Power Posing and Dominating Discourse A Comprehensive Self-Communication Intervention for Improving Confidence, Anxiety, and Performance

Amanda Start, Art Hoomiratana,

Kendall Crickmore

University of Idaho

• Effective intervention to enhance confidence and anxiety (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009)

• At least 70% of communication is nonverbal (Mehrabian, 1981)– Are self-talk interventions in sport

adequately addressing overall intrapersonal communication?

Self-Talk Interventions in Sport

Introduction

Power Posing• A nonverbal body

language intervention

• High PP:– Open and

expansive postures (e.g., Carney, Hall, & Smith LeBeau, 2005)

Introduction

• Cuddy, Wilmuth & Carney (2012)– High PP performed better in a job interview and

were more likely to be selected to be hired

• Carney, Cuddy, & Yap (2010)– High PP experienced increased levels of

testosterone, feelings of power and dominance, and tolerance for risk and decreased levels of cortisol• Opposite pattern for Low PP

Power Posing

Introduction

• Cesario and McDonald (2013)– “bodily positions influence psychological

states by defining for a person what actions can and cannot be accomplished” (p. 261).

Power Posing

Introduction

1. Is one self-communication (SC) intervention more effective than another?

a. (PP) Power Posingb. (ST) Self-Talkc. (CB) Combined Power Posing and Self-Talk

2. Does goal focus moderate the effectiveness of the self-communication interventions?

Research Questions

Introduction

METHOD

• Convenience sample of college students

• N = 136– 50.5% females (n = 67)–M Age = 21.47 (SD = 0.37; Range 18 to

56)– 50.4% played darts a couple of times

prior to the experiment. 

Participants

Method

Measures

Method

1. Revised State Sport Confidence Inventory (SSCI-R).  – (Short & Vadocz, 2002)– 13 items– State confidence

2. Revised Competitive Sport Anxiety Inventory–2 (CSAI-2R).  – (Cox, Martens, & Russell, 2003)– 10 items

• (Omitted 7-item somatic anxiety subscale)– State cognitive anxiety and self-confidence

Procedure

Method

Randomization

Goal Manipulation•Outcome•Performance

Pre-Test•State Confidence

•State Anxiety•Dart Throwing Task

SC Intervention•ST•PP•CB•P

Post-Test•State Confidence

•State Anxiety•Dart Throwing Task

• IVs– Between-Subject

• Self-communication intervention (4)• Goal focus (2)

– Within-Subject• Time (2)

• DVs– State confidence– State anxiety– Dart throwing performance

Independent & Dependent Variables

Method

• 4 (Self-Communication) x 2 (Goal Focus) x 2 (Time) mixed-design ANOVA for each DV.

Analysis Strategy

Method

RESULTS

n=34

n(OG)=17

n(PG)=17

PPn=35

n(OG)=20

n(PG)=15

STn=33

n(OG)=17

n(PG)=16

CBn=34

n(OG)=17

n(PG)=17

PN=136

n(OG)=71

N(PG)=65

Total

Randomization of N

Results

State ConfidenceNonsignificant• Main effect for SC

Condition(F(3,128)=0.53, p > .05, η2=0.01)

• Main effect for GOAL(F(1,128)=0.00, p > .05, η2=0.00)

• SC*GOAL*TIME interaction(F(3,128)=1.47, p > .05, η2=0.02)

Significant• Main effect for TIME

(F(1,128)=5.27, p < .001, η2=0.24)

• SC*TIME interaction(F(3,132)=5.27, p < 0.01, η2=0.08)

Results

State Confidence:Interaction Between SC Conditions and Time

Results

State AnxietyNonsignificant• Main effect for SC

Condition(F(3,128)=0.57, p > .05, η2=0.01)

• Main effect for GOAL(F(1,128)=0.04, p > .05, η2=0.00)

• SC*TIME interaction(F(3,132)=1.12, p > 0.05, η2=0.02)

Significant• Main effect for TIME

(F(1,128)=42.68, p < .001, η2=0.23)

• SC*GOAL*TIME interaction(F(3,128)=2.82, p < .05, η2=0.17)

Results

State Anxiety: Interaction Between ST Condition and Time

Results

State Anxiety: Interaction Between CB Condition and Time

Results

Dart Throwing PerformanceNonsignificant• Main effect for SC

Condition(F(3,128)=0.45, p > .05, η2=0.01)

• Main effect for GOAL(F(1,128)=0.12, p > .05, η2=0.00)

• SC*TIME interaction(F(3,132)=0.09, p > 0.05, η2=0.00)

• SC*GOAL*TIME interaction(F(3,128)=0.96, p > .05, η2=0.01)

Significant• Main effect for TIME

(F(1,128)=13.17, p < .001, η2=0.09)

Results

DISCUSSION

1. Is one self-communication (SC) intervention more effective than another?

a. (PP) Power Posingb. (ST) Self-Talkc. (CB) Combined Power Posing and Self-Talk

2. Does goal focus moderate the effectiveness of the self-communication interventions?

Research Questions

Discussion

verbal

nonverbal

Gains in confidence equal to verbal

alone.

Take Home Messages

Discussion

(For this sample in this study.)

verbal

nonverbal

Greatest reduction in

anxiety, particularly

for an outcome

goal focus.

Take Home Messages

Discussion

(For this sample in this study.)

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power Posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363-1368.

Cox, R. H., Martens, M. P., & Russell, W. D. (2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics: The Revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 519-533.

Cuddy, A., Wilmuth, C. A., & Carney, D. R. (2012). The benefit of power posing before a high-stakes social evaluation. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 13-027.

Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Mpoumpaki, S., & Theodorakis, Y. (2009). Mechanisms underlying the self-talk-performance relationship: The effects of motivational self-talk on self-confidence and anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 186-192.

Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Short, S. E., & Vadocz, E. A. (2002). Testing the modifiability of the State Sport Confidence Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 1025-1028.

References

unleash your inner superhero.