The Relationship Between Self-Talk and Flow Experiences in Competitive Athletes.

Taylor, Rachel E. Miller ; Brinthaupt, Thomas M. ; Pennington, John 等

Athletes are frequently interested in finding ways to improve performance and productivity in their sports. Beyond physical preparation, there are a number of mental factors that are necessary to enhance performance. Some of these factors include increasing confidence levels (Maynard, Smith, & Warwick-Evans, 1995), lowering anxiety (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Mpoumpaki, & Theodorakis, 2009), and the proper use of self-talk (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Galanis, & Theodorakis, 2011). Additionally, researchers have found that athletes who experience flow perform better than those who do not (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Kawabata & Mallett, 2011). To date, there has been no systematic analysis of the relationship between self-talk and flow experiences among athletes. Drawing on previous literature addressing each component independently, the present study examines the relationship of various types of self-talk to athletes' flow experiences during a competitive event.

Self-Talk in Athletic Performance

Self-talk has been defined as either overt or covert self-directed speech (e.g., Bunker, Williams, & Zissner, 1993; Theodorakis, Weinberg, Natsis, Douma, & Kazakas, 2000) that serves multiple purposes in both the processing and interpretation of feelings and perceptions (Hackfort & Schwenkmezger, 1993). Additionally, theorists and researchers believe that self-talk is an important component of the self-regulatory system. For example, Bandura (1977) argued that self-talk can be a function of cognitive insight, allowing an individual to self-reflect and self-regulate in order to develop a sense of agency and motivation to think and behave in certain ways. More recent views of self-talk have focused on understanding a variety of self-talk functions. For example, Brinthaupt, Hein, and Kramer's (2009) Self-Talk Scale includes four self-talk categories: self-criticism, self-management, self-reinforcement, and social assessment. Sport and exercise psychologists have typically viewed self-talk as comprised of motivational and instructional as well as positive and negative elements (Hardy, 2006).

In the sport and exercise domain, self-talk has been conceptualized both in terms of automatic self-talk (e.g., positive or negative) and as a deliberative mental strategy. A meta-analysis of self-talk and sport performance showed that self-talk lowers levels of cognitive distractions and helps athletes focus on the task at hand (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2011). However, research often shows contradicting results with respect to specific kinds of self-talk. Whereas some research shows that positive and negative self-talk can improve performance (e.g., Dargou, Gauvin, & Halliwell, 1992; Highlen & Bennett, 1983), other research has concluded that these types of self-talk may be detrimental under some circumstances (Tod, Hardy, & Oliver, 2011).

Research into self-talk as a mental strategy has examined instructional and motivational self-talk (Theodorakis et al., 2000; Weinberg, Miller, & Horn, 2012). Instructional self-talk includes self-directed statements devoted to skill development and strategy-related behaviors (e.g., "Get your body warmed up"). This type of self-talk is beneficial for precision-based sports such as baseball (Hatzigeorgiadis et ah, 2011). Motivational self-talk includes self-directed statements that focus on arousal, mastery, and drive, including psyching oneself up, maintaining mental toughness, and keeping track of goals (e.g., "It's time to go to work"). Hatzigeorgiadis, Theodorakis, and Zourbanos (2004) found motivational self-talk to be beneficial for water polo, a sport that has significant endurance components. Motivational self-talk has also been found to reduce anxiety and improve self-confidence (Maynard, Hemmings, Greenlees, Warwick-Evans, & Stanton, 1998: Maynard, Smith, & Warwick-Evans, 1995).

In summary, it appears that positive and negative self-talk can be either beneficial or detrimental, depending on the type of sport under consideration. Motivational and instructional self-talk appear to be beneficial for both learning a sport and competing in one. There is likely to be some overlap across positive/negative and motivational/instructional self-talk dimensions. For example, there may be positive and negative elements to an athlete's use of motivational ("You're doing great! Keep it up!") and instructional ("That's not working. Stop doing it!") self-talk. In the present study, we examine these dimensions separately.

Flow Experiences and Athletic Performance

Researchers have been interested in the experience of flow for decades (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; St. Clair Gibson & Foster, 2007; Stravou, Jackson, Zervas, & Karteroliotis, 2007). Flow has been studied in the context of work (Bryce & Hawtorth, 2002; Neilson & deal, 2010) as well as physical activity (Jackson & Marsh, 1996; Jackson, Thomas, Marsh, & Smethurst, 2001; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Among the most important components for an experience of flow are challenge-skill balance, lack of self-consciousness, and action-awareness merging (Csikszentmihalyi, 1982).

Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1982) explained that flow is based on an individual's perceptions of existing challenges and the nature of the challenges and skills themselves. Researchers claim that one's perception of skill and the future challenge must be in balance in order to experience flow (Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). In sport and exercise, the challenge/ skill balance indicates that individuals need to fully immerse themselves in the activity. Once a skill is practiced and individual self-efficacy is built up, individuals have the ability to exert actions in an automated manner. However, if individuals have feelings of inferiority or doubt about their performance, flow is less likely to be attained (Csikszentmihalyi, 1982).

Research has indicated the importance of relaxation for entering a state of flow. For example, in sport and exercise, Stavrou, Jackson, Zervas, and Karterliotis (2007) found that athletes who reported lower ratings on the Flow State Scale (FSS) also reported higher levels of anxiety and less relaxation during competition. Thus, athletes' perceptions of their skills must be high enough for flow to occur. Stravou and colleagues concluded that this perception is most important for the experience of flow, while the challenge may play a secondary role to performance. Researchers have also consistently found that athletes must enjoy an activity in order to experience flow (Jackson, 1996; Jackson & Roberts, 1992; Privette & Bundrick, 1991; Stravou et al., 2007). Flow is a positive experience for the individual, and without feelings of enjoyment, flow is much less likely to occur, particularly when anxiety and boredom are present.

In summary, the experience of flow is more likely when athletes' perceptions of personal skills and challenges are balanced, anxiety is low and relaxation levels are high, and the participants gain pleasure from the activity. Without these elements, entering a state of flow is less likely to occur.

The Relationship of Self-Talk and Flow Experiences

Although much research has examined self-talk and flow as independent concepts in the sport and exercise domain, there is very little research on the relationship between them. Given that both are important to athletic performance, understanding their relationship may provide important information about mental strategies for successful sport and exercise performance.

With respect to self-talk research among athletes, it appears that motivational and instructional self-talk types are most useful (Hatzigeogiadis et al., 2004; Hatzigeogiadis et al., 2009). Whereas instructional self-talk is most beneficial for precision-type tasks and at the learning level, motivational self-talk is seen more commonly in endurance-type sports and at competition levels (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004; Theodorakis et al., 2000). Endurance athletes, such as runners, may require more motivational self-talk, as they have one clear goal: to finish the race with a good time (Miller & Donohue, 2003). Instructional self-talk may potentially block the runner from focusing on keeping that end goal in mind. Thus, it is likely that in endurance sports, the necessity to use instructional self-talk is lessened. In sports such as long distance running, there may be a need for more moment-to-moment strategies, which are more straightforward. Similar to the differentiations in self-talk research, flow research specifies sport activities as either self-paced (e.g., running) or externally-paced types (e.g., basketball; Koehn, Morris, & Watt, 2013). Some researchers have suggested that self-paced athletes have a greater likelihood of flow than externally-paced athletes, since the former group's movements are more predictable (Kimiecik & Stein, 1992).

Researchers have also found confidence and anxiety levels to be significant variables of both self-talk and flow experiences (e.g., Conroy & Metzler, 2004; Hatzigeorgiadis & Biddle, 2008; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009). It can be assumed that once a skill is learned well, athletes experience increased confidence and reduced anxiety, at least with respect to learning that skill. In this circumstance, motivational self-talk might become more important for an individual to meet a competitive challenge. To experience flow, athletes must be able to concentrate on the task at hand, have a merging of their actions and awareness, have a sense of control, and have confidence that their skill set matches the challenge of the situation (Swann, Keegan, Piggott, & Crust, 2012). Instructional self-talk may be more likely than motivational self-talk to interfere with these flow preconditions.

We believe there is a potentially important connection between self-talk and flow in a competitive setting (Jackson et al., 2001). For example, a swimmer may leam a new breathing technique at practice. While learning this new skill, instructional self-talk is likely to be important. After much practice, the athlete may find that his/her skill set is now adequately matched for future competition. If confidence is at an appropriate level, and anxiety is at a minimum, the swimmer may have less use for instructional self-talk, at least as a mental strategy. In fact, self-talk may now be more directed towards motivation. Because the learned skill movements are continuous and steady, breathing becomes synchronized automatically. The athlete in this situation can focus more on the race itself, using self-talk as a means of motivation. A combination of practice and confidence leads to the higher likelihood of performing in an optimal state or having a flow-like experience. In this example, instructional self-talk (due to its focus and emphasis on skill development or specific behavioral implementation) may interfere with the experience of flow, whereas motivational self-talk (due to its more general effort-encouragement nature) may facilitate the experience of flow.

Similarly, with respect to the affective content, negative self-talk is expected to interfere with the experience of flow in a competitive context. For a swimmer who is not engaging in a correct technique, calling attention to this issue through self-talk will likely increase self-consciousness and inhibit the merging of action and awareness. These are factors that have been shown to decrease the likelihood of experiencing flow (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1982; Swann et al., 2012). On the other hand, positive self-talk is generally supportive or reflective of successful technique or behavioral expression. As such, because there is less of a need for remedial action if one is already performing the appropriate behaviors, positive self-talk should interfere less with the action-awareness merging that is necessary for flow.

In summary, studying the possible connection between self-talk and flow experiences in athletes is potentially important and interesting for sport and exercise psychology. The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between these two phenomena in a competitive context. Following the literature previously reviewed, we first predicted that flow experiences would be more strongly related to motivational than instructional self-talk scores during a competition. Second, we hypothesized that positive self-talk would be positively correlated with flow experience whereas negative self-talk would be negatively related to flow.

Method

Participants

Forty-five runners (29 men, 16 women) were recruited from two universities located in the northeastern U.S. All runners were part of Division 2 of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The participants had been running competitively between 3 and 13 years, with an average of 7.84 years (SD = 1.89). The athletes had been competing in collegiate running from 1 to 5 years, with an average of 2.78 years (SD = 1.24). The age of participants ranged from 18 to 23, with an average age of 20.33 years (SD = 1.38). No racial demographics were measured for this study.

We chose participants who were competing in race distances of 400 meters or longer to take part in this study, because these distances were thought to be more conducive to (or allow more instances of) both self-talk and flow. The majority of participants (32%) raced the 800-meter distance either as an open race or in a relay event. Other events included 400-meter (23%), 500-meters (4%), 1,000-meters (2%), 1,200-meters (2%), 1,600-meters (16%), 3,000-meters (16%), and 5,000-meters (5%) races. In exchange for participation, the researchers offered the runners individual feedback on their results. Participants had the option to receive feedback on their test scores as compensation. We sent these test scores to participants who chose the option through email. Institutional Review Boards from both participating universities, as well as from the researchers' university, provided approval to conduct the study. Participants completed both pre-race and post-race measures.

Pre-Race Measures

Demographic information. Participants completed a form to indicate their sex, age, years running, years competing in collegiate running, and the race they were running in the forthcoming event.

Measures of race times. Prior to the day of competition, participants provided information about their current personal records in race distances of 400-meters to 5,000 meters. Additionally, they reported their goal times for the upcoming race. After they competed in their race, participants reported their official race times to the researcher.

Post-Race Measures

Motivational and instructional self-talk. Shortly after their race, participants reported both motivational and instructional aspects of the self-talk they used during the competition. They rated 40 motivational and 26 instructional self-statements shortly after competition. These statements were developed specifically for cross-country athletes (Donohue, Barnhart, Covassin, Carpin, & Korb, 2000). Originally, a U.S. Division 1 collegiate cross-country coach identified the set of instructional self-statements that athletes use to help them to accomplish their "perfect run." The motivational self-statements were derived from four athletes, all of which were determined to be the most influential in enhancing motivation and based on their personal use of the statements during competition. Miller and Donohue (2003) used these statements as an intervention, instructing different groups to use different types of self-statements. Other studies have used these lists of motivational and instructional self-talk, but there has been no analysis of the measures' psychometric properties to date. With the current sample, alpha coefficients were acceptable for the motivational (r = .98) and instructional (r = .94) self-talk items.

Runners in the current study rated each statement on how often it was used during the race, using a 5-point scale (1= never, 5 = very frequently). Examples of motivational self-talk included "You're strong and explosive" and "Nobody can keep up with you today." Examples of instructional self-statements included "Focus on your running technique" and "Stick with your plan." We calculated and compared the mean frequency of the motivational and instructional items to determine which type of self-talk was used more during the race.

Positive, negative, and irrelevant self-talk. The Automatic Self-Talk Questionnaire for Sports (ASTQS; Zourbanos, Antonis, Chroni, Theodorakis, & Papaioannou, 2009) measures the specific affective content of self-talk as well as the motivational, instructional, and other effects that the self-talk has on the athlete. The ASTQS assesses the frequency an athlete's use of positive, negative, and neutral self-talk during a specific event or activity. Positive self-talk included categories of psyching up (e.g., "Give 100%"), confidence (e.g., "I feel strong"), instruction (e.g., "Concentrate on your goal"), and anxiety control (e.g., "Calm down"). Negative self-talk categories included worry (e.g., "I am not going to make it"), disengagement (e.g., "I am fed up"), and somatic fatigue (e.g., "I am tired"). Finally, the neutral category included thoughts irrelevant to the sport setting (e.g., "What will I do later tonight"). Shortly after their race, athletes rated how frequently they experience each thought during the race, using a 5-point scale (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = vety often). The items for each category of self-talk were averaged, with higher scores representing self-talk that was more prevalent during competition.

Zourbanos et al. (2009) provided data on the psychometric properties of the ASTQS. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the scale had high loadings and low error, coinciding with the hypothesized factor structure of positive, negative and neutral self-talk statements. Concurrent validity was found to be significant in relation to other measures of self-talk. In the current sample, alpha coefficients for the three self-talk types were in the acceptable range (.84--.97).

Flow experiences. Participants also completed the Flow State Scale--2 (FSS-2; Jackson & Eklund, 2002) within an hour after finishing their race. The FSS-2 assesses the likelihood of experiencing flow in a specific physical activity. It consists of 36 items divided into nine subscales, with four items in each. The subscales include the nine categories of flow experience described earlier (e.g., challenge-skill balance, action-awareness merging, loss of self-consciousness). We adapted the measure to reflect the participants' experience during their race. Using a 5-point scale, participants rated the frequency with which they experienced each flow characteristic "when participating in my race" (1 = Never, 5 = Always). Subscale scores represent the average rating of the four items. In addition, we calculated a total FSS-2 score, which was the average of the nine subscale scores. Jackson and Eklund (2002) found the subscales to show acceptable internal consistency values, ranging between .80 and .90. The current sample showed similar values, ranging between .82 and .93.

Procedure

Data were collected during two collegiate indoor track meets. At the first meet event, 20 participants completed the pre-race materials between 1 and 6 hours prior to their race. For the second meet event, seven of the participants completed the pre-race materials one week prior to the race while the remaining 18 completed the packets the day before their race. The variations among the pre-race material completion times resulted from time and location constraints for the researchers. Runners provided informed consent at the beginning of the study. They were informed that the purpose of the study was to understand the effects of speaking to oneself in different manners during competition. Next, they completed the pre-race materials, which included the demographic form and race time. The objective race time was a write-in section, where participants provided personal record times and goals for their specified event. Participants provided their pre-race materials to the researchers prior to their meet. We instructed them to return within 30 minutes after their upcoming race to complete the post-race materials.

All participants completed their post-race materials (in the order described earlier) within an hour of the completion of their race. After submitting their post-race materials, participants received information about the study's purpose as well as about current research in self-talk use and flow experiences in competitive athletes. If participants desired feedback on their individual test scores, they recorded their e-mail addresses on their packets.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, and internal reliability coefficients of each of the measures can be found in Table 1. As the table indicates, there was a tendency for the participants to report more instructional than motivational self-talk, as well as more positive than negative self-talk. A paired-samples t-test showed that instructional self-talk scores were significantly higher than motivational self-talk scores, t(44) = 3.92, p < .001. Additionally, participants reported significantly more positive than negative self-talk, t(44) = 6.82, p < .001. Using the midpoint (3) of the FSS-2 scale as a baseline, 31 athletes (69%) reported an average (total) score above that midpoint; 12 athletes (27%) reported an average score above 4 on the 5-point scale. These values provide a rough estimate of how many athletes experienced flow. Independent samples t-tests examined if male and female participants differed significantly on the major measures. There were no significant gender differences, all ps > .14.

Zero-order correlations for the major measures can be found in Table 2. The analyses revealed significant relationships between motivational self-talk, instructional self-talk, positive self-talk, negative self-talk, and flow. While negative self-talk was negatively correlated with FSS-2 scores, other self-talk variables were positively correlated with the flow measure. Motivational self-talk also showed a significant positive correlation with instructional self-talk and positive self-talk. Instructional self-talk was also positively correlated with positive self-talk. There was a negative correlation between negative and positive self-talk. Finally, negative self-talk and irrelevant self-talk showed a significant positive correlation.

Correlational analyses were also conducted for the nine FSS-2 subscales and the self-talk measures (see Table 3). The analyses revealed significant relationships, especially motivational self-talk and positive self-talk with each of the FSS-2 subscales. Instructional self-talk showed some significant positive correlations with the subscales. Additionally, negative self-talk showed several significantly negative correlations with the FSS-2 subscales.

Tests of the Hypotheses

According to Hypothesis 1, flow experiences were expected to be more strongly related to motivational than instructional self-talk scores. Using motivational and instructional self-talk measures as predictors, a multiple linear regression analysis assessed the relationship between motivational and instructional self-talk and flow experiences. The results provided strong support for this hypothesis, F(2, 42) = 15.55, p < .001, [R.sup.2] = .425. As expected, motivational self-talk was found to be a significant predictor of flow ([beta] = .753; p <. 001), whereas instructional self-talk did not significantly predict flow scores ([beta] = -.156,p = .36).

Hypothesis 2 predicted that positive self-talk would have a positive correlation with flow experience while negative self-talk would show a negative correlation. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship of positive, negative, and irrelevant self-talk to flow. The overall model was significant, F(3, 41) = 10.87, p < .05, [R.sup.2] = .443. As predicted, positive self-talk showed a significant positive relationship with the likelihood of experiencing flow ([beta] = .476,p = .002), whereas negative self-talk showed a significant negative relationship with the likelihood of experiencing flow ([beta] = -.473, p = .004). Irrelevant self-talk was unrelated to flow experiences ([beta] = .138, p= .83). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was also supported.

As a final analysis, a multiple regression analysis was conducted using all of the selftalk measures as predictors of flow (see Table 4). Although this was not a specified hypothesis, this analysis provided more information of the separate roles of self-talk functions and affect in relation to flow experiences. As the table indicates, results yielded a positive, significant relationship between motivational self-talk and flow. There was also a significant negative relationship between negative self-talk and flow. This finding suggests the relationship of positive self-talk to flow was primarily driven by its relationship with motivational self-talk.

Discussion

The current study assessed the relationship between specific types of self-talk and flow. As expected, motivational self-talk showed a significant positive relationship with the experience of flow. There was also a significant positive relationship between the frequency of positive self-talk and the experience of flow and a significant inverse relationship between negative self-talk and flow. Of the different types of self-talk tested, motivational self-talk was most strongly related to flow. The findings of the present study add to the separate literatures on self-talk and flow and also address their interrelationship.

One possible interpretation of our findings is that competitive athletes benefit from certain types of self-talk but not other types. When motivational self-talk is used, athletes may have less anxiety, or may be able to generate messages that minimize such anxiety, compared to when they use instructional self-talk. Minimizing anxiety is an important precursor to the experience of flow. Further, motivational self-talk is associated with high self-efficacy and feeling self-confident (Hatzigeorgiadis, 2006; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009). Our results suggest that these effects may translate into a greater likelihood of experiencing-flow during a competitive event, possibly because such self-talk leads an athlete to perceive a stronger skills to challenge match.

In contrast to motivational self-talk, directing instructional or generally negative messages toward the self was negatively related to an athlete's ability to experience flow. It is possible that, when an athlete is competing, using negative self-talk reduces self-efficacy or lowers self-confidence (or it reflects these states). Instructional self-talk may be perceived as less positive, and more negative, without the athlete necessarily understanding the detriment of this self-talk style. Future research could explore these possible interpretations of the observed relationship. We also found that irrelevant self-talk was unrelated to flow experiences in competition. While practicing either instructional or motivational self-talk types helps the athlete focus on the competition, irrelevant self-talk does not give the athlete any benefit, other than perhaps distraction. Future research needs to examine whether changes in emotions and self-beliefs account for the self-talk and flow relationships we found in this study.

It is also worth noting that, although it was less strongly related to flow than motivational self-talk, instructional self-talk was significantly and positively related to several of the flow facets as well as the overall flow score. Because the participants were experienced college runners, their use of a self-instructional cue may not negatively affect their flow likelihood and may help to facilitate it. For example, if they are used to employing self-instructional self-talk as part of their regular competitive routine, automatically repeating a simple cue like "breathe" or "arms loose" might be beneficial to both flow and overall performance.

Further exploration of motivational and instructional self-talk in both competitive and training sessions is warranted.

Understanding the psychological mechanisms that underlie the self-talk and flow relationship is important for several reasons. Researchers have explained flow as a positive experience, one that is produced by persons gaining a sense of enjoyment and happiness from their activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). For athletes, it is likely that participating in their chosen sport can produce a sense of happiness and well-being. That is, participating should enhance positive affect. Conversely, there are a number of factors that can deter the athlete's positive experiences when participating or performing, including anxiety and lack of self-confidence. The experience of flow, however, occurs when these latter two factors are minimized (Csikszentmihalyi, 1982).

In addition to changes in emotion and self-beliefs, other factors that increase the likelihood of flow include having a sense of control, concentration on the task at hand, and clear goals. The current pattern of self-talk results was consistent across the different flow categories. This suggests that the self-talk and flow relationship is a general one that does not depend upon the dimension of flow under consideration.

Although this study provides important information about the possible self-talk and flow relationship, there are some limitations to our findings. With respect to the participants, the sample consisted of undergraduate, competitive collegiate runners. It would be important for future researchers to consider elite or non-competitive runners when examining the self-talk and flow relationship. It would also be interesting to use other competitive endurance athletes (such as swimmers or cyclists) and non-endurance athletes (such as archers or golfers) to determine whether the observed relationships apply primarily to endurance sports and activities or whether they apply to a broad range of sport and activity types. Whereas this study considered endurance athletes as any participant running races of 400 meters to 5,000 meters, it could be argued that these are not all true endurance distances. In future research, it would be interesting and potentially more useful to narrow the race lengths to 5,000 at the shortest. Potentially, one could consider only measuring athletes participating in half-marathon and marathon distances as well.

There were also some limitations to the study's procedures. We instructed participants to return promptly, within 30 minutes of the completion of their races. Although the majority of the participants did follow through with this request, there were a few participants who did not complete the survey until an hour after their race. This delay potentially limited the accuracy of their race experience recall. Future research might consider asking participants to respond during their activity or immediately after its completion, with no delay.

Finally, because the current study was correlational, we cannot assess whether self-talk increases flow experiences or vice versa. Future research would benefit from using an experimental design to test the direction of causality of self-talk and flow. For example, researchers could test athletes in a more controlled setting, by varying the nature or extent of self-talk and seeing its effects on flow experience. Researchers could also ask participants to report their self-talk and flow as they are participating in a competitive event. Of course, this kind of measurement would have be conducted with care, since it could influence the actual use of self-talk or disrupt (or otherwise influence) one's flow experiences.

In summary, the present findings demonstrate an important relationship that has potential value for researchers, coaches, and endurance athletes. The evidence suggests that motivational self-talk is associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing flow than instructional self-talk. If athletes enter a state of flow, they may be more likely to have a positive experience in the activity. On the other hand, using more frequent instructional self-talk may be detrimental to the flow experience, since it likely to be associated with less positive affect. Of course, it is also possible that the absence of flow may generate more frequent negative than positive self-talk or more frequent instructional than motivational self-talk. Additional research that investigates the causal nature of the relationship between self-talk and flow appears to be promising.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.

Brinthaupt, T. B., Flein, M. B., & Kramer, T. W. (2009). The Self-Talk Scale: Development factor analysis, and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 82-92.

Bryce, J., & Flawthom, J. (2002). Well-being and flow in sample of male and female office workers. Leisure Studies, 21, 249-263.

Bunker, L., Williams, J. M., & Zinsser, N. (1993). Cognitive techniques for improving performance and building confidence. In J. M. Williams, (Ed.). Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4th ed., pp. 284-31). London: McGraw-Hill Humanities.

Conroy, D. E., & Metzler, J. N. (2004). Patterns of self-talk associated with different forms of competitive anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26(1), 69-89.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Towards a psychology of optimal experience. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Annual Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 3, pp 13-36). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Dargou, E., Gauvin, L., & Halliwell, W. (1992). Mental preparation of Ivory Coast athletes: Current practice and research perspective. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 15-34.

Donohue, B., Barnhart, R., Covassin, T., Carpin, K., & Korb, E. (2000). The development and initial evaluation of two promising mental preparatory methods in a sample of female cross-country runners. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 2-12.

Hackfort, D., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1993). Anxiety. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 328-364). New York: Macmillan.

Hamilton, R. A., Scott, D., & MacDougall, M. P. (2007). Assessing the elfectiveness of self-talk interventions on endurance performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(2), 226-239.

Hardy, J., Gammage, K., & Hall, C. (2001). A description of self-talk in exercise. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 306-318.

Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: A critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 81-97.

Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Biddle, S. H. (2008). Negative self-talk during sport performance: Relationships with pre-competition anxiety and goal performance discrepancies. Journal of Sport Behavior, 31(3), 237-253.

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.

Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Galanis, E., & Theodorakis, Y. (2011). Self-talk and sports performance: A meta-analysis. Perspectives of Psychological Science, 6(4), 348-356.

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, 186-192.

Highlen, P. S., & Bennett, B. B. (1983). Elite divers and wrestlers: A comparison between open- and closed-skill athletes. Journal of Sports Psychology, 5, 390-409.

Jackson, S. A. (1996). Towards a conceptual understanding of the flow state in elite athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(1), 76-90.

Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 133-150.

Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 17-35.

Jackson, S. A., & Roberts, G. C. (1992). Positive performance states of athletes: Towards a conceptual understanding of peak performance. The Sport Psychologist, 6(2), 156-171.

Jackson, S. A., Thomas, P. R., Marsh, H. W., & Smethurst, C. J. (2001). Relationship between flow, self-concept, psychological skill, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(2), 129-135.

Kawabata, M., & Mallett, C. J. (2011). Flow experience in physical activity: Examination of the interna] structure of flow from a process-related perspective. Motivation and Emotion, 35(4), 393-402.

Kimiecik, J. C., & Stein, G. L. (1992). Examining flow experiences in sport contexts: Conceptual issues and methodological concerns. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 4, 144-160.

Koehn, S., Morris, T., & Watt, A. P. (2013). Flow state in self-paced and externally-paced performance contexts: An examination of the flow model. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 787-795.

Maynard, I. W., Hemmings, B., Greenlees, I. A. Warwick-Evans, L., & Stanton, N. (1998). Stress management in sport: A comparison of unimodal and multimodal interventions. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 11, 225-246.

Maynard, I. W., Smith, M. J., & Warwick-Evans, L. (1995). The effects of a cognitive intervention strategy on competitive state anxiety in performance in semiprofessional soccer players. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 428-446.

Miller, A., & Donohue, B. (2003). The development and controlled evaluation of athletic mental preparation strategies in high school distance runners. Journal of Applied Sports Psychology, 15, 321-334.

Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64, 274-310.

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology' (pp. 89-105). New York: Oxford University Press.

Neilsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2010). Predicting flow at work: investigating the activities and job characteristics that predict flow states at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology', 15(2), 180-190.

Privette, G., & Bundrick, C. M. (1991). Peak experience, peak performance, and flow: Personal descriptions and theoretical constructs. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 169-188.

St. Clair Gibson, A., & Foster, C. (2007). The role of self-talk in the awareness of physiological state and physical performance. Sports Medicine, 37(12), 1029-1044.

Stavrou, N. A., Jackson, S. A., Zervas, Y., & Karterliotis, K. (2007). Applied research flow experience and athletes' performance with reference to the orthogonal model of flow. The Sport Psychologist, 21(4), 438-457.

Swann, C., Keegan, R. J., Piggott, D., & Crust, L. (2012). A systematic review of the experience, occurrence, and controllability of flow states in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(6), 807-819.

Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis, P., Douma, E., & Kazakas, P. (2000). The effects of motivational versus instructional self-talk on improving motor performance. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 253-272.

Tod, D., Hardy, J., & Oliver, E. (2011). Effects of self-talk: A systematic review. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 666-687.

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(2), 123-134.

Zourbanos, N., Antonis, H., Chroni, S., Theodorakis, Y., & Papaioannou, A. (2009). Automatic Self-Talk Questionnaire for Sports (ASTQS): Development and preliminary validation of a measure identifying the structure of athletes' self-talk. The Sports Psychologist, 23, 233-251.

Rachel E. Miller Taylor

University of Denver

Thomas M. Brinthaupt

Middle Tennessee State University

John Pennington

Middle Tennessee State University

Address correspondence to: Tom Brinthaupt, Middle Tennessee State University P.O. Box X034, MTSU, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132. Email: tom.brinthaupt@mtsu.edu Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Major Measures Mean Standard Deviation [alpha] MST 2.45 .93 .98 1ST 2.85 .81 .94 PosST 3.11 1.09 .97 NegST 1.65 .66 .94 IrrST 1.61 .76 .84 FSSAvg 3.48 .91 .98 FSS Challenge 3.34 1.07 .93 FSS Action 3.31 1.16 .93 FSS Goals 3.85 .973 .91 FSS Feedback 3.51 1.06 .92 FSS Concentration 3.62 1.07 .92 FSS Control 3.38 1.23 .93 FSS Loss 3.51 1.00 .87 FSS Time 3.51 .92 .82 FSS Autotelic 3.33 1.17 .91 Note. MST = Motivational self-talk; 1ST = Instructional self-talk; PosST = Positive self-talk; NegST = Negative self- talk; IrrST = Irrelevant self-talk; FSSAvg = Dispositional Flow State Scale--2 average; FSS Challenge = Challenge -skill balance; FSS Action = Action awareness-merging; FSS Goals = Clear goals; FSS Feedback = Unambiguous feed- back; FSS Concentration = Concentration on the task at hand; FSS = Control = Sense of control; FSS Loss = Loss of self-consciousness; FSS Time = Transformation of time; FSS Autotelic = Autotelic experience. Table 2 Intercorrelations among Study Variables for Total Sample Variable MST 1ST PosST NegST IrrST FSSAvg MST --- 1ST .710 ** --- PosST .794 ** .659 ** --- NegST -.216 .140 -.300 * --- IrrST .063 .277 .007 .430 ** --- FSSAvg .643 ** .380* .539 ** -.533 ** -.150 --- Note. N = 45; MST = Motivational self-talk; 1ST = Instructional self-talk; PosST = Positive self-talk; NegST = Negative self-talk; IrrST = Irrelevant self-talk; FSSAvg = Dispositional Flow State Scale--2 average; * p< .05; ** p < .01. Table 3 Correlations among Self-Talk Measures andFSS-2 Subscales FSS MST 1ST PosST NegST IrrST Variable Challenge .662 ** .405 ** .619 ** -.556 ** -.062 Action .607 ** .393 ** .524 ** -.490 ** -.108 Goals .600 ** .459 ** .573 ** -.419 ** -.212 Feedback .490 ** .361 * .363 * -.286 .129 Concentration .506 ** .229 .390 ** -.572 ** -.184 Control .573 ** .282 .413 ** -.534 ** -.135 Loss .418 ** .086 .310 * -.547 ** -.372 ** Time .533 ** .331 * .495 ** -.162 -.128 Autotelic .581 ** .384 ** .492 ** -.547 ** -.116 Note. N = 45; * p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for All Self-Talk Measures Predicting Flow B SEB P MST .523 .185 .534 * 1ST .179 .198 .158 PosST -.108 .155 -.129 NegST -.650 .183 -.468 ** IrrST -.030 .142 -.025 Note. * p < .05, ** p <.001.