Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2013

Imagery Use in Unskilled and SkilledGolfers: General and Specific MeasuresExamining Extent, Direction, and FunctionDaniel George Vosgerichian

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

 

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

IMAGERY USE IN UNSKILLED AND SKILLED GOLFERS:

GENERAL AND SPECIFIC MEASURES

EXAMINING EXTENT, DIRECTION, AND FUNCTION

By

DANIEL GEORGE VOSGERICHIAN

A Dissertation submitted to the

Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester 2013

 

ii 

Daniel George Vosgerichian defended this dissertation on March 25, 2013.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

David W. Eccles

Professor Directing Dissertation

Gershon Tenenbaum

Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

James Whyte IV

University Representative

Robert C. Eklund

Committee Member

Jeannine Turner

Committee Member

 

 

 

 

 

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and

certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

 

iii 

I dedicate this to my unbelievable family. Thank you mom and dad for all the support; I could

not have done it without you. Thank you Stephanie and Andrea for all the love you have given

me, I am grateful to have two of the best sisters on the face of this earth.

 

iv 

ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my committee. Thank you for all your support. I could not have

done it without you. Special thanks to Dr. David Eccles who pushed me more than I ever knew I

could be pushed and teaching me the finer points of scientific inquiry.

I appreciate all the wonderful professors I have had before coming to Florida State University

who shaped my view of applied sport and performance psychology: Robin Vealey, Robert

Weinberg, Britt Brewer, Judy Van Raalte, Ann Moriarty, and Rick Paar.

A special thanks to Bill Hughes for believing in me and showing me the true definition of

graciousness and generosity. I appreciate the FSU PGA PGM Program, Don Farr, and Coach

Lanford for making me feel like a member of their family during my stay at FSU.

I would like to give a special thanks to my coaches and mentors inside and outside of golf for

deeply shaping my view of positive psychology and self improvement: Richard Bandler, John

Grinder, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, Napoleon Hill, His Holiness, Anthony J. Mahavorick,

Paul Ross, Eben Pagan, Robert Winters and Robert J. Rotella.

 

v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................vi List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................vii Abstract ....................................................................................................................................viii 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................................3 3. METHOD ..........................................................................................................................14 4. RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................25 5. DISCUSSION.....................................................................................................................38

APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................................49

A. RECRUITMENT.........................................................................................................49

B. INFORMED CONSENTS ..........................................................................................50

C. DEMOGRAPHICS FORM .........................................................................................56

D. SELF-REPORT MEASURES ....................................................................................57

E. DIRECTED PROBES MEASURES...........................................................................60

F. IMMEDIATE RETROSPECTIVE REPORT MEASURES.......................................65

G. RETROSPECTIVE REPORT STATEMENTS..........................................................68

H. PARTICIPANT OUTLINE AND ORDER ...............................................................70

I. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL............................................................................75

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................77 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..............................................................................................83

 

vi 

LIST OF TABLES

1. Means and Standard Deviations of Putts Holed by Putt Length and Skill Level ...............26

2. Means and Standard Deviations for Task Self-Efficacy by Putt Length and Skill Level...27

3. Means and Standard Deviations for Imagery Extent Measures..........................................28

4. Correlation Matrix for Imagery Extent Measures...............................................................29

5. Means and Standard Deviations of Imagery Function as Measured by the Sport Imagery Questionnaire – golf and Directed Probe Measures .............................................30

6. Correlations between Measurements of Imagery Function Obtained by the SIQ – golf and Directed Probe Measures .............................................................................................31

7. Means and Standard Deviations of Facilitative Imagery Function Elicited via Directed Probe By Group ..................................................................................................................33

8. Means and Standard Deviations of Debilitative Imagery Functions Elicited via Directed Probe By Group....................................................................................................34

9. Means and Standard Deviations for Imagery Extent by Putt Length Assessed via Directed Probe and Retrospective Report By Group..........................................................35

10. Means and Standard Deviations for Facilitative and Debilitative Imagery Direction By Putt Length Assessed via Directed Probe ...........................................................................36

 

vii 

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Average Putts Holed by Putt Length and Skill Level ...................................................26

2. Average Task Efficacy by Putt Length and Skill Level ...............................................27

 

viii 

ABSTRACT

Researchers and practitioners have been particularly interested in athlete’s use of imagery

during practice and competition over the last 25 years (Hall, Rodgers, & Barr, 1990; MacIntyre

& Moran, 2007a). A key limitation of imagery use research has been an over-reliance on

measures involving questionnaires and interviews (Eccles, 2012). Imagery researchers have

recommended verbal report methods in relation to a specific sport task alongside the use of

traditional questionnaires, in order to gain a better understanding of imagery use (Morris, Spittle,

& Watt, 2005). The current study involved general imagery use measures (i.e., Imagery Use

Questionnaire items and the Sport Imagery Questionnaire-golf) and verbal report methods (i.e.,

directed probe and retrospective report measures) in relation to a golf putting task. The first

research question was concerned with the degree to which traditional questionnaires predict

reported use of imagery from verbal report methods. The second research question was

concerned with three areas of imagery use by differently skilled golfers: (a) imagery extent, (b)

imagery direction, and (c) imagery function. The third research question examined how imagery

use (i.e., extent and direction) is related to task difficulty.

In the present study, unskilled golfers (n = 25) and skilled golfers (n = 25) completed

three phases, where the aim was to measure imagery use in each phase using a different method:

(a) a general imagery use phase, (b) a directed imagery use probe phase, and (c) an immediate

retrospective report of recalled thoughts phase. All participants attempted to hole out 3ft (91.4

cm) and 6 ft (182.9 cm) golf putts on an artificial green during the directed probe and

retrospective report phases. Imagery Use Questionnaire (IUQ) items used in the general report

phase were predictive of imagery extent as measured by both directed probe and retrospective

report measures. The Sport Imagery Questionnaire-golf (SIQ-golf, i.e., general report phase) had

little predicative ability for imagery function as measured by directed probe. Skilled golfers used

more imagery extent than unskilled golfers, regardless of measure used. Both unskilled and

skilled golfers used more facilitative imagery than debilitative imagery as measured by directed

probe. Both unskilled and skilled golfers used similar amounts of imagery and facilitative

imagery for short and long putts. Debilitative imagery use increased from short to long putts for

the unskilled golfers, but not the skilled golfers.

 

1 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Researchers in sport and exercise psychology have referred to the images athletes use

during performance and practice as: ideomotor training, imagery practice, imagery rehearsal,

implicit practice, introspective rehearsal, mental picture, mental practice, mental rehearsal,

mind's eye, modeling, covert practice, cognitive enactment, cognitive rehearsal, visualization,

visuomotor behavior rehearsal (VMBR), and symbolic rehearsal (Bandura, 1997; Murphy &

Martin, 2002; Perry & Morris, 1995). While each of these terms is used to describe the images

athletes use, each term slightly differs based on the context (i.e., model or theory) in which the

term is referenced. Therefore, to enhance the understanding of the images athletes use,

researchers have elected to describe these terms as a single construct called imagery (Murphy

2005; Murphy & Martin, 2002).

The examination of imagery is more than 2500 years old, and was one of the primary

constructs of investigation with the emergence of cognitive psychology during the 1960s

(Richardson, 1999). Imagery has a longstanding tradition of research within the sport sciences,

dating back to the early twentieth century (Murphy & Martin, 2002). One of the key areas of

research within imagery during the last 25 years has been imagery use (Hall, Rodgers, & Barr,

1990; MacIntyre & Moran, 2007a). Research on imagery use has involved four types of

questions about imagery: where, when, why, and what (Munroe, Giacobbi, Hall, & Weinberg,

2000).

A key limitation of the research on imagery use has been an over-reliance on measures

involving questionnaires and interviews (Eccles, 2012). In both of these approaches: (a) athletes

are typically asked about their use of imagery in general instead of their use of imagery in

relation to an actual, specific, and recent event; (b) when athletes have been asked about their use

of imagery in relation to an actual event, a considerable amount of time has generally passed

since the event occurred; and (c) the athlete is usually directly probed for specific types of

information rather than asked to recall their thoughts, which may compel the athlete to respond,

even if they are not able to access memories about their use of imagery (Ericsson & Simon,

1980). In response to these concerns, researchers have proposed the use of verbal report

methods, such as retrospective verbalization, in relation to a specific and recent task (Eccles,

 

2 

2012; Ericsson & Simon, 1993). Morris, Spittle, and Watt (2005) have suggested using these

types of verbal report methods in conjunction with traditional imagery use questionnaires, in

order to develop a more complete picture of imagery use. Therefore, the purpose of this study is

to combine traditional imagery use measures and verbal report methods to measure athletes

imagery use, in order to: (a) gain a better understanding of the relationship between these

measures; (b) utilize traditional imagery use questionnaires and verbal report methods to

compare and contrast unskilled and skilled athletes’ imagery use; and (c) use verbal report

methods following a specific and recent sport task in order to explore imagery use in relation to

task difficulty.

 

3 

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Many top athletes have attributed their success within sport to the use of imagery

(Weinberg, 2008). Within golf, legendary golfers from the first grand slam winner Bobby Jones

(1966) to the all time leading major champion winner Jack Nicklaus (1974) have claimed that the

use of imagery is a key component of their achievements. While many definitions of sport

imagery exist, the most thorough and complete definition to date comes from Morris and

colleagues (2005):

Imagery, in the context of sport, may be considered as the creation or re-creation of an

experience generated from memorial information, involving quasi-sensorial, quasi-

perceptual, and quasi-affective characteristics, that is under the volitional control of the

imager, and which may occur in the absence of the real stimulus antecedents normally

associated with the actual experience (p.19).

An example of an athlete using imagery would be a golfer visualizing a ball rolling into the hole

during his or her pre-putt routine.

Self-Regulatory Skill and Skill Level

Imagery is considered a self-regulatory skill that is used by athletes to regulate their

physical and psychological state during practice and in competition (Morris et al., 2005; Murphy

& Martin, 2002). Psychological states are comprised of emotions and cognitions related to self-

confidence, motivation, anxiety, and attention (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996). Hardy et al.

proposed that imagery is one of the “basic four” psychological skills used by athletes to regulate

their psychological state, where the other psychological skills include goal-setting, relaxation and

activation, and self-talk. Athletes regulate their psychological states because they are aware that

these states affect the quality of their practice and their performance during competition. A

strong relationship has been reported between psychological state and athletic performance

during practice and competition (Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg, 1981; Hardy, et al.; Williams &

Leffingwell, 2003). Hanin (2007) suggested that an optimal psychological state of each

individual athlete determines to a large extent his/her performance. Accordingly, Eccles and

colleagues (2011) contended that an optimal psychological state is dependent on three sets of

 

4 

constraints, which are related to: (a) the organism, (b) the task, and (c) the environment. For

example, the optimal psychological state for each individual golfer can be based on the golfer’s

personality (i.e., an organismic constraint), the type of shot (i.e., putt vs. pitch shot; a task

constraint), and the particular golf course (i.e., an environmental constraint).

As athletes train and gain more experience within their sport, they develop psychological

skills in a similar manner as motor skills (Hardy et al., 1996; Williams & Leffingwell, 2003).

The development of these psychological skills allows the athletes to better cope with the

demands of practice and competition through an enhanced ability to regulate psychological state.

A recent review by Eccles et al. (2011) of research involving a variety of methodologies (i.e.,

self-report, psychophysiological, behavioral, and neurophysiological) provides support for these

proposals. Researchers also suggest that greater use of psychological skills has been associated

with higher levels of athletic performance (Eccles et. al.; Kudlackova, Eccles, & Dieffenbach,

2013). The relationship between psychological skills and performance level also has been found

within the sport of golf in particular. McCaffrey and Orlick (1989) compared the use of mental

skills between golf club professionals and top touring professionals. Top touring professionals

displayed greater (a) mental preparation prior to practice, (b) use of goal setting, (c) imagery

training, (d) practice and tournament planning, (e) tournament focus control, (f) distraction

control, and (g) evaluation of tournament performance. Thomas and Over (1994) found that

skilled golfers used greater levels of mental preparation when compared to unskilled golfers.

Hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the relationship between psychological

skills and golf performance across three competitive rounds of golf (Hayslip, Petrie, MacIntire,

& Jones, 2010). Skilled golfers demonstrated greater use of psychological skills during

performance than lesser skilled golfers.

Imagery Use Research

With regard to the use of imagery skills, one of the key areas of research in the last 25

years has been concerned with what has been termed imagery use (Hall et al., 1990; MacIntyre &

Moran, 2007a). Research on imagery use has involved four types of questions about imagery:

where, when, why, and what (Munroe et al, 2000). Many qualitative and quantitative studies

over the last 25 years have been conducted in an attempt to obtain answers to these questions

(e.g., Gregg & Hall, 2006; Hall et al., 1990; MacIntyre & Moran, 2007a, 2007b; Martin, Moritz,

& Hall, 1999; Munroe et al., 2000; Murphy & Martin, 2002; Murphy, Nordin, & Cummings,

 

5 

2008; Short, Ross-Stewart, & Monsma, 2006; White & Hardy, 1998). In the following sections,

information related to the methods and theories involved in these studies is reviewed, and then

some key findings are outlined from imagery use research.

The qualitative research related to imagery use has typically involved semi-structured

interview protocols (e.g., MacIntyre & Moran, 2007a, 2007b; Munroe et al., 2000; White &

Hardy, 1998), while the majority of the quantitative research related to imagery use has involved

general self-report measures. The two primary self-report measures designed to obtain

information about imagery use are the Imagery Use Questionnaire (IUQ: Hall et al., 1990) and

the Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ: Hall, Mack, Paivio, & Hausenblas, 1998). The IUQ was

the first measure specifically related to sport imagery use. The IUQ was designed to gather

preliminary data about “when”, “where”, and “how” imagery was incorporated into athletes’

training and performance. The IUQ evolved into sport-specific versions for figure skating

(Rodgers, Hall, & Buckholz, 1991), rowing (Barr & Hall, 1992), and soccer (Salmon, Hall, &

Haslam, 1994), and also later acted as a cornerstone in the development of the SIQ. The SIQ was

designed to assess the functions that imagery serves (i.e., the “why” question) based on Paivio’s

General Analytical Framework (GAF: 1985).

Paivio’s GAF (1985) proposed that imagery has both motivational and cognitive roles in

mediating behavior; both of which may operate on either a general or specific level.

Consequently, four plausible functions of imagery were conceptualized by Paivio: (a)

motivational general (MG), (b) motivational specific (MS), (c) cognitive general (CG), and (d)

cognitive specific (CS). Paivio described MG imagery function as images associated with the

imager’s physiological arousal, affect, and/or emotion (e.g., a basketball player may use MG

images to calm himself or herself before shooting a foul shot). MS imagery function was

described by Paivio as imagery used to influence goal oriented responses (e.g., a basketball

player may use MS imagery before practice to help motivate himself or herself). Paivio

described CS imagery function as images that assist the imager in the development of a specific

skill (e.g., an athlete imagining his or her tennis serve). CG imagery function was described as

images that assist the individual with development of general strategies (e.g., a gymnast

imagining his or her floor routine).

During development of the SIQ, principal factor analysis revealed the MG factor

originally proposed by Paivio could be best represented by two distinct categories of MG (Hall et

 

6 

al., 1998). Consequently, two motivational-general subscales were created, one corresponding to

mastery (MG-M) and the second to arousal (MG-A). MG-M imagery function was characterized

by images of overcoming challenges and demonstrating effective coping strategies (e.g.,

displaying self-confidence). MG-A imagery was associated with images of controlling arousal

(i.e., feeling relaxed and calm, being in a high energized state). Based on the addition of these

two subcategories to Paivio’s GAF, the final version of the SIQ was comprised of five distinct

subscales designed to assess imagery function (e.g., CS, CG, MS, MG-M, and MG-A).

There are several key findings from the research on sport imagery use described above.

Athletes report using imagery more often in conjunction with competition than practice (Hall et

al., 1990; Salmon et al, 1994; White & Hardy, 1998), although imagery is often used by athletes

just prior to competition (Barr & Hall, 1992; Weinberg et al., 2003; White & Hardy). Imagery

use varies by type of sport (individual vs. team) and time of season (early vs. late) (Barr & Hall;

MacIntyre & Moran, 2007a, 2007b; Munroe, Hall, Simms, & Weinberg, 1998; White & Hardy).

Male and female athletes report using imagery in similar frequencies and durations (Barr & Hall;

Hall et al.; Salmon et al.). In general, athletes report that imagery sessions are not structured and

vary in duration (Barr & Hall; Hall et al.). However, elite athletes report using more structured

imagery sessions than novice athletes (Barr & Hall). Skilled athletes also report using more

imagery than unskilled athletes (Barr & Hall; Hall et al.). Athletes consistently use all five

functions of imagery, but generally report higher frequencies of motivational functions than

cognitive functions (Cumming & Ramsey, 2009). Skilled athletes, in general, report using all

functions of imagery more often than unskilled athletes (Gregg & Hall, 2006; Hall et al, 1998;

Salmon et al.).

In addition to the investigation of the function and extent of imagery used by athletes, the

direction of imagery has been explored. Imagery direction was originally conceptualized as

either related to a positive or a negative outcome (Powell, 1973). A negative outcome is related

to a negative task performance (e.g., I imagine missing a golf putt), while a positive outcome is

related to a positive task performance (e.g., I imagine holing a golf putt). Following, the original

conceptualization of positive and negative outcome imagery, it has been proposed that the

directional aspects of imagery are more complex and intricate than originally proposed (Beilock

et al., 2001; MacIntyre & Moran 2007a, 2007b; Ramsey, Cumming & Edwards, 2008; Short et

al., 2002). Short et al. posited that imaging missing a golf putt may not always be perceived by

 

7 

the imager as negative. In certain circumstances, “lagging” a putt near the hole may be

considered positive by a golfer, because the golfer’s objective could be to get the ball close to the

hole in order to set up the next putt. Therefore, imagining missing a putt, but getting it close to

the hole, may be considered a positive image. This distinction led Short et al. to enhance the

conceptualization of positive and negative imagery direction by introducing the concepts of

facilitative and debilitative imagery. Short et al. imparted these concepts, into sport imagery

research, based on the concepts of facilitative and debilitative interpretations of anxiety that are

discussed in the competitive anxiety literature (e.g., Jones, 1995). Short et al. defined facilitative

imagery as any image used by an individual to positively enhance their capacity to (a) learn or

perform skills/strategies, (b) modify cognitions (i.e., self-efficacy), and (c) regulate

arousal/anxiety. In contrast, debilitative imagery is any image that negatively affects or impedes

the capacity to (a) learn or perform skills/strategies, (b) modify important cognitions, and (c)

regulate arousal/anxiety.

The research on imagery direction has yielded inconsistent and equivocal results

regarding the effects of imagery direction on performance outcome. Some researchers have

shown that instructions to use facilitative/positive imagery prior to performing enhance

performance, whereas instructions to use debilitative/negative imagery prior to performing

degrade performance (Powell, 1973; Shaw & Goodfellow, 1997; Short et al., 2002; Woolfolk,

Parrish, & Murphy, 1985). However, other researchers have demonstrated no differences

between a facilitative/positive imagery condition and a control condition, but a deleterious effect

on performance for a debilitative/negative imagery condition compared to a control condition

(Beilock et al, 2001; Nordin & Cumming, 2005; Ramsey et al., 2008; Taylor & Shaw, 2002;

Woolfolk, Murphy et al., 1985).

Limitations

While studies of imagery use have advanced our understanding of the role of imagery in

sports performance, a key limitation of the research on imagery use is an over-reliance on

questionnaires (e.g., IUQ and SIQ), and semi-structured interview protocols (Eccles, 2012; Short

et al., 2006). In both of these approaches, the participant is asked about their general use of

imagery instead of use of imagery in relation to a specific event. As such, it is unclear whether

the participant accesses any specific memories relating to his or her use of imagery when

providing a response to a questionnaire or interview question. The concern is that, instead, the

 

8 

participant simply reports about what he or she generally thinks he or she imagined, not what he

or she actually recalls imagining in relation to an actual event, which Nisbett and Wilson (1977)

refer to as implicit theories about cognitive processes. Eccles (2012) defines implicit theories as

“an individual’s fundamental assumption about how the world generally works” (p. 105). The

problem with this is that, as Nisbett and Wilson showed, people are actually quite unaware of the

conscious cognitive processes that occur during the performance of actual tasks.

An additional problem is that, even if participants actively attempt to access specific

memories involving imagery use in response to one of these questions, it is typical that a

considerable amount of time has passed since they actually used the imagery; at a minimum

hours but usually days or months (e.g., MacIntyre & Moran 2007a, 2007b; Munroe et al., 1998).

Information recall, especially after a considerable delay, is susceptible to retroactive interference,

which throws into question the validity of the reported data (Ericsson & Simon, 1980).

A final issue with the use of questionnaires or semi-structured interviews is that the

participant is usually directly probed for specific types of information (e.g., “please tell me about

your use of imagery immediately before you putted”) rather than asked to recall their thoughts,

an approach known as undirected probing (e.g., “can you recall any thoughts you experienced

immediately before you putted?”). One concern with only relying on directed probes is that

participants are effectively compelled to respond, and if they are not able to access memories

about their use of imagery or accessing such memories is effortful, they may report on the basis

of implicit theories (Ericsson & Simon, 1980).

Verbal Report Methods

Ericsson and Simon (1993) proposed two verbal report methods designed to elicit

information (a) about thoughts involved in the specific performance of a task, (b) as soon as

possible after the performance of a task, so that the information might be held in Short-Term

Memory (STM), and (c) in an undirected way so that the participant is not guided or prejudiced

about what to report. These two verbal report methods are concurrent verbalization and

retrospective verbalization. The concurrent verbalization method is also referred to as the “think

aloud” method, and is characterized by an individual reporting his or her thoughts out aloud as

thoughts entered his or her consciousness concurrent with the performance of a task.

Retrospective verbalization is described as an individual reporting a sequence of recalled

thoughts directly following the performance of a task. Ericsson and Simon posited that

 

9 

immediately following the completion of a task, retrieval cues exist within STM. These might be

thought of as pieces of information that are linked to larger information in the organization of

Long Term Memory (LTM). These retrieval cues allow for the effective retrieval of thought

sequences involved in mediating performance of the task.

To date, no research on sport imagery has involved either concurrent verbalization or

retrospective verbalization, and more strikingly, few studies (e.g., Bernier & Fournier, 2010)

have involved an assessment of imagery use in relation to the performance of a recent and

specific sports task (Morris et al., 2005). Morris et al. proposed that the utilization of these types

of verbal report methods would likely provide interesting and useful adjuncts to traditional

questionnaire-based self-report measures (i.e., the IUQ and SIQ) for examining imagery within

motor domains such as sport. One caution regarding the use of these methods, suggested by

Klinger (1978), is that speaking aloud may react with imaginal activity. In other words,

concurrent verbal reports possibly could cause participants to dwell on their imagery longer than

they would normally (Anderson, 1981). Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that

retrospective verbalization may offer greater potential than concurrent verbalization for capturing

imagery use by athletes during a specific motor task.

While acknowledging the advantages of using undirected probes as suggested by

Ericsson and Simon (1980), directed probes may provide useful data about images that are not

discernable from undirected probes. Specifically, within imagery theory derived from cognitive

psychology (i.e., Image-Somatic Response-Meaning [ISM] Triple Code Theory; Ahsen, 1984), it

is suggested that images have distinct and unique meanings to each individual. Furthermore,

researchers in sport psychology have provided evidence that images with similar content (e.g.,

what is being imaged) can have different functional meanings to athletes (Abma, Fry, Li, Relyea,

2002; Callow & Hardy, 2001; Nordin & Cummings 2008; Short et al., 2002, Short, Monsma, &

Short, 2004; Short & Short, 2005). While the strength of undirected probes is that they limit

inference and abstraction by the participant, the data elicited by the probes must be interpreted by

the researcher and it is often challenging and perhaps impossible for researchers to code

undirected verbal reports for meaning. Therefore, the use of directed probes within research on

imagery in sport affords the opportunity to identify the meanings images have to an athlete.

Therefore, directed probes will be utilized in conjunction with immediate retrospective

verbalization methods in this study.

 

10 

Purpose

One aim of the present study was to examine the potential of general sport imagery use

questionnaires to predict imagery use measured via immediate verbal report methods in relation

to a recent and specific sport task. The findings of the study enhance our understanding of the

efficacy and utility of the tools developed to measure imagery use (i.e., traditional questionnaire

methods). The findings also shed light on how the extent, direction, and function of imagery are

employed by athletes of different skill levels in relation to a real sport task. This adds to our

current understanding of imagery use by skilled athletes. Using verbal report methods to assess

imagery use also provides important applied implications about golfers’ optimum psychological

state during putting, which can be used to help enhance golfers with preparation and on course

performance. Accounts of skilled golfers’ use of imagery (i.e., extent, direction, and function)

can be used to design interventions, which enhance golfers’ psychological state and performance.

The following specifically address each research question and hypotheses. Research questions

one and two are the primary questions within this study.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

1. How do traditional self-report measures of imagery use, such as the IUQ and SIQ, predict

the extent and function of imagery use during the performance of an actual putting task as

measured by directed probes and immediate retrospective verbalization?

The first part of the research question posed above involves extent of imagery use. That

is, how well do general questionnaire self-report measures predict the amount of imagery used

during the performance of an actual motor task as measured by directed probes and retrospective

verbalization? Extent of imagery use is a fundamental aspect of imagery use that needs to be

explored before investigating how general questionnaire based measures predict more complex

aspects of imagery use such as function. Two items from the IUQ were used to test how general

self-report questionnaires predict extent of imagery during an actual putting task. Item one from

the IUQ (hereafter referred to as IUQ-T) asked, “to what extent do you use mental imagery in

your training?” Item two (hereafter referred to as IUQ-C) asked, “to what extent do you use

 

11 

mental imagery in competition?” It was hypothesized that both measures would moderately

predict imagery use during an actual event as measured by a directed probe and retrospective

verbalization. A moderate relationship was hypothesized because of limitations associated with

general questionnaire based imagery measures (e.g., retrieval from Long Term Memory [LTM])

as well as because of the complex and individualized nature of imagery (Murphy, 2005; Murphy

et al., 2008; Short et al., 2006).

The second part of the research question posed above was concerned with imagery

function. Specifically, would general questionnaire based measures designed to assess the

frequency of imagery function accurately predict how frequently functions of imagery were

reported via directed probes during an actual task? The SIQ was designed to assess the functions

of imagery used within sport, and was therefore used in this study as the general questionnaire

based measure of imagery function (Gregg & Hall, 2006; Hall et al., 1998). Researchers suggest

the SIQ does not accurately capture imagery direction (Short et al., 2006). The majority of items

on the SIQ are biased toward facilitative imagery (e.g., I imagine my skills improving).However,

five questions have been shown to be considered debilitative by at least 25% of athletes

completing the SIQ (Short et al., 2004) (e.g., When I image myself participating in golf, I feel

anxious). Therefore, only a small to moderate relationship was predicted between imagery

functions assessed by the SIQ-golf (e.g., general questionnaire) and imagery functions assessed

by directed probe questions following specific putt attempts.

2. To what degree do differences exist between unskilled and skilled golfers’ imagery use

(extent, direction, and function) in relation to a specific golf putting task as measured by

(a) general imagery use questionnaires, (b) directed probe questions, and (c) retrospective

verbalization?

The degree to which unskilled and skilled golfers’ use of imagery (e.g., extent, direction,

and function) during an actual golf putting task was assessed via traditional questionnaires,

directed probe, and retrospective verbalization methods. Based on the findings of previous

research involving questionnaires, such as the IUQ, I hypothesized that skilled golfers would

report using more imagery than unskilled golfers (Barr & Hall, 1992; Hall et al., 1990).

 

12 

As important as the extent of imagery used during the golf putting task so was the

direction and function of imagery used by unskilled and skilled golfers. The findings from

previous research involving the IUQ suggest that skilled athletes use more facilitative imagery

than unskilled athletes (e.g., Hall et al., 1990). It should be noted, however, that research shows

skilled athletes report using debilitative imagery during performance (MacIntyre & Moran,

2007b; Munroe et al., 2000). Therefore, it was likely that unskilled and skilled golfers would use

facilitative and debilitative imagery, but skilled golfers would likely use facilitative imagery

more often than unskilled golfers.

The findings of previous research involving the SIQ suggest that skilled golfers use all

five functions of imagery more than unskilled golfers (Gregg & Hall, 2006). Additionally,

athletes generally report using motivational functions of imagery more often than cognitive

functions of imagery (Cumming & Ramsey, 2009). Therefore, it was most likely that skilled

golfers would use all five functions of imagery more often than unskilled golfers.

3. How does imagery use (extent and direction) during golf putting relate to task difficulty?

At the time of the study, no research had been undertaken to examine how task difficulty

influenced imagery use (e.g., extent and direction) or the use of psychological skills by athletes.

Research of the effect of task difficulty on psychological constructs has revealed equivocal

results. Research within the goal-setting literature suggests that psychological constructs such as

effort increase as task difficulty increases (Locke & Latham, 1990) However, research with rock

climbers suggests the relationship between task difficulty and effort is likely moderated by task

orientation (Sarrazin, Roberts, Cury, Biddle, & Famose, 2002). These findings from research on

goal-setting and achievement goal orientation highlight the complexity between task difficulty

and cognitive processes. As with previous imagery research and theory, it seems likely that more

important than the athlete’s appraisal of task difficulty is how athletes interpret and assess the

meaning of difficulty (Abma et al., 2002; Ahsen, 1984; Callow & Hardy, 2001; Nordin &

Cummings, 2008; Short et al., 2002, Short et al., 2004; Short & Short, 2005). Research on

competitive anxiety (Jones, 1995) suggests that the athlete’s perception of the environment (i.e.,

task difficulty) as well as individual differences likely influence psychological processes (e.g.,

coping mechanisms, self-esteem, confidence, etc.) and behavioral outcomes (e.g., performance).

 

13 

While imagery extent does not directly pertain to meaning or the appraisal of an image it

was likely that extent of imagery would be similar across all trials. That is, golfers would likely

use similar amounts of imagery across all putt lengths. The primary distinction would not be the

extent of imagery used by golfers, but how golfers interpreted imagery direction. I predicted that

extent of imagery would remain the same across putt length, but that the direction (facilitative

and debilitative) of imagery would change as putts get longer. More specifically, the first

hypothesis in relation to imagery direction was that facilitative imagery would be used more for

easier putts and less for difficult putts. Secondly, debilitative imagery would be used more for

more difficult putts and less for easier putts.

 

14 

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Power Analysis

A key constraint in the following study was sample size due to workload associated with

collecting and coding retrospective verbal reports. In my prospectus, I believed that for this study

to be manageable, the maximum number of participants in each group would be 30. Gpower

3.1.3 was used in my prospectus to identify the smallest effect size given the analyses and

sample size proposed there. Power analyses were performed for my two primary research

questions, which were research questions one and two. A power level of .80 was selected for

each analysis because this level is adequate for most research designs. Alpha was set at .05.

Two proposed analyses related to the first research question in this study involved

correlations between various measures of (a) imagery extent and (b) imagery function. I intended

to correlate these measures for each of the two skill groups (n = 30 each) and with skill groups

collapsed (n = 60). I intended to use a one-tailed test as I had directional hypotheses. With

sample sizes of 30 and 60, the smallest correlation I could detect was around r = .45 and r = .32,

respectively. In my pilot study, the size of the correlations between the measures of imagery

extent with groups collapsed were .004, .03, .41, .26, .71, and .86, and between the measures of

imagery function with groups collapsed were -.23, .11,.11, .46, and .56. With my proposed

sample sizes of 30 in each group, I would not have been able to detect the weak (r = ~.1; Cohen,

1988) or moderate correlations (r = ~.3) between the measures of imagery extent or function in

my pilot study. With a sample size of 60, I would not have been able to detect the weak

correlations between these measures in my pilot study. Overall, I was satisfied with this situation

given that the weaker correlations found in my pilot study had limited practical meaning.

My second research question was concerned with differences in imagery use between the

two groups. The first part of the question concerned group differences in three measures of

imagery extent, which I planned to analyze using a MANOVA. In my pilot study, correlations

between these measures were moderate. For a between subjects MANOVA with three repeated

measures that correlate moderately (r = .3) and two groups with 30 in each group, the smallest

 

15 

effect size I could detect would be around f = .40. In my pilot study (Vosgerichian, 2011), the

same analysis yielded an effect size of η2 = .34, which is approximately f ~ .60. Thus, the

proposed sample size offered sufficient power to detect this effect. The second part of research

question two was concerned with between group differences in a single measure of imagery

direction, which I planned to analyze using an independent samples t-test. With a one tail t-test

and 30 in each group, the smallest effect size I could have detected would have been around d =

.65. In my pilot study, a medium effect (d = .51) for group was revealed. With a sample size of

30 in each group, I would not have been able to detect this effect size. My proposed solution for

this was to describe the descriptive statistics for each group and the effect size, and acknowledge

the insufficient power to detect this effect, and highlight the observed probability that this effect

would represent in an actual effect in the general population.

The next part of the second research question in this study related to group differences in

the use of five questionnaire-based measures of imagery function, which I planned analyze using

a MANOVA. In my pilot study, correlations between these measures were moderate on average.

For a between subjects MANOVA with five repeated measures that correlated moderately (r =

.3) and two groups with 30 in each group, the smallest effect size I could detect would have been

around f = .35. In my pilot study (Vosgerichian, 2011), the same analysis yielded an effect size

of η2 = .59, equating to f > 1.00. Thus, the proposed sample size offered sufficient power to

detect this effect.

The final part of the second research question in this study related to group differences in

the use of five “directed-probe” measures of imagery function, which I planned to analyze using

a MANOVA. In my pilot study, correlations between these measures were moderate on average.

For a between subjects MANOVA with five repeated measures that correlate moderately (r = .3)

and two groups with 30 in each group, the smallest effect size I could have detected would be

around f = .35. In my pilot study, the same analysis yielded an effect size of η2 = .29, translating

to f ~ .65. Thus, the proposed sample size offered sufficient power to detect this effect. Based on

the analyses proposed above, I proposed a study of 30 in each group would have sufficient power

to detect meaningfully sized effects in all instances but one. However, due to constraints in

recruitment, this study actually featured 25 participants in each group for a total of 50

participants, which my committee approved. I realize that this reduced my ability to detect

effects in the study.

 

16 

Participants

Two groups of 25 golfers participated: an unskilled group and a skilled group.

Participants were recruited across Florida via contacts of the lead investigator, who was a skilled

golfer working for a golf academy. The unskilled group (Mage = 33.40, SD = 11.25) comprised

21 males and 4 females and had an average handicap of 29.41 (SD = 4.46). The skilled group

(Mage = 35.60, SD = 13.04) comprised 23 males and 2 females and had an average handicap of

3.56 (SD = 4.65). The unskilled group had played golf for an average of 10.00 years (SD =

10.30), while this value for the skilled group was 22.52 years (SD = 12.58). There was no

overlap in handicap between groups: The lowest handicap within the unskilled group was 21 and

the highest handicap within the skilled group was 10. The unskilled group averaged 2.44 (SD =

3.07) 9 hole rounds and 2.06 (SD = 2.15) 18 hole rounds of golf per month, whereas these values

for the skilled group were 6.26 (SD = 8.46) and 6.22 (SD = 5.08), respectively. Independent

sample t-tests (using square root transformations to normalize data for years playing golf and

number of 18 hole rounds per month) revealed groups differed significantly by handicap (p <

.001), years playing golf (p < .001), and 18 hole rounds per month (p < .001), but did not differ

significantly for age (p > .05). Data for the 9 hole rounds per month variable were not

normalized following transformations so a Mann Whitney test was used to test for group

differences on this variable: No significant group difference was revealed (p > .05).

Apparatus

A transportable artificial putting green with non-directional turf nine feet (274.3 cm) in

length and 16 inches (40.6 cm) in width was used. The speed of the artificial putting green was

the equivalent to a 10 on the Stimpmeter as defined by the United States Golf Association

(USGA). Participants had the option of using a standard 35 inch (88.9 cm) putter and golf balls.

All experimental procedures were captured through the use of a portable video camera.

Task

The task involved putting a golf ball using a golf putter over an artificial surface into a

hole located either 3 ft. (91.4 cm) and 6 ft. (182.9 cm) away. Hereon, these distances are referred

to as the short putt and long putt, respectively.

 

17 

Measures

Golfing History and Demographic Profile

This form (see Appendix C) was used to obtain information regarding participants’ age,

gender, golfing ability (e.g., average golf score for 18 holes), years playing golf, and estimated

number of rounds per month (9 holes and 18 holes).

Task Performance

Putting performance was assessed as either a successful putt into the hole, which was

scored as a 1, or as an unsuccessful putt, which was scored as 0. Pelz (2000) has shown that putts

between 2 ft (61.0 cm) and 10 ft (304.8 cm) are the best distances to use in assessing putting

performance when holing the putt is the measure for task performance.

Task Self-Efficacy

Task self-efficacy was assessed using a measure similar to that used by Short et al.

(2002). The participant was shown the distance of a putt and then asked to rate their confidence

in holing the putt on a scale ranging from 0 (I cannot do this at all) to 10 (I am very certain I can

do this). This task self-efficacy scale is in accordance with suggestions by Bandura (1986) for

measuring self-efficacy for a given task.

Imagery Use Questionnaire items

The extent to which participants used imagery in relation to their sport in general was

measured by using the first two items from the Imagery Use Questionnaire (IUQ: Hall et al.,

1990, see Appendix D). The original IUQ was a 37-item self-report questionnaire with 35 items

using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never or very difficult) to 7 (always or very

easy) and two items requiring “yes/no” responses. Likert-type items were written as questions. In

the present study, two items of the IUQ were administered to assess the participants’ extent of

imagery use during (a) training and (b) competition in general. The training-related item (IUQ-T,

which was item 1 on the original questionnaire) asks, “to what extent do you use mental imagery

in your training?” The competition-related item (IUQ-C, which was item 2 on the original

questionnaire) asks “to what extent do you use mental imagery in competition?”

While the original 37-item questionnaire did not undergo formal psychometric

evaluation, later versions adapted specifically for the domains of rowing and figure skating

revealed test-retest reliabilities of .65 and .90, respectively (Barr & Hall, 1992; Rodger et al.,

 

18 

1991). Additionally, Weinberg et al. (2003) reported that their shortened IUQ, containing 12

items, had an overall alpha reliability of .90.

Sport Imagery Questionnaire-golf

The extent to which participants use imagery for specific functions within golf in general

were measured using the (SIQ-golf Gregg & Hall, 2006; see Appendix D). The SIQ-golf was

modified from the original Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ: Hall et al., 1998), which was

designed to assess the extent to which imagery is used in relation to five functions. The primary

modification between the original SIQ and the SIQ-golf involved slight changes to item wording

that made the items more specific to golf. For instance, one item used to assess the extent of the

respondent’s use of “cognitive-general” imagery was changed from “I imagine executing entire

plays/programs/sections just the way I want them to happen in a game” to “I imagine executing

entire holes just the way I want them to happen in a game.” The SIQ-golf consists of 30-items

responded to on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (rarely) to 7 (often). The items are

presented as general statements, such as the one presented above, against which the respondent is

asked to rate their frequency of use.

The SIQ-golf involves 5 function subscales, which correspond to five different functions

of imagery (Hall et al., 1998; Paivio, 1985): motivational–specific (MS), motivational general-

mastery (MG-M), and motivational general arousal (MG-A), cognitive specific (CS), and

cognitive general (CG). Each subscale contains 5-7 items. Internal consistency values for each

subscale in this study indicated adequate internal consistency ranging from .73 to .91 (CS, α =

.91; CG, α = .76; MS, α = .90; MG-M, α = .88; and MG-A, α = .73). Internal consistency values,

from previous studies, for subscales in the SIQ-golf are considered satisfactory (alpha > .70;

Gregg & Hall, 2006). During the development of the SIQ, construct and content validity were

assessed by four research experts and four elite athletes who provided feedback on the content,

format, and wording of each item (Hall et al.). Their feedback and recommendations were used

to modify and drop items from the initial design. Factorial validity was assessed via interfactor

correlations, which ranged between -.45 to .32.

Verbal Reports of Imagery Use Elicited via Directed Probe

The extent that imagery is used by participants prior to putting was measured via verbal

responses elicited by a directed probe given immediately following putting. In addition, the

direction, and function of imagery used were measured via this method. Participants’ verbal

 

19 

responses were noted using paper and pencil. The responses were also captured on a portable

video camera as a failsafe.

Imagery extent was measured first. Immediately following a putt, participants were

asked, “did you imagine any images during the last putt from the time you placed the golf ball on

the start location to the time you finished your putting stroke and turned around?” Participants

were able to respond “yes” or “no”. A putt attempt (i.e., trial) upon which participants provided a

“yes” response were scored as 1; a putt attempt upon which a “no” response was provided was

scored as 0.

Participants providing a “yes” response were then assessed for imagery direction (those

providing a “no” response moved on to attempt another putt). The participants were probed,

“could you classify any of the images as helpful or hurtful?” and were able to respond “yes” or

“no”. Participants providing a “yes” response were then asked, “would you classify your most

influential image as helpful or hurtful?” Again, those providing a “no” response moved on to

attempt another putt. The words “helpful” and “hurtful” were used to distinguish between

facilitative and debilitative imagery direction based on previous research (i.e., Short et al., 2002).

If participants responded “helpful”, a facilitative imagery score of 1 was recorded. If participant

responded “hurtful”, a debilitative imagery score of 2 was recorded. Thus, facilitative and

debilitative imagery are two separate categorical variables.

Participants providing a direction response were then asked about imagery function. A

card was presented displaying five bullets: (a) putting stroke, (b) planned strategy, (c)

motivation, (d) confidence, and (e) arousal/anxiety. These labels were modified from previous

research (i.e., Short & Short, 2005) and corresponded with the five functions of imagery

proposed by Hall et al. (1998) (i.e., CS, CG, MS, MG-M, and MG-A); these five functions are

also assessed by the SIQ. The participants were asked “Did the image you considered

helpful/hurtful (where the word used depended on the participant’s previous answer) influence

any of the bullets listed here and if so which one or ones?” Thus, the participant could list

multiple functions. Functions that were mentioned were scored as 1; those that were not

mentioned were scored 0. If the participant had in the previous step reported that an image was

facilitative, this score constituted a facilitative imagery function score. If a participant in the

previous step reported that the image was debilitative, this score constituted a debilitative

imagery function score. To familiarize participants with the directed probe measurement

 

20 

procedure prior to testing, participants were asked to complete three putts from 1.5 ft. (45.7 cm)

(See Appendix E).

Verbal Reports of Thoughts and Sensations Elicited via the Immediate Retrospective

Report Method

Reports of thoughts and sensations experienced prior to putts were obtained using the

immediate retrospective report method proposed by Ericsson and Simon (1993). This method

involved participants attempting to recall the thoughts and/or sensations they experienced during

task performance immediately following the task performance. In the present study, immediately

following certain putt trials, participants were asked to recall thoughts and/or sensations they

experienced from the beginning of their pre-performance routine until they completed their

putting stroke. Ericsson (2006) proposed that participants are unlikely to recall with definiteness

all their thoughts experienced during a task when the duration of the task is more than 30 s in

duration. In general, unskilled and skilled golfers’ pre-performance routines for golf putts occur

in less than 30 s (Koyama, Tsuruhara, & Yamamoto, 2009).

Imagery researchers have discussed the importance of training participants to provide

immediate retrospective verbal reports (Anderson, 1981). Participants in the present study were

provided with two stages of training prior to testing based on prior studies involving immediate

retrospective reports of thoughts experienced during motor tasks (Eccles, 2012; McRobert,

Ward, Eccles, & Williams, 2011; Ward, Suss, Eccles, Williams, & Harris, 2011). The first stage

involved a task unrelated to putting, and the second stage involved the criterion putting task (see

Appendix F).

The first stage began with a description of what recalling thoughts and sensations

experienced entails according to the immediate retrospective report method, and how this way of

reporting thoughts differs from normal conversation. The participant was informed that he or she

would be asked, after undertaking various tasks including putting, to report verbally any thoughts

and sensations he or she could definitely recall having experienced during the task. The

participant was instructed to report these thoughts and sensations as though he or she was alone.

The participant was further instructed to avoid explaining, interpreting, or justifying their

recalled thoughts and sensations. Participants were asked to begin to recall their thoughts and

sensations by attempting to recall the first thought or sensation that could be recalled from the

task period, followed by the next thought or sensation, and the next, and so on until no more

 

21 

thoughts or sensations could be recalled. The participant was asked to begin the report using the

following language “The first thought or sensation I can remember having was XXX” and

continue it using the following language “The next thought or sensation I remember having was

XXX”, and so on. Finally, the participant was informed that it is not only acceptable, but

preferable that he or she reported nothing if no thoughts or sensations could be recalled.

These initial instructions were then followed by an exercise that demonstrated the report

method. A simplified version of this exercise is described as follows. The participant was asked

the following question: what is the fourth letter in the alphabet after the letter L? The participant

was then asked to answer aloud when he or she had generated the answer. The participant was

then asked to attempt to recall the thoughts and sensations he or she experienced during the

solution attempt in line with the immediate retrospective report method. That is, the participant

was asked to simply recall any thoughts and/or sensations experienced from the moment after the

question was posed through to his or her generation of the answer: (a) as if he or she were alone,

(b) without explaining, interpreting, or justifying these thoughts and/or sensations, and (c)

starting with “the first thought or sensation I can remember having is…XXX”.

In a normal conversation, there is a social imperative to augment normal thought

processes with explanations. Thus, even with the instruction to recall thoughts and sensations,

the presence of the investigator often leads the participant on their first attempt at providing the

report to explain his or her thoughts or sensations rather than simply recalling their thoughts

and/or sensations. This might sound something like “Emm, you wanted me to find the fourth

letter after L, so I just counted forward four letters from L, which as I recall ended on P, so the

answer was P”. When this type of reporting happened and was detected by the investigator, the

investigator demonstrated how simply recalling thoughts and sensations were different. This was

achieved by asking the participant to pose the same question to the experimenter but using a

different starting letter. Imagine that the participant had chosen the starting letter D. The

experimenter first solved the problem and then provided an immediate retrospective report of his

thoughts, which might have sounded something like “The first thought or sensation I can

remember having was, errrmmm, fourth letter after D, errmm, then, let’s count E, F, G, H, then

it’s H”. The experimenter would then invite the participant to try other similar problems so that

he or she could gain practice reporting in this way. During all reporting attempts, the

 

22 

experimenter positioned himself out of sight of the participant to reduce the participant’s natural

tendency to provide an explanation during thinking.

The second stage of training involved asking the participant to provide an immediate

retrospective report of his or her thoughts and sensations following three separate putt attempts

from 1.5 ft (45.7 cm). The investigator stood in front of the participant during the putt attempt so

that, if the participant were to look up, he or she would be facing the investigator. Following the

putt, the participant was asked to turn around so that his or her back was to the hole. This

resulted in the investigator being out of the participant’s view, which should have reduced the

participant’s natural tendency to provide explanations within their immediate retrospective

report. Next, the participant was probed to provide an immediate retrospective report of the

thoughts and sensations he or she experienced from the time he or she placed the ball on the

starting location through to the moment the participant finished their putting stroke. The

participant was reminded that it was not only acceptable, but preferable that he or she reported

nothing if no thoughts or sensations could be recalled.

During testing, a portable video camera was fixed on the floor on the target line of the

putt. The camera captured the participants’ retrospective reports. After testing, these reports were

transcribed into electronic word processor files. A separate file was created for each participant.

Each retrospective report was transcribed on a separate page within the file. Within each report,

each thought and/or sensation was separated into individual statements. Individual statements

were identified based on natural pauses and propositional structures within the transcribed

immediate retrospective reports. Whenever possible these propositional structures would be

identified by the phrase “the first thought or sensation I remember having” and “the next thought

or sensation I remember having.” After dividing each thought or sensation into individual

statements, each statement was coded as either (a) an “imaginal” statement or (b) a “non-

imaginal” statement on the basis of whether the statement provided any evidence of an imaginal

process. Thus, the coding scheme was mutually exclusive and exhaustive (see Appendix G for

examples). Imaginal processes were defined according to Morris et al.’s (2005) definition, which

is as follows:

Imagery, in the context of sport, may be considered as creation or re-creation of an

experience generated from memorial information, involving quasi-sensorial, quasi-

perceptual, and quasi-affective characteristics, that is under the volitional control of the

 

23 

imager, and which may occur in the absence of the real stimulus antecedents normally

associated with the actual experience (p. 19).

Examples of statements coded as imaginal statements are as follows: “My next thought

was imagining the ball rolling into the hole” and “visualizing a good result.” Examples of

statements coded as non-imaginal are as follows: “I step up to the ball” and “left foot right foot.”

Coded data were used to derive an imagery extent score. Specifically, the score was the number

of putt attempts (i.e., trials) upon which at least one imaginal statement was identified (i.e.,

coded).

As a test of coding reliability, 50 statements coded as imaginal and 50 coded as non-

imaginal were selected at random from all participants’ statements and provided, without code

labels, to a second rater. The second rater was trained by the principal investigator and shown

examples from actual transcripts that were not used to determine inter-rater reliability. Once the

second rater demonstrated an in depth understanding of the coding technique, the second rater

was asked to code the statements as non-imaginal and imaginal. Percentage agreement rate

between the author and second rater was 93%, Cohen’s kappa was .86.

Procedure

First, participants received a description of the study, provided informed consent (see

Appendix B), and completed the demographic and golf history form (see Appendix C).

Following this, the participant was shown the artificial putting surface and the two distances

(corresponding to the short and long putts) over which he or she would be putting. Participants

then rated their task self-efficacy for each distance in terms of holing the putt. Next, the

participant hit five putts on the artificial surface with the hole filled in over 6.5 ft. (198.1 cm) to

become acquainted with the “green” speed and warm up. To prevent participants from attending

to the hole they would be putting toward during testing, they were informed, “You have five

putts to get acquainted with the speed of the green. Try to stop each putt as close as possible to

end of the green without touching the back edge.”

Participants then completed three study phases: (a) a general imagery use phase (hereon

“general reports phase”) (see Appendix C), (b) a directed imagery use probe phase (hereon

“directed probe phase”) (see Appendix D), and (c) an immediate retrospective report of recalled

thoughts phase (hereon “retrospective report phase”) (see Appendix E). The order of the phases

was randomized across participants. The order of the presentation of the two questionnaires (IUQ

 

24 

and SIQ-golf) within the general reports phase was randomized across participants. For each of

the directed probe and retrospective report phases, participants attempted a block of 6 putts from

each of the short and long putt distances. Five of the six putt trials within each block were

followed by a prompt to provide directed probes about imagery use (within the directed probe

phase) or an immediate retrospective report (within the retrospective report phase). One putt trial

within each six-trial block was used to provide the participant with rest from reporting. Prior to

each putting block participants were informed, “Although we are not on an actual golf course in

a real competition, please go through your normal routine just as you would on an actual golf

course during a real competition.” Prior to each putt attempt the participant was also told, “Just

as you would on the actual golf course.” This statement was used to increase participants’ effort

and also help achieve functional equivalence hypothesized within research on imagery (Decety

1996; Finke, 1980; Holmes & Collins, 2001; Morris et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2008)

Within the directed probe and retrospective report phases, each putt distance block was

separated by one minute of rest. The order of the putt distance blocks within each phase was

randomized across participants. Within each block, the order of the type of trial (i.e., the five test

trials and the one rest trial) was randomized across participants.

Analysis

Imagery extent was measured on five of the six putt attempts made for each putt length in

the retrospective report phase; the one remaining trial was a rest trial. Therefore, imagery extent

as measured by retrospective report is scored out of five for each putt length. Imagery extent,

direction, and function (facilitative and debilitative) were measured on five of the six putt

attempts made from each putt length in the directed probe phase; the one remaining trial was a

rest trial. Therefore, in this condition, imagery extent, direction, and function (facilitative and

debilitative) as measured by directed probes are each scored out of five for each putt length.

Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks are used to interpret effect sizes.

 

25 

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Checks on the Manipulation of Task Difficulty

Analyses of two measures were undertaken to check whether task difficulty was

successfully manipulated through changes in putt length: task performance and task self-efficacy.

Decreased scores on these measures should follow increases in putt length and thus index

increases in task difficulty.

Task Performance

For each putt length (short and long), participants putted once for each of 6 trials within

each of the retrospective report and directed probe phases. Scores obtained under each phase

were aggregated for this analysis so that, for each putt length, a putts holed score out of 12 was

obtained. Means and standard deviations for putts holed by putt length and skill level are

reported in Table 1 and are displayed graphically in Figure 1. As the mean scores in the table

indicate, both unskilled and skilled groups’ task performance decreased as putt length increased

but the unskilled group’s performance decreased more than the skilled group’s. On average, the

skilled group performed better at each putt length than the unskilled group. For instance, skilled

golfers holed the putt on approximately 6 out of 12 of the long putts (M = 6.60, SD = 2.00),

whereas this value was approximately 3 for the unskilled golfers (M = 3.12, SD = 1.60). To

examine whether these differences were statistically significant, a 2 putt length (short and long)

by two group (unskilled and skilled) analysis of variance (ANOVA) for putts holed (out of 12)

was conducted. Significant main effects were observed for putt length, F (1, 48) = 238.16, p <

.001, η2 = .83, and skill level, F (1, 48) = 41.88, p < .001, η2 = .47, and these factors interacted

significantly, F (1, 48) = 6.02, p = .018, η2 = .11. While simple effects tests revealed that each

group’s performance decreased significantly with the increase in putt length: Unskilled group, F

(1, 48) = 159.95, p < .001, η2 = .77, and skilled group, F (1, 48) = 84.23, p < .001, η2 = .64; the

effect of putt length was greater for the unskilled group (d = 2.67) than the skilled group (d =

1.71).

 

26 

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Putts Holed by Putt Length and Skill Level

Putt Length Unskilled golfers+ Skilled golfers+ Total++

Short 7.64 (± 1.78) 9.88 (± 1.81) 8.76 (± 2.11)

Long 3.12 (± 1.60) 6.60 (± 2.00) 4.86 (± 2.51)

Total 5.38 (± 1.46) 8.24 (± 1.66) 6.81 (± 2.12)

+n = 25, ++

n = 50. Note. Scores for putts holed could range from 0 to 12 based on the number of trials task performance was recorded.

Figure 1. Average Putts Holed by Putt Length and Skill Level

Task Self-Efficacy

Means and standard deviations for task self-efficacy by putt length and skill level are

reported in Table 2. On average, task self-efficacy decreased as putt length increased for both

groups but the unskilled group’s self-efficacy decreased slightly more than the skilled group’s.

Also, on average, skilled golfers reported higher task self-efficacy for each putt length than

unskilled golfers. For instance, unskilled golfers reported an average task self-efficacy of 7.34

(SD = 1.71) out of 10 on short putts, whereas this value for skilled golfers was 9.50 (SD = .60). A

two putt length by two group ANOVA for task efficacy revealed significant main effects for putt

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Short Long

Task

Per

form

ance

Putt Length

Unskilled

Skilled

 

27 

length, F (1, 48) = 331.94, p < .001, η2 = .87, and skill level, F (1, 48) = 46.75, p < .001, η2 =

.49, and these factors interacted significantly, F (1, 48) = 46.53, p < .001, η2 = .49. While simple

effects tests revealed that each group’s efficacy decreased significantly with the increase in putt

length: Unskilled group, F (1, 48) = 221.33, p < .001, η2 = .82, and skilled group, F (1, 48) =

118.56, p < .001, η2 = .71; the effect of putt length was greater for the skilled group (d = 1.96)

than the unskilled group (d = 1.65).

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Task Self-Efficacy by Putt Length and Skill Level

Putt Length Unskilled golfers+ Skilled golfers+ Total++

Short 7.34 (± 1.71) 9.50 (± .60) 8.42 (± 1.67)

Long 4.58 (± 1.64) 7.48 (± 1.33) 6.03 (± 2.08)

Total 5.96 (1.62) 8.49 (± 0.89) 7.23 (± 1.82)

+n = 25, ++

n = 50. Note. Task self-efficacy scores could range from 0 (I cannot do this at all) to 10 (I am very certain I can do this)

Figure 2. Average Task Efficacy by Putt Length and Skill Level

The manipulation check on task difficulty was successful. As putt length increased, both

task performance and task self-efficacy decreased significantly for each group.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

Short Long

Task

-Eff

icac

y

Putt Length

Unskilled

Skilled

 

28 

Relationships between General and Specific Measures of Imagery

Imagery Extent

The two levels of the putt length factor were collapsed in the following analysis so that

imagery extent was scored out of 10 for the directed probe and retrospective report measures; for

example, a score of 5 indicated that imagery had been reported on 5 of the 10 trials. An average

score of 6.52 (SD = 3.48) on the directed probe trials for unskilled golfers means that imagery

extent was reported on approximately 7 out of every 10 trials, whereas imagery extent was

reported on almost all 10 trials for skilled golfers (M = 9.76, SD = .52). An average score of 1.20

(SD = 2.06) on the retrospective report trials for unskilled golfers means that imagery extent was

reported on approximately 1 out of every 10 trials, whereas imagery extent was reported on

approximately 5 of 10 trials for skilled golfers (M = 4.96, SD = 2.26). The imagery use

questionnaire items (IUQ-T and IUQ-C) were scored between 0 (never) and 7 (always).

Consequently, a reported score of 3.68 (SD = 1.60) for unskilled golfers and 5.32 (SD = 1.11) for

skilled golfers on the IUQ-T, indicates that skilled golfers reported using imagery more often

than unskilled golfers during training (see the “skill level differences in imagery use” section for

more detail). In this analysis, the relationships between the IUQ-T (concerning training), IUQ-C

(concerning competition), directed probe, and retrospective report measures of imagery extent

were examined for the total sample (n = 50) and individual groups (n = 25 in each group). Means

and standard deviations for imagery extent measures are reported within Table 3.

Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations for Imagery Extent Measures

Unskilled golfers+ Skilled golfers+ Total++

Imagery Use Questionnaire-Training† 3.68 (± 1.60) 5.32 (± 1.11) 4.50 (± 1.59)

Imagery Use Questionnaire-Competition† 3.68 (± 1.80) 5.76 (± 1.09) 4.72 (± 1.81)

Retrospective Report†† 1.20 (± 2.06) 4.96 (± 2.26) 3.08 (± 2.86)

Directed Probe†† 6.52 (± 3.48) 9.76 (± 0.52) 8.14 (± 2.95)

+n = 25, ++

n =50. Note. †Response scales for the Imagery Use Questionnaire Items ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (always). ††Scores for the retrospective report and direct probe measures ranged from 0 to 10 based on the number of trials imagery use was reported

 

29 

Pearson’s r or Spearman’s rho were computed depending on the distribution of the data.

Within the skilled group, one variable, which was the directed probe measure of imagery extent,

was highly negatively skewed: From 25 participants, 5 reported using imagery on 9 or fewer

trials out of 10, while 20 reported using imagery on 10 out of 10 trials. Consequently, a

categorical variable was created with two categories: imagery used on all trials and imagery not

used on all trials. Point-biserial correlations were then used to examine the relationship between

this measure of imagery extent and the remaining measures for this group.

Correlations between the four measures are displayed in Table 4.

Table 4 Correlation Matrix for Imagery Extent Measures

IUQ - T# IUQ – C ## DP ###

Unskilled+ Skilled+ Total++ Unskilled+ Skilled+ Total++ Unskilled+ Skilled+ Total++

IUQ – T #

IUQ - C ## 89***† .76***† .89***†

DP ### .73***† .74***††† .64***†† .76***† .64***††† .64***††

RR #### .40*†† .49**† .58***† .42*†† .25† .56***† .27†† .95***††† .70***††

+n = 25, ++

n = 50, †Pearson’s r, ††Spearman’s rho, ††† Point Biserial, # Imagery Use Questionnaire – Training, ##

Imagery Use Questionnaire - Competition, ###Directed Probe, ####Retrospective Report. p < .05, p < .01, p < .001

Significant and strong correlations were found for the total sample and for both groups

between the IUQ-T and directed probe measures. Significant correlations were found between

the IUQ-T and retrospective report measures; this correlation was strong for the total sample and

moderate for the unskilled and skilled groups. Significant and strong correlations were found

between the IUQ-C and directed probe measures. A significant and strong correlation was found

between IUQ-C and retrospective report measure for the total sample. However, this value was

not reflected for the individual group values: The unskilled golfer’s correlation was moderate

and significant, while the skilled golfer’s correlation was weak and non-significant. Significant

and strong correlations were found between the directed probe and retrospective report measures

for the total sample. However, while this finding was also reflected by the correlation for the

skilled group, it was not reflected in the correlation for the unskilled group, which was weak and

not significant. It should be noted that the correlation for the entire sample is questionable

because the correlations between directed probe and retrospective report measures differ so

 

30 

greatly for both groups. Significant and strong correlations were found between the IUQ-T and

IUQ-C measures for the total sample and both groups.

Imagery Function

For each imagery function (i.e., CS, CG, MS, MG-M, & MG-A), as measured by directed

probe, the facilitative imagery function and debilitative imagery function scores were summed to

achieve a total imagery function score. In addition, the two levels of the putt length factor were

collapsed. Consequently, a score out of ten was obtained for each imagery function; for example,

a score of 5 for the CS imagery function means that cognitive specific imagery was reported on 5

out of 10 trials. Means and standard deviations for each imagery function as measured by the

SIQ-golf and directed probe measures are displayed in Table 5. The SIQ-golf was scored on a 7-

point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (rarely) to 7 (often). For example, unskilled golfers

reported an average score of 3.65 (SD = 1.29) and skilled golfers reported an average score of

5.55 (SD = 0.81) for general use of cognitive specific imagery function, which means that skilled

golfers reported using CS imagery function more often than unskilled golfers (see the “skill

level differences in imagery use” section for more detail).

Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations of Imagery Function as measured by the Sport Imagery

Questionnaire – golf and Directed Probe Measures Imagery Function Unskilled golfers+ Skilled golfers+ Totals++

Sport Imagery Questionnaire –Golf

Cognitive Specific 3.65 (±1.29) 5.55 (± 0.81) 4.60 (± 1.44)

Cognitive General 3.64 (± 1.16) 5.30 (± 0.75) 4.47 (± 1.28)

Motivation Specific 2.88 (± 1.35) 5.04 (± 1.28) 3.96 (±1.70)

Motivation General – Mastery 3.79 (± 1.48) 5.67 (± 0.87) 4.73 (± 1.53)

Motivation General – Arousal 3.25 (± 0.87) 4.75 (± 0.98) 4.00 (± 1.19)

Directed Probe

Cognitive Specific 4.60 (± 3.80.) 7.40 (± 3.34) 6.00 (± 3.81)

Cognitive General 3.16 (± 3.79) 5.40 (± 4.08) 4.28 (± 4.06)

Motivation Specific 2.24 (± 3.43) 4.32 (± 4.38) 3.28 (± 4.04)

Motivation General – Mastery 3.04 (± 3.45) 6.72 (± 3.26) 4.88 (± 3.80)

Motivation General – Arousal 0.96 (± 1.34) 1.00 (± 1.83) 0.98 (± 1.58)

+n = 25, ++

n = 50. Note. The SIQ-golf response scale ranged from 1 (rarely) to 7 (often). The scores for directed probes could range from 0 to 10 based on the number of trials imagery functions were recorded.

 

31 

Pearson’s r, Spearman’s rho, and Kendall’s r were computed depending on the distribution of

the data. The relationship between the SIQ-golf and directed probe measures was explored for

each imagery function, results are displayed in Table 6.

Table 6

Correlations between Measurements of Imagery Function Obtained by the SIQ-golf and

Directed Probe Measures

Unskilled golfers+ Skilled golfers+ Total++

Cognitive Specific .33†† .23†† .40*††

Cognitive General .10†† .04†† .23††

Motivation Specific .11††† .16†† .21††

Motivation General – Mastery .28†† .05†† .42*††

Motivation General – Arousal .09†† .18††† .05††† +n = 25, ++

n = 50, †Pearson’s r, ††Spearman’s rho, †††Kendal’s r, * p < .05

Significant correlations were found only for the total sample between the SIQ-golf and

directed probe measures for CS and MG-M imagery functions; both were low-moderate in

strength. In general, the correlation values for the individual skill groups for CS and MG-M do

not reflect the correlation values for the total sample for these variables.

Skill Level Differences in Imagery Use

Imagery Extent

Note that the two levels of the putt length factor were collapsed in the following analyses

so that imagery extent was scored out of ten for the retrospective report and directed probe

measures (e.g., a score of 5 indicated that imagery was reported being used on 5 of the 10 trials).

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to estimate the effect of imagery

extent across skill level for the IUQ-T and IUQ-C measures (refer to Table 3 for means and

standard deviations associated with the IUQ-T and IUQ-C). A significant multivariate effect of

skill level was revealed, Pillai’s Trace = .92, F (2, 47) = 11.99, p < .001, η2 = .34. Follow-up

univariate analyses of variances indicated significant effects of skill level on imagery extent as

measured by the IUQ-T, F (1,48) = 17.78, p < .001, η2 = .27, d = 1.19, and IUQ-C, F (1,48) =

24.49, p < .001, η2 = .34, d = 1.40. Data sets for the directed probe and retrospective report

measures were not normally distributed, and the distributions were not normalized following

transformations. Therefore, a Mann Whitney test was used to compare imagery extent across

 

32 

skill level for the retrospective report measure: A significant group difference was found, U = 74,

p < .001, r = .67, with the sums of the ranks equal to 15.96 for unskilled golfers and 35.04 for

skilled golfers. The directed probe measure of imagery extent was highly negatively skewed for

the skilled group, with 20 of 25 participants reporting using imagery on all trials. Consequently,

a categorical variable was created with two categories: imagery used on all trials and imagery not

used on all trials. In the new categorical variable, 19 unskilled golfers did not use imagery on all

trials and 6 used imagery on all trials, whereas 5 skilled golfers did not use imagery on all trials

and 20 used imagery on all trials. A chi-square test revealed a significant difference between

groups for this variable, Χ2 (1, N = 50) = 15.71, p < .001, v = .56.

Imagery Direction

Note that the two levels of the putt length factor were collapsed in the following analyses.

Thus, facilitative imagery and debilitative imagery, as measured by directed probe, were both

scored out of 10. Unskilled golfers reported less facilitative imagery (M = 5.28, SD = 3.39) than

skilled golfers (M = 9.36, SD = 1.18). This means that, on average, unskilled golfers used

facilitative images on over 5 out of 10 trials, whereas skilled golfers used facilitative images on

more than 9 out of 10 trials. A Mann Whitney test was used to test facilitative imagery use across

skill level: A significant group difference was found, U = 98, p < .001, r = .61, with the sums of

the ranks equal to 16.92 for unskilled golfers and 34.08 for skilled golfers.

Unskilled golfers reported more debilitative imagery (M = 1.20, SD = 1.35) than did

skilled golfers (M = 0.40, SD = 0.91). This means that, on average, unskilled golfers reported

using debilitative images on just over 1 out of 10 trials, whereas skilled golfers used debilitative

images on less than 1 out of 10 trials. A Mann Whitney test revealed that unskilled golfers used

significantly more debilitative imagery than skilled golfers, U = 209.50, p = .021, r = .32, with

the sums of the ranks equal to 740.50 for unskilled golfers and 534.50 for skilled golfers.

Imagery Function

Skill level differences in imagery function were assessed in two methods. The first way

involved the SIQ-golf as a general measure of imagery function. The second involved the

directed probe measure of (a) facilitative imagery function and (b) debilitative imagery function.

Note that, for the directed probe measure, the two levels of putt length factor were collapsed in

the following analyses. Thus, facilitative imagery function, and debilitative imagery function,

were each scored out of 10.

 

33 

A two group (unskilled and skilled) MANOVA was undertaken for four of the five

imagery functions (CS, CG, MG-M, and MG-A) as measured by the SIQ-golf. Means and

standard deviations for the SIQ-golf are displayed in Table 5. A significant multivariate effect of

skill level was revealed, Pillai’s Trace = .52, F (4, 45) = 12.39, p < .001, η2 = .52. Follow-up

univariate analyses of variances revealed that the skilled group made significantly greater use of

each function: CS, F (1,48) = 39.04, p < .001, η2 = .45, d = 1.76; CG, F (1,48) = 35.96, p < .001,

η2 = .43, d = 1.70; MG-M, F (1,48) = 30.04, p < .001, η2 = .39, d = 1.55; and MG-A, F (1,48) =

32.45, p < .001, η2 = .40, d = 1.62. MS imagery function was not normally distributed, and the

distribution was not normalized following transformation. Therefore, a Mann Whitney test was

used to compare use of this function across skill level. The skilled group used significantly more

MS imagery than the unskilled group, U = 80, p < .001, r = .64,with the sums of the ranks equal

to 405.00 for unskilled golfers and 870.00 for skilled golfers.

Skill level differences in imagery function as measured by directed probe were analyzed

next. The group difference in facilitative imagery functions was assessed first. Means and

standard deviations for the facilitative imagery functions by skill level are displayed in Table 7.

On average, skilled golfers used all forms of facilitative imagery more than unskilled golfers. For

instance, skilled golfers reported using facilitative - cognitive specific imagery on over 7 out of

every 10 trials (M = 7.32, SD = 3.40) while unskilled golfers reported using facilitative –

cognitive specific imagery on almost 4 out of every 10 trials (M = 3.96, SD = 3.73).

Table 7 Means and Standard Deviations of Facilitative Imagery Function Elicited via Directed Probe by

Group

Unskilled golfers+ Skilled golfers+ Total++

Facilitative - Cognitive Specific 3.96 (± 3.73) 7.32 (± 3.40) 5.64 (± 3.92)

Facilitative - Cognitive General 2.92 (± 3.75)  5.24 (± 4.11)  4.08 (± 4.06) 

Facilitative - Motivational Specific 2.00 (± 3.38)  4.24 (± 4.41)  3.12 (± 4.05) 

Facilitative - Motivational General – Mastery 2.16 (± 3.42)  6.48 (± 3.39)  4.32 (± 4.02) 

Facilitative - Motivational General – Arousal 0.32 (± 0.63)  0.80 (± 1.78)  0.56 (± 1.34) +n = 25, ++ n = 50. Note. The scores for facilitative imagery functions could range from 0 to 10 based on the number

of trials imagery functions were recorded.

 

34 

None of the facilitative imagery functions from the directed probe measures was

normally distributed. The distribution of the facilitative – cognitive specific function was

normalized using a square root transformation; an independent sample t-test of the transformed

variable revealed that the skilled group used significantly more facilitative – cognitive specific

imagery than the unskilled group, t (48) = 3.33, p = .002, r = .43, d = .94. Mann Whitney tests of

group differences were used in relation to the remaining functions. The skilled group used

significantly more facilitative – motivational general – mastery imagery than the unskilled group,

U = 104, p < .001, r = .58, with the sums of the ranks equal to 429.00 for unskilled golfers and

846.00 for skilled golfers. No other significant group differences were found (p > .05).

Group differences in debilitative imagery function scores were assessed next. Means and

standard deviations for debilitative imagery functions by skill level are displayed in Table 8.

Both groups reported using all types of debilitative imagery function on less than 1 out of 10

trials.

Table 8 Means and Standard Deviations of Debilitative Imagery Functions Elicited via Directed Probe

by Group

Unskilled golfers+ Skilled golfers+ Total++

Debilitative - Cognitive Specific 0.64 (± 0.99)  0.08 (± 0.28)  0.36 (± 0.78) 

Debilitative - Cognitive General 0.24 (± 0.52)  0.16 (± 0.47)  0.20 (± 0.49) 

Debilitative – Motivational Specific 0.24 (± 0.66)  0.08 (± 0.40)  0.16 (± 0.55) 

Debilitative – Motivational General – Mastery 0.88 (± 1.27)  0.24 (± 0.52)  0.56 (± 1.01) 

Debilitative – Motivational General – Arousal 0.52 (± 0.82)  0.12 (± 0.33)  0.32 (± 0.65)  +

n = 25, ++n = 25. Note. Scores were based on the number of trials upon which debilitative imagery was reported

and could range from 0 to 10.

Data sets for the debilitative imagery functions were very poorly distributed. Therefore,

for each function, categorical variables were created, with two categories: no function use and

function use (i.e., a function was reported being used on one or more trials from 10). Then, for

each imagery function, a chi square analysis was conducted to compare debilitative imagery use

between skill levels. A significant group difference was found for debilitative – cognitive

specific, Χ2 (1, N = 50) = 7.02, p = .008, v = .37. Ten of the 25 unskilled participants reported

using debilitative - cognitive specific imagery on at least one trial, versus 2 of the 25 participants.

A significant group difference was also found for debilitative – motivational general- arousal

 

35 

imagery, Χ 2 (1, N = 50) = 3.95, p = .047, v = .28. Nine of the 25 unskilled participants reported

using debilitative – motivational general - arousal imagery on at least one trial, versus 3 of the 25

skilled participants. No other significant group differences were revealed.

Task Difficulty and Imagery Use

Note in relation to the analyses that follow that increases in putt length appeared to lead

to increases in task difficulty, as indexed by decreases in task-efficacy and task performance.

Imagery Extent

To examine how imagery extent changed with increases in task difficulty, imagery

extent, as measured by directed probe and retrospective report measures, were assessed for each

of the two separate putt lengths (short and long). Means and standard deviations for imagery

extent according to putt length as measured by directed probe and retrospective report measures

are displayed in Table 9. All data reported in Table 9 were scored out of 5 trials. This means that

on average unskilled golfers reported using some form of imagery on 3 of the 5 short putts (M =

3.16, SD = 1.95) for the directed probe measure.

Table 9 Means and Standards Deviations for Imagery Extent by Putt Length Assessed via Directed Probe

and Retrospective Report by Group

Putt Length Unskilled golfers+ Skilled golfers+ Total+++

Directed Probe Measure

Short 3.16 (± 1.95) 4.92 (± 0.28) 4.04 (± 1.64)

Long 3.36 (± 1.80) 4.84 (± 0.47) 4.10 (± 1.50)

Retrospective Report Measure

Short 0.56 (± 1.19) 2.44 (±1.56) 1.50 (± 1.67)

Long 0.64 (± 1.03) 2.52 (± 1.56) 1.58 (± 1.62)

+n = 25, ++

n = 50. Note. Units are number of trials from 0 to 5 upon which imagery use was indicated

A Wilcoxon test was conducted to examine the effect of putt length on imagery use for

the entire sample: No significant difference was revealed, z = .07, p > .05, r = .01. The skilled

group’s data set for the directed probe measure had very narrow distribution. Therefore, the

effect of task difficulty on imagery extent was analyzed separately for each group. A Wilcoxon

test was used to test this effect within the unskilled group: No significant effect was revealed, z =

 

36 

.47, p > .05, r = .09. For the skilled group, a categorical variable was created, with two

categories: imagery used on fewer than five trials and imagery used on all trials. Twenty three of

the 25 skilled golfers reported using imagery on the short putt, while 22 of the 25 skilled golfers

reported using imagery on the long putt. A Chi Square analysis revealed no significant

difference between putt lengths, Χ2 (1, N = 25) = .30, p > .05, v = .11.

A Wilcoxon test was conducted to examine the effect of putt length on imagery extent as

measured by retrospective report measures for the entire sample: No significant effect was

revealed, z = .57, p > .05, r = .08. A paired samples t-test was used to examine the effect of putt

length on imagery extent as measured by retrospective report measures for the unskilled group:

No significant effect was revealed, t (24) = .46, p > .05, r = .09. For the skilled group, a

Wilcoxon test was used for this purpose: No significant effect of putt length was revealed, z =

.41, p > .05, r = .08.

Imagery Direction

Imagery direction (facilitative and debilitative) was measured here by the directed probe

measures. Means and standard deviations for facilitative and debilitative imagery direction by

putt length are displayed in Table 10. All data reported in Table 10 is scored out of 5 trials, for

instance, for short putts skilled golfers on average reported using facilitative imagery nearly out

5 out of 5 trials (M = 4.80, SD = .41) and debilitative imagery on less than 1 out of the 5 trials (M

= .12, SD = .33).

Table 10 Means and Standards Deviations for Facilitative and Debilitative Imagery Direction by Putt

Length Assessed via Directed Probe Putt Length Unskilled golfers+ Skilled golfers+ Totals++

Facilitative Imagery

Short 2.80 (± 1.89) 4.80 (± 0.41) 3.80 (± 1.69)

Long 2.48 (± 1.85) 4.56 (± 0.96) 3.52 (± 1.80)

Debilitative Imagery

Short 0.32 (± 0.56) 0.12 (± 0.33) 0.22 (± 0.46)

Long 0.88 (± 1.05) 0.28 (± 0.74) 0.58 (± 0.95)

+n = 25, ++

n = 50. Note. Units are number of trials from 0 to 5 upon which facilitative and debilitative imagery direction was indicated

 

37 

A Wilcoxon test was conducted to examine the effect of putt length on facilitative

imagery use for the entire sample: No significant effect was revealed, z = 1.40, p > .05, r = .20. A

Wilcoxon test was conducted to examine the effect of putt length on facilitative imagery use for

the unskilled group: No significant difference was revealed, z = 1.40, p > .05, r = .28. A

categorical variable was created for the skilled group, with two categories: facilitative imagery

used on less than five trials and facilitative imagery used on all trials. Twenty of the 25 skilled

golfers reported using facilitative imagery on all of the short putt trials, while 19 of the 25 skilled

golfers reported using facilitative imagery on all of the long putt trials. A chi square analysis

revealed no significant difference between the short and long putts, Χ2 (1, N = 25) = .88, p > .05,

v = .19.

Due to the lack of distribution and small number of reports in the data sets for debilitative

imagery, as measured by directed probe, a categorical variable was created, with two categories:

no reports of debilitative imagery and debilitative imagery reported on one or more trials. Ten

out of the 50 golfers in the entire sample reported using debilitative imagery on 1 or more of the

short putt trials, while 16 out of 50 golfers reported using debilitative imagery on 1 or more of

the long putt trials. A chi square analysis revealed a significant main effect between putt lengths,

Χ2 (1, N = 50) = 8.30, p = .004, v = .41. Seven out of the 25 unskilled golfers reported using

debilitative imagery on 1 or more of the short putt trials, while 12 out of 25 unskilled golfers

reported using debilitative imagery on 1 or more of the long putt trials. A chi square analysis

revealed a significant difference between putt lengths, Χ2 (1, N = 25) = 5.54, p < .05, v = .47.

Three out of the 25 skilled golfers reported using debilitative imagery on 1 or more of the short

putt trials, while 4 out of 25 skilled golfers reported using debilitative imagery on 1 or more of

the long putt trials. A chi square analysis revealed no significant difference between putt lengths,

Χ2 (1, N = 25) = .76, p > .05, v = .17.

 

38 

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Three important dimensions of sport imagery use research that have been investigated

during the last 25 years are extent, direction, and function (Hall et al., 1990; Martin et al., 1999;

Munroe et al., 2000; Short et al., 2002; Murphy et al., 2008). The majority of sport imagery use

research to date has had an overreliance on self-report measures (e.g., IUQ and SIQ) and

interview protocols (Eccles, 2012). One limitation within these approaches is asking the athlete

about his or her use of imagery in relation to general events and not specific episodic memories.

In both of these approaches, as the participant is not asked about his or her use of imagery in

relation to any specific event but instead in general, it is unclear whether the participant is

accessing any specific memories relating to their use of imagery. In addition, even if participants

do access specific memories concerning imagery use, this recall is from LTM and as such is

susceptible to forgetting and interference affecting the validity of the recalled information

(Ericsson & Simon, 1980).

Purpose

Imagery scholars (Morris et al., 2005) have recommended utilizing verbal report methods

(e.g., Ericsson & Simon, 1993) in adjunct to self-report measures in order to provide a more

complete depiction of imagery use during an actual sport task. Therefore, this study used general

measures (i.e., IUQ and SIQ-golf) in conjunction with verbal report methods (i.e., directed

probes and retrospective reports) in relation to a recent and specific sport task (i.e., golf putting),

in order to better understand sport imagery use. One of the primary aims of this study was to

examine general imagery use measures’ potential to predict imagery use measured by verbal

report methods in relation to a recent and specific sport task. The second aim of this study was to

use general imagery use measures and verbal report measures following a recent and specific

sport task to compare unskilled and skilled golfers’ imagery use. The third aim of this study was

to use directed probes and retrospective verbalization to understand imagery use in relation to

task difficulty of a recent and specific sport task.

 

39 

Research Findings and Critiques

The first research question addressed using verbal report protocols was concerned with

how well general imagery measures (i.e., IUQ and SIQ) predict the reported use of imagery in

relation to an actual golf putting task. This question was explored in relation to two dimensions

of sport imagery use (a) imagery extent (e.g., how frequently did the golfer use imagery on this

task?) and (b) imagery function (e.g., why did the golfer use imagery on this task?). Specifically,

two items from the IUQ (IUQ-T, extent of imagery during training and IUQ-C, extent of imagery

during competition) were correlated to directed probe and retrospective report measures of

imagery extent in relation to a specific and actual task.

It was hypothesized that the IUQ items would moderately predict imagery extent as

measured by directed probe and retrospective report measures during an actual and specific golf

putting task. The IUQ-T and IUQ-C significantly and strongly correlated with directed probe

measures for the entire sample and for the individual skill groups. Therefore, it is reasonable to

conclude that these IUQ items are relatively valid measures of imagery extent reported in

relation to an actual golf putting task. Correlations between the IUQ items and retrospective

report measures were not as clear. The IUQ-T correlated significantly and strongly with the

retrospective reports measure for the entire sample and significantly and moderately for each of

the two skill groups. The IUQ-C was significantly and strongly correlated with the retrospective

report measure for the entire sample. However, this correlation was significant and moderate for

the unskilled group and non-significant and weak for the skilled group. Thus, the IUQ-T does

seem to predict retrospective report scores of imagery use moderately for both groups and the

IUQ-C seems predict imagery use moderately for the unskilled group. The IUQ items may yield

some predicative ability of imagery use when asking golfers, especially for unskilled golfers, to

recount their entire putting routine. IUQ measures were more predictive for the directed probe

measures than the retrospective report measures. Meaning, that IUQ measures and the directed

probe measure displayed larger correlations across skill levels and the entire sample, when

compared to IUQ measures and the retrospective report measure.

There are several likely reasons for the larger predictive ability of the IUQ items on the

directed probe measure than the retrospective report measure. Firstly, the IUQ items and the

directed probe measures may have tapped into similar cognitive processes known as implicit

 

40 

theories. Eccles (2012) defines implicit theories as “an individual’s fundamental assumption

about how the world generally works” (p. 105). Eccles suggests that individuals will sometimes

use implicit causal theories to connect a stimulus and response condition to match a given

situation. Meaning, the golfers in this study may have used implicit theories about their putting

routines to answer the directed probe question pertaining to imagery extent. The golfer may have

then also used their implicit theory about imagery use to answer the IUQ items. It should be

noted, however, that golfers were trained and probed to answer directed probe questions relating

to the specific and actual putt trial. Therefore, it is less likely golfers used implicit theories for

the directed probe question. The second reason for higher predictive ability of directed probes is

that directed probes direct the participants to interpret their thoughts in relation to the question

being asked, whereas undirected probes (e.g., retrospective reports) do not provide any such

constraints. In this case, the directed probe specifically asked if the golfer used any images

during the putt they most recently hit, whereas the undirected probes asked golfers to recall all

their thoughts and sensations experienced during the last putt. The directed probe questions were

more closely related to the IUQ questions than the retrospective report questions hence it makes

sense that the IUQ items would predict imagery extent better for the directed probes. Therefore,

one conclusion is that general imagery extent measures (i.e., IUQ-T and IUQ-C) have predictive

ability for directed probes, and undirected probes, but a larger ability to predict directed probe

measures.

The relationship between the SIQ-golf and directed probe measure was examined for

each imagery function (CS, CG, MS, MG-M, and MG-A: Hall et al., 1998, Martin et al., 1999;

Paivio, 1985). Retrospective reports were used to assess imagery extent, but not imagery

function, because sport imagery research has demonstrated that imagery function is

individualized and based on the meaning an athlete associates with the content of their image

(Abma et al., 2002; Callow & Hardy, 2001; Nordin & Cummings 2008; Short et al., 2002, Short

et al., 2004; Short & Short, 2005). Therefore, it is impractical to code retrospective reports in

terms of imagery function. A small to moderate relationship between the SIQ-golf and directed

probe measures was hypothesized. It was hypothesized that the SIQ would have little utility to

predict imagery use during an actual sport task. This hypothesis has some support from the

findings of this study, as the correlations between the SIQ-golf and directed probe measures for

imagery function across unskilled and skilled golfers were small to moderate and non-

 

41 

significant. Furthermore, small and non-significant correlations were found for three imagery

functions for the entire sample (CG, MS, and MG-A), while moderate and significant

correlations were found for CS and MG-M imagery functions for the entire skill level. However,

these moderate correlations for CS and MG-M were likely artificially created by the inclusion in

skill level, because the correlations for unskilled and skilled golfers between these imagery

function measures were small to moderate and non-significant. These results provide some

evidence that the SIQ-golf does not predict reports of imagery function in relation to specific

task very effectively.

There are several likely reasons for the IUQ items to be more predictive than the SIQ-

golf items of imagery use measured by verbal report methods. First of all, imagery extent may be

considered more global then imagery function (Hall et al, 1998; Martin et al., 1999; Munroe et

al., 2000; Paivio, 1985). Therefore, it is possibly easier for participants to accurately comment on

the amount of imagery extent than their amount of imagery function. Secondly, both the IUQ and

SIQ-golf are dispositional measures, but the wording on the IUQ items is more specific to the

putting task in this investigation. That is, the IUQ items are situationally specific to a task,

whereas the SIQ-golf asks how imagery is used across different golfing scenarios. For instance,

the IUQ-T asks, To what extent do you use imagery in your training? In contrast, items from the

SIQ-golf are worded along the lines of, I imagine executing entire holes just the way I want them

to happen in a game. The IUQ more closely relates to the putting task in this investigation than

items from the SIQ-golf. Future research should explore how the IUQ items predict imagery

extent during different golfing tasks (e.g., driving and pitching) and in different sports (e.g.,

tennis, wrestling, soccer, etc.). It would also be interesting for future research to explore single

item questions pertaining to imagery function that are more situational and task specific. For

instance, I believe if a participant was asked, To what extent do you use imagery to manage your

confidence during golf?, correlations between that measure and directed probes would be highly

predictive of motivational general- mastery imagery function during an actual golf putting task.

In addition to the reasons mentioned above, the SIQ-golf likely has little predictive power

for imagery function measured by directed probes in relation to a specific task for two additional

reasons. Firstly, some have argued that the SIQ confounds imagery content (e.g., what athletes

imagine) and imagery function (e.g., why athletes imagine) (Abma, Fry, Li, Relyea, 2002;

Callow & Hardy, 2001; Murphy et al., 2008; Nordin & Cummings 2008; Short et al., 2002,

 

42 

Short, Monsma, & Short, 2004; Short et al., 2006; Short & Short, 2005). With that being said,

the SIQ is one of the only general imagery use measures to attempt to measure imagery function

and remains one of the most popular imagery use measures in sport (Murphy et al., 2008; Short

et al., 2006). Therefore, it was the best option for a general measure of imagery function at the

time of this study. Secondly, the traditional design of the SIQ does not account for imagery

direction. The majority of items on the SIQ are considered facilitative, but some of the items on

the SIQ are appraised as debilitative by athletes (Short et al., 2006). In fact, SIQ items measuring

MG-A imagery function have been linked to greater reports of debilitative imagery (Monsma &

Oversby, 2004). Therefore, future research should use adaptations of the SIQ that account for

imagery direction (e.g., Harris, 2003; Short & Short, 2005) in conjunction with similar directed

probe methods as conducted within this study.

The next area of interest within this study was concerned with the degree of difference

and similarity between unskilled and skilled golfers’ reported use of imagery (i.e., extent,

direction, and function) as measured by (a) general imagery use questionnaires (i.e., IUQ and

SIQ-golf) and (b) verbal report methods (i.e., directed probes and retrospective report) in relation

to a specific and actual golf putting task. Skilled golfers reported significantly higher levels of

imagery extent compared to unskilled golfers across both general questionnaire items (IUQ-T

and IUQ-C), which is consistent with previous research findings involving the IUQ (e.g., Barr &

Hall, 1992; Hall et al., 1990). The IUQ items were scored on a 7 point Likert-type scale from 1

(never) to 7 (always). On average for the IUQ-T item, unskilled golfers reported a score of 3.60

(SD = 1.60) and skilled golfers reported a score of 5.32 (SD = 1.11) for imagery use during

training. On average for the IUQ-C item, unskilled golfers reported a score of 3.68 (SD = 1.80)

and skilled golfers reported a score of 5.76 (SD = 1.09) for imagery use during competition.

Therefore, skilled golfers reported using on average two Likert-points more imagery for both

IUQ items. Skilled golfers also reported significantly more imagery extent according to both

measures (i.e., directed probe and retrospective report measures) relating to a specific golf

putting task. The directed probe and retrospective report measures were both scored out of ten in

accordance to number of trials imagery use could be reported. On average for the directed probe

measure, unskilled golfers reported using imagery on 6.52 (SD = 3.48) of the trials and skilled

golfers reported using imagery on 9.76 (SD = .52) of the trials. On average for the retrospective

 

43 

report measure, unskilled golfers reported using imagery on 1.20 (SD = 2.06) of the trials and

skilled golfers reported using imagery on 4.96 (SD = 2.26) of the trials.

As hypothesized, skilled golfers reported using significantly more facilitative imagery

than unskilled golfers during the actual golf putting task, which has been suggested within

previous research (Hall et al., 1990). Unskilled golfers reported using significantly more

debilitative imagery during the actual golf putting task. Interestingly, both unskilled and skilled

golfers reported using more facilitative imagery than debilitative imagery. Specifically, on

average unskilled golfers reported using facilitative imagery on 5.28 (SD = 3.39) of the trials and

debilitative imagery on 1.20 (SD = 1.35) of the trials. While skilled golfers reported using

facilitative imagery on average during 9.36 (SD = 1.18) trials and debilitative imagery on just .40

(SD = 0.91) of all trials. Imagery direction research suggest that debilitative imagery likely

occurs more often than was reported during this golf putting task (Hall et al.; MacIntyre &

Moran 2007a, 2007b; Munroe et al., 2000). Even though testing procedures in the present study

were designed to mirror an actual golf putting task and ensure maximal effort (e.g., Finke, 1980;

Decety 1996; Morris et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2008) these procedures may not have been

interpreted as a competitive scenario by the participant. Competitive scenarios have been shown

to influence both performance and use of imagery direction in both unskilled and skilled golfers

(Taylor & Shaw, 2002). Therefore, future research on sport imagery that uses directed probes for

a specific and recent sport task should explore how imagery direction is influenced by

competition and anxiety provoking circumstances. Introducing competition and anxiety as

variables was beyond the scope of the current research.

Imagery function was examined via the use of both (a) a general imagery use

questionnaire (i.e., SIQ-golf) and (b) verbal report methods (i.e., directed probe measures) in

relation to a specific and actual golf putting task. Skilled golfers reported using all types of

imagery function significantly more often than the unskilled golfers on the SIQ-golf, which is in

line with previous research findings (Gregg & Hall, 2006; Hall et al, 1998; Salmon et al., 1994).

Imagery function (CS, CG, MS, MG-M, and MG-A) is most appropriately described in relation

to direction (facilitative and debilitative) (Munroe et al., 2000; Murphy et al., 2008; Short et al.,

2002). Therefore in the present study, skill level differences for imagery function reported during

the actual golf putting task from the directed probe measures were analyzed by two separate

analyses; one for facilitative imagery function and another for debilitative imagery function.

 

44 

Skilled golfers reported using significantly more CS and MG-M facilitative imagery functions

during an actual golf putting task compared to unskilled golfers. Unskilled golfers reported using

significantly more CS and MG-A debilitative imagery functions during an actual golf putting

task compared to skilled golfers.

It was hypothesized that participants would use the MG-M imagery function most often,

based on previous imagery research with golfers (Gregg & Hall, 2006). These findings were

supported by the results of the SIQ-golf. However, both unskilled and skilled golfers reported

using CS facilitative imagery function most often for the facilitative function in relation to an

actual golf putting task, as measured by directed probe measure. This means that on average both

unskilled and skilled golfers used imagery most often to help their putting stroke. Golf is often

characterized as a mechanical game with a great deal of importance placed on the biomechanics

and fundamentals of physical skills (Kelley, 2006). It is understandable, then, that participants

reported using high levels of facilitative CS imagery function. Both groups reported using the

MG-M debilitative imagery function most often for the debilitative imagery function in relation

to an actual golf putting task, as measured by directed probes. This means that both unskilled and

skilled golfers reported using hurtful images related to their confidence most often during golf

putting. In the post study debriefing, multiple participants reported using imagery more often for

longer golf shots occurring of the putting surface. It would be interesting to explore this

phenomenon reported by the participants in an extended study. Future research may wish to use

current retrospective report and directed probe methods to capture imagery use patterns for other

types of golf shots (i.e., long putts, approach shots, drives, etc.) and also in other sports that

fundamentally differ from golf (e.g., basketball, boxing, etc.).

The final research question explored within the current study was, how does reported

imagery extent and imagery direction relate to task difficulty during a specific sport task (e.g.,

putting)? Task difficulty was operationalized as putt distance. Significant changes in task

performance and task self-efficacy provided evidence that task difficulty increased as the

distance of the putt increased. It was hypothesized that there would be no differences in imagery

extent across task difficulty, but that imagery direction would be influenced by task difficulty.

More specifically, it was hypothesized that facilitative imagery would be used most often for the

short putt length (vs. the long putt length), and that debilitative imagery would be used more

often for the long putt length (vs. the short putt length).

 

45 

The current study examined how extent of imagery use related to task difficulty using

both directed probe and retrospective report measures. Extent of imagery use was not

significantly affected by task difficulty. That is, both unskilled and skilled golfers reported using

similar amounts of imagery via both the directed probe and retrospective report measures for the

short and long putt length. Therefore, the first hypothesis that imagery extent would not differ

across task difficulty (e.g., putt length) was supported. The current study also examined how

imagery direction related to task difficulty using the directed probes measures. Imagery direction

was assessed separately as either facilitative or debilitative (Short et al., 2002). Facilitative

imagery direction was not significantly affected by task difficulty. That is, both unskilled and

skilled golfers reported similar amounts of facilitative imagery for the short and long putt

lengths. Therefore, the hypothesis that facilitative imagery would decrease as task difficulty

increased was not supported. Debilitative imagery significantly increased from short to long

putts for the unskilled golfers, but not the skilled golfers. Therefore, the hypothesis that

debilitative imagery would increase as task difficulty increased was partially supported. It makes

sense that the unskilled golfers were the more susceptible to debilitative imagery during

increases in task difficulty, because elite athletes have been shown to be able to better manage

debilitative images (MacIntyre & Moran, 2007a). Furthermore, expertise literature suggests that

skilled athletes have a better ability to regulate psychological skills that assist with performance

(Eccles et al., 2011).

Implications and Limitations

The greatest applied implication from this research is that a general imagery use measure

for imagery extent (i.e., IUQ items) was shown to be a strong predictor of imagery extent, as it

was verbally reported in relation to an actual sport task. It takes less than 30 s to answer single

items from the IUQ like the ones administered in this study. These results may provide

practitioners some reassurance in administering general imagery use questionnaires to measure

imagery extent. Despite the lack of predicative power displayed by the SIQ, it remains a useful

tool for practitioners to measure reported general uses of imagery function, because higher levels

of imagery function have been linked to higher skilled performers (Gregg & Hall, 2006; Hall et

al, 1998; Salmon et al., 1994). With that being said, researchers should continue to find more

sophisticated ways to measure imagery function, in order to better help the athlete. Asking

general and specific questions similar to retrospective verbalization and directed probes used in

 

46 

this study could likely offer useful information to help sport psychology practitioners gain

important insight related an athlete’s use of imagery that is not available in current general

imagery use measures.

One of the primary challenges within this study was designing a coding system to

identify imagery use for the transcribed retrospective report statements. Each statement could

either be coded as an imaginal process or a non-imaginal process. Any retrospective report trial

in which an imaginal process occurred was classified as a trial containing imagery extent. An

example of an imaginal process is, “visualizing a good result,” while an example of a non-

imaginal process is, “left foot right foot.” Imagery is considered polysensory, meaning that

imagery can use all five senses (Morris et al., 2005; Murphy & Martin, 2002 ). More specifically,

imagery can be defined as the creation or recreation of any or all of the five senses (auditory,

gustatory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and visual). Without further distinctions, many responses could

have been classified as imaginal processes, especially because the retrospective report trials

primed participants to recall all thoughts and sensations. Therefore, a large number of statements

were anticipated to contain recalled sensations that could have easily created confounds within

the coding.

The following paragraph contains several examples of statements that could have

confounded imaginal and non-imaginal processes. Participant 2-228 made a statement following

long putt trial 1, “I wanted to hit a good putt and make it, so I thought about what I had to do to

give it a good chance of going in.” The participant may have created or recreated a sensory

experience in order to help him or her “hit a good putt and make it.” However, there was no clear

evidence that the participant used imagery. Therefore, the statement was coded as non-imaginal.

In another statement, participant 4-122 made a statement following long putt trial 3, “Thought

firm and solid, firm and solid.” There was a chance that participant 4-122 used a sensation to feel

“firm and solid” but there is no clear evidence that the participant was using kinesthetic imagery.

Therefore, the statement was coded as non-imaginal. Even when a participant used the word feel

there could have been debate, whether the participant was using imagery to create or recreate a

kinesthetic image or if the participant was using a performance cue in order to form a swing

thought. For example, participant 5-123 made a statement following short putt trial 3, “left hand

feeling in the palm,” with the word “feeling” actually in the statement. It seemed that the golfer

was using the word feel here to reference mechanical cue and not imagery.

 

47 

Due to this challenge within coding verbal reports, stringent guidelines were required for

a statement to qualify as an imaginal process. Imaginal processes were defined as, having an

imaginal component linked to imagery where words like: visualized, imagined, used imagery,

used visualization, saw in my mind, drew in my head, and pictured were used. It is likely that

some accounts of imagery reported by participants in the retrospective report phase, may have

not been coded as an imaginal process. Certain modalities of imagery such as movement feelings

(i.e., kinesthetic imagery) would not have been reflected by the terms described above, nor

would kinesthetic imagery be easily identifiable in the retrospective report statements. For

instance, it would be impossible to discern whether a participant reporting, ‘thought about light

hands’ was reporting self-talk or imagery. Therefore, a conservative approach was used to

classify imagery extent in the retrospective report section, in order to enhance reliability. This

appears to have been an appropriate procedure, as an inter-rater reliability assessment showed

reliability was good (Cohen’s kappa = .86).

Neuro-Imaging Devices

Sport imagery research has begun to utilize neuro-imaging and neuro-physiological

measures such as positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),

functional magnetic reasoning (fMRI), and regional cerebral blood flow scans (rCBF) to gain a

more substantiated neurophysiologic explanation of sport imagery use (Holmes & Collins, 2001,

Lotze et al, 1999, Morris et al., 2005; Murphy et al. 2008). Currently, the majority of neuro-

imaging and neuro-physiological devices are too large to use in field settings and only exist in

laboratory settings. As neuro-imaging and neuro-physiological devices improve, there is an

immense potential to use these types of devices in conjunction with verbal report methods to

explore imagery use. It should be noted that the following proposals are speculative and maybe a

decade or more away. However, I believe the following suggestions are the future of sport

imagery research.

Currently, researchers are limited to an athlete’s account of imagery use and have very

few methods to check for reliability and validity. Neuro-imaging devices could one day act as a

manipulation check to confirm an athlete’s account of imagery use. Another benefit may be

using neuro-imaging devices concurrently with verbal reports during the performance of an

actual sport task. Sport imagery researchers could gain a greater understanding of how imagery

occurs at a neurological level by using these types of devices. Neuro-imaging devices may one

 

48 

day demonstrate how imagery functions and imagery direction are coded within the brain. For

example, it would be beneficial to know how facilitative and debilitative imagery occur at a

neurological level (e.g., Do facilitative imagery and debilitative occur in similar parts of the

brain?). The ramifications from this type of research would change the face of imagery research

and applied sport psychology. Although, this is all speculative, I truly believe it is the future of

sport imagery and I am genuinely excited to see the next several decades of sport imagery

unfold.

Conclusions

The current study is one of the first studies in imagery use to incorporate both directed

probe and retrospective report methods in relation to a specific and actual sport task. These

verbal report methods were used in combination with general imagery use measures to better

understand sport imagery use. General imagery extent measures (i.e., IUQ-T and IUQ-C) had

predictive ability for imagery extent in relation to directed probes, and undirected probes, but a

larger ability to predict directed probe measures. General imagery function measures (i.e., SIQ-

golf) did not predict reports of imagery function in relation to specific task very effectively.

Skilled golfers reported using significantly more imagery extent than unskilled golfers for

general measures (i.e., IUQ-T and IUQ-C) and verbal report measures (i.e., directed probe and

retrospective reports. Skilled golfers reported using significantly more facilitative imagery than

unskilled golfers during the actual golf putting task. Unskilled golfers reported using

significantly more debilitative imagery than skilled golfers during the actual golf putting task.

Both unskilled and skilled golfers reported using more facilitative imagery than debilitative

imagery.

Skilled golfers reported using all types of imagery function significantly more often than

the unskilled golfers on the SIQ-golf. Skilled golfers reported using significantly more CS and

MG-M facilitative imagery functions during an actual golf putting task compared to unskilled

golfers. Unskilled golfers reported using significantly more CS and MG-A debilitative imagery

functions during an actual golf putting task compared to skilled golfers. Golfers reported similar

amounts of imagery extent for both the short and long putt lengths. Golfers reported similar

amounts of facilitative imagery for the short and long putt lengths. While debilitative imagery

significantly increased from short to long putts for the unskilled golfers, but not the skilled

golfers.

 

49 

APPENDIX A

RECRUITMENT

PHONE SCRIPTS 

Phone script used to contact golf course for participant recruitment and data collection: 

“Hello, my name is Daniel Vosgerichian and I am a graduate student at Florida State University 

collecting data on golfer’s use of visualization in golf putting tasks.  I am looking for courses within 

the state of Florida to use as a place to recruit golfers and collect information on visualization 

during putting. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet for a couple minutes at your 

convenience and discuss the possibility of using your golf course as a sight to recruit and collect 

information. The artificial putting green I have is very small can be placed nearly anywhere.  I am 

willing to follow all guidelines set forth by management. Do you have time in your schedule to 

meet?”  

 

Phone script used to contact class instructors at Florida State University for participant recruitment 

and data collection: 

“Hello, my name is Daniel Vosgerichian and I am a graduate student at Florida State University 

collecting data on whether golfer’ use of visualization in golf putting tasks. I am looking for classes 

at Florida State to recruit participants from and your class may have students who closely fit the 

sample I am trying to recruit (i.e., golfers). I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet for a 

couple minutes at your convenience and discuss the possibility of using your class to recruit 

potential participants. Do you have time in your schedule to meet?”  

Script used to recruit participants: 

“I am a student at Florida State University interested in the various mental processes such as, 

thoughts, emotions, and senses that are experienced within putting. The investigation will take 

approximately 40 minutes to complete. Your participation would be completely voluntary and 

anonymous; if you feel the need to stop participating you can stop at any time. If you are interested 

I have an informed consent which provides a brief description of the experiment which you can 

read.”  

 

 

50 

APPENDIX B

INFORMED CONSENTS

  

INFORMED CONSENT TO RECRUIT PARTICIPANTS FROM UNIVERSITY CLASS  

I am a graduate student under the direction of Professor Dr. David W. Eccles in the 

Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems at Florida State University. I 

am conducting research examining golfers’ thoughts, emotions, and senses during golf 

putting. Since the topic of your course is related to golf/athletics, I am interested in recruiting students from your class. Students recruited to participate will be asked to complete three brief questionnaires and 

attempt approximately 40 golf putts from several distances on an artificial putting green. 

Questionnaires will ask golfers about their previous golf experiences, as well as, their 

thoughts, emotions, and senses within golf. During certain putts on the artificial putting 

green, the researcher will ask the golfer several questions about their thoughts, emotions, 

and senses during the putting task. The golfer’s performance will be videotaped and 

responses will be recorded into an audio format. The entire experiment will take 

approximately 50 minutes.  

All data collected (questionnaires, tapes, and audio materials) will be stored securely and 

only the researchers will have access. All data will be coded to protect the identity of the 

participants. The researchers will make every attempt possible to film and record the 

participants’ responses so the participant cannot be identified. The participants’ can be 

assured that if video or audio materials capture their identity in any manner, only the 

researchers will have access to view those materials and only for reasons strictly related to 

data analysis. The materials will not be published or reproduced for general viewing in any 

way. All questionnaires, video, and audio materials will be destroyed/erased no later than 

ten years after collection. 

Students’ participation in this study is voluntary and anonymous. Their decision whether 

or not to participate will not affect their current or future relations with Florida State 

University or any other affiliations. Participants are free to not answer any question or 

withdraw at any time. The data obtained from this research study will be kept confidential 

to the extent allowed by law. The results of this study may be published, but individuals 

will not be identified in any way. 

 

There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. Participation, 

however, has the potential to provide researchers with a better understanding of how 

thoughts, emotions, and senses are used during golf putting. 

 

51 

 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to 

someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the FSU IRB at 2010 

Levy Street, Research Building B, Suite 276, Tallahassee, FL  32306‐2742, or 850‐644‐8633, 

or by email at humansubjects@magnet.fsu.edu. 

 

You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records. 

 

Statement of Consent: 

 

I have read the above information.  I have asked questions and have received answers.  I 

consent to allow the researcher to recruit participants through my class. 

_________________  ___________                                              _____________ 

Signature of Course Instructor                                                     Date 

 

____________________________________                                                  ______________ 

Signature of Course Supervisor (if necessary)                        Date 

 

________________   ____________                                                 ______________         

Signature of Investigator                                                              Date 

 

 

 

52 

INFORMED CONSENT TO USE GOLF COURSE FOR RECRUITMENT AND DATA COLLECTION 

 

Dear Golf Course Management: 

 

I am a graduate student under the direction of Professor Dr. David W. Eccles in the 

Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems at Florida State University. I 

am conducting research examining golfers’ thoughts, emotions, and senses during golf 

putting.   Since my research focuses on golfers and putting, I am searching for places with 

many golfers to recruit prospective participants and conduct research. Golf courses like 

yours are one appropriate place. I would greatly appreciate the use of your golf course to 

recruit potential participants and conduct research. 

 

Every precaution and step will be taken by researchers to maintain the integrity and order 

of the golf course and facility. If management approves recruitment and research to occur 

at their facility the researcher will follow any guidelines set forth the management. 

Guidelines include but are not limited to defining acceptable: times and places to recruit 

participants; methods of contacting and recruiting participants; and areas to conduct 

research. The courses participation will be kept confidential.     

 

Golfers recruited by the researcher will be asked to complete three brief questionnaires 

and attempt approximately 40 golf putts from several distances on an artificial putting 

green. Questionnaires will ask golfers about their previous golf experiences, as well as, 

their thoughts, emotions, and senses within golf. During certain putts on the artificial 

putting green, the researcher will ask the golfer several questions about their thoughts, 

emotions, and senses during the putting task. The golfer’s performance will be videotaped 

and responses will be recorded into an audio format. The entire experiment will take 

approximately 50 minutes.  

All data collected (questionnaires, tapes, and audio materials) will be stored securely and 

only the researchers will have access. All data will be coded to protect the identity of the 

participants and golf course. The researchers will make every attempt possible to film and 

record the participant’s responses so the participant and golf course cannot be identified. 

The participants and golf course can be assured that if video or audio materials capture the 

identity of the participant or golf course in any manner, only the researchers will have 

access to view those materials and only for reasons strictly related to data analysis. The 

materials will not be published or reproduced for general viewing in any way. All 

questionnaires, video, and audio materials will be destroyed/erased no later than ten years 

after collection. 

The courses participation to allow research and recruitment to occur on their premises is 

completely voluntary and will not conflict with their future relations with Florida State 

University (Tallahassee) and/or any other associations or memberships. The researchers 

 

53 

will immediately leave the premises if the course decides to discontinue approval for the 

usage of their facility. The data obtained from this research study will be kept confidential 

to the extent allowed by law. The results of this study may be published, but neither the 

individual participants nor the golf course will be identified in any way. 

 

There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. The golf course 

and golfers participation, however, has the potential to provide researchers with a better 

understanding of how thoughts, emotions, and senses are used during golf putting. 

 

 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to 

someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the FSU IRB at 2010 

Levy Street, Research Building B, Suite 276, Tallahassee, FL  32306‐2742, or 850‐644‐8633, 

or by email at humansubjects@magnet.fsu.edu. 

 

You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records. 

 

Statement of Consent: 

 

I have read the above information.  I have asked questions and have received answers.  I 

consent to allow our golf course, ______________________________ (name of course) to participate 

in the recruitment of participants and as a place to conduct research for this study. 

_____________________________________                                 _________________ 

Signature of Course Management                                                Date 

 

______________________________________                                   _________________ 

Signature of Investigator                                                                Date 

 

  

 

54 

 

INFORMED CONSENT 

 

Dear Participant: 

 

I am a graduate student under the direction of Professor Dr. David W. Eccles in the 

Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems at Florida State University. 

I would like to invite you to participate in a research study, which examines whether 

golfers use their thoughts, emotions, and senses during golf putting. You were selected 

as a prospective participant in this study because of your previous golf experience. 

 

Participation involves the completion of three brief questionnaires about your previous 

golf experiences, as well as, your thoughts, emotions, and senses during golf. You will 

also attempt approximately 40 golf putts from several distances on an artificial putting 

green. Following certain putts the researcher will ask you several questions about your 

thoughts, emotions, and senses during the putting task. Your performance will be 

videotaped and responses will be recorded into an audio format. The entire experiment 

will take approximately 50 minutes.  

All data collected (questionnaires, tapes, and audio materials) will be stored securely 

and only the researchers will have access. All data will be coded to protect your identity. 

The researchers will make every attempt possible to film and record the participant’s 

responses so the participant cannot be identified. The participant can be assured that if 

video or audio materials capture their identity in any manner, only the researchers will 

have access to view those materials and only for reasons strictly related to data analysis. 

The materials will not be published or reproduced for general viewing in any way. All 

questionnaires, video, and audio materials will be destroyed/erased no later than ten 

years after collection. 

Your participation in this study is voluntary and anonymous. Your decision whether or 

not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with Florida State 

University or any other affiliations. You are free to not answer any question or withdraw 

at any time. The data obtained from this research study will be kept confidential to the 

extent allowed by law. The results of this study may be published, but individuals will 

not be identified in any way. 

 

There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. Your 

participation, however, has the potential to provide researchers with a better 

understanding of how thoughts, emotions, and senses are used during golf putting. 

 

 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to 

someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the FSU IRB at 

 

55 

2010 Levy Street, Research Building B, Suite 276, Tallahassee, FL  32306‐2742, or 850‐

644‐8633, or by email at humansubjects@magnet.fsu.edu. 

 

You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records. 

 

Statement of Consent: 

 

I have read the above information.  I have asked questions and have received answers.  I 

consent to participate in the study. 

_________________  ____                      ____________ 

Signature                                                       Date 

 

________________   ____                          _____________         

Signature of Investigator                         Date 

  

 

56 

APPENDIX C

DEMOGRAPHICS FORM

Demographic and Golf History 

This questionnaire collects information about golfing experience and demographics. There 

are no right or wrong answers.  Please try to answer as accurately as possible.   

 

1. Gender, please circle:    MALE    FEMALE 

2. Age: _____ years old 

3. Do you have a current USGA handicap? (please circle one)       YES    NO  

If yes, please provide it here: _____ 

If no, what would you estimate as your average score for 18 holes on a par 72 

golf course: _____ 

4. How many years have you been playing golf? ____ 

5. How many nine hole rounds of golf do you average a month? _____ 

6. How many 18 hole rounds of golf do you average a month?  _____ 

 

 

57 

APPENDIX D

SELF-REPORT MEASURES

 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMAGERY USE QUESTIONNAIRE 

I am interested in whether golfers use mental imagery. Mental imagery is a method of 

seeing yourself in action or seeing the action you would perform but in your “mind’s eye”. It 

can also involve the sensations and feelings associated with an action or the atmosphere 

and environment surrounding an event. This is a questionnaire designed to assess the USE 

of mental imagery by golfers. There are no right or wrong answers, but please try to 

answer as accurately as possible. Circle the appropriate number corresponding to your 

degree of imagery use. 

 

 

1) To what extent do you use mental imagery in your training? 

 

1  2  3  4  5  6  7 

Never            Always 

 

 

 

             

2) To what extent do you use mental imagery in competition? 

 

1  2  3  4  5  6  7 

Never            Always 

 

 

 

58 

Sport Imagery Questionnaire ­ Golf 

 

Please fill in the blank or circle the appropriate answer:                                       

 

This questionnaire was designed to assess the extent to which you incorporate imagery 

into your golf game. Your ratings will be made on a seven‐point scale, where 1 corresponds 

to “I rarely engage in that this” and 7 corresponds to “I often engage in this.”  Statements 

that fall within these two extremes should be rated accordingly along the rest of the scale.  

Read each statement below and fill in the blank the appropriate number from the scale 

provided to indicate the degree to which the statement applies to you when you are 

practicing or competing in golf.  Don't be concerned about using the same numbers 

repeatedly if you feel they represent your true feelings.  Remember, there are no right or 

wrong answers, so please answer as accurately as possible. 

 

                                           Rarely                                                                   Often 

1          2          3          4          5          6          7 

 

(1)  I make up new plans/strategies in my head.     __________ 

 

(2)  I image the atmosphere of winning a tournament (e.g., the excitement that follows 

winning a tournament).     __________ 

 

(3)  I image giving 100%.     __________ 

 

(4)  I can consistently control the image of a physical skill.     __________ 

 

(5)  I imagine the emotions I feel while playing golf.      __________ 

 

(6) I imagine my skills improving. _________ 

 

(7)  I image alternative game plans in case my original plan fails.     __________ 

 

(8)  I imagine myself handling the arousal and excitement associated with golfing. _________ 

 

(9)  I imagine myself appearing self‐confident in front of my opponents.     __________ 

 

(10)  I imagine other players congratulating me on a good performance.     __________ 

 

(11)  I image each section of a game (e.g., par 5’s, front nine).  __________ 

 

(12) I imagine myself being in control in difficult situations.      __________ 

 

(13) I can easily change an image of a skill.     __________ 

 

59 

 

(14) I image others applauding my performance.     __________ 

 

(15) When imaging a particular skill, I consistently perform it perfectly in my mind. ________ 

 

(16) I image myself winning a prize.     __________ 

 

(17) I imagine the stress and anxiety associated with golfing.     __________ 

 

(18) I image myself continuing with my game plan, even when performing poorly. ________ 

 

(19) When I image myself golfing, I feel myself getting psyched up.     __________ 

 

(20) I can mentally make corrections to physical skills.     __________ 

 

(21) I imagine executing entire holes just the way I want them to happen in a game. _________    

 

(22) Before attempting a particular skill, I imagine myself performing it perfectly.  __________ 

 

(23) I imagine myself being mentally tough.     __________ 

 

(24) When I image myself participating in golf, I feel anxious.     __________ 

 

(25) I imagine the excitement associated with performing.     __________ 

 

(26) I image myself being interviewed as a tournament champion.     __________ 

 

(27) I image myself to be focussed during a challenging situation.     __________ 

 

(28) When learning a new skill, I imagine myself performing it perfectly.     __________ 

 

(29) I imagine myself successfully following my game plan.     __________ 

 

(30) I image myself working successfully through tough situations (e.g., playing with a sore 

back).  __________ 

 

 

                                            Rarely                                                                  Often 

1          2          3          4          5          6          7 

 

 

60 

 

APPENDIX E

DIRECTED PROBE MEASURES

Initial Introduction and Training

“I am interested in whether golfers use visualization during performance. Visualization can be

described as imagined mental pictures. During this portion of the study I will ask you questions

about any images you used, if any, following some of the putts you attempt. There is no right or

wrong answer to the questions you are asked. Just go through your normal preparations as

though you are on the golf course trying to make the putt and answer the questions as accurately

as possible.

Before beginning you will hit several putts so you can practice answering the types of questions

that I will be asking you. Do you have any questions or concerns so far?”

If yes, the questions and concerns will be handled before proceeding to the training section. If no, the participant will proceed to the training section. “Every putt will begin by me handing you the golf ball and telling you the location to hit the putt

from. Wait to begin any preparation for the putt until you place your golf ball on the designated

spot.

Once you place the golf ball on the specified location begin any preparation you may have just

as though you were on the golf course. Feel free to adjust the ball in accordance to any

preparation, if necessary, as long as the golf ball is placed back on its original location before

you hit the putt to the hole. After you hit the ball and complete your putting stroke, I will instruct

you to turn around so your back is to the hole. Try to avoid looking to see where the ball finishes

before turning around. Do you have any questions or concerns?”

If yes, the questions and concerns will be handled before proceeding to the training section. If no, the participant will proceed to the training section. The participant will then undertake three putts from 1.5 ft (45.7 cm). The participant will go through a directed probe protocol following each putt. The participant will have the opportunity to hit additional putts if it is necessary to train him or her further. Additional training will occur until the participant is competent in providing directed probes about imagery use.

Once the participant completes their three training conditions and displays understanding in the protocol and proficiency the experimenter will tell the participant:

 

61 

“We are now ready to begin the study. I will be recording your responses on a recorder.

Although we are not on an actual golf course in a real competition, please go through your

normal routine just as you would on an actual golf course during a real competition.”

Procedures for a single trial of the Directed Imagery Use Probe Condition

Each putt will begin by the investigator saying the location and handing the ball to the golfer. The investigator will also tell the participant:

“Just as you would on the actual golf course”

Once the golfer turns around the investigator will ask them the following question:

“Did you imagine any images during the last putt from the time you placed the golf ball on the

start location to the time you finished your putting stroke and turned around?” (Yes/No)

If a yes response is recorded the investigator will proceed to the next probe If a no response is recorded by the participant then no further probes will be asked Next probe: “Could you classify any of the images as helpful or hurtful?” (Yes/No)

If a yes response is recorded the investigator will proceed to the next probe If a no response is recorded by the participant no further probes will be asked

Next probe:

“Would you classify your most influential image as helpful or hurtful?” (Yes/No)

After the participant selects the term helpful or hurtful the investigator will then show the participant a piece of piece of paper with five bullet points as displayed:

• putting stroke • planned strategy • motivation • confidence • arousal/anxiety

The investigator will then ask as they show the participant the piece of paper:

 

62 

“Did the image you considered helpful/hurtful (depending the answer to the previous probe) influence any of the bullets listed here and if so which one or ones?”

• putting stroke • planned strategy • motivation • confidence • arousal/anxiety

  63 

I Participant# I I Short Putts

''T5id you imagine any images

"Did the image you considered I during the last putt fi-om the time "Could you classify any of "Would you classify your most

influence any of the you placed the golf ball on_the start the images as helpfid or influential image as helpful or bullets listed here and if so which one or location to the time you fuushed lwrtfid?"

lwrtfid?" ones?" your pulling stroke and turned

Putt Holed (In-Made Putt Out-Missed) armmd?"

o putting stroke

o planned strategy

Sl NO Helpful Hurtful

o motivation IN OUT YES YES NO

o confidence

o arousal/anxiety

o putting stroke

o planned strategy

S2 OUT NO YES Helpful Hurtful

o motivation IN YES NO

o confidence

o arousal/anxiety

o putting stroke

o planned strategy

S3 Helpful Hurtful

• motivation IN OUT YES NO YES NO

o confidence

o arousal/anxiety

o putting stroke

o p lanned strategy

S4 Helpful Hurtful

• motivation IN OUT YES NO YES NO

o confidence

o arousal/anxiety

o putting stroke

o planned strategy

ss NO YES NO Helpful Hurtful

o motivation IN OUT YES

o confidence

o arousal/anxiety

o putting stroke

o planned strategy

S6 NO YES Helpful Hurtful

• motivation IN OUT YES NO

o confidence

o arousal/anxiety

  64 

!Participant# I I Long Putts

"Uid you imagine any images

"Did the image you considered during the last putt from the time "Could yo11 classify any of "Would you classify your most

influence any of the you placed the go if ball on the start the images as helpful or influential image as helpful or

bullets listed here and if so which one or location to the time you finished hurtji1l?" hurtjid?"

ones?" your pulling s troke and turned Putt Holed (In-Made Putt Out-Missed) rHYUI/Ir/?"

• putting stroke

• planned strategy

IN OUT Helpful Hurtful • motivation

Ll YES NO YES NO • confidence

• arousal/anxiety

• putting stroke

• planned strategy

L2 Helpful Hurtful

• motivation IN OUT YES NO YES NO

• confidence

• arousal/anxiety

• putting stroke

• planned strategy

L3 Helpful Hurtful

• motivation IN OUT YES NO YES NO

• confidence

• arousal/anxiety

• putting stroke

• planned strategy

L4 OUT Helpful Hurtful

• motivation IN YES NO YES NO

• confidence

• arousal/anxiety

• putting stroke

• planned strategy

Helpful Hurtful • motivation

LS IN OUT YES NO YES NO • confidence

• arousal/anxiety

• putting st roke

• planned strategy

L6 OUT YES NO YES NO Helpful Hurtful • motivation

IN • confidence

• arousal/anxiety

 

65 

APPENDIX F

IMMEDIATE RETROSPECTIVE REPORT MEASURES

Initial Introduction and Stage One Non-Putting Training:

“I am interested in the thoughts and sensations golfers use during performance. I am strictly

interested in thoughts and sensations you can definitely remember occurring as you prepared for

the last putt attempted. Please, only report thoughts and sensations you can definitely remember

having.

Also, please don’t feel compelled to report something just because I’m standing here asking you

to report your thoughts and sensations. In other words, if you cannot remember any thoughts or

sensations at any point then simply say nothing or report that you cannot remember anything. In

fact, I actually prefer that you report nothing than report thoughts and sensations which may

have not actually occurred.

Trying to remember thoughts and sensations you had with definiteness can be quite different

from anything you have done. Therefore, to get you acquainted with reporting remembered

thoughts and sensations we will first practice. To practice this, we are going to use a simple

mental task. I am going to ask you a question, and I simply want you to try to come up with the

answer. There are no right or wrong ways in how you come up with the answer; just answer as

accurately as possible.

Are you ready?

‘What is the fourth letter in the alphabet after the letter L?’”

The participant will provide an answer, which will probably be “P.”

They will next be instructed:

“At the end of hearing my question, can you recall the first thought or sensation you had,

followed by the next thought you had, and the next one, and until you have provided me with

your answer?

Don’t try to explain or interpret your thoughts; just say them out aloud, as if you are on your

own. Also, only report out aloud thoughts and sensations that you definitely remember having.

Now please start reporting your recalled thoughts and/or sensations using the phrase ‘the first

thought or sensation I can remember having is XXXX,’ and then ‘the next thought or sensation I

can remember having is XXXX’ until you have described all remembered thoughts and/or

sensations that you had”

 

66 

If the participant answers in a conversational manner or attempts to explain, interpret, or justify their thoughts and/or sensations the investigator will provide feedback about how this way of reporting is not desired. The investigator will then, demonstrate the desired process of reporting by asking the participant to present a similar question using a different letter of the alphabet, which the participant chooses (e.g., “What is the fourth letter in the alphabet after H?”). The investigator will then solve the problem and report the answer out loud and then provide an immediate retrospective report of recalled thoughts and/or sensations involved in the generation of the experimenter’s answer using the suggested language (e.g., “The first thought or sensation I remember having after hearing the question was, “H is pretty easy”, then I recall thinking “I, J, K, L, it’s L”).

The experimenter will then explain how this report differs from the report provided by the participant. That is, there is little or no interpretation, explanation, or justification of the thoughts and sensations underlying the processing and generation of the answer. The report simply involves the recall of thoughts and sensations experienced; there is no narration about the thoughts and sensations reported.

The experimenter will then ask the participant to solve another mental task of this type. The participant will attempt to provide an immediate retrospective report of recalled thoughts and sensations experienced in undertaking each task until the participant displays proficiency and feels comfortable with the procedure.

Experimental Procedure Explanation and Stage Two Task Specific Training

The participants will then practice providing an immediate retrospective report of thoughts and sensations they experience during the preparation and completion of a golf putting task. Specifically, the participant will report the thoughts and sensations they experience from the time they place the ball of the starting location through hitting the ball with the putter.

The researchers will tell the participant:

“You will be asked to recall thoughts and sensations just as you did during the other mental

tasks. Every putt will begin by me handing you the golf ball and telling you the location to hit the

putt from. The placement of your golf ball will mark the beginning of your routine. So please

wait to prepare for the putt until after you place the golf ball on the location. Once your golf ball

is placed prepare to hit the putt as though you are on the golf course. Feel free to adjust the ball

in accordance to your preparation if necessary as long as the golf ball is placed back on its

original location before you hit the putt to the hole.

After you strike the putt, I will instruct you to turn around so your back is to the hole. Try to

avoid looking to see where the ball finishes before turning around. Just as with the mental task,

if you cannot remember any thoughts or sensations at any point then simply say nothing or

report that you cannot remember anything. I actually prefer that you report nothing than report

 

67 

thoughts and sensations which may have not actually occurred. Do you have any questions or

concerns?”

If yes, the questions and concerns will be handled before proceeding to the training section.

If no, the participant will proceed to the training section.

The participant will then be asked to undertake three putts from 1.5 ft (45.7 cm). An immediate retrospective report or recalled thoughts and sensations will be requested following each putt. Feedback will be provided if the participant strays from providing this type of report (i.e., the participant begins to explain, interpret, or justify their thoughts and sensations).

The participant will have the opportunity to hit additional putts if it is necessary to further train him or her. Additional training will occur until the participant is competent in providing such reports.

Once the participant completes their three training conditions and displays understanding in the protocol and proficiency reporting immediate retrospective reports of recalled thoughts and sensations the experimenter will tell the participant:

“We are now ready to begin the investigation. I will be recording your responses on a video

recorder. Although we are not on an actual golf course in a real competition, please go through

your normal routine just as you would on an actual golf course during a real competition.”

Procedures for a single trial of the Immediate Retrospective Report of Recalled Thoughts

and Sensations Condition

Each putt will begin by the investigator saying the location and handing the ball to the golfer. The investigator will also tell the participant:

“Just as you would on the actual golf course”

Once the golfer finishes their routine and strikes the putt the experimenter will instruct the participant to turn around and provide an immediate retrospective report of recalled thoughts and sensations. The investigator will then ask the participant to do as follows:

“Please turn around and recall your first thought or sensation you had during the last putt you

hit after you placed the golf ball on the start location, and then the next thought or sensation you

had and so on. Start with ‘The first thought or sensation I can remember having after placing the

ball on the start location was…”

 

68 

APPENDIX G

RETROSPECTIVE REPORT STATEMENTS

The following are examples of retrospective report statements from the study:

Participant: 2-114 (Skilled Golfer)

Trial: Long Putt 3

My first thought or sensation was aiming the ball. (Statement 1: Non-Imaginal)

My next thought or sensation was taking a practice swing (Statement 2: Non-Imaginal)

and visualizing a good putt. (Statement 3: Imaginal)

My next thought or sensation was loose arms. (Statement 4: Non – Imaginal)

Imaginal: 1

Non-Imaginal: 3

Participant: 5-123 (Skilled Golfer)

Trial: Short Putt 1

Set the logo of the golf ball down (Statement 1: Non-Imaginal)

and see the line that I want to roll the ball on (Statement 2: Imaginal)

feel the left grip in the palm of my life line (Statement 3: Non-Imaginal)

right hand aim the face and my shoulders at the same time (Statement 4: Non-Imaginal)

left foot right foot (Statement 5: Non-Imaginal)

get comfortable (Statement 6: Non-Imaginal)

and roll the ball on the line that I see (Statement 7: Imaginal)

Imaginal: 2

Non- Imaginal: 5

 

69 

Participant: 2-220 (Unskilled Golfer)

Trial: Short Putt 1

First thought was checking out and verifying the break.(Statement 1: Non-Imaginal)

Next thought was getting myself properly aimed a little right of the hole. (Statement 2: Non-Imaginal)

Next thought was two practice swings. (Statement 3: Non-Imaginal)

Next thought was stepping up to the ball (Statement 4: Non-Imaginal)

And imagining it going in. (Statement 5: Imaginal)

Then I hit it.(Statement 6: Non-Imaginal)

Imaginal: 1

Non-Imaginal: 5

Participant 1-219 (Unskilled Golfer)

Trial: Short Putt 3

First thought was my grip (Statement 1: Non-Imaginal

Second thought was my set up (Statement 2: Non-Imaginal)

Third thought was the power that I need to use, used too much last time so this time I wanted to take some off (Statement 3: Non-Imaginal

Imaginal: 0

Non-Imaginal: 3

 

70 

APPENDIX H

PARTICIPANT OUTLINE AND ORDER

1. Contact golf course manager/course instructor about using their facility/classroom to recruit

participants. a. Explain objective of study, experimental procedures, and experimental task demands to

golf course manager/course instructor. i. Ask if the course manager/college course instructor has any questions or

concerns. ii. Answer questions or concerns the course manager/course instructor expresses.

b. Have course manager/course instructor read and sign the modified informed consent. 1. Ask if the course manager/college course instructor has any questions or

concerns regarding informed consent. 2. Answer any questions or concerns the course manager/college course

instructor expresses. 2. Participant Recruitment and General Explanation

a. Explain objective of study b. Have participant read and sign the informed consent.

i. Ask if the participant has any questions or concerns. ii. Answer questions or concerns the participant expresses.

3. Gathering General Data and Self-Efficacy Information a. Have the Participant fill out the Golf history and demographic profile b. Have the Participant rate their level of self-efficacy on golf putting tasks.

i. 3.0 ft. (91.4 cm.) (short putt length) ii. 6.0 ft. (182.9 cm.) (long putt length)

4. Practice/Warm up Trials a. Allow the participant to hit five practice putts from 6.5 ft. (198.1 cm)

5. Phase One: General Imagery Use Phase Memo: Investigative conditions one, two, and three will be counterbalanced by random assignment. Furthermore, order of putting distance blocks will also be counterbalanced.

a. Hand out experimental packet i. Sport Imagery Questionnaire-golf (SIQ-golf: Gregg & Hall, 2006)

ii. Imagery Use Questionnaire (Hall et al., 1990) iii. Counterbalanced

b. Have Participant fill out packet and put all forms back in packet c. Write participants code on the packet

6. Minute Rest 7. Phase Two: Retrospective Report Phase

a. Explain procedures and protocol of condition b. Train participant via mental tasks protocol c. Have participants complete practice trials from 1.5 ft and provide feedback

 

71 

i. Read Immediate Retrospective Report of Recalled Thoughts Instruction/Script 1. Participant performs and completes training trial one

a. Investigator provides feedback 2. Participant performs and completes training trial two

a. Investigator provides feedback 3. Participant performs and completes training trial three

a. Investigator provides feedback ii. Ask participant if they have any questions or concerns

1. Answer questions and concerns 2. If necessary: perform additional practice trials from 1.5 ft and provide

feedback until participant fully understands task objective. iii. Ask participant if they have any other questions or concerns

1. When the participant feels comfortable proceed to actual trials d. Place video camera behind artificial putting green so video captures target line of putt and

begin recording e. Participant completes actual trials

i. Participant will say trial number before beginning each trial ii. Participant will complete trial and then respond to probes

iii. Participant will be further probed until they complete their response iv. Blocks are counterbalanced

1. Short Putt Length a. Five Report Trials b. One Rest Trial

2. Minute Rest 3. Long Putt Length

a. Five Report Trials b. One Rest Trial

8. Minute Rest 9. Phase Three: Directed Probe Condition

a. Explain procedures and protocol for condition b. Have participants complete practice trials from 1.5 ft and provide feedback

i. Participant performs and completes trial one 1. Investigator provides feedback

ii. Participant performs and completes trial two 1. Investigator provides feedback

iii. Participant performs and completes trial three 1. Investigator provides feedback

iv. Ask participant if they have any questions or concerns 1. Answer questions and concerns 2. If necessary: perform additional practice trials from 1.5 ft. and provide

feedback. v. Ask participant if they have any other questions or concerns

1. When the participant feels comfortable proceed to actual trials

 

72 

c. Place video camera behind putting green so video captures target line of putt and begin recording

d. Participant completes actual trials i. Participant will say trial number before beginning each trial

ii. Participant will complete trial and then will be asked to undirected probes iii. Blocks are counterbalanced using random assignment

1. Short Putt Probe Trial a. Five Report Trials b. One Rest Trial

2. Minute Rest 3. Long Putt Probe Trial

a. Five Report Trials b. One Rest Trial

10. Debrief

  73 

[Participant: 11- I

Informed Consent

Golf Demongraphic

Task-Self Efficacy

Practice Putts

I General I llJIQ- SIQ

I Rest I

Indirect

s l ( 123 4 56

Rest

s l ( 123456

I Rest I

!Direct

s l ( 123456

Rest

s l ( 123456

[Participant : J2· ]

Informed Consent

Golf Demongraphic

Task-Self Efficacy

Practice Putts

I ··-1 General

ｾｑ Ｍ ｉｕ ｩｪ＠

I Rest I

Direct

s L ( 1234 56

Rest

s L ( 12345 6

( Rest (

Indirect I

s L (12345 6 1

Rest i

s l (1 23456 !

(Participant: 13- I

s

s

Informed Consent

Golf Demongraphic

Task-Self Efficacy

Practice Putts

Direct

L 1 123456

Rest

L (1 23456

I Rest I

I General I IUQ-SIQ

1 Rest ]

Indirect

s L (1 23456

Rest

5 l ( 123456

  74 

!Participant:J4- I

s

s

Informed Consent

Golf Demongraphic

Task-Self Efficacy

Practice Putts

Direct

l 1 123456

Rest

l 1 123456

I Rest I

Indirect

s l 1 123456

Rest

s l 1 123456

I Ren I

I General I SIQ · IUQ

!Participant: Is- I

s

s

Informed Consent

Golf Demongraphic

Task-Self Efficacy

rractice Putts

Indirect

l ..1 123456

Rest

l 123456

I Rest I

Direct

s l 1 123456

Rest

s l 1 123456

I Rest I

[ General I SIQ-IUQ

I Participant: 16· I

s

s

Informed Consent

Golf Demongraphic

Task-Self Efficacy

Practice Putts

Indirect

l I 1 2 3 4 s 6

Rest

l 1 1 2 3 4 s 6

I Rest I

I General I IUQ· SIQ

I Rest I

Direct

s l 1 123456

Rest

s l ..1123456

 

75 

APPENDIX I

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL

Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673, FAX (850) 644-4392 APPROVAL MEMORANDUM Date: 8/24/2010 To: Daniel Vosgerichian From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research Outcome Imagery Use in Skilled vs. Unskilled Golfers The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per 45 CFR § 46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process. The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required. If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects. If the project has not been completed by 8/19/2011 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee. You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others. By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations. This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446. Cc: David Eccles, Advisor HSC No. 2010.4630

 

76 

Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee P. O. Box 3062742 Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392 RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 06/26/2012

To: Daniel Vosgerichian

Dept.: EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LEARNING SYSTEMS

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Re-approval of Use of Human subjects in Research: Outcome Imagery Use in Skilled vs. Unskilled Golfers Your request to continue the research project listed above involving human subjects has been approved by the Human Subjects Committee. If your project has not been completed by 06/24/2013, you are must request renewed approval by the Committee. If you submitted a proposed consent form with your renewal request, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this re-approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting of research subjects. You are reminded that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report in writing, any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others. By copy of this memorandum, the Chairman of your department and/or your major professor are reminded of their responsibility for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in their department. They are advised to review the protocols as often as necessary to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations. Cc: HSC No. 2012.8516

 

77 

REFERENCES

Abma, C. L., Fry, M. D., Li, Y., & Relyea, G. (2002). Differences in imagery content and imagery ability between high and low confident track and field athletes. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 67-75. Ahsen, A. (1984). ISM: The triple code model for imagery and psychophysiology. Journal of

Mental Imagery, 8, 15-42. Anderson, M. P. (1981). Assessment of imaginal processes: Approaches and issues. In T.V.

Merluzzi, C.R. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 149-187). New York: Guilford Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. USA: W.H. Freeman. Barr, K., & Hall, C. (1992). The use of imagery by rowers. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 23, 243-261. Beilock, S. L., Afremow, J. A., Rabe, A. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). Don’t miss! The debilitating

effects of suppressive imagery on golf putting performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise

Psychology, 23, 200-221. Bernier, M., & Fournier, J. F. (2010). Functions of mental imagery in expert golfers. Psychology

of Sport and Exercise, 11,444-452. Callow, N., & Hardy, L. (2001). Types of imagery associated with sport confidence in netball

players of varying skill levels. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 1-17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statstical power analysis for behavioral sciences second edition, Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum. Cumming, J, & Ramsey, R. (2009). Imagery interventions in sport. In S. Mellalieu & S. Hanton

(Eds.), Advances in applied sport psychology: A review (pp. 5-36). London: Routledge. Decety, J. (1996). Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate? Cognitive

Brain Research, 3, 87-93. Eccles, D. W. (2012). Verbal reports of cognitive processes. In G. Tenenbaum, R. C. Eklund, &

A. Kamata (Eds), Handbook of Measurement in Sport and Exercise Psychology.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Eccles, D. W., Ward, P., Woodman, T., Janelle, C. M., Le Scanff, C., Castanier, C., & Coombes,

S. A. (2011). Where’s the emotion? How sport psychology can inform research on

 

78 

emotion in human factors. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society, 53, 180-202. Ericsson, K. A. (2006) Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of

thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise

and expert performance (pp. 223-241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-

251. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised

edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Finke, R. A. (1980). Levels of equivalence in imagery and perception. Psychological Review,

87, 113-132. Hall, C., Mack, D., Paivio, A., & Hausenblas, H. (1998). Imagery use by athletes: Development

of the Sport Imagery Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 73-89.

Hall, C. R., Rodgers, W. M., & Barr, K. A. (1990). The use of imagery by athletes in selected

sports. The Sport Psychologist, 4, 1-10. Hanin, Y. L. (2007). Emotions in sport: Current issues and perspectives. In G. Tenenbaum & R.

C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 31-58). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hardy, L., Jones, G, & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport:

Theory and practice of elite performers Chichester, UK: Wiley. Hayslip, B., Petrie, T. A., MacIntire, M., & Jones, G. (2010). The influences of skill level,

anxiety and psychological skills use on amateur golfers’ performances. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 123-133. Holmes, P. S., & Collins, D. J. (2001). The PETTLEP approach to motor imagery: A functional

equivalence model for sport psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 60-83.

Gould, D., Weiss, M., & Weinberg, R. (1981). Psychological characteristics of successful and

less successful Big Ten wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 69-81. Gregg, M., & Hall, C. (2006). The relationship of skill level and age to the use of imagery by

golfers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 363-375.

 

79 

Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86,449-478.

Jones, R. T. (1966). Bobby Jones on golf. New York: Doubleday. Klinger, E. (1978). Modes of conscious flow. In K. Pope & J. Singer (Eds.), The stream of

consciousness: Scientific investigations into the flow of human experience. New York: Plenum Press.

Koyama S., Tsuruhara, K., & Yamamoto, Y. (2009). Duration of mentally simulated movement

before and after a golf shot. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 108, 327-338. Kudlackova, K., Eccles, D.W., & Dieffenbach, K. (2013). Use of relaxation skills in

differentially skilled athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. Retrieved 25 February 2013, from http://sciencedirect.com.

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lotze, M., Montoya, P., Erb, M., Hulsmann, E., Flor, H., Klose, U., & Wolfgang, G. (1999).

Activation of cortical and cerebellar motor areas during executed and imagined hand movements: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 491-501.

MacIntyre, T. E., & Moran, A. P. (2007a). A qualitative investigation of imagery use and meta-

imagery processes among elite canoe-slalom competitors. Journal of Imagery Research

in Sport and Physical Activity, 2(1). Retrieved 16 August 2010, from http://www.bepress.com/jirspa/vol2/iss1/art3.

MacIntyre, T. E., & Moran, A. P. (2007b). A qualitative investigation of meta-imagery processes

and imagery direction among elite athletes. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and

Physical Activity, 2(1). Retrieved 16 August 2010, from http://www.bepress.com/jirspa/vol2/iss1/art4.

Martin, K. A., Moritz, S. E., & Hall, C. R. (1999). Imagery use in sport: A literature review and

applied model. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 245-268. McCaffrey, N., & Orlick, T.(1989). Mental factors related to excellence among top professional

golfers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 256-278.  

McRobert, A., Ward, P., Eccles, D. W., & Williams, A. M. (2011). The effect on perceptual-cognitive processes of manipulating context-specific information during a simulated anticipation task. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 519-534.

Morris, T., Spittle, M., & Watt, A. P. (2005). Imagery in sport. Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

 

80 

Munroe, K., Hall, C., Simms, S., Weinberg, R. (1998). The influence of type of sport and time of season on athletes’ use of imagery. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 440-449.

Munroe, K., Giacobbi, P. R., Hall, C. R., Weinberg, R. S. (2000). The four Ws of imagery use:

Where, when, why, and what. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 119-137. Murphy, S. (2005). Imagery: inner theatre becomes reality. In S. Murphy (Ed.), The sport psych

handbook (pp.127-153). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Murphy, S. M., & Martin, K. A. (2002). The use of imagery in sport. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances

in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp.405-439). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Murphy, S., Nordin, S., Cumming, J. (2008). Imagery in sport, exercise, and dance. In T. Horn

(Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 297-324). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Nicklaus, J. (1974). Golf my way. New York: Simon & Schuster. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. C. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental

processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. Nordin, S. M., & Cumming, J. (2005.) More than meets the eye: Investigating imagery type,

direction, and outcome. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 1-17. Nordin, S. M., & Cumming, J. (2008). Type and function of athletes’ imagery: Testing

prediction from the applied model of imagery use by examining effectiveness. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 189-206.

Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery in human performance.

Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 10, 22S-28S. Pelz, D. (1999). Dave Pelz’s short game bible. New York: Broadway Books/Random House.

Perry, C., & & Morris T. (1995). Mental imagery in sport. In T. Morris & J Summers (Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, application and issues (pp. 339-385) Brisbane, Australia: Wiley.

Powell, G. E. (1973). Negative and positive mental practice in motor skill acquisition.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 37, 312. Ramsey, R., Cumming, J., & Edwards, M. G. (2008). Exploring a modified conceptualization of

imagery direction and golf putting performance. International Journal of Sport and

Exercise Psychology, 6, 207-223.Rodgers, W., Hall, C., & Buckolz, E. (1991). The effect of an imagery training program on imagery ability, imagery use, and figure skating performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 109-125.

 

81 

Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). Imagery. London: Psychology Press. Rodgers, W., Hall, C., & Buckolz, E. (1991). The effect of an imagery training program on

imagery ability, imagery use, and figure skating performance. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 3, 109-125. Salmon, J., Hall, C., & Haslam, I. (1994). The use of imagery by soccer players. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 116-133. Sarrazin, P., Roberts, G., Cury, F., Biddle, S., Famose, J. (2002). Exerted effort and performance

in climbing among boys: The influence of achievement goals, perceived ability, and task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 425-436.

Shaw, D. F., & Goodfellow, R. (1997). Performance enhancement and deterioration following

outcome imagery: Testing a demand-characteristics explanation. In I. Cockerill & H. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive enhancement in sport and exercise psychology (pp. 37-43). Leicester, United Kingdom: British Psychological Society.

Short, S. E., Bruggeman, J. M., Engel, S. G., Marback, T. L., Want, 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.

Short, S. E., Monsma, E. V., & Short, M. W. (2004). Is what you see really what you get?

Athletes’ perceptions of imagery’s functions. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 341-349. Short, S. E., Ross-Stewart, L., & Monsma, E. V. (2006). Onwards with the evolution of imagery

research in sport psychology. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology,

8(3). Retrieved 16 August 2010, from http://athleticinsight.com/Vol8Iss3/ImageryResearch.htm.

Short, S. E., & Short, M. W. (2005). Differences between high- and low-confident football

players on imagery functions: A consideration of athletes’ perceptions. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 197-208. Taylor, J., & Shaw, D. F. (2002). The effects of outcome imagery on golf putting performance.

Journal of Sports Sciences,20, 607-613.  

Thomas, P. R., & Over, R. (1994). Psychological and psychomotor skills associated with performance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 8, 73-86.  

 

Vosgerichian, D. G. (2011). Imagery use in unskilled and skilled golfers: General and specific measures examining extent, direction, and function (Pilot Study).

 

Ward, P., Suss, J., Eccles, D. W., Williams, A. M., & Harris, K. R. (2011). Skill-based differences in option generation in a complex task: A verbal protocol analysis. Cognitive

Processing, 12, 289-300.

 

82 

Weinberg, R. (2008). Does imagery work? Effects on performance and mental skills. Journal of

Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 3(1). Retrieved 16 August 2010, from http://www.bepress.com/jirspa/vol3/iss1/art1.

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. White, A., & Hardy, L. (1998). An in-depth analysis of the uses of imagery by high-level slalom

canoeists and artistic gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 387-403. Williams, J. M., & Leffingwell, T. R. (2003). Cognitive strategies in sport and exercise

psychology. In J. L. Van Raalte & B. W. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring Sport and Exercise

Psychology (2nd ed., 75-98). Washington, DC: APA. Woolfolk, R. L., Murphy, S. M., Gottesfeld, D., & Aitken, D. (1985). Effects of mental rehearsal

of task motor activity and mental depiction of task outcome on motor skill performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 191-197.

Woolfolk, R. L., Parrish, W., & Murphy, S. M. (1985). The effects of positive and negative

imagery on motor skill performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 335-34  

 

83 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Dan Vosgerichian M.Ed. is the Director of Mental Coaching at the Gary Gilchrist Golf Academy

in Howey-In-The Hills and resides in Winter Garden, Florida. While at FSU, Dan worked

closely with the athletic department and the PGA Professional Golf Management Program. Dan

has mentored student-athletes from FSU’s football, basketball, baseball, track & field, cross

country and softball teams and also coached and conducted mental conditioning services for

FSU’s PGA PGM Program.

Prior to attending FSU, Dan earned his Master’s Degree in Psychology and Athletic Counseling

from Springfield College where he was the Assistant Golf Coach for the Men’s Golf Team and a

mental coach for the track and field team. Prior to that Dan earned his Bachelor's Degrees in

Psychology and Exercise Science from Miami University.

Dan has taught Sport and Exercise Psychology at Flagler College and was also an instructor at

Springfield College. Dan has also worked as an instructor at The PGA TOUR Golf Academy and

was an instructor and mental coach for Nike Golf Schools at Williams College.