Applied imagery:

Confidence & anxiety

13th October 2022

Research in Psychological Skills

1
 Next week’s seminar
• Groups of 5

• Pick one reading from the 5

– Create handout for group members

• Teach group members your readings

– 5 x 10min in seminar next week
– ***Everyone’s seminar will Thursday 12:00-
13:30 in the Main Hall, George Building***
2
 5 things to do …
1. Create a group of 5 (no more, no less!)
2. Tell me, via the Discussion board, who
is covering which study
– Name: Fred, Paper: title
3. Make your presentation / handout
4. Email your handout to rest of team
5. TURN UP!

3
 PAPER TO BE TAUGHT STUDENT’S NAME

1 WORDING OF SCRIPTS

Bakker et al JSEP ‘96

2 PERSPECTIVES

Hardy & Callow JSEP ‘99

3 INTERVENTION MODALITY

Smith & Holmes JSEP ‘04

4 PETTLEP IMAGERY

Holmes & Collins JASP 2001

5 DYNAMIC IMAGERY

Callow et al JIRSPA ‘06

4
 New material in lecture
• Multiple baseline designs

• Directional interpretation of anxiety

• Challenge / threat appraisals

5
 Readings
• Callow et al. (2001; RQES)

• Williams & Cumming (2012; SEPR)

6
 Learning objectives
• To understand how…

1. …Imagery can be used to assist

athletes’ confidence

2. …Imagery can be used to assist

athletes’ anxiety states

7
CAN IMAGERY AID SELF-
CONFIDENCE?

8
 Performance profile
Female rugby player recovering from injury
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tackle technique
Aerobic fitness
Speed
Agility
Confident
Aggressive
Concentration
Motivation
Support play
Turnover
9
Current At best
 Imagery & confidence
(Theory)
PREVIOUS
PREVIOUS
MASTERY
MASTERY
EXPERIENCE
EXPERIENCE
VICARIOUS
VICARIOUS
EXPERIENCE
EXPERIENCE SELF-
SELF-
EFFICACY
EFFICACY
VERBAL
VERBAL
PERSUASSION
PERSUASSION

EMOTIONAL
EMOTIONAL
STATES
STATES
Bandura, 1997
10
 Imagery & confidence
(Theory)
PREVIOUS
PREVIOUS
MASTERY
MASTERY
EXPERIENCE
EXPERIENCE
VICARIOUS
VICARIOUS
EXPERIENCE
EXPERIENCE SELF-
SELF-
EFFICACY
EFFICACY
VERBAL
VERBAL
PERSUASSION
PERSUASSION

EMOTIONAL
EMOTIONAL
STATES
STATES
Bandura, 1997
11
“Matching principle” (Marten et al., 1999)
Imagery
function Outcome

• CS •Learning & execution

of skills
• CG •Learning & execution
of strategies

• MS •Focus on goals (types)

• MG-M •Inc. confidence &

mental roughness
• MG-A
•Reg. arousal & anxiety12
 Imagery & confidence
(Research)
• Imagery differences between high &
low confident athletes

• High confident skaters used more MG-

M & MG-A

• MG-M predicted 20% of confidence’s

variance (Moritz et al., 1996)
13
 Research (cont.)
• County Netballers (Callow & Hardy, 2001; JASP)
• Lower skill; MG-M & CG pos. predicted
confidence
• Higher skill; MS (only) pos. predicted
confidence

Skill level may …

moderate function  outcome relationship

• BUT … all correlational designs! 14

 Imagery interventions
• Confidence increases NOT evident for
novice performers (e.g., Nordin & Cumming,
2005; TSP)
– No difference between CS & MG-M
interventions

• Lack of external validity

• Real athletes in their environment

lengthy intervention period
15
 Real athletes
• 4 junior county standard Badminton
players (Callow, Hardy, & Hall, 2001; RQES)
– 21 week long study
– MG-M imagery
– Confidence assessed before each match

• WHAT DID THEY FIND???

16
 Interpretation of SCED data

1. Lack of overlapping data points b/w pre- and post-

intervention phases
2. Immediacy of an effect following intervention
3. Size of an effect after intervention
4. No. of times that effects replicated across
participants
Exercise 1

18
 Real athletes
• 4 junior county standard Badminton
players (Callow, Hardy, & Hall, 2001; RQES)
– 21 wk long study
– MG-M imagery
– Confidence assessed b4 each match

• Adv. points; kineasthetic & confidence?

– See Callow & Waters (2005;PSE)
– Skill level and kin.???
19
HOW IS IMAGERY RELATED
TO ANXIETY?

20
 The situation …
• You are working with an athlete has
recently been experiencing high state
anxiety levels.

• What would you suggest that he/she

does and why?
• What function is most closely related to
anxiety?
• What do you know about what state
anxiety is and its effects?
21
TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO
VIEWING ANXIETY

22
Anxiety Intensity Perspective

Hardy’s Catastrophe Model 23

 Relaxation matching
• General principle
– Match relax strategy to the most troublesome
type of anxiety

• Support for this “matching hypothesis”

– E.g., Field hockey, 2 types of interventions
(Maynard & Cotton, 1993)
– Physical relax;↓33% som,↓14% cog, 22% SC

• Crossover effects 24
 Remember…
1. Relaxation strategy should match the
type of anxiety experienced
– IF somatic anxiety then will cognitive forms
of relaxation (e.g., imagery) be optimal?
2. Only use modified forms of strategies in
competition

25
Exercise 2

26
 Anxiety intensity &
elite athletes
• No difference between elite and non-elite
– Swimmers (Jones et al., 1994)
– Cricketers (Jones & Swain, 1995)

• But…international > national on relax

strategies
– TOPS (Thomas et al., 1999)

27
 Video clip

• Implication: CSAI-2 is limited

28
 AN INTERPRETATION
PERSPECTIVE OF ANXIETY

29
 Video clip

• Implication: CSAI-2 is limited

#2 Interpretation of anxiety symptoms

• Mahoney & Avener (1977)
– Not CSAI-2
• Using CSAI-2D
– Elite athletes score higher (more likely to be
“facilitators”) than non-elite (Jones et al., 1994;
Perry & Williams, 1998)
30
 Altering interpretation
• Football penalty kick situation (Hale &
Whitehouse, 1998; TSP)

• Video-based imagery lab. intervention

• Challenge vs. pressure situations

• Challenge = less intense and more

facilitative interpretation of anxiety
symptoms
31
 Why or how?
Jones (1995) offers insight into
interpretation of symptoms
Stressor

Control?

Yes No

Facilitative Debilitative 32
CHALLENGE AND THREAT
APPRAISALS

33
 Challenge vs. threat appraisal
• Challenge appraisal linked to better
performance (Blascovich & Menders, 2000)
• Resource appraisals of stressful events:
include self-efficacy, perceived control &
goal orientations  C or T appraisal

• Imagery able to alter (hypothetical)

appraisals? (Williams et al., 2010; JSEP)
• Repeated measures design
– Image previous competition setting
34
– Neutral vs. challenge vs. threat
 Challenge vs. threat scripts
• You have the confidence in your own ability to
perform
• Demonstrating your sporting competence
• There is a real potential to achieve everything

• You cast doubts about your own ability to

perform
• Concern about revealing your weaknesses
• There is a real potential to lose everything

35
Stress response & appraisal

36
Williams et al., 2010; JSEP
 Stress response & appraisal
• Significant differences in perception
– Intensity of anxiety & interpretation

37
 Appraisal of real events …
• Pre-dart throwing imagery
– 2 imagery groups: training to personalise
scenes
• Challenge group:
– Perceived control +
– Anxiety intensity 0; som anx direction 0
– Cognitive anxiety direction +
– Performance 0

• Williams & Cumming (2012; SEPR) – nice

38
study worth reading
 SUMMARY
• MG-M … confidence
• Anxiety/relaxation matching principle too
• Tailor the intervention into sport setting
• More to anxiety than intensity
• Use of MG-A: shape response
propositions re. challenge appraisal
– Perceived control
– Self-efficacy
– Approach goals
39