‘Psyching-Up’ and Muscular Force Production

‘Psyching-Up’ and Muscular Force ProductionDavid Tod,1 Fiona Iredale2 and Nicholas Gill2

1 Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia2 Waikato Institute of Technology, Hamilton, New Zealand

Contents Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471. Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1.1 Supporting Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481.2 Non-Supporting Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491.3 Conclusions Regarding Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2. Muscular Endurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512.1 Supporting Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512.2 Non-Supporting Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522.3 Conclusions Regarding Muscular Endurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

3. Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524. Psych-Up Interval, Age and Competitive History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535. Reasons Why Psyching-Up Might Enhance Muscular Force Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546. Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567. Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Abstract Psyching-up refers to self-directed cognitive strategies used immediately priorto or during skill execution that are designed to enhance performance. This reviewfocuses on research that has investigated the effect of psyching-up on force pro-duction; specifically, strength, muscular endurance and power. Although firmconclusions are not possible, the research tentatively suggests that psyching-upmay enhance performance during dynamic tasks requiring strength and/or mus-cular endurance. However, more research is required. Power has received scantempirical attention and there are not enough data to support any conclusions.Preparatory arousal appears to be the most effective strategy although other strat-egies like imagery, self-talk and attentional focus also have empirical support.The range of tasks that have been used to measure force production have beenlimited to movements such as handgrip, leg extension, bench press, sit-ups, press-ups, pull-ups, and the standing broad jump. Additionally, most studies have usedundergraduate and/or untrained samples. Only a very small number of studieshave examined well-trained individuals. Currently, no explanation for whypsyching-up may influence force production has any substantive support. Al-though a small number of studies have examined moderating and mediating vari-ables, few consistent patterns have emerged and knowledge in this area issomewhat restricted. Given the importance that many athletes place on their

REVIEW ARTICLE Sports Med 2003; 33 (1): 47-580112-1642/03/0001-0047/$30.00/0

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.

mental preparation just prior to performance this is an area that warrants furtherexamination. Research needs to examine a range of complex sport-specific tasksand use well-trained samples. Additionally, research needs to further examinewhy psyching-up may enhance force production.

Many strength athletes undertake some form of‘psyching-up’ prior to performance, both in train-ing and competition.[1] Typical strategies includevisualisation, cue words, attentional focus and pre-paratory arousal.[1] These strategies are designedto increase physical and mental activation, narrowattention and build self-confidence.[2] Athletes be-lieve the result will be enhanced performance. Thisarticle will review research that has examined theeffect of psyching-up on the generation of muscu-lar force and will evaluate possible reasons whypsyching-up may influence force production.

For this review, psyching-up refers to self-directed cognitive strategies used immediatelyprior to or during skill execution that are designedto enhance physical performance.[2,3] Studies thatinvestigated other types of interventions on forceproduction such as music, external verbal encour-agement and instructor-led guided imagery werenot considered for this review. Initially, Sport Dis-cus was used to identify relevant published litera-ture. Keywords used during this search includedstrength, muscular endurance, power, psyching-up, psych-up, imagery, self-talk, arousal and men-tal preparation. The reference list of each articleyielded by the Sport Discus search was then exam-ined to identify additional references.

The major dependent variables measured in theresearch included strength, muscular enduranceand power. For this article, the literature will bereviewed under these headings. Strength has beendefined generally as the maximal force generatedby a muscle or group of muscles at a specifiedspeed.[4,5] The strength section includes researchthat measured force production during a low num-ber of repetitions such as a one-repetition maxi-mum (RM). The muscular endurance section in-cludes research that measured a high number ofrepetitions performed at a specified resistancelevel during a particular time period, such as the

number of sit-ups performed during 1 minute.[4]

Finally, the power section includes research thatmeasured explosive strength, and power has beendefined generally as the rate at which work can beperformed under a given set of circumstances.[4,6]

1. Strength

1.1 Supporting Research

Shelton and Mahoney[1] published the firststudy that examined the effect of psyching-up onstrength. Competitive weightlifters had their gripstrength measured via a handgrip dynamometeracross three trials. No intervention was used beforethe first trial but prior to the second trial partici-pants engaged in a distraction task where theycounted backwards in multiples of seven from1000 (e.g. 1000, 993, . . .). Before the final trialparticipants were randomly allocated to one of twogroups, either the experimental group or the con-trol group. The experimental group were instructedto psych-up immediately prior to the handgrip taskusing their preferred mental preparation strategy,whilst the control group engaged in the distractiontask for a second time. Results clearly showed thatthe experimental group significantly improvedtheir performance while the control group had anon-significant decrease in performance. Sincethis initial investigation, several studies have alsoobserved a positive effect of psyching-up onstrength.[7-15] The average difference between theamount of force produced during the psych-up con-ditions and the force produced during the controlconditions has been 12% with a range of –1 to 35%.These figures represent the difference in force pro-duced between intervention and control condi-tions, expressed as a percentage of the control con-dition. This crude estimate was based on the resultsof seven studies.[1,8-11,14,15] Unfortunately, severalstudies did not report descriptive statistics so it is

48 Tod et al.

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2003; 33 (1)

difficult to accurately assess the magnitude of thepsych-up effect.

In addition to Shelton and Mahoney’s[1] study,several other investigations have allowed par-ticipants to use their preferred psych-up strat-egy.[11-13,15] The most common techniques partic-ipants have used include focused attention,preparatory arousal, imagery and self-efficacy state-ments. Additionally, many individuals have used acombination of techniques.[1,11,12] The investigationsthat allowed individuals to select their own psych-up strategy have not directly compared the efficacyof the different methods. However, the majority ofthe research has compared the effectiveness of dif-ferent psych-up strategies by prescribing the typeof technique to be used.[7-10,13,14,16] Preparatoryarousal, imagery, focused attention, self-efficacystatements, self-talk and relaxation have been thestrategies typically prescribed. Results suggestthat preparatory arousal is the most effective tech-nique.[8,10,13,14] Additionally, evidence suggeststhat relaxation techniques lead to reduced strengthperformance.[16-18]1

The supporting research has used both within-and between-individual repeated measure designsand has also compared psych-up strategies withdifferent control conditions.[2] The most commonhas been the distraction control where participantshave engaged in some non-related cognitive task,such as counting backwards or reading aloud.Three other control conditions used include non-intervention, quiet rest and a placebo conditionwhere participants were given the expectation thattheir performance would improve but they didnot psych-up. Of the supporting research, threestudies[1,10,15] have used trained or competitiveweightlifters. Six studies,[8,9,11,12,14] including tworeported in one paper,[8] used samples drawn from

undergraduate populations but did not specifythe participants’ training history. Two other stud-ies[7,13] used either participants undertaking weighttraining classes or sports participants but again didnot detail the training history of the individuals.Eight studies,[7-9,11-13,15] including two reported inone paper,[8] used both males and females. Finally,three studies[1,10,14] used males only. This break-down of participants will be discussed at lengthwhen comparing the supporting research with thenon-supporting research in the following subsec-tion.

The type of task employed to measure strengthhas been largely limited to leg extension, handgripand bench press exercise. The principle of speci-ficity suggests that strength is defined in part bythe nature of the task.[2,5,19] Therefore, the findingsfrom the existing research cannot be assumed to beapplicable to tasks other than those investigated.Indeed, future research could examine the effect ofpsyching-up on a variety of other strength tasks,particularly those that are more complex or moreapplied to actual sporting performance. For exam-ple, squatting, javelin throwing and scrummagingin rugby union.

1.2 Non-Supporting Research

Despite the common finding that strength is im-proved via psyching-up, a number of studies havefound no effect.[2,16,18] For example, Brody et al.[2]

examined force production and electromyogram(EMG) activity in 15 well-trained males during anisometric biceps contraction with a 90° angle at theelbow. EMG activity and maximum force produc-tion did not differ across the psych-up or two dis-traction conditions. This is the only study that hasmeasured strength with an isometric contractionand it is also the only study to specifically load thebiceps muscles. Brody et al.[2] suggested two pos-sible reasons why the results differed from the sup-porting research. First, the supporting research hasexamined dynamic strength tasks while Brody etal.[2] used an isometric contraction. During the dy-namic tasks participants may have had the freedomto vary their posture and/or movement patterns

1 The study by Pierce et al.[17] does not strictly count as anexamination of psyching-up because the interventions werenot self-directed. The arousal intervention consisted of ex-posure to a video containing aggressive football footagewhile the relaxation intervention consisted of instructor-ledprogressive muscular relaxation. However, the study doesprovide evidence that undertaking relaxation prior to skillexecution leads to reduced performance.

‘Psyching-up’ and Muscular Force Production 49


which then conferred a biomechanical advantageand/or facilitated the recruitment of additionalmuscle groups.[2] Participants would not have hadthe same freedom to vary their posture and move-ment pattern in the isometric contraction examinedby Brody et al.[2] This suggests that psyching-upmay enhance performance on dynamic strengthtasks but does not lead to increased force produc-tion in a single muscle or muscle group. An indi-vidual may be able to lift more weight becausemore muscle groups are being involved in themovement, yet the individual muscles may not beproducing more force. However, more research isrequired to test this hypothesis. Second, well-trained individuals were used in the study by Brodyet al.[2] while the majority of the supporting re-search has drawn from undergraduate populationswith no clear description of the participants’ train-ing history, suggesting that the samples wereuntrained. Trained individuals are likely to havewell-developed movement patterns and neuralpathways that may not be readily modifiable bypsyching-up, while untrained individuals mayhave less developed movement patterns and neuralpathways that are modifiable.[2] Additionally, theperformance of untrained participants is likely tobe characterised by greater variation comparedwith trained participants.[2] Consequently, un-trained participants may receive more benefit frompsyching-up and therefore, the findings from thesupporting research may not be generalisable totrained populations.[2]

However, evidence is mixed regarding the rela-tionship between isometric and dynamic strengthtests.[20,21] While the individuals in the study byBrody et al.[2] were highly trained in a dynamicbiceps curl movement it cannot be assumed thatthey were highly trained in an isometric bicepscontraction. Therefore, the participants may nothave had well-developed neural pathways for anisometric contraction. Additionally, three studiesfrom the supporting research have used trainedvolunteers.[1,10,15] Brody et al.[2] was unable to de-termine the reasons for differences in their findingscompared with the supporting research. However,

Brody et al.[2] highlight the important need for fu-ture research to consider the training history of theparticipants and various types of strength, such asisometric and dynamic strength.

Another example of a study that found psych-ing-up had no effect on strength was that by Ten-enbaum et al.[18] Positive self-talk (PS) and relax-ation-visualisation autogenic training (RVA) werecompared with a non-intervention control group.This study measured both peak force and peakpower during an isokinetic bilateral knee extensionexercise. Novices with no prior resistance trainingexperience were used and the two interventiongroups were given four sessions of instruction inthe use of the psychological technique they hadbeen allocated. While all three groups improvedtheir peak force production pre- to post-test, thecontrol group had a significantly greater improve-ment than both the PS and RVA groups. Addition-ally, the PS group had a greater improvement thanthe RVA group. The peak power results are dis-cussed under the power heading.

The results regarding the reduced performancefrom the RVA group is supported by other researchand suggests that relaxation is not an effectivemeans of psyching-up.[16,17] However, the lack ofsuperior strength over the control group by the PSgroup differs from other research that has used anisokinetic knee extension exercise.[8,9,12,14] This in-cludes a study that found PS was associated withsuperior strength.[9] The major difference betweenTenenbaum et al.[18] and other research was thefour sessions of instruction that were given to theintervention groups. Tenenbaum and colleagues[18]

suggested that performance might have been hin-dered because the novice participants had to dividetheir attention across both the strength task and thepsych-up strategy as a result of the four instructionsessions. Indeed, research does suggest that if theattentional demands of a task exceed the atten-tional capacity of the athlete then performance maysuffer.[22]

Similar results were observed in a study thatcompared fear-, anger- and relaxation-based imag-ery on handgrip strength.[16] Non-intervention pre-

50 Tod et al.


test and post-test trials were also included. The re-sults revealed that relaxation-based imagery led tolower strength scores than all the other conditions,and the pre-test strength scores were higher thanthe scores during fear-based imagery and the post-test trials. All other comparisons were nonsignifi-cant. When combined with other research, theseresults suggest that relaxation-based strategieslead to reduced performance.[17,18]

The finding that fear- and anger-based imagerywere not associated with superior strength contra-dicts other research that has found imagery to im-prove performance when used as a psych-up strat-egy.[1,7,8] A difference between the study byMurphy et al.[16] and other research was the focusof the imagery technique. During the Murphy etal.[16] study, participants were asked to imagine ascene in which they felt angry, afraid or relaxed.The images created by the participants may nothave been related to the handgrip task. Previousresearch has generally used images that are relatedto the strength task being performed.[1,7,8] This dif-ference in results suggests that psyching-up maylead to increased strength if the strategy helps theathlete to focus on the task. However, fatigue is apossible alternative explanation for the results ob-served in Murphy et al.[16] There was a significantdecrease in performance between the pre- andpost-test trials. It is not clear how much rest wasallowed between trials. Consequently, participantsmay have experienced fatigue and this may haveovershadowed any psych-up effect.

1.3 Conclusions Regarding Strength

Although the majority of the research generallysupports the hypothesis that psyching-up enhancesstrength, firm conclusions are not possible becausea number of issues require further research. Re-search needs to explore the relationship psyching-up has with various types of strength such as iso-metric, isokinetic and isotonic contractions. Thisresearch also needs to include a larger variety ofmovements including sport-specific compoundstrength tasks. Additionally, more studies examin-ing well-trained samples are required to assess

whether these types of individuals might benefitfrom psyching-up. Finally, future investigationscould examine the interactions between psycho-logical instruction, strategy familiarity, traininghistory, attention and strategies that are specificand non-specific to the task.

2. Muscular Endurance

2.1 Supporting Research

While the majority of research has focusedon strength there has been some attention, al-beit limited, to both muscular endurance andpower.[9,18,23-25] While the research that has exam-ined muscular endurance has indicated that perfor-mance improves with psyching-up, there is consid-erable need for more research.[9,23-25]

The average difference in performance betweenpsych-up interventions and control conditions is11% with a range of –1 to 29%.[9,23-25] These fig-ures were calculated as previously described forstrength from four studies.[9,23-25] As an exampleof the research that has examined muscular endur-ance, Caudill and Weinberg[23] compared the ef-fects of various psych-up strategies and variouspsych-up intervals on the number of repetitionsperformed to failure during the bench press. Par-ticipants consisted of 30 male and 30 female stu-dents enrolled in a weight training class. Prepara-tory arousal, focused attention, imagery and quietrest were the psych-up strategies investigated. Par-ticipants were required to psych-up for 15, 30 or60 seconds prior to the bench press task in a two(gender) by three (psych-up interval) by four(psych-up technique) repeated measures design.All three psych-up strategies led to greater perfor-mance than the quiet rest condition. However,there were no differences among the three psych-up interventions or across the three time periods,neither were there any interactions.

The supporting research has used both within-and between-individual repeated measure designs.The control conditions have consisted of non-intervention, quiet rest and cognitive distraction.However, all samples were drawn from student



populations and there were no indications that par-ticipants were experienced or well-trained. Thetasks used by the supporting research to measuremuscular endurance have consisted of sit-ups,press-ups, pull-ups, and the bench press.[23-25] Theresearch has typically compared the effectivenessof various psych-up interventions by directing vol-unteers to use a particular method, although Wein-berg et al.[25] also allowed volunteers to select theirown strategy as one of the psych-up conditions thatthey investigated. The typical strategies that havebeen compared include imagery, self-talk, prepa-ratory arousal and attentional focus. There is noevidence supporting any strategy as being more ef-fective than another, although one study did sug-gest that task-relevant imagery led to superior mus-cular endurance over task-irrelevant imagery.[24]

2.2 Non-Supporting Research

One study has produced results that did not sup-port the efficacy of psyching-up on muscular en-durance.[9] Instructional and motivational self-talkwere compared with a non-intervention controlgroup using the number of sit-ups performed in 3minutes as the measure of muscular endurance.Participants began with a baseline trial and thenwere allocated to the instructional self-talk, moti-vational self-talk or non-intervention controlgroup. The second trial took place 5 days after thebaseline trial with the final trial occurring after asecond 5-day period. All three groups improvedtheir performance across the trials with no signifi-cant differences separating the groups. It is possi-ble that a training effect may have occurred andthis may have overshadowed any psych-up effect.Alternatively, during a post-experimental manipu-lation check, 53.4% of the control group reportedthat they had been thinking about something spe-cific when they were performing, although the con-tent of their thoughts were not described. Theseparticipants may have been thinking about the testand could have spontaneously been using self-talk.

2.3 Conclusions Regarding Muscular Endurance

The research to date suggests that the use oftask-relevant psych-up strategies may lead to im-proved muscular endurance. However, given thesmall number of studies conducted, more researchis required to substantiate this conclusion. A lim-ited range of tasks has been examined and futureresearch could investigate the impact of psyching-up on applied sporting movements that requiremuscular endurance, such as groundwork in judo,mauling in rugby union, and gymnastics. Addition-ally, as undergraduate populations have been usedas volunteers it is uncertain whether the results areapplicable to those that are well-trained. Hence,future investigations need to examine participantswith an extensive training history.

3. Power

Very little research has examined the effect ofpsyching-up on muscular power and the resultsfrom these few studies have been conflicting.[18,25]

For example, Tenenbaum et al.[18] compared a non-intervention control group with a positive self-talkgroup and a relaxation-visualisation autogenic-trained group. A pre-post test design was used withthe task being a bilateral knee extension movementperformed at 180°/sec. The control group had ahigher peak power output during the post-test thanthe two intervention groups. However, all threegroups improved by 9% from pre- to post-test. Asmentioned in the strength section, this investiga-tion also examined peak force, used novices andgave the intervention groups four sessions of train-ing in the relevant psych-up strategy. It was sug-gested that performance might have been hinderedbecause the novice participants had to divide theirattention between both the task and the psych-upstrategy as a result of the four sessions of instruc-tion.[18] Indeed, as mentioned in section 1.2, if theattentional demands of a task exceed the atten-tional capacity of the athlete then performance maysuffer.[22]

52 Tod et al.


The other study to examine power used thestanding broad jump as its performance mea-sure.[25] Participants consisted of 24 male studentsenrolled in a weight training class. The psych-upstrategies used in this study were imagery, prepa-ratory arousal, ‘free choice’, and a distraction con-trol condition. While there were no differencesamong the psychological interventions, all threeyielded significantly greater performances thanthe control condition by 2%.

Clearly, there are not enough data to guide prac-tice with respect to muscular power until more re-search is completed. This may be a particularlyimportant area of research. For many sports thedevelopment of strength alone is insufficient to en-hance performance; often athletes need to producestrength in a short time period.[6] Hence, powermay be more important to athletic performance inmany sports than absolute strength.[6] Although re-lated, researchers need to be aware of the differ-ences between strength and power.[6] They alsoneed to establish which type of force production isto be measured and consider its application tosporting performance.[6]

4. Psych-Up Interval, Age andCompetitive History

Two studies have examined the effect of vary-ing the length of the psych-up interval on perfor-mance and both found no differences among thetime periods.[12,23] The first has already been dis-cussed in detail under the muscular enduranceheading and the performance measure was thenumber of bench press repetitions performed tofailure.[23] While the psych-up strategies led to agreater number of repetitions, the various time in-tervals of 15, 30 and 60 seconds did not influencemuscular endurance. Four time intervals were usedin a similar study that measured isokinetic legstrength.[12] These were: (i) a 15 second interval;(ii) a 30 second interval; (iii) a self-initiated inter-val where participants took as long as they be-lieved was necessary; and (iv) a ‘yoked’ conditionwhere participants were paired with individuals inthe self-initiated condition. That is, participants

were asked to psych-up for the same amount oftime as their ‘partner’ had taken during the self-initiated condition. Using a non-intervention con-trol condition and a ‘free-choice’ psych-up strategy,results suggested that there were no differencesbetween the various time intervals. However, re-sults also suggested that psyching-up led to greaterstrength. Taken together these two studies pro-vide evidence that the time taken to mentally pre-pare may not influence the relationship betweenpsyching-up and force production.[12,23]

The interaction between age and psyching-upwas the focus of a study that measured handgripstrength.[7] Preparatory arousal, imagery and dis-traction were the intervention conditions. Sixty in-dividuals were divided into four groups; oldermales (mean age [M] = 59.93 years, SD = 2.57),older females (M = 60.33 years, SD = 2.31), youn-ger males (M = 22.14 years, SD = 2.81) and youn-ger females (M = 20.96 years, SD = 2.56). Therewere no interactions between psyching-up and agebut imagery produced greater strength scores thanthe distraction condition and younger participantswere stronger than older participants. However,older participants reported higher levels of somaticanxiety. They also felt they were able to countbackwards and perform imagery more than theyounger participants were.

On a related theme, another study stratified in-dividuals according to their level of competitiveexperience.[13] Individuals who had not playedcompetitive sport or who had just participated inrecreational exercise were classed as having lowlevels of experience. Those who had participatedin high school or recreational sport and who per-haps had played some college intramural or recre-ational sport were classified as having moderatelevels. Those participants who were deemed to behighly experienced included collegiate or semi-professional athletes and/or those with a signifi-cant competitive history in a number of sports athigh school. The effects of preparatory arousal,self-selected psych-up, attention-placebo and cog-nitive distraction on handgrip strength were inves-tigated. The use of prescribed preparatory arousal



led to greater performance in moderately experi-enced participants only, while the use of self-generated strategies led to higher strength scoresin participants with high levels of competitivesporting experience. Whelan et al.[13] suggestedthat mental preparation strategies could be learnedthrough experience or could be quickly trained af-ter moderate amounts of competitive sporting ex-perience. This second suggestion may appear tocontradict Tenenbaum et al.[18] whose findings in-dicated that training individuals led to a decreasein performance. However, these two studies exam-ined different populations. The participants in theTenenbaum et al.[18] study were novices in resis-tance training, whereas the participants in Whelanet al.’s[13] study who improved their strength scoresduring prescribed preparatory arousal had at leasta moderate amount of experience in competitivesport.

The above studies have begun to examine the ef-fect of moderating variables like age, competitivehistory and intervention interval on the mentalpreparation-force production relationship.[7,12,13,23]

However, the paucity of data means that it is diffi-cult to draw any conclusions. Instead, it is clear thatresearch needs to further examine the possible in-teractions between psyching-up and other vari-ables on force production. An understanding ofwhy psyching-up may affect force productionwould help guide the selection of appropriate mod-erating and mediating variables for this research.This article will now evaluate possible explana-tions that have been given for the mental prepara-tion-force production relationship.

5. Reasons Why Psyching-Up MightEnhance Muscular Force Production

Changes in psychological states have been pos-tulated as the major reason why psych-up strate-gies may enhance force production.[3,26] Specific-ally, increased force production may result fromincreased arousal, enhanced self-efficacy and fo-cused attention.[2,3,26] Indeed, research has at-tempted to examine whether improvements inforce production are associated with changes in

such variables.[2,7,11-14,16,23-25] However, an incon-sistent pattern of results has emerged and changesin psychological states have largely not been in theexpected directions. For example, Lee[24] foundthat task-relevant imagery led to a greater numberof sit-ups performed in 30 seconds compared withtask-irrelevant imagery. However, higher vigourand lower fatigue were associated with irrelevantimagery rather than relevant imagery as would beexpected. Additionally, while Brody et al.[2] foundno differences in performance on an isometric bi-ceps flexion exercise, participants perceived thatthey had higher levels of arousal and attentionwhen they psyched-up. In contrast, Weinberg etal.[11] observed that higher perceived effort was as-sociated with leg strength during psyching-up.Taken together, the results from these investiga-tions do not support the conjecture that psyching-up enhances force production via changes in psy-chological states.[3,13,26]

However, a major limitation with this researchcould be the heavy reliance on data that is self-reported.[2,7,11,12,14,16,23-25] Participants may not becapable of accurately reporting their higher ordercognitive processes.[23,26,27] Indeed, it is possiblethat the questionnaire data collected was influ-enced by participants’ beliefs about the extent towhich arousal, attention and self-efficacy shouldhave changed with psyching-up rather than solelyreflecting relevant introspection.[23,27] It would beadvantageous for research to examine psychologi-cal states in a variety of ways rather than solelyrelying on questionnaire data. However, for psy-chological variables like self-efficacy and atten-tion, self-report data will most likely continue tobe collected because other methods are not readilyavailable.[3]

Some research has attempted to assess arousalby measuring physiological variables.[13,17,28]

However, results have still been equivocal.Whelan et al.[13] found that heart rate was not re-lated to increased strength or psyching up. Relatedresearch that has used instructor-led guided inter-ventions rather than self-directed strategies, hasalso provided mixed results. Pierce et al.[17] found

54 Tod et al.


that preparatory arousal led to higher strength per-formance compared with relaxation and control fora 1RM bench press while relaxation led to reducedstrength performance for a 3RM bench press. Con-sistent with these performance measures, heart ratewas lower during relaxation and systolic bloodpressure was higher during preparatory arousal. Incontrast, Perkins et al.[28] found that heart rate andautonomic nervous system activity did not mediatethe relationship between handgrip strength andguided imagery.

Although more research is needed, the measure-ment of physiological variables has not helped ex-plain if a change in arousal is the reason whypsyching-up may lead to greater force production.While this line of inquiry warrants further atten-tion, valid measures need to be established.Arousal is a multidimensional construct that con-sists of various psychological and physiologicalfactors.[3,26] Consequently, multiple measures maybe needed to accurately assess if arousal is a mech-anism underlying the possible psych-up and forceproduction relationship.[3,26] As an illustration,heart rate may not be a suitable sole measure ofincreased arousal when examining force produc-tion. While an increase in sympathetic nervoussystem activity increases heart rate, heart rate canalso increase from reduced parasympathetic nerveactivity.[28,29]

From a neurophysiological perspective, Brodyet al.[2] suggested that psyching-up might lead tochanges in motor unit recruitment within the mus-cle. Specifically, it was hypothesised that therecould be an increase in motor unit activation in theagonist muscle and a decrease in motor unit acti-vation in the antagonist muscle. However, therewere no differences in EMG activity in either thebiceps or triceps muscles across various psych-upconditions during an isometric contraction per-formed by experienced male weight-trainers. Aspreviously mentioned, this investigation alsofound that psyching-up had no effect on maximalforce production. The use of a constrained isomet-ric contraction was the major difference betweenthe study by Brody et al.[2] and other research,

which has used dynamic strength tasks. During dy-namic strength tasks, individuals may have thefreedom to vary their posture and/or movementpattern to secure a biomechanical advantageand/or facilitate the recruitment of additional mus-cle groups.[2] This may not be possible during aconstrained isometric contraction. Psyching-upmay not lead to an increase in force productionwithin a single muscle or muscle group but perhapsin dynamic strength tasks psyching-up may allowindividuals to enhance their performance. How-ever, this hypothesis needs to be tested empiri-cally.

Currently, no explanation for why psyching-upmay enhance force production has any substantivesupport. This is largely due to the lack of empiricalattention. Future research needs to continue inves-tigating why psyching-up may improve force pro-duction. The existing literature suggests thatpsychological, physiological and mechanical vari-ables may all play a role. Hence the selection ofappropriate variables needs to be based on the fac-tors that influence the display of force.

The force produced during a voluntary contrac-tion of skeletal muscle is determined by a series offactors beginning with input from the higher motorcentres and terminating with the energy-dependentinteraction of actin and myosin.[30-32] These factorsmay be classified as central, peripheral and me-chanical influences.[32] Central components in-clude motor unit recruitment, synchronisation andfiring rate.[33,34] Peripheral factors include pro-cesses intrinsic to the muscle like the excitation ofthe muscle membrane, release of calcium,sarcomere length and myosin adenosine triphos-phatase activity.[33,34] Finally, mechanical factorsinclude the length of muscle, velocity of contrac-tion and the physical arrangement of muscle fi-bres.[33]

The increase in force production resulting frompsyching-up may be determined by changes in thefactors mentioned above. It is likely that psyching-up affects the CNS. The cerebral cortex is thefirst and highest level of muscular contractioncontrol.[35] Self-directed cognitive strategies or



psyching-up will likely occur in the cerebral cor-tex. Therefore, psyching-up may stimulate changesin CNS activity resulting in adjustments in motorunit recruitment, synchronisation and/or firingrate. Similarly, changes in the CNS may modifysympathetic nervous system activity, which mayresult in alterations in peripheral factors like mus-cle contractility.[36] These changes at the level ofthe muscle could occur in the primary muscles re-sponsible for the movement, the antagonist mus-cles and/or any additional muscles that could con-tribute to the movement.[2] These hypothesisedchanges could underlie the increase in force pro-duction that results from psyching-up. However,research is required to investigate these possibili-ties. To investigate such mechanisms, future re-search needs to continue to measure psychologicalstates such as attention, self-efficacy and arousal.Additional variables that could be measured in-clude the electrical activity of the muscle usingEMG, electrical brain activity using an electroen-cephalograph and muscle activation via electricalmuscle stimulation. Finally, it is possible that theinteractions amongst these variables mediate therelationship.[26] Hence future research needs to ex-amine these interactions, possibly through the useof path analysis.[26]

6. Future Research

It seems surprising that the mental preparation-force production relationship has received limitedempirical attention given the value that athletesplace on their mental preparation immediatelyprior to competition. Although the reviewed re-search has contributed much to the understandingof psyching-up on force production there is stillmuch to be learnt. This section will outline generaldirections for future research. First, future researchreports need to be complete and precise. For exam-ple, previous research has not always been clearabout what type of force production was measured.Various types of force production can be quanti-fied such as strength, endurance and power.[2,37]

Additionally, the type of task being performed caninfluence the assessment of force production.[5,19]

Future research needs to clearly specify the type offorce production being measured. A further exam-ple is the inclusion of descriptive statistics with theresults. Many investigations have only includedthe outcomes from inferential statistical tests. Theaddition of descriptive statistics is important be-cause they help readers to evaluate findings.[38] Alack of precise description makes it difficult to ap-praise or replicate a study. Brody et al.[2] is an ex-ample of a study that has been precise and completein its description.

The relationship between psyching-up and bothmuscular endurance and power needs further ex-amination. Both of these variables have receivedscarce empirical attention, particularly power. Theresults from the research that has examinedstrength cannot be assumed to generalise to mus-cular endurance or power. In many sports the de-velopment of strength is not as critical to perfor-mance as the ability to either produce force quickly(i.e. power) or to maintain force over time (i.e. en-durance).[6] Therefore, it is possible that researchinvestigating power and endurance may be moreapplicable for some sports than research that hasexamined strength.

Along a similar line, a restricted range of taskshas been examined in previous research. Thesehave included leg extension, handgrip, sit-ups,bench press, press-ups, pull-ups, and the standingbroad jump. Future research could examine alarger variety of tasks. The principle of specificitysuggests that strength is defined in part by the na-ture of the task.[2,5,19] Therefore, results from pre-vious investigations may not generalise to allmovements. Many sports require compound move-ments that involve the entire body. However, thesetypes of tasks have largely not been investigated.Research that uses sport-specific movements maybe more applicable to athletes.

The majority of the research conducted so farhas used samples drawn from undergraduateand/or untrained populations.[2] It is not clearwhether the results observed in these groups can begeneralised to well-trained populations.[2] Yet itwould seem that the group most interested in this

56 Tod et al.


research would be sports participants. Future re-search needs to investigate the effect of psyching-up in a larger variety of samples.

Sports performance often requires more thanjust strength. Many skills require other facets, suchas timing and technique. Murphy and Woolfolk[39]

found that relaxation led to increased putting per-formance in golf while preparatory arousal did not.This finding differs from the force-production lit-erature that has suggested that preparatory arousalleads to greater performance while relaxationleads to reduced performance. However, manysports require a combination of skill, timing andforce production like gymnastics, cricket andwrestling. Future research could examine the ef-fect of psyching-up on sport-specific movementsthat require high levels of both strength and skill,such as scrummaging in rugby union, pace bowl-ing in cricket, and floor exercises in gymnastics.

Future research could also further examinemoderating variables that may influence the men-tal preparation-force production relationship.Based on existing research, variables that warrantinvestigation include technique instruction, com-petitive sporting experience, mental prepara-tion experience, resistance training history, task-relevant and task-irrelevant psych-up strategies.Additionally, future research needs to further in-vestigate the mediating variables that underlie themental preparation-force production relationship.Examining mediating variables will contribute tothe understanding of why psyching-up may en-hance force production. Possible variables worthyof consideration include the electrical activity ofthe muscle or contractility, electrical brain activityand muscle stimulation. A conceptual under-standing of why force production may be enhancedvia psyching-up along with knowledge of thefactors that influence the relationship, may allowrecommendations given to athletes to be based onempirical data.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the research that has been reviewed inthis article, firm conclusions are not possible. In-

stead, it is tentatively suggested that psyching-upmay enhance performance during dynamic tasksthat require strength and/or muscular endurance.However, it is not clear whether all individualsmay benefit from psyching-up or if just untrainedindividuals benefit. While preparatory arousalseems to be the most effective strategy, a numberof others also have empirical support. These strat-egies include imagery, attentional focus and self-efficacy. However, it is likely that any techniquethat leads to appropriate activation and attentionalstates will enhance performance.[3]

Psyching-up refers to self-directed cognitivestrategies designed to enhance performance. Thisarticle has reviewed the research investigating theimpact that psyching-up has on muscular strength,endurance and power. While evidence generallysuggests that psyching-up enhances strength andmuscular endurance, more research is needed toinvestigate the applicability of these initial studiesbeyond the limited range of tasks and participantsthat have been examined. Additionally, very littleresearch has examined power and no conclusionsare possible. Finally, research needs to investigatethe possible reasons why psyching-up may be ef-fective. Given the importance that many athletesplace on mental preparation immediately prior toperformance it is clear that empirical attention inthis area is warranted.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Michael McGuigan from theUniversity of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Mr Graeme Thomasfrom the Waikato Institute of Technology and the two inde-pendent reviewers for their helpful comments. The authorsreceived funding from the Waikato Institute of Technologyto assist in the preparation of this manuscript. The authorshave no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the contentof this review.

References1. Shelton TO, Mahoney MJ. The content and effect of “psyching-

up” strategies in weight lifters. Cognit Ther Res 1978; 2: 275-842. Brody EB, Hatfield BD, Spalding TW, et al. The effect of a psych-

ing strategy on neuromuscular activation and force productionin strength-trained men. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71: 162-70

3. Hardy L, Jones G, Gould D. Understanding psychological prep-aration for sport: theory and practice of elite performers.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1996



4. Harman E, Garhammer J, Pandorf C. Administration, scoring,and interpretation of selected tests. In: Baechle TR, Earle RW,editors. Essentials of strength training and conditioning.Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2000: 287-317

5. Kraemer WJ, Fry AC. Strength training: development and eval-uation of methodology. In: Maud PJ, Foster C, editors. Phys-iological assessment of human fitness. Champaign (IL):Human Kinetics, 1995: 115-38

6. Abernethy P, Wilson G, Logan P. Strength and power assess-ment: issues, controversies and challenges. Sports Med 1995;19: 401-17

7. Elko K, Ostrow AC. The effects of three mental preparationstrategies on strength performance of young and older adults.J Sport Behav 1992; 15: 34-41

8. Gould D, Weinberg RS, Jackson A. Mental preparation strate-gies, cognitions and strength performance. J Sport Psychol1980; 2: 329-39

9. Theodorakis Y, Weinberg R, Natsis P, et al. The effects of mo-tivational versus instructional self-talk on improving motorperformance. Sport Psychol 2000; 14: 253-72

10. Tynes LL, McFatter RM. The efficacy of “psyching” strategieson a weight-lifting task. Cognit Ther Res 1987; 11: 327-36

11. Weinberg RS, Gould D, Jackson A. Cognition and motor per-formance: effect of psyching-up strategies on three motortasks. Cognit Ther Res 1980; 4: 239-45

12. Weinberg RS, Gould D, Jackson A. Relationship between theduration of the psych-up interval and strength performance. JSport Psychol 1981; 3: 166-70

13. Whelan JP, Epkins CC, Meyers AW. Arousal interventions forathletic performance: influence of mental preparation andcompetitive experience. Anxiety Res 1990; 2: 293-307

14. Wilkes RL, Summers JJ. Cognitions, mediating variables, andstrength performance. J Sport Psychol 1984; 6: 351-9

15. Tod D, Iredale F, McGuigan M, et al. Psyching-up increasesforce production in the bench press exercise [abstract]. SportsScience Conference, Annual Conference, Sport Science NewZealand; 2002 Oct 31-Nov 2; Wellington, 109

16. Murphy SM, Woolfolk RL, Budney AJ. The effects of emotiveimagery on strength performance. J Sport Exerc Psychol1988; 10: 334-45

17. Pierce EF, McGowan RW, Eastman NW, et al. Effects of pro-gressive relaxation on maximal muscle strength and power. JStrength Cond Res 1993; 7: 216-8

18. Tenenbaum G, Bar-Eli M, Hoffman JR, et al. The effects ofcognitive and somatic psyching-up techniques on isokineticleg strength performance. J Strength Cond Res 1995; 9: 3-7

19. Blazevich A, Newton R, Gill N. Reliability and validity of twoisometric squat tests. J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16: 298-304

20. Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ. Poor correlations between isometrictests and dynamic performance: relationship to muscle acti-vation. Eur J Appl Physiol 1996; 73: 353-7

21. Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ. The use of isometric tests of muscularfunction in athletic assessment. Sports Med 1996; 22: 19-37

22. Schmidt RA, Wrisberg CA. Motor learning and performance.2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2000

23. Caudill D, Weinberg RS. The effects of varying the length ofthe pysch-up interval on motor performance. J Sport Behav1983; 6: 86-91

24. Lee C. Psyching up for a muscular endurance task: effects ofimage content on performance and mood state. J Sport ExercPsychol 1990; 12: 66-73

25. Weinberg RS, Jackson A, Seaboune T. The effects of specificvs nonspecific mental preparation strategies on strength andendurance performance. J Sport Behav 1985; 8: 175-80

26. Biddle SJH. Mental preparation, mental practice and strengthtasks: a need for clarification. J Sports Sci 1985; 3: 67-74

27. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: verbalreports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 1977; 84: 231-59

28. Perkins D, Wilson GV, Kerr JH. The effects of elevated arousaland mood on maximal strength performance in athletes. JAppl Sport Psychol 2001; 13: 239-59

29. Berntson GG, Cacioppo JT, Quigley KS. Respiratory sinus ar-rhythmia: autonomic organs, physiological mechanisms, andpsychophysiological implications. Psychophysiology 1993;30: 183-96

30. Bigland-Ritichie R. EMG/force relations and fatigue of humanvoluntary contractions. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1981; 9: 75-117

31. Carroll TJ, Riek S, Carson RG. Neural adaptations to resistancetraining. Sports Med 2001; 31: 829-40

32. Green HJ. What do tests measure? In: MacDougall JD, WengerHA, Green HJ, editors. Physiological testing of the high-per-formance athlete. 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics,1991: 7-20

33. Enoka RM. Neuromechanical basis of kinesiology. Champaign(IL): Human Kinetics, 1994

34. Geiger PC, Cody MJ, Sieck GC. Force-calcium relationshipdepends on myosin heavy chain and troponin isoforms in ratdiaphragm muscle fibers. J Appl Physiol 1999; 87: 1894-900

35. Luttgens K, Hamilton N. Kinesiology: scientific basis of humanmotion. 9th ed. Boston (MA): WCB McGraw-Hill, 1997

36. Bray JJ, Cragg PA, MacKnight ADC, et al. Lecture notes onhuman physiology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Pub-lications, 1994

37. Atha J. Strengthening muscle. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1981; 9: 1-7338. Thomas JR, Nelson JK. Research methods in physical activity.

3rd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 199639. Murphy SM, Woolfolk RL. The effects of cognitive interven-

tions on competitive anxiety and performance on a fine motorskill accuracy task. Int J Sport Psychol 1987; 18: 152-66

Correspondence and offprints: David Tod, Centre for Reha-bilitation, Exercise and Sport Science, School of HumanMovement, Recreation and Performance, Victoria Univer-sity, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, VIC 8001, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

58 Tod et al.


‘Psyching-Up’ and Muscular Force Production

Documents

Transcript of ‘Psyching-Up’ and Muscular Force Production