Negative and Positive Mental Practice in Motor Skill Acquisition

The prediction that MP(+) would be a more effective learning procedure than MI'(-) was strongly supported, reinforcing the suggestion that what S imagines during MP is liable to affect differentially later performance.

Abstract

Several researchers have shown thar mental practice (MP) improves skilled motor performance (e.g., Perry, 1939; Ulich, 1967). Typically, Ss have been allowed a certain time in which to imagine themselves practicing, but it is evident that Ss use this time in different ways. For example, some of Twining's (1949) Ss worked out theories of ring tossing that later had to be discarded in the practical situation. The lack of control over Ss' mental performance has made comparison with actual practice difficult and has obscured the precise nature of such practice. Here an effort has been made to control more closely Ss' imagination and to compare the efficacy of two kinds of mental practice, positive, MP(+ ), and negative MP(-), in which Ss imagine good and bad performance respectively. It is predicted that both will result in skill acquisition but that positive practice will be more effective. The task was throwing darts at a targer of 12 concentric bands 2 cm wide from a distance of 9 ft. Ss were 18 female clinical psychology students divided into two groups, G(+) and G( ) , matched for initial level of performance. The groups did not differ significantly in the clarity with which they could imagine 15 visual, kinaesthetic, or auditory items. Clarity of each image was assessed by Ss a 5-point scale that stressed detail and vividness. The procedure consisted of five blocks of throwing 24 darts. Blocks 1, 3, and 5 were actual throwing, the score for each block being the sum of the 24 individual throws. During Blocks 2 and 4 (mental throwing) Ss were told when to imagine each throw and where they were to imagine each dart landing, always imagining themselves trying to aim for the centre. G ( + ) imagined the darts landing generally near the centre (e.g., slightly right, just above), whilst G ( ) imagined very poor rhrowing (e.g., long way above, on right edge of board). Ss in G(+) improved by an average of 28% comparing the first and last blocks ( t = 4.78, P < .001). The performance of Ss in G ( ) deteriorated by 3 % (r = 0.302, ns). G ( + ) improved significantly more than G ( ) ( t = 4.63, P < .001). The prediction that MP(+) would be a more effective learning procedure than MI'(-) was strongly supported, reinforcing the suggestion that what S imagines during MP is liable to affect differentially later performance. The surprising result was that MP(-) led to no improvement at all, with even a slight negative trend. Some improvement would have been expected if only due to the experience of actual throwing. It is thought that a replication of this study would be worthwhile, using less psychologically sophisticated Ss. It is possible that the MP(-) disrupted the plan necessary to throw darts accurately by providing false feedback, i.e., Ss aimed for the centre but the darts landed arbitrarily in different parts of the target far from the centre.