Sport And Exercise Psychology: A Critical Introduction

despite (or maybe, because of!) more than a century of research on imagery, criticisms
have been levelled at both the definition of MP and at the typical research designs used to
study it. For example, Murphy and Martin (2002) identified a contradiction at the heart of
this construct. Specifically, the term mental practice conveys an implicit, dualistic
distinction between physical and mental practice that is at variance with current
neuroscientific understanding of how the brain works. Thus the fact that visualising
something in the mind’s eye usually elicits measurable brain activity in the visual cortical
areas (Kosslyn et al, 2001) suggests that mind and body are not really separate processes
but function as an integrated unit. In addition, Murphy and Martin (2002) criticised
research in this field for assuming that mental practice is a standardised, homogeneous
intervention. But it is not. To illustrate, visualising a perfect tennis serve could mean
either seeing yourself playing this stroke or perhaps seeing someone else (e.g., Lleyton
Hewitt) perform this action. It seems likely that there will be many differences between
these two types of MP. Further criticism of MP research will be considered in the next
section of the chapter. But now that we have examined the nature of mental imagery and
mental practice, let us explore research methods and findings on MP. Research on
athletes’ use of mental imagery will be examined in the fourth section of the chapter.

Research on mental practice in sport

For over a century, the effects of MP on skilled performance have attracted research
attention from psychologists. Reviews of this large research literature (amounting to
several hundred studies) have been conducted, in chronological order, by Richardson
(1967a, 1967b), Feltz and Landers (1983), Grouios (1992), Murphy and Jowdy (1992),
Driskell et al. (1994) and Murphy and Martin (2002). Before I summarise the general
findings of these reviews, here is a brief explanation of the typical research paradigm
used in studies of MP.

Typical research design and findings

In general, the experimental paradigm in MP research involves a comparison of the pre-
and post-intervention performance of the following groups of participants: those who
have been engaged only in physical practice of the skill in question (the physical practice
group, PP); those who have mentally practised it (the mental practice group, MP); those
who have alternated between physical and mental practice (PP/MP); and, finally, people
who have been involved in a control condition. Historically, the target skills investigated
in MP research have largely been relatively simple laboratory tasks (e.g., dart-throwing
or maze-learning) rather than complex sports skills. After a pre-treatment baseline test
has been conducted on the specific skill involved, participants are randomly assigned to
one of these conditions (PP, MP, PP/MP, or control). Normally, the cognitive rehearsal in
the MP treatment condition involves a scripted sequence of relaxing physically, closing
one’s eyes, and then trying to see and feel oneself repeatedly performing a target skill
(e.g., a golf putt) successfully in one’s imagination. After this MP intervention has been
applied, the participants’ performance on this skill is tested again. Then, if the

Using imagination in sport: mental imagery and mental practice in athletes 131