Combining Self Talk and Performance Feedback: Their Effectiveness With Adult Tennis Players

Transcription

1 The Sport Psychologist, 2011, 25, Human Kinetics, Inc. Combining Self Talk and Performance Feedback: Their Effectiveness With Adult Tennis Players Alexander T. Latinjak and Miguel Torregrosa Universidad Autonóma de Barcelona Jordi Renom Universidad de Barcelona The main purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of a strategy that combined self talk and performance feedback. Therefore, three groups of adult tennis players performed a forehand groundstroke task. The first group (n = 16) applied an instructional self talk and self feedback combination, the second (n = 16) used regular instructional self talk, and the third (n = 16) performed without any specific aid. The hypothesis was that the performance and concentration scores of both self talk groups would improve from the pretest to the posttest, while the scores from the control group would remain unchanged. The analysis of variance with repeated measures confirmed this hypothesis. Further, the players who used self feedback perceived the effectiveness of their intervention to be significantly higher compared with the other intervention group. Overall, the combination of self talk and feedback seems to be an alternative to the original instructional self talk intervention. Self talk (ST) is one of the most commonly used strategies in sport psychology (Chroni, Perkos, & Theodorakis, 2007), and in sport psychology literature the study of ST has been growing steadily (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Goltsios, & Theodorakis, 2008). ST is a cognitive technique that Hackfort and Schwenkmezger (1993) defined as a dialogue (through which) the individual interprets feelings and perceptions, regulates and changes evaluations and convictions, and gives himself instructions and reinforcement (p. 355). Several studies support the effectiveness of ST in different sports such as basketball (e.g., Perkos, Theodorakis, & Chroni, 2002), golf (e.g., Malouff & Murphy, 2006), soccer (e.g., Papaioannou, Ballon, Theodorakis, & Auwelle, 2004), or tennis (e.g., Ziegler, 1987). Research has identified two broad dimensions with regard to the purposes ST serves, that is instructional and motivational (Zinsser, Bunker, & Williams, 2006). Instructional ST focuses on technical, tactical or kinaestetic aspects of task execution; whereas motivational ST aims at increasing effort and self-confidence, and Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom are with the Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 18

2 Self Talk and Performance Feedback 19 at creating positive moods. Hatzigeorgiadis, Theodorakis and Zourbanos (2004) found that instructional ST had a greater impact on performance than motivational ST in a water polo task requiring precision, and that only motivational ST and not instructional ST had an effect over performance in a water polo task that required power. Consequently, they proposed that the relative impact of ST on measured outcomes depended on the content of the cues that were employed. Furthermore, the selection of adequate cue content regarding the task and the individual would be crucial for increasing ST efficacy. There exists increasingly solid evidence supporting the beneficial effects of ST on performance (Hardy, 2006), but ST has also proven to improve athletes concentration. Landin and Hebert (1999) used an instructional ST strategy to enhance volley ability in female college tennis players. Not only did participants increase accuracy and movement patterns, but also they reported that ST had helped them to gain and to maintain an appropriate attentional focus. Similarly, Latinjak, Torregrosa and Renom (2009) used a self-determined ST strategy with adult tennis players. The intervention helped them to increase their attentional focus on the task and to reduce their attentional focus on the outcome of the task execution, besides increasing their levels of performance satisfaction. Hatzigeorgiadis et al. (2004) found out via both water-polo experiments mentioned above, that besides improving performance, instructional and motivational ST interventions reduced interfering thoughts as well. Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos and Theodorakis (2007) used attentional and anxiety control ST cues with female swimming class students in an experimental water polo precision task. The results revealed that both cues mostly assisted concentration on the task. The use of ST was promoted as a key component of successful sports performance, and ST is often integrated as an integral part of psychological skill training (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996). Moreover, research has generally supported the combination of ST with other psychological strategies, such as imagery, centering, relaxation, goal setting or rationalization and cognitive reconstruction (Rogerson & Hrycaiko, 2002; Thomas, Maynard, & Hanton, 2007). Similarly, Cutton and Landin (2007) studied the effects of ST and feedback (FB) on learning the tennis forehand. The role of knowledge of performance FB, that is information provided to learners about their movement pattern, during motor skill practice has considerable theoretical and empirical support (e.g., Schmidt & Lee, 2005). Yet, typical sport settings often limit instruction due to class size or time constraints. Thus, students may practice with neither a referent for detection and correction, nor specific movement parameter value information. Consequently, Cutton and Landin suggested that strategies of self-directed attentional focusing such as ST may be critical in getting students actively involved in the learning process. In their study, they hypothesized that in a class setting, active student involvement in the learning process, through the use of ST, would promote greater achievement regardless of the presence or absence of knowledge of performance FB. Their results partly supported their hypothesis. In terms of accuracy scores, a group that used ST and received FB and a group that used only ST without receiving FB did not differ significantly from a group that did not use ST but received FB. However, there were significant differences in terms of movement sequence scores, indicating the specific advantages of participants that used ST. The movement sequence scores were the result of the evaluation of the players movement pattern sequence by four trained assistants

3 20 Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom (see, for a review, Cutton & Landin, 2007). The authors finally concluded that increasing the participants active involvement in the learning process was more beneficial than the sole provision of knowledge of performance FB. Based on the findings of Cutton and Landin (2007), this paper took into consideration the importance of knowledge of performance FB so as to use ST to help players provide their own FB when coach instructions is unavailable. Summing up, the current study was intended to design and apply a ST strategy that helps adult tennis players give themselves evaluative FB after stroke execution. The central idea of the ST intervention should contain knowledge of performance information, and the players should use self statements after stroke execution so as to provide themselves with positive or negative FB in relation to the central idea. We thought that this combination of ST and FB might be helpful to the players because it would provide them with execution related information and because it would help them supervise the application of this information during task execution. Meanwhile, the secondary task load caused by instructional ST could be reduced using self feedback as the verbalization takes place once the primary task is finished. Thus, this study sought to compare players who use the ST FB combination, to players who use regular instructional ST, and to players who perform without any specific aid. The hypothesis, based on the increasingly solid evidence in favor of the beneficial effects of ST on performance (Hardy, 2006) and the results from Cutton and Landin, was that both intervention groups would improve their performance and concentration scores from the pretest to the posttest, while no changes were expected for the group without intervention. In addition, this study explored the differences between both intervention groups in terms of performance and concentration scores; and compared the players subjective experience while applying both ST interventions. Participants Method The participants were 48 male leisure tennis players (mean age = years; SD = 6.81). They were recruited from a local tennis club situated in the area Barcelona, Spain. The participants had been playing tennis for years (SD = 5.74) and practiced an average of 2.71 hr per week (SD =.90). At the time of the experiment, and during the prior two years, players did not take part in any regular training program that involved professional instruction. We chose players who did not take part in any regular tennis lessons to replicate the common situation in which the instructions of a coach are not available. Further, we selected male adult players for this study because younger players usually take part in regular training sessions and because the female population was limited in size at the experimental location. Instruments and Measures The experimental sessions took place on regular standard-sized tennis courts, and players used racquets of their choice. A ball machine (Lobster Elite Freedom), placed on the baseline opposite the player, was used to feed the balls to the players. The experimental task consisted of a simple forehand cross court exercise. The aim of the task was to hit the twenty balls fed by the ball machine into the right

4 Self Talk and Performance Feedback 21 backcourt area of the opposite side. The size of the target area was m 2. Each player performed the experimental task eight times: twice to warm-up, twice for the pretest, twice to get familiar with the intervention, and twice for the posttest. The players had a possible scoring range from 0 to 20 in each assessment. After each test trial, the players answered some postperformance questions. To complete the objective measure of performance with the players subjective impression upon the past execution, we asked them to rate their degree of performance satisfaction on a 11-point scale, 0 being not satisfied at all and 10 being completely satisfied. This way of measuring the players performance satisfaction is similar to the one used by other authors in tennis (Butt, Weinberg, & Horn, 2003; García, Cervelló, Jiménez, Iglesias, & Santos-Rosa, 2005). It was of further interest to gather information related to the players perceived levels of concentration. Thus, we asked them to rate their concentration throughout the past trial on an 11-point scale, 0 being the lowest possible level of concentration and 10 being the highest possible level of concentration. In addition, they rated on two other 11-point scales from not at all to completely (a) the degree to which they had perceived the application of the self instructions as difficult, and (b) the degree to which they had perceived the intervention as effective. The purpose of these two questions was to collect some information about the players subjective experience in regard to the application of ST interventions. Finally, we asked the players to rate the degree to which they had applied their self instructions throughout the trial on a 6-point scale: 1 (not at all), 2 (on hardly any stroke), 3 (seldom), 4 (often), 5 (on almost every stroke), and 6 (on every stroke). Procedure Participation was voluntary, and we informed the players that they could withdraw at any time if they wanted to. All participants agreed to participate and signed an informed consent document. Before the experimental session, we randomly assigned the participants into three groups: the first group used ST with performance FB during the last four trials (STF), the second group used regular instructional ST for the last four trials (IST), and the third group was told to perform as usual throughout all trials (CON). The descriptive data for each group players are displayed in Table 1. Table 1 Descriptive Data of Every Group Players Group N Age Experience (years) Practice (hours/week) M SD M SD M SD STF IST CON Note. A one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant group differences for age, experience and practice.

5 22 Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom The first author called each participant on the phone to arrange a one-hour experimental session at their convenience in their usual tennis club. We informed all players that during this session they would have to perform a simple tennis exercise and to answer questions about their performance. Further, we did not inform the players of both intervention groups about the ST interventions until they arrived at the court. Each player spent one session alone with the first author. The players of the control group could opt for a second session to receive the ST intervention, once the experiment had finished. Each session was organized in three parts: (a) the players personal warm-up, (b) the eight above mentioned trials of the experimental task, and (c) final questions and explanations about the experimental session. Between each repetition of the experimental task, the players got a five-minute break to get some water and rest. After the second pretest trial, the players got five extra minutes. The researcher used these five minutes to introduce the intervention to the players of both intervention groups, and to ask the players of the control group about their experience during the last four trials. Once the players had finished all eight trials, we reminded them not to talk to other players about the session until the experiment had finished. ST Conditions. The intervention groups used two different ways of applying ST. Even though the ST used in both groups was quite self-determined, the guidelines given by the researcher were intended to lead to a rather instructional ST. This type of ST was favored because it was expected to be more effective for tasks requiring precision (Theodorakis, Weinberg, Natsis, Douma, & Kazakas, 2000); and because it has been proven to be helpful to increase the players concentration on the task (Landin & Hebert, 1999). After completing the baseline assessment, the researcher asked the participants of both intervention groups to name one execution-related instruction they would give themselves to enhance their own performance. The central ideas of both intervention groups are displayed in Table 2. The STF group was instructed to focus on the task element highlightened by the central idea during their task execution. Right after each shot, they had to use a positive or negative self-statement to give themselves positive or negative FB regarding the technical instruction they had previously chosen. Thus, cue-words such as yes, good or ok followed shots in which the players considered they had successfully applied their instruction. When they considered that they had not applied successfully their instruction, the cue-words were no or bad. For example, if one player had chosen bend your knees as his central idea, he was asked to concentrate on bending his knees throughout the task execution. Hence, after each stroke in which he considered that he had actually bent his knees properly, he had to say out loud an affirmative cue-word such as yes, and after each stroke in which he thought he had not, he had to say out a negative cue-word such as no. The researcher asked the participants of the IST group to phrase their central ideas as working instructional cue-words. Following recommendations of Landin (1994), verbal instructions had to be brief either one word or a short phrase and logically associated to both the task and the central idea. The players had two moments to choose from to say out loud their verbal cue: As soon as the ball left the machine, or at the moment the racquet hit the ball. Their choice had to be directly related to the nature of the self-statement. Cue words linked to the preparation of the stroke, for example steps, had to be articulated as the ball left the machine,

6 Self Talk and Performance Feedback 23 Table 2 STF group Both Intervention Group Players Central Ideas IST group Player Central idea Player Central idea 1 Hit the ball with spin 17 Do not lose sight of the ball 2 Do not let the ball drop 18 Do not lose sight of the ball 3 Get into the proper position 19 Use small steps to adjust 4 Finish above your shoulder 20 Get into the proper position 5 Get into the proper position 21 Use your bodyweight 6 Bend your knees 22 Do not lose sight of the ball 7 Do not let the ball drop 23 Use small steps to adjust 8 Keep distance to the ball 24 Do not let the ball drop 9 Hit the ball in front of you body 25 Do not lose sight of the ball 10 Complete your swing 26 Hit the ball with spin 11 Do not lose sight of the ball 27 Do not let the ball drop 12 Get into the proper position 28 Use small steps to adjust 13 The left foot in front 29 Do not wait for the ball 14 Do not lose sight of the ball 30 Finish above your shoulder 15 Do not lose sight of the ball 31 Use your bodyweight 16 Finish above your shoulder 32 Hit the ball with spin and cue words linked to the execution of the stroke, for example spin, had to be articulated at the moment the racquet hit the ball. Thus, the instruction would adjust to the natural rhythm of the task and would not disrupt the players movement. In both groups, the central ideas and the verbal cues had to be the same throughout all four intervention trials. Manipulation Check Results Two issues were taken into consideration as for the integrity of the experimental conditions: on the one hand, the use of self instructions during the familiarization phase and, on the other hand, the use of self instructions during the posttest.

7 24 Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom Regarding the former, examination of the means revealed that participants in both ST groups made adequate use of their self instructions during the familiarization phase. The means for both trials were 5.44 (SD =.73) and 5.44 (SD =.73) respectively in the STF group; and 5.37 (SD =.89) and 5.44 (SD =.96) respectively in the IST group. Moreover, none of the players in both groups had rated his application of ST lower than often. Regarding the second issue, examination of the means revealed that participants in both intervention groups had made adequate use of self instructions during the posttest assessment. The means for both trials were 5.44 (SD =.63) and 5.69 (SD =.48) respectively in the STF group; and 5.31 (SD = 1.01) and 5.88 (SD =.34) respectively in the IST group. Again, none of the players had rated his application of ST lower than often. Within Assessment and Baseline Differences As described in the procedures section, within the pretest and posttest we measured accuracy scores, performance satisfaction scores and concentration scores during two trials. To test for differences within each assessment for all three measures, we calculated paired-samples t tests for the total sample. For the pretest the results revealed that there were no accuracy score differences between both trials, t (47) =.08, p =.936; no performance satisfaction score differences between both trials, t (47) =.67, p =.508; and no concentration score differences between both trials, t (47) =.61, p =.547. Similar results were obtained for the posttest; for accuracy scores t (47) =.88, p =.384; for performance satisfaction scores, t (47) =.78, p =.442; and for concentration scores, t (47) =.68, p =.497. Furthermore, during the posttest we also measured the intervention groups players perception of the difficulty and efficiency of the ST intervention. The results of the paired-samples t tests revealed no significant differences between both trials of the posttest for difficulty, t (31) = 1.65, p =.109, and effectiveness, t (31) = 1.65, p =.110. Subsequently, we averaged the scores of both trials within each assessment to provide overall pretest and posttest scores for all five measures. Baseline differences were examined to ensure that there were no significant differences between the three groups in accuracy scores, performance satisfaction scores and concentration scores before the intervention. We performed this test to grant the meaningfulness of the repeated measures that would follow. A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant Group effect for accuracy scores, F (2,45) =.71, p =.499; performance satisfaction scores, F (2,45) =.98, p =.382; and concentration scores, F (2,45) =.90, p =.414. Main Analysis The players scores on accuracy, performance satisfaction and concentration were examined using a 3 (Group) 2 (Test) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the last factor. We also examined measures of size effect (partial η 2 ) for all significant effects. Based on the criteria outlined by Kirk (1996), η 2 values of.010,.059, and.138 were taken as corresponding to small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. After the overall repeated-measures ANOVA, we ran dependent samples t tests to check for improvements between the pretest and the posttest. In addition, we added pairwise comparisons to seek for differences between the

8 Self Talk and Performance Feedback 25 three groups during the posttest. Finally, we used independent-samples t tests to compare the players perception of the interventions difficulty and effectiveness on the posttest in the STF group and in the IST group. Accuracy Scores. The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant Group x Time interaction, F (1,45) = 5.87, η 2 =.21, p =.005. The interaction pattern and the mean scores for the three groups are displayed in Figure 1. Follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that accuracy improved for the IST group (p =.004) and the STF group (p <.001), but not for the CON group (p =.474). In addition, follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that during the posttest the IST group obtained higher accuracy scores than the control group (p =.010). Figure 1 Accuracy scores in the pretest and the posttest for the three groups. Performance Satisfaction Scores. The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant Group x Time interaction, F (2,45) = 10.43, η 2 =.32, p <.001. The interaction pattern and the mean scores for the three groups are displayed in Figure 2. Follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that performance satisfaction improved for the IST group (p <.001) and the STF group (p =.001), but not for the CON group (p =.839). In addition, follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that during the posttest the STF group (p <.001) and the IST group (p <.001) obtained higher performance satisfaction scores than the control group. Concentration Scores. The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed another significant Group x Time interaction, F (2,45) = 14.48, η 2 =.39, p <.001. The interaction pattern and the mean scores for the three groups are displayed in Figure 3. Follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that concentration improved for the IST group (p =.036) and the STF group (p <.001), but not for the CON group

9 Figure 2 Performance satisfaction scores in the pretest and the posttest for the three groups. Figure 3 Concentration scores in the pretest and the posttest for the three groups. 26

10 Self Talk and Performance Feedback 27 (p =.362). In addition, follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that during the posttest the STF group (p <.001) and the IST group (p <.001) obtained higher concentration scores than the control group. Perceived Difficulty and Effectiveness. Descriptive statistics for difficulty and efficacy are presented in Table 3. We analyzed the scores on difficulty and effectiveness using two independent-samples t tests. There was a significant difference between the STF group and the IST group for perceived effectiveness, t (30) = 2.53, p =.017; but no significant difference for perceived difficulty, t (30) =.47, p =.643. These results indicate that the players of the STF group perceived their intervention as more effective than the players of the IST group. Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations for the Intervention Groups for Perceived Difficulty and Effectiveness of the SelfTalk Intervention Group Difficulty Efficacy M SD M SD STF IST Discussion The main purpose of the current study was to examine the efficacy of a strategy that combined ST and performance FB. Therefore, we compared players who used the combination of ST and FB in terms of performance and concentration to players who used regular instructional ST and to players who performed as usual, without any specific aid. The hypothesis was that both intervention groups would improve their performance and concentration scores from the pretest to the posttest, while we expected no changes for the group without intervention. Further, we explored the differences between both intervention groups in terms of performance and concentration scores. Finally, this study also explored and compared the players subjective experience applying both ST interventions. The results of the study confirmed the working hypothesis. The players of both intervention groups improved significantly from the pretest to the posttest in terms of all three measures, while no improvement was revealed for the CON group. Further, during the posttest, the players of the IST group obtained significantly higher accuracy scores than the players of the CON group, and the players of both ST groups scored higher on performance satisfaction than those of the CON group. We obtained similar results for concentration scores, with both ST groups scoring higher than the CON group. Moreover, whereas both ST groups had similar scores on perceived ST application difficulty, the players of the STF group perceived the effectiveness of their intervention as significantly higher compared with the perception of the players of the IST group.

11 28 Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom These results gave further support to the increasingly solid evidence regarding the effectiveness of ST in terms of performance improvement (Hardy, 2006), and they were consistent with the results of Cutton and Landin (2007). These authors found that two ST groups one that used ST and received FB and one that used only ST without receiving any FB differed significantly in terms of movement sequence scores from a group that did not use any ST but had received some FB. Nevertheless, Cutton and Landin used external FB whereas the current study taught the players to provide themselves with performance FB. Hence, the players could use the FB even though the coaches instructions were unavailable. Further, in this study we also used self-determined ST. Even though in ST literature it is common that cue-words are administered to players (e.g., Landin & Hebert, 1999), the current study offered neither cue-words nor lists of cue-words to the players. We intended to replicate a common situation in which instructions are unavailable and to prevent any confusion between the effects of ST and the effects of augmented knowledge of performance. As for the effects of self-determined ST on performance, Hardy (2006) noted that there had not been a direct comparison as to whether assigned or freely-determined ST was most effective. However, he inferred from Deci and Ryan s (1985) Cognitive Evaluation Theory that ST freely determined by the athlete might have the greatest motivational influence. Still, it should be taken into account that the central ideas chosen by the players neither had to be technically correct nor adjusted to their own needs. In our study, for example, central ideas that focused on what not to do (e.g., Do not lose sight of the ball) rather than on what to do (e.g., Bend your knees) might have been less adequate as the performance enhancing instruction was occasionally less than properly highlighted. The results of this study also support previous findings that had reported the beneficial effects of ST on players concentration (e.g., Hebert & Landin, 1999). Both ST groups and not the CON group improved significantly in terms of concentration. We suggested that it was possible that verbalizing the cue word after the stroke could reduce the secondary task load caused by regular instructional ST. Thus, the players of the STF group would have had larger cognitive resources at their disposal than the players of the IST group. As our results neither supported nor disproved this suggestion, future studies should address this issue. At a theoretical level, Landin (1994) and Nideffer (1993) supported an attentional interpretation of ST effects. Both regarded ST as an effective strategy for directing or redirecting attention to task relevant cues. Similarly, Hardy (2006) noted that the use of ST, and in particular the use of cue-words, might help an athlete not only to switch the focus of attention, but also to maintain an appropriate focus of attention on a specific sports task. However, he mentioned that it was quite improbable that the influence of ST on performance could be explained appropriately by the possible effect of ST on the athlete s attention per se. The results obtained in terms of accuracy scores, performance satisfaction scores and concentration scores indicated that the combination of ST and FB had similar effects compared with the traditional instructional ST intervention. The examination of the subjective impressions regarding the application of both interventions revealed that the players considered the ST with FB intervention to be significantly more effective. No differences were obtained for application difficulty.

12 Self Talk and Performance Feedback 29 Overall, the combination of ST and FB seemed to be an agreeable alternative to the original instructional ST intervention, and it might even have some motivational advantages, as players seemed to rate it as more effective, than the original strategy. At this point, issues concerning the limitations of the study should be raised. This study used single-item measures for performance satisfaction, concentration, perceived difficulty and perceived effectiveness. We preferred these measures to the use of questionnaires as they allowed for repeated data collection on the tennis court. Nevertheless, when interpreting the results of the single-item measures it should be taken into account that no values of reliability or validity could be offered. In regard to the accuracy measure, there might be a slight possibility of biased observations, as the researcher knew the condition the players were in. Still, whenever in doubt whether a player s shot had entered the target zone or not, the researcher could check the mark the ball had left on the clay court. Other limitations in relation to the design of the current study were the size of the sample used, the type of objective measures of performance employed, and the limited control over the participants use of ST during the warm-up and pretest. Future studies should use larger sample sizes to obtain more reliable results. The measure of performance used only offers a limited vision of the players performance. Future studies should take into consideration the measures of ball speed or the analysis of the technical execution to gain a greater insight into the players performance. Moreover, due to the lack of experimental control in regard to the use of any ST different to the one used during the intervention and in the intervention groups, the results of this study should be taken with some caution. Finally, future studies should take into consideration using more extended training for the acquisition of the ST. Theodorakis et al. (2000) suggested that previously trained ST might have a larger effect on players performance. Recent studies found evidence supporting this idea (Latinjak, Torregrosa, & Renom, 2010). The existing literature supports the beneficial effects of ST on performance and concentration. The results of this study were consistent with these findings. Moreover, this study has presented an alternative use of ST, offering a different approach to ST for applied sport psychology. This new ST strategy seemed to be at least as effective as the original ST interventions. This study raised some issues in terms of future lines of research. Firstly, ST strategies similar to those used in this study need to be developed and tested with other athletes in different sports. Secondly, new and different ST strategies should be developed and tested to offer to players, coaches and sport psychologists a variety of possibilities related to the use of ST. The combination of FB and ST used in this study seemed to be an alternative to the traditional ST interventions, and it might even help applied sport psychologists and tennis coaches teach their students to get more actively involved in their learning process, to give themselves adequate technical feedback, and to positively solve situations in which the coach feedback is unavailable. Acknowledgements This research was supported in part by grant Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (SEJ2007/64528/PSIC).

13 30 Latinjak, Torregrosa, and Renom References Butt, J., Weinberg, R., & Horn, T. (2003). The intensity and directional interpretation of anxiety: Fluctuations throughout competition and relationship to performance. The Sport Psychologist, 17, Chroni, S., Perkos, S., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). Functions and preferences of motivational and instructional ST for adolescent basketball players. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, Cutton, D., & Landin, D. (2007). The effects of self-talk and augmented feedback on learning the tennis forehand. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. García, T., Cervelló, E.M., Jiménez, R., Iglesias, D., & Santos-Rosa, F.J. (2005). La implicación motivacional de jugadores jóvenes de fútbol y su relación con el estado de flow y la satisfacción en competición [Predictive variables related to goal involvement in soccer players and the relationship between goal involvement, flow state and competition satisfaction]. Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 14(1), Hackfort, D., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1993). Anxiety. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp ). New York: Macmillan. Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: A critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester: Wiley. 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, Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Goltsios, C., & Theodorakis, Y. (2008). Investigating the functions of self talk: The effects of motivational self talk on self-efficacy and performance in young tennis players. The Sport Psychologist, 22, Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). The moderating effects of selftalk content on self-talk functions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, Kirk, R.E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, Landin, D. (1994). The role of verbal cues in skill learning. Quest, 46, 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, Latinjak, A., Torregrosa, M., & Renom, J. (2009). Aplicando el auto-habla al tenis: Su impacto sobre el foco atencional y el rendimiento [Applying self-speech to tennis: Its impact on the atentional focus and performance]. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte, 9(2), Latinjak, A., Torregrosa, M., & Renom, J. (2010). El papel de la exigencia de la tarea en la aplicación del auto-habla y su efecto en tenistas de ocio [The influence of task exigency on a self talk application and on its effect on recreational tennis players]. Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 19(2). Malouff, J., & Murphy, C. (2006). Effects of self-instructions on sport performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, Nideffer, R. (1993). Attention control training. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & I.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp ). New York: Macmillan. Papaioannou, A., Ballon, F., Theodorakis, Y., & Yves Vanden, A. (2004). Combined effect of goal setting and self-talk in performance of a soccer-shooting task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98,

14 Self Talk and Performance Feedback 31 Perkos, S., Theodorakis, Y., & Chroni, S. (2002). Enhancing performance and skill acquisition in novice basketball players with instructional self talk. The Sport Psychologist, 16, Rogerson, L.J., & Hrycaiko, D.W. (2002). Enhancing competitive performance of ice hockey goaltenders using centering and self-talk. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, Schmidt, R.A., & Lee, T.D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 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, Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Hanton, S. (2007). Intervening with athletes during the time leading up to competition: Theory to practice II. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, Ziegler, S. (1987). Effects of stimulus cueing on the acquisition of groundstrokes by beginning tennis players. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 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 ). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc, Higher Education.