IIHIIHWNHlWllHllllWWlNlIHIHNHIIHI“WWI

      

135
588
_THS

 
 
 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
SELF-EFFICACY FOR MENTAL IMAGERY AND
SELF-REPORTED IMAGERY SKILLS

presented by

Amy Juliana Tenute

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in Kinesiology

m 511%

Major professor

Date ‘Zlnlm

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

 

LIBRARY .
Michigan State
Unlvarslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDue.p65«p.15

 

EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY FOR
MENTAL IMAGERY AND SELF-REPORTED IMAGERY SKILLS
By

Amy Juliana Tenute

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Kinesiology
2001

Professor Deborah L. Feltz

ABSTRACT
EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY FOR
MENTAL IMAGERY AND SELF-REPORTED IMAGERY SKILLS
By

Amy Juliana Tenute

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between self-efﬁcacy for
mental imagery and self-reported imagery Skills. The investigator designed a
questionnaire to measure self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery (SEMID and administered it to
NCAA Division I, II, & III athletes, as well as competitive club sport athletes
participating in several sports (i.e., tennis, golf, track). These athletes were also given
four other questionnaires measuring imagery use, imagery ability, imagery content, and
trait sport conﬁdence. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the SEMII indicated that is
comprised four factors accounting for 70% of variance: Cognitive Speciﬁc, Motivational
Speciﬁc, Motivational General - Mastery, and Motivational General — Arousal imagery
efﬁcacy. The SEMI] correlated signiﬁcantly with measures of imagery use, ability, and
content as well as trait sport conﬁdence in a positive direction. Elite athletes reported
more imagery efﬁcacy than novice and intermediate level athletes did. Women reported
more imagery efﬁcacy than men, and more experienced athletes had more imagery

efﬁcacy than less experienced athletes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have many people to acknowledge and thank for helping me with this thesis and
achieving this degree. First, my parents, who have supported every life choice I have
ever made, whether they agreed with it or not. You allowed me to explore the areas I
wanted and try near impossible endeavors, but always with just one rule, “if you make
this commitment you must see it through to the end.” I have kept that lesson with me my
whole life and at no other time has it seemed more apropos than here, ﬁnishing my
Masters’. Thank you for not only instilling in me the ideal of ﬁnishing what you start,
but being there to support me every step of the way, and even prodding me at times over
these last few years just to make I sure I would make it. I love you both.

Second, I would like to thank Dr. Marty Ewing and Dr. Crystal Branta for serving
on my committee (and remembering me despite my lengthy absence from MSU). I
greatly appreciate your insight, comments, ideas and patience in working with me on my
degree and thesis. Thank you!

Next, I want to thank Dr. Sandra Short for all your help with the statistical
analyses and your continued belief in my study and ability to ﬁnish it. Thank you for
responding to ALL my emails and understanding all my questions, even when I was not
sure what I was actually asking. Congratulations on the little one and thank you again.

And ﬁnally, thank you Dr. Deb Feltz. Your unbelievable commitment to me and
my thesis are why I am writing this and will graduate with a Masters’ degree from
Michigan State University. You could have easily dismissed me ever ﬁnishing after not
hearing from me for months (ok, maybe even years) at a time. But no matter how long it
had been since my last contact, you were right there to give me direction and

encouragement for completing this thesis. And for that, I am forever grateful.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................
GLOSSARY ..............................................................................

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................
Nature of the Problem ..........................................................
Statement of the Problem ......................................................
Hypotheses .......................................................................
Delimitations and Limitations .................................................

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............................................
Self-Efﬁcacy and Sport Performance ..........................................
Mental Imagery and Sport Performance .......................................
Characteristics of Mental Imagery That Inﬂuence
Self-Efﬁcacy and Sport Performance .................................
Self-Efﬁcacy for Mental Imagery on Inﬂuencing
Sport Conﬁdence .........................................................

CHAPTER 3

METHODS .................................................................................
Participants .........................................................................
Instruments .........................................................................
Initial Item Development of the SEMII ........................................
Procedures ..........................................................................

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS ...................................................................................
Preliminary Analyses .............................................................
Results of Hypotheses ............................................................
Exploratory Analyses .............................................................

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION ..............................................................................

APPENDICES

Self-Efﬁcacy for Mental Imagery Inventory ..............................
Imagery Use Questionnaire ..................................................
Sport Imagery Questionnaire ................................................

Trait Sport Confidence Inventory ..........................................
Demographic Data Sheet ....................................................

WWPOP?

iv

Mental Imagery Questionnaire - Revised ..................................

vi

vii

A-h-D-v—r—

5
5
8

10

12

15
15
l6
17
20

22
22
25
29

35

41
43
46
50
55
57

G. Informed Consent Form ...................................................... 58

REFERENCES ............................................................................. 59

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Athletes by Division and Sex ........................................ 14
Table 2. SEMII item with Corresponding SIQ item ......................... 19
Table 3. SEMII Items and Corresponding Factor Loadings,

Oblique Rotation .............................................. 23
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for SEMII .............. 25
Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations for IUQ ........................... 26
Table 6. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefﬁcients

Between the SEMII and the IUQ ........................... 27
Table 7. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefﬁcients

between the SEMII and Imagery Variables ............... 29
Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations for SEMII Factors by

Competition Level and Gender ............................... 30
Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations for SEMII Factors by

Demographic Variables ....................................... 31

Table 10. One-way ANOVAS between SEMII and
Demographic Variables ....................................... 32

Table 11. Descriptions of Mental Imagery by Participants .................... 34

vi

GLOSSARY

Kinesthetic Imagery - To imagine feeling what performing a movement
is like without actually doing the movement (Hall & Pongrac, 1983).

Mental Imagery — A psychological activity that evokes the physical characteristics of an
object, person, or place that is either permanently or temporarily absent from our
perception (Denis, 1985).

Self-Confidence - A global trait of one's overall competency beliefs (Bandura, 1997)

Self-Efﬁcacy - An individual's belief in his/her ability to successfully execute a
speciﬁc task (Bandura, 1977).

Self-Efﬁcacy for Mental Imagery Inventory - The belief that one has the capacity to

perform a variety of mental imagery tasks.

Sport Confidence - The belief of degree of certainty individuals possess about their
ability to be successful in sport (V ealey, 1986).

Sport Imagery Questionnaire Subscales (Hall, Paivio, Mack & Hausenblas, 1998)
Cognitive SMifiC (CS). Imagery focused on performing a speciﬁc sport skill.
Motivational Smciﬁc (MS). Goal-oriented Imagery such as
Motivational Genera] — Mastery (MG-M). Imagery focused on mastery of a
Competitive situation.

Motivational General — Arousal (MG-A). Imagery related to general
Physiological and emotional arousal.

_C_o_gritive General (CG). Imagery related to strategies for a competitive event

Visual Imagery - Visually imaging performance of a movement without actually
doing the movement (Hall & Pongrac, 1983).

vii

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Nature of the Problem

Studies on the effects of imagery and self-efﬁcacy on sport performance are
numerous (Feltz, 1988; Feltz & Landers, 1983; Hecker & Kaczor, 1988; Heishman &
Bunker, 1989; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979). Based on many of these studies, the
positive effects of mental imagery on competitive athletic performance have been
supported. However, the underlying reasons for why some athletes engage in mental
imagery and others do not has not been investigated. One reason may be the degree of
conﬁdence athletes have in their ability to image. The present study examined the role
that self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery plays with respect to imagery use, imagery ability,
and trait Sport-conﬁdence.

The research literature on self-efﬁcacy and motor task performance has been
based on Bandura's (1977, 1997) self-efﬁcacy theory. This is a social-cognitive theory
based on efﬁcacy expectations. Speciﬁcally, the belief individuals possess about their
ability to successfully execute the psychological procedures needed to complete a
particular task affects the level and strength of their self-efﬁcacy (expectations). Bandura
outlined four principal sources of information from which efﬁcacy expectations are
derived. One’s efﬁcacy expectations are posited to inﬂuence subsequent behavior and
performance in a particular situation.

The effect of self-efﬁcacy on motor and sport performance is one area of
psychology research stemming from Bandura's (1977) theory. Studies have been
conducted on strength and endurance tasks (Lerner & Locke, 1995; Weinberg, Gould,
Yukelson, & Jackson, 1981), high avoidance motor tasks (Feltz, 1988; Feltz, Landers, &
Raeder, 1979), and competitive sport performance situations (Barling & Abel, 1983;
George, 1994). In general, the ﬁndings of self-efﬁcacy on motor and Sport performance

studies have shown that, indeed, self-efﬁcacy can predict and enhance performance (Feltz
& Lirgg, 2001; George, 1994), particularly in individual sports such as gymnastics (Lee,
1982; Weiss, Wiese, & Klint, 1989) and tennis (Barling & Abel, 1983).

The effects of mental imagery have been studied in relation to learning of a motor
task (Corbin, 1967; Goss, Hall, Buckolz, & Fishbume, 1986), as a psyching up method
(Gould, Weinberg, & Jackson, 1980; Lee, 1990), to enhance performance of an already
learned task (W risberg & Anshel, 1989; Ziegler, 1987) and to improve competitive sport
performance (Heishman & Bunker, 1989; Van Gyn, chger, & Gaul, 1990). The
majority of imagery research has focused on either novel tasks (e. g., wand-juggling,
pursuit rotor task) or a sport skill (e.g., free throw shooting ) in a neutral, noncompetitive
situation. However, much like the self-efficacy research, for imagery to be considered
generalizable to a Sport setting, research needs to be conducted in competitive athletic
situations. In fact, numerous studies have looked at the effects of imagery use on
subsequent competitive performance (Davis, 1990; Heishman & Bunker, 1989; Salmon,
Hall, & Haslam, 1994), and in particular, individual sports (Mahoney & Avener, 1977;
Mumford & Hall, 1985; Noel, 1980).

Most studies have not directly assessed the effects of mental imagery use on self-
efﬁcacy beliefs for future motor performance. Some investigators have conducted
anecdotal analyses of their results to assess this area (Clark, 1960; Martin & Hall, 1995;
Woolfolk, Parrish, & Murphy, 1985). For example, Clark reported that participants
experienced progressively increasing conﬁdence in their free throw shooting performance
as a result of mental practice.

Feltz and Riessinger (1990) directly tested whether in vivo emotive imagery and
performance feedback helped enhance self-efﬁcacy beliefs on a competitive motor task.
Results revealed a signiﬁcant increase in self-efﬁcacy for the imagery group after brief
exposure. Imagery group participants also had signiﬁcantly higher efﬁcacy scores than

feedback alone or control subjects after each performance trial. This study used mastery

imagery, which consisted of generating images that were assumed to elicit feelings of
competence and being psyched up.

Paivio (1985) studied the roles of cognitive and motivational imagery in
enhancing performance and self-conﬁdence in more depth than Feltz and Riessinger.
Paivio (1985) asserted that the analytic framework for imagery effects comprised
motivational and cognitive functions. Each function was further categorized into general
and speciﬁc functions. Paivio proposed that motivational type imagery may affect
enhancement of sport performance more than the cognitive type because many
motivational procedures are designed to decrease anxiety and tension, or to increase self-
conﬁdence for future performance. Several other researchers appear to agree with
Paivio’s assertion (Barr & Hall, 1992; Hall ct al., 1990; Moritz, Hall, Martin & Vadocz,
1996).

Moritz et al. (1996) took these assertions a step further by analyzing the actual
content of what conﬁdent athletes image. The authors found that high sport conﬁdent
athletes tended to use more mastery and arousal type imagery (motivational) than low
sport conﬁdent athletes, as measured by the State Sport Conﬁdence Inventory (SSCI;
Vealey, 1986). They also found that high sport conﬁdent athletes had better perceived
kinesthetic and visual imagery ability that low conﬁdent athletes. Based on their results,
the researchers believed that there is a clear relationship between image content and sport
conﬁdence. The present thesis extended Moritz et al’s (1996) ﬁndings by analyzing the
link between self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery and the types of imagery athletes use and
their subsequent trait sport conﬁdence.

The present study asserted that, based on the previous research, it was possible
that self-efﬁcacy for mental imaging would correlate positively with the different types of
imagery use, imagery ability, and trait sport conﬁdence. Based on Bandura's (1977) self-

efﬁcacy theory, when an individual is highly efﬁcacious (has the expectation of personal

mastery) for a particular task (in this case mental imagery) s/he will initiate and persist in

performing that task more than someone low in self-efﬁcacy for the same task.

Statement of the problem
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between self-

efficacy for mental imagery and imagery use, ability, content, and trait sport conﬁdence.

Hypotheses

l. One’s self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery is positively associated with reported
imagery use.

2. One’s self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery is positively associated with reported
mental imagery ability.

3. One’s self-efficacy for mental imagery is positively associated with using
similar type of imagery.

4. One’s self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery is positively associated with reported
trait sport conﬁdence.
Delimitations

The participants in this study were at the college level. Results of this study may
not generalize to team sport athletes or athletes of younger ages.
Limitations

This study was limited by the following uncontrolled factors:
1. Only self-reported imagery behavior was measured

2. All psychometric procedures used in developing an instrument (i.e. Conﬁrrnatory

Factor Analysis, Independent Sample) were not conducted on the SEMII.

3. Participant selection was voluntary, potentially causing a subject self-selection bias.

CHAPTER 2

Review of Related Literature

The effects of mental imagery practice on learning and enhancing motor
performance has been one of the most widely studied topics in the area of sport
psychology (Feltz & Landers, 1983; Hecker & Kaczor, 1988; Heishman & Bunker, 1989;
Murphy, 1990; Richardson, 1967A & B; Suedfeld & Bruno, 1990). Another topic of
investigation in sport psychology receiving attention has been the effects of self-efﬁcacy
on motor and sport performance (Feltz, 1988; Weinberg et al., 1979; Weinberg et al.,
1981). Some researchers have also conducted analyses on the use of mental imagery to
increase self-efﬁcacy or self-conﬁdence of motor performance (Clark, 1960; Feltz &
Riessinger, 1990; Gould et al., 1980; Hall & Rodgers, 1989; Martin & Hall, 1995;
Woolfolk et al., 1985) and sport skill performance (Kendall, Hrycaiko, Martin, &
Kendall, 1990).

The present discussion has several purposes. The ﬁrst purpose is to review and
discuss the sport psychology literature relating self-efﬁcacy to sport performance.
Second, a literature review of the effects of mental imagery on motor and sport skill
performance is presented. Third, the relationship between self-efﬁcacy, mental imagery
and sport performance is addressed. Finally, the need for a measure assessing self-
efﬁcacy for mental imagery is discussed.

Self-Efﬁcacy and Smrt Performance

The research literature on self-efﬁcacy and motor task performance has been
based on Bandura's (1977, 1997) self-efﬁcacy theory. This is a social-cognitive theory
based on efﬁcacy expectations. Speciﬁcally, the belief individuals possess about their
ability to successfully execute the psychological procedures needed to complete a
particular task affects the level and strength of their self-efﬁcacy. Bandura (1997)

originally outlined four principal sources of information from which efﬁcacy

expectations are derived: (a) past performance accomplishments, (b) vicarious
experience, (c) verbal persuasion and, (d) physiological, or emotional arousal. Feltz and
Lirgg (2001) reported that other categories such as self-modeling, social comparison, and
imaginal experience have been added as sources of efficacy information (Bandura, 1997;
Maddux, 1995; Feltz, 1994). Maddux (1995) believed imagining oneself being
successful or unsuccessful in an upcoming performance situation could generate efﬁcacy
beliefs. Bandura (1997 ) called this cognitive self-modeling. These generated efﬁcacy
beliefs are then posited to inﬂuence subsequent behavior and performance in a particular
situation.

Bandura (1977, 1997) asserts that the individual must have the capabilities to
carry out the required behavior needed to produce a speciﬁc outcome. Assuming
individuals do have the capabilities, then self-efﬁcacy theory states that performance will
be based (in part) on their perception of their own competencies. Bandura's theory differs
from the concept of self-conﬁdence, which is seen as a global trait of one's overall
competency beliefs. Self-efﬁcacy is conﬁdence on a speciﬁc task, or in a particular
situation. In other words, self-efﬁcacy expectations change from situation to situation,
although Bandura noted that efﬁcacy effects can generalize from one task, or situation, to
a similar one.

Self-efﬁcacy theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997) has provided a framework for
studying the effects of self-efﬁcacy on performance in a wide range of situations.
Bandura's model has been used to study self-efﬁcacy in settings of behavioral change
(Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980; Marcus, Selby, Niaura, & Rossi, 1992),
goal-level and goal-commitment (Lerner & Locke, 1995), strength performance (Feltz &
Riessinger, 1990; Weinberg et al., 1979), and competitive sport performance (Corbin,
1967; Lee, 1982). These studies have varied on the task used to assess performance as

well as on the various ways self-efﬁcacy has been measured and manipulated.

The effect of self-efﬁcacy on motor and sport performance is one area of research
stemming from Bandura's (1977) theory. Studies have been conducted on strength and
endurance tasks (Lerner & Locke, 1995; Weinberg et al., 1981), high avoidance motor
tasks (Feltz, 1988; Feltz et al., 1979), and competitive sport performance situations
(Barling & Abel, 1983; George, 1994). In general, the ﬁndings of self-efﬁcacy and
motor and sport performance studies have shown that, indeed, self-efﬁcacy can predict
and enhance competitive sport performance (Feltz & Lirgg, 2001; George, 1994).
Several of these studies are described at length below.

Lee (1982) studied the self-efﬁcacy of young, female gymnasts and their
performance in a major competition. The participants ranged in age from 7 to 12 years
old and were of differing ability levels. The investigator assessed the accuracy of the
gymnasts' expectations, their coach's expectations, and their past competition scores as
predictors of their upcoming competition performance. The comparison in accuracy of
the gymnasts' self-efﬁcacy expectations and past competition scores were used to test the
gymnasts' expectations of their ability. The results indicated that the gymnasts'
expectancies were more accurate estimates of their performance than their previous
competition scores demonstrating that an individual's efﬁcacy expectations can
accurately predict his/her competitive performance.

Other research has expanded these ﬁndings by looking at different populations.
For example, Weiss et a]. (1989) also studied the self-efﬁcacy of gymnasts and its
inﬂuence on competitive performance. However, they examined gymnasts who were
older than Lee's (1982) sample. The researchers assessed gymnastic self-efﬁcacy by
having the gymnasts record what scores they thought they were capable of attaining
approximately 2 hours before the beginning of the competition. They found that self-
efﬁcacy was more highly correlated with performance than was years of experience,
worry cognitions, and state anxiety. The authors reported that gymnasts who had higher

efﬁcacy expectations were signiﬁcantly more successful that those with low expectations.

Another example of the self-efficacy and competitive sport performance was a
study conducted by Barling and Abel (1983). Participants' mean age was 26.6 years and
they were of varying ability levels. This particular study assessed the relationship
between efﬁcacy, response-outcome, valence expectancies and tennis serving
performance. All participants completed a self-rating scale on the above independent
variables and were assessed on their performance by two raters. Participants were rated
on 12 behavioral categories relevant to tennis performance including accuracy, footwork,
anticipation, and concentration. The results showed that, like Lee's (1982) study, the
participants' efﬁcacy expectations of their own performance were signiﬁcantly related to
the external ratings of the 12 behavioral criteria of tennis performance, whereas, only two
of the criteria were related to response-outcome expectations, and valence beliefs.

Based on the research presented, Bandura's (1977) self-efﬁcacy theory has been
shown to be signiﬁcantly related to competitive sport performance. The previous
investigations have yielded support for the predictive power of self-efﬁcacy, as well as
the performance enhancing effects self-efﬁcacy can promote. Mental imagery has been
another variable studied to examine its effects on sport performance.

Mental Irnggerv and Sport Performarjge

Mental practice has been one of the earliest and most widely studied topics in
sport psychology. Richardson (1967a) deﬁned mental practice as "the symbolic rehearsal
of a physical activity in the absence of any gross muscular movements" (p. 95). In other
words, when an individual sits with his/her eyes closed and imagines going through the
motions of shooting a free throw he/she is using mental practice. Richardson also noted
that mental practice has been studied under a variety of other names including symbolic
rehearsal, mental rehearsal, visualization, and mental imagery.

The effects of mental imagery have been studied in relation to learning and
development of a motor task (Corbin, 1967; Goss et al., 1986), as a psyching up method
(Gould et al., 1980; Lee, 1990), to enhance performance of an already learned task

(Wrisberg & Anshel, 1989; Ziegler, 1987) and to improve competitive sport performance
(Heishman & Bunker, 1989; Van Gyn, Wenger, & Gaul, 1990). The majority of imagery
research has focused on either novel tasks (i.e., wand-juggling, pursuit rotor task) or a
sport skill (i.e., free throw shooting) in a neutral, noncompetitive situation. However,
much like the self-efﬁcacy research, for imagery to be considered generalizable to a sport
setting, research needs to be conducted in competitive athletic situations. In fact, several
studies have looked at the effects of imagery use on subsequent competitive performance
(Davis, 1990; Heishman & Bunker, 1989; Salmon et al., 1994), and in particular,
individual sports (Barr & Hall, 1992; Hall et al., 1990; Mahoney & Avener, 1977;
Mumford & Hall, 1985; Noel, 1980).

The above research supports the notion that mental imagery enhances sport
performance of experienced athletes, but not necessarily lower ability athletes. For
example, Noel (1980) conducted a study of imagery and competitive sport performance
using visuo-motor behavior (VMBR) training to help enhance tennis serve performance
during competition. The experimental group was trained, ﬁrst, in relaxation and then, in
repeated mental practice of its serves. The participants were also divided into low and
high tennis ability groups. The high tennis ability group achieved signiﬁcant
improvement in their percentage of good ﬁrst serves, but the lower ability group's
performance actually decreased from pretest to competition performance. It is possible
that the skill of serving among low ability participants was not a well-leamed task and the
VMBR training may have been more distracting than helpful. Other researchers looked
at how different types of imagery might affect subsequent sport performance for
experienced versus novice athletes.

Mumford and Hall (1985) also conducted a study on the effects of imagery on
sport performance. In their study, the effects of internal and external imagery on
performing ﬁgures in skating by senior and novice skaters were examined. External

imagery is where an athlete views him/herself from a third-person perspective, whereas

the internal approach takes on a ﬁrst-person quality, a "through their own eyes" approach.
The researchers did not ﬁnd a signiﬁcant difference between internal and external
imagery groups or even between the imagery groups and the control group. However,
they reported that the senior skaters using mental imagery showed greater performance
improvement than the novice skaters. This suggests that individuals more skilled in a
particular sport may beneﬁt more from imagery practice than a beginner, or someone
more unfamiliar with the skills involved in executing a speciﬁc task. It also appears that
the higher the competitive level, the more the use of psychological strategies such as
mental imagery play a role in who wins and loses. Researchers studying the effects of
mental imagery now are turning their focus to the characteristics of imagery to determine
which type, or method of imaging is most effective in enhancing self-efﬁcacy and, in
turn, sport performance.

Characteristics of Mental Imageg That Inﬂuence Self-Efﬁcacy and Sport Performance

Most studies have not directly assessed the effects of mental imagery use on self-

 

efﬁcacy beliefs or future motor performance. Some investigators have reported anecdotal
results assessing this area (Clark, 1960; Woolfolk et al., 1985). For example, in Clark's
(1960) study, he reported that participants experienced progressively increased
conﬁdence in their free throw shooting performance as a result of mental practice. Other
studies have looked at differing aspects of mental imagery and its effects on efﬁcacy and
performance.

For instance, Woolfolk and his colleagues (1985) found that a number of the
participants in the positive imagery group reported that "seeing" the putt go into the cup
increased their expectations of success in actual performance of the task. While some of
the individuals in the negative group indicated that imagining failing at the task tended to
erode their self-conﬁdence in successfully executing the actual putt. Performance
success was found to be greater for the positive imagery group than both the control and

negative imagery groups.

10

In the Mumford and Hall (1985) study on imagery and ﬁgure skating
performance, the authors reported that all the skaters receiving imagery training said they
believed it helped their Skating performance. The researchers asserted that the imagery
increased the skaters' conﬁdence in their ability to perform the ﬁgure.

Feltz and Riessinger (1990) went a step further and directly tested whether in vivo
emotive imagery and performance feedback helped enhance self-efﬁcacy beliefs on a
competitive motor task. Participants were assigned to one of three experimental
conditions: mastery imagery plus feedback, feedback alone, or control condition.
Results revealed a signiﬁcant increase in self-efficacy for the imagery group after brief
exposure. Imagery group participants also had Signiﬁcantly higher efﬁcacy scores than
feedback alone or control subjects after each performance trial. The type of imagery used
in this study was mastery imagery. Mastery imagery consisted of generating images that
were assumed to elicit feelings of competence and being psyched up such as imagining
holding out longer than the opponent and being successful. Paivio (1985) has studied the
roles of cognitive and motivational imagery in enhancing performance and self-
conﬁdence in more depth than the Feltz and Riessinger (1990) study.

Paivio (1985) analyzed the functional roles through which imagery can affect
performance. He asserted that the analytic framework for imagery effects comprised
motivational and cognitive functions. Each function was further categorized into general
and speciﬁc functions. The motivational-general level refers both to the affect or
physiological arousal that might accompany imagery use. The motivation-speciﬁc level
refers to goal-oriented imagery (i.e. seeing one winning the race, seeing the audience
cheering for you). The cognitive-general level refers to imaging of performance
strategies and the cognitive-speciﬁc level to imaging speciﬁc sport skills to be used in
performance.

Paivio (1985) proposed that motivational type imagery may affect enhancement

of sport performance more than the cognitive type because many motivational procedures

11

are designed to decrease anxiety and tension, or to increase self-conﬁdence of future
performance. Several other researchers have supported Paivio's assertion (Barr & Hall,
1992; Hall et al., 1990; Moritz, Hall, Martin, & Vadocz, 1996). Both Hall et al. and Barr
and Hall examined imagery use of athletes in a variety of Sports. Both studies found that
athletes tended to use mental imagery more frequently just before competing than at any
other time. The researchers asserted this could mean that these athletes were using
imagery in a motivational way to help them control their arousal levels and to help build
their self-conﬁdence for their upcorrring performance. This notion was also supported by
Salmon et al. (1994) who investigated imagery use by soccer players. The researchers
again found that the athletes tended to use imagery more just prior to competition than in
training. Players also said they tended to use mental imagery more for its motivational
function than its cognitive function.

Moritz and her colleagues (1996) took these assertions a step further by analyzing
the actual content of what conﬁdent athletes image. The researchers administered the
Movement Imagery Questionnaire - Revised (MIQ-R: Hall & Martin, 1997), the Sport
Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ: Hall et al., 1998), and the State Sport Conﬁdence Inventory
(SSCI) to 57 elite competitive rollerskaters. The authors found that high sport conﬁdent
athletes tended to use more mastery and arousal type imagery (motivational) than low
sport conﬁdent athletes. They also found that high sport conﬁdent athletes had better
kinesthetic and visual imagery ability than the low conﬁdent athletes did. Based on their
results, the researchers believed that there is a clear relationship between image content
and sport conﬁdence. The present thesis extended Moritz et al's ﬁndings by analyzing
the link between self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery and the types of imagery athletes use.
The present study also proposed that self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery is positively linked

to imagery use and ability, and subsequent trait sport-conﬁdence.

12

The Inﬂuence of Self-Efﬁcacy for Mental Imagery on Sport Conﬁdence

Vealey (1986) developed the concept of sport-conﬁdence to measure the degree
of certainty individuals possess about their ability to be successful in sport. She divided
this into state sport-conﬁdence (SSC) and trait sport conﬁdence (T SC). SSC measured
conﬁdence at a particular moment, often right before actual performance while TSC
measured and athletes overall sport-conﬁdence. More recently, researchers have
proposed sources of sport-conﬁdence (Vealey, Hayashi, Gamer-Holman, & Giacobbi,
1998). They identiﬁed psychological strategies, including visualizing successful
performance as one of the informational sources that inﬂuences conﬁdence beliefs. The
present thesis proposes that self-efﬁcacy for visualizing successful performance could, in
turn, affect trait sport conﬁdence. While no studies have examined this directly, previous
research has suggested that conﬁdence in using mental imagery could affect subsequent
performance and conﬁdence.

Clark (1960) found that mental practice progressively increased conﬁdence in free
throw shooting performance. The results of the study also indicated that the mental
imagery groups showed Signiﬁcant gains in actual performance of foul shooting, but not
as high as physical practice only. However, an introspective analysis by Clark found that
one of the mental practice group's coach made facetious and deprecating remarks to the
participants concerning the possibilities of mental practice. When the author recomputed
the results dropping the group exposed to the coach's negative remarks, mean
performance gains went up 14% and signiﬁcantly surpassed the physical practice group's
mean performance gains. What this ﬁnding suggests is that the coach's remarks may well
have affected the participants' conﬁdence in using mental imagery to help performance,
which in turn may have affected how much they actually imaged and subsequently their
physical performance of shooting.

Corbin (1967) also noted that all but one of the participants in the experimental

condition reported conﬁdence in mental practice as a factor in improving wand-juggling

l3

performance. Therefore, the present study has examined an athlete's efficacy in using
mental imagery to predict mental imagery use and subsequent trait sport conﬁdence.

As discussed in the ﬁrst section of this thesis, self-efﬁcacy has been shown to
both predict and help enhance competitive sport performance. Research presented also
supported the assertion that mental imagery helps to improve competitive sport
performance as well as increase self-efﬁcacy expectations that individuals can
successfully execute a speciﬁc imaged task. The present study asserted that based on the
previous research, self-efﬁcacy for the skill of mental imaging will correlate positively
with imagery use, imagery ability, and trait sport conﬁdence. Based on Bandura's (1977)
self-efﬁcacy theory, when an individual is highly efﬁcacious (has the expectation of
personal mastery) for a particular task (in this case mental imagery) s/he will initiate and
persist in performing that task more than someone low in self-efﬁcacy of the same task.
The relationship between imagery use and sport conﬁdence (state) has been discussed
(Moritz et al., 1996). This study asserted that individuals conﬁdent in their ability to
mentally image would use it more often, report high ability to image, and report having
higher trait sport-conﬁdence.

In conclusion, the above review has outlined the self-efﬁcacy and mental imagery
literature as it relates to motor and sport performance. No measure of self-efﬁcacy for
mental imagery currently exists; therefore, the present study consisted of, ﬁrst, designing
and testing a self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery inventory, and second, examining the
relationships between imagery efﬁcacy, imagery use, imagery ability, imagery strategy

and sport conﬁdence.

l4

CHAPTER 3
Methods

Participants
Participants in this study consisted of 91 male and 104 female competitive

athletes in 12 collegiate and club sports, most of them individual sports (badminton,
cross-country running, fencing, golf, martial arts, pitching, racquetball, soccer,
swimming, synchronized swimming, tennis, track and ﬁeld). Athletes were recruited to
participate from National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II,and 111
colleges as well as from competitive Club sports.

Forty-nine athletes participated in Division I programs, 48 in Division II, 53 in
Division III, and 45 were involved in competitive club sports. Table 1 shows the
breakdown of athletes by sex and division. Study participants ranged in age from 18 to
48 years. However, 82.5% were between 18 and 22. The reported experience level of
participants ranged from 1 year to 21 years, with 74.3% having 5 to 12 years of
experience. Athletes participating were from 12 different sports with track and ﬁeld,
golf, tennis and swimming comprising 75% of participants. The majority of the athletes
considered themselves to be at an advanced level for their sport (68.2%). Twenty-six
athletes ranked themselves in the elite class, 29 considered themselves to be of
intermediate level and seven called themselves novices (all club athletes). Finally, only
26 of the 195 participants reported having ever worked with a sport psychology

consultant.

15

Table 1

Athletes by Division and Sex

 

 

 

Division Male Female Total
NCAA I 23 26 49
NCAA 11 22 26 48
NCAA III 23 3O 53
CLUB 23 22 45
Total 91 104 195
Instruments

The Imagery Use ﬁstionnajg (IUQ). This questionnaire measured how often
and under what circumstances an individual engages in mental imagery use (Hall et al.,
1990). The self-report questionnaire consisted of 34 items. Responses were rated on a 7-
point Likert scale from 1 (never, very difﬁcult) to 7 (always, very easy). Two items
required a yes/no response (see Appendix B). Each item was analyzed separately with
the SEMII in correlational analyses. No psychometric evaluation has been undertaken on
the IUQ (Hall, 1998).

The Smrt Imageg Questionnaire (SIQ). The SIQ measures how often the athlete
reports using different types of sport imagery (Hall et al., 1998). This questionnaire
consists of 30 items comprising ﬁve subscales, in which the athletes rate how frequently
they image the item suggested. The Cognitive General subscale measures strategies
athletes employ (e. g. “I make up new plans/strategies in my head”). The Cognitive
Speciﬁc subscale focuses on imaging a particular skill (e.g. “I can mentally make
corrections to physical skills”). The Motivational Speciﬁc subscale measures goal-

oriented imagery (“I imagine other athletes congratulating me on a good performance”),

16

while the Motivational General subscales look at mastery (e. g. “I imagine myself
appearing self-conﬁdent in front of my opponents”) and arousal imagery (e.g. “I imagine
myself being in control in difﬁcult situations”). The statements are rated on a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from I (rarely) to 7 (often) (see Appendix C). The internal
consistency ranged from .85 (MG-M subscale) to .93 (MS subscale).

The Mental Imagery Questionnaiﬁre-Revised (MIQ-R). The MIQ-R measures an
individual's self-reported ability to visually and kinesthetically image physical
movements (Hall & Martin, 1997). This inventory consists of 8 items, four related to
visual imagery and four related to kinesthetic imagery. Questions are rated on a 7-point
Likert scale that ranges from 1 (very hard to see or feel) to 7 (very easy to see or feel)
(see Appendix D). The internal consistency for the present sample for each scale was .93
(Visual) and .96 (Kinesthetic), respectively.

The Trait Sport Conﬁdence Inventory (T SCI). The TSCI is a measure developed
by Vealey (1986) that assesses an individual's dispositional conﬁdence to perform well in
competition. In the present study, the TSCI was instead of the SSCI because athletes
were tested in a noncompetitive environment and the researcher wanted to test whether
self-efﬁcacy for different types of imagery would be positively associated with a general
sport-conﬁdence in an athlete. The TSCI consists of 13 items in which participants rate
their sport- conﬁdence on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = 'low' and 9 = 'high'). Scores are
obtained by summing the 13 items. The TSCI asks athletes to think about how conﬁdent
they were when competing in their Sport and then rate their conﬁdence for how they
"generally feel" in reference to "the most conﬁdent athlete" they know. An internal
consistency reliability of .97 was obtained for the present sample on the TSCI (see
Appendix E).

Initial Item Development of the SEMII
The SEMII is an inventory developed by the researcher to measure an individual's

self-efﬁcacy in employing mental imagery techniques in sport (see Appendix A). The

17

items were adapted from the SIQ (Hall et al., 1998) by changing the stern of each item.
The SEMII used only 4 of the 5 SIQ subscales (CS, MS, MG-A, MG-M). The Cognitive
General subscale was not used because the items were believed to be too general in
nature for the present study. The SEMII contained 22 items, constructed according to
Bandura's (1977, 1997) recommendations. Speciﬁcally, respondents were told that,
"mental imagery self-efﬁcacy refers to your belief that you have the capacity to perform a
variety of mental imagery tasks." They were then instructed to think about how conﬁdent
they were in their mental imagery skills and to rate their conﬁdence in their ability to
perform the skills asked based on an 11-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all
conﬁdent) to 10 (extremely conﬁdent). All questions on the SEMH began with the stem
"How conﬁdent are you in your ability to..." The inventory contained items such as "...
image yourself being interviewed as a champion?," "... imagine yourself performing a
skill perfectly before attempting it physically?," "... get emotionally excited when
imaging a competition?" Seventeen of the items were related to the motivational function
of mental imagery and the rest were related to the cognitive-speciﬁc function of mental

imagery. Table 2 contains the SEMII items and their corresponding item on the SIQ.

l8

Table 2

SEMII items and the corres ondin SI item

 

 

SEMII Item 810 Item SIQ Factor

1 4 MG-A

2 26 MG-M

3 18 CS

4 25 MS

5 6 MG-M

6 28 MG-A (Loaded on MG-M for SEMII)
7 20 CS

8 2 MS

9 15 MG-A

10 13 CS

11 7 MS

12 17 MG-A

13 23 MG—M (Loaded on MG-A for SEMII)
14 27 CS

15 10 MS

16 22 MG-A

17 28 MG-M

18 8 CS

19 12 MS

20 24 MG—A

21 14 MS

22 21 MG-M (Was dropped from further analyses as it did not load

on any factor on the SEMII)

 

The SEMII was given to three researchers who were familiar with the concept of

mental imagery and had studied it in previous research. The evaluators were asked to

examine each item for content validity and relevancy of the questions on the dimension

of mental imagery ability. These researchers recommended that the scale length should

be from 0 to 10, instead of the original 0 to 5. They also suggested that each item use the

word image (or a derivation thereof) instead of interchanging image and imagine as is

done in the SIQ. They also believed that the deﬁnition was clear and accurate and the

length of the inventory was appropriate as well.

The inventory was given to 32 Physical Education and Exercise Science

undergraduate students. The students participating had played competitively (i. e. high

19

school varsity) in at least one of the sports under Study. They were adnrinistered the
inventory twice (one week apart) to assess test-retest reliability. The MG-A factor had a
reliability correlation of .84. The reliability for the MG-M factor was .82. The CS factor
reliability coefﬁcient was .91 and for the MS factor was .92.

Procedure

The testing consisted of two sessions for each participant. In Session 1, the
SEMII and a demographics questionnaire (see Appendix G) were administered. The
demographics questionnaire included asking questions about one’s age, sex, sport,
competitive experience, and previous mental imagery experience. In Session 2, the
participants took the IUQ, the TSCI, MIQ-R, and the SIQ. Administration of the tests in
this session were counterbalanced to help control order effects. For example, one group,
or athlete took the questionnaires in an alternate: IUQ, TSCI, MIQ-R, and SIQ; while a
different group, or athlete took them in the following order: TSCI, SIQ, MIQ-R, and
IUQ.

All testing sessions took place in the afternoon at either the beginning of a
practice session or the end. Testing also took place in the indoor area where the
participants practice, unless there was a team room available for administration. Coaches
were asked prior to testing to not be present during either of the testing sessions and none
were.

The ﬁrst session began with an introduction of what the testing involved and what
the purpose of the study was. Participants were then asked to participate. Those who
chose to participate were given the informed consent form (Appendix H). Upon
completing the informed consent, the SEMH and Demographics questionnaire were
distributed. The head adrrrinistrator read the instructions to participants for whichever
inventory was being administered and again answered any questions before athletes

began. After everyone completed the inventories, they were collected individually and

20

the participants were asked to not discuss their answers on any of the inventories until
after the second testing session.

The second testing session began by reminding the participants of their
conﬁdentiality, anonymity, and voluntary status. Then, the inventories were distributed
to the participants and again the instructions read and questions answered before they
began. As athletes ﬁnished, they were asked to bring their tests to the adnrinistrator and
ﬁnd their inventory and informed consent form from the previous week and staple them
together. The informed consent form was then separated and ﬁled. After all participants
ﬁnished and returned their inventories, they were debriefed regarding the hypotheses of

the study.

21

CHAPTER 4
Results

Prelimina_ry Analyses

An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted on the 22-item SEMII to
determine its factorial structure. A principal components factor analysis, using maximum
likelihood procedures with oblique rotation was forced onto four factors. The factors that
resulted were labeled Motivational Speciﬁc (MS), Cognitive Speciﬁc (CS), Motivational
General-Arousal (MG-A), and Motivational General-Mastery (MG-M). Only one item
(“image yourself being mentally tough”) loaded on both the MG-A and MG-M factor,
and thus, was eliminated, resulting in a 21-item scale. The ﬁnal factor structure
accounted for 69.6% of the overall variability in scores and matched very closely to the
four factors of the SIQ from which the SEMII was adapted. The factor loadings and

Cronbach alpha levels are contained in Table 3.

22

 

5.- 8.- 8 - 8.- 2.: 88:8
:33 3:30. :30: a wEELotoa tea—5» owns:

2. 8.- we” 8.- 8: use 5% 5
3:53“. :33 33353 a wEEBtR. owaé 3:866:00

8.- 8. oimn 8. E 2.81% a ”53522
283 Quorum :5“ a unite-.2. 235% owns:
co. co. ma 5. Amy 2.3m 323.3 9 30:02.50 8.2: 2.352
8.- 5.- 8.- l8. - :8 :85 a mass; 8.8.8» 825
mo. mo: 5.- ca. - a: oozes—cote“. .50» maﬁa—nan 3:063 05 owns:
3.- we. 8.- cm: - Am: .282: a mEZouB he Boga—8&3 05 owns:

5.. oo. 8. a. ma... .. 2 c 855.83;
Bow 8 :0 so» w:z£3§m=8 wee—Ea .050 own—:—
5. we. co. q 3V 95:29:20 a wag—3, no 80:988.,“ 05 owns:
5. 2.- 3.- NW A3 .5382? a 8 33332:. 9:3 tome—5» owes:

2-02 <62 m0 m2

“v Baum H m 8.8"— ”N 88am ”— 58am Con—Es: 2352.829 new Eu:

 

 

 

COS-Mac“ 055230 .mwcm—uQOI— uOHUﬂm Mﬁmﬁcamotco ﬂan man—ou— Ezmm

m 033—-

23

.»§82-.20000 00.03002 u 2.02 .3002 4.00000 00.03002 u «703. 05025 030500 N m0 0.0.00.5 0008502 u m2 «mam.

 

 

 

2.6. can ﬂ... 3N 0> .
v 0 m 0 0.00m 00 900.. .0 02.0.02
8. a. 8. 8. 232.080 20:. £03.80
N- 2. m _. 2. E. 22020 gas-0:. s .808 5 8.3 0.85% owns.
wlnu mo. 00. .5. 6. 00000000. .0000.c.0 0. .00000 0. 3.2. 0.0200» 0920.
MN... N... no. 3. Am. 0:00 3.0.3000 000 0000009000
.0 000008.008 000 8000 05 w0..002. 0.00000» 0900.
mm" n.. v. .- v. .- AN. 00.33%
w0.M00=0..0 a 3.0.0 000000. «0.0.. 20800» 0920.
8. N04 8.- v. .- 83 000009000 5.3 00.0.0080 000800008 0... 0m0E.
5.- NH. 8. 8.- G: 5 2858 9 .85.
000 00» .0... 0.003.005 00 win—.00. 02.3 500.00 .00".
2. ad on- 8: a 0 25880
.50» .0 .00... 0. .000c000..:0m ”0.000000 0.0300» 0mg:
h. .- ﬂwr. 8.- mo: AN: 000009000 0 3.320. 00:3 02.0.8 3.0000900 .00
N... M04 8. co.- »0. 9.009000 5.3 00.0.0080 50.000 000 8000 0... 0mg:—
mm. M04 00. mo. 2. 3009000 0.0000 .00.. :0» 00000.00 0... 0.000000 3.3002
. .. oo. ..Ii.H mm. - Am C :07. .00.m»..0 0 ..0 030.. 0... .00000 2.020.800
2-03. (:02 m0 m2
”v 00.00... H m 00.00". “N 00.00". H. 00.00”. €000.00 00000000000. 000 0.0..

6.38. m 03.;

24

Table 4 contains the means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum scores for
each subscale.
Table 4

Mians, Standard Deviations and Ranges for SEMII

 

 

Subscale Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
CS 7.59 1.60 2.20 10.00

MS 7.43 1.81 1.33 10.00
MG-A 6.49 1.66 2.00 9.67

MG—M 7.47 1.58 2.75 10.00

 

Results of Hypotheses

All four hypotheses were correlational with the alpha level set at .05. Hypothesis
I predicted that one’s self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery (as measured by the SEMII) was
positively associated with using imagery. Table 5 contains the means and standard
deviations for each IUQ item. Table 6 contains the Pearson Product-Moment correlation
coefﬁcients for items 1-28 of the IUQ with each factor of the SEMII and point biserial
correlation coefﬁcients for items 29 and 30, (yes/no items) and the SEMII factors.
Signiﬁcant relationships were found between the four factors of the SEMII and where
and when imagery took place (e. g. before, during or after training or competition). There
were no signiﬁcant relationships with between the MG-A, MG-M and MS imagery and
reporting seeing someone else perform. No signiﬁcance was found between the SEMII

and reporting having regular imagery sessions.

25

Table 5

Means and Standard Devizﬂons for IUQ items

 

 

IUQ Item Mean SD
1. Use in training 4.46 1.48
2. Use in competition 4.79 1.47
3. Use before practice 2.91 1.48
4. Use during practice 4.34 1.64
5. Use after practice 3.14 l. 63
6. Use before an event 4.74 1.57
7. Use during an event 4.29 1.77
8. Use after an event 3.61 1.65
9. Use during another unrelated activity 3.86 1.67
10. Use during breaks in the day 3.88 1.63
11. Use before/in bed 4.54 1.70
12. Watching self on video 5.14 1.47
12A. Vividness of image 5.07 1.29
123. Base of changing image 3.27 1.35
13. See as if actually playing/performing 4.45 1.35
, 13A. Vividness of image 4.98 1.29
13B. Ease of changing image 3.42 1.37
14. See isolated parts of skill 3.05 1.44
15. See entire skill 2.77 1.43
16. See part ofan event 2.71 1.32
17. See the entire event 3.01 1.47
18. See someone else perform 2.68 1.38
19. See self performing incorrectly 2.78 1.18
20. See self losing an event 2.03 1.07
21. See self doing a pre-event routine 3.22 1.72
22. See the atmosphere of competition day 3.87 1.59
23. See self winning event 4.84 1.41
24. See self receiving a ﬁrst place award 3.75 1.61
25. Extent actually feel self performing 4.17 1.32
26. Feel contact with equipment 3.61 1.59
27. Feel speciﬁc muscles 3. 72 1.51
28. Feel body control 3. 25 1.49

IUQ 29 and 30 were Yes/No response items and not included 1n this table.

 

26

Table 6

Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefﬁcients Between the IUQ and SEMII

 

SEMH Factors

IUO Item MG-A MG-M MS CS
1.Use in training .38" .44“ .33" .45"
2.Use in competition .41** .46** .35M .51"
3.Use before practice .41 ** .37** .26M .31"
4.Use during practice .25" .37M .28" .43**
5. Use after practice .41** .34“ .23" .33"
6. Use before an event .53“ .48" .36** .42"“'I
7. Use during an event .31** .29M .29“ .37"
8. Use after an event .46M .35" .26" .31"
9. Use during another

unrelated activity .38M .51M .38“ .49*
10. Use during breaks in

the day .41" .47M .42** .41“
11. Use before/in bed .33" .30M .33" 26”
12. Watching self on video .00 .17* .27" .26”
12a. Vividness of image .30" .41" .41** .44”
12b. Ease of changing image -.19** -.37** -.23** -.45**
13. See as if actually

playing or performing .37" .28""'I .18* .14*
13a. Vividness of image .44" .48" .30" .32"
13b. Ease of changing image -.23** -.41** -.16* -.42**
14. See isolated parts of skill -.22** -.42** -.31** -.55**
15. See entire skill -.23** -.41** -.34** -.46**
16. See part of an event -.33** -.45** -.35** -.48**
17. See the entire event -.29** -.44** -.40** -.46**
18. See someone else

perform .10 -.02 -.O6 -.16*
19. See self performing

incorrectly -.25** -.45** —.38** -.41 **
20. See self losing an event -.20** -.42** -.33** -.38**
21. See self doing a pre-

event routine .42" .26** .27** .24"
22. See the atmosphere

of competition day .60“ .46“ .34" .29"
23. See self winning event .43" .47" .51** .33“
24. See self receiving a

ﬁrst-place award .43" .40M .5 8** .32“
25. Extent actually feel

self performing .56** .43" .29** .31"
26. Feel contact with

equipment -.38** -.46** -.41** -.41**
27. Feel speciﬁc muscles -.40** -.45** -.34** -.43**
28. Feel body control -.44** -.55* -.39** -.51**
29. Structured sessions -.25** -.19** -.15* -.05
30. Regalar sessions -.14 -. 12 -.01 -.Ol

 

*9 < .05 “p < .01

27

The second hypothesis proposed that one’s self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery was
positively associated with using similar types of imagery. The SIQ measured ﬁve types
of imagery use similar to the SEMII: Cognitive-General, Cognitive-Speciﬁc,
Motivational-General/Arousal, Motivational-General/Mastery and Motivational Speciﬁc.
Signiﬁcant correlations were found on all four SEMII factors with the cognitive-general
factor of the SIQ (see Table 7). The SIQ Cognitive-Speciﬁc factor correlated with all
SEMII factors, but most signiﬁcantly with the CS factor of the SEMII Lr = .72). All four
SEMII factors also correlated signiﬁcantly with the SIQ Motivational-General/Mastery
and Motivational Speciﬁc factors. The SIQ Motivational-General/affective factor
correlated signiﬁcantly with the SEMII-MG-A and the MG-M factors, but not the CS or
MS factors.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that one’s self-efﬁcacy for mental imagery was positively
associated to one’s reported imagery ability. The MIQ-R tested visual and kinesthetic
imagery ability. Correlation analyses showed that the SEMH subscales were positively
related with kinesthetic imagery ability with the MG-A factor being the most strongly
correlated (r = .57) (see Table 7). Signiﬁcant correlations were also found between visual
imagery ability and all the SEMII factors except MS imagery. MG-A was also the
strongest factor associated with visual imagery ability (I = .45).

The ﬁnal hypothesis predicted that the higher one’s self-efﬁcacy for mental
imagery, the higher would be one’s reported trait sport conﬁdence. Athletes reporting a
high degree of conﬁdence in their respective sport reported signiﬁcantly more conﬁdence
in using all types of imagery techniques (see Table 7). The highest reported correlations

were with the MGM (r = .65) and the CS factors (1' = .64).

28

Table 7

_Pe_arson Correlation Coefﬁcients between the SEMII and Imagery Variables

 

 

 

SEMII Subscales
Imagery Variables MS CS MG-A MG-M
SIQ Motivational-Speciﬁc .51 ** .19* .56** .32"
SIQ Cognitive-Speciﬁc .40" .72M .40" .50“
SIQ Motivational-General/Mastery .37** .35" .58" .55"
SIQ Motivational-General/Arousal .14 .05 .63" .29"
SIQ Cognitive-General .42" .51" .50" .54"
MIQ-R Kinesthetic .21** .29" .57M .36“
MIQ-R Visual .18 .32" .45" .35"
TSCI .50** .64" .36" .65M

 

*2 < .01 **p_ <.001

Exploratory Anaflvses

One-way ANOVAS and Tukey HSD Post Hoc tests were calculated for the four

factors of the SEMII and several demographic categories. Women reported signiﬁcantly

higher conﬁdence than men in using MG-M, CS, and MS imagery, but not MG-A

imagery. Signiﬁcantly higher SEMII means were found for NCAA Division I athletes

compared to club sport athletes for the MG-A, MG-M, and MS imagery factors. NCAA

Division III athletes also reported signiﬁcantly less conﬁdence in using MS imagery than

Division I athletes. The means and standard deviations for gender by competition level

are reported in Table 8. The means and standard deviations for sex, competition level,
ability level and whether an athlete had consulted a sport psychologist or not are
contained in Table 9

Table 8

Means and Standard Deviations for SEMII by Gender and Compgtitive Level

 

 

 

SEMII Factors
MG-A MG-M CS MS
Males
NCAA I (n=23) 7.33 8.48 8.51 8.73
(1.56) (1.46) 1.46) (1.34)
NCAA 11 (n=22) 6.16 7.60 8.24 8.36
(1.57) (1.37) (1.39) (1.65)
NCAA III (n=23) 6.33 7.85 7.70 7.33
(1.54) (1.32) (1.30) (1.68)
Club (n=23) 6.46 7.67 7.79 7.37
(1.70) (1.76) (1.86) (1.94)
Females
NCAA I (n=26) 6.88 7.58 7.28 7.69
(1.92) (1.60) (1.49) (1.72)
NCAA 11 (n=26) 6.55 7.21 7.41 7.13
(1.24) (1.13) (1.48) (1.91)
NCAA III (n=30) 6.46 6.97 7.03 6.47
(1.77) (1.74) (1.64) (1.51)
Club (n=22) 5.61 6.54 7.01 6.63
(1.58) (1.52) ( 1.64) (1.67)

 

30

Table 9

Means and Standard Deviations for SEMH Factors bv Demographic Variables

 

 

SEMII Variables
Demographic Variables MG-A MG-M MS CS
Sex
Male 6.58 7.90 7.94 8.06
(1.63) (1.51) (1.75) (1.53)
Female 6.41 7.09 7.18 6.97
(1.69) (1.55) (1.75) (1.55)
Competition Level (Division)
Division I 7.09 8.00 8.18 7.86
(1.76) (1.59) (1.63) (1.59)
Division II 6.31 7.34 7.63 7.75
(1.40) (1.26) (1.88) (1.48)
Division 111 6.44 7.39 6.87 7.31
(1.65) (1.61) (1.62) (1.54)
Club 6.06 7.12 7.01 7.44
(1.69) (1.75) (1.85) (1.78)
Ability Level
Novice 4.24 5.1 1 4.76 5.20
(1.84) (1.57) (2.32) (1.25)
Intermediate 6.22 7.09 7.02 7.41
(1.51) (1.46) (1.66) (1.51)
Advanced 6.44 7.44 7.47 7.59
(1.51) (1.45) (1.66) (1.53)
Elite 7.63 8.72 8.39 8.48
(1.78) (1.35) (1.86) (1.46)
Consulted a Sport Psychologist
Yes 7.13 7.99 8.05 7.84
(1.48) (1.67) (1.86) (1.54)
No 6.39 7.39 7.33 7.56
(1.67) (1.55) (1.79) (1.61)

 

Those athletes who rated themselves elite reported signiﬁcantly higher self-

efﬁcacy for using mental imagery on the MG-A, MG-M, and CS factors than those rating

31

themselves at the novice, intermediate, or advanced ability levels. Elite athletes also
reported more conﬁdence in using MS imagery than novice and intermediate ability
athletes. Novice ability athletes reported signiﬁcantly less self-efﬁcacy for using mental
imagery than any of the other four groups for all four factors. There were no signiﬁcant
differences found for efﬁcacy between the intermediate and advanced ability level
athletes. Table 10 contains the F-ratios for these demographic variables.

Table 10

One-way ANOVAS between SEMII and DemgLaphic Variables

 

F-Ratios for SEMII Factors

 

Demographic Variables df MG-A MG-M CS MS

Sex 1 .50 1363*" 1568*" 1486*"
Competition Level (Division) 3 351* 2.78* 1.44 6.32“...
Ability Level 3 990*“ 13.45*** 3.93“:- 3.99:1“
Consulted a Sport Psychologist 1 4.55 * 3.2E1 1.80 3,61

 

*p_ < .05. **p < .01. "*2 < .001.

Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients were calculated for the four
factors for the SEMII and age of the athletes, and years of experience. The age of the
athletes produced no signiﬁcant correlations in reported conﬁdence in using mental
imagery for any of the four factors.

Those with more years of overall experience in a sport reported signiﬁcantly more

self-efﬁcacy in using mental imagery techniques of all kinds. The MG-M factor was

32

strongest at _r_ = .39 (p < .001), followed by the CS factor (r = .32, p < .001), the MG-A
factor (5 = .25, p < .001), and the MS factor (r = .23, p_ < .001).

Participants were also asked if they had ever heard of mental imagery before the
present situation. Only 30 of the 195 athletes tested reported that they had never heard of
mental imagery before the present situation. There was at least one individual from all
the sports examined who never heard of mental imagery, but the most were from
badminton (5), fencing (4), swimming (5) and tennis (4).

Those that reported having been familiar with the term mental imagery were
asked to describe what they thought the term meant. There was a wide variety of beliefs
about mental imagery, everything from focusing energy (2) to visualizing skills (54) to
enhancing performance (2). Table 11 displays all the categories athletes used to
described mental imagery. Many descriptions included more than one of the categories
contained in the table. While visualizing skill performance was the most common idea of
mental imagery, there were ﬁve individuals who believed it could be used to stay calm or
psych up before an event and two who mentioned using imagery to gain conﬁdence.
Many descriptions were very general such as ‘seeing doing something in my mind (14)’
or ‘performing in my mind (5).’ Other descriptors included ‘using all my senses (2),’

‘see what might happen (4),’ and ‘doing your sport (3).’

33

Table 11

Descriptions of Mental Imagery by Participants

 

Category Number of Reames
Image skills 54
Image being successful/perfect/positive 40
Image whole race/routine 22
Image goals/winning/outcome 19
Image the action are about to do 16
Image seeing in one’s mind 14
Image competition prior to event 11
Image strategies 10
Image remaining calm/easing anxiety 5
Image what might happen 4
Forming mental pictures 3
Image doing your sport 3
Enhance performance 2
Focus Energy 2
Gain Conﬁdence 2
Use all senses 2

 

 

34

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

Bandura’s (1977, 1997) theory purported that efﬁcacy expectations helped predict
whether a behavior would be initiated, how much effort would be used, and how long one
would persist in that behavior. As predicted in this study, in general, individuals
reporting greater self-efﬁcacy for using mental imagery for all four types tested here
(MG-M, MG-A, MS and CS) also reported using it with greater frequency and in a larger
variety of training and competition situations. However, a couple of items did not
correlate signiﬁcantly with the some of the SEMH subscales. For example, when asked if
they image externally, no signiﬁcant relationship was found for the MG-A factor, but
there was a positive signiﬁcant relationship for internal imagery. The could be explained,
in that, internal imagery may have a more affective component (used to help calm or
‘psych up’), whereas imaging as if watching yourself on a video is a much more
emotionally removed viewpoint. Other researchers (Hall et al., 1997) have argued that
the internal approach uses more of one’s senses, such as feeling. The same could hold
true for the affective part of imagery.

Another incongruent ﬁnding to Hypothesis 1 was that no relationship was found
between the motivational factors and individuals’ reports of imaging someone else
performing. This ﬁnding is not surprising because imagers are generally taught to image
themselves and not someone else performing. Also, no signiﬁcant relationship was

found between the four factors and reports of imagery in regular sessions. This ﬁnding is

35

congruent with Hall et al. (1990), who found that athletes reported not having very
regular imagery sessions.

The factors of the SEMH most closely related to the SIQ, because the items on the
SEMH were adapted from the SIQ. Prior research (Hall et al., 1990; Salmon et al., 1994)
found that athletes tended to use imagery more for its motivational function than its
cognitive function. In the present study, athletes reporting higher self—efﬁcacy for using
motivational imagery (MS, MG-A, and MG-M) reported using more types of imagery,
both motivational and cognitive.

However, no signiﬁcant relationship was found between efﬁcacy for MS and CS
imagery and reported use of Motivational-Arousal (MG-A) imagery. While the lack of a
signiﬁcant relationship between MG-A imagery and CS imagery efﬁcacy might be
expected, as they are very different types of imagery, it is mildly surprising that no
relationship was found between efﬁcacy for MS imagery and using MG-A imagery. This
could be because MG-A imagery deals much more with the emotional component of
competition and pre-competition jitters, whereas MS imagery deals more with outcomes
and accomplishments. However, further research in this area may be needed to make any
conclusive arguments.

As predicted, the more self-efﬁcacy one had for mental imagery, the
stronger was one’s conﬁdence for sport performance. Vealey et a1. (1998) have
identiﬁed mental strategies, including visualizing successful performance, as an
important source of sport conﬁdence. The ﬁnding in this thesis adds support to their

model of success of sport conﬁdence in this regard.

36

There were no signiﬁcant differences in efﬁcacy scores between those who had
worked with a Sport Psychology consultant and those who had not, except for MG-
Arousal imagery. One possible reason differences were found for MG-A imagery is that
working with a consultant exposed athletes to that component of imagery. As was
presented, the most common descriptions in this study of what mental imagery is were
cognitive-speciﬁc (skills), motivational—speciﬁc (goals/outcome), and motivational
mastery (being successful/perfect) types. Only ﬁve individuals in their descriptions of
mental imagery mentioned MG-A imagery. This would suggest that if an athlete uses
mental imagery, particularly one who has never used a Sport Psychology consultant, s/he
would probably being using either MS, MG-M, or CS imagery and not MG-A. So, while
most athletes reported being familiar with the term of mental imagery (165 or the 195
tested), they had not necessarily worked with a consultant to learn how to image. Nor,
can it be assumed that individuals who have worked with a sport psychology consultant
did so to work on using mental imagery.

The signiﬁcance in the Arousal type of imagery could be explained by the fact
that most of the athletes who had worked with a sport psychology consultant were of the
advanced or elite levels. Previous research found that higher level athletes tended to use
imagery right before competition (Barr & Hall, 1992; Salmon et al., 1994). These
researchers proposed the idea that this was possibly done to help control arousal levels.

Previous research (Barr & Hall, 1992; Hall et al., 1990; Salmon et al., 1994)
found that elite athletes used imagery more often, were better at it, and used internal and
kinesthetic types of imagery more. The current study found that those athletes rating

themselves at the elite level were also more conﬁdent in using MG-A, MG-M and CS

37

imagery than any of the other three groups (advanced, intermediate and novice). It is
possible that elite level athletes have been exposed to more types of imagery, have tried it
in a wider variety of situations, and have just had more sport experience than lower level
athletes, and thus, would be more conﬁdent in imaging something they have already
experienced.

Research such as Noel (1980) and Mumford et a1. (1985) found that more
experienced athletes had greater performance improvement as a result of mental practice
than less experienced/novice athletes. It could be that if mental imagery is more effective
for higher level athletes, they would tend to use it more and believe in it more than novice
level athletes. Thus, because more experienced/elite athletes had more positive results
with imagery, they may have more self-efﬁcacy for using it.

The present investigation also found that elite level athletes were more conﬁdent
in using MS imagery than intermediate and novice level participants. Paivio (1985) saw
MS imagery as more goal- or outcome-oriented imagery. Hall et al. (1998) also found
that elite level athletes used MS imagery more than non-elite athletes. The current study
did not ﬁnd that there was a signiﬁcant difference in self-efﬁcacy for MS imagery
between elite and advanced level athletes. This may be because as athletes become more
advanced, they are more likely to use motivational imagery and would be more conﬁdent
in using it. Speciﬁcally, they would be more likely to imagine themselves as winners
receiving medals or being interviewed as champions — the scenarios that MS imagery
suggests. Hall, Rodgers, and Barr (1990) found that higher level athletes (in this case, the
more competitive level athletes) saw themselves winning more often than

recreational/house league athletes. As mentioned above, it may be that these level

38

 

athletes have experienced these kinds of outcomes already, and thus, would be more
conﬁdent imaging them than those who have not had such experiences. Again, further
study could be conducted to differentiate mental training techniques and competitive
athlete level.

The current study also reported that Division I level athletes were more conﬁdent
than club athletes on the three motivational imagery types. Division I level athletes
considered themselves at the elite level more often than any of the other groups.
Conversely, club athletes were the only ones to rate themselves at the novice level.
Therefore, it seems reasonable that results would be similar to self-ratings of athletes’
competitive level.

In the present study, women had signiﬁcantly higher self-efﬁcacy for mental
imagery than men on the MG-M, CS and MS factors, but not the MG-A factor. This is
contrary to Salmon et al. (1994) and Hall et al. (1990), who found no signiﬁcant gender
differences in imagery use. Hall et al. also reported that their sample was skewed to
predominantly male participants with the inclusion of hockey and football athletes.
Previous research on mental imagery training and performance has been dominated by all
male samples (Hall et al., 1998; Mahoney & Avener, 1977; Noel, 1980). While Barr and
Hall (1992) did not ﬁnd gender differences in the responses for most variables they
measured, they did ﬁnd that female rowers practice imagery more regularly than male
rowers. Again, as discussed earlier, imagery use correlated positively with conﬁdence in
using imagery. However, more research into gender differences and imagery could be
conducted to make more conclusive assertions. The above results and discussion have

presented possible relationships between conﬁdence in using different types of mental

39

imagery and use, ability and performance. Athlete differences were also viewed with
regard to conﬁdence in using mental imagery. The SEMII could be used in future
research to examine, more closely, the relationship between conﬁdence in using different

types of imagery and sport performance.

40

 

APPENDIX A

Self-Efﬁcacy for Mental Imagery Inventory

Directions: Please circle the number which best represents your confidence in your
ability to perform the skills asked based on the below rating scale.

RATING SCALE: Not at all Extremely
Conﬁdent Conﬁdent

“How confident are you in your ability....”

Not at all Extremely
Confident Confident
1. to mentally recreate the emotions you feel
before competing? 0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10

2. to image yourself being focused during
a challenging situation? 0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10

3. to mentally make corrections to
physical skills? 0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10

4. to image yourself being interviewed
as a champion? 0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10

5. to image yourself handling the stress and
excitement of competitions and
remaining calm? 0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10

6. to image yourself being in control in
different situations? 0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10

7. to imagine yourself performing a skill
perfectly before attempting it
physically? 0....1....2....3....4....S....6....7....8....9....10

41

 

Not at all Extremely
Confident Confident

8. to image the atmosphere of winning a

championship (e. g., the excitement

that follows winning

achampionship)? 0....1....2....3.... ....5....6....7....8....9....10
9. to image the stress and anxiety associated

with competing? 0....1....2....3.... ....5....6....7....8....9....10
10. to consistently image performing a
particular skill perfectly in my mind? 0....1....2....3... 5 6 .7 8 9 ...10
11. to imagine other athletes congratulating

you on a good performance? 0....1....2....3.... ....5....6....7....8....9....10
12. to get emotionally excited when imaging

acompetition? 0....1....2....3.... ...............S67 8 9 ...10
13. to imagine yourself appearing self-conﬁdent

in front of your opponents? 0....1....2....3.... .....5.6....7 8 9 ...10
14. to image yourself performing a newly

learned skill perfectly? 0....1....2....3... 5 6 ......7 8 9 ...10
15. to image the atmosphere of receiving

a medal (e. g., the pride, the

excitement, etc.)? 0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10
16. to feel anxiety when imaging an event/game

that you are about to compete in? 0....1....2....3... 5 6 ....7.. 8 9 ..10
17. to image yourself being in control in

difﬁcult situations? 0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10
18. to consistently control the image of a

physical skill? 0....1....2....3.... ....5....6....7....8....9....10
19. to image the audience applauding your

performance? 0....1....2....3.... ....5....6....7....8....9....10
20. to image the excitement associated

with competition? 0....1....2....3... 5 6 .....7 8. 9 .10
21. to image yourself winning a medal? 0....1....2....3.... ....5....6....7....8....9....10

42

APPENDIX B

Imagery Use Questionnaire

Directions: Think about how often and when you use imagery in your sport.
Answer the questions below based on your imagery use in the various situations.

Please answer how often and when you actually use imagery, not when you should use

imagery. Your answers will be kept completely conﬁdential. Circle your answer.

1. To what extent do you use mental imagery
in your training?

2. To what extent do you use mental imagery
in competition?

3. Do you use mental imagery before a practice?

4. Do you use mental imagery during a practice?

5. Do you use mental imagery after a practice?

6. Do you use mental imagery before an event?

7. Do you use mental imagery during an event?

8. Do you use mental imagery after an event?
9. Do you use mental imagery during another
unrelated activity (e.g. riding bike)?

10. Do you use mental imagery during breaks
in the day?

11. Do you use mental imagery before/in bed?

43

Never
1 2

Never

1 2

Never
1 2

Never
1 2

Never
1 2

Never
1 2

Never
1 2

Never
1 2

Never
1 2

Never
1 2

Never
1 2

3

4

5

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

12. When you use mental imagery, do you
see yourself from outside of your body as if you
are watching yourself on a video?

12a. How vivid is this image?

12b. How easily can you change that image?

13. When you use mental imagery, do you see
what you would see as if you were actually
playing or performing?

13a. How vivid is this image?

13b. How easily can you change that image?

14. How easily can you see isolated parts of a skill?Very easy

15. How easily can you see the entire skill?

16. How easily can you see part of an event?

17. How easily can you see the entire event?

18. How often do you see someone else
performing?

19. How often you see yourself performing
incorrectly?

20. How often you se yourself losing an event?

Never

1 2 3
Not at all

1 2 3
Very easy
1 2 3
Never

1 2 3
Not at all

1 2 3
Very easy
1 2 3
1 2 3
Very easy
1 2 3
Very easy
1 2 3
Very easy
1 2 3
Never

1 2 3
Never

1 2 3
Never

1 2 3

5

5

5

5

Always
6 7

Very Vivid
6 7

Very difﬁcult
6 7

Always
6 7

Very Vivid
6 7

Very difﬁcult
6 7

Very difﬁcult
6 7

Very difﬁcult
6 7

Very difﬁcult
6 7

Very difﬁcult
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

Always
6 7

 

21. How often do you see yourself doing a
pre-event routine (e. g. warm-up)?

22. How often do you see the atmosphere of
the competition day?

23. How often do you see yourself winning
an event?

24. How often do you see yourself receiving
a ﬁrst-place award?

25. When using mental imagery, to what extent
do you actually feel yourself performing?

26. How easily do you feel contact with equipment? Very Easy

27. How easily do you feel speciﬁc muscles?

28. How easily do you feel body control?

29. Are your imagery sessions structured

(i.e. you know in advance what you will imagine
and for how long)?

30. Are your imagery session regular (1. E., at a
speciﬁc time each day)?

(Hall et al., 1990)

45

Never
1 2 3
Never
1 2 3
Never
1 2 3
Never
1 2 3
Never
1 2 3
1 2 3
Very Easy
1 2 3
Very Easy
1 2 3
Yes
Yes

4

4

4

Always
5 6 7
Always
5 6 7
Always
5 6 7
Always
5 6 7
Always
5 6 7
Very Difﬁcult
5 6 7
Very Difﬁcult
5 6 7
Very Difﬁcult
5 6 7
No

No

APPENDIX C

Sport Imagery Questionnaire

This questionnaire was designed to assess the extent to which you incorporate
imagery into your athletic training. Imagery involves "mentally" seeing yourself
performing. The image in your mind should approximate the actual physical
performance as closely as possible. Imagery may also include sensations, and/or feelings
associated with the performance itself. Imagery can also be used in conjunction with
mood states, attentional focus, game plans, etc. Your ratings will be made on a seven-
point scale, where one is the rarely or never engage in that kind of imagery end of the
scale and seven is the often engage in that kind of imagery end of the scale. Read each
statement below and ﬁll in the blank the appropriate number from the scale provided to
indicate the degree to which the statement applies to you when you are practicing or
competing in your sport. Remember, if you rarely or never engage in the type of imagery
in the type of imagery depicted in the statement, then a rating of 1 should be given; if you
often engage in the type of imagery depicted by the statement, a rating of 7 should be
given; frequencies of imagery that fall within these two extremes should be rated
accordingly along the rest of the scale. Don't be concerned about using the same
numbers repeatedly if you feel they represent your true feelings. For example, the
statement "I imagine other athletes congratulating me on a good performance " should be
rated according to how often you imagine other athletes congratulating you on a good
performance. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers, so please answer as
accurately as possible.

Rarely Often
I 2 3 4 5 6 7

(1) I make up new plans/strategies in my head. (CG)

 

(2) I image the atmosphere of winning a championship (e. g., the excitement that follows
winning a championship). (MS)

 

(3) I image giving 100% during an event/game. (MG-M)

 

46

Rarely Often
I 2 3 4 5 6 7

(4) I can re-create in my head the emotions I feel before I compete. (MG-A)

 

(5) I image alternative strategies in case my event/game plan fails. (CG)

 

(6) I imagine myself handling the stress and excitement of competitions and remaining
calm. (MG-A)

 

(7) I imagine other athletes congratulating me on a good performance. (MS)

 

(8) I can consistently control the image of a physical skill. (CS)

 

(9) I image each section of an event/game (e. g., offense vs. defense, fast vs. slow).
(CG)

 

(10) I image the atmosphere of receiving a medal (e. g., the pride, the excitement, etc.).

(MS)

 

(11) I can easily change an image of a skill. (CS)

 

(12) I image the audience applauding my performance. (MS)

 

47

 

Rarely Often
l 2 3 4 5 6 7

(13) When imaging a particular skill, I consistently perform it perfectly in my mind.
(CS)

 

(14) I image myself winning a medal. (MS)

 

(15) I imagine the stress and anxiety associated with competing. (MG-A)

 

(16) I image myself continuing with my game/event plan, even when performing poorly.
(CG)

 

(17) When I image a competition, I feel myself getting emotionally excited. (MG-A)

 

(18) I can mentally make corrections to physical skills. (CS)

 

(19) I imagine executing entire plays/programs/sections just the way I want them to
happen in an event/game. (CG)

 

(20) Before attempting a particular skill, I imagine myself performing it perfectly. (CS)

 

(21) I imagine myself being mentally tough. (MG-M)

 

(22) When 1 image an event/game that I am to participate in, I feel anxious. (MG-A)

 

48

Rarely Often
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(23) I imagine myself appearing self-conﬁdent in front of my opponents. (MG-M)

 

(24) I imagine the excitement associated with competing. (MG-A)

 

(25) I image myself being interviewed as a champion. (MS)

 

(26) I image myself being focused during a challenging situation. (MG-M)

 

(27) When learning a new skill, I imagine myself performing it perfectly. (CS)

 

(28) I imagine myself being in control in difﬁcult situations. (MG-M)

 

(29) I imagine myself successfully following my game/event plan. (CG)

 

(30) I image myself working successfully through tough situations (e. g., a power play,
sore ankle, etc.). (MG-M)

 

(Hall et al., 1998)

49

APPENDIX D
Mental Imagery Questionnaire — Revised

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 requested
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 choose the same rating for any number of movements
“seen” or “felt” and it is not necessary to utilize the entire length of the scale.

RATINGS SCALES
Visual Imagery Scale
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Very easy Easy to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Hard Very hard
to see see easy (not easy hard to see to see
to see nor hard) to see
Kinesthetic Imagery Scale
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Very easy Easy to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Hard Very hard
to feel feel easy (not easy hard to feel to feel
to feel nor hard) to feel

50

 

1. STARTING POSITON: Stand with your feet and legs together and your arms at

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

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 starting position. Attempt to f_ee_l 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:

2. STARTING POSITION:Stand with your feet slightly apart and your hands at

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

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 $0; 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:

51

 

 

 

 

3. STARTING POSITION :Extend the arm of your non dominant hand straight out

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

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 _fe_e_l 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:

4. STARTING POSITION:Stand with your feet slightly apart and your arms fully

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

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 & yourself
making the movement just performed with as clear and

vivid a visual image as possible. Now rate the easel
difﬁculty with which you were able to do this mental task.

RATING:

52

   

 

 

.1..- U011-dnﬁr.:d.é. ... ..

.1. ..

 

5. STARTING POSITION:Stand with your feet slightly apart and your hands at

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

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 fe_e_l yourself

making the movement just performed without actually

doing it. Now rate the ease/difﬁculty with which you
able to do this mental task.

RATING:

6. STARTING POSITION:Stand with your feet and legs together and your arms

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

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 starting position. Attempt to 10; yourself
making just the movement 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:

53

7. STARTING POSITION :Stand with your feet slightly apart and your arms fully

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

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 fiel 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:

8. STARTING POSITION:Extend the arm of your non dominant hand straight out

ACTION:

MENTAL TASK:

(Hall et al., 1997)

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 & yourself
making the movement just performed with as clear and
vivid a visual image as possible. Now rate the easel
difﬁculty with which you are able to do this mental task.

RATING:

54

 

APPENDIX E

Trait Sport Conﬁdence Inventory

Directions: Think about how self-conﬁdent you are when you compete in sport.
Answer the questions below based on how conﬁdent you generally feel when you
compete in your sport. Compare your self-conﬁdence to the most self-conﬁdent athlete
you know.

Please answer as you really feel, not how you would like to feel. Your answers will be
kept completely conﬁdential.

When you compete, how confident do you generally feel? (circle number)

1. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability

to execute the skills necessary to be

successﬁd to the most conﬁdent athlete you know. Low Medium High
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to make critical decisions during competition
to the most conﬁdent athlete you know. Low Medium High

3. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to perform under pressure to the most
conﬁdent athlete you know. Low Medium High

4. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to execute success/id strategy to the
most conﬁdent athlete you know. Low Medium High

5. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to concentrate well enough to be successﬁd
to the most conﬁdent athlete you know. Low Medium High

6. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability

to adapt to different game situations and

still be successful to the most conﬁdent athlete

you know. Low Medium High
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

55

7. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to achieve your competitive goals to the
most conﬁdent athlete you know.

8. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to be successful to the most conﬁdent athlete
you know.

9. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to consistently be successﬁd to the most
conﬁdent athlete you know.

10. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to think and respond successfully during
competition to the most conﬁdent athlete
you know.

11. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to meet the challenge of competition to the
most conﬁdent athlete you know.

12. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to be successful even when the odds are against
you to the most conﬁdent athlete you know.

13. Compare your conﬁdence in your ability
to bounce back from performing poorly

and to be successﬁd to the most conﬁdent
athlete you know.

(Vealey, 1986)

56

Low Medium High
123456789

Low Medium High
123456789

Low Medium High
123456789

Low Medium High
123456789

Low Medium High
123456789

Low Medium High
123456789

 

 

 

.‘. ....

 

APPENDIX F

Demographic Data Sheet

Age:

 

Sex: (Circle One) M F

What sport do you participate in collegiately? (If you participate in more than one, list
the one you are currently in)

Years of experience in above named sport:

Please rate your level of ability by checking one of the following:

Novice
Intermediate
Advanced
Elite

Please rate your highest level of competition by checking one of the following:

Recreational (e. g. Intramurals)
Intermediate (e. g. H.S. Varsity)
Advanced (e.g. Collegiate)

Elite(e.g. Div. 1; International)

 

 

Had you ever heard of mental imagery prior to this situation? If so, please describe your
view of what mental imagery is:

If so, have you ever consulted with a Sport Psychology consultant?

57

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

Participant Consent Form

Dear Student,

I would like to ask for your participation in a research project being conducted by
the Faculty of Physical Education and Exercise Science (PEES) at Michigan State
University. The purpose of this study is to assess mental imagery use and conﬁdence in
college athletes.

If you are willing to participate you will be asked to complete 6 questionnaires.
These questionnaires should take approximately 5 to 15 minutes each to complete. All
answers given on the questionnaires are completely conﬁdential and anonymity is
assured. They are only for the use of the experimenter and the project supervisor from
the Faculty of PEES listed below. By signing this consent form you are agreeing that
your results may be used for scientiﬁc and sport speciﬁc journals as long as your privacy
is maintained.

If you do not wish to participate, or choose to withdraw from the study at any
time, you may do so without repercussion. Participation in this project is completely
voluntary, and you may refuse to answer any questions. There are no risks involved to
you through your participation. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
call the numbers below.

 

 

I have read the above and agree to participate in the study.

 

 

 

 

Name: Signature:

Date:

Amy Tenute Dr. Deb Feltz

Head Softball Coach Department Chairperson

Dept. of Physical Education Dept. of Physical Education and
and Recreation Exercise Science

Carleton College Michigan State University
(507)646-5898 (517) 353-1824
atenute@carleton.edu dfeltz@msu.edu

58

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efﬁcacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.

Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the
generality of self-efﬁcacy theory. Cogpitive Therapy and Research, 4(1), 39-66. El

Barling, J. & Abel, M. (1983). Self-efﬁcacy beliefs and tennis performance.
Cogpitive Therapy and Research, 1(3), 265-272.

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

Clark, L. V. (1960). Effect of mental practice on the development of a certain
motor skill. The Research Quarterly. 31(4), 560-569.

Corbin, C. B. (1967). Effects of mental practice on skill development after
controlled practice. The Research Quarterly, 38(4), 534-538.

Davis IV, H. (1990). Cognitive style and nonsport imagery in elite ice hockey
performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 11, 795-801.

Feltz, D. L. (1994). Self-Conﬁdence and performance. In D. Druckrnan and R.

A. Bjork (Eds), Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human grformance (173
— 206). Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

Feltz, D. L. (1988). Gender differences in the causal elements of self-efﬁcacy on
a high avoidance motor task. Journal of Smrt and Exercise Psychology, _l_0_, 151-166.

Feltz, D. L. & Landers, D. M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor
skill learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Smrt Psychology, 5, 25-57.

Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing self-efﬁcacy in
high-avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. J oumal of Smrt
Psychology, 1, 112-122.

Feltz, D. L. & Lirgg, C. D. (2001). Self-efﬁcacy beliefs of athletes, teams, and
coaches. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds), Handbook of smrt
psychology. (pp. 340-361). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

59

 

Feltz, D. L. & Riessinger, C. A. (1990). Effects of in vivo emotive imagery and
performance feedback on self-efﬁcacy and muscular endurance. Journal of Smrt and
Exercise Psychology. 1_2, 132-143.

George, T. R. (1994). Self-conﬁdence and baseball performance: A causal
examination of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1_6, 381-
399.

Goss, S., Hall, C., Buckolz, E., & Fishbume, G. (1986). Imagery ability and the
acquisition and retention of movements. Memogg and Cognition, 1_4(6), 469-477.

Gould, D., Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A. (1980). Mental preparation strategies,
cognitions, and strength performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 329-339.

Hall, C. R., Mack, D. E., & Paivio, A., Hausenblas, H. A. (1998). Imagery use
by athletes: Development of the sport imagery questionnaire. International J oumal of
Sport Psychology, 12(1), 73-89.

Hall, C. & Martin, K. (1997). Measuring movement imagery abilities: A
revision of the movement imagery questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imageg, A, 143-
154.

Hall, C. & Rodgers, W. M. (1989). Enhancing coaching effectiveness in ﬁgure
skating through a mental skills training program. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 142-154.

Hall, C., Rodgers, W. M., & Barr, K. A. (1990). The use of imagery by athletes
in selected sports. The Spprt Psychologist, _4, 1-10.

Hecker, J. E. & Kaczor, L. M. (1988). Application of imagery theory of sport

psychology: Some preliminary ﬁndings. Journal of Smrt and Exercise Psychology, 19,
363-373.

Heishman, M. F. & Bunker, L. (1989). Use of mental preparation strategies by
international elite female lacrosse players from ﬁve countries. The Sp_ort Psychologist, 3,
14-22.

Kendall, G., Hrycaiko, D., Martin, G. L., & Kendall, T. (1990). The effects of an
imagery rehearsal, relaxation, and self-talk package on basketball game performance.

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 157-166.

Lee, C. (1990). Psyching up for a muscular endurance task: Effects of image
content on performance and mood state. Journal of Smrt and Exercise Psychology, 1;,
66-73.

Lee, C. (1982). Self-efﬁcacy as a predictor of performance in competitive
gymnastics. Journal of Smrt Psychology, 4, 405-409.

Lemer, B. S. & Locke, E. A. (1995). The effects of goal setting, self-efﬁcacy,
competition, and personal traits on the performance of an endurance task. Journal of

Smrt and Exercise Psychology?, 17, 138-152.

Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efﬁcacy theory: An introduction. InJ.E. Maddux

(Ed.), Self-efﬁcacy, adaptation, and adiustment: Theory, research, and application. (pp.
3-33). New York: Plenum Press.

Mahoney, M. J. & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An
exploratory study. Cogpitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 135-141.

Marcus, B. H., Selby, V. C., Niaura, R. S., & Rossi, J. S. ( 1992). Self-efﬁcacy

and the stages of exercise behavior change. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
6_3(1), 60-66.

Martin, K. A. & Hall, C. R. (1995). Using mental imagery to enhance intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Spgrt and Exercise Psychology, ﬂ, 54-69.

Moritz, S. E., Hall, C. R., Vadocz, E., & Martin, K. A. (1996). What are
conﬁdent athletes imaging?: An examination of image content. Smrt Psychologist,
Ea), 171-179.

Mumford, B. & Hall, C. (1985). The effects of internal and external imagery on
performing ﬁgures in ﬁgure skating. Canadian Journal of Applied Smrt Sciences, 1_0(4),

Noel, R. C. (1980). The effect of visuo-motor behavior rehearsal on tennis
performance. Journal of Smrt Psychology, 3, 221-226.

Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery in human

performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 1_0(4), 228-288. .

Richardson, A. (1967A). Mental practice: A review and discussion, pt. 1. m
Research Quarterly, 38(1), 95-107.

Richardson, A. (1967B). Mental practice: A review and discussion, pt. 2. 111;:
Research Quarterly, 3(2), 263-273.

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

Suedfeld, P. & Bruno, T. (1990). Flotation REST and imagery in the

improvement of athletic performance. Journal of Smrt and Exercise Psychology, 1_2, 82-
85.

 

61

Van Gyn, G. H., Wenger, H. A., & Gaul, C. A. (1990). Imagery as a method of
enhancing transfer from training to performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 1;, 366-375.

Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-conﬁdence and competitive
orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Jourgl of Sport
Psychology, _8_, 221-246.

Vealey, R. S., Hayashi, S. W., Gamer-Holman, M., & Giacobbi, P. (1998).
Sources of sport-conﬁdence: Conceptualization and instrument development. Journal of

Sport and Exercise Psychology, @, 54-80.

Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance:
An empirical test of bandura’s self-efﬁcacy theory. Journal of Smrt Psychology, 1, 320-
331.

Weinberg, R., Gould, D., Yukelson, D., & Jackson, A. (1981). Effect of
preexisting and manipulated self-efﬁcacy on a competitive muscular endurance task.

Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 345-354.

Weiss, M. R., Wiese, D. M., & Klint, K. A. (1989). Head over heels with
success: The relationship between self-efﬁcacy and performance in competitive youth
gymnastics. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, _1_1, 444-451.

Woolfolk, R. L., Parrish, M. W., & Murphy, S. M. (1985). The effects of
positive and negative imagery on motor skill performance. Cogpitive Therapy and
Research, 2(3), 335-341.

Wrisberg, C. A. & Anshel, M. H. (1989). The effect of cognitive strategies on
the free throw shooting performance of young athletes. The Smrt Psychologist, 3, 95-
104.

Ziegler, S. G. (1987). Comparison of imagery styles and past experience in skills
performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, ﬂ, 579-586.

62