The Sport Psychologist, 2011, 25, 18-31
© 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Combining Self Talk and Performance
Feedback: Their Effectiveness
With Adult Tennis Players
Alexander T. Latinjak and Miguel Torregrosa
Universidad Autonóma de Barcelona
Jordi Renom
Universidad de Barcelona
The main purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of a strategy that
combined self talk and performance feedback. Therefore, three groups of adult
tennis players performed a forehand groundstroke task. The first group (n = 16)
applied an instructional self talk and self feedback combination, the second (n =
16) used regular instructional self talk, and the third (n = 16) performed without
any specific aid. The hypothesis was that the performance and concentration scores
of both self talk groups would improve from the pretest to the posttest, while the
scores from the control group would remain unchanged. The analysis of variance
with repeated measures confirmed this hypothesis. Further, the players who used
self feedback perceived the effectiveness of their intervention to be significantly
higher compared with the other intervention group. Overall, the combination of
self talk and feedback seems to be an alternative to the original instructional self
talk intervention.
Self talk (ST) is one of the most commonly used strategies in sport psychology (Chroni, Perkos, & Theodorakis, 2007), and in sport psychology literature the
study of ST has been growing steadily (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Goltsios, &
Theodorakis, 2008). ST is a cognitive technique that Hackfort and Schwenkmezger
(1993) defined as “a dialogue (through which) the individual interprets feelings and
perceptions, regulates and changes evaluations and convictions, and gives himself
instructions and reinforcement” (p. 355). Several studies support the effectiveness
of ST in different sports such as basketball (e.g., Perkos, Theodorakis, & Chroni,
2002), golf (e.g., Malouff & Murphy, 2006), soccer (e.g., Papaioannou, Ballon,
Theodorakis, & Auwelle, 2004), or tennis (e.g., Ziegler, 1987).
Research has identified two broad dimensions with regard to the purposes ST
serves, that is instructional and motivational (Zinsser, Bunker, & Williams, 2006).
Instructional ST focuses on technical, tactical or kinaestetic aspects of task execution; whereas motivational ST aims at increasing effort and self-confidence, and
Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom are with the Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
18
Self Talk and Performance Feedback 19
at creating positive moods. Hatzigeorgiadis, Theodorakis and Zourbanos (2004)
found that instructional ST had a greater impact on performance than motivational
ST in a water polo task requiring precision, and that only motivational ST and not
instructional ST had an effect over performance in a water polo task that required
power. Consequently, they proposed that the relative impact of ST on measured
outcomes depended on the content of the cues that were employed. Furthermore, the
selection of adequate cue content—regarding the task and the individual—would
be crucial for increasing ST efficacy.
There exists increasingly solid evidence supporting the beneficial effects of ST
on performance (Hardy, 2006), but ST has also proven to improve athletes’ concentration. Landin and Hebert (1999) used an instructional ST strategy to enhance
volley ability in female college tennis players. Not only did participants increase
accuracy and movement patterns, but also they reported that ST had helped them
to gain and to maintain an appropriate attentional focus. Similarly, Latinjak, Torregrosa and Renom (2009) used a self-determined ST strategy with adult tennis
players. The intervention helped them to increase their attentional focus on the
task and to reduce their attentional focus on the outcome of the task execution,
besides increasing their levels of performance satisfaction. Hatzigeorgiadis et al.
(2004) found out via both water-polo experiments mentioned above, that besides
improving performance, instructional and motivational ST interventions reduced
interfering thoughts as well. Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos and Theodorakis (2007)
used attentional and anxiety control ST cues with female swimming class students
in an experimental water polo precision task. The results revealed that both cues
mostly assisted concentration on the task.
The use of ST was promoted as a key component of successful sports performance, and ST is often integrated as an integral part of psychological skill training
(Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996). Moreover, research has generally supported the
combination of ST with other psychological strategies, such as imagery, centering,
relaxation, goal setting or rationalization and cognitive reconstruction (Rogerson
& Hrycaiko, 2002; Thomas, Maynard, & Hanton, 2007). Similarly, Cutton and
Landin (2007) studied the effects of ST and feedback (FB) on learning the tennis
forehand. The role of knowledge of performance FB, that is information provided to
learners about their movement pattern, during motor skill practice has considerable
theoretical and empirical support (e.g., Schmidt & Lee, 2005). Yet, typical sport
settings often limit instruction due to class size or time constraints. Thus, students
may practice with neither a referent for detection and correction, nor specific movement parameter value information. Consequently, Cutton and Landin suggested that
strategies of self-directed attentional focusing such as ST may be critical in getting
students actively involved in the learning process. In their study, they hypothesized
that in a class setting, active student involvement in the learning process, through
the use of ST, would promote greater achievement regardless of the presence or
absence of knowledge of performance FB. Their results partly supported their
hypothesis. In terms of accuracy scores, a group that used ST and received FB and
a group that used only ST without receiving FB did not differ significantly from a
group that did not use ST but received FB. However, there were significant differences in terms of movement sequence scores, indicating the specific advantages
of participants that used ST. The movement sequence scores were the result of the
evaluation of the players’ movement pattern sequence by four trained assistants
20 Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom
(see, for a review, Cutton & Landin, 2007). The authors finally concluded that
increasing the participants’ active involvement in the learning process was more
beneficial than the sole provision of knowledge of performance FB.
Based on the findings of Cutton and Landin (2007), this paper took into consideration the importance of knowledge of performance FB so as to use ST to help
players provide their own FB when coach instructions is unavailable. Summing up,
the current study was intended to design and apply a ST strategy that helps adult
tennis players give themselves evaluative FB after stroke execution. The central
idea of the ST intervention should contain knowledge of performance information,
and the players should use self statements after stroke execution so as to provide
themselves with positive or negative FB in relation to the central idea. We thought
that this combination of ST and FB might be helpful to the players because it would
provide them with execution related information and because it would help them
supervise the application of this information during task execution. Meanwhile, the
secondary task load caused by instructional ST could be reduced using self feedback
as the verbalization takes place once the primary task is finished. Thus, this study
sought to compare players who use the ST—FB combination, to players who use
regular instructional ST, and to players who perform without any specific aid. The
hypothesis, based on the increasingly solid evidence in favor of the beneficial effects
of ST on performance (Hardy, 2006) and the results from Cutton and Landin, was
that both intervention groups would improve their performance and concentration
scores from the pretest to the posttest, while no changes were expected for the
group without intervention. In addition, this study explored the differences between
both intervention groups in terms of performance and concentration scores; and
compared the players’ subjective experience while applying both ST interventions.
Method
Participants
The participants were 48 male leisure tennis players (mean age = 36.04 years; SD =
6.81). They were recruited from a local tennis club situated in the area Barcelona,
Spain. The participants had been playing tennis for 10.46 years (SD = 5.74) and
practiced an average of 2.71 hr per week (SD = .90). At the time of the experiment,
and during the prior two years, players did not take part in any regular training
program that involved professional instruction. We chose players who did not take
part in any regular tennis lessons to replicate the common situation in which the
instructions of a coach are not available. Further, we selected male adult players
for this study because younger players usually take part in regular training sessions
and because the female population was limited in size at the experimental location.
Instruments and Measures
The experimental sessions took place on regular standard-sized tennis courts, and
players used racquets of their choice. A ball machine (Lobster Elite Freedom),
placed on the baseline opposite the player, was used to feed the balls to the players. The experimental task consisted of a simple forehand cross court exercise. The
aim of the task was to hit the twenty balls fed by the ball machine into the right
Self Talk and Performance Feedback 21
backcourt area of the opposite side. The size of the target area was 22.62 m2. Each
player performed the experimental task eight times: twice to warm-up, twice for
the pretest, twice to get familiar with the intervention, and twice for the posttest.
The players had a possible scoring range from 0 to 20 in each assessment.
After each test trial, the players answered some postperformance questions. To
complete the objective measure of performance with the players’ subjective impression upon the past execution, we asked them to rate their degree of performance
satisfaction on a 11-point scale, 0 being not satisfied at all and 10 being completely
satisfied. This way of measuring the players’ performance satisfaction is similar
to the one used by other authors in tennis (Butt, Weinberg, & Horn, 2003; García,
Cervelló, Jiménez, Iglesias, & Santos-Rosa, 2005). It was of further interest to
gather information related to the players’ perceived levels of concentration. Thus,
we asked them to rate their concentration throughout the past trial on an 11-point
scale, 0 being the lowest possible level of concentration and 10 being the highest possible level of concentration. In addition, they rated on two other 11-point
scales—from not at all to completely—(a) the degree to which they had perceived
the application of the self instructions as difficult, and (b) the degree to which they
had perceived the intervention as effective. The purpose of these two questions was
to collect some information about the players’ subjective experience in regard to
the application of ST interventions. Finally, we asked the players to rate the degree
to which they had applied their self instructions throughout the trial on a 6-point
scale: 1 (not at all), 2 (on hardly any stroke), 3 (seldom), 4 (often), 5 (on almost
every stroke), and 6 (on every stroke).
Procedure
Participation was voluntary, and we informed the players that they could withdraw
at any time if they wanted to. All participants agreed to participate and signed an
informed consent document. Before the experimental session, we randomly assigned
the participants into three groups: the first group used ST with performance FB
during the last four trials (STF), the second group used regular instructional ST for
the last four trials (IST), and the third group was told to perform as usual throughout
all trials (CON). The descriptive data for each group players are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1 Descriptive Data of Every Group Players
Group
N
Age
Experience
(years)
Practice
(hours/week)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
STF
16
35.50
6.59
11.75
7.96
2.75
.68
IST
16
37.00
5.56
9.88
3.32
2.87
.96
CON
16
35.63
8.33
9.75
5.11
2.50
1.03
Note. A one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant group differences for age, experience
and practice.
22 Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom
The first author called each participant on the phone to arrange a one-hour
experimental session at their convenience in their usual tennis club. We informed all
players that during this session they would have to perform a simple tennis exercise
and to answer questions about their performance. Further, we did not inform the
players of both intervention groups about the ST interventions until they arrived
at the court. Each player spent one session alone with the first author. The players
of the control group could opt for a second session to receive the ST intervention,
once the experiment had finished. Each session was organized in three parts: (a) the
players’ personal warm-up, (b) the eight above mentioned trials of the experimental task, and (c) final questions and explanations about the experimental session.
Between each repetition of the experimental task, the players got a five-minute break
to get some water and rest. After the second pretest trial, the players got five extra
minutes. The researcher used these five minutes to introduce the intervention to
the players of both intervention groups, and to ask the players of the control group
about their experience during the last four trials. Once the players had finished all
eight trials, we reminded them not to talk to other players about the session until
the experiment had finished.
ST Conditions. The intervention groups used two different ways of applying ST.
Even though the ST used in both groups was quite self-determined, the guidelines
given by the researcher were intended to lead to a rather instructional ST. This type
of ST was favored because it was expected to be more effective for tasks requiring
precision (Theodorakis, Weinberg, Natsis, Douma, & Kazakas, 2000); and because
it has been proven to be helpful to increase the players’ concentration on the task
(Landin & Hebert, 1999). After completing the baseline assessment, the researcher
asked the participants of both intervention groups to name one execution-related
instruction they would give themselves to enhance their own performance. The
central ideas of both intervention groups are displayed in Table 2.
The STF group was instructed to focus on the task element highlightened by
the central idea during their task execution. Right after each shot, they had to use
a positive or negative self-statement to give themselves positive or negative FB
regarding the technical instruction they had previously chosen. Thus, cue-words
such as yes, good or ok followed shots in which the players considered they had
successfully applied their instruction. When they considered that they had not
applied successfully their instruction, the cue-words were no or bad. For example,
if one player had chosen ‘bend your knees’ as his central idea, he was asked to
concentrate on bending his knees throughout the task execution. Hence, after each
stroke in which he considered that he had actually bent his knees properly, he had
to say out loud an affirmative cue-word such as yes, and after each stroke in which
he thought he had not, he had to say out a negative cue-word such as no.
The researcher asked the participants of the IST group to phrase their central
ideas as working instructional cue-words. Following recommendations of Landin
(1994), verbal instructions had to be brief—either one word or a short phrase—
and logically associated to both the task and the central idea. The players had two
moments to choose from to say out loud their verbal cue: As soon as the ball left the
machine, or at the moment the racquet hit the ball. Their choice had to be directly
related to the nature of the self-statement. Cue words linked to the preparation of
the stroke, for example ‘steps’, had to be articulated as the ball left the machine,
Self Talk and Performance Feedback 23
Table 2 Both Intervention Group Players’ Central Ideas
STF group
IST group
Player
Central idea
Player
Central idea
1
Hit the ball with spin
17
Do not lose sight of the ball
2
Do not let the ball drop
18
Do not lose sight of the ball
3
Get into the proper position
19
Use small steps to adjust
4
Finish above your shoulder
20
Get into the proper position
5
Get into the proper position
21
Use your bodyweight
6
Bend your knees
22
Do not lose sight of the ball
7
Do not let the ball drop
23
Use small steps to adjust
8
Keep distance to the ball
24
Do not let the ball drop
9
Hit the ball in front of you
body
25
Do not lose sight of the ball
10
Complete your swing
26
Hit the ball with spin
11
Do not lose sight of the ball
27
Do not let the ball drop
12
Get into the proper position
28
Use small steps to adjust
13
The left foot in front
29
Do not wait for the ball
14
Do not lose sight of the ball
30
Finish above your shoulder
15
Do not lose sight of the ball
31
Use your bodyweight
16
Finish above your shoulder
32
Hit the ball with spin
and cue words linked to the execution of the stroke, for example ‘spin’, had to be
articulated at the moment the racquet hit the ball. Thus, the instruction would adjust
to the natural rhythm of the task and would not disrupt the players’ movement. In
both groups, the central ideas and the verbal cues had to be the same throughout
all four intervention trials.
Results
Manipulation Check
Two issues were taken into consideration as for the integrity of the experimental
conditions: on the one hand, the use of self instructions during the familiarization phase and, on the other hand, the use of self instructions during the posttest.
24 Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom
Regarding the former, examination of the means revealed that participants in both
ST groups made adequate use of their self instructions during the familiarization
phase. The means for both trials were 5.44 (SD =.73) and 5.44 (SD =.73) respectively in the STF group; and 5.37 (SD =.89) and 5.44 (SD = .96) respectively in the
IST group. Moreover, none of the players in both groups had rated his application
of ST lower than often. Regarding the second issue, examination of the means
revealed that participants in both intervention groups had made adequate use of
self instructions during the posttest assessment. The means for both trials were
5.44 (SD = .63) and 5.69 (SD =.48) respectively in the STF group; and 5.31 (SD =
1.01) and 5.88 (SD =.34) respectively in the IST group. Again, none of the players
had rated his application of ST lower than often.
Within Assessment and Baseline Differences
As described in the procedures section, within the pretest and posttest we measured
accuracy scores, performance satisfaction scores and concentration scores during
two trials. To test for differences within each assessment for all three measures,
we calculated paired-samples t tests for the total sample. For the pretest the results
revealed that there were no accuracy score differences between both trials, t (47)
= .08, p = .936; no performance satisfaction score differences between both trials,
t (47) = .67, p = .508; and no concentration score differences between both trials,
t (47) = .61, p = .547. Similar results were obtained for the posttest; for accuracy
scores t (47) = .88, p = .384; for performance satisfaction scores, t (47) = .78, p =
.442; and for concentration scores, t (47) = .68, p = .497. Furthermore, during the
posttest we also measured the intervention groups players’ perception of the difficulty and efficiency of the ST intervention. The results of the paired-samples t tests
revealed no significant differences between both trials of the posttest for difficulty,
t (31) = 1.65, p = .109, and effectiveness, t (31) = 1.65, p = .110. Subsequently, we
averaged the scores of both trials within each assessment to provide overall pretest
and posttest scores for all five measures.
Baseline differences were examined to ensure that there were no significant
differences between the three groups in accuracy scores, performance satisfaction
scores and concentration scores before the intervention. We performed this test to
grant the meaningfulness of the repeated measures that would follow. A one-way
ANOVA revealed no significant Group effect for accuracy scores, F (2,45) = .71, p
= .499; performance satisfaction scores, F (2,45) = .98, p = .382; and concentration
scores, F (2,45) = .90, p = .414.
Main Analysis
The players’ scores on accuracy, performance satisfaction and concentration were
examined using a 3 (Group) × 2 (Test) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated
measures on the last factor. We also examined measures of size effect (partial η2)
for all significant effects. Based on the criteria outlined by Kirk (1996), η2 values of
.010, .059, and .138 were taken as corresponding to small, medium, and large effect
sizes, respectively. After the overall repeated-measures ANOVA, we ran dependent
samples t tests to check for improvements between the pretest and the posttest.
In addition, we added pairwise comparisons to seek for differences between the
Self Talk and Performance Feedback 25
three groups during the posttest. Finally, we used independent-samples t tests to
compare the players’ perception of the interventions’ difficulty and effectiveness
on the posttest in the STF group and in the IST group.
Accuracy Scores. The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant Group
x Time interaction, F (1,45) = 5.87, η2 = .21, p = .005. The interaction pattern and
the mean scores for the three groups are displayed in Figure 1. Follow-up pairwise
comparisons showed that accuracy improved for the IST group (p = .004) and the
STF group (p < .001), but not for the CON group (p = .474). In addition, follow-up
pairwise comparisons showed that during the posttest the IST group obtained higher
accuracy scores than the control group (p = .010).
Figure 1 — Accuracy scores in the pretest and the posttest for the three groups.
Performance Satisfaction Scores. The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a
significant Group x Time interaction, F (2,45) = 10.43, η2 = .32, p < .001. The
interaction pattern and the mean scores for the three groups are displayed in Figure
2. Follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that performance satisfaction improved
for the IST group (p < .001) and the STF group (p = .001), but not for the CON
group (p = .839). In addition, follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that during
the posttest the STF group (p < .001) and the IST group (p < .001) obtained higher
performance satisfaction scores than the control group.
Concentration Scores. The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed another
significant Group x Time interaction, F (2,45) = 14.48, η2 = .39, p < .001. The
interaction pattern and the mean scores for the three groups are displayed in Figure
3. Follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that concentration improved for the
IST group (p = .036) and the STF group (p < .001), but not for the CON group
Figure 2 — Performance satisfaction scores in the pretest and the posttest for the three
groups.
Figure 3 — Concentration scores in the pretest and the posttest for the three groups.
26
Self Talk and Performance Feedback 27
(p = .362). In addition, follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that during the
posttest the STF group (p < .001) and the IST group (p < .001) obtained higher
concentration scores than the control group.
Perceived Difficulty and Effectiveness. Descriptive statistics for difficulty
and efficacy are presented in Table 3. We analyzed the scores on difficulty and
effectiveness using two independent-samples t tests. There was a significant
difference between the STF group and the IST group for perceived effectiveness,
t (30) = 2.53, p = .017; but no significant difference for perceived difficulty, t (30)
= .47, p = .643. These results indicate that the players of the STF group perceived
their intervention as more effective than the players of the IST group.
Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations for the Intervention
Groups for Perceived Difficulty and Effectiveness
of the SelfTalk Intervention
Group
Difficulty
Efficacy
M
SD
M
SD
STF
2.88
1.52
8.28
1.37
IST
3.09
1.08
7.22
.98
Discussion
The main purpose of the current study was to examine the efficacy of a strategy that
combined ST and performance FB. Therefore, we compared players who used the
combination of ST and FB in terms of performance and concentration to players
who used regular instructional ST and to players who performed as usual, without
any specific aid. The hypothesis was that both intervention groups would improve
their performance and concentration scores from the pretest to the posttest, while
we expected no changes for the group without intervention. Further, we explored
the differences between both intervention groups in terms of performance and
concentration scores. Finally, this study also explored and compared the players’
subjective experience applying both ST interventions. The results of the study confirmed the working hypothesis. The players of both intervention groups improved
significantly from the pretest to the posttest in terms of all three measures, while
no improvement was revealed for the CON group. Further, during the posttest, the
players of the IST group obtained significantly higher accuracy scores than the
players of the CON group, and the players of both ST groups scored higher on
performance satisfaction than those of the CON group. We obtained similar results
for concentration scores, with both ST groups scoring higher than the CON group.
Moreover, whereas both ST groups had similar scores on perceived ST application difficulty, the players of the STF group perceived the effectiveness of their
intervention as significantly higher compared with the perception of the players
of the IST group.
28 Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom
These results gave further support to the increasingly solid evidence regarding
the effectiveness of ST in terms of performance improvement (Hardy, 2006), and
they were consistent with the results of Cutton and Landin (2007). These authors
found that two ST groups—one that used ST and received FB and one that used
only ST without receiving any FB—differed significantly in terms of movement
sequence scores from a group that did not use any ST but had received some FB.
Nevertheless, Cutton and Landin used external FB whereas the current study
taught the players to provide themselves with performance FB. Hence, the players
could use the FB even though the coaches’ instructions were unavailable. Further,
in this study we also used self-determined ST. Even though in ST literature it is
common that cue-words are administered to players (e.g., Landin & Hebert, 1999),
the current study offered neither cue-words nor lists of cue-words to the players.
We intended to replicate a common situation in which instructions are unavailable and to prevent any confusion between the effects of ST and the effects of
augmented knowledge of performance. As for the effects of self-determined ST
on performance, Hardy (2006) noted that there had not been a direct comparison
as to whether assigned or freely-determined ST was most effective. However, he
inferred from Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Cognitive Evaluation Theory that ST freely
determined by the athlete might have the greatest motivational influence. Still, it
should be taken into account that the central ideas chosen by the players neither had
to be technically correct nor adjusted to their own needs. In our study, for example,
central ideas that focused on what not to do (e.g., Do not lose sight of the ball) rather
than on what to do (e.g., Bend your knees) might have been less adequate as the
performance enhancing instruction was occasionally less than properly highlighted.
The results of this study also support previous findings that had reported the
beneficial effects of ST on players concentration (e.g., Hebert & Landin, 1999).
Both ST groups and not the CON group improved significantly in terms of concentration. We suggested that it was possible that verbalizing the cue word after
the stroke could reduce the secondary task load caused by regular instructional ST.
Thus, the players of the STF group would have had larger cognitive resources at
their disposal than the players of the IST group. As our results neither supported nor
disproved this suggestion, future studies should address this issue. At a theoretical
level, Landin (1994) and Nideffer (1993) supported an attentional interpretation
of ST effects. Both regarded ST as an effective strategy for directing or redirecting
attention to task relevant cues. Similarly, Hardy (2006) noted that the use of ST,
and in particular the use of cue-words, might help an athlete not only to switch
the focus of attention, but also to maintain an appropriate focus of attention on a
specific sports task. However, he mentioned that it was quite improbable that the
influence of ST on performance could be explained appropriately by the possible
effect of ST on the athlete’s attention per se.
The results obtained in terms of accuracy scores, performance satisfaction
scores and concentration scores indicated that the combination of ST and FB had
similar effects compared with the traditional instructional ST intervention. The
examination of the subjective impressions regarding the application of both interventions revealed that the players considered the ST with FB intervention to be
significantly more effective. No differences were obtained for application difficulty.
Self Talk and Performance Feedback 29
Overall, the combination of ST and FB seemed to be an agreeable alternative to the
original instructional ST intervention, and it might even have some motivational
advantages, as players seemed to rate it as more effective, than the original strategy.
At this point, issues concerning the limitations of the study should be raised.
This study used single-item measures for performance satisfaction, concentration,
perceived difficulty and perceived effectiveness. We preferred these measures to
the use of questionnaires as they allowed for repeated data collection on the tennis
court. Nevertheless, when interpreting the results of the single-item measures
it should be taken into account that no values of reliability or validity could be
offered. In regard to the accuracy measure, there might be a slight possibility of
biased observations, as the researcher knew the condition the players were in. Still,
whenever in doubt whether a player’s shot had entered the target zone or not, the
researcher could check the mark the ball had left on the clay court.
Other limitations in relation to the design of the current study were the size
of the sample used, the type of objective measures of performance employed, and
the limited control over the participants’ use of ST during the warm-up and pretest.
Future studies should use larger sample sizes to obtain more reliable results. The
measure of performance used only offers a limited vision of the players’ performance. Future studies should take into consideration the measures of ball speed
or the analysis of the technical execution to gain a greater insight into the players’
performance. Moreover, due to the lack of experimental control in regard to the
use of any ST different to the one used during the intervention and in the intervention groups, the results of this study should be taken with some caution. Finally,
future studies should take into consideration using more extended training for the
acquisition of the ST. Theodorakis et al. (2000) suggested that previously trained ST
might have a larger effect on players’ performance. Recent studies found evidence
supporting this idea (Latinjak, Torregrosa, & Renom, 2010).
The existing literature supports the beneficial effects of ST on performance
and concentration. The results of this study were consistent with these findings.
Moreover, this study has presented an alternative use of ST, offering a different
approach to ST for applied sport psychology. This new ST strategy seemed to be
at least as effective as the original ST interventions. This study raised some issues
in terms of future lines of research. Firstly, ST strategies similar to those used in
this study need to be developed and tested with other athletes in different sports.
Secondly, new and different ST strategies should be developed and tested to offer
to players, coaches and sport psychologists a variety of possibilities related to
the use of ST. The combination of FB and ST used in this study seemed to be an
alternative to the traditional ST interventions, and it might even help applied sport
psychologists and tennis coaches teach their students to get more actively involved
in their learning process, to give themselves adequate technical feedback, and to
positively solve situations in which the coach feedback is unavailable.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by grant Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
(SEJ2007/64528/PSIC).
30 Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom
References
Butt, J., Weinberg, R., & Horn, T. (2003). The intensity and directional interpretation of
anxiety: Fluctuations throughout competition and relationship to performance. The
Sport Psychologist, 17, 35–54.
Chroni, S., Perkos, S., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). Functions and preferences of motivational
and instructional ST for adolescent basketball players. Athletic Insight: The Online
Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 1–13.
Cutton, D., & Landin, D. (2007). The effects of self-talk and augmented feedback on learning
the tennis forehand. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 288–303.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
García, T., Cervelló, E.M., Jiménez, R., Iglesias, D., & Santos-Rosa, F.J. (2005). La implicación motivacional de jugadores jóvenes de fútbol y su relación con el estado de flow
y la satisfacción en competición [Predictive variables related to goal involvement in
soccer players and the relationship between goal involvement, flow state and competition satisfaction]. Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 14(1), 21–42.
Hackfort, D., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1993). Anxiety. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K.
Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 328–364). New York:
Macmillan.
Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: A critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 7, 81–97.
Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for
sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester: Wiley.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Theodorakis, Y., & Zourbanos, N. (2004). Self-Talk in the swimming
pool: The effects of self-talk on thought content and performance on water-polo tasks.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 138–150.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Goltsios, C., & Theodorakis, Y. (2008). Investigating
the functions of self talk: The effects of motivational self talk on self-efficacy and
performance in young tennis players. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 458–471.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). The moderating effects of selftalk content on self-talk functions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 240–251.
Kirk, R.E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 56, 746–759.
Landin, D. (1994). The role of verbal cues in skill learning. Quest, 46, 299–313.
Landin, D., & Hebert, E.P. (1999). The influence of self talk on the performance of skilled
female tennis players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 263–282.
Latinjak, A., Torregrosa, M., & Renom, J. (2009). Aplicando el auto-habla al tenis: Su
impacto sobre el foco atencional y el rendimiento [Applying self-speech to tennis:
Its impact on the atentional focus and performance]. Cuadernos de Psicología del
Deporte, 9(2), 19–29.
Latinjak, A., Torregrosa, M., & Renom, J. (2010). El papel de la exigencia de la tarea en la
aplicación del auto-habla y su efecto en tenistas de ocio [The influence of task exigency
on a self talk application and on its effect on recreational tennis players]. Revista de
Psicología del Deporte, 19(2).
Malouff, J., & Murphy, C. (2006). Effects of self-instructions on sport performance. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 29, 159–168.
Nideffer, R. (1993). Attention control training. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & I.K. Tennant
(Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 127–170). New York: Macmillan.
Papaioannou, A., Ballon, F., Theodorakis, Y., & Yves Vanden, A. (2004). Combined effect
of goal setting and self-talk in performance of a soccer-shooting task. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 98, 89–99.
Self Talk and Performance Feedback 31
Perkos, S., Theodorakis, Y., & Chroni, S. (2002). Enhancing performance and skill acquisition in novice basketball players with instructional self talk. The Sport Psychologist,
16, 368–383.
Rogerson, L.J., & Hrycaiko, D.W. (2002). Enhancing competitive performance of ice
hockey goaltenders using centering and self-talk. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 14–26.
Schmidt, R.A., & Lee, T.D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis, P., Douma, E., & Kazakas, P. (2000). The effects of
motivational versus instructional self talk on improving motor performance. The Sport
Psychologist, 14, 253–272.
Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Hanton, S. (2007). Intervening with athletes during the time
leading up to competition: Theory to practice II. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
19, 398–418.
Ziegler, S. (1987). Effects of stimulus cueing on the acquisition of groundstrokes by beginning tennis players. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 405–411.
Zinsser, N., Bunker, L., & Williams, J.M. (2006). Cognitive techniques for building confidence and enhancing performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology:
Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed., pp. 349–381). New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc, Higher Education.