1. Running Head: COGNITIVE TOOLS OF PREPARATION IN SPORT 1
Cognitive Tools of Preparation in Sport
Steven J. Warren
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Authors Note
Steven J. Warren, Undergraduate Psychology Major, California Polytechnic State
University at San Luis Obispo.
I would like to thank Professor Jason Williams for providing the opportunity and means
to conduct my testing.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven J. Warren, 200 N.
Santa Rosa St. Apt. 607C, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405. Email: swarre01@calpoly.edu

2. Cognitive Tools of Preparation in Sport
As the popularity of sports at a professional and collegiate level has grown, sport
psychology is a rapidly expanding field that has been integrated into understanding varying
fields of human development and psychology. For example, cognitive psychologists have
utilized sport psychology to explore a wide range of mental processes. Historically, knowledge
regarding sport science depended primarily on biologists, biomechanics, and medical
professionals (Kane, 1978). However, researchers have recently begun to discover some
psychosocial and psychological aspects that account for variation in athletic and sporting
performance, especially during stressful situations. Sports offer cognitive researchers a rich and
dynamic natural laboratory in which to study how the mind functions (Moran, 2009). They
present a unique set of conditions under which the capacity of human achievement is
continuously challenged (Williams, Ford, Eccles, & Ward, 2011). This environment helps to
identify the essential skills and attributes of performance and the underlying processes that
separate individuals of varying levels of ability. Within the past two decades, there has been an
abundance of research examining the effectiveness of numerous mental tools in the domain of
cognitive sport psychology (Moran, 2009). This research highlights work reviewing two
prevalent cognitive processes that can be utilized to benefit athletes during preparation: 1)
imagery and mental rehearsal (e.g., Driskell, Copper, & Moran, 1994; Mousavi & Meshkini,
2011), and 2) goal setting (e.g., Weinberg, Burton, Yukelson, & Weigand, 1993). Although this
research has been conducted within the realm of sports, the empirical findings have contributed
to new knowledge in the general field of psychology that can be applied to preparation and
performance in other areas, including educational institutions and the workplace.
Imagery and Mental Rehearsal

3. A number of researchers looking at the cognitive aspects of preparation have examined
several forms of mental imagery, and their effects on performance. It has become one of the most
widely researched cognitive techniques used in athletics, and is now regarded as a basic area of
study in the field of sport psychology. The majority of recent research in imagery has been based
off of Martin, Moritz, and Hall’s (1999) applied model of imagery use in sports, which details
the functions imagery can serve in sport. The five primary functions include cognitive specific
(CS; e.g., specific sport skills), cognitive general (CG; e.g., strategies related to a competitive
event), motivational specific (MS; e.g., specific goals and goal-oriented behavior), motivational
general-arousal (MG-A; e.g., feelings of relaxation stress, anxiety, and arousal), and motivational
general-mastery (MG-M; e.g., self-confidence, effective coping, mental toughness, focus, and
control) (Arvinen-Barrow, Weigand, Thomas, Hemmings, & Walley, 2007). In a sports
environment, imagery is considered to be one of the most effective tools in enhancing the
retention and execution of learned skills and techniques, as well as regulating the arousal,
anxiety, and confidence levels of the performer (Silbernagel, Short, & Ross-Stewart, 2007).
Additionally, Jones and Stuth (1997) observed the positive effect of imagery during athletic
rehabilitation. While the research on the functions of mental imagery and its benefits have been
conclusive, its appropriate subdivisions are frequently disputed.
Multiple researchers have attempted to identify the various forms of imagery and have
found differing results. In a study done on imagery during weightlifting, Silbernagel, Short, and
Ross-Stewart (2007) found three distinct forms of imagery employed in the weight room:
appearance imagery (i.e., images related to the attainment of a fit looking body), technique
imagery (i.e., images related to performing the skill and techniques correctly with proper form),
and energy imagery (i.e., images related to getting "pumped up" or feeling energized). Their

4. results showed appearance imagery to be the most effective and most commonly used type of
imagery during weight lifting, followed by technique and energy imagery. Caplan (2007) argues
that there are only two main types of imagery: internal (imagining oneself doing the activity
while concentrating on how it feels) and external (imagining watching oneself complete the
activity, as if on film, to develop an awareness of how the activity appears). Vasquez and
Buehler (2007) looked into a similar two-part design of imagery composed of a first person and
third person perspective. They found that students experience a greater increase in achievement
motivation when using a third-person perspective to imagine successful task completion, rather
than a first-person perspective. Although the various divisions within mental imagery have yet to
be agreed upon, its efficacy for athletic purposes has been well documented.
The effectiveness of mental imagery techniques has been studied across a wide range of
sports and settings. Research has included work in baseball, basketball, cheer and dance,
football, golf, hockey, soccer, softball, swimming and diving, track and field, and volleyball
(Silbernagel, Short, & Ross-Stewart, 2007). Driediger, Hall, and Callow (2006) found that
imagery use by injured athletes served cognitive, motivational, and healing purposes during
effective rehabilitation and even decreased time of recovery. It was used to assist patients in
properly learning and relearning skills, and to enhance mental toughness. In addition, it also
allowed them to better maintain concentration, fostered optimism during recovery, and made
pain more manageable. The positive influence of imagery has been observed in young athletes
(Hall, 2009) as well as older adults (Wesch, Milne, Burke, & Hall, 2006). Some research (Elko
& Ostrow, 1992) has shown no significant differences in the effectiveness of imagery between
young and adult athletes. However, Mulder, Hochstenbach, Heuvelen, and Otter (2007)
examined the relationship between age and imagery capacity and found that elderly participants

5. were slightly worse than young participants in motor imagery, particularly from a first person
(internal) perspective. Additionally, Veraksa and Gorovaya (2011) discovered a connection
between age, imagination, and imagery, finding younger players much more likely to utilize
motivational imagery, rather than cognitive imagery. Mental imagery has been researched in
both elite and novice athletes as well (e.g., Shearer, Thomson, Mellalieu, & Shearer, 2007).
Arvinen-Barrow, Weigand, Thomas, Hemmings, and Walley (2007), looked at the differences
between elite and novice imagery use in open and closed sports and found that competitive level
and skill type have an impact on athletes’ use of imagery. Others studying imagery in open and
closed sports (e.g., Kizildag & Tiryaki, 2012) have found differences between the imagery
utilized during team sports and individual sports. A myriad of sports and variables have been
used to investigate imagery in athletics that support the effectiveness of sport-specific and skill-
specific imagery types. These findings suggest that athletes engaging in mental imagery will
experience optimal results by using the imagery strategy most applicable to their sport and level
of expertise.
The positive impact of imagery in athletic training has been consistently demonstrated
with and without the aid of supplementary physical practice. It has been shown to improve
athletic performance when used in place of physical training (e.g., Landers, 1983) as well as
when used in conjunction with it (e.g., Elko & Ostrow, 1992; Olsson, Jonsson, & Nyberg, 2008;
Veraksa & Gorovaya, 2011). Sanders, Sadoski, Bramson, Wiprud, and Van Walsum (2004)
compared the effectiveness of mental imagery alone, and in coordination with physical practice,
and found that mental imagery rehearsal was statistically equivalent to additional physical
practice. Based upon this theory, mental imagery rehearsal can be viewed as a cost effective
alternative to physical practice sessions in many sports. Several studies (e.g., Mousavi &

6. Meshkini, 2011; Thelwell, Greenlees, & Weston, 2006) have indicated that the preeminent
methods of practice are those that combine imagery and physical practice with auxiliary
cognitive strategies such as self-talk, relaxation and goal setting. Employing this strategy for
athletic training increases motivation and perceived competence for various aspects of
performance, which increases confidence in decision-making and decreases the negative effects
of perceptual fatigue, especially in the later stages of performance.
Mental rehearsal has been looked at in a number of contexts. Some researchers (e.g.
Caplan, 2007) find mental rehearsal (or mental practice) to be aspects of imagery. Caplan defines
imagery as a, “Polysensorial and emotional creation or recreation of an experience that takes
place in the mind.” He argues that this emotional aspect of imagery distinguishes it from mental
rehearsal, which does not take into account the skill being rehearsed, or the senses and emotions
being used throughout the skill. Contrary to these findings, other researchers (e.g., Jones & Stuth,
1997; Suinn, 1997) examine imagery as a form of mental rehearsal, and view mental practice as
an effective method in learning mental imagery techniques. Driskell, Copper, and Moran (1994)
suggest that mental practice is too loosely defined and can include nearly all types of mental
preparation. However, this meta-analysis research confirmed the significant positive effects that
mental practice has on performance. In addition, it was shown that similar to imagery, the
effectiveness of mental rehearsal was dependent upon the type of task and the athlete’s level of
expertise. Mental rehearsal and imagery have been studied almost synchronously and have both
been proven to be beneficial cognitive techniques in sports training.
Goal Setting
Extensive literature regarding the effectiveness of goal setting on performance and
achievement has covered numerous forms of goals and the underlying factors of their influence

7. within an array of domains, including sports. Goal setting has been researched in team sports
such as football (e.g., Smith & Ward, 2006), soccer (e.g., Papaioannou, Ballon, Theodorakis, &
Auwelle, 2004; Toros, Bayansalduz, & Duvan, 2010), basketball (e.g., Getz & Rainey, 2004;
Lane & Streeter, 2003; Lerner & Locke, 1995; Lerner, Ostrow, Yura, & Etzel, 1996; Swain &
Jones, 1995), rugby (e.g., Mellalieu, Hanton, & O'Brien, 2006), hockey (Anderson, Crowell,
Doman, & Howard, 1988) and crew (Wetter, Hofer, & Jonas, 2013), as well as in individual
sports including boxing (O'Brien, Mellalieu, & Hanton, 2009), running (Walker, 2000),
swimming (e.g., Burton, 1989; Silva & Fernandes, 2012; Simões, Vasconcelos-Raposo), and
dart-throwing (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). More than 600 studies examining the goal-
setting-performance relationship have been conducted (Taylor & Wilson, 2005). According to
Lock, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981), a goal refers to attaining a specified level of proficiency
on a given task, usually within a specified time limit. Locke (1968) found that the primary
performance-enhancing mechanism of goal setting is providing motivation, and subsequent
research (i.e., Locke, Cartledge, & Knerr, 1970) has highlighted goals and intentions as the most
immediate motivational determinant of task performance. As a result, the motivating functions of
goal setting have been widely researched.
The motivational aspect of goal setting works in two ways: first, by directing an
individual’s attention to the relevant task and cues, then by activating the necessary effort and
persistence required to achieve the goal (Taylor & Wilson, 2005). In addition, several researchers
(e.g., Kolovelonis, Goudas, & Dermitzaki, 2012; Zimmerman, 2000) have shown that goal
setting benefits performance through improved self-regulation, even in people who have suffered
traumatic brain injury (McPherson, Kayes, & Weatherall, 2009). According to Locke and
Latham (1990), goals enhance self-regulation by providing internal standards by which people

8. can compare and assess their progression in performance. Contrary to these reports, Walker
(2000) found that goal setting did not result in any beneficial effects. Furthermore, Koch and
Nafziger (2011) suggest that goals are painful self-disciplining devices that have only a limited
impact on one’s motivation. They also report that the lack of a motivational mechanism in
goals—along with the painful disappointments they bring about—contribute to greater self
regulation issues, resulting in increasingly daunting goals. Regardless of the conflicting work,
the majority of research has demonstrated a positive correlation between goal setting and
performance. Essentially all athletes—especially elite athletes—engage in some form of goal
setting strategy to enhance performance, and most of these techniques are found to be highly
effective (Weinberg, Burton, Yukelson, & Weigland, 1993). Given these findings, the
appropriate divisions of goal setting and their individual influences on performance and
achievement have been a popular topic of debate.
An abundance of research has been done to identify the proper categorization of the
various types of goals (and goal setting strategies) that has yielded different, yet converging,
models of goal setting. The most historically prominent theory of goal setting and motivation is
Nicholls’ (1989) dichotomous achievement goal theory. According to this theory, differences in
goal perspectives reflect two distinct ways of assessing one’s level of ability, and subjectively
define success in an achievement environment (Duda, 1996). A mastery goal orientation involves
personal improvement and meeting the demands of a task, with a focus on learning and
understanding, and is often referred to as task orientation (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002). In this
perspective, an individuals’ personal perception of his/her own ability is self-referenced (Duda,
1996). In contrast, a performance goal orientation demonstrates a focus on winning, and proving
a superior level of skill and/or competence—in relation to others—and is commonly referred to

9. as the ego orientation. These two primary dynamics are seen to be the reason for which athletes
and students engage in achievement behavior (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002), and both have
been linked to increased competitiveness (Duda & Nicholls, 1992). Although the task and ego
orientation goals founded by Nicholls (1989) and mastery-performance goals proposed by Elliot
and Church (1997) were independently formulated, research has shown significant overlaps
between the two theories; thus indicating substantial relation and comparative validity
(Barkoukis, Ntoumanis, & Nikitaras, 2007). Using this multi-theory approach, people have been
shown to undertake achievement tasks either by engaging in mastery (task orientation) and/or
performance (ego orientation) goals to demonstrate superior performance. Research regarding
the topic is plentiful and highlights key differences, similarities, and applications of each goal
setting perspective.
Using the achievement goal theory, researchers have identified important distinctions
within the two orientations, and the effectiveness of each perspective. Harackiwicz, Barron,
Tauer, Carter, and Elliot (2000), looked at the effects of mastery and performance goals on
success in a college environment and found that mastery goals predicted further interest in the
subject matter, but did not significantly affect performance. On the contrary, performance goals
benefited performance, but did not influence interest in the subject. Although research has
consistently supported a positive relationship between mastery goals and achievement, the
benefits of performance goals are more complex. Jagacinski and Strickland (2000) examined
achievement tasks in both genders in order to determine the ways in which each orientation
influenced outstanding performance and affect. Task orientation proved to have positive effects
on outstanding performance, but had no significant impact on enjoyment of the task, whereas,
ego orientation reliably predicted negative affect in the enjoyment context and had no influence

10. on outstanding performance. Women were also found to utilize task-oriented goals more
frequently than men. Further research conducted by Wolters (2004) demonstrated a significant
link between mastery goals (task orientation) and adaptive outcomes in motivation, cognitive
engagement, and achievement, yet failed to find a similar relationship connected to performance
goals (ego orientation). Despite research suggesting that performance goals yield negative or no
effects (e.g., Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001), Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, and
Thrash (2002) insist that these findings are due to a lack of distinction between avoidance and
approach methods. Supplemental research examining this avoidance-approach aspect of
achievement goals has supported this notion.
Extensive work has been done to correctly identify the multiple facets of achievement
goal setting. Research done by Elliot and McGregor (2001) revealed distinct empirical profiles
for each of the achievement goals. For example, a performance goal orientation could be viewed
as either performance-avoidance (the desire to avoid performing more poorly than others do) or
as performance-approach (trying to outperform others) (Darnon, Harackiewicz, Butera, Mugny,
& Quiamzade, 2007). Using four constructs (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance,
performance-approach, performance avoidance) Elliot and McGregor established a 2x2
framework in which mastery and approach styles are desirable. As expected, they found mastery-
avoidance goals to be more negative than both approach forms, but more positive than
performance-avoidance goals. Research done by Waskiewicz (2012) highlights the effects of
achievement goal orientation on situational motivation and found that an approach strategy for
both performance and mastery orientations improved motivation, whereas an avoidance strategy
was inversely correlated. By distinguishing between these two aspects, the positive potential of
performance goals becomes clear.

11. Within this four-part model of achievement goals, the approach-avoidance dimension and
mastery-performance dimension affect achievement and cognition in dissimilar ways. In an
experiment conducted using youth athletes, the mastery-performance factor was shown to be the
most important predictor of enjoyment of the task, while the approach-avoidance dimension was
the most important predictor of concentration, disruption, and worry (Morris & Kavussanu,
2009). However, in a separate experiment conducted on male and female adolescent athletes,
both mastery-approach and performance-approach orientation were linked to sports competence
and a positive global physical self-concept (Cetinkalp, 2012). Additionally, females showed a
higher tendency than males to engage in master-avoidance goal setting. A large body of research
examining the relative effectiveness of each individual construct emphasizes the importance of
separating approach from avoidance goals.
Between the various dimensions of achievement goal framework, research has proven the
most crucial distinction to be between performance-avoidance and performance-approach. As
reported by Darnon, Harackiewicz, Butera, Mugny, and Quiamzade (2007), performance-
avoidance goals are consistently shown to be detrimental, whereas performance-approach goals
have varying effects. They found performance-approach goals to be beneficial when participants
were certain in their problem solution goals. However, when the researchers elicited a state of
uncertainty in their participants, the same detrimental effect found in performance-avoidance
occurs. In addition, the researchers also revealed that negative competence feedback also caused
a detrimental effect when using performance-oriented goals. In accordance with this, McGregor
and Elliot (2002) found performance-approach goals to be linked to positive processes—such as
challenge appraisals—while performance-avoidance goals were oppositely linked to negative
processes such as threat appraisals and anticipatory performance anxiety. Also, the research

12. found that both kinds of mastery goals relate to significantly more positive processes—such as
challenge appraisals and absorption—during preparation than either form of performance goal.
Along with achievement goal theory, similar models have been proposed to appropriately
categorize types of goal setting.
In a sports environment, researchers often use a tripartite model of goal setting consisting
of outcome goals (referring to the desired results or outcome of the athlete), performance goals
(referring to an athlete’s actual performance relative to a personal standard of success), and
process goals (referring to the way in which athletes utilize specific skills and strategies).
According to Taylor and Wilson (2005) performance and process goals are particularly important
because they are under the control of athletes, and that accomplishing these goals lead to
achieving outcome goals. In support of this idea, Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997) used a dart-
throwing task to demonstrate that shifting from process to outcome goals was shown to yield
greater benefits than adhering to outcome goals exclusively. Weinberg, Burton, Yukelson, and
Weigland (1993) observed outcome goals and performance goals in competitive sports and
revealed that virtually all athletes employ some form of outcome or performance goal, which are
usually moderately to highly effective. However, Burton’s (1989) findings suggest that outcome
goals are both inflexible and uncontrollable, and limit an athletes’ ability to perform consistently
and take credit for success. Process goals have been shown to significantly improve performance
immediately after goal setting training, followed by a decline in proceeding performances
(Simões, Vasconcelos-Raposo, Silva, & Fernandes, 2012). Within each of these three forms of
goal setting, several researchers (e.g., Locke & Latham, 2006; Caplan, 2006) have distinguished
between short, medium, and long-term goals. According to Caplan (2006), an athlete achieves
long-term goals by setting smaller short-term goals that build towards an ultimate long-term

13. goal, and that the progression from short to long-term goals make up medium-term goals. In
addition to studying the effectiveness of various types of goals and goal setting, researchers have
also examined this cognitive tool under a number of other conditions.
Research on other dimensions of goal setting has yielded interesting findings in terms of
distinctions between elite versus non-elite athletes, self-set versus assigned goals, and goal
difficulty and specificity. Studies on goal setting have examined elite athletes (Mellalieu,
Hanton, & O'Brien, 2006; Swain & Jones, 1995), as well as non-elite athletes (Toros,
Bayansalduz, & Duvan, 2010; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). O’Brien, Mellalieu, & Hanton
(2009) compared the effects of goal setting in elite and non-elite boxers and found that elite
athletes demonstrated significant and consistent improvements in target behaviors, more
facilitative interpretations of anxiety symptoms, and greater self-confidence, whereas, non-elite
athletes did not show significant improvement. The vast majority of research regarding the
optimal conditions of goal setting has identified specific, difficult, self-set goals as the most
advantageous type of goals. Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981) found that 90% of studies
show that specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than all other goal types. In
addition, they also suggest that assigned goals are ineffective. Similarly, Vancouver, Thompson,
and Williams (2011) reported that although personal goals were positively related to self-efficacy
and initial performance, they were negatively related to subsequent performance. They also
found that manipulating the level of difficulty of the goals positively predicted performance,
suggesting rigorous goals are most beneficial.
The rapid increase in popularity of sport psychology has brought about a large mass of
research regarding the cognitive aspects of sport performance and preparation. Mental imagery
and goal setting are two aspects of preparation that have been thoroughly investigated in the

14. domain of sports and exercise. Both cognitive tools have been exhaustively researched and have
consistently proven to be effective methods of enhancing sports preparation, training, and
subsequent performance. Furthermore, the empirical finding of sport psychology research
regarding goal setting and imagery have contributed to novel knowledge in the general field of
psychology that can be applied in a wide variety of fields – such as school and the workplace –
in order to improve mental preparation, performance, and achievement.

15. References
Anderson, D. C., Crowell, C. R., Doman, M., & Howard, G. S. (1988). Performance posting,
goal setting, and activity-contingent praise as applied to a university hockey team.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 87.
Arvinen-Barrow, M., Weigand, D. A., Thomas, S., Hemmings, B., & Walley, M. (2007). Elite
and novice athletes' imagery use in open and closed sports. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 19(1), 93-104.
Barkoukis, V., Ntoumanis, N., & Nikitaras, N. (2007). Comparing dichotomous and
trichotomous approaches to achievement goal theory: An example using motivational
regulations as outcome variables. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 683-
702.
Burton, D. (1989). Winning isn't everything: Examining the impact of performance goals on
collegiate swimmers' cognitions and performance. Sport Psychologist, 3(2).
Caplan, M. A. G., & Adams, M. (2007). BTEC National Sport. Heinemann.
Cetinkalp, Z. K. (2012). Achievement goals and physical self-perceptions of adolescent athletes.
Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 40(3).
Darnon, C., Harackiewicz, J. M., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Quiamzade, A. (2007). Performance-
approach and performance-avoidance goals: When uncertainty makes a difference.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,33(6), 813-827.
Driediger, M., Hall, C., & Callow, N. (2006). Imagery use by injured athletes: a qualitative
analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(3), 261-272.
Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance?.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 481.

16. Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in
schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 290.
Duda, J. L. (1996). Maximizing motivation in sport and physical education among children and
adolescents: The case for greater task involvement. Quest, 48(3), 290-302.
Elko, K., & Ostrow, A. C. (1992). The effects of three mental preparation strategies on strength
performance of young and older adults. Journal of Sport Behavior.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501.
Getz, G. E., & Rainey, D. W. (2001). Flexible Short-term Goals and Basketball Shooting
Performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1).
Hall, C. R., Munroe-Chandler, K. J., Fishburne, G. J., & Hall, N. D. (2009). The sport imagery
questionnaire for children (SIQ-C). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise
Science, 13(2), 93-107.
Hamilton, R. A., Scott, D., & MacDougall, M. P. (2007). Assessing the effectiveness of self-talk
interventions on endurance performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(2),
226-239.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002).
Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term
and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance
over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 316.

17. Jagacinski, C. M., & Strickland, O. J. (2000). Task and ego orientation: The role of goal
orientations in anticipated affective reactions to achievement outcomes. Learning and
Individual Differences, 12(2), 189-208.
Johnson, J. G. (2006). Cognitive modeling of decision making in sports. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 7(6), 631-652.
Jones, L., & Stuth, G. (1997). The uses of mental imagery in athletics: An overview. Applied and
Preventive Psychology, 6(2), 101-115.
Kane, J. E. (1978). Cognitive aspects of performance. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 12(4),
201-207.
Kizildag, E. , & Tiryaki, M. (2012). Imagery use of athletes in individual and team sports that
require open and closed skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 114(3), 748-756.
Koch, A. K., & Nafziger, J. (2011). Self‐regulation through goal setting. The Scandinavian
Journal of Economics, 113(1), 212-227.
Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2012). The effects of self-talk and goal setting on
self-regulation of learning a new motor skill in physical education. International Journal
Of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10(3), 221-235.
Landers, D. M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill learning and performance:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5(1).
Lane, A., & Streeter, B. (2003). The effectiveness of goal setting as a strategy to improve
basketball shooting performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34(2), 138-
150.

18. Lerner, B. S., Ostrow, A. C., Yura, M. T., & Etzel, E. F. (1996). The effects of goal-setting and
imagery training programs on the free-throw performance of female collegiate basketball
players. Sport Psychologist, 10, 382-397.
Lerner, B. S., & Locke, E. A. (1995). The effects of goal setting, self-efficacy, competition, and
personal traits on the performance of an endurance task. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 17, 138-138.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An
asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 69-78.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 3(2), 157-189.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.
Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Knerr, C. S. (1970). Studies of the relationship between
satisfaction, goal-setting, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 5(2), 135-158.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125.
Martin, K. A., Moritz, S. E., & Hall, C. R. (1999). Imagery use in sport: a literature review and
applied model. The Sport Psychologist.

19. McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-
relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2),
381.
McPherson, K. M., Kayes, N., & Weatherall, M. (2009). A pilot study of self-regulation
informed goal setting in people with traumatic brain injury. Clinical Rehabilitation,
23(4), 296-309.
Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., & O'brien, M. (2006). The effects of goal setting on rugby
performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(2), 257-261.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what,
for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(1), 77.
Moran, A. (2009). Cognitive psychology in sport: Progress and prospects. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 10(4), 420-426.
Morris, R. L., & Kavussanu, M. (2009). The role of approach‐avoidance versus task and ego
goals in enjoyment and cognitive anxiety in youth sport. International Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 7(2), 185-202.
Mousavi, S. H., & Meshkini, A. (2011). The effect of mental imagery upon the reduction of
athletes' anxiety during sport performance. International Journal Of Academic Research
In Business & Social Sciences, 1(3).
Mulder, T. H., Hochstenbach, J. B. H., Van Heuvelen, M. J. G., & Den Otter, A. R. (2007).
Motor imagery: the relation between age and imagery capacity. Human Movement
Science, 26(2), 203-211.

20. Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Harvard University
Press.
O’Brien, M., Mellalieu, S., & Hanton, S. (2009). Goal-setting effects in elite and nonelite boxers.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(3), 293-306.
Olsson, C. J., Jonsson, B., & Nyberg, L. (2008). Internal imagery training in active high
jumpers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 133-140.
Papaioannou, A., Ballon, F., Theodorakis, Y., & Vanden Auwelle, Y. V. E. S. (2004). Combined
effect of goal setting and self-talk in performance of a soccer-shooting task 1, 2.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98(1), 89-99.
Sanders, C. W., Sadoski, M., Bramson, R., Wiprud, R., & Van Walsum, K. (2004). Comparing
the effects of physical practice and mental imagery rehearsal on learning basic surgical
skills by medical students. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 191(5),
1811-1814.
Shearer, D. A., Thomson, R., Mellalieu, S. D., & Shearer, C. R. (2007). The relationship between
imagery type and collective efficacy in elite and non elite athletes. Journal of Sports
Science & Medicine, 6(2), 180.
Silbernagel, M. S., Short, S. E., & Ross-Stewart, L. C. (2007). Athletes' use of exercise imagery
during weight training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1077-
1081.
Simões, P., Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., Silva, A., & Fernandes, H. (2012). Effects of a process-
oriented goal setting model on swimmer's performance. Journal of Human Kinetics,
32(1), 65-76.

21. Smith, S. L., & Ward, P. (2006). Behavioral interventions to improve performance in collegiate
football. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(3), 385-391.
Suinn, R. M. (1997). Mental practice in sport psychology: Where have we been, where do we
go?. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4(3), 189-207.
Swain, A., & Jones, G. (1995). Effects of goal-setting interventions on selected basketball skills:
A single-subject design. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(1), 51-63.
Taylor, J., & Wilson, G. S. (2005). Applying sport psychology: four perspectives. Human
Kinetics Publishers.
Thelwell, R. C., Greenlees, I. A., & Weston, N. J. (2006). Using psychological skills training to
develop soccer performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18(3), 254-270.
Toros, T. , Bayansalduz, M. , & Duvan, A. (2010). The effect of goal setting in sports on penalty
kicks. Beden Egitimi Ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(3), .
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing signs in the
relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(4), 605.
Vasquez, N. A., & Buehler, R. (2007). Seeing future success: Does imagery perspective
influence achievement motivation?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10),
1392-1405.
Veraksa, A., & Gorovaya, A. (2012). Imagery training efficacy among novice soccer players.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 338-342.
Waskiewicz, R. A. (2012). Achievement goal orientation and situational motivation for a low-
stakes Test of content knowledge. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(4)

22. Weinberg, R., Burton, D., Yukelson, D., & Weigand, D. (1993). Goal setting in competitive
sport: An exploratory investigation of practices of collegiate athletes. Sport
Psychologist, 7(3).
Wesch, N. N., Milne, M. I., Burke, S. M., & Hall, C. R. (2006). Self-efficacy and imagery use in
older adult exercisers. European Journal of Sport Science, 6(4), 197-203.
Wetter, O. E., Hofer, F., & Jonas, K. (2013). Crew goal setting for security control. Journal of
Transportation Security, 6(1), 43-57.
Williams, A. M., Ford, P. R., Eccles, D. W., & Ward, P. (2011). Perceptual‐cognitive expertise
in sport and its acquisition: Implications for applied cognitive psychology. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 432-442.
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal
orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting
from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29.