Content uploaded by Evangelos Galanis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Evangelos Galanis on Jun 28, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Thessaly]
On: 10 April 2014, At: 04:22
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uasp20
Self-talk and Competitive Sport
Performance
Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis a , Evangelos Galanis a , Nikos Zourbanos a &
Yannis Theodorakis a
a University of Thessaly
Accepted author version posted online: 03 Apr 2013.Published
online: 18 Nov 2013.
To cite this article: Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis , Evangelos Galanis , Nikos Zourbanos & Yannis
Theodorakis (2014) Self-talk and Competitive Sport Performance, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
26:1, 82-95, DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2013.790095
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2013.790095
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 26: 82–95, 2014
Copyright C
Association for Applied Sport Psychology
ISSN: 1041-3200 print / 1533-1571 online
DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2013.790095
Self-talk and Competitive Sport Performance
ANTONIS HATZIGEORGIADIS,EVANGELOS GALANIS,NIKOS ZOURBANOS,AND YANNIS
THEODORAKIS
University of Thessaly
The purpose of the present study was to test the effectiveness of a 10-week self-talk intervention
on competitive performance in young swimmers. Participants were 41 swimmers (Mage 14.59,
SD =1.58 years), whose performance was recorded on 2 competitive occasions with a 10-week
interval. In-between the 2 competitions, participants in the intervention group followed a self-
talk training program. The results showed that the intervention group had greater performance
improvements than the control group, thus, supporting the effectiveness of the program in
enhancing sport performance in a competitive environment. The findings provide directions
for the development of effective self-talk interventions.
The effectiveness of self-talk strategies in sport has been receiving increasing research attention
in recent years. Self-talk strategies are based on the use of cues that aim at facilitating learning
and enhancing performance, through the activation of appropriate responses. Such strategies
have been implemented in a variety of motor and sport tasks ranging from fine (Van Raalte
et al., 1995) to gross (Hamilton, Scott, & MacDougall, 2007), with participants varying from
school (Kolovelonis, Goudas, & Dermitzaki, 2011) and university students (Hatzigeorgiadis,
Theodorakis, & Zourbanos, 2004), to beginner (Perkos, Theodorakis, & Chroni, 2002) and
experienced athletes (Landin & Hebert, 1999). In addition, a variety of interventions have
been implemented, ranging from cross-sectional (Malouff, McGee, Halford, & Rooke, 2008)
to multi-week interventions (Perkos et al., 2002), and several experimental designs have been
applied, such as pre-test post-test randomized groups (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004), or single-
subject multiple baseline designs (Johnson, Hrycaiko, Johnson, & Halas, 2004). Overall, the
results have provided support for the effectiveness of self-talk strategies for improving task
performance.
A recent meta-analysis (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Galanis, & Theodorakis, 2011) more
emphatically stressed the effectiveness of self-talk interventions in sport. An overall effect
size of 0.48 was identified, indicating that self-talk can meaningfully facilitate learning and
enhance performance in sport tasks. Furthermore, a number of potential moderators were
examined with regard to the characteristics of the task, participants, type of self-talk, and
intervention. The results revealed that (a) self-talk was more effective for tasks requiring fine
skills, such as precision and accuracy, rather than tasks requiring gross skills, such as strength
and endurance; (b) self-talk was more effective in novel rather than in well-learned tasks; (c)
interventions including training of self-talk were more effective than intervention where no
Received 8 August 2012; accepted 22 March 2013.
Address correspondence to Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis, University of Thessaly, Department of Physical
Education & Sport Sciences, Trikala, 42100 Greece. E-mail: ahatzi@pe.uth.gr
82
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
SELF-TALK AND PERFORMANCE 83
training was implemented. In addition, the results provided partial support for the type of task
by type of self-talk matching hypothesis (Theodorakis, Weinberg, Natsis, Douma, & Kazakas,
2000), indicating that for fine tasks instructional self-talk was more effective than motivational
self-talk; moreover, instructional self-talk was more effective for fine tasks compared to gross
tasks. Overall, the results of the meta-analysis provided robust evidence for the effectiveness
of self-talk interventions in the sport field.
Reviewing the self-talk literature, Theodorakis et al. (2012) classified self-talk interventions
in relation to the characteristics of the settings and the tasks that have been used. They identified
the lack of studies testing the effectiveness of self-talk strategies on competitive performance,
and stressed the need for the implementation of such field interventions. There are four levels
at which self-talk interventions implemented to athletes can be classified: (a) interventions
testing the effectiveness of self-talk on fundamental motor tasks in lab or field settings, such as
vertical jump (Edwards, Tod, & McGuigan, 2008), and cycling tasks (Hamilton et al., 2007); (b)
interventions on the effectiveness of self-talk on performance components of different sports,
such as basketball shooting (Perkos et al., 2002), and forehand drive in tennis (Hatzigeorgiadis,
Zourbanos, Goltsios, & Theodorakis, 2008); (c) interventions testing self-talk strategies on
sport performance in non-competitive context (unofficial timings or experimentally induced
events), such as 100 m. sprinting performance (Mallett & Hanrahan, 1997), and middle distance
running performance (Weinberg, Miller, & Horn, 2012); (d) interventions investigating the
effectiveness of self-talk strategies on competitive sport performance (Sch¨
uler & Langens,
2007).
Despite the increasing volume of research in self-talk, research for the last two levels
has been very sparse. Regarding sport performance in non-competitive settings, Mallett and
Hanrahan (1997) tested the effectiveness of a self-talk intervention in young elite sprinters,
using a single-subject multiple-baseline design. A race plan was developed corresponding at
the different parts of a 100-m race. The results showed that participants improved their times
by approximately 2.3%, which was evaluated as a considerable improvement for that level
of athletes. In a recent attempt to test the effectiveness of self-talk in simulated competition,
Weinberg et al. (2012) organized two cross-country running events with collegiate athletes.
Their results showed that a self-talk intervention based on the use of recorded instructions
improved performance from pre- to post-intervention over a week. In both studies performance
was assessed in conditions or events organized by the researchers.
With regard to competitive sport performance in real competition we are only aware of
the study by Sch¨
uler and Langens (2007). In this study the authors tested the use of self-talk
strategies as a means for buffering against the negative effects of psychological crisis that
occur during a marathon race in non-professional runners. They reported that among runners
who experienced a large psychological crisis, those using self-talk coped better than those in a
control group. Participants in this study did not receive any training with regard to the use of
self-talk. They were asked to create their own self-talk cues and use them at the point at which
the psychological barrier of “the wall” appears in marathon runners. In addition, this study
was partly based on retrospective self-reports obtained after the race. Nevertheless, this study
provided useful preliminary evidence regarding the effectiveness of self-talk on competitive
sport performance.
An earlier attempt to investigate the effectiveness of a self-talk intervention on competitive
performance was made by Landin and Hebert (1999). They applied a single-subject multiple-
baseline design on a sample of five tennis players and assessed experimentally volleying
skills. Subsequently, to complement these experimental data with field data, they assessed
frequency of net approaches during matches. Due to the competitive schedule, data were only
collected for three players on a limited number of occasions. Descriptive analysis showed
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
84 A. HATZIGEORGIADIS ET AL.
small to moderate increases in net approaches, nonetheless the outcome of the moves was not
evaluated. This study highlights the difficulties researchers face when testing the effectiveness
of interventions in naturalistic field settings.
The demands placed on athletes in training and competitions are different both physi-
cally and psychologically. Competitive settings are different from training on a number of
features, such as the environment, the behavior of the coach, teammates and opponents, the
presence of spectators, the importance attached to the occasion, and subsequent cognitive
and affective responses. Martin, Vause, and Schwartzman (2005) argued that although studies
in non-competitive conditions can provide guidance for performance-enhancing strategies, it
cannot be assumed that such results can transfer to the competitive environment. They con-
cluded that we will only have confidence in such findings if performance of real athletes in
real competitions is examined and the effectiveness of such interventions is experimentally
supported. The purpose of the present study was to extend this line of research and investi-
gate the effectiveness of a self-talk intervention program, including training of self-talk, on
competitive sport performance in young swimmers.
The intervention was developed based on two key principles stemming from the existing
self-talk literature, but also considering some theoretical underpinnings. The first important
issue was the implementation of appropriate and adequate training. Training the self-talk
routines has proven mostly crucial in maximizing the effectiveness of the strategy. The results
from the relevant meta-analysis (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2011) demonstrated a clear effect for the
implementation of practice sessions aiming to get participants familiar with the use of self-talk.
Considering that in the self-talk literature, a significant number of studies involve students
and beginner athletes, for whom there is more room for improvement in task performance
compared to more experienced athletes, the need for training self-talk seemed even greater to
achieve a meaningful performance effect. Therefore an extended and systematic training plan
was deemed essential.
The second issue that was considered was the involvement of the athletes in developing the
self-talk plans. According to the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) perceptions
of autonomy, reflected in the options and choices that individuals feel they have over deci-
sions and actions, will result in increased intrinsic interest and enhanced motivation. Based
on these premises, Hardy (2006) argued that especially in naturalistic sport settings providing
athletes the opportunity to develop and use self-determined self-talk plans will maximize the
motivational effects regarding the use of the strategy. Rushall, Hall, Roux, Sasseville, and
Rushall (1988) tested the effectiveness of self-determined cues in elite skiers and reported
important performance increases. However, their study did not involve a direct comparison
between assigned and self-determined cues. Weinberg et al. (2012) attempted a direct com-
parison between assigned and self-determined self-talk in a naturalistic setting. Their results
showed no consistent differences between the self-talk groups. However, it should be noted
that participants received the experimental treatment on the day of the event, thus, had no
training using self-talk; in addition, the statements were recorded and heard before the onset of
the competition, as a pre-competition strategy. Based on the above premises, the intervention
was developed to optimize the effectiveness of the self-talk strategy. First, a training period
would be applied to enhance the understanding of athletes for the self-talk strategy and get
them acquainted with the use of self-talk; then athletes would be encouraged to develop their
individual self-determined plans; finally a period of training using the self-determined self-talk
to optimize the application and effectiveness of self-talk plans would be implemented.
Finally, a matching effect with regard to the development of self-determined self-talk plans
was anticipated. Theodorakis et al. (2000) introduced the task demands by self-talk type
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
SELF-TALK AND PERFORMANCE 85
matching hypothesis. They argued that instructional self-talk should be more beneficial for
relatively fine tasks because instructional self-talk may be more effective in regulating atten-
tional processes, and for such task performance can benefit more from increased attention
compared to gross tasks. In contrast, they claimed that motivational self-talk should be more
beneficial for relatively gross tasks, because motivational self-talk may be more appropriate for
psyching-up and maximizing effort, and for such tasks physical effort may be more influential
to performance compared to fine tasks. This hypothesis has received reasonable, but not full,
support in experimental studies (e.g., Edwards et al., 2008; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004) and
the relevant meta-analysis (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2011). In this study, the matching hypoth-
esis principle was further considered, under the light of the conscious processing hypothesis
(Masters, 1992). According to the conscious processing hypothesis an explicit approach to
the execution of automated, mastered performance can have detrimental performance effects.
Expert performance can be harmed when movements are consciously controlled because this
is proceduralized or automated with extended practice, especially in high pressure situations
(Beilock & Carr, 2001). Considering participants’ competitive experience, but also the com-
petitive setting, it was expected that participants would prefer developing their competition
plans based primarily on motivational cues as more appropriate to increase confidence and
maximize effort (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Theodorakis, Hatzigeorgiadis, & Chroni, 2008)
rather than explicit instructional cues aiming at providing performance instructions. Neverthe-
less, such an approach was not imposed or promoted to strengthen the autonomous functioning
of participants in developing their self-talk plans; it was rather expected that participants would
themselves choose to develop their self-talk plans based on motivational rather than instruc-
tional self-talk cues. Based on the effectiveness of self-talk interventions in non-competitive
settings, and most importantly on the extended and individually tailored self-talk training
intervention that was applied, our hypothesis was that the use of self-talk plans stemming from
the intervention would improve competitive performance.
METHOD
Participants
Originally, 55 young swimmers were sampled. Participants were members of different
swimming teams training in different swimming pools. The teams were randomly assigned
as experimental (n=29 swimmers) and control (n=26 swimmers). For the intervention
group 27 swimmers completed the intervention and two withdrew before the conclusion of
the intervention due to injury. Among the remaining 27 swimmers, three did not participate
in the post-intervention competition, and three competed in swimming events different than
those in the pre-intervention competition; these swimmers were removed from the sample
because performance changes could not be evaluated. As a result, the intervention group
finally consisted of 21 swimmers. For the control group, four swimmers did not participate
in the post-intervention competition and two competed in swimming events different than
those in the pre-intervention competition. As a result the control group finally consisted of
20 participants.
For the 41 swimmers (22 male, 19 female) who were included in the study, the mean age
was 14.52 (SD =1.23; ranging from 13 to 16) years, the mean swimming experience was 8.09
(SD =2.24) years, and the mean competitive experience was 5.55 (SD =1.35) years. Par-
ticipants were training between 5 and 6 days per week (M=5.83, SD =.38 days) for an
average of 11.50 (SD =1.09) hours. Finally, 26 swimmers were specialized in sprints, whereas
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
86 A. HATZIGEORGIADIS ET AL.
15 in middle- and long-distance events. Among them 19 had experience of local/regional
competitions and 22 of national competitions. No significant differences were identified be-
tween the intervention and the control groups in any of the above demographic variables: for
age, t(39) =1.77, p=.08; for swimming experience, t(39) =1.55, p=.13; for competitive
experience, t(39) =1.74, p=.09; for training days per week, t(39) =1.17, p=.25; and for
training hours per week, t(39) =1.22, p=.23. In addition, chi-square showed no differences
in the number of male and female swimmers for the two groups, χ2(1) =1.18, p=.35, level
of competition, χ2(1) =2.02, p=.22, and swimming specialization, χ2(1) =1.19, p=.34.
Finally, none of the participants had prior experience of psychological skills training.
Measures
Performance
Because swimmers participated (between them) in different events it was not possible
to compare pre-intervention swimming times to post-intervention swimming times. Thus,
performance was evaluated based on the improvement participants showed from pre- to post-
intervention competitions. Participants’ times were obtained from the official competition
results. Subsequently, percentage of improvement was calculated ([post-intervention time–
pre-intervention time] ×100 / pre-intervention time), with positive scores indicating improved
performance (Bennett & Briggs, 2005).
In addition, it was considered useful to check the effectiveness of the intervention outside
the competitive context through a more standardized assessment. For that purpose, timings
in a 50 m freestyle pre-competition test were conducted two days prior to the baseline and
final competitions for all swimmers. This test was described to participants as an important
progress test for the competition.
Manipulation checks
Several checks were used to support the integrity of the experimental procedures. First,
participants’ intensity of pre-competition anxiety and perceived importance of competition
was assessed to test for differences in participants’ reactions and perceptions for the two
competitions. Pre-competition anxiety was assessed with the cognitive and somatic anxiety
scales from the revised CSAI-2 (Cox, Martens, & Russell, 2003). Cronbach’s alphas for the
pre-intervention competition were .79 for somatic and .70 for cognitive anxiety, and for the
post-intervention competition .81 and .75 respectively. Perceived importance was assessed
with two items asking participants how important and how crucial the competition was on a
10-item scale ranging from 1 (not at all)to10(very much). The correlations between the two
items for the two competitions were .82 and .93. The scores for the two items were averaged.
Participants’ use of self-talk in the supervised training sessions was also recorded. After
the completion of each self-talk training set, participants were asked to indicate on a 10-point
scale the degree to which they used the agreed cues. A similar check was applied for the
post-intervention competition. In particular, participants were asked (a) to indicate whether
they used their self-talk plan; (b) to report whether they used any other self-talk cues; (c) if
so, what these cues were; and (d) if so, the degree to which they used these other cues 1 (not
at all)to10(all the time). Finally, participants in the control group were also asked to report
on their self-talk in the post-intervention competition. In particular, they were informed that
athletes frequently say things to themselves while performing and were asked to indicate (a)
whether they systematically used any form of self-talk during the competition; (b) if so, what
was that; (c) if so, to what degree 1 (not at all)to10(all the time).
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
SELF-TALK AND PERFORMANCE 87
Procedures and Intervention
The study was approved by the institution’s ethics committee. Teams and coaches were
contacted and asked to participate in the program. Coaches were briefed with regard to the
purposes of the study and gave their permission. Participants were then informed about the
purpose of the program and the consent of their coaches. They were also told that participation
was voluntary and that they could withdraw without any consequences anytime they wished.
Finally, before the onset of the study, informed consent was signed by participants’ parents.
Experimental group
In the introductory meeting participants were given a short presentation on self-talk and
how the intervention was going to work. They were also told that it would be important to
attend all the training sessions according to their schedule.
The practicing of self-talk under supervision was implemented in the main swimming set of
each training session three times per week. However, swimmers were encouraged to use self-
talk for the remaining sets of the session if they wished to, but also for the remaining training
sessions they were attending during the week. For the three weekly supervised sessions, a daily
plan was prepared for each swimmer, each week for the first 8 weeks.
At the beginning of each session swimmers were briefed in groups with regard to the
purpose and the content of the session. Then, the individual plan was communicated to each
swimmer just before the start of the training session, and they were again reminded of it
before the start of the main swimming set. Participants were informed what cue words to use,
when and how often these cues should be used, and the purpose of each cue. In addition, a
piece of paper with the self-talk cues was placed at each swimmer’s lane just before the start
of the main set (an example of a personal daily training plan is displayed in the Appendix).
After the completion of the main set, participants were asked in each session how frequently
during the set they were using the cues that they were instructed to use. The same researcher
implemented all the intervention sessions from start to finish and was there to advise the
swimmers throughout the program.
Overall, the purpose of the program was to have the athletes understanding, learning,
and practicing how to use the self-talk technique thoroughly, so that they could effectively
develop their own competitive self-talk plan. Over the two first weeks participants practiced
motivational self-talk. During this period, and in cooperation with the coach, technical aspects
of the stroke that could be improved through the use of instructional self-talk in each swimmer’s
style were identified; the purpose was to develop appropriate instructional self-talk cues for
each swimmer for the following weeks. Based on these discussions the researcher along with
the coach came up with individually tailored instructional self-talk for each swimmer. These
self-talk cues were subsequently practiced for the following 2 weeks (Weeks 3–4). For the
4 weeks that followed (Weeks 5–8) swimmers practiced a combination of instructional and
motivational cues. During this period they were repeatedly instructed to identify the cues they
thought were mostly helpful for them, either from the ones that were previously used, or new
cues they thought would help them most. At the end of these four weeks, swimmers were
asked to come up with a self-talk competition plan and were provided ideas of combinations
they could use for the competition. In addition, they were asked to adopt a self-talk plan for
the timing prior to the competition. For the last 2 weeks (Weeks 9–10) swimmers practiced the
self-talk plans they had designed.
Control group
Participants in the control group were also informed that their performance for the two
competitions would be recorded to evaluate the progress they had made. It was also stressed
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
88 A. HATZIGEORGIADIS ET AL.
to them that it is important to attend all the training sessions according to their schedule. After
the conclusion of the study, participants of the control group were debriefed and offered to
attend the intervention program.
RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
Competition importance and anxiety
A two-way (2 ×2) ANOVA with one repeated factor (time) and one independent factor
(group) was performed to test for differences between the baseline and final competition in
perceived competition importance for the two groups. The statistical assumptions for normality
and homogeneity were met. The analysis revealed a non-significant main effect for time, Pillai’s
Trace =.01, F(1, 39) =0.28, p=.59, partial η2=.01, observed power =.08, and a non-
significant group by time interaction, Pillai’s Trace =.00, F(1, 39) =0.01, p=.93, partial
η2=.00, observed power =.05. A two-way (2 ×2) MANOVA with one repeated factor
(time) and one independent factor (group) was performed to test for differences in somatic and
cognitive anxiety between baseline and final competition for the two groups. The statistical
assumptions for normality and homogeneity were met. The analysis revealed a non-significant
multivariate main effect for time, Pillai’s Trace =.00, F(1, 38) =0.02, p=.99, partial
η2=.00, observed power =.05, and a non-significant group by time interaction, Pillai’s Trace
=.08, F(1, 38) =1.72, p=.19, partial η2=.08, observed power =.34. The descriptive
statistics for the above analyses are presented in Table 1.
Use of self-talk in training and competition
The mean score for the use of self-talk in training was 7.51 (SD =0.83), suggesting that
athletes made adequate use of the self-talk cues. For the competition, 18 participants in the
intervention group reported adhering to their self-talk plan at 100%, 2 participants at 67%
(used two of the three cues they had planned), and one participant at 33% (used one of the
three cues she had planned). Finally, two of the participants in the intervention group reported
using an additional motivational self-talk cue. For the control group, one participant reported
singing, and three participants reported using positive self-talk cues in a non-systematic way
(frequency ranging from 2 to 3).
Tabl e 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Pre-competition Variables for the Two Groups
Experimental group Control group
Competition 1 Competition 2 Competition 1 Competition 2
MSDMSDMSDMSD
Competition importance 7.83 1.40 7.70 2.06 7.05 1.95 6.85 2.14
Cognitive anxiety 2.07 0.59 2.10 0.66 2.00 0.61 1.96 0.53
Somatic anxiety 2.05 0.73 1.91 0.60 1.84 0.52 1.95 0.57
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
SELF-TALK AND PERFORMANCE 89
Self-Talk Plans
With regard to the self-talk plans developed by participants in the intervention group, seven
participants used one self-talk cue, five participants used two self-talk cues, and nine partici-
pants three self-talk cues. Also, 18 participants used motivational self-talk only, one participant
used instructional self-talk only, and two participants used a combination of instructional and
motivational self-talk.
50 m Timings
Attest was initially performed to test for differences in the baseline timings between the
intervention and the control groups. The analysis showed no significant differences between
the two group at baseline, t(39) =1.73, p=.09. Subsequently, a two-way (2 ×2) ANOVA
with one repeated factor (time) and one independent factor (group) was performed to test
for changes in performance for the 50 m. freestyle timings for the two groups. The statistical
assumptions for normality and homogeneity were met. The analysis revealed a significant time
by group interaction effect, Pillai’s Trace =.34, F(1, 39) =20.13, p<.01, partial η2=.34,
observed power =.99. Examination of the pairwise comparisons revealed that performance
of the intervention group improved (Mpre =32.06, SD =3.28, Mpost = 31.52, SD =3.00; p<
.01), whereas performance of the control group did not change significantly (Mpre =30.45,
SD =2.67, Mpost =30.61, SD =2.64; p=.15).
Competitive Performance
Attest was performed to test for differences in percentage of performance change be-
tween the intervention and the control groups. The statistical assumptions for normality and
homogeneity were met. The analysis revealed a significant effect, t(39) =1.99, p=.05. Ex-
amination of the mean showed that the percentage of improvement for the intervention group
(M=1.43, SD =2.15) was greater than that of the control group (M=0.05, SD =2.28). Co-
hen’s Dwas calculated to reveal the size of the effect for the difference between the two groups.
The analysis showed an effect size of 0.62, suggesting a moderate performance effect. Addi-
tionally, a one-way ANCOVA was performed to test for differences between the two groups
controlling for the distance of the event (because participants competed in different distances).
The statistical assumptions for normality and homogeneity were met. The analysis revealed
again a significant effect for group, F(1, 40) =4.19, p<.05, partial η2=.10, observed power
=.51. The estimated mean for the percentage of improvement was 1.47 for the intervention
group and 0.01 for the control group. Performance results are displayed in Figure 1.
DISCUSSION
Self-talk interventions have proven effective for enhancing sport task performance, however
there is a lack of field experiments testing self-talk in real competitive environment. The
present study provided evidence that self-talk strategies can facilitate sport performance in the
complex environment of competition. Several issues warrant consideration and are addressed
below. These issues pertain to the use of self-talk, the effectiveness of self-talk, and finally the
limitations characterizing field experimental designs and future self-talk directions.
Use of Self-talk
In accordance to previous findings (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Mpoumpaki, & Theodor-
akis, 2009; Landin & Hebert, 1999) it was found that practicing self-talk leads to systematic
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
90 A. HATZIGEORGIADIS ET AL.
Figure 1. Performance improvements for the intervention and control groups.
use. Participants in the intervention group reported consistent use of self-talk during the train-
ing period; most importantly they reported adhering to their self-talk plan in competition.
That swimmers adhered to their self-talk plan may have also been facilitated by their involve-
ment in developing these plans. During the training period participants used a wide variety
of instructional and motivational cues, and subsequently were allowed to design themselves
a plan to use in competition. Hardy (2006) based on the premises of the self-determination
theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) suggested that the use of self-determined self-talk cues may have
positive motivational influences. Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom (2010) further supported
the effectiveness of self-determined forms of self-talk in a study with adult tennis players.
The individualization process that was implemented in the present study may have increased
participants’ interest in the strategy, their commitment in using it, and maybe their belief for
its effectiveness.
Another interesting finding that confirmed our expectations is the preference of swimmers
for motivational self-talk in their competitive self-talk plans. The vast majority of swimmers
included only motivational self-talk, and there was only one swimmer who chose not toinclude
motivational self-talk in her competition plan. Participants practiced equally instructional and
motivational self-talk during the training period but preferred motivational self-talk for the
competition. Considering the competitive environment it was expected that athletes would seek
to satisfy the need for psyching-up and building confidence, rather than providing instruction
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
SELF-TALK AND PERFORMANCE 91
on how to perform skills, thus, building their self-talk plans based on motivational cues.
Comparable field evidence has been reported in descriptive studies. Hardy, Hall, and Hardy
(2005) reported athletes using self-talk in competition more than in training for motivational
reasons, such as to get prepared. Similarly, Hardy, Hall, and Alexander (2001) found that
athletes report more positive and motivating self-talk in the competitive context compared to
training.
Research on skill-focused attention seems to support athletes’ intuitive choice. Beilock,
Carr, MacMahon, and Starkes (2002) argued that when practicing or attempting to correct a
skill one’s attention may be placed on the movement of the skill itself, and the use of explicit cues
that direct attention to what they are doing help to produce or improve the quality of the desired
movement. In this instance, movements are consciously controlled and effortfully produced,
thus, the use of self-instruction can facilitate performance (e.g., Zourbanos, Hatzigeorgiadis,
Bardas, & Theodorakis, 2013). In contrast, in competition athletes should move toward a more
autonomous execution of performance, without conscious step-by-step monitoring of the skill.
In such instances, self-regulatory strategies, which are not focused on the movement itself,
such as self-affirmation to enhance effort and confidence, may enhance performance at higher
levels of automatic skill execution (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). Thus, when competing, using
a strategy, such as motivational self-talk, that prevents the likelihood of a performer focusing
explicitly on task relevant information but may increase motivation and effort is more likely
to be helpful.
Finally, with regard to the use of self-talk, some participants in the control group reported
using some sort of self-talk, but in a non-systematic or pre-planned way. It is totally nor-
mal that people talk to themselves, especially athletes in achievement contexts; however it is
the systematic use and maybe the knowledge of purpose that produce the desirable effects.
Researchers should be careful in their manipulation checks with controls for differentiating
between spontaneous and systematic self-talk. Most importantly, to make the difference be-
tween spontaneous and systematic self-talk clear, but also to improve the effectiveness of the
intervention, designs including training self-talk should be sought, as it is the training that
makes the difference in performance especially at competition level; Hatzigeorgiadis et al.
(2011) reported training of self-talk as the strongest moderator of its effectiveness. Following
the recommendation by Hardy, Hall, Gibbs, and Greenslade (2005) the use of self-talk was not
assessed in the first competition to prevent the promotion of self-talk by swimmers of the con-
trol group thereafter; nevertheless none of the participants had ever received a psychological
skills training intervention before.
Effectiveness of Self-talk
Studies supporting the effectiveness of self-talk in improving sport task performance (e.g.,
Perkos et al., 2002) but also sport performance (e.g., Mallett & Hanrahan, 1997) have provided
valuable evidence and have increased our knowledge for the implementation of self-talk
interventions. These studies encouraged us to attempt testing the effectiveness of self-talk in
real competitive situations. The results of the present study confirmed the previous findings
regarding the effectiveness of self-talk on sport performance in non-competitive settings
through the experimentally induced timings. Furthermore, our results indicate that self-talk
can be effective in the complex and often unpredictable competitive environment. The size
of the improvement in statistical terms when comparing intervention and control groups
(Cohen’s D=.62) was moderate and close to the effect that was identified in the meta-analysis
by Hatzigeorgiadis et al. (2011). Moreover, the size of the improvement in practical terms for
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
92 A. HATZIGEORGIADIS ET AL.
the intervention group (1.46%) is considerable and one that can make a meaningful difference
in competition.
Despite not having direct comparisons to test the effectiveness of the training process and
the self-determined approach to the development of the individual self-talk plans, the results
of the present study may help the development of the self-talk framework. First, the findings
indicate that extended training may be important in maximizing the effectiveness of self-talk
interventions, especially for athletes in competitive situations. Second, it can be postulated
that involving athletes in the process of strategy development may further help enhancing
the performance benefits, possibly through the motivational gains supported from the self-
determination theory. In addition the findings provide indications for extending the matching
hypothesis, suggesting that in the competitive context motivational self-talk may be more
appropriate and therefore more effective than instructional self-talk.
Limitations
Field experiments involving psychological interventions in the complex competitive sport
environment are characterized by limited experimental control, and that is one of the reasons
that so few are carried out (Martin et al., 2005). Taking into account the purpose of the
present investigation and considering in particular the focus on competitive performance such
limitations could not be avoided. The lack of strict experimental control over performance
conditions, as the competitive environment was different, but also the relative lack of control
over training as swimmers were competing, and therefore training, for different events, may
limit the internal validity of this experimental study. Nonetheless, it is these realistic conditions
of the experimental design that also increase its external validity, as competition is at the core
of the sport experience. Furthermore, the loss of participants has to be mentioned. This can be
attributed to the length and the requirements of the intervention, but also to reasons beyond
control such as the choice of events participants made for each of the two competitions.
Attempting to control for the limitations accompanying field experiments, thorough ma-
nipulation checks were performed. That no differences in importance of competition and
pre-competition anxiety were identified for the two competitions within the total sample, but
also between intervention and control group, at least indicates that participants were equally
interested and committed to the competition before and after the intervention. Furthermore, the
lack of differences in demographic and sport participation variables, which were not influenced
by the loss of participants, supports the homogeneity of the sample.
That participants competed in different events presented a problem regarding the assessment
of performance. To overcome this problem percentage of improvement between the two
competitions, which takes into account the baseline performance, was calculated for the
evaluation of performance. In addition, swimming distance was considered as a covariate
to control for differences in swimming events. That the two analyses yielded similar results
further enhance our confidence in the findings.
Another methodological issue that should be noticed concerns the way swimmers were
assigned in to the different conditions. It was the swimming clubs that were randomly assigned
as experimental and control, rather than the individual swimmers. A tradeoff decision had to
be taken with regard to this issue. If participants from the same club were assigned to both
experimental and control groups to protect the principle of the randomization, the experimental
intervention would have been contaminated. Thus, to protect the integrity of the experimental
condition we decided to have the different clubs randomly assigned to different groups.
Finally, the lack of a control treatment for the control group may raise concerns regarding
the occurrence of a Hawthorne effect. Even though this possibility cannot be discarded, we
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
SELF-TALK AND PERFORMANCE 93
believe that the likelihood of such motivational effect is scarce. The competitive context
and importance of the competitive occasion which typically creates increased interest and
motivation for achievement in athletes is unlikely to be seriously influenced by such indirect
motivational factors.
The results of the present study encourage the implementation of field experiments to test
the effectiveness of self-talk strategies. Future research should investigate the influence of self-
talk interventions on complete sport performance, when the nature of the sport allows for such
designs (e.g., athletics or archery), but also on performance features (e.g., serving in tennis
or free throws in basketball) in sports where overall performance depends on multiple and
complex factors, such as performance of the opponent (e.g., tennis and basketball respectively).
The present study is innovative as it is to our knowledge the first to test experimentally
the effectiveness of a self-talk intervention program on competitive sport performance. The
findings are important because they support the value of self-talk strategies in the complex and
often unpredictable competitive environment, thus, maximizing the ecological validity of the
study. Furthermore, the findings provide direction for the development of future interventions,
in particular with regard to the training of self-talk, the self-determined approach to the
development of self-talk plans, and the use of motivational self-talk in the competitive context,
and encourage the use and the practice of self-talk as a performance enhancing strategy in
sport.
REFERENCES
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking
under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 701–725. doi: 10.1037/0096-
3445130.4.701
Beilock, S. L., Carr, T. H., MacMahon, C., & Starkes, J. L. (2002). When paying attention becomes
counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced
performance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,8, 6–16. doi:
10.1037/1076-898X.8.1.6
Bennett, J., & Briggs, W. (2005). Using and Understanding Mathematics: A Quantitative Reasoning
Approach (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Cox, R. H., Martens, M. P., & Russell, W. D. (2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics: The Revised
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,25, 519–533.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.New
York: Plenum Publishing Co.
Edwards, C., Tod, D., & McGuigan, M. (2008). Self-talk influences vertical jump performance
and kinematics in male rugby union players. Journal of Sports Sciences,26, 1459–1465. doi:
10.1080/02640410802287071
Hamilton, R. A., Scott, D., & MacDougall, M. P. (2007). Assessing the effectiveness of self-talk in-
terventions on endurance performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,19, 226–239. doi:
10.1080/10413200701230613
Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: A critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise,7, 81–97. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.04.002
Hardy, J., Hall, C. R., & Alexander, M. R. (2001). Exploring self-talk and affective states in sport.
Journal of Sports Sciences,19, 469–475.
Hardy, J., Hall, C. R., Gibbs, C., & Greenslade, C. (2005). Self-talk and gross motor skill perfor-
mance. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from:
http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol7Iss2/SelfTalkPerformance.htm
Hardy, J., Hall, C. R., & Hardy, L. (2005). Quantifying athlete self-talk. Journal of Sports Sciences,23,
905–917. doi: 10.1080/02640410500130706
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
94 A. HATZIGEORGIADIS ET AL.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Theodorakis, Y., & Zourbanos, N. (2004). Self-talk in the swimming pool: The
effects of self-talk on thought content and performance on water polo tasks. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology,16, 138–150. doi: 10.1080/10413200490437886
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Galanis, E., & Theodorakis, Y. (2011). Self-talk and sport per-
formance: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science,6, 348–356. doi: 10.1177/
1745691611413136
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., Mpoumpaki, S., & Theodorakis, Y. (2009). Mechanisms underlying
the self-talk-performance relationship: The effects of motivational self-talk on self-confidence and
anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,10, 185–192. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.07.009
Johnson, J., Hrycaiko, D. W., Johnson, G. V., & Halas, J. M. (2004). Self-talk and female youth soccer
performance. The Sport Psychologist,18, 44–59.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude—
treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology,74, 657–690.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.657
Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2011). The effects of instructional and motivational
self-talk on students’ performance in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,12,
153–158. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.09.002
Landin, D., & Hebert, E. P. (1999). The influence of self-talk on the performance of skilled female tennis
players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,11, 263–282. doi: 10.1080/10413209908404204
Latinjak, A. T., Torregrosa, M., & Renom, J. (2010). Studying the effects of self-talk on thought
content with male adult tennis players. Perceptual and Motor Skills,111, 249–260. doi:
10.2466/02.05.28.PMS.111
Mallett, C. J., & Hanrahan, S. J. (1997). Race modeling: An effective cognitive strategy for the 100 m
sprinter? The Sport Psychologist,11, 72–85.
Malouff, J. M., McGee, J. A., Halford, H. T., & Rooke, S. E. (2008). Effects of pre-competition positive
imagery and self-instructions on accuracy of serving in tennis. Journal of Sport Behavior,31,
264–275.
Martin, G. L., Vause, T., & Schwartzman, L. (2005). Experimental studies of psychological inter-
ventions with athletes in competition: Why so few? Behavior Modification,29, 616–641. doi:
10.1177/0145445503259394
Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, knerves and know-how: The role of explicit versus implicit
knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology,
83, 343–358.
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., Hall, M., Roux, L., Sasseville, J., & Rushall, A. C. (1988). Effects of three types of thought
content instructions on skiing performance. The Sport Psychologist,2, 283–297.
Sch¨
uler, J., & Langens, T. A. (2007). Psychological crisis in a marathon and the buffering effects of
self-verbalizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,37, 2319–2344. Doi: 10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2007.00260.x
Theodorakis, Y., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Chroni, S. (2008). Self-Talk: It works, but how? Development
and preliminary validation of the functions of Self-Talk Questionnaire. Measurement in Physical
Education and Exercise Science,12, 10–30.
Theodorakis, Y., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Zourbanos, N. (2012). Cognitions: Self-talk and performance.
In S. Murphy (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Sport and Performance Psychology (pp. 191–212). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis, P., Douma, I., & Kazakas, P. (2000). The effects of motivational
versus instructional self-talk on improving motor performance. The Sport Psychologist,14, 253–272.
Van Raalte, J. L., Brewer, B. W., Lewis, B. P., Linder, G. E., Wildman, G., & Kozimor, J. (1995). Cork! The
effects of positive and negative self-talk on dart throwing performance. Journal of Sport Behavior,
18, 50–57.
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
SELF-TALK AND PERFORMANCE 95
Weinberg, R., Miller, A., & Horn, T. (2012). The influence of a self-talk intervention on collegiate
cross-country runners. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,10, 123–134.
doi:10.1080/1612197X.2012.645135
Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Bardas, D., Theodorakis, Y. (2013). The effects of self-talk on
dominant and non-dominant arm performance on a handball task in primary physical education
students. The Sport Psychologist,27, 171–176.
APPENDIX
Example of a Personal Daily Training Self-talk Card
WEEK 5 – MOTIVATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK
What When Why
Motivational self-talk
All styles Let’s go Strong
Power legs
Give it all
Just before the start of each repeat
During the push after each turn
To boost effort
Instructional self-talk
Freestyle Elbow On releasing the arm for recovery To keep the elbow high
Backstroke Deep When entering the arm in the
water
To take the arm deep enough
for the catch
Breaststroke Ankles When completing the leg stroke To continue the move until the
ankles come together
Butterfly Chin Just before the exit of the head To keep the chin close to the
surface
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 04:22 10 April 2014
