The Development and Initial Evaluation of Two Promising Mental Preparatory Methods in a Sample of Female Cross Country Runners.

Donohue, Brad ; Barnhart, Roger ; Covassin, Tracey 等

The development of standardized mental preparation procedures specific to cross country running performance is delineated, including a preliminary assessment of the relative efficacy of these interventions in 6 Division I female cross country runners. The interventions occur immediately prior to running, and involve (a) asking athletes to report current thoughts and feelings (e.g., "What are you thinking about, now?"), (b) stating motivational phrases to the athlete (e.g., "You're going to dominate today"), or (c) instructing athletes to focus on actions that are consistent with optimum performance (e.g., "Sprint hard through the finish line"). In the origination of these interventions, athletes were employed to assist in the generation of specific content. A preliminary evaluation of these interventions involved performance comparisons between 1000 meter baseline trials, and 1000 meter trials for each runner consequent to each of the interventions (a Latin square experimental design was utilized to counterba lance effects due to the order in which interventions were implemented, i.e., control for fatigue/practice effects). Preliminary results, including consumer satisfaction indices completed by the cross country runners who participated in this study, suggest the motivational and instructional interventions are most promising. Future recommendations are discussed in light of these results.

Implementing mental preparation techniques immediately before sporting activities ("psyching-up") has long been espoused by coaches to get athletes emotionally ready for their upcoming events (Weinberg, Jackson, & Seaboune, 1985). Indeed, Olympic wrestlers have reported that their best performances have occurred subsequent to mental preparation plans involving clear tactical strategies, focusing on the upcoming match, optimum arousal, and extreme confidence (Gould, Eklund, & Jackson, 1992). Similarly, golfers have reported a high degree of self-confidence during their peak performance (Cohn, 1991). Along these lines, Jackson and Roberts (1992) suggest confidence building strategies should be implemented with athletes at the time of competition and that focus should be directed towards tasks involved in performance as the time of competition draws near.

In the first study to evaluate mental preparation procedures in athletes, Shelton and Mahone (1978) indicated that Olympic weightlifters who were given instructions to "psych themselves up" during the 30 seconds immediately preceding a hand strength task exhibited greater force than those who were instructed to count backwards. Caudill, Weinberg, and Jackson (1983) demonstrated that, relative to a control condition, instructions to "psych-up" benefitted track athletes in weight training. Similar results have been found in non-athletes. For instance, relative to baseline scores, instructing undergraduate students to "psych up" prior to a leg strength task resulted in their improved performance, although length of time spent "psyching up" was inconsequential (Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1981). Although these results are impressive, the specific strategies that are involved during the "psych-up" are not standardized. This makes it difficult to improve these strategies in research, and complicates comparisons of "psych-up" procedures since athletes may vary the content, and potential effectiveness, of their psych-up strategy depending on the nature of the sporting event. Indeed, instructions to "psych-up" have resulted in enhanced leg strength, but not balance and arm speed (Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1980). Therefore, due to diversity in the nature of task demands involved in various sports, it should probably not be assumed that mental preparation strategies will demonstrate similar effects across sports. For instance, Meyers, Schleser, Cooke, and Cuvillier (1979) examined the effects of various self-instructional sets (i.e., positive, coping, negative, neutral) on gymnastic skills in YMCA entry-level gymnasts utilizing a controlled research design, and found no differences in efficacy between these strategies. Whereas other controlled evaluations have indicated performance enhancement utilizing self-talk procedures with experienced (Ming & Martin, 1996) and entry level (Palmer, 1992) figure skaters, and beginnin g level tennis players (Ziegler, 1987).

In an effort to better understand the relative efficacy of mental preparation strategies in the general population, Gould, Weinberg, and Jackson (1980) utilized between groups (N=60) and Latin Square (N=30) experimental designs in samples of undergraduate students to demonstrate that preparatory arousal procedures (instructing athletes to get emotionally charged-up, to get psyched-up by getting aroused, pumped-up, or mad) significantly enhanced leg strength in athletes relative to instructing these athletes to "rest," count backwards, or focus on internal feelings of leg muscles. Importantly, the arousal procedure was not more effective than instructing students to visualize their best performance prior to the task. In a sample of 24 male volunteers in an undergraduate weight training class, Weinberg, Jackson, and Seaboune (1985), improved on the previous study by broadening the task (i.e., including sit-ups, push-ups, pull-ups, and broad jump), and better standardizing the instructions given to subjects. Re st and focus conditions were not included in this study. Results indicated that, for all tasks, the interventions were equally more effective than the control condition of counting backwards. The authors concluded that because nonspecific (i.e., psych-up) and specific (i.e., imagery, preparatory arousal) mental preparatory techniques were equally effective, it would probably be most parsimonious to let athletes who are not experiencing any psychological difficulty to use their own method of preparation prior to performance (as opposed to spending considerable time teaching them ways to mentally prepare). Indeed, the authors reported that maximum effectiveness would most likely occur if future mental preparation techniques were individualized to accommodate the athlete's specific needs. In doing so, it would seem advantageous to involve athletes in the development of their own specified mental preparation strategies. Moreover, standard procedural guidelines would be needed in the development of the respective interventions so that comparisons could be made, and outcome results could be reliably replicated.

The preceding studies indicate mental preparation procedures have demonstrated efficacy in athletic performance. However, controlled studies have yet to be initiated regarding who best should initiate the mental preparation statements. For instance, is it best for the athlete to engage in public statements, private self-statements, or should others (e.g., coaches, friends, strangers) assert the respective mental preparation statements to the athlete? Although planned self-statements have demonstrated efficacy in the improvement of athletic practice performance (Rushall, Hall, Roux, Sasseville, & Rushall, 1988; Rushall & Shewchuk, 1989), and have also been found to improve transfer of skills from practice to athletic competition (Hamilton & Fremouw, 1985). Ming and Martin (1996) suggest public (out-loud) self-talk may be more efficacious than private self-talk in influencing overt behavior. Unfortunately, athletes may be reluctant to employ mental preparation statements out-loud due to negative perceptions of what others might think, and it is sometimes difficult, or inappropriate, to use public self-statements in many sport situations. In addition, "private" self-statements are also associated with disadvantages, as effective use of these self- statements require training and concentration, and their use is difficult to monitor. Providing mental preparation statements to athletes may be an effective compromise in that this procedure is socially acceptable to the athlete, and the benefits of overt, as opposed to covert, statements are accomplished (see reviews by Hayes, 1989; Hayes et al., 1985). Unfortunately, investigators have yet to examine mental preparation procedures which are initiated by others to athletes during, or immediately prior to, sporting events. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was twofold, (1) to describe the empirical development of 2 mental preparation procedures that employ others to carry out standardized interventions, and (2) to preliminarily assess the efficacy of these inter ventions in NCAA Division I cross country runners.

Methods

Participants

Participants were six Caucasian women, who were members of an NCAA Division I cross country team. They were between 18 to 21 years of age. Two participants were freshman, one was a junior, and three were in their senior year.

Procedure

Assessment of Problem Behavior. The coach of an NCAA Division I women's cross country team identified six of her athletes as being in need of sports psychology intervention in response to an invitation by the first author to involve her runners in a study to develop an intervention program aimed at improving athletic performance. After informed consent was obtained from participants, an informal discussion was arranged with the coach, and these 6 athletes, to identify potential deficits in their mental preparation in sport. This meeting occurred during the latter part of their cross country season. Results of this meeting indicated that these women sometimes evinced relative deficits in confidence and ability to maintain positive perspective immediately prior to cross country competition and training workouts (e.g., "We don't deserve to be here," "We're going to get killed today,"). Most participants reported that their performance, both in competition and during training, was reportedly compromised due to t hese negative statements.

Development and Description of Interventions. Three mental preparation procedures were evaluated in this study. In developing the first intervention, a script of motivational statements was constructed following a standardized protocol. Specifically, four athletes, not in the present study, generated a list of statements that would motivate them to perform their best in sports (e.g., "You're going to dominate today," "Today is your day," "You've worked hard for this"). These 4 lists were combined to produce 41 non-redundant motivational statements. Separately, each of the six participants constructed a list of statements that would motivate her to "run her fastest," as well as rating how motivating each of these self-generated statements were, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale (i.e., I = not at all motivating, 5=extremely motivating). The list of 41 items was then administered to each participants and each subject was asked to rate how motivating each of the 41 statements was, utilizing the same 5-point Liker t scale of motivation mentioned above. In the last phase of script development, each subject was asked to look at her ratings in the two lists (i.e., 41 item list, her self-generated list), and identify her 15 most motivating statements. Thus, providing each subject with a unique list of motivational statements. The motivational intervention in this study consisted of a trained research assistant asserting the respective motivational statements to each subject during the 5 minutes immediately preceding a 1000 meter trial run. Research assistants were trained to disclose one statement from the script every 10 seconds, and participants were instructed to focus on the content of these statements. When all motivational statements were disclosed, the list was repeated.

In developing the second intervention, the participants' coach identified a list of 25 instructions to do actions that would likely result in optimum performance (e.g., "get an explosive start," "strike heels against ground softly," "point toes straight ahead"). Separately, each of the 6 participants identified a list of actions that was most important to her "perfect run," as well as rating how influential the accomplishment of each of these actions would be in assisting her to attain a "perfect run," utilizing a 5-point Likert scale (i.e., 1=not influential, 5'extremely influential). Any instruction generated that did not reflect a behavioral action (e.g., "feel good") was excluded from consideration. The list of 25 items was then administered to each of the 6 participants, and each participant was asked to rate how influential the accomplishment of each action would be in assisting her to attain a "perfect run," utilizing the same 5-point Likert scale mentioned above. In the last phase of script developme nt, each participant was asked to look at her self- generated list, as well as her coach's list (25 item list), and identify 15 actions that she believed would be most influential in attaining the "perfect run." For each script, instructions were ordered in chronological fashion. For example, "start your kick at the right time," would precede "when you start your kick, get on your toes and lift your knees high." Thus, each participant was provided a script consisting of a unique set of instructions to do actions that were perceived to be most consistent with optimum performance. Intervention consisted of a trained research assistant disclosing the respective instructions to each subject during the 5 minutes immediately preceding a practice session run of 1000 meters. Research assistants were trained to disclose one statement from the script every 10 seconds, and participants were told to focus on the content of these instructions. When all instructions were stated, the list was repeated until time expired.

In the third condition, subjects were asked two questions ("what are you thinking about, right now?" "tell me how your body feels, right now?"). Trained research assistants asked each participant these questions during the 5 minutes immediately preceding a trial run of 1000 meters. Research assistants were trained to ask one question every 30 seconds. Questions were alternated, and research assistants were trained to respond to participant answers by nodding their head up and down in a neutral manner.

Participants were instructed to engage in their typical warm-up routine (i.e., stretching exercises, jumping up and down, 15 meter sprints) while interventions were being implemented.

Experimental Design. A Latin square experimental design was utilized to counterbalance effects due to the order in which interventions were implemented (i.e., control for fatigue/practice effects). Each participant initially ran 1000 meters as part of her training routine one week prior to receiving intervention. To be consistent with the routine training regimen of these athletes, participants ran in pairs. The coach was told that the initial times would be used to establish each participant's baseline, and participants were told that they should run their best. Participant pairs were then randomly assigned to receive each of the three interventions on separate days, one intervention per week. The order in which the interventions were implemented was different for each of the participant pairs to control practice/fatigue effects. That is, 2 participants received intervention "A" (motivational statements) 5 minutes prior to a 1000 meter trial run, then intervention B (instructions to do actions that were con sistent with perceived optimum performance) 5 minutes prior to a 1000 meter session run, and then intervention C (questions) 5 minutes prior to a 1000 meter session run. Two participants received intervention B, then C, then A, and two participants received intervention C then A then B. Each athlete received her interventions from the same research assistant (facilitator) throughout the study. Participants were assigned to research assistant facilitators on a random basis. There was one male facilitator and one female research facilitator to counterbalance gender effects. The study occurred during the end of the cross country season to assure that all participants would be in the same phase of training (at, or close to, peak condition), there was 1 day of rest prior to each trial run, and athletes indicated no sickness or injury prior to experimental trials. Thus, illness, fatigue and injury did not appear to influence study results. Moreover, all experimental trials occurred at the same time in the afternoon , and participants were instructed to eat the same meals prior to each trial run.

To assist the two research assistants in following intervention protocol, they were trained to utilize prompting checklists depicting protocol for each of the respective interventions, as well as wrist watches to time the delivery of intervention statements.

Results

Protocol Adherence

Protocol checklists completed by research assistant facilitators indicated that all interventions were implemented as protocol dictates, with the exception of one of the trials for the third participant. This participant was erroneously administered the "motivational statements" intervention during the first 2 minutes of her scheduled intervention involving "instructions to do actions that were perceived to be most consistent with optimum performance."

To assess protocol integrity, audio-tape recordings of all intervention sessions for both research assistants were sampled. A rater, blind to experimental design and purpose of the study, reviewed each of the intervention session audio-tapes. This rater recorded if protocol statements for the three interventions (i.e., motivational statements, instructions to do actions that are perceived to be consistent with optimum performance, questions) were implemented, or not. Agreements and disagreements between the blind rater and the research assistants were subsequently obtained for each trial, and percentage agreement was computed as the total number of disagreements and agreements divided by the total number of agreements. This dividend was multiplied by 100 to produce a percentage score. The average percentage agreement (reliability) obtained was 100%, indicating that the blind rater was in complete agreement with the research assistants' reports of protocol adherence.

Preliminary Effectiveness of Interventions

As can be seen in Table I, all athletes improved their practice session times consequent to the implementation of each of the three interventions. Mean times were accomplished for baseline, and each of the interventions. Results indicated that instructing athletes to focus on actions that are consistent with optimum performance demonstrated the greatest relative improvement in performance, as this intervention resulted in a 19 second reduction in time for the group, relative to baseline. Instructing athletes to focus on motivational statements prior to running resulted in a 17 second reduction in time for the group, relative to baseline. Lastly, asking participants how their muscles felt, and what they were thinking about, resulted in a 12 second reduction in time for the group, relative to baseline. As expected due to the low number of participants utilized in this pilot study (N=6). a repeated measures Latin Square design ANOVA using the conservative F-test procedure indicated that the aforementioned diffe rences were not statistically significant (p[greater than].05).

Of course, extreme scores (times) significantly influence the mean, particularly when sample size is low. Therefore, another method of analyzing the data that is not influenced by extreme scores, is to compare the mean ranking of effectiveness for each condition (a "1" would indicate that all participants performed best in that condition, and a "4" would indicate that the intervention was least effective). Thus, interventions were ranked in their effectiveness for each participant, and the mean ranking of each condition was obtained. As can be seen in Table 1, results of the mean rankings of effectiveness were very consistent with the participants' mean times. For example, the mean ranking for the baseline condition, as expected, was "4," indicating that the participants performed their worst in response to no intervention.

At the conclusion of the study, participants were independently asked to rate their perceived effectiveness with each of the interventions, utilizing a 1 to 7 Likert scale (1=not at all effective, 7=extremely effective). Instructing athletes to focus on the content of instructions that are consistent with the perfect run resulted in a mean of 4.58 (sd = 1.90), motivational statements resulted in a mean of 4.17 (sd 1.60), and asking questions resulted in a mean of 3.67 (sd = 2.42). Thus, consistent with the results of objective time measures of performance, participants perceived the instructional intervention to be the most efficacious, followed by the motivational statements intervention, and lastly, the intervention consisting of asking questions. Ranking each of the interventions for participant perceptions of effectiveness resulted in similar findings, as the mean ranking for the motivation intervention, and the intervention involving instructions to do actions that were perceived to be consistent with o ptimum performance, were essentially the same, i.e., 1.92 (sd = 0.66) and 1.83 (sd = 0.98), respectively. The mean ranking for the questions intervention was 2.25 (sd = 0.88). Therefore, participants were able to accurately determine the relative effectiveness of the interventions.

Consumer Satisfaction

Shortly after the conclusion of the study, participants were asked to report which intervention they enjoyed the most. Three participants reported that they enjoyed the instructional intervention the most, two participants reported that they enjoyed the motivational intervention the most, and one participant "enjoyed them all the same." Interestingly, however, only one of the 6 participants interviewed, most enjoyed the intervention that led to her greatest relative decrease in time.

In a less formal interview with all participants together at the conclusion of the study, participants spontaneously indicated that they preferred the interventions to be implemented during the 2. 5 minutes prior to running, instead of 5 minutes, as conducted in this study. Some participants reported that they would have preferred the research assistants to dress as "athletes" or "coaches" (e.g., sweats, baseball hat) to enhance their credibility (participants correctly assumed the research assistants had limited cross country experience). Although most athletes stated that they would ideally prefer to select the gender of the person who implements the mental preparation interventions, they disagreed in their gender preference (2 preferred a female, 2 preferred a male, 2 did not have a gender preference).

Discussion

Three mental preparatory methods were systematically developed to enhance cross country performance in competitive runners. Results of the initial investigation of these interventions suggest motivational statements, and instructions to focus on performing actions that are perceived to be most associated with optimum performance, in particular, appear most promising, as indicated by the participants' participantive ratings of perceived efficacy, and objective improvements in time. Weinberg, Jackson, and Seaboune (1985) found similar results in a mental preparation study involving non-athletes. In their study, an arousal procedure conceptually similar to the current motivational intervention, and instructions to visualize an ideal performance (similar to the present instructional intervention) were equally more effective than control conditions. In reporting the intervention that was most enjoyed in the present study, three participants reported that they most enjoyed the instructional intervention, two parti cipants reported that they most enjoyed the motivational intervention, and one participant enjoyed them all the same. However, only two of the 6 participants interviewed, most enjoyed the intervention that led to her greatest relative decrease in time. These results have strong implications in the adoption of mental preparation strategies in applied settings, as cross country runners (and potentially other athletes) may be capable of choosing their most effective mental preparation strategy after they have had a chance to sample the interventions in the context of the sporting event. However, in this process, the most effective mental preparation strategy, may be one that is not most enjoyed.

There were several interesting anecdotes in this study that shed light on future research in mental preparation. First, the erroneous mix of interventions (i.e., motivating statements, instructions to focus on actions that are consistent with optimum performance) that occurred during one of the experimental trials resulted in that participant's fastest time. Although this is an obvious methodological flaw in this study, it fortuitously lends support to evaluating this combination of interventions in future studies, particularly since the participants reported that 5 minutes of intervention appeared somewhat repetitious. Post-study comments from participants also warrant that the optimum time necessary to administer the interventions be derived. Indeed, participants collectively suggested 2.5 minutes would be the preferred duration. If future investigators find administration time to be inconsequential, as did Weinberg, Gould, and Jackson (1980), a lesser duration would seem more practical.

Another interesting anecdote in this study, was the reaction of participants to the interventions. Although most of the participants appeared to enjoy listening to the facilitators. Two participants purposely avoided eye-contact, rolled their eyes sarcastically, and on a few occasions, turned their backs to the facilitators, during the implementation of interventions. Interestingly, despite their apparent disinterest in the interventions, their performance markedly improved consequent to these interventions. This finding underscores an advantage of having facilitators provide mental preparation procedures, as opposed to the athletes themselves. Indeed, it is probable that some athletes will refuse to employ, or have difficulty implementing, covert self-talk procedures. Thus, if a facilitator (e.g., teammate, coach) is available, this method may be an optimum strategy. Along these lines, future investigators should compare facilitator initiated mental preparation methods with athlete-initiated mental preparat ion procedures.

The results of this study should be considered speculative, as improvements in performance consequent to the initiation of these interventions may have been at least partially due to attention from the facilitators, and the low number of participants in this study contributed to the lack of power necessary to demonstrate significant statistical differences between intervention conditions. Nevertheless, the essential merit of this study is its systematic development of two very promising interventions, which appear to effectively balance individuality with standardization. Although these interventions owe their theoretical underpinnings to the work of others (see the Introduction section), there are several unique aspects to these interventions, including utilization of athletes in the generation of protocol content, and the use of facilitators to initiate interventions. The procedures developed in this study are easily replicated with athletes in various sport venues, particularly in track and cross country runners.

As mentioned above, the results of this study provide several insights into future research, including the necessity of conducting a controlled between groups outcome study evaluating these interventions in a larger sample of runners (or other athletes), identifying the ideal time necessary to administer the developed interventions, formally evaluating a hybrid condition consisting of the motivational and instructional interventions, and comparing various methods of administering the aforementioned interventions (i.e., audio-tape, facilitator, covert self-talk).

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Coach Mary Shea, the UNLV women's cross country team, and the UNLV Alumni Association, for their generous support throughout this project.

References

Caudill, D. & Weinberg, R.S. (1983). The effects of varying the length of the psych-up interval on motor performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 6, 86-91.

Cohn, P.J. (1991). An exploratory study on peak performance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 1-14.

Gould, D., Eklund, R.C., & Jackson, S.A. (1992). 1988 U.S. Olympic wrestling excellence: I. Mental preparation, precompetitive cognition, and affect. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 358-382.

Gould, D., Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A. (1980). Mental preparation strategies, cognitions, and strength performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 329-339.

Hamilton, S.A., & Fremouw, W.J. (1985). Cognitive-behavioral training for college basketball free-throw performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 479-483.

Hayes, S.C. (1989). Rule-governed Behavior: Cognition, Contingencies, and Instructional Control. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Hayes, S.C., Rosenfarb, 1., Wulfert, E., Munt, E.D., Korn, Z., & Zettle, R.D. (1985). Self-reinforcement effects: An artifact of social standard setting? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 201-214.

Jackson, S. & Roberts, G.C. (1992). Positive performance states of athletes: Toward a conceptual understanding of peak performance. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 156-171.

Meyers, A.W., Schleser, R., Cooke, C.J., & Cuvillier, C. (1979). Cognitive contributions to the development of gymnastics skills. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3, 75-84.

Ming, S., & Martin, G.L. (1996). Single subject evaluation of a self-talk package for improving figure skating performance. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 227-238.

Palmer, S.L. (1992). A comparison of mental practice techniques as applied to the developing competitive figure skater. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 148-155.

Rushall, B.S., Hall, M., Roux, L., Sasseville, J., & Rushall, A.S. (1988). Effects of three types of thought content instructions in skiing performance. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 283-297).

Rushall, B.S., & Shewchuk, M.L. (1989). Effects of thought content instructions on swimming performance. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 29, 326-334.

Shelton, A.O., & Mahoney, M.J. (1978). The content and effect of "psyching-up" strategies for weight lifters. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 275-284.

Weinberg, R.S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1980). Cognition and motor performance: Effect of matching-up strategies on three motor tasks. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 239-245.

Weinberg, R.S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1981). Relationship between the duration of the psych-up interval and strength performance. Journal of Sport Psychology 3, 166-170.

Weinberg, R.S., Jackson, A., & Seaboune, T. (1985). The effects of specific vs. nonspecific mental preparation strategies on strength and endurance performance. Journal of Sport Behavior 8, 175-179.

Ziegler, S.G. (1987). Effects of stimulus cuing on the acquisition of ground strokes by beginning tennis players. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 405-411.

 Performance Times (minutes: seconds) for
 Each of the 1000 Meter Trial Runs
 Across Baseline and Intervention
Subject Baseline Questions Motivational Statements
 1 3:16 3:09 3:12
 2 3:26 3:23 3:20
 3 3:35 3:24 3:28
 4 3:36 3:16 3:01
 5 3:36 3:17 3:02
 6 3:42 3:30 3:29
Mean (SD) 3:32 (0:09) 3:20 (0.07) 3:15 (0:12)
Mean Rank (SD) 4.00 (0.00) 2.67 (0.52) 2.00 (0.89)
Subject Perfect RunActions
 1 2:59
 2 3:17
 3 3:19 [*]
 4 3:08
 5 3:11
 6 3:25
Mean (SD) 3:13 (0:09)
Mean Rank (SD) 1.33 (0.52)
(*.)This trial erroneously included 2
minutes of motivational statements.