International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

ISSN: 1612-197X (Print) 1557-251X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijs20

The influence of a self-talk intervention on

collegiate cross-country runners

Robert Weinberg , Abby Miller & Thelma Horn

To cite this article: Robert Weinberg , Abby Miller & Thelma Horn (2012) The influence of a self-
talk intervention on collegiate cross-country runners, International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 10:2, 123-134, DOI: 10.1080/1612197X.2012.645135

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.645135

Published online: 19 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 916

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijs20

Download by: [Samia Hallage] Date: 03 August 2017, At: 13:42

 International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology
Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2012, 123 –134

The influence of a self-talk intervention on collegiate cross-country

runners
Robert Weinberg∗ , Abby Miller and Thelma Horn

Department of Kinesiology and Health, Miami University, Phillips Hall, Oxford, OH 45056, USA
(Received 20 April 2011; final version received 1 August 2011)

The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the effectiveness of different types of
self-talk (e.g., instructional, motivational, combined) and the self-determined nature of the self-
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

talk (assigned vs. freely chosen) on one-mile run performance. Eighty-one collegiate cross-
country runners were assigned to one of six intervention groups after completing a baseline
one-mile time trial. A week later they completed the test trial using their specific
intervention technique. Results of the 2 (assigned vs. freely chosen) × 3 (type of self-talk)
× 2 (trials) repeated measures ANOVA yielded no significant between subject differences
although the trials effect revealed that, in general, performance improved from pre-to-post-
test. However, statistical analysis of the six combined groups across trials (6 ×2) revealed
that the combined self-set, motivational self-set, and instructional assigned groups displayed
significant improvements in performance from pre-to post-test. Results are discussed
in terms of practical versus statistical significance, cognitive evaluation theory, and
self-efficacy theory.
Keywords: self talk; instructional and motivational self-talk; one-mile run performance;
self-efficacy

From research as well as applied perspectives, self-talk has attracted an increasing amount of
attention (Hardy, 2006). Although many definitions have been put forth, self-talk is typically
described as a “multidimensional phenomenon concerned with athletes’ verbalizations that are
addressed to themselves” (Hardy, Hall, & Hardy, 2005). These self-verbalizations serve a
variety of purposes including regulating cognitions, interpreting emotions, enhancing effort,
and providing encouragement. Anecdotal reports and descriptive research dating back to the
1970s has shown that athletes extensively and consistently use self-talk to help their performance
(e.g., Mahoney & Avener, 1977; Rushall, 1984; Weinberg, Grove, & Jackson, 1992) Contempor-
ary researchers (Hardy, 2006; Landin & Hebert, 1999) have identified two broad dimensions
when referring to the purposes of self-talk; motivational and instructional. Instructional self-
talk refers to statements that focus on task-relevant cues, technical information, tactical
choices, and attentional focus. Examples of instructional self-statements are “elbow straight,”
“reach,” “bend,” “high knee lift,” and “follow-through.” Motivational self-talk refers to state-
ments that focus on improving effort, keeping positive emotions, and enhancing confidence.
Examples include, “get tough,” “hang in there,” “you can do it,” and “stay strong.”

∗
Corresponding author. Email: weinber@muohio.edu

ISSN 1612-197X print/ISSN 1557-251X online

# 2012 International Society of Sport Psychology
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.645135
http://www.tandfonline.com
 124 R. Weinberg et al.

The first wave of research on the influence of self-talk on performance was primarily interested
in simply if self-talk was related to performance. Along these lines, the effectiveness of self-talk has
been supported in studies using experimental tasks (e.g., Harvey, Van Raalte, & Brewer, 2002;
Mallett & Hanrahan, 1997; Theodorakis, Weinberg, Natsis, Douma, & Kazakas, 2000; Van
Raalte et al., 1995) interventions (e.g., Johnson, Hrycaiko, Johnson, & Hallas, 2004; Perkos,
Theodorakis, & Chroni, 2002) and single-subject multiple baseline designs (Hamilton, Scott, &
McDougall, 2007; Landin & Hebert, 1999; Ming & Martin, 1996). After providing evidence that
positive self-talk (motivational and instructional) can be beneficial to performance, researchers
began to focus on which of these types of self-talk might be most beneficial.

Motivational versus instructional self-talk

One of the first studies (non-experimental) to investigate the effects of different types of self-talk
on performance compared task-relevant (“full movement range”) mood (“blast, rip”), and positive
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

(“I feel great”) self-statements of elite skiers (Rushall, Hall, Roux, Sasseville, & Rushall, 1988).
Results revealed that 16 of 18 skiers in all three conditions improved their performance. The
dearth of empirical studies in the area at the time is captured in the following quote by Hardy,
Jones, and Gould, (1996):

Despite the strong emphasis that mental training programs often place on the development of
appropriate self-talk, relatively few controlled studies have been performed that would enable any
sort of empirically based operationalization of the word “appropriate” to be attempted. (p. 35)

Theodorakis et al. (2000) investigated motivational versus instructional self-talk on different

motor tasks focusing on accuracy, strength, or endurance. Results from four separate experiments
revealed that the effectiveness of different self-talk strategies depended, in part, on the type of
task. Specifically, instructional self-talk was superior to motivational self-talk in tasks requiring
precision, coordination and timing. In addition, both instructional and motivational self-talk pro-
duced significantly better performance on a strength task than a control condition. Hatzigeorgia-
dis, Theodorakis, and Zourbanos (2004) investigated the effects of motivational and instructional
self-talk on performance and cognitive interference on two (precision and power) water-polo
tasks. Results revealed that performance on the precision task improved for both instructional
and motivational self-talk groups whereas performance on the power task only improved for
the motivational self-talk group. In addition, both instructional and motivational self-talk
groups had less cognitive interference than the control group indicating that self-talk appears
to reduce cognitive interference and thus enhance performance through (at least in part) increased
concentration. Further investigations by Hatzigeorgiadis (Hatzigeorgiadis, 2006; Hatzigeorgiadis,
Zourbanos, & Theodorakis, 2007; Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Goltsios, & Theodorakis, 2008)
found that both motivational and instructional self-talk enhanced effort, increased concentration
and confidence on different tasks as well as improved performance. Overall, although some differ-
ences were found, both motivational and instructional self-talk appear to be effective in enhancing
performance and improving psychological states in a variety of tasks with motivational self-talk
somewhat superior on strength and power tasks and instructional self-talk more effective on fine
motor tasks.
One of the purposes of the present investigation was to determine the effectiveness of instruc-
tional versus motivational self-talk on an endurance task because this direct comparison had not
been investigated on an applied (non-laboratory) endurance task. As noted above, Theodorakis
et al. (2000) compared instructional and motivational self-talk on a laboratory sit-up endurance
task and found no differences. Miller and Donohue (2003) did use an endurance task (one-
 International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 125

mile run) but they compared instructional plus motivational self-statements to a music condition
and a control condition. The importance of using an endurance task (compared to a fine motor
task) to investigate type of self-talk differences is grounded in the arousal-performance relation-
ship, which has found differences based on the nature of the task such as fine-motor/precision,
strength, and endurance (Gould, Greenleaf, & Krane, 2002; Landers & Arent, 2010). In
essence, it has been hypothesized that endurance tasks such as the mile run (along with strength
tasks) would best be performed at higher levels of arousal whereas precision tasks would best be
performed at lower levels of arousal. Because motivational self-talk usually focuses on increasing
effort, energy, and positive affect (i.e., arousal), it is hypothesized that motivational self-talk
would produce significantly better performance than instructional self-talk on the one-mile endur-
ance task.

Self-determination of self-talk
This aspect of self-talk can be conceptualized with “assigned” and “freely chosen” representing
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

anchors of the continuum. The former signifies self-statements generated with absolutely no self-
determined control over them, whereas the latter represents self-talk that is totally determined by
the individual (in the present study, runners did have to choose from a list of self-statements pro-
vided to them although they could insert their own favorite statements if not on the list provided),
and as a result, occurs in a natural manner. Assigned self-talk has been most frequently employed
in laboratory studies (e.g., Dagrou, Gauvin, & Halliwell, 1992; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2006;
Theodorakis et al, 2000; Van Raalte et al., 1995) in order to allow the experimenter control
over the content of the self-statements utilized by participants. One study that employed self-
selected self-talk treatment groups, was conducted by Harvey et al. (2002). They randomly
assigned golfers to instructional, positive, negative, or control groups and they were all given a
list of self-statements corresponding to their group assignment (e.g., instructional self-talk
group chose instructional cues, negative self-talk group choose negative cues) so that they
could choose the ones they liked the most. However, the design did not allow any direct compari-
son of assigned versus chosen self-talk statements.
Donohue, Barnhart, Covassin, Carpin, and Korb (2000) also examined the effectiveness of
self-talk by having facilitators help cue runners. Specifically, each runner selected her own state-
ments from a broader list of statements. Then these instructional or motivational self-statements
were read to cross-country runners during their warm-up prior to a race so runners could repeat
these statements themselves. Results revealed no significant difference between instructional and
motivational self-statements on performance although they both produced significantly better
performance than a control condition. Again, because all runners were allowed to choose their
self- statements there was no opportunity to compare the effectiveness of assigned versus
chosen self-statements on performance. Although no direct test of assigned versus self-selected
self-statements has been conducted, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1991) would
suggest that when individuals feel a sense autonomy and control over the environment (e.g.,
self-selected statements), they would feel more intrinsically motivated. This intrinsic motivation
is hypothesized to result in increased persistence, which would be especially important in the per-
formance of an endurance task (Vallerand & Losier, 1999). Thus, it was hypothesized that self-
selected self-statements would produce higher levels of performance than assigned self-
statements.
A final purpose of the present investigation was to test, the additive effects of different types of
self-talk (instructional and motivational) and self-determination of self-talk (assigned and
chosen). No previous studies have investigated these combined/additive effects, although
based on the research reviewed above, it was hypothesized that the motivational plus self-selected
 126 R. Weinberg et al.

group and motivational/ instructional plus self-selected group would exhibit the greatest perform-
ance increase on an endurance task like the one-mile run.

Method
Participants
Participants were originally recruited via telephone or e-mail contact made with NCAA collegiate
coaches in the Midwest in addition to face-to-face meetings at invitational track and field meets.
Through these contacts, coaches allowed one of the authors to come to practice and recruit
runners for the study. The study was explained to all runners and informed consent obtained (fol-
lowing Institutional Review Board guidelines) noting that their participation was voluntary
(coaches were unaware of who participated or did not).
This recruitment resulted in a total of 81 runners (41 male and 40 female) from six different
cross-country collegiate teams from three states. There were 76 White, two African-American and
three Hispanic runners ranging in age from 18 to 24 years old (M ¼ 19.54, SD ¼ 1.32). Partici-
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

pants had been involved in running for an average of 12 years.

Procedures
The procedures consisted of a baseline trial followed by assignment to different experimental con-
ditions and then a post-test to determine the effect of the experimental conditions.
Baseline trial run/self-talk statements. During a designated practice, all participants were
asked to run a mile. This was done at the beginning of practice after some preliminary stretching
and easy jogging to get “loose.” To ensure top effort, coaches timed these runs and told runners
that it was important that they “did their best” and ran their hardest, during these runs. Also to
eliminate the variable of competition with other runners, runners ran the one-mile run by them-
selves so as not to be influenced by the quality of the other runners. After the baseline run, par-
ticipants were administered a list of 25 motivational self-statements (e.g., “stay tough,” “I’m a
winner,” “I can do it”) and 25 instructional self-statements (e.g., “high knee lift,” “pump your
arms,” “run on your toes”) with an additional space for self-generated items. These lists were gen-
erated from runners in a previous study (Donohue et al., 2000) and used successfully in previous
outcome study using cross-country runners (Miller & Donohue, 2003). All participants rated each
self-statement on a 5-point likert scale and circled their top 12 statements from each list, which
was used to create their personalized self-talk scripts, For the motivational statements, participants
used a likert scale from “1” (not at all motivating) to “5” (extremely motivating). For the instruc-
tional statements participants used a likert scale from “1” (not helpful) to “5” (extremely helpful)

Experimental conditions.
Matching procedures were used to assign participants to condition based on their mile baseline
run. That is, runners with the top six mile-run times (lowest times) were assigned to each of
the six experimental conditions. Then the runner with the 7th fastest time was assigned to the
same group as the runner with the 6th fastest time, the 8th fastest time with the 5th fastest time
until the 12th fastest time was assigned the same group as the 1st fastest time. This procedure
was followed until all runners were assigned a group. In addition, after this matching based on
running times, runners were yoked based on their choices of motivational and instructional
self-talk statements. Specifically, because one condition was whether the self-statements were
chosen or assigned, it was important to yoke the assigned participants to the free choice partici-
pants. In essence, yoking was employed because participants in the assigned conditions needed to
listen to the same statements as participants in the free choice condition so that the specific self-
 International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 127

statements were the same across assigned versus free choice conditions. Therefore, for example, a
runner in the instructional assigned condition would be listening to the same instructional state-
ments as his/her “yoked” runner in the free choice condition (the only difference being if they
were assigned or self-selected). These procedures created six individual conditions (with 13 or
14 runners in each condition) including (a) motivational statements/chosen, (b) motivational
statements/assigned, (c) instructional statements/chosen, (d) instructional statements/assigned,
(e) instructional plus motivational statements/chosen, and (f) instructional plus motivational
statements/assigned.
During the week (approximately) between the runners’ pre-test and post-test time-trial one
mile runs, personalized scripts were recorded onto compact discs (in the voice of the exper-
imenter). To create these individualized scripts of motivational, instructional or motivational
plus instructional self-statements, the experimenter employed the top 12 self-statements (instruc-
tional and motivational) originally selected by each runner. These same statements were then
placed on a compact disc for the runner choosing these statements as well as his/her yoked
counterpart. The compact discs were approximately three-minutes in length and included two
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

full cycles of the 12 chosen statements. Thus there were 24 statements included in each person-
alized compact disc with the instructional plus motivational group receiving 12 instructional and
12 motivational statements. In addition the combined group alternated between instructional and
motivational statements. Three minutes was selected for the duration of the compact disc based on
recommendations from cross-country runners in a previous study that evaluated a similar inter-
vention (Miller & Donohue., 2003).

Post-intervention trial run

The post-test was given approximately one-week after the pre-test. In discussing this with
coaches, they suggested that a one-week period would generally not be enough time to show
any significant changes in running performance for these high-caliber runners. In addition,
coaches noted that training loads were similar for both one-mile run tests. In essence, changes
could be attributed to the intervention and not the passage of time. In addition, it was desired
that the pre-test and post-test be conducted under similar weather condition so as to eliminate
weather/temperature as a variable. Therefore, the exact post-test date was chosen as close to
one week after the pretest as possible that was within five degrees. As a result, the post-test
was conducted on the average of eight days after the pre-rest. Again, runners ran by themselves
to avoid any competition effects.
On the post-test day, all runners were told to engage in their normal stretching activities and
routines (similar to the pre-test). Like in the pre-test, they all knew that they were going to run a
mile race. All runners were then provided with their compact discs (they all had headphones that
they could use to listen to the compact disc) and instructed to listen to them (away from other
runners) approximately five-minutes prior to the post-test. There was no instruction for runners
to use these self-statements during their actual run although they certainly could do so if they
desired. In essence, these self-statements were primarily meant to be a mental preparation tech-
nique (in the form of positive motivational and/or instructional self-talk) rather than a technique
to be used during the run. When distributing the headphones to the runners the researcher noted
quietly to each individual which group he or she were assigned. In particular, they were told what
type of self-talk they would be listening to (instructional, motivational, combination) as well as if
the self-statements were self-selected or selected by the coach. In reality, the coach did not select
the statements. This deception was necessary to provide greater external validity to the study
because in real-life situations, it would most likely be the coach who selected the self-statements
for the runners (if they were not self-selected). All runners were thoroughly debriefed about this
 128 R. Weinberg et al.

necessary deception. Similar to the pre-test, coaches timed these runs and encouraged their
runners to try as hard as possible.
After completing their post-test mile-run, all runners completed a post-experimental question-
naire which assessed their reactions to the intervention and helped provide information regarding
their perceptions of the effectiveness of the intervention. This information would also be useful in
the design of future self-talk studies. The questions focused on such things as (a) how much they
felt their respective intervention helped their performance, (b) how much they enjoyed their
respective intervention, (c) how hard they tried on the two runs, (d) their top three motivational
and instructional self-statements, and (e) the likelihood they would continue using such as inter-
vention in the future.

Results
Performance
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

To investigate any between group differences in regard to type of self-talk or the self-determined
nature of the self-talk, a 3 × 2 × 2 (Type of Self-Talk × Assigned/Self-Set × Trials) mixed
model ANOVA was conducted, with repeated measures on the last factor. The dependent variable
for this analysis was mile time. Results revealed a non-significant three-way interaction effect
(Type of Self-Talk × Assigned/Self-Set × Trials), F(2, 75) ¼ 2.86, p ¼ .06, h2 ¼ .07, as well
as non-significant two-way interaction effects for Type of Self-Talk by Trials, F(2, 75) ¼ .02,
p ¼ .98, h2 ¼ .00, Assigned/Self-Set by Trials, F(1, 75) ¼ 2.18, p ¼ .14, h2 ¼ .03, and Type
of Self-Talk by Assigned/Self-Set, F(2, 75) ¼ .02, p ¼ .98, h2 ¼ .00. Non-significant main
effects were also found for Type of Self-Talk, F (2, 75) ¼ .00, p ¼ .99, h2 ¼ .00, and for
Assigned/Self-Set, F(1, 75) ¼ .01, p ¼ .93, h2 ¼ .00. However, a significant main effect was
found for trials, F(1, 75) ¼ 44.67, p , .00, h2 ¼ .37. Follow-up examination of the means cor-
responding to the significant trials main effect indicated that study participants’ performance
times on the mile run improved from pre-test (M ¼ 5 min 32 sec; SD ¼ 52 sec) to post-test
(M ¼ 5 min 25 sec; SD ¼ 48 sec). Thus, this group of runners exhibited significant improvement
in their performance from baseline to post-intervention. However, these changes were not found
to vary as a function of the type of self-talk they were assigned to use or to the self-determined
nature of their self-talk. Neither did these two experimental conditions interact with each other or
with trials to affect runners’ performance times.
However, the main purpose of the present investigation was to assess the combined effects of
the type of self-talk and the self-determined nature of the self-talk on runners’ performance. This
set of conditions resulted in a 6 × 2 (Combined Conditions × Trials) study design. To assess
these effects, a 6 × 2 mixed model ANOVA was conducted, with repeated measures on the
second (trials) factor. The dependent variable was mile time. The results of this analysis revealed
a non-significant main effect for Combined Conditions, F(5, 75) ¼ .01, p ¼ .99, h2 ¼ .00. Once
again, a significant trial main effect was found, F(1, 75) ¼ 44.67, p , .00, h2 ¼ .37. However,
this significant main effect was superseded by a significant combined condition by trials inter-
action effect, F(5, 75) ¼ 2.24, p ¼ .05, h2 ¼ .13. As a follow-up to this significant interaction
effect, a series of post-hoc paired samples (dependent) t-tests were conducted to examine perform-
ance changes from pre- to post-intervention for each of the six groups separately. An alpha level
of .01 was set to reduce the probability of Type I error.
The results of these analyses, presented in Table 1, indicate that three of the six groups showed
significant performance improvement from baseline to post-intervention. Specifically, the com-
bined (motivational and instructional) self-set group exhibited a 10-second performance improve-
ment (p , .01), with a calculated effect size (d ¼ 1.07) that is classified as very large (Cohen,
 International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 129

Table 1. Post-hoc dependent t-test results for each experimental group.

Baseline mile run Post-intervention mile run t-value Cohen’s
Experimental group (min/sec) M (SD) (min/sec) M (SD) (df) d
Combined motivational/ 5:31 (55) 5:21 (48) 4.00 (13)∗ 1.07
instructional self-set
Combined motivational/ 5:31 (60) 5:29 (60) 1.36 (13) .36
instructional assigned
Motivational self-set 5:31 (57) 5:24 (49) 2.87 (12)∗ .80
Motivational assigned 5:32 (49) 5:27 (46) 2.39 (13) .64
Instructional self-set 5:32 (52) 5:27 (47) 2.23 (12) .62
Instructional assigned 5:32 (48) 5:24 (45) 3.03 (12)∗ .84
Note: p ≤ .01.

Table 2. Post-experimental questionnaire results.

Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

Perceived Perceived
improvement∗ satisfaction∗ Likelihood of
Experimental group M (SD) M (SD) continued use∗∗ Effort∗∗∗
Combined motivational/ 3.29 (.18) 3.50 (.19) 2.57 (.31) 3.71 (.62)
instructional self-set
Combined motivational/ 3.36 (.18) 3.21 (.19) 2.57 (.31) 3.79 (.70)
instructional assigned
Motivational self-set 3.31 (.18) 3.23 (.19) 2.92 (.32) 3.92 (.64)
Motivational assigned 3.21 (.18) 3.29 (.19) 2.57 (.31) 3.86 (.66)
Instructional self-set 3.31 (.18) 3.38 (.19) 2.85 (.32) 3.69 (.63)
Instructional assigned 3.31 (.18) 3.31 (.19) 3.31 (.32) 3.77 (73)
Note: 1 to 5 Scale (1 ¼ not much; 3 ¼ somewhat; 5 ¼ very much).
∗∗
1 to 5 Scale (1 ¼ not likely; 3 ¼ maybe; 5 ¼ extremely likely).
∗∗∗
1 to 5 Scale (1 ¼ not hard/fast at all; 3 ¼ somewhat hard/fast; 5 ¼ extremely hard/fast).

1988). The other two groups showing significant improvement were the motivational self-set (7-
second improvement) and the instructional assigned (8-second improvement) groups. Both
groups exhibited significant (p ≤ .01) change from baseline to post-intervention with large
effect sizes (see last column in Table 1). The remaining three groups also showed performance
improvement (ranging from 2 to 5 seconds), but these changes were not significant at p ≤ .01.
However, the effect sizes for two of the three groups, the motivational assigned and the instruc-
tional self-set, were in the medium category. Given the magnitude of the effect sizes, the lowered
alpha level (p , .01), and the relatively small cell sizes (n ¼14 and n ¼ 13), statistical power was
not high. Specifically, observed power for the three non-significant effects ranged from .24 to .60,
values that are considerably lower than the recommended standard of .80 (Cohen, 1965, 1988).

Post-experimental questionnaire
In previous laboratory research, it has been suggested that one way in which self-talk can enhance
performance is through increased effort (Theodorakis et al., 2000). Thus, to determine if they tried
hard in their runs, runners were asked how much effort they expended. Results revealed that they
had tried pretty hard with a mean of 3.8 on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1” (not tried
hard) to “3” (tried somewhat hard) to “5” (tried extremely hard). In addition there were no sig-
nificant differences among the six conditions in their amount of effort. To determine if the groups
 130 R. Weinberg et al.

differed on their reactions to the six different conditions, three additional questions were asked.
These included, “their perceived improvement in running performance,” “personal satisfaction
with their intervention,” and “the likelihood they would continue using their respective technique
in future training and competition.” Results produced no significant between group differences.
Inspection of the means revealed an average mean score of 3.31 for perceived improvement
and 3.38 for satisfaction with the intervention both measured on a likert scale ranging from 1
“not much” to 5 “very much.” The mean value for the likelihood of continuing to use their inter-
vention in practice and/or competition was 3.12 on a 1 “not likely” to 5 “extremely likely” Likert
scale. Means and standard deviations for the post-experimental questionnaire are provided in
Table 2.

Discussion
The purposes of the present investigation were threefold: (a) to determine the effect of motiva-
tional, instructional and combined motivational and instructional self-statements on one-mile per-
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

formance of competitive NCAA distance runners, (b) to determine the effect of assigned versus
self-set statements on performance, and (c) to explore the additive effects of different combi-
nations of type self-talk and whether it was self-determined or not.
Before discussing the specific differences in the effectiveness of different types of self-talk, it
should be noted that overall, self-talk appeared to be helpful in enhancing performance in this
field experiment. Although some self-talk groups and combination of groups were significantly
better than other self-talk groups, in general self-talk was beneficial in helping performance.
Since most previous studies have been conducted in controlled laboratory situations using labora-
tory tasks (Hatzigeorgiadis 2006; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004, 2007, 2008), these results extend the
literature to demonstrate self-talk effectiveness in actual field settings using sport performance.
However, not all combination of self-talk groups exhibited increases in performance. Specifi-
cally, results from the six combined groups revealed that three of the groups exhibited significant
improvements in performance including combined motivational and instructional self-set group
(10 sec), motivational self-set group (7 sec), and instructional assigned group (8 sec). In addition,
although not statistically significant, two of the other three groups improved by 5 sec and one
improved by 2 sec. However, there appears to be no consistency in the type of combinations,
which produced the performance improvements. For example, the combined instructional and
motivational self-set group produced the most improvement whereas the combined instructional
and motivational assigned group produced the least improvement. Here it might seem that select-
ing the self-talk was more helpful to performance than being assigned self-talk. However, the
instructional assigned group improved more than the instructional self-set group so here assigning
the self-talk seems more effective.
After speaking with several collegiate cross-country coaches, they all indicated that an
improvement of two seconds or greater for the one-mile run within a one-week time frame (the
present study) was a meaningful performance improvement. So, although caution should be
applied due to the non-significant improvements of some of the groups, the implication of
these findings might be that using self-talk (whether it is self-selected or assigned) appears to
be helpful to improving performance. As noted previously, whether the self-statements were
assigned or self-selected, they both involved the runners identifying their favorite sayings and
then they either simply chose the ones they wanted or the coach (at least they thought it was
the coach) chose from their identified list. Thus, the critical variable might be to include the ath-
letes in the selection of the self-statements and whether the statements were instructional or moti-
vational might not be as important as having some meaningful statements. Future research should
experimentally investigate if indeed it is the athletes’ involvement that is most critical or if certain
 International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 131

types/combinations of self-talk for certain tasks are most effective regardless of the involvement
of the athlete.
Another way to approach the effectiveness of self-statements is through self-efficacy theory
(Bandura, 1997). Specifically, one of the major sources of self-efficacy is verbal persuasion,
which can come from another person or yourself. Of course, self-talk would be a form of
verbal persuasion, and as noted above, this verbal persuasion was very meaningful to the
runner. Previous research has revealed that increases in self-efficacy may be a viable reason for
explaining the facilitative effects of self-talk on performance (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2008).
Although not the focus of the present investigation, the effectiveness of the different self-talk con-
ditions in improving performance might be, in part, explained through the increases in self-effi-
cacy. More research specifically studying the relationship between self-talk, self-efficacy and
performance could shed some light on this issue.
Results of the present investigation were generally different compared to the relevant litera-
ture. Specifically, although the literature on self-talk is mostly based on laboratory strength and
fine motor tasks, this study employed an endurance task in the field.. Previous research has
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

shown that motivational and a combination of motivational and instructional self-talk was
most effective on strength/power tasks, although instructional self-talk was most effective on pre-
cision/fine motor tasks (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004; Theodorakis et al., 2000). However,
additional research has shown that both instructional and motivational self-statements were
effective for different types of tasks (Hatzigeorgiadis, 2006; Hatzigeorgiadis, et al., 2007;
Hatzigeorgiadis, et al., 2008). One study using an endurance task did not directly test different
types of self-statements. Rather, the study simply found that a combination of instructional and
motivational self-talk was no better than listening to music and both were better than a control
condition (Miller & Donohue, 2003). In the only study using an endurance task, Theodorakis
et al. (2000) compared instructional and motivational self-talk and found no differences It
appeared from debriefing with runners that they liked their intervention, regardless of the specific
type of self-talk it involved. Because, the present investigation had participants choose their own
self-statements or statements were chosen for them from self-statements participants liked the
best, it is possible that all the self-statements were especially meaningful to them. Future research
could further investigate the relationship between the type of self-talk and how individualized and
meaningful it is to the participant.
Results from the choice variable (self-set vs. assigned) also revealed no between group differ-
ences. This study was the first to investigate the self-determined nature of self-talk and its effect
on performance. Although there has not been a direct comparison as to whether assigned or freely
determined self-talk is most effective, it can be inferred from Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-Deter-
mination Theory that self-talk, freely determined by the athlete, might have the greatest motiva-
tional influence. This theory proposes that humans have an inherent drive to feel personally
competent and self-determinant and that individuals’ feeling of self-determination for their
actions is related to their perceptions of choice. Thus, self-self-talk chosen by athletes should
have positive effects on their levels of intrinsic motivation. However, when considered in
concert with Palmer’s (1992) suggestion that coaches should have an active role in the generation
of appropriate verbal cues (due to their greater level of expertise) application of Cognitive Evalu-
ation Theory would dictate that the development of the most effective verbal cues (i.e., self-talk)
should include a collaboration of the coach and the athlete. In fact, each runner selected the self-
selected statements, but the assigned self-statements were chosen by the coach from among a
number of statements that runners said they liked. Thus coaches were very involved (at least
in the eyes of the runners) but did not simply assign some statements; rather they assigned state-
ments from a list generated by athletes. This might have contributed to the lack of differences
between the free choice and assigned groups.
 132 R. Weinberg et al.

It should be noted that there was no control group in the present investigation. Specifically, the
purpose of the study was to directly compare the different combinations of instructional and moti-
vational self-statements and whether these self-statements were assigned or self-set. In addition,
coaches who were interviewed stated that one week between trials was not enough time to see any
significant changes in performance of a one-mile run. However, we still recommend control
groups for future studies as they provide more definitive conclusions regarding the effects of
the manipulated self-talk variables.

Limitations/future research
One interesting extension to the present investigation would be to determine in which part of the run
were the statements most important, or if some type of statements were more important than others at
different times during the race. For example, are instructional statements most important at the start of
a race to help reinforce proper running mechanics whereas motivational statements might be best
toward the end of a race when energy is draining and the runner is feeling tired? The present
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

study did not specifically ask runners to use their self-statements during the race or during different
parts of the race so this information would be useful, from a practical perspective. Another extension
to the present investigation would be the more extended use of these motivational self-statements.
Like many studies, this experiment was a one-time intervention so the runners received their self-
statements just a few minutes before actually running their one-mile race. Thus, runners could not
practice their self-statements or think about how and when to use them to their advantage.
However, even given this limitation, significant improvements were seen in one week that are
most likely attributable to the use of these self-statements. It would seem logical that if runners
had time to practice with these self-statements that even more improvements might be seen. Of
course this is an empirical question, which needs to be answered by further research.
Although participants were asked their use of the different strategies assigned to them, they
were not asked if they used additional strategies to the one(s) that were assigned. Specifically,
it is possible that participants in the instructional group also used motivational self-talk and par-
ticipants in the motivational self-talk group also used instructional cues. Given that compact discs
given participants were only 3-minutes long and that each participant had 12 self-statements
repeated twice (24 statements) or 24 different statements (instructional plus motivational
group), they did not have much time to think about using other statements. However, future
research should specifically assess the potential use of self-statements other than those provided.
In post-experimental debriefing several runners indicated that it would have been even more
effective to have the self-statements either in their own voice or in the voice of the coach. Given
the methodology employed in the present investigation, doing so was not possible. However,
future research might investigate the variable of who is delivering the self-talk (i.e., are certain
voices more powerful than other voices?). Hearing the statements in their own or coaches’
voice could even have them further identify with the self-talk and thus be more meaningful to
them. From an applied perspective, the use of CD’s or ipods to listen to self-statements prior
to running a race (or potentially other sports) offers coaches and athletes an opportunity to
enhance performance in a fairly simple manner. Of course the exact manner in which to do
this, which statements would be most effective, and how often should this be practiced to be
most effective remain questions to be answered by future research.

References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Cohen, J. (1965). Some statistical issues in psychological research. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of
clinical psychology (pp. 95 –121). New York: McGraw-Hill.
 International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 133

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behaviors sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dagrou, E., Gauvin, L., & Halliwell, W. (1992). Mental preparation of Ivory Coast athletes: Current practice
and research perspective. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 15 –34.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan., R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R.A. Dienstbier
(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation 1991 vol 38. Perspectives on motivation: Current theory and
research in motivation (pp. 237 –258). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press
Donohue, B., Barnhart, R., Covassin, T., Carpin, K., & Korb, E. (2000). The development and initial
evaluation of two promising mental preparatory methods in a sample of female cross-country
runners. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 2–12.
Gould, D., Greenleaf, C., & Krane, V. (2002). Arousal-anxiety and sport behavior. In T. Horn (Ed.),
Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 207– 241). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hamilton, R., Scott, D., & MacDougall, M. (2007). Assessing the effectiveness of self-talk interventions on
endurance performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 226–239.
Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: A critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 7, 81 –97.
Hardy, J., Hall, C., & Hardy, L. (2005). Quantifying athlete self-talk. Journal of Sport Sciences, 23,
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017

905 –917.
Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and
practice of elite performers. Chichester, UK: Jones, Wiley.
Harvey, D., Van Raalte, J., & Brewer, B. (2002). Relationship between self-talk and golf performance.
International Sports Journal, 6, 84 –91.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A. (2006). Instructional and motivational self-talk: An investigation on perceived self-talk
functions. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 3, 164–175.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Theodorakis, Y., & Zourbanos, N. (2004). Self-talk in the swimming pool: The effects
of ST on thought content and performance on water polo tasks. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16,
138 –150.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Goltsios, C., & Theodorakis, Y. (2008). Investigating the functions of
self-talk: The effects of motivational self-talk on self-efficacy and performance in young tennis
players. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 458– 471.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). The moderating effects of self-talk content on
self-talk functions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 240–251.
Johnson, J., Hrycaiko, D., Johnson, G., & Hallas, J. (2004). Self-talk and female youth soccer performance.
The Sport Psychologist, 18, 44–59.
Landers, D., & Arent, S. (2010). Arousal-performance relationships. In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport
psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (6th ed., pp. 221–246). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Landin, D., & Hebert, E. (1999). The influence of self-talk on performance of skilled female tennis players.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 263 –282.
Mahoney, M., & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory study. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 6, 135 –141.
Mallett, C., & Hanrahan, S. (1997). Race modeling: An effective strategy for the 100 m sprinter? The Sport
Psychologist, 11, 72 –85.
Miller, A., & Donohue, B. (2003). The development and controlled evaluation of athletic mental preparation
strategies in high school distance runners. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 321–334.
Ming, S., & Martin, L. (1996). Single-subject evaluation of ST package for improving Figure skating. The
Sport Psychologist, 10, 227– 238.
Palmer, S. (1992). A comparison of mental preparation techniques as applied to the developing competitive
figure skater. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 148 –155.
Perkos, S., Theodorakis, Y., & Chroni, S. (2002). Enhancing performance and skill acquisition in novice
basketball players with instructional self-talk. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 368–383.
Rushall, B. (1984). The content of competition thinking strategies. In W. Straub & J. Williams (Eds.),
Cognitive sport psychology (pp. 51–62). Lansing, NY: Sport Science.
Rushall, B., Hall, M., Roux, L., Sasserville, J., & Rushall, A. (1988). Effects of three types of thought content
instruction on skiing performance. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 283–297.
Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis, P., Douma, I., & Kazakas, P. (2000). The effects of motivational
versus instructional self-talk on improving sport performance. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 263– 272.
 134 R. Weinberg et al.

Vallerand, R., & Losier, G. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 142 –169.
Van Raalte, J., Brewer, B., Lewis, B., Linder, D., Wildman, G., & Kozimor, J. (1995). Cork: The
effects of positive and negative self-talk on dart performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 3,
50– 57.
Weinberg, R., Grove, R., & Jackson, A. (1992). Strategies for building self-efficacy in tennis players: A com-
parative analysis of Australian and American coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 3–13.
Downloaded by [Samia Hallage] at 13:42 03 August 2017