Give Those Men a Cigar (But No Light): A Reply to Slade, Landers, and Martin

Click name to view affiliation

Bruce Hale Penn State–Berks

Search for other papers by Bruce Hale in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Paul Holmes Manchester Metropolitan University

Search for other papers by Paul Holmes in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Dave Smith University of Liverpool

Search for other papers by Dave Smith in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Neil Fowler Manchester Metropolitan University

Search for other papers by Neil Fowler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Dave Collins University of Edinburgh

Search for other papers by Dave Collins in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Several years ago Collins and Hale (1997) commented on nonrigorous experimental designs and procedures which typified published research examining the psychophysiology of the imagery process. Conceptual, methodological, and analytical guidelines were offered to improve the quality of future research undertakings. While Slade, Landers, and Martin (2002) have followed some of these suggestions, their recent imagery study examining the “mirror hypothesis” and a theory-expectancy hypothesis with EMG recordings still appears to have some conceptual inconsistencies, methodological flaws, and analytical weaknesses that make their conclusions ambiguous. These concerns are identified, and more suggestions for improved designs are given, in another attempt to improve the quality of the scientific research undertaken in sport psychophysiology.

Dept. of Kinesiology, Penn State–Berks, Reading, PA 19610-6009

Dept of Exercise & Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan Univ., Alsager, ST7 2HL, U.K.

Dept. of PE & Sport Science, Chester College, Univ. of Liverpool, Chester, CH1 4BJ, U.K.

Dept of PE, Sport & Leisure Studies, Univ. of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ, U.K.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1541 59 6
Full Text Views 18 6 0
PDF Downloads 7 3 0