See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/5772799

Athletes' use of exercise imagery during weight

training

ARTICLE in THE JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH · DECEMBER 2007

Impact Factor: 1.86 · DOI: 10.1519/R-20746.1 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS DOWNLOADS VIEWS

4 15 442

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Lindsay Ross-Stewart
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
7 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Lindsay Ross-Stewart

Retrieved on: 19 August 2015
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(4), 1077–1081
䉷 2007 National Strength & Conditioning Association
ATHLETES’ USE OF EXERCISE IMAGERY DURING
WEIGHT TRAINING
MICHAEL S. SILBERNAGEL, SANDRA E. SHORT,
Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota
58202.
ABSTRACT. Silbernagel, M.S., S.E. Short, and L.C. Ross-Stew-
art. Athletes’ use of exercise imagery during weight training. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 21(4):1077–1081. 2007.—Imagery is a cog-
nitive process during which people use their minds to create (or
recreate) experiences that are similar to real-life situations. This
study examined how college athletes used imagery during
weight training. Subjects were 295 Division I (n ⫽ 163) and Di-
vision II (n ⫽ 132) college student athletes (men: n ⫽ 138, wom-
en: n ⫽ 157) who participated in a weight training program as
a requirement of their sport. They completed a slightly modified
version of the ‘‘Weight Lifting Imagery Questionnaire.’’ Results
showed that appearance imagery (i.e., images related to the at-
tainment of a fit-looking body) was used and considered the most
effective followed by technique imagery (i.e., images related to
performing the skill and techniques correctly with good form)
and energy imagery (i.e., images related to getting ‘‘psyched up’’
or feeling energized). Other variables that effected imagery use
were gender, age, time of season, and levels of motivation. In
addition, gender, previous imagery training, and level of moti-
vation had an effect on the perceptions of imagery effectiveness.
Confidence in the ability to image was associated with both im-
agery use and effectiveness, and imagery use and effectiveness
were associated with confidence in the weight room. The find-
ings support previous research in exercise imagery that appear-
ance imagery is most used followed by technique and energy
imagery and extend them in such a way that strength coaches
have practical advice on how to use imagery in a positive way
with their athletes. Suggestions about how strength coaches can
use imagery with their clients are provided.
KEY WORDS. visualization, strength training, confidence
INTRODUCTION
n sport settings, imagery is regarded as one of
I the most popular and effective techniques to
enhance the learning and performance of skills
and strategies, to regulate arousal and anxiety,
and to modify cognitions (e.g., self-confidence)
(9, 15). Imagery mimics real experience, during which
people can be aware of seeing an image; feeling move-
ments as an image; or experiencing an image of smell,
tastes, or sounds. It differs from dreams in that people
are awake and conscious when using imagery (20). Hall
(6) was the first to suggest that people may use imagery
in exercise settings just as they do in sports. Since then,
several studies have been conducted on how imagery is
used in exercise settings or by exercisers (4, 5, 7, 8, 11,
13, 14, 16, 21). In several of these studies, the samples
included subjects who were involved in various super-
vised and recreational weight training programs.
One of the most recent and relevant studies that ex-
amined imagery use in weight training was conducted
with 415 men from a recreational setting (11). They com-
pleted the ‘‘Weight Lifting Imagery Questionnaire’’
(WLIQ), which is a 9-item measure that involves rating
how often certain images are used on a 9-point Likert
AND LINDSAY C. ROSS-STEWART
scale of 1 (never) to 9 (always). Note that the authors of
the questionnaire inappropriately named it the ‘‘weight
lifting’’ questionnaire when they should have used
‘‘weight training,’’ ‘‘strength training,’’ or ‘‘resistance
training’’ because they were not referring to the Olympic
sport of weight lifting. To be consistent, we also refer to
it as the Weight Lifting Imagery Questionnaire. The
WLIQ has 3 subscales: appearance imagery that focuses
on the attainment of a fit-looking body, energy imagery
that relates to getting ‘‘psyched up’’ or feeling energized,
and technique imagery that relates to performing the
skill and techniques correctly with good form. Results
showed that subjects reported using appearance imagery
the most followed by technique and energy imagery,
which supported previous research from other samples of
exercisers (4, 7).
Informative as it may be, this study (11) was limited
in several ways. That is, the researchers used only men
who were involved in recreational weight training. What
about the use of exercise imagery by athletes who are
required to train? Furthermore, what about women? In
addition, the study was primarily descriptive in that it
showed that subjects used exercise imagery, but it did not
address the effectiveness of the images. As has been
shown in sport imagery research, some athletes use im-
ages that are actually debilitative or harmful, and these
images have a negative effect on their performances (15,
17).
The present study examined the frequency of imagery
use among collegiate athletes who were required to lift,
as well as their perceptions of the effectiveness of the im-
ages. A number of other variables (e.g., gender, age, time
of season, imagery training, level of motivation) that may
affect use and effectiveness were also considered. As has
been done in sports (10, 18), the relationship between con-
fidence in ability to use imagery and imagery use and
effectiveness and the relationship between imagery use
and effectiveness and confidence in the weight room were
also considered. Confidence is one of the key psychological
states thought to affect performance in many different
settings, including sports and exercise (3).
Although this was the first time that athletes’ use of
exercise imagery was examined in a required workout
setting, there was no basis for hypothesizing that these
athletes would use exercise imagery differently than the
other samples, like the recreational weight trainers. How-
ever, given that the workouts were required, we felt that
motivation level would be important to consider and
therefore hypothesized that those who were more moti-
vated in the weight room would use more imagery and
perceive it as more effective. The other key variable of
interest was confidence. It was expected that those who
were more confident in their ability to image would use
imagery more and perceive it as more effective. Imagery
1077
1078 SILBERNAGEL, SHORT, AND ROSS-STEWART
use was also expected to be positively related to confi-
dence.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A quantitative research design was used in which sub-
jects completed a modified WLIQ and a background in-
formation-type sheet after one of their required workouts.
Subjects
Approval to conduct this study was obtained by the In-
stitutional Review Board of the University of North Da-
kota. Once the subjects agreed to participate, they were
asked to sign a consent form. Subjects were 295 Division
I (n ⫽ 163) and Division II (n ⫽ 132) college student ath-
letes (men: n ⫽ 138, women: n ⫽ 157) who participated
in a strength training program as a requirement of their
sport. They were between 18 and 26 years of age (mean
⫽ 20.10 ⫾ 1.39). They participated in a variety of sports:
baseball (n ⫽ 1), basketball (n ⫽ 39), cheer and dance (n
⫽ 25), football (n ⫽ 72), golf (n ⫽ 18), hockey (n ⫽ 13),
soccer (n ⫽ 13), softball (n ⫽ 14), swimming and diving
(n ⫽ 26), track and field (n ⫽ 68), and volleyball (n ⫽ 6).
They had been playing their sports for an average of 9.08
years (SD ⫽ 3.85, range ⫽ 1–19). These athletes were
completing either in-season (n ⫽ 105) or out-of-season (n
⫽ 190) strength training programs. The number of days
spent in the weight room ranged from 2 to 5 days per
week (mean ⫽ 2.60 ⫾ 0.58) for the in-season athletes and
from 2 to 6 days per week (mean ⫽ 3.50 ⫾ 0.69) for the
out-of-season athletes. Subjects also reported spending 1–
15 hours per week in the weight room (mean ⫽ 3.20 ⫾
1.36) during in-season training and 1.5–12 hours per
week (mean ⫽ 4.70 ⫾ 1.9) during the off season. The sub-
jects had spent 1–5 years (mean ⫽ 2.10 ⫾ 1.16) in a
strength training program. All athletes, regardless of
whether they were in or out of season, were supervised
by a strength and conditioning coach during their work-
outs. All of the strength and conditioning coaches who
supervised the athletes used in this study were Certified
Strength and Conditioning Specialists (through the Na-
tional Strength and Conditioning Association) and had
USA Weightlifting Club Coach certification. The pro-
grams were all ground based and Olympic in nature, with
both linear and nonlinear periodization being used. Com-
ponents of strength, speed, power, flexibility, and agility
were addressed in the programs, primarily in accordance
with the sport coaches’ specific needs. Even though the
athletes were from Divisions I and II and participated in
different sports, the strength and conditioning profession-
als involved had similar philosophies and coaching strat-
egies. Overall, the programs varied more in the type of
sport played rather than the division in which the partic-
ipants played.
With respect to the subjects’ previous experience with
imagery, subjects were asked whether or not they had
any training in imagery (i.e., had anyone ever taught
them how to image?). Only 44.7% (n ⫽ 132) answered
affirmatively.
Procedures
Subjects were given a modified version of the WLIQ (11).
The appearance items used were ‘‘I imagine a more stron-
ger/more explosive me from lifting weights,’’ ‘‘I imagine a
more ‘athletic me’ from lifting weights,’’ and ‘‘I imagine a
‘more powerful me’ from lifting weights.’’ The original
items for the appearance subscale are: ‘‘I imagine a more
muscularly proportionate/balanced me from lifting
weights,’’ ‘‘I imagine a more ‘defined me’ from lifting
weights,’’ and ‘‘I imagine a ‘bigger me’ from lifting
weights.’’ These items were changed to give the subjects’
appearance questions that were more closely related to
the terminology used by them and their coaches. The
items for the other subscales were not changed. Cron-
bach’s alpha values for the imagery subscales were ac-
ceptable: energy (␣ ⫽ 0.88), technique (␣ ⫽ 0.83), and
appearance subscales (␣ ⫽ 0.91).
The effectiveness of imagery was assessed by asking
each subject ‘‘How does this image affect your perfor-
mance in the weight room?’’ Ratings were made on a ⫺3
(negative/hinders) to 0 (neutral) to ⫹3 (positive/helps)
scale. Like the imagery use ratings, effectiveness ratings
were completed for each item and computed separately
for each subscale. The alpha values for appearance, en-
ergy, and technique effectiveness subscales were 0.90,
0.72, and 0.78, respectively.
To assess the level of motivation for strength training,
2 questions were used. The first question asked subjects
to rate their level of motivation in the weight room on a
scale of 0 to 9 (0 ⫽ low and 9 ⫽ high). The second question
was a more indirect measure of motivation in which sub-
jects were asked how much time they would spend in the
weight room if they were not required to be there. Choices
were ‘‘less,’’ ‘‘the same,’’ and ‘‘more.’’ The correlation be-
tween these 2 questions was statistically significant (r ⫽
0.40, p ⫽ 0.00). An analysis of variance using the ‘‘How
much time would you spend in the weight room?’’ variable
as the independent variable and the level of motivation
ratings as the dependent variable was statistically sig-
nificant (F[2, 292] ⫽ 25.06, p ⫽ 0.00). Posthoc tests
showed that those athletes who indicated that they would
spend ‘‘less’’ time in the weight room reported the lowest
motivation scores (mean ⫽ 5.81 ⫾ 1.97), followed by the
‘‘same’’ group (mean ⫽ 7.07 ⫾ 1.47), with the highest
scores reported by the ‘‘more’’ group (mean ⫽ 7.80 ⫾
1.11). The ‘‘less,’’ ‘‘same,’’ and ‘‘more’’ groups were rela-
beled as representing low, moderate, and high motiva-
tion.
The confidence measures used in this study were con-
structed in accordance with Bandura’s (1) recommenda-
tions. Confidence in the weight room was assessed by 2
items: ‘‘How confident are you in your ability to lift
weights using the correct form/technique?’’ and ‘‘How con-
fident are you in your ability to perform the lifts required
in a workout?’’ These items were significantly correlated
with each other (r ⫽ 0.66, p ⫽ 0.00). For this reason, the
scores for the items were averaged for each subject, cre-
ating 1 ‘‘confidence in the weight room’’ variable. The al-
pha value for these 2 items was 0.80. Confidence in ability
to use imagery was assessed by asking the subjects the
following question: ‘‘How confident are you in your ability
to use imagery in the weight room?’’ Subjects responded
to the question using the same 0 (low) to 9 (high) Likert-
type scale.
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables.
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to
evaluate differences according to gender, time of season,
previous imagery training, and level of motivation on the
WLIQ subscales. Correlations were computed between
age and the WLIQ subscales, and well as for those anal-
yses using the confidence variables. The p level for all
 IMAGERY DURING WEIGHT TRAINING 1079

TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics for imagery use. TABLE 3. Descriptive statistics for imagery effectiveness.
Appearance Energy Technique Appearance Energy Technique
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Full sample 6.03 1.88 2.31 1.63 4.96 2.06 Full sample 1.40 0.96 0.21 0.73 0.95 0.97
Gender Gender
Men 6.37 1.98 2.78 1.87 5.36 2.09 Men 1.70 0.93 0.34 0.81 1.16 0.98
Women 5.74 1.74 1.91 1.26 4.61 1.97 Women 1.14 0.91 0.10 0.63 0.77 0.94
Time of season Time of season
In season 6.27 1.69 2.34 1.60 5.40 2.11 In season 1.57 0.82 0.26 0.75 1.22 0.94
Off season 5.90 1.97 2.30 1.65 4.72 1.99 Off season 1.31 1.02 0.19 0.72 0.81 0.97
Imagery training Imagery training
Yes 5.98 1.85 2.34 1.63 5.19 2.03 Yes 1.34 0.91 0.23 0.69 1.06 0.93
No 6.08 1.91 2.29 1.63 4.78 2.07 No 1.46 1.00 0.20 0.76 0.86 1.01
Motivation Motivation
Low 5.39 1.79 1.58 0.88 4.26 1.94 Low 0.95 0.93 0.04 0.55 0.56 0.92
Moderate 6.06 1.87 2.35 1.59 5.10 2.08 Moderate 1.45 0.86 0.21 0.70 1.05 0.97
High 7.10 1.59 3.53 2.06 5.73 1.84 High 2.07 0.93 0.54 0.97 1.33 0.87

analyses was set at 0.05; only significant results are re-
ported below.
RESULTS
Descriptive results reported in Table 1 show that appear-
ance imagery was used the most. From this subscale, the
item ‘‘I imagine a more ‘athletic me’ from lifting weights’’
was used the most (mean ⫽ 6.55 ⫾ 2.16). Next was tech-
nique imagery, and the item ‘‘When I think about lifting
weights, I imagine doing the required lifts (e.g. squat,
power clean, bench)’’ was used the most (mean ⫽ 5.46 ⫾
2.48). Energy imagery was used least often, but the item
‘‘To get me energized, I imagine lifting weights’’ was the
most frequently used (mean ⫽ 2.61 ⫾ 1.95).
The MANOVA for gender on imagery use was statis-
tically significant (Wilks’ lambda ⫽ 0.93, F[4, 290] ⫽ 5.89,
p ⬍ 0.05), and tests of between subjects effects showed
that men scored higher than women on all subscales: ap-
pearance (F[1, 293] ⫽ 8.41, p ⬍ 0.05); energy (F[1, 293]
⫽ 22.27, p ⬍ 0.05); and technique (F[1, 293] ⫽ 10.33, p
⬍ 0.05). The MANOVA for time of season was also sta-
tistically significant (Wilks’ lambda ⫽ 0.96, F[4, 290] ⫽
2.75, p ⬍ 0.05) but only for technique imagery
(F[1, 293] ⫽ 7.61, p ⬍ 0.05). In all cases, the means for
in season were higher compared with out of season. The
analysis was statistically significant for motivation
(Wilks’ lambda ⫽ 0.83, F[8, 578] ⫽ 7.21, p ⬍ 0.05). Tests
of between subject effects were statistically significant for
all subscales: appearance (F[2, 292]) ⫽ 13.38, p ⬍ 0.05),
technique (F[2, 292] ⫽ 8.91, p ⬍ 0.05), and energy
(F[2, 292] ⫽ 24.69, p ⬍ 0.05). Subjects who were highly
motivated used imagery more than those who were mod-
erately motivated, who, in turn, used imagery more than
those who were low in motivation. Pearson correlation co-
efficients for the relationship between subjects’ age and
imagery use were only significant for energy (r[293] ⫽
0.15, p ⬍ 0.05), showing that the older athletes used more
energy imagery. The correlations in Table 2 show that
those who were more confident in their ability to use im-
agery used imagery more. Furthermore, the imagery use
subscales were positively associated with confidence in
the weight room, except for energy.
Imagery Effectiveness
Descriptive statistics for the variables effecting imagery
effectiveness are shown in Table 3. Appearance imagery
was considered to be the most helpful, and the most ef-
fective appearance image was ‘‘I imagine a more ‘athletic
me’ from lifting weights’’ (mean ⫽ 1.68 ⫾ 1.12). Tech-
nique imagery was the second most effective, with its
most effective image being ‘‘When I think about lifting
weights, I imagine my form and body position’’ (mean ⫽
1.10 ⫾ 1.15). Overall, energy imagery was the least effec-
tive, but the image perceived as most effective was ‘‘To
get me energized, I imagine lifting weights’’ (mean ⫽ 0.28
⫾ 1.02).
The MANOVA for effectiveness of imagery using gen-
der as an independent variable was statistically signifi-
cant (Wilks’ lambda ⫽ 0.80, F[4, 290] ⫽ 8.23, p ⬍ 0.05).
Men scored higher than women on appearance (F[1, 293]
⫽ 27.33, p ⬍ 0.05), technique (F[1, 293] ⫽ 11.85, p ⬍
0.05), and energy (F[1, 295] ⫽ 7.79, p ⬍ 0.05). Time of
season was also statistically significant (Wilks’ lambda ⫽
0.95, F[4, 290] ⫽ 3.90, p ⬍ 0.05), where mean ratings for
in-season athletes were higher compared with out-of-sea-
son athletes for technique (F[1, 293] ⫽ 12.38, p ⬍ 0.05)
and appearance (F[1, 293] ⫽ 4.80, p ⬍ 0.05). Those who
were more motivated found imagery to be more effective
(Wilks’ lambda ⫽ 0.84, F[8, 578] ⫽ 6.69, p ⬍ 0.05), and
this was for all subscales: appearance (F[2, 292] ⫽ 23.39,

TABLE 2. Correlations between imagery use and confidence.

(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) Appearance 1.00
(2) Energy 0.49* 1.00
(3) Technique 0.67* 0.51* 1.00
(4) Confidence in the weight room 0.28* 0.10 0.29* 1.00
(5) Confidence in ability to use imagery 0.43* 0.37* 0.50* 0.45*
* Correlations significant at 0.05 level.
1080 SILBERNAGEL, SHORT, AND ROSS-STEWART

TABLE 4. Correlations between imagery effectiveness and confidence in the weight room.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) Appearance 1.00
(2) Energy 0.45* 1.00
(3) Technique 0.60* 0.54* 1.00
(4) Confidence in ability to use imagery 0.40* 0.27* 0.41* 1.00
(5) Confidence in weight room 0.26* 0.10 0.23* 0.45*
* Correlations significant at 0.05 level.

TABLE 5. Correlations between imagery use and imagery ef-
fectiveness.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Imagery use
(1) Appearance 1.00
(2) Energy 0.49* 1.00
(3) Technique 0.67* 0.51* 1.00
Imagery effectiveness
(4) Appearance 0.66* 0.36* 0.52* 1.00
(5) Energy 0.28* 0.55* 0.33* 0.27*
(6) Technique 0.44* 0.38* 0.71* 0.44* 0.38*
* Correlations significant at 0.05 level.
p ⬍ 0.05); energy (F[2, 292] ⫽ 7.22, p ⬍ 0.05), and tech-
nique (F[2, 292] ⫽ 11.95, p ⬍ 0.05).). Those who were
more confident in their ability to use imagery found im-
agery to be more effective for energy, technique, and ap-
pearance (Table 4). In addition, those who were more con-
fident in the weight room felt that imagery was most ef-
fective (with the exception of energy imagery).
The final analysis looked at the correlations between
imagery use and effectiveness. As shown in Table 5, those
who used imagery more often reported it to be more ef-
fective.
DISCUSSION
Collegiate athletes who were required to participate in
weight training programs used appearance imagery the
most followed by technique imagery and energy imagery.
These findings support the previous studies that looked
at imagery use by exercisers (e.g., aerobics performers,
recreational weightlifters, runners, cardiovascular ma-
chine users) other than athletes (4, 7, 11). One finding
that was slightly different than that of previous studies
was that men in this study scored higher on all of the
subscales than women. In previous studies (4, 7), women
scored higher on appearance imagery, and men scored
higher on both technique and energy imagery. A reason
for this difference may be that in previous studies, the
sample sizes were uneven in that the majority of the sub-
jects were women. In this study there was close to a 50/
50 split for gender. If the previous studies had closer men-
to-women ratios, they may have shown that men used
appearance imagery more frequently as well. Overall, the
result makes sense because being stronger, more power-
ful, and more athletic are common participation motives
for these athletes.
Athletes who were in season had higher use of imag-
ery than those who were out of season at the time of the
study. No study in exercise imagery has looked at this
variable because recreational exercisers were used, so
time of season was not an issue. This result shows that
athletes may use imagery to help keep them focused dur-
ing in-season training. A strength coach can take advan-
tage of this finding by implementing more imagery cues
during this time of season to keep the athletes focused.
That out-of-season athletes used imagery less indicates
that this is probably a good time to implement some for-
mal imagery training; then when the season comes
around, the athletes can benefit the most from it. Results
showed that those who had imagery training found im-
agery to be more effective.
Athletes who were more motivated were found to use
imagery more frequently and also found it to be most ef-
fective. Imagery has commonly been believed to have a
motivational function (4, 7, 9, 11, 12). Although low levels
of motivation could be attributed to a variety of reasons,
maybe imagery could be used to increase them. Future
research could explore this relationship. Interestingly, re-
sults showed that the older the athlete was, the more en-
ergy imagery he or she used. Maybe athletes used this
imagery to motivate themselves? It is also possible that
because older athletes have spent more time training,
they may be less concerned with appearance and tech-
nique imagery, therefore using energy imagery to get
through the workouts.
Athletes who used imagery more often were more con-
fident. This finding is another reason that strength coach-
es should implement imagery training into their program.
Although this was the first study to examine this rela-
tionship in weight training, the relationship between im-
agery use and confidence in sport is well established (9).
Like previous research, it was also shown that athletes
who were more confident in their ability to image used it
more often (18).
To date, no one has looked at the effectiveness of ex-
ercise imagery. Asking the athletes to indicate their per-
ceptions of the effectiveness of the images allows us to see
which types of imagery and which images were most ef-
fective. Results showed appearance imagery to be the
most effective, followed by technique imagery and energy.
This means that a strength coach would want to focus on
appearance imagery and technique imagery while insert-
ing some energy imagery cues now and then, because
they are still used and considered to be beneficial. Such
cues as ‘‘See yourself being explosive’’ for appearance im-
agery, ‘‘Feel yourself bringing your hips through and get-
ting tall’’ for technique imagery, and ‘‘Lock yourself in
and lets get things done today’’ for energy imagery are
suggestions that can help an athlete use exercise imag-
ery, probably without their even realizing they are using
it.
However, choosing the right image to give to an ath-
lete is probably more complex. There were gender differ-
ences in imagery effectiveness. Men perceived the exer-
cise imagery subscales to be more effective than women,
and for all items men thought the images were more pos-
itive or helpful to their performance in the weight room
compared with women. There were only a couple of im-
ages that men and women did not differ significantly on
with respect to effectiveness (‘‘I imagine a more muscular

proportionate/balanced me from lifting weights,’’ ‘‘To take
my mind off work/class, I imagine lifting weights,’’ and ‘‘I
imagine a more ‘defined me’ from lifting weights’’). These
images appear to be the ‘‘safest’’ to use with both men
and women. However, the taking-my-mind-off-work/class
image was not considered to be very effective. Actually,
for athletes who are low in motivation, any type of im-
agery (appearance, energy, technique) was not considered
very effective.
The time of the season also played a role in how ef-
fective imagery was. In-season athletes not only used
more imagery but also found it to be more effective than
the out-of-season athletes, with statistically significant
results for technique and appearance imagery. This find-
ing could be explained by the fact that in-season athletes
are focusing more on fine-tuning their technique. During
this time, strength coaches should concentrate on cues
that use technique imagery and also appearance imagery
that is specifically worded towards the subjects’ athletic
goals.
Athletes found imagery to be more effective if they
had previous training in imagery. This finding was not
found for imagery use, though. This means that athletes
use imagery whether they have had formal training or
not. However, it is considered to be more effective by
those who have some experience with it. Strength coaches
should not only give cues to the athletes but also spend
a few minutes teaching the athletes to image. Imagery
training programs are not very time consuming. Some (2)
have recommended an overall training period of approx-
imately 20 minutes a day, and others have suggested it
takes far less time to teach such psychological techniques
as imagery (e.g., 5 minutes a day, 3–5 times per week)
(19).
Finally, those athletes who were more confident in
their ability to use imagery not only used more imagery
but also found it to be more effective. There was also a
positive relationship between imagery use and imagery
effectiveness and confidence in the weight room. Thus, it
seems as though imagery is a source of confidence in the
weight room, just as it is a source of confidence in sports
and other domains (1, 3). Future researchers could ex-
plore these relationships more thoroughly to see if there
are mediating relationships between these variables, as
would be expected according to the model of imagery use
(9) and previous research with athletes in sports (3, 18).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This study shows that athletes use imagery in the weight
room and find it to be effective. The findings from this
study extended previous research by showing that imag-
ery and confidence are related. The applications of this
study are that the findings shed light on how strength
coaches should be using imagery with their athletes in
IMAGERY DURING WEIGHT TRAINING 1081
the weight room and which particular images are consid-
ered to be the most effective under different circumstanc-
es (both of which are discussed in more detail in the dis-
cussion section of this paper), thereby allowing strength
coaches to use imagery in a positive way with their ath-
letes.
REFERENCES
1. BANDURA, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman
& Company, 1997.
2. DRISKELL, J.E., C. COPPER, AND A. MORAN. Does mental practice enhance
performance? J. Appl. Psychol. 79:481–491. 1994.
3. FELTZ, D.L., S.E. SHORT, AND P.J. SULLIVAN. Self-Efficacy in Sport.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
4. GAMMAGE, K., C.R. HALL, AND W. RODGERS. More about exercise imag-
ery. Sport Psychol. 14:348–359. 2000.
5. GIACOBBI, P.R., H.A. HAUSENBLAS, E.A. FALLON, AND C.R. HALL. Even
more about exercise imagery: A grounded theory of exercise imagery. J.
Appl. Sport Psychol. 15:160–175. 2003.
6. HALL, C.R. The motivational function of exercise imagery for participa-
tion in sport and exercise. In: Exercise Addiction: Motivation for Partici-
pation in Sport and Exercise. J. Annett, B. Cripps, and H. Steinberg, eds.
Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society, 1995. pp. 15–21.
7. HAUSENBLAS, H., C.R. HALL, W. RODGERS, AND K. MUNROE. Exercise
imagery: Its nature and measurement. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 11:171–
180. 1999.
8. HAUSENBLAS, H.A., AND D. SYMONS-DOWNS. Relationship among sex, im-
agery, and exercise dependence symptoms. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 16:
169–172. 2002.
9. MARTIN, K.A., S.E. MORITZ, AND C.R. HALL. Imagery use in sport: A
literature review and applied model. Sport Psychol. 13:245–268. 1999.
10. MORITZ, S.E., C.R. HALL, K.A. MARTIN, AND E.A. VADOCZ. What are con-
fident athletes imaging? An examination of image content. Sport Psychol.
10:171–179. 1996.
11. MUNROE-CHANDLER, K. J., A. KIM, AND K. GAMMAGE. Using imagery to
predict weightlifting dependency in men. Int. J. Mens Health 3:129–139.
2004.
12. PAIVIO, A. Cognitive motivational functions of imagery in human perfor-
mance. Can. J. Appl. Sport Sci. 10:22–28. 1985.
13. RODGERS, W.M., C.R. HALL, C.M. BLANCHARD, AND K.J. MUNROE. Pre-
diction of obligatory exercise by exercise-related imagery. Psychol. Ad-
dict. Behav. 15:152–154. 2001.
14. RODGERS, W.M., K. MUNROE, AND C. HALL. Relations among exercise
imagery, self-efficacy, exercise behavior, and intentions. Imagination
Cogn. Pers. 21:55–65. 2001.
15. SHORT, S.E., J.M. BRUGGEMAN, S.G. ENGEL, T.L. MARBACK, L.J. WANG,
A. WILLADSEN, AND M.W. SHORT. The effect of imagery function and im-
agery direction on self-efficacy and performance on a golf-putting task.
Sport Psychol. 16:48–67. 2002.
16. SHORT, S.E., C.R. HALL, S.R. ENGEL, AND C.R. NIGG. Exercise imagery
and the stages of change. J. Ment. Imagery 28:61–78. 2004.
17. SHORT, S.E., E.V. MONSMA, AND M.W. SHORT. Imagery direction of the
Sport Imagery Questionnaire. J. Mental Imagery (In press).
18. SHORT, S.E., A. TENUTE, AND D.L. FELTZ. Imagery use in sport: Media-
tional effects for self-efficacy. J. Sport Sci. 23:951–960. 2005.
19. WEINBERG, R., AND D. GOULD. Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psy-
chology (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
20. WHITE, A., AND L. HARDY. An in-depth analysis of the uses of imagery
by high-level slalom canoeists and artistic gymnasts. Sport Psychol. 12:
387–403. 1998.
21. WILSON, P.M., W.M. RODGERS, C.R. HALL, AND K.L. GAMMAGE. Do au-
tonomous exercise regulations underpin different types of exercise im-
agery? J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 15:294–306. 2003.
Address correspondence to Dr. Sandra E. Short, sandra㛮
short@und.nodak.edu.