The Use of Imagery by Collegiate Athletes During Their Off-Season

ABSTRACT

THE USE OF IMAGERY BY COLLEGIATE ATHLETES DURING THEIR OFF-SEASON

By Melissa Bochiaro

The purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency with which collegiate athletes use the five different types of imagery during their off-season. Three versions of the SIQ were used: 1) General in season; 2) Off-season while cross-training; 3) Off- season while doing sport specific skills. One-hundred sixty six male and female Div. I collegiate athletes from a range of sports completed the three questionnaires in one session during their off-season. The main comparison in the study was between individual versus team sport athletes over the three measures of the SIQ (2x3 repeated measures MANOVA) with additional analyses performed on gender and imagery instruction. Results from the study found a main effect for both sport type and time but found no interaction between the two. Results found for gender differences were equivocal. In addition, those previously instructed in imagery used four of the five types of imagery significantly more than those not previously instructed.

THE USE OF IMAGERY BY COLLEGIATE ATHLETES DURING THEIR OFF-SEASON

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Physical Education, Health, and Sport Studies

by Melissa Bochiaro Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2004

Advisor______Robert S. Weinberg

Reader______Thelma S. Horn

Reader______Othello Harris

Table of Contents Chapter Page List of Tables iv 1 – Introduction 1 2 – Review of Literature 3 Theories of Imagery 3 Types of Imagery 7 Measurement of Imagery Use 8 Imagery Use and Performance 9 Imagery Use by Collegiate Athletes 11 Imagery Use by Individual vs. Team Sport Athletes 12 Imagery Use throughout the Season 14 Imagery Use in the Off-Season 15 Purpose 16 Predictions 18 3 – Method 20 Participants 20 Instruments 20 Procedures 21 Statistical Procedures 23 4 – Results 25 Descriptive Statistics 25 Preliminary Analysis 26 Main Analysis Results 26 Additional Analyses 27 5 – Discussion 30 Imagery Use: Individual versus Team Sport Athletes 30 Imagery Use: Across Assessment Timepoints 34 Additional Analyses 36 Future Research Directions 37 Study Limitations 38

ii References 40 Appendices 45 A - Tables 45 B - Letter to Coaches and Study Rationale 55 C - Consent form 57 D - Demographics Form 58 E - SIQa, SIQb, SIQc 59

iii List of Tables

1 – Sport Imagery Subscale Means for Sport Type by Time 45 2 – Correlations of SIQ Subscales 46 3 – Alpha Coefficients for SIQ Subscales 47 4 – Main Effect – Sport Type 48 5 – Main Effect - Time 49 6 – Independent T-Tests for Gender for SIQ Items 50 7 – Main Effect – Gender 51 8 – Post Hoc Paired Samples T-Tests for Gender by Time Interaction Effect 52 9 – Independent Samples T-Tests for Instruction 53 10 – Main Effect – Instruction 54

Chapter 1 Introduction

In recent years the study of mental imagery has sparked the interest of many scholars in the field of sport psychology. It is now recognized that, in general, imagery is used daily by most people (Barr & Hall, 1992). In addition, many athletes and coaches have realized the important role that imagery plays (Salmon, Hall, & Haslam, 1994) and have incorporated its use in into their training regimens (Martin, Moritz, & Hall, 1999). So, what is imagery? In general, imagery is defined as “those quasi-sensory and quasi- perceptual experiences of which we are self-consciously aware and which exist for us in the absence of those stimulus conditions that are known to produce their genuine sensory or perceptual counterparts” (Richardson, 1969, p. 2-3). It is added that images are not totally passive reproductions but that they can be active and dynamic. In other words, they are not simply day dreams as they can actually be directed and controlled by the person who is imaging (Barr & Hall, 1992). Imagery can be used to recreate events (i.e., can be used to review something that happened in the past) or to create new events (i.e., to see things that you want to happen; Vealey & Greenleaf, 1998). From a sport perspective, imagery is seen as a key component in mental training programs for athletes (Hall, 1998). In application, imagery is a form of simulation used by athletes most often for improving skill acquisition, motivation, and performance (Martin et al., 1999). The present study was meant to examine this imagery use in the sporting world. The use of imagery by athletes has been researched extensively in a number of different capacities (Feltz & Landers, 1983; Hall, 1998). Studies to date have looked at such details as imagery perspective, when imagery is used (e.g., during practice or competition), imagery ability and vividness, kinesthetic and visual imagery among athletes (Hall, 1998). Of particular interest have been the different types of imagery used and the frequency with which they are employed by athletes. The Sport Imagery Questionnaire was developed for the purpose of studying this interest (Hall, Mack, Paivio, & Hausenblas, 1998). Since its inception the SIQ has been used in numerous studies measuring the frequency with which all levels of athletes from a large range of sports use the motivational and cognitive types of imagery (e.g., Munroe, Hall, Simms, &

Weinberg, 1998; Weinberg, Butt, Knight, Burke, & Jackson, 2003). Among this extensive research using the SIQ are many studies on imagery use by collegiate athletes. These studies have looked at collegiate athletes imagery use under a number of different conditions except during the off-season. This study sought to add to the research literature by examining collegiate athletes’ use of imagery during their off-season. It was reasoned that since the off-season is now such an important part to a collegiate athlete’s physical training that there must also be an important mental component. If it is known what types of imagery athlete’s use in their off-season it will be easier for sport psychology consultants to cater to their mental training needs. As the use of sport psychology consultants on the collegiate level becomes more prevalent, their need to understand the athletes’ total use of mental skills throughout the year also becomes more important. Since collegiate in-seasons are so intense and busy the time that is likely to be set aside for a mental skills intervention is during the off-season. It is reasoned then, that the consultant must know what types of imagery the athletes are using at this time (off-season) in order to implement the most effective imagery training package. The present study’s use of the SIQ measure during the off-season will help to gain insight into the types of imagery used by collegiate athletes most frequently at this time. In addition, analyses of the secondary variables gender and imagery instruction were conducted. Examining possible gender differences in imagery use as measured by the SIQ may provide a further understanding of previous literature’s equivocal results. This understanding may also help sport psychologists to implement more effective imagery programs according to these potential differences. An examination of the influence of previous imagery instruction on frequency of imagery use also adds to the practicality of the present study.

Chapter 2 Review of Literature Theories of Imagery Almost all of the early mental imagery research in sport psychology stems from the mental practice model. Studies done as early as the 1930’s examined the effects of mental practice on the learning and performance of skills (Murphy & Martin, 2002). Two of the most prominent theoretical frameworks emerge out of the motor domain from the mental practice research to explain why mentally rehearsing (imaging) a physical activity may improve physical performance (Martin et al., 1999). Psychoneuromuscular Theory: The first, psychoneuromuscular theory proposed by Jacobson in the 1930’s, posits that imagined events may strengthen muscle memory by producing “innervations in muscles similar to that produced by the actual physical execution of the movement” (Martin et al., 1999, 246). In essence, an image may produce a correct sequence of muscle activity (firing) for a movement without the imager ever having physically performed the movement (Martin et al., 1999; Murphy & Martin, 2002). This theory is based on Carpenter’s (1894) ideo-motor principle which hypothesized that nerve impulses are produced during imagined movement that are identical to those of the actual movement but reduced in magnitude. Jacobson (1932) found support for this by using electrodes in the target muscle to measure activity during imagery of contracting that muscle. Results showed an increase in action potentials in the muscle and therefore low-level innervations (Janssen & Sheikh, 1994). It can be added that in order to produce such innervations images must have a certain level of intensity, and must be vivid and well-controlled by the individual (Hale, 1994). Also, an internal imagery perspective is thought to be more effective in facilitating performance than an external perspective (Budney, Murphy, & Woolfolk, 1994). With these high quality images there is also the possibility for kinesthetic feedback (as is experienced with actual movement), but this idea is up for debate (Hale, 1994). The priming of the targeted muscles with intense, vivid, and controlled internal perspective imagery is presumed to transfer to the physical practice situation and therefore improve performance (Feltz &Landers, 1983).

Support has been found for Jacobson’s (1932) psychoneuromuscular theory, but others remain skeptical as to its validity. Suinn (1972) used EMG readings to measure leg muscle activity in skiers who were either imagining their downhill race or actually skiing the course. He discovered that muscle activation patterns in the imagined race were highly similar to and almost mirrored those found in the active skier (Gould, Damarjian, & Greenleaf, 2002; Janssen & Sheikh, 1994). Bird (1984) conducted a similar experiment with athletes in number of different sports and also found that the active EMG pattern was very similar to that of the imagined sport activity. In addition, she found congruence between actual sport activity time and imagined sport activity time (Janssen & Sheikh, 1994). In their meta-analysis on the effects of mental practice, Feltz and Landers (1983) show skepticism for the validity of psychoneuromuscular theory citing that few other studies have been able to produce the same findings as Suinn (1972) and Bird (1984). For example, Shaw (1938) discovered that when participants imagined squeezing a hand grip dynamometer with their right hand that heightened EMG activity was found not only in the right arm (as expected) but also in the right leg. This “nonlocalized effect” was found with a number of other tasks, such as while imaging typing and playing a musical instrument. Others have replicated Shaw’s (1938) findings (e.g., Hale, 1982) leading Feltz and Landers (1983) to conclude that “it is more likely that these minute innervations that are associated with mental practice are more general throughout the whole body or a whole limb” (p. 50). Symbolic Learning Theory: The second motor-based explanation for the effectiveness of imagery comes from symbolic learning theory. A main assumption of the theory is that movement patterns are symbolically coded in the central nervous system (Janssen & Sheikh, 1994). Therefore, it is proposed that imagery provides athletes with the mental blueprints for movement patterns by acting as this “cognitive coding system” (Martin et al., 1999, 246). Imagery, then, is effective because it enables movements to become more familiar and even automatic through cognitive processes. The better a movement is coded the easier it will be to actually make (Janssen &Sheikh, 1994). The first to propose symbolic learning theory as explanation of mental practice was Sackett in the 1930s (Sackett, 1934). He demonstrated that finger maze performance

was improved with mental rehearsal. He posited that this improvement occurred because the finger maze task was largely cognitive in nature and could therefore be easily symbolized (Janssen & Sheikh, 1994). Much additional research has found support for Sackett’s (1934) original proposal by making apparent the greater effects that mental rehearsal has on largely cognitive (symbolic) tasks than on strictly motor tasks (e.g., Minas, 1978; Wrisberg & Ragsdale, 1979; and Ryan & Simons, 1983). Feltz and Landers’ (1983) meta-analysis of 60 mental practice studies found this trend to be unmistakably present across different research populations, designs, and methodologies, hence lending much support to the validity of symbolic learning theory. There are, though, some questions that symbolic learning theory leaves unanswered with regard to the enhancement of performance by mental practice (imagery). First, it is easy to understand how skill acquisition can be enhanced through imagery in novice athletes, as these skills are not yet familiar to the athlete and that early stages of learning a motor skill are primarily cognitive and therefore easily symbolized. However, the theory does not explain how imagery can enhance performance in experienced athletes who already have the cognitive aspects of movement patterns well established. In addition, it is evident that all tasks can not be characterized as simply cognitive or motor. It is more correct to say that tasks exist along a continuum where most require differing amounts of both cognitive and motoric aspects. When viewing tasks in this way, evidence for symbolic learning may not be as clear-cut as once was thought (Janssen & Sheike, 1994; Feltz & Landers, 1983). Psychoneuromuscular and symbolic learning theories give support for how imagery works to enhance physical motor performance. The problem with these theories is that they were formulated through studies that used the mental practice model which is based on the “clinical trials” model from medical research. The primary research question in these investigations was whether imagery enhances performances (Murphy & Martin, 2002). But, imagery has purpose beyond this specific function, as it has been shown to enhance motivation, self confidence, coping skills, and arousal regulation skills, among others in conjunction with physical performance (Martin et al., 1999). Bioinformational Theory: In order to better understand the relationship of imagery with other variables (besides performance enhancement) researchers have turned to

theories from domains outside of sport. Martin et al. (1999) looked to the discipline of cognitive psychology and borrowed certain aspects from bioinformational theory and the triple-code model. Martin et al. (1999) adopt the central concept from bioinformational theory that in addition to brining about cognitive reactions, imagery also evokes physiological and emotional responses. According to this Lang (and consistent with other theorists), “all information, including imagery, is coded in a single, uniform, abstract manner…[and] the unit of information appropriate for the analysis of imagery is the proposition” (Lang, 1979, p. 499). A mental image is an organized set of propositions (i.e., a logical relationship between concepts) that is stored in the brains long-term memory. Further, it is stated that a description of an image contains two types of propositions. Stimulus propositions describe the specific features, the content of an imaginary scene. Response propositions are assertions about behavior in response to the image, including verbal responses and motor actions. In images, response propositions are modifiable and can therefore be used by a person to determine what response behavior would be most effective in certain real-life situations (Martin et al., 1999). In addition, Lang (1979) and others (e.g., Lang, Kozak, Miller, Levin, & McLean, 1980) have found that imagery instructions (scripts) which contain stimulus and response propositions elicit far more physiological responses than do those scripts with stimulus propositions only. Using the former set of imagery instructions is likely to produce a more vivid image, and therefore positively affect sports performance (Murphy, 1990). Ashen’s Triple-Code Model: From Ashen’s (1984) triple-code model we see that there are three essential parts of imagery that must be understood: the image itself, the somatic response to the image, and the meaning of the image. The image and the somatic response are analogous to the stimulus and response propositions from bioinformational theory, but the idea of meaning of the image has never been addressed by any other theory of imagery (Gould et al., 2002). Ashen (1984) feels that this is perhaps the most important part of the imagery experience. He explains that “Every image imparts a definite significance or meaning. Through meaning the [person] interprets its relationship with the visual image or with the world...Some meanings may be vague,

others partial and incomplete, still others very clear, but they are meanings all the same…” (p. 34-35)

It is further noted that the same image can have different meanings to different people (athletes), and because of this may elicit different reactions (Martin et al., 1999). Therefore a specific set of imagery instructions will not have the same effect on any two people because of the unique histories (i.e., baggage) they bring to the experience (Murphy, 1990). It is appropriate to mention that the present study does not wish to test the afore discussed theories of imagery. They were presented merely to aid in the understanding of the background and mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of imagery. Types of Imagery Paivio’s (1985) analytical framework is employed to account for the various ways that imagery may affect performance. His model points to imagery as having both cognitive and motivational functions which are each at work on specific and general levels to affect behavior. The relationship of these variables is represented in a 2x2 orthogonal model where the functional distinctions between the types of imagery are reflected in the content of the images. First, Cognitive General (CG) imagery is imagery related to strategies for a specific competitive event. Here, one might image such strategies as using full court pressure in basketball. Next, Cognitive Cpecific (CS) imagery is directed at improving specific skills, such as penalty kicks in soccer or a balance beam dismount in gymnastics. Third, Motivation General (MG) imagery is related to controlling general physiological and emotional arousal. The focus of this type of imagery is on mastery of challenging situations through mental toughness or on representing feelings of anxiety and excitement. Last, Motivation Specific (MS) imagery refers to imagery that is goal-oriented, for example, imagining oneself winning an event or receiving medals on a podium. The framework is considered orthogonal because an athlete may use one type of imagery in the absence of all the others, or they may image with two or more types at the same time (Hall 1998; Murphy & Martin, 2002; Paivio, 1985).

Although Paivio’s (1985) model expands upon the motor-based theories to include the motivational and cognitive functions of imagery it is not without limitation. Martin et al. (1999) point out that some research shows that athletes use more types of imagery than those included in the model. A second limitation is that the model does not account for certain antecedent factors that may affect the type of imagery used and the outcomes of the imagery, such as personal or situational factors. Last, Paivio’s (1985) model provides few predictions about the specific kinds of images that lead to certain motivational and cognitive changes in athletes. Despite these limitations, Paivio’s (1985) imagery framework serves as the basis for most of the examinations of imagery use in sport. Measurement of Imagery Use Up until the late 1980’s data about imagery and imagery use by athletes was largely anecdotal. More recently, imagery use in sports has been studied through the administration of questionnaires. One of the first sport specific questionnaires that included the assessment of imagery was the Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports (PSIS). Mental imagery was specifically addressed in five of the items in the mental preparation subscale of the PSIS (Hall, 1998). With the increasing attention being paid to imagery as an important method for mental training (because of anecdotal data and preliminary questionnaire data), new imagery specific inventories were necessary. The Imagery Use Questionnaire (IUQ) was developed by Hall, Rodgers, and Barr (1990) to specifically investigate the use of imagery by athletes in numerous sports and at all skill levels. The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine specifically when, where, and how athletes incorporate imagery into their training and competitions. The IUQ has also been adapted into several sport-specific versions, including IUQ for Rowing (Barr & Hall, 1990), IUQ for Figure Skating (Hall, 1998), and the IUQ for Soccer Players (Salmon et al., 1994). In 1998, the Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ) was developed examine the cognitive and motivational functions of imagery. This instrument was developed based on Paivio’s (1985) imagery framework under the assumption that all four categories are orthogonal, and therefore through measurement of the different types all possible combinations of imagery would emerge (Hall, 1998). After the first trial of the SIQ the

Motivation General (MG) factor was found to represent two separate subscales: mastery (MG-M) and arousal (MG-A) imagery (Hall, Mack, Paivio, & Hausenblas, 1998). MG-M imagery is imagery that represents effective coping and mastery of challenging tasks. MG-A refers to imagery that deals with arousal, stress, anxiety, and excitement levels and works to elevate or lower these levels as necessary in specific situations. Recognizing the importance of imagery to sport performance, Hausenblas, Hall, Rogers, and Munroe (1999) speculated as to whether imagery was used and effective in other forms of physical activity, specifically exercise. Phase 1 of their study used open ended questions to examine the nature of exercise imagery and found that 75% of the participants used imagery for both motivational and cognitive functions. Phases 2 and 3 used further assessment to develop the Exercise Imagery Questionnaire (EIQ). Further psychometric analysis of the EIQ revealed that exercise imagery can be broken down into three separate factors: energy (images of being energized and relieving stress), appearance (relating to both physique and fitness), and technique (imaging correct form and body position during exercise) (Hausenblas et al., 1999; Gammage, Hall, & Rogers, 2000). Imagery and Performance To date, numerous studies have examined the relationship between imagery and sport performance and have found that overall imagery has positive effects on many levels. Weinberg et al. (2003) point out that there have been many quantitative and qualitative studies that have shown that the systematic use of imagery (under certain conditions) was associated with enhanced performance not only in motor performance and skill acquisition, but improvements were also found in confidence, concentration, and decreased anxiety. Richardson (1967a & 1967b) conducted the first major review of research on imagery use and its effect on motor performance, from which he made a number of conclusions. Among these conclusions was that most of the studies found mental practice to be associated with improved performance, and that there was evidence for a positive relationship with task experience (familiarity) and the efficacy of mental imagery. Corbin (1972) offered a more conservative conclusion in his research review. He suggested that mental imagery can have a positive effect on performance, especially when conditions are optimal for practice, but that this is not always the case. He

concurred with Richardson’s assertion that task familiarity affects efficacy of imagery, but added that other factors, such as task complexity, interact with experience to determine the final effects experienced by the athlete (Budney et al., 1994). More recently, in Feltz and Landers (1983) meta-analysis of studies on the effects of mental practice an average effect size of .48 (SD = .67) was found. Also, a later meta- analysis on mental practice (imagery) by athletes conducted by Hinshaw (1991) found an overall average effect size of .68 (SD = .11). These findings strongly suggest that mentally imaging motor skills has a greater positive effect on performance as compared to no practice at all. Martin et al. (1999) add that sport psychologists encourage and train athletes to use imagery for a number of purposes, such as enhancing motivation and self confidence, coping with injury or pain, regulating arousal, and managing stress and anxiety. Applied Sport Psychologist Terry Orlick (2000) comments that mental imagery is a means for athletes to get the best out of themselves in both training and competition. He goes on to say that with refined imagery ability an athlete can use it for such purposes as seeing success, motivation, perfection of skills, familiarization (e.g., with competition site, game plan, opponent, etc.), setting the stage for performance, and for refocusing (Orlick, 1986). Additionally, Orlick (2000) declares that: “Athletes who make the fastest progress and those who ultimately become their best make extensive use of performance imagery. They use it daily as a means of directing what will happen in training, and as a way of pre-experiencing their best competition performances.” (p. 108) Clearly then, there is support from both research and application that mental imagery is a useful tool and can be employed for many purposes. In looking at the separate elements of imagery broken down on the SIQ (CS, CG, MS, MG-A, and MG-M) some patterns of performance enhancement, cognitive modification, and arousal regulation are evident. It has been shown in a variety of studies using a variety of tasks that imagery of motor skills facilitates the learning, acquisition, and performance of those skills (e.g., running: Burhans, Richman, & Bergey, 1988; dart throwing: Straub, 1989; and basketball free-throws: Wrisberg & Anshel, 1989). Overall,

CS imagery has been found to be especially effective for this purpose, more so than just MG-A or MG-M imagery. Imagery affects athletes’ thoughts and beliefs, and such images can only enhance self-efficacy when they are associated with success and competence. In this case MG-M imagery is most effective (Martin et al., 1999). Similarly, MG-M imagery has been shown to enhance self confidence in athletes through evidence from intervention and correlational studies, as well as from professional practice (Munroe, Giacobbi, Hall, & Weinberg, 2000). CG imagery has been shown through case study analysis to have positive effects on performance for the purpose of game plans/strategy (e.g., football plays, wrestling strategies) or entire routines/races (e.g., pommel-horse routine, entire track races). According to Martin et al. (1999) MS imagery may have a stronger effect on cognitions related to effort and motivation than CS imagery. Also, CS imagery has been found to have no effect on arousal, and study results suggest that athletes should use imagery associated with stress, anxiety, and excitement (i.e., MG-A imagery) to increase their levels of arousal (Munroe et al., 2000). Imagery Use by Collegiate Athletes Though athletes at all levels of play (e.g., novice, high school, collegiate, world class) have been included in imagery studies, the population of interest here is collegiate athletes. Many patterns have been found concerning imagery use and effectiveness within the collegiate athlete population. First, athletes at higher levels of play (i.e., collegiate level) use imagery more in practice and competition than lower level (i.e., novice) athletes. In addition, though athletes generally have reported that their imagery sessions were not very structured and not very regular, athletes at higher levels are found to be more structured and more regular in their imagery sessions than novice athletes (Munroe, Hall, Simms, &Weinberg, 1998). One overwhelmingly common finding between many studies is that athletes at the collegiate level mainly use imagery to keep themselves motivated. Logically, since athletes at this level are most likely proficient in the skills necessary to perform well in their sport, they use imagery less as an aid in learning skills and more as a motivational tool (Hall et al., 1998). Also, since these athletes are found to use imagery more in competition than in practice it is reasoned that imagery is more likely serving to directly influence game-time performance rather than to learn skills (Munroe et al., 2000). For example, the study by Hall et al. (1998) in which the SIQ was

developed, it was found that the athletes surveyed reported using MG-M and MG-A imagery most. Munroe et al.’s (1998) study on Canadian collegiate athletes from a variety of sports found that although all types of imagery were used extensively, MG-M imagery was used the most by the general sample, followed by MG-A imagery. Also, in a study of NCAA Division I college athletes done by Weinberg et al. (2003), participants reported using MG-M and MG-A most and identified MG-M imagery as the most effective in enhancing physical and mental skills. Imagery Use by Individual vs. Team Sport Athletes For the purpose of this study, the variable that is most important to examine with reference to different types of imagery used is that of type of sport, more specifically, whether the sport is individual or team in nature. There is some evidence to suggest that there are differences in imagery use between individual and team sport athletes. Weinberg et al. (2003) reviewed previous research which revealed greater use of imagery by individual sport athletes, and found from their own study that imagery was seen as a more effective tool by individual sport athletes. It was also found that on administrations of the SIQ individual sport athletes reported using MG-M imagery most and MS imagery least and also saw these two types as most and least effective, respectively. Means for all types of imagery except MS imagery were higher for individual sport athletes than for team sport athletes, but only MG-A imagery was used significantly more. Barr and Hall (1992) examined mental imagery use by athletes from the individual sport of rowing. They found that rowers reported using imagery most just prior to a race. The use of imagery at this time was probably for performance enhancement, controlling arousal, and staying focused. They also reported using imagery more during practice than before or after practice. Consistent with findings from previous imagery literature, these rowers reported that their imagery sessions were not very structured and varied in length. But, rowers did tend to use imagery regularly during other activities such as running. Rowers were also found to use visualization of performance accomplishments (MS imagery) to motivate themselves to practice harder and in order to establish goals and see what is necessary to achieve these goals (Barr & Hall, 1992). In White and Hardy’s (1998) qualitative study of imagery use by slalom canoeist and artistic gymnasts (both individual sport athletes) the motivational function of imagery

was emphasized as important by all athletes interviewed. On the general motivational level (MG), athletes used imagery to gain needed energy for moves requiring an extra burst of power and as a technique to reduce anxiety and enhance mood. On the specific motivational level (MS), images of receiving medals and achieving optimal performance were used by the athletes for motivation. All participant athletes in this study also reported that they used imagery more in competition than in practice (White & Hardy, 1998). Imagery use and effectiveness has also been studied in team sport athletes. Hall et al. (1998) found that team sports athletes reported using MG-M and MS imagery significantly more than individual sport athletes. Of the five types of imagery measured on the SIQ, team sport athletes reported using MG-M imagery the most and MS imagery the least and rated the two as most and least effective, respectively. Salmon et al. (1994) developed a special version of the Imagery Use Questionnaire (IUQ-SP) in order to investigate imagery use among soccer players (team sport athletes). They discovered that soccer players (similar to other athletes) use imagery the more in connection with competition than with practice. Their findings also suggest that soccer players use imagery more for its motivational function than for its cognitive function. The players reported using imagery for strategy rehearsal (CG imagery) least out of the four types (MG, MS, CG, and CS) measured (Salmon et al., 1994). There have been a number of studies done on the differences in imagery use between individual and team sport athletes. Generally, the results have shown that individual sport athletes use imagery more frequently than team sport athletes (Weinberg et al., 2003). Also, both groups were shown to use imagery more for its motivational functions than for its cognitive functions (Barr & Hall, 1992; Salmon et al., 1994; White & Hardy, 1998). Athletes reported using motivation specific imagery the least frequently of the five different types of imagery (Weinberg et al., 2003). Motivation specific imagery is also the only type found to be used more frequently by team sport athletes than by individual sport athletes in more than one research study (Hall et al., 1998 & Weinberg et al., 2003). According to Weinberg and colleagues (2003), the differences found between individual and team sport athletes’ use of imagery may be due to the different

characteristic natures of individual versus team sports. Individual sports, such as swimming and golf, tend to be more closed skills where the athletic environment is unchanging and there is an emphasis on repetition of movement. In other words, the pool or green are fixed environments where there are no unexpected stimuli for the athlete to react to. In contrast, team sports, such as football or field hockey, are characterized by open skills. These are skills used in a changing environment, where the athlete must react to the pressure of an opponent and perform under the stress of time (Weinberg et al., 2003). Imagery Use throughout the Season Athletes’ use of imagery at different times during the season has been a research area gaining much attention. It has been shown that the type and amount of imagery used varies throughout an athlete’s season (Martin et al., 1999; Munroe et al., 1998). One specific time when imagery has been examined is during practice time. Martin et al. (1999) pointed out that once athletes have learned the skills needed for their sport (as with collegiate athletes) their training turns to preparation of the skills for competition and the and the pressure associated with it, and at this time they use imagery for more motivational purposes. MG-M imagery may be used, for example, to help perform these specific skills with the confidence and assertiveness that is necessary for competitive situations. Also, MS imagery could be used to keep up the level of motivation during long periods of just practice (without competition). Even so, Martin et al. (1999) tell us that higher level athletes with well developed skills still report using CS imagery quite frequently. This type of imagery is probably used during practice time when athletes are learning new skills or trying to enhance already learned skills and strategies in order to stay focused. Weinberg et al. (2003) found that athletes do not take advantage of practice time for the use of mental imagery. Athletes in their study reported using imagery least frequently before practice and after practice. Additionally they felt that imagery was least effective before practice and during practice (all results were statistically significant). A second point in time when imagery use is examined is during the athletes’ regular game/match season. During this time athletes use imagery for a number of reasons, including regulating levels of arousal, focusing on upcoming performances, and for keeping a positive attitude and a high level of confidence. For example, MG-M

imagery may be used by athletes to help maintain or regain a positive attitude after poor performances or setbacks and plateaus (Martin et al., 1999). Weinberg et al. (2003) report that athletes use mental imagery most frequently before competition and during competition. In the open ended question section of their study, 362/595 (61%) responses by athletes articulated that imagery was used most before competition. In addition, athletes found imagery to be most effective before and during competition. Finally, athletes reported using imagery during competition when they encountered a difficult situation that imposed a lot of pressure, when they felt that they were playing badly, and when they were injured or tired (Weinberg et al., 2003). Imagery use has also been examined for athletes during their championship/ playoff season. Munroe et al. (1998) found that all types of imagery increased from early in the season (before any games were played) to late in the season (right before playoffs began). Also, in Weinberg et al.’s (2003) study that was previously discussed, an additional fifty of the 362 “before competition” responses said that imagery was used most right before important competitions such as playoff games. In terms of type of imagery used, Hall et al. (1998) say that the more extensive use of motivational imagery during this time in the season makes sense because athletes are concerned with performing well and achieving goals. It is too late, they point out, for athletes to be concerned with getting better or learning skills which is the primary purpose of cognitive types of imagery (Hall et al., 1998). Not many studies thus far have examined the connection between imagery at different times during the season and type of sport (individual or team). Individual sport athletes found imagery to be significantly more effective than team sport athletes when using imagery during practice and during competition (Weinberg et al., 2003). Barr and Hall (1992) found that rowers reported that their imagery use varied throughout the year, but is most heavily used during the competitive season. On the team sport side, soccer players were found to use imagery more in conjunction with competition than in practice (Salmon et al., 1994). Clearly more extensive research needs to be done on this topic. Imagery Use in the Off-Season To date there have been no studies done on imagery use during athletes’ off- season. However, since collegiate athletes most likely engage in some form of physical

activity (i.e. exercise) during their off-season, it appears that it is important to explore this topic. To get an idea of what types of imagery (if any) athletes are using at this time it may be relevant to examine the exercise imagery literature. The three types of exercise imagery seem to match up well with three of the subscales on the SIQ. Energy imagery from the EIQ corresponds with the SIQ’s Motivation General-Arousal imagery as they both represent stress or stress relief associated with exercise and sport. Appearance imagery matches up with Motivation Specific imagery from the SIQ because they deal with imagery of outcome or goal situations (e.g., a better body or winning a race). Last, the EIQ’s Technical imagery relates to Cognitive Specific imagery in that they are both addressing execution of specific skills for exercise or sport (Gammage et al., 2000; Giacobbi, Hausenblas, Fallon, & Hall, 2003; Martin et al., 1999). Gammage et al. (2000) found that exercisers, regardless of gender, activity type, and frequency of exercise used Appearance imagery the most, followed by Technique and Energy imagery, respectively. Similarly, Giacobbi et al. (2003) found that those who regularly engage in exercise use goal oriented (i.e., appearance or motivation specific) imagery the most. Purpose of the Present Study Previous research on imagery and collegiate athletes has looked at the different types of imagery used throughout the competitive season. Questionnaires such as the IUQ (Hall et al., 1990) have examined when athletes use imagery during their regular training and competitive season (e.g., before practice, during competition, after competition). Questionnaires have also become sport specific, such as the IUQ-SP (Salmon et al., 1994) and the IUQ for Rowers (Barr & Hall, 1992) and have shown some differences between imagery at different times for individual versus team sport athletes. But, for collegiate athletes, physical practice does not end once their season ends nor start right before their competitive season. Instead, some form of physical training often goes on year round for these athletes. So, to examine imagery patterns only “during the season” gives an incomplete picture of college athletes’ training (Hall, 1998; Martin et al., 1999). Since these athletes’ physical training regimens are so important (enough to warrant scheduled practices or at least assigned individual workouts) year round, are not also their mental skills just as important to be used and refined year round?

The main purpose of the present investigation was to determine the different types of imagery used by collegiate athletes at different points during the season and off- season. An examination of differences between team and individual athletes’ use of imagery was the between subjects independent variable. The primary purpose of gaining this information about off-season imagery use is for incorporation into training. The intention was that data obtained through this study would provide information on what types of imagery are used most in the off-season, therefore, helping to fit imagery into the full year training regimens of collegiate athletes. Mental imagery is seen as a valuable performance enhancement tool and in order for athletes to reap the full benefits of this tool a well-developed imagery training program must be included in their overall training. Additionally, Hall, Schmidt, Durand, and Buckolz (1994) have noted that the most successful imagery programs are those that were conducted over the entire athletic season (including the off-season). Imagery programs of this kind facilitate improvement in imagery skill over time. Therefore implementing imagery programs during the off- season will give athletes more time to become accustomed to imagery use and improve their imagery skill, which in turn will ideally translate into better sport performance when competition time is upon them. Green (1994) agrees, emphasizing that an imagery program should become a part of an athlete’s everyday routine, both on and off the field. Although they were not a primary purpose, analyses of gender and imagery instruction were included as additional variables where cell sizes permitted. The importance of the examination of gender differences in imagery use stems from the lack of conclusive findings on gender in previous literature. In Feltz and Landers’ (1983) and Hinshaw’s (1991) classic meta-analyses on imagery use studies, effect size differences between male and female imagery users were not significant. This means that males and females did not differ in their imagery use. However, these meta-analyses were performed before the SIQ had been developed and compared studies using varying methodologies. Use of the SIQ may provide a clearer comparison between males and females. In a very recent study using the SIQ, Weinberg et al. (2003) found numerous significant differences for gender on frequency of use of imagery. They interpret these findings using a sociological perspective, citing that gender plays a role in shaping the experiences of people within the sport domain. According to this rationale, it would make

sense that if sociologically males and females have differing sport experiences that their psychological attributes having to do with their sport experiences, such as imagery use, should also be different (Weinberg et al., 2003). In addition, a parallel was drawn earlier citing a possible connection between athletes’ use of imagery in the off-season while cross training and exercisers’ imagery use. Studies using the IUQ have found very distinct gender differences in frequency and type of exercise imagery used (Gammage et al., 2000). Such equivocal previous findings on imagery use between males and females warranted additional exploration of gender in the present study. Additionally, analyses were conducted on whether previous imagery instruction had any effect on the participants’ frequency of imagery use. Previous studies have shown that imagery instruction (e.g., imagery training programs) implemented by coaches, sport psychologists, or others has had a positive affect on imagery ability. Improvements in imagery ability via increases in vividness and controllability of images have been linked to enhanced athletic performance (Isaac, 1992; Rodgers et al., 1991). In addition, in a meta-analysis on the effects of mental practice on motor skill performance, Hinshaw (1991) expressed that it is critical in a study to inquire about and assess the participants’ past history with imagery instruction. Having such knowledge may provide sport psychologists and coaches with a better understanding of how imagery instruction affects an athlete’s use of imagery. Predictions Based on the lack of previous research, exact predictions could not be made about the specific types of imagery that are used most frequently during the off-season. Nevertheless, it was expected that there would, in fact, be differences found across time and between individual and team sport athletes. It does seem that after the competitive season is over athletes may use Motivation Specific imagery most (compared to other types) in order to stay motivated (or remotivate) to continue to practice even though their competitive season is over until next year. This prediction is based on the definition of the imagery types, not on any previous sport imagery research findings (Munroe et al., 2000). However, the exercise imagery literature seems to support this notion. Specifically, from research showing that exercisers use Appearance imagery most, it is hypothesized that athletes will use Motivation Specific imagery more frequently than the

other types while they are cross training during their off-season in order to keep their goals for the next season in mind and stay motivated to work-out (Gammage et al., 1999; Giacobbi et al., 2003). The literature also suggests that our individual sport athletes would use imagery in general more often than the team sport athletes (Weinberg et al., 2003). This same data shows that both groups use the motivational types of imagery more frequently than cognitive types, but that they use Motivation Specific imagery the least out of all five types (Barr & Hall, 1992; Salmon et al., 1994; Weinberg et al., 2003; White & Hardy, 1998). This may contradict the previous hypothesis, and therefore all predictions were made with caution as no previous research has targeted the off-season specifically. Further, because of the lack of previous research this study was mostly exploratory in nature and therefore additional hypotheses were not available for speculation.

Chapter 3 Methods Participants Participants were 166 NCAA Division I collegiate athletes from a Midwest University. The sample consisted of 84 males and 82 females representing five sports: field hockey, football, swimming, synchronized skating, and golf. Broken down into the main variable of analysis, there were 131 team sport athletes and 35 individual sport athletes. The participants represented all academic years: freshman (80), sophomore (47), junior (25), and senior (14). Sixty six percent (n = 110) of the participants reported having been previously instructed on how to use imagery. Instruments Multiple administrations of one questionnaire were used in this study to uncover the types of imagery used by the athletes. The Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ) is a 30 item self report questionnaire that has athletes rate how often they use the five different types of imagery (i.e., CS, CG, MS, MG-A, and MG-M) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = rarely, 7 = often; Hall et al., 1998). The SIQ has been found to have an acceptable internal consistency for all subscales, with alpha coefficients ranging from .70 to .88 (Munroe et al., 1998). The five-factor structure of the questionnaire has been supported by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and interscale correlations have been found to be low to moderate (-.45 to .32). Thus this indicates that the various types of imagery are independent yet related. In addition, the construct validity of the SIQ has been substantiated by studies finding meaningful relationships between the subscales and a variety of outcome measures such as performance (Hall et al., 1998), confidence, and anxiety (Martin et al., 1999). Ideally, this questionnaire (with some minor instructional variations) would have been administered to the athletes at different points throughout the course of a year of training and competition. However, since research on the in-season use of imagery by athletes has been extensive and because of the limited scope of this project, only one form of the questionnaire was dedicated to the general use of imagery by each athlete during the season. The two other questionnaire forms measured imagery use during specific points throughout the off-season. These two versions of the questionnaire

investigated imagery use by the athlete while cross-training (i.e. doing physical activity not relevant to their sport) and while individually practicing skills related to their sport. Though imagery use by collegiate athletes is important throughout the year, the off- season was chosen because it has not been addressed by previous research. In addition to the SIQ versions, participants completed a short demographics questionnaire which included information about what sport they compete in (individual vs. team distinction was determined from this item), gender, athletic year classification, season record, playoff/championship participation, and past imagery experience/instruction (see Appendix D). Procedure Participants were recruited through their coaches. Initially coaches were contacted via email containing an attached explanation of the study (rationale and brief methods) and asked for their cooperation in at least meeting with the researcher for further explanation (see appendix B). Upon the coaches’ response to the email face to face interviews were set up with three and phone interviews were scheduled with the remaining two. At the individual meetings the study methods and rationale were fully explained and given to the coach in writing (see Appendix B). It was expressed to the coach that his/her help in allowing his/her team to participate would be very helpful but it was also emphasized that no athlete could be forced (by either researcher or coach) to participate. In addition to gaining the coaches’ permission to use members of their team as participants, helpful information about the team’s schedule was also obtained. From each coach the researcher attained a rough idea of what a whole year in the program entailed in terms of workouts, competition, time-off, etc. This information was later used to help in administration of the questionnaires by fitting the three versions into specific time slots that the athletes on each team would identify with. Also obtained was information about the types of physical activity, both sport-specific and cross-training, that the athletes participated in during their off-season. It was important in the research process to be able to give the participants specific examples of activities in order for them to be able to make a clear distinction between the three measures of the SIQ.

Next, a questionnaire session was set up with each individual team by the researcher and coach. Athletes were met in a classroom setting and upon introducing the researcher the coach left the room and was not further involved in the research process. At that time it was made clear to the athletes that they were not required to participate in the study. The athletes were also informed that none of their questionnaire answers would be shared with their coach or any of their teammates (except in terms of average results). Coaches were previously informed of this as well. Athletes were met with in their groups (teams) at some point during their off- season, at least two weeks after their competitive season had ended (i.e., after their last game/match), except for one team that was met with before their conference championships. The athletes began the research session by providing consent and completing the demographics questionnaire (see Appendices C and D). These were collected by the researcher and one of the three versions of the SIQ was distributed. Before reading the directions of the first questionnaire version distributed, the researcher made sure to explain what imagery is to the group, and did not proceed with the questionnaires until satisfied that the participants had a good understanding of the concept. In addition, participants were free to ask any questions during the session to clarify items that they were confused about. The questionnaires were counterbalanced throughout the sample so as to account for order effects; therefore the order in which they are explained here does not necessarily signify the order that they were administered to the groups. The first version of the SIQ had directions instructing the athletes to “take a minute to think about this past competitive season. Then read each statement and fill in the blank with the appropriate number from the scale provided to indicate the degree to which the statement applies to your general use of imagery about your sport throughout this past competitive season.” This version of the SIQ (called SIQa for this study’s purpose) was used as a baseline measure; a point of comparison (along with previous research findings) for the off-season use of imagery by the participants (see Appendix E). The last two versions of the SIQ gave directions regarding different off-season reference points. It was assumed that all athletes’ activities are not uniform during the off-season, both between athletes who participate in different sports and within each

athlete for the duration of the off-season, and therefore that their imagery use across these varying conditions would differ as well. Taking this into consideration, the second version of the questionnaire (SIQb) covered the time in the off-season when athletes are cross training. The instructions read: “Now take a minute to think about your most recent off-season. Then read each statement and fill in the blank with the appropriate number from the scale provided to indicate the degree to which the statement applies to your use of imagery about your sport during your off-season when you were cross training on your own. In other words, when you were working out to keep in shape or get stronger, but not doing any activities specific to your sport. For example, a soccer player may run, swim, lift weights, and bicycle for cross training but they do not actually play soccer or do any drills directly relating to the game” (see Appendix E). The final version of the questionnaire (SIQc) had the directions: “Now take a minute to think about your most recent off-season. Then read each statement and fill in the blank with the appropriate number from the scale provided to indicate the degree to which the statement applies to your use of imagery about your sport during your off- season when you were working out by doing activities specific to the skills involved in your sport. For example, a baseball player may have a catch or take batting practice in the off-season” (see Appendix E). The three versions of the SIQ were administered to all the participants in one sitting given approximately two minutes in between each. As mentioned, the versions were counterbalanced throughout the sample so as to control for order effects. Questionnaires for each participant were matched with their demographics, but no names were connected with the data. The athletes were not paid for their participation in the study. The entire session took approximately 30 minutes for most teams. Statistical Procedures The design of the study (and the data analysis) was a 2 x 3 (sport type by assessment timepoint) repeated measures MANOVA, with sport type as a between subjects factor and the assessment timepoint of the SIQ a within subjects factor. The first independent variable, sport type, had two levels – team and individual, and the second independent variable, assessment timepoint, had three levels – general in-season,

off-season cross train, and off-season sport specific skills. Because the SIQ has 5 subscales a MANOVA analysis was used. Discriminant function and post hoc means comparison tests were used to test which variables maximally discriminated among the groups. Exploratory analyses were also conducted to examine the effect of some of the demographic variables. In addition, although the multiple timepoint questionnaires were administered in a counterbalanced manner, statistical procedures to test for an order effect could not be conducted due to very unequal cell sizes.

Chapter 4 Results

The main purpose of this study was to examine collegiate athletes’ use of imagery during the season as compared to their off-season. The main between groups analysis was a comparison of team and individual sport athletes on the five SIQ imagery subscales, however additional between group comparisons were also taken from the demographics form. Time was the within subjects variable with the three versions of the SIQ serving as the three time point comparisons. From a large scale perspective the ultimate purpose of this study was to learn what types of imagery are used by collegiate athletes during their off-season in order to incorporate an appropriate imagery program into their full-year training regimen. It was hypothesized that there would, in fact, be differences in imagery use across time and between individual and team sport athletes. More specifically it was hypothesized that individual sport athletes would use imagery in general more than team sport athletes. In addition, based on previous research it was hypothesized that participants would report using the motivational types of imagery more frequently than the cognitive types because the sample consisted of collegiate level athletes. Hypotheses regarding in-season versus off-season use of imagery could not be made because no previous research on athlete’s off-season imagery use exists. This chapter reports the results of the present study. First, descriptive statistics are reported for all subscales of the SIQ for team and individual sport athletes at all three time points, along with subscale correlations. Following these descriptive statistics, preliminary analyses report Cronbach’s alpha scores for all SIQ subscales across the three time points. Next, results of the main study analysis, the 2x3 (sport type by time) repeated measures MANOVA, are reported. Last, results of additional analyses on the effects of gender and imagery instruction on imagery use are presented. Descriptive Statistics Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ) subscale means for individual and team sport athletes for the three time points are presented in this section. These statistics will be analyzed for significance in the main study analysis section. Also presented in this section are the correlations of the five SIQ subscales across all three time points.

Subscale Means: Descriptive statistics for team and individual sport athletes for all SIQ subscales across the three time points are reported in Table 1(for all tables see Appendix A). Mean scores in this table represent the mean frequency, from a possible 1(rarely) to 7 (often), that all subjects reported using this type of imagery. A higher mean frequency score indicates that the participants’ used the specific type of imagery (subscale) more often, whereas a lower score indicates that the participants rarely used the specific type of imagery. Some patterns to note from these results are that across all three times team sport athletes appear to have assigned Motivation General-Mastery (MG-M) the highest mean frequency scores, whereas individual sport athletes assigned Motivation General-Arousal (MG-A) the highest mean frequency. Motivation Specific (MS) had the lowest mean frequency scores for both team and individual sport athletes. In addition, it appears that mean frequency scores of all subscales by both team and individual sport athletes for general in season (SIQa) use of imagery were the highest, followed by off-season when practicing sport specific skills (SIQc) and then off-season while cross training (SIQb) with the lowest mean frequencies. Thus a pattern appears, indicating that collegiate athletes use all types of imagery more often while they are in season and all types less frequently when they are cross training during their off-season (tests for significance will be presented later). Subscale Correlations: Correlations for all subscale comparisons for the three time points were conducted. Almost all of the subscales across the three times were significant at the level of p < .01. Refer to Table 2 for full results. Preliminary Analyses Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to determine the reliability of the SIQ subscales across the three time points. As suggested by Nunnally (1978) the minimum acceptable criterion was set at .70 for reliability of the subscales. As shown in Table 3, it was found that all subscales at all times exceeded the acceptable criterion level with alpha levels ranging from .79 to .91. Main Study Analysis The main purpose of this study was to examine the differences in types of imagery used between individual and team sport athletes over three different time points, one in season and two off-season measures. To test for these differences a 2 x 3 (sport

type by time) repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with the five SIQ subscales (CS, CG, MS, MG-A, and MG-M) being the repeated measures on the second factor (time), was conducted. Results of the MANOVA indicate that there was no significant sport type by time interaction effect, Wilks’ Lambda = .92, F(10, 154) = 1.38, p < .20. However, there was a significant main effect found for both sport type, Wilks’ Lambda = .81, F(5, 159) = 7.27, p < .001, and time, Wilks’ Lambda = .58, F(10, 154) = 11.07, p < .001. As shown in Table 4, based on the discriminant function loadings, team sport athletes across all time points used significantly more Cognitive Specific and Motivation Specific imagery than individual sport athletes. Conversely, individual sport athletes used Motivation General-Arousal imagery significantly more than team sport athletes regardless of time. Post Hoc means comparison tests (ANOVAs) were conducted to determine where the specific differences were in the five subscales across time (i.e., time main effect). Findings from these analyses indicated that the time main effect held for all subscales except for Motivation Specific. For the remaining subscales the participants used imagery significantly more during the season (SIQa) than during the off-season while cross training (SIQb) and while practicing sport specific skills (SIQc), all at the level of p < .001. In addition, participants reported using all types of imagery significantly more during the off-season while practicing sport specific skills (SIQc) than while cross training (SIQb) at p < .001. SIQ Subscale means for the three time points and levels of significance are presented in Table 5. Additional Analyses Additional exploratory analyses were conducted for a couple of the demographic variables. Rationale for conducting these additional analyses was provided in Chapter 2. Specifically, athletes’ use of imagery across the three assessment timepoints was examined as a function of both their gender and their previous experience with imagery training. The results of these additional analyses are presented in the following sections. Gender Differences in Imagery Use: Preliminary independent t-tests were conducted to determine if there were any differences in imagery use between males and females in the sample (see Table 6). The sample was split almost evenly with 84 males and 82 female participants. Because there were a number of independent tests conducted

only a level of p < .001 was accepted as a significant difference between males and females. During the season, female athletes reported using Motivation General-Arousal significantly more frequently than males. In contrast, male participants as compared to female participants reported using Cognitive General, Motivation Specific, and Motivation General-Arousal imagery significantly more frequently during the off-season while cross training. There were no significant differences in imagery use found between males and females during the off-season while practicing sport specific skills. Since there were so many significant gender differences in the t-test findings, it was decided that a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) should be conducted. The MANOVA was a 2 x 3 (gender by time) design with the five subscales of the SIQ (CS, CG, MS, MG-A, and MG-M) being the repeated measures on the within subjects factor of time. Results from the analysis revealed that there were significant main effects for both gender, Wilks’ Lambda = .85, F(5, 159) = 5.45, p < .001, and time, Wilks’ Lambda = .48, F(10, 154) = 16.65, p < .001. As shown in Table 7, regardless of time, male participants reported using Cognitive Specific imagery and Motivation Specific imagery significantly more frequently than female participants. Specific differences across the three times (time main effect) were explained in the preceding Main Study Analysis section. However, these main effects were superceded by a significant gender by time interaction, Wilks’ Lambda = .71, F(10, 154) = 6.29, p < .001, indicating that males and females differed in their use of imagery across time. Due to the non-orthogonal nature of the design only the gender by time interaction effect can be interpreted. Post hoc dependent (paired) samples t-tests were conducted to find specific male versus female differences (significance level was set at p < .001 because of the number of tests conducted). Results showed that male participants only used Motivation General-Mastery more during the season than during the off-season while cross training and while doing sport specific skills. Females reported using all types of imagery significantly more frequently during the season than during the off-season while cross training and while doing sport specific skills. In addition, female participants used all types of imagery significantly more frequently during the off-season while practicing sport specific skills than during the off-season while cross training. Table 8 presents these results in full

(note: Table 8 shows the mean differences between each subscale measure, actual means can be found in Table 6). The Effect of Imagery Instruction: The demographic questionnaire included an item asking the participant if they had ever been instructed on how to use imagery. Results show that 66.3% (n = 110) of the athletes in this sample answered yes indicating that they had been previously taught how to use imagery. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine if there were any significant differences in imagery use between those participants that had been previously instructed in imagery and those that had not (see Table 9). Results indicate that previously instructed participants reported using all types of imagery more frequently at all three time points, except for Motivation Specific imagery in the off-season (both cross train and sport specific skills), than those participants that had not been previously instructed in imagery use. Also, during the season, those participants previously instructed in imagery used Cognitive General, Motivation General-Arousal and Motivation General-Mastery significantly more frequently than those not instructed. No significant differences were found between the two groups on their imagery use during the off-season while cross training and while doing sport specific skills. Due to the number of significant differences found by the t-tests, a repeated measures MANOVA was conducted on this data. A 2 x 3 instruction (yes or no) by time design was used with the repeated measures on the time factor. No interaction effect was found, Wilks’ Lambda = .92, F(10, 154) = 1.28, p < .25, however there were main effects for both instruction, Wilks’ Lambda = .93, F(5, 159) = 2.42, p < .04, and time, Wilks’ Lambda = .57, F(10, 154) = 11.62, p < .001. As shown in Table 10, those participants that had been previously instructed on how to use imagery (yes) report using all types of imagery, except Motivation Specific, significantly more frequently across all three time points than participants that had not been previously instructed (no). Specific differences across the three times (time main effect) were explained in the preceding Main Study Analysis section.

Chapter 5 Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to investigate imagery use by both team and individual sport athletes during their off-season as compared with their general in season imagery use. Previous research (Barr & Hall, 1992; Weinberg et al., 2003) on athletes has examined imagery use at all times during the season (e.g., before competition, during practice, during competition, etc.) but never during the off-season. Because of this lack of specific previous research, a few general hypotheses were made but the study was meant to be mostly exploratory in nature. Imagery Use: Individual versus Team Sport Athletes The present study found no significant sport type (team versus individual) by time interaction effect. This indicates that individual and team sport athletes did not differ from each other in their imagery use across time. This result is similar to the findings of Munroe et al.’s (1998) study on the influence of sport type and time on athletes’ imagery use. Results of their study found many significant differences in imagery use from early to late in the season within each specific sport (i.e., a time main effect), however they “found no clear systematic differences in imagery use between team and individual sport athletes” (p. 443). There was, however, a main effect for sport type. Previous research findings lead to the hypothesis for this study that individual sport athletes would use all types of imagery more than team sport athletes. Discriminant function loadings found this to only be true for Motivation General-Arousal imagery. In fact, of the five SIQ subscales individual sport athletes assigned the highest mean frequency to MG-A imagery. Individual sport athletes may use MG-A imagery more frequently than team sport athletes because they have only themselves to count on for “psyching up” or “calming down” for competition and therefore it is important for them to practice (with imagery) being able to do so. Also, due to the nature of many individual sports, such as golf and swimming, athletes may have several separate events with extra time between each to be able to use imagery. They may use this time to regain calmness and control after a very good performance, or to psych themselves back up after a bad performance in an event

before moving onto the next event. Previous research supports this idea, citing that athletes use MG-A imagery for the purposes of excitement to increase motivation during practice, and for control and relaxation before and during competition to gain composure and calmness (Munroe et al., 2000). Team sport athletes assign MG-A the third highest mean, after Motivation General-Mastery and Cognitive Specific, indicating that this type of imagery is not used as frequently as the latter two. This is probably because team sport athletes can most often count on their teammates to help them with arousal regulation during practices and competition. Additionally, team sports, such as synchronized skating, are generally continuous in nature with few breaks in the action and therefore athletes do not have the time during the event to use MG-A imagery. Hall and colleagues (1998) show support for these findings, indicating that team and individual sport athletes use imagery differently for motivational purposes. An additional explanation for the use of significantly more MG-A imagery by individual sport athletes comes from the anxiety literature. In a classic study by Griffin (1972), female athletes from eight different sports were compared on their state anxiety levels. Although Griffin did not compare individual versus team sports directly, those athletes that exhibited the highest levels of state anxiety were from the individual sports of gymnastics, swimming, tennis, and track and field. The other four sports with lower elicited levels of anxiety were all team sports. Also, Simon and Martens (1979) found state anxiety levels for individual sport participants to be significantly higher than those of team sport participants. They attribute this finding to the fact that in individual activities (especially when they are evaluative) mistakes and failure cannot be easily blamed on others. Motivation General-Arousal imagery by definition deals with arousal regulation including anxiety. Accordingly, an individual sport athlete may need to use more MG-A imagery to be able to deal with the considerable amount of anxiety and arousal that they experience before and during competition. All eyes are on them and they need to perform effectively, especially on the highly competitive Division I collegiate level. In contrast, team sport athletes may not experience as much performance anxiety as their individual errors are not as apparent and therefore do not need to use as much MG-A imagery.

In contrast, team sport athletes were found to use Cognitive Specific and Motivation Specific imagery significantly more frequently than individual sport athletes. In fact, team sport athletes assigned CS imagery the second highest mean frequency, meaning that they use it the next most often after MG-M imagery. Many research studies show that CS is the most effective type of imagery to use for the learning and enhancing of motor skill performance on a variety of sport skills (e.g., Burhams et al., 1998; Lee, 1990; Martin et al., 1999; Murphy et al., 1988). Martin et al. (1999) cited that there have been a few studies comparing the effects of the different types of imagery on learning and performance of motor skills, all of which demonstrated the superiority of CS imagery for that purpose. Additional studies employing general motivational imagery types on strength and motor tasks found no increases in skilled performances until CS imagery was later utilized (Lee, 1990; Murphy et al., 1988). Team sport athletes may use a lot of CS imagery because of the pressure to perform well from the rest of the team. Athletes that compete as a part of a team must hold their own and be up to par with the rest of the team’s skill level. The team is only as good as its weakest link, and surely no athlete wants to be a detriment to their team. A team sport athlete may also be fighting for a starting spot on the team and in order to do so must use CS imagery to try to improve their skill to be good enough to earn that spot. In addition, a starter may not want to get beaten out of their spot and therefore uses CS imagery frequently to maintain their high skill level. Conversely, individual sport athletes at the Division I collegiate level may have less of a threat of losing their spot because they perform the specific events that they are proficient in. Also, for most individual sports in regular season play the number of entrants in an event are unlimited. For example, in track any given team can enter as many sprinters as they want in the 100m at a regular season meet. It is not until later in the season at the conference meet that the number of contestants per team is controlled. This may mean that an individual sport athlete has much more time/chances to make the playoff/championship season team and therefore would not have to use CS imagery as often as a team sport athlete. Also, as pointed out by Weinberg et al. (2003), team sports tend to be characterized by open skills. Open skills are those reactionary skills that are used in a

changing environment with the pressure of time and an opponent bearing down on the athlete. Munroe et al. (2000) add that it is easier to image something that you know is going to occur rather than something that is unpredictable and ever changing. Since the atmosphere is usually unpredictable in team sports and that this type of atmosphere is hard to image, it seems logical that team sport athletes would use CS imagery more to focus on their own skills to make sure that they are proficient for any situation. In addition, by using imagery this way they may prepare for the numerous possible situations that they may face on the playing field and therefore be better able to handle any circumstances. Individual sport athletes using closed skills have less possible situations to prepare for and therefore do not need to use CS imagery as much. In support of the findings of the present study, Motivation Specific imagery is the only type found to be used more frequently by team sport athletes than individual sport athletes in a number of other studies (e.g., Hall et al., 1998; Weinberg et al., 2003). Munroe et al. (2000) demonstrated that MS imagery can be used on two levels for team sport athletes: individual goals and team goals. Team sport athletes may use MS imagery significantly more than individual sport athletes because they are imaging both their goals for themselves (e.g., imaging oneself being named the team’s “Most Valuable Player”) and for their team as a whole (e.g., imaging winning the conference tournament). It seems that individual sport athletes would only need to focus on their own goals, and therefore use MS imagery to a lesser extent. Both team and individual sport athletes assigned MS imagery the lowest mean frequency. MS imagery is goal oriented where images are of winning a competition or receiving a medal. Since Division I collegiate athletics are so competitive, these images may not be a realistic possibility for most athletes. Most studies on collegiate (or comparable) level athletes report that they use imagery most for its motivational function, however using motivational imagery on the specific (MS) level seems to always be assigned the lowest mean frequency score of the five subscales (Hall, 1998; Hall et al., 1998; Weinberg et al., 2003). Interestingly, two previous studies on individual sport athletes report using MS imagery very frequently (Barr & Hall, 1992; Rodgers et al., 1991). In both studies, athletes reported imaging winning their event and receiving a medal. The authors offer the reasoning that the athletes may be using this imagery to establish goals which may be

motivation in and of itself and therefore help performance (Barr & Hall, 1992). Additionally, Rodgers et al. (1991) comment that these images may be more akin to fantasizing, as the athletes were imagining winning at the Olympics, rather than at the actual meet they had coming up soon. Also, these results may differ from that of the present study because a different instrument was used to measure imagery usage (i.e., IUQ). Imagery Use: Across Assessment Timepoints The primary analysis also found a main effect for time, indicating that participants’ imagery use was different across the three times. This finding is congruent with Barr and Hall’s (1992) finding that 20% of the rowers in their sample reported that their imagery use varied during the year. In the present study, it was found that all participants used all types of imagery significantly more during the season than during the off-season (both measures). It was to be expected that these participants would use almost all types of imagery except MS significantly more during the season than the off- season as previous research has overwhelmingly shown that imagery is used most often in conjunction with competition during the regular season (Barr & Hall, 1992; Hall et al., 1990; Munroe et al., 2000; Rodgers, Hall, & Buckolz, 1991). In addition, NCAA athletes are training with coaches during the season, but are only allowed very few supervised practices during the off-season. Coaches may incorporate imagery use into the athletes’ everyday training routine or they may just encourage the athletes to use imagery on their own during the season. In the off-season practices are less structured and athletes do not see their coach as much and because of this they may not think to use imagery (Hall et al., 1990; White & Hardy, 1998). Further, participants used all types of imagery significantly more frequently during the off-season while practicing sport specific skills than while cross training. This makes logical sense in that “sport specific skills” were defined as including such things as off-season team activities like spring ball (as in football) and scrimmages, or outside league play (as in summer golf tournaments) separate from collegiate athletics. These include elements of actual competition and are more closely related to the collegiate competitive season than off-season cross training. Reasonably when athletes are practicing tasks characteristic of their sport (as during the season and off-season doing

sport specific skills) their cognitions, including imagery, are more frequently focused on their sport. When athletes are cross training during their off-season they may not be thinking specifically about their sport since they are staying active with some other unrelated activity. It makes sense, then, that they do not use sport imagery as frequently as during the other two time points as found in this study. Results from the present study found that athletes do not use Motivation Specific imagery in the off-season any more than during the season as was originally hypothesized. Even though these athletes do seem to use imagery more for its motivational functions than cognitive functions (Hall, et al., 1998), it is clear that, unlike exercisers, MS (i.e., Appearance) is not their motivational imagery type of choice (Gammage, et al., 2000; Hausenblas et al., 1999). Though athletes are technically just exercising in the off-season while cross training, the results of the present study show that these athletes are fundamentally distinct from exercisers. Even when not playing their sport specifically, these individuals are still “athletes” and therefore fit into the athlete, not exerciser, imagery use mold. From the results of this study it is evident that athletes do, in fact, use imagery during the off-season quite frequently, though not as frequently as they do during the season. And although there have not been any other studies examining the off-season use of imagery, it is clear that many other investigators feel that imagery use at this time is important to an athlete’s imagery proficiency and ultimately to their athletic performance. This is made evident through the many calls by researchers for implementation of imagery training into athletes’ year round schedule. For example, Gould et al. (2002) point out that “Mental skills are like physical skills: becoming proficient with the use of imagery requires a commitment throughout the training season. It is unrealistic to think that a physical or mental skill will be effective in a competitive situation when it is never practiced at any other time. Ideally then, imagery training should become an integral part of daily practice.” (p. 62)

Green (1994) agrees, emphasizing that an imagery program should become a part of an athlete’s everyday routine, both on and off the field. Others point out that imagery is, in fact, a skill that should be practiced in order to improve its quality, and therefore its effectiveness on athletic performance enhancement (Gould et al., 2002; Hall et al., 1990; Rodgers et al., 1991; Weinberg et al., 2003; White & Hardy, 1998). Additionally, Hall, Schmidt, Durand, and Buckolz (1994) have noted that the most successful imagery programs are those that were conducted over the entire athletic season (including the off- season). Imagery programs of this kind facilitate improvement in imagery skill over time. Therefore implementing imagery programs during the off-season will give athletes more time to become accustomed to imagery use and improve their imagery skill, which in turn will ideally translate into better sport performance when competition time is upon them. For collegiate athletes, the off-season is now a regular segment of their year long training and, in so being, imagery should be incorporated into this segment’s “daily practice” routine. White and Hardy’s (1998) qualitative study results suggest that athletes agree with this idea. Consistent with previous research findings, they confirm that their participants reported using imagery most in conjunction with competition. Nevertheless, all those interviewed felt that imagery was important to their training and that more time should be spent on imagery in training. They even go on to suggest that this finding warrants a call for more coach and athlete education on the use and function of imagery by sport psychologists. The elite athletes interviewed in Munroe et al.’s (2000) qualitative study reported using imagery very frequently during practice. They commented that imagery use at this time was much more effective because there was plenty of time for longer imagery sessions (lasting a few minutes) instead of the rushed sessions (most often lasting only a few seconds) during competition. This finding has practical implications in that if elite athletes are using imagery frequently during practice sessions and finding it effective, then imagery is probably a valid form of training which any athlete can and should engage in for performance enhancement. Additional Analyses Additional analyses were conducted to determine if any differences existed among the demographic variables. One of the relationships examined in this study was whether gender affects imagery use. Over the years, research findings on gender

differences in imagery use have been inconsistent, finding no gender differences or where differences did occur they were equivocal between studies. The findings from the present investigation are on the same track, finding significant gender differences that are not organized into any type of pattern. This study did, however, find a significant gender by time interaction effect indicating that males and females did differ over the three time points in their imagery use. Since these findings are so erratic, it can only be concluded that differences in imagery use between male and female athletes do not seem to follow any discernable pattern. Further investigation is needed to understand this discrepancy between males and females off-season imagery use for the practical purpose on implementing imagery training programs in the off season to both male and female athletes. Sixty six percent of the athletes in this sample reported having been previously instructed on how to use imagery. This high percentage is a positive finding in that imagery instruction has been shown to affect imagery ability (i.e., vividness and controllability) positively and therefore improve athletic performance (Isaac, 1992; Rodgers et al., 1991). In general (i.e., across all three time points), those athletes that were previously instructed in imagery use reported using all types of imagery (except MS) significantly more frequently than those athletes that were not previously instructed. This difference may be due to the instructed athletes’ better overall understanding of what is considered imagery. Whatever the reason, it seems that being instructed in imagery use may be beneficial to the athlete’s performance because of the increased frequency of use of all types of imagery by athletes after being instructed. This is another area for further examination with very high practical implications. Future Research Directions Findings of the present study give rise to a number of future research directions. There should be further research done on imagery use during the off-season as this was the first to address this time. The off-season seems to be becoming a more and more important part of a collegiate athlete’s training schedule. The off-season used to be a time for complete rest, but now it is a time to become stronger, quicker, more proficient in skills, and to keep in shape. Physical training in the off-season has become an integral part of collegiate athletes’ year long schedule. Previous research and findings from the

present study suggest that imagery training/utilization during this time would be a valuable addition to the athlete’s schedule. It may also be important to explore why certain types of imagery are used over others and across time. Therefore, imagery use during the off-season seems a worthy avenue for further quantitative and qualitative investigation. The distinction of team versus individual sport athletes showed some significant effects with regard to imagery use. A few previous studies have used this distinction as well and some congruent results have been found. However, it also seems that sports can be classified in other ways, such as closed or open (or in between) or as using fine or gross motor skills and studied accordingly. In addition, results of the present study revealed a number of significant relationships in the preliminary analyses variables. Several differences between males’ and females’ use of imagery were found, and an interaction effect was found between gender and time. Previous research findings on gender differences have proved equivocal and therefore no general conclusions or trends are offered. The results of this study suggest that although no specific pattern has been found between males and females on their imagery use, it does seem that gender may have some affect on study findings. Future research should include gender in the main analysis or at least take it into consideration when interpreting data. One possible way to address this is to investigate imagery within one sport that both males and females play, such as soccer or track and field. Also, there were differences found between those participants who had been previously instructed in imagery use and those had not. It would be valuable to investigate why such differences occur between these variables on imagery use. These can also be avenues of further exploration. Limitations As with any research study, the present investigation had a few limitations which should be taken into account when evaluating the findings. The first limitations have to do with the make-up of the present sample. The sample was relatively small in size (n = 166) which made it impossible to conduct analyses combining more than one of the descriptive data classifications. For example, it would have likely been informative to conduct a 2x2x3, gender by sport type by time MANOVA, but the small sample size

prevented this analysis because the separate cell n’s would have been to small to be meaningful. In addition, the distribution of the sample was unbalanced for most of the comparisons, especially for the main analysis comparison between team (n = 131) and individual (n = 35) sport athletes. Also, the sample represented only a handful of different sports (field hockey, swimming, football, synchronized skating, and golf) making the results less generalizable to collegiate athletes from all sports. Last, the sample came from only one Division I college in the Midwest and therefore the findings may be slightly skewed. The other set of limitations stem from the SIQ itself and the questionnaire administration procedures. First, All previous tests for the reliability and validity of the SIQ were conducted in conjunction with its administration during the season. The SIQ was originally developed for in season use and it may not have been a valid measure for off-season imagery use. Also, administering three versions of the same questionnaire at one time could have caused the athletes to become bored or lose concentration from responding to the same items repeatedly. To test for possible order effects the questionnaire versions were counterbalanced throughout the sample to attempt to prevent this from skewing the results. In addition, since the questionnaire versions were inquiring about imagery use of the participants at three different time points, it may have been more valid to administer the versions separately at the actual time points that the versions were referring to. In other words, administering the questionnaires all in one sitting required the participants to use a lot of recall which may not be as accurate as data taken for the time at hand. For example, more accurate data may have been obtained if SIQa (i.e., general in season use of imagery) was actually administered to the athletes during their season. All of these limitations were mediated by the fact that this saw a master’s thesis, where time, money, and availability of teams/participants are always in short supply.

References

Ashen, A. (1984). ISM: The triple-code model for imagery and psychophysiology. Journal of Mental Imagery, 8, 15-42. Barr, K. & Hall, C. (1992). The use of imagery by rowers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 243-261. Bird, E. (1984). EMG quantification of mental rehearsal. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 899-906. Budney, A.J., Murphy, S.M., & Woolfolk, R.L. (1994). Imagery and motor performance: What do we really know? In A.A. Sheikh and E.R. Korn (Eds.), Imagery in Sports and Physical Performance (pp. 97-120). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc. Burhans, R.S., Richman, C.L., & Bergey, D.B., (1988). Mental imagery training: Effects on running speed performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 19, 26-37. Carpenter, W.B. (1894). Principles of Mental Physiology, 4th ed. New York: Appleton. Corbin, C.B., (1972). Mental Practice. In W.P. Morgan (Ed.), Ergogenic Aids and Muscular Performance (pp. 94-118). New York: Academic Press. Feltz, D.L. & Landers D.M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 25-57. Gammage, K.L., Hall, C.R., & Rodgers, W.M. (2000). More about exercise imagery. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 348-359. Giacobbi Jr., P.R., Hausenblas, H.A., Fallon, E.A., & Hall, C.R. (2003). Even more about exercise imagery: A grounded theory of exercise imagery. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 160-175. Gould, D., Damarjian, N., & Greenleaf C. (2002). Imagery training for peak performance. In J.L. Van Raalte and B.W. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2nd ed (pp. 49-74). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Green, L.B. (1994) Developing self-talk to facilitate the use of imagery among athletes. In A.A. Sheikh and E.R. Korn (Eds.), Imagery in Sports and Physical Performance (pp. 43-57). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc. Griffin, M.R. (1972). An analysis of state and trait anxiety experienced in sports competition at different age levels. Foil, Spring, 58-64. Hale, B.D. (1982). The effects of internal and external imagery on muscular and ocular concomitants. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 379-387. Hale, B.D. (1994). Imagery perspectives and learning in sports performance. In A.A. Sheikh and E.R. Korn (Eds.), Imagery in Sports and Physical Performance (pp. 75-96). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc. Hall, C.R. (1998). Measuring imagery abilities and imagery use. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 23-29). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technologies. Hall, C.R., Mack, D.E., Paivio, A., & Hausenblaus, H.A. (1998). Imagery use by athletes: Development of the Sport Imagery Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 73-89. Hall, C.R., Rodgers, W.M., & Barr, K.A. (1990). The use of imagery by athletes in selected sports. The Sport Psychologist, 4, 1-10. Hall, C.R., Schmidt, D., Durand, M.C., & Buckolz, E. (1994). In A.A. Sheikh and E.R. Korn (Eds.), Imagery in Sports and Physical Performance (pp. 121- 134). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc. Hausenblas, H.A., Hall, C.R., Rodgers, W.M., & Munroe, K.J. (1999). Exercise imagery: Its nature and measurement. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 171-180. Hinshaw, K.E. (1991). The effects of mental practice on motor skill performance: Critical evaluation and meta-analysis. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 11, 3-35. Isaac, A (1992). Mental Practice: Does it work in the field? The Sport Psychologist, 6, 192-198 Jacobson, E. (1932). Electrophysiology of mental activities. American Journal of Psychology, 44, 677-694. Janssen, J.J., & Sheikh, A.A. (1994). Enhancing athletic performance through imagery: An overview. In A.A. Sheikh and E.R. Korn (Eds.), Imagery in Sports and

Physical Performance (pp. 1-22). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc. Lang, P.J. (1979). A bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. Psychophysiology, 16 (6), 495-511. Lang, P.J., Kozak, M., Miller, G.A., Levin, D.N., & McLean, A. (1980). Emotional imagery: Conceptual structre and pattern of somato-vasceral response. Psychophysiology, 17, 179-192. Lee, C. (1990) Psyching up for a muscular endurance task: Effects of image content on performance and mood state. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 66-73. Martin, K.A., Moritz, S.E., & Hall, C.R. (1999). Imagery use in sport: A literature review and applied model. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 245-268. Minas, S.C. (1978). Mental practice of a complex perceptual-motor skill. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 4, 102-107. Munroe, K.J., Giacobbi, P.R., Hall, C.R., & Weinberg, R. (2000). The four Ws of imagery use: Where, when, why, and what. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 119-137. Munroe, K., Hall, C., Simms, S., & Weinberg, R. (1998). The influence of type of sport and time of season on athletes’ use of imagery. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 440- 449. Murphy, S.M. (1990). Models of imagery in sport psychology: A review. Journal of Mental Imagery, 14 (3 & 4), 153-172. Murphy, S.M., & Martin, K.A. (2002). The use of imagery in sport. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in Sport Psychology (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Murphy, S.M., Woolfolk, R.L., & Budney, A.J. (1988). The effects of emotive imagery on strength performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 334-335. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Orlick, T (1986). Psyching for Sport: Mental Training for Athletes. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Orlick, T (2000). In Pursuit of Excellence: How to Win in Sport and Life Through Mental Training (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery in human performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 10, 22-28. Richardson, A. (1967a). Mental practice: A review and Discussion (Part 1). Research Quarterly, 38, 95-107. Richardson, A. (1967b). Mental practice: A review and Discussion (Part 2). Research Quarterly, 38, 263-273. Richardson, A. (1969). Mental Imagery. New York, NY: Springer. Rodgers, W., Hall, C., & Buckolz, E. (1991). The effect of an imagery training program on imagery ability, imagery use, and figure skating performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 109-125. Ryan, D., & Simons J. (1983). What is learned in mental practice of motor skills. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 219-426. Sackett, R.S. (1934). The influences of symbolic rehearsal upon the retention of a maze habit. Journal of General Psychology, 10, 376-395. Salmon, J., Hall, C., & Haslam, I. (1994). The use of imagery by soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 116-133. Shaw, W. (1938). The distribution of muscular action potentials during imagery. The Psychological Record, 2, 195-216. Simon, J. & Martens, R. (1979). Children’s anxiety in sport and nonsport evaluative activities. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 160-169. Straub, W.F. (1989). The effect of three different methods of mental training on dart throwing performance. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 133-141. Suinn, R. (1972). Removing emotional obstacles to learning and performance by visuomotor behavioral rehearsal. Behavior Therapy, 3, 308-310. Vealey, R.S., & Greenleaf, C.A. (1998). Seeing is believing: Understanding and using imagery in sport. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance (3rd ed.), Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Weinberg, R., Butt, J., Knight, B., Burke, K.L., & Jackson, A. (2003). The relationship between the use and effectiveness of imagery: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 26-40.

Weinberg, R., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations in Sport and Exercise Psychology (pp. 283-305). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. White, A., & Hardy, L. (1998). An in-depth analysis of the use of imagery by high-level slalom canoeists and artistic gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 387-403. Wrisberg, C.A., & Anshel, M.H. (1989). The effect of cognitive strategies on the free throw shooting performance of young athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 95-104. Wrisberg, C.A., & Ragsdale, M.R. (1979). Cognitive demand and practice level: Factors in the mental rehearsal of motor skills. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 5, 201-208.

Appendix A

Table 1 Sport Imagery Subscale Means for Sport Type by Time Team Individual M Subscale M (SD) (SD) In Season General CS 5.21 (1.15) 5.10 (1.26) CG 5.08 (1.17) 4.98 (1.29) MS 4.64 (1.56) 4.13 (1.58) MGA 5.16 (1.11) 5.71 (1.01) MGM 5.72 (1.07) 5.59 (.84) Off-Season Cross Train CS 4.39 (1.59) 3.77 (1.30) CG 4.02 (1.64) 3.53 (1.28) MS 3.97 (1.77) 3.19 (1.47) MGA 4.08 (1.64) 4.33 (1.14) MGM 4.54 (1.64) 4.31 (1.20) Off-season Sport Skills CS 4.82 (1.35) 4.31 (1.25) CG 4.42 (1.35) 4.20 (1.33) MS 4.17 (1.69) 3.38 (1.50) MGA 4.56 (1.24) 4.83 (1.26) MGM 5.06 (1.34) 4.61 (1.31)

Table 2 Correlations of SIQ Subscales aCS aCG aMS aMGA aMGM bCS bCG bMS bMGA bMGM cCS cCG cMS cMGA cMGM

aCS 1 aCG .66* 1 aMS .48* .41* 1 aMGA .50* .64* .40* 1 aMGM .64* .69* .49* .60* 1

bCS .44* .23* .32* .20* .31* 1 bCG .31* .34* .28* .29* .33* .77* 1 bMS .14 .12 .58* .12 .25* .58* .64* 1 bMGA .19 .21* .29* .33* .23* .68* .80* .67* 1 bMGM .27* .26* .30* .32* .44* .79* .79* .64* .76* 1

cCS .64* .43* .38* .32* .52* .63* .52* .35* .43* .54* 1 cCG .46* .50* .30* .37* .48* .54* .66* .42* .55* .59* .72* 1 cMS .21* .27* .66* .22* .35* .36* .48* .75* .47* .49* .42* .51* 1 cMGA .22* .33* .32* .53* .39* .32* .44* .39* .58* .48* .49* .66* .52* 1 cMGM .40* .40* .37* .42* .62* .46* .46* .38* .41* .62* .72* .72* .53* .70* 1 *p < .01

Table 3 Alpha Coefficients for SIQ Subscales In Season Off-season Off-Season General Cross Train Sport Skills

CS .84 .89 .87 CG .79 .88 .81 MS .87 .91 .90 MGA .79 .88 .80 MGM .81 .88 .86

Table 4 Main Effect - Sport Type Univariate Discriminant Team Individual Subscale F- Values Function M (SD) M (SD) df = 1, 163 Loadings

Cognitive Specific 4.81 (1.15) 4.39 (1.08) 3.53, p < .06 .31*

Cognitive General 4.51 (1.12) 4.24 (1.14) 1.66, p < .20 .21

Motivation Specific 4.26 (1.45) 3.57 (1.41) 6.20, p < .01 .41*

Motivation General- 4.60 (1.08) 4.96 (.94) 3.33, p < .07 -.30* Arousal

Motivation General- 5.11 (1.15) 4.84 (.93) 1.66, p < .20 .21 Mastery * All values ≥.30 are considered significant

Table 5 Main Effect - Time Comparison Times Subscale P < Means (SD) In Season Off-Season

General Cross Train CS 5.18 (1.17) 4.26 (1.55) .001 CG 5.06 (1.19) 3.91 (1.58) .001 MS 4.53 (1.58) 3.81 (1.73) .05 MGA 5.28 (1.11) 4.14 (1.55) .001 MGM 5.69 (1.03) 4.50 (1.56) .001 In Season Off-Season

General Sport Skills CS 5.18 (1.17) 4.71 (1.34) .001 CG 5.06 (1.19) 4.38 (1.35) .001 MS 4.53 (1.58) 4.01 (1.68) .05 MGA 5.28 (1.11) 4.62 (1.24) .001 MGM 5.69 (1.03) 4.97 (1.35) .001 Off-Season Off-Season

Sport Skills Cross Train CS 4.71 (1.34) 4.26 (1.55) .001 CG 4.38 (1.35) 3.91 (1.58) .001 MS 4.01 (1.68) 3.31 (1.73) .05 MGA 4.62 (1.24) 4.14 (1.55) .001 MGM 4.97 (1.35) 4.50 (1.56) .001

Table 6 Independent T-Tests for Gender for SIQ Items

Subscale Time Male M (SD) Female M (SD) t-value

CS In Season General 5.14 (1.10) 5.23 (1.25) -.51 Off-Season Cross Train 4.79 (1.43) 3.71 (1.49) 4.79 Off-Season Sport Skills 4.87 (1.36) 4.56 (1.31) 1.49

CG In Season General 4.83 (1.09) 5.30 (1.25) -2.63 Off-Season Cross Train 4.41 (1.51) 3.40 (1.51) 4.31* Off-Season Sport Skills 4.45 (1.34) 4.29 (1.36) .74

MS In Season General 4.57 (1.52) 4.49 (1.64) .32 Off-Season Cross Train 4.46 (1.62) 3.14 (1.59) 5.25* Off-Season Sport Skills 4.38 (1.59) 3.62 (1.69) 2.98

MGA In Season General 4.94 (1.01) 5.62 (1.11) -4.18* Off-Season Cross Train 4.56 (1.44) 3.70 (1.55) 3.70* Off-Season Sport Skills 4.55 (1.22) 4.70 (1.27) -.77

MGM In Season General 5.51 (1.10) 5.88 (.91) -2.39 Off-Season Cross Train 4.80 (1.51) 4.18 (1.56) 2.61 Off-Season Sport Skills 4.89 (1.31) 5.05 (1.30) -.81 * p < .001

Table 7 Main Effect - Gender Univariate Discriminant Male Female Subscale F- Values Function M M df = 1, 163 Loadings

Cognitive Specific 4.94 4.50 5.90, p < .02 .46*

Cognitive General 4.56 4.33 1.85, p < .18 .26

Motivation Specific 4.47 3.75 9.81, p < .001 .59*

Motivation General- 4.68 4.67 .00, p < .99 -.01 Arousal

Motivation General- 5.06 5.04 .02, p < .89 .03 Mastery * All values ≥.30 are considered significant

Table 8 Post Hoc Paired Samples T-Tests for Gender by Time Interaction Effect Males Females Subscale Pairs Mean t-Value Subscale Pairs Mean t-Value Relationship Difference (SD) (df =83) Relationship Difference (SD) (df =81)

aCS > bCS .35 (1.26) 2.54 aCS > bCS 1.52 (1.46) 9.47* aCS > cCS .26 (1.09) 2.15 aCS > cCS .67 (1.04) 5.87* bCS < cCS -.08 (1.02) -.75 bCS < cCS -.85 (1.38) -5.60*

aCG > bCG .41 (1.38) 2.76 aCG > bCG 1.90 (1.52) 11.33* aCG > cCG .38 (1.22) 2.83 aCG > cCG 1.01 (1.26) 7.24* bCG < cCG -.04 (1.02) -.34 bCG < cCG -.89 (1.27) -6.35*

aMS > bMS .12 (1.34) .79 aMS > bMS 1.35 (1.44) 8.50* aMS > cMS .19 (1.20) 1.48 aMS > cMS .87 (1.40) 5.62* bMS > cMS .08 (1.13) .63 bMS < cMS -.48 (1.23) -3.53*

aMGA > bMGA .38 (1.20) 2.86 aMGA > bMGA 1.92 (1.54) 11.27* aMGA > cMGA .39 (1.18) 3.03 aMGA > cMGA .93 (1.06) 7.95* bMGA > cMGA .01 (.98) .12 bMGA < cMGA -1.00 (1.40) -6.46*

aMGM > bMGM .70 (1.22) 5.27* aMGM > bMGM 1.70 (1.49) 10.34* aMGM > cMGM .62 (1.09) 5.21* aMGM > cMGM .83 (1.04) 7.19* bMGM < cMGM -.08 (1.00) -.76 bMGM < cMGM -.87 (1.40) -5.63* * p < .001

Table 9 Independent Samples T-Tests for Instruction

Subscale Time Yes M (SD) NO M (SD) t-value

CS In Season General 5.37 (1.13) 4.83 (1.19) 2.86 Off-Season Cross Train 4.33 (1.62) 4.11 (1.41) .86 Off-Season Sport Skills 4.84 (1.30) 4.47 (1.38) 1.69

CG In Season General 5.31 (1.15) 4.57 (1.14) 3.92* Off-Season Cross Train 3.97 (1.61) 3.80 (1.54) .66 Off-Season Sport Skills 4.52 (1.31) 4.09 (1.38) 1.95

MS In Season General 4.68 (1.60) 4.25 (1.50) 1.66 Off-Season Cross Train 3.80 (1.73) 3.82 (1.73) -.04 Off-Season Sport Skills 3.95 (1.66) 4.11 (1.73) -.58

MGA In Season General 5.53 (1.07) 4.77 (1.03) 4.37* Off-Season Cross Train 4.20 (1.56) 4.02 (1.54) .70 Off-Season Sport Skills 4.82 (1.16) 4.24 (1.33) 2.90

MGM In Season General 5.90 (.96) 5.27 (1.04) 3.89* Off-Season Cross Train 4.52 (1.57) 4.44 (1.55) .33 Off-Season Sport Skills 5.10 (1.30) 4.70 (1.41) 1.83 * p < .001

Table 10 Main Effect - Instruction Univariate Discriminant Yes No Subscale F- Values Function M (SD) M (SD) df = 1, 163 Loadings

Cognitive Specific 4.85 (1.15) 4.47 (1.11) 3.94, p < .05 -.56*

Cognitive General 4.60 (1.13) 4.15 (1.08) 6.17, p < .01 -.71*

Motivation Specific 4.14 (1.47) 4.06 (1.48) .08, p < .80 -.08

Motivation General- 4.85 (1.01) 4.34 (1.08) 8.61, p < .001 -.83* Arousal

Motivation General- 5.18 (1.07) 4.81 (1.14) 4.27, p < .04 -.59* Mastery * All values ≥.30 are considered significant

Appendix B

Coach……,

Hi, my name is Melissa Bochiaro and I am a graduate student in the PHS department. I am currently working on my master’s thesis and was hoping to use the athletes on your team as participants in my study. The topic of my thesis looks at collegiate athletes’ use of mental imagery during their off-season. There is much literature to support imagery as a performance enhancing skill, but there have been no studies focusing on its use in the off-season. The athletes’ imagery use will be measured by a questionnaire which will be most easily administered in a group setting during their off-season (and should take approximately 30 minutes). I was hoping to set up a meeting with you (whether over the phone or in person) at whatever time is most convenient for you to discuss my study in more depth. If you are interested in allowing your team to take part in the study we can then set up a time for me to meet with those athletes who choose to participate. I would greatly appreciate the help of you and your athletes. I look forward to hearing from you soon!

Sincerely, Melissa Bochiaro

Imagery Use by Collegiate Athletes Melissa Bochiaro The proposed study seeks to investigate the off-season use of imagery by collegiate athletes. Previous research on imagery and collegiate athletes has looked at the different types of imagery used throughout the competitive season. But, for collegiate athletes, physical practice does not end once their season ends nor start right before their competitive season. Instead, some form of physical training goes on year round for these athletes. So, to examine imagery patterns only “during the season” gives an incomplete picture of college athletes training. Since the athletes’ physical training regimens are so important (enough to warrant scheduled practices or at least assigned individual workouts) year round, are not also their mental skills just as important to be used and refined year round? This study seeks to answer that question by investigating different types of imagery used by collegiate athletes at different points during their off-season. An examination of differences between team and individual athletes’ use of imagery will also be included. Such information will be obtained through a short demographics questionnaire and the Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ). The Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ) is a thirty item self report questionnaire that has athletes rate how often they use the five different types of imagery (Cognitive General, Cognitive Specific, Motivation General-Arousal, Motivation General-Mastery, and Motivation Specific) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = rarely, 7 = often). Ideally, this questionnaire (with some minor instructional variations) would be administered to the athletes at different points along the course of a year of training and competition. However, since research on the in-season use of imagery by athletes has been extensive and because of the limited scope of this project, only one form of the questionnaire will be dedicated to the general use of imagery by each athlete during the season. The two other questionnaire forms will measure imagery use during specific points throughout the off-season. The athletes will begin the research session by providing consent and completing the demographics questionnaire which will include information about their sport, sex, age, athletic year classification, season record, playoff/championship participation, frequency of imagery use, and past imagery experience/instruction. These will be collected by the researcher and one of the three versions of the SIQ will be distributed. The three versions of the SIQ will be administered to all the participants in one sitting given approximately five minutes in between each. The versions will be counterbalanced throughout the sample so as to control for order effects. Questionnaires for each participant will be matched with their demographics, but no names will be connected with the data. No questionnaire data will be shared with the coaches or athletes except in terms of average results. The athletes will not be paid for their participation in the study. The entire session is estimated to take approximately 45 minutes at most. The ultimate purpose of gaining this information about off-season imagery use is for incorporation into training. With the data obtained through this study we hope to find out what types of imagery are used most in the off-season and eventually be able to better fit imagery into the full year training regimens of collegiate athletes.

Appendix C

Informed Consent

Dear Participant:

You are invited to participate in a research study on the use of mental imagery by collegiate athletes. If you decide to participate, I will ask you to complete a few questionnaires on your use of mental imagery having to do with your sport. Be assured that all of your responses will be anonymous and confidential, as your name will not be connected with any of the research materials you hand in. Also, the raw data collected from the questionnaires will not be shared with your coach or any of the other participants. In total, the session should last no longer than 45 minutes. Please understand that your participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw from the study at any time during the session. There is no foreseen risk to you with participation in this study. In fact, you may even benefit from the questions asked by learning more about which types of mental imagery you use.

Do you have any questions about the study? If you find that you have further questions once the study is complete, please contact Melissa Bochiaro at 529-8550 or [email protected], or Dr. Robert Weinberg at 529-2728 or [email protected]. If you have specific questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact Miami’s Office for the Advancement of Research and Scholarship at 529-3734 or [email protected].

I agree to participate in this study on mental imagery. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that my name will not be associated with my responses.

Participant’s Signature______Date______

Appendix D

Demographics Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions:

1. What sport do you participate in?:

2. Male_____ Female_____

3. What was your athletic standing for this past season? (circle one): Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

4. What was your team’s record this past season?

5. Did your team participate in championships/playoffs this past season: Y N

6. Have you ever been instructed on how to use imagery? Y__N__. If Yes, Explain.

58 Appendix E Sport Imagery Questionnaires

IMAGERY USE BY ATHLETES (b)

This questionnaire was designed to assess the extent to which you incorporate imagery into your athletic training. Imagery involves “mentally” seeing yourself perform. 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. 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. Now take a minute to think about your most recent off-season. Then read each statement and fill in the blank with the appropriate number from the scale provided to indicate the degree to which the statement applies to your use of imagery about your sport during your off-season when you were cross training on your own. In other words, when you were working out to keep in shape or get stronger, but not doing any activities specific to your sport. For example, a soccer player may run, swim, lift weights, and bicycle for cross training but they do not actually play soccer or do any drills directly relating to the game. Remember, if you rarely or never engage 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 in the statement, a rating of 7 should be given; frequencies of imagery use 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. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers, so please answer as accurately as possible.

IMAGERY USE BY ATHLETES (c)

This questionnaire was designed to assess the extent to which you incorporate imagery into your athletic training. Imagery involves “mentally” seeing yourself perform. 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. 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. Now take a minute to think about your most recent off-season. Then read each statement and fill in the blank with the appropriate number from the scale provided to indicate the degree to which the statement applies to your use of imagery about your sport during your off-season when you were working out by doing activities specific to the skills involved in your sport. For example, a baseball player may have a catch or take batting practice in the off-season. Remember, if you rarely or never engage 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 in the statement, a rating of 7 should be given; frequencies of imagery use 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. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers, so please answer as accurately as possible.