Pettlep Imagery on Sports Performance Research Proposal

Similar sport-specific performance improvement was found in the earlier study conducted by Smith, Wright, Allsopp, and Westhead (2007).

Smith, Wright, Allsopp, and Westhead (2007) compared the effects of PETTLEP-based imagery against the improvements found with the use of traditional imagery, in hockey players and gymnasts. In the first study, 48 varsity hockey players were divided into four groups. These groups included: 'sport-specific' imagery, 'clothing' imagery, 'traditional' imagery, and a control group. Following a six-week period, the sport-specific group saw the most improvement in penalty flicks. Other than the control group, the traditional imagery group experienced the least amount of improvement. The author's second study featured 40 junior gymnasts. These participants were divided into four groups that included: PETTLEP, stimulus only imagery, physical practice, and a control group. As was found in both Wright and Smith's (2009) and Smith, Wright, and Cantwell's (2008) research, there was significant improvement in both the PETTLEP and physical practice performance; however, both groups improved equally. Yet again, there are questions in whether or not the success of this intervention can be applied universally. To help clarify this, research regarding the timing element of the PETTLEP was conducted (Jenny & Munroe-Chandler, 2008).

Jenny and Munroe-Chandler's (2008) research focused on the timing element of the PETTLEP intervention. The researchers examined the performance effects of three imagery conditions, in regards to soccer dribbling. In addition to the timing variables, the results were also compared to a physical practice group and a control group. Ninety-seven subjects were divided into five groups including: real-time imagery, slow-motion imagery, slow motion concluded with real-time imagery, physical practice, and a control group.All groups, apart from the control group, showed significant improvement in time and errors. All four experimental groups improved to the same degree. However, the control group also showed improvement in time, during the dribbling task, but not the number of errors. These results make the research inconclusive when applied to the timing aspect of improvement of the task. It also raises considerable doubts regarding the universal application of PETTLEP for improving sports performance.

The PETTLEP imagery intervention has demonstrated through the reviewed literature its value in improving performance in certain, specific sports aspects. However, there are still many questions that need to be answered. Most importantly, none of the studies reviewed were longer than six weeks in length. Therefore, more research needs to be conducted to see if initial performance improvements are continued over time. In addition, as found in Jenny and Munroe-Chandler's (2008) research, some areas of improvement may not be due to any intervention at all. This raises the question on how much of the previous findings can be generalized.

References

Holmes, P. & Collins, D. (Mar 2001). The PETTLEP approach to motor imagery. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(1). pp. 60-83.

Smith, D., Wright, C., Allsopp, A., & Westhead, H. (Jan 2007). It's all in the mind: PETTLEP-based imagery and sports performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psycholgoy, 19(1). pp. 80-92.

Smith, D., Wright, C., & Cantwell, C. (Sep 2008). Beating the bunker: The effect of PETTLEP imagery on golf bunker shot performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(3). Retrieved June 5, 2009, from ProQuest.

Wright, C. & Smith, D. (Mar 2009). The.....