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 INTRODUCTION Procedure Questionnaires administered after completion of the “12min run”. Informed consent obtained. 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 Low Frequency High Frequency Perceived Exertion De-motivating ST Motivating ST Figure 2 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 Low Frequency High Frequency Perceived Exertion Negative ST Positive ST Figure 1 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 Low Frequency High Frequency Performance Negative ST Positive ST Figure 3 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