Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

The effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on students’

motor task performance in physical educationq
Athanasios Kolovelonis a, *, Marios Goudas a, Irini Dermitzaki b
a
Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Thessaly, 42 100 Karies, Trikala, Greece
b
Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly, Argonafton & Fillelinon, 38221 Volos, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objective: The aim of the study was to examine the effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on
Received 4 March 2010 students’ motor task performance in a chest pass and a modified push-ups test in physical education.
Received in revised form Design: The design involved one between-groups factor, the group with three levels (instructional,
8 September 2010
motivational, no self-talk), and two within-groups factors, the task (chest pass, modified push-ups) and
Accepted 10 September 2010
Available online 18 September 2010
the time (pre-test, post-test).
Method: Participants were 54 fifth and sixth grade students who were randomly assigned to two
experimental groups (instructional self-talk, motivational self-talk) and one control group. Students were
Keywords:
Instructional self-talk
pre-tested in a chest pass and in a modified push-ups test, were instructed to use the respective self-talk
Motivational self-talk type and were post-tested in the two tests.
Physical education Results: Results showed that both self-talk groups surpassed control group in both tasks. Instructional
Motor task performance and motivational self-talk were equally effective in the chest pass test, but motivational self-talk was
more effective compared to instructional self-talk in the modified push-ups test.
Conclusions: Self-talk was an effective technique for motor task performance enhancement in physical
education. These results were discussed with reference to the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Research supports that the use of psychological techniques can
enhance performance in sports (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996; Krane
& Williams, 2006) and physical education (Anderson, 1997). Over-
all, mental training has been found to be effective in enhancing the
performance success and the mental skills in athletes (Vealey,
2007). Furthermore, the use of mental skills (e.g., imagery, goal
setting, and relaxation) has been proposed as a mean of perfor-
mance enhancement in elementary physical education (Anderson,
1997) as it is supported that children are highly capable of learning
and applying a variety of such mental techniques (Orlick &
McCaffrey, 1991). A common mental technique which is used in
sport settings is self-talk (Hardy, Oliver, & Tod, 2009). The present
study examined the effects of self-talk on students’ motor task
performance in primary physical education.
Self-talk refers to “those automatic statements reflective of, and
deliberate techniques (e.g., thought-stopping) athletes use to
direct, sports-related thinking” (Hardy et al., 2009, p. 38).
q This research was supported by a scholarship to the first author from the Greek
State Scholarship Foundation.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sakisanta@hotmail.com (A. Kolovelonis).
Additionally, according to Hardy (2006, p. 84) “self-talk should be
defined as: a) verbalizations or statements addressed to the self, b)
multidimensional in nature, c) having interpretive elements asso-
ciated with the content of statements employed, d) somewhat
dynamic, and e) serving at least two functions: instructional and
motivational, for the athlete”. That is, self-talk helps athletes,
through the use of appropriate cue-words, to control and organize
their thoughts, to focus on basic skill components, or to motivate
themselves to exert more effort during practice (Zinsser, Bunker, &
Williams, 2006). Therefore, many coaches incorporate self-talk into
their programs and theorists consider it as an integral part of
psychological skill training programs (Hardy et al., 1996).
Hardy et al. (2009) have presented possible mechanisms that
might help to explain the self-talk/performance relationship,
including cognitive, motivational, behavioural, and affective
processes. Cognitive mechanisms, which reflect processes such as
information processing, concentration, and attention control, have
received most attention from self-talk researchers. Landin (1994) has
proposed that cue-words can be used to increase focus on task-re-
levant stimuli. Drawing from Nideffer’s (1993) approach to atten-
tional style, Hardy (2006) has also proposed that the use of cue-
words may help switching attentional focus but also maintaining
appropriate focus for specific tasks. Furthermore, Hardy (2006) has

1469-0292/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.09.002
154 A. Kolovelonis et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158
proposed Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory as a framework for
explaining the motivational function of self-talk. Verbal persuasion
through positive self-talk might increase self-efficacy and subse-
quently effort, persistence, and performance.
Empirical research has provided evidence for the effectiveness
of self-talk in sport settings. In particular, self-talk had a positive
effect on young basketball players’ dribbling and passing skills
(Perkos, Theodorakis, & Chroni, 2002), elite female soccer players’
shooting performance (Johnson, Hrycaiko, Johnson, & Halas, 2004),
university physical education students’ basketball shooting skill
(Theodorakis, Chroni, Laparidis, Bebetsos, & Douma, 2001), colle-
giate tennis players’ volleying skill (Landin & Hebert, 1999), and it
was beneficial for injury rehabilitation (Theodorakis, Beneca,
Goudas, Antoniou, & Malliou, 1998).
Two major types of self-talk have been identified, namely
instructional and motivational self-talk (Hardy, 2006). Instructional
self-talk refers to statements designed to enhance performance by
stimulating desired actions through attentional focus on the tech-
nical aspects of a skill. Motivational self-talk refers to statements
designed to facilitate performance by building confidence,
increasing effort and energy expenditure and creating a positive
mood (Hardy et al., 1996; Theodorakis, Weinberg, Natsis, Douma, &
Kazakas, 2000; Weinberg & Gould, 2007).
Instructional self-talk has been investigated experimentally
more extensively compared to motivational self-talk (Hardy et al.,
2009). Indeed, it has been found that instructional self-talk had
a positive effect on experienced golfers’ performance (Harvey, Van
Raalte, & Brewer, 2002), tennis players’ skills (Cutton & Landin,
2007; Landin & Hebert, 1999), basketball players’ skills (Perkos
et al., 2002; Theodorakis et al., 2001), and figure skaters’ skills
(Ming & Martin, 1996). These results showed that instructional self-
talk enhanced performance in various sports and tasks with
athletes of different ages and expertise. However, the content of
self-talk seems to play a role in its effectiveness. For example,
Theodorakis et al. (2001) found that physical education students
who used the cue-word “relax” improved their performance in a 3-
min basketball shooting task more than those who used the cue-
word “fast” and the control group students. Motivational self-talk
has also been found to have a positive effect on motor task
performance in dart-throwing (Van Raalte et al., 1995) and tennis
(Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Goltsios, & Theodorakis, 2008;
Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Mpoumpaki, & Theodorakis, 2009).
A recent line of research has focused on comparing instructional
and motivational self-talk, testing the task-demand-oriented
matching hypothesis (Hardy et al., 2009; Theodorakis et al., 2000).
According to this hypothesis, instructional self-talk is more bene-
ficial to tasks requiring skill, timing or precision, whereas motiva-
tional self-talk is more effective in tasks requiring strength or
endurance (Hardy et al., 2009). Theodorakis et al. (2000) reported
that instructional self-talk was more effective compared to moti-
vational self-talk in a soccer passing task and in a badminton serve
task, but in a sit-up task and in a knee extension task both types of
self-talk were effective. That is, when the task required fine motor
movements, instructional self-talk was more effective, whereas
when it required strength and endurance both motivational and
instructional self-talk were effective.
Hatzigeorgiadis, Theodorakis, and Zourbanos (2004) compared
the effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on a precision
and a power water polo task and found that both instructional and
motivational self-talk were effective in the precision task, whereas
only motivational self-talk improved performance in the power task.
Recently, Goudas, Hatzidimitriou, and Kikidi (2006) found that
instructional, motivational and kinaesthetic self-talk helped amateur
adult athletes to improve their shot put performance whereas none
self-talk type was effective in a standing long-jump task. Finally, both
instructional and motivational self-talk, compared to control group,
increased adult male rugby union players’ hip displacement and
velocity in a vertical jump task, but only motivational self-talk had
a positive effect on performance in this task (Edwards, Tod, &
McGuigan, 2008). In a similar study, both instructional and moti-
vational self-talk led to greater center-of-mass displacement, greater
impulse, and quicker angular rotation about the knee compared to
neutral self-talk (Tod, Thatcher, McGuigan, & Thatcher, 2009).
The aforementioned studies provided evidence in favor of the
task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis. Nevertheless, they have
also revealed some contradictory results that warrant further exam-
ination (Hardy et al., 2009). For example, both instructional and
motivational self-talk were effective in tasks with different demands,
such as precision in a water polo task (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004), hip
displacement and angular rotation about the knee in a vertical jump
(Edwards et al., 2008; Tod et al., 2009), and power in the shot put
(Goudas et al., 2006) and knee extension (Theodorakis et al., 2000).
These inconsistent results might have resulted from the different
functions that the selected cue-words served. In particular, some cue-
words may play both instructional and motivational role. Therefore,
in research testing the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis,
motivational and instructional self-talk should be clearly differenti-
ated (Theodorakis et al., 2000). Thus, their unique effects could be
empirically tested. Following this suggestion, we selected cue-words
(see procedure section) using the guidelines proposed by Landin
(1994) who has argued that cue-words should be: (a) brief and
phonetically simple, (b) logically associated with the referent element
of the skill, and (c) compatible with the sequential timing of the task.
Previous self-talk research has focused on athletes, either
novices or experienced, from various sports. For example, previous
studies have employed young basketball players (Perkos et al.,
2002), amateur track and field athletes (Goudas et al., 2006),
rugby players (Edwards et al., 2008), university physical education
students (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004), and experienced male and
female golfers (Harvey et al., 2002). On the other hand, self-talk
research in school physical education is limited. In a respective
study, Anderson, Vogel, and Albrecht (1999) found that instruc-
tional self-talk had a positive effect on third grade students’ over-
hand throw performance. Therefore, more research is needed to
examine the effectiveness of self-talk in school physical education.
Furthermore, self-talk research in young children is limited.
Previous studies employed mainly university physical education
students (Cutton & Landin, 2007; Goudas et al., 2006, study 2;
Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004; Landin & Hebert, 1999) and adult
athletes (Edwards et al., 2008; Goudas et al., 2006, study 1; Harvey
et al., 2002). Exceptions are Perkos et al. (2002) who used young
basketball players aged 12 years old and Hatzigeorgiadis et al.
(2008, 2009) who used young tennis players aged 13e14 years
old. Therefore, we focused on young elementary students to
examine the effectiveness of self-talk in earlier ages.
Finally, no study to our knowledge has tested the task-demand-
oriented matching hypothesis in physical education as Anderson
et al. (1999) used only instructional self-talk in their study.
However, this hypothesis has important practical implications for
self-talk use in physical education. In particular, physical educators
should know which type of self-talk, instructional, motivational or
both match better with which tasks and which cue-words are the
most appropriate for the various tasks used in physical education.
Thus, self-talk can be used as a technique for enhancing learning and
skill development in physical education (Hardy et al., 2009; Zinsser
et al., 2006). Therefore, expanding previous self-talk research in
sports, we tested empirically the task-demand-oriented matching
hypothesis in primary physical education.
The aim of the study was to examine the effects of instructional
and motivational self-talk on students’ chest pass and modified
 A. Kolovelonis et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158
push-ups performance in primary physical education. We
hypothesized that students who used self-talk, regardless of its
type, would improve their performance more than control group
students in both tasks (Hypothesis 1), while instructional self-talk
would have a more positive effect on the chest pass task
(Hypothesis 2) and motivational self-talk on the modified push-ups
task (Hypothesis 3).
Method
Participants
Participants were 54 students (24 boys and 30 girls,
Mage ¼ 11.26, SDage ¼ 0.76) who attended two fifth grade (12 boys
and 18 girls, Mage ¼ 10.69, SDage ¼ 0.33) and two sixth grade
(12 boys and 12 girls, Mage ¼ 11.97, SDage ¼ 0.52) physical education
classes from two elementary schools located in a medium-sized
city in central Greece. Students participated in the study voluntary.
No student refused to participate. Participants were randomly
assigned to three groups using the proportional stratified sampling
method so the same number of boys and girls from each grade
could be included in each group.
Measures
Basketball chest pass test
A chest pass accuracy test was used (Bös, 1988). Students, from
a 3 m distance, tried to hit consecutively two 30  30 cm squares as
many times as they could in 30 s. The squares were painted on
a wall in a 1.2 m height and 1.8 m width. The number of the
successful passes was each student’s score. High indices of objec-
tivity (r: .99) and test-retest reliability (r: .91) have been reported
for this test (Bös, 1988).
Modified push-ups test
Students’ strength and endurance were evaluated with a modi-
fied push-ups test (Safrit, 1995). Students put their knees on the
floor, their feet up with ankles raised and crossed, and their hands
parallel to their shoulders and a bit wider than shoulder width.
From this starting position, students slowly lowered their body
close to the floor, bending their elbows and keeping their back
straight. When the chest was about to touch the floor, they pushed
to come back to starting position. The number of the correctly
performed modified push-ups, regardless of the time, was each
student’s score. Johnson and Nelson (as cited in Miller, 1998)
referred content validity and high reliability (.93) for this test.
Self-talk manipulation check
After each post-test, students were asked the following ques-
tion: “Did you say anything to yourself during the chest pass/
modified push-ups test?” responding on a “yes or no” format. In the
cases of positive response, they were asked: “If yes, what exactly
did you say to yourself?” Students’ responses were coded into four
categories: no, assigned cue-word (e.g., “fingers-target” for the
instructional self-talk in the chest pass test), general self-talk (e.g.,
“I must go on”) and other (e.g., “an English song”). Two coders
categorized the results independently. Kappa analysis revealed
a perfect intercoder agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977).
Design
Design included one between-groups factor, the group with three
levels (instructional, motivational, no self-talk), and two within-
groups factors, the task (chest pass, modified push-ups) and the time
(pre-test, post-test). Three groups were formed based on this design:
155
a) group 1: instructional self-talk, b) group 2: motivational self-talk
and c) group 3: control group. Students of these groups were pre- and
post-tested on the chest pass and the modified push-ups test. The
dependent variables were the students’ scores in two tests.
Procedure
Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Greek
Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs and the school
principals. The study was conducted in the school gym with the
presence of the experimenter. Students of each group came to the
gym in subgroups of 3e4 students. All instructions were provided
at the subgroup level. However, during the testing procedure, to
prevent potential bias due to social comparisons and observational
learning effects, students were not allowed to make eye contact and
to interact with the student who was tested.
Initially, students were informed about the procedure of the
study and they warmed up for 5 min. Then, they were provided
instructions regarding two tests, observed the experimenter to
demonstrate the two tests and were allowed to become familiar
with each test for ten seconds. After, each student was pre-tested in
the chest pass first and then in the modified push-ups test. After
pre-tests, students stretched for 3 min.
The 5-min instruction phase followed. Group 1 students were
provided initial general self-talk instructions regarding self-talk
definition, its functions and effectiveness and examples of famous
athletes who use self-talk to improve their performance. Then, they
were provided specific instructions regarding the use of the
instructional self-talk during the two tests. For the chest pass test
the cue-word “fingers-target” was selected (Perkos et al., 2002).
Students were asked to repeat the word “fingers” to remind
themselves to catch the ball with their fingers and then the word
“target” to focus on the direction of the target. For the modified
push-ups test, the cue-word “bend-stretch” was used. Students
were asked to repeat the word “bend” when they were going to
bend their elbows and the word “stretch” when they were ready to
push and stretch their elbows to come back to starting position.
These two words aimed at helping students to acquire and main-
tain a sense of rhythm during push-ups execution (Landin, 1994).
Group 2 students, after receiving the same with group 1 initial self-
talk instructions, were instructed to use motivational self-talk
during the two tests. For the chest pass test, students were asked to
repeat the cue-word “I can” to enhance their confidence in hitting
the target. For the modified push-ups test, students were asked to
repeat the cue-word “strongly” when they were ready to push and
stretch their elbows to come back to starting position in order to
motivate themselves to put the necessary power to execute the
motion (Landin, 1994).
After the oral instructions, the experimenter demonstrated the
use of both self-talk types in two tests. Group 1 and 2 students were
prompted to use the respective cue-words loudly and continually
during the two tests trying to “do their best”. Control group
students, for reasons of equal experimental treatment, were
provided healthy eating instructions after pre-test, observed an
additional demonstration of the tests, and they were told to “do
their best”. All students were post-tested in both tests and
answered the respective self-talk manipulation check question.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed with a 3 (group)  2 (task)  2 (time)
repeated measures ANOVA. Next, a 3 (group)  2 (time) repeated
measures ANOVA were conducted for each task, followed by pre- to
post-test comparisons within each group and the interpretation of
the respective plots (Thomas & Nelson, 2001). In the cases of
156 A. Kolovelonis et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158

Table 1 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Means and standard deviations for each group and task in pre- and post-test.
10
Chest pass Modified push-ups
9,5
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

Number of s uc c es s ful pas s es

M SD M SD M SD M SD 9
Group 1 7.89 1.78 9.50a 2.41 12.28 5.66 13.72a 5.73
Group 2 7.00 1.46 8.50a 1.82 11.83 5.19 14.83a 6.06 8,5
Group 3 7.78 3.06 8.11 2.40 12.67 5.69 12.89 5.18
8
Note: a: Significant mean difference (p < .001) with pre-test in the respective test.
Group 1: Instructional self-talk, Group 2: Motivational self-talk, Group 3: Control
group. 7,5

7
significant differences, the effect sizes of partial h2 and Cohen’s
d (Cohen, 1988) were calculated. 6,5

6
Results 1 2
Time
Means and standard deviations for all dependent variables,
separately for each group and task, are presented in Table 1. Fig. 1. Group and time interaction in the chest pass test.

KolmogoroveSmirnov and ShapiroeWilk tests showed that the

assumption of normality was met within each group. Frequency
of students’ responses to self-talk manipulation check questions
is presented in Table 2. Data were analyzed based on both the
original groups as well as the groups after excluding students
who reported that they did not use the assigned cue-word. Both
analyses yielded the same results. Next we report the main
analyses with the original groups and then the analyses where
the students who reported that they did not use the assigned
cue-word were excluded.
Main analyses
The one-way ANOVAs showed a nonsignificant difference
between-groups in pre-test measure in the chest pass test, F(2,
51) ¼ .87, p ¼ .43, and in the modified push-ups test, F(2, 51) ¼ .10,
p ¼ .90. The 3 (group)  2 (task)  2 (time) repeated measures
ANOVA showed a significant Group  Task  Time interaction, F(2,
51) ¼ 3.25, p ¼ .047, partial h2 ¼ 0.11. To analyze this significant
interaction, two separate for each task 3 (group)  2 (time)
repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted.
For the chest pass, the 3 (group)  2 (time) repeated measures
ANOVA showed a significant Group  Time interaction, F(2, 51) ¼
3.18, p ¼ .050, partial h2 ¼ 0.11. Pre- to post-test comparisons within
each group showed a significant improvement in students’ scores
in the chest pass test for the instructional self-talk group, p < .001,
d ¼ 0.76, and the motivational self-talk group, p < .001, d ¼ 0.91, but
not for the control group, p ¼ 0.41. The interpretation of the plot
(Thomas & Nelson, 2001) showed that students who used
instructional and motivational self-talk improved their scores in
the chest pass test from pre- to post-test more than control group
students, but no difference between two self-talk groups was found
(Fig. 1).
For the modified push-ups, the 3 (group)  2 (time) repeated
measures ANOVA showed a significant Group  Time interaction, F
(2, 51) ¼ 11.59, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ 0.31. Pre- to post-test
comparisons within each group showed a significant improvement
in students’ scores in the modified push-ups test for the instruc-
tional self-talk group, p < .001, d ¼ 0.25, and the motivational self-
talk group, p < .001, d ¼ 0.53, but not for the control group, p ¼ 0.59.
The interpretation of the plot (Thomas & Nelson, 2001) showed that
students who used motivational self-talk improved their scores in
the modified push-ups test from pre- to post-test more than
instructional self-talk group students, who in turn surpassed
control group students (Fig. 2).
Manipulation check
Over of 70% of students of the self-talk groups responded that
they used the assigned cue-word during the two tests. We reran the
analyses excluding students who reported that they did not use the
assigned cue-word and the results remained the same for the chest
pass test, F(2, 45) ¼ 23.58, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ 0.34, and for the
modified push-ups test, F(2, 44) ¼ 39.70, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ 0.47.
Furthermore, eight control group students reported the use of some
kind of self-talk during the two tests. This self-talk was mainly
general phrases motivational in nature, like “to be concentrated”,
“to improve myself”, or “I must go on”. To examine the potential
effects of this spontaneous use of general self-talk on control group
students’ performance, we compared students who referred the
use of general self-talk with those who referred non use of self-talk
during the two tests and we found nonsignificant differences
between these two control subgroups in the chest pass test,
F(1, 16) ¼ 0.68, p ¼ .42, and in the push-ups test, F(1, 16) ¼ 0.27,
p ¼ .61.

Table 2
Frequency of students’ responses to manipulation self-talk questions separately for each group and task.

Responses Chest pass Modified push-ups

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

(“Fingers-target”) (“I can”) (“Bend-stretch”) (“Strongly”)
No 3 0 9 4 0 5
Assigned cue-word 13 16 e 13 14 þ 3a e
General self-talk 2 2 8 1 1 11
Other 0 0 1 0 0 2

Note: Group 1: Instructional self-talk, Group 2: Motivational self-talk, Group 3: Control group.
a
Number of students who use the motivational cue-word of the chest pass test (“I can”).
 A. Kolovelonis et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
15,5
15
14,5
Number of pus h- ups
14
13,5
13
12,5
12
11,5
11
1 2
Time
Fig. 2. Group and time interaction in the modified push-ups test.
Discussion
The aim of the study was to examine the effects of instructional
and motivational self-talk on elementary students’ motor task
performance in two tasks with different demands, namely a chest
pass and a modified push-ups task. Generally, the results showed
that self-talk was effective in enhancing students’ motor task
performance in physical education and provided partial support for
the task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis (Hardy et al., 2009;
Theodorakis et al., 2000).
The results fully supported hypothesis 1. Students who used
self-talk, regardless of its type, improved their post-test perfor-
mance in both tests compared to pre-test, whereas control group
students did not improve. These improvements varied from small
to large (d ¼ .25e.91). These results expand previous research in
sport settings, which has shown that self-talk can enhance sport
performance (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2004;
Perkos et al., 2002; Theodorakis et al., 2001). Furthermore, in line
with a previous study in physical education (Anderson et al., 1999)
which found a positive effect of instructional self-talk on third
grade students’ overhand throw performance, the present study
showed that elementary students can use self-talk to enhance their
motor task performance in physical education.
The results did not support hypothesis 2. Students who used
instructional self-talk did not outperform those who used motiva-
tional self-talk in chest pass. In fact, the size of the motivational
self-talk effect on students’ chest pass performance was larger
compared to instructional self-talk (d ¼ .91 and .76, respectively).
This result is in contrast with previous research (Theodorakis et al.,
2000) which showed that instructional self-talk was more effective
in soccer and badminton precision tasks compared to motivational
self-talk. However, this result is consistent with a previous similar
study in sport settings (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004) which found
that both instructional and motivational self-talk had a positive
effect on a precision water polo task. It has been proposed that self-
talk can positively affect performance via increasing attention to
the task. Theodorakis, Hatzigeorgiadis, and Chroni (2008) and
Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, and Theodorakis (2007) have provided
evidence regarding this attentional function of self-talk. In the
present study the chest pass test required precision and increased
attention. Instructional and motivational self-talk helped students
to increase their attention during the 30-s chest pass test and thus
to improve their performance. Additionally, students, who used
motivational self-talk, probably exerted more effort and executed
157
more trials during the test. Unfortunately, no data regarding
students’ trials were collected during test procedure to verify this
interpretation.
This result partially supports the task-demand-oriented
matching hypothesis. Students who used instructional self-talk
improved their motor task performance and outperformed control
group students, but did not surpass students who used motiva-
tional self-talk. It seems that for precision tasks, especially when
time constraints are present, motivational and instructional self-
talk can be equally effective. The present and a previous study
(Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004) provide evidence for this argument.
Future research should further explore this issue using various
precision tasks and cue-words.
Hypothesis 3 was confirmed. Students who used motivational
self-talk outperformed in the modified push-ups test their peers
who used instructional self-talk, who in turn surpassed control
group students. These results fully support the task-demand-
oriented matching hypothesis and are in line with previous findings
in sport settings which have shown that motivational self-talk is
more effective in power and endurance tasks (Edwards et al., 2008;
Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2004). Motivational self-talk can help
students to regulate their effort, to enhance their confidence, and to
increase their concentration on the task (Goudas et al., 2006).
However, consistent with previous research (Theodorakis et al.,
2000), instructional self-talk had also a positive effect on the
power-endurance task, but it was less effective compared to moti-
vational self-talk.
The present findings provide evidence for the effectiveness of
self-talk in physical education, showing that students who used this
technique, regardless of its type, improved their motor task
performance. Interestingly, self-talk in general had a stronger effect
on students’ performance in the chest pass test (d ¼ .76 & .91)
compared to the push-ups test (d ¼ .25 & .53). These results imply
that the use of self-talk can have a powerful positive effect on young
students’ learning and skill development in physical education,
supporting previous views that children are highly capable of
learning and applying a variety of such mental techniques (Orlick &
McCaffrey, 1991). The present study, expanding previous research
with undergraduate or collegiate students and adult athletes,
employed young elementary students, increasing our under-
standing regarding self-talk effectiveness in earlier ages. Further-
more, results provide additional evidence regarding the task-
demand-oriented matching hypothesis. Motivational self-talk was
more effective in the power-endurance task, while both instruc-
tional and motivational self-talk were effective in the precision
task. That is, self-talk content is critical for its effectiveness and
should be appropriately matched with the demands of the task to
be performed (Hardy et al., 2009).
Following the suggestion of including a manipulation check in
self-talk research (Hardy et al., 2009), we asked students what they
were thinking during the two tests. Over of 70% of students of the
self-talk groups responded that they used the assigned cue-word
during two tests. This percentage should be considered acceptable
(Edwards et al., 2008; Tod et al., 2009). Nevertheless, we reran the
analyses excluding students who reported that they did not use the
assigned cue-word and the results remained the same. Further-
more, consistent with previous research (Hardy, Hall, Gibbs, &
Greenslade, 2005; Hardy et al., 2009), many control group
students reported the use of some kind of self-talk during two tests
(e.g., general phrases motivational in nature). However, these forms
of internal dialogue were not beneficial for control group students,
as no significant difference was found between control group
students who reported that they have used some kind of self-talk
and those who did not, in both tests. This result provides additional
evidence that the selection and use of appropriate and specific for
158 A. Kolovelonis et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 153e158
each task cue-words helps students to improve their motor task
performance.
From an applied perspective, physical educators should teach
students to use self-talk technique to enhance their motor task
performance in primary physical education. Both instructional and
motivational self-talk are effective. However, consistent with the
task-demand-oriented matching hypothesis, physical educators
should discern the basic features of each task and select the
appropriate, for each task, cue-words. The criteria provided by
Landin (1994) could be a useful guide in this process.
A possible limitation of the present study may be that the results
were based exclusively on quantitative evaluations of students’
motor task performance, using only one post-test trial. Technical
aspects of the skills’ execution should also be evaluated in future
research. Furthermore, the examination of the effects of the
different types of self-talk on learning sports skills could be an
interesting area for future research. In these cases, extended prac-
tice sessions and retention measures should be included. Another
possible limitation may be that not all students of self-talk groups
used the assigned cue-words. Nevertheless, results remained the
same after excluding students who reported that did not use the
assigned cue-word. Future research should employ largest samples
to form distinct experimental groups discarding participants who
would not use the assigned cue-words (Hardy et al., 2009).
Furthermore, future research should use various tasks, alternatives
cue-words and other types of self-talk (e.g., kinaesthetic; Goudas
et al., 2006) to explore further the nature of the task-demand-
oriented matching hypothesis in physical education. Finally, the
effects of self-talk on motor task performance allowing the
participants to use self-selected self-talk cue-words from a list
provided should be examined (Harvey et al., 2002; Hatzigeorgiadis
et al., 2009).
References
Anderson, A. (1997). Learning strategies in physical education: self-talk, imagery,
and goal-setting. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 68, 30e35.
Anderson, A., Vogel, P., & Albrecht, R. (1999). The effect of instructional self-talk on
the overhand throw. Physical Educator, 56, 215e221.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Bös, K. (1988). Der Heidelberger-basketball-test (HBT). Leistungssport, 18, 17e24.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cutton, D. M., & Landin, D. (2007). The effects of self-talk and augmented feedback
on learning the tennis forehand. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19,
288e303.
Edwards, C., Tod, D., & McGuigan, M. (2008). Self-talk influences vertical jump
performance and kinematics in male rugby union players. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 26, 1459e1465.
Goudas, M., Hatzidimitriou, V., & Kikidi, M. (2006). The effects of self-talk on
performance on throwing and jumping events. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 3,
105e116.
Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: a critical review of the self-talk literature.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 81e97.
Hardy, J., Hall, C. R., Gibbs, C., & Greenslade, C. (2005). Self-talk and gross motor skill
performance: an experimental approach? Athletic Insight, 7, 1e13.
Hardy, J., Oliver, E., & Tod, D. (2009). A framework for the study and application of
self-talk within sport. In S. Mellalieu, & S. Hanton (Eds.), Advances in applied
sport psychology. A review (pp. 37e74). New York: Routledge.
Hardy, L., Jones, J. G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for
sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester: John Wiley.
Harvey, D. T., Van Raalte, J., & Brewer, B. W. (2002). Relationship between self-talk
and golf performance. International Sport Journal, 6, 84e91.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Goltsios, C., & Theodorakis, Y. (2008). Investi-
gating the functions of self-talk: the effects of motivational self-talk on self-
efficacy and performance in young tennis players. The Sport Psychologist, 22,
458e471.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Mpoumpaki, S., & Theodorakis, Y. (2009).
Mechanisms underlying the self-talk-performance relationship: the effects of
motivational self-talk on self-confidence and anxiety. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 10, 186e192.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). The moderating effects
of self-talk content on self-talk functions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19,
240e251.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Theodorakis, Y., & Zourbanos, N. (2004). Self-talk in the
swimming pool: the effects of self-talk on thought content and performance on
water-polo tasks. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 138e150.
Johnson, J., Hrycaiko, D. W., Johnson, G. V., & Halas, J. M. (2004). Self-talk and female
youth soccer performance. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 44e59.
Krane, V., & Williams, J. M. (2006). Psychological characteristics of peak perfor-
mance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak
performance (5th ed.). (pp. 207e227) New York: McGraw Hill.
Landin, D. (1994). The role of verbal cues in skill learning. Quest, 46, 299e313.
Landin, D., & Hebert, E. P. (1999). The influence of self-talk on the performance
of skilled female tennis players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11,
263e282.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159e174.
Miller, D. K. (1998). Measurement by the physical educator. Why and how (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: McGraw Hill.
Ming, S., & Martin, L. G. (1996). Single-subject evaluation of self-talk package for
improving figure skating performance. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 227e238.
Nideffer, R. N. (1993). Attention control training. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, &
L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 127e170).
New York: Macmillan.
Orlick, T., & McCaffrey, N. (1991). Mental training with children for sport and life.
The Sport Psychologist, 5, 322e334.
Perkos, S., Theodorakis, Y., & Chroni, S. (2002). Enhancing performance and skill
acquisition in novice basketball players with instructional self-talk. The Sport
Psychologist, 16, 368e389.
Safrit, M. J. (1995). Complete guide to youth fitness testing. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Theodorakis, Y., Beneca, A., Goudas, M., Antoniou, P., & Malliou, P. (1998). The effect
of self-talk on injury rehabilitation. European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 2,
124e135.
Theodorakis, Y., Chroni, A., Laparidis, C., Bebetsos, E., & Douma, E. (2001). Self-talk in
a basketball shooting task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 309e315.
Theodorakis, Y., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Chroni, S. (2008). Self-talk: it works, but
how? Development and preliminary validation of the functions of self-talk
questionnaire. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12,
10e30.
Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis, P., Douma, E., & Kazakas, P. (2000). The effects
of motivational versus instructional self-talk on improving motor performance.
The Sport Psychologist, 14, 253e272.
Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (2001). Research methods in physical activity (4th ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Tod, D., Thatcher, R., McGuigan, M., & Thatcher, J. (2009). Effects of instructional and
motivational self-talk on the vertical jump. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 23, 196e202.
Vealey, R. S. (2007). Mental skill training in sport. In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund
(Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John
Willey & Sons.
Van Raalte, J. L., Brewer, B. W., Lewis, B. P., Linder, D. E., Wildman, G., & Kozimor, J.
(1995). Cork! The effects of positive and negative self-talk on dart performance.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 3, 50e57.
Weinberg, R., & Gould, D. (2007). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (4th
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Zinsser, N., Bunker, L., & Williams, J. M. (2006). Cognitive techniques for building
confidence and enhancing performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport
psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed.). (pp. 349e381)
New York: McGraw Hill.