playing with confidence the relationship between imagery use and self-confidence and self-efficacy...

Playing with confidence: The relationship between imagery use andself-confidence and self-efficacy in youth soccer players

KRISTA MUNROE-CHANDLER1, CRAIG HALL2, & GRAHAM FISHBURNE3

1Department of Kinesiology, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, 2School of Kinesiology, The University of

Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, and 3Department of Elementary Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton,

Alberta, Canada

(Accepted 1 July 2008)

AbstractConfidence has been one of the most consistent factors in distinguishing the successful from the unsuccessful athletes(Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg, 1981) and Bandura (1997) proposed that imagery is one way to enhance confidence. Therefore,the purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between imagery use and confidence in soccer (football)players. The participants included 122 male and female soccer athletes ages 11–14 years participating in both house/recreation (n¼ 72) and travel/competitive (n¼ 50) levels. Athletes completed three questionnaires; one measuring thefrequency of imagery use, one assessing generalised self-confidence, and one assessing self-efficacy in soccer. A series ofregression analyses found that Motivational General-Mastery (MG-M) imagery was a signifant predictor of self-confidenceand self-efficacy in both recreational and competitive youth soccer players. More specifically, MG-M imagery accounted forbetween 40 and 57% of the variance for both self-confidence and self-efficacy with two other functions (MG-A and MS)contributing marginally in the self-confidence regression for recreational athletes. These findings suggest that if a youthathlete, regardless of competitive level, wants to increase his/her self-confidence or self-efficacy through the use of imagery,the MG-M function should be emphasised.

Keywords: Confidence, imagery, youth athletes, soccer

Introduction

Imagery is defined as an ‘‘experience that mimics

real experiences. It differs from dreams in that we are

awake and conscious when we form an image’’

(White & Hardy, 1998, p. 389). Imagery has been a

well-researched topic with adult athletes, especially

elite ones (Hall, 2001), and previous sport literature

has established that athletes can benefit from using

imagery in sport to enhance performance (Morris,

Spittle, & Watt, 2005). Despite the fact that the

majority of sport imagery research has been con-

ducted with adults, there have been a number of

studies that have examined youth athletes. Recent

qualitative research conducted by Munroe-

Chandler, Hall, Fishburne, and Strachan (2007)

and Munroe-Chandler, Hall, Fishburne, O, and Hall

(2007) have demonstrated that young athletes of 7–

14 years report using imagery and that develop-

mental differences do exist. More specifically,

athletes of from all age cohorts reported using

imagery for both cognitive and motivational pur-

poses. However, younger athletes used imagery

related to individual goals, whereas older athletes

used imagery related to team goals. Additionally, the

11–14-year-old athletes reported using imagery more

than their younger counterparts (7–10 years).

Athletes’ use of imagery has been widely re-

searched from both a theoretical and applied

perspective (Hall, 2001; Martin, Moritz, & Hall,

1999; Munroe, Giacobbi, Hall, & Weinberg, 2000;

Nordin & Cumming, 2005; Paivio, 1985). Imagery

research in the sport domain has been guided by

Paivio’s analytic framework in which he posited that

imagery has both cognitive and motivational func-

tions that operate on either a specific or a general

level. Thus, the cognitive general (CG) function

entails imaging strategies, game plans or routines

(e.g. a two on one in soccer), whereas the cognitive

specific (CS) function involves imaging specific sport

skills (e.g. taking a free kick). The motivational

general (MG) function of imagery includes imaging

Correspondence: Krista Munroe-Chandler, Department of Kinesiology, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4 Canada.

E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Sports Sciences, December 2008; 26(14): 1539–1546

ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online � 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02640410802315419

physiological arousal levels and emotions (e.g.

getting psyched up before a game); and the motiva-

tional specific (MS) function of imagery includes

imaging individual goals (e.g. standing on the

podium). This conceptual framework has since been

amended, with the MG function of imagery divided

into two lower-order functions: motivational-general

arousal (MG-A) imagery, which comprises images

surrounding affect regulation (e.g. remaining calm in

front of a large crowd); and Motivational-General

Mastery (MG-M) imagery, consisting of images

related to mastery, self-confidence and mental

toughness (e.g. being able to overcome adversity)

(Hall, Mack, Paivio, & Hausenblas, 1998).

Using the five functions of imagery as their key

component, Martin et al. (1999) developed an

Applied Model of Imagery as a means to guide

future research in the area. As the model suggests,

the type (or function) of imagery use influences the

cognitive, affective and behavioural outcomes and

these relationships are moderated by imagery ability.

The model outlines two important sport-related

cognitions that may be affected by imagery use;

namely, self-confidence and self-efficacy. Martin

et al. argued that although imagery can serve multiple

functions (e.g. rehearsing skills and strategies,

regulating arousal and anxiety), the function of

imagery employed should match the intended out-

come. That is, if an athlete is interested in increasing

self-confidence or self-efficacy, MG-M should be the

function of imagery implemented given it is most

relevant for increasing, maintaining or regaining

confidence.

In sport, there are two main approaches to the

study of confidence; self-confidence and self-

efficacy. Self-confidence, which is a general term

and most often measured as trait sport confidence,

refers to an athlete’s certainty about his or her ability

to be successful in sport (Vealey, 1986). Self-efficacy,

on the other hand, refers to one’s belief that he or she

can be successful in specific tasks, skills or under

specific conditions (Bandura, 1986). For example, a

soccer athlete may indicate she is confident she can

play soccer well (i.e. trait sport confidence) but feel

less efficacious about her ability to remain in control

when in a challenging soccer situation (i.e. self-

efficacy). Most of the sport research on the sources of

confidence has followed Bandura’s (1986) self-

efficacy theory. Research has supported the four

sources of self-efficacy proposed by Bandura;

namely, performance accomplishments (mastery),

vicarious learning (e.g. imagery), verbal persuasion

and physiological states. More recently, however,

Vealey, Hayashi, Garner-Holman, and Giacobbi

(1998) argued whether those sources identified by

Bandura were salient to athletes within a sport

context. Through a series of studies they determined

nine sources of self-confidence that would be

practically organised into three broad domains;

achievement, self-regulation and climate. Given

there are differences in the sources of self-confidence

and self-efficacy, it is important to examine both

constructs in order to obtain a complete picture as to

how these constructs relate to imagery.

Confidence has been one of the most consistent

factors in distinguishing successful from non-

successful athletes (Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg,

1981) and Bandura (1997) proposed that imagery

is one way to enhance self-confidence and self-

efficacy. Therefore, it is no surprise the relationship

between imagery and confidence has been studied.

Research specifically examining MG-M imagery

supports Bandura’s (1997) proposal. For example,

Callow, Hardy, and Hall (2001) examined the effects

of MG-M imagery on the confidence of elite adult

badminton players. The results showed that a 20-

week imagery intervention improved the sport

confidence for two of the players and stabilised the

sport confidence of the third player. Mills, Munroe,

and Hall (2001) examined imagery use and a specific

form of self-confidence, namely self-efficacy in adult

individual sport athletes. Results revealed that

athletes who were high in self-efficacy in competition

situations tended to use more MG-M imagery than

their low self-efficacy counterparts.

Vadocz, Hall, and Moritz (1997) investigated the

relationships between imagery use and anxiety and

self-confidence in elite roller skaters between the

ages of 12 and 18 years (Mage¼ 15.39). It was found

that motivational imagery use was related to both

competitive state anxiety and self-confidence, and

more specific to the present discussion athletes who

used more MG-M imagery were more confident.

Using the same sample of athletes as Vadocz et al.

(1997) but a different measure of confidence,

Moritz, Hall, Martin, and Vadocz (1996) also

demonstrated that high-sport confident athletes use

more MG-M imagery than those athletes having

lower sport confidence. They suggested that athletes

should use MG-M imagery if they wish to develop,

maintain, or reclaim their sport confidence. The

results of Moritz et al.’s (1996) study suggest that

when it comes to sport confidence, the imaged

rehearsal of specific sport skills may not be as

important as the imagery of sport-related mastery

experiences, which is in line with Martin et al.’s

(1999) Applied Model of Imagery.

Although there seems to be considerable evidence

that the use of MG-M imagery is associated with

increased self-confidence and self-efficacy, the re-

search has been conducted with relatively elite

athletes who are adolescents or adults. Does this

relationship hold for recreational athletes and younger

athletes? This question warrants examination since

1540 K. Munroe-Chandler et al.

it has been shown that higher skilled athletes employ

more imagery than lower skilled ones (Hall, 2001;

Gregg & Hall, 2006). In addition, athletes 7–14 years

of age report using all functions of imagery including

MG-M, but unlike older athletes (Munroe, Hall,

Simms, & Weinberg, 1998) they do not report using

the MG-M function of imagery more than the MS

function (Hall, Munroe-Chandler, Fishburne, & Hall,

in press). Consequently, the purpose of the present

study was to examine the relationships between

imagery use and self-confidence and self-efficacy in

soccer players aged 11–14 years competing at both the

recreation and competitive levels. Because self-con-

fidence and self-efficacy are different concepts and are

assessed in separate ways, both were included to

provide a more complete investigation of different

levels of confidence-related constructs. It was hy-

pothesised that MG-M imagery would be a significant

predictor of both self-confidence and self-efficacy in

young athletes; however, no specific hypotheses for

the strength of the relationship between MG-M

imagery use and self-confidence versus MG-M ima-

gery and self-efficacy were made because no prior

research has examined both of these variables with

imagery use in children. It was also hypothesised that

the relationship between MG-M imagery use and self-

confidence and self-efficacy would be stronger in

competitive athletes than recreational athletes because

self-confidence and self-efficacy are important to

success in competitive sport (Gould et al., 1981).

The sport of soccer was targeted because it has two

clearly defined levels, house league (i.e. non-elite) and

travel (i.e. elite), and is equally represented by both

males and females (Canadian Soccer Association).

Soccer is the largest youth participation sport in

Canada with over 702,000 youths (under 18 years

old) registered in 2004 (Canadian Soccer Associa-

tion).

Method

Participants

A sample of young athletes were recruited from

house and travel soccer leagues from Southwestern

Ontario. The participants included 125 male

(n¼ 56) and female (n¼ 69) soccer athletes with

ages 11–14 years. The total sample of athletes

reported a mean of 6.11 (s¼ 2.86) years of soccer

playing experience. The participants competed in

both house/recreation (n¼ 72) and travel/competi-

tive (n¼ 50) levels. The focus of recreational soccer

is on skill development, and although recreational

athletes do not have a tournament at the end of

season to determine a league winner, they do partake

in game play against other teams within their league.

Competitive level athletes, on the other hand, play

games against opposing leagues as well as teams

within their own league and compete in tournament

play to determine a league winner. Three partici-

pants did not report their level and as such were

removed from any further analysis resulting in a total

sample of 122 athletes.

Measures

Imagery use. The Sport Imagery Questionnaire for

Children (SIQ-C; Hall et al., in press) stems from the

SIQ (Hall et al., 1998), which was developed for

adults to assess the motivational and cognitive

functions of imagery proposed by Paivio’s (1985)

analytic framework of imagery effects. It is a 21-item

questionnaire with statements measuring the fre-

quency of children’s imagery use. Statements were

scored from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very often) and

participants were asked to circle the number that

most applies to that particular statement. Any

statement that explains an imagery situation that

the child often uses should have been given a high

number. Each of the five functions of imagery was

assessed throughout the 21 items. For example, the

statement; ‘‘I can usually control how a skill looks in

my head’’ addressed the CS function of imagery and

the statement; ‘‘I make up new game plans or

routines in my head’’ addressed CG imagery. The

statement; ‘‘I see myself being mentally strong’’

assessed MG-M imagery and the statement; ‘‘In my

head, I imagine how calm I feel before I compete’’

addressed the MG-A imagery function. Finally, the

statement; ‘‘I see myself doing my very best’’

addressed MS imagery. The alpha reliabilities on

each of the subscales are between 0.66 and 0.7 for all

imagery functions (Hall et al., in press).

Confidence. The Competitive State Anxiety Inven-

tory – 2 for Children (CSAI-2C; Stadulis,

MacCraken, Edison, & Severance, 2002) is a 15-

item questionnaire that measures somatic and cogni-

tive anxiety as well as confidence. Given the current

study is only interested in the confidence subscale,

the anxiety subscales were not employed. The

confidence subscale consists of five items that are

rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 4

(very much so). Cronbach’s alpha for the confidence

subscale has been adequate at 0.73 (Stadulis et al.,

2002). The current study was concerned with the

athletes’ trait measure of confidence (i.e. trait sport

confidence) and as such, slight modifications were

made to the items of the CSAI-2C in order to make it

trait specific. For example, ‘‘I feel self-confident’’ was

modified to read ‘‘I usually feel self-confident’’. For

the purpose of the current study, the modified

questionnaire has been termed, the Competitive

Trait Anxiety Inventory – 2 for Children (CTAI-2C).

Imagery use and confidence 1541

Self-efficacy. The Self-efficacy Questionnaire for

Soccer (SEQ-S) was employed as an additional

measure of confidence. Although the confidence

scale of the CSAI-2C is a general measure, the

SEQ-S is specific to assessing the perceived self-

efficacy of athletes in soccer competition. It is a

5-item instrument and is a modification of a

questionnaire employed by Mills et al. (2001), in

which they assessed self-efficacy in both practice and

competition settings, and Munroe-Chandler and

Hall (2005), in which they assessed the collective

efficacy of a young soccer team. The questionnaire

asks participants to record the strength of their belief

in their mental abilities (e.g. focussed, in control,

mentally tough) based on a 100-point scale, ranging

in 10-unit intervals from 0 (No Confidence) to 100

(Complete Confidence). The five items are as follows:

‘‘I am confident I can work through difficult

situations’’; ‘‘I am confident I can remain focussed

during a challenging situation’’; ‘‘I am confident I

can be mentally tough throughout a competition’’; ‘‘I

am confident I can remain in control in challenging

situations’’; ‘‘I am confident I can appear confident

in front of others’’.

Procedures

Upon receiving ethics clearance from the univer-

sity’s research ethics boards, contact was made to

the soccer teams from the researchers through e-

mail and mailed letters to the coach. In addition,

parental consent and player assent were obtained.

The players first were asked to complete a general

demographics questionnaire including their age,

gender, level and number of years playing soccer.

Next, the participants completed the three ques-

tionnaires in the following order; the SIQ-C to

assess their frequency of imagery use, the CTAI-2C

to measure their generalised confidence, and finally

the SEQ-S to assess their self-efficacy in soccer.

Completion of the questionnaires took *15 min

and were completed prior to the athletes’ practice at

their respective practice fields. Data were collected

mid-soccer season over the course of a 2-week

period.

Results

Preliminary results

Table I presents the means and standard deviations

of the demographic variables as well as the scores for

the SEQ-S, CTAI-2C, and the five subscales of the

SIQ-C. No significant differences were found

between level of play (competitive and recreational)

or gender (male and females) with respect to any of

the dependent variables (five imagery functions, self-

confidence, or self-efficacy) or the number of years

playing. Internal consistencies were found to be

acceptable for all subscales with alphas ranging from

0.68 to 0.83 (CS¼ 0.83, CG¼ 0.73, MS¼ 0.68,

MG-A¼ 0.69, MG-M¼ 0. 79). However, removal of

item 2 (‘‘I see myself doing my very best’’) improved

the internal consistency of the MS subscale to 0.70

(Nunnally, 1978). As such, the remainder of the

analyses was run with the revised MS subscale. In

addition, the SEQ-S and CTAI-2C both had

adequate alphas of 0.86 and 0.82, respectively.

To make comparisons between scores on imagery

frequency (SIQ-C) and confidence (CTAI-2C) and

self-efficacy (SEQ-S), Pearson correlations were

calculated (see Table II). Although all the correla-

tions between the imagery subscales and the two

confidence measures were positive and significant

and ranged from moderate to strong, as expected the

MG-M subscale of the SIQ-C was most strongly

correlated with SEQ-S and CTAI-2C. Moreover, the

two measures of confidence, SEQ-S and CTAI-2C,

were significantly correlated.

Primary analyses

To examine the relationship between imagery use and

self-confidence and self-efficacy in athletes, a series of

regressions were run. Separate analyses were run for

the recreational and competitive groups. MG-M was

entered first in the regressions because this function of

imagery is the most similar to sport relevant tasks that

represent confidence and self-efficacy and therefore

this should account for the most variance. All other

imagery subscales of imagery were blocked and

entered in the second step to determine if these

functions of imagery added to the significant predic-

tion of self-confidence and efficacy. The results are

reported in Tables III and IV for the self-confidence

and self-efficacy regressions, respectively.

Table I. Means and standard deviations for demographic

information and questionnaire scores.

Competitive Recreational

Combined

sample

Variable Mean s Mean s Mean s

Years playing 6.10 2.98 6.11 2.81 6.11 2.86

SIQ-C (5 point scale)

CS 3.51 0.73 3.48 1.04 3.49 0.92

CG 3.34 0.87 3.27 0.78 3.30 0.81

MS 3.73 0.73 3.66 1.02 3.69 0.91

MGM 3.85 0.64 3.95 0.73 3.91 0.69

MGA 3.72 0.75 3.73 0.85 3.73 0.81

CTAI-2C (4 point scale)

3.53 0.48 3.60 0.57 3.58 0.53

SEQ-S (100% scale)

81.56 15.01 82.65 11.52 82.19 13.05


CTAI-2C. The results of the hierarchical multiple

regression model predicting self-confidence are

presented in Table III. The results for the recrea-

tional group revealed that the overall regression for

self-confidence (CTAI-2C) was significant (F (5,

64)¼ 22.01, P5 0.001). MG-M accounted for

50.6% of the total variance. Moreover, MG-A and

MS significantly accounted for an additional 12.7%.

Inspection of the beta weight for these variables

indicted that the use of MG-M (b¼ 0.71, P5 0.01),

MG-A (b¼ 0.31, P5 0.01), and MS (b¼ 0.23,

P5 0.05) were positively related to self-confidence.

The results for the competitive group revealed that

the overall regression for self-confidence was sig-

nificant (F (5, 43)¼ 7.28, P5 0.001). MG-M, which

was the only significant predictor, accounted for

39.6% of the total variance. Inspection of the beta

weight for this variable indicted that the use of

MG-M was positively related to self-confidence

(b¼ 0.41, P5 0.01) with the remaining imagery

functions accounting for an additional 6.3% of the

variance.

SEQ-S. The results of the hierarchical multiple

regression model predicting self-efficacy are presented

in Table IV. For the recreational group, the overall

regression for the self-efficacy (SEQ-S) was significant

(F (5, 61)¼ 15.17, P5 0.001). MG-M was the only

significant predictor accounting for 51.6% of the

variance. Inspection of the beta weight for this variable

indicted that the use of MG-M was positively related

to self-efficacy (b¼ 0.72, P5 0.01). With respect to

the competitive group, the overall regression for the

self-efficacy was significant (F (5, 43)¼ 14.51,

P50.001). MG-M was the only significantly pre-

dictor accounting for 57% of the variance. Inspection

of the beta weight for this variable indicted that the use

of MG-M was positively related to self-efficacy

(b¼ 0.76, P50.01).

Discussion

Previous research has consistently shown a posi-

tive relationship between MG-M imagery use and

Table III. Summary of regression analyses for imagery variables

significantly predicting self-confidence.

Model Variable B SE B b t

CTAI-2C (recreational)

Model 1 MG-M 0.56 0.07 0.71 8.34**

Model 2 MG-M 0.16 0.11 0.20 1.46

CS 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.94

CG 0.88 0.07 0.12 1.18

MG-A 0.21 0.08 0.31 2.78**

MS 0.13 0.06 0.23 2.11*

CTAI-2C (competitive)

Model 1 MG-M 0.48 0.09 0.63 5.55**

Model 2 MG-M 0.31 0.12 0.41 2.64*

CS 70.05 0.08 70.07 70.55

CG 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.67

MG-A 0.14 0.09 0.21 1.53

MS 0.10 0.10 0.16 1.07

Note: B, unstandardised beta (regression) coefficient; SE B,

standard error of B; b, standardised beta (regression) coefficient;

t, t-statistic.

*P5 0.05; **P50.01.

Table II. Correlations for imagery, self-confidence and self-efficacy.

CS CG MS MGA MGM Confidence Self-efficacy

CS 1.00

CG 0.45** 1.00

MS 0.46** 0.41** 1.00

MGA 0.43** 0.37** 0.50** 1.00

MGM 0.53** 0.52** 0.54** 0.58** 1.00

Confidence 0.38** 0.42** 0.53** 0.52** 0.64** 1.00

Self-efficacy 0.31** 0.41** 0.39** 0.43** 0.66** 0.64** 1.00

Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table IV. Summary of regression analyses for imagery variables

significantly predicting self-efficacy.

Variable Variable B SE B b t

SE-S (recreational)

Model 1 MG-M 11.93 1.43 0.72 8.33**

Model 2 MG-M 8.52 2.45 0.51 3.48**

CS 70.38 1.30 70.04 3.48

CG 0.94 1.69 0.06 0.56

MG-A 2.76 1.76 0.19 1.57

MS 1.49 1.46 0.12 1.02

SE-S (competitive)

Model 1 MG-M 17.69 2.24 0.76 7.89**

Model 2 MG-M 14.78 3.02 0.63 4.89**

CS 1.63 2.27 0.08 0.72

CG 4.12 2.03 0.23 1.97

MG-A 2.66 2.36 0.13 1.13

MS 73.21 2.47 70.16 71.3

Note: B, unstandardised beta (regression) coefficient; SE B,

standard error of B; b, standardised beta (regression) coefficient;

t, t-statistic.

**P5 0.01.


self-confidence and self-efficacy in elite adolescent

and adult athletes (Callow & Hardy, 2001; Mills

et al., 2001; Vadocz et al., 1997). The purpose of the

present study was to examine if this relationship was

evident in younger athletes aged 11–14 years

competing at both the recreation and competitive

levels. As was hypothesised, MG-M imagery proved

to be a significant predictor of self-confidence and

self-efficacy in young soccer players. More specifi-

cally, MG-M imagery accounted for between 40 and

57% of the variance for both self-confidence and self-

efficacy with MG-A and MS only adding marginally

to the prediction of self-confidence in recreational

athletes. These findings suggest that if an athlete

wants to increase his/her self-confidence or self-

efficacy through the use of imagery, the MG-M

function should be emphasised.

Research (Beauchamp, Bray, & Albinson, 2002)

has shown that athletes use more MG-M imagery

than the other functions of imagery just prior to

competition and that MG-M imagery predicts both

self-efficacy and performance. It is possible that the

other functions of imagery may increase the athletes’

self-confidence and self-efficacy (Abma, Fry, Li, &

Relyea, 2002; Short, Monsma, & Short, 2004), and

in fact the current results indicate that MG-A and

MS imagery contributed somewhat to the prediction

of self-confidence in recreational athletes. Recrea-

tional athletes may use MG-A imagery to picture

themselves performing well under specific stressful

circumstances (e.g. defending a free kick), which in

turn may increase their self-efficacy. Given these

athletes are at the recreational level, their skills may

not be advanced and as such, they may have some

anxiety with executing those sport skills. By imagin-

ing being calm and in control, an athletes’ con-

fidence may be enhanced.

In addition to MG-A imagery being used by

athletes as a means to reduce anxiety, Munroe et al.

(2000) indicated this function of imagery can also be

used as a means to get psyched up prior to

performing. Because the focus of recreational soccer

is skill development rather than becoming league

champions, those athletes may use MG-A imagery as

a motivator. That is, recreational athletes may use

imagery to get themselves psyched up for playing

which will then impact their self-efficacy and overall

sport confidence levels.

MS imagery was also found to be a signficant

predictor of self-confidence in recreational athletes,

albeit weak. One explanation for this finding is that

recreational level players do not have the same

opportunities to experience being successful as

competitive players (e.g. they play few competitions

and have no championship play) and, therefore, find

imaging situations such as being a champion and

having an audience cheeer for them as a way to

increase their confidence. In contrast, competitive

level players do not need to use MS imagery to boost

their confidence as they have more mastery experi-

ences (e.g. games, tournaments). Despite the small

added contribution of MG-A and MS to the

regression, the results of the present study along

with previous research provides convincing evidence

that MG-M imagery interventions will be the most

beneficial function of imagery to employ in order to

increase self-confidence and self-efficacy. Previous

research conducted by Munroe-Chandler and Hall

(2005) provide procedural information and imagery

scripts that could assist coaches in developing an

MG-M imagery intervention with soccer athletes.

The current study also hypothesised that the

relationship between MG-M imagery use and self-

confidence and self-efficacy would be stronger in

competitive athletes than recreational athletes be-

cause both self-confidence and self-efficacy are

important to success in competitive sport

(Beauchamp et al., 2002; Gould et al., 1981). This

failed to be the case. In fact, for recreational

athletes, MG-M imagery use explained a greater

amount of variance in self-confidence than it did for

competitive level athletes. This finding may be

supported by Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory.

As indicated earlier, recreational athletes have less

chance to experience competition and therefore

they must rely more on vicarious experiences (e.g.

imagery) to further their self-efficacy beliefs. Con-

trastingly, competitive athletes may rely more on

mastery experience as the primary contributor to

their self-efficacy beliefs due to their many oppor-

tunities for competetion. Moreover, research has

suggested that self-confidence is critical to an

athlete’s development (Vealey, 2001), and this

should be true regardless of competitive level.

Children’s perceptions of themselves or ‘‘how

good’’ they feel about themselves are related to

their performance, behaviour and health. As such,

both competitive and recreational level athletes

would see the benefits of employing MG-M

imagery as a means to increase their positive affect

while participating in their chosen sport.

The present findings support Martin et al.’s (1999)

Applied Model of Imagery Use. Martin et al. (1999)

argue that it is important to match the function of

imagery use (MG-M) with the intended outcome

(self-confidence or self-efficacy) and our results

support this argument. In addition, they have

encouraged others to build and modify the model

as our understanding of variables affecting athletes’

use of imagery emerges. With respect to the relation-

ship examined in this study (i.e. MG-M imagery and

self-confidence and self-efficacy), competitive level

has no influence. Whether competitive level influ-

ences the relationship between other imagery


functions and their intended outcomes, as outlined

in the model, requires further research.

The current study is not without limitations. The

study is correlational in nature and therefore we are

unable to determine cause and effect. Additionally,

only athletes between the ages of 11 and 14 years were

included in the present study. Given Munroe-

Chandler et al. (2007) have shown that athletes as

young as 7 years of age use all five functions of

imagery, it would be fruitful to examine the relation-

ship between imagery use and self-confidence and

self-efficacy in younger athletes ages 7–10 years. They

have also shown there are developmental differences

with respect to athletes’ use of imagery. Because of the

fact the current research only examined athletes

participating in the sport of soccer; it would be

beneficial to examine this relationship in other sports,

thereby increasing the generalisability of the findings.

Given the current research and previous findings it

would seem worthwhile to conduct MG-M inter-

ventions with younger athletes such as those that

have been conducted with elite adults (Callow et al.,

2001). The only MG-M intervention study con-

ducted with young athletes was undertaken by

Munroe-Chandler and Hall (2005). In this study

they examined the impact of MG-M imagery on a

young soccer team’s collective efficacy but no

research has examined a similar intervention on

individual athletes’ self-confidence or self-efficacy.

Such an intervention could be conducted with

players at any competitive level and be expected to

show a positive result. From an applied perspective,

the current findings would support coaches’ and

teachers’ encouragement of imagery use, especially

MG-M imagery. Encouraging young athletes to use

more MG-M imagery is one very important avenue

for enhancing their self-confidence and self-efficacy.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by an SSHRC grant

awarded to all the three authors.

References

Abma, C., Fry, M., Li, Y., & Relyea, G. (2002). Differences in

imagery content and imagery ability between high and low

confident track and field athletes. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 14, 67–75.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social

cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York:

W. H. Freeman.

Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., & Albinson, J. G. (2002). Pre-

competition imagery, self-efficacy and performance in collegiate

golfers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 697–705.

Callow, N., & Hardy, L. (2001). Types of imagery associated with

sport confidence in netball players of varying skill levels. Journal

of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 1–17.

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, 389–400.

Canadian Soccer Association (n.d.). 2004 Soccer demographics.

Retrieved 6 September 2005, from: http://www.canadasoccer.

com

Gould, D., Weiss, M., & Weinberg, R. (1981). Psychological

characteristics of successful and non-successful Big Ten

wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 69–81.

Gregg, M., & Hall, C. (2006). The relationship of skill level and

age to the use of imagery by golfers. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 18, 353–375.

Hall, C. R. (2001). Imagery in sport and exercise. In R. N.

Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Hand-

book of sport 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 imagery

questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29,

73–89.

Hall, C. R., Munroe-Chandler, K. J., Fishburne, G., & Hall,

N. D. (in press). The sport imagery questionnaire for children

(SIQ). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science.

Martin, K. A., Moritz, S. E., & Hall, C. R. (1999). Imagery use in

sport: a literature review and applied model. The Sport

Psychologist, 13, 245–268.

Mills, K. D, Munroe, K. J., & Hall, C. R. (2001). The relationship

between imagery and self-efficacy in competitive athletes.

Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 20, 33–39.

Moritz, S., Hall, C. R., Martin, K., & Vadocz, E. (1996). What are

confident athletes imaging? An examination of image content.

The Sport Psychologist, 10, 171–179.

Morris, T., Spittle, M., & Watt, A. P. (2005). Imagery in sport.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

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). The

influence of type of sport and time of season on athletes’ use of

imagery. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 440–449.

Munroe-Chandler, K. J., & Hall, C. R. (2005). Enhancing the

collective efficacy of a soccer team through motivational

general-mastery imagery. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,

24(1), 51–67.

Munroe-Chandler, K. J., Hall, C., Fishburne, G., & Strachan, L.

(2007). Where, when and why athletes use imagery: an

examination of developmental differences. Research Quarterly

for Sport and Exercise, 78(2), 103–116.

Munroe-Chandler, K. J., Hall, C., & Fishburne, G., O., J., & Hall,

N. D. (2007). The content of young athletes’ imagery use: a

developmental perspective. International Journal of Sport and

Exercise Psychology, 5(2), 158–174.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Nordin, S. M., & Cumming, J. (2005). Professional dancers

describe their imagery: where, when, what, why, and how. The

Sport Psychologist, 19, 395–416.

Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery

in human performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport

Sciences, 10, 22–28.

Short, S. E., Monsma, E. V., & Short, M. W. (2004). Is what you

see really what you get? Athletes’ perceptions of imagery

functions. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 341–349.

Stadulis, R. E., MacCracken, M. J., Eidson, T. A., & Severance,

C. (2002). A children’s form of the competitive state anxiety

inventory: the CSAI-2C. Measurement in Physical Education and

Exercise Science, 6(3), 147–165.


http://www.canadasoccer.com

http://www.canadasoccer.com

Vadocz, E. A., Hall, C., & Moritz, S. E. (1997). The relationship

between competitive anxiety and imagery use. Journal of Applied

Sport Psychology, 9, 241–252.

Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualizations of sport confidence and

competitive orientation: preliminary investigation and instru-

ment development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 221–246.

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 (2nd ed.) (pp. 550–

565).New York: Wiley.

Vealey, R. S., Hayashi, S. W., Garner-Holman, M., & Giacobbi,

P. (1998). Sources of sport-confidence: conceptualization of

instrument development. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychol-

ogy, 20, 54–80.

White, A., & Hardy, L. (1998). An in-depth analysis of the uses of

imagery by high level slalom canoeists and artistic gymnasts.

The Sport Psychologist, 12, 387–403.


playing with confidence the relationship between imagery use and self-confidence and self-efficacy...

Documents