The seven components of the PETTLEP model. 

Context in source publication

Context 1

... with a remarkable array of studies tes- tifying to its efficacy in enhancing performance of a wide variety of motor skills (for a review, see Weinberg, 2008). Virtually all applied sport psychology textbooks and self-help books include information on imagery, and there are at least two textbooks focusing solely on imagery (Morris, Spittle, & Watt, 2005; Sheikh & Korn, 1994). Despite this apparent consensus that imagery is an important psychological skill, there has been little agreement in the sport psychology literature as to how imagery should be used. Additionally, research studies on this topic have spanned many areas, including sport psychology, mainstream psychology, cognitive psychology and neuro- science journals. As a result of this, it has often been challenging for applied sport psychology practitioners, coaches and athletes to make use of this information in their practical work. Realizing the need for a model based on solid theoretical and empirical foundations to help guide practitioners’ use of imagery, Holmes and Collins (2001, 2002) devised PETTLEP. This is an acronym representing a seven point checklist of guidelines to be followed when devising an imagery intervention. These are Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Learning, Emotion, and Perspective. The PETTLEP model is based on findings from sport psychology, cognitive psychology and neuro- science, and aims to provide practitioners with a set of practical guidelines to aid their imagery use. Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the PETTLEP approach and more traditional imagery methods is that imagery has often been thought of as something completely separate from physical practice. However, PETTLEP conceptualizes physical practice and imagery as being on a continuum, and posits that the closer towards the physical end of the continuum that imagery interventions lie, the more effective they are likely to be. For example, an intervention that involved an ice hockey player standing and assuming the correct position will be a closer representation of physical practice than imaging whilst lying down. Recently PETTLEP has been a hot topic in the applied sport psychology literature, with quite a few studies testing both the model as a whole, and its various tenets (e.g., Wakefield & Smith, 2009; Wright & Smith, 2007). As readers will see from our later sections, in its application the PETTLEP approach is radically different from traditional imagery interventions. These more traditional methods often include suggestions of adopting a comfortable position (Cabral & Crisfield, 1996) and minimizing distractions by being in a quiet room (Williams & Harris, 2001) before attempting to visualize the skill, namely an approach that is commonly used in the applied setting. These approaches may be useful as a transitional stage before progressing to PETTLEP imagery, but this is an area that warrants future research. Therefore, researchers have been particularly interested in comparing the efficacy of PETTLEP-based imagery with that of more traditional approaches. This research has mostly strongly supported the efficacy of PETTLEP imagery, and found it to be more effective than traditional, visualization-based methods (Smith, Wright, Allsopp, & Westhead, 2007). Similar findings have emerged with the long jump (Potter, Devonport, & Lane, 2005), golf (Smith, Wright, & Cantwell, 2008) and strength tasks (Wakefield & Smith, 2011; Wright & Smith, 2009). However, the original PETTLEP papers, and the research testing the model, are quite technical in nature and have been published in journals that are not very accessible to coaches and athletes. Therefore, despite the strong research support, the model is not widely known and used outside academia in our experience. For example, we are often asked at conferences where we present our PETTLEP research, for practical tips regarding its im- plementation. This, therefore, was the aim of the present article, namely to provide specific, research-based guidelines on how to apply the PETTLEP model for best effect, in a way that is accessible to those who need to apply the information (i.e. sport psychology consultants, coaches, and athletes). Each letter of the PETTLEP acronym represents an important issue to consider when implementing imagery interventions. The model was origi- nally designed to be used as a minimum checklist when designing imagery interventions (Holmes & Collins, 2001) and researchers have suggested that omitting certain elements may compromise performance facilitation (Ramsey, Cumming, Edwards, Williams, & Brunning, 2010). However, introducing all seven components at one time my be impractical and create overload for the athlete. Therefore, we suggest that practitioners focus on those elements pertinent to the athlete and incorporate as many of these as possible. The seven components will now be discussed in more detail, but for a summary of what each component relates to, please see Figure 1. The component “Physical” refers to the importance of making the imagery experience as physical as possible. Indeed, as noted above, Holmes and Collins (2001) conceptualize imagery as a quintessentially physical experience rather than a purely mental one. Put simply, sports skills are physical in nature and therefore imagery should be too. This physical approach to imagery interventions could include not only the obvious step of imagining the kinesthetic sensations felt when performing the skill, but also wearing the same clothes as when performing and holding any associated implements. For example, when attempting to improve the performance of a bicep curl task, Wright and Smith (2009) encouraged athletes to sit at the weight ma- chine and grasp the handles when completing their imagery. In our view, this is arguably the most crucial element of the PETTLEP model, and its importance is strongly supported by research (e.g., Smith, Holmes, Whitemore, Collins, & Devonport, 2001). Given the centrality of physical sensations to the sporting experience, such as the burning sensation of lactic acid in the muscle and the lungs gasping for air, it is clear that visualization-based imagery approaches that do not emphasize such feelings are not likely to provide a realistic imagery experience. It is well worth the practitioner spending time with individual athletes finding out which kinesthetic sensations are most relevant to them and incorporating these as much as possible. For example, if an athlete feels his or her heart pounding at a particular time point when completing a skill, this should be incorporated into the imagery (cf. Lang’s bio-informational theory of imagery; Lang, 1979, 1985). In our experience, practitioners would be making a grave error if they assume that everyone performing the same task experiences identical kinesthesis. We have been amazed in our research how much individuals vary in their perceptions of the physical responses, even with relatively small movements. The bio-informational theory (Lang, 1979; Lang, Kozak, Miller, & McLean, 1980) suggests that imagery ability is not a static trait, but rather it can be improved upon through a process known as response training. In this, athletes are trained to focus upon their physiological and behavioural responses to the scenario to be imaged and to incorporate these into the imagery. Therefore, where an athlete does not have very strong kinaesthetic perceptions, we would recommend the careful use of response training to enhance the vividness of his or her kinaesthetic imagery. The component “Environment” relates to the place where the imagery is performed. According to PETTLEP this should be as similar as possible to the performance environment; it would be ideal if the imagery could be performed in the competitive arena but of course during training this will not usually be practical. If it is not possible to perform imagery in an environment that is at least similar to the competitive one then video, audio and photographs could be used to assist the imagery experience. We have achieved great success in our PETTLEP interventions from having participants perform their imagery in the actual performance environment, such as hockey players imaging whilst stood on the hockey pitch, and gymnasts imaging whilst stood on the beam (Smith et al., 2007). Where this is not possible, improvisation can be extremely useful. For example, Smith, Wright and Cantwell (2008) had golfers image their bunker shots whilst stood in a tray of sand. Where such alternatives are not practical, video can be a useful alternative, such as in a recent study that found video-assisted imagery effective in enhancing strength performance (Wakefield & Smith, 2011). Here, participants completed their imagery of a bicep curl whilst watching a video of themselves executing the task. This served to control the timing of the movement and to ensure that the intervention was individualised and evocative to the participant. Researchers have also been advocating observation as a stand-alone strategy (Holmes & Calmels, 2008). Now that video footage is easily shot, stored and transported (e.g., portable DVD players, iPods and cellular phones) the use of such is easier than ever and future technological developments may make it easier still. The component “Task” emphasizes that the content of the imagery should be appropriate to the skill level and individual preferences of the athlete, particularly with regard to attentional focus. Konttinen, Lyytinen, and Konttinen (1995) found that elite and non-elite athletes focused their attention on different aspects of performance, strongly suggesting that the content of the imagery should be specific to the level of the performer. For example, elite tennis players may focus on the hip rotation during a task, whereas novice players may focus more on the more basic facets of the skill, such as looking at the racquet head. We have found it ...