Journal of Sport Psychology in Action

ISSN: 2152-0704 (Print) 2152-0712 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uspa20

Developing imagery ability effectively: A guide to

layered stimulus response training

Jennifer Cumming, Sam J. Cooley, Nurwina Anuar, Maria-Christina Kosteli,

Mary L. Quinton, Fredrik Weibull & Sarah E. Williams

To cite this article: Jennifer Cumming, Sam J. Cooley, Nurwina Anuar, Maria-Christina Kosteli,
Mary L. Quinton, Fredrik Weibull & Sarah E. Williams (2016): Developing imagery ability
effectively: A guide to layered stimulus response training, Journal of Sport Psychology in Action,
DOI: 10.1080/21520704.2016.1205698

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2016.1205698

Published online: 21 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uspa20

Download by: [University of Arizona] Date: 26 July 2016, At: 15:13

 JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY IN ACTION
http://dx.doi.org/./..

Developing imagery ability effectively: A guide to layered

stimulus response training
Jennifer Cumminga , Sam J. Cooleya , Nurwina Anuara,b , Maria-Christina Kostelia ,
Mary L. Quintona , Fredrik Weibulla , and Sarah E. Williamsa
a
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; b Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The ability to generate and control images is an important fac- Bioinformational theory;
tor in determining the effectiveness of imagery interventions. imagery; imagery ability;
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

Despite evidence that imagery ability improves with practice, interventions

until recently, few established ways for its development existed.
This article describes the application of layered stimulus response
training (LSRT), a technique based on Lang’s bioinformational
theory. We explain LSRT, why it works, and how it can be evalu-
ated with a detailed case study. We also offer variations to LSRT for
overcoming common imagery problems experienced by clients.

“The game will throw up many different scenarios but I am as prepared in my own head for
them as I can be. If you have realistically imagined situations, you feel better prepared and
less fearful of the unexpected” – Jonny Wilkinson (2006, p. 49)

Imagery is one of the most important techniques within an athlete’s mental tool-
box, whether it is used to understand how a skill should be performed, rehearse pos-
sible outcomes of different competitive situations, or experience what it will feel like
to achieve one’s dream goals. These are just some examples of the different images
that athletes might generate as part of training or competition. When used effec-
tively, imagery can lead to improved learning and performance, either directly by
enhancing skills and strategies, or indirectly via achieving an optimal mental state
such as developing self-confidence and regulating anxiety and other emotions (for
a recent review, see Cumming & Williams, 2013).
The extent to which athletes benefit from their imagery will depend on how
well they can image. Everyone has the ability to generate and control images, but
this capacity varies from individual to individual. Although termed an ‘ability’ and
partially inherited, imagery is considered to be a collection of skills that can be
improved with practice and experience (Cumming & Williams, 2012). Athletes
who find it easier to generate clear and vivid images will gain more from using

CONTACT Jennifer Cumming [email protected] School of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation Sciences,
University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, B TT, UK.
©  Association for Applied Sport Psychology
 2 J. CUMMING ET AL.

this mental technique. Research shows that better imagery ability is associated with
superior performance and wellbeing, including greater confidence and self-efficacy,
lower cognitive anxiety, and a tendency to view stressful situations as a challenge
more than a threat (Cumming & Williams, 2012; Williams & Cumming, 2015).
By contrast, poor imagery ability will potentially hamper an athlete’s progression.
In the authors’ own experience, athletes who find it more difficult to image typically
report one of two main problems: (a) being unable to generate and maintain the
desired image; and/or (b) being unable to eliminate or control undesirable images.
Desirable images are those that facilitate cognitive, behavioral, and affective out-
comes, whereas undesirable images can debilitate these same outcomes (Short et al.,
2002). As a consequence of their poor imagery abilities, these athletes might be
less likely to use imagery or use it ineffectively, and therefore miss out on the many
benefits.
Sport psychology practitioners support athletes’ imagery use by writing guided
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

imagery scripts and providing instructions on how to image effectively (Williams,

Cooley, Newell, Weibull, & Cumming, 2013). Other aids to imaging include observ-
ing live or videotaped performances, making small gestures, receiving biofeedback,
and flotation rest (Holmes & Collins, 2001; Morris, Spittle, & Watt, 2005). In gen-
eral, however, there is a prevailing assumption that individuals simply improve their
imagery skills by doing more imagery. Like any physical skill, however, we think that
the nature of the practice is important. Surprisingly, there are few established ways
to improve an athlete’s ability to image despite its importance and wide application
within sport.
This article aims to rectify this gap by introducing a practical and effective
imagery technique based on bioinformational theory (Lang, 1977) and response
training (Lang, Kozak, Miller, Levin, & McLean, 1980) called layered stimulus
response training (LSRT; Williams, Cooley, & Cumming, 2013). Henceforth, we use
the term “client” because LSRT can also be used with exercisers, dancers, as well as
in clinical populations. We explain LSRT and its supporting evidence, how it works,
and how it can be evaluated. A case study is used to illustrate this technique before
we offer variations to LSRT for overcoming aforementioned problems experienced
by clients when engaging in imagery.

What is LSRT?
The aim of LSRT is to help individuals more easily generate and control their
imagery experience by adding different elements of the image in progressive lay-
ers. An element can be stimulus, response, or meaning information, which are
the same types of propositional information used to store images in long-term
memory (Lang, 1977, 1979). According to Lang’s bioinformational theory (1977,
1979), behavior can be modified by revising and strengthening the response
and meaning propositions linked to a stimulus situation. Stimulus information
consists of sensory details of the situation being imaged, response information
describes the person’s emotional and physiological response to the situation,
 JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY IN ACTION 3

Figure . Examples of stimulus, response, and meaning propositions.

and meaning information explains how the response to the stimulus is inter-
preted by the person (for examples, see Figure 1). Breaking down an image
into these different elements and gradually bringing them together in layers
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

results in a richer and more detailed image that is easier to generate and control.
Each layer of the process thus represents cycles of image, reflect, and develop
(Figure 2).

Image

Typically guided by a practitioner, clients begin LSRT by generating a simple image

of a targeted situation. The scenario is drawn from their own personal experience,
so that it can be readily recalled from memory (e.g., a golfer imaging himself driving
off the tee or lining up a putt). Before imaging the scene, clients are asked to verbally
describe it in as much detail as possible (e.g., where, when, what). The scene is then
imaged until it naturally comes to an end (e.g., the shot is taken) or for a specific
period, such as in the case of continuous tasks (e.g., 30 s of walking). If found to
be helpful, we encourage clients to close their eyes and then generate the image as
clearly and vividly as possible.

Figure . Process of layered stimulus response training (LSRT).

 4 J. CUMMING ET AL.

Reflect

After they indicate the image is completed, we ask clients to rate their image using
a form provided (see evaluating imagery experiences below). In subsequent reflec-
tions, the image is again rated and evaluated with comparisons made to the ini-
tial rating to help clients notice improvements. They are also guided to reflect on
the content and characteristics of their imagery use (e.g., visual perspective, agency,
angle, speed, duration; for a detailed description of imagery characteristics see Cum-
ming & Williams, 2012). The main goal of the initial reflection is to break down the
image into discrete components and identify which elements of the image were par-
ticularly easy or vivid to generate. In our experience, this is usually stimulus infor-
mation (e.g., details of the surroundings). For individuals who are less experienced
with using imagery and/or find it difficult to generate images, it is rare for them to
provide details of response and meaning propositions.
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

Development
Following the reflection, we suggest that clients either remain with the current image
(i.e., re-image) or develop it further by adding/modifying the image’s content and/or
characteristics (i.e., develop a new layer). Image development typically occurs when
a new element is added as a layer to the previously imaged scene. The client then
images the scene as clearly and as vividly as possible while focusing on the new ele-
ment. It is important to note that within applied practice, this image development
is not solely focused on content but also on how the imagery is performed. Simi-
lar to Davies (2015), we have noted that characteristics of the clients’ imagery use
will change over the layers (e.g., switch between visual perspectives). It is also not
unusual for the content to evolve into becoming more relevant to the situation (e.g.,
non-relevant but initially easy to image stimulus information is gradually replaced
with more relevant response information).

Does LSRT work?

There is evidence to support LSRT as a more effective way for improving imagery
ability than imagery rehearsal alone (Williams, Cooley, & Cumming, 2013). In a
four-day movement imagery intervention to improve golf putting performance,
Williams, Cooley, and Cumming (2013) found that individuals receiving LSRT
improved their visual and kinesthetic imagery ability of both specific (i.e., golf
putting images) and general (i.e., movement) images. Although individuals con-
ducting imagery rehearsal alone did show some improvements, the LSRT group
improved on the most indicators. Moreover, without any corresponding physical
practice, only LSRT led to improvements in actual golf putting performance.
More recently, Weibull and colleagues applied LSRT to women who wanted to
increase their physical activity levels using a guided imagery intervention (Weibull,
Cumming, Cooley, Williams, & Burns, 2014). They used a single session of LSRT to
 JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY IN ACTION 5

help participants improve their ability to image stimulus and response information
related to going for a walk. Although the aim was not to test the effectiveness of LSRT,
participants in this study reported significantly greater ease of imaging following
the exercise, demonstrating the immediate effects LSRT can have on an individual’s
imagery ability.

Why use LSRT?

Although LSRT has mostly been employed in research settings (e.g., Cumming,
Olphin, & Law, 2007; Weibull et al., 2014; Williams, Cooley, & Cumming, 2013),
it has been used in applied practice by our group and more recently by other prac-
titioners (e.g., Davies, 2015). This technique is specifically designed to benefit those
who have difficulty in imaging, but anyone can use it to improve their imagery skills.
By focusing on each component of the image, clients can sharpen the clarity and
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

richness of detail in their images. As an image becomes more vivid, it will more
likely resemble the actual experience and in turn, be more effective for enhancing
performance and wellbeing.
LSRT will also help clients to generate greater control over their imagery. It does
this by explicitly encouraging a focus on four distinct but related imagery processes:
(a) generation, (b) inspection, (c) transformation, and (d) maintenance (Kosslyn,
1995). Image generation improves because the client is better able to draw from dif-
ferent types of information in long-term memory or visual cues to form the images;
that is, a range of stimulus and response information. Through conversing with
the practitioner, attention is drawn to the inspection and transformation processes.
Reflecting on the image improves the client’s ability to scan the image and interpret
whether it depicts the intended scene (image inspection), as well as improve how to
alter details of the scene (image transformation) to make it more vivid and realis-
tic. Finally, image maintenance improves because the client is better able to direct
mental effort to retaining the information over the necessary period of time. Due to
the complexities involved, it is unlikely that imagery rehearsal alone would tap these
processes for improvement as systematically or effectively as LSRT.
By asking clients to reflect on each image, we think that LSRT also helps individ-
uals to become more aware of their imagery experience and develop metaimagery
skills (i.e., beliefs about the nature and/or regulation of an individual’s own imagery
skills; MacIntyre & Moran, 2010). These preferences can include, but are not lim-
ited to, the modalities involved (e.g., visual, kinesthetic, gustatory, tactile, and olfac-
tory), the viewpoint adopted during imagery (e.g., first-person perspective vs. third-
person perspective), the author or agent of the behaviour being imaged (e.g., the
client imaging themselves or someone else performing the behavior), and the speed
of the image (e.g., slow motion vs. real time). LSRT is a technique that also encour-
ages clients to explore alternative yet relevant senses as well as other types of physio-
logical and emotional responses not previously included in their imagery. It follows,
therefore, that exposing clients to different ways of imaging may lead to greater flex-
ibility in how they use imagery, thereby increasing the potential benefits from this
 6 J. CUMMING ET AL.

technique. According to Cumming and Williams (2013), imagery benefits will be

maximized when individuals are aware of the reasons why they are imaging and
what content will best help them to achieve their aims. By using LSRT, clients may
become better able to manipulate the content and characteristics of their imagery
use to achieve better affective, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes.
Moreover, LSRT can be used to alter the meaning of an imaged scenario, which
may help clients to manage their debilitative images. For a gymnast who keeps
replaying an image of herself falling off the beam, LSRT may help her to gain control
of the image and/or change its content by gradually adjusting the stimulus, response,
and/or meaning propositions. Similarly, Davies (2015) described using LSRT with
an equestrian rider who experienced unhelpful thoughts, feelings, and physiological
responses when imaging jumping over hard fences from a first person perspective.
LSRT initially helped the rider to generate an image of jumping over an easier fence
from a third person perspective, before eventually changing to a first-person per-
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

spective. The content evolved until the rider could mentally experience successfully
jumping over harder fences. In this case, LSRT was not just used to enhance the
client’s ability to generate a particular image, but to change the meaning of the situ-
ation by paying careful attention to the response and meaning propositions elicited
in the different layers.

Evaluating the imagery experience

The client’s progress with LSRT can be easily evaluated to provide ongoing feed-
back. A simple, but informative approach, is to ask clients to rate the vividness and
clarity of their imagery experience on a scale (1 = no image at all, only thinking of
the scenario, and 5 = a perfectly clear and vivid image). Scales can be used to rate
other dimensions of imagery ability (e.g., ease, controllability). By noting these val-
ues down, progress is easily charted. It is not unusual, however, to see scores decrease
slightly as more layers are added. We view this as an indication for clients to remain
with the current layer until they have returned to their previously higher rating. As
a more objective way of providing feedback (also see Cumming & Williams, 2012),
heart rate monitors can be used to help clients become more aware of changes to
physiological responses during their imagery. Similarly, the imaged scene can be
timed to provide feedback on image duration.

LSRT example

The client
To illustrate how LSRT can be used in applied practice, we use the example of 16-
year-old female endurance cyclist, whom we have named Ella. She had no previ-
ous experience working with a sport psychology practitioner and had been recently
dropped by the national talent development squad following a series of poor per-
formances. Ella was now seeking support to get her performance back on track
 JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY IN ACTION 7

by attending regular sessions, with each hour-long session scheduled 2–3 weeks
apart over a 6-month period. Homework was always suggested between sessions
to encourage Ella to continuously practice and implement the different techniques
discussed.
Ella identified in an initial session that her imagery skills were an area for
improvement. The imagery was also an opportunity to work towards her goal of
having a stronger focus on her own performance, and further develop her ability to
reflect. Ella found it very easy to be distracted by other cyclists and this often led to
symptoms she associated with anxiety in both training and performance situations.
In the fifth session, the practitioner introduced Ella to LSRT and this technique was
developed over two sessions with the majority of time focused on practice and reflec-
tion. Imagery was also revisited in later sessions as part of her preparation for specific
training events and races, and reminders were provided about the response propo-
sitions Ella found useful to include in her imagery. She began to use imagery more
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

regularly, for example, to preview her performance as part of her newly developed
pre-race routine.

The initial scene

To begin the exercise, Ella chose to image her weekly ride with her local cycling club,
a route she had been cycling since the age of 10 years. When she initially imaged the
scene, she rated it as 4 for vividness on a 5-point scale. She described the image
as mostly containing visual information that she experienced from a first person
perspective (e.g., moving along the road), as well as some kinesthetic sensations (e.g.,
feeling a tingle in her legs when “digging in” through difficult sections of the route).
Ella also noted that the focus of her attention was unlike her normal experience
because she was mostly focused on herself and only somewhat on the other riders.
After reimaging the scene by just focusing on the visual details of the road (stimulus
information), she felt it would become more realistic if she incorporated emotions
and additional kinesthetic sensations (response information), as well as the normal
sounds she associated with her ride (stimulus information).

Layer 1 (sounds)

For this layer and subsequent ones, the practitioner prompted Ella with the question
“How would you like to develop your image further to make it more vivid and real-
istic?” In response, Ella decided first to focus on adding relevant sounds (e.g., the
sound of her breathing, background talking, changing of gears on a hill) (stimulus
information). Although she found this stimulus information initially hard to include
as an additional layer, the sounds helped to make the scene feel more real and led her
to rate vividness again as a 4. When reflecting on the image, she identified the sound
of her breathing as the easiest to image, whereas both the background conversations
between other cyclists and the gear change were the most difficult to image sounds.
She decided to stay with this layer, and narrow the sounds to those most relevant
 8 J. CUMMING ET AL.

to her own performance (i.e., the sound of her breathing and changing gears). She
found it much easier to focus on fewer sounds when reimaging the scene and rated
it as 4.2.

Layer 2 (touch)
The practitioner pointed out the improvement in Ella’s vividness rating and asked
Ella if she would like to develop the image further. Ella decided to add the tactile
sensation of her hands gripping the handlebars of her bike (stimulus information).
In this second layer, she experienced a strong feeling of the handlebars and could
hear the sound of her breathing, however the sight of the road disappeared. Because
her vividness rating lowered to 3.7, the practitioner suggested that she remain with
this layer as homework between sessions. Between session 5 and 6, Ella was asked
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

to image the second layer several times each day.

Layer 3 (thoughts)
At the start of the next session, Ella reported that she had experienced improvements
in her image by doing the homework and found it much easier to combine details of
what she was seeing, feeling, and hearing. To develop the image further, she added
the positive thought of “be calm” (meaning information) in reply to prompts from
the practitioner as to how she would interpret this stimulus information. When the
new information was added, she again found that a detail from the previous layer
disappeared (in this case, the sound). Her vividness rating lowered to 2.5 and the
practitioner again suggested staying with this layer until it was more vivid and clear.
After a few practice attempts, Ella’s vividness rating rose to 3.9 and the next layer
was added.

Layer 4 (kinesthetic)

Ella’s fourth layer focused on the sensations of her legs burning and the hurt growing
from riding hard on the hill part of the route (response information). Her vividness
rating of 3.7 led her to reflect that although the scene was becoming more realistic,
it was harder to combine all of the details. After some further discussion, the prac-
titioner suggested that she narrow her focus to fewer details so that her attentional
style more closely matched the real life situation (see PETTLEP model; Holmes &
Collins, 2001). This led Ella to select and refine what she considered to be the most
important elements of her image: (a) the sight of the wheels in front of her, (b) the
feel of her legs burning and hurting, and (c) the thought of staying calm and posi-
tive. After reimaging the scene, Ella commented that this had been the most realistic
image so far and rated its vividness as 4.5.
 JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY IN ACTION 9

Follow-up
Ella carried on using this final image as part of her mental preparation for her road
training and began to modify it for use in track events. The exercise also helped
Ella to realize that she was capable of staying focused on her own performance, as
well as improve her ability to generate, inspect, transform, and maintain images in
her mind. By rehearsing this attentional state during her imagery, Ella felt more in
control of her thoughts, feelings, and physiological responses and her performances
soon began to improve.

Variations of LSRT
LSRT is a flexible technique that provides practitioners with a structure to follow
when introducing imagery to their clients, but can also be easily adapted. We have
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

used it for individuals, pairs (e.g., ballroom dance couples), and groups (e.g., foot-
ball teams). Having more than one individual involved provides the opportunity
for clients to learn from each other’s imagery experiences as well as often providing
deep insights into how each person experiences the same situation differently. LSRT
can also be the first step toward developing a personalized imagery script for a client
(for advice on script development, see Williams, Cooley, Newell, et al., 2013).
Drawing from the broader imagery literature, practitioners can combine LSRT
with other frameworks for enhancing imagery’s effectiveness such as Holmes and
Collins’ (2001) PETTLEP model. To maximize the effectiveness of imagery inter-
ventions, this model suggests that seven elements are considered: Physical, Environ-
ment, Task, Timing, Learning, Emotion, and Perspective (for advice on implement-
ing PETTLEP, see Wakefield & Smith, 2012). For example, asking a distance runner
to stand up while wearing his shoes (“Physical” element) helped him to better incor-
porate tactile sensations into a layer (response information). We have also used video
clips of past performances to help clients identify key details of the scene (“Envi-
ronment” element) and provide a template for imaging the initial scene (Williams,
Cumming, & Edwards, 2011).

Conclusions
Despite imagery being referred to as “the central pillar of applied sport psychology”
(Morris et al., 2005, p. 344) and research demonstrating that it is possible to improve
one’s ability to generate and control images (Cumming & Williams, 2012), until now
there has been very little advice available to practitioners for how this can be effec-
tively done. LSRT is a theory based technique with a growing evidence base to sup-
port its use with both athletes and exercisers. Although it does provide the practi-
tioner with clear principles and a structure to follow, it can be easily customized to
meet individual client needs. We take a client led approach to LSRT placing them
at the center of the LSRT process, empowering them to manage what and how they
image. The practitioner guides the client to reflect on what details might be missing
 10 J. CUMMING ET AL.

from their image or could be changed to help it be more realistic. By supporting

the client in deciding for themselves how the image can be improved, they will feel
more confident in their ability to independently continue using imagery outside of
the sessions. For imagery to become a well-developed skill within the client’s mental
toolbox, they should ideally be able to implement it within a range of situations and
customize its content to suit arising needs. By improving their ability to generate
more vivid and controllable facilitative images, promoting greater awareness of the
imagery process, and encouraging greater flexibility in how imagery is used, LSRT
will also likely lead to more effective imagery for a range of outcomes including per-
formance, confidence, and anxiety regulation.

Acknowledgment
Many thanks to those who attended Birmingham Imagery and Observation (BRIO) group work-
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

shops for your feedback on using layered stimulus response training.

References
Cumming, J., Olphin, T., & Law, L. (2007). Physiological and self-reported responses to different
motivational general imagery scripts. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 629–644.
Cumming, J., & Williams, S. E. (2012). The role of imagery in performance. In S. Murphy (Ed),
Handbook of sport and performance psychology (pp. 213–232). New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Cumming, J., & Williams, S. E. (2013). Introducing the revised applied model of deliberate
imagery use for sport, dance, exercise, and rehabilitation. Movement & Sport Sciences - Science
& Motricité, 82, 69–81. doi:10.1051/sm/2013098
Davies, J. (2015, July 1). BRIO imagery workshop: Reflections on applied practice [Blog
post]. Retrieved from https://briogroupworkshop.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/brio-imagery-
workshop-reflections-on-applied-practice/
Holmes, P. S., & Collins, D. J. (2001). The PETTLEP approach to motor imagery: A functional
equivalence model for sport psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 60–83.
doi:10.1080/10413200109339004
Kosslyn, S. M. (1995). Mental imagery. Visual cognition: An invitation to cognitive science. In D.
Osherson, & L. Gleitman (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science (pp. 267–296). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Lang, P. J. (1977). Imagery in therapy: An Information-processing analysis of fear. Behavior Ther-
apy, 8, 862–886. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(77)80157-3
Lang, P. J. (1979). A bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. Psychophysiology, 16, 495–
512. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1979.tb01511.x
Lang, P. J., Kozak, M. J., Miller, G. A., Levin, D. N., & McLean Jr., A. (1980). Emotional imagery:
Conceptual structure and pattern of somato-visceral response. Psychophysiology, 17, 179–192.
MacIntyre, T., & Moran, A. (2010). Meta-imagery processes among elite sports performers. In A.
Guillot & C. Collet (Eds), The neurophysiological foundations of mental and motor imagery.
(pp. 227–244) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Morris, T., Spittle, M., & Watt, A. P. (2005). Imagery in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Short, S. E., Bruggeman, J. M., Engel, S. G., Marback, T. L., Wang, L. J., Willadsen, A., & Short,
M. W. (2002). The effect of imagery function and imagery direction on self-efficacy and per-
formance on a golf-putting task. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 48–67.
 JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY IN ACTION 11

Wakefield, C., & Smith, D. (2012). Perfecting practice: Applying the PETTLEP model of motor
imagery. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 3, 1–11. doi:10.1080/21520704.2011.639853
Weibull, F., Cumming, J., Cooley, S. J., Williams, S. E., & Burns, V. E. (2014). Walk this way: A brief
exercise imagery intervention increases barrier self-efficacy in women. Current Psychology,
34, 477–490. doi:10.1007/s12144-014-9271-0
Wilkinson, J. (2006). My World. London, UK: Headline Book Publishing.
Williams, S. E., Cooley, S. J., & Cumming, J. (2013). Layered stimulus response training improves
motor imagery ability and movement execution. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35,
60–71.
Williams, S. E., Cooley, S. J., Newell, E., Weibull, F., & Cumming, J. (2013). Seeing the difference:
Advice for developing effective imagery scripts for athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology in
Action, 4, 109–121. doi:10.1080/21520704.2013.781560
Williams, S. E., & Cumming, J. (2015). Athlete imagery ability: A predictor of confidence and anx-
iety intensity and direction. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2015.1025809
Williams, S. E., Cumming, J., & Edwards, M. G. (2011). Does the functional equivalence between
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 15:13 26 July 2016

movement imagery, observation, and execution influence imagery ability? Investigating dif-
ferent modes of MIQ-R delivery. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 55–564.
doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599788