The effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on students’ motor task performance in physical education

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport and Exercise journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

The effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on students’ motor task performance in physical educationq Athanasios Kolovelonis a, *, Marios Goudas a, Irini Dermitzaki b a b

Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Thessaly, 42 100 Karies, Trikala, Greece Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly, Argonafton & Fillelinon, 38221 Volos, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 4 March 2010 Received in revised form 8 September 2010 Accepted 10 September 2010 Available online 18 September 2010

Objective: The aim of the study was to examine the effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on students’ motor task performance in a chest pass and a modified push-ups test in physical education. Design: The design involved one between-groups factor, the group with three levels (instructional, motivational, no self-talk), and two within-groups factors, the task (chest pass, modified push-ups) and the time (pre-test, post-test). Method: Participants were 54 fifth and sixth grade students who were randomly assigned to two experimental groups (instructional self-talk, motivational self-talk) and one control group. Students were pre-tested in a chest pass and in a modified push-ups test, were instructed to use the respective self-talk type and were post-tested in the two tests. Results: Results showed that both self-talk groups surpassed control group in both tasks. Instructional and motivational self-talk were equally effective in the chest pass test, but motivational self-talk was more effective compared to instructional self-talk in the modified push-ups test. Conclusions: Self-talk was an effective technique for motor task performance enhancement in physical education. These results were discussed with reference to the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Instructional self-talk Motivational self-talk Physical education Motor task performance

Research supports that the use of psychological techniques can enhance performance in sports (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996; Krane & Williams, 2006) and physical education (Anderson, 1997). Overall, mental training has been found to be effective in enhancing the performance success and the mental skills in athletes (Vealey, 2007). Furthermore, the use of mental skills (e.g., imagery, goal setting, and relaxation) has been proposed as a mean of performance enhancement in elementary physical education (Anderson, 1997) as it is supported that children are highly capable of learning and applying a variety of such mental techniques (Orlick & McCaffrey, 1991). A common mental technique which is used in sport settings is self-talk (Hardy, Oliver, & Tod, 2009). The present study examined the effects of self-talk on students’ motor task performance in primary physical education. Self-talk refers to “those automatic statements reflective of, and deliberate techniques (e.g., thought-stopping) athletes use to direct, sports-related thinking” (Hardy et al., 2009, p. 38).

q This research was supported by a scholarship to the first author from the Greek State Scholarship Foundation. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Kolovelonis). 1469-0292/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.09.002

Additionally, according to Hardy (2006, p. 84) “self-talk should be defined as: a) verbalizations or statements addressed to the self, b) multidimensional in nature, c) having interpretive elements associated with the content of statements employed, d) somewhat dynamic, and e) serving at least two functions: instructional and motivational, for the athlete”. That is, self-talk helps athletes, through the use of appropriate cue-words, to control and organize their thoughts, to focus on basic skill components, or to motivate themselves to exert more effort during practice (Zinsser, Bunker, & Williams, 2006). Therefore, many coaches incorporate self-talk into their programs and theorists consider it as an integral part of psychological skill training programs (Hardy et al., 1996). Hardy et al. (2009) have presented possible mechanisms that might help to explain the self-talk/performance relationship, including cognitive, motivational, behavioural, and affective processes. Cognitive mechanisms, which reflect processes such as information processing, concentration, and attention control, have received most attention from self-talk researchers. Landin (1994) has proposed that cue-words can be used to increase focus on task-relevant stimuli. Drawing from Nideffer’s (1993) approach to attentional style, Hardy (2006) has also proposed that the use of cuewords may help switching attentional focus but also maintaining appropriate focus for specific tasks. Furthermore, Hardy (2006) has

154

A. Kolovelonis et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158

proposed Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory as a framework for explaining the motivational function of self-talk. Verbal persuasion through positive self-talk might increase self-efficacy and subsequently effort, persistence, and performance. Empirical research has provided evidence for the effectiveness of self-talk in sport settings. In particular, self-talk had a positive effect on young basketball players’ dribbling and passing skills (Perkos, Theodorakis, & Chroni, 2002), elite female soccer players’ shooting performance (Johnson, Hrycaiko, Johnson, & Halas, 2004), university physical education students’ basketball shooting skill (Theodorakis, Chroni, Laparidis, Bebetsos, & Douma, 2001), collegiate tennis players’ volleying skill (Landin & Hebert, 1999), and it was beneficial for injury rehabilitation (Theodorakis, Beneca, Goudas, Antoniou, & Malliou, 1998). Two major types of self-talk have been identified, namely instructional and motivational self-talk (Hardy, 2006). Instructional self-talk refers to statements designed to enhance performance by stimulating desired actions through attentional focus on the technical aspects of a skill. Motivational self-talk refers to statements designed to facilitate performance by building confidence, increasing effort and energy expenditure and creating a positive mood (Hardy et al., 1996; Theodorakis, Weinberg, Natsis, Douma, & Kazakas, 2000; Weinberg & Gould, 2007). Instructional self-talk has been investigated experimentally more extensively compared to motivational self-talk (Hardy et al., 2009). Indeed, it has been found that instructional self-talk had a positive effect on experienced golfers’ performance (Harvey, Van Raalte, & Brewer, 2002), tennis players’ skills (Cutton & Landin, 2007; Landin & Hebert, 1999), basketball players’ skills (Perkos et al., 2002; Theodorakis et al., 2001), and figure skaters’ skills (Ming & Martin, 1996). These results showed that instructional selftalk enhanced performance in various sports and tasks with athletes of different ages and expertise. However, the content of self-talk seems to play a role in its effectiveness. For example, Theodorakis et al. (2001) found that physical education students who used the cue-word “relax” improved their performance in a 3min basketball shooting task more than those who used the cueword “fast” and the control group students. Motivational self-talk has also been found to have a positive effect on motor task performance in dart-throwing (Van Raalte et al., 1995) and tennis (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Goltsios, & Theodorakis, 2008; Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Mpoumpaki, & Theodorakis, 2009). A recent line of research has focused on comparing instructional and motivational self-talk, testing the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis (Hardy et al., 2009; Theodorakis et al., 2000). According to this hypothesis, instructional self-talk is more beneficial to tasks requiring skill, timing or precision, whereas motivational self-talk is more effective in tasks requiring strength or endurance (Hardy et al., 2009). Theodorakis et al. (2000) reported that instructional self-talk was more effective compared to motivational self-talk in a soccer passing task and in a badminton serve task, but in a sit-up task and in a knee extension task both types of self-talk were effective. That is, when the task required fine motor movements, instructional self-talk was more effective, whereas when it required strength and endurance both motivational and instructional self-talk were effective. Hatzigeorgiadis, Theodorakis, and Zourbanos (2004) compared the effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on a precision and a power water polo task and found that both instructional and motivational self-talk were effective in the precision task, whereas only motivational self-talk improved performance in the power task. Recently, Goudas, Hatzidimitriou, and Kikidi (2006) found that instructional, motivational and kinaesthetic self-talk helped amateur adult athletes to improve their shot put performance whereas none self-talk type was effective in a standing long-jump task. Finally, both

instructional and motivational self-talk, compared to control group, increased adult male rugby union players’ hip displacement and velocity in a vertical jump task, but only motivational self-talk had a positive effect on performance in this task (Edwards, Tod, & McGuigan, 2008). In a similar study, both instructional and motivational self-talk led to greater center-of-mass displacement, greater impulse, and quicker angular rotation about the knee compared to neutral self-talk (Tod, Thatcher, McGuigan, & Thatcher, 2009). The aforementioned studies provided evidence in favor of the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis. Nevertheless, they have also revealed some contradictory results that warrant further examination (Hardy et al., 2009). For example, both instructional and motivational self-talk were effective in tasks with different demands, such as precision in a water polo task (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004), hip displacement and angular rotation about the knee in a vertical jump (Edwards et al., 2008; Tod et al., 2009), and power in the shot put (Goudas et al., 2006) and knee extension (Theodorakis et al., 2000). These inconsistent results might have resulted from the different functions that the selected cue-words served. In particular, some cuewords may play both instructional and motivational role. Therefore, in research testing the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis, motivational and instructional self-talk should be clearly differentiated (Theodorakis et al., 2000). Thus, their unique effects could be empirically tested. Following this suggestion, we selected cue-words (see procedure section) using the guidelines proposed by Landin (1994) who has argued that cue-words should be: (a) brief and phonetically simple, (b) logically associated with the referent element of the skill, and (c) compatible with the sequential timing of the task. Previous self-talk research has focused on athletes, either novices or experienced, from various sports. For example, previous studies have employed young basketball players (Perkos et al., 2002), amateur track and field athletes (Goudas et al., 2006), rugby players (Edwards et al., 2008), university physical education students (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004), and experienced male and female golfers (Harvey et al., 2002). On the other hand, self-talk research in school physical education is limited. In a respective study, Anderson, Vogel, and Albrecht (1999) found that instructional self-talk had a positive effect on third grade students’ overhand throw performance. Therefore, more research is needed to examine the effectiveness of self-talk in school physical education. Furthermore, self-talk research in young children is limited. Previous studies employed mainly university physical education students (Cutton & Landin, 2007; Goudas et al., 2006, study 2; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004; Landin & Hebert, 1999) and adult athletes (Edwards et al., 2008; Goudas et al., 2006, study 1; Harvey et al., 2002). Exceptions are Perkos et al. (2002) who used young basketball players aged 12 years old and Hatzigeorgiadis et al. (2008, 2009) who used young tennis players aged 13e14 years old. Therefore, we focused on young elementary students to examine the effectiveness of self-talk in earlier ages. Finally, no study to our knowledge has tested the task-demandoriented matching hypothesis in physical education as Anderson et al. (1999) used only instructional self-talk in their study. However, this hypothesis has important practical implications for self-talk use in physical education. In particular, physical educators should know which type of self-talk, instructional, motivational or both match better with which tasks and which cue-words are the most appropriate for the various tasks used in physical education. Thus, self-talk can be used as a technique for enhancing learning and skill development in physical education (Hardy et al., 2009; Zinsser et al., 2006). Therefore, expanding previous self-talk research in sports, we tested empirically the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis in primary physical education. The aim of the study was to examine the effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on students’ chest pass and modified

A. Kolovelonis et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158

push-ups performance in primary physical education. We hypothesized that students who used self-talk, regardless of its type, would improve their performance more than control group students in both tasks (Hypothesis 1), while instructional self-talk would have a more positive effect on the chest pass task (Hypothesis 2) and motivational self-talk on the modified push-ups task (Hypothesis 3). Method Participants Participants were 54 students (24 boys and 30 girls, Mage ¼ 11.26, SDage ¼ 0.76) who attended two fifth grade (12 boys and 18 girls, Mage ¼ 10.69, SDage ¼ 0.33) and two sixth grade (12 boys and 12 girls, Mage ¼ 11.97, SDage ¼ 0.52) physical education classes from two elementary schools located in a medium-sized city in central Greece. Students participated in the study voluntary. No student refused to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to three groups using the proportional stratified sampling method so the same number of boys and girls from each grade could be included in each group. Measures Basketball chest pass test A chest pass accuracy test was used (Bös, 1988). Students, from a 3 m distance, tried to hit consecutively two 30  30 cm squares as many times as they could in 30 s. The squares were painted on a wall in a 1.2 m height and 1.8 m width. The number of the successful passes was each student’s score. High indices of objectivity (r: .99) and test-retest reliability (r: .91) have been reported for this test (Bös, 1988). Modified push-ups test Students’ strength and endurance were evaluated with a modified push-ups test (Safrit, 1995). Students put their knees on the floor, their feet up with ankles raised and crossed, and their hands parallel to their shoulders and a bit wider than shoulder width. From this starting position, students slowly lowered their body close to the floor, bending their elbows and keeping their back straight. When the chest was about to touch the floor, they pushed to come back to starting position. The number of the correctly performed modified push-ups, regardless of the time, was each student’s score. Johnson and Nelson (as cited in Miller, 1998) referred content validity and high reliability (.93) for this test. Self-talk manipulation check After each post-test, students were asked the following question: “Did you say anything to yourself during the chest pass/ modified push-ups test?” responding on a “yes or no” format. In the cases of positive response, they were asked: “If yes, what exactly did you say to yourself?” Students’ responses were coded into four categories: no, assigned cue-word (e.g., “fingers-target” for the instructional self-talk in the chest pass test), general self-talk (e.g., “I must go on”) and other (e.g., “an English song”). Two coders categorized the results independently. Kappa analysis revealed a perfect intercoder agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977).

155

a) group 1: instructional self-talk, b) group 2: motivational self-talk and c) group 3: control group. Students of these groups were pre- and post-tested on the chest pass and the modified push-ups test. The dependent variables were the students’ scores in two tests. Procedure Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs and the school principals. The study was conducted in the school gym with the presence of the experimenter. Students of each group came to the gym in subgroups of 3e4 students. All instructions were provided at the subgroup level. However, during the testing procedure, to prevent potential bias due to social comparisons and observational learning effects, students were not allowed to make eye contact and to interact with the student who was tested. Initially, students were informed about the procedure of the study and they warmed up for 5 min. Then, they were provided instructions regarding two tests, observed the experimenter to demonstrate the two tests and were allowed to become familiar with each test for ten seconds. After, each student was pre-tested in the chest pass first and then in the modified push-ups test. After pre-tests, students stretched for 3 min. The 5-min instruction phase followed. Group 1 students were provided initial general self-talk instructions regarding self-talk definition, its functions and effectiveness and examples of famous athletes who use self-talk to improve their performance. Then, they were provided specific instructions regarding the use of the instructional self-talk during the two tests. For the chest pass test the cue-word “fingers-target” was selected (Perkos et al., 2002). Students were asked to repeat the word “fingers” to remind themselves to catch the ball with their fingers and then the word “target” to focus on the direction of the target. For the modified push-ups test, the cue-word “bend-stretch” was used. Students were asked to repeat the word “bend” when they were going to bend their elbows and the word “stretch” when they were ready to push and stretch their elbows to come back to starting position. These two words aimed at helping students to acquire and maintain a sense of rhythm during push-ups execution (Landin, 1994). Group 2 students, after receiving the same with group 1 initial selftalk instructions, were instructed to use motivational self-talk during the two tests. For the chest pass test, students were asked to repeat the cue-word “I can” to enhance their confidence in hitting the target. For the modified push-ups test, students were asked to repeat the cue-word “strongly” when they were ready to push and stretch their elbows to come back to starting position in order to motivate themselves to put the necessary power to execute the motion (Landin, 1994). After the oral instructions, the experimenter demonstrated the use of both self-talk types in two tests. Group 1 and 2 students were prompted to use the respective cue-words loudly and continually during the two tests trying to “do their best”. Control group students, for reasons of equal experimental treatment, were provided healthy eating instructions after pre-test, observed an additional demonstration of the tests, and they were told to “do their best”. All students were post-tested in both tests and answered the respective self-talk manipulation check question. Statistical analysis

Design Design included one between-groups factor, the group with three levels (instructional, motivational, no self-talk), and two withingroups factors, the task (chest pass, modified push-ups) and the time (pre-test, post-test). Three groups were formed based on this design:

Data were analyzed with a 3 (group)  2 (task)  2 (time) repeated measures ANOVA. Next, a 3 (group)  2 (time) repeated measures ANOVA were conducted for each task, followed by pre- to post-test comparisons within each group and the interpretation of the respective plots (Thomas & Nelson, 2001). In the cases of

156

A. Kolovelonis et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158

Table 1 Means and standard deviations for each group and task in pre- and post-test.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Group 2

Group 3

Modified push-ups Post-test

Pre-test

9,5

Post-test

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

7.89 7.00 7.78

1.78 1.46 3.06

9.50a 8.50a 8.11

2.41 1.82 2.40

12.28 11.83 12.67

5.66 5.19 5.69

13.72a 14.83a 12.89

5.73 6.06 5.18

Number of s uc c es s ful pas s es

Chest pass Pre-test

Group 1 10

Note: a: Significant mean difference (p < .001) with pre-test in the respective test. Group 1: Instructional self-talk, Group 2: Motivational self-talk, Group 3: Control group.

significant differences, the effect sizes of partial h2 and Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988) were calculated.

9 8,5 8 7,5 7 6,5 6

Results

1

2 Time

Means and standard deviations for all dependent variables, separately for each group and task, are presented in Table 1. KolmogoroveSmirnov and ShapiroeWilk tests showed that the assumption of normality was met within each group. Frequency of students’ responses to self-talk manipulation check questions is presented in Table 2. Data were analyzed based on both the original groups as well as the groups after excluding students who reported that they did not use the assigned cue-word. Both analyses yielded the same results. Next we report the main analyses with the original groups and then the analyses where the students who reported that they did not use the assigned cue-word were excluded.

Fig. 1. Group and time interaction in the chest pass test.

For the modified push-ups, the 3 (group)  2 (time) repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant Group  Time interaction, F (2, 51) ¼ 11.59, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ 0.31. Pre- to post-test comparisons within each group showed a significant improvement in students’ scores in the modified push-ups test for the instructional self-talk group, p < .001, d ¼ 0.25, and the motivational selftalk group, p < .001, d ¼ 0.53, but not for the control group, p ¼ 0.59. The interpretation of the plot (Thomas & Nelson, 2001) showed that students who used motivational self-talk improved their scores in the modified push-ups test from pre- to post-test more than instructional self-talk group students, who in turn surpassed control group students (Fig. 2).

Main analyses The one-way ANOVAs showed a nonsignificant difference between-groups in pre-test measure in the chest pass test, F(2, 51) ¼ .87, p ¼ .43, and in the modified push-ups test, F(2, 51) ¼ .10, p ¼ .90. The 3 (group)  2 (task)  2 (time) repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant Group  Task  Time interaction, F(2, 51) ¼ 3.25, p ¼ .047, partial h2 ¼ 0.11. To analyze this significant interaction, two separate for each task 3 (group)  2 (time) repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted. For the chest pass, the 3 (group)  2 (time) repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant Group  Time interaction, F(2, 51) ¼ 3.18, p ¼ .050, partial h2 ¼ 0.11. Pre- to post-test comparisons within each group showed a significant improvement in students’ scores in the chest pass test for the instructional self-talk group, p < .001, d ¼ 0.76, and the motivational self-talk group, p < .001, d ¼ 0.91, but not for the control group, p ¼ 0.41. The interpretation of the plot (Thomas & Nelson, 2001) showed that students who used instructional and motivational self-talk improved their scores in the chest pass test from pre- to post-test more than control group students, but no difference between two self-talk groups was found (Fig. 1).

Manipulation check Over of 70% of students of the self-talk groups responded that they used the assigned cue-word during the two tests. We reran the analyses excluding students who reported that they did not use the assigned cue-word and the results remained the same for the chest pass test, F(2, 45) ¼ 23.58, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ 0.34, and for the modified push-ups test, F(2, 44) ¼ 39.70, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ 0.47. Furthermore, eight control group students reported the use of some kind of self-talk during the two tests. This self-talk was mainly general phrases motivational in nature, like “to be concentrated”, “to improve myself”, or “I must go on”. To examine the potential effects of this spontaneous use of general self-talk on control group students’ performance, we compared students who referred the use of general self-talk with those who referred non use of self-talk during the two tests and we found nonsignificant differences between these two control subgroups in the chest pass test, F(1, 16) ¼ 0.68, p ¼ .42, and in the push-ups test, F(1, 16) ¼ 0.27, p ¼ .61.

Table 2 Frequency of students’ responses to manipulation self-talk questions separately for each group and task. Responses

No Assigned cue-word General self-talk Other

Chest pass

Modified push-ups

Group 1 (“Fingers-target”)

Group 2 (“I can”)

Group 3

Group 1 (“Bend-stretch”)

Group 2 (“Strongly”)

Group 3

3 13 2 0

0 16 2 0

9 e 8 1

4 13 1 0

0 14 þ 3a 1 0

5 e 11 2

Note: Group 1: Instructional self-talk, Group 2: Motivational self-talk, Group 3: Control group. a Number of students who use the motivational cue-word of the chest pass test (“I can”).

A. Kolovelonis et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

15,5 15

Number of pus h- ups

14,5 14 13,5 13 12,5 12 11,5 11

1

2 Time

Fig. 2. Group and time interaction in the modified push-ups test.

Discussion The aim of the study was to examine the effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on elementary students’ motor task performance in two tasks with different demands, namely a chest pass and a modified push-ups task. Generally, the results showed that self-talk was effective in enhancing students’ motor task performance in physical education and provided partial support for the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis (Hardy et al., 2009; Theodorakis et al., 2000). The results fully supported hypothesis 1. Students who used self-talk, regardless of its type, improved their post-test performance in both tests compared to pre-test, whereas control group students did not improve. These improvements varied from small to large (d ¼ .25e.91). These results expand previous research in sport settings, which has shown that self-talk can enhance sport performance (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2004; Perkos et al., 2002; Theodorakis et al., 2001). Furthermore, in line with a previous study in physical education (Anderson et al., 1999) which found a positive effect of instructional self-talk on third grade students’ overhand throw performance, the present study showed that elementary students can use self-talk to enhance their motor task performance in physical education. The results did not support hypothesis 2. Students who used instructional self-talk did not outperform those who used motivational self-talk in chest pass. In fact, the size of the motivational self-talk effect on students’ chest pass performance was larger compared to instructional self-talk (d ¼ .91 and .76, respectively). This result is in contrast with previous research (Theodorakis et al., 2000) which showed that instructional self-talk was more effective in soccer and badminton precision tasks compared to motivational self-talk. However, this result is consistent with a previous similar study in sport settings (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004) which found that both instructional and motivational self-talk had a positive effect on a precision water polo task. It has been proposed that selftalk can positively affect performance via increasing attention to the task. Theodorakis, Hatzigeorgiadis, and Chroni (2008) and Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, and Theodorakis (2007) have provided evidence regarding this attentional function of self-talk. In the present study the chest pass test required precision and increased attention. Instructional and motivational self-talk helped students to increase their attention during the 30-s chest pass test and thus to improve their performance. Additionally, students, who used motivational self-talk, probably exerted more effort and executed

157

more trials during the test. Unfortunately, no data regarding students’ trials were collected during test procedure to verify this interpretation. This result partially supports the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis. Students who used instructional self-talk improved their motor task performance and outperformed control group students, but did not surpass students who used motivational self-talk. It seems that for precision tasks, especially when time constraints are present, motivational and instructional selftalk can be equally effective. The present and a previous study (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004) provide evidence for this argument. Future research should further explore this issue using various precision tasks and cue-words. Hypothesis 3 was confirmed. Students who used motivational self-talk outperformed in the modified push-ups test their peers who used instructional self-talk, who in turn surpassed control group students. These results fully support the task-demandoriented matching hypothesis and are in line with previous findings in sport settings which have shown that motivational self-talk is more effective in power and endurance tasks (Edwards et al., 2008; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004). Motivational self-talk can help students to regulate their effort, to enhance their confidence, and to increase their concentration on the task (Goudas et al., 2006). However, consistent with previous research (Theodorakis et al., 2000), instructional self-talk had also a positive effect on the power-endurance task, but it was less effective compared to motivational self-talk. The present findings provide evidence for the effectiveness of self-talk in physical education, showing that students who used this technique, regardless of its type, improved their motor task performance. Interestingly, self-talk in general had a stronger effect on students’ performance in the chest pass test (d ¼ .76 & .91) compared to the push-ups test (d ¼ .25 & .53). These results imply that the use of self-talk can have a powerful positive effect on young students’ learning and skill development in physical education, supporting previous views that children are highly capable of learning and applying a variety of such mental techniques (Orlick & McCaffrey, 1991). The present study, expanding previous research with undergraduate or collegiate students and adult athletes, employed young elementary students, increasing our understanding regarding self-talk effectiveness in earlier ages. Furthermore, results provide additional evidence regarding the taskdemand-oriented matching hypothesis. Motivational self-talk was more effective in the power-endurance task, while both instructional and motivational self-talk were effective in the precision task. That is, self-talk content is critical for its effectiveness and should be appropriately matched with the demands of the task to be performed (Hardy et al., 2009). Following the suggestion of including a manipulation check in self-talk research (Hardy et al., 2009), we asked students what they were thinking during the two tests. Over of 70% of students of the self-talk groups responded that they used the assigned cue-word during two tests. This percentage should be considered acceptable (Edwards et al., 2008; Tod et al., 2009). Nevertheless, we reran the analyses excluding students who reported that they did not use the assigned cue-word and the results remained the same. Furthermore, consistent with previous research (Hardy, Hall, Gibbs, & Greenslade, 2005; Hardy et al., 2009), many control group students reported the use of some kind of self-talk during two tests (e.g., general phrases motivational in nature). However, these forms of internal dialogue were not beneficial for control group students, as no significant difference was found between control group students who reported that they have used some kind of self-talk and those who did not, in both tests. This result provides additional evidence that the selection and use of appropriate and specific for

158

A. Kolovelonis et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158

each task cue-words helps students to improve their motor task performance. From an applied perspective, physical educators should teach students to use self-talk technique to enhance their motor task performance in primary physical education. Both instructional and motivational self-talk are effective. However, consistent with the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis, physical educators should discern the basic features of each task and select the appropriate, for each task, cue-words. The criteria provided by Landin (1994) could be a useful guide in this process. A possible limitation of the present study may be that the results were based exclusively on quantitative evaluations of students’ motor task performance, using only one post-test trial. Technical aspects of the skills’ execution should also be evaluated in future research. Furthermore, the examination of the effects of the different types of self-talk on learning sports skills could be an interesting area for future research. In these cases, extended practice sessions and retention measures should be included. Another possible limitation may be that not all students of self-talk groups used the assigned cue-words. Nevertheless, results remained the same after excluding students who reported that did not use the assigned cue-word. Future research should employ largest samples to form distinct experimental groups discarding participants who would not use the assigned cue-words (Hardy et al., 2009). Furthermore, future research should use various tasks, alternatives cue-words and other types of self-talk (e.g., kinaesthetic; Goudas et al., 2006) to explore further the nature of the task-demandoriented matching hypothesis in physical education. Finally, the effects of self-talk on motor task performance allowing the participants to use self-selected self-talk cue-words from a list provided should be examined (Harvey et al., 2002; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009).

References Anderson, A. (1997). Learning strategies in physical education: self-talk, imagery, and goal-setting. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 68, 30e35. Anderson, A., Vogel, P., & Albrecht, R. (1999). The effect of instructional self-talk on the overhand throw. Physical Educator, 56, 215e221. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Bös, K. (1988). Der Heidelberger-basketball-test (HBT). Leistungssport, 18, 17e24. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cutton, D. M., & Landin, D. (2007). The effects of self-talk and augmented feedback on learning the tennis forehand. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 288e303. Edwards, C., Tod, D., & McGuigan, M. (2008). Self-talk influences vertical jump performance and kinematics in male rugby union players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 1459e1465. Goudas, M., Hatzidimitriou, V., & Kikidi, M. (2006). The effects of self-talk on performance on throwing and jumping events. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 3, 105e116. Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: a critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 81e97. Hardy, J., Hall, C. R., Gibbs, C., & Greenslade, C. (2005). Self-talk and gross motor skill performance: an experimental approach? Athletic Insight, 7, 1e13. Hardy, J., Oliver, E., & Tod, D. (2009). A framework for the study and application of self-talk within sport. In S. Mellalieu, & S. Hanton (Eds.), Advances in applied sport psychology. A review (pp. 37e74). New York: Routledge.

Hardy, L., Jones, J. G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester: John Wiley. Harvey, D. T., Van Raalte, J., & Brewer, B. W. (2002). Relationship between self-talk and golf performance. International Sport Journal, 6, 84e91. Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Goltsios, C., & Theodorakis, Y. (2008). Investigating the functions of self-talk: the effects of motivational self-talk on selfefficacy and performance in young tennis players. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 458e471. 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, 186e192. Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). The moderating effects of self-talk content on self-talk functions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 240e251. 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, 138e150. Johnson, J., Hrycaiko, D. W., Johnson, G. V., & Halas, J. M. (2004). Self-talk and female youth soccer performance. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 44e59. Krane, V., & Williams, J. M. (2006). Psychological characteristics of peak performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed.). (pp. 207e227) New York: McGraw Hill. Landin, D. (1994). The role of verbal cues in skill learning. Quest, 46, 299e313. Landin, D., & Hebert, E. P. (1999). The influence of self-talk on the performance of skilled female tennis players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 263e282. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159e174. Miller, D. K. (1998). Measurement by the physical educator. Why and how (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: McGraw Hill. Ming, S., & Martin, L. G. (1996). Single-subject evaluation of self-talk package for improving figure skating performance. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 227e238. Nideffer, R. N. (1993). Attention control training. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 127e170). New York: Macmillan. Orlick, T., & McCaffrey, N. (1991). Mental training with children for sport and life. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 322e334. Perkos, S., Theodorakis, Y., & Chroni, S. (2002). Enhancing performance and skill acquisition in novice basketball players with instructional self-talk. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 368e389. Safrit, M. J. (1995). Complete guide to youth fitness testing. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Theodorakis, Y., Beneca, A., Goudas, M., Antoniou, P., & Malliou, P. (1998). The effect of self-talk on injury rehabilitation. European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 2, 124e135. Theodorakis, Y., Chroni, A., Laparidis, C., Bebetsos, E., & Douma, E. (2001). Self-talk in a basketball shooting task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 309e315. Theodorakis, Y., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Chroni, S. (2008). Self-talk: it works, but how? Development and preliminary validation of the functions of self-talk questionnaire. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12, 10e30. 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, 253e272. Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (2001). Research methods in physical activity (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Tod, D., Thatcher, R., McGuigan, M., & Thatcher, J. (2009). Effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on the vertical jump. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23, 196e202. Vealey, R. S. (2007). Mental skill training in sport. In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Willey & Sons. Van Raalte, J. L., Brewer, B. W., Lewis, B. P., Linder, D. E., Wildman, G., & Kozimor, J. (1995). Cork! The effects of positive and negative self-talk on dart performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 3, 50e57. Weinberg, R., & Gould, D. (2007). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Zinsser, N., Bunker, L., & Williams, J. M. (2006). Cognitive techniques for building confidence and enhancing performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed.). (pp. 349e381) New York: McGraw Hill.