A comparison of modeling and imagery on the performance of a motor skill.

SooHoo, Sonya ; Takemoto, Kimberly Y. ; McCullagh, Penny 等

Modeling or observational learning has been characterized as one of the most important methods by which people learn a variety of skills and behaviors (Bandura, 1986). Modeling has been defined as a cognitive process in which the learner attempts to imitate an observed action or skill performed by another individual (McCullagh, Weiss, & Ross, 1989). Social cognitive theory is one of the theoretical approaches used to explain the modeling process (Bandura 1977, 1986). This theory posits that an observer symbolically encodes information about the skill as the demonstration is observed. The learner can then use this encoded information as a guide for future action. According to Bandura (1986), modeling is effective when the following four subprocesses are present attention, retention, production, and motivation. The subprocess of attention requires the learner to attend to salient cues of the observed performance provided by the model. Then, the learner must retain these important cues in memory for later attempts of the desired skill without added modeling. In addition to storing the information in memory, the learner must possess the physical capabilities required to reproduce the modeled act. Finally, the learner must have sufficient desire to emulate the observed performance to produce a modeling effect. Numerous researchers have found modeling to be effective in facilitating learning and performance of motor skills (see McCullagh & Weiss, 2001 for a comprehensive review).

Imagery is another cognitive process that has been found to enhance learning and performance of motor skills (Driskeli, Copper, & Moran, 1994; Hall, 2001; Martin, Moritz, & Hall, 1999). Richardson (1969) has defined imagery as "those quasi-sensory and quasi-perceptual experiences of which we are self-consciously aware and which exist for us in the absence of those stimulus conditions that are known to produce their genuine sensory or perceptual counterparts" (p.2-3). One theoretical framework advanced to explain imagery effects on performance and learning of motor skills is the symbolic learning theory. The symbolic learning theory suggests that the learner creates a "mental blueprint" of the movement patterns into symbolic codes that is encoded in the central nervous system (Vealey & Greenleaf, 1998, p. 243). This cognitive representation or image can be used during imagery to cue the learner on temporal and spatial elements of the skill. The learner rehearses this image, and uses this information to guide and improve the physical performance of the skill (Murphy & Jowdy, 1992). Similar to modeling, the efficacy of imagery has been documented by a large body of scientific evidence (see Driskell et al., 1994; Hall, 2001; Martin et al., 1999 for reviews).

Research has typically addressed modeling and imagery as separate and distinct processes. However, several investigators have noted that modeling and imagery are actually quite similar (Druckman & Swets, 1988; Feltz & Landers, 1983; Housner, 1984; McCullagh & Weiss, 2001; Ryan & Simons, 1983; Vogt, 1995). Both of these processes include the use of cognitive representations, rehearsal, and skill execution. During modeling, information about the skill is encoded into a cognitive representation. Likewise, during imagery a cognitive representation or image is recalled from memory. Bandura (1997) posits that modeling involves recalling symbolic codes through imagery or words to enhance learning and retention, suggesting that the cognitive process of modeling and imagery are similar. Both the image and model representations are encoded and rehearsed before actual physical execution of the skill.

Modeling and imagery are also classified as similar processes within Bandura's (1997) self-efficacy theory. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as "beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments" (p. 3). Self-efficacy is derived from four sources of information including enactive mastery experiences (past performances), vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. It can be argued that modeling and imagery are processes that serve as vicarious experiences that provide information that effect self-efficacy. The information provided by watching or visualizing others perform a skill may affect efficacy expectations; therefore, modifying behavior (Bandura, 1997).

The influence of modeling and imagery training on self-efficacy has been well documented. Gould and Weiss (1981) determined that modeling enhanced both self-efficacy and performance on a leg-extension endurance task. Similar findings exist in other modeling studies. George, Feltz, and Chase (1992) and McAuley (1985) reported increases in self-efficacy on a leg-extension endurance task and gymnastic skills subsequent to modeling interventions. In a more recent modeling study, self-efficacy significantly increased in children fearful of swimming (Weiss, McCullagh, Smith, & Berlant, 1998). In accordance, some imagery studies found significant increases in self-efficacy (Feltz & Riessinger, 1990; McKenzie & Howe, 1997; Woolfolk, Murphy, Gottesfeld, & Aitken, 1985). Feltz and Riessinger (1990) examined the efficacy of imagery on self-efficacy for an endurance task ("skier's sit") and revealed that participants in the imagery condition scored higher on self-efficacy than those who did not receive the intervention. McKenzie and Howe (1997) investigated the effects of imagery training on self-efficacy for a dart-throwing task and suggested that imagery cart alter the magnitude of an individual's self-efficacy. Furthermore, several investigators have reported a positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance (Feltz & Riessinger, 1990; Gould & Weiss, 1981; Woolfolk, Murphy, Gottesfeld, & Aitken, 1985). These findings provide support to a position that perceived self-efficacy can be a mediating factor in enhancing performance (Bandura, 1997).

While modeling and imagery have similar processes, one key difference, however, is the locus of the initial stimulus. Imagery is a cognitive process that involves internally recalling sensory experiences that are stored in memory, and then performing the task in the absence of external stimuli (Murphy, 1994). During modeling the criterion skill is demonstrated via an external stimulus. In modeling studies, a live or videotaped presentation is the most frequent mode of observational learning, while imagery studies prompt the learners to create a mental image from memory or past experiences with audiotapes or scripts provided by the experimenter. Although the processes are similar in nature, modeling requires an external stimulus that is often visual in nature, whereas, with imagery an external visual image is not provided.

A myriad of imagery studies were found that confounded the imagery treatments by providing modeling or other cognitive techniques, such as relaxation, in combination with imagery (e.g., Gray, 1990; Hall & Erffmeyer, 1983; Li-Wei, Qi-Wei, Orlick, & Zitzelsberger, 1992). By confounding the imagery treatments with other variables, it becomes unclear whether imagery or imagery in combination with other treatments is contributing to the observed performance effects (Martin et al., 1999). Martin et al. suggested that "it would be valuable to know the role that imagery plays in producing treatment effects" (p.255). One example that is typically referred to as an imagery study is by Hall and Erffmeyer (1983). The researchers had one treatment labeled relaxation and one labeled visuo-motor behavior rehearsal (VMBR). All groups received relaxation, but in addition, the relaxation group visualized while the VMBR group received modeling and imagery. Hall and Erffmeyer (1983) reported significant improvements in performance for the VMBR group, indicating the influence of modeling on performance. A recent review of imagery studies (McCullagh & Ram, 2000) in fact found that half of the studies that had imagery interventions actually confounded the treatment with modeling.

Despite the amount of research conducted on the use of modeling and imagery in the acquisition of motor skills, no clear systematic comparison was possible in determining the differences between the two interventions. Therefore, a litany of research questions arises: Is one technique more effective than the other? In what instances would the effectiveness be applicable? Or in what way does each contribute to learning and performance? The present study attempted to further the understanding of the effects of modeling and imagery on motor skill acquisition and psychological variables.

In this study, participants in the imagery condition were not given a demonstration before acquisition, thus we can be assured that the imagery group was not confounded with modeling. It is more difficult to assure that modeling participants did not image. In studies in which there is a time delay between the demonstrations, there is the possibility that participants could image the skill as a rehearsal technique unless the interval was filled with an interpolated activity. In the this study, participants performed immediately following the demonstration, thereby reducing the time available for unscheduled imaging.

The present study compared a modeling intervention to an imagery intervention to determine the differences in performance and self-efficacy on a novel gross motor task. Based on the premise that both imagery and modeling techniques are vicarious experiences, it was hypothesized that both treatment groups would improve performance. It was further hypothesized, based on previous research (Corbin, 1967; Finke, 1989) that suggested that some prior experience may be necessary to aid imagery, that the modeling group would have a better performance than the imagery group. Based on Bandura's (1997) self-efficacy theory and previous research (e.g., Feltz & Riessinger, 1990; Gould & Weiss, 1981; McAuley, 1985; McKenzie & Howe, 1997), it was predicted that self-efficacy scores would increase in both treatment groups. It was also of interest to determine the influence of switching experimental conditions on performance, and the participants' preference for treatments.

Method

Participants

Twenty-two female students who ranged from 18 to 40 years in age (M = 24.2 years SD = 5.36 years) had an average height and weight of 5' 3" and 129.5 pounds, respectively, volunteered to participate in the study. They were recruited from activity classes at a western U.S. university. The self-reported ethnic backgrounds of the participants were 59% Euro-American, 18% Asian-American, 13% African-American, 5% Latin-American, and 5% mixed descent. Individuals with no prior instructional training or performance experience in weight lifting were recruited as participants. Of the 22 participants recruited, 10 reported that they had observed the squat lift before the experiment by watching someone either on the television or in the gym. Although these people had observed a squat lift before, it was less than 5 times and they never physically performed a squat lift. When questioned on how active was their lifestyle, participants reported a mean score of 6.4 on a scale of 1 to 10 ("not at all active" to "extremely active," respectively). The result suggested that the participants were moderately active. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups, modeling or imagery.

Materials

The novel motor skill assessed in both the modeling and imagery groups was the squat lift, using a free bar that weighed approximately 20 pounds. The squat lift was assessed for two scores, form and outcome, because prior research has shown it to be an appropriate skill for modeling research (McCullagh & Meyers, 1997). The squat lift performance was videotaped with the ASTAR Learning System (400 Series III, ASTAR Inc., San Diego) at an angle of 45 degrees left of the subject. This angle was utilized so that all components necessary to determine a score for the form of the squat lift were observable (e.g., shoulders, feet, bar, back, etc.). The ASTAR Learning System saved the squat lift performances onto a computer and these videoclips were later displayed in real time for the two judges to produce a form score for each of the squat lifts. A television and VCR were used to demonstrate the modeling videotape to each participant, and an audiotape player with headphones was used to play the imagery audiotape.

The modeling video showed an expert female performing the squat lift skill. A female model similar in age to the participants was used to demonstrate the squat lift because previous research has shown that models that are similar to the participants are more effective than those who are dissimilar (Gould & Weiss, 1981 ; McCullagh, 1987). In addition, a correct model (expert) was used because previous research demonstrated that in early learning, observing a correct model facilitated performance for simple gross motor tasks (Marten, Burwitz, & Zuckerman, 1976). The model was an intercollegiate coach who had extensive experience with the squat lift.

The participants watched the videotape of the expert model performing four sets of 15-s squat lifts; two sets were from the front view and the other two sets were from the side view. Research evidence suggests that the ideal exposure for modeling demonstrations is before and between trials in the early stages of learning for optimal skill acquisition (Landers, 1975; Gould & Roberts, 1982). Therefore, the participants were shown the treatment videotape before each acquisition trial. Moreover, the treatment videotape displayed the timing of the squat lifts; subsequently, seven squat lifts were performed in 15-s per trial. The viewing length of the videotape was 2 min and 30 s.

The imagery audiotape consisted of 2 min of a female voice instructing how to perform the squat lift, guiding the participants through mental imagery of the task. The instructions included the components of the correct form and the correct timing of the squat lifts. The participants were instructed to, "Picture yourself doing the squats at this timing: go down, then up ... and then down again ... and up ..." to facilitate correct rhythm of the squat lifts. The timing on the audiotape was recorded while watching the videotape of the correct model. After the spoken dialogue, 30 s of silence was provided to allow additional mental imagery rehearsal of the squat lifts. Hence, the participants imaged for 2 min 30 s. The length of the audiotape was the same as the modeling videotape. (1)

Measures

The dependent variables were self-efficacy and two performance measures: one for form (body position) and the other for outcome (number of squats in each 15-s trial). The form score was determined by two independent judges who had extensive experience with weight lifting and the squat lift. The judges were blinded to the experiment and were athletic trainers. The judges watched the videoclips on the ASTAR Learning System in real time and rated the form of the squat lifts for each trial for all participants on a Likert-type scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) on eight components of the squat lift. These eight components were similar to the ones used by McCullagh & Meyers (1997). The eight components were the following: 1) slow, controlled movements, 2) bar in balance, 3) back straight (no rounded back, buttock out), 4) bar on upper back, 5) eyes and head forward and upward, 6) chest up and out, 7) feet flat on the floor, and 8) squat low enough so the thighs were 90 (to the floor. The outcome score was determined by counting the number of squat lifts the participants performed in each of the 15-s acquisition trials. The target number was seven. Fifteen-second trials were chosen because the participants in a previous research were sore after performing squat lifts for 30 s (McCullagh & Meyers, 1997).

Self-efficacy was measured with a Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (SEQ) developed by the investigators, following Bandura's Self-Efficacy Guidelines (for latest guidelines see Pajares, 2003). The Self-Efficacy Questionnaire was administered four times to the participants throughout the experiment. Each participant rated their confidence in their ability to attain a given number of points for the form score on their next attempt of the squat lifts. The purpose of the questionnaire was to assess whether improvement in performance may be related to increases in self-efficacy. Each participant was judged on eight components of the squall lift on a Likert-type scale that ranged from I (poor) to 5 (excellent). The highest score possible would be 40 and the lowest score would be 8. They were asked whether (yes or no) they could obtain a certain number of points (i.e., 8, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40) and then asked to rate how confident they were in receiving that score on a 10 to 100 percent scale. The SEQ was administered prior to performance of any trials and after the third, fourth, and fifth trials.

Imagery ability of the participants was also assessed with the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ; Isaac, Marks, & Russell, 1986). The purpose of this questionnaire was to assess visual imagery and imagery of kinesthetic sensations. The questionnaire was administered after the interventions and performances to determine whether the participants perceived themselves to be effective imagers after imaging themselves versus imaging someone else. This questionnaire has been shown to be reliable and valid (Isaac et al., 1986). The questionnaire asked the participants to rate their ability to imagine someone else and themselves performing physical skills such as standing, sitting, jumping, and squat lifting on a Likert scale which ranged from i (poor) to 5 (excellent). A higher score indicated a higher ability to mentally imagine vivid and clear images. Moreover, a manipulation check was provided to determine self-evaluated imagery ability created by the investigators for this study.

Design and Procedure

A schematic representation of the experimental protocol is presented in Table I. The participants were welcomed into a room inside the laboratory by the two experimenters completed an informed consent form. All participants had no prior experience performing the squat lift. The experimental procedures were explained and the participants were told that they would perform five trials of 15-s squat lifts while being videotaped. No further instructions were provided. The weight bar was placed on the shoulders and removed by a researcher. The participants were informed that they could stop at anytime and were instructed to say "help" if assistance was needed.

Following verbal instructions, participant viewed a still picture on the video screen of a correct model standing with the weight bar correctly held, ensuring that each participant knew the correct starting position for a squat lift skill. Then the first SEQ was administered. After completing the SEQ, three 15-s trials of squat lifts were performed with interventions interspersed between each trial. All participants were given the same protocol except for the interventions. The modeling group watched a modeling videotape for the first three interventions and the imagery group listened to an audiotape for the first three interventions. A wooden screen separated the participants from the researchers to reduce direct evaluation. A stopwatch was used to tell the participants when to begin and stop performing the squat lifts.

Following Trial 3, SEQ was administered for the second time. Subsequently, the participants switched groups; the modeling group received imagery intervention and the imagery group received the modeling intervention. After switching groups, both groups performed another trial. Following Trial 4, the participants completed another SEQ and a demographic information sheet. Participants were then asked which intervention they thought would more effectively enhance their performance the next time they performed the squat lift. The preferred mode of intervention was provided and the participants performed the squat lift skill for the fifth time. Subsequently, the fourth SEQ was completed after Trial 5. Finally, the VMIQ and manipulation check were administered after all treatments.

Results

Performance

The inter-rater reliability of the forms scores was calculated with the Pearson product-moment correlation with the two judges' ratings and was r = .78; therefore, the two judges' scores were deemed appropriate to be averaged to generate a form score for each participant. The number of squat lifts executed in each trial determined the outcome scores. Two separate 2 x 3 (Group x Trial) ANOVAs with repeated measures on the last factor were calculated for both form and outcome scores for the first three trials. An alpha level of .05 was used in all analyses.

For the form score, there was significant main effect for trials, F(2, 40) = 32.01, p < .05. Both groups improved with practice. The modeling group increased their score by 16% and the imagery group by 21% from pre- to post-treatment. Neither the group main effect, F(1,20) = 2.53, p > .05, nor the Group x Trial interaction, F(2,40) = < 1, p > .05, was significant. For the outcome score, there was a significant main effect for group, F(1, :20) = 13.56, p < .001. Participants in the modeling group were closer (M = 6.52, SD = 0.06) to the criteria of seven squat lifts than the imagery group (M = 4.64, SD = 0.28). Neither the trials main effect, F(2,40) = 1.82, p > .05), nor the Group x Trial, F(2,40) = < 1, p > .05, interaction was significant.

After three acquisition trials, the groups switched interventions. Two separate independent t tests were performed between groups on Trial 4 for the form and outcome scores. There were no significant differences between groups on either form, t(20) = .25,p > .05, or outcome, t(20) = 1.11, p > .05, scores. Two separate independent t tests were performed between groups on Trial 5 for both form and outcome scores. Again, no significant differences were found for form, t(20)= .96, p > .05, or outcome, t(20) = 1.00, p > .05. The means and standard deviations for all dependent measures are reported in Table 2.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy questionnaires were assessed for both level and strength of the participants' self-efficacy. The level score revealed how confident the participants were in obtaining a certain number of points for the form score (i.e., 8, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40) and the strength score described how confident they were in receiving that score in a percentage. As mentioned earlier, the highest score achieved could be 40 and the lowest score could be 8. The level score was determined by dividing the highest number of points the participant said yes that she could attain by the number of levels (seven). Therefore, a higher level or strength score on the questionnaire indicated higher self-efficacy for the participants. Two separate 2 x 2 (Group x Time) ANOVAs with repeated measures were performed for the level and strength scores of self-efficacy. No significant main effects for either level or strength scores between the groups, F(l,20) = 1.26, p > .05 and F(1,20) = 0, p > .05, respectively. In addition, the Group x Trial interaction for the level of self-efficacy, F(I,20) = 0.14, p > .05, and the strength of self-efficacy, F(1,20) = 0.33, p > .05, were not significant. Separate independent t tests were used to analyze the third and fourth SEQs. No significant differences were found between the groups for the level of self-efficacy on the third and fourth SEQ, t(20) = .02, p > .05 and t(20) = .27, p > .05, respectively. Additionally for strength, no significant differences were found for the third and fourth SEQ, t(20) = .63, p > .05 and t(20) = .18, p > .05, respectively. Means and standard deviations are shown in Table 3.

Preferred Mode of Intervention

Prior to Trial 5, the participants were asked which intervention they preferred to facilitate them in learning the squat lifts the next time they performed it. Of the 22 participants 14 chose modeling and 8 chose imagery as the preferred mode of intervention. In the modeling group, seven chose to listen to the imagery tape and four chose to watch the video as their preferred modes of intervention. In the imagery group, ten chose modeling and one chose imagery.

Imagery Ability

An independent t test was used to determine differences between the participants' perceived imagery ability of imagining someone else performing certain physical skills including the squat lift and imagery ability for imaging themselves performing those same skills. There was no significant difference between imaging someone else (M = 4.06, SD = 0.67) and imaging themselves (M = 3.97, SD = 0.77), suggesting that imaging someone else and themselves performing the physical skills were similar in both vividness and clarity.

Manipulation Check

The findings indicated that all participants were able to imagine themselves performing the squat lift skill. Moreover, 11 of the participants stated that they felt their body position (e.g., feet apart, back straight, knees bent) and 7 felt themselves squatting during imagery. Others felt their breathing pattern (n = 1), muscles (n = 1), rhythm of the squat (n = 2), the bar (n = 3), someone else performing (n = 1), relaxed (n = 2), and performing the first trial incorrectly (n = 1). When asked why the participants chose modeling as their preferred mode of intervention, 7 of the 14 participants stated that the videotape provided details for the correct form and the other 7 participants indicated that they learn more effectively when they have a visual aid. For those who chose to listen to the audiotape, 5 of the 8 stated that it provided specific information about the squat lift and the other 3 participants acknowledged that they were verbal learners. Three of the 22 participants indicated that receiving both modeling and imagery interventions were beneficial.

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to compare the influence of modeling and imagery interventions on the form and outcome of the squat lift performance and self-efficacy. A number of earlier imagery investigations confounded the results with the utilization of other interventions such as modeling (McCullagh & Ram, 2000). This study attempted to manipulate modeling and imagery interventions independently, and determine the effects on performance.

The hypothesis that the modeling group would perform more effectively than the imagery group in outcome performance was supported. The significant group difference supports previous research that modeling was a more effective intervention than imagery (Corbin, 1967; Finke, 1989; Gray, 1990; Hall & Erffmeyer, 1983). While it has been suggested that some prior experience in imaging is necessary for effective use of imagery (Corbin, 1967; Finke, 1989), the imagery group with no training in imagery prior to acquisition trials performed less effectively than the modeling group. The finding of no differences in imagery ability suggested that any improvement in performance could be attributed to the treatment groups or interventions. Furthermore, the increased effectiveness of modeling over imagery in outcome performance is supported by previous research that compared the two interventions with other strategies (Gray, 1990, Hall & Erffmeyer, 1983). Gray (1990) found that beginning racquetball players assigned to a VMBR with modeling manipulation significantly increased performance over those who received only relaxation and imagery techniques. Similarly, Hall & Erffmeyer (1983) found that the participants in the modeling group (VMBR) significantly increased their foul shooting percentage over the imagery-relaxation group. This finding coupled with the Gray findings (1990) suggested that modeling may have some effect in determining performance benefits. In addition, the findings also support Fischman and Oxendine's (1998) notion that visual information is necessary for performers at the cognitive stages of learning.

Comparing the form score by group yielded no main effects for group and no interaction between group and trial. These findings did not support the hypothesis that modeling would be more effective intervention than imagery. One reason for the lack of group differences might be attributed to the limited number of imagery exposures provided. Imagery may be more effective with additional imagery opportunities (Martin & Hall, 1995). Moreover, because no significant differences were found between groups, one explanation may be that modeling and imagery have similar cognitive processes and produce similar effects. This would support the contention that "internal representations" in modeling and imagery serve as "internal standard for response reproduction" because symbolic coding and subsequent rehearsal influence performance (McCullagh & Weiss, 2001, p. 222).

The only significant finding related to the form score was that both groups improved in performance over trials. The improvements in form score for both groups provided support to previous literature (Li-Wei, Qi-Wei, Orlick, & Zitzelsberger, 1992; McCullagh & Meyer, 1997), that found that both modeling and imagery might enhance movement form. Li-Wei, Qi-Wei, Orlick, & Zitzelsberger (1992) investigated the effect of mental-imagery training program on the tennis forehand skill and found that the mental practice program significantly improved form with practice. The mental-imagery program included both relaxation and modeling. In accordance, McCullagh & Meyer (1997) found significant increases in form with the free-weight squat lift with a modeling intervention. Collectively, the evidence suggests that modeling, imagery and physical practice improve form performance.

Although self-efficacy generally increased over trials, there were no significant group differences in self-efficacy scores. These findings are not in accordance with Bandura's (1997) self-efficacy theory and previous research (Feltz & Riessinger, 1990; George, Feltz, & Chase, 1992; McAuley, 1985; McCullagh, McKenzie & Howe, 1997). One explanation may be the nature of the particular physical skill chosen for the task. Due to the fact that the participants had no prior experience in weight lifting or squat lifting, and considering the difficulty of the task in relation to the participant skill level, it may have been difficult for them to make accurate estimates of self-efficacy. For example, Feltz & Riessinger (1990) examined imagery and performance feedback on enhancing self-efficacy beliefs on a competitive muscular' endurance task and suggested that self-efficacy may be increased along with feedback of performance. Since the participants did not receive augmented feedback, one reason for no differences between groups may be due to lack of performance feedback. Therefore, self-efficacy may be a common mechanism in mediating behavior, but should not be expected to fully explain human behavior (McAuley, 1995; Bandura, 1986).

The no significant finding between groups on performance and self-efficacy scores following switching interventions may be due to that each participant only performed one performance trial after the intervention. McCullagh & Meyers (1997) found performance improvements when participants received more than one trial, but they experienced soreness that may have affected their performance. Furthermore, when examining whether the participants' preferred mode of intervention effected performance, no differences were found between groups. Participant responses from the manipulation check provided valuable information. Seven of the participants who chose the modeling intervention and five of those who chose imagery preferred their chosen strategy because it provided details of the body position which they felt would allow them to achieve a higher score in a future performance. The rest of the participants stated that they were either visual or verbal learners. While no scientific evidence supports the notion that individual differences in learning exists, maybe the way the learner's perception of how they learn affects both performance and psychological factors.

This study is an initial attempt to independently compare the effectiveness of modeling and imagery on performance and self-efficacy. As previously mentioned (Martin et al., 1999; McCullagh & Ram, 2000), many imagery studies confound these interventions, with modeling. Future research should examine other mediating factors such as feedback and experience that may influence performance differences between modeling and imagery, investigate interactions between modeling and imagery compared to modeling and imagery alone., and determine whether these effects can be transferred to other tasks, cross gender, skill level, or age categories. Based on the findings of this study, in early stages of learning coaches, teachers, and educators can use modeling or imagery to enhance the form of a particular skill such as squat lifting with practice. For outcome purposes, providing a demonstration of a correct model performing the skill may be more effective than visualizing the skill. This study also indicated that for this particular task, a majority of the participants preferred modeling. Future studies may want to further investigate preference of interventions as an important learning variable.

Table 2.

Mean and Standard Deviation for Performance for Modeling and Imagery
Groups

 Form Score

Group Trial M SD N

Modeling 1 2.58 0.55 11
Modeling 2 2.78 0.49 11
Modeling 3 3.00 0.44 11
Imagery 4 3.34 0.42 11
Chose *
Modeling 5 3.65 0.37 14

 Form Score

Group Trial M SD N

Imagery 1 2.76 0.32 11
Imagery 2 3.07 0.36 11
Imagery 3 3.34 0.46 11
Modeling 4 3.40 0.40 11
Chose *
Imagery 5 3.54 0.56 8

 Outcome Score

Group Trial M SD N

Modeling 1 6.45 1.36 11
Modeling 2 6.55 0.82 11
Modeling 3 6.55 1.13 11
Imagery 4 5.81 1.08 11
Chose *
Modeling 5 6.43 1.02 14

 Outcome Score

Group Trial M SD N

Imagery 1 4.36 1.36 11
Imagery 2 4.91 1.64 11
Imagery 3 4.65 1.50 11
Modeling 4 5.91 0.94 11
Chose *
Imagery 5 5.75 0.71 8

Note. * Of the 11 participants assigned to modeling, 7 chose imagery
and 4 chose modeling as the preferred treatment. * Of the 11
participants assigned to imagery, 10 chose modeling and 1 chose
imagery as the preferred treatment.

Table 3.

Mean and Standard Deviation for Self-Efficacy for Modeling and Imagery
Groups

 Level Score

Group Trial M SD N

Modeling Pre-Acq 4.82 2.04 11
Modeling Post-T3 5.82 1.40 11
Imagery Post-T4 6.82 1.08 11
Chose
Modeling Post-T5 7.14 0.86 14

 Level Score

Group Trial M SD N

Imagery Pre-Acq 5.55 0.93 11
Imagery Post-T3 6.27 1.42 11
Modeling Post-T4 6.82 0.98 11
Chose
Imagery Post-T5 7.13 1.36 8

 Strength Score

Group Trial M SD N

Modeling Pre-Acq 43.14 27.15 11
Modeling Post-T3 57.95 17.23 11
Imagery Post-T4 70.05 18.38 11
Chose
Modeling Post-T5 67.95 16.23 14

 Strength Score

Group Trial M SD N

Imagery Pre-Acg 45.57 11.66 11
Imagery Post-T3 55.61 13.69 11
Modeling Post-T4 63.55 18.10 11
Chose
Imagery Post-T5 79.82 16.09 8

Note. Pre-Acq = pre-acquisition; Post-T3 = post-Trial 3; Post-T4 =
post-Trial 4; Post-T5 = post-Trial 5.

Author Note

SooHoo is now a doctoral student at the University of Utah. Takemoto, K.Y. is now a graduate student in the Physical Therapy Department at Samuel Merritt College.McCullagh is Professor and Chair at California State University, Hayward.

We thank Scott Lung and Wesley Williams for their assistance with judging the videoclips of the squat lift performances, Lisa Best for being the correct model in the modeling videotape, all the participants, and others who assisted in the research project.

Thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their comments on this paper.

(1) Audio script is available from authors.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Corbin, C.B. (1967). The effects of covert rehearsal on the development of a complex motor skill. Journal of General Psychology, 76, 143-150.

Driskell, J.E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 481-491.

Druckman, D., & Swets, J. A. (1988). Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories and techniques. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Feltz, D.L., & Landers, D.M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill learning and performance: A recta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 25-57.

Feltz, D.L., & Riessinger, C.A. (1990). Effects of in vivo emotive imagery and performance feedback on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 132-143.

Finke, R.A. (1989). Principles of mental imagery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fischman, M.G., & Oxendine, J.B. (1998). Motor skill learning for effective coaching and perforance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance (3rd ed., pp. 14-15), Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

George, T.R., Feltz, D.L., & Chase, M.A. (1992). Effects of model similarity on self-efficacy and muscular endurance: A second look, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 237-248.

Gould, D.R., & Roberts, G.C. (1981). Modeling and motor skill acquisition. Quest, 33, 17-29.

Gould, D.R., & Weiss, M.R. (1981). The effects of model similarity and model talk on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 17-29.

Gray, S.W. (1990). Effects of visuomotor rehearsal with videotaped modeling on racquetball performance of beginner players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 379-385.

Hall, C.R. (2001). Imagery in sport and exercise. In R.N. Singer, H. A. Hasenblaus, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 529-549). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Hall, E.G., & Erffmeyer, E.S. (I 983). The effect of visuo-motor behavior rehearsal with videotaped modeling on free throw accuracy of intercollegiate female basketball players. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 343-346.

Housner, L. D. (1984). The role of imaginal processing in the retention of visually presented sequential motoric stimuli. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 148-158.

Isaac, A., Marks, D., & Russell, E. (1986). An instrument for assessing imagery of movement: The Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ). Journal of Mental Imagery, 10, 23-30.

Landers, D.M. (1975). Observational learning of a motor skill: Temporal spacing of demonstrations and audience presence. Journal of Motor Behavior, 7, 281-287.

Li-Wei, Z., Qi-Wei, M., Orlick, T., & Zitzelsberger, L. (! 992). The effect of mental-imagery training on performance enhancement with 7-10-year-old children. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 230-241.

Martens, R., Burwitz, L., & Zuckerman, J. (1976). Modeling effects on motor performance. Research Quarterly, 47, 277-291.

Martin, K. A., Moritz, S. E., & Hall, C. R. (1999). Imagery use in sport: A literature review and applied model. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 245-268.

McAuley, E. (1985). Modeling and self-efficacy: A test of Bandura's model. Journal of sport psychology, 7, 283-295.

McCullagh, P. (I 987). Model similarity effects on motor performance. Journa,! of Sport Psychology, 9, 249-260.

McCuilagh, P., & Meyer, K.N. (1997). Learning versus correct models: Influence of model type on the learning of a free-weight squat lift. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61,344-350.

McCullagh, P., & Ram, N. (2000). A comparison of imagery and modeling. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, (Suppl. 1), 9.

McCullagh, P., & Weiss, M. R. (2001). Modeling: Considerations for motor skill performance and psychological responses. In R.N. Singer, H. A. Hasenblaus, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 205-238). New York: Wiley & Sons.

McCullagh, P., Weiss, M.R., & Ross, D. (1989). Modeling considerations in motor skill acquisition and performance: An integrated approach. In K.B. Pandolf(Ed.), Exercise and sport science reviews (pp. 475-513), Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

McKenzie, A.D.,& Howe, B.L. (1997). The effects of imagery on self-efficacy for a motor skill. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 196-210.

Murphy, S.M. (1994). Imagery interventions in sport. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26,486-494.

Murphy, S.M., & Jowdy, D.P. (1992). Imagery and mental practice. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 221-250), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Pajares, F. (2003). Website: http://www.Emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/effpage.html

Richardson, A. (1969). Mental imagery. New York: Springer.

Ryan, E. D., & Simons, J. (1983). What is learned in mental practice of motor skills: A test of the cognitive-motor hypothesis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 419-426.

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.

Vogt, S. (1995). On relations between perceiving, imagining, and performing in the learning of cyclical movement sequences. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 19 I-216.

Weiss, M.R., McCullagh, P., Smith, A., & Berlant, A.R. (1998). Observational learning and the fearful child: Influence of peer models on swimming skill performance and psychological responses. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 380-394.

Woolfolk, R.L., Murphy, S.M., Gottesfeld, D., & Aitken, D. (I 985). Effects of mental rehearsal of task motor activity and mental depiction of task outcome on motor skill performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 191-197.

Address Correspondence To: Penny McCullagh, Ph.D., Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, California State University, Hayward, 25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard, Hayward, California 94542. E-mail: pmcculla@csuhayward.edu.