Notes on: The interplay between self-talk and body posture on physical performance (Horcajo, Mateos, Tannion)

The interplay between self-talk and body posture on physical performance: Study notes

Theoretical framework and key concepts

• Self-talk: verbalizations or self-statements addressed to the self; can be overt (out loud) or covert (internal).
  • Positive self-talk: encouraging or self-assuring statements (e.g., “I can do it”).
  • Negative self-talk: discouraging or self-deprecating statements (e.g., “I can't do it”).
  • Valence of self-talk has been a central focus in past research; meta-analytic work showed positive self-talk tends to benefit performance, while negative self-talk often has non-significant or detrimental effects depending on context.
• Non-verbal behavior studied previously: overt head movements can moderate self-talk effects on performance.
• Body posture as a non-verbal behavior: upright vs. slumped postures investigated as a potential validating vs. invalidating cue.
• Self-Validation Theory (SVT; Brinol̃o & Petty, 2022): thoughts become consequential when the perceiver believes they are valid. Key components:
  • Perceived validity of thought (cognitive validation; affective validation).
  • Motivation and ability to engage in deliberative thinking (high elaboration) to assess validity.
  • The effect of a validating cue depends on its meaning to the individual (e.g., upright posture may be seen as confidence), not just the cue itself.
  • Outcomes depend on the content of thought (valence) and its validation: validating positive thoughts can enhance performance; validating negative thoughts can also be consequential (potentially detrimental).
• Moderators and appraisals in SVT:
  • Certainty vs. pleasantness appraisals (cognitive vs. affective validation).
  • The meaning attributed to cues (e.g., body posture) can vary across individuals and contexts, altering the effect of self-talk on performance.
• Moderated serial multiple mediation model (central aim): two mediators in sequence (perceived validity of self-statements -> self-efficacy) with body posture meaning as a moderator of the path from posture to performance and the mediators.
• Practical goals: extend SVT to sport performance; examine a new non-verbal cue (body posture); assess multiple sport tasks; test a moderated mediation model with physiological performance outcomes.

Hypotheses (from the overview and Study 3 design)

• H1: Positive self-statements lead to better physical performance than negative self-statements.
• H2: Upright posture is more associated with validity (vs. invalidity) than slumped posture.
• H3: Positive self-talk improves performance more under upright (validating) posture than under slumped (invalidating) posture.
• H4: In Study 3, the meaning attributed to body posture moderates the effect of upright vs. slumped posture on performance; default meaning (high validity) should yield stronger positive effects, but individual differences may shift this.
• H5: In Study 3, a moderated serial multiple mediation model: body posture and its meaning affect performance through serial mediation by perceived validity of self-statements and self-efficacy.

Overview of the design and studies

• Studies 1 & 2: between-subjects 2 (self-talk: positive vs. negative) × 2 (body posture: upright vs. slumped) factorial designs.
  • Study 1: soccer players; dependent variables were Slalom Sprint and Dribble performance (two tests).
  • Study 2: broader sample across sports; dependent variable was a Push-Up test (count of push-ups post-manipulation).
• Study 3: test a moderated serial multiple mediation model with a refined moderator (the meaning of body posture). All participants received positive self-talk; posture manipulated; meaning of posture measured with a semantic differential; mediators measured: perceived validity of self-statements (self-validation) and self-efficacy; outcome: pull-up performance.

Study 1: design, participants, procedure, and results

• Design and participants
  • 2 (self-talk: positive vs. negative) × 2 (body posture: upright vs. slumped) between-participants design.
  • N = 120 soccer players from Spain (109 males, 11 females; age M = 21.43, SD = 4.07).
  • Power analysis (G*Power) targeted f = 0.25, α = .05, power = .80; target N ≈ 128; actual N = 120.
• Procedure
  • Baseline: participants performed a baseline sprint and slalom/dribbling on a zig-zag 30 m circuit; then completed a 5-minute warm-up.
  • Self-statements: participants wrote three self-statements about their ability or inability to perform well on the second set of tasks (positive vs. negative valence).
  • Posture: participants were instructed to maintain upright or slumped posture during self-talk; posture verified by researcher from a distance.
  • Post-manipulation: participants performed the same warm-up and the post-baseline tests (slalom and dribble) while actively verbalizing their three statements in the assigned posture.
  • Measures: background questionnaire (age, sex, competition level).
• Independent variables
  • Self-talk: Positive vs. Negative.
  • Body posture: Upright vs. Slumped.
• Dependent variables
  • Slalom performance index: post-measure minus baseline; higher is better; M = 0.15, SD = 0.45 (across sample).
  • Dribbling performance index: post-measure minus baseline; higher is better; M = 0.43, SD = 1.14.
• Results (Slalom and Dribbling)
  • Slalom:
  • No significant main effects: self-talk, F(1, 116) = 1.94, p = .166, ηp^2 = .016; posture, F(1,116) = .37, p = .541, ηp^2 = .003.
  • Significant interaction: F(1,116) = 7.20, p = .008, ηp^2 = .058.
  • Upright posture: Positive self-talk yielded better performance than negative self-talk (Mpos = 0.35, SD = 0.43 vs Mneg = 0.02, SD = 0.37), F(1,116) = 8.44, p = .004, ηp^2 = .068.
  • Slumped posture: No significant difference between self-talk conditions (Mpos = 0.08, SD = 0.41 vs Mneg = 0.18, SD = 0.53), F(1,116) = .82, p = .367, ηp^2 = .007.
  • Interaction pattern: among positive self-talk participants, upright > slumped (Mdiff ≈ .27); F(1,116) = 5.26, p = .024, ηp^2 = .043.
  • Dribbling:
  • No significant main effect of self-talk or posture; interaction also non-significant (F(1,115) = 0.00, p = .984).
• Interpretation
  • Support for H3 in slalom: upright posture amplifies the effect of positive self-talk on performance; however, the same enhancement was not evident for dribbling, possibly due to task-specific factors (gross vs. fine motor components or the matching hypothesis).

Study 2: design, participants, procedure, and results

• Design and participants
  • 2 (self-talk: positive vs. negative) × 2 (body posture: upright vs. slumped) between-participants.
  • N = 117 Cross-sectional, online sample during COVID-19; 65 males, 51 females, 1 unidentified; age M = 21.76, SD = 3.04; 20 sports/exercises represented.
  • Power considerations similar to Study 1; final N slightly below the target of 128.
• Procedure
  • Online questionnaire (Qualtrics) plus a physical test conducted via video call (Zoom).
  • Physical performance: Push-Up Test (Baumgartner et al., 2002; Mozumdar et al., 2010): participants performed push-ups to exhaustion; two measurements (baseline and post-manipulation).
  • Performance index: post minus baseline; higher is better; M = 0.40, SD = 4.63.
  • Self-talk and posture manipulation identical to Study 1; replicating the 2×2 design.
• Independent variables
  • Self-talk: Positive vs. Negative.
  • Body posture: Upright vs. Slumped.
• Dependent variable
  • Push-Up performance index (post − baseline).
• Results
  • Main effect of self-talk: significant, with positive self-talk yielding more push-ups (M = 1.28, SD = 4.55) vs negative self-talk (M = −0.55, SD = 4.56); F(1,113) = 5.28, p = .023, ηp^2 = .045.
  • No significant main effect of posture on performance (F(1,113) = .34, p = .564, ηp^2 = .003).
  • Significant interaction: F(1,113) = 8.08, p = .005, ηp^2 = .067.
  • Upright & Positive self-talk: higher performance (M = 2.85, SD = 5.61) vs Upright & Negative (M = −1.39, SD = 5.27), F(1,113) = 13.22, p < .001, ηp^2 = .105.
  • Slumped posture: No significant differences between Positive (M = 0.03, SD = 3.02) and Negative (M = 0.48, SD = 3.30), F(1,113) = .15, p = .700, ηp^2 = .001.
• Interpretation
  • Replication of the interaction pattern: upright posture amplifies positive self-talk effects on performance; slumped posture attenuates these effects.

Study 3: design, measures, and the moderated serial mediation model

• Rationale for Study 3
  • Prior studies showed an interaction between self-talk and posture but did not provide mediation evidence for the self-validation mechanism.
  • Study 3 tests a moderated serial mediation model with two mediators: (1) perceived validity of self-statements (self-validation) and (2) self-efficacy; moderator is the meaning attributed to body posture.
  • Focused on positive (strategic) self-talk to isolate the process.
• Participants
  • N = 146 CrossFit athletes from four Madrid gymnasiums; 118 males, 27 females, 1 unidentified; age range 18–51, M = 33.39, SD = 7.21.
• Procedure and variables
  • Body posture: upright vs. slumped; manipulated as in earlier studies.
  • Meaning of body posture: measured post-manipulation with two semantic differential items on 9-point scales:
  • “To what extent does that posture have a meaning related to confidence or doubt?”
  • “To what extent is this posture related to certainty or uncertainty?”
  • Responses were highly correlated (r = 0.79, p < .001) and averaged to form a single index (M = 5.89, SD = 2.00).
  • The index was computed so that higher scores reflect a meaning aligned with the default interpretation (upright = confidence/certainty; slumped = doubt/uncertainty).
  • Perceived validity of self-statements (self-validation): five items on 9-point scales, covering cognitive validation (e.g., certainty about thoughts) and affective validation (e.g., feeling good about thoughts) plus a general validity item. Internal consistency high (α = 0.88); a single composite index was used.
  • Cognitive validation items: “How certain [confident] were you about the thoughts you said to yourself?”
  • Affective validation items: “To what extent did having those thoughts make you feel good?”, “To what extent were you satisfied with those thoughts?”
  • Self-efficacy (SE): 12-item measure for pull-ups (Bandura-based). Each item rated on a 0–10 scale per level (2, 4, 6, …, up to 24 or more pull-ups). Internal consistency high (α = 0.93); averaged to form SE score (M = 4.12, SD = 2.06).
  • Physical performance: pull-up count (maximum number of pull-ups until exhaustion); higher is better (M = 12.00, SD = 5.82).
• Results (Study 3: pull-ups; moderated mediation)
  • Regression/PROCESS analyses (model 85 with 10,000 bootstrap samples) assessed conditional indirect effects of body posture on performance through M1 (perceived validity) and M2 (self-efficacy) at levels of meaning (moderator).
  • Key findings:
  • Interaction: Body posture × Meaning significantly predicted physical performance, B = 1.52, t(140) = 2.62, p = .010, 95% CI [0.37, 2.67] (R^2 = .047).
    • Among participants with a default meaning (84th percentile), upright posture tended to yield better performance than slumped, but not significantly (B = 2.55, t(140) = 1.67, p = .096, 95% CI [-0.46, 5.55]).
    • Among participants with the contrary meaning (16th percentile), slumped posture performed better than upright (B = −3.55, t(140) = −2.12, p = .035, 95% CI [-6.86, -0.25]).
    • In the upright condition, higher association of posture with the default meaning predicted better performance (B = 1.13, t(140) = 2.37, p = .019, 95% CI [0.19, 2.07]); in the slumped condition, no significant relation between meaning and performance (B = −0.39, t(140) = −1.18, p = .240).
  • Moderated mediation (PROCESS model 85): The index of moderated mediation was significant: b = 0.36, SE = 0.17, 95% CI [0.070, 0.739], indicating that the indirect effect through M1 and M2 varied with meaning.
  • Conditional indirect effects by meaning (cognitive validation first mediator; SE as second mediator):
    • Default meaning (84th percentile): indirect effect b = 0.74, SE = 0.42, 95% CI [0.119, 1.741].
    • Contrary meaning (16th percentile): indirect effect b = −0.68, SE = 0.45, 95% CI [−1.679, 0.102], not significant but in the expected direction.
  • Cognitive validation vs. affective validation (separate analyses):
    • Cognitive validation (M1 as cognitive validation index; M2 SE): moderated mediation significant: b = 0.52, SE = 0.20, 95% CI [0.182, 0.989]. Conditional indirect effects:
    • Default meaning: b = 1.04, SE = 0.53, 95% CI [0.240, 2.301].
    • Contrary meaning: b = −1.05, SE = 0.57, 95% CI [−2.283, −0.013].
    • Affective validation: index of moderated mediation included 0 in its 95% CI (b = 0.15, SE = 0.11, 95% CI [−0.064, 0.403]); not significant.
• Interpretation
  • The data support a moderated serial mediation model: body posture effects on performance are mediated by perceived validity and SE, and these indirect effects depend on the meaning attributed to posture.
  • Cognitive validation appears more central than affective validation in this SVT context for sport performance.
  • When posture meaning aligns with a default confidence/certainty interpretation, upright posture enhances performance via higher perceived validity and SE; when posture meaning aligns with doubt/uncertainty, the effect reverses in some cases.

General discussion across the three studies

• Main pattern: upright postures magnified the effects of both positive and negative self-talk on performance when participants connected the posture with a sense of validity; slumped postures attenuated these effects or yielded smaller effects.
• Study 3 adds mediation evidence: the self-validation mechanism (perceived validity of thoughts) and self-efficacy acted as serial mediators; this pathway was moderated by the meaning attributed to the posture.
• The effects were robust for positive self-talk under upright posture (Study 2) and for negative self-talk under upright posture in some tasks (SVT logic in general).
• The meaning of body posture as a moderator is a novel contribution and shows that non-verbal cues do not have fixed effects; their impact depends on subjective interpretation (validity vs. invalidity).

Formulaic representations of the moderated mediation (conceptual)

• Let X = body posture (0 = slumped, 1 = upright); W = meaning of posture (continuous); M1 = perceived validity of self-statements; M2 = self-efficacy; Y = physical performance.
• Mediation paths (serial): X → M1 → M2 → Y.
• Moderation: W moderates the paths from X to M1, M1 to M2, and M2 to Y (and possibly X directly to Y).
• Conditional indirect effects (illustrative form):
  • IE(W) = [a1 + a1W W] · [d12 + d12W W] · [b2 + b2_W W],
    where a1 is the effect of X on M1, d12 is the effect of M1 on M2, and b2 is the effect of M2 on Y; the subscripts _W denote interaction terms with the moderator W.
• In Study 3, the moderated mediation index was reported as:
  ext{Index}{ ext{mod}} = b{ ext{mod}} = 0.36, ext{SE} = 0.17, 95 ext{% CI }[0.070, 0.739].
• Conditional indirect effects (cognitive validation focus):
  • Default meaning (84th percentile): b = 1.04, ext{ SE} = 0.53, ext{ 95% CI }[0.240, 2.301].
  • Contrary meaning (16th percentile): b = -1.05, ext{ SE} = 0.57, ext{ 95% CI }[-2.283, -0.013].
• Within-Study numerical highlights (selected):
  • Study 1 Slalom interaction: $F(1,116) = 7.20, ext{ }p = .008, ext{ } ext{η}^2_p = .058.$
  • Upright+Positive vs Upright+Negative in Slalom: M{ ext{pos}} = 0.35, ext{ SD} = 0.43; ext{ } M{ ext{neg}} = 0.02, ext{ SD} = 0.37,
    F(1,116) = 8.44, ext{ }p = .004, ext{ } ext{η}^2_p = .068.
  • Study 2 Push-ups interaction: $F(1,113) = 8.08, ext{ }p = .005, ext{ } ext{η}^2_p = .067.$
  • Upright+Positive vs Upright+Negative: $M<em>{ ext{pos}} = 2.85, ext{ SD} = 5.61; ext{ } M</em>{ ext{neg}} = -1.39, ext{ SD} = 5.27, ext{ }p < .001.$
• Practical interpretation of results
  • Posture can serve as a cue that athletes attribute to their own thoughts; when posture meaning is aligned with validity, positive self-talk is more potent in enhancing performance through self-efficacy and the cognitive validation of thoughts.
  • Conversely, if posture meaning is interpreted as invalidating, even positive self-talk may be less effective; for negative self-talk, upright posture can magnify detrimental effects if the individual interprets the posture as validating their thoughts, which aligns with SVT’s notion that validation magnifies thought consequences.

Theoretical and practical implications

• The SVT framework extends to sport performance by showing that thought validity and self-efficacy are central mediators in how self-talk and non-verbal cues influence performance.
• The meaning attributed to body posture is a critical moderator; it can change the direction and magnitude of effects, suggesting that coaches and practitioners should consider athletes’ interpretations of bodily cues when designing interventions.
• Intervention ideas:
  • Train athletes to adopt upright postures while engaging in positive self-talk to maximize performance benefits.
  • Integrate posture-meaning priming (e.g., cues that reinforce the belief that posture signals confidence).
  • Use cognitive validation cues (e.g., verbal self-statements that bolster certainty) to strengthen the link between posture, thought validity, and self-efficacy.

Limitations and considerations discussed

• No control groups in Studies 1 and 2; future work could include neutral postures and neutral self-talk to isolate effects more clearly.
• Dribbling task in Study 1 did not align with hypotheses; potential matching effects or task-specific demands (gross vs. fine motor skills) may explain variability.
• Study 3 constrained the design by using only positive self-talk and post-manipulation performance measures; including a baseline might provide fuller mediation evidence.
• Cross-cultural considerations: posture meanings could differ across cultures; future research should examine cultural differences in posture meaning and its impact on SVT processes.
• Some potential mediators/mechanisms not included (e.g., metacognitive certainty in self-efficacy; additional constructs like self-talk pronoun usage, paralinguistic factors) may add to the model.

Additional methodological notes from the papers

• Ethics: permissions obtained from institutional committees and sports clubs; informed consent obtained; responses anonymized.
• Power considerations: used G*Power 3.1; assumed medium effect sizes; bootstrapping used in moderated mediation analysis (PROCESS macro) due to power considerations for moderated mediation.
• Data reporting practices: all dependent variables analyzed; report all levels of predictors; supplementary materials contain additional analyses and excluded observations.

Summary takeaways for exam preparation

• SVT posits that thoughts impact behavior when thoughts are perceived as valid; this validity can be influenced by non-verbal cues such as body posture.
• The current work shows that upright body posture can enhance the effect of self-talk on physical performance when posture meaning is aligned with confidence/certainty, via a serial mediation through perceived thought validity and self-efficacy.
• The meaning attached to body posture (the moderator) is crucial: it can reverse or attenuate effects depending on whether individuals view the posture as validating or invalidating.
• The mediation path is: body posture (and its meaning) → perceived validity of self-statements (self-validation) → self-efficacy → physical performance, with effects estimated using bootstrapped conditional indirect effects.
• Key numerical highlights to remember:
  • Study 3 interaction on performance: $B = 1.52, t(140) = 2.62, p = .010, 95\% CI [0.37, 2.67].$
  • Conditional effect at default meaning (84th percentile): $b = 0.74, SE = 0.42, 95\% CI [0.119, 1.741]$.
  • Conditional effect at contrary meaning (16th percentile): $b = -0.68, SE = 0.45, 95\% CI [-1.679, 0.102]$ (not significant, but the pattern aligns with SVT).
  • Moderated mediation index: $b = 0.36, SE = 0.17, 95\% CI [0.070, 0.739].$
• Broad conceptual takeaway: to maximize performance, athletes should ideally couple positive self-talk with body postures that the individual interprets as validating (confidence, certainty). The SVT framework helps explain why some interventions succeed or fail depending on these interpretive cues and the accompanying cognitive/affective validation processes.

Appendix and references (highlights)

• Key references include: Brinol̃o & Petty (2022) on Self-Validation Theory; Brinol̃o et al. (2009, 2017, 2018) on body posture and validation; Hardy (2006) on self-talk; Theodorakis et al. (2012); Hatzigeorgiadis et al. (2011) meta-analysis; Hayes (2022) on mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis; and Horcajo et al. (2019, 2020, 2022) on self-validation and metacognitive aspects of self-talk.
• Supplementary data are available online for additional analyses and details.

Quick glossary

• SVT: Self-Validation Theory
• SE: Self-efficacy
• M1: First mediator — perceived validity of self-statements (self-validation)
• M2: Second mediator — self-efficacy
• Y: Outcome variable — physical performance
• W: Meaning moderator of posture (in Study 3)
• IE(W): Conditional indirect effect of X on Y through M1 and M2 at a given level of W
• PROCESS model 85: A statistical macro in SPSS used to estimate moderated serial mediation with bootstrapping