Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity Volume 1, Issue 1 2006 Article 2 Effects of Dynamic and Static Imagery on Vividness of Imagery, Skiing Performance, and Confidence Nichola Callow Ross Roberts Joanna Z. Fawkes University of Wales, Bangor, n.callow@bangor.ac.uk University of Wales, Bangor, pepa12@bangor.ac.uk University of Wales, Bangor, jojofawkes@hotmail.co.uk Copyright c 2006 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.
Effects of Dynamic and Static Imagery on Vividness of Imagery, Skiing Performance, and Confidence Nichola Callow, Ross Roberts, and Joanna Z. Fawkes Abstract The present study examined the effects of dynamic and static imagery on the vividness of imagery, down-hill ski-slalom performance, and confidence. An opportunistic sample of 24 racestandard skiers were randomly assigned to one of three groups; a dynamic imagery group, a static imagery group or a control group. Participants in the first two groups were administered an imagery script instructing them to imagine themselves completing the down-hill ski-slalom course. In addition, the dynamic group conducted the imagery in their ski equipment on the ski slope, where as, the static group conducted their imagery away from the snow, while seated in a chair. Once participants completed the imagery scripts, they were administered Hale s (1998) imagery vividness evaluation form. Participants in the control group conducted light stretches. After completing the respective imagery and light stretches, participants skied the course and then completed a postexperimental questionnaire. The time taken to complete each run was recorded. An independent t-test revealed a significant difference between the two imagery groups in terms of vividness of imagery, t = (16) = -3.28, p <.005 and confidence t = (16) = -3.59, p <.002. Visual inspection of the cell means indicated that the dynamic group had higher vividness and confidence scores than the static group. A one-way analysis of variance revealed a significant difference between the groups in the time taken to complete the course, F(2,21)=3.37, p <.05. Follow-up tukey s tests indicated a significant difference between the control group and dynamic imagery group, with visual inspection of the means revealing that the dynamic group completed the task in the quickest time. The results are discussed in terms of dynamic imagery aiding the representational display in short-term working memory, and the use of dynamic imagery in applied settings. KEYWORDS: dynamic imagery, static imagery, imagery vividness, PETTLEP
Callow et al.: Dynamic Imagery, Imagery Vividness, and Skiing 1 Vividness of imagery is an important factor in the imagery-performance relationship. Vividness reflects the clarity and reality of an image (Murphy & Jowdy, 1992) and incorporates as many senses as possible (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2001). Research investigating the effects of imagery vividness on performance has found positive effects for vividness. For example, Ryan and Simons (1982) found that the imagery used to learn a laboratory-based balancing task was more effective for participants reporting vivid visual and kinesthetic images. In a more ecologically valid study, Isaac (1992) found that, following a 6-week training period, regardless of level of expertise, trampolinists with higher imagery vividness scores improved trampoline performance to a significantly greater extent than those with low vividness scores. Indeed, it has been found that vivid images also produce greater physiological responses and greater changes in accompanying behavior, than less vivid images (Lang, Melamed, & Hart, 1970). As vivid images produce greater changes in behavior, it is argued that they would have a greater impact upon subsequent performance than less vivid images (cf. Isaac, 1992). Thus, techniques that enhance and maximize the vividness of performers imagery experiences might be pertinent for performers to use and for sport psychologists and coaches to administer. One particular technique for increasing the vividness of imagery has been offered by Gould and Damarjian (1996). These authors proposed that while imaging, athletes should make their imagery dynamic by holding a piece of equipment relevant to their sport and replicating the physical movements made during actual performance. Gould and Damarjian suggest this dynamic action may help to increase vividness by enabling performers to recall the sensations associated with their performance more easily. In addition to this, Holmes and Collins (2001) have recently developed the PETTLEP model of imagery. The PETTLEP model is based on functional equivalence which is the notion that imagery, motor preparation, and motor performance share common brain mechanisms. Further to this, it is proposed that the effectiveness of an imagery intervention will depend on the degree of functional equivalence between the imagery and actual motor performance. The word PETTLEP is an acronym for seven elements that should be taken into account to optimize the effectiveness of imagery; Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Learning, Emotion and Perspective. The physical element encompasses Gould and Damarjian s dynamic imagery proposals. Specifically, Holmes and Collins suggest that in order to maximize functional equivalence, the physical nature of the imagery should be manipulated to most closely approximate motor performance, that is, performers should wear the same clothing to image as they would perform in, involve the relevant sporting implements, and where possible, make the physical movements of the motor performance. Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2006
2 Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity Vol. 1 [2006], No. 1, Article 2 Despite researchers (e.g., Gould & Damarjian, 1996; Holmes & Collins, 2001) supporting the efficacy of dynamic imagery in sport, there is a lack of empirical research actually examining the effectiveness of dynamic imagery on performance and imagery vividness. Having said this, Smith, Wright, Allsopp, and Westhead (in press) provided support for the dynamic aspect of the PETTLEP model. Specifically, participants who made similar movements to actual performance during imagery, and wore sport-specific clothing, displayed greater improvements in performance than those performing imagery while staying still. However, imagery vividness was not examined in this study. Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to examine the contention that dynamic imagery increases the vividness of imagery. Theoretically, an explanation can be proposed for how dynamic imagery might increase imagery vividness. According to Schwartz and Holton (2000), action (i.e., moving a tool or piece of equipment) facilitates imagery through representational updating. Specifically, mental models of tool use help people imagine how one movement causes a second movement within a physical situation, and can also help people convert their bodily actions into updated images. As imagery vividness reflects the richness of the representation displayed in short-term memory (Baddeley & Andrade, 2000), the use of dynamic imagery may aid in the updating of the representation displayed in memory, thereby improving the vividness of the imagery. Furthermore, it could be argued that because vivid images produce greater behavior changes than less vivid images (Lang et al., 1970), the increase in vividness caused by the dynamic imagery might then lead to a subsequent increase in performance (i.e., vividness is a mediating factor). With this proposed link between dynamic imagery, vividness of imagery, and performance, the second aim of the present study was to examine the effects of dynamic imagery on subsequent performance. A final aim of the present study was to examine the effects of dynamic imagery on situational specific self-confidence. The imagery/confidence relationship is well documented (e.g., Callow, Hardy, & Hall, 2001; Moritz, Hall, Martin, & Vadocz, 1996), however research has yet to examine the relationship between dynamic imagery and confidence. Theoretically, a link between confidence and dynamic imagery can be proposed in relationship to self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997). Specifically, dynamic imagery might increase the vividness of an image, and a vivid image will perhaps provide relevant information about performance. This type of information may relate to performance accomplishments, the strongest source of self-efficacy. Thus vividness might be acting as a mediating factor via the amount of relevant information provided. Indeed, Bandura (1997) has theorized that visual imagery can impact upon self-efficacy, and Callow and Waters (2005) have demonstrated that kinesthetic imagery can increase confidence, with the proposal that this http://www.bepress.com/jirspa/vol1/iss1/art2
Callow et al.: Dynamic Imagery, Imagery Vividness, and Skiing 3 increase is caused by the performance accomplishment information provided by kinesthetic imagery. To summarize, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of dynamic imagery on vividness of imagery, performance of a slalom skiing task, and confidence to perform the task. Three hypotheses were forwarded. First, it was hypothesized that dynamic imagery would increase the vividness of a performer s imagery in comparison to imaging while staying still without equipment (static imagery), and second, that this increase in vividness would lead to an improved subsequent performance in comparison to static imagery and a control condition. Finally, it was hypothesized that confidence would be highest in the dynamic imagery condition. Method Participants and task An opportunistic sample of 24 high level junior race standard skiers (n = 18 men, n = 6 women, M age = 13.58 years, SD = 1.32) were recruited for the study, and gave their written consent to participate. All participants were members of a national squad, trained twice weekly at a race training camp and were accustomed to race day procedure. The experimental task was a slalom skiing task, comprising alternating red and blue poles, performed on a ski piste. Participants were asked to ski the course as quickly and accurately as possible. Treatments Three treatment conditions were employed; a dynamic imagery group, a static imagery group and a control group. Participants in the two imagery groups were administered an imagery script instructing them to image themselves completing the course 1. Participants were given descriptions of internal visual imagery, external visual imagery, and kinesthetic imagery, and were instructed to use kinesthetic imagery in combination with whichever visual perspective, or combination of visual perspectives, they found beneficial. On the recommendations of Lang, Kozak, Miller, Levin, and Mclean (1980), the scripts contained both response propositions (such as physiological and movement concomitants of the image) and stimulus propositions (the physical details of the situation), however response propositions were emphasized where appropriate. Participants in the dynamic imagery group were requested to conduct their imagery on the snow while wearing their equipment, and were instructed to adopt their race position during imagery, and move their body from side to side, as if actually racing. The script also focused attention on certain aspects of the course 1 Imagery scripts can be gained from the second author Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2006
4 Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity Vol. 1 [2006], No. 1, Article 2 (e.g., the gradient and terrain of the slope), and how participants muscles would be feeling during the movement. The script also required participants to image the course in three parts, starting with the first section, then the second, then linking the first two sections together, before moving on to the third, linking that with the second, and finally imaging the course as a whole. They were constantly reminded to move their bodies as they imaged the course, and were requested to carry out the imagery at least twice. The static imagery group conducted their imagery away from the snow, in a snow-machine hanger, while seated in a chair, so as to maintain a static position. These participants were administered a similar script to the dynamic imagery group, in terms of focusing attention on certain parts of the course, how their muscles would be feeling during movement, and imaging the course in sections, but were instructed not to move their bodies while imaging. They were also instructed to perform their imagery twice. The control group was given a series of stretches to perform while the other groups performed their imagery. Dependent measures Vividness. To assess vividness, participants in the two imagery groups completed an adapted version of Hale s (1998) imagery evaluation form. The original form contains 12 items concerning aspects of the imagery such as visual, auditory, touch, smell and taste content, the level of kinesthetic feeling experienced, the level of relaxation achieved, the emotional content of the script, the general sensory content, internal control, external control, and the effectiveness of the script. The form is scored on a 10 point likert scale with anchors at 1 (no content), 5 (somewhat vivid and accurate), and 10 (perfectly accurate) for seven of the questions (visual, auditory, taste, touch, smell, kinesthetic content, and general sensory content). For the remaining 5 questions the anchors change slightly depending on the question being asked. For example, the question concerning the emotional content has the following anchors 1 (no emotion), 5 (some emotion), 10 (perfect emotion). The form was adapted slightly for the purposes of the present study. The questions relating to internal and external control were removed, and the question regarding visual content was split into internal visual imagery (IVI) content, and external visual imagery (EVI) content, leaving an 11-item questionnaire. It was felt that the questions relating to the level of relaxation achieved and the effectiveness of script did not accurately reflect aspects of vividness, thus they were not used in the analysis. Subsequently, each participant s vividness score was obtained from the sum of the remaining nine items. Time taken. Time taken to complete the course was recorded using automatic sensors placed across the start and finish line. http://www.bepress.com/jirspa/vol1/iss1/art2
Callow et al.: Dynamic Imagery, Imagery Vividness, and Skiing 5 Confidence. Confidence to complete the task was measured with the single-item to what extent did you feel that the imagery treatment helped your self-confidence to complete the task. The item was scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 10 (greatly) and was included in the postexperimental questionnaire. Procedure Prior to the commencement of the study, participants completed the Movement Imagery Questionnaire Revised (MIQ-R: Hall & Martin, 1997). The MIQ-R comprises 8 items and assesses both visual and kinesthetic imagery ability on a Likert scale from 1 (very hard to see/feel) to 7 (very easy to see/feel). To ensure that all participants had at least a moderate level of imagery ability, participants were required to score 16 or above on each of the subscales of the MIQ-R, indicating that images were at least neither easy nor hard to see or feel (Callow et al., 2001). All participants reached the criteria, and were assigned to one of the three treatment groups. Stratified randomization was used so as to match the number of females across the three groups. This resulted in nine participants being assigned to each of the two imagery groups, and six participants being assigned to the control group. During the testing session, participants were given the opportunity to view and memorize the course; however no discussion between participants was allowed. Participants in the dynamic imagery group remained on the course to conduct their imagery exercises, but did not view the course during the actual imagery session. Participants in the static imagery and control groups were taken to a snow-machine hanger to conduct their respective treatments. Each participant was administered his/her treatment individually. On completion of the imagery treatments, participants in the dynamic and static imagery groups completed Hale s (1998) imagery evaluation form. All participants were then taken to the start of the course. Participants then viewed the course and were allowed time to warm up prior to their run. Following the warm up they were placed in a random order in which to perform the task. The task was then performed individually and participants were not permitted to view the other participants performing. On completion of the task, participants in the imagery groups completed a postexperimental questionnaire. As well as assessing performers confidence to perform the task, the questionnaire measured adherence to the treatment group, how prepared they felt as a result of the intervention, the suitability of the treatments, whether they had used any other strategies to aid performance, and the effectiveness of the script. All items were scored on a Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 10 (greatly). Participants in the control group were asked whether they used any other strategies to aid performance. Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2006
6 Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity Vol. 1 [2006], No. 1, Article 2 Results Reliability analysis and manipulation check The internal consistencies for the visual and kinesthetic subscales of the MIQ-R were calculated using Cronbach s alpha. This analysis revealed internal consistencies of α =.37 and α =.73 for the visual and kinesthetic scales respectively. Deletion of one of the visual imagery items revealed an internal consistency of α =.65, which is below the normal convention of.70 for acceptable internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978). However, because.65 rounds up to.70, and previous studies have used.60 as a criterion (cf. Westre & Weiss, 1991), the visual imagery scale was retained for subsequent analyses, with the caveat that any interpretation of results relating to the scale needs to be viewed with caution. A single-factor multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed on the MIQ-R data, and revealed no between-group differences on the visual and kinesthetic subscales, Wilks λ =.93, F (4, 40) =.36, p >.05, η 2 =.04. Therefore, no particular treatment group had a higher imagery ability than another treatment group. Analysis of the post-experimental questionnaires revealed that all participants were able to adhere to their respective treatments, and no members of the control group reported using any other strategies to aid performance. Consequently, all data were retained for analysis. An independent t-test was used to analyze the vividness scores, and a single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the time data. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was met for both analyses. Vividness The internal consistency of the imagery evaluation form was evaluated using Cronbach s alpha. The analysis revealed the evaluation form had high internal consistency, α =.86. The t-test revealed a significant difference between the two imagery groups, t (16) = -3.28, p <. 005. Inspection of the cell means showed that the dynamic imagery group had higher vividness scores than the static imagery group (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). Three further t-tests, with a bonferroni adjusted alpha level of.017, were employed to analyze differences between the imagery groups on the questions from the vividness form relating to the degree of IVI, EVI and kinesthetic imagery vividness experienced. There were significant differences between the groups on all three questions, IVI, t (16) = -3.41, p <.004; EVI, t (16) = -4.304, p <.004, kinesthetic imagery, t (16) = -3.06, p <.007. In all cases the dynamic imagery group reported higher vividness scores than the static imagery group. http://www.bepress.com/jirspa/vol1/iss1/art2
Callow et al.: Dynamic Imagery, Imagery Vividness, and Skiing 7 Table 1. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for vividness and time taken (in secs) Group IVI EVI Kinesthetic Total Time Dynamic imagery 8.67 (1.22) 8.44 (1.51) imagery 8.56 (1.51) Vividness 70.89 (10.07) taken 31.80 (2.49) Static Imagery 6.00 (2.00) 5.56 (1.33) 6.22 (1.72) 54.00 (11.75) 32.53 (2.87) Control - - - - 35.23 (2.14) Time taken The ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the three groups, F (2, 21) = 3.37, p <.05, η 2 =.24. Follow-up Tukey s tests indicated a significant difference between the control group and the dynamic imagery group. Inspection of the cell means revealed that the dynamic imagery group completed the course significantly quicker than the control group (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). No other differences were significant. Confidence and post-experimental questionnaire Four questions from the post-experimental questionnaire required statistical analysis. These were the questions concerning the extent to which the treatments helped self-confidence to complete the task, how well prepared participants thought they were for the task following the intervention, how suitable they deemed the intervention to be, and the effectiveness of the scripts. These were analyzed using independent t-tests, with a bonferroni adjusted alpha level of.0125. Homogeneity of variance was assumed for each analysis. There was a significant difference between the imagery groups on each of the four questions; confidence, t (16) = -3.59, p <.002; well prepared, t (16) = -3.34, p <.004; suitability, t (16) = -7.71, p <.001; effectiveness of script, t (16) = -4.32, p <.001. Inspection of the cell means revealed that the dynamic imagery group reported higher values than the static imagery group in all cases. Discussion The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of dynamic imagery and static imagery on the vividness of imagery, performance, and confidence. The Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2006
8 Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity Vol. 1 [2006], No. 1, Article 2 results from the vividness data offer support for the first hypothesis, that dynamic imagery would increase imagery vividness in comparison to static imagery. Specifically, the dynamic imagery group experienced the most vivid imagery of the two imagery groups. This finding substantiates the claim made by Gould and Damarjian (1996) that dynamic imagery can increase imagery vividness, and with Holmes and Collins (2001) suggestion, that the physical nature of imagery should be manipulated in order to maximize functional equivalence. Finally, the vividness results lend some support to the theoretical notion that action facilitates the vividness of imagery through the updating of a rich representation in memory (cf. Baddeley & Andrade, 2000). The second hypothesis, that dynamic imagery would improve subsequent performance in comparison to the static and the control group received only partial support. Specifically, the dynamic imagery group completed the course significantly quicker than the control group, but there were no differences between the dynamic and static imagery group, or between the static group and the control group. Thus in line with the PETTLEP model (Holmes & Collins, 2001) it seems that manipulating the physical element of the image so that it most closely approximates actual performance produces significant performance effects, only in comparison to a control condition. However, despite the lack of significance between the dynamic and static group, it is worth noting that the dynamic imagery group completed the course 0.73 seconds quicker than the static imagery group. From an applied perspective, this result is interesting as ski races can be won and lost by hundredths of a second. For example, in the 2002 men s Olympic slalom final, 0.6 seconds separated the first three positions (FIS-Ski results, 2005). A possible explanation for why the second hypothesis was not fully supported can be forwarded. Specifically, researchers (e.g., Shambrook & Bull, 1996) have discussed the notion that psychological interventions can be subject to a temporal lag, with interventions only becoming effective after a certain period of time. In the present study interpretation of the post-experimental data would appear to support the notion of a temporal lag. In particular, the post-experimental data indicated that dynamic imagery was the most effective treatment for the task because participants in the dynamic imagery group felt that their treatment was significantly more suitable for the task, felt significantly more prepared following the intervention, and reported that the imagery helped their confident significantly more than the static imagery group. As preparation (e.g., Thelwell & Maynard, 2002) and confidence (Burton, 1988) are important factors in performance, it could be argued that the superior preparation and confidence of the dynamic group would lead them to perform better than the static group. However, because the performance data was collected immediately after the intervention, the possible delayed differential effect between the dynamic and static imagery http://www.bepress.com/jirspa/vol1/iss1/art2
Callow et al.: Dynamic Imagery, Imagery Vividness, and Skiing 9 groups might not have been captured. It is also possible that the dynamic imagery group improved in terms of their technique, in comparison to the static group, but because only one run was used to assess performance, this improvement in technique may not have had time to impart itself on the participants actual performance 2. Clearly these arguments are speculative in nature, especially given that no assessment of technique was made, however they would be worthy of further investigation. The final hypothesis, that dynamic imagery would have the highest confidence received support. As noted above, the dynamic imagery group reported that the imagery helped their confidence to perform the task significantly more than the static imagery group, thus it could be argued that dynamic group s confidence was the highest. The dynamic imagery group also experienced more vivid visual and kinesthetic imagery than the static imagery group. These results lend support to the suggestions of Bandura (1997), and Callow and Waters (2005) findings that visual and kinesthetic imagery can increase situational specific confidence, and the notion that vividness might be a mediator through which imagery influences confidence. Taken together the results from the present study provide some important applied implications. First, sport psychologists and coaches may wish to promote the use of dynamic imagery in order to increase the vividness of their athletes imagery experiences. Indeed, in order to maximize imagery vividness, imaging while in the sporting situation, wearing sport specific clothing and making movements similar to actual performance seems particularly worthwhile. Second, in comparison to not using imagery, dynamic imagery may also impact upon subsequent performance. Finally, the use of dynamic imagery may also aid confidence prior to performing, possibly through the increased visual and kinesthetic information contained in the image (cf. Callow & Waters, 2005). Some limitations are associated with this study. First, the sample size used was small, with only six participants in the control group. A second, and potentially more serious limitation, comes from the assessment of vividness. The evaluation form used to assess vividness was designed to be used in applied settings and for athletes to assess the vividness of their own imagery experiences. To the best of the present authors knowledge this is the first occasion that this form has been used in a research setting, and so the psychometric properties of this instrument are unknown. Also, the version used in this study was adapted from Hale s (1998) original version. In order to try and provide an assessment of reliability of the form, correlations between the MIQ-R and the form were conducted. These correlations were all non-significant. However, the sample size used for these correlations was small, consequently a Type II error might have 2 We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2006
10 Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity Vol. 1 [2006], No. 1, Article 2 occurred. Also, the non-significant correlations may have been due differences in what the MIQ-R and vividness form measures. Specifically, the vividness form assesses a specific component of imagery ability, namely vividness, whereas the MIQ-R assesses imagery ability in general (cf. Hall, 2001). Thus, due to this difference, the lack of correlation is, perhaps, not surprising. Indeed, Dean and Morris (2003) suggest the lack of relationship between imagery vividness, as measured by the vividness of visual imagery questionnaire (Marks, 1973), and the ability to image a mental rotation task found in their study was due to different aspects of imagery ability being assessed. In support of the form, it allows for the measurement of vividness of specific imagery/modality experiences. Additionally, in the present study, the differences in reported vividness between the two imagery groups were fairly large, indicating that the form has the potential to discriminate between different imagery conditions. Another limitation of the study concerns the lack of a baseline measure of performance being obtained prior to participants completing the task. It is possible that participant skiing ability had an impact on the results. However, because stratified randomization (by gender) was employed, any systematic bias in skiing ability across groups would have been eliminated. A number of future research directions can be forwarded by the present study. First, replication of this design using a larger sample and more data collection points would help to develop a more coherent picture of the effects obtained in the present study, and provide the opportunity to explore the notion of a temporal lag. This proposed temporal lag could be explored if other aspects of performance, such as technique or the amount of errors, were measured. This is because these aspects might be influenced by imagery before performance indicators such as time taken. Second, assessing the reliability of Hale s (1998) vividness evaluation form with a larger sample size, especially in combination with more objective measures of vividness such as EEG (cf. Marks & Isaac, 1995) would be worthwhile. The result that dynamic imagery significantly increased confidence to perform is an interesting finding that warrants further attention, in particular with reference to the notion that vividness might be a mediating factor. It would also be relevant to examine whether the findings from this study transfer to other sports such as gymnastics and canoe slalom. Indeed, anecdotal reports of dynamic imagery use in canoe slalom have reported beneficial results (see Callow & Hardy, 2005). An examination of whether these findings can be replicated in elite athletes would seem prudent, as only high level juniors were used in this study. Finally, given the research by Hardy and colleagues (Hardy, 1997; Hardy & Callow, 1999; White & Hardy, 1995) suggesting that the task characteristics may moderate the effectiveness of imagery perspectives, and that for tasks such as slalom skiing an internal visual imagery perspective may be more beneficial, future research may wish to prescribe http://www.bepress.com/jirspa/vol1/iss1/art2
Callow et al.: Dynamic Imagery, Imagery Vividness, and Skiing 11 particular imagery perspectives to participants engaging in dynamic and static imagery. To summarize, the results of this study suggest that the use of dynamic imagery (movement during imagery whilst holding and manipulating a piece of sports equipment) has positive effects on the vividness of the imagery experienced, and has some effect on the subsequent performance of the task. Future research directions have been highlighted that would help to provide a greater understanding of the effectiveness of dynamic imagery in sporting situations. References Baddeley, A. D., & Andrade, J. (2000). Working memory and the vividness of imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 126-145. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Company. Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Re-examining the elusive anxiety-performance relationship. Journal of Sport Psychology, 10, 45-61. Callow, N., & Hardy, L. (2005). A critical analysis of applied imagery research. In D. Hackfort, J. Duda & R. Lidor (Eds.), The handbook of research in applied sport and exercise psychology: International perspectives (pp. 21-42). Virginia: Fitness Information Technology. Callow, N., Hardy, L., & Hall, C. (2001). The effects of a motivational generalmastery imagery intervention on the sport confidence of high-level badminton players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 389-400. Callow, N., & Waters, A. (2005). The effect of kinesthetic imagery on the sport confidence of flat-race horse jockeys. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 443-459. Dean, G.M., & Morris, P.E. (2003). The relationship between self-reports of imagery and spatial ability. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 245-273. FIS-Ski results. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2005, from http://www.fisski.com/uk/disciplines/alpineskiing/results.html Gould, D., & Damarjian, N. (1996). Imagery training for peak performance. In J. L. Van Raalte, & B. W. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring Sport and Exercise Psychology (pp.25-50). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Hale, B. (1998). Imagery training: A guide for sports coaches and performers. Leeds: The National Coaching Foundation. Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2006
12 Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity Vol. 1 [2006], No. 1, Article 2 Hall, C. R. (2001). Imagery in sport and exercise. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 529-549). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hall, C. R., & Martin, K. A. (1997). Measuring movement imagery abilities: a revision of the movement imagery questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imagery, 21, 143-154. Hardy, L. (1997). The Coleman Roberts Griffith address: Three myths about applied consultancy work. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 277-294. Hardy, L., & Callow, N. (1999). Efficacy of external and internal visual imagery perspectives for the enhancement of performance on tasks in which form is important. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 95-112. Holmes, P. S., & Collins, D. J. (2001). The PETTLEP approach to motor imagery: A functional equivalence model for sport psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 60-83. Isaac, A. (1992). Mental practice does it work in the field? The Sport Psychologist, 6, 192-198. Lang, P. J., Kozak, M., Miller, G. A., Levin, D. N., & McLean, A. (1980). Emotional imagery: Conceptual structure and pattern of somatic-visceral responses. Psychophysiology, 17, 179-192. Lang, P. J., Melamed, B. G., & Hart, J. D. (1970). A psychological analysis of fear modification using an automated desensitisation procedure. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 76, 220-234. Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17-24. Marks, D. F., & Isaac, A. (1995). Topographical distribution of EEG activity accompanying visual and motor imagery in vivid and non-vivid imagers. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 271-282. Moritz, S., Hall, C., Martin, K., & Vadocz, E. (1996). What are confident athletes imaging? An examination of image content. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 171-179. Murphy, S. M., & Jowdy, D. P. (1992). Imagery and mental practice. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 221-250). Champaign Il: Human Kinetics. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2 nd ed.). Champaign Il: Leisure Press. Ryan, E. D., & Simons, J. (1982). Efficacy of mental imagery in enhancing mental rehearsal of motor skills. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 41-51. Schwartz, D. L., & Holton, D. L. (2000). Tool use and the effect of action on the imagination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1655-1665. http://www.bepress.com/jirspa/vol1/iss1/art2
Callow et al.: Dynamic Imagery, Imagery Vividness, and Skiing 13 Shambrook, C. J., & Bull, S. J. (1996). The use of single-case research design to investigate the efficacy of imagery training. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 27-43. Smith, D., Wright, C., Allsopp, A., & Westhead, H. (in press). It's all in the mind: PETTLEP-based imagery and sports performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. Thelwell, R. C. & Maynard, I. W. (2002). A triangulation of findings of three studies investigating repeatable good performance in professional cricketers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 247-268. Vealey, R. S., & Greenleaf, C. A. (2001). Seeing is believing: Understanding and using imagery in sport. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4 th Ed.) (pp 247-283). California: Mayfield. Westre, K. R., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and group cohesion in high school football teams. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 41-54. White, A., & Hardy, L. (1995). Use of different imagery perspectives on the learning and performance of different motor skills. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 169-180. Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2006