Journal of Applied Sport Psychology

This article was downloaded by:[EPSCoR Science Information Group (ESIG) Dekker Titles only Consortium] On: 12 November 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 777703943] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713768823

Differences in Imagery Content and Imagery Ability Between High and Low Confident Track and Field Athletes Cherie L. Abma; Mary D. Fry; Yuhua Li; George Relyea Online Publication Date: 01 June 2002 To cite this Article: Abma, Cherie L., Fry, Mary D., Li, Yuhua and Relyea, George (2002) 'Differences in Imagery Content and Imagery Ability Between High and Low Confident Track and Field Athletes', Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14:2, 67 75 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/10413200252907743 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200252907743

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded By: [EPSCoR Science Information Group (ESIG) Dekker Titles only Consortium] At: 22:56 12 November 200

JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT TRACK PSYCHOLOGY, ATHLETES’ 14: 67–75, IMAGERY 2002 CONTENT Copyright © 2002 by the Association for Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology 1041-3200/02 $12.00 + .00

AND ABILITY

67

Differences in Imagery Content and Imagery Ability Between High and Low Confident Track and Field Athletes C HERIE L. ABMA, M ARY D. FRY, YUHUA L I, AND GEORGE RELYEA The University of Memphis The purpose of this research was to examine how high and low trait sport confident track and field athletes differed in their imagery content and imagery ability. NCAA Division I track and field athletes (M age = 20.5 +/– 1.61 years; M = 7.15 +/– 3.3 years experience; N = 111, 44 males and 67 females) completed the following measures: Trait Sport Confidence Inventory (TSCI), Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ), and Movement Imagery Questionnaire—Revised (MIQ-R). Profile analyses revealed that high trait sport confident athletes utilized each category of imagery (Motivational General—Mastery, Motivational General—Arousal, Motivational Specific, Cognitive General, and Cognitive Specific) significantly more than low trait sport confident athletes. No significant differences emerged between the groups on the two imagery ability scales. The results suggest that the high confident athletes used more imagery, but they did not have higher imagery skills than low confident athletes.

Research has revealed that many athletes utilize imagery and view it as an important psychological skill. Research has also demonstrated a positive association between imagery and enhanced psychological attributes such as sport confidence (Callow, Hardy, & Hall, 1998; White & Hardy, 1998; Winters, 1999). In fact, recent imagery interventions have resulted in improvements in athletes’ state sport confidence levels over time (Callow et al., 19989; Carter & Kelly, 1997). Researchers have also explored how athletes’ imagery content is associated with athletes’ state sport confidence levels (Callow & Hardy, 2001; Moritz, Hall, Martin, & Vadocz, 1996; Vadocz, Hall, & Moritz, 1997). To date, the relationship between trait sport confidence and imagery has received minimal attention in the sport psychology literature, although Vealey (1986) has identified both trait and state sport confidence levels as important characteristics for athletes. In light of the important contribution sport confidence provides to athletic performance (i.e., athletes with higher sport confidence levels perform at higher levels; Chapman, Lane, Brierley, & Terry, 1997; Taylor, 1987), the purpose of this paper was to examine how high and low trait sport confident athletes differ in their imagery content and imagery ability. Martin, Moritz, and Hall (1999) recently described an applied model of imagery where they suggested that for imagery interventions to be most effective, researchers must have a greater understanding of the impact that different types of imagery have on various cognitive, Received 6 May 2001; accepted 20 December 2001. The first author completed this project for her Master’s thesis. She would like to extend her appreciation to Dr. Tammy Schilling who served as a member of her thesis committee. Address correspondence to Mary D. Fry, Ph.D., Department of Human Movement Sciences and Education, 369 Elma Roane Field House, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152. E-mail: [email protected]

67


68

C. L. ABMA ET AL.

affective, and behavioral responses in sport situations. In essence, it is logical that imagery exercises should be tailored to achieve different outcomes such as enhancing confidence versus acquiring skills and strategies. Hall, Mack, Paivio, and Hausenblas (1998) adapted Paivio’s framework that identified two primary functions of imagery, Motivation and Cognitive, which are further slated into General and Specific categories. Motivation General (MG) imagery envelops two further classifications of imagery, Mastery and Arousal. Motivation General— Mastery (MG-M) imagery is characterized as mental toughness, focus, and confidence (e.g., imagine refocusing after a mistake) while Motivation General—Arousal (MG-A) imagery addresses arousal, anxiety, and stress associated with imagery settings (e.g., imagine controlling anxiety levels). Motivation Specific (MS) imagery refers to applying various emotions and mental aspects to specific situations (e.g., imagine feelings associated with winning a game). Cognitive imagery, however, addresses another context. Cognitive General (CG) imagery incorporates strategies and general concepts of plays (e.g., imagine running a basketball play), while Cognitive Specific (CS) imagery addresses the technical mechanics and details of performing specific tasks (e.g., imagine passing a volleyball). The Sport Imagery Questionnaire was developed to assess athletes’ use of these different types of imagery (Hall et al., 1998) and has provided a needed tool for conducting imagery research. Most critical to the present study is the relationship between confidence and these imagery types. Research has revealed that imagery used for motivational purposes has the strongest link to confidence (Callow et al., 1998; Carter & Kelly, 1997; White & Hardy, 1998). An important study in this area was conducted by Moritz et al. (1996) who surveyed young athletes competing in the Junior North American Rollerskating Championships (which included compulsory figures, free-skating, speed-skating, and hockey). Their research indicated that high state sport confident athletes used significantly more MG-M and MG-A imagery than low state sport confident athletes. Results also indicated that MG-M imagery was a predictor of state sport confidence scores of the athletes. Besides imagery content, another important aspect to consider is imagery ability. Although it has received little attention in the sport psychology literature (Martin et al., 1999; Murphy, 1994), its importance and function seem vital to the utilization of imagery. There are two types of imagery ability, visual and kinesthetic. Visual imagery is the ability to clearly see the specified images, while kinesthetic imagery is the ability to feel the images as they are portrayed. Martin et al. (1999) identified imagery ability as a potential moderating variable in their applied model. That is, they maintain that the relationship between different types of imagery (e.g., motivation vs. cognitive) and athletes’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses may be influenced by the degree that they can utilize visual and kinesthetic imagery effectively. What little research has investigated this variable indicates that elite athletes who utilize imagery possess a well-developed imagery ability (Barr & Hall, 1992; Orlick & Partington, 1988). Further, high sport confident athletes are better imagers than low sport confident athletes (Barr & Hall, 1992; Moritz et al., 1996). If athletes are skillful at using imagery they will be more likely to optimize its effects. Besides imagery ability, another variable that has received little empirical attention is trait sport confidence. Previous research (Callow et al., 1998; Moritz et al., 1996; Vadocz et al., 1997) has revealed a positive relationship between state sport confidence and imagery ability and also the use of MG-M imagery. However, these relationships have not been examined with respect to trait sport confidence. When considering that trait characteristics are indicative of state characteristics (Vealey, 1986) and that imagery interventions are conducted in practice and address a variety of situations, it would seem that by measuring and analyzing trait sport confidence, researchers would have access to a more complete profile of athletes’ confidence levels. Until more research accumulates concerning trait sport confidence, research exploring


TRACK ATHLETES’ IMAGERY CONTENT AND ABILITY

69

athletes’ state sport confidence levels provides the only source of information concerning confidence levels among athletes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the differences in imagery content and imagery ability between high and low trait sport confident track and field athletes. This study extended the research by Hall and his colleagues (Moritz et al., 1996; Vadocz et al., 1997) by examining the differences of high and low trait sport confident athletes rather than state sport confident athletes. Despite minimal attention, it would seem that a relationship similar to that between state sport confidence and imagery content would exist between trait sport confidence and imagery content. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that high trait sport confident athletes would report using more MG-M imagery than other types of imagery and would use more MG-M imagery than low trait sport confident athletes. Further, high trait sport confident athletes were hypothesized to demonstrate higher kinesthetic and visual imagery ability than low trait sport confident athletes, based on the findings of Moritz et al. (1996).

METHOD Participants Volunteer participants were 111 NCAA Division I track and field athletes (44 male & 67 female), which included runners, jumpers, and throwers from four universities in the midsouthern and southern regions of the United States. The athletes’ average age was 20.5 +/– 1.61 years and ranged from 18 to 25 years. Athletes averaged 7.15 +/– 3.3 years experience in track and field; however, experience ranged from 1 to 18 years. Procedures Approval was granted by the IRB at the authors’ university. Then coaches were contacted about the research project, and, with their approval, their athletes were invited to participate in the study. During a regular season practice (which was at least two days prior to or following a competition) at the athletes’ training facilities, the researcher met with all participants who at that time completed consent forms, demographic information, and measures of trait sport confidence, imagery ability, and imagery use. If participants competed in a variety of events, they were instructed to complete the questionnaires based upon their primary event. The three measures were counterbalanced. Measures Trait Sport Confidence Inventory (TSCI). To assess trait sport confidence, Vealey’s (1986) Trait Sport Confidence Inventory was used. The TSCI includes one scale composed of the sum of a 13-item inventory that uses a 9-point Likert scale in which 1 = low confidence and 9 = high confidence. A sample item is “Compare the confidence you feel in your ability to perform under pressure to the most confident athlete you know.” The TSCI has demonstrated adequate internal consistency with an alpha coefficient of .93 and adequate test-retest reliability with coefficients of 1 day (r = .86), 1 week (r = .89), and 1 month (r = .83) (Vealey, 1986). Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ). This questionnaire is a 30-item self-report measure developed by Hall et al. (1998) that asks athletes to rate on a 7-point scale (1 = rarely and 7 = often) how often they use five specific categories of imagery: Motivation General—Mastery (MG-M; e.g., I imagine myself appearing self-confident in front of my opponents), Motivation General–Arousal (MG-A; e.g., I imagine the stress and anxiety associated with compet-


70

C. L. ABMA ET AL.

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach Alphas for SIQ, MIQ-R, and TSCI Scale Scores High Sport Confident M

Low Sport Confident

All Athletes

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Alpha

SIQ MG-M MG-A MS CG CS

37.52* 33.30* 31.61* 34.14* 33.39*

3.83 5.39 8.88 4.85 5,27

29.24 28.77 26.38 26.53 26.85

6.91 6.89 9.48 6.95 7.43

33.31 31.00 28.96 30.28 30.08

6.96 6.56 9.49 7.09 7.20

.85 .68 .90 .80 .88

MIQ-R Visual Kinesthetic

24.90 23.50

3.70 3.70

22.53 21.61

4.75 4.91

23.27 22.49

4.33 4.45

.87 .86

TSCI

98.64

6.29

52.43

12.77

76.17

20.84

.96

Note: SIQ (Sport Imagery Questionnaire) assesses imagery content: MG-M (Motivational General—Mastery) sample item: “I imagine myself appearing self-confident in front of my opponents”; MG-A (Motivational General—Arousal) sample item: “I imagine the stress and anxiety associated with competing”; MS (Motivational Specific) sample item: “I imagine myself winning a medal”; CG (Cognitive General) sample item: “I imagine alternative strategies in case my event/game plan fails”; CS (Cognitive Specific) sample item: “I can mentally make corrections to physical skills.” MIQ-R (Movement Imagery Questionnaire—Revised) assesses imagery ability. TSCI (Trait Sport Confidence Inventory) assesses trait sport confidence: Sample item: “Compare the confidence you feel in your ability to perform under pressure to the most confident athlete you know.” *Significance (p < .01) between high and low trait sport confident athletes.

ing), Motivation Specific (MS; e.g., I image myself winning a medal), Cognitive General (CG; e.g., I image alternative strategies in case my event/game plan fails), and Cognitive Specific (CS; e.g., I can mentally make corrections to physical skills). The sum of items in each category provides a separate subscale for which comparisons can be made. The SIQ has demonstrated adequate validity and internal reliability with alpha coefficients ranging from .57 to .89 (Hall et al., 1998; Vadocz et al., 1997). Movement Imagery Questionnaire–Revised (MIQ-R). This questionnaire was developed by Hall and Martin (1997) in order to assess individual differences in visual and kinesthetic imagery of movement. The MIQ-R is comprised of eight items, four visual and four kinesthetic. Completion of an item requires four steps that involve executing a movement and rating each item on a 7-point scale, where 1 = very hard to see/feel and 7 = very easy to see/feel. Imagery ability scores are tabulated as separate sums of the two subscales, visual and kinesthetic imagery abilities. The MIQ-R has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity with alpha coefficients of .79 for both subscales (Hall & Martin, 1997; Hall, Pongrac, & Buckolz, 1985; Vadocz et al., 1997).

RESULTS Similar to that of Moritz et al.’s study (1996), athletes were first classified as “high sport confident” or “low sport confident.” To acquire an appropriate scoring distribution that would reveal the varying imagery uses and abilities of high versus low sport confident athletes, the athletes’ TSCI scores were first arranged in ascending order. Then two groups were formed



71

Table 2 Correlation Matrix for the Total Sample’s Scores on the TSCI, SIQ, and MIQ-R Scales

TSCI MG-S MG-A MG-M CS CG VIS

MG-S

MG-A

MG-M

CS

CG

VIS

.31**

.41*** .56***

.63*** .59*** .72***

.47*** .51*** .58*** .69***

.59*** .53*** .67*** .78*** .76***

.20* –.05 .13 .23* .33*** .32***

KINES. .20* –.02 .22* .22* .25** .27** .66***

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

whereby 33% of athletes with the highest TSCI scores (i.e., 91 or higher) were classified as “high sport confident” (n = 33; males = 20, females = 14) and 33% of athletes with the lowest TSCI scores (i.e., 69 or lower) were classified as “low sport confident” (n = 37; males = 7, females = 29). A t-test analysis (t[68] = 18.70, p < .001), revealed a significant difference between the TSCI scores for the two groups with the high confident group reporting greater confidence than the low sport confident group. The level of significance was p < .05 for all statistical tests. Cronbach alpha reliabilities were conducted on each scale and are displayed in Table 1. All but one scale displayed an adequate level of reliability with scores ranging from .80 to .96. Scale MG-A displayed a borderline value with an alpha level of .68. The descriptive measures for the TSCI, the five dependent scales of the imagery content measure, and the two scales tapping imagery ability are also presented in Table 1 for the high and low confident groups as well as the total sample. The correlation coefficients among the five imagery content scales and the two imagery ability scales were calculated for the total sample and are presented in Table 2. As expected, the scales were moderately to highly correlated, with coefficients ranging from .30 to .81. Profile analyses with repeated measures were conducted to determine differences between high and low sport confident athletes on imagery content and ability. Specifically, these analyses allow for the examination of both group effect and imagery effect (i.e., mental image content or ability), as well as the interaction between the two factors.1 Profile analysis was appropriate to use because it assumes that the dependent measures are related. Further, the use of profile analysis has been recommended for use with date where differences within a group are of interest, and where the dependent measures for comparison use the same response scale (e.g., 1–5) and have the same number of items (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). The first profile analysis utilized the five imagery content (SIQ) subscales (MG-M, MG-A, MS, CS, and CG) as the repeated dependent variables. The results showed a significant group effect, F(1, 68) = 30.43, p < .001, indicating that the high confident group athletes used mental 1

It should be noted that the athlete effects of gender and experience in track and field were first included in the profile analysis to check for the possibility that they were confounding variables. Although more females were identified in the low confidence group than males, and vice versa in the high confidence group, the results showed that neither gender nor years of experience in track and field interacted with the group and/or imagery variables (i.e., content or ability). Therefore, the variables of gender and years’ experience in track and field were not included in the final model for the profile analyses.


72

C. L. ABMA ET AL.

Figure 1. The means of the SIQ and MIQ-R scales are presented for the high and low confident groups.

imagery with higher frequency than the low confident group. Moreover, a significant imagery content effect also emerged, F(4, 65) = 18.2, p < .001. The post hoc analysis indicated that both groups utilized MG-M imagery the most and MS the least (Figure 1). No other significant differences among the five imagery types were detected. Finally, no interaction between the group and imagery content was found. A second profile analysis was conducted on the two imagery ability (MIQ-R) scales (visual and kinesthetic). There were no significant differences between high and low sport confident athletes on their visual and kinesthetic imagery abilities, nor was the interaction significant between the two factors. It was observed, however, that the high sport confident athletes reported higher visual and kinesthetic means than the low sport confident athletes, as seen in Table 1.

DISCUSSION The purpose of this research was to examine how high trait sport confident athletes differ from low trait sport confident athletes in their imagery content and ability. This research was modeled after Moritz and colleagues (1996) who examined the differences in imagery content and ability between high and low state sport confident athletes. The results of this study support Moritz et al.’s (1996) with regard to imagery content. The high sport confident track and field athletes were similar to Moritz et al.’s high sport confident rollerskaters in that they reported utilizing significantly more MG-M and MG-A imagery than low sport confident athletes. These findings are also in agreement with other researchers (Hall et al., 1998; Salmon, Hall, & Haslam, 1994) who have reported that the motivational aspect of



73

imagery is utilized significantly more than other aspects of imagery. However, a contrast to Moritz et al.’s (1996) findings occurred in that the high sport confident track and field athletes in this study also utilized significantly more MS, CG, and CS imagery than the low sport confident athletes. While MG-M imagery was clearly utilized the most by all athletes in this study and was also used the most by high and low sport confident athletes of Moritz et al.’s study, it may not be all that surprising to learn that the high trait sport confident athletes in this study utilized all types of imagery significantly more than low sport confident athletes. That is, it seems reasonable that the use of all types of imagery, as opposed to exclusively MG-M imagery, could lead to increased confidence. For example, when an athlete utilizes imagery to enhance the technical aspect of his/her performance, he or she may become more confident in his/her technical ability to perform correctly. Another athlete might image a previous best performance for the purpose of enhancing confidence. White and Hardy’s (1998) qualitative investigation highlighted how the use of different types of imagery could lead to heightened confidence. It follows that confidence may be attained from each aspect of imagery use instead of strictly one category (MG-M imagery). However, Martin et al. (1999) suggested that particular types of imagery may be optimal when the objective is a specific goal (e.g., enhance confidence), and it seems apparent that MG-M imagery would be the leading candidate to be targeted in an intervention to assist athletes in increasing their confidence levels. Even so, depending on the specific personal and contextual variables of athletes, they might do well to include other types of imagery for the purpose of enhancing confidence. Further qualitative studies may assist in clarifying the relationship between imagery content and confidence. Paivio’s (1985) model and the adapted version by Hall et al. (1998) provide a simple framework for considering the utilization of imagery; however, it is a conceptual framework and was not meant to be used to categorize imagery experiences into definitive categories. The development of the SIQ was intended to build on Paivio’s framework by providing a measure that classifies athletes’ imagery content into specific categories. While it provides a practical tool for research, it may be too restrictive to reflect the true nature of imagery. For example, an athlete may use CS imagery quite extensively (e.g., repeatedly visualizing the technical components of his/her sport); yet he/she may view and interpret this type of imagery as a source of confidence, in which case it would be classified as MG-M imagery. Thus, limitations of the SIQ are that it does not tap into the athlete’s perception of the purposes and goals of each type of imagery, and it assumes and requires that imagery content be neatly classified into one of five categories. A further element that may contribute to this difference in imagery content between rollerskaters (Moritz et al., 1996) and track and field athletes may be the difference in type of sport. Track and field consists of several different events and may be personified as a team or individual sport, dependent upon several factors (e.g., athlete’s perception, coach’s philosophy, event, etc.). In addition, the rollerskaters competed in a variety of events (i.e., compulsory figures, free-skating, speed-skating, and hockey), which may also be classified as team or individual sports. Distinctions among these categories were not made in either study, but perhaps this difference in team/individual sport influenced the differences occurring between rollerskaters and track and field athletes’ use of imagery. Because nearly all the athletes participated in multiple events (e.g., jumping and sprints, sprints and middle distance), it was challenging to clearly identify track and field athletes in specific categories of individual versus team sport athletes. Such a pursuit will require further investigation. In addition, this study examined trait sport confidence, while Moritz et al. (1996) examined state sport confidence. While both aspects are important, perhaps the relationship between the two has not presently been described clearly enough.


74

C. L. ABMA ET AL.

In addition to examining the between group differences, it was also of interest to investigate the potential within groups (i.e., high and low confident athletes) differences on the imagery use scales. The profile analyses revealed that both groups utilized MG-M the most and MS the least. Thus, the relationship between the use of different types of imagery was parallel between the groups, yet the high confident group utilized each type of imagery significantly more. In other words, the pattern of imagery content was similar for the high and low confident athletes, yet the high confident athletes used more of every type of imagery. This finding may be related to the second hypothesis of this study, which was that high sport confident athletes would display a higher imagery ability than low sport confident athletes. No support was garnered for this hypothesis, which is in line with other published research (e.g., Barr & Hall, 1992; Orlick & Partington, 1988). However, the results are in contrast to Moritz et al.’s (1996) findings that high sport confident athletes exhibited a significantly higher imagery ability than low sport confident athletes, and may reflect the very elite population that Moritz et al. surveyed. While the track and field athletes of this study were of a high caliber (NCAA Division I), they did not fall into the category of being one of the top five performers in their country, as were the athletes in Moritz et al.’s study. Along these lines it is interesting to consider that the high confident athletes in this study utilized all types of imagery significantly more than their low confident counterparts, yet they are not more skilled at using imagery. It is also noteworthy that experience (i.e., years of participation in track and field) was not significantly different between the high and low confident groups in this study. This indicates that experience is not a confounding variable, as one might suspect. The respective athletic programs that participated in this study did not formally incorporate imagery into their athletic programs. This suggests that athletes may not have been exposed to quality imagery instructions and education, and they may simply be experimenting with imagery and have yet to encounter the true potential of its application for their athletic pursuits. It is clear that the high confident athletes use more imagery, but like all the athletes in this study, they would likely benefit from exposure to a strong mental skills training intervention that included imagery. This appears to be a valuable direction for future research. By surveying and interviewing athletes who have used imagery systematically and extensively (e.g., White & Hardy, 1998), a rich database of information might be gathered that could provide direction for the development of imagery interventions to enhance confidence. Two limitations of this study should be noted. First, the results of this project with Division 1 collegiate track and field athletes cannot be generalized to other sports or athletes of different levels (e.g., high school, professional). A second limitation is that a random sample of track and field teams in one league was not possible to obtain, due to several coaches’ refusals to allow their athletes to participate in the study, citing concerns about time constraints during the season. Perhaps these coaches are less receptive to mental skills training and encourage their athletes to use imagery less than coaches who appeared interested and enthusiastic about the project. This limitation could have impacted the results of the study, although as noted above, none of the programs employed systematic mental skills training with their athletes. Overall, this study was a first to consider high and low trait sport confident, rather than state sport confident, athletes’ imagery content and imagery ability. While state sport confidence is an important variable because it considers the contextual factors of competition, equally important is the dispositional tendency reflected in measures of trait sport confidence. Only with research examining both state and trait sport confidence with regard to athletes’ imagery content and ability will a more complete understanding of their motivational responses be achieved. In conclusion, the fact that high sport confident athletes utilize significantly more imagery than low sport confident athletes is indicative of the importance of mental skills training, specifically when noting that high confident athletes perform at a higher level than low confident



75

athletes. While the mounting evidence in sport psychology research indicates that self confidence is associated with imagery content, many more questions regarding how to maximize the benefits of imagery to athletes, and future research will be important to examine the beneficial and complex psychological skill of mental imagery.

REFERENCES Barr, K., & Hall, C. (1992). The use of imagery by rowers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 243–261. Callow, N., & Hardy, L. (2001). Types of imagery associated with sport confidence in netball players of varying skill levels. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 1–17. Callow, N., Hardy, L., & Hall, C. (1998). The effect of a motivational-mastery imagery intervention on the sport confidence of three elite badminton players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 135S. Carter, J. E., & Kelly, A. E. (1997). Using traditional and paradoxical imagery interventions with reactant intramural athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 175–189. Chapman, C., Lane, A. M., Brierley, J. H., & Terry, P. C. (1997). Anxiety, self-confidence and performance in tae kwon-do. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1275–1278. Hall, C., Mack, D. E., Paivio, A., & Hausenblas, H. (1998). Imagery use by athletes: Development of the Sport Imagery Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 73–89. Hall, C., & Martin, K. (1997). Measuring movement imagery abilities: A revision of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imagery, 21, 143–154. Hall, C., Pongrac, J., & Buckolz, E. (1985). The measurement of imagery ability. Human Movement Science, 4, 107–118. Martin, K. A., Moritz, S. E., & Hall, D. R. (1999). Imagery use in sport: A literature review and applied model. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 245–268. Moritz, S. E., Hall, C. R., Martin, K. A., & Vadocz, E. (1996). What are confident athletes imaging? An examination of image content. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 171–179. Murphy, S. M. (1994) Imagery interventions in sport. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26(4): 486–494. Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 105–130. Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery in human performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 10(4), 22S–28S. Salmon, J., Hall, C., & Haslam, I. (1994). The use of imagery by soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 116–133, Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Harper & Row. Taylor, J. (1987). Predicting athletic performance with self-confidence and somatic and cognitive anxiety as a function of motor and physiological requirements in six sports. Journal of Personality, 55, 139–152. Vadocz, E. A., Hall, C. R., & Moritz, S. E. (1997). The relationship between cognitive anxiety and imagery use. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 241–253. Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 221–246. White, A., & Hardy, L. (1998). An in-depth analysis of the uses of imagery by high-level slalom canoeists and artistic gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 387–403. Winters, R. K. (1999). The effect of a specific training program (last device assisted) for golf putting aim on putting confidence. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 60(6-A), 1910.