© M.J. Gregg and L. Ross-Stewart, Hosted by EDP Sciences, 2025

1 Introduction

It has been well established in the literature that imagery has been widely recognised as effective in enhancing athletic performance (Simonsmeier et al., 2020). Imagery serves several different functions which are measurable. However, there is a need for research to go beyond the assistance of imagery in physical practice and skill development and instead look at what factors lead it to be effective in some situations while not in others. Researchers have recommended that sport psychologists should learn more about the personal meaning athletes attach to their images (Cumming & Williams, 2013; White & Hardy, 1998). This is of importance as there is emerging evidence that this emphasis on meaning may result in longer lasting behaviour change (Rhodes & May, 2022). This will allow imagery interventions to be tailored to the individual and provide support and advice to athletes in an effective manner.

Most of the current imagery literature has focused on athletes’ abilities to use imagery for cognitive purposes (i.e., rehearsal of specific sport skills, game plans; Simonsmeier et al., 2020). There has only been limited research assessing athletes’ ability to use imagery for motivational purposes (i.e., arousal regulation, maintaining confidence; Simonsmeier et al., 2020). The emotional experience of engaging in imagery has been investigated to an even lesser extent.

The Bioinformational Theory of emotional imagery was originally developed to treat fear and anxiety; imagery was used as a method of exposure to fear stimulus, also termed systematic desensitization (Bradley et al., 2023). Subsequent research established imagery scripts that included both stimulus information (e.g., You are about to serve for game point in the championship volleyball game.) and response information/reactions (e.g., Your palms are sweaty and your heart rate goes up.) produced stronger emotional responses compared to the presentation of stimulus information alone (Bradley et al., 2023). Furthermore, findings from the body of work on Bioinformational Theory indicate that action is a central feature of emotional imagery, thus for athletes including emotion in their images is important to prompt neural activation and ultimately aid sport performance (Bradley et al., 2023). Thus, the purpose of the present study was to examine athletes’ experience of images and the personal meaning associated with those images. There is some evidence that imagery use changes across a sport season (e.g., Arvinen-Barrow et al.,, 2008), but this has not been linked to the emotional experiences and personal meaning.

1.1 Revised applied model of deliberate imagery use

Athletes’ imagery use is typically classified into motivational and cognitive functions with each operating at general and specific levels (Paivio, 1985). Cognitive specific (CS) images or motor images are images of specific sport skills such as a serve in volleyball. Cognitive general (CG) imagery includes images of strategies, game plans or routines such as the setter setting the ball to a specific hitter, height above the net, and location along the net. Motivational specific (MS) imagery is related to goals and goal achievement such as winning a set or the crowd cheering a successful point. Further research (Hall et al., 1998) differentiated the motivational general function into motivational general-arousal imagery (MG-A; images of arousal and affective states such as imaging being calm at the start of a game) and motivational general-mastery imagery (MG-M; images of confidence, being in control and persistence; for example, imaging being down several points in a set and coming back to take the lead).

Martin and colleagues (1999) developed the Applied Model of Imagery Use in Sport. In their model the sport situation (e.g., training, competition, rehabilitation) dictates the type or function of imagery that should be used (i.e., CS, CG, MS, MG-M, MG-A) and the imagery should match the intended outcome (e.g., skill execution, feeling confident, etc.). The effectiveness of the relationship between imagery function and the intended outcome is moderated by the athlete’s imagery ability. This model has been used to guide imagery interventions and sport imagery research with success (Cumming & Ramsey, 2009). Since the development of the original model additional outcomes of imagery use have been identified and it has been noted that the same image may have different meanings for different people (Ross-Stewart & Short, 2009; Short et al., 2004).

As a result of developments in imagery research Cumming and Williams (2013) proposed a revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use for sport, dance, exercise, and rehabilitation settings. Building on Martin et al. ’s (1999) original model Cumming and Williams (2013) included the original components and added: who is imaging (personal characteristics such as competitive level), what (content of imagery), how the imagery is being done (such as from first person perspective), why (function of the image), and the influence of the personal meaning of the image. The personal meaning of the image is described as bridging what, or the content of the image, and the function, or why the imagery is being done (Cumming & Williams, 2013) and is an important contribution of this model (Ely et al., 2020).

1.2 Personal meaning and emotion

Since the development of the PETTLEP model (Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Learning, Emotion, Perspective; Holmes & Collins, 2001) there has been an increasing awareness of the role of emotion in imagery experiences. As Watt and Morris (2021) highlight, athletes often integrate emotional experiences into their imagery. The situation in which the imagery is used may determine the importance of emotion. Ramsey et al. (2010) for example, found that emotion-focused imagery had no added value in training contexts to soccer penalty kick performance, self-efficacy or anxiety and they postulated that imagery’s emotion may be most salient in a competitive situation rather than a training environment. Thompson et al. (2021) demonstrated through imagery scripts the experience of pleasant emotions predicted future pleasant emotional experiences and buffered the effect of previously experienced unpleasant emotional experiences.

Cumming and Williams’ (2013) “…model suggests that imagery will be more effective when it is personalized and meaningful to the athlete.” (p. 74). This aligns with current practice in imagery interventions that recommends imagery interventions include personalized scripts so that the images are meaningful to the individual athlete (Wilson et al., 2010). Recently, Rhodes and May (2022) have proposed that addressing imagery meaning in interventions (e.g., being deliberate and overt about the meaning of the images to the athletes) may contribute to sustained behavioural change beyond the timelines of the intervention. It is logical that emotion and personal meaning are highly related constructs (Watt & Morris, 2021) but, to our knowledge, these have not been examined simultaneously in the context of imagery.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to track imagery use and personal meaning across a sport season to better understand the bidirectional role of personal meaning, time of season, and emotion in imagery use. An additional purpose was to add to the literature assessing the revised model of deliberate imagery and suggest revisions for the model based on athletes’ experiences with imagery across an intercollegiate volleyball season. As suggested by Simonsmeier et al. (2020) in their meta-analysis on the state of imagery research in sport more research is needed that tests assumptions of current imagery models.

Gregg and Hall (2017) noted that imagery, like physical skills, must be deliberately practised imagery for corresponding improvements in imagery ability to be realized; in other words, without intervention imagery ability remains stable. Thus, due to the longitudinal nature of the current study, a secondary purpose was to assess whether simply talking about imagery use could be effective at improving imagery ability over the course of a sport season. In addition, because imagery ability has previously been shown to play an important role in the relationship between imagery effectiveness and imagery use (e.g., Wilson et al., 2010) it was prudent to track changes in imagery ability so changes in imagery experiences could be considered within that context. Based on Gregg and Hall’s (2017) findings, we expected no change in imagery ability across the sport season as no specific interventions aimed at increasing imagery use or improving imagery ability were being implemented.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Participants

Twelve Canadian USport volleyball players (six men, six women), participated in the study. Approximately 10 participants are generally sufficient for data saturation and relevant themes to emerge (Guest et al., 2006). Thirteen players responded to the invitation to participate. Participants who completed the study were M_age = 19.75 years old (SD = 1.14 years). An additional male player completed the first of four study sessions and then withdrew from the study; his results were not included in the analysis. All playing positions were represented in the sample (i.e., setter, middle blocker, left side hitter, right side hitter, and libero/defensive specialist). Players had been competing at the university level between one and four years (M = 3.0 years; SD =.95).

2.2 Interview guide

An interview guide based on Cumming and Williams’ (2013) revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use and informed by the sport imagery literature was developed for the study. The interview guide consisted of three sections. The first section included White and Hardy’s (1998) definition of imagery and reminded the athlete of their rights as a research participant. Section two asked the athletes questions about their training routines and how imagery fits within that approach, pre-competition routines, and how they use imagery during competition. Section three allowed participants to provide feedback about the interview experience and discuss any issues that may have been omitted.

2.3 Imagery ability measure

The Movement Imagery Ability Measure for Sport (MIAMS; Gregg & Hall, 2006) assesses athletes’ perceived ease and emotional response of motivational general-arousal (MG-A) and motivational general-mastery (MG-M) imagery. Motivational general-arousal imagery includes feelings of psychological and physical arousal (e.g., imagining feeling relaxed and loose at the start of a game). Motivational general-mastery imagery involves images of being confident and in control and seeing oneself overcoming difficult situations in sport (e.g., successfully completing a challenging drill in training). There are four scenes for each of MG-A and MG-M that involve imaging the scene and then rating the emotional experience of an image on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors from 1 (no emotion) to 7 (very strong emotion); and rating the ease of forming the image with anchors of 1 = not at all easy to form and 7 = very easy to form. The MIAMS has acceptable psychometric properties (Gregg & Hall, 2006) and the Cronbach alphas ranged from .64 (MG-A ease) to .81 (MG-A emotion) in the present sample.

2.4 Procedures

The athletes were provided with a letter of information that explained the purpose of the study, what was involved in participating, as well as their rights as a research participant at which point the athletes could choose to give informed consent to participate. The athletes completed four one-on-one sessions with the research team, Each session began with a reading of White and Hardy’s (1998) definition of imagery, next the athletes completed the MIAMS, and then participated in the guided interview that lasted ranging from 10 to 41 minutes.

The sessions took place during the pre-season (T1), 4 weeks later during the early season (T2), 8 weeks later during the mid-season (T3), and 10 weeks later during the postseason (T4) over a total of 6.5 months. T1 focused on fitness development with five on-court sessions per week that emphasized a lot of touches with the ball and increasing volleyball specific fitness in addition to 2-3 weight training sessions. Time 2 took place during the early competitive season and there was a shift from training sessions to exhibition games against other non-conference teams as well as some early season tournaments. Time 3 saw an increase in training sessions compared to Time 2 as the student-athletes had a break from competition to focus on examinations for their courses (this is a league requirement), this allowed for some time to refocus on skills and fitness and prepare for the second half of the season. Time 4 was characterized by frequent travel to games with a focus on performance, maintaining skill during training while increasing intensity and specificity with an emphasis on team dynamics.

The semi-structured interview questions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and returned to participants for member checking via e-mail with the athlete to ensure accurate representation and allow for modifications to be made by the athlete. When the athlete wanted to clarify something said during the interview, they modified the transcript using tracked changes and sent back the transcript.

3 Qualitative analysis methodology

This study used the revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use as a guide for potential themes, therefore the deductive RTA approach was deemed appropriate. Deductive approaches to qualitative research involve applying theory to the data. Reflective thematic analysis (RTA; Braun & Clarke, 2006; 2012; 2019, 2024) was used to evaluate the qualitative data in this study. RTA is defined by the reflexive approach which notes researchers are aware of their role in the production of the codes. Codes were interpreted by researchers based on the researchers’ interpretations of the data based on both the data set, the skills of the coders and the theoretical assumptions of the analysis. Furthermore, RTA puts an emphasis on coding reliability, expecting themes to be developed early in the coding process, and understanding that they are often based on prior theory (Braun & Clarke, 2019; Byrne, 2022). As a deductive approach of coding was done for this study RTA was deemed appropriate. That said, this study was done through an experiential perspective, as it was recognized that participants’ views and perspectives impacted their understanding of the questions and therefore their answers and experiences were the priority when coding the data. To that point, although deductive, coders also noted any information that did not fit the model and it was given equal treatment when developing an overall understanding of the data. Furthermore, Braun and Clarke's (2024) reflective thematic analysis Reporting Guidelines were used in the dissemination of how reflective thematic analysis was explained throughout this manuscript.

Both coders began by immersing themselves in the data, reading the transcripts for all participants, for all time points. While reading through the first time, both coders noted items of potential interest, critically engaged with the data to become familiar with the content. Next both coders generated initial codes independently by coding each piece of data. Data could be a couple words (e.g., “a plan in my mind”) or as long as a few sentences (e.g., “I think it helps me set certain goals and place like my first steps...I want to be probably establishing like a starting position on the team so that’s what I’m imaging a lot”) following the guidelines of Braun and Clarke (2012) who indicate that a code can be any length. Semantic coding (e.g., staying close to the content of the data) was done to focus on the voices of the participants. Once data was fully coded the coders began generating themes. Coders actively engaged with the codes making choices focusing on developing themes with the revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use in mind. It should be noted that this deductive approach did not mean disregarding data if it did not fit within the model, instead this data was deemed as important and was coded and titled with new themes to add to the current literature.

Trustworthiness

Based on the suggestions of past researchers (e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nowell et al., 2017) Trustworthiness was evaluated using four criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility was assessed via member checking in which the transcript of the interview was sent to the participant post interview to allow them to confirm the credibility of the transcript. Transferability was assessed by including a thick description of participants’ comments within this manuscript. The detailed documentation of the procedures used for this study at each stage indicates dependability, while confirmability is demonstrated through the above listed strategies as well as the use of two separate coders completing steps 1-5 of the thematic analysis procedure independently.

Inquiry audit was also used to assess dependability. Specifically, an external auditor who was not a part of data collection independently coded the data and was a source to challenge the primary coder’s process and findings. Once coding was completed by the coders, they met to go over both the codes and themes they had extrapolated from the data. When there was disagreement, the reviewers engaged in conversation and came to an agreement based on an acknowledgement of their own beliefs and knowledge as they related to current literature on imagery in the field. Both coders acknowledged that their personal biases and perspectives would influence their coding, an inevitability in RTA (Braun & Clarke, 2024), this acknowledgement helped the coders through these discussions as neither was discussing coding disagreement from a place of “rightness” and instead from a place of best representing the participants’ experiences. In the results participants’ names have been changed to increase anonymity and based on their being no gender differences found in this study, gender neutral names were assigned. All names assigned are also considered to be currently race and ethnicity neutral in North America where this sample lives.

4 Results

4.1 Imagery ability

Changes in values of MIAMS subscales were compared across the four time points using Friedman’s ANOVA; this analysis was selected because the scores from each of the four time points are dependent as they are repeated measures, given the small sample size, and the assumption of sphericity was violated (Field, 2013). Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 1. MG-A ease increased significantly, χ² (3) = 8.13, p =.04. Wilcoxon tests were used to follow up this finding. MG-A ease increased significantly from time 1 to time 4 (T = 68, r =.47) and time 2 to time 4 (T = 53, r =.54), demonstrating moderate effect sizes. No significant differences were found in MG-M emotion [χ²(3) = 6.98, p =.07], MG-M ease [χ²(3) = 2.41, p =.49], or MG-A emotion [χ²(3) = 3.82, p =.28], across the four time points.

4.2 Themes

Thematic analysis identified the following main themes Where, When, What and Why, Personal Meaning, Imagery Ability, Differences in Content and Function, and Outcome. Sub-themes were also identified as the coders mapped out how the themes were organized both within the context of the revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use and within the specific data for this study. See Table 2 for the Major themes, Subthemes and how they relate to the Revised Applied model of Deliberate Imagery Use.

4.3 Where and when

Athletes indicated imaging at various times and locations including pre, during, and post practice and pre, during, and post competition. They also indicated imaging in several locations, e.g., at home, in the car, the gym, or the locker room. Not one athlete mentioned all times or locations, indicating that athletes had personalized choices when it came to where and when they imaged. There were several comments related to imaging more in season, for example Parker stated, “I think I will do more of it once the season is more intense” while Tristan said, “during the season they’re more vivid, the imagery just because I have more plays to draw from.”

It was also noted that imagery use sometimes differed depending on whether it was being used in a game or in a practice. “Games I want to say imagery is more like the feeling I have during games and practices is more the technique I do. Games when I image things it’s more like how I want to feel for the game how I want to be interacting with my teammates, like being loud. Then practice is more like how I want to be passing the ball properly or something like that” (Chris)

4.4 What (Content)

Cognitive specific (CS) imagery was most frequently reported with all participants noting imaging performing a skill. The most common skill imaged was serving and then serve receive. For example, Ashton stated “I’ll visualize myself ... serving and playing defence” while Parker noted “when I’m on the bench a few points before I know I’m going to go in I kind of just take a moment to gather myself and picture myself just doing the skill (serve) really quick.”

Although imaged significantly less than CS participants did note images related to the other four functions. For example, Bailey stated “I imagine really long rallies in my head and more so us attacking against them” indicating imaging for strategy (CG). Marin noted imaging MS content “I imagine winning when I’m losing”. Imaging MG-M content “just imaging myself doing what I would be doing in a game, doing things I’m good at so I can be more confident in things” (Alex) and MG-A content “I’ll try and visualize and feel those emotions” (Parker) were also reported.

4.5 Why (function)

Participants’ responses for why they imaged included images related to the three motivational functions of imagery. For example, Bailey stated, “If I see myself succeeding in my head I kind of tell myself the job I have to do” (MS). While Quin stated, “Imagery is kind of my way of reflecting on what happened and what I could have done better” (MG-M). Several participants reported imaging for emotion regulation reasons. Of interest is that when asked why they image what they do, no participant listed the reason to be for skill development even though the most common image content was skill based (CS).

Imaging to feel calm was a consistent theme in the interviews. “I think it calms me down” (Quin), “I think it helps me just kind of break down my different skills, and also just keeps me calm” (Ashton) and “I think it’s very calming, I like to be very calm on the court” (Tristan) are all representative examples of how athletes perceived themselves to be imaging for calmness. Athletes also used imagery to increase their excitement, for example, Tristan stated “I’ve noticed that I can get myself excited by using imagery... I’ll try to picture myself playing well or a scenario where I have played well, and I’ll feel my legs get that tingly feeling or whatever, like I’m ready to go” indicating they imaged with the intent to increase excitement (the why) and felt this happen in their body (imagery outcome).

The theme of focus as a reason for imaging was also consistently reported. For example, Quin stated that imagery “keeps me level and focused on what’s to come” while Bailey said, “Imagery really is important in that sense because it kind of keeps (me) focused and doesn’t let me get in my head too much.” Furthermore, when asked why they image Parker said, “I feel more present and consciously engaged in every repetition that I have, I’m really consciously playing instead of going through the motions” and “It helps me stay focused, makes me feel more prepared when I actually go up and execute the skill.”

5 Differences in imagery content and desired function

Of particular interest was the consistent finding that athletes would image content-function mismatches in imagery use. For example, Bailey stated “I’m hitting a right-side ball and just kill it down the line and it was a super good hit … Just kind of calms my nerves” indicating imaging a CS image for a MG-A function. This mismatch is highlighted again in the following quote by Peyton “So, using imagery to focus on my hitting and focus on the shots really helps because then I see it before and I’m like okay, I can do that because I’ve done it and I’ve seen it through my own eyes” again indicated a CS image but this time being done for a MG-M function. Riley stated they imaged CS imagery in training and “There would be a spin server on the other side basically doing the exact same serve that their spin server would be doing” but when asked why they imaged this they stated “it boosted my confidence for sure” also indicating a MG-M outcome.

5.1 Personal meaning

As participants in this study were interviewed over the course of the season, we were able to see how their experience influenced their image. For example, one athlete, a freshman “Trying to image myself in that role, it’s harder right now but as I’m going through practices and I’m going through training with the group it’s getting easier” acknowledging that their lack of experience in university volleyball made it difficult to image when pre-season first started. There was no noticeable difference in how the athletes on the men’s team imaged versus those on the women’s team. Furthermore, the consistency of CS images being used for different functions highlights the personal meaning that was being demonstrated in the images.

5.2 Impact of emotion on imagery

The participants’ emotional state was shown to impact their imagery, with participants consistently noting that negative emotions such as frustration or anger, impacted their imagery use. Marin stated, “if I’m doing better, probably less imagery” and Ashton stated, “If I’m getting frustrated with myself, I won’t think about it as much or think about using it” and “I think when I’m in a game and I’m more anxious I don’t use it as much.” However, Riley stated the opposite “When I’m like kind of upset or angry or agitated or a little bit more tense. I’d say I use it more” while others didn’t feel it impacted imagery at all “I feel like my emotions don’t really change the imagery or anything” (Charlie). Once again highlighting the personal nature of imagery use.

Imagery content was also impacted by emotions with Chris stating “If I’m mad, probably thinking about the negative points of what I did, and then if I’m happy I’ll probably think about more of the successful points, like us winning. If I’m mad it’s more about how I got blocked and why I got blocked.” This finding was also supported by Quin who stated, “If I’ve done, I’m going to have a lot more positive imagery...If it’s negative it’s the opposite, it’ll be more thinking about what happened and what I did wrong.” Bailey also noted the impact of their emotions on the content and their controllability of the image:

“I have negative imagery, I guess, of myself, if have done something that I’m not happy about, if I make a pretty bad mistake, I’ll play it back in my head a bit and then I always try to control it and manipulate it, so that I can move on from it and try to forget it. But sometimes it will resonate with me.”

These findings once again highlighted the impact of personal meaning and perspective on individuality of athlete’s imagery experience while extending our understanding of the impact of emotions on imagery.

6 Imagery ability

Over the course of the season, participants noted changes in the ease with which they imaged, as well as the quality, what (content) and why (function) of their images. For example, Ashton noted “I think throughout the season it got easier to do...at the beginning of the year it was almost kind of hard to like harness it if that makes sense...by the end of the year it was easy to like visualize myself.” Parker also noted the ease with which they imaged changing over the course of the season “I’ve definitely noticed myself getting better at it and it’s just easier to get into that space”. Ashton also noted changes in why they imaged, “At the beginning of the year I was using it more to calm myself down and at the end of the year I was using it more to actually focus on specific skills.” Athletes also noted the quality and content of their images changing over time, Marin noted “I think I do it the same amount as I normally would have but when I do it, it feels a lot more constructive” while Riley noted that what they imaged changed “I would say at the start of the season it was more based on looking...at myself I think, just fine tuning my own skills. And then more by the end of season it was more looking at the big picture of seeing the other team on the other side of the net and hitting a ball at me.”

Discussing why they thought their imagery had changed, most participants noted experience with it over the season, as well as the interviews leading to increased consciousness of imagery as a tool they could use. For example, athletes stated “I think that doing the interviews kind of opened my mind to it more” (Ashton). “I realize how beneficial it is and before like without acknowledging it I kind of didn’t realize it was” (Peyton), “I think I am just more aware of it now” and “I think I am more confident in it now… like more vivid and clearer” (Quin).

7 Performance outcome

Participants also noted the impact of imagery on overall performance. For example, Parker stated “I play better when I do visualize, I think, I noticed that before. Even in practices because I don’t do it every day. On the days that I do I feel more present when I’m practicing and that’s maybe because I also meditate”. Athletes also discussed the impact of imagery on their psychological skills, Alex stated “Conjuring up those images would then kinda reinforce my confidence” while Skylar said, “it gives me the focus.”

8 Discussion

Relationship to revised applied model of deliberate imagery use

In their revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use, Cumming and Williams (2013) specify that why athletes use imagery dictates the content of their images. In the present study athletes indicated they used imagery to control emotions, feel confident, be motivated, and enhance focus. Similarly, the content (what) of the athletes’ images included emotions, confidence, and volleyball skills. The images included all five functions of imagery (i.e., CG, CS, MG-M, MG-A, and MS) however CS images were the most common for all athletes. All athletes reported CS images of volleyball specific skills, most frequently the closed skills serving and service reception. The second most frequently reported imagery function was MG-M imagery, such as imaging a positive outcome after a time out.

Though Martin et al. (1999) suggested the content of the image should match the intended outcome, the findings of the present study indicate the function of imagery used does not always match the image content; for example, imagining hitting a ball down the line (CS) to increase confidence (MG-M). Instead, athlete perception of the image is most important, with athletes imaging content that did not match the function more than they imaged content that matched their desired function. For example, the most used images were CS in content but the desired function of those images were most often MG-M, MS, and MG-A. For example, images of serving the volleyball (content) were to feel relaxed and confident (function). The most consistent match was athletes imaging CS images (content) for the desired function of confidence (MG-M). Of note is the fact that no participant listed the reason why they used imagery was for skill development even though the most common image content was skill based (CS). As proposed by the revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use (Cumming & Williams, 2013) and supported by past research (e.g., Nordin & Cumming, 2005) the results of the present study indicate that imagery function and content often do not match. The finding that CS imagery was never the desired function is something that has not been found in past research, and should be further explored. It may be that CS imagery is done truly for motivational functions which is important for applied practitioners in the field to understand. Furthermore, it is likely that competitive level matters − a novice athlete likely truly uses CS imagery to acquire skill whereas skilled athletes, such as the collegiate volleyball players in the present study, are using similar CS image content for motivational reasons.

Focus is not currently acknowledged in the revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use, nor in the five functions of imagery use noted by Paivio (1985) or Hall et al. (1998) but was often discussed by the athletes as the desired function of engaging in imagery use. As our understanding of the role of focus has grown since the five functions of imagery were initially proposed by Hall et al. (1998), it may be time for future researchers to investigate the role of imagery on focus. Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate what athletes mean when they say “focus” as this word is often used by athletes to mean mindful, concentrate, and attention. Having a better understanding of what athletes are referring to as “focus” when it comes to the function of their imagery could add value for applied practitioners as they work with athletes to develop their imagery programs.

Imagery outcomes are often characterized as affective, behavioural, or cognitive (Cumming & Williams, 2013). Imagery outcomes can be both intentional and unintentional, with the athletes in the present study noting the intended outcomes of improving focus, managing anxiety, and boosting confidence. However, across all athletes in their discussion of “why” they imaged was the desire to improve performance (whether directly stated or implied). There were also times where athletes who identified the intended outcome (e.g., confidence boost) and noted that it also impacted another area (e.g., motivation); this aligns with Cumming and Williams (2013) assertion that multiple outcomes may be achieved from one content type of imagery. These findings highlight that personal meaning influenced what athletes imaged.

Unexpectedly, athletes’ imagery ability increased over the course of the season. This improvement was represented both in the significant MG-A ease subscale changes in the MIAMS and the interviews where most athletes indicated they had become more self-aware of their imagery use and the opportunities to use imagery. One area that seemed to lead to this increase was consciousness raising. The athletes indicated it became easier to image over time, image content changed with progress through the season, imagery increased in effectiveness, and they became more knowledgeable about and aware of their imagery use. This awareness and ability to use imagery influenced why and what the athletes imaged. As a result, we propose that future research investigate when imagery ability influences athletes’ imagery. Greater awareness of imagery and ability to effectively use imagery made it more likely the athletes would understand the benefits of imagery and engage in imagery practice.

Individual characteristics influenced imagery use. For some athletes, a negative mood could be altered by engaging in imagery practice whereas others found their mood was reflected in their imagery. Furthermore, many athletes, but not all, noted that their mood influenced the ease with which they controlled and used their imagery. It was easiest to use imagery when they were in a positive mood state. Thus, mood can be an imagery outcome in the model as well as a modifying characteristic, similar to imagery ability, where mood could influence what an athlete imagines and the outcome of the imagery. Other individual characteristics, including status and year on the team influenced why athletes engaged in imagery, for example non-starters were more likely than starters to use imagery to boost their confidence and maintain focus when not on the court.

9 Future research and limitations

The findings of the present study suggest that as athletes use imagery their ability to utilize it for emotionally salient purposes may increase. These results also support the work of Quinton and colleagues (Quinton et al., 2018a; 2018b), indicating that Mastery Imagery may have an important role in anxiety control. Furthering their findings, this work suggests that mastery imagery may impact not just stress but other emotional responses including mood states − the relationship between mastery imagery and emotion should be further explored. This work also supports the revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use (Cumming & Williams, 2013) assertion that imagery function and content do not always match (i.e., cognitive content can lead to motivational function), and the personal meaning of the image must be acknowledged both in practice and research. Specifically, due to the relationship between cognitive imagery content and motivational function future research on motivational imagery should also include cognitive imagery components.

As a result of the present findings and considering the relatively small number of athlete participants who were all from the same sport and competitive level, we are suggesting future examination of the revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use, further exploring the findings of this study with athletes from different sports and competitive levels. In particular, the role of mood state and how it may be moderated by imagery use in a sport environment would be interesting to explore. There has been some association found between imagery perspective and mood (e.g., Holmes et al., 2008) while Lee (1989) did not show an effect of mood on the relationship between imagery use and performance in a group of male students on a muscular endurance task. Of particular interest was the finding that athletes discussed imagery as a tool to improve focus, something that is not considered in the revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use. Focus should be explored both in relation to its potential as a content area within imagery and as the desired function of imagery use as the role of focus in imagery needs to be better understood. Finally, this study relied on a deductive qualitative approach leaning on the revised Applied Model of Deliberate Imagery Use in both development of interview questions and in coding. We recognize that this may have impacted the athletes’ comments and the potential connection to the revised model. Future research should consider evaluating athletes’ imagery experiences through a qualitative inductive approach to see whether it yields different themes.

10 Recommendations for applied practice

Imagery of specific sport skills can positively impact athletes’ psychological skills (confidence, motivation, positive emotions, emotional control, focus), prior to performing a closed sport skill. Coaches and mental training consultants can encourage athletes to use imagery of sport skills not just for skill acquisition but also for these Motivational (MG-M, MG-A, MS) functions. Though in some cases what you see is what you get, personal meaning influences this relationship and athletes should be encouraged to explore various image content.

It is important to be aware that mood state influences imagery use. For some athletes, their mood affected how easy or difficult it was to image, often if they were in a negative mood, they found it more difficult to imagine. In contrast, other athletes used imagery to change their mood state and leaned on it as a tool to positively influence their mood. Practitioners working with athletes to understand this relationship and develop strategies to use imagery most effectively regardless of their mood could increase imagery efficacy.

How athletes use imagery changes over the duration of the sport season, notably many athletes in the present study reported focusing only on their own self earlier in the season and towards the end of the season these images shifted to include teammates and oftentimes opponents. Munroe and colleagues (1998) and Arvinen-Barrow et al. (2008), reported changes in the use of the functions of imagery from the beginning to the end of sport seasons and these changes varied across sports. The findings of this study support this assertion and highlight the importance of being aware of these changes and to encourage athletes to modify their imagery to match the phase of the sport season to ensure they are maximising the effectiveness of their imagery.

Imagery use will not increase in frequency and imagery ability will not improve without intervention (Gregg & Hall, 2017). Simply discussing imagery with athletes, however, including how it can be used and prompting them to consider their imagery use throughout a sport season can result in improved imagery ability and increased frequency of imagery use. These discussions and encouragement of athletes’ self-reflection on their imagery use can also result in athletes expanding their use of imagery in a variety of ways.

11 Conclusions

The main findings from the interviews and questionnaires over the four time points indicate that athletes’ awareness of and ability to use imagery improves when discussions around imagery are deliberate; coaches and mental training consultants should make time to remind athletes to use imagery and discuss both the content and meaning of their imagery. Imagery content changes based on setting (game versus training), time of sport season, and does not always match the intended function of the imagery. Teach athletes to align their imagery content with the phase of the sport season—for example, focusing on skill refinement in the early season and decision-making in the competitive phase. The personal meaning of images is closely linked to emotional states and athletes should be taught to use imagery to shift negative mood states. Imagery is an important focus skill and athletes should be encouraged to use imagery just prior to executing a closed sport skill such as a serve in volleyball.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Mareike Bordasch who contributed to this project and was supported through a Mitacs Globalink Research Internship.

Declaration of interest

None

References

All Tables