Imagery: The 'What', The 'Why' and How to Assess Each for Practical Beginners
Imagery is an extremely common psychological skill that athletes can use for aiding their performance, and there is great support for its effectiveness. However, if, like me, you are starting on your sport and exercise psychologist training and are unsure as to how you can measure the success of these interventions to you are trying to implement, then I hope to give you some very basic ideas.
The ‘What’ vs. The ‘Why’...
Imagery, like many other psychological skills, has been in use for decades. It is employed under the functional equivalence hypothesis (Jeannerod, 1994), meaning that imagining situations or images corresponds with the same area of the brain as the real-life scenario would; for example, imagining a visual image would correspond with activation in the visual cortex (Kosslyn, 2005), to the same degree as seeing an image in real-life.
The strength of what you are imagining can be aided by two key theories, the ‘what’ aspect of your imagery intervention. The PETTLEP model (Holmes & Collins, 2001) uses 7 aspects to create as functionally equivalent an image as possible for the user: physical, environment, task, timing, learning, emotion, and perspective. By using each of these aspects you should create a more vivid image. Another model that could be used for forming a highly functionally equivalent model would be the layered stimulus-response training (LSRT; Williams, Cooley, & Cumming, 2013). This model is not quite as step-by-step as the previous model but emphasizes an accurate mental image should focus on three layers: starting with a basic image of task/situation being imagined, then adding layer of detail to this (kinaesthetics, emotions, environmental details), before adding another layer by adding the now increasing detailed image in terms of what could be clearer or what is clear, etc.
‘Why’ you may imagine the scenarios you imagine could be for any number of reasons. The Applied model of imagery (Paivio, 1985) focuses on 5 purposes for imagining. They are compartmentalized into two umbrellas: cognitive and motivational purposes. The cognitive purposes of imaging are cognitive-specific (CS) and cognitive-general (CG). CS focuses on a specific aspect of a skill whereas CG focuses on a general routine or strategy. For example, using CS imagery you could imagine yourself hitting through a ball with the laces of your boot to strike a penalty with power, whereas with CG you would be imagining the routine of the penalty (putting the ball down, breathing, run-up, etc.). Motivational imagery is split into motivational-specific (MS), motivational general-mastery (MG-M), and motivational general-arousal (MG-A) (Hall et al., 1998). MS relates to imaging specific goals and activities to achieve them. MG-M is used to enhance a feeling of control and resilience to boost self-confidence, whereas MG-A is used with the purpose of controlling anxiety.
While we have the ‘what’ and the ‘why’, it is worth noting there can be nuances to the application of these models. Think about what sport/activity you are delivering your intervention in. Primarily because some ‘why’ may be more relevant than others, for example, team sports tend to use a greater sense of MG-M (Di Corrado et al., 2019). A further consideration here would be, are you working with the team or an individual within the team?
Measuring an Imaginary Concept...
Results for imagery’s effectiveness in improving athletic performance is supported but not unanimous, with Jordet (2005) finding no effect in academy football and Callow et al. (2001) finding mixed results in badminton players. As Paivio (1985) outlines there is ‘no single best measure (when assessing imagery ability) and the trick is to find (a method) that is most directly related to the specific task under consideration’. Therefore, you need to assess the effectiveness of your intervention.
For the ‘what’ conundrum, there are a couple of self-report psychometric options: the Sport Imagery Ability Questionnaire (SIAQ; Williams & Cumming, 2011), and the Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire (PSI-Q; Andrade et al., 2014). The SIAQ is great for assessing sport-specific images, measuring both cognitive and motivational imagery. Therefore, this would be great for measuring whether the intervention has helped to improve vividness the type of imagery your intervention is trying to address. The PSI-Q has various forms (35 items in the long version, 21 items in the short version) and can again assess the vividness of imagery. With this psychometric, the ‘what’ is aided further by the fact that this tool breaks images down for those completing the questionnaire. By compartmentalizing mental images, the PSI-Q can help those using it create a more vivid image, in line with the LRST or PETTLEP frameworks.
For the ‘why’, psychometrics are not quite as common. The Sports Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ; Hall et al., 1998) would be a great place to start, and for youth athletes, the Sports Imagery Questionnaire for Children (SIQ-C; Hall et al., 2009) would be appropriate. The SIQ gets individuals to imagine themselves in a number of sporting situations through visual, auditory and kinaesthetic qualities (yes, the ‘what’) but it goes a step further by asking arousal levels or emotions caused by those particular images (the ‘why’). The SIQ-C follows a similar premise but adapts the language for youth athletes. This SIQ is a great psychometric if you are wanting to use an imagery intervention for motivational or cognitive purposes but are unsure which would be more useful; with this you can identify troubling situations for athletes and design your intervention with a purpose to address one of those two areas.
Final Thoughts…
Like all mental skills, there is no one way to deliver imagery, make it fit and make it purposeful, and use tools to keep yourself on track with this. Measuring the progress of your intervention is as much for your client as it is for you!
References
Andrade, J., May, J., Deeprose, C., Baugh, S. J., & Ganis, G. (2014). Assessing vividness of mental imagery: The Plymouth sensory imagery questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 547-563.
Callow, N., Hardy, L., & Hall, C. (2001). The effects of a motivational general-mastery imagery intervention on the sport confidence of high-level badminton players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(4), 389-400.
Di Corrado, D., Guamera, M., Vitali, F., Quartiroli, A., & Coco, M. (2019). Imagery ability of elite level athletes from individual vs. team and contact vs. no-contact sports. PeerJ, e6940.
Hall, C. R., Mack, D. E., Paivio, A., & Hausenblas, H. A. (1998). Imagery use by athletes: development of the sport imagery questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychology.
Hall, C. R., Munroe-Chandler, K. J., Fishburne, G. J., & Hall, N. D. (2009). The sport imagery questionnaire for children (SIQ-C). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 13(2), 93-107.
Holmes, P. S., & Collins, D. J. (2001). The PETTLEP approach to motor imagery: A functional equivalence model for sport psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(1), 60-83.
Jeannerod, M. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(2), 187-202.
Jordet, G. (2005). Perceptual training in soccer: An imagery intervention study with elite players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(2), 140-156.
Kosslyn, S. M. (2005). Mental images and the brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 333-347.
Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery in human performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences. Journal Candien des Sciences Appliquées au Sport, 10(4), 22S-28S.
Roberts, R., Callow, N., Hardy, L., Markland, D., & Bringer, J. (2008). Movement imagery ability: development and assessment of a revised version of the vividness of movement imagery questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 200-221.
Williams, S. E., Cooley, S. J., & Cumming, J. (2013). Layered stimulus response training improves motor imagery ability and movement execution. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35(1), 60-71.
Williams, S. E., & Cumming, J. (2011). Measuring athlete imagery ability: The sport imagery ability questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(3), 416-440.
