The influence of self-talk on challenge and threat states and performance

Highlights

• Motivational self-talk improved performance more than control self-talk.

• Self-talk did not influence challenge and threat states.

• Self-talk changed how cardiovascular reactivity was related to performance.

• Instructional (relative to control) self-talk weakened the relationship.

• Motivational (relative to control) self-talk strengthened the relationship.

Abstract

Objectives

A psychophysiological response called a challenge state has been associated with better performance than a threat state. However, to date, challenge-promoting interventions have rarely been tested. Therefore, this study investigated whether instructional and/or motivational self-talk promoted a challenge state and improved task performance.

Design

A three-group, randomised-controlled experimental design was used.

Method

Sixty-two participants (52 males, 10 females; M_age = 24 years, SD = 6) were randomly assigned to one of three self-talk groups: instructional, motivational, or control (verbalising trial number). Participants performed four dart-throwing tasks. Cognitive and cardiovascular measures of challenge and threat states were recorded before the first and final task.

Results

The motivational, but not the instructional group, improved their performance between the first and final tasks more than the control group. Self-talk had no effect on the cognitive or cardiovascular challenge and threat measures. However, evaluating the task as more of a challenge (coping resources match/exceed task demands) was related to better performance. Cardiovascular reactivity more reflective of a challenge state (higher cardiac output and/or lower total peripheral resistance reactivity) was more positively related to performance in the motivational than in the control group, and in the control than the instructional group.

Conclusions

Motivational self-talk improved performance more than control self-talk. Furthermore, motivational self-talk may have strengthened, whereas instructional self-talk may have weakened, the relationship between challenge and threat states and performance. Hence, athletes in a challenge state may benefit from motivational self-talk, whereas those in a threat state may profit from instructional self-talk.

Introduction

In elite sport, it is common to see some athletes choke, whereas others excel under pressure (Hill, Cheesbrough, Gorczynski, & Matthews, 2019). The biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (Blascovich, 2008), and the theory of challenge and threat states in athletes (Jones, Meijen, McCarthy, & Sheffield, 2009) both provide explanations for such instances of performance variability. The theories conceptualise challenge and threat (CAT) states as distinct patterns of cognitive evaluations and physiological responses in motivated performance situations. There is overlap between the proposed effects of self-talk in the Framework for the Study and Application of Self-talk within Sport (Hardy, Oliver, & Tod, 2009) and the effects of a challenge state in the aforementioned CAT theories. Thus, this study tested whether self-talk, a widely researched phenomenon in sport, influenced CAT states.

Motivated performance situations (e.g., sporting competitions, university exams, job interviews) are characterised by their potentially stressful nature, and require an active coping effort or an instrumental cognitive and/or behavioural response, to attain an important and self-relevant goal (Blascovich, 2008). In these situations, CAT states occur on a single bipolar continuum, which can be described in terms of underlying cognitive evaluations and accompanying physiological responses (Blascovich, 2008). Due to the continuous nature of CAT states, relative rather than absolute differences in CAT are often examined. Toward the challenge end of the continuum, athletes evaluate that their coping resources match or exceed situational demands. Toward the threat end, athletes evaluate that coping resources fall short of situational demands. It should be noted that these evaluations are subjective rather than objective. The biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat posits that the balance of evaluated coping resources to situational demands engenders specific physiological responses. Both CAT states require task engagement, which is marked by increases in heart rate (number of heart beats per minute) and ventricular contractility (contractile state of the left ventricle). A challenge evaluation, however, is associated with a cardiovascular reactivity pattern consisting of relatively greater cardiac output (volume of blood ejected by the left ventricle per minute) and lower total peripheral resistance (degree of systemic peripheral vascular constriction), whereas a threat evaluation is linked to a pattern composed of relatively lower cardiac output and greater total peripheral resistance (Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993).

Both the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat and the theory of challenge and threat states in athletes specify that a challenge state is related to better performance than a threat state (Blascovich, 2008; Jones et al., 2009). Although a recent meta-analysis noted that the effect may be small (Behnke & Kaczmarek, 2018), a challenge state has been associated with superior performance relative to a threat state in 74% of studies conducted across various tasks and contexts (e.g., baseball/softball, golf putting, surgery; see Hase, O’Brien, Moore, & Freeman, 2018 for a review). For example, in a sample of experienced golfers, Moore, Vine, Freeman, and Wilson (2013) found that cognitive evaluations more consistent with a challenge state were related to better performance than evaluations more indicative of a threat state (Moore et al., 2013). Thus, knowing how to promote a challenge state (or counteract a threat state) could enable the optimisation of performance during pressurized competition. Related to this notion, the theory of challenge and threat states in athletes specifies that high self-efficacy, high perceived control, and an approach focus promote more favourable cognitive evaluations and a challenge state. This theory also specifies that a challenge state leads to more efficient attention, positive emotions, and emotions being perceived as more facilitative for performance (Jones et al., 2009). In contrast, low self-efficacy, low perceived control, and an avoidance focus promote less favourable cognitive evaluations and a threat state. Finally, according to this theory, a threat state results in less efficient attention (i.e., a focus on task-irrelevant stimuli), negative emotions, and emotions being perceived as unhelpful for performance (Jones et al., 2009).

Previous laboratory-based research has successfully manipulated CAT states either directly with scripts influencing evaluations of situational demands and/or personal coping resources (e.g., verbal instructions, Moore, Vine, Wilson, & Freeman, 2012; audio instructions, Turner, Jones, Sheffield, & Barker, 2014), or indirectly via psychological interventions (e.g., arousal reappraisal, Moore, Vine, Wilson, & Freeman, 2015; quiet eye training, Moore et al., 2013; imagery, Williams & Cumming, 2012). Despite some promising findings demonstrating the successful manipulation of CAT states and performance (e.g., study 2, Feinberg & Aiello, 2010; Moore et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2015), other evidence has been more equivocal. Indeed, in one study, the manipulation only had a marginally significant effect on CAT states, and the threat group outperformed the challenge group (i.e., study 1, Feinberg & Aiello, 2010). Meanwhile, in the two other studies, the manipulation check confirmed a successful manipulation of underlying demand and resource evaluations (study 4, Feinberg & Aiello, 2010; Williams & Cumming, 2012), but there were no effects on task performance. Following these mixed findings, it is important to examine if other psychological interventions can lead to a challenge state and improved performance. One possible intervention is self-talk.

Self-talk is often used in sport to direct attention, create more positive interpretations of anxiety, and optimise performance (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Galanis, & Theodorakis, 2011; Wadey & Hanton, 2008). Self-talk includes spontaneously occurring automatic thoughts and verbalisations, and deliberate and strategic statements addressed to oneself (Hardy et al., 2009). Self-talk can vary in terms of content, emotional valence, and whether it is audible or silent and deliberate or automatic (Theodorakis, Weinberg, Natsis, Douma, & Kazakas, 2000; Theodorakis, Hatzigeorgiadis, & Zourbanos, 2012; Van Raalte, Vincent, & Brewer, 2016).

A recent review distinguished organic and strategic self-talk, which represent self-statements reflecting ongoing cognitive processes and cue words used for strategic purposes, respectively (Latinjak, Hatzigeorgiadis, Comoutos, & Hardy, 2019). Organic self-talk has further been divided into spontaneous and goal-directed self-talk, which represent the unintentional (automatic) and intentional responses to athletes’ emotions and thoughts. The review also distinguished strategic (comprising mechanical repetition of cue words) from reflexive self-talk (in which the use of organic self-talk is discussed in a reflexive exercise, but no self-talk is used). Beyond these distinctions, two of the most common forms of self-talk are instructional (i.e., cues that direct attention and instruct regarding technical, strategic, or kinaesthetic aspects of skill execution) and motivational (i.e., cues that maximise motivation, effort, confidence, and positive mood; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2011). Both forms of self-talk improve performance (Tod, Hardy, & Oliver, 2011), and motivational self-talk reduces cognitive anxiety and enhances self-confidence (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Mpoumaki, & Theodorakis, 2009).

Furthermore, a key self-talk theoretical model, the Framework for the Study and Application of Self-talk within Sport (Hardy et al., 2009), specifies that self-talk can exert effects on attention, motivation, affect, and behaviour in ways similar to a challenge state. Specifically, self-talk is thought to improve concentration and reduce interfering thoughts, increase self-efficacy, improve anxiety and interpretations of anxiety symptoms, and optimise movement and skill execution. However, none of the abovementioned theories specify CAT states as a potential mechanism in the relationship between self-talk and performance.

As theoretical models and empirical research in the CAT and the self-talk literature propose consistent effects of a challenge state and effective self-talk (i.e., improved performance, attention, self-efficacy, and more facilitative interpretations of emotions), the present study aimed to examine the effect of three different strategic self-talk interventions on CAT states; specifically comparing instructional, motivational, and control self-talk cues. We hypothesised that in anticipation of a post-training dart-throwing task, participants in the instructional and motivational self-talk groups would report cognitive evaluations (i.e., coping resources match/exceed task demands), and exhibit cardiovascular responses (i.e., relatively higher cardiac output and/or lower total peripheral resistance reactivity), more reflective of a challenge state than those in the control self-talk group (verbalising the trial number as a neutral self-talk cue; H1). Furthermore, we hypothesised that participants in the instructional and motivational self-talk groups would perform a post-training dart-throwing task better than those in a control self-talk group (relative to pre-training performance; H2). Finally, we hypothesised that cognitive evaluations (i.e., coping resources match/exceed task demands), and cardiovascular responses (i.e., relatively higher cardiac output and/or lower total peripheral resistance reactivity), more consistent with a challenge (versus a threat) state would be related to better task performance (H3).