Content uploaded by Brian Hemmings
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brian Hemmings on Oct 24, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 19: 93–104, 2007
Copyright © Association for Applied Sport Psychology
ISSN: 1041-3200 print / 1533-1571 online
DOI: 10.1080/10413200601102912
Elite and Novice Athletes’ Imagery Use in Open
and Closed Sports
MONNA ARVINEN-BARROW,DANIEL A. WEIGAND,SCOTT THOMAS,
BRIAN HEMMINGS,AND MALCOLM WALLEY
University of Northampton
Very little research has investigated differences in imagery use between open- and closed-skill
sports. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of competitive level (elite/novice)
and skill-type (open/closed) on athletes’ imagery use. A total of 83 British athletes (39 elite,
44 novice) from open- (n=40: 23 rugby; 17 martial arts) and closed-skill (n=43: 28 golf; 15
figure skating) sports completed the Sport Imagery Questionnaire no more than 24 hours prior
to competition. MANOVA revealed that main effects due to competitive level and skill-type
were significant ( p<.05). Univariate analyses revealed that elite athletes used more CS and
CG imagery than novices (p<.001), and contrary to previous research findings, athletes in
open-skilled sports used more MG-A imagery than those in closed-skill sports ( p<.001).
Overall, MG-M was the most used imagery type, regardless of competitive level and skill-type.
The results are discussed in terms of methodological difficulties, future research, and practical
implications.
Mental imagery has been recognized as an important tool in improving athletic performance
(Hall, 2001). Many of the world’s highest-level athletes report using imagery in the hope of
improving their routines and they have attributed at least some of their success to mental
imagery (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996). Furthermore, Hardy et al. noted that imagining perfect
executions of a particular skill might very well augment the activation of relevant motor
programs needed for that particular skill.
Paivio (1985) proposed an analytical framework describing the functions of imagery,
through which the problem of when and why imagery works could be addressed. He suggested
that mental imagery might influence behavior on a general or a specific level through both
cognitive (e.g., skill and strategy rehearsal) and motivational (e.g., self-confidence, arousal,
goal-setting) mechanisms. Drawing from Paivio’s work and other existing literature on imagery,
Hall, Mack, Paivio, and Hausenblas (1998) conducted a series of investigations and concluded
that imagery serves five main functions: (a) cognitive specific (CS; e.g., specific sport skills),
(b) cognitive general (CG; e.g., strategies related to a competitive event), (c) motivational
specific (MS; e.g., specific goals and goal-oriented behavior), (d) motivational general-arousal
Received 17 September 2004; accepted 11 October 2005.
This investigation is based on Scott Thomas’ undergraduate honors Dissertation under the supervi-
sion of Dr. Weigand, Dr. Hemmings, and Dr. Walley and preliminary data was presented at the annual
conference of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI, 2004.
Address correspondence to Daniel A. Weigand, Ph.D., Achieve Acumen, Inc., Fort Myers, FL 33901.
E-mail: DAW@AchieveAcumen.com
93
94 M. ARVINEN-BARROW ET AL.
(MG-A; e.g., feelings of relaxation, stress, anxiety, and arousal), and (e) motivational general-
mastery (MG-M; e.g., self-confidence, effective coping, mental toughness, focus, and control).
As a result, Hall et al. (1998) developed a general Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ), which
can be seen as a useful tool in examining athletes’ imagery use.
Since the development of the questionnaire, the majority of existing published studies have
used the SIQ to measure athletes’ imagery use (e.g., Beauchamp, Bray, & Albinson, 2002;
Callow & Hardy, 2001; Cumming & Hall, 2002a; Munroe, Hall, Simms, & Weinberg, 1998).
The findings from these studies suggest that numerous factors such as competitive level, type
of sport, time of season, and gender affect athletes’ imagery use.
Research appears to suggest that elite, high-level, and successful athletes use significantly
more imagery than their novice, lower-level, and less successful counterparts (e.g., Callow
& Hardy, 2001; Cumming & Hall, 2002a, 2002b). For example, Cumming and Hall (2002a)
found that skilled athletes used more imagery than less skilled athletes. Specifically, they
revealed that during the off-season, no significant differences in athletes’ imagery use were
found between provincial and national level athletes, but both provincial and national athletes
used all five imagery types more than regional athletes. Vealey and Greenleaf (1998) suggested
that elite athletes possess a clearer and more accurate image of what a specific skill should
look like, unlike novices who are just beginning to form a mental representation of the skill
inside their minds. Other researchers have suggested that the greater use of imagery by elite
performers reflects a greater commitment to their sport (Hall, 2001). This seems to provide
evidence that elite athletes will use all five imagery subscales significantly more than non-elite
athletes. Although research findings seem clear-cut with regard to competitive level, Highlen
and Bennett (1979, 1983) suggested that the elite/novice classification might be too simplistic
and therefore more research is required to fully understand this phenomenon.
In addition, Hall et al. (1998) suggested that in general, athletes in team sports use more
imagery than those in individual sports. Their findings suggested that athletes in team sports
reported using more MS and MG-M imagery than athletes in individual sports. In contrast,
Hall, Rodgers, and Barr (1990) found that some individual sports (e.g., figure skating and
gymnastics) use a lot of imagery. Munroe et al. (1998) failed to find a systematic difference
in imagery use between team and individual sports, but did show that some individual sports
(e.g., fencing) use very little imagery compared to some team sports such as rugby and field
hockey. These inconsistent findings are not unexpected, as it has been recognized that sports
can be classified in various ways (e.g., team vs. individual, gross vs. fine, and open vs. closed
skilled; Hall, 2001; Munroe et al., 1998).
The focus of the current study concerns whether athletes in open- and closed-skill sports
utilize imagery differently. Sports such as rugby and hockey usually involve open-skills because
the environment is constantly changing and movements have to be continually adapted. These
skills are predominantly perceptual (Knapp, 2002) and externally paced, such as a pass in
soccer. On the other hand, closed skills take place in a static environment and athletes’ success
depends on the consistency of their skill execution. Closed skills tend to be self-paced, requiring
concentration in a relatively unchanging environment (Lerner, Ostrow, Yura, & Etzel, 1996),
such as a golf-swing and freestyle elements in figure skating. It is important to note that
these open- and closed-skills appear on a continuum, with some open skills requiring more
interaction than others, and some closed skills requiring more self-pacing than others (Knapp,
2002).
Investigations following this line of research are sparse and the reasons for this lack of
contemporary study are unknown. Martin, Moritz, and Hall (1999) provided an applied mental
imagery model, which includes a multitude of imagery variables for consideration, such as
skill learning and performance, cognitive modification, and arousal regulation. However, the
IMAGERY IN OPEN AND CLOSED SPORTS 95
sport-type (e.g., open vs. closed) variable was excluded from the model due to insufficient
evidence to warrant its inclusion. The current study should provide evidence that sport type,
in particular the open- vs. closed-skill dichotomy, is worthy of including in a revised version
of Martin et al.’s (1999) model of mental imagery.
Highlen and Bennett (1979) claimed that finding a dichotomy betweenopen- and closed-skill
sport would be “. . . more productive than searching for common psychological denominators
across all sport, or conversely developing a unique psychology for each sport” (p. 137). They
also hypothesized that a closed-skill sport athlete (e.g., gymnastics) would be more likely to
use imagery than an open-skill sport athlete (e.g., wrestling). This prediction was based on
the belief that closed-skill sport athletes can more easily imagine their set routines, unlike
open-skill sport athletes whose style, game plan, and tactics change depending on each move
made by their opponents. However, Highlen and Bennett (1983) compared elite wrestlers
and divers (representing open- and closed-skill sports, respectively), and failed to find any
significant differences in their imagery use. Significant differences in self-talk, measures of
anxiety, quality of thoughts, and self-confidence were found between the two groups, sug-
gesting the need for further open- and closed-skill typology research (Highlen & Bennett,
1983).
It is important to consider reasons why Highlen and Bennett (1983) found no significant
differences between open- and closed-skill sport groups with regard to imagery use. First
and foremost, their study was conducted before any standardized, reliable measure had been
developed to independently measure the functions of imagery (e.g., the SIQ). Second, only
two small groups of participants (wrestlers and divers) were recruited for their study. (The
researchers themselves suggested further research involving a more diverse range of open- and
closed-skill sports.) Therefore, to produce more valid data, further research should consider
using a reliable measure, a larger range of open- and closed-skill sports, and a larger number
of participants.
The lack of research in this specific area of imagery means that it is necessary to extrapolate
findings from previous studies that did not directly investigate the dichotomy between open-
and closed-skill sports and athletes’ imagery use. White and Hardy (1998) collected qualita-
tive data regarding imagery use from slalom canoeists (open-skill) and gymnasts (closed-skill)
and found that in both sports, athletes used imagery as part of their training. However, ca-
noeists used imagery to become “psyched-up” (i.e., MG-A imagery), whereas gymnasts used
imagery mainly to rehearse skills and difficult moves in training and competition (i.e., CS
imagery). However, Vadocz, Hall, and Moritz (1997) found that elite roller skaters (closed-
skill) use a great deal of MG-A imagery to help control competitive state anxiety and increase
self-confidence. Rodgers, Hall, and Buckolz (1991) conducted a study that investigated the
use of imagery by figure skaters (a closed-skill sport). Before an imagery-training program
was implemented, it appeared that skaters in each experimental group (imagery, verbal, and
control) imagined themselves winning quite often and receiving medals (i.e., MS imagery)
as well as imagining the atmosphere of a competition (i.e., MG-A imagery). After a 16-week
imagery training intervention, which included the rehearsal of both cognitive and motiva-
tional imagery functions, the skaters in the imagery group improved their visual movement
imagery ability and demonstrated a number of changes in their use of imagery, such as an
improved ability to visualize and sense specific aspects of their skating routine (i.e., cogni-
tive imagery). Rodgers et al. (1991) concluded by claiming that figure skaters seem to use
imagery more than that of other athletes, but that the patterns of imagery use (i.e., their func-
tions) remain similar to athletes in other sports. Beauchamp et al. (2002) found that golfers
(closed-skill) used both motivational and cognitive imagery fairly similarly. Salmon, Hall,
and Haslam (1994) found that soccer players (an open-skill sport) used more imagery for
96 M. ARVINEN-BARROW ET AL.
motivational than cognitive purposes. These findings suggest that athletes in closed-skill sports
use more cognitive imagery functions (CS and CG) than athletes in open-skill sports. How-
ever, as the above findings are inconclusive, a need for more research investigating the use of
different types of imagery within and between open- and closed-skill sports can be seen as
appropriate.
Furthermore, few studies have examined the function of imagery in competitive situations.
However, especially with regards to CG imagery, Callow and Hardy (2001) believed that
sport-type is an important variable to examine. Although they did not specifically study open-
vs. closed-skill sport-type, they proposed that netball players (open-skill) would utilize CG
imagery to a larger extent than roller skaters (closed-skill). Case study reports have documented
the performance benefits of CG imagery for rehearsing pommel-horse routines in gymnastics
(Mace, Eastman, & Carroll, 1987), and artistic gymnast routines (White & Hardy, 1998). Due
to the nature of these skills the research seems to suggest that athletes in closed-skill sports
will use more CG imagery than those in open-skill sports. However, Fenker, and Lambiotte
(1987) found that football players (open-skill) are just as likely to use CG imagery to rehearse
plays, consequently suggesting that there may not be a significant difference in CG imagery
between the two groups.
In summary, not many studies have directly compared the imagery use of athletes in open-
and closed-skill sports. By using the SIQ, this study will directly compare the use of five
functions of imagery between open- and closed-skill sports. Highlen and Bennett (1983) hy-
pothesized that “imagery strategies would differentiate successful closed-skill athletes from
their less-successful counterparts, whereas no such difference would be found in open-skill
sports” (p. 391). As this proposition was published over twenty years ago, and very little re-
search into this area has been published since, the current study aims to extend existing imagery
literature concerning the difference in imagery use between novice and elite athletes in open-
and closed-skill sports. Finally, as only a few studies have assessed athletes’ imagery use in
competitive situations, the current study attempts to resolve this flaw by recruiting partici-
pants who were willing to complete the SIQ before a competitive event, as opposed to only in
training.
Existing literature suggests that elite and successful athletes use more imagery than less
successful and lower-level athletes (e.g., Cumming & Hall, 2002a; Hall, 2001). Thus, we
predicted that the elite athletes would use significantly more imagery than novices. Con-
sidering previous inconsistent findings, we tentatively predicted that the athletes in open-
skilled sports would use imagery differently than athletes in closed-skill sports. In addition,
the findings from previous studies (e.g., Cumming & Hall, 2002a; Hall et al., 1998) suggest
that MG-M imagery is the most used imagery type among athletes. Thus, we hypothesized
that all of the participants would use significantly more MG-M imagery than other imagery
types.
METHOD
Participants
A total of 100 British athletes were approached for this study. For final analysis, a total of
83 (40 male and 43 female, age R=11–58) athletes with complete data from open- (n=40;
23 rugby; 17 martial arts [judo =1, jujitsu =3, karate =1, kickboxing =10, tae kwondo =
2]) and closed-skill (n=43: 28 golf; 15 figure skating) sports were included. Of these, 39
were considered to be elite (county, academy, or above) and 44 were novice (recreational or
beginners).
IMAGERY IN OPEN AND CLOSED SPORTS 97
Measure
The Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ; Hall et al., 1998) was used to assess athletes’
imagery use. The SIQ is a 30-item self-report measure, using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (Rarely/Never)to7(Often), measuring five different types of imagery. Each subscale
consists of six items addressing each imagery type: cognitive specific (CS; e.g., specific sport
skills: “I can mentally make corrections to physical skills”), cognitive general (CG; e.g., play
strategies and competition routines: “I imagine alternative strategies in case my event/game
plan fails), motivational specific (MS; e.g., specific goals and outcomes: “I imagine myself
winning a medal”), motivational general-arousal (MG-A; e.g., stress, anxiety, and arousal
associated with performance: “I imagine the stress and anxiety associated with competition”),
and motivational general-mastery (MG-M; e.g., self-confidence, mental toughness, and focus:
“I imagine myself appearing self-confident in front of my opponents”). The SIQ has been
recognized as having acceptable internal consistencies for each of the imagery subscales (alpha
coefficient of 0.70 and above), and factor analyses have supported the questionnaire’s five-
factor structure (Hall et al., 1998). In addition, Hall et al. (1998) indicated that the instrument’s
inter-scale correlations have been shown to be low or moderate, which suggests that the different
functions of imagery use are independent but related.
Procedure
The participants were approached in one of two ways. A member of the research team ap-
proached participants directly after their regular training session, gave them brief oral instruc-
tions and provided them with the research materials (instructions, consent form, questionnaire,
and a pre-paid envelope). Other participants (elite golfers) received the materials from their
coaches. In such cases, the coaches were instructed on the appropriate administration of the
questionnaires. Informed consent for all of the participants was obtained according to univer-
sity regulations. In case of minors, both the participant and a parent/guardian were asked to give
consent. In addition, they were asked to note their age, gender, sport, and level of competition.
Participants completed the questionnaire no more than 24 hours prior to competition. The im-
portance of completing the questionnaire prior to competition was highlighted; however, it was
acknowledged that administration of a questionnaire before a competition may interfere with
an athlete’s mental preparation before an event (Beauchamp et al., 2002). As a consequence,
participants were advised not to participate in the research if they felt that it would interfere
with their mental preparation. The questionnaires were returned to the researchers via post
using a pre-paid envelope. As the participants were aware of the purpose of the study, no for-
mal debriefing was conducted. However, participants were given an opportunity for individual
debriefing either in person or through E-mail. All of the participants were assured that the data
were to be treated with confidentiality. Participants were given an opportunity to withdraw
their data at any time within one month of the completion of the study.
RESULTS
The descriptive statistics were calculated for each of the five SIQ subscales. Means and
standard deviations for the entire sample by competitive level (elite/novice) and skill-type
(open/closed) are presented in Table 1. The significance criterion was set at p<.05 and an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that participants used significantly different amounts
of the imagery strategies, F(4, 328) =16.372, p=.0001. Furthermore, Tukey HSD post hoc
tests revealed that athletes reported using MG-M imagery the most (M=5.23, SD =1.05),
followed by CS imagery (M=4.75, SD =1.23), MG-A imagery (M=4.51, SD =1.12),
98 M. ARVINEN-BARROW ET AL.
Tabl e 1
Means (SD) for SIQ Subscales by Competitive Level (Elite/Novice)and Skill-type
(Open/Closed)
Skill-type Competitive Level
Total Open Closed Elite Novice
Imagery (N=83) (n=40) (n=43) (n=39) (n=44)
CS 4.75 (1.23) 4.58 (1.25) 4.91 (1.21) 5.18 (1.15) 4.37 (1.19)
CG 4.46 (1.21) 4.47 (1.17) 4.46 (1.26) 4.94 (1.02) 4.05 (1.21)
MS 4.29 (1.37) 4.17 (1.32) 4.40 (1.42) 4.51 (1.36) 4.10 (1.36)
MG-A 4.51 (1.12) 4.93 (0.98) 4.11 (1.11) 4.67 (1.09) 4.36 (1.14)
MG-M 5.23 (1.05) 5.30 (1.05) 5.16 (1.06) 5.40 (1.01) 5.08 (1.08)
Total 4.65 (1.18) 4.69 (1.16) 4.61 (1.21) 4.94 (1.13) 4.39 (1.20)
Note: CS =cognitive specific; CG =cognitive general; MS =motivational specific; MG-A =motivational
general-arousal; MG-M =motivational general-mastery.
CG imagery (M=4.46, SD =1.21), and finally MS imagery (M=4.29, SD =1.37). As the
rating scale was from 1 (Rarely/Never)to7(Often), on average, the majority of the participants
scored well above the midpoint in all of the imagery subscales, indicating frequent imagery
use.
With the purpose of establishing whether competitive level and skill-type had an effect on
athletes’ imagery use, a within-participants multivariate analysis of variance (2 ×2 MANOVA)
was conducted, with competitive level (elite n=39/novice n=44) and skill-type (open n=
40/closed n=43) as the within-participants factors. The five imagery subscales generated
from the SIQ were the dependent variables.
Competitive Level
The results revealed that a significant multivariate effect was found for competitive level,
Wilks’s Lambda =.827, F(5, 75) =3.147, p=.012, n2=.173, with an observed power
of 85.6%. At the univariate level, significant effects due to competitive level were found for
CS imagery, F(1, 79) =9.491, p=.003, η2=.107, with an observed power of 86.1%; and
CG imagery, F(1, 79) =12.564, p=.001, η2=.137, with an observed power of 93.8%. No
significant effects were found for MS imagery, F(1, 79) =1.771, p=.187, η2=.022, with
an observed power of 26.0%; MG-A imagery, F(1, 79) =2.379, p=.127, η2=.029, with an
observed power of 33.2%; and MG-M imagery, F(1, 79) =1.957, p=.166, η2=.024, with
an observed power of 28.2%. These findings suggest that elite athletes used significantly more
CS and CG imagery than novice athletes; there were no significant differences in the use of
MS, MG-A, and MG-M imagery.
Skill-Type
The results revealed that a significant multivariate effect was found for skill-type, Wilks’s
Lambda =.703, F(5, 75) =6.334, p=.0001, η2=.297, with an observed power of 99.5%.
At the univariate level, significant effects due to skill-type were found for MG-A imagery, F(1,
79) =13.679, p=.0001, η2=.148, with an observed power of 95.5%. No significant effects
were found for CS imagery, F(1, 79) =1.448, p=.232, η2=.018, with an observed power
of 22.1%; CG imagery, F(1, 79) =.031, p=.860, η2=.000, with an observed power of
5.4%; MS imagery, F(1, 79) =.584, p=.447, η2=.007, with an observed power of 11.7%;
IMAGERY IN OPEN AND CLOSED SPORTS 99
and MG-M imagery, F(1, 79) =.462, p=.449, η2=.006, with an observed power of 10.3%.
These findings suggest that athletes in open-skill sports used significantly more MG-A imagery
than athletes in closed-skill sport; there were no significant differences in the use of CS, CG,
MS, and MG-M imagery.
Interactions
No significant multivariate (Wilks’s Lambda =.939, F(5, 75) =.972, p=.440, η2=.061,
with an observed power of 32.9%) or univariate ( p>.05) interactions between competitive
level and skill-type were found.
DISCUSSION
The first purpose of this study was to assess imagery use by elite and novice athletes.
As predicted, the overall effects of competitive level were statistically significant, indicating
greater imagery use by elite athletes than novices. However, univariate analyses revealed that
only differences in CS and CG imagery functions were statistically significant. The results from
the current study support previous findings (e.g., Callow & Hardy, 2001; Hall et al., 1990),
suggesting that competitive level is a factor affecting athletes’ imagery use.
The second purpose of this study was to assess the imagery use of athletes in open- and
closed-skill sports. As predicted, the overall effect due to skill-type was significant, indicating
different patterns to athletes’ imagery use in open- and closed-skill sports. It was revealed
that athletes in open-skilled sports used more MG-A and MG-M imagery, whereas athletes
in closed-skill sports scored higher on CS and MS imagery subscales. However, univariate
analyses revealed that the only statistically significant difference was found for MG-A imagery,
as athletes in open-skill sports used significantly more MG-A imagery than those in closed-
skill sports. These findings are in support of White and Hardy (1998) who found that slalom
canoeists (open-skill) used imagery mainly to become psyched-up (i.e., MG-A imagery). No
significant differences in CS, CG, MS, and MG-M imagery subscales were found.
The third purpose of this study was to examine the different functions of imagery used by
athletes. The results indicated that overall, athletes used all five functions of imagery quite
extensively (M≥4.29 in all SIQ subscales), and as predicted, MG-M was the most used
imagery type across the participants. These findings support previous studies (e.g., Cumming
& Hall, 2002a; Hall et al., 1998; Salmon et al., 1994), demonstrating that generally athletes
use imagery for maintaining or improving mental toughness, confidence, and positive attitude
prior to competition.
Considering these findings, as well as previous research, it appears that cognitive imagery
may be a useful strategy for elite performers. Specifically, it appears that elite athletes imagine
the processes involved in executing specific sport skills (CS imagery), as well as the strategies
and technical aspects of their sport (CG imagery), more so than less-elite athletes. Hall et al.
(1990) also reported greater imagery use among higher-level athletes than lower-level athletes.
They accounted for this by stating that elite athletes probably engage in more systematic
imagery training than novices. This may be, as Vealey and Greenleaf (1998) suggested, because
elite athletes have a clearer image of what an accurate skill should look like. Other researchers
suggested that the greater use of imagery by elite performers reflects a greater commitment to
their sport (Hall, 2001).
Martin et al. (1999) hypothesized that high-level athletes probablyemploy cognitive imagery
during phases when their training program involves learning new skills and strategies. The
current findings differ from the above as the data were collected no more than 24 hours prior
to competition, thus athletes were probably not engaging in learning new skills and strategies.
100 M. ARVINEN-BARROW ET AL.
Munroe et al. (1998) indicated that elite athletes may also use CS imagery to help them to
remain focused on a forthcoming competition and to enhance the performance of well-learned
skills and strategies. Therefore, it appears that elite athletes may use cognitive imagery during
training as well as just prior to competition.
A major difficulty in examining the effects of competitive level is dividing athletes of dif-
ferent standards into two categories, as some athletes may not explicitly “fit” into either elite
or novice standard. To amend this problem, future research should consider using more than
two competitive level groups, like Cumming and Hall (2002a) and Cumming, Hall, Harwood,
and Gammage (2002) did (they collected data from participants who competed at one of three
different competitive levels: regional, provincial, and national). Furthermore, athletes placed
in the elite group should be of an elite standard to the highest degree possible. Similarly,
novices should either be completely unskilled athletes at a particular sport, or simply recre-
ational athletes; either way, the distinction should be made clearer and more specific in future
research.
As no significant differences in CS, CG, MS, and MG-M imagery between open- and closed-
skill sports were found, the present findings mostly support the results of Highlen and Bennett
(1983). The findings of the current study also support other existing studies (e.g., Beauchamp
et al., 2002) as all athletes regardless of skill-type used all the cognitive and motivational
imagery functions extensively. A trend that athletes in closed-skill sports use predominantly
more imagery on the specific level than athletes in open-skilled sports is intriguing. Ath-
letes in closed-skill sports tend to use more imagery to rehearse specific sporting skills such
as a golf-putt and elements in figure skating (CS), and to imagine specific goals and goal-
oriented behavior such as winning a medal (MS), whereas athletes in closed-skill sports used
more imagery to regulate stress and arousal levels (MG-A), and for focus and self-confidence
(MG-M).
This trend may be due to several factors. Most closed-skill sports are individual sports
(e.g., figure skating), and require discrete, fine (Hall, 2001), and technically more demanding
skills (Gammage, Hall, & Rodgers, 2000), thus providing an ideal opportunity (and need) to
image before each attempt. In contrast, most open-skilled sports (e.g., rugby) are fast paced,
require gross motor skills (Hall, 2001), and are technically less demanding (Gammage et al.,
2000), thus providing less opportunity (and need) for imagery use (Hall, 2001). In addition,
in closed-skill sports the performance outcome is more in the athletes’ own control whereas
in open-skilled sports the performance outcome depends on the team as a whole, thus the
use of MS imagery may well be dissimilar. For example, Rodgers et al. (1991) reported that
figure skaters (closed-skill) used MS imagery quite extensively, whereas among a wide range
of open-skill sports (e.g., badminton, basketball, and rugby), MS was the least used imagery
type (Munroe et al., 1998). As sports can be classified in various ways (e.g., open vs. closed,
team vs. individual, gross vs. fine skilled), the current study supports the sentiment that the
relationship between sport classifications and imagery is worthy of more investigation (Hall,
2001).
On the other hand, some open-skilled sports such as martial arts, also require specific,
controlled bodily movements. Jones, Mace, and Stockbridge (1997) defined such sports as
kinaesthetic sports and state that these types of sports are characteristically played by athletes
that use kinaesthetic imagery (Jones et al., 1997). The existing research suggests that kinaes-
thetic imagers have been found to use more imagery in general than athletes who use more
visually based imagery. In particular, Vadocz et al. (1997) found that kinaesthetic imagers
reported using more MG-A imagery than visual imagers. The present research offers support
this proclamation, as the current findings are similar. However, it is speculative to assume
that the martial artists were using kinaesthetic imagery without administering a questionnaire
IMAGERY IN OPEN AND CLOSED SPORTS 101
to measure this variable. Therefore, as well as administering the SIQ to measure imagery
function, future research may wish to distribute the Movement Imagery Questionnaire (Hall
& Pongrac, 1983), which measures the type of imagery perspective that an athlete can take
(visual or kinaesthetic).
The finding that athletes in open-skill sports use significantly more MG-A imagery than ath-
letes in closed-skill sports is in support of White and Hardy (1998) who found slalom canoeists
(an open-skill) to use MG-A imagery to psych themselves up before a race. The current study
supports this with the finding that athletes in closed-skill sport use significantly less MG-A
imagery than athletes in open-skill sports. However, it is more likely that this finding simply
highlights the differences in types of arousal imagery used between certain sports. Slalom
canoeists, and other such sports, use MG-A imagery to psych themselves up. Gymnasts and
figure skaters, on the other hand, may use arousal imagery to calm themselves before an event,
which may not be adequately measured by the SIQ. The finding that MG-A imagery is used
significantly more by athletes in open-skill sports than athletes in closed-skill sports must be
explained. Open-skill sports have a constantly changing environment, so movements have to be
continually adapted (Knapp, 2002). This “environmental unpredictability” causes us to require
great concentration on a task and may account for an increase in arousal. Heightened levels
of arousal might be transferred (either consciously or unconsciously) to our imagery, thus
explaining the higher MG-A imagery in athletes in open-skill sports. This explanation hinges
on the assumption that concentration causes heightened arousal, which may be adequate in
explaining why athletes in open-skills use more MG-A imagery, but may not be adequate in ex-
plaining why closed-skill athletes use less MG-A imagery. This is because closed skills require
as much, and often more concentration, which would cause greater arousal if this hypothesis
were correct. Consequently, future research should be performed to further understand this and
any other differences between and within open- and closed-skills that may occur. For example,
in response to suggestions made by Highlen and Bennett (1983), the current study chose to use
golf and figure skating as its closed-skill sports. However, there are a few important differences
between these two closed-skill sports. For example, a golf swing takes a matter of seconds,
whereas a figure skating routine can take up to several minutes to complete. Furthermore, a
golf swing is less physically demanding than a figure skating routine. It is because of these
differences within closed-sport skills that may constitute for a lack of significant difference in
all imagery subscales between open- and closed-skill sports.
The current study has attempted to specifically observe differences in imagery use between
open- and closed-skill sports. Therefore, the inclusion of a team sport in the open-skill group
may have acted as a confounding variable. Although most team sports predominantly involve
open-skills, the inclusion of a team sport suggests the study examines differences in team
vs. individual sports as well as open- vs. closed-skill sports, therefore manipulating more
than one variable at a time. Thus, future research may wish to avoid using team sports to
represent open-skill sports or include team sports to represent closed skills in order to control
for these confounding variables. On a similar theme, the current study looked at four sports that
include both fine and gross motor skills, which again may confound data in the current study
because their effects were not controlled for. In addition, the current study only considered
four sports that may not be representative of all open- and closed-skill sports. Thus, using
numerous sports that have additional sport-type variables (continuous vs. discrete, fine vs.
gross, team vs. individual) may help to investigate the nature of any differences between open-
and closed-skill sports, or indeed any other-differences with regard to sport-type and imagery
use.
The existing research suggests that prior to competition, athletes report using imagery for a
variety of functions, such as regulating arousal and enhancing confidence before an event (e.g.,
102 M. ARVINEN-BARROW ET AL.
Murphy, 1990; Orlick, 1990). It has been suggested that motivational imagery may be more
prevalent immediately before a competition, as it may have a greater effect on performance
than cognitive imagery functions (e.g., Vealey & Walter, 1993; White & Hardy, 1998). The
current findings support this sentiment, as MG-M imagery was the most used imagery type by
all athletes prior to competition.
One apparent occurrence during the data collection was that a number of questionnaires
(17%) were not fully completed. Some questionnaires missed demographic data, and in some
cases a number of questions were left unanswered. In these instances the data were excluded
from the study. However, a number of players from a university rugby team failed to divulge
their age, but produced complete data from the SIQ. In such cases the data were included
in the analysis, and only athletes’ age range was reported. This flaw could be rectified in
future research. This occurrence of missing data could be due to the competitive state of the
athlete, as the lack of questionnaire attention may show focus and even anxiety with respect
to the future competition. However, this is only speculative, as anxiety was not measured in
the current study. We acknowledge that the administration of the questionnaire immediately
prior to competition may have disrupted some athletes’ mental preparation. However, one elite
golfer reported that the questionnaire helped him to relax and to organize his game plan before
the competition. This suggests that administration of the SIQ before a competition may be
beneficial, rather than detrimental, to some athletes. Future researchers need to be aware of the
impact of questionnaire distribution prior to competition.
The findings of the current study might have important applications to practitioners. The
findings that athletes in closed-skill sports use less MG-A imagery than those in open-skill
sports, might suggest the need for closed-skill athletes to perform further MG-A imagery
training. This would enable them to imagine various types of arousal associated with sport
competition. The finding that elite athletes use significantly more CG and CS imagery than
non-elite athletes may also suggest the need for motivational imagery training as MS, MG-A,
and MG-M imagery was also predicted to be used significantly more by elite athletes than
non-elite athletes.
In conclusion, the current study adds to the existing imagery research examining pre-
competition imagery in open- and closed-skill sports with athletes at an elite or novice level.
The findings from the current study suggest that competitive level and skill-type have an
impact on athletes’ imagery use. Elite athletes used significantly more CS and CG imagery
than novices, athletes in open-skilled sports used significantly more MG-A imagery than those
in closed-skill sports, and regardless of competitive level and skill-type, MG-M imagery was
the most used imagery function. A number of methodological flaws have been noted and
it is therefore suggested that in future research (a) the definitions of elite/novice should be
clear and distinct and include a wide continuum, and (b) the skill-type should be defined in
various ways (e.g., team/individual, open/closed, discrete/continuous, fine/gross motor skills).
In addition, it can be noted that the current study is in no way flawless, but should be seen
as a basis upon which future research can be built upon. On doing so, sport-type variables,
such as using the open- vs. closed-skill dichotomy, may be worthy of further investigation and
perchance inclusion in the revised version of the applied model of mental imagery (Martin et al.,
1999).
REFERENCES
Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., & Albinson, J. G. (2002). Pre-competition imagery, self-efficacy and
performance in collegiate golfers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 697–705.
IMAGERY IN OPEN AND CLOSED SPORTS 103
Callow, N., & Hardy, L. (2001). Types of imagery associated with sport confidence in netball players of
varying skills. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 1–17.
Cumming, J., & Hall, C. (2002a). Athletes’ use of imagery in the off-season. The Sport Psychologist, 16,
160–172.
Cumming, J., & Hall, C. (2002b). Deliberate imagery practice: The development of imagery skills in
competitive athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 137–145.
Cumming, J., Hall, C., Harwood, C., & Gammage, K. (2002). Motivational orientations and imagery use:
A goal profiling analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 127–136.
Fenker, R. M., & Lambiotte, J. G. (1987). A performance enhancement program for a college football
team: One incredible season. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 224–236.
Gammage, K. L., Hall, C. R., & Rodgers, W. M. (2000). More about exercise imagery. The Sport
Psychologist, 14, 348–359.
Hall, C. (2001). Imagery in sport and exercise. In R. Singer, H. Hausenblas, & C. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook
of sport psychology (pp. 529–549). New York: Wiley.
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., & Pongrac, J. (1983). Movement imagery questionnaire. London, Ontario: University of
Western Ontario.
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.
Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory
and practice of elite performers. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Highlen, P. S., & Bennett, B. B. (1979). Psychological characteristics of successful and non-successful
elite wrestlers: An exploratory study. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 123–137.
Highlen, P. S., & Bennett, B. B. (1983). Elite divers and wrestlers: A comparison between open- and
close-skill athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 390–409.
Jones, M. V., Mace, R., & Stockbridge, C. (1997). The importance of measuring athletes’ emotional
states during sports performance. In I. Cockerill & H. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive enhancement in
sport and exercise psychology (pp. 44–49). Leicester, UK: The British Psychological Society.
Knapp, B. (2002). The open and closed continuum. Retrieved October 10, 2002, from www.brianmac.
demon.co.uk/comtinuum.htm.
Lerner, B. S., Ostrow, A. C., Yura, M. T., & Etzel, E. F. (1996). The effects of goal-setting and imagery
training programs on the free-throw performance of female collegiate basketball players. The Sport
Psychologist, 10, 382–397.
Mace, R. D., Eastman, C., & Carroll, C. (1987). The effects of stress inoculation training on gym-
nasts’ performance on the pommel horse: A case study. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 15, 272–
279.
Martin, K. A., Moritz, S. E., & Hall, G. R. (1999). Imagery use in sports: A literature review and applied
model. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 245–268.
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.
Murphy, S. M. (1990). Models of imagery in sport psychology: A review. Journal of Mental Imagery,
14, 153–172.
Orlick, T. (1990). In pursuit of excellence (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery in human performance. Canadian
Journal of Sport Sciences, 10, 22–28.
Rodgers, W., Hall, C., & Buckolz, E. (1991). The effect of an imagery program on imagery abil-
ity, 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.
Vadocz, E. A., Hall, C. R., & Moritz, S. E. (1997). The relationship between competitive anxiety and
imagery use. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 241–252.
104 M. ARVINEN-BARROW ET AL.
Vealey, R. S., & Greenleaf, C. A. (1998). Seeing is believing: Understanding and using imagery in sport.
In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (3rd ed.,
pp. 237–269). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Vealey, R. S., & Walter, S. M. (1993). Imagery training for performance enhancement and personal de-
velopment. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance
(2nd ed., pp. 200–224). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
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.
