Where, When, and Why Young Athletes Use Imagery

This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]On: 10 November 2014, At: 17:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Quarterly for Exercise and SportPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Where, When, and Why Young Athletes Use ImageryKrista J. Munroe-Chandler a , Craig R. Hall b , Graham J. Fishburne c & Leisha Strachan da Faculty of Human Kinetics , University of Windsorb School of Kinesiology , University of Western Ontarioc Department of Elementary Education , University of Albertad School of Kinesiology and Health Studies , Queen's University, Physical Education CentrePublished online: 23 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Krista J. Munroe-Chandler , Craig R. Hall , Graham J. Fishburne & Leisha Strachan (2007) Where, When, and WhyYoung Athletes Use Imagery, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78:2, 103-116, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2007.10599408

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2007.10599408

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02701367.2007.10599408

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2007.10599408

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

RQES: March 2007 103

Munroe-Chandler, Hall, Fishburne, and Strachan

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport©2007 by the American Alliance for Health,Physical Education, Recreation and DanceVol. 78, No. 2, pp. 103–116

Key words: adolescence, early childhood, focus groups,qualitative research

Children participate in sport for many reasons thatinclude having fun and learning new skills (e.g.,

Weinberg & Gould, 2003). Previous research has dem-onstrated that imagery helps athletes learn new skills andstrategies and increases their motivation (for a review,see Hall, 2001), which may lead to continued involve-ment in sport. In the last 50 years, imagery has been awell researched topic with adult athletes, especially rela-tively elite athletes (e.g., Hall). However, little researchhas been conducted on younger athletes’ imagery useto determine if they show consistent patterns with adultsor any changes between children and adults.

Munroe, Giacobbi, Hall, and Weinberg (2000) ex-amined the fundamental questions of where and whenathletes use imagery, why they use it, and what they im-

age. However, their qualitative findings are based onadult responses and may be different when comparedto younger athletes who have not developed similar im-agery use skills or abilities. With adults, Munroe et al. andother researchers have reported the following.

Where Is Imagery Used?

Studies (Hall, Rodgers, & Barr, 1990; Salmon, Hall,& Haslam, 1994) have indicated that athletes use imag-ery most in conjunction with competition and to a lesserextent with practice. In addition to athletes using imag-ery in practice and competition, Salmon and colleaguesfound athletes used imagery at work, home, and school.Hence, imagery is used in most settings.

When Is Imagery Used?

Athletes use imagery at different times, but researchhas shown they use it the most immediately prior to com-petition, less during competition, and least immediatelyfollowing competition (Hall et al., 1990; Munroe, Hall,Simms, & Weinberg, 1998). Salmon et al. (1994) foundthat athletes used it more during practice than beforeor after practice. In addition to competition and prac-tice, athletes also use imagery during breaks in daily ac-tivities and especially at night immediately prior tosleeping (Hall et al.; Rodgers, Hall, & Buckolz, 1991).

Where, When, and Why Young Athletes Use Imagery:An Examination of Developmental Differences

Krista J. Munroe-Chandler, Craig R. Hall, Graham J. Fishburne, and Leisha Strachan

Submitted: October 19, 2005Accepted: June 20, 2006

Krista J. Munroe-Chandler is with the Faculty of Human Kineticsat The University of Windsor. Craig R. Hall is with the School ofKinesiology at The University of Western Ontario. Graham J.Fishburne is with the Department of Elementary Education at TheUniversity of Alberta. Leisha Strachan is with the School ofKinesiology and Health Studies, Physical Education Centre atQueen’s University.

The purpose of this study was to investigate young athletes’ imagery use from a developmental perspective. The participantswere 110 male and female athletes competing in both team and individual sports. They represented four different age cohorts(i.e., 7–8, 9–10, 11–12, and 13–14 years). Sixteen focus groups, two for each age category and gender, were used as themethod of data collection. The findings indicated “where,” “when,” and “why” young athletes use imagery and how imageryuse changes as children move from early childhood through to early adolescence. Overall, results revealed that all age cohortsreported using imagery in both training and competition and for both cognitive and motivational purposes. The presentresearch also found support for studying imagery use by young athletes from a developmental perspective.

Psychology

Munroe-Chandler.pmd 6/14/2007, 7:01 PM103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

104 RQES: March 2007


Why Is Imagery Used?

Much research in the past 15 years examining whyathletes use imagery has stemmed from Paivio’s (1985)analytic framework, which outlined five imagery func-tions: (a) cognitive specific, (b) cognitive general, (c) mo-tivation specific, (d) motivation general-arousal, and (e)motivation general-mastery. Cognitive specific involves re-hearsing specific sport skills (e.g., imaging a free-throwin basketball). Cognitive general is the rehearsal of gameplans, play strategies, and routines (e.g., a gymnast imag-ining her floor routine prior to performing). In addition,imagery also serves a motivational function. Motivationspecific is used to image goal achievement (e.g., receiv-ing a gold medal). Motivation general is subdivided intoarousal and mastery (Hall, Mack, Paivio, & Hausenblas,1998). Motivational general-arousal involves imagery asso-ciated with general physiological arousal and affect (e.g.,a sprinter imagining being calm and confident prior tothe gun going off). Motivational general-mastery representsimagery associated with being mentally tough, in control,and self-confident (e.g., imaging maintaining one’s cool—emotional calm—after a poor call from a referee).

Imagery Use by Young Athletes

Although much research has examined adult ath-letes’ use of imagery, studies of young athlete’s imageryuse have been limited. From a developmental or age dif-ference perspective, virtually no research has studiedchanges in imagery use as a function of age. Rodgers etal. (1991) asked 29 young figure skaters (M age = 13.7years) when and where they used imagery and found theyused it more in conjunction with competition, most of-ten just prior to competing, than in practice. They didnot, however, assess whether the imagery use varied withage. Vadocz, Moritz, and Hall (1997) investigated eliterollerskaters’ (ages 12–18 years) use of cognitive andmotivational imagery. While they found the athletes usedboth functions of imagery, they did not consider whetherthe use varied with age. More recently, Monsma andOverby (2004) examined cognitive and motivationalimagery use by ballet dancers aged 12-21 years and foundthat age did not influence imagery use.

Other research on imagery use by younger athletesshows they use both the cognitive and motivational func-tions identified by Paivio (1985). Li-Wei, Qi-Wei, Orlick,and Zitzelsberger (1992) assessed the value of cognitivespecific imagery training in table tennis players, ages 7–10 years. Their results indicated that cognitive specificimagery produced significant increases in four measuresof table tennis performance. Munroe-Chandler and Hall(2004–2005) found that motivational general-masteryimagery increased the collective efficacy of an under-13girls’ soccer team over a 13-week intervention. Thesefindings supported Orlick and Zitzelsberger (1996), who

emphasized the importance and benefits of mental skillstraining with young athletes.

While these studies indicated young athletes usecognitive specific and motivational general-mastery im-agery, it is unknown whether they use all five imageryfunctions defined by Paivio (1985). From a developmen-tal perspective, one might expect young athletes’ imag-ery use will vary with the stage of cognitive development.Kosslyn and his colleagues noted that younger childrenare relatively poor at certain imagery processes, such asscanning, rotating, and generating objects, but relativelygood at maintaining images (Kosslyn, Margolis, Barrett,Goldknopf, & Daly, 1990). Developmental child psycholo-gists, such as Piaget (1971), argued that changes in cog-nitive processing occur at important times. As a result,young athletes’ imagery use may reflect these changes.While some researchers (Helson, 1933; Rapp & Schoder,1973) believed young children ages 3–6 years could ex-perience and report images, Piaget and others arguedthat children under the age of 7 years had difficulty withmoving images, thereby inhibiting them from reasoningeffectively about physical transformation outcomes(Bruner, Olver, & Greenfield, 1966; Piaget & Inhelder,1971). Because movement is integral to activity, childrenunder 7 years of age, based on Piaget’s views, would havedifficulty using imagery to assist in their athletic endeav-ors. It has been suggested a number of “age” related cog-nitive development stages occur beyond 7 years of age,before reaching adult forms of information processing.

Piaget identified the stages of cognitive developmentchildren pass through as they move from early to latechildhood (Piaget, 1971; Piaget & Inhelder, 1971). Basedon critical observations and ingenious block and wireexperiments, Piaget made inferences related to imagerydevelopment and use. He concluded that children donot form images until the the age of 2 to 3 years. Priorto this period, children live exclusively in the present.By the time they reach the preoperational stage at ap-proximately 4–7 years of age, children can readily repre-sent events and objects not actually present. However,they are not able to recognize transformational changes.Piaget’s wire experiments, based on “centration,” and his“displaced” block experiments demonstrated this limi-tation. The wire experiment consisted of presenting apiece of wire to the child, but shaped either as a semi-circle or a straightened line. Although the piece of wirewas of the same length, due to centration (the focus onthe end points of the wire) children in the preoperationalstage viewed the semicircle as being shorter comparedto the straightened wire. In the identical blocks experi-ment, two identical blocks were placed one on top of theother. The top block was moved (displaced) but then re-turned to its original setting. In the preoperational stage,children knew the blocks were moved, but how they weremoved often eluded them. Hence, Piaget concluded the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



only types of images children in the preoperational rangecould deal with successfully were “static.”

Only when children move into the concrete opera-tional stage at approximately 8–11 years of age do theystart to produce transformational images. In the wireexperiment, children in operational stages started tomove away from the influence of centration and recog-nized the wire as being of the same length regardless ofshape. In the displaced blocks experiment, these chil-dren began to draw or identify correct reproduction ofthe displaced block. Hence, children in this stage wereable to engage in kinetic and transformational imagery.For these children, imagery became reproductory andanticipatory. They could “reproduce” what they had seenand “anticipate” changes in form and location.

As children move through late childhood towardadolescence—approximately 12–14 years of age—theyenter the formal operational stage and are capable oflogical hypothetical deductions. They can perform op-erations not only on objects but also between classes ofobjects. It is possible that operational thought enhancesthe ability to form better images, and, in turn, the devel-opment of imagery assists in operational thought. It isclear that between the ages of 7–14 years children un-dergo cognitive processing changes that may impact theirability to use imagery.

Although a number of studies have demonstratedthat under certain conditions children younger than 7years of age can transform visual mental images and useimagery in ways previously not thought possible (e.g.,Brandimonte, Hitch, & Bishop, 1992), there is generalagreement that children under 7 years of age often ex-perience difficulty manipulating images. Beyond thatage, their imagery ability improves as they move from per-ceptual to conceptual activity (Forisha, 1975).

Wolmer, Laor, and Torne (1999) examined the de-velopment of image control in boys and girls ages 7–17years. They found that imagery control and vividnessimproved as children matured. Gender differences in-dicated girls had better control of stationary images thanboys. Not all imagery studies have found these genderdifferences. Hall and Pongrac (1983) and Fishburne,Hall, and Franks (1987) found similar results to Wolmerand colleagues, showing that both visual and kinestheticimagery ability improved as children progressed throughages 7–14 years. However, there were no differences ingender. The limited amount of research investigatinggender differences in children’s imagery could accountfor these inconsistent findings.

The finding that both visual and kinesthetic imag-ery ability improve as children progress through ages 7–14 years (Fishburne et al., 1987; Hall & Pongrac, 1983)is consistent with Piaget’s views. These studies also showedthat by about 14 years of age—the final stage of Piaget’scognitive development—imagery processes have fully

developed. That is, around 14 years of age visual andkinesthetic imagery ability is similar to that of adults. Thiswas supported by Kosslyn and colleagues, who examinedfour aspects of visual imagery and found that 14-year-oldswere similar to adults in their imagery ability (S. Kosslyn,personal communication, September 3, 2002).

Purpose of the Present Study

Although researchers have recognized the impor-tance of children’s imagery use, few studies have exam-ined its use in young athletes. The purpose of the presentstudy, therefore, was to investigate imagery use by ath-letes 7–14 years of age using a qualitative approach. Thisage range was chosen to investigate developmentalchanges in imagery use as children pass through Piaget’soperational and formal operational stages of cognitivedevelopment. The age of 7 years is thought to be whenchildren first engage in kinetic and transformationalimagery, and studies have shown children engage inimagery use similar to adults by the age of 14 years.Hence, the 7–14 year age range is an appropriate spanto investigate these changes. Thomas and colleagues(Thomas, 1980; Thomas, Gallagher, & Thomas, 2001)suggested a narrow and distinct age grouping should beused when studying children as they move from earlythrough middle and late childhood to adolescence.Hence, the age groupings chosen for study were 7–8, 9–10, 11–12, and 13–14-year-olds.

Based on the studies reviewed, it was anticipatedall age groups would use imagery for both training andcompetition. However, due to changes in cognitive de-velopment as children age and become more capableof reproducing, anticipating, and transforming imagesand making logical deductions, it was expected thatonly the older cohorts would use all five imagery func-tions, while the younger ones would not. Hence, aqualitative study was designed to explore 7–14-year-oldathletes’ use of the five imagery functions. Findings willhelp to establish where, when, and why young athletesuse imagery and if there are any developmental differ-ences in use across age cohorts. Further, little researchhas studied gender differences in children’s imageryuse, and some has indicated girls and boys differ intheir imagery ability, more specifically their control ofimages (Wolmer et al., 1999); thus, gender differenceswere also considered. Based on existing theoretical andempirical work on athletes’ imagery use, we hypoth-esized certain themes to emerge, such as skill acquisi-tion, strategy development, goals, arousal regulation, andmastery (Munroe et al. 2000). The study also attemptedto identify new themes with the younger sample. There-fore, the Munroe et al. conceptual framework was use-ful to formulate hypotheses as well as to analyze and codethemes (Kvale, 1996).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



MethodMethodMethodMethodMethod

Participants

The participants were 110 male and female athletesin four age groups: 7–8 years (10 boys, 14 girls), 9–10years (17 boys, 13 girls), 11–12 years (16 boys, 19 girls),and 13–14 years (11 boys, 10 girls). These participantscompeted at a variety of levels (e.g., house league, re-gional, provincial) and in 22 different sports: includingbadminton, ballet, baseball, basketball, cross-country ath-letics, curling, dance, football, gymnastics, hockey, karate,lacrosse, ringette, rowing, skating, skiing, snowboarding,soccer, squash, swimming, and volleyball. An effort wasmade to ensure variability in sport as well as participa-tion level. The participants were from predominantlymiddle class families from the southwestern Ontario re-gion of Canada.

Design

A double layer design (Krueger & Casey, 2000) wasused for comparisons between any layers in the design(i.e., age and gender). A total of 16 focus groups wereconducted comprising two female and two male focusgroups for each of the four age categories. Researcherssuggest that a focus group conducted with young peopleshould be composed of same sex participants within a 2-year age span (Krueger & Casey). Each focus group con-sisted of 6–8 participants (same gender and age cohort)and was structured to assess young athletes’ imagery use.

Procedure1

On receiving clearance from the universities’ re-search ethics boards, athletes from various sport organi-zations were contacted to participate in the focus groups.The athletes’ parents provided permission and consent,and each athlete completed an assent form. Each focusgroup consisted of the athletes, a technical assistant, anda moderator. Some (e.g., Krueger & Casey, 2000) havesuggested a younger moderator may be beneficial whenworking with a young sample. Thus, the moderator wasa graduate student and former grade school teacher, whohad previous experience conducting interviews and work-ing with young children. The technical assistant was re-sponsible for audio taping sessions and keeping accuratefield notes. An interview guide approach (Patton, 1990)was used, allowing for the inclusion or exclusion of anyideas as the sessions progressed. When working withyoung participants in a focus group, Krueger and Caseyrecommended short sessions (45–60 min) and that ques-tions be few (6–8) and age-appropriate.

The interview guide consisted of three parts. In thefirst, athletes learned about the scope of the study, pro-

vided information about their previous sport experi-ences, and received a definition of imagery, which wasdefined as “using all the senses to re-create or create anexperience in the mind” (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2006, p.307). The second part was derived from the Munroe etal. (2000) conceptual framework, which asked athleteswhere, when, and why they use imagery. They were alsoasked what they imaged.2 In the third part, the modera-tor verbally synthesized key points that emerged from thefocus group, allowing participants the opportunity tomake any additional comments or clarifications. Specificprobes (Patton, 1990) were used to gain a better under-standing of specific points emerging from the focusgroups. Each focus group lasted between 1 and 1.45 hr.All of the responses were transcribed verbatim.

Data Analysis

Data analysis began after all focus groups were com-pleted and responses were transcribed. A constant com-parative method was used to analyze the data (Strauss &Corbin, 1990) in which the transcripts were importedinto the QSR NU*DIST 5 (Nonnumerical, UnstructuredData, Indexing, Searching and Theorizing, 2000) datamanagement computer program and divided into textunits (separate pieces containing one idea or conceptthat could be independently interpreted), which wereorganized into categories and subcategories by a combi-nation of inductive and deductive approaches (Charmaz,2000; Patton, 1990). Patton (2002) offered that withinductive analysis, new categories emerge from focusgroups, whereas deductive analysis uses pre-existing cat-egories (i.e., Munroe et al., 2000, conceptual framework).As such, the broader categories (e.g., functions of im-agery) and some subcategories were deductively createdbased on the Munroe et al. analysis of where, when, andwhy adult athletes use imagery, while the remaining sub-categories were inductively created based on emergingdata. Qualitative methodologists (e.g., Patton, 2002) andsport researchers (e.g., Vazou, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2005)have suggested combining inductive and deductive tech-niques as the most realistic analysis method, given thatno researcher designs a study without some initial hypoth-eses based on previous research and theory. Two investi-gators (the first and fourth authors) independentlyundertook the analysis. The interrater reliability for allcoded data was 92%. The end result was four hierarchi-cal trees of knowledge, one for each age group.

Trustworthiness

This study followed the Miles and Huberman (1994)recommendations for increasing the trustworthiness ofa qualitative study. By providing rich and meaningful de-scriptions of the findings, debriefing with peers on a regu-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



lar basis and authenticating the focus group transcripts,the internal validity was enhanced. Moreover, the exter-nal validity is improved by providing the reader with athorough description of the participants, procedures,and analyses used in this study; this allows for compari-sons with other studies and samples. Given that externalvalidity is adequate when findings from one study sup-port previous research (Maxwell, 1992), the currentstudy’s findings will be compared to that of Munroe etal. (2000). Last, a detailed record was kept of the pro-cess used to collect and interpret the data and the peerdebriefings. This was done to ensure objectivity and re-duce researcher bias, respectively (Miles & Huberman).

ResultsResultsResultsResultsResults

Imagery use in each of the respective age groups(i.e., 7–8, 9–10, 11–12, and 13–14 years) are shown in aleft-to-right order, indicating the levels of analysis fromthe transcribed interviews (see Figures 1–4). Part A ofeach figure represents when and where athletes used im-agery, while Part B represents why (function) athletesused imagery. The categories within the hierarchical treeswith the dotted thick lines indicate no use of imagery foreither gender, while the categories with the roundedthick lines represent a gender difference (i.e., one gen-der reported using the function, while the other did not,and this is specified in the text).

Imagery Use: Where and When?

With respect to training, athletes from all four agecohorts reported using imagery during practice (see Fig-ures 1a–4a). In addition, all age cohorts, except for the7–8-year-olds, reported using imagery outside practice.The following highlights one girl’s (age 11–12 years) use ofimagery outside gymnastics practice: “Sometimes if it isconfusing in practice, I will go home and try to imaginewhat it [the move] should be like.” Additionally, one boy(age 9–10 years) stated, “I think about the trampoline[when in the car].” All age cohorts indicated using im-agery before and during competition. One 11–12-year-old boy stated, “I mostly use it when I am warming upfor a game. That’s when it happens.” A male gymnast(age 7–8 years) said, “I use it [imagery] during competi-tion, because you need to concentrate more.” Forpostcompetition, only the three older groups (ages 9–14 years) indicated using imagery. One 13–14-year-oldgirl said, “I usually use imagery after. I think about whatI could have done better or what I could improve on.”Similarly, an 11–12-year-old girl responded, “SometimesI image what I did good in the game after [the game].”There were no gender differences for where and whenthe athletes reported using imagery.

Functions of Imagery (Why?)

All age groups used all five imagery functions formotivational and cognitive purposes (see Figures 1b–4b).

Cognitive Specific. Cognitive specific imagery is theimagined rehearsal of specific sport skills and is furtherdivided into skill development and skill execution. Skilldevelopment is associated with learning the skill andentails working on both technique and corrections. Skillexecution is associated with attempting to perform as wellas possible in a given situation. All age cohorts indicatedusing imagery for skill development and execution. Afemale athlete (age 13–14 years) reported her use ofimagery for skill development:

…when you imagine what you’re goingto do after the game you can improve,like, on your skills. Like, you can imag-ine, like, “what if I did this,” or, “what ifI did this.” And then, the next game youcan improve on your skill.

Correspondingly, a female athlete (age 7–8 years)reported, “When I am about to do my full turn, I thinkof not falling down.” Comparing across genders, the onlydifference was the younger boys’ (age 7–10 years) fail-ure to report using imagery for working on technique.

Cognitive General. Cognitive general imagery is theimagined rehearsal of strategies of play and can be fur-ther divided into strategy development, execution, andprediction. All age cohorts and both genders reportedusing strategy development, the imagery used to learnthe strategies. An 11–12-year-old male athlete indicatedhis imagery use for strategy development:

Um yeah, but also like, sometimes I’m onthe court and someone’s guarding meand I need to get around them, so I thinkwhat move will I make like, will I movethe ball forward, like if I go that way orif I go that way.

Moreover, a young male athlete, age 9–10 years, said,“Umm, we think about where we are going to throw theball and if we get it [the ball], what we are going to dowith it,” which depicts imagery for strategy development.

All age groups and both genders, except the youngermale athletes (ages 7–8 and 9–10 years) reported usingstrategy execution, the imagery used to help perform thestrategies in training and competition. When discussinghow she imaged the coach’s directions diagrammed ona board, a female athlete (age 9–10 years), stated:

I, see like, us, set up on the floor, andwhat we’re doing like what he taught us,what’s written but before we actually do


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



Imagery

Training

During Practice

Outside Practice

Competition

Pre-Competition

During Competition

Post-Competition

Function

Outcome

Performance

Excitement

Control Anxiety

Relaxation

Mental Toughness

Motivational Specific

Motivational General-Arousal

Motivational General-Mastery

Individual

Team

Cognitive General

Confidence

Focus

Prediction

Correction

Strategy Development

Skil Development

Skill Execution

Cognitive Specific

Technique

Strategy Execution

Figure 1.Figure 1.Figure 1.Figure 1.Figure 1. A conceptual framework for where and when (A) and why (B) athletes use imagery (ages 7–8 years).

A

B

it. And then after we actually do it, Ithink through it like did we do it rightor did we not get a good shot because wecouldn’t remember.

Moreover, a young male hockey player (age 11–12 years)reported his use of imagery for strategy execution, “Mostof the time I get breakaways because I can imagine whereto go and that the puck is going to go there.”


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



All age cohorts and both genders reported usingstrategy prediction, imaging what is going to happennext. This function is evident in the following quote froma female athlete (age 13–14 years). “In volleyball, you

need to, say, think ahead…just like a kind of picture ofwhat’s going to happen next so that it is all organized inyour head.” Additionally, a male athlete (age 7–8 years)stated his use of imagery for prediction, “Like if you’re


Imagery

Training

During Practice

Outside Practice

Competition

Pre-Competition

During Competition

Post-Competition

Function

Strategy Execution

Outcome

Performance

Excitement

Control Anxiety

Relaxation

Mental Toughness




Individual

Team

Cognitive General

Confidence

Focus

Prediction

Correction


Skil Development

Skill Execution

Cognitive Specific

Technique

A

B


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



imaging, like basically everything that might happen orwhat the field is going to look like, things like that.”

Motivational Specific. This function involves imagin-ing goals and related activities and is composed of out-

come and performance goals. Individual outcome goals(e.g., winning a medal, coming in first) were evident inall age cohorts and both genders. A female athlete (age9–10 years) said, “When I think of soccer…I always think


Imagery

Training

During Practice

Outside Practice

Competition

Pre-Competition

During Competition

Post-Competition

Function

Strategy Execution

Outcome

Performance

Excitement

Control Anxiety

Relaxation

Mental Toughness




Individual

Team

Cognitive General

Confidence

Focus

Prediction

Correction


Skil Development

Skill Execution

Cognitive Specific

Technique

A

B


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



of me being lifted up into the air and being, thrownabout. Like every time and just some song going like‘we’re number 1’.” Another athlete (male hockey playerage 9–10 years) indicated his use of imagery for individual

goals, “I actually imagine it [my shot] going in the net.”Only the older male and female groups (ages 11–12 and13–14 years) cited imaging one’s team achieving an out-come goal. A male athlete (age 11–12 years) stated, “I


Imagery

Training

During Practice

Outside Practice

Competition

Pre-Competition

During Competition

Post-Competition

Function

Strategy Execution

Outcome

Performance

Excitement

Control Anxiety

Relaxation

Mental Toughness




Individual

Team

Cognitive General

Confidence

Focus

Prediction

Correction


Skil Development

Skill Execution

Cognitive Specific

Technique

A

B


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



imagine thinking, how to help our team win.” All agegroups and both genders reported imagining what ittakes to achieve a performance goal. A 13–14-year-old girlstated her use of imagery to achieve a team outcome, “Ijust think about, like, if we win, then how you’d feel allgood.” All age cohorts and genders indicated using im-agery to achieve performance goals. All age cohorts re-ported using performance goals that focus on improvingand attaining personal performance standards. As ayoung female athlete (age 7–8 years) indicated herachievement of a performance goal, “I imagine myselfas a really good dancer.”

Motivational General-Arousal. This function entailsimaging the arousal and anxiety associated with the sport.Themes of excitement, control, and relaxation emergedfrom the data. Only the female athletes reported usingmotivational general-arousal imagery. Furthermore,while female athletes of all ages used imagery to controlarousal and anxiety, only the older athletes (ages 11–12and 13–14 years) reported using it for excitement and re-laxation purposes. A female athlete (age 11–12 years)exemplified this when discussing her team’s pregamecheer. “In our cheer, I imagine us jumping up and downright before the game.” Conversely, for relaxation a fe-male athlete (age 11–12 years) described her imagesprior to dancing in front of a large audience, “So thento calm myself I pictured myself doing it right and likeknowing what I was supposed to do.” Additionally, a fe-male gymnast (age 7–8 years) reported using imagery tocontrol her arousal level, “Sometimes I fall off [thebeam], so I imagine there are mats there.”

Motivational General-Mastery. The motivational gen-eral-mastery function is composed of three higher orderthemes: mental toughness, focus, and confidence. Men-tal toughness includes working through difficult situa-tions and dealing with adversity. Only girls ages 9–14 yearsreported using imagery for this function; no male ath-letes reported using it. One female diver (age 11–12years) stated her use of imagery for mental toughness,“I always imagined myself going to another level. I alwayspictured myself going to the top, the very top of the div-ing board even before they had one.” Another femaleathlete (13–14-year-old volleyball player) indicated usingit to stay mentally tough when in a tight game, “Like forserving, I imagine it’s the final game and it’s tied, and[I] just try to do my best.” All age groups and both gen-ders, except the 9–10-year-old cohort, reported usingimagery to remain focused. When asked why he usedimagery in a game situation, one male athlete (age 7–8years) responded, “Because you need it to focus.” A fe-male athlete (age 7–8 years) responded, “For example,like, concentrating on like the things you have to do [insport].” Athletes also reported using imagery to main-tain or regain confidence. Athletes in all age groups,except 9–10-year-olds, reported using this function. More-

over, boys age 13–14 years did not indicate using imag-ery for confidence. One female athlete, age 11–12 years,said, “I think it helps you, because when you think abouthow you can do it, it gives you confidence. And then youthink that you’ll be able to do it, and then you try it, andthen, you…do it!” Another female athlete (age 13–14years) added she used imagery, “To be calm when thesituation comes up, so that you know where you’re go-ing and you’re not all confused.”

DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion

The purpose of the study was to examine young ath-letes’ use of imagery from a developmental perspectiveusing qualitative research methods and, more specifically,to provide an understanding of where, when, and whyyoung athletes use imagery. Previous qualitative researchwith adult athletes from various sports and levels hasshown they use imagery in training and competition forcognitive and motivational purposes. It was unknown,however, whether or not young athletes use imagery inthe same situations and for the same functions.

As hypothesized, all athlete groups, regardless of ageor gender, reported using imagery for both training andcompetition. This supports previous research with adultathletes (Munroe et al., 2000). In contrast to adult ath-letes and the older age groups in the present study, theyoungest athletes (age 7–8 years) did not report usingimagery outside of practice situations or immediatelyfollowing competition. These findings are not surprising,given that many of the youngest athletes were likely stillsampling different sports (Côté & Hay, 2002) and, there-fore, did not spend as much time focused on one sport.Children’s first experience with organized sport, usuallyaround the age of 7 years (Côté & Hay), focuses on funand excitement rather than attaining specific goals. Be-cause of this, the youngest cohort in the present samplemay not have thought about sport outside a practice orgame situation, and so may not have engaged in muchpostcompetition appraisal.

It was also hypothesized that the older cohorts woulduse imagery for all five functions, while the younger oneswould not. Results revealed that athletes from all agegroups used imagery for all five functions (i.e., cognitiveand motivational purposes), which is consistent with theprevious adult imagery research (Hall et al., 1998;Munroe et al., 2000). Because the athletes in the presentstudy were between the ages of 7 and 14 years and prob-ably learning many new skills and strategies, it seems fit-ting that the cognitive functions of imagery emergedfrom the focus groups. Several researchers have arguedthat mastery experiences can facilitate children’s percep-tions of competence (Harter, 1999; Weiss & Ebbeck, 1996).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



Most often they achieve these experiences through therepeated practice and ultimate “mastery” of skills andstrategies. An additional way to achieve mastery experi-ences, however, is to image the repetition and perfectexecution of sport skills and strategies. It could be arguedthat when exposed to consistent mastery experiences,whether real or imagined, children will develop highperceptions of competence.

All athlete groups indicated using cognitive generalimagery to develop strategies or game plans. Moreover,athletes indicated using imagery for strategy prediction,a result not found in the adult data. Given that theseathletes were young and perhaps had not been exposedto opponents’ strategies, using imagery to predict theirstrategies may have helped to alleviate an unknown. Thatis, athletes may use this function to counter their oppo-nent’s strategy. Research has shown that as children age,their long-term memory improves, thus, allowing themto acquire and retain knowledge with less difficulty(Santrock & Yussen, 1992). Given that these young ath-letes’ information-processing abilities were still devel-oping, imagery use may have been a way to learn sportstrategies and commit them to memory. From an ap-plied perspective, this may be a function coaches andpractitioners could emphasize to young athletes whoare learning and executing a new game plan (e.g.,breakout play in basketball). Moreover, using cognitivegeneral imagery may improve perceived competence.This is important, because it is related to and can evenpredict children’s performance and behavior in sportand other physical activity situations (Horn & Harris,1996). If children can use imagery to develop mentalstrategies (e.g., predicting a move an opponent willmake), their chances of success are greater when con-fronted with an opponent using that move, thus increas-ing their perceived competence.

Although all groups indicated using imagery formotivational purposes, the younger ones (age 7–10 years)reported using fewer subcategories of motivational gen-eral-arousal and motivational general-mastery than theirolder counterparts. One possible explanation for thisfinding is that the older athletes (ages 11–12 and 13–14years) may have experienced higher anxiety levels andmore difficult situations demanding mastery responses(e.g., being focused, being mentally tough) as a resultof more peer comparisons (Harter, 1983) and more op-portunity for competition than their younger cohorts.

The groups in the present study indicated usingimagery for both outcome and performance goals. Fur-thermore, the findings indicated younger athletes usedimagery related to individual goals only, whereas theolder athletes (age 13–14 years) used it for both indi-vidual and team goals. This is not surprising, given themore egocentric development associated with youngerchildren. However, teaching young athletes the impor-

tance of setting team and individual goals and usingimagery to achieve them would be a worthwhile endeavor.

With respect to gender differences, boys did notreport using imagery related to arousal and anxiety (mo-tivational general-arousal). In contrast, all female athletesreported using this function to control arousal and anxi-ety levels. This gender difference may have been a func-tion of social desirability. Young male athletes may nothave wanted to discuss or admit their anxiety in sport inthe focus group setting, whereas the female athletes feltcomfortable to discuss the issue at length. Alternatively,this gender difference may have been a function of thespecific sports played by the female athletes. Gymnasticsand dance were popular female sports in the presentstudy, and these types of activities may invoke morearousal and anxiety than some of the popular malesports, such as volleyball and soccer.

In addition, only the older female cohorts reportedusing motivational general-arousal imagery for relaxationand excitement. A partial explaination may be that theolder girls had more responsibilities than their youngercohorts. For example, this older group may have beendealing with more demands at school (e.g., more home-work and assignments) and at home (e.g., chores, babysitting) and, therefore, would use motivational general-arousal imagery to relax while at practice or in a compe-tition. Alternatively, it may be that the older age cohortswere learning and executing more difficult skills andstrategies (e.g., round-off back somersault), which mayhave resulted in more anxiety due to the risk of injury.As a consequence of this stress, the older girls may haveused motivational general-arousal imagery to relax or,conversely, get psyched up or energized prior to execut-ing a difficult skill. Last, as athletes develop, the em-phasis switches from an instructional to a competitiveorientation. As a result, more pressure is placed on theathlete to perform, thereby leading to increased stressand anxiety. One way to reduce this anxiety or, conversely,increase one’s level of arousal to an optimal level isthrough motivation general-arousal imagery (Martin,Moritz, & Hall, 1999; Vadocz et al., 1997).

In addition to the above, a gender difference alsoexisted between boys’ and girls’ use of motivational gen-eral-mastery imagery. The female cohorts, except the 9–10-year-olds, indicated using imagery to improveself-confidence, whereas the male athletes (ages 9–10and 13–14 years) reported no use of imagery for this pur-pose. This difference is important, given that previousresearch with adolescents (Vadocz et al., 1997) and adults(Hardy & Callow, 1999) found that both male and femaleathletes used motivational general-mastery imagery ex-tensively to enhance self-confidence. The socializationof children into sport may explain the present finding.Research has shown that gender differences in sport abil-ity and enjoyment are evident by grade 1, with boys hav-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



ing greater perceived ability in sport than girls (Green-dorfer, Lewko, & Rosengren, 1996) and more confi-dence in their sport and exercise capabilities (Gill,2004). Therefore, the female athletes in the presentstudy may have had a greater need to use imagery to in-crease self-confidence. An alternative explanation is thatthe girls from the present study were engaged in activi-ties (e.g., gymnastics, dance) that require developingand maintaining self-confidence at an earlier age. Giventhat athletes involved in such sports excel at a young age,self-confidence is essential for success.

Further, no male athletes indicated using motiva-tional general-mastery imagery to remain mentally tough.One explanation for this may be that toughness (i.e.,physical and mental) is a socially accepted male-domi-nated characteristic. As a result, social desirability mayhave influenced the boys’ responses in our focus groupssuch that they did not want to appear mentally weak (i.e.,lack of toughness). Therefore, they did not divulge us-ing imagery to improve mental toughness.

Vealey (2001) suggested that self-confidence iscritical to an athlete’s development. Moreover, Martinet al. (1999) argued that motivational general-masteryimagery is integral in modifying cognitions such as self-confidence. Children’s self-perceptions or “how good”they feel about themselves are related to their perfor-mance, behavior, and health. If all young athletes usemore motivational general-mastery imagery, it may en-hance their self-confidence.

Finally, boys and girls (age 7–10 years) differed intheir use of cognitive specific imagery used for tech-nique. More specifically, male athletes in this age co-hort did not report using imagery for this purpose. Thismay be a result of less developed information process-ing abilities in the younger boys and more controlledimages that move from perceptual to conceptual ac-tivity in the younger girls and older age cohorts (Koss-lyn et al., 1990; Wolmer et al., 1999).

Conclusions

The present study has demonstrated that young ath-letes—boys and girls 7–14 years of age—use imagery forboth cognitive and motivational purposes. Similar toadult athletes, young athletes used all five of Paivio’s(1985) cognitive and motivational functions of imagery.Also, a number of gender differences in imagery usewere reported. Discussion of the study results involveda number of plausible but speculative explanations forthe findings. Further research is needed to verifiy theseexplanations. At present, little research has been con-ducted to study gender differences in visual and kines-thetic imagery development in children. The presentstudy shows the need for further research to more fullyunderstand gender differences in young athletes’ imag-

ery use. Moreover, because adult athletes have not dem-onstrated significant gender differences in imagery use,further research is needed to understand how these gen-der differences appear to dissolve as children move to-ward adulthood. Gaining a deeper understanding ofwhere, when, and why young athletes use imagery willprovide a clearer understanding of how imagery usedevelops and what environments are most conducive foryoung athletes to benefit from the use of imagery.

Because little is known about young athletes’ use ofimagery, the current study was designed to examine im-agery use across ages, gender, different sports, and dif-ferent levels of athletic ability. Information from thisstudy is a start to understanding how imagery use devel-ops as boys and girls move from childhood through toadolescence. It also provides a basis for developing moresophisticated research studies. However, this research isnot without limitations. First, learning to use imagery wasnot controlled. That is, we did not assess whether or nottheir coaches had previously taught the athletes how touse imagery. Future research should control for this vari-able so that any differences between nature (the spon-taneous use of imagery) can be separated from nurturedimagery use, provided through formal instruction. Sec-ond, participants competed in a variety of sports at vari-ous levels. Understanding imagery use across differentsports and at different levels is important. However, fora better understanding of young athletes’ imagery use,it will no doubt be beneficial to study sports and levelsindividually. That is, it will be useful to examine imageryuse across ages in one sport and at one competitive level.

The focus group methodology used in the presentstudy also has certain limitations. The group dynamicsmay lead to some athletes’ reluctance in expressing theirviews on imagery or to social desirability in their re-sponses. In this study, the researchers attempted to mini-mize these potential limitations by maintaining smallgroup sizes, a younger moderator to whom athletes couldrelate, and time for members to get to know one anotherprior to the focus group (Krueger & Casey, 2000).

Applying an adult model of imagery use (Munroeet al., 2000) to children could be considered inappro-priate and, therefore, constitute a limitation. A particu-lar strength to this study, however, was using inductiveand deductive methodology to minimize this limitation.For example, strategy prediction (i.e., imaging what isgoing to happen next) was a subcategory of cognitivegeneral imagery that inductively emerged from the data.This subcategory was not evident in the adult literature(Munroe et al.). Conversely, staying positive, a subcat-egory of motivational general-mastery imagery found inthe adult data (Munroe et al.), did not emerge from thecurrent youth focus groups.

The present research found support for studyingimagery use by young athletes from a developmental


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



perspective. This supports research that has argued im-agery is a skill developed through deliberate practice(Cumming & Hall, 2002). Perhaps the earlier one be-gins to use imagery, the more proficient he/she maybecome at imagery and, thus, derive more benefits (e.g.,increased learning and self-efficacy). This study has pro-vided a basis to help build an understanding of how im-agery use develops in young athletes and how it canfacilitate learning and performance in sport.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

Brandimonte, M. A., Hitch, G. J., & Bishop, D. V. M. (1992).Manipulation of visual mental images in children andadults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 53, 300–312.

Bruner, J. S., Olver, R. R., & Greenfield, B. M. (1966). Stud-ies in cognitive growth. New York: Wiley.

Charmaz, K. (2000).Grounded theory: Objectivist andconstructivist methods. In D. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative methods (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Côté, J., & Hay, J. (2002). Children’s involvement in sport:A developmental perspective. In J. M. Silva & D. Stevens(Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (2nd ed., pp. 484–502). Boston: Merrill.

Cumming, J., & Hall, C. (2002). Deliberate imagery prac-tice in the development of imagery skills in competitiveathletes. Journal of Sport Sciences, 20, 137–145.

Fishburne, G. J., Hall, C. R., & Franks, I. M. (1987). Thedevelopment of imagery ability in children. In E. Hahnand K. Carl (Eds.), Sport and the talented. Cologne, Ger-many: Bundesinstitut fur Sportwissenschaft Press.

Forisha, B. D. (1975). Mental imagery verbal processes: A de-velopmental study. Developmental Psychology, 11, 259–267.

Gill, D. (2004). Gender and cultural diversity across thelifespan. In M. R. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport andexercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp. 475–501).Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Greendorfer, S. L., Lewko, J. H., & Rosengren, K. (1996).Family and gender-based influences in sport socializa-tion of children and adolescents. In F. L. Smoll & R. E.Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychologicalperspective (pp. 89–112). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Hall, C. R. (2001). Imagery in sport and exercise. In R. N. Sing-er, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook ofsport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 529–549). New York: Wiley.

Hall, C. R., Mack, D., Paivio, A., & Hausenblas, H. A. (1998).Imagery use by athletes: Development of the Sport Im-agery Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychol-ogy, 29, 73–89.

Hall, C. R., & Pongrac, J. (1983). Movement imagery question-naire. London, Ontario, Canada: The University of West-ern Ontario.

Hall, C., Rodgers, W., & Barr, K. A. (1990). The use of imageryby athletes in selected sports. The Sport Psychologist, 4, 1–10.

Hardy, L., & Callow, N. (1999). Efficacy of external and in-ternal visual imagery perspectives for the enhancement

of performance on tasks in which form is important.Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21, 95–111.

Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology, socialization, personality, and social development(pp. 275–385). New York: Wiley.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmentalperspective. New York: Guilford Press.

Helson, H. (1933). A child’s spontaneous reports of imag-ery. American Journal of Psychology, 45, 360–361.

Horn, T. S., & Harris, A. (1996). Perceived competence inyoung athletes: Research findings and recommenda-tions for coaches and parents. In F. L. Smoll & R. E.Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychologicalperspective (pp. 298–309). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Kosslyn, S. M., Margolis, J. A., Barrett, A. M., Goldknopf, E.J., & Daly, P. F. (1990). Age differences in imagery abil-ity. Child Development, 61, 995–1010.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practi-cal guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative researchinterviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Li-Wei, Z., Qi-Wei, M., Orlick, T., & Zitzelsberger, L. (1992).The effect of mental-imagery training on performanceenhancement with 7–10-year-old children. The Sport Psy-chologist, 6, 230–241.

Martin, K. A., Moritz, S. E., & Hall, C. R. (1999). Imageryuse in sport: A literature review and applied model. TheSport Psychologist, 13, 245–268.

Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in quali-tative research. Harvard Education Review, 62, 279–300.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative dataanalysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Monsma, E. V., & Overby, L. Y. (2004). The relationship be-tween imagery and competitive anxiety in ballet audi-tions. Journal of Dance Medicine & Science, 8, 11–18.

Munroe-Chandler, K. J., & Hall, C. R. (2004–2005). Enhanc-ing the collective efficacy of a soccer team throughmotivational general-mastery imagery. Imagination, Cog-nition and Personality, 24, 51–67.

Munroe, K. J., Giacobbi, P. R., Hall, C., & Weinberg, R.(2000). The four Ws of imagery use: Where, when, why,and what. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 119–137.

Munroe, K., Hall, C., & Simms, S., Weinberg, R. (1998). Theinfluence of type of sport and time of season on ath-letes’ use of imagery, The Sport Psychologist, 12, 440–449.

Orlick, T. D., & Zitzelsberger, L. (1996). Enhancing children’ssport experiences. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.),Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp.330–337). New York: WCB/McGraw-Hill.

Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions ofimagery in human performance. Canadian Journal ofApplied Sport Sciences, 10, 22–28.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research meth-ods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and education meth-ods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Piaget, J. (1971). Science of education and the psychology of thechild. New York: Viking.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1971). Mental imagery in the child.New York: Basic Books.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014



QSR NUD*IST 5 [Computer Software]. (2000). Melbourne,Australia: Qualitative Solutions & Research PTY Ltd.

Rapp, G., & Schoder, G. (1973). Bewegungsvorstellung undbewegungslernen bei kindern. Psychologie in Erziehungund Unterricht, 20, 279–288.

Rodgers, W. M., Hall, C. R., & Buckolz, E. (1991). The ef-fect of an imagery training program on imagery ability,imagery use, and figure skating performance. Journalof Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 109–125.

Salmon, J., Hall, C., & Haslam, I. (1994). The use of imag-ery by soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,6, 116–133.

Santrock, J. W., & Yussen, S. R. (1992). Child development: Anintroduction (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm C. Brown.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Ground-ed theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Thomas, J. R. (1980). Children’s motor skill development.In J. R. Thomas (Ed.), Motor development during childhoodand adolescence (pp. 91–104). Minneapolis, MN: Burgess.

Thomas, K. T., Gallagher, J. D., & Thomas, J. R. (2001).Motor development and skill acquisition during child-hood and adolescence. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausen-blas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology(2nd ed., pp. 20–52). New York: Wiley.

Vadocz, E. A., Hall, C. R., & Moritz, S. E. (1997). The rela-tionship between competitive anxiety and imagery use.Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 241–253.

Vazou, S., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2005). Peer moti-vational climate in youth sport: A qualitative inquiry.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 497–516.

Vealey, R. S. (2001). Understanding and enhancing self-con-fidence in athletes. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas,& C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp.550–565). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Vealey, S., & Greenleaf, C. A (2006). Seeing is believing:Understanding and using imagery in sport. In J. M.Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: personal growth topeak performance (5th ed., pp. 247–269). San Francisco,CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport and ex-ercise psychology (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Weiss, M. R., & Ebbeck, V. (1996). Self-esteem and perceptionsof competence in youth sports: Theory, research andenhancement strategies. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The encyclo-pedia of sports medicine: Volume VI. The child and adolescentathlete (pp. 364–382). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.

Wolmer, L., Laor, N., & Torne, P. (1999). Image control fromchildhood to adolescence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89,471–485.

NotesNotesNotesNotesNotes

1. The research team conducted a pilot focus groupbefore starting the focus group interviews. Five localathletes (2 boys and 3 girls) ages 7–13 years partici-pated. The pilot session provided the moderator withan opportunity to test the questions from the interviewguide and determine the correct sequence. Based onthe pilot session, the interview guide was finalized.2. While the athletes were asked all four questions(i.e., where, when, why, and what), only the first threequestions were considered in the present study due tothe sheer magnitude of the qualitative data produced.

Authors’ NotesAuthors’ NotesAuthors’ NotesAuthors’ NotesAuthors’ Notes

This research was supported by a grant from SSHRCawarded to the first three authors of this paper. Wewould like to thank two graduate students for theirassistance with the data collection and analysis; NathanHall and Jenny O. Please address all correspondenceconcerning this article to Krista J. Chandler, Faculty ofHuman Kinetics, The University of Windsor, 401 Sun-set Avenue, Windsor, ON, Canada, N9B 3P4.

Email: [email protected]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

13 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Where, When, and Why Young Athletes Use Imagery