This article was downloaded by: [Auburn University]

On: 24 September 2013, At: 11:07

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Maximal strength and cortisol responses to psyching-up

during the squat exercise
a b c
Michael R McGuigan , Jamie Ghiagiarelli & David Tod
a
School of Biomedical and Sports Science, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia
b
Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse,
WI, USA
c
Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, University of Wales Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth, UK
d
School of Biomedical and Sports Science, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Drive,
Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia E-mail:
Published online: 18 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Michael R McGuigan , Jamie Ghiagiarelli & David Tod (2005) Maximal strength and cortisol responses to
psyching-up during the squat exercise, Journal of Sports Sciences, 23:7, 687-692, DOI: 10.1080/02640410400021401

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410400021401

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Sports Sciences, July 2005; 23(7): 687 692

Maximal strength and cortisol responses to psyching-up during the

squat exercise

MICHAEL R. McGUIGAN1, JAMIE GHIAGIARELLI2, & DAVID TOD3

1
School of Biomedical and Sports Science, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia, 2Department of Exercise and
Sport Science, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA, and 3Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, University
of Wales Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth, UK

(Accepted 23 September 2004)

Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 11:07 24 September 2013

Abstract
We studied the effect of psyching-up on one-repetition maximum (1-RM) performance and salivary cortisol responses
during the squat exercise. Ten men (age 21.6 + 1.4 years; mean + s) and ten women (age 22.4 + 2.8 years) with weight
training experience of 4.5 + 2.0 years participated in this study. One-repetition maximum squats were performed on a Smith
machine during each of two different intervention conditions that were counterbalanced and consisted of a free choice psych-
up and a cognitive distraction. Saliva samples were obtained at the beginning of each test session and immediately after the
nal 1-RM attempt. No signicant difference in 1-RM was identied between psyching-up (104 + 50 kg) and cognitive
distraction (106 + 52 kg). Performing a 1-RM in the squat exercise signicantly increased salivary cortisol concentrations
during both conditions (P 5 0.05). There was no signicant difference in salivary cortisol responses between conditions.
These results suggest that psyching-up does not increase 1-RM performance during the squat exercise in strength-trained
individuals.

Keywords: Mental preparation, performance enhancement, psychology, strength

1988; Tenenbaum, Bar-Eli, Hoffman, & Jablonovs-

Introduction
Psyching-up refers to the use of self-directed
cognitive strategies designed to enhance physical
performance (Tod, Iredale, & Gill, 2003). The
common belief among many athletes is that the use
of these strategies will enable them to lift heavier
loads (Tod et al., 2003). Strategies used by athletes
typically include preparatory arousal, imagery, atten-
tional focus and positive self-talk (Shelton &
Mahoney, 1978). Researchers have found that
psyching-up may increase dynamic strength (Elko
& Ostrow, 1992; Gould, Weinberg, & Jackson, 1980;
Theodorakis, Weinberg, Natsis, Douma, & Kazakas,
2000; Tynes & McFatter, 1987; Weinberg, Gould, &
Jackson, 1980, 1981; Whelan, Epkins, & Meyers,
1990), muscular endurance (Caudill & Weinberg,
1983; Lee, 1990; Weinberg, Jackson, & Seaboune,
1985) and power (Weinberg et al., 1985), particularly
in novice lifters performing simple strength tasks.
Not all researchers have shown a positive effect,
however (Brody, Hateld, Spalding, Frazer, &
Caherty, 2000; Murphy, Woolfolk, & Budney,
ki, 1995; Theodorakis et al., 2000). These negative
results cast doubt on the efcacy of the psych-up
effect when participants are required to divide their
attention across both a strength movement and a
mental preparation procedure.
It is widely accepted that stress induces activation
of the hypothalamus pituitary adrenal axis (HPA)
(Kirschbaum & Hellhammer, 1994). In many
studies, the endocrine response of participants to
varying types of stress has been tested (Kirschbaum
& Hellhammer, 1994). Acute resistance exercise
induces a change in plasma cortisol concentrations
(Mulligan et al., 1996). Salivary samples provide a
valid and reliable measure of serum cortisol (Ob-
minski & Stupnicki, 1997). There is also evidence
that tter individuals show stronger cortisol re-
sponses than less trained people (Luger et al.,
1987; Marthur, Toriola, & Dada, 1986; Rudolph &
McAuley, 1998). In addition, low cortisol concen-
trations are related to positive psychological
constructs, such as high self-efcacy (Rudolph &
McAuley, 1995), whereas higher cortisol concentra-

Correspondence: M. R. McGuigan, School of Biomedical and Sports Science, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia.
E-mail: m.mcguigan@ecu.edu.au
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/02640410400021401
 688 M. R. McGuigan et al.
tions are associated with negative affective states,
such as anxiety (Lader, 1983). Psychological stress
associated with acute exercise may result in increased
cortisol secretion because participants are either
unfamiliar with the task or attach importance to the
event (Davis, Gass, & Bassett, 1981; Scavo, Barletta,
Vagiri, & Letizia, 1988). Based on these ndings, we
hypothesized that a psychological strategy, such as
psyching-up, would elevate the cortisol response to
acute exercise, due in part to the extra cognitive
demands involved with integrating psyching-up with
the movement and activation of the HPA axis.
Cortisol concentration has been suggested to be a
performance factor in weightlifting because it is
higher in international weightlifters than national
weightlifters (Passelergue, Robert, & Lac, 1995).
The results of previous studies have shown that
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 11:07 24 September 2013
resistance exercise has a signicant effect on cortisol
concentrations following exercise (Mulligan et al.,
1996; Nindl et al., 2001). Consequently, cortisol has
been recommended as a marker of the stress of
training (Passelergue et al., 1995).
Only a few researchers have recruited well-trained
individuals (Shelton & Mahoney, 1978; Tynes &
McFatter, 1987), including a recent study investigat-
ing the bench press exercise, in which psyching-up
resulted in greater peak force than cognitive distrac-
tion and an attention-placebo condition in
participants with a minimum of one year of weight
training experience (Tod, Iredale, McGuigan,
Strange, & Gill, in press). Researchers need to
investigate the inuence of self-directed psyching-
up on actual weight lifted during compound resis-
tance training exercises, such as the squat, in
individuals with relevant training histories (Tod et
al., in press). One purpose of this study, therefore,
was to examine the inuence of psyching-up on one-
repetition maximum (1-RM) performance during
the squat exercise in individuals with at least one year
of resistance training experience. We hypothesized
that psyching-up would lead to increased 1-RM
performance compared with a distraction control
condition. We also hypothesized that psyching-up
would result in a signicant elevation in salivary
cortisol compared with the distraction condition.
Methods
Experimental approach to the problem
We examined the inuence of self-directed psyching-
up on 1-RM performance and salivary cortisol
responses during the squat exercise using a within-
subjects repeated-measures design. Men (n = 10)
and women (n = 10) with weight training experience
(4.5 + 2.0 years) performed 1-RM attempts for the
squat exercise. Before each attempt, the participants
engaged in one of two interventions. The allocation
of the interventions was counterbalanced to avoid
any order effect and included a free choice psych-up
and a distraction control condition. The participants
completed the two interventions on separate days.
Participants
Twenty experienced resistance trained men and
women volunteered to participate in the study.
There were 10 men (age 21.6 + 1.4 years, body
mass 88.5 + 17.1 kg, height 1.78 + 0.07 m) and 10
women (age 22.4 + 2.8 years, body mass
62.4 + 3.9 kg, height 1.65 + 0.06 m; mean + s).
The participants had to have been resistance training
at least three times a week for a year and to be
familiar with the squat exercise. They were asked not
to take any performance-enhancing substances or
perform any exercises that would fatigue the lower
body before each session. The participants were told
about the experimental procedures and signed
informed consent statements in adherence with the
human subjects guidelines of the University of
Wisconsin- La Crosse. To obtain statistical power
of 0.8, using an effect size of 1.23 reported by
Meyers, Whelan and Murphy (1996) using the
psyching-up literature, the computer program GPO-
WER (Faul & Erdfelder, 1992) calculated that a
sample of 18 individuals was required.
Psych-up conditions
Free-choice psych-up. The participants were asked to
prepare themselves for a maximal effort using any
method they desired. They were given 20 s to
identify the method that they would use, after which
they were asked to spend 30 s engaging in their
selected strategy. This experimental approach has
been used previously (Tod et al., in press). The
method was developed in consultation with compe-
titive powerlifters and time limits were imposed to
control the experimental procedures, as previous
research has suggested that the time taken to psych-
up does not inuence its effectiveness. Other
researchers have found that a free choice psych-up
is an effective strategy (Gould et al., 1980; Shelton &
Mahoney, 1978; Whelan et al., 1990)
Distraction control. As used in previous research,
participants were asked to count backwards in groups
of seven from 1000 for 30 s (1000, 993. . ., etc.)
(Shelton & Mahoney, 1978).
Test procedures
The participants reported to the laboratory on three
separate occasions spaced one week apart. The rst

session was treated as a control day in which the
participants performed a maximum squat using a
standard Smith machine. Several warm-up trials
were performed using 30% (for 8 10 repetitions),
50% (4 6 repetitions), 70% (2 4 repetitions) and
90% (one repetition) of an estimated repetition
maximum or 1.0 1.5 times the participants body
weight (McBride, Triplett-McBride, Davie, & New-
ton, 2002). After the warm-up trials, each
participants 1-RM was determined using previously
described methods (McBride et al., 2002). The
participants were not asked to use any specic
psychological interventions during the control day.
A certied strength and conditioning specialist
supervised all sessions
During the experimental sessions, the participants
were asked to engage in one of the interventions
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 11:07 24 September 2013
during the nal 30 s of the rest periods. The
interventions were counterbalanced to avoid any
order effect. After completion of all test sessions, the
participants were debriefed on the interventions and
received feedback regarding their performance.
Salivary cortisol
Saliva samples were collected at the beginning of
each test session, without stimulation, by spitting
directly into a plastic tube, and again following the
end of the nal 1-RM. Samples were obtained from
ten of the participants who completed the study. To
avoid any confounding effects due to variations in
circadian rhythm, all test sessions were performed at
approximately the same time of day. The samples
were transferred to Eppendorf tubes and stored at
7 808C for later analysis. There is a strong relation-
ship between salivary and serum unbound cortisol
both at rest (r = 0.93) and during exercise (r = 0.90)
(OConnor & Corrigan, 1987). Saliva measures of
cortisol concentrations are independent of saliva ow
rate (Riad-Fahmy, Read, & Walker, 1983).
Salivary cortisol concentrations were determined
in duplicate by enzyme immunoassay using a
Diagnostic Systems Laboratories Salivary Cortisol
Enzyme Immunoassay Kit (DSL, Webster, TX).
Assay plates were read using an Opsys MRTM
Microplate Reader (Dynex Technologies, Chantilly,
USA). The intra-assay variance was 7.2%
Statistical analysis
Two-factor (condition 6 gender) analysis of var-
iance was performed on the 1-RM and cortisol
results. Effect sizes were calculated using the formula
from Speed and Andersen (2000) and interpreted
according to their meaningfulness. To interpret the
effect sizes, it was necessary to estimate the smallest
change in performance that was worthwhile to
Psyching-up in the squat exercise 689
participants. We considered the smallest worthwhile
change to be 2.5 kg, as this represents the smallest
increase available in many weight-training exercises.
Results
The 1-RM results for the different psyching-up
conditions are shown in Table I. There was no
signicant difference in 1-RM values during the two
different intervention strategies. The results showed
that the men were signicantly stronger than the
women for the 1-RM squat (P 5 0.05). However,
there was no signicant interaction effect for 1-RM
in the men and women participants (Table I).
The effect sizes for the 1-RM were 0.31 for the
men, 0.23 for the women and 0.30 for the men and
women combined. The salivary cortisol concentra-
tions for the different conditions, both pre and post
test, are shown in Table II. There was no signicant
difference in salivary cortisol concentrations during
the two intervention strategies. There was a sig-
nicant increase in salivary cortisol concentration
from pre to post test in both conditions (P 5 0.05).
There were no signicant gender differences in the
salivary cortisol responses.
Discussion
In this study, we examined the inuence of psyching-
up on 1-RM performance and salivary cortisol
concentrations during the squat exercise in well-
trained individuals. There was no signicant increase
in 1-RM performance following psyching-up com-
pared with the distraction condition. This nding is
in contrast to research that has found a psych-up
effect in trained individuals (Shelton & Mahoney,
1978; Tod et al., in press; Tynes & McFatter, 1987).
Table I. The 1-RM (kg) produced by men and women in the squat
exercise following two different mental preparation strategies
free-choice psych-up and distraction control (mean + s).
Psych-up Control
Men (n = 10) 148.6 + 36.9 145.6 + 30.9
Women (n = 10) 63.5 + 19.3 62.1 + 20.3
Combined (n = 20) 106.0 + 52.2 103.9 + 49.8
Table II. Salivary cortisol concentration (nmol l71) before and
after two mental preparation strategies free-choice psych-up and
distraction control (mean + s).
Psych-up Control
Before 13.8 + 10.7 9.5 + 5.6
After 21.8 + 8.6 17.8 + 8.8
 690 M. R. McGuigan et al.
Also, based on the results from seven studies, Tod et
al. (2003) estimated that psyching-up leads to a 12%
increase in strength compared with control condi-
tions. In addition, there were no signicant gender
differences in the present study for 1-RM using the
psyching-up strategy versus distraction.
The major differences between our study and
previous research is that we measured actual weight
lifted in a compound full body exercise (i.e. squat)
using individuals with at least one year of training.
Previous research with trained individuals has
measured the force produced during the handgrip
or the bench press exercise. In the present study, we
chose to measure performance by weight lifted, as
most individuals are likely to be interested in the
weight they lift rather than the force they produce.
Most lifters are not able to use force production
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 11:07 24 September 2013
measuring devices when they train but they do see
the weight on the bar. There was no learning effect
associated with the movement, as the participants
were familiar with the squat exercise. One possible
explanation for the discrepancy between our results
and those of other research is that the increased
complexity of the squat exercise, compared with the
bench press or handgrip, could have resulted in the
participants being required to divide their attention
across the movement and the psyching-up proce-
dure. Performance is inuenced by a number of
factors and asking participants to psych-up while
lifting during a full body compound movement like
the squat may provide a distraction that inhibits
performance (cf. Tenenbaum et al., 1995). However,
as the participants were familiar with the exercise, it
is unlikely that the complexity of the exercise would
be a major contributor to differences with previous
research. Most previous research has used simple,
single joint exercise tasks (e.g. Shelton & Mahoney,
1978; Tynes & McFatter, 1987). During dynamic
strength tasks, individuals may have more freedom to
vary their posture and/or movement pattern to obtain
a biomechanical advantage and/or facilitate addi-
tional recruitment of muscle groups (Brody et al.,
2000). In support of this, we have previously shown
that psyching-up led to an 11.8% increase compared
with a distraction condition, and an 8.1% increase
over a placebo condition, using a machine bench
press model (Tod et al., in press).
An alternative explanation for the results could be
the participants training experience. Much of the
research that has examined the inuence of psy-
ching-up on dynamic strength tasks has been
conducted on untrained samples; groups of well-
trained people have only been used in a few studies.
Brody et al. (2000) suggested that trained individuals
are likely to have well-developed movement patterns
and neural pathways that may not be readily
modiable by psyching-up, whereas untrained in-
dividuals may have less well-developed movement
patterns and neural pathways that are modiable.
Furthermore, the performance of untrained partici-
pants is likely to be characterized by greater variation
compared with trained individuals. Untrained parti-
cipants, therefore, may receive more benet from
psyching-up. It may be that one years experience
with the squat exercise may be enough for partici-
pants to become sufciently trained to no longer
receive benet from psyching-up. A third possible
reason is that the quality of the participants
psyching-up was not sufcient for them to receive
an effect. In previous research, however, novice
lifters have been able to psych-up sufciently to
improve their performance; it is likely that the
participants in our study would have been capable
of psyching-up. Most participants in the present
study were only recreationally trained, as reected by
the squat 1-RM to body weight ratio (1.67 for men
and 1.02 for women). It is also possible that the
participants quality of free choice psyching-up was
not high enough to allow them to attain full benet
from this type of mental strategy. We have offered
three possible explanations why psyching-up did not
lead to increased performance as hypothesized,
although it is not possible to state with condence
which is most likely.
The present study does not provide evidence that
psyching-up is benecial to participants who have
experienced at least one year of regular weight
training that includes the compound squat exercise.
If our participants produced more force, as suggested
elsewhere, they were unable to translate this to actual
weight lifted. Also, there is still a need for more
research before the inuence of psyching-up on
strength performance can be determined for highly
conditioned or elite participants.
The overall effect size was 0.30, which is small to
moderate, and it is possible that in compound
strength movements like the squat, psyching-up
actually leads to a drop in performance of 0.3 of a
standard deviation or about 2 kg in this sample.
Given that the smallest possible increment in most
exercises is 2.5 kg, an overall drop is likely to be
meaningless. However, with an effect size of 0.31 in
the males, there was a drop of about 2.9 kg and this
is more than the smallest possible increment of
2.5 kg. It might be that psyching-up can have a slight
negative inuence on performance in men.. Future
research is needed because many strength athletes
believe psyching-up increases performance and there
is evidence that psyching-up does increase force
production in simple isolated dynamic tasks,
although most previous studies have used untrained
samples (Tod et al., in press). Hence many athletes
use a psyching-up strategy, but the effect sizes in our
study suggest that during compound movements like

the squat in males with at least one year of
experience, psyching-up may have a slight negative
inuence on performance. Our results are not
denitive given the non-signicant P-values, but
they do justify further research.
Altered psychological states, changes in physiolo-
gical arousal and changes in mechanical factors have
all been proposed as possible reasons why psyching-
up could potentially increase muscular force produc-
tion, but the evidence is conicting (Perkins, Wilson,
& Kerr, 2001; Tod et al., 2003; Whelan et al., 1990).
Some research has attempted to assess arousal by
measuring physiological variables (Perkins et al.,
2001; Whelan et al., 1990). Whelan et al. (1990)
showed that heart rate was not related to increased
strength or psyching-up. Perkins et al. (2001) showed
that heart rate and autonomic nervous system activity
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 11:07 24 September 2013
did not mediate the relationship between handgrip
strength and guided imagery. It has been suggested
that psyching-up may lead to changes in motor unit
recruitment, but in one study no difference was
found in electromyographic activity across various
psyching-up conditions (Brody et al., 2000). Stress-
induced activation of the hypothalamus pituitary
adrenal axis results in increased cortisol secretion
(Kirschbaum & Hellhammer, 1994). In this study,
we measured salivary cortisol as an indicator of
physiological stress. There is limited research in-
vestigating salivary cortisol responses to resistance
exercise. Salivary analysis of cortisol provides a
stress-free, non-invasive collecting procedure (Vin-
ing & McGinley, 1987). It has been suggested that
salivary cortisol provides a better measure of
adrenocortical function, as it more accurately repre-
sents the level of unbound cortisol (Vining,
McGinley, Maksvytis, & Ho, 1983). Most studies
that have measured serum concentrations have
shown that high-intensity resistance exercise elevates
serum cortisol (Mulligan et al., 1996; Nindl et al.,
2001). Our results showed a signicant elevation in
saliva concentrations of cortisol following 1-RM
attempts in the squat exercise. There was no
signicant difference in salivary cortisol responses
between the self-directed cognitive strategies. Such a
nding is not unexpected, however, given that there
was no signicant difference in 1-RM performance.
We hypothesized that there would be a signicant
elevation in salivary cortisol following the psyching-
up strategy, as previous research has shown that
changes in psychological states during acute exercise
result in increased cortisol secretion (Davis et al.,
1981; Scavo et al., 1988). Our ndings could in part
be explained by the participants training experience
and because they were not lifting during a competi-
tion. Davis et al. (1981) demonstrated that the
psychoendocrine response to a novel situation was
a major determinant of the serum cortisol response
Psyching-up in the squat exercise 691
to maximal work. Passelergue et al. (1995) studied
variation in salivary cortisol and testosterone during
an ofcial and a simulated weight-lifting competi-
tion. Cortisol concentrations were signicantly
higher in the competition than in the simulation.
Also, the cortisol concentrations at the time of the
competition were higher in international than in
national athletes.
Psyching-up refers to self-directed cognitive stra-
tegies used by individuals to enhance their
performance. The literature examining the psych-
up effect provides evidence that it may positively
inuence the display of force production on simple
dynamic strength tasks (Tod et al., 2003). In
addition, much of the existing research has been
conducted on untrained individuals. The results of
this study indicate that psyching-up does not
inuence 1-RM during the squat exercise in in-
dividuals with at least one year of weight training
experience. However, further research is required to
conrm these ndings in more elite, strength-based
performers.
Practical application
The results of the present study suggest that self-
directed cognitive strategies do not increase 1-RM
performance in the squat exercise in trained indivi-
duals. However, one should be cautious about
generalizing these results to competitive and elite
athletes. There was also no signicant difference in
salivary cortisol responses with the use of a self-
directed cognitive strategy. There was, however, a
signicant elevation in salivary cortisol following the
performance of the Smith machine squat 1-RM.
Based on the results of this and previous studies, it
could be that tasks that rely more on muscular
endurance would benet more from self-directed
cognitive strategies. However, further studies with
competitive and elite athletes are required to
determine the efcacy of psyching-up as a mental
strategy tool in competitive settings.
References
Brody, E. B., Hateld, B. D., Spalding, T. W., Frazer, M. B., &
Caherty, F. J. (2000). The effects of a psyching strategy on
neuromuscular activation and force production in strength-
trained men. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 162
170.
Caudill, D., & Weinberg, R. (1983). The effects of varying the
length of the psych-up interval on motor performance. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 6, 86 91.
Davis, H., Gass, G., & Bassett, J. (1981). Serum cortisol response
to incremental work in experienced and nave subjects.
Psychomatic Medicine, 43, 127 132.
 692 M. R. McGuigan et al.
Elko, K., & Ostrow, A. C. (1992). The effects of three mental
preparation strategies on strength performance of young and
older athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 15, 34 41.
Faul, F., & Erdfelder, E. (1992). GPOWER: A priori, post-hoc, and
compromise power analyses for MS-DOS [computer program].
Bonn: Department of Psychology, University of Bonn.
Gould, D., Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A. (1980). Mental
preparation strategies, cognitions, and strength performance.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 329 339.
Kirschbaum, C., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1994). Salivary cortisol in
psychoendocrine research: Recent developments and applica-
tions. Psychoendocrinology, 19, 313 333.
Lader, M. (1983). Anxiety and depression. In A. Gale & J. A.
Edwards (Eds.), Physiological correlates of human behavior, Vol.
III: Individual differences and psychopathology (pp 155 167).
London: Academic Press.
Lee, C. (1990). Psyching up for a muscular endurance task:
Effects of image content on performance and mood state.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 66 73.
Luger, A., Duchester, P., Kyle, S., Galluchi, W., Montgomery, L.,
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 11:07 24 September 2013
Gold, P., Loriaux, L., & Chrousus, G. (1987). Acute
hypothalamic pituitary adrenal responses to the stress of
treadmill exercise. New England Journal of Medicine, 316,
1309 1315.
Marthur, D., Toriola, A., & Dada, O. (1986). Serum cortisol and
testosterone levels in conditioned male distance runners and
non-athletes after maximal exercise. Journal of Sports Medicine
and Physical Fitness, 26, 245 250.
McBride, J., Triplett-McBride, T., Davie, A., & Newton, R. U.
(2002). The effect of heavy-vs-light jump squats on the
development of strength, power, and speed. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 16, 75 82.
Meyers, A. W., Whelan, J. P., & Murphy, S. M. (1996). Cognitive
behavioral strategies in athletic performance enhancement. In
M. Hersen, R. M. Miller, & A. S. Belack (Eds.), Handbook of
behavior modication (Vol. 30, pp. 137 164). Pacic Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Mulligan, S. E., Fleck, S. J., Gordon, S. E., Koziris, L. P.,
Triplett-McBride, N. T., & Kraemer, W. J. (1996). Inuence of
resistance exercise volume on serum growth hormone and
cortisol concentrations in women. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 10, 256 262.
Murphy, S. M., Woolfolk, R. L., & Budney, A. J. (1988). The
effects of emotive imagery on strength performance. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 334 345.
Nindl, B. C., Kraemer, W. J., Deaver, D. R., Peters, J. L., Marx, J.
O., Heckman, J. T., & Loomis, G. A. (2001). LH secretion and
testosterone concentrations are blunted after resistance exercise
in men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 91, 1251 1258.
Obminski, Z., & Stupnicki, R. (1997). Comparison of the
testosterone-to-cortisol ratio values obtained from hormonal
assays in saliva and serum. Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness, 37, 50 55.
OConnor, P., & Corrigan, D. (1987). Inuence of short-term
cycling on salivary cortisol levels. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 19, 224 228.
Passelergue, P., Robert, A., & Lac, G. (1995). Salivary cortisol and
testosterone variations during an ofcial and a simulated
weight-lifting competition. International Journal of Sports Med-
icine, 16, 298 303.
Perkins, D., Wilson, G. V., & Kerr, J. (2001). The effects of
elevated arousal and mood on maximal strength performance in
athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 239 259.
Riad-Fahmy, D., Read, G. F., & Walker, R. F. (1983). Salivary
steroid assays for assessing variation in endocrine activity.
Journal of Steroid Biochemistry, 19, 265 272.
Rudolph, D. L., & McAuely, E. (1995). Self-efcacy and salivary
cortisol responses to acute exercise in physically active and less
active adults. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 206
213.
Rudolph, D.L., & McAuely, E. (1998). Cortisol and affective
responses to exercise. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16, 121 128.
Scavo, D., Barletta, C., Vagiri, D., & Letizia, C. (1988).
Adrenocortotrophic hormone, beta-endorphin, cortisol, growth
hormone and prolactin circulating levels in nineteen athletes
before and after half-marathon and marathon. Journal of Sports
Medicine and Physical Fitness, 31, 401 406.
Shelton, T. O., & Mahoney, M. J. (1978). The content and effect
of psyching-up strategies in weight lifters. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 2, 275 284.
Speed, H. D., & Andersen, M. B. (2000). What exercise and sport
scientists dont understand. Journal of Science and Medicine in
Sport, 3, 84 92.
Tenenbaum, G., Bar-Eli, M., Hoffman, J.R., & Jablonovski, R.
(1995). The effect of cognitive and somatic psyching-up
techniques on isokinetic leg strength performance. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 9, 3 7.
Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis, P., Douma, I., & Kazakas,
P. (2000). The effects of motivational versus instructional self-
talk on improving motor performance. The Sport Psychologist,
14, 253 272.
Tod, D., Iredale, F., & Gill, N. (2003). Psyching-up and
muscular force production. Sports Medicine, 33, 47 58.
Tod, D. A., Iredale, F., McGuigan, M. R., Strange, D., & Gill, N.
D. (in press). Psyching-up enhances force production
during the bench press exercise. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research.
Tynes, L. L., & McFatter, R. M. (1987). The efcacy of
psyching strategies on a weight-lifting task. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 11, 327 336.
Vining, R. F., & McGinley, R. A. (1987). The measurement of
hormones in saliva: Possibilities and pitfalls. Journal of Steroid
Biochemistry, 27, 81 94.
Vining, R. F., McGinley, R. A., Maksvytis, J. J., & Ho, K. Y.
(1983). Salivary cortisol: A better measure of adrenal cortical
function than serum cortisol. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 20,
329 335.
Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1980). Cognition and
motor performance: Effect of psyching-up strategies on three
motor tasks. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 239 245.
Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1981). Relationship
between the duration of the psych-up interval and strength
performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 166 170.
Weinberg, R., Jackson, A., & Seaboune, T. (1985). The effects of
specic vs nonspecic mental preparation strategies on strength
and endurance performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 8, 175
180.
Whelan, J. P., Epkins, C. C., & Meyers, A. W. (1990). Arousal
interventions for athletic performance: Inuence of mental
preparation and competitive experience. Anxiety Research, 2:
293 307.