[- “ ﬁvﬁ‘ '

v-v

. 3:... «4

7—,;

- . pla-

 

1 1 .. 1-51.11. ' , I.
1111 1111.131. 1 i 2 I""I"1'I1"—‘-i1 .'.
1. .1111“; “1.11.11 . -I r 1 ‘1“ 111111111111 1111 1 111111 ‘
3 “1111111 11' 11111 1. 11111111 1111’ 1'11
'1 11111 1 m 111111 111111111 1111111111111 {111111121 111.11 11" 1'1 111 11. 11111 I
11111111111 1.111 1111 1111' ‘11 ;. 1.1111
111111111111111'111111'1 11'» 1I 1.111111 11 1111It
I11 1 I11 '11 . 11 111111 11111.1 '1. ”11¢ ,
1: I 1 1‘ ' 1‘ “1' , '5‘ ‘ 1'” v'mL"
111‘ '1 1I1I11111111111111111111111n 1111 111111 “1111111 1 111 111111111111 "

 
 
  

   

£9.11“. '1 '1 '~——-—— “£0111?!

7‘ .1 "A \ 1Y1 11:1:J1 4’11

'19 1: 4‘ 11“?"

14-11111 1.1 ‘ :\ 3%1“ :
“-“w ' ~.. ..
1 a???" “‘1" T"); ‘1 1.1.1111 l '

         
 
 
  

  
 

'51” . ‘11:]. $1.1 '
I“. ‘ . 11,1. .111: :

1111““ I1 111111;” 111113 13'1-
I 111111" 11111111., 1-113 . .:
I I ‘1‘. 1 III.“ -

¢%;.V1M.b~‘f51:1‘1’..".'P:q(:;§_.‘ . _ U" .-
1. .211111113’143'}. ,1 s . .. " “

I1 ;. 1,.
51:11:11)“: 11.11! 111'

  
        
   
 
 

    

111: 1111113

' c
‘ -
".' ‘ o
'_.:a'."‘ u ‘
‘_-

  
    
    
 

'I’.‘

___.:
- .V'VJJA
‘ _. ..
a

     

.
.r ‘ .-
c.< .
1‘ CD -'
'.. "H W ‘
. 7am.
. . .‘c
.
.

 
  

  
  

V
. 5_%‘5§1§§'
N' '1: '.- W
e§§v3I ‘1: ‘ L z,
11 n .111'53‘4' '1‘ 1511‘ "' :-
12115;}:y1m.13b;wr . E:;\ ‘ "x: pg.
1 ‘ n ‘§
' ‘2 . . ' ‘1

    

1111:1111! tam-‘1

 
   
 
     

:;
.91; .v,
1,..11.
.1

        
 

    

 

 

    
  
  
 
 
 
 

 

       

  
 

 

 
 
  

THESIS

'1

'il‘4 7- 3)

- i \\\\‘~?\\

mflgnAggte \\\\\\\:\a\mizl\égoﬁee 5 ‘85\
C an
Unlgmrsity

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Negative Imagery and Performance:
Searching for Biasing Effects and a Cognitive
Intervention Strategy

presented by

James A. Afrelov

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

11.8. degree in Sport Psychology

 

Maj ofess

mew

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN REI'URN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1!” WM

NEGATIVE IMAGERY AND PERFORMANCE: SEARCHING FOR BIASING
EFFECTS AND A COGNITIVE INTERVENTION STRATEGY

By

James A. Afremow

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science

1997

ABSTRACT
NEGATIVE IMAGERY AND PERFORMANCE: SEARCHING FOR BIASING
EFFECTS AND A COGNITIVE INTERVENTION STRATEGY
By

James A. Afremow

The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the eﬂ‘ects of negative imagery
on putting performance, to search for systematic biasing effects, to determine the
effectiveness of positive imagery as a cognitive intervention strategy, and to identify the
inﬂuence of imagery ability. Sixty-four college students (45 males, 19 females) were
blocked for imagery ability (high, low), then randomly assigned to one of four conditions
prior to performing the pre-post putting task: negative imagery, positive followed by
negative imagery, negative followed by positive imagery, or control. The results
provided partial support for the use of positive imagery as a cognitive intervention
strategy, as well as for the existence of systematic biasing effects of negative imagery on
putting direction. Neither putting performance nor putting direction were influenced by
imagery ability. Results and their implications are discussed, and future research

directions are offered

DEDICATION

To my mother, Eva Afremow

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Lynnette Overby, for all her assistance and support for
this project. I have greatly appreciated your guidance and generous availability. You
have contributed much to my understanding of mental imagery.

I want to also thank my other committee members Dr. Marty Ewing and Dr. Rick
Albrecht. Both of you helped with the project’s statistical design as well as reﬁning my
understanding of the topic. Dr. Ewing’s enthusiasm and extensive understanding of sport
psychology helped to motivate me and understand more fully the implications of this
work. Dr. Albrecht was also very encouraging and his questions and suggestions were
exceedingly beneﬁcial to this project.

To my father, Arthur, and my sister, Nancy, thank you for everything. I love you both
and would not have been able to ﬁnish my thesis and my master’s degree at Michigan
State without your support and encouragement.

A special thank you goes to Victoria Orrego. Your help with the data entry and
statistical analysis was very much appreciated. However, more importantly was the time
we spent together throughout this project and becoming close to such a special person.

Finally, I thank all those I met here on my journey and who helped me, directly or
indirectly, to cross this ﬁnish line. I want to particularly mention Anthony Kontos, and

Mick and Lynn Collins for being such good friends.

i\

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page
LIST OF TABLES vii
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1
Nature of the Problem ............................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .......................................... 5
Hypotheses ..................................................... 6
Delimitations ................................................... 6
Rationale for Putting Task ......................................... 7
Deﬁnitions ..................................................... 8
11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................. 11
Introduction .................................................... 11
Mental Imagery and Mental Practice History .......................... 11
Research on Imagery and Mental Practice ............................ 12
Research on Imagery Use ......................................... 14
Research on Outcome Imagery ..................................... 15
Research on Imagery Biasing Effects ................................ 18
Research on Imagery Ability ....................................... 19
Theories of Imagery ............................................. 20
Symbolic Learning Theory ....................................... 20
Psychoneuromuscular Theory ..................................... 21
Cognitive and Motivational Theory ................................ 21
Conclusion ..................................................... 22
HI. METHOD .................................................... 24
Participants .................................................... 24
Questionnaires .................................................. 24
Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised (MIQ-R) .................. 24
Post-Experimental Questionnaire .................................. 24
Performance Task and Equipment .................................. 25

Procedure ...................................................... 25

CHAPTER Page

IV. RESULTS .................................................... 30
MIQ-R Scores .................................................. 30
Putting Performance ............................................. 31
Putting Direction ................................................ 34
Imagery Ability ................................................. 36
Post-Experimental Questionnaire ................................... 36

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .............................. 40
Discussion ..................................................... 40
Conclusions .................................................... 44
Implications for Athletes .......................................... 44
Suggestions for Future Research .................................... 45

APPENDICES
Appendix A: University Committee on Research Involving Human

Subjects Approval .................................... 48
Appendix B: Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised (MIQ-R) ........ 49
Appendix C: Post-Experimental Questionnaires ....................... 52
Appendix D: Statement of Informed Consent ......................... 59
Appendix E: Introduction and Instructions Script ...................... 60
Appendix F: Debriefrng Script ..................................... 63
Appendix G: Tables for Putting Performance and Putting Direction ........ 64
Appendix H: Responses to Open-Ended Questions From
Post-Experimental Questionnaire . ....................... 66
Appendix I: ANOVA and ANCOVA Summary Tables .................. 75
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................ 79

vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page
1. Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised Scores ..................... 31
2. Group Putting Performance Pre and Post Scores ....................... 32
3. Group Putting Direction Pre and Post Scores .......................... 35
4. Post-Experimental Questionnaire Scores for Imagery Groups ............. 38
5. Post-Experimental Questionnaire Scores for Control Group .............. 39

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Nature of the Problem

The use of mental imagery as a tool to enhance the learning and performance of motor
and sport skills has been a topic of much interest to sport psychologists, coaches, and
athletes. Imagery is routinely used by elite and non-elite athletes in both individual and
team sports. Several investigations have documented and assessed the use of mental
imagery by athletes competing in individual or team sports at varying competitive levels
(e.g., Barr & Hall, 1992; Hall, Rodgers, & Barr, 1990; Orlick & Partington, 1988;
Salmon, Hall, & Haslam, 1994).

Testimonials from many famous athletes on the important role imagery has played in
helping them achieve their athletic success adds experiential or anecdotal evidence to the
numerous empirical research ﬁndings supporting imagery use. For example, golf great
Jack Nicklaus states that he never hits a shot without ﬁrst using imagery (Neal, 1976).
Meta-analyses of the mental practice literature (Driskell, Copper, & Moran, 1994; Feltz
& Landers, 1983) have concluded that mental imagery is an effective means of enhancing
performance. In addition, many variables that either mediate (e.g., imagery ability) or
moderate (e.g., type of task) the relationship between imagery and performance have
been identiﬁed (e.g., Feltz & Landers, 1983).

Image outcome is one factor that mediates the effectiveness of preperformance

imagery rehearsal (Murphy & Jowdy, 1992). Speciﬁcally, image outcome refers to

whether the imagery rehearsal of a task includes a successful end result (positive
imagery) or an unsuccessful end result (negative imagery). Thus, imagery can work in a
negative way, just like it can in a positive way, and this outcome component of an image
plays an important role in determining whether imagery enhances or degrades subsequent
performance (Woolfolk, Murphy, Gottesfeld, & Aitken, 1985a; Woolfolk, Parish, &
Murphy, 1985b). This ﬁnding is notable because studies that have examined imagery use
have reported that athletes at times image themselves performing incorrectly and/or
unsuccessfully in competition (e. g., Barr & Hall, 1992; Hall et al., 1990; Orlick &
Partington, 1988). There is a need, therefore, to examine the effects of both positive and
negative imagery on the performance of motor and sport skills. Unfortunately, there is a
paucity of studies which have explored the effects of negative imagery.

Powell (1973) compared the effects of positive and negative imagery rehearsal using a
dart throwing task. Results showed that subjects in the positive imagery group (imaging
the dart landing near the center of the target) improved their performance, whereas
subjects in the negative imagery group (imaging the dart landing near the edge of the
board) showed a decrease in performance. Woolfolk et al. (1985b) investigated the
effects of preperformance positive and negative imagery rehearsal using a golf putting
task. The results were consistent with Powell’s ﬁndings in that positive imagery (sinking
the putt) enhanced performance, whereas negative imagery (missing the putt) inhibited
performance. Woolfolk et al. (1985a) extended the Woolfolk et al. (1985b) study by
investigating the inﬂuence of the performance versus outcome components of

preperformance imagery, and possible interactions among these components, on golf

putting performance. Similar to the ﬁndings from the above studies, the negative
imagery conditions (negative outcome with performance, negative outcome only)
resulted in a deterioration in performance. However, in contrast, the positive imagery
conditions (positive outcome with performance, positive outcome only), as well as the
performance only condition, failed to enhance performance. These researchers
suggested that perhaps negative imagery is more powerful in inhibiting performance than
positive imagery is in facilitating it.

The results from the above studies clearly demonstrate that instructions to image an
unsuccessful outcome are harmful to subsequent performance. However, other than a
general deterioration in performance, any additional effects of the negative imagery
manipulation on performance are unknown. Moreover, an adequate theory explaining
how negative imagery might harm performance is lacking (Murphy, 1994).

Johnson (1982), using a linear positioning task, demonstrated that “incorrect” images
can have systematic biasing effects (in both direction and magnitude) on the recall of a
previously learned movement. For example, if subjects learned to move a slide 30 cm,
but then imagined moving the slide 60 cm, they showed a systematic tendency towards
longer movements in recall, and vice versa. This ﬁnding raises the very interesting
question of whether negative imagery, in addition to a general deterioration in
performance, also produces systematic biasing effects on performance in accordance
with the particular nature of the outcome component. In other words, would imaging
missing a golf putt to the left of the cup increase the tendency to miss the putt in this

direction?

In an effort to increase our understanding of the precise effects of negative imagery
and in turn, shed light on how negative imagery harms performance, the present study
investigated this issue by controlling precisely, in contrast to Powell (1973) and Woolfolk
et al. (1985b), how subjects in the negative imagery conditions are to image missing the
target (to the left of the cup) and to record whether this results in a greater percentage of
being missed to the left of the cup.

Given the consistent ﬁndings demonstrating the deleterious effects of negative
imagery on motor skill performance, it is important to consider ways in which the
harmful effects of these images can be prevented or reduced when they occur (Woolfolk
et al., 1985a). One plausible strategy is to counterbalance the negative image by
preceding or following it with a positive image prior to performance. If negative imagery
is more powerful at inhibiting performance than positive imagery is at improving
performance, as suggested by Woolfolk et al. (1985a), then this strategy may reduce
rather than completely block damage to subsequent performance. The present study
tested the success of this intervention by employing a negative imagery (N), a positive
followed by negative imagery (P-N), a negative followed by positive imagery (N-P), and
a control group (C).

Individual differences in imagery ability is perhaps one of the most critical factors
inﬂuencing the effectiveness of imagery on motor skill performance (Hall, Buckolz, &
Fishburne, 1992). Studies using various assessment instruments have found a positive
relationship between imagery ability and motor skill performance (e.g., Issac, 1992;

Gas, Hall, Buckolz, & Fishburne, 1986). However, these studies employed images that

were correct or successful and neglected to explore the role that imagery ability plays in
performance when the images are incorrect or unsuccessful. If we assume that negative
imagery effects performance along the same lines as positive imagery, it would follow
that a negative relationship between imagery ability and motor skill performance would
occur with negative images. If so, higher skilled imagers would experience a greater
decline in performance than lower skilled imagers when exposed to negative images.
This prediction was examined in the present study using the Movement Imagery
Questionnaire-Revised (MIQ-R; Hall & Martin, 1997), a revision of the MIQ (Hall &
Pongrac, 1983), to assess visual and kinesthetic movement imagery ability.
Statement of the Problem

The aim of this study was to advance negative imagery research in four ways. First,
following the work of Woolfolk et al. (1985b), this study extended the examination of the
effects of negative imagery on motor skill performance to a natural setting. Second, in
this study we investigated for the presence of a systematic biasing effect of negative
imagery on performance. Third, we investigated whether positive imagery can
successfully prevent negative imagery from degrading subsequent performance. Finally,

to determine the inﬂuence of imagery ability on performance when exposed to negative

images.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were tested in this study:

1. Participants in the negative imagery group (N) will experience a signiﬁcant
decrease in putting performance from pre- to posttest.

2. Participants in the negative imagery group (N) will make signiﬁcantly fewer putts
from pre- to posttest in comparison to the positive followed by negative imagery (P-N),
negative followed by positive imagery (N-P), and control groups (C).

3. Participants in the negative imagery group (N) will experience a signiﬁcant
increase in the number of missed putts to the left of the cup from pre- to posttest.

4. Participants in the negative imagery group (N) will miss signiﬁcantly more putts to
the left of the cup from pre- to posttest in comparison to the positive followed by
negative imagery (P-N), negative followed by positive imagery (N—P), and control groups
(C).

5. There will be a negative relationship between imagery ability and putting
performance on the posttest for participants in the negative imagery group (N).
Delimitations

This study was limited to students at a large midwestem university. Although
participants were enrolled in a beginning or intermediate golf class, they cannot be
considered elite golfers. Thus, the results of this study may not generalize to elite or for
that matter completely novice golfers. Moreover, given that only a relatively brief
imagery training session was employed, a systematic imagery training program over an

extended period of time may have produced different results. This study did not address

any possible differences between the effects of negative imagery on performance
resulting from the spontaneous occurrence of negative imagery during actual
performance, inadvertent negative imagery as the result of attempted positive imagery
rehearsal, or intentional preperformance negative imagery of the type this study
employed. Finally, it was assumed that participants would respond honestly to all items
on the MIQ-R and post-experimental questionnaire.
Rationale for Putting Task

Golf putting provides an excellent vehicle to investigate the effects of outcome
imagery on motor skill performance. Putting is a closed motor skill in that it is self-
paced and performed in a relatively predictable and stable environment. Consequently,
closed motor skills are generally easier to image in comparison to open motor skills
which are less predictable and often require one to react to unanticipated events. Further,
3 putting task provides an ideal opportunity to explore systematic biasing effects and
changes in performance. Participants in this study rehearsed negative images which
involved imaging missing the putt to the left of the cup. Whether a putt was sunk or not,

as well as the direction of a missed putt, was readily recorded.

Deﬁnitions
Mental Imagery
Mental imagery, in the ﬁeld of exercise science, is the intentional use of the senses to
mentally rehearse performing a particular sport skill or movement sequence in the
absence of, or in combination with, overt physical movement (Afremow, Overby, &
Vadocz, 1997).
Mental Practice
Mental practice refers to the rehearsal of a mental technique (e.g., self-talk) and may
or may not involve mental imagery (Murphy & J owdy, 1992).
Prepgrformance Ir_p_ag_eﬂ
Preperformance imagery refers to imagery rehearsed immediately prior to physical
performance (Budney & Woolfolk, 1990).
Positive Ir_n_agery
Positive imagery refers to an image having a success outcome component (Murphy &
Jowdy, 1992). For purposes of the present study, imaging the golf ball dropping into the
cup is considered a positive image.
Negative Imagery
Negative imagery refers to an image having a failure outcome component (Murphy &
Jowdy, 1992). For purposes of the present study, imaging the golf ball not dropping into

the cup is considered a negative image.

Internal Imageg

Internal imagery refers to imagery that is experienced from the perspective of inside
the perforrner’s own body and simulates the sensations of actually performing (Mahoney
& Avener, 1977).

External Imagery

External imagery refers to imagery that is experienced from the perspective of outside
the perforrner’s own body and is similar to watching a performance on TV (Mahoney &
Avener, 1977).

Visual Image_ry

Visual imagery involves recreating the sensation of sight in the absence of external
stimuli (Vealey & Walter, 1993).

mneghetic Imageg

Kinesthetic imagery involves recreating the sensations associated with bodily
movement in the absence of actual physical movement (Vealey & Walter, 1993).

Closed Motor Skill

A closed motor skill is self-paced and performed in a relatively predictable and stable
environment (Singer, 1980). Putting a golf ball, the task used in the present study, is an
example of a closed motor skill.

Motor Skill

An open motor skill involves reacting to events in a relatively unpredictable and

unstable environment (Singer, 1980). A goalie attempting to block a shot on goal is an

example of a open motor skill.

10

Performance

For purposes of the present study, performance was measured for both the pretest and
posttest by the total number of putts made.

Systematic Biasing Effects

For purposes of the present study, systematic biasing effects were measured for both

the pretest and posttest by the total number of putts missed to the left of the cup.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Mental imagery is a primary form of cognition, and plays a central role in numerous
human activities (Kosslyn, 1994). Sport is one such activity in which both the
spontaneous and the intentional use of imagery (as a performance enhancement
technique) has played an important role. With regard to sport and physical activity,
mental imagery can be deﬁned as the intentional use of the senses to mentally rehearse
performing a particular sport skill or movement sequence in the absence of, or in
combination with, overt physical movement. Other terms used in place of mental
imagery, but referring to the same mental process, include symbolic rehearsal,
visualization, cognitive rehearsal, imaginal practice, implicit practice, and ideomotor
training (Murphy & Jowdy, 1992).
Mental Imagery and Mental Praictice History

Mental imagery is by no means a new research topic. In their discussion of put
research, Murphy and Jowdy ( 1992) brieﬂy mention a study by Jastrow (1892) pertaining
to an examination of “muscular activity during mental operations” (p. 224). The authors
indicate that studies exploring the effects of mental imagery on performance began to
appear during the 19305 (e.g., Perry, 1939).

An early study by Vandel, Davis, and Clugston (1943) examined the “function” of
mental imagery in the acquisition of dart throwing and basketball free throw shooting

skills. Three experimental groups were used in the study. Group 1 performed physical

ll

12

practice on the ﬁrst and last day of the study (day 1 and day 20), with no practice in
between. Group 2 performed physical practice for 20 consecutive days. Finally, Group 3
(like group 1) performed physical practice on the ﬁrst and last day of the study (day 1 and
day 20), however during the interval they engaged in mental practice. Results of the
study showed that mental practice was more effective than no practice, but not as
effective as physical practice.

Research on Imageg and Mental Practice

Denis (1985) reviewed the basic paradigm for studying the effects of mental practice.
Subjects are randomly assigned to either a mental practice group (MP), a physical
practice group (PP), or a control/no-practice group (C). Each group is given a pretest, of
the particular skill to be measured in the study (e.g., golf putting), prior to the
experimental manipulations. Next, subjects in the MP and PP groups mentally and
physically rehearse the motor skill, respectively. Finally, a posttest is performed to
determine the effects of MP on performance. For example, if data indicate that the MP
group showed signiﬁcantly greater improvement (over initial performance) than the C
group, but not the PP group, then mental practice will be explained as having a positive
effect on performance, but to a lesser extent than physical practice.

Mental practice studies have examined the effects of imagery on a wide range of
motor skills and tasks. For example, dart throwing (Arnold, 1965 ), badminton short
serve (Beckow, 1967), pursuit rotor task (Kohl & Roenker, 1980), stabilometer (Ryan &
Simons, 1981), golf putt (Woolfolk, Parrish, & Murphy, 1985), diving (Grouios, 1992a),

baseball batting (Bagg, 1966), and many other sport skills and motor tasks have been

l3

utilized to study the effects of imagery and mental practice. Moreover, the effects of
imagery on cognitive (e.g., pegboard), motor (e.g., golf putt), and strength tasks (e.g.,
hand-grip) have been studied and compared to one another (e.g., Driskell et al., 1994).

Researchers have also sought to explore the effects of imagery on motor performance
by manipulating the amount of mental practice prior to performance, or different
combinations of mental and physical practice. For example, Hird, Landers, Thomas, and
Horan (1991) compared differing proportions of physical and mental practice on
cognitive and motor task performance. Results revealed that physical practice was
superior to mental practice in enhancing performance, and the higher the ratio of physical
to mental practice the greater the positive effect. Although physical practice was
superior to mental practice, it is important to note that mental practice was superior to no
practice (control group). Thus, the authors argue that mental practice should be used, not
as a substitute for physical practice, but only when physical practice cannot be performed
(while injured, before, or after practice, etc.). A second ﬁnding indicated that although
mental practice leads to enhanced performance on both cognitive and motor tasks,
greater effects were revealed for cognitive tasks.

Researchers have also combined other forms of mental practice and mental
preparation along with mental imagery in their studies. For example, Meacci and Price
(1985) combined relaxation, body rehearsal, and mental imagery as a successful
intervention in golf putting acquisition Noel (1980) also added a relaxation phase prior

to visualization, utilizing the visuo-motor behavior technique (VMBR); however, no

14

signiﬁcant differences between tennis players using VMBR or the control group were
found.
Research on lmageg Use

Hall et al. (1990) surveyed Canadian athletes from a variety of sports and found that
the higher the competitive level the more extensively imagery was used by the athletes.
Orlick and Partington (1988) reported that “some 99%” of 160 Canadian 1984 Olympic
athletes surveyed reported using mental imagery as a preparation strategy. McCaffrey
and Orlick (1989) interviewed 14 top professional golfers regarding their mental
readiness strategies and reported that all used imagery on a daily basis.

Additional support for imagery and mental practice can be found by looking at studies
comparing successful and unsuccessful athletes (Murphy & J owdy, 1992) and imagery
use by elite vs. non-elite athletes. These studies typically utilize a questionnaire to
determine imagery use, imagery perspective, etc. For example, Mahoney and Avener
(1977) found a greater frequency of internal imagery use by those selected for the 1976
US. Olympic male gymnastics team, than those failing to qualify. Moreover, Murphy
and Jowdy (1992) indicate that while some evidence indicates “clearer imagery” by
successful over less successful athletes (e.g., Highlen & Bennett, 1983 ), other studies
have failed to ﬁnd similar results (e.g., Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg, 1981).

Barr and Hall (1992) administered the Imagery Use Questionnaire (IUQ) to rowers of
varying achievement levels. Among other ﬁndings, results indicated that elite rowers
used mental imagery in competition, before a race, and during breaks in the day to a

signiﬁcantly greater extent than novices. It should be noted, however, that these ﬁndings

15

do not indicate a causal relationship between imagery use and performance (Murphy &
Jowdy, 1992). Further, imagery rehearsal is not always positive. Athletes at times image
themselves performing incorrectly and failing (Hall et al., 1990; Orlick, 1986; Rodgers,
Hall, & Buckolz, 1991).
Rmh on OJutcome Imageg

Powell (1973) conducted the ﬁrst study investigating the effects of positive versus
negative imagery on motor skill performance. He divided subjects into either a positive
or a negative imagery group and compared subsequent performance on a dart throwing
task. Subjects were instructed to image both the performance (i.e., throwing the dart)
and the outcome (i.e., where the dart landed) during their rehearsal. A positive image
involved the dart landing near the center of the target, while a negative image involved
the dart landing near the edge of the board. The procedure consisted of ﬁve blocks, with
blocks 1, 3, and 5 involving throwing the darts at the target and with imagery rehearsal
occurring during blocks 2 and 4. The results showed, comparing the ﬁrst and last blocks,
an improvement in performance by subjects in the positive imagery condition and a
deterioration in performance by subjects in the negative imagery condition. However, as
noted by Woolfolk et al. (1985b), the lack of a control group limits the conclusions that
can be drawn from this study.

Woolfolk et al. ( 1985b) examined further the effects of preperformance positive
versus negative imagery on motor skill performance. The task was putting a golf ball and
each subject was initially blocked on putting ability, which then determined their

subsequent putting distance. Next, performance on 10 putts was used as the baseline for

15

do not indicate a causal relationship between imagery use and performance (Murphy &
J owdy, 1992). Further, imagery rehearsal is not always positive. Athletes at times image
themselves performing incorrectly and failing (Hall et al., 1990; Orlick, 1986; Rodgers,
Hall, & Buckolz, 1991).
Re__s_earch on Outcome Imaggry

Powell (1973) conducted the ﬁrst study investigating the effects of positive versus
negative imagery on motor skill performance. He divided subjects into either a positive
or a negative imagery group and compared subsequent performance on a dart throwing
task. Subjects were instructed to image both the performance (i.e., throwing the dart)
and the outcome (i.e., where the dart landed) during their rehearsal. A positive image
involved the dart landing near the center of the target, while a negative image involved
the dart landing near the edge of the board. The procedure consisted of ﬁve blocks, with
blocks 1, 3, and 5 involving throwing the darts at the target and with imagery rehearsal
occurring during blocks 2 and 4. The results showed, comparing the ﬁrst and last blocks,
an improvement in performance by subjects in the positive imagery condition and a
deterioration in performance by subjects in the negative imagery condition. However, as
noted by Woolfolk et al. (1985b), the lack of a control group limits the conclusions that
can be drawn from this study.

Woolfolk et al. (1985b) examined further the effects of preperformance positive
versus negative imagery on motor skill performance. The task was putting a golf ball and
each subject was initially blocked on putting ability, which then determined their

subsequent putting distance. Next, performance on 10 putts was used as the baseline for

16

each subject. Subjects were then randomly assigned either to a positive imagery,
negative imagery, or control group. Subjects in the two imagery conditions were
instructed to image both the performance (i.e., putting the golf ball) and the outcome
(i.e., either sinking or missing the putt). Imagery subjects followed identical instructions
except for the outcome component of the image. A positive image involved sinking the
putt, while a negative image involved the golf ball just missing the cup. The procedure
consisted of a testing session of 10 putts performed on six consecutive days. The results
of the six trials revealed that subjects in the positive imagery condition signiﬁcantly
improved their putting performance (30.4%), while subjects in the negative imagery
condition showed a signiﬁcant decline in performance (21.2%) from baseline. The
control group showed a slight improvement in their putting performance (9.9%). It was
concluded that preperformance imagery can serve either to enhance or degrade
subsequent motor skill performance depending on whether the outcome component is
positive or negative.

Woolfolk et al. (1985a) extended the Woolfolk et al. (1985b) study by investigating
the inﬂuence of the performance versus outcome components of preperformance
imagery, and possible interactions among these components, on subsequent motor skill
performance. As before, the task was putting a golf ball and each subject was initially
blocked on putting ability which then determined their subsequent putting distance.
Next, each subject performed a pretest which consisted of two blocks of 10 putts for a
total of 20 putts. Subjects were then randomly assigned to one of ﬁve imagery groups

(positive outcome with performance, negative outcome with performance, performance

17

only, positive outcome only, and negative outcome only) or to a control group. Subjects
then performed the posttest, which was identical to the pretest except for the subjects in
the imagery conditions who were instructed to rehearse their assigned image prior to each
putt and for one minute before each block of 10 putts. The results revealed a main effect
for outcome, with both negative imagery groups (negative outcome with performance,
negative outcome only) exhibiting a deterioration in performance. However, contrary to
the Woolfolk et al. (1985b) study, the positive imagery groups (positive outcome with
performance, positive outcome only) did not show an improvement in performance. In
addition, the performance only group also failed to show an improvement in
performance. It was suggested by the authors that negative imagery is perhaps more
potent in harming performance than positive imagery is in enhancing performance.
Moreover, the outcome component of preperformance imagery has a greater impact on
subsequent performance than the performance only component. The researchers further
sought to investigate the mechanisms underlying the effect of imagery on performance,
however, neither subjects’ levels of tension or ratings of self-efﬁcacy were able to
explain performance.

Two unpublished studies (Blackshear, 1991; Schmidt, 1992) explored the effects of
performance (correct versus incorrect) and outcome (positive versus negative) imagery
on the learning and performance of sport skills. In contrast to the above studies the
images were not rehearsed immediately prior to performance. Neither study found

negative imagery to harm performance. As noted by Schmidt (1992), these results, when

18

compared to past ﬁndings, suggest that negative imagery is damaging only when
immediately preceding performance.
Research on Imageg Biasing Effects

A review of the mental imagery literature reveals that imagery is functionally similar
to physical practice and can produce biasing effects for motor learning and motor
memory (Finke, 1979; Hall, Bernoties, & Schmidt, 1995; Johnson, 1982). Johnson, using
a linear positioning task, demonstrated that images can systematically have biasing
effects on performance. All subjects were provided with 15 acquisition trials in which
they moved a slide along a track until reaching a stop, set at a speciﬁc distance by the
experimenter. Subjects were then randomly assigned to an interpolated activity prior to
having to recall this position on the track with the stop removed One interpolated
activity involved counting backwards and this control condition did not result in
signiﬁcant error at recall. A second interpolated activity required subjects to imagine
moving the slide the same distance as physically perfonned during the acquisition period
and this condition did not result in signiﬁcant error at recall. In the two other conditions,
the interpolated activity consisted of either imagining or physically moving the slide
either half or twice the distance of the original movement. Results showed signiﬁcant
error in recall by subjects in both of these conditions. Moreover, both the “novel”
imagery and the “novel” movements produced systematic biasing effects in both
direction and magnitude on the movement to be recalled. This ﬁnding demonstrated that
the effects of physical movements and imagery of movements are functionally

equivalent

19

In a second experiment, Johnson (1982) tested predictions from the symbolic learning
theory and the psychoneuromuscular theory to account for mental imagery effects.
Speciﬁcally, Johnson compared the effects of a visual interference task and a motor
interference task on the systematic biasing effects produced by the interpolated activity
of imaging an incorrect slide movement. The results revealed the biasing produced by
imagery in the ﬁrst experiment did not occur for imagery combined with visual
interference, in the second experiment. In contrast, biasing from imagery resulted
despite motor interference. The interfering effect on recall due to visual interference, not
motor interference, was argued to provide support for the symbolic learning theory.
Research on [Luggeg Abilig

Individual differences in imagery ability are perhaps one of the most critical factors
inﬂuencing the effectiveness of imagery on motor skill performance (Hall et al., 1992).
However, several studies considering imagery ability have produced inconsistent results.
Woolfolk et al. ( 1985a) administered an imagery questionnaire to subjects in the imagery
groups, but did not ﬁnd either vividness or control to inﬂuence performance. Hall et al.
(1985) argued that the use of inadequate instruments to measure imagery ability for
movement have played a large role in the inconsistent ﬁndings. Consequently, the
Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ; Hall & Pongrac, 1983) was developed to
measure movement imagery ability. Studies using the MIQ have found a positive
relationship between imagery ability and motor skill performance (e. g., Goss et al.,
1986). Moreover, in a study by Issac (1992) using both the Vividness of Visual Imagery

questionnaire (VVIQ; Marks, 1973) and the Vividness of Movement Imagery

20

Questionnaire (VMIQ; Isaac, Marks, & Russell, 1986) to assess imagery ability, high
skilled imagers improved signiﬁcantly more on trampolining skills than low skilled
imagers in the imagery training condition.

Theories of Imagery

A number of plausible theoretical explanations have been developed in an attempt to
explain the effects of mental imagery in motor skill learning and performance. However,
explanations receiving the most attention by researchers are the symbolic learning theory
and the psychoneuromuscular theory. A relatively more recent theory by Paivio (1985),
conceming the cognitive and motivational functions of imagery on performance, will
also be discussed.

Symbolic Learning Theog. The symbolic learning theory, which evolved from the
work of Sackett (1934), suggests that mental practice provides “the opportunity to
rehearse the sequence of movements as symbolic components of the task” (Grouios,
1992b, p. 45). This additional preparation, in turn, leads to enhanced performance.
Providing support for this theory are studies that have found mental practice to provide
greater effects for tasks higher in cognitive than motor or strength components (e.g., Feltz
& Landers, 1983). Further, researchers have found that mental practice is more effective
in the early stages of learning, which is considered to be primarily cognitive (Murphy &
Jowdy, 1992). Thus, operations within the central nervous system would account for
mental imagery effects (Murphy & Jowdy, 1992). The symbolic learning theory would
explain negative irnagery’s impact on performance as resulting from distortions in the

internal representation of the task.

21

Pachoneuromuscular Theory. According to the psychoneuromuscular explanation,
“mental practice causes minute innervations to occur in the muscles that are actually
used in the physical performance of the skill being learned” (Driskell et al., 1994, p.
489). This innervation of the muscles and resulting kinesthetic feedback, strengthens the
motor program for the particular task and eventually leads to enhanced performance
(Murphy & Jowdy, 1992). Jacobson ( 1932) was one of the ﬁrst to provide partial support
for this theory by detecting muscle activity in areas of the body subjects imagined
moving (Murphy & Jowdy, 1992). According to this theory, the involvement of the
peripheral musculature accounts for mental imagery effects (Murphy & Jowdy, 1992).
However, as discussed above, a number of studies have demonstrated superior mental
practice effects for cognitive rather than physical tasks (e. g., Driskell et al., 1994).
Further, Johnson (1982) fotmd that visual, rather than motor, interference countered
biasing effects of imagery. These ﬁndings conﬂict with what would be expected
according to the psychoneuromuscular theory. The psychoneuromuscular theory would
explain negative imagery’s impact on performance as resulting from changes in the
motor program of the task.

Cognitive and Motivational Theog. According to Paivio (1985), imagery can fulﬁll
both a motivational and a cognitive role, at either a general or speciﬁc level, in mediating
sport behavior. Speciﬁcally, motivation at the general level inﬂuences arousal and
affect, and goal-oriented responses at the speciﬁc level. On the other hand, the cognitive
function of imagery at the general level pertains to sport strategies, and for sport skills at

the speciﬁc level. The cognitive and motivational theory would account for negative

22

imagery’s impact on performance as a possible decrease in arousal and affect at the
general level of motivation, and/or disruptive changes in skill execution at the cognitive
speciﬁc level.
9329M

This review of the mental imagery literature reveals that, although imagery has been
extensively researched, the area regarding the effects of negative imagery on
performance has been largely neglected. It is evident from the literature review that
athletes do experience negative images and that preperformance negative imagery
rehearsal can result in a decrement in subsequent performance. However, a number of
important questions need to be addressed. First, it is necessary for the ﬁnding regarding
the deleterious effects of negative imagery to be replicated in a natural setting It is
possible that negative imagery effects found in the laboratory may not translate to the
ﬁeld, in which greater motivation to perform well would perhaps be expected. Second,
effective strategies intended to counter negative images need to be developed Third, it is
important to consider whether negative images have systematic biasing effects on
performance to better rmderstand what the speciﬁc effects of these images are, as well as
to perhaps throw light on the mechanism(s) underlying negative imagery effects.
Theories including the symbolic learning theory, the psychoneuromuscular theory, and
the cognitive and motivational theory, have been developed to explain mental imagery
effects on performance. Presently, the symbolic learning theory has received the most

empirical support. Finally, although imagery ability has been posited as a crucial

23

variable in imagery effects, it remains uncertain what the inﬂuence of imagery ability is

on negative imagery effects.

CHAPTER III
METHOD
Partici ts
Sixty-four students (45 males, 19 females) from a large midwestem university were
recruited to voluntarily participate in the experiment. All participants had either
completed or were currently enrolled in a beginning or intermediate golf class, co-taught

by the experimenter.
Questionnaires
Movement Ir_n_ageg mestionnaire-Revised (MIQR ). The MIQ-R (Hall & Martin,

1997; See Appendix B) was administered to assess visual and kinesthetic movement
imagery ability. Participants physically performed a total of eight motor movements.
Speciﬁcally, four separate motor movements were each performed twice in order to
obtain both a visual and kinesthetic imagery score. After performing each movement,
participants attempted to image “seeing” or “feeling” themselves performing the
movement. Next, participants rated the ease/difficulty of imaging the movement using a
7-point Likert scale. Vadocz, Moritz, and Hall (1997) identiﬁed alpha coefficients for
the visual and kinesthetic subscales of the MIQ-R as .82 and .83, respectively. Moreover,
they reported test-retest reliability coefﬁcients for the visual and kinesthetic subscales as
.89 and .90, respectively.

Post-Exgrimental gestionnaire. A questionnaire (See Appendix C), tailored for
each experimental group, was administered to each participant upon completion of the

posttest. The questionnaire served as a manipulation check to assess the extent to which

24

25

participants in the imagery groups followed the procedure and rehearsed the image(s)
according to their respective instructions (e.g., How often did you image missing the putt
to the left of the cup prior to physically putting the ball?) Participants in the control
group were asked whether they used visual or kinesthetic imagery prior to performance.
Moreover, items were designed to assess the participants’ perceptions of the effect the
imagery rehearsal had on their performance and putting strategy (e.g., What effect do you
think imaging yourself missing the putt had on your subsequent performance?)
Performance Task and Euiment

The task performed by each participant involved putting a golf ball from a speciﬁed
distance across a public outdoor practice green into a standard size 4.25 in (10.80 cm) in
diameter putting cup. Speciﬁcally, participants putted on both the pretest and posttest
from an assigned distance based on their performance on 10 putts from a distance of 5.5
ft (1.68 m). This procedure was similar to Woolfolk et al. (1985b). All participants
putted Top Flite regular trajectory golf balls supplied by the experimenter and used their
own putter, with the restriction that they use the same putter on both the pretest and
posttest.
Procedure

After signing the consent (See Appendix D), participants were administered the MIQ-
R in a group setting. The experimenter began by reviewing the instructions with the
participants. Prior to each of the four motor movements, the experimenter modeled the
starting position. Next, each participant assumed the starting position, physically

produced the movement, then reassumed the starting position and imaged producing the

26

movement. Finally, the participants rated the ease/difﬁculty of imaging making the
movement. Upon completion, participants signed-up for an individual time and date in
which to perform the golf putting task.

Based on their total score on the MIQ-R, participants were classiﬁed as having either
high or low imagery ability. Speciﬁcally, all participants’ MIQ-R scores were rank
ordered and a median split divided participants into two groups: high or low imagery
ability. Participants within each imagery ability block were then randomly assigned to
either a negative imagery group (N), a positive followed by negative imagery group (P-
N), a negative followed by positive imagery group (N-P), or a control group (C). Thus,
there were eight groups: N high imagery ability (6 males, 2 females), N low imagery
ability (4 males, 4 females), P-N high imagery ability (7 males, 1 female), P-N low
imagery ability (6 males, 2 females), N—P high imagery ability (6 males, 2 females), N-P
low imagery ability (4 males, 4 females), C high imagery ability (5 males, 3 females),
and C low imagery ability (7 males, 1 female).

Immediately prior to performing the pre- posttest putting task, each participant was
initially blocked for putting ability in an effort to reduce possible ﬂoor and ceiling effects
resulting from putting ability (Woolfolk et al., 1985b). Speciﬁcally, participants putted a
total of 10 times from a distance of 5.5 ft (1.68 m). Participants making 9 or 10 of their
putts from this distance subsequently putted from 7.5 ft (2.29 m) for both the pretest and
posttest. Participants making 7 or 8 putts putted at 6.5 ft (1.98 m). Participants making 4
to 6 putts remained at 5.5 ft (1.68 m). Participants making 2 or 3 putts putted at 4.5 ft

(1.37 m). Finally, participants making 1 or no putts subsequently putted from 3.5 ft (1.07

27

m). Speciﬁcally, 9 participants putted from 3.5 ft, nineteen from 4.5 ft, twenty-three from
5.5 ﬁ, 10 from 6.5 ft, and 3 from 7.5 ft. This method of assignment was successful and
all participants produced midrange performances (30% to 70% successful putts on the
pretest).

Participants then performed the pretest from their assigned putting distance which was
determined by their putting ability as described above. Participants alternated among
four putting locations spaced 2 it apart (each equal distance from the cup). The pretest
and posttest each consisted of 20 putts, with ﬁve putts at each of the four putting
locations. During both the pretest and posttest a 1 min rest interval was provided after
attempting 10 putts. Participants, for both the pretest and the posttest, were instructed to
try to sink each putt attempted The total number of putts sunk, and for unsuccessful
putts, whether the putt was missed to the left, center or to the right of the cup, was
recorded by the experimenter.

After performing the pretest, participants assigned to a imagery group were informed
that they would be using mental imagery before each putt on the posttest. Next,
participants were provided with an introduction to mental imagery (See Appendix E).
Speciﬁcally, the experimenter deﬁned mental imagery, described the senses involved
(e.g., visual, kinesthetic, tactile, auditory), and explained the difference between an
internal and an external perspective. Then, participants were provided with instructions
to follow prior to performing each putt during the posttest. Speciﬁcally, participants
were asked to line up each putt, assume their normal putting stance, and then rehearse the

image(s) assigned to them once with eyes closed while refraining from physical

28

movement. Participants were encouraged to image from an internal perspective paying
particular attention to the visual and kinesthetic senses. An internal perspective was
suggested in order for the participants to better capture the feel of the putting stroke
during the imagery rehearsal.

After providing the introduction and instructions, the experimenter led all imagery
participants through the procedure to be followed prior to performing each putt,
including a guided imagery rehearsal of their assigned image(s). Participants were told
that it was vital to the experiment that they follow this procedure and not to alter in any
way the image(s) they were instructed to rehearse. Questions related to the directions
were addressed as they arose. Participants with questions regarding the speciﬁc purpose
of the study were told that this would be explained to them after completing the post-
experimental questionnaire. The four conditions are described below.

Negative Imagm Group (N 2. Participants in this group began by assuming their
normal putting stance, after lining up each putt Next, participants were instructed to
close their eyes and mentally rehearse (paying particular attention to the visual and
kinesthetic senses) performing a putting stroke, striking the ball, and then to image the
ball “rolling, rolling toward the cup but then missing about a foot to the left.”

Positive followed by Neggtive Imagery Group (P-N). Participants in this condition
were instructed to ﬁrst rehearse a positive image in which the outcome consisted of the
ball “rolling, rolling and dropping right into the cup.” Next, participants were instructed

to take a step back and line up the putt again, then reassume their normal putting stance,

29

and at this time rehearse the negative image following the identical procedure performed
by the negative imagery group.

Negative followed by Positive Imagery Grow-P). Participants in this condition
were instructed to ﬁrst rehearse the negative image, following the identical procedure
performed by the negative imagery group. Next, participants were instructed to take a
step back and line up the putt again, then reassume their normal putting stance, and at
this time rehearse the positive image.

Control Group (C 1. Participants in this group were not provided any speciﬁc
instructions to follow during the posttest. However, between the pretest and the posttest,
participants in the control group were provided the opportunity to perform stretches. The
purpose was to match the time interval (approximately 4 min) between the pretest and
posttest needed to train the imagery groups.

The posttest also consisted of 20 putts and followed the same procedure as the pretest
with the exception that participants in the imagery conditions were instructed to rehearse
their assigned image(s) prior to each individual putt. Further, for the 1 min interval after
10 putt attempts, participants in the imagery conditions were instructed to rehearse their
assigned image(s). Again, the total number of putts sunk, and for unsuccessful putts
whether the putt was missed to the left, center or to the right of the cup, was recorded by
the experimenter.

Following the posttest, each participant was administered the post-experimental
questionnaire. After completing the post-experimental questionnaire, each participant

was then debriefed (See Appendix F).

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The results of this study are organized into ﬁve sections. Group MIQ-R scores are
presented in the ﬁrst section. The second section provides the results of the putting
performance scores. The third section provides the results of the putting direction scores.
The fourth section provides the results of the correlation for imagery ability and negative
imagery effects. Lastly, the results of the post-experimental questionnaire are provided.
MIQ-R Scores

The means and standard deviations for each group’s Movement Imagery
Questionnaire - Revised (MIQ-R) visual, kinesthetic, and total scores are presented in
Table 1. Possible total scores on this instrument range from 8 to 56 (4 to 28 for each
subscale). Although both visual and kinesthetic subscales are provided, the total imagery
score was used to determine imagery ability. Speciﬁcally, all participants’ MIQ-R scores
were rank ordered and a median split divided participants into two groups: high or low
imagery ability. The total imagery ability scores ranged from 31 to 43 for the low

imagery ability participants and 44 to 56 for the high imagery participants.

30

31

Table 1

Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised Scores

 

 

Visual Kinesthetic Total
Group Imagery M. SD. M. 8—D M 52.
N High 26.75 1.58 22.63 4.34 49.38 4.57'
N Low 20.50 5.15 16.75 2.92 37.25 6.61
P-N High 22.75 3.15 24.38 3.11 47.12 3.23
P-N Low 20.25 1.67 18.63 2.00 38.88 1.89
N-P High 26.25 2.05 23.00 3.46 49.25 4.20
N-P Low 21.00 4.07 19.25 3.54 40.25 3.28
C High 25.50 2.51 21.25 1.67 46.75 2.05
C Low 22.50 5.32 15.88 5.14 38.37 6.00

 

Putting Performance

To test the hypotheses regarding the effects of the imagery instructions on putting
performance, three types of analyses (paired t-tests, ANOVA, post hoc contrasts) were
performed. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test if the group putting
performance scores (number of made putts) on the pretest differed by a signiﬁcant
amount. Results of the analysis of variance were not signiﬁcant, 13 (3, 60) = 2.36, p > .05.
A paired t-test was performed to examine Hypothesis 1 that the N group would
experience a signiﬁcant decrease in putting performance from pre- to posttest The N
group did not show a statistically signiﬁcant decrease in putting performance from pre- to

posttest, t (15) = -1.85, p = .08. Although signiﬁcance was approached in the expected

32

direction (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations), this ﬁnding failed to support
Hypothesis 1.

Additional t-tests were performed to test the pre-post putting performance results for
each of the other groups. The P-N group showed a statistically signiﬁcant increase in
putting performance from pre- to posttest, t (15) = 2.49, p < .05. Possible explanations
for this unexpected ﬁnding are offered in the discussion. Results showed no statistically
signiﬁcant changes from pre- to posttest for either the NP group, t (15) = .60, p > .05, or
the C group, 1(15) = .37, p > .05. See Table 2 for means and standard deviations.

Table 2

Group Putting Performance Pre and Post Scores

 

 

Ernest Em
Grow M .82 N. M S_D N
N 10.44 2.42 16 8.56 3.46 16
P-N 8.25 2.35 16 10.00 3.43 16
N-P 8.94 2.29 16 9.38 2.55 16
C 9.13 2.45 16 9.44 2.48 16

 

To test Hypothesis 2, a 2 x 4 x 2 (imagery ability x group x trials) analysis of variance
with repeated measures on the last factor was performed on the putting performance
scores. It was expected that the N group would experience a decrease in putting
performance from pre- to posttest in comparison to the P-N, NP, and C groups. A

signiﬁcant group by trials interaction emerged, E (3, 56) = 3.26, p < .05. There failed to

33

be a signiﬁcant main effect for group, F (3,56) = .09, p > .05, imagery ability, F (1,56) =
.03, p > .05, or trials, F (1,56) = .14, p > .05. Further, there were no signiﬁcant
interactions for group by imagery ability, E (3,56) = .01, p > .05, imagery ability by
trials, F (3,56) = .68, p > .05, or group by imagery ability by trials, F (3,56) = .98, p > .05.
Consequently, imagery ability will be excluded in the presentation of the scores in the
present section. The group means and standard deviations for the pre- to posttest putting
performance scores are presented in Table 2. Putting performance scores, including
imagery ability, are presented in Appendix G.

Post hoc contrasts for the putting performance posttest change scores showed the N
group’s performance to be signiﬁcantly lower than that of the P-N group, t = 3.09, p =
.003. The N group did not signiﬁcantly differ from either the N—P group, t = 1.97, p =
.053, or the C group, _t_ = 1.87, p = .07, although both groups approached signiﬁcance.
These ﬁndings provide partial support for Hypothesis 2 and suggest that preceding a
negative image with a positive image is successﬁrl as a intervention strategy. Further,
signiﬁcance was approached for the N-P group outperforming the N group from pre- to
posttest suggesting that following a negative image with a positive image may also be
successful. The observed power for the group by trials interaction was .72, indicating
that the sample size may not have been sufﬁcient to detect signiﬁcant performance

differences between the N group and the N-P and C groups.

34

W

To test the hypotheses regarding the effects of the imagery instructions on putting
direction, three types of analyses (paired t-tests, ANOVA, ANCOVA) were performed.

A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test if the group putting direction scores
(number of putts missed to the left of the cup) on the pretest differed by a signiﬁcant
amount. Results of the analysis of variance were signiﬁcant, 13(3, 60) = 3.29, p < .05. A
Newman-keuls post hoc analysis revealed a signiﬁcant difference between the N and P—N
groups, p < .05. Possible explanations for the pretest variance between groups are
offered in the discussion section. A paired t-test was performed to examine Hypothesis 3
that the N group would experience a signiﬁcant increase in missed putts to the left of the
cup from pre- to posttest. The N group showed a statistically signiﬁcant increase in putts
missed to the left ofthe cup from pre- to posttest,1(15)= 2.31, p < .05. This ﬁnding
supported hypothesis 3, revealing systematic biasing effects on putting direction
produced by negative imagery.

Additional t-tests were performed to test the pre-post putting direction results for each
of the other groups. Results showed no statistically signiﬁcant changes from pre- to
posttest for the P-N group, 1(15) = - .44, p > .05, the N-P group, 1(15) = - .46, p > .05, or
the C group, 1 (15) = .00, p > .05. Thus, systematic biasing effects on putting direction

were not observed for these groups.

35

Table 3

Group Putting Diremon Pre and Post Sgres

 

 

Ernest ﬂatten
Group M S_D N M .82 _N.
N 3.19 1.94 16 5.50 3.81 16
P-N 5.94 2.49 16 5.63 3.05 16
N-P 4.06 2.05 16 3.81 1.97 16
c 4.63 3.42 16 4.63 2.60 16

 

To test Hypothesis 4, a 2 x 4 x 2 (imagery ability x group x trials) analysis of
covariance with repeated measures on the last factor was performed on the putting
direction scores. It was expected that the N group would experience an increase in putts
missed to the left of the cup from pre- to posttest in comparison to the P-N, N-P, and C
groups. There failed to be a signiﬁcant main effect for group, 13 (3,55) = 1.55, p > .05, or
imagery ability, F (1,55) = .02, p > .05. Further, there was no signiﬁcant interaction for
group by imagery ability, F (3,55) = .53, p > .05. Thus, results of the ANCOVA failed to
support Hypothesis 4. The observed power for the group main effect was .40, indicating
that the sample size may not have been sufficient to detect signiﬁcant direction
differences between the N group and the P-N, N-P and C groups. The group means and
standard deviations for the pre-post putting direction scores are presented in Table 3.

Putting direction scores, including imagery ability, are presented in Appendix G.

36

Imageg Abilig

To test Hypothesis 5, a conelation was obtained on the putting performance scores on
the posttest for the N group in order to explore the inﬂuence of imagery ability on
negative imagery effects. According to the hypothesis, there would be a negative
relationship between imagery ability and putting performance on the posttest for the N
group. Results did not reveal a signiﬁcant correlation, r = .02, p > .05. Thus,
Hypothesis 5 was not supported.

Post-Exmrimental Questionnaire

W. The post-experimental questionnaire consisted of seven questions
for the N, P-N, and N-P groups. Means and standard deviations for the imagery groups’
responses to these questions are presented in Table 4. All open-ended responses to
questions one, six, and seven are provided in Appendix H.

Question 1 explored the extent to which participants rehearsed their assigned image(s)
prior to each putt on the posttest. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test if
the groups differed with regard to imagery rehearsal. Results of the analysis of variance
were not signiﬁcant, F (2,45) = .94, p > .05. All imagery participants reported rehearsing
their image(s) at least “sometimes” or between 7-13 of the twenty posttest putts. Overall,
means from each imagery group fell approximately between “often” (14-19 putts) and
“always” (all 20 putts). It is important to note that this question contained unequal
response intervals. A more precise measure of adherence to the instructions would have

been to ask for a speciﬁc number out of twenty in which the participant rehearsed the

assigned image(s).

37

Question 2 measured visual imagery, with regard to the ease/difﬁculty of rehearsing
their assigned image(s). A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test if the
group responses differed by a signiﬁcant amount. Results of the analysis of variance
were not signiﬁcant, If (2,45) = .23, p > .05.

Question 3 measured kinesthetic imagery, with regard to the ease/difﬁculty of
rehearsing their assigned image(s). A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test
if the group responses differed by a signiﬁcant amount. Results of the analysis of
variance were not signiﬁcant, F (2,45) = .38, p = > .05.

Questions 4 and 5 assessed the internal and external imagery perspective employed by
the participants, respectively. For question 4, a one-way analysis of variance was
conducted to test if the group responses differed by a signiﬁcant amount. Results of the
analysis of variance were not signiﬁcant, E (2,45) = .10, p = > .05. For question 5, a one-
way analysis of variance was conducted to test if the group responses differed by a
signiﬁcant amount. Results of the analysis of variance were not signiﬁcant, E (2,45) =
.03, p > .05.

Question 6 assessed participants’ beliefs about the effect of the image(s) on their
performances. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test if the groups
differed with regard to beliefs about imagery rehearsal. Results of the analysis of
variance revealed a signiﬁcant main effect, _F_ (2,45) = 4.08, p < .05. A Newman-keuls
post hoc analysis revealed a signiﬁcant effect, p < .05, with the N group signiﬁcantly
different from the P-N and N-P groups. Overall, means for the N group fell

approximately between “harmful” and “no effect”. In contrast, means for the P-N and N-

38

P groups fell approximately between “no effect” and “helpful”. The means are
consistent with the putting performance scores for each group.

Question 7 investigated whether participants changed their putting strategy from the
pretest to the posttest due to the imagery manipulation A chi-square was conducted to
test if the groups differed with regard to putting strategy. Results were not signiﬁcant, x2
(1, _N_ = 54) = 1.33. p > .05. Overall, nine participants in the N group, eleven participants
in the P-N group, and eight in the N-P group reported that they changed their putting
strategy as a result of rehearsing their image(s).

Table 4

Post-Exmrimental Questionnaire Scores for Im_ageg Groug

 

£21 92 Q; 91
GTOUPMSDMSQMS M.

9.5. SE 91
s Ms MED.

S M.

 

N 4.56 .63 5.06 1.39 4.06 1.12 4.50 .82 1.50 .82 2.56 1.09 1.44 .51
P-N 4.75 .45 5.25 1.06 4,441.09 4.44.73 1.56.73 3.381.02 1.31 .48

NP 4.50.52 4,941.44 4.191.47 4.38.81 1.56.82 3.50 .89 1.50.52

 

Questionnaire Key: Measurement Scale:

Q1: How often did you rehearse your image(s)? (1 = Never; 5 = Always)

Q2: Rate the ease/difﬁculty of “seeing” your image(s). (1 = Very hard; 7 = Very easy)
Q3: Rate the ease/diﬂiculty of “feeling” your image(s). (1 = Very hard; 7 = Very easy)

Q4: How often did you image from an internal perspective? (1 = Never, 5 = Always)

Q5: How often did you image from an external perspective? (1 = Never; 5 = Always)

Q6: What eﬁ‘ect did the image(s) have on your performance? (1 = Very harmﬁrl; 5 = Very helpful)
Q7: Did the image(s) change your putting strategy? (1 = Yes; 2 = No)

39

Control Group. Participants in the control group completed a questionnaire regarding
self-employed imagery use. Means and standard deviations for the control group’s
responses to these questions are presented in Table 5. Question 1 explored control
participants own use of visual imagery during the posttest. The mean response was
approximately “sometimes” or between 7-13 of the twenty posttest putts. Question 2
explored the use of kinesthetic imagery. The mean response fell approximately between
“sometimes” (7-13 putts) and “hardly ever” (1-6 putts). Finally, Question 3 assessed
participants’ beliefs about the effect of the imagery on their performances. Overall, the
mean response was approximately “helpful”. These ﬁndings demonstrated that self-
employed mental imagery was used by the control group and was perceived to be
generally helpful. All open-ended responses to these questions are provided in Appendix
H.

Table 5

Post-Expgrimental Questionnaire Scores for Control Group

 

 

 

 

SE SE S23
GYOUP M S_D M _SD. M S_D.
C 3.00 .63 2.57 1.50 4.27 .59
Questionnaire Key: Measurement Scale:
Q1: How often did you rehearse a visual image? (1 = Never; 5 = Always)
Q2: How often did you rehearse a “feeling” image? (1 = Never, 5 = Always)

Q3: What effect did the image(s) have on your performance? (1 = Very harmful; 5 = Very helpﬁrl)

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter consists of four sections. The ﬁrst section provides a discussion of the
ﬁndings of the present study. The second section presents the conclusions. The third
section discusses implications of the ﬁndings, and the fourth section offers suggestions
for future research.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to extend our understanding of the effects of
preperformance negative imagery on putting performance by examining motor skill
performance in a natural setting. The results of this study partially replicated the ﬁndings
of past research (Powell, 1973; Woolfolk et al., 1985a; Woolfolk et al., 1985b) pertaining
to the deleterious effects of negative imagery on performance. Although the N group did
not show a signiﬁcant decrease in putting performance ﬁom pre- to posttest, there was a
trend in this direction. As mentioned in the results section, insufﬁcient power may have
precluded signiﬁcant ﬁndings for the between group trends for putting performance and
mmamn

A major aim of the present study was to explore the efﬁcacy of a cognitive
intervention strategy intended to offset the potentially harmful effects of negative images
by preceding or following them with positive ones, subsequent to performance. The
rationale for using positive imagery as a intervention strategy derives from the evidence

supporting the use of positive imagery to enhance performance (Powell, 1973; Woolfolk

4O

41

et al., 1985b), and visual interference to offset imagery’s biasing effects (Johnson, 1982).
The results partially supported this hypothesis. The N group’s performance declined
signiﬁcantly in comparison to the P-N group. However, the N group did not signiﬁcantly
differ from the N-P group, although signiﬁcance was approached. These ﬁndings suggest
that positive images may be used prior to the negative image to successfully offset the
potentially harmful effects, and perhaps a combination of positive and negative images
are more beneﬁcial to subsequent performance than an isolated negative image.
Participant responses on the post-experimental questionnaire are consistent with and add
support to these ﬁndings. Speciﬁcally, the N group reported that overall they believed
their image was signiﬁcantly more harmful to their subsequent putting performance than
indicated by either the P-N or N-P groups.

Another aim of the study was to search for possible systematic biasing effects, with
respect to the direction of missed putts, produced by the negative images. It was
suggested that systematic biasing effects would reveal a mechanism underlying negative
imagery effects and would compliment studies demonstrating speciﬁc interference
effects of imagery on performance (F inke, 1979; Hall, Bemoties & Schmidt, 1995;
Johnson, 1982). Thus, how one images missing would inﬂuence how one actually misses
putts and negative imagery would then impair performance in a speciﬁc manner.

The N group showed a signiﬁcant increase in missed putts to the left of the cup from
pre- to posttest (in the direction they imaged missing). In contrast to the N group, the P-
N, N-P, and C groups did not exhibit biasing with respect to putting direction. Thus, the

biasing produced by the negative image did not occur when this image was preceded or

42

followed by a positive image. If positive imagery functioned as a form of visual
interference, this ﬁnding would be consistent with the results of the second experiment
by Johnson (1982) indicating that visual interference offsets imagery’s biasing effects,
which in turn lends support to the symbolic learning theory. However, in order to
directly compare the predictions from the symbolic learning theory and the
psychoneuromuscular theory, both visual (e.g., positive imagery) and motor (e.g., putting
stroke) interference would need to be examined.

The results did not support the hypothesis that the N group would miss signiﬁcantly
more putts to the left of the cup compared with the P-N, N-P, and C groups. Signiﬁcant
differences on the pretest between the groups with respect to the direction of missed putts
may have contributed to the lack of any signiﬁcant differences between the groups from
pre- to posttest. One factor likely contributing to the signiﬁcant differences on the
pretest was the variable putting surface conditions. Because the experiment was
performed on an outdoor practice green, along with variable cup locations from day to
day, it was impossible to have a completely ﬂat or consistent surface. Thus, some
straight putts may have broken slightly to the left for some participants, while to the right
for others putting at a different location. Another possible factor accounting for the
pretest direction scores are differences with respect to handedness. In general, it has
been noted by golf instructors that right-handed golfers tend to miss more putts to the
right of the cup, while left-handed golfers tend to miss more to the left of the cup. This
can result from the tendency to align oneself to the target, and not the ball path (e. g.,

Webb, 1997). Because the ball is in front of the body, it will consequently miss to the

43

right for right-handed golfers aligned to the target. Handedness was not controlled for in
the present study and between group differences with respect to the number of right-
handed versus left-handed participants may have played a role if random assignment was
not successful in producing equal groups with respect to handedness and the
aforementioned tendencies were present.

The present study failed to ﬁnd any inﬂuence of imagery ability on performance.
Speciﬁcally, it was hypothesized that higher skilled imagers would be harmed more by
negative images than lower skilled imagers. It was reasoned that if higher skilled
imagers beneﬁt more from correct or positive images then they would be banned more
by negative images. The imagery ability scores ranged from 31 to 43 for the low imagery
ability group and 44 to 56 for the high imagery group. Possible total scores on this
instrument range from 8 to 56. Thus, a restriction in range resulted and it can be argued
that the comparison was really between high and medium imagers. Perhaps greater
differences in imagery ability scores are needed to detect possible mediating inﬂuences
of imagery ability with respect to negative images on performance.

The present study determined imagery ability for participants based on their total
score on the MIQ-R. A more effective approach in determining imagery ability would
have been to compare participants scoring high for both visual and kinesthetic to
participants scoring low for both visual and kinesthetic. This approach would prevent a
high and a low skilled imager differing on only one of the measures from receiving the

same overall score.

Conclusions

Based on the ﬁndings of this study with respect to the research hypotheses, the
following conclusions are made:

1. The N group did not experience a signiﬁcant decrease in putting performance from
pre- to posttest.

2. The N group made signiﬁcantly fewer putts from pre- to posttest in comparison to
the P-N group.

3. The N group missed signiﬁcantly more putts to the left of the cup from pre- to
posttest.

4. The N group did not make signiﬁcantly more putts to the left of the cup from pre-
to posttest in comparison to P-N, N-P, and C groups.

5. The correlation between imagery ability and putting performance on the posttest
for the N group was not statistically signiﬁcant. Further, there was no signiﬁcant
inﬂuence of imagery ability on performance for the imagery groups.

Implications for Athletes

The ﬁndings of this study provide partial, yet encouraging, support for the efﬁcacy of
using positive imagery to offset negative imagery effects. Speciﬁcally, athletes may
beneﬁt by rehearsing a positive preperformance image in order to offset any adverse
effects of a subsequent spontaneous negative image. Athletes who experience a negative
preperformance image may also beneﬁt if they attempt to follow the failure image with a
positive image prior to performing. Although the N group was not signiﬁcantly different

from the N-P group in putting performance, there was a signiﬁcant difference with

45

respect to the participants’ perceptions regarding the effects of the images. As stated
above, the N group reported that the negative image was more harmful to their
subsequent performance compared with both the P-N and N-P groups.

The ﬁndings also provided evidence for negative imagery producing systematic
biasing effects on performance with respect to putting direction. If this ﬁnding transfers
to other closed motor skills, then athletes performing these tasks would beneﬁt from the
knowledge of how negative images speciﬁcally impact performance. Thus, athletes
prone to negative images should be made aware of a possible tendency to miss their
actual attempt in the precise manner in which they imaged missing.

Suggestions for Future Research

Future research on this topic should consider alternative intervention strategies
intended to offset the adverse effects of negative imagery on performance. Athletes
prone to experiencing negative images prior to performance or athletes unable to control
their images may beneﬁt more from another strategy. Positive afﬁnnations or self-talk
may present an additional strategy to block negative images from harming performance.

As stated above, methodological problems with respect to inconsistent putting
surfaces, and no control for handedness, could have effected the results with respect to
between group systematic biasing effects. Further research could avoid these concerns
by employing a ﬂat indoor putting surface and/or controlling for handedness. Moreover,
determining putting accuracy by measuring the distance and direction from the cup for
missed putts, in addition to whether the putt was made or missed to one side, would

provide a more precise account of the imagery effects. Finally, determining putting

accuracy would preclude any judgment calls with respect to putting direction and reduce
possible experimenter bias. The experimenter in the present study recorded the outcome
of the putting attempts and was thus not “blinded” to the group assignments.

Although there was no support for the hypothesis of a negative relationship between
imagery ability and putting performance for participants in the negative imagery group, it
is possible that with greater differences in imagery ability scores from those obtained in
the present study a mediating inﬂuence may be detected. If a negative relationship
exists, higher skilled imagers experiencing negative images subsequent to athletic
performance would experience greater harm and may beneﬁt more from effective
blocking strategies. However, this possibility is unlikely given the small, positive
correlation obtained for imagery ability and putting performance on the posttest for the
negative imagery group.

As noted by Murphy (1994), imagery theories have been inadequate in explaining how
negative images hinder performance. However, there is considerable empirical support
for the symbolic learning theory in explaining both the performance and biasing effects
of imagery. Further, responses by participants in the N group indicate that variables
including concentration (“Thinking too hard - distraction”), conﬁdence (“Mentally when
I opened my eyes I expected to miss the putt”), and motivation (“Messed up goal of what
I really wanted to do”) must also be considered (Murphy, 1994).

Finally, although the results provided partial evidence for the adverse effects of
negative imagery, one participant indicated that the negative images were “helpful”,

while two participants felt the negative images to be “very helpful.” The perception by

47

some participants that negative images can be beneﬁcial was also noted in past studies
(Schmidt, 1992; Woolfolk et al., 1985a). Responses by these participants in the present
study may have provided additional clues to explain this surprising ﬁnding. Participants
who felt the negative images were helpful indicated that imaging missing the putt to the
left of the cup helped with aim and alignment for the actual putt (“It helped my direction
of putts”) Further, the negative images also helped with concentration and focus (“I
concentrated on the putt more”) It is possible that negative imagery for closed motor
skills can also be used to provide valuable feedback to the participant allowing one to
learn from the “miss” and then to self-correct on the actual attempt. Future research
could explore ways in which these potentially beneﬁcial aspects of negative images can
be employed or added to positive imagery without including the harmful components.
The potentially beneﬁcial uses of negative imagery may help explain the unexpected
ﬁnding regarding the P-N group which experienced a signiﬁcant increase in putting
performance from pre- to posttest. Perhaps these participants were able to make use of

the beneﬁcial aspects of both negative and positive imagery.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
APPROVAL

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee on
ﬂmnmuummhi

Michigan State University
232 Administration Building
East Lansmg, Michiga
48824-1046

517/355-2180
FAX: 517/432-1171

The Mlcmgan Stare Universuy
IDEA [5 Institutional Diversw.
MW in MM.

MJU is an surmise-mun,
equal-amoral!!!” ”isn't/rim

    
 
    
  

MlCHlCAN STATE

U 1% l \l E II S I I" Y

 

July 8, 1996

TO: James A. Afremow
237 Whitehills Dr.
E. Lansing, MI 48823

RE: IRB#: 96-413 ,,,,,,,,,, ___
TITLE: NEGATIVE IMAGERY AND PERFORMANCE: -.AA.;-nG :3:
BIASING EFECTS AND A BLOCKING STRATEGY
REVISION REQUESTED: 07/01/96
CATEGORY: 1-A
APPROVAL DATE: 06/18/96

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCR;HS)
review of this project is complete.. I am pleased to advrse that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this progect and any revrsrons lisced

above.

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project beyond ene year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original approval letter or when a.
progect is renewed) to seek u date certification. There is a
maxrmum of four such expedite renewals possible. Investigators
wishing to continue a prOJect beyond that time need to submit it
again or complete review. .

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human
subjects, prior to initiation of t e change. If this 15 done at
the time or renewal, please use the green renewal form, To
revise an approved protocol at an other time during the year,
send your written request to the. CRIHS Chair, requesting revrsed
approval and referencrng the progect's IRE # and title.. Include
in your request a description of the change and any revrsed
ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/ , ,

CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the
work, investigators must notit UCRIHS prompely: l1) roblems
(unexpected Side effects, comp aints, etc.).involv1ng uman
eubjects.or (2) changes in the research envrronment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human sub ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

any fugure help, please do not hesitate to contact us
0 :.- .3 ‘ " "'" -

 
   
 

..

id E. Wright, Ph
ICRIHS Chair

DEW:bed

cc: Lynnette Y. Overby

48

APPENDIX B

MOVEMENT IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE-REVISED (MIQ-R)

INSTRUCTIONS

This questionnaire concerns two ways of mentally performing movements. which are used by some people
more than by others. and are more applicable to some types of movements than others. The ﬁrst is attempting
to form a visual image or picture of a movement in your mind. The second is attempting to feel what
performing a movement is like without actually doing the movement. You are requated to do both of these
mental tasks for a variety of movements in this questionnaire, and then rate how easy/difficult you found the
tasks to be. The ratings that you give are not designed to assess the goodness or badness of the way you
perform these mental tasks. They are attempts to discover the capacity individuals show for performing these
tasks for different movements. There are no right or wrong ratings or some ratings that are better than
others.

Each of the following statements describe a particular action or movement. Read each statement carefully and
then actually perform the movement as described. Only perform the movement a single time. Return to the
starting position for the movement just as if you were going to perform the action a second time. Then
depending on which of the following you are asked to do, either 1) form as clear and vivid a visual image as _
possible of the movement just performed, or 2) attempt to feel yourself making the movement just performed
without actually doing it.

After you have completed the mental task required. rate the ease/difﬁculty with which you were able to do
the task. Take your rating from the following scale. Be as accurate as possible and take as long as you feel
necessary to arrive at the proper rating for each movement. You may chose the same rating for any number
of movements "seen" or ”felt" and it is not necessary to utilize the entire length of the scale.

RATING SCALES

Visual lmagerySale

Very easy Easy to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Hard to Very hard
to see see easy (not easy hard see to see
to see nor hard) to see

WcImgU'ySale'

7 6 5 4 3 ' 2 1

Very easy Easy to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Hard to Very hard
to feel feel easy (not easy hard feel to feel
to feel nor hard) to feel

40

l. STARTING POSITION:

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

2. STARTING POSITION:

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

3. STARTING POSITION:

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

4. STARTING POSITION:

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

50

Stand with your feet and legs together and your arms at your sides.

Raise your right knee as high as possible so that you are standing on your left
leg with your right leg ﬂexed (bent) at the knee. Now lower your right leg so
that you are again standing on two feet. Perform thae actions slowly.

Assume the starting position. Attempt to Lee! yourself making the
movement just performed without actually doing it. Now rate the
ease/difﬁculty with which you were able to do this mental task.

RATING:

Stand with your feet slightly apart and your hands at your sides.

Bend down low and then jump straight up in the air as high as possible with
both arms extended above your head. Land with your feet apart and lower
your arms to your sides.

Assume the starting position. Attempt to as yourself making the movement
just performed with as clear and vivid a visual image as possible. Now rate
the ease/difﬁculty with which you were able to do this mental task.

RATING:

Extend the arm of your non dominant hand straight out to your side so that
it is parallel to the ground. palm down.

Move your arm forward until it is directly in front of your body (still parallel
to the ground). Keep your arm extended during the movement and make the
movement slowly.

Assume the starting position. Attempt to 3'3; yourself making the movement
just performed without actually doing it. Now rate the ease/difﬁculty with
which your were able to do this mental task.

RATING:

Stand with your feet slightly apart and your arms fully extended above your
head.

Slowly bend forward at the waist and try and touch your toes with your
ﬁngertips (or if possible, touch the floor with your ﬁngertips or hands). Now
return to the stoning position, standing erect with your arms extended above
your head.

Assume the starting position. Attempt to :3 yourself making the movement
just performed with as clear and vivid a visual image as possible. Now rate
the ease/difﬁculty with which your were able to do this mental task.

RATING:

5. STARTING POSITION:

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

6. STARTING POSITION:

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

7. STARTING POSITION:

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

3. STARTING POSTTION:

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

SI

Stand with your feet slightly apart and your hands at your sides.

Bend down low and then jump straight up in the air as high as possible with
both arms extended above your head. Land with your feet apart and lower
your arms to your sides.

Assume the starting position. Attempt to [egg yourself making the movement
just performed without actually doing it. Now rate the easddifﬁculty with
which you were able to do this mental task.

RATING:

Stand with your feet and legs together and your arms at your sides.

Raise your right knee as high as possible so that you are standing on your left
leg with your right leg flexed (bent) at the knee. Now lower your right leg
so that you are again standing on two feet. Perform these actions slowly. ’

Assume the stoning position. Attempt to :5 yourself making just the
movement performed with as cl-r and vivid a visual image as possible. Now
rate the ease/difﬁculty with which you were able to do this mental task.

RATING:

Stand with your feet slightly apart and your arms fully extended above your
head.

Slowly bend forward at the waist and try and touch your toes with your
ﬁngertips (or if possible, touch the floor with your ﬁngertips or. hands). Now
return to the starting position. standing erect with your arms extended above
your head.

Assume the starting position. Attempt 'to f5}, yourself making the movement
just performed without actually doing it. Now rate the ease/difﬁculty with
which your were able to do this mental task.

RATING:
Extend the arm of your non dominant hand straight out to your side so that
it is parallel to the ground. palm down.
Move your arm forward until it is directly in front of your body (still parallel
to the ground). Keep your arm extended during the movement and make the
movement slowly.
Assume the starting position. Attempt to as yourself making the movement
just performed with as clear and vivid a visual image as possible. Now rate
the ease/difﬁculty with which your are able to do this mental task.

RATING:

APPENDIX C

POST-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRES

N group

Name:

 

Directions: Each question below refers to your previous 20 putts. Please circle the
number for the most appropriate response - do not mark between the numbers.

1. Prior to physically putting the ball, how often did you image yourself missing the putt
to the left of the cup?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Often Always
ever
(0) (1-6) (7-13) (14-19) (20)

Please describe any differing images you experienced:

2. Please rate the ease/difﬁculty with which you were able to _se_§ yourself performing the
putting stroke and the outcome of the putt during your images.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very hard Hard to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Easy to Very easy
to see see hard (not easy easy see to see

to see nor hard) to see

3. Please rate the ease/difﬁculty with which you were able to @ yourself performing
the putting stroke during your images.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very hard Hard to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Easy to Very easy
to feel feel hard (not easy easy feel to feel

to feel nor hard) to feel

52

53

4. How often did you image from the perspective of viewing your performance as though
seeing through your own eyes (internal perspective)?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Often Always
ever
(0) (1-6) (7-13) (14-19) (20)

5. How often did you image from the perspective of viewing your performance outside
of your body, as though you were observing yourself perform on TV (external

perspective)?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Often Always
ever
(0) (1—6) (7-13) (14-19) (20)

6. What effect did imaging yourself missing the putt to the leﬁ of the cup have on your
subsequent performance?

1 2 3 4 5
Very Harmful No effect Helpful Very
harmful helpful
Please explain:

7. Did imaging yourself missing the putt to the left of cup change your putting strategy?

1 - Yes 2 - No
Please explain:

54

P-N group

Name:

 

Directions: Each question below refers to your previous 20 putts. Please circle the
number for the most appropriate response - do not mark between the numbers.

1. Prior to physically putting the ball, how often did you image yourself sinking the putt
followed by imaging missing the putt to the left of the cup?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Often Always
ever
(0) (1-6) (7-13) (14-19) (20)

Please describe any differing images you experienced:

2. Please rate the ease/difﬁculty with which you were able to s_e§ yourself performing the
putting stroke and the outcome of the putt during your images.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very hard Hard to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Easy to Very easy
to see see hard (not easy easy see to see
to see nor hard) to see

3. Please rate the ease/difﬁculty with which you were able to Q yourself performing
the putting stroke during your images.

1 2 3 4 S 6 7
Very hard Hard to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Easy to Very easy
to feel feel hard (not easy easy feel to feel

to feel nor hard) to feel

55

4. How oﬁen did you image from the perspective of viewing your performance as though
seeing through your own eyes (internal perspective)?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Often Always
ever
(0) (1-6) (7-13) (14-19) (20)

5. How often did you image from the perspective of viewing your performance outside
of your body, as though you were observing yourself perform on TV (external

perspective)?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Oﬁen Always
ever
(0) (1-6) (7-13) (14-19) (20)

6. What effect did imaging yourself sinking the putt followed by missing the putt to the
left of the cup have on your subsequent performance?

1 2 3 4 5
Very Harmful No effect Helpful Very
harmful helpful
Please explain:

7. Did imaging yourself sinking the putt followed by imaging missing the putt to the leﬁ
of cup change your putting strategy?

1 - Yes 2 - No
Please explain:

56

N-P group

Name:

 

Directions: Each question below refers to your previous 20 putts. Please circle the
number for the most appropriate response - do not mark between the nulnbers.

1. Prior to physically putting the ball, how often did you image yourself missing the putt
to the left of the cup followed by imaging sinking the putt?

l 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Often Always
ever
(0) (1-6) (7-13) (14-19) (20)

Please describe any differing images you experienced:

2. Please rate the ease/difﬁculty with which you were able to g yourself performing the
putting stroke and the outcome of the putt during your images.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very hard Hard to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Easy to Very easy
to see see hard (not easy easy see to see
to see nor hard) to see

3. Please rate the ease/difﬁculty with which you were able to feel yourself performing
the putting stroke during your images.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very hard Hard to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Easy to Very easy
to feel feel hard (not easy easy feel to feel

to feel nor hard) to feel

57

4. How often did you image from the perspective of viewing your performance as though
seeing through your own eyes (internal perspective)?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Often Always
ever
(0) (1-6) (7-13) (14-19) (20)

5. How often did you image from the perspective of viewing your performance outside
of your body, as though you were observing yourself perform on TV (external

perspective)?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Oﬁen Always
ever
(0) (1-6) (7-13) ( 14-19) (20)

6. What effect did imaging yourself missing the putt to the leﬁ of the cup followed by
imaging sinking the putt have on your subsequent performance?

1 2 3 4 5
Very Harmful No effect Helpful Very
harmful helpful
Please explain:

7. Did imaging yourself missing the putt to the left of the cup followed by imaging
sinking the putt change your putting strategy?

1 - Yes 2 - No
Please explain:

58

C group

Name:

 

Directions: Each question below refers to your previous 20 putts. Please circle the
number for the most appropriate response - go not mark between the numbers.

1. How often did you image yourself putting the ball and/or “see” the ball rolling toward
the cup prior to physically putting the ball?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Oﬁen Always
ever
(0) (1-6) (7-13) (14-19) (20)

Please describe any visual images you experienced:

2. How oﬁen did you image feeling the putting stroke and/or striking the ball prior to
physically putting the ball?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Hardly Sometimes Oﬁen Always
ever
(0) (1-6) (7-13) (14-19) (20)

Please describe any feeling images you experienced:

3. If you experienced any images prior to putting, what effect do you think they had on
your subsequent performance?

1 2 3 4 5
Very Harmful No effect Helpful Very
harmful helpful

Please explain:

APPENDIX D

STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT

INFORMED CONSENT

This study aims to investigate the inﬂuence of mental rehearsal on golf putting
performance. Your participation in this study will contribute to our knowledge about
how psychological processes effect sport performance, and therefore, your participation
in this experiment is valuable and appreciated. Your participation may include the
learning and use of a mental practice technique. You may be asked to rehearse this
technique prior to performance during a golf putting task. In addition to putting a golf
ball, you will be required to complete either two or three questionnaires. The entire
procedure should take approximately twenty-ﬁve minutes.

Data obtained during the experiment will be treated with strict conﬁdence and you will
remain anonymous in any report of the results. Whether or not you choose to participate
in this study will have no effect on your golf class grade. Participation in this study is
voluntary and at any time you may discontinue without penalty. You may also refuse to
answer any of the items on the questionnaires. Participation does not have any known
risks, nor are any beneﬁcial effects guaranteed. If you have any questions you can ask
the experimenter at any time.

If you have any questions or concerns following your participation, you are welcome to
call Jim Afremow (333-3686), principal investigator or Dr. Lynnette Overby (355-3775 ),
project supervisor.

I have read the above and understand the purpose of the experiment, the procedures, and
my rights as a subject. By signing below, I agree to participate as a volunteer in this
study.

Signature: Date:

 

 

Print name:

 

59

APPENDIX E

INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS SCRIPT
(N , P-N, N-P groups)

For the next 20 putts, you will rehearse a speciﬁc mental image(s) prior to each putt.
Imagery, sometimes referred to as visualization, is the mental rehearsal of a task in the
mind’s eye. It is creating or recreating an experience in the mind using the senses. Thus,
you can use imagery to rehearse putting a golf ball, although your eyes may be closed and
your body remains still. In addition to sight, imagery can include all of our senses,
including feeling your muscles moving during movement, to simulate the experience of
actually performing. You can also use your sense of sound, touch, and so on Keep in
mind that the goal of imagery is to recreate as vividly and realistically as possible the
experience of actually performing. It is also possible to image from an internal or an
external perspective. An internal perspective involves seeing yourself perform through
your own eyes, while an external perspective involves seeing yourself perform from
outside your body - as if you were watching yourself on TV.

Your speciﬁc instructions for the next 20 putts are to:

1) Line up each putt,

2) Assume your normal putting stance,

3) (N group) Image yourself (with eyes closed and refraining from physical movement)
performing a putting stroke, striking the ball, and then see the ball rolling, rolling toward
the cup but then missing about a foot to the left of the cup. Try to use an internal
perspective (through your own eyes) and feel the movement and see the image as vividly
as you can. Once you have a vivid image of the golf ball at rest in this spot, begin the

next step.

61

3) (P—N group) Image yourself (with eyes closed and refraining from physical
movement) performing a putting stroke, striking the ball, and then see the ball rolling,
rolling and dropping right into the cup. Then, image yourself performing a putting
stroke, striking the ball, and then see the ball rolling, rolling toward the cup but then
missing about a foot to the left of the cup. Try to use an internal perspective (through
your own eyes) and feel the movement and see the image as vividly as you can. Once you
have a vivid image of the golf ball at rest in this spot, begin the next step.

3) (N—P group) Image yourself (with eyes closed and refraining from physical
movement) performing a putting stroke, striking the ball, and then see the ball rolling,
rolling toward the cup but then missing about a foot to the left of the cup. Then, image
yourself performing a putting stroke, striking the ball, and then see the ball rolling,
rolling and dropping right into the cup. Try to use an internal perspective (through your
own eyes) and feel the movement and see the image as vividly as you can. Once you have
a vivid image of the golf ball dropping into the cup, begin the next step.

4) Upon rehearsing the image(s), physically putt the golf ball, trying to sink the putt.

5) Then, repeat the previous steps. Aﬁer 10 puts you will have a one minute interval to

rest and rehearse your image(s), before completing the next 10 putts.

62

It is vital to the experiment that you follow this procedure prior to each of the
remaining putts. Do not alter the image(s) you are to rehearse or change the order in any
way. Also, try your best to see and feel the image(s) as clearly and as realistically as you

can. Now, let me guide you through the rehearsal of your image(s) before you begin.

APPENDIX F

DEBRIEFING SCRIPT

Thank you again for your participation. Mental imagery (sometimes referred to as
visualization) has become a very popular technique both in sport and out. Athletes report
experiencing both positive (i.e., successful) and negative (i.e., unsuccessful) images.
Research has found that in general rehearsal of positive images can help performance,
while rehearsal of negative images can be harmful. The purpose of this study was to
learn more about the speciﬁc effects of negative images on performance and a strategy to

block these effects.

63

APPENDIX G

TABLES FOR PU I IING PERFORMANCE AND PUTTING DIRECTION

Putting Performance Pre and Post Scores by Group and Imagery Ability (Based on

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIQ-R Median Split)
Pretest Posttest

Group Imagery M S_D E M $12 H
N Hi 10.38 2.88 8 8.63 3.58 8
N Lo 10.50 M7 8 8.50 3.59 8
N Total 10.44 2.42 16 8.56 3.46 16
P-N Hi 8.63 1.92 8 9.50 4.17 8
P-N Lo 7.88 2.80 8 10.50 2.67 8
P—N Total 8.25 2.35 16 10.00 3.43 16
N—P Hi 8.63 2.62 8 9.63 3.07 8
N-P Lo 9.25 2.05 8 9.13 2.10 8
Total 8.94 2.29 16 9.38 2.55 16
C Hi 9.63 2.50 8 8.75 1.67 8
C Lo 8.63 2.45 8 10.13 3.04 8
Total 9.13 2.45 16 9.44 2.48 16

 

Putting Direction Pre and Post Scores by Group and Imagery Ability

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pretest Posttest
Group Imagery _M. .82 N. _M. £2 E
N Hi 3.38 2.07 8 5.00 4.78 8
N Lo 3.00 1.93 8 6.00 2.78 8
N Total 3.19 1.94 16 5.50 3.81 16
P-N Hi 7.13 1.96 8 6.38 3.34 8
P-N Lo 4.75 2.49 8 4.88 2.75 8
P-N Total 5.94 2.49 16 5.63 3.05 16
N-P Hi 5.00 2.14 8 3.88 2.70 8
N-P Lo 3.13 1.55 8 3.75 1.04 8
Total 4.06 2.05 16 3.81 1.97 16
C Hi 4.00 3.46 8 4.88 3.23 8
C Lo 5.25 3.49 8 4.38 2.00 8
Total 4.63 3.42 16 4.63 2.60 16

 

APPENDIX H
RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS FROM POST-EXPERIMENTAL

QUESTIONNAIRE

Please Describe Any Differing Images you experienced

(N group)

Sometimes I imagined making it. Then, I would imagine hitting the ball again and my
ﬁnal imagine was always to the left of the hole.

One image the ball went in the cup.

Sometimes the ball goes slightly right, went in and all the way left. 4 to 5 went to the
right or in

Sometimes the ball went in cup (34 times).

Sometimes the ball went in the cup (4) or stopped short of the cup (2).

(P-N group)
Difference was in distance of missing on left, hit edge, went long, or short.

Many of the misses fell. 6 out of 20 fell.

A little bit shorter than the hole (1-2) or the same direction as the ﬁrst imagine missing
(1-2).

Going to the right (2).

(NP group)
When attempting to image making the putt, I would imagine coming up short (5 times).

Missed to the right ( 2-3 times).
3 right of the cup.

Missing to the right of the cup (3). Not imaging the entire swing (e.g., just the ball going
into the cup (2).

Sometimes the ball came short or to the right; 10 times I missed when imaging trying to
sink it.

A couple times my images were that I missed to the right of the cup. 5-8 times I
imagined making it then missing it.

When imagining missing left; went in 2 or 3 times.

 

67

What Effect Did Your Imagds) Have On Your Subsequent Performgge?

(N group)
Lack of conﬁdence in ability to make the actual putt. Made myself mad also.

When trying to swing, I could feel my arms turning the putter head to make the ball go
leﬁ.

It helped my direction of putts. I relaxed more and I believe that I was focusing on my
movements more.

Posture, aim, stroke image.

It caused me to miss the putt because I could see myself doing it.

Cause me to aim to the right.

My conﬁdence level was effected because I felt I failed, I saw myself missing the cup.
I concentrated on the putt more. Club head straight, etc.

Messed up goal of what I really wanted to do. Yes, it hurt my performance because I was
concentrating on missing it and then when I putted I tried to make it.

Thinking too hard - distraction.

Bothered putting stroke. Felt like I was pulling to left.

Mentally when I opened my eyes I expected to miss the putt.

That’s what I saw, so it was difﬁcult to push the putt back to the putt.

I didn’t feel like I was going to make it as often. I wasn’t as conﬁdent.

(P-N group)
I tried to correct missing left and thus, I missed right at times.

Over-compensated to try to make the putt.

When I missed it was always to the left. Without positive image I think negative image
would have been more harmful.

Could see putting stroke and club hitting the ball. Helped with aiming.

68

Vision of missing was left in my head.
Imagining making a putt helped me see the correct form versus missing.

I had more time to concentrate. The ﬁrst image of sinking the putt was stronger than the
second image.

You think your going to make it but then you image yourself missing.
If I missed the putt ﬁrst, the second putt correct direction.

Move my feet to better line up.

Almost like a practice shot.

Seeing yourself sinking the putt.

Make me concentrate better.

Easier to visualize the line of the putt.

(N-P group)
Easier to focus and concentrate on all movements.

You could feel the errors, missing and correct yourself making the putt.
By visualizing making the putt, I got more of a feel for the putting stroke.

It let me to re-adjust my standing before actually hitting the ball. Making it helps me to
have conﬁdence 3 little bit.

Imagining myself missing the putt made me nervous, but seeing myself make the putt
helped me more.

Because it felt like each putt was more consistent.
Somewhat; the image of me making the putt was help in developing a putting stroke.

The putting motion appeared easier and more accurate after imagining myself
successfully completing the putt.

Some help, some hurt.

69

Imaging going through the motion helped me know the distance and the angle I was at -
aiming.

When I imaged missing the putt it threw me off when I actually came to putt. Positive
image helped but didn’t block out the negative image when I actually went to putt.

Didn’t concentrate on the true putts as much.
Help concentrate. Worked harder to make it.

Distraction.

70

Did Your Im_age(s) Change Your Putting Strategy?

 

(N group)
I would not line up my putt to the hole as carefully.

Stance adjustment. Imagined not pulling ball.

Tried to aim to the right.

I tried to correct my putt to the left by aiming for the right of the cup.

I tried to aim better.

Over compensating.

Putting stroke felt less smooth

Didn’t look at cup before hitting.

I aimed a little to the right side of the cup in an attempt to “ﬁx” my left putt.

(P-N grOUP)
Tried to focus in on aiming ball correctly towards the cup.

For the last 5-10 putts, when attempting to make the shot I would aim towards the right
side of the cup.

Made sure club path remained straighter - less to the left.

When clear image of missing to the left was present, I then aimed more to the right on
actual putt.

More time (concentration).

If I missed the putt ﬁrst, I change my putt’s direction.
Aim more to the right.

Feet alignment, hitting the sweet spot.

Had urge to hit to the left.

71

I was more conscious of missing the putt to the left so I would compensate my putt lie
accordingly.

(N -P grOUp)
I concentrated more.

Tried to putt to the right.

I would take more time to adjust my standing and aim at the hole for the next 20 putts
than the ﬁrst 20.

Step up to ball in one position (as if to hit). After the image, I would readjust or re-
evaluate my stance. I readjust in order to keep from going left, because I normally don’t
go too far right.

I aimed my shot more accurately.

When I image hitting to the left, I change my alignment and hit it to the right.

I aimed more to the right of the cup.

I tried harder; combined with actually missing my putts it did help me focus.

72

Control Group
Please Describe Anﬂisuul Im_ages You Experienced
I visualized the ball going in a line and into the hole.

Imagined the ball rolling more to the left - would try to compensate to make the ball go
left.

Imagined the break of the green.

I saw that the ball is going to roll by the edge of the putt before I touched the ball.
See the line.

Tried to see the path the ball would take.

Going in line.

Viewed the ball along the line, but not really falling in the cup.

How the ball would bounce toward the cup. How it would circle the cup as it went in.
I see myself striking the ball and the ball rolling into the cup.

Saw the ﬁnish position and the ball rolling into the cup.

The swing of my club and how the clubhead was positioned so the ball would go in.
I saw the ball curve on the green towards the cup. I saw the break on the ball.

Saw the line.

Please Describe Any Feeling [_m_ages You Exmrienced

I tried to feel how the stroke would feel if it was done correctly in order to make the ball
go in.

Same feel of the putter every swing for consistent distance.
I felt the force of the stroke.

Pace of hands through ball.

73

Hitting the ball.

Remembered how fast/hard I would move the putter on previous shots - used to hit the
right range.

Tried to practice putt without hitting the ball to get a feel for what I wanted, then tried to
repeat it when I hit the ball.

Tried to get the proper head speed of the putter.

I just don’t think I feel anything most of the time, sometime I did I guess.

I tried to image how far back the club should go, so the ball would end up in the hole.
Always felt the feel of putting stroke.

If You Experienceder Im_ages Prior to Putting, Please Explain What Effect You Think
They HA1 On Your—Subsequent Performgce?

I believe that the putting strokes that I imagined had a better chance of going in rather
than just hitting the ball.

The second twenty putts - the ball went more to the left- but still stayed to the right of the
hole.

It helped me prepare for the next putt.
Preparation for putt.

Helped to get proper placement. Also with aim.
Conﬁdence, line.

As far as feeling my practice putts, I feel they are very important, but seeing the ball fall
in the cup using imagery isn’t quite as important.

The conscious thought of going to the subconscious action, helps control the action.

I feel that all the ones I made I imaged before, but 1 also missed some after imaging, but I
missed few if any after imaging.

74

If I think I am going to miss my shot, most likely, I will. Conﬁdence is higher when I see
(imagine) my putt.

The last 20 ball, most of them went in, through use of these images.
It calms me down.

It helps relax and give a good touch.

APPENDIX I

ANOVA AND ANCOVA SUMMARY TABLES

TABLE 1

Analysis of Variance of Putting Performance Scores for Pre- to Posttest

 

 

Source SS DF MS F Sig
Group (G) 2.78 3 .93 .09 .963
Imagery Ability (IA) .28 1 .28 .03 .867
G X IA .16 3 .05 .01 .999
Error 554.75 56 9.91

Trial (T) .78 1 .78 .14 .709
G X T 54.16 3 18.05 3.26 .028
IA X T 3.78 1 3.78 .68 .412
G X IA X T 16.28 3 5.43 .98 .409
Error 310.00 56 5.54

TABLE 2

Analysis of Covariance of Putting Direction Scores for Pre- to Posttest

 

 

Source SS DF MS F Sig
Group 36.61 3 12.20 1.55 .211
Imagery Ability (IA) .16 1 .16 .02 .886
G X IA 2.57 3 4.19 .53 .662
Error 432.46 55 7.86

Regression 71.41 1 71.41 9.08 .004

75

76

TABLE 3
Analysis of Variance of Post-Experimental Questionnaire #1

 

 

Source SS DF MS F Sig
Group .5417 2 .2708 .9420 .3974
Error 12.9375 45 .2875

Total 13.4792 47

TABLE 4

Analysis of Variance of Post-Experimental Questionnaire #2

 

 

Source SS DF MS F Sig
Group .7917 2 .3958 .2317 .7941
Error 76.8750 45 1.7083

Total 77.6667 47

TABLE 5

Analysis of Variance of Post-Experimental Questionnaire #3

 

 

Source SS DF MS F Sig
Group 1. 1667 2 .5833 .3787 .6869
Error 69.3125 45 1.5403

Total 70.4792 47

77

TABLE 6
Analysis of Variance of Post-Experimental Questionnaire #4

 

 

Source SS DF MS F Sig
Group .1250 2 .0625 . 1016 .9036
Error 27.6875 45 .6153

Total 27.8125 47

TABLE 7

Analysis of Variance of Post-Experimental Questionnaire #5

 

 

Source SS DF MS F Sig
Group .0417 2 .0208 .0336 .9670
Error 27.8750 45 .6194

Total 27.9167 47

TABLE 8

Analysis of Variance of Post-Experimental Questionnaire #6

 

 

Source SS DF MS F Sig
Group 8.2917 2 4.1458 4.0834 .0235
Error 45.6875 45 1.0153

Total 53.9792 47

78

TABLE 9
Analysis of Variance of Post-Experimental Questionnaire #7

 

 

Source SS DF MS F Sig
Group .2917 2 .1458 .5769 .5657
Error 1 1.3750 45 .2528

Total 1 1.6667 47

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Afremow, J .A., Overby, L.Y., & Vadocz, EA. (1997). Using mental imagery to
enhance the sport and dance skills of children. Journal of the International Council for
Hglth, Physicul Educution, Recreation, Smrt, and Dunce, 33, No.4, 44-48.

Arnold, EL. (1965). The relationshiJ) between physical and mental practice and
initiuLubilitv in leuming a simple motor skill. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University.

Bagg, E.J.K. (1966). Effect of mental and ph_v_sical practice on baseball batting.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.

 

Barr, K., & Hall, C. (1992). The use of imagery by rowers. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 23, 243-261.

Beckow, PA. (1967). A comwi son of the effectiveness of mental pgctice umn the
learningof twgross motor skills. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Oregon.

Blackshear Jr., EH. (1991 ). Correct and incorrect mental rehearsal with positive and
negutive outcomes in free throw shootiug. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hofstra
University, Hempstead, NY.

Budney, A.J., & Woolfolk, KL. (1990). Using the wrong image: An exploration of
the adverse effects of Imagery on Motor Performance. Journal of Mentpl Imageg, 14 (3
& 4), 75-86.

 

Denis, M. (1985 ). Visual imagery and the use of mental practice in the development
of motor skills. Canadian Journal of Applied Spprt Science, 10, 4-15.

Driskell, J .E., Copper, C. & Moran, A (1994). Does Mental Practice Enhance
Performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79. No. 4, 481-492.

Feltz, D.L., & Landers, D.M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill
learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Joumpl of Sport Psychology,_5,
25-57.

Finke, RA. (1979). The functional equivalence of mental images and errors of
movement. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 235-264.

Goss, S., Hall, C.R., Buckolz, E. & Fishburne, G.J. (1986). Imagery ability and the
acquisition and retention of movements. Memoryund @gnition. 14. 469-477.

79

80

Gould, D., Weiss, M, & Weinberg, RS. (1981). Psychological characteristics of
successful and non-successful Big Ten wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology,_3, 69-81.

Grouios, G. (1992a). The effect of mental practice on Diving Performance.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 60-69.

 

Grouios, G. (1992b). Mental practice: A review. Journal of Sport Be_l_r_avior, Vol._1_5_,
42-59.

Hall, CR, Bernoties, L., Schmidt, D. (1995). Interference effects of mental imagery
on a motor task. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 181-190.

Hall, CR, Buckolz, E., & Fishburne, 6.]. (1992). Imagery and the acquisition of
motor skills. Canadian Journal of Sport Science, 17(1), 19-27.

Hall, C.R., & Martin, K.A. (1997). Measuring movement imagery abilities: A
revision of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imagegy, 21, 143-
154.

Hall, CR, & Pongrac, J. (1983). Movement Impgery Questionnaire. The University
of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Hall, C.R., Pongrac, J ., & Buckolz, E. (1985). The measurement of imagery ability.
Human Movement Science 4, 107-118.

 

Hall, CR, Rodgers, W.M., & Barr, K.A. (1990). The use of imagery by athletes in
selected sports. The Spprt Psychologist, 4, 1-10.

Highlen, P.S., & Bennett, BB. (1983). Elite divers and wrestlers: A comparison
between open- and closed-skill athletes. Journal of Smrt Psychology, 5, 390-409.

Hird, J.S., Landers, D.M., Thomas, J .R., & Horan, J .J. (1991). Physical practice is
superior to mental practice in enhancing cognitive and motor task performance. Journal

of Smrt and Exercise chhology, 13, 281-293.

Isaac, AR. (1992). Mental practice: Does it work in the ﬁeld? The Spgrt
Psychologist, 6, 192-198.

Isaac, A., Marks, D.F., & Russell, DG. (1986). An instrument for assessing imagery
of movement. The Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire. Journal of Mental

Imugeﬂ, 10, 23-30.

81

Jacobson, E. (1932). Electrophysiology of mental activities. Americun Journal of
chhology, 44, 677-694.

Jastrow, J .A. (1892). Study of involuntary movements. American Journal of
Psychology, 4, 398-407.

Johnson, P. (1982). The functional equivalence of imagery and movement.
Merly Journal of Exmrimental Psychology, 34A. 349-365.

Kohl, R.M., & Roenker, D.L. (1980). Bilateral transfer as a function of mental
imagery. Journal of Motor Behavior 12 197-206.

 

 

Kosslyn, SM. (1994). Image and Brain: The Resolution of the [muggy Debates.
Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Mahoney, M.J., & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory
study. Coguitive Therapy and Research, 3, 361-366.

Marks, DP. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British
Journal of Psychology, 64, 17-24.

McCaffrey, N., & Orlick, T. (1989). Mental factors related to excellence among top
professional golfers. International Journal of Spprt Psychology, 20, 256-278.

Meacci, W.G. & Price, BE. (1985). Acquisition and retention of golf putting skill
through the relaxation, visualization, and body rehearsal intervention. Research
Merlv for Exercise and Sm 56, 176-179.

Murphy, SM. (1994). Imagery interventions in sport. Medicine upd Science in
Smrts and Exercise, 26(4), 486-494.

Murphy, S.M. & Jowdy, DP. (1992). Imagery and mental practice. In T.S. Horn
(Ed. ), Advances in Smrt Psychology (pp. 221-250). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Neal, ND. (1976). Mental imagery and relaxation in skill rehearsal. Scholastic
Coaclu 14, 48, 80-82.

Noel, RC. (1980). The effect of visuo-motor behavior rehearsal on tennis
performance. Journal of Smrt Psychology, 2, 221-226.

Orlick, T. (1986). Coaches training manual to gyching for smrt. Champaign, IL:
Leisure Press.

82

Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Smrt
ngchologjst, 2, 105-130.

Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery in human
performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Spprt Sciences, 10, 22-28.

Perry, HM. (1939). The relative efﬁciency of actual and imaginary practice in ﬁve
selected tasks. Archives of Psychology, 34, 5-75.

Powell, GE. (1973 ). Negative and positive mental practice in motor skill acquisition.
PerceMl and Motor Skills. 37. 312.

Rodgers, W., Hall, C.R., & Buckolz, E. (1991). The effect of an imagery training
program on imagery ability, imagery use, and ﬁgure skating performance. Journal of
Applied Smrt Pachology. 3, 109-125.

Ryan, E.D., & Simons, J. (1981). Cognitive demand imagery and frequency of mental
practice as factors inﬂuencing the acquisition of mental skills. Journal of Smrt

Psychology, 4, 35-45.

Sackett, RS. (1934). The inﬂuences of symbolic rehearsal upon the retention of a
maze habit. Journal of General Psychology, 10, 376-395.

Salmon, J ., Hall, C., & Haslam, I. (1994). The use of imagery by soccer players.
Journal of Smrt Psychology, 6, 116-133.

Schmidt, DJ. (1992). The effects of ppsitive versus negtive mpntal ir_n_ageg on 5
pin bowling. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Western Ontario, London,

Ontario.

Singer, RN. (1980). Motor Learniug and Human Performance (3rd ed.). New York:
Macmillan.

Vadocz, E.A, Moritz, S.E., & Hall, CR. (1997). Factor Structure and Reliabilig of
the Movement Imagm mestionnaire - Revised. Manuscript in preparation.

Vandell, R.A., Davis, R.A., & Clugston, HA. (1943). The function of mental practice
in the acquisition of motor skills. The Journal of General P§ychology, 29, 243-250.

 

Vealey, R.S., & Walter, SM. (1993). Imagery training for performance enhancement
and personal development. In Jean M. Williams (Ed) (2nd ed.). Applied Smrt

Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance (pp. 200-224). Palo Alto, CA:
Mayﬁeld Publishing Company.

83

Webb, K. (1997, July). ‘Toe the line’ to straighten your alignment. Golf Digest, 48,
no. 7, 52.

Woolfolk, RL., Murphy, S.M., Gottesfeld, D., & Aitken, D. (1985a). Effects of
mental rehearsal of task motor activity and mental depiction of task outcome on motor

skill performance. Journal of Smrt P§ychology, 7, 191-197.

Woolfolk, R.L, Parish, W., & Murphy, SM. (1985b). The effects of positive and

negative imagery on motor skill performance. Cogm'tive Therapy and Research, 9, 335-
341.

"‘11111111111111111“