independently by two judges,
each of whom were at the doctoral level in counselor
education. For further analysis, the judges read and se-
lected 109 narratives that met the following criteria: (a)
The respondent portrays the performance as transcend-
ing modal behavior; (b) the incident is described fully
and clearly enough to be assessed; and (c) the incident,
as peak performance, is plausible. Of the 109 data sets,
19 were disqualified for technical reasons, leaving 90 data
sets, 30 in each of the three groups. In evaluating nar-
ratives, the two judges had a 77% rate of agreement.
The factor analyses (varimax rotation) used rating-
scale data related to peak performance and similar data
related to modal functioning from all respondents whose
narratives were selected. Paired t tests were computed
for each item. In addition, peak performance scores of
197
the three groups were compared by discriminant func-
tion analysis to test scoring differences among the groups.
Limitation of Method
A limitation inherent in the study is that it does not
provide direct objective verification, because it measures
a subjective experience. Therefore, results are more ap-
propriately considered hypotheses than conclusions. The
data are retrospective self-reports. To augment these self-
reports, factor analysis, which Cattell (1952) advocated
for exploring "regions unstructured by present knowl-
edge," was used to infer content beyond the intended
reports of respondents.
The study does not purport to measure the relative
occurrence of peak performance. From 760 sets of data
collected, approximately 12% were usable, that is, all
questions were answered and narratives were acceptable
to judges. The judges accepted 34% of the 323 narratives
that were submitted to them. It should be noted that the
judges were instructed to be strict in deleting any ques-
tionable data from further analysis.
Results
Tests of Differences
Peak performance versus modal function-
ing. Scores on peak performance were sig-
nificantly different (t = 12.65, p < .0001)
from scores on modal functioning. Compar-
isons of individual item scores by t test in-
dicate that differences were significant for 35
of 40 pairs of items (p < .001 for 24 items).
Items, means, and probabilities are shown in
Table 1. Discriminant function analysis in-
dicates that intergroup differences were not
significant, X2(28) = 36.11, p > .10.
Items related to other people. Of special
interest are the items related to the influence
of other people. The authors initially believed
that such items would be characteristic of
peak performance and not of modal func-
tioning. However, analysis of a subset of eight
items describing perceptual or behavioral in-
volvement with other people (Table 1) indi-
cates that these items (M = 2.63) are signif-
icantly different (t = 9.90, p < .0001) from
the scores of the total set of peak performance
items. (Mean of 32 items not related to other
people = 3.40.)
Factor Analysis
From the factor analyses, 14 peak and 11
modal factors were extracted. The resulting
multidimensional structures of the two ex-
198 GAYLE PRIVETTE AND TED LANDSMAN

periences with six identifiable peak and five
identifiable modal factors are compared in
Table 2.
Discussion
Results related to explicit assumptions of
the study follow.
1. Peak performance is identifiable and
measurable in divergent activities and among
different groups of people. There are, in fact,
characteristics or factors associated with peak
performance, and these factors are different
from those associated with modal function-
ing. These conclusions are supported by (a)
differences between peak and modal experi-
ences, indicated by t tests and logical inspec-
tion of factors, and (b) the similarity of peak
performance among the three groups, indi-
cated by discriminant function analysis and
logical inspection.
2. A multidimensional structure, resulting
from the factor analysis, offers a tentative

Table 1
Questionnaire Items, Means, and Probabilities
Item PeakM Modal M P<
Must continue until finished 4.1 3.2 .001
Left with fulfillment 4.1 2.5 .001
All of me working together 4.0 2.6 .001
Action just came out of me 4.0 2.7 .001
Experience its own reward 3.9 2.8 .001
Situation demanded from me 3.8 2.9 .001
Had strong motivation 3.8 2.6 .001
Strength came from unusual level 3.8 1.9 .001
Above outside limits 3.7 1.9 .001
Certain of rising above usual level 3.7 1.9 .001
Felt I was responsible 3.6 3.2 .010
Determined to put out effort 3.6 2.7 .001
Had to think for myself 3.6 3.2 .050
Objects, thoughts operated selves 3.5 2.2 .001
Clear what needed to be done 3.5 2.8 .001
Acts were new instead of repeating old 3.4 2.3 .001
Fascinated by act 3.4 2.3 .001
Involved important beliefs, values 3.4 2.8 .005
Felt full of force 3.4 2.2 .001
Determined to do better than usual 3.3 2.4 .001
Certain I was right 3.3 2.7 .005
Learned something about myself 3.2 2.6 .001
Felt all-powerful joy 3.2 2.0 .001
Interested in activity before * 3.0 3.1 ns
Deep down I had known I could 2.9 2.8 ns
Action in response to somebody else8 2.9 2.4 .010
Felt I could do anything 2.9 2.2 .001
Beginning was fearful 2.9 2.1 .001
More real than usual reality 2.9 2.0 .001
Determined to win approval8 2.9 2.5 .050
Wanted to accomplish something different 2.8 2.4 .050
Others were paying attention" 2.8 2.4 .025
Trusted/trusting person involved8 2.8 2.1 .001
Event seemed a mission 2.7 1.9 .001
Environment was different 2.7 2.2 .025
Desire to better others8 2.6 2.5 ns
Others gave a sense of \vell-being" 2.6 2.2 .025
Felt outcome would not be successful 2.5 2.6 ns
Another asked something from me" 2.4 2.0 .005
I liked people in a general way8 2.0 2.3 ns
Total" 3.2 2.5 .001
8
Items relating to other people.
"#=90.
 PEAK PERFORMANCE 199

Table 2
Factors of Peak Performance and Modal Functioning
Factor Factor
Peak factor loading Modal factor loading

Clear Focus on Self, Object, No parallel factor

and Relationship
% of variance/factor score" 12.32/3.4
Clear what needed to be done .69
Had to think for self .65
Situation demanded from me .60
Certain I was right .51
Event seemed a mission .45

Intense Involvement No parallel factor

% of variance/factor score' 9.41/3.4
Fascinated by act .69
Interested in activity before .61
Left with fulfillment .47

Spontaneity (Power and Force) Spontaneity (Positive Feelings Toward Others)

% of variance/factor score8 9.35/3.5 % of variance/factor score8 8.35/2.7
Felt full of force .62 Action just came out of me .59
Action just came out of me .56 Liked people in a general way .53
Felt I could do anything " .48 All of me working together .53
Learned something about myself .45 Felt I was responsible .48
All of me working together .44

Intention (Excellence) Intention (Competition, Approval, Interest)

% of variance/factor score8 12.05/3.2 % of variance/factor score" 15.44/2.5
Determined to do better than usual .80 Desire to better others .79
Determined to put out effort .78 Determined to be better than usual .70
Determined to win approval .52 Determined to win approval .68
Wanted to accomplish something .49 Interested in activity before .68
Desire to better others .45 Wanted to accomplish something .67
Fascinated by act .51

Awareness of Other People Awareness of Other People

% of variance/factor score" 9.53/2.7 % of variance/factor score" 6.86/2.3
Others were paying attention .85 Others gave a sense of well-being .61
Others gave a sense of well-being .83 Others were paying attention .60

Response to Other People Response to Other People

% of variance/factor score" 8.86/2.7 % of variance/factor score8 12.40/2.5
Action in response to somebody else .70 Another asked something of me .69
Trusted/trusting person involved .63 Action in response to somebody else .65
Another asked something of me .62 Situation demanded of me .59
Clear what needed to be done .49
Deep down I had known I could .44

No parallel factor Transcendence (Low Rated)

Mean of key-item raw scores 3.6 % of variance/factor score" 18.34/2.1
Strength came from unusual source .71
Felt full of force .69
Above outside limits .68
Felt all-powerful joy .64
Certain of rising above usual level .58
Objects, thoughts operated selves .57
8
Approximate factor scores computed by 2 (raw score X loading)/Z loadings.
200 GAYLE PRIVETTE AND TED LANDSMAN
description of some conditions associated
with peak performance. Factors contributing
to this structure are discussed subsequently.
Factors Exclusive to Peak Performance >
One of the most important factors found
exclusively in peak performance is Clear Fo-
cus On Self, Object, and Relationship. This
dimension, described previously (Privette,
1964, 1965, 1968, 1981), emphasizes clarity
and sharpness of focus. The importance of
the factor suggests that in the peak moment,
the person apprehends the focused object
fully, both perceptually and cognitively, while
also maintaining a clear identity of self.
Intense Involvement is another important
factor of peak performance that does not ap-
pear as a modal factor. Apparently the task
that elicits peak performance represents an
intrinsic value to the person and culminates
in a direct, active engagement with the valued
subject.
Factors Common to Peak
and Modal Performance
Both factor structures contain dimensions
of Spontaneity and Intention, although the
structures of the peak and modal factors dif-
fer somewhat. Both experiences have factors
of positive Awareness of Other People and
overt Response to Other People. Scoring pat-
terns suggest that respondents considered
these dimensions relatively unimportant to
their peak functioning. It is interesting to
note that responsiveness to others in the
modal, but not the peak, performance is ac-
companied by a sense of clarity and assur-
ance.
An Exclusive Modal Factor
The modal factor (Transcendence), which
has no peak counterpart, comprises heavily
loaded items with low mean scores, meaning
that respondents identified this factor as not
relevant to their modal experiences. However,
peak scores of the six critical items are sig-
nificantly different from these modal scores
(p < .001). Transcendence was extracted as
a well-defined factor, and together the vari-
ables provide something of a phenomenolog-
ical picture of peak performance. Key items
mention unusual strength from within, force,
rising above outer limits, joy, certainty of su-
perior performance, self-motivating activity,
a rare sense of reality, and a feeling of ful-
fillment.
Items Related to Other People
It is natural to anticipate that one performs
at peak when aroused to do so by other, im-
portant persons. The data reported strangely
argue against such a conclusion, suggesting
rather that clear focus on self at the time of
peak performance is of greater importance,
i So much does this go against the popular
imagination that further examination of the
results is warranted. One possible cause could
be that people underrate the influence of oth-
ers in their peak performance, Another in-
fluence may be the questionnaire instruc-
tions. The specific instruction not to attend
to the evaluation of others was included
among rather detailed instructions aimed at
helping the respondent to think freely about
the experience without influence by general
opinion; it did not exclude the possibility that
others might actually cause the superb effort.
Nevertheless, the inclusion of the instruction
leaves open the question of its having some
influence on the surprising result. Cheerlead-
ing may generally have less effect than we
imagine. Peak performance in group endeav-
ors, such as team efforts, may also be exempt
from this hypothesis, which merits further
study.
References
Buber, M. / and thou. New York: Scribner's, 1958..
Cattell, R. B. Factor analysis. New York: Harper, 1952.
Jourard, S. Self disclosure: An experimental analysis of
the transparent self. New York: Wiley, 1971.
Landsman, T. Human experience and human relation-
ships. In A. Combs (Chair), Personality theory and
counseling practice. Gainesville: University of Florida
Press, 1961.
Maslow, A. The farther reaches of human nature. New
York: Viking Press, 1971.
May, R. The courage to create. New York: Norton, 1975.
Privette, G. Factors associated with functioning which
transcends modal behavior. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, 1964). Dissertation Abstracts,
1964,25, 3406. (University Microfilms No. 64-11552)
Privette, G. Transcendent functioning. Teachers College
Record, 1965, 66, 733-739.
Privette, G. Transcendent functioning: Full use of po-
tentialities. In H. Otto & J. Mann, Ways of growth.
New York: Grossman, 1968.
Privette, G. Dynamics of peak performance. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 1981, 21, 57-67.
Rogers, C. Carl Rogers on personal power. New York:
Delacorte Press, 1977.
Received August 21, 1981 •