A COMPARISON OF MENTAL STRATEGIES DURING ATHLETIC SKILLS PERFORMANCE
|
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
| Received |
|
26 August 2005 |
| Accepted |
|
13
October 2005 |
| Published |
|
01
December 2005 |
©
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2005) 4, 543
- 549
Search
Google Scholar for Citing Articles
| ABSTRACT |
| The
current study examined the effects of performance enhancement techniques
(PET's) on motor skill performance. Specifically, one hundred fifty
college student volunteers (Men = 41; 27.3% and Women = 109; 72.6%)
were randomly assigned to one of the nine conditions (Cond): Cond
1 and 2, simultaneous, externally verbalized self-talk or imagery
(e.g., participants were instructed to say "aim, back, birdie"
or engaged in imagery out loud while putting); Cond 3 and 4, delayed
externally verbalized self-talk or imagery (e.g., participants were
instructed to say "aim, back, birdie" or engaged in imagery
out loud before putting); Cond 5 and 6, simultaneous, internally verbalized
self-talk or imagery (e.g., participants were instructed to say "aim,
back, birdie" or engaged in imagery silently to oneself while
putting); Cond 7 and 8, delayed internally verbalized (e.g., participant
were instructed to say "aim, back, birdie" or engaged in
imagery silently to oneself before putting); and Cond 9, no instruction
control group. All participants were asked to perform a golf-putting
task. Results indicated that participants who implemented several
(PET's) increased their putting accuracy across overall difference
score evaluations F (8, 141) = 4.01, p < 0.05 when compared to
a no instruction control condition. Follow-up analyses indicated that
participants who reportedly engaged in ten hours or less of athletic
activities per week preferred self-talk strategies F (2, 119) = 4.38,
p < 0.05 whereas participants who endorsed ten hours or more of
athletic activity per week preferred imagery strategies F (2, 25)
= 5.27, p < 0.05.
KEY
WORDS: Sport psychology, performance enhancement techniques,
self-talk, arousal regulation, mental imagery, attention.
|
| INTRODUCTION |
|
Mental
imagery and self-talk strategies are implemented by athletes in
order to regulate arousal, reduce maladaptive behaviors, reconstruct
negative thoughts, and to increase one's concentration and focus.
Suinn (1990)
states that mental imagery incorporates one's visual, auditory,
tactile, emotional, and kinesthetic senses. He suggests that visual
motor behavioral rehearsal (VMBR) integrates the senses, which ultimately
leads to increased awareness and performance enhancement. In contrast,
cognitive theorists stress the importance of symbolic learning theory
to mental imagery construction. This process driven model advocates
the significance of how one learns a task rather than how one initiates
specific motor skills. For instance, Feltz and Landers (1983)
reported increased performance when athletes implemented imagery
practice on cognitive tasks (i.e., analyzing an opponent's offensive
scheme to implements one's own defensive strategy) as opposed to
purely motoric tasks (i.e., tackling an opponent).
Imagery is simply not relaxation or a cure for poor skill. Rather,
it is an active process that heightens one's levels of concentration,
focus, arousal regualtion, and attempts to eliminate maladaptive
cognitions and behavior. Many athletes feel that acquiring a "mental
edge" on their opponents will ultimately give them an invaluable
advantage during competition. For example, DeFrancesco and Burke
(1997)
reported that imagery techniques were found to be the most common
strategies employed by both female and male professional tennis
players. Lejuene, Decker, and Sanchez (1994)
studied the training styles of 40 novice table tennis players and
found that "imagining oneself successfully completing a sports
skill in the absence of the actual movement or activity increases
the probability of improving one's performance" (p. 627). In
addition, Mckenzie and Howe (1997)
reported that engaging in a 15- week imagery training program improved
accuracy scores among dart throwers when compared to participants
not exposed to any imagery training. Peluso (2000)
reported that participants who engaged in relevant imagery practice
increased performance on both a mirror tracing and jack catching
task when compared to participants in non-relevant, relaxation,
and control conditions.
Many athletes will engage in self-talk practice to increase concentration
and focus during training and competition. Beauchamp et al. (1996)
suggested that novice golfers who implemented pre-putt routines
reported higher accuracy ratings when compared to golfers who simply
hit the ball. In addition, Theorodakis et al. (2001)
indicated that participants who engaged in appropriate self- talk
imagery practice (i.e., "relax") made more free throws
during a basketball task when compared to participants who engaged
in inappropriate self-talk imagery practice (i.e., "fast").
Furthermore, Hatzigeorgiadis et al. (2004)
revealed that athletes who implemented various forms of self-talk
(i.e., instructional, motivational) increased overall performance
and decreased susceptibility to maladaptive and competing thoughts,
on a water polo task, when compared to baseline scores. These findings
suggest that athletes who incorporate self- talk imagery strategies
will ultimately benefit from increased levels of awareness, concentration,
and performance enhancement.
However, the time interval between Performance Enhancement Techniques
(PET's) and the actual task may be an important factor in performance
outcome. Specifically, the time between PET's practice and task
may allow an opportunity for maladaptive cognitions to set in. The
present study investigated the effects of the time interval between
one's utilization of PET's and task on subsequent performance. Specifically,
skilled motor performance was compared under conditions of simultaneous
self-talk or imagery (e.g., person using either self-talk or imagery
during the task) versus delayed self-talk or imagery (e.g., person
using either self-talk or before the task); internalized self-talk
or imagery (e.g., person vocalizing their PET silently to themselves)
versus externalized self-talk or imagery (e.g, person vocalizing
their PET out loud so the experimenter can hear); and a no instruction
control condition.
|
| METHODS |
|
Participants
Participants were male (41; 27.3%) and female (109; 72.6%) college-aged
student volunteers from introductory psychology classes. Age distribution
of subjects was age 18 (n = 85), age 19 (n = 36), age 20 (n = 18),
age 21 (n = 8), age 22 (n = 1), age 23 (n = 1) and age 25 (n = 1).
The hours participating in organized athletics activity of subjects
were 5.07 ± 7.02 hrs (ranging 0.00-40.00) per week. Participants
were predominately right handed (138; 92%) and between the ages
of 18 to 21. Individuals who participated in the study were issued
extra-credit points to be used towards course grades.
Equipment
Participants were assessed using a regulation nine-foot Professional
Golfer's Association (P.G.A.) automatic putting mat, standard left
and right handed thirty-five inch Tour Classic putters, and ten
standard Top Flight XL golf balls.
Sports imagery questionnaire
Participants were instructed to fill out the Sports Imagery Questionnaire
(1998)
in order to determine personal imagery ability. The Sports Imagery
Questionnaire (SIQ; Hall et al., 1998)
is a 30 item questionnaire that delineates imagery characteristics
into five subscales (Cognitive Specific (CG), Cognitive General
(CG), Motivational Specific (MC), Motivational General- Arousal
(MG-A), and Motivational General-Mastery (MG-M) ), which measure
the cognitive and motivational functions of mental imagery techniques
used by athletes.
The five subscales of the SIQ have been shown to have a favorable
internal consistency. A Cronbach's alpha analysis on the five imagery
subscales reported an internal consistency ranging from .70 for
Motivational General-Arousal to .88 for Motivational Specific (Hall
et al., 1998).
Mortiz et al., (1996)
found skilled athletes employed significantly higher rates of MG-M
imagery than low confident/novice athletes. In addition, research
has suggested that the motivational subscales of the SIQ (i.e.,
MC, MG-A, MG-M) were more descriptive of the imagery abilities and
imagery styles of elite high school athletes when compared to average
high school athletes who employed more cognitive imagery styles
(Hall et al., 1998).
Therefore, research suggests that the SIQ enables experimenters
to adequately assess athlete's cognitive and motivational imagery
abilities and preferences.
Demographics questionnaire
Participants were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire
in order to attain demographic information (e.g., age, gender, etc.)
as well as to assess their athletic/golfing activity and perceived
levels of athletic/golfing abilities.
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire
Participants were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire
in order to attain an estimate on how many putts out of ten one
believed he or she would make.
Validity check questionnaire
Finally, a post-experiment questionnaire was issued to all participants
to determine if the participants engaged in any PET practice during
the treatment trials. If participants in the delayed or control
conditions affirm the use of simultaneous self-talk or imagery practice
during the posttest evaluation, his or her data did not undergo
further analyses. In addition, participant's data sets from the
internally verbalized conditions who denied the use of their respective
mental set during the posttest evaluation, did not undergo further
analyses.
Procedure
Conditions for participation followed APA ethical standards. Participants
were told the nature of the study and were given an opportunity
to withdraw from the study at any time without the loss of any extra-credit
points. To maintain confidentiality, names of the participants were
not placed on the data sheets.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of nine groups; a simultaneous
externally verbalized self-talk or imagery condition, a delayed
externally verbalized self-talk or imagery condition, a simultaneous
internally verbalized self-talk or imagery condition, a delayed
internally verbalized self-talk or imagery condition, and a no instruction
control condition. All participants were asked to perform a golf-putting
task. The experimenter initially demonstrated twice how and where
to putt the golf balls. Participants performed a pretest trial during
which the participants were instructed to putt ten golf balls from
six feet away. Pretest trials were conducted before any PET's were
introduced to the participants. Participants were assessed for the
number of correct shots made into the hole.
Between trials, during the posttest interventions, participants
were asked to close their eyes and the experimenter instructed the
participants to visualize themselves performing the same putt successfully,
but also instructed them to do so with their appropriate mental
set, (i.e., "aim, back, birdie") or imagery vignette.
Participants were instructed to say "aim" when they are
measuring up their shot, "back" when they initiated their
back swing, and "birdie" when the ball was struck. Participants
in the externally verbalized conditions vocalized their self-talk
mental set or imagery vignette out loud at a level in which the
experimenter could hear clearly; whereas participants in the internally
verbalized conditions vocalized their self-talk mental set or imagery
vignette silently to themselves.
Participants in the simultaneous self-talk conditions performed
their putts while vocalizing either their self-talk mental set,
(i.e., "aim, back, birdie") or imagery vignette. Participants
in the delayed self-talk conditions were asked to focus on their
self-talk mental set, (i.e., "aim, back, birdie") or imagery
vignette prior to any putting attempts. Between trials, participants
were asked to engage in their specific PET for an additional minute.
Participants in the no instruction control condition were asked
to attempt all of their putts without any PET's. Between trails,
participants were asked to count out loud backwards from 500 to
zero, by threes. The introduction of the counting acted as a distracting
task for the participant to reduce the likelihood of the participant
engaging in any self-initiated self-talk and/or imagery techniques.
At the conclusion of the pretest and posttest evaluations, participants
were asked if they engaged in any type of self-talk or imagery practice
during the experiment. Next, participants filled out the Self-Efficacy
Questionnaire, which assessed how many putts a participant believed
he or she would make. Finally, all participants filled out the Sports
Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ) in order to determine their respective
imagery skills and abilities.
Each participant attempted twenty putts: ten during the pretest
evaluation and ten putts during the posttest evaluation. Participants
were assessed for the number of correct putts into the hole. Upon
the conclusion of the posttest evaluation, mean scores were calculated
and difference scores from the pretest and posttest trials were
compared.
|
| RESULTS |
|
The
majority of participants reported playing organized athletics (e.g.,
high school, 88%; college, 19.3%; intramurals, 53.3%) and a minority
of the overall population reported playing organized golf (e.g.,
high school, 4.7%; college <1%; intramurals; 2%). A series of
Pearson's correlations examined the relationship between participants'
overall time spent playing regulation P.G.A. and miniature golf
and overall difference scores. Results indicated a significant relationship
between P.G.A. golf experience and overall difference scores across
all conditions r = 0.172; p < 0.05. Follow-up analyses suggested
that of the 68% of the participants who selected "other"
on the demographic questionnaire, approximately 87% reported "never"
playing golf; therefore suggesting an overall unfamiliar/novice
sample. In addition, results indicated no significant relationship
between miniature golf experience and overall difference scores
r = 0.044; p > 0.05 across conditions.
A series of ANOVAs were conducted across all nine conditions comparing
pretest putting abilities. Results indicated that no significant
differences were seen across all conditions across pre-test putting
trials; therefore suggesting that participants' overall putting
abilities were commensurate F (8, 141) = 5.779, p > 0.05. A 9
x 2 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted across all nine conditions
comparing overall outcome performance between participants' pretest
and posttest trial scores. Results indicated no significant differences
across conditions and between trials existed, F (8, 141) = 1.916,
p > 0.05.
In contrast, a follow-up ANOVA indicated a significant interaction
across conditions between participants' overall difference score
across pretest and posttest trials, F (8, 141) = 4.009, p < 0.05.
Follow up paired comparisons on overall difference scores indicated
improved putting performance across seven of the eight PET experimental
conditions. Specifically, participants in the simultaneous internal
imagery condition exhibited the largest difference score, Cohen's
d = .7359, p< .05. In addition, results indicated a negative
decline in performance across overall differences scores for participants
in the delayed external imagery and no instruction control group
(please refer to Table 1 and
Table 2). Overall, across conditions
results indicated that participants significantly benefited from
implementing internalized forms of PET's when compared to externalized
forms of PET's and the no instruction control conditions F (2, 147)
= 7.009, p < 0.05.
Given the high degree of variability regarding the number of hours
of organized athletic activity participants reported, a series of
one-way ANOVAs comparing performance across conditions was conducted.
Results indicated that participants who endorsed ten hours or less
a week of athletic activity preferred self talk interventions over
the imagery and the no instruction control condition F (2, 119)
= 4.389, p < 0.05.
In contrast, participants who endorsed ten hours or more a week
of athletic activity preferred imagery strategies to self-talk and
the no instruction control condition F (2, 25) = 5.27, p < 0.
05.
In addition, no significant differences were found between participants
in both the ten hour or more and ten hour and less condition when
assessing for preferences styles between internalized, externalized,
simultaneous, and delayed conditions. These findings are consistent
with the current literature which states that novice athletes will
often engage in self-talk practice for athletic skill mastery whereas
more experienced athletes will implement imagery techniques as an
arousal regulation and/or motivational technique (Cox, 2002).
Finally, a paired comparison was conducted to determine the effect
of participants' self-efficacy on the golf putting task between
one's predicted putting accuracy score (e.g., how many putts they
thought they would make) and their actual putting accuracy score.
Results suggest that participants across all conditions were able
to accurately predict their actual putting score t(149) = -17.24,
p < 0.05.
|
| DISCUSSION |
|
Results
of the current study suggest that participants who engaged in several
performance enhancement techniques exhibited enhanced performance
on a golf putting task when compared to participants in a control
condition. Overall, both self-talk and imagery conditions were found
to significantly increase putting performance. Internalized forms
of self-talk and imagery yielded higher differences scores when
compared to external and the no-instruction control conditions.
In addition, participants who endorsed limited athletic familiarity
and activity (e.g., ten hours or less) preferred self-talk practice
whereas participants who endorsed higher ratings scores of athletic
familiarity and activity (e.g., ten hours or more) preferred imagery
strategies.
Regardless of skill level or type of sport, PET's (e.g., self-talk,
imagery) allows coaches, trainers, athletes, and sport psychologists
seemingly limitless opportunities to design treatment plans, which
focus exclusively on an athlete's intellectual, emotional, and physical
strengths and weaknesses. For instance, in a series of case studies
with elite junior tennis players who implemented a year long mental
training program (e.g., goal-setting, positive thinking/self-talk,
concentration/routines, arousal regulation, and imagery). Mamassis
and Doganis (2004)
reported increased overall performance and self-confidence with
lowered pre-competition anxiety when compared to control conditions.
The results of this current study demonstrate the flexibility of
PET's (e.g., imagery v. self-talk, internal v. external, simultaneous
v. delayed) and how they can be implemented to help an athlete reach
his or her full potential.
In contrast, researchers are suggesting that directly applying self-talk
strategies in athletic competition may serve as a potential problem
for athletes. For instance, Ming and Martin (1996)
stated that many athletes may be reluctant to express their mental
sets out loud. Athletes and coaches may not want their opponents
to hear their upcoming plans and/or moves during competition. Additionally,
the process of implementing a self-talk intervention during competition
may be both physically and cognitively difficult for an athlete.
For instance, a basketball player on a fast break or a soccer player
dribbling in the open field will need to assess their position on
the field, find open teammates, be aware of oncoming opponents,
and make a decision to pass, shot, or hold onto the ball all within
a matter of seconds. The possible presence of fatigue, environmental
stimuli (i.e., weather, visiting crowd/opponent's verbal distractions),
and performance anxiety may also contribute to an athlete's loss
of concentration, focus, and inability to think clearly.
Various situational elements of team athletics may not allow an
athlete enough time to engage in appropriate self-talk practice.
In light of these potential problems, it is suggested that self-talk
interventions may be best implemented with athletes who are engaging
in expected individualized activities (i.e., free throw shooting,
golf-putting, and field goal kicking). Seeing both the positive
and potential negative factors associated with self-talk interventions,
researchers have agreed that the primary concern regarding self-talk
is the need to adopt more systematic research paradigms (Theodorakis
et al., 2001).
Continued research efforts based on sound theoretical and conceptual
models will allow researchers to further understand the complexities
of self-talk interventions. Regardless of what type of sport or
athlete one is examining, an absence of a theory-based framework
will continue to limit researchers' understandings of the overall
strengths and weaknesses of self-talk interventions (Hardy et al.,
2001).
|
| CONCLUSIONS |
A
potential limitation of this study may be the subject sample pool.
Saint Louis University is a traditional midwestern, Jesuit institution,
which is primarily Caucasian, therefore not truly representing the
current demographics of the general population. In addition, the results
of this study may be difficult to generalize across a number of athletic
situations. For instance, participants completed this study in an
indoor laboratory setting using an artificial putting mat; therefore,
the final results may have varied if participants completed the study
on an outdoor putting green. Also, participants completed the study
on an individual basis and were unaware of the results of other participants.
Participants were not issued any incentives for superior performance
and were given as much time as needed to attempt their putts. Given
these factors, the results of this study may have varied across conditions
if participants were placed in a more competitive format. In addition,
participants were only assessed on putting ability; therefore one
should not generalize these results to other golf skills (e.g., chipping,
bunker shots, fairway shots, driving off the tee), athletic ability
(e.g., novice, advanced, elite), and other sports. Furthermore, outcome
performance was solely determined by the number of putts made and
not by other factors such as closeness to the hole or number of attempts
to make a putt. Finally, participant's imagery styles and abilities
may have influenced posttest scores. In order to control for these
effects, participants were asked to complete the Sports Imagery Questionnaire
(SIQ; Hall et al., 1998).
Analyses suggested that no significant differences, F (8, 141) = 1.589,
p > 0.05, were seen between participants across all five conditions
on measures of imagery style, ability, and motivation.
In light of these limitations, several areas of future research are
suggested. First, these findings should be replicated with participants
representing different levels of skills (i.e., professional, collegiate,
novice) and types of sports (i.e., team versus individual). Additionally,
it is suggested that further research include the investigation of
the effects of simultaneous, externally verbalized, task-relevant
imagery techniques in comparison to more traditional forms of imagery
practice (i.e., premeditation, relaxation). Finally, future research
is needed to compare the effectiveness of visually presented imagery
interventions (i.e., watching a video of successful golf putts, live
modeling) with verbally instructed imagery interventions. |
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
| I
would like to extend my warmest thanks to my graduate school advisor
and mentor, Dr. Michael J. Ross. His guidance and support has made
this research project worthwhile. I would also like to thank Dr. Jeffrey
D. Gfeller, Dr. Donna J. LaVoie, and my research assistants for their
suggestions and assistance on this project. Finally, I would like
to recognize the Creighton University psychology faculty, especially
Dr. Mark E. Ware, Dr. Amy Badura, and Dr. Ramie Cooney for their collective
mentorship and contributions on this project. |
| KEY
POINTS |
- Mental
imagery and self-talk strategies are implemented by athletes in
order to regulate arousal, reduce maladaptive behaviors, reconstruct
negative thoughts, and to increase one's concentration and focus.
- Results
of the current study suggest that participants who engaged in
several performance enhancement techniques exhibited enhanced
performance on a golf putting task when compared to participants
in a control condition.
- Participants
who endorsed limited athletic familiarity and activity (e.g.,
ten hours or less) preferred self-talk practice whereas participants
who endorsed higher ratings scores of athletic familiarity and
activity (e.g., ten hours or more) preferred imagery strategies.
- The
results of this study demonstrate the flexibility of Performance
Enhancement Techniques (e.g., imagery v. self-talk, internal v.
external, simultaneous v. delayed) and how they can be implemented
to help an athlete reach his or her full potential.
|
| AUTHORS
BIOGRAPHY |
Eugenio A. PELUSO
Employment: Neuropsychology Resident, Department of Behavioral
Medicine & Psychiatry at West Virginia University
Degree: PhD.
Research interests: Sport psychology and neuropsychology.
E-mail: ginopeluso@hotmail.com |
|
Michael J. ROSS
Employment: Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology
at Saint Louis University.
Degree: PhD, ABPP.
Research interests: Rehabilitation/pain management and
help-seeking behaviors in men with depression.
E-mail: rossmj@slu.edu |
|
Jeffrey D. GFELLER
Employment: Associate Professor of Psychology, Department
of Psychology at Saint Louis University.
Degree: PhD.
Research interests: Effects of malingering on standardized
testing and mild traumatic brain injury.
E-mail: gfellerj@slu.edu |
|
Donna
J. LaVOIE
Employment: Associate Professor of Psychology, Department
of Psychology at Saint Louis University
Degree: PhD.
Research interests: Memory and aging.
E-mail: lavoiedj@slu.edu
|
|
|
|
|