A Preliminary Investigation of the Relationship Between Athletes' Self-Talk and Coaches' Behaviour...

A Preliminary Investigation of theRelationship Between Athletes’ Self-Talk

and Coaches’ Behaviour and StatementsNikos Zourbanos, Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis

and Yannis TheodorakisDepartment of Physical Education & Sport Sciences,

University of Thessaly, Trikala, 42100, GreeceE-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to explore the relationship between

coaches’ behaviour and statements, and athletes’ self-talk. Two hundred

and forty three athletes (106 females and 137 males) representing a variety

of sports participated in the study. Participants completed the Athletes’

Positive and Negative Self-Talk Scale, which assesses frequency of positive

and negative self-talk; the Coaches’ Positive and Negative Statements

Scale, which assesses frequency of coaches’ positive and negative

statements; and the Coaching Behaviour Questionnaire, which assesses

two dimensions of coaches’ behaviour, supportiveness and negative

activation. Structural equation modeling with latent factors was used to test

the hypothesized relationships. The results showed that coaches’ positive

statements were found to mediate the relationship between coaches’

supportiveness and athletes’ positive self-talk. Similarly, negative

statements made by the coach were found to mediate the relationship

between coaches’ negative activation and athletes’ negative self-talk.

Overall, these preliminary findings suggest the importance of both

coaching behaviour and statements in relation to their athletes’ self-talk.

Key words: Coaching Behavior, Self-Talk, Social Cognitive Theories

INTRODUCTIONThoughts in the form of inner conversation deluge our mind. This inner dialogue expressesour thoughts, influences our behaviour and emotions, while sometimes it may distract usfrom performing our best [1]. Generally, inner speech is a characteristic of human kind [2].In cognitive psychology, early approaches to inner dialogue in the form of self-talk (ST) havebeen supported by rational emotive behaviour therapy and cognitive theorists, who claimedthe important role of thoughts on emotions and behaviour; and further, their impact ondepression, tolerance in pain on surgery patients, and stress reduction [1, 3].

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 2 · Number 1 · 2007 57

Reviewers: Britt Brewer (Springfield College, USA)Sean Cummings (University of Bath, UK)Brent Rushall (San Diego State University, USA)

Sports Science 2-1_final 14/3/07 9:22 am Page 57

The interest of sport psychologists in researching ST is growing. Originally researchersdiscriminated with regard to the content of ST between two broad dimensions, positive andnegative ST. Positive ST has been conceptualised as self-addressed statements in the form ofpraise and encouragement [4] and negative ST has been conceptualised as statements in theform of criticism and self-preoccupation [5]. Contemporary research has furtherdiscriminated ST with regard to the purposes it serves, as instructional or motivational.Instructional ST refers to statements aiming to direct attention and guide action throughtechnical remarks or tactical choices, whereas motivational ST refers to statements aiming toincrease confidence, regulate effort and create positive moods [6]. Hardy [7] viewed ST as“verbalizations or statements addressed to the self, multidimensional in nature, havinginterpretive elements associated with the content of statements employed, is somewhatdynamic and serving at least two functions; instructional and motivational for the athlete” (p.84). In sport settings, research has generally supported the beneficial effects of ST strategieson performance [e.g., 8, 9], although field studies have been less supportive. In addition,contemporary research has begun to investigate mechanisms and functions of ST [10, 11] inorder to extend research into new paths.

Field studies, where ST has been examined as thought content, have provided equivocalresults regarding the relationship between ST and performance. Van Raalte, Brewer, Riveraand Petitpas [12] found that junior tennis players, who lost in matches, used more externalnegative ST. Furthermore, although external positive ST was not associated with betterperformance, players in their reports indicated that positive ST helped them to performbetter. Van Raalte, Cornelius, Brewer, & Hatten [13] in a similar study with adult tennisplayers found that negative ST may not necessarily be related to defeat. In contrast,experimentally based research, where ST has been examined as a cognitive strategy, withspecific cues being used, has consistently supported the effectiveness of ST [8, 9, 14, 15].

One aspect of ST that remains largely unexplored in the sport psychology field isantecedents of ST [13]. Research on factors that influence and shape athlete’s ST is lacking,urging Conroy and Metzler [16] to suggest that determining the origins of ST should becomea priority in ST research. Recently, in another preliminary study, Zourbanos, Theodorakis, &Hatzigeorgiadis [17] investigated how athletes’ social environment can influence cognitiveprocesses, such as ST. Their results showed that social support provided by coaches, in theform of esteem support, mediated the relationship between coaches’ supportive behaviourand athletes’ positive ST. Moreover, it was found that coaches’ negative activation predicteddirectly athletes’ negative ST.

Research regarding antecedents of ST has been conducted in educational psychology. Inthe relevant literature, a considerable amount of research has investigated the influence ofsignificant others on children’s cognitions. Overall, teachers’ verbalizations have been foundto influence children’s ST [18], but also their perceptions of ability [19] and self–esteem[20]. The identified relationships between significant others’ verbalisations and students’ SThave been explained by social cognitive theorists [21, 22]. In particular, it has been suggestedthat people engage in conversations with others and use other’s behaviours [21] andcomments [22] in order to develop a clearer vision of themselves. In other words, remarksmade by others sometimes can influence our way of thinking or talking to ourselves.

Little attention has been given to the way coaches’ behaviour and statements affectathletes’ ST. The purpose of the present preliminary investigation was to examine therelationship between coaches’ behaviour and statements and athletes’ ST. In line withprevious research [17, 18, 19, 23] and based on social cognitive theory [21, 22], it wasassumed that coaches’ behaviour and statements will be related to athletes’ ST. More

58 Athletes’ Self-Talk, Coaches’ Behaviour and Statements


specifically, two mediation hypotheses were examined. First, it was hypothesized thatathletes’ positive ST would be significantly predicted by coaches’ supportiveness, throughcoaches’ positive statements. Second, it was hypothesized that athletes’ negative ST wouldbe significantly predicted by coaches’ negative activation through coaches’ negativestatements.

METHODPARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURETwo hundred and forty three athletes (106 females and 137 males) with a mean age of 20.76years (SD = 5.23) participated in the study. They were recruited from basketball (n = 100),football (n = 37), volleyball (n = 78), and from other sports (n = 28) such as track and field,swimming, archery, rowing, badminton; and had an average competitive experience of 8.30years (SD = 4.89). Athletes were actively competing at a club or national level. All theathletes were informed that completion of the questionnaire was voluntary, and wereinstructed to rate their perceptions of their current head coach. They were also assured thatconfidentiality would be maintained and encouraged to answer as honestly as possible. Theinventories were completed under the supervision of the authors, in practice sessions beforethe warm-up period.

MEASURESAthletes’ Positive and Negative Self-Talk Scale. To assess athletes’ positive and negative ST,the Athletes’ Positive and Negative Self-Talk Scale (APNSTS) was developed by the authors,partially based on the ST inventory by Burnett [23]. The items of the questionnaire originatedfrom two pilot studies conducted by the authors. In these studies, 287 athletes from a varietyof sports including basketball, tennis, football, volleyball, and track and field, completed twoopen-ended questions. The athletes were asked to write down the two most common positiveand two most common negative self-directed statements that they used during training orcompetition, following the recommendations of the thought-listing technique (for review, see[24]). Answers were coded and then categorized as positive and negative ST statements.Finally, the five most commonly used positive and five most commonly used negativestatements were selected and included in this inventory. The inventory includes statementslike, “I can do it”, “Come on”; and negative statements such as “I am a loser”, “I will lose/Wewill lose” during training or competition. Participants responded on a 7-point Likert scaleanchored by “Never” (1) and “Very often” (7).

Coaches’ Positive and Negative Statements Scale. To assess coaches’ positive andnegative statements, the authors developed the Coaches’ Positive and Negative StatementsScale (CPNSS) based on the APNSTS. This inventory includes five positive and fivenegative statements. The CPNSS was based on the idea that to test the degree to whichathletes’ ST is influenced by the way their coaches talk to them, it should be examinedwhether statements reported by athletes are those adopted from their coaches. Therefore,statements from the APNSTS were adjusted so that they refer to coaches’ statements. Forexample, the item ‘I can do it’ from the APNSTS was altered to ‘You can do it’ for theCPNSS. The instrument includes statements such as, “You can do it” and negative statementslike, “You are a loser”, Participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale anchored by “Never”(1) and “Very often” (7).

Coaching Behaviour Questionnaire. To assess athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’behaviour, the Coaching Behaviour Questionnaire (CBQ) [25] was administered.Participants were asked to rate their coaches’ behaviour during training and competition. The



CBQ consists of 22 items assessing supportiveness/emotional composure (eight items, e.g.,‘When I need it, my coach’s tone of voice is soothing and reassuring’), and negativeactivation (seven items, e.g., ‘When my coach appears uptight, I don’t play well’), whereasthe remaining seven items do not reflect coaches’ behaviours and have been included todivert athletes’ attention from the other two factors (non-scored items). Williams et al. [25]reported Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82 for negative activation, and 0.83 forsupportiveness/emotional composure. This inventory uses a Likert type scale ranging from 1to 4, with the anchors at “strongly disagree” (1) and “strongly agree” (4). The psychometricevidence on this scale reported by Williams et al. [25] supports the integrity of the scale.

DATA ANALYSISFirst, the structure of the instruments was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis(CFA). Subsequently, the hypothesized structural relationships were tested through structuralmodels with latent factors. Following the recommendations of Olmstead and Bentler [26],three indicators were selected to represent each construct. The criterion for the selection wasthe best possible conceptual representation of the construct. Items representing eachconstruct were selected from fitting confirmatory factor models.

To evaluate the fit of the models, in addition to the χ2, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI),the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI), the Goodness of FitIndex (GFI), the Standardized Root Mean square Residual (SRMR) and the Root MeanSquare Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were used. Moreover, where indications of non-normality were identified, the Sattora and Bentler’s [27] χ2, and the Robust Comparative FitIndex (Robust CFI), which have been shown to work well under non-normal distributions[28], were also considered.

RESULTSDescriptive statistics, correlations and Cronbach’s alpha for all variables are presented inTable 1. All scales had satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.69to 0.83).

QUESTIONNAIRE ASSESSMENT The instruments were assessed through CFA. The fit indices for the three models arepresented in Table 2. Regarding the CBQ the analysis of the 15-item scale (the seven non-scored items were excluded from the analysis) revealed rather poor fit. Examination of theresidual matrix indicated that the error variance of two items (one from each dimension) washighly correlated with error variance of various other items. Therefore, for the purposes ofthe present study, to proceed the analysis based on a sound structure, these particular itemswere dropped. The revised 13-item solution produced a good fit to the data. Regarding theCPNSS, preliminary statistics gave evidence of multivariate non-normality. This was due tohigh skewness and kurtosis values that characterized items from the negative statementssubscale. Considering the content of the subscale (negative coaches’ statements directed toathletes) such deviations were somewhat expected. Therefore, evaluation of the model wasmainly based on Satorra-Bentler’s [27] chi-square and the robust CFI, which revealed a goodfit. Finally, regarding the APNSTS the analysis revealed that the model was overallacceptable.




Tab

le 1

. De

scrip

tive

Sta

tistic

s, A

lph

as,

an

d C

orr

ela

tion

s o

f th

e E

xam

ine

d V

aria

ble

s.

Vari

able

MSD

alph

a1

23

45

61.

Sup

porti

vene

ss: “

Stro

ngly

disa

gree

” (1

) and

“St

rong

ly a

gree

” (4

)2.

84.4

6.7

3-

2. N

egat

ive

activ

atio

n: “

Stro

ngly

disa

gree

” (1

) and

“St

rong

ly a

gree

” (4

)2.

22.4

9.6

9.3

8**

-3.

Ath

lete

s’po

sitiv

e ST

: “Ne

ver”

(1) a

nd “

Very

ofte

n” (7

)5.

581.

18.8

3.2

8**

-.09

-4.

Ath

lete

s’ne

gativ

e ST

: “Ne

ver”

(1) a

nd “

Very

ofte

n” (7

)2.

741.

20.7

5-.0

39.1

7**

-.06

-5.

Coa

ches

’pos

itive

stat

emen

ts: “

Neve

r” (1

) and

“Ve

ry o

ften”

(7)

5.27

1.17

.82

.34*

*-.0

5.5

3**

.10

-6.

Coa

ches

’neg

ativ

e sta

tem

ents:

“Ne

ver”

(1) a

nd “

Very

ofte

n” (7

)1.

91.9

8.7

8-.4

1**

.31*

*-.1

8**

.36*

*-.1

3*-

Not

e. *

p <

0.0

5; *

* p

< 0

.01

The

mea

ns a

re d

eriv

ed f

rom

the

com

plet

e ve

rsio

ns o

f th

e in

stru

men

ts th

at w

ere

used

, exc

ept f

or C

BQ

(13

-ite

m v

ersi

on).

Tab

le 2

. Fit

Ind

ice

s fo

r th

e C

on

firm

ato

ry F

ac

tor

Mo

de

ls.

CB

Q*

CP

NSS

AP

NST

Sχ2 /

df

105.

71 /

64 =

1.6

583

.74

/ 34

= 2

.46

85.3

9 / 3

4 =

2.5

1Pr

obab

ility

< .0

1<

.01

< .0

1Sa

torr

a-B

entle

r χ2

81.6

256

.14

68.9

4Pr

obab

ility

for

Sat

orra

-Ben

tler

χ2.0

7.0

1<

.001

NN

FI.9

1.9

3.9

1C

FI.9

2.9

5.9

3R

obus

t CFI

.96

.95

.93

IFI

.92

.95

.93

GFI

.94

.94

.93

SRM

R.0

5.0

6.0

7R

MSE

A.0

5.0

7.0

7

* T

he C

BQ

fit

indi

ces

are

for

the

13-

item

ver

sion

of

the

inst

rum

ent.


STRUCTURAL MODELSubsequently, the mediation hypotheses were tested through a latent factors structural model.The indicators that were selected to represent each construct, along with their factor loadingsare presented in Table 3. According to the mediation hypotheses, the ‘supportiveness’dimension of coaching behaviour was set to predict coaches’ positive statements, which inturn was set to predict athletes’ positive ST. Respectively, the ‘negative activation’ dimensionof coaching behaviour was set to predict coaches’ negative statements, which in turn was setto predict athletes’ negative ST. The analysis revealed that the data adequately representedthe hypothesized model. The fit indices were satisfactory (Table 4), and all paths weresignificant (p < 0.05) ranging from 0.37 to 0.56. The mediation model that was tested ispresented in Figure 1, along with the standardized path coefficients and error variance. Theindirect paths from supportiveness to athletes’ positive ST (through coaches’ positivestatements) and from negative activation to athletes’ negative ST (through coaches’ negativestatements) were 0.21 and 0.20 respectively. The model explained 32% of athletes’ positiveST variance and 27% of athletes’ negative ST variance.

Table 3. Items Representing Each Construct and Their StandardizedFactor Loadings.

Items Factor Uniqueness R2

loading CBQ – SupportivenessCriticism from my coach is done in a constructive manner .63* .78 .40My coach shows support for me even when I make a mistake .65* .76 .42My coach controls his/her emotions well during games .46* .89 .21 CBQ – Negative ActivationMy coach’s sideline behavior distracts my attention during a game .52* .85 .27I get more nervous watching my coach on the sidelines than I do playing a game .49* .87 .24My coach makes me feel uptight .68* .74 .46Coaches’ Statements – PositiveYou can do it .78* .62 .61Come on / Let’s go .78* .63 .61Keep calm .64* .77 .41Coaches’ Statements – NegativeYou ’ll never make it .65* .76 .42You are a loser .88* .47 .78You will lose .76* .65 .58Athletes’ Self-Talk – PositiveI can do it .73* .68 .54Power / Steady .91* .43 .82Keep calm .59* .81 .35Athletes’ Self-Talk – NegativeNo, Why did I do that? .53* .85 .28I am a loser .79* .61 .63I/We will lose .43* .90 .19

Note: *p < 0.05


Sports Science 2-1_final 14/3/07 9:22 am 2

Table 4. Fit Indices for the Structural Path Model.

Fit indicesχ2/df 190.70 / 130Probability < .01χ2 /df 1.47Satorra-Bentler χ2 148.22Probability for Satorra-Bentler χ2 .13NNFI .94CFI .95ROBUST CFI .98IFI .95SRMR .06 RMSEA .04

DISCUSSIONThe purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between coaches’ behaviourand statements and athletes’ ST. The hypothesized relationships were examined through alatent factors, structural model. The results supported the mediation hypotheses. In relationto the first hypothesis, coaches’ supportiveness predicted coaches’ positive statements, whichin turn predicted athletes’ positive ST. The equation accounted for 32% of athletes’ positiveST variance. According to the second hypothesis, the relationship between coaches’ negativeactivation and athletes’ negative ST was explained through coaches’ negative statements.The equation accounted for the 27% of athletes’ negative ST variance. Overall, the presentstudy underlines the potential importance of coaches’ behaviour and verbal expressions inathletes’ ST, however these results should be interpreted with some caution given thepreliminary nature of the investigation.


Note. *p < 0.05

0.56*

0.38*

Supportiveness

NegativeActivation

Coaches’ PositiveStatements

Coaches’ NegativeStatements

Athletes’ PositiveSelf-Talk

Athletes’ NegativeSelf-Talk

0.37

0.52*

–0.65*

0.85

0.93 0.83

0.92

Figure 1. The Latent Factors Structural Model.


The main findings from the current study are consistent with Zourbanos et al.’s [17]previous study examining coaches’ behaviour and social support as predictors of athletes’positive and negative ST. Their results revealed that esteem support mediated the relationshipbetween coaches’ supportive behaviour and athletes’ positive ST, whereas coaches’ negativebehaviour predicted directly athletes’ negative ST. The current study goes beyond theprevious one by focusing on coaches’ specific statements and showing more clearly thatremarks made by others can be related to athletes’ ST [22]. Similar findings regarding therole of significant others have been reported in educational settings. Research has indicatedthat positive statements made by teachers were related to students’ positive ST, and in turnnegative statements by teachers were related to students’ negative ST [19].

Based on findings linking positive or negative thoughts to performance Zinsser et al. [6]reported that “inappropriate thinking or misguided thinking usually leads to negative feelingsand poor performance, just as appropriate or positive thinking leads to enabling feelings andgood performance” (p. 284). Thus, simply stated, positive ST can be considered moreappropriate to performers than negative ST. The importance of positive thinking can befurther supported through the applied sport psychology literature, where treatment programsdirected towards cognitive restructuring by changing negative to positive ST are consideredan important tool for applied sport psychologists and coaches [6]. Attempting to identifyfactors that influence athletes’ ST, personal and situational factors are the key predictingvariables [13]. Nevertheless, the purpose of the present study was to explore the degree towhich coaching behaviours and verbalizations may influence athletes’ ST. The results of thestudy revealed low, in terms of statistical size, but meaningful and important relationships.Explaining about 30% of athletes’ ST based on coaches’ behaviour and verbalizations showsthat there is a considerable amount of ST variance that can be manipulated from externalsources, and towards this direction the present study highlights the importance of coaches’manners.

Thus, from an applied perspective, considering the above positions and the results of thepresent study, it becomes apparent that coaches should be encouraged to adopt a supportivestance towards their athletes, avoid negative verbalizations in the form of criticism andirrational comments; and use encouragement, constructive comments and positive languagewhen communicating with their athletes. The literature [6] suggests that to promote athletes’ST coaches should encourage their athletes to use positive ST, reinforce their efforts, andadvice them to stay positive even when competition circumstances seem unfavourable.Coaches should help their athletes to identify the content and context of their ST. In relationto competition, coaches should advise their athletes to make lists of thoughts, situations inwhich those thoughts occurred, and the performance consequences. Coaches can videotapematches and, together with their athletes, can identify their ST and prepare plans to aim atreplacing negative thoughts with positive ones. Accordingly, the results of the present studyindicate that similar strategies should be adopted by coaches with regard to themselves. Tominimize behaviours and verbalizations that might threaten athletes’ ST, coaches should beable to control their manners and language during the course of training and competitions.Towards this direction, coaches themselves could learn to identify their positive and negativethoughts, and filter them before communicating verbally or non-verbally with the athlete.The use of video could help coaches identify manners that may negatively influence athletes’ST, and also discuss with athletes what sort of behaviours and verbalizations have a negativeimpact on them.

One limitation of the current investigation concerns the integrity of the two instrumentsdeveloped to assess coaches’ and athletes’ statements. That parallel items were used for the



CPNSS and the APNSTS, could partially explain the identified relationships betweencoaches’ and athletes’ statements. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the utilization of thespecific statements (CPNSS) was based on the idea that to test the correspondence betweenathletes’ and coaches’ statements, it should be examined whether statements reported byathletes are those adopted from their coaches, which also allowed for a direct examination ofthe hypotheses derived from social cognitive theory [21, 22]. Considering the abovelimitation, the present findings can only be described as preliminary and further research iswarranted in order to strengthen our confidence with regard to the identified relationships.Towards this direction, the use of Van Raalte et al.’s [12] Self-Talk and Gestures RatingScale, an observational instrument developed to assess athletes ST during performance, inconjunction with more elaborate self-reports measures of coaches’ behaviour and athletes’ST would provide a better understanding of the investigated relationships.

Future research should also aim to develop intervention programs that would improvecoaches’ behaviours and manners and would help coaches develop techniques in order toproduce effective interpersonal environments. Furthermore, a more global model of ST thatsimultaneously will consider individual, social, and situational variables would lead us toformulate a more comprehensive view of ST antecedents. Finally, since causal inferencescannot be drawn from the results, experimental studies are needed to identify causalrelationships among the variables under investigation.

Overall, the present findings suggest that coaches’ behaviour and statements or negativebehaviour and statements addressed towards the athletes are related to athletes’ ST. Havingshed some light on the nature of the relationship between coaches’ verbal and non-verbalbehaviour and athletes’ ST, the results of this study may facilitate a better understanding ofthe ST phenomenon and guide further research regarding antecedents of ST.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis research was supported by the State Scholarships Foundation of Greece, awarded to thefirst author. We would like to thank Irene Kagiorgi for her contributions.

REFERENCES1. Meichenbaum, D., Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach, Plenum Press, New York,

1977.

2. Fields, C., Why do We Talk to Ourselves? Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence,2002, 14, 255-272.

3. Weinrach, S.G., Ellis, A., MacLaren, C., DiGiuseppe, R., Vernon, A., Wolfe, J., Malkinson, R. and Backx,W., Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy Successes and Failures: Eight Personal Perspectives, Journal ofCounseling and Development, 2001, 79, 259-268.

4. Moran, A.P., The Psychology of Concentration in Sport Performance, Psychology Press Publishers, EastSussex, UK, 1996.

5. Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis P., Douma, E. and Kazakas, P., The Effects of Motivational VersusInstructional Self-Talk on Improving Motor Performance, The Sport Psychologist, 2000, 14, 253-272.

6. Zinsser, N., Bunker, L. and Williams, J.M., Cognitive Techniques for Improving Performance and BuildingConfidence, in: Williams, J.M., ed., Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance, 4thedn., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, 2001, 284-311.

7. Hardy, J., Speaking Clearly: A Critical Review of the Self-Talk Literature, Psychology of Sport and Exercise,2006, 7, 81-97.

8. Landin, D. and Hebert, E.P., The Influence of Self-Talk on the Performance of Skilled Female Tennis Players,Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 1999, 11, 263-282.



9. Mallett, C.J. and Hanrahan, S.J., Race Modeling: An Effective Cognitive Strategy for the 100m Sprinter? TheSport Psychologist, 1997, 11, 72-85.

10. Hardy, J., Gammage, K. and Hall, C. R., A Description of Athlete Self-Talk, The Sport Psychologist, 2001,15, 306-318.

11. Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Theodorakis, Y. and Zourbanos, N., Self-Talk in the Swimming Pool: The Effects of STon Thought Content and Performance on Water-Polo Tasks, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2004, 16,138-150.

12. Van Raalte, J.L., Brewer, B.W., Rivera, P.M. and Petitpas, A.J., The Relationship Between Observable Self-Talk and Competitive Junior Tennis Players’ Match Performance, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,1994, 16, 400-415.

13. Van Raalte, J.L., Cornelius, A.E., Brewer, B.W. and Hatton, S.J., The Antecedents and Consequences of Self-Talk in Competitive Tennis, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2000, 22, 345-356.

14. Perkos, S., Theodorakis, Y. and Chroni, S., Enhancing Performance and Skill Acquisition in NoviceBasketball Players with Instructional Self-Talk, The Sport Psychologist, 2002, 16, 368-383.

15. Theodorakis, Y., Chroni, S., Laparidis, K., Bebetsos, V. and Douma, I., Self-Talk in a Basketball ShootingTask, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2001, 92, 309-315.

16. Conroy, D.E. and Metzler, J.N., Patterns of Self-Talk Associated With Different Forms of CompetitiveAnxiety, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2004, 26, 69-89.

17. Zourbanos, N., Theodorakis, Y. and Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Coaches’ Behavior, Social Support and Athletes’Self-Talk, Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 2006, 3, 117-133.

18. Burnett, P.C., Children’s Self-Talk and Significant Others’ Positive and Negative Statements, EducationalPsychology, 1996, 16, 57-67.

19. Burnett, P.C., Children’s Self-Talk and Academic Self-Concepts, The Impact of Teachers’ Statements,Educational Psychology in Practice, 1999, 15(3), 195-200.

20. Burnett, P.C. and McCrindle, A.R., The Relationship Between Significant Others’ Positive and NegativeStatements, Self-Talk and Self-Esteem, Child Study Journal, 1999, 29(1), 39-48.

21. Mead, G.H., The Mechanism of Social Consciousness, in: Reck, A. J., ed., Selected Writings: GeorgeHerbert Mead, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1912/1964.

22. Cooley, C.H., Human Nature and the Social Order, Scribners, New York, 1902.

23. Burnett, P.C., An Investigation of the Social Learning and Symbolic Interaction Models for the Developmentof Self-Concepts and Self-Esteem, Journal of Family Studies, 1996, 2, 57-64.

24. Cacioppo, J.T., Hippel, W. and Ernst, J.M., Mapping Cognitive Structures and Processes Through VerbalContent, The Thought-Listing Technique, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1997, 65(6), 928-940.

25. Williams, J.M., Jerome, G.J., Kenow, L.J., Rogers, T., Sartain, T.A. and Darland, G., Factor Structure of theCoaching Behavior Questionnaire and its Relationship to Athlete Variables, The Sport Psychologist, 2003,17, 16-34.

26. Olmstead, R.E. and Bentler, P.M., Structural Equations Modeling: A New Friend? in: Bryant, F.B., Edwards,J., Tindale, R.S., Posavac, E.J., Heath, L., Henderson, E. and Suarez-Balcazar, Y., eds., MethodologicalIssues in Applied Social Psychology, Plenum, New York, 1992, 135-158.

27. Satorra, A. and Bentler, P.M., Scaling Corrections for Chi-Square Statistics in Covariance Structure Analysis,Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 1988, 308-313.

28. Chou, C.P. and Bentler, P.M., Estimates and Tests in Structural Equation Modeling, in: Hoyle, R. H., ed.,Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1995, 37-55.



A Preliminary Investigation of the Relationship Between Athletes' Self-Talk and Coaches' Behaviour...

Documents

Transcript of A Preliminary Investigation of the Relationship Between Athletes' Self-Talk and Coaches' Behaviour...