ABSTRACT
EFFECTS OF AN IMAGERY TRAINING PROGRAM ON FREE THROW SELFEFFICACY AND PERFORMANCE OF HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL
PLAYERS
By Justin J. Klug
Self-efficacy is defined as the judgments of one’s capabilities to organize and
execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances (Bandura,
1997). Although a great deal of time in sport is spent on developing the physical skills,
more and more coaches are beginning to preach the importance of mental preparation to
their athletes and are learning important mental strategies that can help their team (Cote,
Salmela, & Russell, 1995; Grove, 1996). This investigation examines the effects of a
systematic imagery training program on the free throw performance and self-efficacy of
high school basketball players. Individual video tapes were used to enhance the
effectiveness of the imagery training. Each athlete also utilized a personal pre-shot
routine which included relaxation and a personal focus phrase to help eliminate
distractions. Results include changes in imagery ability, competitive and practice free
throw self-efficacy, and competitive and practice free throw shooting performance.
EFFECTS OF AN IMAGERY TRAINING PROGRAM ON FREE THROW SELFEFFICACY AND PERFORMACE OF HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL PLAYERS
A Thesis
Submitted to the
Faculty of Miami University
In partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Department of Physical Education, Health, and Sport Studies
by
Justin James Klug
Miami University
Oxford, OH
2006
Co-Advisor _________________________
(Melissa A. Chase)
Co-Advisor _________________________
(Robin S. Vealey)
Reader _________________________
(Robert S. Weinberg)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION …………………………………………….. 1
Research Questions…………………………………….............................. 4
Definition of Terms ……………………………………………………… 4
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………… 6
Self-Efficacy Theory ………………………………………...................... 6
Dimensions of Self-Efficacy …………………………………………….. 6
Cognitive processing of sources of efficacy information ………………… 7
Sources of Self-Efficacy ………………………………………………….. 8
Mediating Processes ……………………………………………………….12
Relationship Between Self-Efficacy Sources and Performance ………….. 17
Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Behavior and
Thought Patterns ………………………………………………….. 18
Defining Imagery ……………………………………………..................... 20
Influence of Imagery on Athletes in Sport ……………………………….. 21
Imagery Perspective …………………………………………..................... 27
Theoretical Explanations for Imagery Effectiveness ……………………... 28
Effective Use of Imagery in Sport Interventions …………………………. 31
CHAPTER THREE: METHOD…………………………………………………… 34
Participants ……………………………………………………………….. 34
Research Design ………………………………………………………….. 35
Instrumentation ……………………………………………….................... 35
Procedures ………………………………………………………………… 38
Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………... 41
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS……………………………………………………. 45
Imagery Ability …………………………………………………………… 45
Practice Free Throw Self-Efficacy ……………………………………….. 47
Competitive Free Throw Self-Efficacy ………………………................... 51
Practice Free Throw Performance ………………………………………... 55
Competitive Free Throw Performance ……………………….................... 57
Social Validation …………………………………………………………. 59
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION…………………………………………………
Changes in Imagery Ability………………………………………………..
Changes in Efficacy Beliefs ……………………………………………...
Changes in Free Throw Performance …………………………………….
Limitations ………………………………………………………………..
Future Research Directions ……………………………………………….
62
62
63
65
68
69
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………... 72
ii
List of Tables
Table 1.
Means and standard deviations of Movement Imagery
Questionnaire pre and post-tests of all athletes …………………. 80
Table 2.
Means and standard deviations of free throw self-efficacy
levels and strengths of all athletes ……………………………… 81
Table 3.
Means and standard deviations of pre-intervention and
intervention competitive efficacy scores of all athletes ………… 82
Table 4.
Pre-intervention practice performance scores by day …………… 83
Table 5.
Intervention practice performance scores by day ……………….. 84
Table 6.
Pre-intervention competitive performance scores by game …….. 85
Table 7.
Intervention competitive performance scores by game ………… 85
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Self-Efficacy Model ……………………………………………… 86
Figure 2.
Timetable for Study Procedures …………………………………. 87
Figure 3.
Pre and Post-Test Imagery Ability Averages ……………………. 88
Figure 4.
Free Throw Self-Efficacy Strength Averages over the Duration
of the Season ……………………………………………………... 88
Figure 5.
Competitive Self-Efficacy Means as a Team Over the Season …. 89
Figure 6.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance
Throughout the Season. (Participant 1) …………………………... 90
Figure 7.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance
Throughout the Season. (Participant 2) ………………………….. 91
Figure 8.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance
Throughout the Season. (Participant 3) ………………………….. 92
Figure 9.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance
Throughout the Season. (Participant 4) ………………………….. 93
Figure 10.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance
Throughout the Season. (Participant 5) ………………………….. 94
Figure 11.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance
Throughout the Season. (Participant 6) …………………………. 95
iv
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Demographic Questionnaire ……………………………………… 96
Appendix B. Competitive Self-Efficacy Survey ……………………………….. 97
Appendix C. Free Throw Self-Efficacy Scale ………………………………….. 98
Appendix D. Movement Imagery Questionnaire – Revised ……………………. 99
Appendix E. SCIM Interview Guide …………………………………………… 103
Appendix F.
Example of SCIM Target ………………………………………… 108
Appendix G. Social Validation Questionnaire ………………………………….. 109
v
Acknowledgements
A thesis is a long and difficult process and is never successful unless the support
and assistance from others is provided. I would like to take this time to acknowledge
those who have provided me with their love and support throughout the completion of my
thesis.
To my co-chairs, Dr. Robin Vealey and Dr. Melissa Chase who spent endless
hours reading and editing the numerous drafts of my thesis. The time and effort you have
put into helping me throughout this study were surpassed by none. I want to thank each
of you for taking the time to help make this study a success. Most importantly, I want
each of you to know how much I appreciate the guidance that you have provided me with
over the past two years. In the future, I will always hold my head high and be extremely
proud to say that I was a graduate student at Miami University and had the honor of
working with both of you.
To Dr. Robert Weinberg who graciously agreed to be a part of my thesis
committee. I want to thank you for all of the knowledge you have shared with me not
only during the completion of my thesis, but also throughout my years at Miami
University. Thank you for challenging me and helping realize my potential. It was truly
an honor and pleasure to have had the opportunity to work with you.
To Coach Michael DeCello and the Talwanda High School boy’s varsity
basketball team who graciously agreed to participate in this study. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to be a part of your championship basketball team. Most importantly,
thank you for your patience and understanding throughout the study and your willingness
to work with me. I wish you all continued success in the future.
To my parents who have supported me throughout everything I have ever
pursued. You both have been there for me through it all. I want to thank you for the
endless love and support you have given me throughout the years. You both have always
believed in me. You taught me to reach for the stars and always pursue my dreams.
Words could never express how appreciative I am for everything you have done for me.
I love you both and thank you from the bottom of my heart for everything you have done
to support me as I pursue my dreams.
vi
To Katy Workman who stood by me through the endless hours that were
necessary to make this study a success. I want to thank you for all the support you have
given me as I completed this study. I also want you to know how much I appreciate the
encouragement, support, and love that you have given me throughout the completion of
my Masters Degree. I wish you the best of luck as you pursue your own goals and will
always be there for you. I love you and thank you for all that you have done for me.
To all of my friends at Miami University. Thank you for all of your support and
companionship throughout the completion of my thesis. Most importantly, I want to
thank you for being there for me throughout the stressful nights when I needed somebody
to talk to in order to relax. You all played an instrumental role in the completion of my
thesis and I want you to all know that I love you and will never forget the times you were
there for me when I needed you the most. I will miss all of you!
To my undergraduate advisor Dr. Jack Watson who introduced me to the field of
sport psychology. I appreciate all of your advice and support you have given me
throughout my education. You challenged me to be the best that I could be and without
you, I would never have had the opportunity to complete this thesis. Thank you for all
you have done for me and your continuous support.
vii
Chapter 1
Introduction
“I think I can, I think I can.” As a child, many were read the story of “The Little
Engine That Could.” The story taught children the importance of believing in yourself
when the odds were against you or when pressure was present. However, at a young age,
children most likely do not understand how important this statement could be later in life.
What most people fail to realize is that this famous saying is a good explanation of
efficacious behavior. Aside from childhood stories, the belief people have in their ability
to successfully perform a certain skill is an important determinant of their overall
performance.
Self-efficacy is defined as the judgments of one’s capabilities to organize and
execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances (Bandura,
1997). In sport, there is a great deal of emphasis on enhancing one’s performance. When
coaches and training staff attempt to assist athletes in this area, emphasis is usually
placed on extra physical practice including the alteration of technique, increased level of
training, and endurance training. Obviously, physical training is an important aspect in
not only increasing athletic performance, but also the execution of skills. However, this
is not the only way to enhance sport performance. More and more coaches are beginning
to emphasize the importance of mental preparation to their athletes and to teach mental
strategies that can help their teams (Cote, Salmela, & Russell, 1995; Grove, 1996). One
example of how performance can be enhanced is through mental strategies to increase
self-efficacy (Feltz, 1994).
An individual’s self-efficacy beliefs are formed through six sources that provide
information pertaining to one’s skill execution. Four sources explained by Bandura
(1977) include performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion,
and physiological state. Furthermore, Maddux (1995) added two sources of information
to the four proposed by Bandura which include imaginal experiences and emotional
states. These six sources of information are combined and weighted to form efficacy
beliefs about the ability to execute certain skills. These efficacy beliefs ultimately
become a factor in one’s behavior and thought patterns, which include task choice, effort,
and persistence. High efficacious individuals tend to engage in more challenging tasks,
1
exert more effort during activity and will continue to persist in the face of failure. Low
efficacious individuals will inversely engage in less challenging tasks, put forth much
less effort, and tend to discontinue participation after a poor performance. Thought
patterns include goals, worry, and attributions. Higher efficacious individuals tend to set
more challenging goals, worry less about performance related factors, and attribute
success and failure to personally controllable factors. Low efficacious individuals tend to
set goals that are less challenging and easily achievable in order to protect their self
image. These individuals will also tend to worry much more and also attribute their
failures simply to the lack of ability. Therefore, it is apparent that self-efficacy
judgments become a determinant in an athlete’s overall performance, which in turn
influences future self-efficacy belief in a reciprocal cycle (Bandura, 1986).
The crucial mental skill of self-efficacy, or self-confidence, has been shown to be
enhanced through mental training (Lai, 2001). Mental training can involve several
different techniques and strategies, including imagery, self-talk, goal setting, relaxation,
focus training, and energy management (Frey, Laguna, & Ravizza, 2003; Lai, 2001;
Vealey, 2005, in press). Perhaps some of the most visible mental strategies in the
sporting world are performed by basketball players when preparing for a free throw. If
you were to view the final seconds of a televised basketball game with one team needing
one point to tie or win the game, attention is usually given to the pre-shot routine of the
athlete at the free throw line. Most athletes have specific pre-performance mental
strategies or routines in which they engage, which includes techniques such as positive
self-talk, relaxation, and imagery. Research has shown that pre-performance routines
serve to enhance performance in self-paced sport tasks (Cohn, Rotella, & Lloyd, 1990;
Thomas & Over, 1994; Wrisberg & Pein, 1992).
Imagery is a common psychological technique used by athletes in sport. A
plethora of research has shown that imagery enhances sport performance (e.g., Feltz &
Landers, 1993; Martin, Moritz, & Hall, 1999). Imagery has also been used as an
intervention technique to enhance confidence (Callow, Hardy, & Hall, 2001; Evans et al.,
2004; Garza & Feltz, 1998; Hale & Whitehouse, 1998; Mamassis & Doganis, 2004;
McKenzie & Howe, 1997; Short, Bruggeman, Engel, Marback, Wang, Willadsen, &
Short, 2002), motivation (Beauchamp et al., 1996; Martin & Hall, 1995), and attentional
2
control (Calmels, Berthoumieux, & d’Arripe-Longueville, 2004) in athletes. Imagery
combined with other mental training methods (relaxation, stress inoculation training) has
been shown to help athletes decrease or control precompetitive anxiety (Cogan & Petrie,
1995; Kerr & Leith, 1993; Lee & Hewitt, 1987; Ryska, 1998; Savory, 1997). Research
has also shown that specific types of imagery are effective in changing athletes’
perceptions of anxiety from harmful and negative to facilitative and challenging (Evans et
al., 2004; Hale & Whitehouse, 1998; Mamassis & Doganis, 2004; Page, Sime, & Nordell,
1999). Imagery incorporates all of the natural senses in order to create a vivid, lifelike
image in an athlete’s mind. The purpose behind this technique is for athletes to imagine
themselves participating in a certain skill or activity and view themselves executing skills
properly and achieving the desired outcome. Although nothing is quite as effective as
physical practice, imagery training is a good method for those who need to improve
performance or are unable to physically perform due to injury or other circumstances
(Newsom, Knight, & Balnave, 2003; Sordoni, Hall, & Forwell, 2000).
Competitive sport environments present several distractions to athletes. For
example, in basketball, crowd noise and the movement of the defensive players can
present a difficult challenge for an athlete. Being able to block out these distractions and
focus on relevant cues is a skill that is vital to athletic success. The use of self-talk as a
means to aid an athlete in the challenge of focusing attention on the task at hand has been
shown to be a useful tactic (Harle & Vickers, 2001; Vickers, 1996). Other forms of
training that has been used to increase athletes’ abilities to block out distractions include
physical relaxation (e.g., Kendall, Hrycaiko, Martin, & Kendall, 1990; Williams & Hams,
2006). Physical relaxation techniques commonly used with athletes include breathing,
progressive muscle relaxation, and autogenic training (Williams & Hams, 2006).
Although imagery has been shown to enhance self-confidence in athletes,
additional research is needed to examine the effects of imagery on self-confidence using
self-efficacy theory as a guiding conceptual framework. In addition, recent research has
indicated that they method in which the imagery intervention is delivered significantly
influences the effect of the intervention. Smith and Holmes (2004) demonstrated that
performance was enhanced more by imagery using audiotapes and videotapes of
successful performances than by imagery using written scripts. Therefore, the purpose of
3
this study was to examine the effects of an imagery training program on the self-efficacy
and performance of high school basketball players. Specifically, a season-long
intervention program was implemented using personalized videotapes of individual free
throw performance with the objective of enhancing athletes’ self-efficacy and
performance on free throw shots in practice and competition.
Research Questions
1. Will athletes’ imagery ability will improve from pre- to post-intervention?
2. Will athletes’ free throw self-efficacy will improve from pre- to post-intervention?
3. Will athletes’ free throw performance will improve from pre- to post-intervention?
Definition of Terms
Competitive Performance Score: Number of free throws successfully made during a
competitive regular season game.
Competitive Self-Efficacy Score: Strength of one’s belief in their ability to successfully
make a free throw in a competitive game situation.
External Imagery: Imagery that involves seeing the image from outside one’s own body
as if being viewed from another perspective.
Focus Phrase: A phrase selected by the athlete (e.g., “nothing but net”) used to help
focus attention on the current free throw attempt and block out distraction.
Free Throw Performance Score: Average amount of free throws successfully made out
of ten attempts over five separate trials.
Internal Imagery: Imagery that involves seeing the image from within one’s own
perspective (through one’s own eyes).
Imagery: Using all the senses to recreate or create an experience in the mind (Vealey,
2005).
Imagery Ability: One’s ability to successfully recreate or create a vivid image in their
mind utilizing all of the body’s senses.
Kinesthetic Imagery Ability Score: Sum of all four kinesthetic subscale scores on the
Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised.
Kinesthetic Sense: The feel or sensation of the body as it moves in different positions
(Vealey, 2005).
4
Power Breath: A form of relaxation which involves a deep inhale followed by an exhale
which releases all air from the lungs (Vealey, 2005).
Practice Performance Score: Number of free throws made out of ten attempts in a
practice environment.
Self-Efficacy: Judgments of one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action
required to attain designated types of performances (Bandura, 1997).
Visual Imagery Ability Score: Sum of all four visual subscale scores on the Movement
Imagery Questionnaire-Revised.
5
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
This chapter provides an in-depth review of self-efficacy theory and the sources
through which efficacy beliefs are generated. Furthermore, this chapter examines
theoretical research regarding imagery in sport. Finally, this section provides the
rationale and statement of purpose for this study.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Bandura (1977) defines self-efficacy as an individual’s judgment of his or her
own ability to perform a specific skill to achieve a certain level of performance. It is
important to note that self-efficacy is not concerned with individual skills. This concept
is primarily concerned with the individual’s judgments about how well he or she can
perform these skills (Bandura, 1986). To achieve a desired level of performance, athletes
must not only possess the skills needed to perform at this specific level, but also must
have a certain level of belief in their ability to execute these skills properly (Bandura,
1986). This is why self-efficacy is such a major factor influencing performance. If two
individuals possess the same skill level at any given task, one may still out-perform the
other if one has higher efficacy. This can serve as one example of how an individual’s
perceived self-efficacy can be the difference between success and failure.
Dimensions of Self-Efficacy
Three dimensions factor into determining one’s self efficacy. These three
dimensions include level, generality, and strength. The level of one’s efficacy beliefs are
not determined by the task demands alone, but rather by the situational conditions
compared with the perceived efficacy. In other words, people’s efficacy beliefs are
determined by their beliefs in their ability to successfully perform tasks as they become
progressively more difficult. The generality dimension focuses on the range of activities
and situations in which one’s efficacy beliefs can be generalized. While some beliefs can
be generalized to a great deal of situations and activities, some capability judgments are
only relevant in specific situations. The strength of one’s efficacy beliefs are the final
dimension when assessing one’s efficacy beliefs. A person who possesses exceptionally
strong efficacy beliefs is unlikely to be overwhelmed by any situation. When difficulties
are present, a high efficacious individual will continue to persist despite the added
6
obstacles. High efficacy beliefs will also remain intact following a disconfirming
performance. However, when the strength of one’s efficacy beliefs is weak, his/her
efficacy beliefs are likely to be erased by a disconfirming experience.
Cognitive Processing of Sources of Efficacy Information
Self-efficacy judgments are a result of four sources of information (Bandura,
1977). These sources of information include performance accomplishments, vicarious
experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal. Maddux (1995) identified two
more sources of information that factor into determining one’s self-efficacy level:
imaginal experiences and emotional states. An in-depth description of each of these six
sources is presented in this section, but first the process by which efficacy beliefs are
formed is explained. The six sources that aid in the development of efficacy beliefs do
not directly form people’s judgments pertaining to their capabilities. In order to form
efficacy beliefs, they must cognitively process the information provided by the six
sources. A person will take the information presented by the six sources and cognitively
select, weight, and integrate this information. Until this process is completed, the
information gained from the six sources can not produce efficacy beliefs.
The cognitive formation of efficacy beliefs utilizes several dimensions of
information. There are two different functions that are involved in the cognitive
processing of efficacy information. The first function pertains to which information a
person will attend to and use as an indicator of personal efficacy. Each of the six sources
of information has its own unique ability indicators. Therefore, information provided by
each source will only influence a person’s efficacy beliefs if he/she chooses to attend to
the provided information. If a person chooses to not to attend to the information
presented by one of the six sources, the information will be dismissed and will not factor
into his/her efficacy beliefs.
The second function of cognitive processing depends on the weighting and
integration of efficacy information (Bandura, 1997). There can be a great amount of
information presented by the six sources. An individual must be able to process this
information into an efficacy judgment. Certain rules are applied in this process to aid in
the development of efficacy judgments. The first rule is known as the additive rule. This
rule states that as information repeats itself (continuous confirming indicators) the
7
strength of one’s efficacy judgments will increase as a result. For example, if a
basketball player drives toward the basket against a defender and scores, and then
performs the same move again later in the game, the athlete’s efficacy level pertaining to
his ability to drive and score will likely increase due the increase in successful attempts.
Another rule that aids in the development of efficacy judgments focuses on the weighting
of information that is presented by the six sources. The larger weighting of importance
applied to the information by an individual, the more impact the information will have on
his/her efficacy judgments. For example, if an athlete views his past performance
accomplishments as being a highly weighted source of efficacy, the more he is successful
in a certain skill will likely increase his overall efficacy beliefs toward the given skill. It
is important to note however, that the types of judgment rules are not consistent through
all situations. The type of judgment rule utilized varies across different tasks, people, and
circumstances (Bandura, 1997).
Sources of Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1977) states there are four sources from which an individual gains selfefficacy expectations. Maddux (1995) added two sources of efficacy expectations to
Bandura’s (1977) original four sources. These six sources of efficacy information are
presented in this section (see Figure 1).
Performance accomplishments. The first of these sources, as explained by
Bandura (1977), is enactive attainment or performance accomplishments. This source
serves as the most influential source for improving or depleting an individual’s
efficacious beliefs (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Biran & Wilson, 1981; Feltz,
Landers, & Raeder, 1979). The term “enactive attainment” has also been stated as
“personal accomplishment” and relates to a past performance. This source of selfefficacy focuses around individuals’ successes and failures in which they have had to
draw from certain skills to attain specific levels of performance. If an individuals are
performing tasks in which they’ve had successes in the past, these past results are likely
to raise their beliefs about their abilities to successfully execute the skills necessary to
once again achieve that level of success (Bandura, 1986). However, just as past
successful performances can elevate a person’s self-efficacy, past failures can lead to
lower levels of self-efficacy. It is important to note, however, that when an individual
8
has had success at a certain task on several occasions, failures may not affect the
individual’s level of self-efficacy depending upon the level of discrepancy between
his/her goal and performance and incentives to achieve (Bandura, 1986). In this case, the
individual may turn to alternative explanations relating to their failure (e.g., poor strategy,
poor effort) (Anderson & Jenkins, 1980). Bandura (1986) explains that once self-efficacy
is established, one will begin to focus attention towards other explanations for failure in
other situations as well, rather than blaming insufficient ability.
Vicarious experiences. Vicarious experiences are the second source which affects
an individual’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). This idea focuses around comparing one’s
own performance to that of others who are performing the same task. This social
comparison has been used in several studies that have attempted to determine the effects
of competitor performance on the efficacious beliefs of an individual (Jacobs, PrenticeDunn, & Rogers, 1984; Litt, 1988). If a high jumper had not been present to witness the
jumps by competitors, and was informed after her jump (no matter how high her jump
was) that her score was very high compared to the other competitors, her self-efficacy
concerning her ability would increase. Self-efficacy can also be negatively influenced if
the high jumper was told that her jump was very poor compared to the other competitors.
This source of self-efficacy is evident when there are no observable indicators of
performance and a person will simply gauge performance through this type of social
comparison (Bandura, 1997).
Another way in which efficacy beliefs are affected by vicarious experiences is by
illuminating the reality of the task at hand. For example, one may have little previous
experience at a given task, but does have beliefs pertaining to the situation. However, by
viewing the modeled task, one may discover that the task is actually more or less difficult
than they were led to believe prior to witnessing the modeled performance. The effect
the model will have on one’s efficacy beliefs are mediated by several factors. The model
a person is observing should be closest not only in characteristics such as gender, size,
and age, but more importantly, the modeling source should be closest to one’s own ability
level (George, Feltz, & Chase, 1992). Although a high discrepancy in ability levels will
still affect one’s efficacy beliefs, for the greatest impact, one should seek a model with
similar ability levels.
9
Among other factors that influence efficacy beliefs through vicarious learning is
the model’s competency level. Efficacy beliefs will be influenced most when the
modeled success is achieved though hard work rather than effortlessness. For example,
when a coach is attempting to teach his athletes a certain skill, the coach will take time to
perform the skill making certain to cover the fundamentals necessary to successfully
execute the skill. Through this instruction, the athletes are much more likely to learn to
skill and be able to successfully perform the skill than if the coach would have quickly
ran through the skill without putting in the effort to demonstrate the proper execution.
This same example can be applied to the modeled performance in which an athlete is
observing. An athlete will likely benefit more from seeing a modeled performance in
which the model is utilizing all of the skills that are needed to be successful, rather than
appearing to effortlessly be going through simple motions to achieve success. Bandura
(1997) also states that within this modeled performance should be a similarity between
the model and athlete’s strategy. A model that is experiencing success through strategies
similar to that of the observing athlete will most likely have a more powerful influence on
an athlete’s efficacy beliefs than if complete dissimilar strategies were used.
Verbal persuasion. The third source of self-efficacy is through verbal persuasion.
There are two key elements that strengthen the effects of this persuasion. First, the
persuasion needs to come from an individual who is viewed as significant in the eyes of
the recipient. Second, verbal persuasion may not be as effective as other sources unless it
is combined with another source of information such as constructive performance
feedback (Bandura, 1997). When dealing with verbal persuasion, it is important to
remember that this is not seen as a source that often directly influences self-efficacy
levels. Wise and Trunnell (2001) indicated that research has shown that feedback and
encouragement are actually rather weak unless used following a successful performance.
By combining the use of feedback and performance accomplishments, efficacy beliefs are
likely to increase more than if these two were presented individually. According to
Bandura (1997), if the provider is seen as a credible and knowledgeable source in the
eyes of the recipient, it will more than likely influence his effort towards a given task and
the individual will sustain this effort due to the positive feedback that was provided to
him. Verbal persuasion will help decrease the level of self-doubt that is present in the
10
recipient and will increase the chances of increased level of performance that eventually
will lead to increased self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977).
Physiological states. Physiological states are a fourth source of self-efficacy. An
individual’s arousal and the effect it has on self-efficacy beliefs are determined by the
source, level, construction, as well as the interpretation of the arousal by the individual.
Different people may attribute their outcomes to different factors depending on the
efficaciousness of the person (e.g., high efficacy attributing failure to situational factors,
low efficacy attributing failure to ability).
Different levels of arousal affect individuals in different ways. High levels of
arousal could cause an individual to suffer a detrimental level of anxiety, whereas very
low levels of arousal could cause boredom in the individual. Moderate levels of arousal
are typically associated with increased efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). This does not
hold true for all individuals. As mentioned, interpretation of the arousal is a key element
in determining the effects it has upon each individual. Therefore, some may perform
better under high levels of arousal, whereas others may perform better with low levels.
This illustrates that the effect that arousal has upon an individual. The present arousal
level is individual-specific and could be either helpful or detrimental to performance.
Imaginal experiences. A fifth source of information that influences an
individual’s level of self efficacy is known as cognitive self-modeling, or as Maddux
(1995) explains, imaginal experiences. This informative source is a type of imaginary
experience that allows individuals to prepare for certain tasks by mentally rehearsing the
task to determine what they need to do in order to be successful. This source can
influence an individual’s self-efficacy by visualizing the proper execution of mastery
tactics and strategies (Maddux, 1995). Just as other influential sources of self-efficacy,
however, this strategy can be detrimental to one’s self-efficacy if an individual was to
visualize a failure to perform a certain task. It is important to note however, that although
this is another type of influential source towards an individual’s self-efficacy, it is not
nearly as influential as real-life performance (Bandura, 1997).
Emotional states. The sixth and final source of self-efficacy is emotional states.
Positive and negative mood can affect the level of efficacy in an individual in two
directions. First, if a person is in a positive mood, efficacy is likely to increase. In
11
contrast, a negative mood would be more likely to act as a debilitative factor in one’s
efficacious beliefs (Maddux, 1995). It has also been found that the magnitude of the
mood could impact the level of self-efficacy one has (e.g., very positive or negative,
slightly positive or negative). Attributions of success and failure can also be linked to
emotional states. Bandura (1997) stated that individuals who succeed under severe
negative mood states would be more likely to link their performance to issues such as
luck, and be less likely to positively assess their ability.
Mediating Processes
The sources that have been previously outlined explain how individuals develop
their efficacy beliefs. Now it is necessary to understand how efficacy beliefs affect
individuals’ performance. There are four ways in which performance is affected through
one’s efficacy beliefs which include cognitive, motivational, affective, and selective
mediating processes (see Figure 1).
Cognitive processes. Cognitive mediating processes affect a person’s thought
patterns. This is most noticeable in a person’s goal setting and the persistence one has
towards achieving those goals. A high efficacious individual is likely to set higher goals
for themselves in contrast to a low efficacious individual who will likely set lower, more
easily achievable goals. One who has higher efficacy beliefs is also more likely to persist
toward their goal. The effort they put forth towards achieving the goal they have set will
likely be much greater than a low efficacious person. Those who are low in self-efficacy
beliefs will be less likely to put forth the necessary effort to achieve the goal they have
set.
There are two types of cognitive mediating processes. These processes include
cognitive constructions and inferential thinking. The actions that one displays in his
performance, as well as his development of competence, are guided by his cognitive
construction of a situation. If an athlete possesses high efficacy beliefs, she is more
likely to assess an uncertain situation as being a challenging opportunity in which she can
develop and maintain skills. In the presence of an uncertain situation, a high efficacious
person will also be able to visualize successful performances. In contrast, a low
efficacious person will tend to view uncertain situations differently. A person possessing
low efficacy beliefs will view the situation as a risk and will tend to imagine unsuccessful
12
performances. Furthermore, these imagined performances can influence one’s
performance. By imagining a successful performance, including successful execution of
the skills he/she possesses, performance can be enhanced. However, the imagination of
failures can also aid in hindering his/her performance.
Inferential thinking is the second aspect of the cognitive mediating process. This
type of thinking allows an individual to predict how outcomes of a certain situation will
be affected by different actions. Bandura (1997) suggested that people will create
composite rules that are used to test and make alterations to his/her judgments against the
immediate and future results of his/her actions. An individual will search from within the
existing knowledge one possesses to construct certain options, and to turn certain
predictive factors into these composite rules. The construction of these composite rules
will aid an individual in referring back to which actions have been tested how they
affected the outcome of a certain situation. The decisions an individual has made in the
past will ultimately influence future decisions. Organizational decision making can add
more complexities into the decision making process. When dealing with organizational
decisions, an individual is required to interact and coordinate with others. Decisional
rules are constructed through testing certain actions and coping with the ongoing
organizational activities (Bandura, 1997).
Strong efficacy beliefs are needed to remain task-oriented. The actions that an
individual chooses will not always result in a positive outcome. For example, if a
football team finds a particular pass play that is successful consistently because the
defense cannot cover the receiver, the will continue to run this play. However, when the
team attempts the play after halftime, they find that the defense has made a change and
now intercepts the pass each time that play is run. This once successful action has now
turned into a discouraging failure. Bandura (1997) states that one needs to possess a
strong sense of self-efficacy to remain task-oriented in the face of causal ambiguities,
pressing situational demands, and judgment failures that can ultimately have both
personal and social consequences. In the example above, the offensive team must
possess high levels of efficacy beliefs if they are to remain motivated towards
successfully executing that particular play.
13
Environmental perceptions also factor into efficacy beliefs and actions and
behaviors displayed in an ambiguous situation (Bandura, 1997). For example, if a person
perceives the environment as uncontrollable, meaning the individual feels as though they
have no power or control over the environment, his efficacy beliefs are likely to become
lowered. In addition, he will also tend to set lower goals, standards, and also exert less
effort while showing a decrease in performance in these certain situations. On the other
hand, an individual who feels as though they have some level of control or power over
the environment is likely to experience increases in efficacy beliefs. This individual will
also tend to set higher goals for themselves as well as exert more effort towards achieving
those goals while showing performance increases.
Motivational processes. Cognitive motivation serves as the second mediator of
the efficacy-performance relationship. Through this process, an individual will use
forethought to cognitively represent the present. In other words, forethought is used to
change future states into motivation for the present situation. Bandura (1997) explains
that there are three cognitive motivators that in turn, three theories have been built
around. The cognitive motivators include causal attributions, outcome expectancies, and
cognized goals. Theories that have been based around these motivators include
attribution theory, expectancy-value theory, and goal theory.
Attribution theory is based around causal attributions (Weiner, 1985). According
to the attribution theory, success and failure is attributed to certain judgments such as
personal capabilities and levels of effort. One who attributes success to his personal
capabilities and skills, and failure to insufficient effort will be more likely to persist in the
face of failure than one who attributes success to luck and failure to a lack of capability
and skill. The attribution one makes about their success and failure will influence one’s
motivation for future performances. For example, one who attributes their success to
skill, and failure to lack of effort will experience an increase in self-efficacy. On the
other hand, if one attributes success to luck and failure to the lack of personal skill, selfefficacy levels will decrease.
The second theory of cognitive motivation which is based around outcome
expectancies is known as the expectancy-value theory (Feather, 1982). This theory is
based around the attraction between actions and the outcome, as well as the attractiveness
14
of a certain outcome. The strength of one’s motivation is dictated by the expectation that
certain actions will produce certain outcomes, and enhance the attractiveness the
attractiveness of this outcome. More specifically, this theory claims that the more one
believes that a certain behavior will produce a desired outcome, and the greater the value
of that outcome, the higher the individual will be motivated to perform a certain behavior.
For example, a track athlete may know that by running the 100 meter race in a time less
than ten seconds will produce a championship outcome. However, if she does not feel as
though she is capable of running the race at this speed, cognitive motivation will be low.
However, she knows that she is capable of running at this speed, and the championship is
an outcome she has wanted to achieve, cognitive motivation will then be high in this
situation.
The final theory is known as goal theory and is based around cognized goals
(Locke & Latham, 1990). This theory suggests that goals are formed through selfregulated forethought. These goals that are created will in turn aid in guiding and the
creation of motivation towards certain behaviors. The goals that are created from this
self-regulated forethought will motivate the actions of an individual by setting specific
standards of achievement. The satisfaction of an individual will depend upon the
successful attainment of these standards. Since self-satisfaction is dependent upon the
attainment of these standards, one will intensify their efforts due to past discontent with
lower standards and poor performances. The motivation for a person is to achieve
satisfaction and to avoid future dissatisfaction. By intensifying one’s efforts, he/she is
persisting to avoid such disappointment.
Affective processes. The third cognitive process that mediates performance is an
individual’s affective process. This idea focuses on a person’s ability to regulate
emotional stress that is present in any given situation. Self-efficacy beliefs that
individuals possess pertaining to their ability to cope with stressful situations will aid in
the regulation of the effect the stress will have on the individual. For example, if one
possesses a high level of efficacy beliefs pertaining to their ability to cope with stressful
situations, the present stress will likely not have much impact on the individual. On the
other hand, if one has low efficacy beliefs about their ability to cope with stress, the
15
present stress will likely have serious impact on the individual’s emotions and produce
elevated levels of physical distress.
According to Bandura (1997), one’s self-efficacy beliefs impact both the nature
and intensity of affective situations. This is done through personal control over thought,
action, and affect. A person’s efficacy belief in his/her ability to handle possible
cognitive disruptions is one of the ways in which a person’s thoughts can work to
regulate affect. When stressful situations arise, the thoughts one has pertaining to the
situation are usually not harmful themselves. The problem occurs in the distress that can
result if efficacy beliefs are low pertaining to the ability to handle the situation. For
example, if a person has low efficacy beliefs about their ability to handle an aversive
situation, when the situation is present, he/she will likely be unable to cope with stress or
terminate the negative cognitions (Bandura, 1990).
Efficacy beliefs can also play an important role in the determining the emotional
importance of situations. A person who possesses high self-efficacy beliefs are better
equipped to take an emotionally aversive situation and alter the nature of that
environment to lessen the emotional impact that specific situation has upon the
individual. Finally, Bandura (1997) states that a person’s efficacy beliefs also serve as a
means for a person to self-regulate an affective state. A person’s perceived ability can be
vital in improving or relieving unpleasant emotional states. For example, if an aversive
situation is present, and one possesses high efficacy beliefs pertaining to their ability to
overcome the feelings that are present, they would be more likely to rebound from
distress that is currently present.
Selective processes. Environment selection serves as the final mediating process.
A person’s efficacy beliefs will aid in the selection of not only the activities, but the
environment in which he will seek out. For example, if one possesses low efficacy
beliefs pertaining to his ability to perform in front of large audiences, he will most likely
avoid environments that typically draw large crowds. However, if one has high efficacy
beliefs pertaining to his ability to perform in front of audiences, then he will be more
likely to seek environments that draw a large crowd. Low self-efficacy beliefs can hinder
one’s development through this selection process. Competitive situations provide an
individual with a chance to not only develop knowledge, but also develop new skills.
16
When a person possesses low efficacy beliefs, she will typically stray away from
environments that provide an opportunity to develop skills and knowledge because of her
feeling of inadequacy (Bandura, 1997).
Relationship Between Self-Efficacy Sources and Performance
Bandura (1977) states that performance accomplishments serve as the most
influential source of information for one’s self-efficacy beliefs. Therefore, one of the
more effective ways to increase self-efficacy beliefs would be to aim at enhancing these
performance accomplishments or enhancing the perceptions of one’s accomplishments.
Feltz and Riessinger (1990) addressed this issue in a study in which examined the effects
of in vivo emotive imagery and performance feedback on self-efficacy and performance
in relation to endurance tasks. Although only partially supported, the first hypothesis
predicted that individuals who received both an imagery program and performance
feedback would show higher levels of endurance and have higher levels of self-efficacy
beliefs. The partially supported aspect of this hypothesis found that the individuals
involved with the imagery program did, in fact show slightly higher levels of
performance. Also, these athletes reported higher levels of perceived efficacy beliefs.
The control group for this study did not receive imagery training and thus, provides
evidence that cognitive execution of successful performance can positively affect ones
efficacy judgments pertaining to performance. Feltz and Riessinger (1990) also reported
that 86% of the athletes reported basing their initial efficacy judgments on performance
accomplishments. Therefore, if one was to help enhance performance through enhanced
efficacy beliefs, an imagery training program focused on past successful performance
would allow the athletes to possess strong beliefs in past performance accomplishments.
Although performance accomplishments, as stated above have been found to be
the most influential source of information in relation to elevated levels of self-efficacy,
studies have also examined the influence of the other sources as well. Wilkes and
Summers (1984) examined the influence of elevated self-efficacy through verbal
persuasion on performance. Participants were read a prepared script in which focused on
instructing the participant how well they would do on the upcoming strength test.
Participants were also instructed to remind themselves of this throughout the performance
phases. A separate group of participants were presented this prepared script to read
17
themselves and received no verbal instruction other than to read the script prior to
performing the activity. Results showed that the group who received the verbal
instruction and persuasion not only performed at a higher level than the group instructed
to read the script, but also other tested groups that received only training in control
reading, imagery, and attentional focus. Furthermore, this study not only highlighted the
influence of verbal persuasion, but also exemplified the effect of increased efficacy levels
on performance.
Feltz, Landers, and Raeder (1979) also attempted to examine the effects of
efficacy levels on performance. More specifically, this study focused on the source of
self-efficacy in which Bandura (1977) labeled as vicarious experiences. Participants
were separated into three groups with one receiving another individual model the action
for the participant over four trials. The other two groups consisted of one simply having
an individual show the behavior prior to the performance and the other group receiving a
videotape showing them what they will be asked to perform. Results of the study
indicated that participants who received the modeling instruction had a higher percentage
of correct performances than did those receiving the alternate forms of instruction. Selfefficacy scores were also investigated throughout this study. Furthermore, the results
showed that participants involved in vicarious learning reported significantly higher
levels of self-efficacy throughout the study. These findings, along with the previously
described findings, all strengthen the argument that higher levels of self-efficacy are
related to increased levels of performance.
Relationship Between Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Behavior and Thought Patterns
As mentioned, all of the sources of self-efficacy are integrated in determining
one’s overall efficacious beliefs. The beliefs that one generates from the combination
and weighting of all these sources will then in turn determine the behavior and thought
pattern of the individual (Bandura, 1977). The behavior an individual engages in
includes task choice, effort expenditure, and persistence (Bandura, 1977). Thought
patterns that are affected by an individual’s efficacious beliefs include goals, amount of
worry, and attributions. Changes in any of the above mentioned behaviors and thought
patterns can in turn be attributed to changes in an individual’s efficacy beliefs. However,
this can also work in a reciprocal fashion. Continuous confirmatory experiences for
18
athletes will influence their efficacy beliefs. As these beliefs change, a change in
behaviors and thought patterns will also be noticed. Athletes will work to align their
behaviors and thought patterns with their efficacy beliefs. In other words, any change in
behaviors and/or thought patterns will reflect those of efficacy beliefs.
Self-efficacy, choice, effort, & persistence. The efficacy beliefs of an athlete can
be an influential factor in athletic performance in numerous ways (Bandura, 1997;
Maddux, 1995). In the previous paragraph, different behaviors and thought patterns were
mentioned as being influenced by an individual’s efficacy beliefs. When dealing with
sport, several factors arise that could be ultimately influenced by the individual athlete’s
self-efficacy. First, the choices athletes make to participate or not in a given activity are
influenced by their efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). For example, if a center on a
basketball team is low in self-efficacy based on her ability to power through a defender to
get to the basket, she will be less likely to attempt to get the ball in that area, and may be
more likely to take more jump shots farther away from the basket. Second, the effort
which one exerts can be influenced by these same factors. Again, if a player possesses
low self-efficacy about her skills, when it comes to practice she may not put in the extra
effort to succeed simply because she may feel as though she does not have the ability to
succeed. Finally, the persistence of the athlete may also be affected. If an athlete feels
negatively about the ability to execute the skills that are necessary to succeed, he will
have very little motivation to continue attempts at a given task.
Self-efficacy and thought patterns. As mentioned, efficacy beliefs also have an
impact on thought patterns of athletes. This is particularly evident in sport performance.
First, athletes who possess high efficacy beliefs about their ability to use their skills to
execute a specific task will be more likely to set higher and more challenging goals for
themselves. A high efficacious basketball player may set a goal to score a certain high
number of points in a game, or increase her shooting percentage by a certain amount
whereas a low efficacious basketball player may set her goals very low to be sure the
goals are easily achievable. By setting low goals, the athlete does not have to rely as
much on her skill execution to achieve the goal. Worry is another thought pattern that is
affected by efficacy beliefs. An athlete who possesses high efficacy beliefs will most
likely worry much less about his performance than an individual with low self-efficacy
19
who will tend to worry much more about his performance. If an athlete has low efficacy
beliefs pertaining to his skills, more than likely he will be concerned much more about
his ability to execute properly to achieve success. Finally, attributions are affected by
efficacy beliefs as well. Athletes who have high efficacy beliefs will be more likely to
attribute success to their superior ability to execute the skills they have and less likely to
attribute success to luck. When failure occurs, they will turn to things such as
environment and other non-controllable factors as an explanation for their failure. On the
other hand, athletes who are low in efficacy beliefs who experience success will more
inclined to claim luck as the determinant of their success and failure then would be
attributed to their own lack of ability.
Imagery
In this section, imagery as a performance enhancement technique is discussed.
This includes defining imagery, discussing how it enhances performance, and presenting
research that has examined the effects of imagery on sport performance. Research
examining the effects of imagery on other areas such as self-confidence and self-efficacy
is also presented in this section.
Defining Imagery
Several authors have attempted to define imagery in the past. However, there has
yet to be one, universally accepted definition. Moran (1993) combined the definitions
presented by Matlin’s (1989) definition which stated that imagery is simply mentally
imagining something not physically present, and Solso’s (1991) definition which stated
that imagery is representing an object or event that is not present. By combining these
definitions, Moran (1993) also added that imagery should not be simply a visual task, but
should also incorporate all of the senses of the body. Yet, as mentioned, many other
definitions exist. For example, Cox (1998) and Wann (1997) both state in their
definitions of imagery that it is, in fact, only a visual task and does not involve other
senses. Murphy (1994) also had his own definition for imagery. Murphy stated that
imagery was a recreation from stored experiences in the mind which are recreated outside
of the original environment. However, although imagery does not come with one
universally accepted definition, Vealey’s (2005) definition of imagery seems to bring
many of the other definitions above, together. She defines imagery as using all the
20
body’s senses to create or recreate an experience in the mind. It is possible that one clear
definition for imagery will never exist, however, it is also clear that many believe that
imagery includes the use of all senses and creating or recreating an experience in the
mind.
Perhaps the most long-standing definition of imagery was developed by
Richardson (1969) and comes from a cognitive psychology standpoint. Although much
time has passed since this definition was first presented, it is still one of the most widely
accepted definitions. Richardson stated that “mental imagery refers to all those quasisensory and quasi-perceptual experiences of which we are self-consciously aware and
which exist for us in the absence of those stimulus conditions that are known to produce
their genuine sensory of perceptual counterparts, and which may be expected to have
different consequences from their sensory or perceptual counterparts” (Morris, Spittle, &
Watt, 2005, p.15). Although the definition presented by Richardson evolved from a
general psychology perception, this definition is consistently cited in sport psychology
when discussing the idea of mental imagery.
Influence of Imagery on Athletes in Sport
Research has focused on the effects of imagery training on several aspects of
sport. One of the most popular areas of focus has been the influence on performance.
The first study which examined the effects of imagery on performance took playce in
1934 ( Vandall, Davis, & Clugston, 1934). Since then, a great deal of research has been
conducted in this area. Results from these investigations and comprehensive reviews
have concluded that imagery does enhance athletic performance and can be a more
effective practice tool than no practice at all (Feltz & Landers, 1983; Martin, Moritz, &
Hall, 1999). Studies which have investigated the effects of imagery training have
examined sport skills such as basketball shooting, volleyball serving, tennis serving, golf
shots, football placekicking, figure skating, swimming starts, dart throwing, alpine skiing,
karate skills, diving, trampoline skills, competitive running, dance, rock climbing, and
field hockey performance (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2006). Studies which have examined
imagery as a preparatory strategy before athletic performance have found improved
performance on strength tasks (Shelton & Mahoney, 1978; Tynes & McFatter, 1987),
muscular endurance tasks (Gould, Weinberg, & Jackson, 1980; Lee, 1990), and golf
21
putting (Murphy & Woolfolk, 1987; Woolfolk, Parrish, & Murphy, 1985). Imagery has
also been shown to be an effective part of a pre-performance routine in sports which
involve a planned sequence of thoughts and behaviors that lead to automatic performance
execution (Lidor & Singer, 2003).
In a study conducted by Clamels, Berthoumieux, and d’Arripe-Longueville
(2004), the authors sought to increase softball performance by enhancing attentional
focus. Participants in this study were four French national softball players who
participated on the same team. None of the players in the study have had previous mental
skill training, however all reported an interest in these skills. During this study, 28 tenminute imagery sessions were conducted in an attempt to enhance the selective attention
of each athlete. The sessions consisted of guiding and teaching the softball players at bat
to integrate many external and internal stimuli at one time and to be able to restrict the
number of the stimuli as the moment for batting approached by paying attention to
stimuli that had been shown to be favored by the experts. The first ten sessions consisted
of the batter mentally rehearsing various possibilities they may face. Next were four
sessions mentally rehearsing successful performances, then four sessions using both the
first and second techniques but also used mental rehearsal of potential runner positions.
The next five sessions focused on ball trajectory and desired point of contact, and finally
five sessions where the batter imagined all the above with possible distractions involved.
Three different aspects of selective attention were addressed during this study and
the results found that the imagery training program proved to be effective in all of the
participants. Participant One saw dramatic increases on all three selective attention
dimensions that were assessed through visual inspection. Participant Two and Three both
saw increases on at least two of the three dimensions. All three intervention participants
reported that the imagery sessions were beneficial to their performance. Further
illustrating the effectiveness of the imagery training program was found through the
evaluation of the control participant who did not participate in any of the imagery
sessions. The control participant reported no change in any of the three dimensions of
selective attention. Thus, the imagery training program proved to be an effective
intervention when attempting to enhance selective attention which is an important aspect
of successful performance in sport.
22
There are several distractions associated with every sport. In order to achieve
success, athletes need to understand and have the mental toughness to focus only on the
important factors associated with their performance. When discussing the term “focus”,
one often assumes that this simply means to pay attention to what one is doing. In fact,
learning to block out distraction is just as important as learning to focus on the important
cues. One method of teaching an athlete to focus attention on the relevant cues is through
the use of a focus phrase. In a study conducted by Harle and Vickers (2001), the authors
instructed basketball players to use the phrases “nothing but net” and “sight, focus” as a
way for basketball players to focus their attention on the hoop during free throw attempts.
The purpose of this study was to use a specific pre-shot routine which helped athletes
keep all attention toward the rim throughout the entire shot. Three separate teams took
part in the study with only one receiving what the authors referred to as “Quiet Eye
Training”. This pre-shot routine consisted first of three dribbles while saying the phrase
“nothing but net”. The athlete then was instructed to pause for 1.5 seconds prior to
beginning a smooth free throw shot. Throughout the entire routine, the athlete was
instructed to focus their attention on one specific part of the rim or the backboard. After
the shot was released, athletes were then permitted to take their attention away from the
specific spot which was chosen by the athlete to focus on. The entire study took place
over two competitive seasons for all three teams. In terms of free throw percentage, the
experimental team saw a dramatic increase in the percentage of shots made. More
specifically, percentages increased from 54.14% in the first season, to 76.66% the second
season. However, although one of the two control teams saw a decrease from 67.67% in
the first season, to 66.18%, the third team also saw a significant increase from 61.36% to
74.05% without the aid of the quiet eye training. So, although it appears that the training
positively influenced the shooting accuracy of the experimental team, it is important to
note that other factors may have also contributed to the increase in shooting percentage.
One factor noted by the authors was the idea of player carry-over between the two
seasons (returning players). The experimental team saw 50% of the team after the first
season replaced for the second season. It is possible that the new players were simply
better free throw shooters, while the two control teams had carry-over percentages of
72% and 92% respectively. Although the possibility of other confounding variables is
23
apparent, the quiet eye training was found to have a positive impact on athlete free throw
percentage.
Carboni, Burke, Joyner, Hardy, and Blom (2002) conducted a study that sought to
examine the effects of brief (5-minutes or less) imagery training on free throw
performance of college athletes. In this single subject, multiple baseline investigation,
the authors used the previous season’s free throw percentage and compared that
percentage to the percentage established throughout the intervention for each of the five
participants in the study. One athlete was used as the control for this investigation and
did not take part in any of the imagery training during the study. The proper use of
imagery was taught to each of the five participants in the study and asked to engage in a
brief imagery session prior to shooting any set of free throws once the intervention phase
began. Results of this study did not show any consistent increases or decreases in free
throw shooting percentage. However, there were increases in the ability to concentrate
on the task after the imagery intervention was implemented. The authors of this
investigation reported several possible explanations for the absence of increased shooting
percentages. One of the explanations stated that the imagery intervention was not given
sufficient time to impact the athlete’s shooting percentage. The exact duration of this
study was not indicated in the article, however, it is mentioned that this investigation did
not take place over the duration of an entire season. In addition, one of the athletes
involved in this study did not attempt a free throw during any competitive game. The
authors did present several possible options for future research. One of the most
important considerations indicated that an imagery intervention should be implemented
for a longer duration of time. This would allow athletes more time to increase imagery
ability and thus gain maximum benefits from the intervention. In addition, the authors
suggest that the imagery sessions take place more frequently during the intervention.
One suggestion presented stated that imagery sessions should be implemented between
five and seven times per week. Although results of this investigation did not indicate any
significant increases in performance, data suggests that by taking the above
recommendations into consideration, imagery could have a significant impact on athletic
performance.
24
Although most studies which involve the use imagery in some way focus on
improving athletic performance (Callow, Hardy, & Hall, 2001), imagery can be an
effective way to help improve other areas of sport such as self-confidence. Callow,
Hardy, and Hall (2001) used an imagery training program with four badminton players in
order to do just that. The study took place over 24 weeks and allowed for 21 matches for
data collection with each participant beginning the intervention at a different point in
time. For the imagery intervention, a scripted imagery session was presented to each
player by an accredited sport psychologist. These scripts also were changed throughout
the study to allow each participant to imagine different competitive situations. Results
for this study indicated that self-confidence levels for three out of the four participants
increased from baseline to the intervention period. However, although participant three
showed a slight decrease in self-confidence, he also recorded the best scores for imagery
ability via the revised version Movement Imagery Questionnaire. Through postintervention interviews, participants indicated that the imagery sessions did help them
feel more confident during matches. More specifically, the participants felt more
confident especially when performing the skill that was used in the imagery script. The
authors concluded that although the results indicated an increase in confidence levels,
more research involving imagery should focus on the cognitive aspects of sport and not
simply the learning and improvement of skills. One reason for this could be due to the
extensive external factors that are present in sporting environment that require athletes to
possess a certain level of mental toughness to be successful.
Imagery has also been found to be a useful intervention when attempting to
enhance or maintain the sources of self-efficacy that were previously discussed in this
chapter. Orlick (1990) suggested that if athletes wish to build self confidence and selfefficacy, the athlete needs to imagine him/her self performing in a confident and
efficacious manner throughout the imagery session. Furthermore, in a study conducted
by Cumming and Hall (2002b), the authors studied 324 athletes in off-season imagery
use. The Sport Imagery Questionnaire-Off-season (SIQ-Off-season) was administered to
each athlete who were currently in the off-season training phase of their sport. The
researchers were interested in discovering if there was a difference in physical and
technical preparation as well as competition level between those who engaged in imagery
25
more frequently than others. The results showed that the higher the competition level, the
more that imagery was used in the off-season. Furthermore, bivariate correlations found
a significant positive correlation between the amount of imagery used and physical and
technical preparation. Finally, another interesting finding showed that athletes who
reported using imagery more in the off-season also were found to practice more in the
off-season. Through the use of imagery training, athletes were able to imaginal
experiences. The increase in practice time that was found to be associated with offseason practice helped aid in the development of positive emotional states. The athletes
became more efficacious in the skills they possessed, and in turn increased the level of
preparation during the off-season. This process can be explained in a circular pattern.
The athlete engaged in an imagery training session. That led to an increase in practice
and positive emotional states. Finally, the athlete became more efficacious in their
abilities and once again participated in more imagery training.
Several researchers have attempted to implement imagery training programs in an
attempt to increase performance, reduce anxiety, and improve technique. Some
researchers have used imagery as the only intervention in his/her study, where others
have attempted to use imagery in addition to other interventions, creating a multimodal
intervention program. For example, Hanton and Jones (1999) used a multimodal
intervention program to determine the effects this program would have on the perceptions
of pre-competitive anxiety. The researchers were attempting to alter the athletes’
perception of this anxiety from debilitative to facilitative. The interventions used by the
authors included goal setting, self-talk, and imagery.
Participants in this study included four male swimmers who all reported their prerace anxiety as debilitative to their performance. Each swimmer participated in ten
competitive races and three of the swimmers were administered the intervention after
baseline data was established. The three participants who received the intervention all
began this phase at a separate time. One of the participants remained in baseline the
entire study to serve as the control for the study. The first phase of the intervention
included a goal setting education study where the athletes were instructed on the different
types of goals and how to go about setting proper goals for themselves. The second
phase began when the athletes themselves felt it was time to begin their warm-up for a
26
competitive race. At this time, self-talk cues and the imagery were added into the
preparation for the race. Athletes were then instructed to follow this routine prior to each
competition. Follow up assessments were collected with all three intervention
participants prior to at least two competitive races after a five month time period. Each
participant that received the intervention recorded a continuing increase in selfconfidence after the implementation of the intervention with the exception of participant
four who’s self-confidence scores continued to fluctuate throughout the races. Each
participant who received the intervention reported seeing immediate and continuing
changes in pre-competitive anxiety from debilitative to facilitative. These changes were
not seen in the control participant however. During the follow up assessment each
intervention participant reported that these changes were continuing to be seen. Through
the use of this intervention program that included imagery, athletes were able to find
dramatic changes in anxiety perceptions. As mentioned, the same results were not found
in the control participant. This illustrates the influence the intervention program was able
to have on one aspect of athletic participation.
Imagery Perspective
The term perspective refers to the vantage point the imager sees the image during
an imagery session. There are two perspectives in which people can create images in the
mind when using imagery; internal and external (Morris et al., 2005). Both of these
perspectives are explained in this section. Furthermore, the involvement of stimuli in the
images is also discussed.
Internal imagery. Internal imagery is performed by imaging an image from your
own perspective. This means that you see the activity as you normally would through
your own eyes and you experience all the sensations that are involved with the activity
(Morris et al., 2005). For example, if one were to imagine shooting a basketball free
throw, the imagery would first see the ball passed to him by the official. The athlete
would then feel the ball in his hands as he began to dribble the ball. As the athlete
prepared himself for the shot, he would see the rim in front of him as he raised the ball to
shoot. As the ball is released, he would feel the ball roll off of his fingertips and see the
ball move through the air until it went through the basket. In addition, all auditory and
27
other sensory cues would be involved with any imagery perspective to help create an
image as vivid as possible.
External imagery. Imagery from an external perspective is a type of imagery that
is used to imagine an image from the perspective of another point of view (Morris et al.,
2005). In other words, one may imagine themselves performing an action and viewing
this action from a spectator’s vantage point. Revisiting the above internal example, the
same image would be created. However, the athlete would now create the image in his
mind as though he was watching a home video of himself performing the skill. Both
types of imagery are useful when attempting to use imagery. Elite level athletes have
reported the use of an internal perspective (Orlick & Partington, 1988; Salmon, Hall, &
Haslam, 1994). However, when choosing which method to use, the deciding factor
should be which type provides the most effective image for the individual and type of
task. For example, research has shown that external imagery is superior in enhancing
performance on tasks that depend heavily on form, such as karate and gymnastics (Hardy
& Callow, 1999; White & Hardy, 1995). Thus, since both perspectives have been found
to enhance performance, it is up to the athlete to work with both perspectives and
determine which method works best for him (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2006).
Theoretical Explanations for Imagery Effectiveness
There are several explanations for why imagery can enhance or even hinder one’s
performance. Morris et al. (2005) discusses these explanations from three different
viewpoints: cognitive, neurophysiological, and psychological. Each of these viewpoints
contains theories and other explanations for the effectiveness of imagery. These
explanations are detailed in this section
Cognitive explanations. The first cognitive theory is known as symbolic learning
theory and has been linked to several studies which have found increases in performance
through imagery training. This theory suggests that imagery allows an athlete to create a
mental blueprint for the way one must move through a performance. In other words, by
using imagery, one can create a plan of action for how one must go about executing a
certain skill. When the athlete actually attempts to perform the skill physically, the body
already has a plan which has been rehearsed mentally, thus creating a higher likelihood of
re-creating this action physically. Research has supported this theory through studies
28
which involved tasks involving the use of cognitive coding rather than motor tasks (Feltz
& Landers, 1983; Feltz, Landers, & Becker, 1988; Hird, Landers, Thomas, & Horan,
1991; Ryan & Simons, 1981, 1983; Wrisberg & Ragsdale, 1979). For example, Hall and
Erffmeyer (1983) found that free throw shooting was improved through imagery training.
This study utilized symbolic learning theory as the theoretical basis and the theory was
supported through this investigation.
Bioinformational theory is the second cognitive explanation for the effectiveness
of imagery and focuses on the idea of stimulus and response characteristics. In order for
imagery to be effective, one must include as much information about the situation as
possible. For example, one imagining a free throw should include everything from the
feeling of the ball, an increased heart rate, to the sounds of the crowd. The creation of the
detailed stimuli will increase the presence of numerous response characteristics. In the
example above, response characteristics may include increased muscle tension, decreased
peripheral vision, increased focus, and increased perspiration. Bioinformational theory
suggests that imagery aids in enhancing performance by allowing an athlete to improve
the stimulus response characteristics (Lang, 1977, 1979). By having one use as many
response characteristics within the imagery training, each response is able to be modified,
improved, or changed all together in order to prepare him when the situation presents
itself in competition.
Neurophysiological explanations. The psychoneuromuscular theory is the first
theory used to explain imagery effectiveness from a neurophysiological viewpoint and
suggests that as people imagine a certain performance in the mind, certain impulses in the
brain occur along with the firing of muscles throughout the body which would be used in
the actual performance of the skill. However, it is important to note that for this to occur,
the image in the mind must be as vivid as possible. Furthermore, although it has been
found that vivid imagery can produce this activity within the brain and muscles, there has
yet to be a direct link between it and enhanced performance. Research has supported the
notion that imagery can produce the firing of muscle groups which would be used during
actual performance. However, there has yet to be research support demonstrating that
these low-level muscle innervations can actually enhance performance (Slade, Landers,
& Martin, 2002; Smith, Collins, & Holmes, 2003).
29
One of the most recent explanations for imagery effectiveness is known as the
functional equivalence explanation. This explanation states that although imagery does
not require physical execution of a given skill, the brain still executes process that is
necessary to trigger these physical movements (Morris et al., 2005). For example, an
athlete who is imagining himself kicking a ball will not actually physically kick a ball.
However, his brain will go through the process that would be required to actually perform
this task. The brain will send messages to the muscles which would be required for the
athlete to kick the ball such as triggering the leg muscles to approach the ball, pulling one
leg back, and finally driving the foot through the ball. The only difference between the
image created in the mind and the actual physical movement is that the final execution of
the motor commands are restricted from being executed. Because of the similarity
between the image and actual physical performance, when the athlete performs the task,
the athlete will have already trained the brain to send the messages to the correct muscles
and be more likely to successfully execute the skill which is desired.
Psychological explanations. The first explanation from a psychological
viewpoint is known as the attentional-arousal set theory. The idea behind this
explanation is that athletes use imagery to not just focus attention on the upcoming
competition, but also to psych up and calm down. For example, a basketball player may
use imagery prior to a game to help increase his arousal level for the game, but at the
same time, this imagery could be used as a way to help focus his attention on what he
needs to do in order to be successful during the competition. Each explanation for how
imagery works has its unique ideas, however each method is unique in the idea that
imagery can help an athlete enhance one’s level of performance.
Of particular interest in this study is the self-efficacy explanation for imagery
effectiveness. As mentioned previously in this chapter, vicarious performances serve as
one of the most influential sources of efficacy beliefs in athletes (Jacobs et al., 1984; Litt,
1988). Vicarious experiences can be done by an athlete simply modeling his
performance after that of another successful athlete. Imagery is one type of modeling.
While engaged in an imagery session, the athlete is imagining a successful performance
of his own and will attempt to model his performance after the exact image created in the
mind. Morris et al. (2005) states that by performing imagery training sessions an athlete
30
will increase their performance expectations and be more likely to expect success in a
given skill. These increases in expectations are then more likely to increase the chance of
actual successful performances. This is the basic theoretical premise of this study.
Effective Use of Imagery in Sport Interventions
Imagery training programs have been used in the past to help enhance athletic
performance. When developing an effective imagery program, there are several keys that
need to be included (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2006). First, it is vital that the imager include
all of the natural senses into his/her imagery. The image that is created in a person’s
mind should be as vivid as possible. In other words, the image that is being created
should appear as though he/she is actually involved in the situation. It is important that
one see everything from colors and shapes to textures and sizes. Next, one should be able
to feel as though they are actually involved in the situation. One should be able to feel
temperatures, and all other feelings that are associated with the image. For example, if
one is imagining shooting a basketball, he should be able to feel the ball in his hands, the
feeling of the hardwood floor, the heat in the gymnasium, the sweat dripping down his
face, and any other feelings involved with the activity. Next, one should be able to
imagine all the sounds associated with the image. The athlete should be able to hear the
noise of the crowd, the sound of the ball when it touches his hands, the ball dribbling on
the floor, and even the sound of the ball going through the basket and net. To achieve the
best image, the athlete should also be able to sense the smells of the activity. Again using
the basketball example, he should be able to smell all of the scents in the gymnasium.
Finally, taste may also be included into one’s imagery experience. An athlete could
imagine the taste that is present in his mouth whether it is from sweat running down his
face or even the taste of the dryness in his mouth. To effectively utilize imagery, all of
the natural senses need to be used throughout the imagery process.
Another key point to an effective imagery program is that the image must be
imagined in “real time.” To effectively use imagery to enhance performance in any
activity, one must perform the activity in their mind as though they are actually
performing the activity. For example, a track sprinter competing in the 100-meter dash
knows the time it usually takes to complete the race. If the athlete competitively finishes
this specific race in 10.2 seconds, and is attempting to train themselves to finish in ten
31
seconds, he will need to imagine himself finishing the race in ten seconds. Therefore,
their imagined race in their mind should last ten seconds. Imagining the race lasting just
three seconds is obviously an impossible time to achieve. Therefore, the imagery would
not be as effective as it would be if the athlete would imagine the race lasting ten
seconds.
One of the more common mistakes one makes when using imagery as a type of
training tool is creating or re-creating negative images in the mind. Athletes tend to focus
on their mistakes and when presented with a similar situation in the future, the thought
and image of the past failed performance is present in one’s mind. Imagining one’s failed
performances, rather than successful performances can actually hinder one’s actual
performance. According to Vealey and Greenleaf (2006), learning how to use imagery in
a productive and controlled way is vital to effective imagery use. Although simply
forgetting about negative performances that have occurred in the past is near impossible,
one should focus their imagery efforts toward creating a plan to successfully overcome
the situation when it should present itself in the future. For example, it is impossible for
a golfer to hit every shot perfectly. However, to overcome poor shots, a golfer using
imagery should focus his efforts toward imagining a perfect shot, rather than the poor
shots which have occurred in the past. Bob Rotella (1995) cited professional golfer Fred
Couples’ strategy of imagining the best six-iron shot he had ever taken prior to each shot
where he used this club. This could be applied to any sport. In basketball free throw
shooting, it would be helpful for an athlete to imagine a perfect free throw attempt prior
to each shot. Imagery does not have to be used by only imagining past performances. A
football quarterback could use imagery to imagine a certain pass play. This imagery
could allow him to plan a certain plan of attack in his mind for the play. The athlete
could view films of an upcoming opponent and imagine different reactions by the
defensive players. Through this method, he could devise a plan in his mind as to where
the open receiver would be in each situation (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2006).
Psychological interventions have been used at all levels of sport and a lot of these
studies have resulted in positive findings. Researchers have looked at several aspects of
basketball performance and different levels of competition as well. Most studies in this
area examine performance as a whole (e.g., shooting, passing, defending). However,
32
researchers have yet to examine the effects an intervention program could have on a high
school basketball players’ free throw self-efficacy. Therefore the purpose of this study
will be to study the effects of an imagery intervention program on male high school
basketball players’ self-efficacy levels specifically pertaining to free throw performance.
Furthermore, this study will add to the existing literature that examines the affects of
imagery training on self-efficacy.
33
Chapter 3
Method
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of an imagery training
program on male high school basketball players’ free throw self-efficacy and free throw
performance in basketball games and practices throughout the basketball season.
Participants
For this study, participants were recruited by contacting the head coach of the
team. The study was explained in detail to the coach at this time. After explaining the
purpose and procedures of the study to the coach, permission was granted to meet with
the athletes participating on the team. During this meeting, athletes were informed that
the study would aim to increase their free throw shooting performance as well as their
confidence in their ability to make free throws.
A total of six, male athletes took part in this investigation. Four of the
participants were Caucasian, while two were African-American. The participants ages
ranged from 14 to 18 years (M=16.33, SD=1.25). One freshman, two juniors, and three
seniors were represented in this study. The competitive basketball experience ranged
from 4 to 11 years (M=7.67, SD=2.29). Each participant was currently competing at the
varsity level on a team in a small town in Ohio. Three different playing positions were
reported by the athletes. Three athletes indicated their primary position as a forward, two
reported playing the guard position, and one reported playing the point guard position.
Five of the participants reported shooting right-handed and one participant did not
respond to the question. Each participant was asked to report any previous experience
with psychological interventions which could possibly be associated with the study.
Only one participant reported having past experience with imagery. Four reported having
used some type of relaxation, one reported past experience with stress management, four
reported experience with goal setting, and three reported past experience with positive
self-talk. However, it is important to note that the question only inquired about
experience and did not specify that the experience had to be with a trained professional.
Therefore, although an athlete may have reported having experience in a certain skill, the
knowledge in which the athlete possessed with the listed interventions did not have any
impact on the results of this study. Athletes were then asked to report free throw
34
percentages from the previous season. These percentages ranged from 25 to 85%
(M=64.83%, SD=21.49).
Research Design
This study was conducted using a single-subject design. Each athlete was
assessed for changes in self-efficacy beliefs and performance scores in both practices and
games. An individual profile was compiled for each athlete, which was used to show the
changes in both efficacy and performance throughout the season. This time-series type
design allowed for consistent and controlled observation and treatment of each athlete
over the course of a competitive season. The study utilized a four week long baseline
assessment of each athlete as a means to generate pre-intervention data for self-efficacy
beliefs, practice free throw performance scores, and competitive free throw scores. Each
athlete began the intervention phase at the same point in the study. This allowed for
consistent assessment of each athlete to track all changes in free throw performance and
efficacy beliefs.
Instrumentation
Demographic Questionnaire
A demographic questionnaire was used to assess each participant’s age, race, and
year in school. Furthermore, this questionnaire also assessed each athlete’s basketball
experience, as well as which level they would compete at during this season (e.g. varsity,
junior varsity, both), previous psychological intervention experience, and last season’s
free throw shooting percentage (see Appendix A).
Competitive Efficacy Scale
The survey consists of four questions scored on a 10-point likert scale raging from
0% (“cannot do at all”) to 100% (“certain can do”) (see Appendix B). A mean of all four
questions was used for a competitive efficacy score. Questions in the survey assessed the
athlete’s efficacy to successfully make free throws during competition. The first question
stated “Rate your confidence in your ability to make free throws in a game.” The second
question asked “Rate your confidence in your ability to bounce back from shooting free
throws poorly (missed several the last game) during the next game.” The third question
asked the athlete, “Rate your confidence in your ability to make free throws in the fourth
quarter when your team is losing.” The final question asked “Rate your confidence in
35
your ability to make free throws in the fourth quarter when your team is winning.” No
reliability or validity information was available for this questionnaire from previous
research.
Free Throw Self-Efficacy Scale
The Free Throw Self-Efficacy Scale (FTSS) was specifically designed for this
study using the single-judgment format presented by Bandura (1997) (see Appendix C).
This scale was used to gain strength of self-efficacy scores for making a free throw. The
scale began by asking the athlete to imagine that he is sent to the free throw line by his
coach and asked to shoot ten free throws. The athlete was then asked, “How certain are
you that you can successfully make a free throw:” 0 out of 10, 1 out of 10, 2 out of 10, all
the way up to 10 out of 10. This scale was set up to assess both the level and strength of
the athlete’s self-efficacy pertaining to his ability to make the free throws. The strength
of efficacy beliefs was calculated by summing all of the scores from each level and then
dividing by ten. The level of self efficacy was represented by the final performance level
that is rated above zero. This scale was developed using recommended self-efficacy
measurement techniques by Feltz and Chase (1998).
Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised
The Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised (MIQ-R), developed by Hall and
Martin (1997) was used to assess each athlete’s imagery ability (see Appendix D). This
questionnaire contained 8 items and measured both visual and kinesthetic imagery ability.
Completing this scale required four steps. The athlete was first asked to assume a starting
position that was explained to the imager. Next, a movement was explained and the
imager was asked to physically perform this action. Following this movement, the
athlete was again asked to return to the originally described starting point, and then
mentally perform the previously explained movement. The final step in this process was
for the imager to rate the ease/difficulty to imagine the movement. This was done on a 7point Likert-type scale ranging 1 (“very easy to imagine/feel”) to 7 (“very difficult to
imagine/feel”). Internal consistency had been reported at .87 (visual subscale) and .91
(kinesthetic subscale). The MIQ has been identified as a useful measure of imagery
ability on several occasions (Goss, Hall, Buckolz, & Fishburne, 1986; Hall, Buckolz, &
36
Fishburne, 1989). Reliability scores had been acceptable and a test-retest coefficient of
.83 had been reported.
SCIM Interview Technique
In order to develop the imagery intervention, each athlete individually met with
the researcher for an interview which examined each athlete’s sources of self-efficacy.
The interview was conducted following the SCIM protocol (Scanlan, Russell, Wilson, &
Scanlan, 2003). Closed-ended questions were used to generate specific information such
as how long they had competed in competitive basketball. The researcher then presented
the definition of self-efficacy to the athlete prior to further questions to assure they had a
clear understanding. Pre-planned open-ended questions (see Appendix E) were then used
to help the athlete determine his most influential sources of self-efficacy. Using a target
(see Appendix F), athletes placed each source on the target for an illustration on how they
weighted and combined sources to determine their efficacy. Information gained from the
target illustration was then used to determine the most influential sources of information
for each athlete individually.
After identifying the athletes’ strongest sources of efficacy information, each
athlete met with the researcher to develop a personal imagery videotape. This videotape
consisted of their entire free throw routine from the time the athlete received the ball
through the time the ball went through the basket with a perfect swish. The video tape
was then edited to create an individual specific tape. This tape also included information
such as personal affirmations and positive self-talk cue words used during the pre-shot
routine that was to aid in the development of increased self-efficacy.
Social Validation Scale
The social validation scale was administered once at the conclusion of the season
(see Appendix G). This nine-question scale which was created by the researcher
addressed issues such as how often athletes viewed the video tape at home, which
technique the athletes found most beneficial, and the level of impact each technique had
on each athlete’s free throw shooting. Each question used to assess the level of impact
each technique had on one’s free throw shooting was scored on a 10-point Likert-type
scale. Although there was no statistical analysis for this scale, the information gained
37
from this questionnaire was used to help increase the reliability of the overall results of
the study.
Procedures
Pre-Intervention Phase.
Prior to the study, permission was obtained from the Institutional Review Board
for Human Subjects Research. To recruit participants for this study, the head coach of a
local high school basketball team was contacted by phone. A meeting was set at that
time to meet with the coach in person. This meeting provided the opportunity to explain
the study and inform the coach of all that was expected if he were to grant permission to
speak with his team. Upon gaining permission to speak with the athletes, the study was
then introduced to athletes and their parents. They were all informed that their
participation was completely voluntary and by participating, their status on the team
would not be affected in any way. All athletes were informed that this study would take
place over the duration of the season and would seek to improve their free throw shooting
performance. Each parent received an in-depth explanation of the study, as well as what
was expected from their son. Because of the age of the participants, parents had the
opportunity to refuse to permit their son’s participation. In addition, parents had the
ability to discontinue the participation of their son at any point of the study.
Informed consent was gained from each athlete’s parent/legal guardian after the
study was introduced to them (see Figure 2 for study timetable). After acquiring consent
from parents, each athlete was also asked to sign the same consent form. Upon gaining
consent, the athletes were then given the demographic questionnaire, the Free Throw
Self-Efficacy Scale, and the Competitive Efficacy Scale, and continued to complete each
of these scales weekly throughout the study. In addition to the self-efficacy scales, each
athlete’s daily free throw shooting was recorded throughout the study in both games and
practices. During every practice, each athlete was required to take part in a free throw
shooting drill. Therefore, each athlete’s performance score was recorded as how many
free throws were successfully made out of 10 possible attempts. These scores served as
the baseline performance data for each athlete until the intervention was implemented, in
which time these scores then served as the performance measure for each athlete. The
researcher was present during all practices, games, and team meetings throughout the
38
entire season. This helped the collection of performance measures and other data be
more reliable since the information was being recorded by the researcher and not simply
being acquired from a secondary source.
In order to gain competitive performance measures, free throw performance was
also recorded during each scheduled game. This score was recorded similarly to that of
the practice performance measure. Each free throw was recorded throughout the season
and served as the baseline competitive performance measure until the intervention was
implemented, in which time this score began serving as each athlete’s competitive
performance score.
Prior to the beginning of the intervention, the researcher conducted an interview
with each athlete. This interview was conducted utilizing the SCIM interview technique
and was used to gain information regarding the sources of information which were most
important to his efficacy beliefs pertaining to free throw shooting. The interviews also
helped the researcher label certain distracters that interfere with each athlete’s efficacy
beliefs. Each interview lasted approximately 25 minutes and the information gained from
the interviews aided in the development of an imagery videotape that was created for
each individual athlete.
Prior to the beginning of the videotaping, the researcher conducted a brief
meeting with all athletes in order to introduce each intervention technique that was
involved with the study. All interventions were introduced during this brief meeting with
all athletes. At this time, each athlete also completed the revised version of the
Movement Imagery Questionnaire which served as the pre-measure for imagery ability.
All other meetings conducted throughout the study were done on an individual basis to
ensure each athlete completely understood the interventions being implemented in this
study.
Upon completion of the meeting with all athletes where the interventions were
introduced and explained, recording of the video tapes began. This process lasted
approximately two weeks, allowing the researcher the following two weeks to edit and
create each individual tape. The video tapes consisted first of a close front view of the
athlete successfully making a free throw. This view was primarily used to capture the
athlete’s free throw routine and also allow the camera to capture the verbal cues
39
expressed during the routine. Prior to engaging in the usual pre-shot routine, each athlete
took a deep breath in order to relax any tension prior to the shot. The athlete then
vocalized specific cue words which were used to help the athlete focus on the upcoming
shot and block out any distractions. After using these focus cue words, the athlete then
began his dribble and free throw shot. After this free throw was complete, the athlete
completed four more free throws which were recorded from directly behind the basket,
directly behind the shooter, and also from both sides of the shooter, allowing the athlete
to view himself making a free throw from all perspectives. In addition to specific cue
words, each shot included on the video tape included the entire free throw routine which
began by the athlete receiving the ball, the pre-shot routine, and the ball successfully
being made. Once the editing process was completed, each athlete was given two copies
of the video tape. One tape was required to remain at the gym, while the other was sent
home with the athlete. After all video tapes were distributed, the intervention process
began.
Intervention Phase
Each athlete began the intervention at the same time. This occurred
approximately at the mid-point of the season allowing approximately 6-8 weeks for the
intervention. Upon beginning the intervention, each athlete was required to view their
video tape weekly during practice. After viewing the video tape, the athlete was then
asked to execute the same images in his mind that were displayed on the tape. Each
imagery session lasted approximately 5 minutes which included both the viewing of the
tape and the imagery itself. In addition to viewing the video tape during practice, athletes
were also be asked to view the tape while at home as well and use the imagery technique
which they have learned. Finally, the same routine in the video tape which was viewed
and imagined by each athlete was also the same routine each athlete was asked to utilize
prior to every free throw in both practice and competition throughout the remainder of the
season. Because the use of deep breathing and a specific focus phrase were important
aspects of the free throw routine, the researcher took time to watch each athlete closely
during practices to ensure that they were using these techniques and using them properly
in all free throw attempts.
40
Throughout the intervention, self-efficacy measures continued to be administered
on a weekly basis and both practice and competitive performance measures continued to
be recorded daily. The researcher also met with each athlete during the intervention
phase of the study to discuss the intervention and ensure the athlete was completing the
intervention properly and also allowed the athlete to ask any questions that may arise. At
the conclusion of the intervention, the Movement Imagery Questionnaire – Revised was
administered once again to gain post-measures for imagery ability.
The information gained from the SCIM interviews was used by the researcher
during the intervention to help increase each athlete’s efficacy beliefs. For example, an
athlete who indicated that past performance accomplishments served as the most salient
source of efficacy was approached by the researcher and reminded of a successful
attempt in a past important shot. In another example, if an athlete indicated that verbal
persuasion from coaches or other individuals served as his most influential source of
efficacy beliefs, the researcher then approached the athlete and verbally indicated a sense
of confidence in the athlete’s ability to make free throws. This type of attention was
given during practices and games throughout the intervention phase of the season.
Post-Intervention Phase
Following the conclusion of the competitive season, each athlete was asked to
complete the social validation questionnaire (Appendix G) which served as an indication
as to what each athlete completed on his own at home. The questionnaire also asked the
athletes to indicate particular aspects of the intervention which they found most helpful
and also indicate which aspects, if any, were not helpful. Questions were designed to
specifically address each technique involved with the intervention (i.e. imagery, focus,
and relaxation). This self-report questionnaire helped the researcher indicate a
relationship between any improved free throw performance or self-efficacy beliefs with
that of the intervention presented to the athletes.
Data Analysis
Individual data for each measure was analyzed using visual inspection. In this
form of analysis, data is transformed into line graphs and plotted over different design
phases (Parsonson & Baer, 1978). Sidman (1960) called this form of analysis “criterionby-inspection and suggested that one of the major requirements for successfully
41
evaluating the data using this technique is that the experimental manipulations produce
large effects. Kratochwill (1978) adds that successful visual analysis is dependent upon
careful data presentation. That is, visual inspection is a complex analysis which involves
careful assessment of the trend and variability of the data. Trend refers to the change in
direction in the data series. Variability can threaten the internal validity of an
experiment. In general, the greater the variability, the harder it is to demonstrate that the
change in the data series has been produced by the intervention.
Eight statistical properties of data are relevant to visual analysis. The first five
items were first identified by Jones, Vaught, and Weinrott (1977). These include the
stability of baseline, variability within phases, variability between phases, overlap
between scores of adjacent phases, and the number of data points in each phase. The
final three statistical properties have been identified by Kazdin (1976) and Glass,
Willson, and Gottman (1975). These include changes in trend within phases, changes in
trend between adjacent phases, and changes in level between phases.
The stability of baseline data is the first statistical property of visual analysis. If
the baseline data drifts in the direction of improvement, it is difficult to support that the
intervention is the major cause for treatment effects. Baseline data that drifts in the
direction opposite of improvement offers greater opportunity to support the effects of the
intervention.
Variability within phases is the second statistical property of visual analysis.
Baselines that are initially unstable but stabilize during the intervention phase suggest
that there may have been some initial effect of the implemented intervention. When
intervention phase data shows consistent improvement that does not mirror baseline data,
intervention effectiveness is more likely to be supported. When improvements begin to
be found during the baseline phase, but also continue to be found throughout the
intervention phase, less credibility can be given to the intervention due to initial increase
beginning prior to the implementation of the intervention.
Variability between phases is the third statistical property of visual analysis and is
similar to that of the second property discussed above. Large variability during the
baseline phase which is then followed by a high level of stability during the intervention
phase indicates a high level of experimental control and a certain level of effectiveness
42
for the intervention. High levels of variability during both the baseline and intervention
phases of the study indicates lower levels of experimental control and indicates less
effectiveness of the intervention.
The fourth property of visual analysis examines overlap between scores of
adjacent phases. This can be done by drawing horizontal lines through both phases of
data. There are no set criteria for acceptable amounts of overlap. However, the less
overlap that exists, the more convincing the treatment effects. Overlap in data between
the baseline and intervention phases only in the initial stages of the intervention clearly is
more acceptable than overlapping scores occurring throughout or towards the end of the
intervention.
The number of data points in each phase is the fifth property of visual analysis.
This simply refers to how many data points are present in each phase of the study. The
more overlap or variability that is present, the more data points that are needed to make
assessments. Having too few data points can make assessment of intervention
effectiveness difficult.
The sixth property of visual analysis has to deal with the changes in trend within
phases. During the baseline phase, variability is expected in most studies. Positive
treatment effects during the intervention phase are indicated by an improving trend.
However, if data begins to show a positively increasing trend during the end of the
baseline phase, any increase during the intervention phase must take into consideration
this trend. A downward trend during the intervention phase indicates a trend in a
negative direction. However, this property is strictly concerned with the changes in trend
in each individual phase and is not concerned with making comparisons between baseline
and intervention phases.
The seventh property of visual analysis is concerned with the changes in trend
between adjacent phases. This property, unlike the previous property, is concerned with
comparing the trend of the baseline phase to that of the intervention phase. The degree
and direction of trend change are relevant to assessment of the data. Treatment effects
are determined by the changes in trend between the baseline and intervention phases of
the study. For example, a baseline trend in a downward direction that is followed by an
intervention trend in an upward positive direction allows for a stronger argument toward
43
the positive effects of the intervention. If there is little or no change in trend between
phases, the effect of the intervention becomes more difficult to illustrate. Finally, the
duration of trend also must be taken into consideration. A positive upward trend may be
found during the intervention phase when compared to the baseline trend. However, if at
some point during the intervention, this trend changes direction, treatment effects are
compromised.
The final property of visual analysis is the change in level between phases. One
way to determine the changes in level between phases is to draw horizontal lines through
both individual phases which represent the average levels during each phase. Greater
treatment effects are illustrated by larger changes in the level between each phase.
Another piece of evidence toward the effectiveness of the intervention is the abruptness
of the change in level. By looking at the intervention phase’s level, it is possible to
determine at which point during the intervention phase that this level was reached. The
shorter period of time that passed prior to reaching this level, the stronger the treatment
effect. Finally, it is important to note that this analysis technique does not determine
cause/effect relationships. Therefore, although the criteria presented above and
strengthen the argument for the effectiveness of the intervention, the actual effect will
never be conclusive.
44
Chapter 4
Results
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of an imagery training
program on high school basketball players’ free throw performance and self-efficacy
throughout a competitive season. The results are presented by first examining all athletes
as a group. Following the group analysis, individual results are presented in a singlesubject format by examining the variables of interest in the study for each individual
participant. More specifically, each athlete’s competitive efficacy, free-throw efficacy
strength and level, imagery ability, and actual free throw performance as measured preand post-intervention is presented in this section.
Imagery Ability
Group Results
Research Question 1 asked if that athletes’ imagery ability would increase from
pre to post-test. Results indicated that yes, imagery ability did improve. Table 1
illustrates the means and standard deviations of pre and post imagery ability for both the
kinesthetic and visual subscales from the movement imagery questionnaire. Figure 3
provides a clear visual image of the increases in both subscales. The visual aspect of
imagery was found to be the strong point in both the pre- and post-test. The average
visual score increased from 18.33 to 23.00 (+ 4.67) between tests. An increase was also
found on the kinesthetic subscale from a pre-test score of 13.83 to a post-test score of
18.33 (+ 4.50). Although visual abilities were much stronger than those of the kinesthetic
abilities, a consistent increase was found between both subscales indicating an equal
emphasis was placed on increasing both aspects of imagery ability. These results
illustrate that although imagery ability increased over the duration of the investigation,
athletes found it more difficult to include the feelings, sounds, and other kinesthetic
aspects into the image than simply increasing the clarity of the image.
Individual Results
Participant 1. Results from the movement imagery questionnaire indicated that
Participant 1’s visual imagery ability was stronger than his kinesthetic imagery ability
prior to beginning the intervention. Initial visual imagery ability was scored at 19 out of
a possible 28. A score of 14 out of 28 was recorded for the kinesthetic subscale during
45
the imagery ability pre-test. At the conclusion of the intervention phase of the
investigation, the same imagery ability scale was administered once again. Visual
imagery ability increased from 19 to 25 (+6) and kinesthetic imagery ability increased
from 14 to 21 (+7). Overall, imagery ability increased, however, his visual imagery
ability remained stronger than his kinesthetic ability. Regardless, imagery ability did
improve between pre- and post-test.
Participant 2. Initial imagery ability testing indicated that Participant 2’s visual
imagery ability was stronger than his kinesthetic imagery ability prior to beginning the
imagery intervention. Visual imagery ability was recorded at 15 out of a possible 28. On
the kinesthetic subscale, a score of 12 out of a possible 28 was recorded. At the
conclusion of the post-test, visual imagery ability continued to be stronger than
kinesthetic. However, an overall increase in imagery ability was found. Visual imagery
ability increased from 15 to 19 (+4). Kinesthetic imagery ability increased from 12 to 17
(+5). In this case, the individual results indicate that imagery ability did improve from
pre- to post-intervention.
Participant 3. Prior to beginning the imagery intervention, visual imagery ability
was stronger for Participant 3 than his kinesthetic ability. A pre-test score of 19 out of 28
was recorded for the visual subscale. A score of 16 out of a possible 28 was recorded for
the kinesthetic subscale during the pre-test for imagery ability. Imagery ability post-test
scores indicated that both visual and kinesthetic imagery abilities were equal. Visual
imagery ability increased from 19 to 22 (+3). Participant 3’s kinesthetic imagery ability
increased from 16 to 22 (+6). Overall, imagery ability did improve from pre- to postintervention in this case.
Participant 4. Imagery ability pre-test scores indicated that visual imagery ability
was only slightly stronger than kinesthetic ability. A score of 13 out of a possible 28 was
recorded for the visual subscale of the movement imagery questionnaire. Kinesthetic
ability was recorded at 12 out of a possible 28. Following the conclusion of the
intervention phase of this investigation, increases in both subscales was found. Visual
imagery ability increased from 13 to 24 (+11). An increase from 12 to 16 (+4) was found
on the kinesthetic subscale. This indicates that visual imagery ability improved
significantly greater than kinesthetic ability. However, improvements on both types of
46
imagery ability were found indicating an overall increase in imagery ability between preand post-tests.
Participant 5. During the pre-test examining imagery ability, Participant 5
indicated that his visual imagery ability was stronger than his kinesthetic ability. A score
of 22 out of a possible 28 was recorded for the visual subscale. Kinesthetic imagery
ability was recorded at 18 out of a possible 28. Following the conclusion of the imagery
intervention, visual imagery increased from 22 to 23 (+1) and remained stronger than his
kinesthetic imagery ability. However, his kinesthetic imagery ability did increase as well
from 18 to 21 (+3). Although these increases were small, imagery ability did improve
from pre- to post-intervention.
Participant 6. Imagery ability pre-test scores indicated that visual imagery ability
was stronger than kinesthetic imagery ability. A pre-test score of 22 out of a possible 28
was recorded on the visual subscale. Pre-test kinesthetic imagery ability was recorded at
11 out of a possible 28. Following the conclusion of the imagery intervention, imagery
ability was again measured and visual imagery ability continued to be stronger than
kinesthetic imagery ability. Visual imagery ability increased from 22 to 25 (+3).
Kinesthetic imagery ability also increased slightly from 11 to 13 (+2). Results indicate
that once again, yes, imagery ability did improve from pre- to post-intervention.
Summary of imagery ability results. Research Question 1 inquired as to whether
or not imagery ability would increase between pre- and post-intervention. The results
presented above illustrate that this did occur in each participant. Visual imagery ability
was found to be stronger than kinesthetic ability in each participant during the imagery
ability pre-test. During the imagery ability post-test, visual imagery ability continued to
rated higher than kinesthetic ability in each participant. However, as mentioned in the
results above, both imagery subscales measured by the MIQ-R showed increases between
pre- and post-intervention for each participant.
Practice Free Throw Self-Efficacy
Group Results
Research Question 2 inquired if whether or not free throw self-efficacy would
improve from pre- to post-intervention. There were two different measures recorded
from the Free Throw Self-Efficacy Scale: level and strength. Collectively, athletes’ self-
47
efficacy level did not change at all throughout the study as illustrated in Table 2. Each
participant in the study indicated a perfect level of ten throughout the study. Even if the
athlete did not record ten straight successful free throws at any point throughout the
season, each athlete still had a slight level of confidence in his ability to do so.
The second measure determined by the Free Throw Self-Efficacy Scale was the
strength of each athlete’s efficacy beliefs. Although there were no drastic changes
throughout the study in self-efficacy strength, a slight but consistent increase was found.
As illustrated in Table 2, the average pre-intervention strength was 8.19 (SD=1.70). A
consistent increase in self-efficacy strength was found beginning in the pre-intervention
phase of the study (see Figure 4). This increase continued throughout the intervention
phase as self-efficacy strength increased from 8.31 to 8.52 (+0.21) which indicated a
significant increase in levels between baseline and intervention phases. The final average
strength was recorded at 8.28; however this final data point was following a loss which
ended the season. Collectively, athletes’ free throw self-efficacy strength during week
one (8.13) was the lowest score recorded with the highest point coming in week eight
(8.52) which was the final score collected while the team was still playing. Through
visual analysis, overlap between adjacent phases was found for efficacy strength
throughout the season. Perhaps more interesting was the standard deviation from pre- to
post-intervention. During the pre-intervention phase of the study, the standard deviation
gradually increased from 1.23 to 2.68. This indicates a greater variation in the scores
recorded by the athletes. However, during the intervention phase of the study, these
numbers gradually decreased from 1.77 to 1.07, indicating that the variation in scores
became smaller as the intervention progressed.
Individual Results
Participant 1. As mentioned in the group analysis section, each participant
recorded a consistent self-efficacy level of ten throughout the study. Therefore, further
analyses are not presented for self-efficacy levels. A gradual, yet consistent increase in
self-efficacy strength was found for Participant 1. Initial pre-intervention strength was
recorded at 9.2 out of a possible 10, indicating a relatively high strength in efficacy
beliefs. This number did increase throughout the pre-intervention phase with a final preintervention strength of 9.5 (M=9.38). As the season progressed, efficacy strength
48
continued to increase. During the first week of the intervention phase of the
investigation, self-efficacy strength was recorded at 9.6 out of a possible 10. However,
unlike the pre-intervention phase, self-efficacy strength scores increased only during the
first week of the intervention before reaching a plateau of 9.8 out of a possible 10.
However the total intervention phase average (M=9.75) did indicate a total increase of
+.37 from pre- to post-intervention in terms of means. In terms of the entire season, a
total increase in efficacy strength of +.6 was found. The results from Participant 1
indicated that, yes, free throw self-efficacy did increase from pre- to post-intervention.
Participant 2. Self-efficacy strength scores for Participant 2 initially began at 7.7
out of a possible 10. These scores continued to decline throughout the pre-intervention
phase of the study until an increase was recorded during the final week of the preintervention phase. The second week of the pre-intervention phase only showed a slight
decrease from 7.7 to 7.6. However, a larger decline occurred the following week when
strength scores dropped to 6.3. As mentioned though, strength scores returned to 7.2
during the final week of the pre-intervention phase of the study. Overall, pre-intervention
efficacy strength (M=7.20) indicated a total decrease of -.5. This general decline was not
found during the intervention phase of the investigation. Intervention phase efficacy
strength (M=7.56) indicated an overall increase of +.36. Self-efficacy strength scores
gradually increased from the first week of the intervention (7.4) to the week prior to the
final week (7.7). However, a slight decrease in efficacy strength was found during the
final week (7.5). Although this slight decrease was found between the last two weeks of
the intervention, an overall increase was found between pre- and post-intervention free
throw self-efficacy in this case.
Participant 3. The free throw self-efficacy strength of Participant 3 did not show
any significant increases or decreases throughout the study. However, the during the
intervention phase of the investigation, his efficacy strength did show greater
consistency. Initial efficacy strength was reported at 9.5. During the second week of the
pre-intervention phase, this strength decreased to 9.2 before increasing to 9.6 out of a
possible 10 the following week. Final pre-intervention self-efficacy strength returned to
the initial score of 9.5 and the average pre-intervention score (M=9.45) was only slightly
lower than this. As the intervention phase began, a slightly lower score (9.3) was
49
recorded. However, the following week, an increase to 9.4 was reported and this
remained consistent throughout the remainder of the study. Although this score remained
consistent, the average intervention score (M=9.38) did indicate a slight decrease between
pre- and post-intervention of -.07. Even though consistency was gained during the
intervention phase of the investigation, free throw self-efficacy did not improve between
pre- and post-intervention.
Participant 4. Pre-intervention phase efficacy strength was initially reported at
6.9 out of a possible 10. Throughout this phase, efficacy strength continued to decline as
each week passed. Final pre-intervention efficacy strength was reported at just 5.5. A
significant decrease in efficacy strength occurred each week and an average preintervention phase efficacy strength of 6.25 was found. An immediate increase in
efficacy strength was found at the onset of the intervention phase of the investigation
(6.1). Each following week, a consistent increase was reported with a final intervention
phase score of 7.3 being reported. At no point throughout the intervention phase was a
decrease in efficacy strength found. The average intervention phase score (M=6.66)
indicated an increase in efficacy strength of +.31. Overall, Participant 4 did experience
an increase in efficacy strength between pre- and post-intervention.
Participant 5. Initial pre-intervention efficacy strength was reported at 8.5.
However, during this phase of the investigation, efficacy strength scores alternated
between increases and decreases each week. The final efficacy strength for the preintervention phase of this investigation was reported at 9.3 with an average score of 8.98.
During the intervention phase of the study, this number showed a decrease, but remained
consistently at 9.0 until the final week where a decrease to 8.7 was found. The average
intervention phase score (M=8.90) did show an overall decrease of -.08, but as illustrated,
this was a very slight decrease. However, even though the overall decrease was rather
small, overall efficacy strength between pre- and post-intervention decreased in this case.
Participant 6. A consistent increase in efficacy strength was reported during the
intervention phase of the study for Participant 6. Initial efficacy strength was reported at
7.0, but did increase each week during this phase of the study. Final pre-intervention
efficacy strength was reported at 9.0 with an average pre-intervention efficacy strength of
7.88. This increasing trend continued through the intervention phase of the study with
50
the exception of 2 weeks. Intervention phase efficacy strength began at 8.5 which was a
slight decrease from the final pre-intervention score. However, throughout the
intervention phase of the study, efficacy strength never dropped below 8.7 and final
efficacy strength was reported at 8.9. The intervention phase efficacy strength (M=8.78)
was a significant increase of +.90 from the average pre-intervention efficacy strength.
Although the final efficacy strength score (8.9) was lower than the final pre-intervention
phase score (9.0), the scores throughout the intervention phase remained higher than
those of the pre-intervention phase which indicate an overall increase between phases.
Summary of free throw self-efficacy results. Research Question 2 examined if
whether or not free throw self-efficacy would increase between pre- and postintervention. Overall, free throw self-efficacy did improve from 8.19 to 8.28. However,
this was not true for each participant. Two of the participants experienced a decrease in
free throw self-efficacy. However, four of the participants did experience an increased in
free throw self-efficacy.
Competitive Free Throw Self-Efficacy
Group Results
Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for competitive efficacy prior to
the beginning of the intervention and also for the scores throughout the intervention
phase. Also illustrated in Table 3 is a week by week look at the average score and
standard deviation. As illustrated, average competitive efficacy scores (+10.46)
increased from pre-intervention to intervention. A clearer illustration can be seen
through the week by week averages. As shown in Table 3, the average score continued to
increase each week with the exception of three weeks where slight decreases were found.
Furthermore, Figure 5 provides an illustration of average overall group competitive
efficacy throughout the season.
Individual Results
Participant 1. For Participant 1, initial overall competitive efficacy was reported
at 60 out of a possible 100 (see Figure 6). This average increased slightly over the
following weeks in the pre-intervention phase of the investigation. However, a large
increase to 80 was reported the week prior to beginning the intervention. An overall
average pre-intervention competitive efficacy score of 68.75 was reported. This average
51
increased (+23.13) between pre- and post-intervention. A consistent increase was found
with the exception of one week during the intervention where competitive efficacy did
show a slight decrease. The final competitive efficacy score was a perfect 100. Overall,
the average intervention phase competitive efficacy score indicated a significant increase
(M=91.88). In relation to the visual inspection criteria, evidence of overlap between
phases was found in the data along with a slight increase in level over the course of the
season. This increase in level provides greater support for the effectiveness of the
intervention. In addition, the stability of the baseline inclines in a positive direction
which indicates that competitive efficacy was improving prior to the onset of the
intervention. This indicates that something other than the intervention may have been
influencing competitive efficacy levels, but this information cannot be considered
conclusive in this investigation.
Participant 2. Through the visual inspection analysis, a change in trend between
phases was found. When examining the stability of the baseline, overall competitive
efficacy consistently declined (downward trend) from an initial score of 82.5 to a final
pre-intervention score of 65 (see Figure 7). A total pre-intervention average competitive
efficacy of 71.88 was recorded. However, when examining the variability between
phases, an immediate increase in competitive efficacy occurs at the onset of the
intervention phase to 80 and scores then plateau which indicates an elevated level of
experimental control according to the visual inspection criteria. Following the
intervention phase of the study, average competitive efficacy was found to be much
higher (M=80.00). As illustrated by these averages, an overall increase (+8.12) in
competitive efficacy was found between pre- and post-intervention.
Participant 3. For Participant 3, initial pre-intervention competitive efficacy was
reported at 87.5. This was the highest reported score throughout the entire study (see
Figure 8). Competitive efficacy immediately declined to 72.5 the following week and
reached a plateau of 82.5 for the remainder of the pre-intervention phase of the study.
Overall, an average pre-intervention competitive efficacy score of 81.25 was reported by
Participant 3. Throughout the intervention phase of the study, competitive efficacy
remained consistently at 85 with the exception of the week prior to the conclusion of the
investigation where a decrease from 85 to 82.5 was reported. However, during the final
52
week of the study, competitive efficacy returned 85. The overall intervention phase
average (M=84.50) indicated that there was a slight increase (+3.25) in competitive
efficacy between pre- and post-intervention. According to the visual inspection criteria,
the only evident change occurred when examining the variability between phases.
During the intervention, scores gained consistency which indicates a certain degree of
experimental control. However, with the exception of the change in variability, there was
very little difference between the two phases according to the visual inspection criteria.
Participant 4. Throughout the pre-intervention phase of the study, overall
competitive efficacy alternated between increases and decreases each week. Initial
efficacy was reported at 50 with the final pre-intervention efficacy measurement being
reported at 55 (see Figure 9). An average of 52.5 was found over the entire preintervention phase of the investigation. The same trend of alternating scores was found
throughout the intervention phase of the study. However, the scores were reported at a
higher level than those during the pre-intervention phase of the study. Initial intervention
phase competitive efficacy was reported at 72.5, which was the lowest score reported for
the entire intervention phase of the study. Competitive efficacy was reported at 75 during
the final week of the investigation and the total intervention phase average (M=75.5)
indicated a rather significant increase (+23) in overall competitive efficacy between preand post-intervention. In relation to the visual analysis criteria, an increase in level was
found which lends credibility to the effectiveness of the intervention. Furthermore, when
examining the variability of scores between phases, consistency in scores was gained
during the intervention phase which once again illustrates a higher degree of
experimental control.
Participant 5. Competitive efficacy for Participant 5 was rather erratic
throughout the entire investigation. Initial pre-intervention competitive efficacy was
reported at 72.5 (see Figure 10). Throughout the remainder of the pre-intervention phase,
efficacy beliefs alternated between increases and decreases with the final pre-intervention
efficacy score being reported at 77.5. This resulted in an average pre-intervention
competitive efficacy score of 76.88. Throughout the intervention phase of the
investigation, efficacy scores continued to make large changes. Initial intervention phase
efficacy was reported at 82.5. However, this was followed by a large drop to 65 the
53
following week. Overall, the intervention phase average (M=75.0) indicated a total
decrease (-1.88) in competitive efficacy. When examining the stability of the baseline
and variability within phases, all scores remained consistent throughout the season with
the exception of one week during the intervention phase when a decrease in efficacy was
found. Therefore, it is difficult to further analyze the results due to the scores not fitting
any of the visual inspection criteria.
Participant 6. Through use of the visual inspection criteria, significant variability
was found throughout both phases. However, less variability was found during the
intervention phase of the study which indicates some degree of experimental control.
Furthermore, baseline scores remained erratic throughout the pre-intervention phase with
lends further credibility to the intervention. Pre-intervention competitive efficacy
followed a similar alternating pattern that was found in Participant 5. Initial efficacy
beliefs were reported at 52.5 and increased the following week to 62.5 (see Figure 11). A
decrease was found the following week which resulted in efficacy beliefs returning to the
original score of 52.5. Final pre-intervention efficacy was recorded at 70 with an average
score of 59.38. At the onset of the intervention phase, efficacy beliefs decreased to 65
before returning to 70 the following week. Efficacy beliefs remained at this point with
the exception of one week throughout the remainder of the intervention phase. Overall,
the average intervention phase competitive efficacy (M=67.00) indicated a total increase
(+7.62) in competitive efficacy between pre- and post-intervention.
Summary of competitive free throw self-efficacy. This measure was recorded
throughout the season. Research Question 2 examined whether or not free throw selfefficacy would increase between pre- and post-intervention. Just as found in practice free
throw self-efficacy, competitive free throw self-efficacy, as a group did increase. In
addition, results indicated that competitive efficacy increased for five of the participants
versus the four which experienced an increase in practice free throw self-efficacy. When
examining the results by using the visual analysis criteria, emphasis was placed on the
stability of the baseline, variability within phases, variability between phases, and
changes in level between phases. According to these criteria, a high degree of
experimental control was found in addition to increases in levels between phases.
54
Practice Free Throw Performance
Group Results
Research Question 3 examined whether or not athletes’ free throw performance
would increase from pre- to post-intervention. Practice performance scores were
recorded during each practice in which free throws were practiced as a team. During the
first phase of the free throw shooting practice, athletes were sent to the free throw line
and asked to shoot 10 free throws. The number made out of 10 served as the practice
performance score for that day. As illustrated in Table 4, the total shooting percentage
for the pre-intervention phase for all athletes was 79.3%. A total of 1600 shots were
attempted as a group. At the high school level, this is considered a respectable shooting
percentage. Although it was hypothesized that this percentage would increase from preto post-intervention, this was not found to be true. Shooting percentage (77.8%) actually
decreased slightly when calculated following the intervention phase of the study (see
Table 5). However, as shown by these percentages, the decrease was not drastic and
there were fewer shots (1280) attempted during the intervention phase. Furthermore,
although a collective decrease in percentage was found, this was not true for each athlete
individually. This will be illustrated in the following section where each participant is
individually presented.
Individual Results
Participant 1. Pre-intervention practice free throw percentage was 73.7% for
Participant 1 (see Table 4). A total of 199 free throws were made out of a possible 270.
During the intervention phase of the investigation, a total of 167 free throws were
successfully made out of a possible 210 for a total intervention phase percentage of
79.5% (see Table 5). This increase (+5.8%) in free throw performance indicates that yes,
free throw performance elevate from pre- to post-intervention.
Participant 2. A total of 270 shots were attempted by Participant 2 during the
pre-intervention phase of the investigation (see Table 4). Out of the 270 shots, 227 of
them were successfully made for a total pre-intervention percentage of 84.0%. During
the intervention phase, a total of 230 shots were attempted with 179 successfully being
made (see Table 5). An intervention phase shooting percentage of 77.8% was recorded
55
by Participant 2. An overall decrease (-6.2%) in shooting percentage between pre- and
post-intervention was found in this case.
Participant 3. During the pre-intervention phase of the study, Participant 3
attempted 250 free throws during practice (see Table 4). A total of 203 of those shots
were successfully made and a total pre-intervention phase percentage of 81.2% was
found. Throughout the intervention phase of the study, a total of 220 shots were
attempted with 183 of these free throws being successfully made (see Table 5). A total
intervention phase shooting percentage of 78.2% was recorded. A total decrease (-3.0%)
in overall shooting percentage was found in this case.
Participant 4. A total of 270 free throws were attempted by Participant 4 during
the pre-intervention phase of the investigation (see Table 4). Out of these 270 shots, 223
were successfully made. This resulted in a total pre-intervention free throw percentage of
82.5%. Throughout the intervention phase of the study, a total of 220 free throws were
attempted with 156 of these shots being successfully made (see Table 5). A final
intervention phase free throw percentage of 70.9% was recorded for Participant 4. An
overall decrease (-11.6%) in free throw percentage was found for Participant 4.
Participant 5. During the pre-intervention phase of the investigation, Participant
5 attempted 270 free throws (see Table 4). A total of 232 of these free throws were
successfully made which resulted in a final pre-intervention shooting percentage of
85.9%. Throughout the intervention phase of the investigation, a total of 220 free throws
were attempted with 183 of these attempts being successfully being made (see Table 5).
This resulted in a final intervention phase shooting percentage of 83.1%. Once again, a
decrease (-2.8%) in shooting percentage was found.
Participant 6. Throughout the pre-intervention phase of this investigation,
Participant 6 attempted a total of 260 free throws (see Table 4). Out of these 260
attempts, a total of 173 were successfully made resulting in a final pre-intervention phase
shooting percentage of 66.5%. During the intervention phase of the study, a total of 170
free throws were attempted with 131 of these attempts being successfully made (see
Table 5). A final intervention phase free throw shooting percentage of 77.0% was
recorded. In this case, an overall increase (+10.5%) in shooting percentage between preand post-intervention phases of the investigation was found.
56
Summary of practice free throw performance results. Research Question 3
examined whether or not free throw performance would increase between pre- and postintervention. Collectively, free throw percentages decreased between pre- and postintervention. Individual analysis indicated that four of the six participants experienced
decreases in free throw percentages between pre- and post-intervention. However, two of
the participants did show increases in free throw performance through increases in
shooting percentages.
Competitive Free Throw Performance
Group Results
Competitive performance scores did not follow the same trend as practice
performance scores. Competitive performance scores were determined by actual free
throw performance in a competitive game. Each time an athlete was sent to the free
throw line during a game, the number of shots made and attempted was recorded and
served as the competitive performance score for each athlete. Together, during the preintervention phase of the study, athletes shot 58.9% from the free throw line during
competitive games (see Table 6). Although this number is significantly lower than the
practice performance score from the pre-intervention phase, this percentage is not
extremely uncommon for high school competition. However, as illustrated in Table 7,
competitive performance percentages increased throughout the intervention phase of the
study. Post-intervention competitive performance percentage increased to 67.2% for a
total increase of +8.3%.
Individual Results
Participant 1. During the pre-intervention phase of the investigation, Participant
1 attempted a total of 43 free throws through eight competitive games (see Table 6). Out
of these 43 attempts, 29 were successfully made for a total competitive shooting
percentage of 67.4%. Throughout the intervention phase of the investigation, participant
1 did not attempt as many free throws during games (see Table 7). A total of 12 shots
were attempted over 12 games. However, 10 of these attempts were successfully made
for an intervention phase shooting percentage of 83.3%. Between pre- and postintervention, a total increase of +15.9% was recorded.
57
Participant 2. Through the eight games during the pre-intervention phase of the
investigation, a total of 39 free throws were attempted with 24 of these attempts being
successfully being made (see Table 6). A final pre-intervention competitive shooting
percentage of 61.5% was recorded for Participant 2. The intervention phase of the study
included 12 games (see Table 7). Throughout these games, a total of 41 free throws were
attempted with 34 of these shots being successfully made. A final intervention phase
competitive free throw percentage of 82.9% was recorded. Overall, an increase of
+21.4% was found in competitive free throw performance.
Participant 3. During the eight games in the pre-intervention phase of the study,
only a total of seven free throws were attempted with two of these shots being
successfully made (see Table 6). A competitive free throw shooting percentage of 28.5%
was recorded during the pre-intervention phase of the investigation. During the 12 games
in the intervention phase of the study, Participant 3 only attempted three free throws (see
Table 7). None of these attempts were successfully made which resulted in a 0% free
throw percentage during the intervention phase. However, due to the low number of total
attempts, it is difficult to determine if these percentages actually reflect his ability to
shoot free throws in competitive game situations.
Participant 4. Throughout the pre-intervention phase of the investigation, a total
of 36 free throw attempts were taken by Participant 4. Out of these attempts, a total of 18
were successfully made (see Table 6). This resulted in a pre-intervention phase free
throw percentage of 50.0%. During the intervention phase of the study, a total of 38 free
throws were attempted through the 12 games (see Table 7). A total of 24 free throws
were successfully made which resulted in a final intervention phase competitive free
throw percentage of 63.1%. A total increase of +13.1% was recorded between pre- and
post-intervention phases of the study.
Participant 5. During the pre-intervention phase, a total of 10 free throws were
attempted through eight games (see Table 6). Out of these 10 attempts, seven were
successfully made which resulted in a final pre-intervention competitive free throw
shooting percentage of 70.0%. Through the 12 games in the intervention phase of the
investigation, a total of 23 free throws were attempted (see Table 7). Out of these 23
attempts, 14 free throws were successfully made. This resulted in a final intervention
58
phase competitive free throw percentage of 60.8%. Overall a total decrease of -9.2%
occurred between pre- and post-intervention phases of the study.
Participant 6. Throughout the pre-intervention phase of the study, a total of just
six free throws were attempted through the eight games (see Table 6). Out of these six
attempts, three were successfully made. This resulted in a total pre-intervention
competitive free throw percentage of 50.0%. However, similar to the intervention phase
of Participant 3, Participant 6 only attempted five shots during the intervention phase of
the study (see Table 7). None of these free throw attempts were successfully made which
resulted in a final intervention phase competitive free throw percentage of 0%. Once
again though, due to the lack of free throw attempts in competitive game situations, this
percentage may not represent his ability to actually successfully make free throws in
competitive situations.
Summary of competitive free throw performance results. Overall, free throw
performance in competitive games increased between pre- and post-intervention. When
examining the results individually for each participant, three participants showed
increases in competitive free throw performance while three showed a decrease.
However, two of the participants attempted significantly fewer free throws than did all
other participants. These two participants were two of the three which showed decreases
in shooting percentages. No hypothesis was made prior to the investigation related to
competitive free throw performance.
Social Validation
To help determine the impact of the intervention on the participants, a social
validation scale was administered. Nine questions were included on this scale which
addressed each part of the intervention and asked the participant’s to indicate their
personal opinions pertaining to the intervention. The first question asked participants to
indicate how often the viewed their personal imagery video tape away from practice
(home). Overall, answers ranged from 0 to 3 times per week with an average of 1.33
time (SD=0.94) being reported. The second question asked all participants to indicate on
a scale of 1 (not helpful) to 10 (very helpful) how helpful the imagery video tape was to
their free throw performance. Responses to this question ranged from 5 to 8 with an
average score of 6.17 (SD=1.07). The following question was again scored on a scale of
59
1 to 10 and asked participants to indicate how helpful the pre-shot routine that was
developed specifically for them was. Participants responses ranged from 7 to 10 with an
average score of 8.87 (SD=1.37) being reported.
The fourth question on the questionnaire asked each of the participants to indicate
which part of the intervention they felt affected their confidence at the free throw line the
most. Four out of the six participants indicated that the power breath used as a relaxation
technique helped them the most. Both of the remaining participants indicated that the
focus phrase in which they developed for themselves had the greatest impact on their
confidence level at the free throw line. None of the participants indicated that imagery
had the largest impact on confidence levels. However, the following question asked the
participants to indicate on a scale of 1 (not much) to 10 (very much) how much of an
impact all three intervention techniques combined had on free throw confidence.
Responses to this question ranged from 6 to 9 with an average of 7.67 (SD=1.11).
Therefore, although the participants felt one intervention techniques was more influential
than others, overall the intervention was helpful. The following question on the
questionnaire targeted the imagery intervention itself. Participants were asked to indicate
how many days per week they used the imagery technique to help imagine themselves
making a free throw. Overall, responses ranged from 1 to 7 with an average of 3.34
(SD=2.36). Only one participant indicated using the intervention every day in which free
throws were practices or attempted. In order to determine how helpful the participants
felt this imagery technique was, the following question asked participants to indicate on a
scale of 1 (not helpful) to 10 (very helpful) how helpful they felt the imagery was to
them. Responses ranged from 6 to 9 with an average score of 7.34 (SD=0.94) being
reported by the participants.
The final two questions specifically targeted the other two techniques involved
with the intervention. First, participants were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (not helpful) to
10 (very helpful) how much they felt the breathing technique helped them relax at the
free throw line. The participants’ responses ranged from 7 to 10 with an average of 8.34
(SD=0.94) being reported. The final question on the social validation questionnaire
inquired about how helpful the participants felt the focus phrase was in helping focus
60
attention on the shot and block out potential distractions. Responses to this question
ranged from 6 to 10 and an average score of 7.34 (SD=1.37) was reported.
61
Chapter 5
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a visual imagery training
program on the free throw performance and efficacy levels of high school basketball
players. In this chapter, the results are discussed in three sections. First, imagery ability
is discussed, followed by changes in efficacy beliefs. The final section discussing the
results focuses on free throw performance. Following the discussion of the investigations
results, limitations to the study are presented. Finally, this chapter provides suggestions
for future research in this area.
Changes in Imagery Ability
Research Question 1 examined whether or not imagery ability would increase
between pre- and post-intervention for all participants. Overall, all participants did
increase in both visual and kinesthetic imagery ability. Although imagery ability did
increase in all of the participants, the changes were different in all participants. Some of
the participants experienced greater increases in kinesthetic ability, but at no point did
kinesthetic ability become greater than visual ability. The greater increase in kinesthetic
ability could be simply due to the fact that imagery ability pre-test scores on the
kinesthetic subscale were much lower than visual scores. This provided a greater
opportunity for improvement. However, visual ability did increase as well in each
participant between pre- and post-test for imagery ability.
Systematic practice has been shown to be very effective in increasing imagery
ability (Evans, Jones, & Mullen, 2004; Rodgers, Hall, & Buckolz, 1991). Although
imagery ability increased in each of the participants in the investigation, visual ability
began and ended as the stronger ability in each participant. This suggests that although
participants were able to increase their ability to include sensory cues such as feelings,
smells, and sounds, the participants’ ability to create a vivid image in their minds
remained stronger throughout the investigation.
One explanation for the effectiveness of imagery training is the self-efficacy
explanation. This was of particular interest in this investigation because the study sought
to examine the effects of imagery on free throw performance and self-efficacy. As
discussed in Chapter 2, the self-efficacy explanation stated that imagery was a type of
62
modeling which is associated with vicarious experiences which is one of the primary
sources of self-efficacy beliefs (Jacobs et al., 1984; Litt, 1988). As individuals imagine
successful performances, not only do the beliefs in their abilities increase, but the
individuals also increase their performance expectations. As these expectations increase,
the likelihood of actual successful performance also increases.
In this investigation, imagery ability increased between pre- and post-intervention
in all of the participants. This suggests that performance expectations also likely
increased in each participant. As the self-efficacy explanation suggests, this may have
led to the likelihood of successful performances when free throws were attempted during
both practice and competitive games. As presented in the previous chapter, increases in
free throw performance and efficacy beliefs were found, but not in all of the participants.
However, this increase in efficacy and performance could have been aided by the
imagery training which was implemented during the intervention phase of the study.
Furthermore, the increase in imagery ability which was found in this investigation
provides support for the effectiveness of the intervention.
Changes in Efficacy Beliefs
Research Question 2 examined whether or not free throw self-efficacy would
increase between pre- and post-intervention. The free throw self-efficacy scale measured
both the level and strength of free throw efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy levels did not
show any changes throughout the investigation. Each athlete recorded a score of 10 each
time the scale was completed which was the highest score that could be recorded. This
score indicated that during each data collection, each participant had at least a 10%
confidence level in his ability to successfully make 10 out of 10 free throws. Although
successfully making 10 free throws in a row is not a simple task, it is not a task that is
impossible. The difficulty of the task has a significant impact on the level of confidence
a person holds in his ability to successfully complete the task. Therefore, due to the
difficulty level not being extremely difficult, each participant had some level of
confidence in the ability to execute the task. Furthermore, there is an evident ceiling
effect which precluded any significant change due to the intervention. Players rated
initial efficacy at a level high enough which made it difficult to increase in any
significant way.
63
The second measure reported by the free throw self-efficacy scale was the
strength of efficacy beliefs. Over the course of the season, efficacy strength did show
varying results for each participant. Four of the participants in this study did experience
increases in efficacy strength throughout the season. However, two participants did not
experience the same increases in efficacy strength. Efficacy strength measures the degree
of certainty each participant had in the ability to make free throws. Therefore, the four
participants who experienced an increase in efficacy strength had a greater level of
certainty in their ability to make free throws. Although there is no way to determine for
sure that the imagery intervention directly impacted this increase, research would suggest
that the intervention did have an impact on this increase (Harle & Vickers, 2001; Carboni
et al., 2002).
Competitive efficacy also was found to increase from pre- to post-intervention.
Although efficacy strength was found to increase in four out of the six participants in
practice situations, five participants experienced increases in efficacy beliefs during
competition. As discussed above, a ceiling effect was experienced for self-efficacy levels
during practice. In this situation, there is very little pressure to successfully make free
throws. There are no negative consequences for missing a free throw other than simply
missing the shot. Because of this, participants are not as critical when evaluating their
own ability to make free throws. However, during competitive situations, consequences
for missing shots become more evident. Also, added pressure from the crowd, coaches,
teammates, and other external stimuli are present. Rather than a missed shot meaning
virtually nothing to the athlete, there now is the chance that a game’s outcome or even the
player’s status on the team could be drastically affected by a missed shot. Therefore,
when asked to rate the level of efficacy beliefs toward making free throws, athletes may
begin to be more critical of their abilities causing initial efficacy levels to be rated lower
than practice self-efficacy. This leaves more room for improvement in competitive
efficacy because of the lower initial scores. Furthermore, the external factors that are
now present, may also factor into an athlete’s perceptions pertaining to his efficacy level.
According to the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), vicarious experiences are
one of the most influential sources of self-efficacy. One form of vicarious experiences is
through self-modeling. Self-modeling is where an individual mentally emulates the
64
performance of another performance which is successful at the same skill which is being
attempted by the individual. The goal of imagery is to create a vivid image within the
mind which portrays a perfect performance using all of the body’s natural senses that
would be included with the performance (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2006; Vealey, 2005).
According past research, the self-modeling that is created through imagery training is a
form of vicarious experiences explained by Bandura (Jacobs et al., 1984; Litt, 1988) and
has been found to increase athletic performance (Callow, Hardy, & Hall, 2001; Evans et
al., 2004; Garza & Feltz, 1998; Hale & Whitehouse, 1998; Mamassis & Doganis, 2004;
McKenzie & Howe, 1997; Short, Bruggeman, Engel, Marback, Wang, Willadsen, &
Short, 2002), motivation (Beauchamp et al., 1996; Martin & Hall, 1995). Furthermore, in
addition to imagery training, focus phrases were used in the intervention during the preshot routine. Maddux (1995) would indicate that athletes were using a form of verbal
persuasion which he presents as one of the six sources of efficacy beliefs in addition to
imaginal experiences the athletes are experiencing through the imagery training.
Therefore, increases in free throw performance could be linked to the increase in imagery
ability, however, can not be found as conclusive in this study.
Changes in Free Throw performance
Practice Performance
Several differences were found when examining each athlete’s free throw
performance. As presented in the previous chapter, two participants experienced
increases in free throw percentage between pre- and post-intervention. Research
Question 3 examined whether or not free throw performance would increase between preand post-intervention. The results of this investigation did not support the hypothesis.
As illustrated in Table 4, pre-intervention shooting percentages for the four
participants who experienced decreases in shooting percentage were rather high. Due to
the initial high free throw percentages, there was little room for improvement. This could
be one explanation for the decrease in percentage between pre- and post-intervention that
was found. However, this explanation can also be applied to the participants who
experienced increases in shooting percentages. As illustrated in Table 4, the two
participants who did experience increases in free throw percentage between pre- and
post-intervention had lower pre-intervention percentages which left them with greater
65
opportunity for improvement. However, although it can not be determined for sure, it is
still possible that the imagery intervention had an impact on these increases in shooting
percentages.
Collectively, practice free throw performance did decrease slightly between preand post-intervention. One of the possible explanations that is immediately brought into
question is the difference in the amount of free throw attempts between the two phases of
the study. During the pre-intervention phase of the investigation, 1600 free throws were
attempted. Throughout the intervention phase of the study, only 1280 free throws were
attempted. Therefore, one possible explanation for the decrease in shooting percentage
could be simply due to the lack of free throw attempts during the intervention phase.
Shooting percentage as a group only decreased by 1.5%. It is quite possible that this
decrease could have been eliminated or even develop into an increase in percentage if
more attempts were taken during the intervention phase of the investigation.
One explanation for the decrease in shooting percentage may have been that the
attempts occurred during different times in practices. At times, free throws were
attempted at the beginning of practice. During this time, athletes are relaxed and rested.
However, during some practices, free throws were attempted at the conclusion of practice
when athletes are more fatigued and anxious to end practice. If free throws were
attempted at the conclusion of practice when athletes were aware of the fact that after
completing the ten free throws they were permitted to leave, they may have been less
likely to concentrate and put forth their best effort when attempting the free throws. If
free throws were attempted at the onset of the practice, athletes may have been more
likely to concentrate on the attempts. Therefore, the different times in practice when free
throws were attempted may have had an influence on free throw percentages.
Competitive Performance
Free throw performance in competitive games increased during the intervention
phase of the investigation. Collectively, an 8.3% increase was found. However, similar
to practice free throw performance results, not every participant saw increases in
percentage. Three of the participants experienced increases in shooting percentage and
three participants experienced decreases in shooting percentage. However, the results
could not be directly linked to the imagery intervention. One of the largest possible
66
explanations for the changes in shooting percentages was the difference in free throw
attempts. Practice free throw attempts are directly controlled by the coaches and each
participant attempted similar quantities of free throws. However, during competitive
game situations, the number of attempts is completely out of the control of the
participants and coaches. Some participants are in positions which are far more likely to
attempt free throws during a game. As illustrated in Tables 6 and 7, two of the
participants who experienced decreases in shooting percentages in competitive games
attempted significantly fewer amounts of free throws than did all other participants.
Similar to practice free throw performance, pre-intervention percentages also
factor into the analysis of the final results. Each of the participants who experienced
increases in shooting percentages between pre- and post-intervention had relatively low
pre-intervention shooting percentages. As presented in the previous chapter, the
increases in shooting percentages by each of the three participants who experienced
increases were rather large. This could be due to the low percentages which were
recorded during the pre-intervention phase of the investigation. There was a large
amount of room for improvement and very little room for decreases in performance. This
could have played a major factor in the final results of the investigation. Overall though,
competitive free throw performance did increase between pre- and post-intervention.
Previous research has shown that increased self-efficacy enhances performance
(Feltz & Lirgg, 2001; George, 1994; Treasure, Monson, & Lox, 1996; Vealey, 2005).
When conducting a field study where performance is part of normal practices and games,
it is difficult to control what influences performance. Although it is possible that
performance may be influenced by the intervention, it is hard to show increases in
performance in any uncontrolled field study. The significance shown by this
investigation was the increase in self-efficacy toward competitive free throw performance
during the intervention phase and over time, increased efficacy beliefs will increase
performance. However, although this did not translate into performance increases in
actual shooting statistics, the social validation data indicates that the participants felt that
the intervention was helpful. Finally, and perhaps one of the most important points to
this study is the high level of external validity that is present because of the presence and
work done by the researcher throughout the study.
67
Limitations
As in every study, there were several limitations involved with this investigation.
First, as mentioned previously in relation to competitive free throw performance, there is
no control over how many attempts a participant would take during a game. Had each
participant had equal opportunities to attempt free throws in competitive situations,
results may have been different. Free throw performance during practice was different.
Each athlete attempted similar numbers of free throws. In practice situations, the coach
determined when the team would attempt free throws. However, one limitation to this
point of the study was that there was no control of injuries or absences from practice
which prevented the participant from taking part in those attempts. This was experienced
during the investigation. Although not all participants missed free throws due to injury or
absence, a few of the participants did experience this limitation.
Because this study took place over the course of an entire season, it is possible
that any improvement in shooting performance was simply due to the practice each
participant received throughout the season. Free throws were practiced during every
practice with the exception of very few days. Therefore, free throw percentage increases
could be simply due to the improvements in ability through physical practice during the
season.
Another limitation that could not be controlled was the possible placebo effect.
When introducing the intervention to athletes, they were made aware of what the
intervention was intended to accomplish. Although it is possible that efficacy beliefs
may not have actually increased, when asked to report efficacy levels, the athletes may
have simply reported an increase because they had been informed that imagery training
could improve their efficacy beliefs. Therefore, this must be taken into consideration in
the results of this investigation.
One of the largest limitations to a field study which involves a team is that the
investigator must abide by the coaches wishes. Certain days were set prior to the
investigation as to when data collection would take place or intervention techniques
would be administered. However, the coach has a obligation to prepare his team to
perform at the highest level for each contest they participate in. Because of this, there
were several occasions when the coach indicated that he did no wish to have any of the
68
participants removed from practice to participate in study procedures. This caused for the
scheduled data collection or intervention procedures to be carried out at a different point
in time. Not only did this delay data collection, but a few occasions saw one or more
participants absent from the make-up data collection session. Further complications
arose when the next scheduled data collection approached and a participant was still
missing the previous collection. This caused some participants to end the study with
fewer data than some other participants.
Finally, this study was conducted using a single subject format which did not
include any statistical analysis other than critical observation methods. Because of the
format of this investigation, no direct cause-effect relationships are able to be made from
the data. The impact of the intervention used in this study can only be supported by past
research results. Although results can suggest that the imagery intervention did serve as
an influential factor in all efficacy and performance changes, there is no way to determine
the actual impact of this intervention. Furthermore, this study did not make use of a
control. Because of this, there was no way to compare results to individuals who did not
receive the treatment offered by the intervention. This further limits the ability to
determine the effects of the intervention.
Future Research Directions
One of the largest limitations of this investigation mentioned above was the
design of the study which limited the ability to make causal relationships. The positive
results of this investigation suggest that future research in this area should aim to take an
experimental approach to allow for cause-effect relationships to be made. Furthermore,
this study utilized measurement scales which were developed from existing scales to
specifically meet the needs of this study. Future research should seek to utilize existing
measurement tools which have been used and tested to show consistent reliability and
validity which would increase the significance of the results.
One of the procedures for this investigation included the use of SCIM interviews.
The information gained from the interviews was to be used in the creation of the video
tapes for each athlete. However, while conducting the interviews, athletes did not present
any information that was able to be used in the video tapes. Although each athlete’s most
salient sources of self-efficacy was gained during the interviews, this information was not
69
included in any part of the video tape. Therefore, in future research attempts, eliminating
the interview process would be beneficial for the investigation due to the information
gained not being helpful in any portion of this investigation.
To enhance the results of future research in this area, researchers should also
include a control group to make statistical comparisons between the results of
intervention groups and individuals who received no treatment. A control group of
participants from the same team would be most beneficial to ensure the same physical
training is being received by all participants as opposed to athletes from a different team
who may not be receiving equal amounts of physical practice. However, the use of at
least two different teams would also increase the credibility of the results of future
research. Different teams perform at different levels. Therefore, it would be beneficial to
take two teams and conduct the same study simultaneously to compare results between
groups who are involved in different daily physical programs.
This study investigated the effects of an imagery training program on high school
basketball players. Future research should aim to examine the effects of imagery training
on different levels of competition such as high school, college, and professional. The
athletes involved at these different levels of competition will have different levels of
mental capacity which will affect their level of understanding pertaining to the
intervention techniques. To gain the greatest benefits from any intervention, athletes
must be able to understand the techniques which are being used. Therefore, research
should attempt to examine the different levels of impact at different levels of competition.
Another interesting approach to future research would be to use a case study
approach utilizing a biomechanical analysis of the shots as a performance measure. Also,
with the use of an electromyography, it would be possible to monitor the electrical
activity in the muscles during free throw attempts. This would eliminate the importance
of simply making the free throw and allow researchers to assess performance in terms of
muscular coordination and eliminate the limitation of individual ability (Weinberg &
Hunt, 1976). Furthermore, it may be interesting to pre-select participants who display
self-efficacy difficulties. For example, tailor interventions specifically to participants
who tend to choke with the game on the line or have difficulty re-focusing after missed
attempts.
70
Finally, one of the most difficult aspects in working with teams is the amount of
contact and control the researcher has with the athletes. Coaches are not always willing
to allow their athletes to miss practice time in order to participate in activities required by
the intervention. Furthermore, when athletes are also involved with other obligations
such as school, it is difficult to have any contact with the athletes outside of practice.
Future research should seek methods which would allow for the greatest amount of
contact away from practice times. Specifically with the intervention in this study, it
would be very beneficial to establish weekly meeting times outside of practice which
would allow athletes to view the imagery video tapes or complete efficacy scales
consistently. Although participants indicated that they did view the imagery video tapes
at home, there is no way to monitor this part of the intervention. By establishing weekly
meetings outside of practice, the importance of viewing the imagery video tapes at home
can be diminished and each participant will complete questionnaires consistently on the
same days.
In conclusion, as discussed in this study, research suggests that imagery training
has a positive influence on both athletic performance and self-efficacy beliefs. Results
from this investigation found that self-efficacy beliefs increased in both a practice and
competitive situations. Furthermore, free throw performance was also found to increase
in some participants. Although cause-effect relationships cannot be determined by a
study of this nature, previous research would suggest that the imagery intervention did
positively influence both the efficacy beliefs and performance of the participants in this
study.
71
References
Anderson, C.A., & Jenkins, D.L. (1980). When experiences of failure promote
expectations of success: The impact of attributing failure to ineffective strategies.
Journal of Personality, 48, 393-407.
Atienza, F., Balaguer, I., & Garcia-Merita, M.A. (1994). Factor analysis and reliability
of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78,
1323-1328.
Bandura, A., Adams, N.E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating
behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
(pp 390-453). Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Beauchamp, P.H., Halliwell, W.R., Fournier, J.F., & Koestner, R. (1996). Effects of
cognitive-behavioral psychological skills training on the motivation, preparation,
and putting performance of novice golfers. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 157-170.
Biran, M., & Wilson, G.T. (1981). Treatment of phobic disorders using cognitive and
exposure methods: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Counseling and Clinical
Psychology, 49, 886-899.
Callow, N., Hardy, L., & Hall, C. (2001). The effects of a motivational general-mastery
imagery intervention on the sport confidence of high-level badminton players.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 389-400.
Calmels, C., Berthoumieux, C., & D’Arripe-Longueville, F. (2004). Effects of an
imagery training program on selective attention of national softball players.
The Sport Psychologist, 18, 272-296.
Carboni, J., Burke, K.L., Joyner, A.B., Hardy, C.J., & Blom, L.C. (2002). The effects
of brief imagery on free throw shooting performance and concentration style of
intercollegiate basketball players: A single-subject design. International Sports
Journal, 60-67.
Cogan, K.D., & Petrie, T.A. (1995). Sport consultation: An evaluation of a seasonlong intervention with female collegiate gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist,
9, 282-296.
72
Cote, J., Salmela, J.H., & Russell, S. (1995). The knowledge of high-performance
gymnastics coaches: competition and training considerations. The Sport
Psychologist, 9, 76-95.
Cox, R.H. (1998). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications. 4th ed. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Cumming, J., & Hall, C. (2002a). Deliberate imagery practice: Examining the
development of imagery skills in competitive athletes. Journal of Sport
Sciences, 20, 137-145.
Cumming, J., & Hall, C. (2002b). Athletes’ use of imagery in the off-season. The
Sport Psychologist, 16, 160-172.
Cumming, J., & Ste-Marie, D.M. (2001). The cognitive and motivational effects of
imagery training: A matter of perspective. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 276-287.
Evans, L., Jones, L., & Mullen, R. (2004). An imagery intervention during the
competitive season with an elite rugby union player. The Sport Psychologist,
18, 252-271.
Feltz, D.L., Landers, D.M., & Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in high
avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 1, 112-122.
Feltz, D.L., & Landers, D.M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill
learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5,
25-57.
Feltz, D.L., Landers, D.M., & Becker, B.J. (1988). A revised meta-analysis of the
mental practice literature on motor skill learning. In D. Druckman & J. Swets
(Eds.), Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories, and techniques (pp. 165). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Feltz, D.L., & Riessinger, C.A. (1990). Effects of in vivo emotive imagery and
performance feedback on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 132-143.
Feltz, D.L., & Chase, M.A. (1998). The measurement of self-efficacy and confidence
in sport. In J.L. Duda (Ed) Advances in sport and exercise psychology
measurement (pp 61-80). Morgantown, WV.: Fitness Information Technology.
73
Feltz, D.L., & Lirgg, C.D. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs of athletes, teams, and coaches.
In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of Sport
Psychology (2nd ed.; pp. 340-361). New York: Wiley.
Frey, M., Laguna, P.L., & Ravizza, K. (2003). Collegiate athletes’ mental skill use and
perceptions of success: An exploration of the practice and competition settings.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 115-128.
Garza, D.L., & Feltz, D.L. (1998). Effects of selected mental practice on performance,
self-efficacy, and competition confidence of figure skaters. The Sport
Psychologist, 12, 1-15.
George, T.R., Feltz, D.L., & Chase, M.A. (1992). Effects of model similarity on
self-efficacy and muscular endurance: A second look. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 14, 237-248.
George, T.R. (1994). Self-confidence and baseball performance: A casual examination
of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 381-399.
Glass, G.V., Willson, V.L., & Gottman, J.M. (1975). Design and analysis of time-series
experiments. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.
Gould, D., Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A. (1980). Mental preparation strategies,
cognitions, and strength performance. Journal of Sport psychology, 2, 329-339.
Grove, J.R. (1996). What do coaches do? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
3, 342.
Hale, B.D., & Whitehouse, A. (1998). The effects of imagery-manipulated appraisal
on intensity and direction of competitive anxiety. The Sport Psychologist, 12,
40-51.
Hall, C.R. (1998). Measuring imagery abilities and imagery use. In J.L. Duda (Ed)
Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp 165-172).
Morgantown, WV.: Fitness Information Technology.
Hall, E.G., & Erffmeyer, E.S. (1983). The effect of visuo-motor behavior rehearsal
with video-taped modeling on free throw accuracy of intercollegiate female
basketball players. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 343-346.
74
Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (1999). The effects of a multimodal intervention program on
performers: II. Training the butterflies to fly in formation. The Sport
Psychologist, 13, 22-41.
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.
Harle, S.K., & Vickers, J.N. (2001). Training quiet eye improves accuracy in the
basketball free throw. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 289-305.
Hird, J.S., Landers, D.M., Thomas, J.R., & Horan, J.J. (1991). Physical practice is
superior to mental practice in enhancing cognitive and motor task performance.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 293.
Isaac, A.R. (1992). Mental practice: Does it work in the field? The Sport Psychologist,
6, 192-198.
Jacobs, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R.W. (1984). Understanding persistence: An
interface of control theory and self-efficacy theory. Basic and Applied
Psychology, 5, 333-347.
Johnson, J.J.M., Hrycaiko, D.W., Johnson, G.V., & Halas, J.M. (2004). Self-talk and
female youth soccer performance. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 44-59.
Jones, R.R., Vaught, R.S., & Weinrott, M. (1977). Time-series analysis in operant
Research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 151-166.
Kazdin, A.E. (1976). Statistical analyses for single-case experimental designs. In M.
Hersen & D.H. Barlow (Eds.), Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for
studying behavior change. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kendall, G., Hrycaiko, D., Martin, G.L., & Kendall, T. (1990). The effects of an
imagery rehearsal, relaxation, and self-talk package on basketball game
performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 157-166.
Kerr, G., & Leith, L. (1993). Stress management and athletic performance. The Sport
Psychologist, 1, 221-231.
Kingston, K.M., & Hardy, L. (1997). Effects of different types of goals on processes
that support performance. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 277-293.
75
Kirschenbaum, D.S., Owens, D., & O’Conner, E.A. (1998). Smart golf: Preliminary
evaluation of a simple, yet comprehensive, approach to improving and scoring
the mental game. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 271-282.
Kratochwill, T.R. (1978). Single subject research: Strategies for evaluating change.
New York: Academic Press.
Lai, S. (2001). The importance of mental skills in sports. Sports, 29, 32-33.
Lang, P.J. (1977). Imagery in therapy: An information processing analysis of fear.
Behavior Therapy, 8, 862-886.
Lang, P.J. (1979). A bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. Psychophysiology,
16, 495-512.
Lee, A.B., & Hewitt, J. (1987). Using visual imagery in a flotation tank to improve
gymnastic performance and reduce physical symptoms. International Journal
of Sport Psychology, 18, 223-230.
Lee, C. (1990). Psyching up for a muscular endurance task: Effects of image content on
performance and mood state. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 6673.
Lidor, R., & Singer, R.M. (2003). Preperformance routines in self-paced tasks:
Developmental and educational considerations. In R. Lidor & K.P. Henschen
(Eds.), The psychology of team sports (pp. 69-98). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Litt, M.D. (1988). Self-efficacy and perceived control: Cognitive mediators of pain
tolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 149-160.
Maddux, J.E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J.E. Maddux (Ed.),
Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application
(pp 3-27). New York: Plenum Press.
Mamassis, G., & Doganis, G. (2004). The effects of a mental training program on
juniors pre-competitive anxiety, self-confidence, and tennis performance. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 118-137.
Martin, K.A., & Hall, C.R. (1995). Using mental imagery to enhance intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 54-69.
76
Martin, K.A., Moritz, S.E., & Hall, C. (1999). Imagery use in sport: A literature review
and applied model. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 245-268.
Matlin, M.W. (1989). Cognition, 2nd ed. New York: Holt Rhinehart & Winton.
McKenzie, A., & Howe, B.L. (1997). The effect of imagery on self-efficacy for a motor
skill. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 196-210.
Moran, A. (1993). Conceptual and methodological issues in the measurement of mental
imagery skills in athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 16, 156-170.
Morris, T., Spittle, M., & Watt, A.P. (2005). Imagery in sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Murphy, K.R., & Davidshofer, C.O. (1994). Psychological testing: Principles and
applications. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Murphy, S.M., & Woolfolk, R. (1987). The effects of cognitive interventions on
competitive anxiety and performance on a fine motor skills task. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 18, 152-166.
Newsome, J., Knight, P., & Balnave, R. (2003). Use of imagery to limit strength loss
after immobilization. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 12, 249-258.
Page, S.J., Sime, W., & Nordell, K. (1999). The effects of imagery on female college
swimmers’ perceptions of anxiety. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 458-469.
Parsonson, B.S., & Baer, D.M. (1978). The analysis and presentation of graphic data.
In T.R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Single-subject research: Strategies for evaluating
change (pp. 101-165). New York: Academic Press.
Ryan, D.E., & Simons, J. (1981). Cognitive demand, imagery, and frequency of mental
rehearsal as factors influencing acquisition of motor skills. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 3, 35-45.
Ryan, D.E., & Simons, J. (1983). What is learned in mental practice of motor skills: A
test of the cognitive-motor hypothesis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 419-426.
Ryska, T.A. (1998). Cognitive-behavioral strategies and precompetitive anxiety among
recreational athletes. Psychological Record, 48, 697-708.
Salmon, J., Hall, C, & Haslam, I. (1994). The use of imagery by soccer players. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 116-133.
77
Savory, C. (1997). Two individual mental training programs for a team sport.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 259-270.
Scanlan, T.K., Russell, D.G., Wilson, N.C., & Scanlan, L.A. (2003). Project on elite
athlete commitment: I. introduction and methodology. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 25, 360-376.
Shelton, T.O., & Mahoney, M.J. (1978). The content and effect of “psyching-up”
strategies in weightlifters. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 275-284.
Short, S.E., Bruggeman, J.M., Engel, S.G., Marback, T.L., Wang, L.J., Willadsen, A.,
& Short, M.W. (2002). The effect of imagery function and imagery direction on
self-efficacy and performance on a golf putting task. The Sport Psychologist, 16,
48-67.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.
Slade, J.M., Landers, D.M., & Martin, P.E. (2002). Muscular activity during real and
imagined movements: A test of inflow explanations. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 24, 11-67.
Smith, D., & Holmes, P. (2004). The effect of imagery modality on golf putting
performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 385-395.
Smith, D., Collins, D., & Holmes, P. (2003). Impact and mechanism of mental practice
effects on strength. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1,
293-306.
Solso, R.W. (1991). Cognitive Psychology. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Sordoni, C., Hall, C., & Forwell, L. (2000). The use of imagery by athletes during
injury rehabilitation. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 9, 329-339.
Tracey, J. (2003). The emotional response to the injury and rehabilitation process.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 279-293.
Treasure, D.C., Monson, J., & Lox, C.L. (1996). Relationships between self-efficacy,
wrestling performance, and affect prior to competition. The Sport Psychologist,
10, 73-83.
Tynes, L.L., & McFatter, R.M. (1987). The efficacy of “psyching” strategies on a
weightlifting task. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 327-336.
78
Vandall, R.A., Davis, R.A., & Clugston, H.A. (1934). The function of mental practice in
the acquisition of motor skills. Journal of General Psychology, 29, 243-250.
Vealey, R.S. (2005). Coaching for the inner edge. Morgantown, WV.: Fitness
Information Technology.
Vealey, R.S., & Greenleaf, C.A. (2006). Seeing is believing: Understanding and using
imagery in sport. In J.M. Williams (Ed.) Applied sport psychology: Personal
growth to peak performance: 5th edition. (pp. 306-348), Boston: McGraw Hill.
Vickers, J.N. (1996b). Control of visual attention during the basketball free throw.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 24, 93-97.
Wann, D.L. (1997). Sport psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weinberg, R., Butt, J., Knight, B, Burke, K.L., & Jackson, A. (2003). The relationship
between the use and effectiveness of imagery: An exploratory investigation.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 26-40.
Weinberg, R.S., & Hunt, V.V. (1976). The interrelationships between anxiety, motor
performance, and electromyography. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 219-224.
Woolfolk, R., Parrish, W., & Murphy, S.M. (1985). The effects of positive and negative
imagery on motor skills performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 235341.
Wrisberg, C.A., & Ragsdale, M.R. (1979). Cognitive demand and practice level: Factors
in the mental rehearsal of motor skills. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 5,
201-208.
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.
Wilkes, R.L., & Summers, J.J. (1984). Cognitions, mediating variables, and strength
performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 351-359.
Wise, J.B., & Trunnell, E.P. (2001). The influence of sournces of self-efficacy upon
efficacy strength. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 268-280.
79
Table 1.
Means and Standard Deviations of Movement Imagery Questionnaire Pre and Post Tests
MIQ-R Subscale
Mean
Standard Deviation
Pre (Kinesthetic)
13.83
2.48
Post (Kinesthetic)
18.33
3.25
Pre (Visual)
18.33
3.35
Post (Visual)
23.00
2.08
80
Table 2.
Means and Standard Deviations of Free Throw Self-Efficacy Levels and Strengths
Free Throw Self-Efficacy
Mean
Standard Deviation
Pre-Intervention
Level
10
0
Strength
8.19
1.70
Level
10
0
Strength
8.43
1.36
Mean Strength
Standard Deviation
1
8.13
1.23
2
8.18
1.57
3
8.10
2.29
4
8.33
2.68
5
8.31
1.77
6
8.48
1.86
7
8.51
1.30
8
8.52
1.36
9
8.28
1.07
Intervention
Weekly
Pre-intervention phase
Intervention phase
81
Table 3.
Means and Standard Deviations of Pre-Intervention and Intervention Competitive
Efficacy Scores of all Athletes.
Competitive Efficacy
Mean
Standard Deviation
Pre-Intervention
68.17
11.55
Intervention
78.63
8.59
1
67.17
14.22
2
66.33
10.77
3
67.67
10.56
4
71.50
9.39
5
78.50
7.68
6
78.17
8.97
7
79.00
5.80
8
79.80
12.75
9
77.50
5.59
Weekly
Pre-intervention phase
Intervention Phase
82
Table 4
Pre-intervention practice free-throw performance scores by day
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
7
8
9
6
10
9
6
9
5
7
10
8
6
10
9
9
8
6
5
8
7
9
8
9
5
8
6
7
9
9
7
10
6
8
7
4
9
5
9
7
6
9
8
6
8
9
7
9
7
8
10
8
8
7
6
7
7
8
7
10
6
8
9
8
6
10
4
8
8
7
6
8
9
8
10
8
7
7
7
6
10
9
8
7
7
6
9
6
8
7
8
8
6
5
9
5
9
8
8
5
10
7
9
8
8
8
9
8
83
6
8
8
5
8
6
8
6
7
5
9
6
7
10
9
5
10
5
9
6
6
6
9
5
Attpt.
270
270
250
270
270
260
1600
8
8
8
6
7
8
6
10
7
8
8
7
Made
199
227
203
223
232
173
1268
7
9
10
6
7
6
7
8
10
8
9
5
%
73.7
84.0
81.2
82.5
85.9
66.5
79.3
Table 5.
Intervention phase practice performance scores by day
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
8
8
8
6
6
9
8
8
8
8
7
8
10
7
9
9
7
6
7
5
10
8
8
5
7
7
7
8
8
9
8
7
9
9
9
9
7
9
8
6
9
10
7
9
9
9
7
8
8
7
9
5
7
8
9
8
9
8
7
9
8
8
9
5
8
7
8
7
5
6
8
6
8
9
10
7
9
6
9
7
9
7
9
9
8
9
7
9
7
84
8
9
10
7
8
10
6
8
8
8
9
9
7
6
8
6
9
9
7
6
7
Attpt.
210
230
230
220
220
170
1280
7
10
8
9
7
Made
167
179
180
156
183
131
996
8
9
7
6
8
8
9
10
7
9
9
%
79.5
77.8
78.2
70.9
83.1
71.3
77.8
Table 6.
Pre-intervention competitive free throw performance scores by game
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 of 8
1 of 3
5 of 7
4 of 6
0 of 1
1 of 4
1 of 2
1 of 2
2 of 2
2 of 2
3 of 4
1 of 2
1 of 2
1 of 2
1 of 2
2 of 3
8 of 14
1 of 4
4 of 8
6 of 10
0 of 1
2 of 2
1 of 1
1 of 2
4 of 6
0 of 1
2 of 8
2 of 2
1 of 3
7 of 10
2 of 2
1 of 2
4 of 7
4 of 6
Attpt.
43
39
7
36
10
6
141
Made
29
24
2
18
7
3
83
%
67.4
61.5
28.5
50.0
70.0
50.0
58.9
Table 7.
Intervention phase competitive free throw performance scores by game
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 of 1
5 of 8
6 of 8
1 of 2
3 of 4
5 of 8
0 of 2
2 of 3
1 of 2
4 of 4
6 of 6
2 of 3
1 of 2
0 of 1
2 of 2
3 of 3
1 of 1
3 of 5
1 of 1
1 of 2
6 of 9
4 of 5
2 of 2
4 of 4
0 of 1
2 of 2
0 of 2
85
1 of 1
7 of 8
0 of 3
1 of 2
4 of 6
1 of 3
0 of 3
Attpt.
12
41
3
38
23
5
122
Made
10
34
0
24
14
0
82
1 of 1
2 of 2
%
83.3
82.9
0
63.1
60.8
0
67.2
86
Emotional
States
Physiological
States
Verbal
Persuasion
Imaginal
Experiences
Vicarious
Experiences
Performance
Accomplishments
Efficacy
Expectations
Attributions
Worry
Goals
Thought Patterns
Persistence
Effort
Task Choice
Behavior
Figure 1. Relationship between self-efficacy sources, efficacy expectations, and behavior and thought patterns (Feltz, 1994)
Figure 2. Timetable for Study Procedures
Week 1 – Consent gained from parents and athletes
Week 2 – Practice performance baseline begins *
Self-Efficacy interviews begin / Self-Efficacy surveys given
Competitive performance baseline begins *
Week 3 – All Self-Efficacy surveys given
Movement Imagery Questionnaire – Revised given
Week 4 – Self-Efficacy interviews end / Self-Efficacy surveys given
Meeting with all players introducing intervention
Week 5 – Video recording begins for imagery tapes
Video recording ends / Self-Efficacy surveys given
Week 6 – Distribute video tapes
Intervention begins
Week 7 – Self-Efficacy surveys given
View imagery tape
Week 8 – Self-Efficacy surveys given
View imagery tape
Week 9 – Self-Efficacy surveys given
View imagery tape
Week 10– Self-Efficacy surveys given
Movement Imagery Questionnaire – Revised given
Social Validation Questionnaire given
*Practice and competitive performance measures collected during every practice and
game throughout the season.
87
Figure 3.
Pre and Post-Test Imagery Ability Averages
Pre and Post MIQ-R Means
MIQ-R Score
25
20
15
Kinesthetic
10
Visual
5
0
1
2
Data Collection Point
Figure 4.
Free Throw Self-Efficacy Strength Averages over the Duration of the Season
88
Figure 5.
Competitive Self-Efficacy Means as a Team Over the Season
Competitive Self-Efficacy
Competitive Self-Efficacy Means
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Data Collection Point
89
7
8
9
Figure 6.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance Throughout the Season.
Participant 1
90
Figure 7.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance Throughout the Season
Participant 2
91
Figure 8.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance Throughout the Season.
Participant 3
92
Figure 9.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance Throughout the Season.
Participant 4
93
Figure 10.
Competitive Self-Efficacy and Competitive Performance Throughout the Season.
Participant 5
94
Figure 11.
Competitive Self-Efficacy Throughout the Season
Participant 6
*Competitive Performance not included in this graph due to a lack of free throw attempts
in competition.
95
Appendix A. Demographic Questionnaire
ID: __________
1.
Age:
2.
Race:
3.
__________
__________ White
__________ African-American
__________ Asian
__________ Other: __________
Year in School:
__________ Freshman
__________ Sophomore
__________ Junior
__________ Senior
4.
Years of Basketball Experience: __________
5.
You Shoot:
6.
Primary Position:
7.
__________ right-handed
__________ left-handed
__________ Guard
__________ Forward
__________ Point Guard
__________ Center
Have you used any of the listed techniques in the past? If so, about how many times?
__________ Imagery
__________ Goal Setting
__________ Relaxation
__________ Positive Self-Talk
__________ Stress Management
8.
Approximate free throw percentage during your previous season: _______________
96
Appendix B. Competitive Self-Efficacy Survey
Instructions: For the next four items, please rate your confidence in your OWN ability
to make free throws. Indicate your degree of confidence by circling the appropriate
number to the right of each question.
Uncertain
Very Certain
1. Rate your confidence in your
ability to make free throws in
a game:
0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
2. Rate your confidence in your
ability to bounce back from
shooting free throws poorly
(missed several the last game)
during the next game:
0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
3. Rate your confidence in your
0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
ability to make free throws when
your team is winning by 1 point in
the final minute of the game:
4. Rate your confidence in your
ability to make free throws when
your team is losing by 1 point in
the final minute of the game:
0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
97
Appendix C. Free Throw Self-Efficacy Scale
Imagine that you are about to take part in the first round of Tennessee 30’s during
practice. You need to shoot 10 free throws.
How certain are you that you can successfully make…
uncertain
0%
moderately
10%
20%
30%
40%
1 out of
10 free
throws
2 out of
10 free
throws
3 out of
10 free
throws
4 out of
10 free
throws
5 out of
10 free
throws
6 out of
10 free
throws
7 out of
10 free
throws
8 out of
10 free
throws
9 out of
10 free
throws
10 out
of 10
free
throws
98
50%
very certain
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Appendix D. MIQ-R (Hall & Martin, 1999)
Instructions
This questionnaire concerns two ways of mentally performing movements which are used
by some people more than by others, and are more applicable to some types of
movements than others. The first is attempting to form a visual image or picture of a
movement in your mind. The second is attempting to feel what performing a movement
is like without actually doing the movement. You are requested to do both of these
mental tasks for a variety of movements in this questionnaire, and then rate how
easy/difficult you found the tasks to be. The ratings that you give are not designed to
assess the goodness or badness of the way you perform these mental tasks. They are
attempts to discover the capacity individuals show for performing these tasks for different
movements. There are no right or wrong ratings that are better than others.
Each of the following statements describes a particular action or movement. Read each
statement carefully and then actually perform the movement as described. Only perform
the movement a single time. Return to the starting position for the movement just as if
you were going to perform the action a second time. Then depending on which of the
following you are asked to do, either (1) form as clear and vivid a visual image as
possible of the movement just performed, or (2) attempt to feel yourself making the
movement just performed without actually doing it.
After you have completed the mental task required, rate the ease/difficulty with which
you were able to do the task. Take your rating from the following scale. Be as accurate
as possible and take as long as you feel necessary to arrive at the proper rating for each
movement. You may choose the same rating for any number of movements “seen” or
“felt” and it is not necessary to utilize the entire length of the scale.
RATING SCALES
Visual Imagery Scale
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Very easy Easy to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Hard to Very hard
to see
see
easy to
(not easy hard to
see
to see
see
not hard)
see
Kinesthetic Imagery Scale
7
Very easy
to feel
6
5
4
3
2
1
Easy to Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Hard to Very hard
feel
easy to
(not easy hard to
feel
to feel
feel
not hard)
feel
99
1. STARTING POSITION:
ACTION:
MENTAL TASK:
Stand with your feet and legs together and your
arms at your sides.
Raise your knee as high as possible so that you are
standing on your left leg with your right leg flexed
(bent) at the knee. Now lower your right leg so that you
are again standing on two feet. Perform these actions
slowly.
Assume the starting position. Attempt to feel yourself
making the movement just performed without actually
doing it. Now rate the ease/difficulty with which you
were able to do this mental task.
RATING: _____________
2. STARTING POSITION:
ACTION:
MENTAL TASK:
Stand with your feet slightly apart and your
hands at your sides.
Bend down low and then jump straight up in the air as
high as possible with both arms extended above your
head. Land with your feet apart and lower your arms to
your sides.
Assume the starting position. Attempt to see yourself
making the movement just performed with as clear and
vivid a visual image as possible. Now rate the
ease/difficulty with which you were able to do this
mental task.
RATING: _____________
3. STARTING POSITION:
ACTION:
MENTAL TASK:
Extend your arm of your nondominant hand
straight out to your side so that it is parallel to
the ground, palm down.
Move your arm forward until it is directly in front of
your body (still parallel to the ground). Keep your arm
extended during the movement and make the movement
slowly.
Assume the starting position. Attempt to feel yourself
making the movement just performed without actually
doing it. Now rate the ease/difficulty with which you
were able to do this mental task.
RATING: _____________
100
4. STARTING POSITION:
ACTION:
MENTAL TASK:
Stand with your feet slightly apart and your arms
fully extended above your head.
Slowly bend forward at the waist and try and touch your
toes with your fingertips (or if possible, touch the floor
with your fingertips or hands). Now return to the
starting position, standing erect with your arms extended
above your head..
Assume the starting position. Attempt to see yourself
making the movement just performed with as clear and
vivid a visual image as possible. Now rate the
ease/difficulty with which you were able to do this
mental task.
RATING: _____________
5. STARTING POSITION:
ACTION:
MENTAL TASK:
Stand with your feet slightly apart and your
hands at your sides.
Bend down low and then jump straight up in the air as
high as possible with both arms extended above your
head. Land with your feet apart and lower your arms to
your sides.
Assume the starting position. Attempt to feel yourself
making the movement just performed without actually
doing it. Now rate the ease/difficulty with which you
were able to do this mental task.
RATING: _____________
6. STARTING POSITION:
ACTION:
MENTAL TASK:
Stand with your feet and legs together and your
arms at your sides.
Raise your knee as high as possible so that you are
standing on your left leg with your right leg flexed
(bent) at the knee. Now lower your right leg so that you
are again standing on two feet. Perform these actions
slowly.
Assume the starting position. Attempt to see yourself
making the movement just performed with as clear and
vivid a visual image as possible. Now rate the
ease/difficulty with which you were able to do this
mental task.
RATING: _____________
101
7. STARTING POSITION:
ACTION:
MENTAL TASK:
Stand with your feet slightly apart and your arms
fully extended above your head.
Slowly bend forward at the waist and try and touch your
toes with your fingertips (or if possible, touch the floor
with your fingertips or hands). Now return to the
starting position, standing erect with your arms extended
above your head..
Assume the starting position. Attempt to feel yourself
making the movement just performed without actually
doing it. Now rate the ease/difficulty with which you
were able to do this mental task.
RATING: _____________
8. STARTING POSITION:
ACTION:
MENTAL TASK:
Extend your arm of your nondominant hand
straight out to your side so that it is parallel to
the ground, palm down.
Move your arm forward until it is directly in front of
your body (still parallel to the ground). Keep your arm
extended during the movement and make the movement
slowly.
Assume the starting position. Attempt to see yourself
making the movement just performed with as clear and
vivid a visual image as possible. Now rate the
ease/difficulty with which you were able to do this
mental task.
RATING: _____________
102
Appendix E. Interview Guide
Free Throw Confidence
1.
Age: ________
2.
Number of years playing competitive basketball: ________
3.
Current class rank: _______________
4.
Primary position: _______________
5.
Would you say you are a good free throw shooter: ________
6.
Do you understand what confidence means?
Yes
No
If yes, what?
Then read the definition.
If no, read the definition.
Confidence is a person’s belief in their ability to succeed.
Ask again. Do you understand what confidence means?
Yes
No
Explain: There are several ways in which an individual gains increased levels of
confidence. I would like for you to think about how you gain confidence in your own
free throw shooting performance.
Remember there are no right or wrong answers. I am only asking for your opinion.
Please be honest and respond however you want. Your answers will be kept confidential
and will not leave this room.
103
Turn on tape recorder at this point.
7.
What are all the ways in which you gain your own confidence in free throw
shooting?
Use these to probe with:
What are some things that increase your confidence at the free throw line?
Where does your confidence come from?
What are some things that affect your confidence? Why?
Who has a great impact on your confidence levels?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
As they say a reason, write it down on a small piece of paper and lay it beside the
target board. When they can’t think of any more reasons, turn the target board
over.
Ask them to place each reason on the target in order from most influential source to
the least. Explain that the most important source should be the closest to the
bullseye and the least influential source should be the closest to the outer edge of the
target.
8.
So, you feel that the three most influential sources of confidence are:
1. _______________
2. _______________
3. _______________
Remove the pieces from the bullseye and write the target point value on each
reason.
104
9.
Continue with the most influential source of confidence that he names.
What is it about _______________ that causes this to have such a large impact on
your confidence levels?
Ask why? When he has given a response, ask why that response is so important.
Continue with this until all answers they can think of have been discussed.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10.
Now, I would like for you to think about what you listed as your second most
influential source of confidence.
What is it about _______________ that causes this to be the second most
influential source of confidence for you?
Ask why? Again, when he answers, continue to ask why this is so important to them
until they cannot think of any more responses.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
11.
Now, I would like for you to think about what you have listed as your third most
influential source of confidence.
What is it about _______________ that causes this to be the third most influential
source of confidence for you?
Ask why? Again, when he answers, continue to ask why this is so important to them
until they cannot think of any more responses.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
105
Go back to the confidence target. Spread out all the reasons by the target and put
the top three on the target where they had them.
12.
Do your most influential sources of confidence on the target always look like
this or are there times in a game that would change causing either these sources
to move or maybe even other sources replacing the ones you have listed as your
top three?
Allow the athlete to move the pieces around and describe the target in order to be
transcribed later.
13.
How would your target look at the beginning of the season? Why?
14.
How would your target look in the middle of the season? Why?
15.
How would your target look at the end of the season? Why?
16.
How would your target look if you had just gone a few games in a row in which
you weren’t shooting very well from the free throw line? Why?
17.
How would your target look if you were in a pressure situation such as having the
game on the line as you stepped up to the free throw line? For example, very little
time is left in the game and you need to make your free throws in order to tie or
win the game? Why?
106
Psychological Strategies:
I would like to now ask you some questions about the mental skills and strategies
you use when shooting free throws. Please let me know if you do not completely
understand any of these questions before answering and I will explain the question
better for you to understand.
1.
When you are shooting a free throw, what types of thoughts are going through
your mind?
2.
Do you ever say something special to yourself to help increase your confidence
in your ability to execute the skills needed to make a free throw?
Can you explain to me what exactly you do?
Why do you do this?
3.
What is your pre-shot routine that you use to help you feel more confident in
your ability to execute these skills?
Does it work for you?
4.
Do you have any special strategy that you use to help pull yourself out of a
poor shooting slump?
5.
Do you use any special strategy that you use to help you in pressure situations?
6.
Do you ever use a special mental strategy to prepare yourself for a free throw?
Can you explain to me what exactly you do?
Does this usually work for you?
7.
What happens if you miss a free throw? What do you usually say to yourself or
do in order to get through this?
8.
If you are at the free throw line and feel really nervous or scared, what do you do
in order to help calm yourself down?
107
Appendix F. Example of target used in SCIM interviews
6
7
8
9
10
108
Appendix G. Social Validation Questionnaire
1.
How many days per week did you view your video tape at home? ________ days
2.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how helpful do you feel this tape was to your shooting?
Not helpful
1
2
3.
3
5
6
7
8
9
Very helpful
10
4
5
6
7
8
9
Very often
10
Which technique do you feel affected your confidence the most at the free
throw line?
Imagery ______
5.
4
On a scale of 1 to 10, how often did you use the pre-shot techniques that were
taught to you when you were shooting a free throw?
Not often
1
2
4.
3
Focus cue words ______
Power Breathe ______
On a scale of 1 to 10, how much did these techniques effect your free throw
confidence?
Not much
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Very much
10
6.
Approximately how many times per week did you use the imagery technique to
help see yourself making a free throw? ___________ times
7.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how helpful did you find this imagery to be?
Not helpful
1
2
3
4
5
6
109
7
8
Very helpful
9
10
8.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how helpful do you feel the breathing technique prior
to your free throw was in helping you relax at the free throw line.
Not helpful
1
2
9.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Very helpful
10
9
On a scale of 1 to 10, how helpful did you find the focus phrase was to you in
helping you focus your attention on the shot and block out distractions.
Not helpful
1
2
3
4
5
6
110
7
8
Very helpful
10
9