smart golf: preliminary evaluation of a simple, yet …€¦ · a simple, yet comprehensive,...

The Sport Psychologist, 1998,12,271-282 O 1998 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Smart Golf: Preliminary Evaluation of a Simple, Yet Comprehensive, Approach

to Improving and Scoring the Mental Game

Daniel S. Kirschenbaum, DeDe Owens, and Edmund A. OfConnor

Center for Behavioral Medicine

Smart Golf is a comprehensive approach to improving and scoring the mental game in golf. The five components are preparation, positive focusing (positive self-monitoring), plan, apply, and react. The acronym PAR summarizes the latter three components. A simple scoring system encourages golfers to self-monitor their use of the Smart Golf approach. In this preliminary evaluation of the efficacy of the approach, five experienced golfers (M years of playing = 17.8) participated in a Cweek seminar. Process measures indicated the extent to which participants used the approach. Outcome measures included golf scores at pre- and postintervention and at a 3-month follow-up. Psycho- logical skills were also assessed at pre- and postintervention. Process analyses revealed that participants used the approach consistently during the seminar and follow-up period. All participants improved two critical psychological skills (emotional control and positive self-talk) as well as their average scores (at postintervention) and handicaps (at follow-up).

According to golf legend Sam Snead, "Golf is a game played on a six inch course-the space between your ears!" Many professional golfers agree with Sam Snead's observation (Kirschenbaum & Bale, 1980). Psychologically, golf is an inherently challenging game. This is due in part because inordinate amounts of time pass after each mistake before golfers can take action (i.e., hit another shot). Also, the process of developing even modest proficiency levels in golf usually proceeds very slowly. Such difficult tasks generally promote negative self- evaluations (Kirschenbaum & Tomarken, 1982), making psychological skills especially salient for golfers. Research supports this, showing substantial differ- ences between highly and less skilled golfers on several dimensions, such as consistency of preshot routines (Crews & Boutcher, 1986), quality and consistency of

Dan Kirschenbaum, DeDe Owens, andEdmund A. O'Connor are with the Center for Behavioral Medicine, 676 North St. Clair, Suite 1790, Chicago, IL 6061 1. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

272 Kirschenbaum, Owens, and O'Connor

goal setting and planning both on and off the course (e.g., McCaffrey & Orlick, 1989), and concentration and coping skills while playing the game (e.g., Thomas & Over, 1994). However, even highly skilled golfers may benefit from improving the quality of their mental games. Our recent study (Kirschenbaum, O'Connor, & Owens, in press) showed that 80% of golfers at all skill levels made substantial errors when planning a challenging tee shot

Interventions designed to improve psychological skills in golf have ranged from comprehensive approaches (e.g., Beauchamp, Halliwell, Fournier, & Kostner, 1996; Boutcher & Rotella, 1987; Kirschenbaum & Bale, 1980) to those targeted at specific skills, such as consistency of preshot routines (e.g., Boutcher & Crews, 1987; Cohn, Rotella, & Lloyd, 1990; Crews & Boutcher, 1986), imagery (Martin & Hall, 1995; Woolfolk, Murphy, Gottesfeld, Aiken, 1985), and positive self-monitoring (Johnston-O'Connor & Kirschenbaum, 1986). Several of these evaluations have shown very favorable outcomes even when compared to relatively sophisti- cated physical practice and other comparison groups (e.g., Beauchamp, et al., 1996; Johnston-O'Connor & Kirschenbaum, 1986; Woolfolk et al., 1995). However, several other studies have demonstrated more variable effects on performance measures, including improvements for women but not for men (Boutcher & Crews, 1987), in trained psychological techniques but not in performance (e.g., Cohn et al., 1990), and for men but not for women (Crews & Boutcher, 1986) as well as other weak or nonsignificant improvements in performance (e.g., Kirschenbaum & Bale, 1980; Martin & Hall, 1995).

Some of the variability in previous evaluations undoubtedly occurred because of methodological issues (e.g., underpowered tests of effects). However, most of the interventions have been incomplete (e.g., focused on only one aspect of the game or one technique), and none have maximized the golfer's ability to learn and remember them.

Extant comprehensive interventions have provided a wide variety of techniques and suggestions, without including a unifying theme or acronym to help golfers remember the approach (see Grasha, 1995). Furthermore, existing interventions have not provided a simple method for golfers to evaluate (score) their mental games. When psychological skills are viewed as skills, regular ongoing evaluative feedback is necessary to promote learning and mastery (e.g., Fischman & Oxendine, 1993; Kirschenbaum, 1985). The present approach, Smart Golf (Owens & Kirschenbaum, 1998), was designed to remedy these deficits.

Smart Golf provides an easily remembered comprehensive approach to the mental game. The acronym, PAR, summarizes three of its five major elements: P stands for Plan, A for Apply, and R for React. Smart Golf provides an organized approach to help golfers plan shots more effectively, apply imagery and preshot routines consistently, and react constructively-not destructively-after each shot and each hole. In addition, this system emphasizes two other elements: preparation and positive focusing (otherwise known as positive self-monitoring Using the well-known golf term, PAR, as an acronym and including only five elements should help golfers remember the approach (Grasha, 1995). In addition, we devel- oped a simple scoring system that golfers can use on their scorecards to provide ongoing feedback about the execution of each element of the mental game, thereby facilitating learning (Fischman & Oxendine, 1993).

The present study consisted of a preliminary evaluation of Smart Golf. Five experienced players of varying handicaps (skill levels) participated with us in a seminar involving discussions and slide presentations. Evaluations included process

Smart Golf 273

and outcome measures of psychological skills, subjective evaluations of the use- fulness of the approach, and performance assessment via golf scores from preintervention to a 3-month follow-up. Although the sample size was very small, we expected this preliminary evaluation to demonstrate the promise of Smart Golf.

Method

Participants Five experienced golfers (M years of playing = 17.8, SD = 4.32, ages 8-28) participated in a seminar from mid-August to mid-September, 1996. Table 1 provides a brief sketch of some key demographic features for each participant at the beginning of the seminar. They are identified based on handicap levels (Low = 0-12, Medium = 13-20, High = > 21), by sex (M = man, W = woman), and number (1 or 2) for identification within handicap 3 sex subgroups.

Smart Golf Intewention We conducted a 4-week seminar on Tuesday evenings from mid-August through mid-September, 1996. Participants were joined by four other individuals who participated for one or two of the four sessions. DeDe Owens, a Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) master teacher, was very familiar with each golfer, hav- ing provided each individual with at least 1 year of instructional lessons that focused on technique.

The four classroom seminars each lasted approximately 2 hr. Seminar participants learned the basics of the Smart Golf system during the first meeting. A slide presentation, discussion, and handouts from Smart Golf(0wens & Kirschen- baum, 1998) were provided. The remaining meetings focused on golfers recount- ing recent playing experiences during which they had used the approach effectively (e.g., examples of conservative plans for difficult holes) and factors that made implementation difficult (e.g., hosting several other players). Problem solv- ing, discussion, and reviewing the principles behind the approach helped participants adapt the approach to their own games.

The system was introduced by showing participants the scorecard pictured in Figure 1. The scorecard shows a system for self-monitoring the five major elements of Smart Golf: Preparation, Positive Focusing (positive self-monitoring),

Table 1 Key Demographic Features for Each Participant at the Beginning of the Survey

Participant Years of

Age playing golf Handicap


Plan, Apply, and React. Each participant received a handout that defined each element and described criteria used for self-monitoring each component, as summarized below.

Preparation. Figure 1 shows the scorecard for Dan, one of our students. He evaluated his preparation (prep = 1) and noted that at the beginning of Pos Foc line. The 1 referred to Dan's view of the adequacy of his preparation for that round of golf. Maximum preparation would appear as 2, adequate preparation as 1, and minimal or no preparation as 0. Maximum preparation includes hitting several balls with at least several different clubs on a driving range. Maximum preparation also means adequately stretching major muscle groups (especially the back and shoulders). It also includes several minutes of chipping and putting. Whereas maximum preparation is evaluated as a 2 on the scorecard, adequate preparation includes less time and hitting fewer types of shots (e.g., no putting). Minimal preparation means very little warm-up, minimal time on the range or practice green, and a generally rushed feeling prior to teeing off on the first hole.

Positive Focusing. Positive focusing is an alternative name for the more technical term, positive self-monitoring (Kirschenbaum & Karoly, 1977; McFall & Hammen, 1971). Positive focusing presupposes that golfers have the potential

Figure 1 -An example of a scorecard for a golfer who self-monitored the five components of Smart Golf.

Smart Golf 275

to direct their attention to "good or better shots" versus poor or problematic ones. Considerable research evidence indicates that focusing on positive aspects of difficult tasks produces consistently better performance in sport and nonsport con- texts (Kirschenbaum, 1997; Kirschenbaum & Tomarken, 1982). Figure 1 shows a shorthand version of monitoring shots that Dan considered good or better through- out his round. A good or better shot was defined by the following:

Try to use a lenient standard to define "good or better" shots. Ask yourself, "Did I hit the ball as I intended and did it go basically where I was aiming?" If you answer, "Yes," to this question after hitting a shot, then the shot was at least "good." If that shot took a bad bounce but you still answered yes to that question, then the shot deserves a good or better evaluation no matter where it landed.

The following are examples of useful abbreviations used by Dan and other seminar participants when recording their positive focusing: LP = long putt; SP = short putt; SW = sand wedge, not from a bunker; SD = sand wedge from a bunker; and 7C = chip shot with a 7-iron.

Another component of positive focusing involves reviewing the good or better shots prior to teeing off on the subsequent hole. We advised that each golfer, at the conclusion of every hole, take a few seconds while proceeding to the next tee to recreate in the mind's eye each shot recorded in positive focusing as good or better. Golfers were encouraged to imagine what the shots felt and looked like and to take a few seconds to mentally replay each of their good or better shots. Con- versely, golfers were strongly encouraged to try to forget problematic shots during play. We explained that these would be remembered after their rounds. Instead of thinking about these shots during the round, golfers tried to concentrate on positive focusing. To help them forget problematic shots, we also encouraged golfers to use self-talk to remind themselves about the challenging nature of golf. This included the following statements:

No one plays perfect golf. Problematic shots present opportunities to recover. Extra practice and instruction can improve anybody's swing.

Golfers could score their positive focusing by giving themselves one point for each hole on which they self-monitored at least one good or better shot and replayed at least one good or better shot prior to teeing off on the next hole. Refer- ring to Figure 1, Dan reached these criteria on eight of the front nine holes and on all back nine, resulting in a Positive Focusing score of 17 for that round.

Plan. To receive a check under Plan for a particular hole, golfers were instructed to follow the four planning principles: personal par, conservation, wide first, and safety first.

1. Personal par was defined as the par of the hole plus the handicap strokes allotted to each golfer on that hole. For example, with a handicap of 18, a golfer would receive one stroke for each hole, resulting in a personal par equal to the normal value plus one on every hole. Golfers were advised to use the personal par principle to plan a strategy for playing each hole such that they would achieve that score, regardless of the par listed on the scorecard. For example, in Figure 1, Dan's handicap was 10. Therefore, he received a handicap stroke on the 10 most difficult holes. So, for example, hole 4 was a par 5 personal par for him. Accordingly, he


could have planned to get to the green in three shots and two-putt to get his personal par. This approach aligns golfers' expectations with their skill levels. Golf professionals also recommended this approach more consistently than any other mental strategy in Kirschenbaum and Bale's (1980) review of golf books and ar- ticles written over a 50-year period.

2. The conservation principle of planning involves using more instead of less conservative shots whenever possible. For example, instead of hitting a driver for the tee shot on a short par 4 that included a water hazard within reach of that shot, most golfers would score better if they hit a shorter tee shot (e.g., using a 5- iron)--one that could not reach the hazard on that hole (Kirschenbaum et al., in press). Golfers were also encouraged to hit shots that they had practiced and suc- cessfully executed on the driving range rather than those they had read about and practiced only a few times.

3. According to the widefirst principle, golfers should play toward the widest part of the fairway and greens. Aiming at the widest part of a fairway, for example, increases the chances of landing the ball on the fairway instead of taller grass (i.e., rough). Hitting a golf ball that is sitting up on the short grass of a fairway is much easier than hitting one nestled in the taller (sometimes much taller and thicker) grass and weeds in the rough. Golfers were encouraged to use the wide first principle to reduce anxiety levels, increase self-confidence, and generally make the game easier to play.

4. Following the safety first principle, golfers were encouraged to go for safer means of escape when their shots put them in trouble. A famous golf adage was invoked here: "When playing safe, play safe." Thus, golfers were encouraged to hit the ball laterally if they found themselves in the trees rather than attempt to hit the ball in between two closely spaced trees. Many golfers use the less conservative route to squeeze out a few extra yards. In the long run, this leads to much higher scores if the gamble is unsuccessful. When trying to lay up in front of a pond, golfers were also encouraged to use a club that could not get the ball to the pond even if they hit their best shots.

If golfers followed all four planning principles for every shot on the hole, they placed a check under the Plan heading for that hole.

Apply. To qualify for a check under the Apply category, golfers had to meet five criteria for every shot on the hole:

1. Identify specific target. 2. Use visual or kinesthetic imagery before executing the shot. 3. Commit 100% to the shot 4. Complete preshot routines 5. Focus on the specific target during execution.

Instructional material helped golfers understand the meaning of specific tar- gets, gave examples of how to use imagery, elaborated on the importance of 100% commitment to a shot, provided examples of effective preshot routines, and em- phasized the value of focusing on the target rather than on the mechanical aspects of the swing during execution. Some variations on these Apply elements were considered acceptable. For example, beginning golfers and more experienced players find it useful to have one or two swing thoughts that have mechanical aspects. This was considered acceptable if the swing thoughts were simple and

Smart Golf 277

complete or whole thoughts. Whole swing thoughts included one or two elements that encouraged smooth and complete swings (e.g., extend and through, stretch and swing, or down and through).

React. To receive a check under this category, golfers were instructed to find a way to stay positive, despite the many challenges that golf presents. More specifically, they were advised to give themselves a check under React if they followed the four rules on that hole:

1. Use only positive verbal comments about your game and yourself. 2. Defend yourself against negative comments from others. 3. Keep your attributions adaptive. 4. Use the 4-F technique to stay optimistic.

Golfers frequently criticize themselves for miss-hitting shots (e.g., "You jerk!" or "I can't believe you missed such a simple shot!"). Encouraging them to use only positive overt comments could offset that tendency. Golfers were advised that momentary negative covert reactions were acceptable, but to qualify for a check under React, individuals had to refrain from making negative comments and quickly replace them with positive ones. Golfers were also advised to use attributions that focused on external causes for problematic shots (e.g., failure to practice enough or unlucky bounces). They also learned the 4-F technique (Kirschenbaum, 1997), which helps golfers cope with problematic shots. Using the four Fs, they can avoid reacting to the problematic shots and instead effectively focus on the next shot. The 4 Fs arefudge (an exclamation of dissatisfaction),fix (redo the swing using a practice swing to correct the problem), forget (forget about the problematic shot, remembering that no one plays perfect golf), and focus (focus attention on the next shot in a positive manner).

Smart Golf Total Score. Owens and Kirschenbaum (1998) explained the scoring system in the following way:

The maximum Smart Golf score is 74. Two for preparation + 18 for positive focusing + 18 for each PAR component. The example of Dan's round at the Winnetka Golf Club (see Figure 1) showed that his Preparation earned a 1, his Positive Focusing earned 17, and his PAR subtotals were: 13, 14, and 15 (Smart Golf Total = 60). Another way of evaluating a Smart Golf total is to divide by the maximum possible score to yield a Smart Golf Percentage (601 74 = 81%). (p. 28)

Golfers were advised to score their Smart Golf components to determine whether certain aspects of their mental games could benefit from additional attention or effort. Referring to Figure 1, Dan generally did a good job using Smart Golf. However, Plan and Preparation (and, to a lesser degree, Apply and React) could have received more attention. Golfers were thus advised to use the total scoring system to evaluate themselves after each round of golf and to try to get as close as possible to a Smart Golf Percentage of 100%.

Measures Process Measures

To determine the extent to which participants used the Smart Golf system, each score card turned in during the 4-week intervention period was examined.


Calculations determined the extent to which each participant self-monitored every element of Smart Golf. Scorecards were also checked to determine the degree to which participants derived a total Smart Golf score. Thus, for each participant, we determined the percentage of rounds during which the golfer self-monitored the components and derived total Smart Golf scores. An independent rater checked these calculations and found them to be highly reliable (i.e., 100% agreement on all calculations for five scorecards selected at random).

At the 3-month follow-up, participants completed a survey, which asked how often they self-monitored the elements of Smart Golf and the extent to which they derived total Smart Golf scores.

Outcome Measures

Performance. The information available on each subject's preintervention handicap cards provided a baseline measure of performance. These 20 baseline scores were compared with each participant's scores during the seminar and follow- up interval. Score averages were used because course ratings and slopes (methods of adjusting stroke averages for standard indexes of difficulty) were unavailable.

Handicaps were also compared at baseline and postintervention follow-up. Handicaps (Handicap Indexes) are computed by taking the 10 best of the 20 most recent scores and adjusting them for the difficulty level of the course on which they were obtained. Adjustment (determined by the U.S. Golf Association in a standard fashion) uses course ratings and slopes.

Psychological Skills. At pre- and postintervention (i.e., the first and last day of the seminar, respectively), all participants completed the Test Of Perfor- mance Strategies (TOPS; Thomas, Murphy, & Hardy, in press). TOPS consists of 64 items rated on 5-point Likert scales. TOPS provides scores for 7 psychological skills (self-talk, emotional control, automaticity, goal setting, imagery, activation, and relaxation) as they apply to competition and practice, as well as scores for attentional control in practice and negative thinking in competition. Scores obtained on these scales were compared pre- to postintervention.

Subjective Ratings and Comments. On the follow-up questionnaire, participants were asked to evaluate each of the Smart Golf elements and comment on the overall helpfulness of each. These five ratings were tallied and comments were summarized.

Results

Process Measures

All scorecards were reviewed and checked to determine the extent to which participants self-monitored each of the five Smart Golf components (Preparation, Positive Focusing, Plan, Apply, and React). Scorecards were also checked to determine how frequently participants tallied their Smart Golf performances resulting in scores for their mental games. Of the 43 scorecards turned in, 100% included self-monitoring of four of the Smart Golf components: Positive Focusing, Plan, Apply, and React. Preparation was monitored on 52% of the scorecards. Participants tallied their Smart Golf performances 80% of the time, resulting in total scores.

At the 3-month follow-up, participants were asked to indicate how often they self-monitored the five Smart Golf components. According to these reports,

Smart Golf 279

self-monitoring of components declined slightly: Positive Focusing = 87%, Plan/ ApplyIReact = 86%, Preparation = 51%, and tallying Smart Golf scores = 62%.

Outcome Measures

Scores. All five participants decreased their average scores from the baseline assessment to the end of the seminar, Sign Test p = .03. Average scores decreased by 2.1 strokeslround, comparing preseminar scores (M = 93.5, SD = 15.5) to those obtained during the seminar (M = 91.4, SD = 14.5). Average scores declined by 2.9 strokes from baseline at the 3-month follow-up (M = 90.6, SD = 13.6), F(2,X) = 3.12, p < .lo. This trend was strengthened when preseminar scores were compared to the combined average of scores obtained during the seminar and during follow-up (M = 9 1 .O, SD = 13.8), F(1,4) = 6.86, p = .06.

Handicap data was only available for the preseminar baseline and 3-month follow-up. All participants' handicaps decreased, Sign Test p = .03 (see Figure 2). Preseminar average handicap (16.4, SD = 13.4) was 1.3 points higher than the average at follow-up (15.1, SD = 13.4), F(1,4) = 7.21, p = .055.

One of the golfers (MMI) reported that his follow-up handicap was the lowest of his 15-year golfing career. Another participant (LM1) noted that his follow- up handicap was the lowest it had been in 8 years.

Psychological Skills. On the TOPS, all participants reported improvements from pre- to postseminar in overall positive self-talk and emotional control during practice, Sign Tests ps = .03. Repeated measures ANOVAs also showed that these two psychological skill elements improved significantly from pre- to postintervention, as did ratings of relaxation during competition: self-talk pre- to post, F(1,4) = 22.15, p < .01; emotional control in practice pre- to post, F(1,4) = 10.6, p = .03; relaxation during competition pre- to post, F(1,4) = 12.52, p < .03.

I I

Pre-Intervention 3 Month Follow-up

Figure 2 -Changes in handicaps for all five participants from the preseminar baseline to the 3-month follow-up.


Subjective Evaluations. Participants rated five aspects of the approach on a 7-point scale (1 = more harmful than helpful, 7 = extremely helpful). Their modal rating was 7, and four of the five participants rated the Smart Golf concepts as 7. (The fifth participant rated them as 5). In response to a one-page open-ended re- quest for comments, three of the four participants provided various remarks, all of them positive, about the Smart Golf concepts, seminar, and effects of Smart Golf on their games. The highest handicap participant provided a more mixed review of some aspects of the approach. Generally, comments suggested that the positive focusing techniques were the easiest to use and had the most immediate impact on golfers' attitudes. The planning aspect also was noted as particularly helpful. One participant suggested that the approach was not as helpful when she was not playing well.

Discussion During the intervention, participants reported consistent use of the approach (i.e., 100% self-monitoring of four of the Smart Golf components), and all of them improved their scores. Participants also reported substantial improvements in emotional control, positive self-talk, and relaxation. Golf scores and handicaps also improved during the follow-up interval. In addition, participants subjectively evaluated the seminar in a positive fashion. For example, one participant (15 years of playing experience) obtained the lowest handicap in his life, and another obtained his lowest handicap in 8 years. All participants attributed these improvements to using the Smart Golf techniques. Also, during the months following the seminar, participants reported continually using the Smart Golf approach, especially favor- ing and relying upon on the Positive Focusing component. Participants reported less consistent use of the total Smart Golf score.

These preliminary findings suggest that providing golfers with a relatively simple yet complete approach may yield substantial benefits. Using only five components and a unifying acronym probably contributed to golfers' acceptance and sustained use of the approach (see Grasha, 1995). While the improved scores are quite noticeable, further controlled research is needed to determine whether the Smart Golf techniques were active change agents. In the absence of controls, we cannot rule out demand characteristics, effects of learning (history), and other critical factors. Even a Hawthorne effect may have encouraged golfers to practice more, resulting in improved scores and attitudes. Nevertheless, the degree of improvements noted, the ready adaptation of the techniques (e.g., self-monitoring data during the seminar and at follow-up), and the enthusiastic evaluative comments support the potential value of the approach. The specificity of changes in the TOPS scales also supports the potential efficacy of Smart Golf.

Additional controlled research may help determine which Smart Golf component produces the best effects for each type of golfer. Golfers with more experience or skill may favor certain aspects of the five components. For example, we believe that Positive Focusing and Planning readily apply to golfers at all skill levels, whereas experienced, well-instructed golfers in the autonomous learning phase (Fischman & Oxendine, 1993) may find information in the Apply phase more useful compared to less experienced cognitive- or associative-phase golfers. Our prior research (Kirschenbaum et al., in press) suggests that golfers at all skill levels can benefit from the plan component. Surprisingly, a planning

Smart Golf 281

emphasis has not been apparent in most interventions used for improving golf performance. Results of this preliminary evaluation clearly suggest that there is far more t o improving golf performance than focusing on visualization and positive self-talk.

References Beauchamp, P.H., Halliwell, W.R., Fournier, J.R., & Koestner, R. (1996). Effects of cogni-

tive-behavioral psychological skills training on motivation, preparation, and putting performance of novice golfers. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 157-170.

Boutcher, S.H. & Crews, D.J. (1987). The effect of a preshot attentional routine on a well- learned skill. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 18,30-39.

Boutcher, S.H., & Rotella, R.J. (1987). A psychological skills educational program for closed- skill performance enhancement. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 127-137.

Cohn, P.J., Rotella, R.J., & Lloyd, J.W. (1990). Effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention on the preshot routine and performance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 4 , 33-47.

Crews, D.J., & Boutcher, S.H. (1986). Effects of structured preshot behaviors on beginning golf performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62,291-294.

Fischman, M.G., & Oxendine, J.B. (1993). Motor skill learning for effective coaching and performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sportpsychology: Personal growth to peakpe$omzance (pp. 11015-11024). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Grasha, A.F. (1995). Practical applications ofpsychology (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Johnston-O'Connor, E.J., & Kirschenbaum, D.S. (1986). Something succeeds like success:

Positive self-monitoring for unskilled golfers. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 123-136.

Kirschenbaum, D.S. (1985). Proximity and specificity of planning: Aposition paper. Cog- nitive Therapy and Research, 9,489-506.

Kirschenbaum, D.S. (1997). Mind matters: Seven steps to smarter sportpe$onnance. Carmel, IN: Cooper.

Kirschenbaum, D.S., & Bale, R.M. (1980). Cognitive-behavioral skills in golf: Brainpower golf. In R.M. Schwinn (Ed.). Psychology in sport: Methods and applications (pp. 334-343). Minneapolis, MN: Burgess.

Kirschenbaum, D.S., & Karoly, P. (1977). When self-regulation fails: Tests of some preliminary hypotheses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 116-125.

Kirschenbaum, D.S., O'Connor, E.A., & Owens, D. (in press). Positive illusions in golf: Empirical and conceptual analyses. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology.

Kirschenbaum, D.S., & Tomarken, A.J. (1982). On facing the generalization problem: The study of self-regulatory failure. In P.C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 121-200). New York: Academic Press.

Martin, K.A., & Hall, C.R. (1995). Using mental imagery to enhance intrinsic motivation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17,54-69.

McCaffrey, N. , & Orlick, T. (1989). Mental factors related to excellence to top professional golfers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20,256-278.

McFall, R.M., & Hammen, C.L. (1971). Motivation, structure, and self-monitoring: The role of nonspecific factors in smoking reduction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37,80-86.

Owens, D., & Kirschenbaum, D. (1998). Smart go@ How to simplify and score your mental game. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

282 Kirschenbaurn, Owens, and O'Connor

Thomas, P.R., Murphy, S.M., & Hardy, L. (1997, in press). Tests of performance strategies: Development and validation of a comprehensive measure of athletes' psychological skills. Journal of Exercise and Sport Psychology.

Thomas, P.R., & Over, R. (1994). Psychological and psychomotor skills associated with performance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 8,73-86.

Woolfolk, R.L., Murphy, S.M., Gottesfeld, D., & Aiken, D. (1985). The effects of positive and negative imagery on motor skill performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9,335-341.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Jemsek family for providing a seminar room and related facilities at the Cog Hill Golf Club in Lemont, Illinois.

Manuscript submitted: July 16, 1997 Revision received: December 4, 1997

smart golf: preliminary evaluation of a simple, yet …€¦ · a simple, yet comprehensive,...

Documents