SS SELF-TALK AND PERCEIVED EXERTION IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

1. Figure 2 De-motivating ST Perceived Exertion Motivating ST Low Frequency HighFrequency Figure 1 Negative ST Perceived Exertion Positive ST Figure 3 Negative ST Performance Low Frequency HighFrequency Positive ST Low Frequency HighFrequency SSSELF-TALK AND PERCEIVED EXERTION IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY James Hardy1, Lew Hardy2 & Craig Hall1 1School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, CANADA 2Institute for Elite Psychological Performance, University of Wales, Bangor, GREAT BRITAIN • Procedure • Questionnaires administered after completion of the “12min run”. Informed consent obtained. INTRODUCTION • Final regression model predicted 37% of perceived exertion’s variance (F(3,54) = 10.46, p<.001) performance • Self-talk direction & Performance • Non significant Fchange for inclusion of interaction term into equation but significant final model • Figure 4 - Graphical illustration of results from hierarchical regression between self-talk direction and frequency variables and 12min run performance. Together the self-talk variables predicted 17% of performance [F(3,54) = 3.72, p<.05] • Bunker et al. suggested that the positive end of the self-talk valence dimension could be employed by athletes to increase amongst other constructs, one’s effort exerted during athletic performance • Very little empirical evidence to support their claim • Recently, J.Hardy et al. (2001) put forward a second dimension to self-talk; its direction (one’s interpretation of their self-talk content as de-motivating--motivating for themselves) • J. Hardy et al. suggested that the frequency of self-talk usage is at least as important as self-talk valence • Self-talk frequency has been looked at in previous studies [e.g. Theodorakis et al. (2000)] however it has not been directly examined as a potential moderator of self-talk’s relationships RESULTS • MANOVA revealed no sig. sex differences for self-talk valence, intensity, and frequency, perceived exertion and performance • Moderated hierarchical regression analyses conducted to examine moderating effect of self-talk frequency on self-talk’s relationships with perceived exertion and performance Perceived Exertion Purpose • Self-talk valence & Perceived Exertion • Figure 1- Illustration of moderation effect of self-talk frequency for the self-talk valence—perceived exertion relationship. • Fchange(1,54) = 4.03, p<.05 for interaction of centered self-talk variables • Final regression model predicted 42% of perceived exertion’s variance (F(3,54) = 13.18, p<.001) 1. To examine the presence of a self-talk--perceived exertion relationship 2. To assess the importance of self-talk frequency DISCUSSION Performance Hypotheses • Supportive evidence for the presence of a self-talk—perceived exertion relationship, although not a positive association • Three out of four moderated hierarchical regression analyses showed a moderator effect for self-talk frequency • Interaction graphs suggest that increasing exertion and performance are accompanied by increasing frequency of negative or de-motivating self-talk and decreasing frequency of positive or motivating self-talk • Findings may be explained by participants working hard (to achieve a good performance) which has been showed to be related to negative affect (e.g., C.Hardy et al., 1989). Negative affect has in turn been associated with negative self-talk (J.Hardy et al., 2001) • Self-talk valence & Performance • Figure 3- Illustration of moderation effect of self-talk frequency for the self-talk valence—performance relationship. • Fchange(1,54) = 6.58, p<.05 for interaction of centered self-talk variables • Final regression model predicted 25% of performance’s variance (F(3,54) = 6.02, p<.001) 1. Supportive evidence would be found for a positive association between self-talk valence and perceived exertion as well as with performance 2. That evidence would be generated suggesting self-talk frequency to be a significant moderator of the self-talk--perceived exertion and the self-talk--performance relationships METHOD • Participants • 58 Kinesiology students included both serious and recreational athletes. Mean age = 20.78 (SD = 1.92) • Measures • Self-Talk Grid (J.Hardy et al., 2001) two single items combined to assess self-talk valence (positive--negative) and self-talk direction (de-motivational--motivational interpretation). Employs a self-statement operational definition of self-talk. • Self-talk frequency measured by single item (1=never and 9=all the time) • Borg’s (1971) 15 graded category scale used to assess perceived exertion • Performance = no. of laps completed in 12mins FUTURE DIRECTIONS • Further assess the impact of negative self-talk on variables, such as self-efficacy and performance • Establish the direction of the self-talk—perceived exertion and performance relationships through use of experimental designs • Continue to use self-statement oriented operational definitions of self-talk • Self-talk direction & Perceived Exertion • Figure 2- Illustration of moderation effect of self-talk frequency for the self-talk direction—perceived exertion relationship. • Fchange(1,54) = 7.65, p<.01 for interaction of centered self-talk variables