Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Mastery and affect imagery ability are associated with facilitative stress appraisals, but there is scant research in non-athlete populations. Study 1 examined relationships between mastery and affect imagery ability with stress appraisals and perceived stress in a non-athlete population. Study 2 investigated the feasibility and acceptability of two-week layered stimulus response training (LSRT) to increase imagery ability, reduce stress, and elicit adaptive stress appraisals. In Study 1, 205 young adults (Mage = 20.06, SD = 1.42) completed measures of imagery ability, perceived stress, and stress appraisals. In Study 2, 28 participants (Mage = 21.04, SD = 1.67) completed the measures before and after a two-week LSRT intervention. Mastery and affect imagery ability were associated with challenge (positively) and threat (negatively) appraisals and perceived stress (negatively). LSRT was accepted and feasible with a high accrual, attendance, and engagement. Findings suggest LSRT could be effective for regulating stress in young adults.

Keywords

Imagery stress stress appraisals Layered Stimulus Response Training imagery ability perceived stress

In the UK, approximately one in five adults experience stress for more days in a month than they don’t, with 1 in 14 adults reporting experiencing stress every day (Ciphr, 2021). Repeated or long-term exposure to stress has been associated with the development and exacerbation of diseases including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and Alzheimer's (Armstrong et al., 2021; Boone, 1991; Hackett & Steptoe, 2016; Steptoe & Kivimäki, 2012; Tomiyama, 2019) as well as mental health conditions such as disordered eating, substance abuse, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, loneliness, anxiety, and depression (Hammen, 2005; Mental Health Foundation, 2018; Schneiderman et al., 2005; Sinha, 2008). To combat the negative effects of stress and reduce the individual and societal burden, it is essential that research identifies the correlates of stress and develops accessible and cost-effective interventions to reduce the damaging consequences of stress.

The negative consequences of stress may not always be due to the amount of stress experienced but instead how the stress is appraised (Riepenhausen et al., 2022). For example, Keller et al. (2012) demonstrated individuals reporting higher stress and negative appraisal of stress for health had a 43% increased risk of premature mortality within 8 years, whereas there was no elevated risk of premature mortality for adults reporting similar levels of stress that were appraised not to negatively affect their health. Additionally, stress appraised as a challenge (i.e., when an individual perceives they have the sufficient resources to meet the demands of the situation; Blascovich & Mendes, 2000) is associated with more adaptive responses such as positive emotions, favourable cardiovascular profiles, and better performance (Gomes et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2012; Osório et al., 2017). By contrast, a threat appraisal (i.e., when an individual perceives they do not have the sufficient resources to meet the demands of the situation; Blascovich & Mendes, 2000) is associated with more maladaptive responses such as negative emotions, more detrimental cardiovascular profiles, poorer performance, and burnout (Gomes et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2012; Osório et al., 2017). Given the potential benefits from experiencing a challenge appraisal, developing interventions to improve the likelihood of appraising stressful scenarios as a challenge rather than a threat may result in more optimal outcomes.

One technique that can regulate stress and alter how it is appraised is mental imagery (e.g., Bigham et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2010, 2017). Mental imagery has been described as a technique involving the conscious creation of an experience that mimics a real experience through different senses in the mind without the event or activity occurring (White & Hardy, 1998). Mental imagery has been frequently used in clinical settings to help individuals cope with stress and anxiety (Holmes & Mathews, 2010). However, the majority of studies have focussed on alleviating symptoms rather than altering how they are appraised. For example, in the context of stress, the use of guided imagery scripts in both athlete (e.g., Williams et al., 2010; Williams & Cumming, 2012) and non-athlete (Williams et al., 2017) samples has been used to alter how stress is appraised. Underpinned by bioinformational theory which was initially developed as a theory to guide research and practice in using imaginal exposure to treat fears and anxieties (Lang, 1979), these scripts included stimulus (i.e., descriptions of the characteristics of the scenario such as objects, noises and the environment), response (i.e., descriptions of the responses an individual would experience if exposed to the real-life stimulus such as elevations in heart rate), and meaning propositions (i.e., explanations of the relationship between the stimulus and response propositions to the individual). These aforementioned studies aimed to alter the meaning propositions to create more positive interpretations of stress by the scripts emphasising feelings of confidence and control, to provide people with the belief that they have the resources to meet the demands of the stressful scenario (Williams et al., 2010, 2017; Williams & Cumming, 2012). Studies have shown that by instilling more positive meaning propositions of sporting and non-sporting stressful events, individuals experience more of a challenge appraisal which is accompanied by more adaptive responses such as more positive anxiety, greater confidence, a more positive interpretation of stress, and lower heart rate reactivity (e.g., Williams et al., 2010, 2017; Williams & Cumming, 2012).

Beyond imagery use, imagery ability (i.e., “an individual's capability to form vivid, controllable images and retain them for sufficient time to effect the desired imagery rehearsal”; Morris, 1997, p. 37) appears to relate to more adaptive appraisals of stress and anxiety as well as a reduction in perceived stress. For example, Johnsen and Lutgendorf (2001) found individuals with a greater imagery ability, after listening to a relaxation tape, self-reported significantly less stress than individuals with a poorer imagery ability. Additionally, in the absence of any imagery use, higher levels of mastery imagery ability (i.e., imaging overcoming challenging and difficult situations; Quinton et al., 2019) and positive affect imagery ability (i.e., imagery of positive feelings and emotions) display higher trait confidence, greater challenge appraisal tendencies, lower threat appraisal tendencies, as well as lower and more positive interpretations of general anxiety in athlete samples (Quinton et al., 2018, 2019; Williams & Cumming, 2012, 2015). In non-athlete samples, studies have also shown that mastery imagery ability (sometimes referred to in the literature as grit imagery ability) and positive affect imagery ability are positively associated with challenge appraisal tendencies, a more stress-is-enhancing mindset, and more proactive coping, and negatively associated with threat appraisal tendencies, perceived stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms (Beevor et al., 2024a; Williams et al., 2024). Furthermore, when exposed to an acute psychological stressor (i.e., a mental arithmetic task), university students with a greater mastery imagery ability reported more facilitative interpretations of their anxiety (Williams et al., 2021), and athletes completing a computer car racing game demonstrated their mastery imagery ability protected against lower levels of debilitative anxiety, even when primed with an imagery script describing not being able to cope (Quinton et al., 2019).

Collectively, this previous research suggests that possessing a greater imagery ability of positive feelings and emotions, and persevering in difficult situations may equip people with the means to appraise their stress more positively and reduce their perceived stress (even in the absence of imagery use). However, this prior work has been cross-sectional meaning it cannot imply causation. A second limitation is that most studies investigating the association between mastery and affect imagery ability specifically with stress appraisal and perceived stress have been conducted in athlete samples.

Research has found that athletes tend to display a greater imagery ability (e.g., Di Corrado et al., 2020; Isaac & Marks, 1994), report lower perceived stress (e.g., Avery et al., 2022), and face a unique set of stressors (Wilson & Pritchard, 2005) compared to non-athletes. Therefore, it is important that research continues to establish whether the same relationships exist between mastery and affect imagery ability with stress appraisals and perceived stress in the general population as well as establish whether techniques to improve mastery and affect imagery ability are accompanied by improvements in more adaptive appraisals of stress. If this is the case, improving mastery and affect imagery ability could be an effective way to regulate stress.

One technique that has the potential to improve mastery and affect imagery ability is layered stimulus response training (LSRT; Williams et al., 2013). This technique is based on bioinformational theory's notion that emotional images consist of stimulus, response, and meaning propositions (Lang, 1979), and involves progressively building up the content of an image and the various propositions in subsequent layers.

Research has shown LSRT can improve imagery ability in as little as one session in females wanting to increase their physical activity (Weibull et al., 2017), and four sessions of movement focussed LSRT led to increases in movement imagery ability which transferred to improvements in golf putting performance (Williams et al., 2013). However, research has yet to investigate whether LSRT has the potential to enhance imagery ability of stress related content such as mastery and affect type imagery, and the subsequent effects this could have on stress appraisals.

In addition to improving the ability to image mastery and affect imagery ability, Cumming et al. (2016) proposed that LSRT could also be used to alter an individual's interpretation of an imaged scenario. Specific to stress related images, it can be theorised that LSRT would be effective in altering stress appraisals as LSRT could by its very nature encourage imagery rescripting. Imagery rescripting is a therapeutic technique that has been widely used and suggested to treat psychiatric disorders such as; post-traumatic stress disorder (e.g., Arntz et al., 2007), mood disorders (e.g., Pile et al., 2021), phobias (e.g., Clark et al., 2006), eating disorders (e.g., Cooper et al., 2007), nightmares (e.g., Albanese et al., 2022) and personality disorders (e.g., Arntz, 2011). The aim is to alter a negative memory or image to be more positive by replacing negative feelings and emotions with more positive ones (Arntz, 2012). In the context of stress, the layering approach of LSRT could therefore alter the image's meaning propositions explaining the relationship between the stimulus and response propositions of a stressful scenario to enable these to be more positive in nature. For example, layering in positive feelings of confidence and control which have been associated with more adaptive appraisals of stress in athlete and non-athlete samples (e.g., Williams et al., 2010, 2017) could help people perceive the responses to stress (e.g., increased heart rate, feelings of adrenalin) as more positive. This may also be accompanied by more positive feelings and emotions as well as viewing the stress and the subsequent responses as more favourable. Consequently, the LSRT could help individuals challenge any current negative schematic beliefs they hold about their stress (Holmes et al., 2007). In support, Davies (2015) found that rescripting through the use of LSRT regulated negative thoughts and feelings in an equestrian rider who had developed a fear response to jumping fences. However, to date, research has yet to examine whether LSRT has the potential to increase mastery and affect imagery ability, and alter how stress is generally appraised.

The overall aim of the present research was to establish the feasibility, acceptability, and potential effect of a four-session LSRT intervention in improving mastery and affect imagery ability and the accompanied changes this may have on stress appraisals. However, prior to testing this, an initial aim of the work was to confirm the relationships between mastery and affect imagery ability and stress in a non-athlete sample. A young adult population was selected for this programme of work due to the increased risk of stress from factors including novel circumstances in living arrangements, relationships, education, and employment, resulting in feelings of uncertainty and a pressure to succeed (Matud et al., 2020).

Study 1

Previous research investigating the associations between mastery and affect imagery ability and stress appraisals has been primarily conducted in athlete samples. The two exceptions have been Beevor et al. (2024a) and Williams et al. (2024) who showed mastery/grit imagery ability was associated with greater challenge appraisal tendencies, and lower perceived stress. However, it was only Beevor et al. (2024a) who found greater mastery imagery ability to be associated with lower threat appraisal tendencies (this relationship was not evident by Williams et al., 2024). While Beevor et al. (2024a) did not examine affect imagery ability, Williams et al. (2024) found that greater affect imagery ability of positive content was associated with greater challenge appraisal tendencies and lower perceived stress. Therefore, to add to these initial findings, Study 1 examined the extent to which both mastery and affect imagery ability related to challenge and threat appraisal tendencies and perceived stress in a non-athlete young adult population. It was hypothesised that greater mastery and affect imagery ability would be positively associated with a challenge appraisal tendency and negatively associated with a threat appraisal tendency and perceived stress.

Methods

Participants

A priori power analysis was conducted using G* power to determine the required sample size to detect significant predictions with a small to medium effect size (f = .07) based on previous work (Quinton et al., 2019; Williams & Cumming, 2012) power was set to .80 and the alpha level at .05 which revealed a sample size of 176 was required. To account for missing data and outliers we aimed for 200 participants with the final sample being 205 participants (141 female, 61 male, 3 prefer not to say, Mean age = 20.06, SD = 1.42 years). Eligibility criteria included being 18–30 years old, proficient in reading English, as well as having access to the internet and not having a medically diagnosed mental health condition at the time of taking part in the study. All participants provided informed consent and the study received ethical approval before recruitment commenced.

Measures

Imagery ability. The mastery and affect subscales of the Sport Imagery Ability Questionnaire (SIAQ; Williams & Cumming, 2011) measured mastery and affect imagery ability. The SIAQ consists of 15 different items assessing five different types of imagery ability including mastery (e.g., “Giving 100% effort when things aren’t going well”), and affect (e.g., “The positive emotions I feel while doing my sport”). Participants were asked to image each item in relation to a sport they have previously participated in (e.g., while at school or if they used to play sport). Responses to each item are then made on a 7-point Likert scale indicating how easy it is to perform the image ranging from 1 (very hard to image) to 7 (very easy to image). Items for each subscale are averaged providing participants with an overall score for each type of imagery with a higher score indicating greater ease of imagery. Research has demonstrated the SIAQ is a reliable and valid measure for assessing imagery ability for all five subscales, including mastery and affect imagery ability (Williams & Cumming, 2011) and has demonstrated good validity and internal reliability when used in non-athlete samples (Beevor et al., 2024a, 2024b). As reported in Table 1, affect imagery ability demonstrated good internal consistency with Cronbach alpha values above the accepted .70 cut off, however mastery imagery ability was slightly below this value (.64).

Table 1.
Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Mastery and Affect Imagery Ability, Challenge and Threat Appraisal Tendencies, and Perceived Stress.

Means (SD) Cronbach α Mastery imagery ability Challenge appraisal tendency Threat appraisal tendency Perceived stress

Affect imagery ability 5.67 (1.08) .77 .487* .398* −.157* −.192

Mastery imagery ability 4.86 (1.05) .64 .442* −.271* −.214

Challenge appraisal tendency 4.58 (0.67) .82 −.359* −.405*

Threat appraisal tendency 3.95 (1.04) .93 .564***

Perceived stress 2.01 (0.63) .86

Note. * p < .05, p < .01, * p < .001.

Table 2.
Study 1 Standardized and Unstandardized Beta Weightings, Standard Errors, t values, p values, and 95% Confidence Intervals for Affect and Mastery Imagery Ability Regressions Predicting Challenge and Threat Appraisal Tendencies, and Perceived Stress.

Challenge Appraisal Tendencies

Model B SE β t p 95% CI

Step 1

Gender −0.09 0.10 −.07 −0.94 .350 −0.28, 0.10

Age −0.03 0.03 −.05 −0.75 .457 −0.09, 0.04

Step 2

Gender −0.03 0.09 −.02 −0.63 .707 −0.20, 0.14

Age −0.02 0.03 −.04 −0.08 .553 −0.08, 0.04

Affect imagery ability 0.14 0.04 .23 3.26 .001 0.06, 0.23

Mastery imagery ability 0.21 0.05 .33 4.60 <.001 0.12, 0.30

Threat Appraisal Tendencies

Model B SE β t p 95% CI

Step 1

Gender 0.26 0.15 .12 1.72 .088 −0.04, 0.56

Age <−0.01 0.05 <−.01 −0.04 .979 −0.10, 0.10

Step 2

Gender 0.22 0.15 .10 1.50 .134 −0.07, 0.51

Age <−0.01 0.05 <−.01 −0.04 .969 −0.10, 0.10

Affect imagery ability −0.02 0.08 −.02 −0.31 .760 −0.17, 0.13

Mastery imagery ability −0.25 0.08 −.25 −3.24 .001 −0.40, −0.10

Perceived Stress

Model B SE β t p 95% CI

Step 1

Gender 0.24 0.09 .19 2.68 .008 0.06, 0.42

Age 0.01 0.03 .02 0.24 .814 −0.05, 0.07

Step 2

Gender 0.22 0.09 .17 2.45 .015 0.04, 0.39

Age <0.01 0.03 .01 0.14 .886 −0.06, 0.06

Affect imagery ability −0.06 0.05 −.10 −1.27 .206 −0.15, 0.03

Mastery imagery ability −0.09 0.05 −.16 −1.99 .048 −0.19, <−0.01

Note. Bolded results are significant predictors.

Perceived stress. The 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen & Williamson, 1988) assessed how stressful participants perceived their lives were in the past month. Items such as “How often have you felt nervous and stressed?”, “How often have you been able to control irritations in your life?” and “How often have you felt that you were on top of things?” are responded to on a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (always). All ten items are summed together resulting in an overall score between 0 and 40 with a higher score indicating greater perceived stress. The 10-item PSS is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring perceived stress in young adults (Roberti et al., 2006) and as seen in Table 1, demonstrated good internal consistency in the present study.

Challenge and threat appraisals. The Cognitive Appraisal Scale (CAS; Skinner & Brewer, 2002) assessed the extent to which participants tend to perceive meaningful situations as a challenge and a threat. The CAS consists of 18 items with 8 items assessing challenge appraisal tendencies (e.g., “I tend to focus on the positive aspects of the situation”) and 10 assessing threat appraisal tendencies (e.g., “I worry about the kind of impression I make”). Participants read each statement and rated the extent to which they agree on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Items are averaged for each subscale with a higher score indicating a higher appraisal tendency for challenge and threat. Research has shown the CAS is a valid and reliable measure for assessing appraisal tendencies (Skinner & Brewer, 2002) and both subscales in this current study had a good internal consistency as reported in Table 1.

Procedures

Participants were recruited from universities throughout the United Kingdom via email and social media. Data collection ran from September 2021 to February 2022. Participants completed the study online via Qualtrics through an online link which took participants to an information page about the study. Participants willing to take part provided informed consent before then providing their age and gender, and completing the measures of mastery and affect imagery ability, challenge and threat appraisal tendencies, and perceived stress. Study completion took no more than 20 min.

Data Analysis

Data analyses were completed in SPSS version 29 (IBM Corp, USA). Data were first screened for missing values and univariate and multivariate outliers for the entire sample. There was no missing data but one participant was removed due to their challenge appraisal score being three standard deviations from the mean. Inspection of the Mahalanobis distance at p < .001 identified one multivariate outlier which was also removed. The final sample retained for the data analysis consisted of 202 participants (male n = 60, female n = 139, prefer not to say n = 3).¹

Means and standard deviations for affect and mastery imagery ability, challenge and threat appraisal tendencies, and perceived stress were calculated before bivariate correlations were run to examine the relationships between the variables. Finally, three separate hierarchal linear regression models were run to examine if affect and mastery imagery ability predicted: 1) challenge appraisal tendencies; 2) threat appraisal tendencies; and 3) perceived stress. To adjust for age and gender, these variables were entered into Step 1 of the regression model. Affect and mastery imagery ability were then entered into Step 2. The critical alpha level was set at .05.

Results and Discussion

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations between affect and mastery imagery ability, challenge and threat appraisal tendencies, and perceived stress. All correlations were significant. As well as positively correlating with each other (p < .001), affect and mastery imagery ability both positively correlated with challenge appraisal tendency (p's < .001) and negatively correlated with threat appraisal tendency (p's ≤ .026) and perceived stress (p's ≤ .006). Challenge and threat appraisal tendencies negatively correlated with each other, and challenge appraisal negatively correlated and threat appraisal positively correlated with perceived stress (p's < .001) respectively.

Multiple Linear Regressions

Table 2 displays the hierarchical linear regression models for affect and mastery imagery ability predicting challenge and threat appraisal tendencies and perceived stress. The regression model for challenge appraisal tendencies in Step 1 showed a non-significant overall effect, F(2, 199) = 0.70, p = .499 accounting for only 1% percentage of the variance. In Step 2, the addition of affect and mastery imagery ability resulted in a significant change to the overall model, F(4, 197) = 15.65, p < .001 accounting for 24.1% of the variance (R²Δ = .234). Both affect and mastery imagery ability significantly positively predicted challenge appraisal tendencies such that greater affect and mastery imagery ability were associated with being more likely to appraise stressful situations as a challenge with mastery imagery ability the strongest predictor.

The threat appraisal regression model for Step 1 showed a non-significant overall effect, F(2, 199) = 1.47, p = .231 accounting for 2% percentage of the variance. Adding affect and mastery imagery ability in Step 2 resulted in a significant overall model, F(4, 197) = 4.56, p = .002 accounting for 8.5% of the variance (R²Δ = .070) but only mastery imagery ability was a statistically significant predictor, such that those displaying higher mastery imagery ability were less likely to appraise stressful situations as a threat.

Step 1 of the perceived stress model had a significant overall effect, F(2, 199) = 1.47, p = .029 accounting for 3.5% percentage of the variance. Adding affect and mastery imagery ability in Step 2 resulted in a significant change to the overall model, F(4, 197) = 4.50, p = .002 accounting for 8.5% of the variance (R²Δ = .049). Similar to the regression predicting threat appraisal, only mastery imagery ability was a significant negative predictor in that those displaying higher mastery imagery ability were likely to report lower levels of perceived stress.

The results from Study 1 generally replicate those from previous studies demonstrating 1) positive relationships between mastery and affect imagery ability and challenge appraisal tendencies, and 2) negative relationships with threat appraisal tendencies, with mastery imagery ability seemingly having the strongest relationship. The present study also demonstrated a relationship between mastery imagery ability and perceived stress which was observed by Williams et al. (2024). Consequently, in addition to mastery imagery ability being associated with more positive appraisal tendencies, those better able to image mastery type content also display lower levels of perceived stress. Similar to Williams et al. (2024), the present study did not observe a statistically significant relationship between affect imagery ability and threat appraisal tendency. However, the the non statistically significant relationship between affect imagery ability and perceived stress is contrary to the significant negative association observed by Williams et al. (2024). While this may be due to the studies using different assessment methods, it highlights the need for more research in non-athlete samples to examine the relationships between imagery ability of different content, and constructs indicative of stress and stress appraisals.

A key limitation of the present study is that the reported relationships are cross-sectional meaning causation cannot be inferred. It is therefore important to establish whether increasing mastery and affect imagery ability are accompanied with changes in stress appraisals and perceived stress levels.

Study 2

Study 2 aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a four-session LSRT intervention to increase mastery and affect imagery ability, and establish whether this intervention led to any changes in these imagery abilities (including obtaining the effect sizes of any changes). The study also examined whether there were any accompanying changes in stress appraisals and perceived stress levels. A final aim was to assess whether there were any changes in session ease, vividness, stress intensity, perceived control, and coping interpretation as a result of the intervention and at which point in the intervention any changes occurred. It was hypothesised that following the intervention, participants would experience an increase in their affect and mastery imagery ability from baseline to post-intervention and that this would be accompanied by an increase in challenge appraisal tendencies and decrease in threat appraisal tendencies and perceived stress levels, from baseline to post-intervention.

Methods

Participants

A priori power analysis was conducted using G* power to determine the required sample size to detect significant differences with medium effect size (f = .30) based on a previous pilot study, power was set to .80 and the alpha level at .05, and revealed an ideal sample size of 24. To account for potential drop out, 28 participants were recruited (all white British; male = 1; female = 27; Mage = 21.04, SD = 1.67 years). Inclusion criteria, informed consent, and ethics were the same as Study 1. Participants were awarded a £10 Amazon voucher upon completion of the study.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from the university of the first and last author and surrounding area through emailing university sports teams and societies, social media posts, posters, shout outs in lectures and through word of mouth. Recruitment took place over a six-month period from November 2021 – May 2022. Once participants received and read through the information sheet, they provided informed consent and demographic information including age, gender, and ethnicity before taking part in the intervention.

Baseline and post-intervention. At baseline and post intervention participants completed an online questionnaire pack on Smart Survey assessing imagery ability, appraisal tendencies and perceived stress (described in Study 1) which took on average 20–30 minutes to complete.

LSRT intervention. Participants attended four LSRT sessions across two weeks (two sessions per week). The sessions were delivered one-to-one by the researcher online via Zoom and lasted about 20 min. Prior to each session participants were provided with White and Hardy's (1998) definition of imagery, and a description of the two different visual perspectives (internal/ first person, external/ third person) and examples of the different imagery senses. Within each session, participants were asked to choose and image a situation they would find stress evoking, with situations differing across participants (e.g., sitting an exam, delivering a presentation). The training consisted of participants trying to build their image up by adding subsequent layers to introduce different details of the scenario (i.e., stimulus, response and meaning propositions). The LSRT protocol consists of three phases in which the participant images the scenario, reflects on the quality of the imagery, and identifies ways to try to make the image more vivid. For a more detailed description of the LSRT protocol, please see Cumming et al. (2016).

In the present study the particular focus of training was on trying to elict more positive meaning propositions by layering in more positive feelings, such as confidence and control, while imaging the stimulus and response propositions reflective of the scenario they consider stressful. Similar to previous LSRT work (e.g., Williams et al., 2013), each session consisted of 5 attempts of the imagery and participants were asked to image their chosen scenario as clearly and vividly as they could for around 10–15 s. Following the image, participants were asked to recall their image and describe what was particularly clear and vivid, and what was less detailed/harder to image. Participants were then asked to identify new details they could add to the image to feel more positive in the scenario and thus alter the meaning propositions. Consequently, the specific details layered into subsequent images and the progress of the imagery varied across participants as images developed based off the discussion between the participant and researcher but typically had an emphasis on imaging feelings of stress while being confident and in control of the situation. As such the training attempted to alter the meaning propositions of the imagery to elicit a more positive interpretation of the responses to stress. After each session participants completed a session evaluation on Smart Survey (the items are described below).

Measures

Baseline and post-intervention measures. The same SIAQ, CAS and PSS described in Study 1 were completed with the only difference being that the PSS was completed in relation to the past two-weeks (rather than past month). This was to ensure the periods of time that were assessed did no overlap between the baseline and post-intervention assessments. As reported in Table 3, all subscales except baseline affect imagery demonstrated good internal consistency with Cronbach Alpha scores higher than the accepted cut off of .70.

Table 3.
Study 2 Retention Rate, Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach Alpha Coefficients (Where Appropriate) for LSRT Engagement and Imaging as Instructed, as Well as Outcome Variables Pre- and Post-Intervention.

Baseline Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Post-intervention

M (SD) Cronbach α M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M (SD) Cronbach α

Participant retention (n) 27 - 26 26 24 24 21 -

Engagement - - 6.18 (1.02) 6.00 (1.00) 6.76^c* (0.44) 6.65 (0.79) - -

Imaging as Instructed - - 5.53 (1.91) 5.71 (1.45) 5.71 (1.40) 6.12 (1.41) - -

Mastery imagery 4.10 (1.27) .82 - - - - 5.59 (1.12)^a .82

Affect imagery 5.46 (0.95) .64 - - - - 6.25 (0.95)^a* .88

Challenge appraisal 4.15 (0.74) .82 - - - - 4.82 (0.47)^a .75

Threat appraisal 4.41 (0.76) .87 - - - - 3.62 (1.00) ^b .84

Perceived stress 22.67 (6.12) .81 - - - - 16.71 (4.84)^b** .79

LSRT ease - - 5.06 (1.48) 5.35 (1.27) 5.59 (1.42) 5.88 (1.36)^c* - -

LSRT vividness - - 5.00 (1.37) 5.18 (1.29) 5.53 (1.38) 6.06 (1.44)^d* - -

LSRT stress - - 4.06 (1.48)) 3.65 (1.32) 3.76 (1.20) 3.12 (1.27) - -

LSRT control - - 4.00 (0.50) 4.88 (.93) 5.18 (1.19) 5.24 (1.39) - -

LSRT coping - - −.94 (1.09) .06 (1.44)^e* .88 (1.50)^e 1.47 (1.42)^e* - -

Note. ^a= significantly improved from baseline to post-intervention, b = significantly reduced from baseline to post- intervention, c = significantly greater than session 1 & 2, d = greater than session 1,2 and 3, e = significantly greater than session 1* = p < .05, p < .01, * = p < .001.

Session evaluation. After each LSRT session participants completed the session evaluation consisting of seven separate items. Responses to all items were made on a 7-point Likert scale. The first two items assessed the acceptability of the intervention by asking participants to indicate their level of session engagement (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) and the extent to which they imaged as instructed (1 = not at all, 7 = exactly). The third and fourth items assessed imagery ability with the third item assessing ease (1 = very hard, 7 = very easy) and fourth assessing vividness (1 = not at all vivid, 7 = extremely vivid) of the imagery performed. The final three items assessed constructs reflective of more adaptive stress appraisals and included how much control they felt they had over the outcome (1 = no control, 7 = total control), the interpretation of the feelings of stress (−3 = very debilitative, + 3 = very facilitative) as well as how stressed participants felt about the situation (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).

Data Reduction and Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted on IBM SPSS version 29. First feasibility and acceptability were looked at in terms of speed of participant accrual as well as number of sessions completed by participants, drop out, and any missing data. Data were then analysed for those participants who completed the intervention.

To examine the potential effect of LSRT increasing imagery ability and altering stress appraisals and perceived stress, means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated for mastery imagery ability, affect imagery ability, challenge and threat appraisal tendencies, and perceived stress and separate one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted to assess changes from baseline to post-intervention. Finally, changes in imagery ability (ease and vividness), as well as control, and perceived coping, and stress intensity, across the four LSRT sessions were examined through separate one-way repeated measures ANOVAs. The effect sizes for all ANOVAs were reported as the partial eta squared. The significance level was set to .05 for all analyses.

Results

Feasibility

Recruitment took 4 weeks, accruing 7 participants each week with 87.5% of the participants who were approached agreeing to take part. Table 3 shows the retention rates of the participants throughout the intervention. Of the 28 participants who agreed to take part, only one participant dropped out in the first week and another two participants dropped out of the second week. The reasons given for dropping out of the intervention were not being able to fit the sessions within the two-week time frame. Overall, the attendance for all four sessions was high at 89%.

Questionnaire completion was generally high equating to 92%, with 81% completing the individual session evaluation questionnaires. However, one participant who took part in the intervention did not complete the baseline questionnaire and three participants who completed all four intervention sessions did not complete the post intervention questionnaire. It is unknown whether these missing questionnaire packs were because participants intentionally or unintentionally completed the packs or whether they completed them but a technical error caused the data not to be collected. Consequently, remaining data was analysed for a total of 21 participants.

Acceptability

Table 3 reports the means and standard deviations of the intervention engagement and extent to which the participants imaged as instructed across the four sessions. In general participants engaged very well in the sessions (mean scores over 6/7 for each session) and imaged as instructed (scored over 5.5/6 for each session). The one-way repeated measures ANOVAs revealed no significant differences in ability to image as instructed across the four sessions, F(1.40, 22.39) = 1.42, p = .257, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .81. However, participants’ engagement was significantly higher in session 3 than sessions 1 and 2, F(3,48) = 3.42, p = .027, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .17.

Changes in Outcome Measures

Means and standard deviations of the outcome measures baseline and post-intervention are displayed in Table 3.

Imagery ability. One-way repeated-measures ANOVAs showed affect imagery ability (F[1,20] = 9.27, p = .006, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .32) and mastery imagery ability (F[1,20] = 14.03, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .48) statistically significantly increased from baseline to post-intervention.

Stress appraisals and perceived stress One-way repeated-measures ANOVAs showed threat appraisal tendency (F[1,20] = 12.15, p = .002, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .38) and perceived stress (F[1,20] = 18.32, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .41) statistically significantly reduced from baseline to post-intervention while challenge appraisal tendency statistically significantly increased from baseline to post-intervention (F[1,20] = 11.13, p = .003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .36).

Individual Session Data

The means and standard deviations for the LSRT intervention session ratings of ease, vividness, and control, coping and stress intensity are displayed in Table 3.

Ease and vividness. Participants found performing the imagery relatively easy and images were relatively clear and vivid throughout. One-way repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed there were statistically significant increases for both ease (F[1.86, 29.72] = 4.38, p = .024, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .22) and vividness (F[3,48] = 6.38, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .29). By session 4 participants found performing the imagery significantly easier than sessions 1 and 2, and significantly more vivid than sessions 1, 2 and 3.

Control, coping interpretation, and stress intensity. One-way repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed participants would feel statistically significantly more in control of the stressful scenario (F[1.74, 27.87] = 8.73, p = .002, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .35) and rated the stress as statistically significantly more facilitative (F[3,48] = 11.80, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .42) after the second, third and fourth sessions of LSRT compared to session 1 but there was no statistically significant difference for stress intensity ratings, (F[3,48] = 2.35, p = .084, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .13).

Discussion

The aim of Study 2 was to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of a four session LSRT intervention across two weeks and whether this demonstrated the potential to improve imagery ability and alter stress appraisals and perceived stress in young adults.

The target sample size was reached relatively easily (within four weeks) with a high proportion of individuals approached agreeing to take part and very few dropping out of the study. The engagement and extent to which participants imaged as instructed throughout the intervention was also relatively high. Collectively, these findings suggest an LSRT intervention is feasible and is well accepted by young adults. Furthermore, the higher image as instructed scores in the latter sessions could perhaps be explained by the improvements in imagery ability; as participants started to find the imagery easier, they may have had a greater capacity to image as instructed.

As hypothesised, participants experienced increases in mastery and affect imagery ability. This adds to the existing LSRT literature suggesting LSRT (using content made up of stress-related scenarios), appears capable of improving imagery ability beyond movements (Williams et al., 2013). Improvements to mastery and affect imagery ability were likely the result of the training involving imagery content of stressful scenarios combined with positive feelings and emotions such as confidence and being in control which have been successful when used in guided imagery to elicit challenge appraisals (Williams & Cumming, 2012; Williams et al., 2010, 2017) and is akin to the questionnaire items used to assess affect and mastery imagery ability. Session data revealed participants found the intervention imagery relatively easy and their images were vivid throughout. However, by session 4 the imagery was significantly easier and more vivid suggesting four sessions of LSRT may be needed before statistically significant improvements in mastery and affect imagery ability are observed.

Furthermore, as hypothesised, results demonstrated that following the intervention, participants demonstrated more adaptive stress appraisal tendencies. Specifically, challenge appraisal tendencies increased and threat appraisal tendencies decreased, and participants reported lower perceived stress. As part of the LSRT, participants were encouraged to image feelings of confidence and control during their stressful situation. Literature suggests greater feelings of confidence and perceived control are associated with greater challenge appraisals and lower perceived stress (Jones et al., 2009; Reilly et al., 2014; Thompson & Spacapan, 1991) meaning inflated feelings of confidence and perceived control in coping with stress may have led to the observed changes in stress appraisals and perceived stress – indeed individual session data revealed participants felt they had significantly greater control of the stress they were imaging and saw the stress as less debilitative as the intervention progressed.

Although the intervention lowered levels of perceived stress, the individual session data did not show any changes in the intensity of the stressful situation being imaged. This could be because the aim of the LSRT was not to remove the stressful stimuli or responses, but to manipulate the meaning of the image and thus how the stress is interpreted and appraised. In support, imagery scripts similar in content to the present study's LSRT content altered the interpretation of the responses rather than the intensity itself (Williams et al., 2010). A more facilitative appraisal of specific stressful scenarios may in turn lead to lower general perceived stress, but research is yet to demonstrate this. Indeed, challenge appraisal and threat appraisal tendencies have been shown to negatively and positively relate to perceived stress respectively (Beevor et al., 2024a).

Collectively, findings of Study 2 suggest that LSRT has the potential to increase mastery and affect imagery ability which seems to be accompanied by more adaptive stress appraisals and lower perceived stress. However, it is important to consider that this was a feasibility and pilot study and that there was no control comparison group meaning that any number of factors could have altered the outcome variables observed. However, the large effect sizes obtained demonstrate proof of concept that LSRT may be a feasible and effective technique for young adults to use as a method to cope with stress. It is important that further imagery research conducts a full scale randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of the LSRT intervention with a control group to conclusively establish whether the improvements in mastery and affect imagery ability, and changes in perceived stress, and stress appraisals observed in the present study are likely to be attributed to the LSRT.

General Discussion/Conclusion

The present work has implications for the imagery and stress literature and applied setting. Study 1 demonstrates the associations between affect and mastery imagery ability (particularly mastery imagery ability) with stress appraisals and perceived stress, and the simultaneous changes in these variables in Study 2 further suggests their association. Importantly, the present research findings were observed in non-athlete samples building on the work by Beevor et al. (2024a) and extending the previously observed relationships between mastery and affect imagery ability and stress appraisals in athletes (Williams & Cumming, 2012). Consequently, individuals who find it easier to image positive feelings and emotions as well as persevering or continuing in difficult or challenging times are more likely to appraise stressful situations adaptively (i.e., more as a challenge and less as a threat) and report lower levels of perceived stress. The findings also contribute to the work evidencing the positive association that seems to exist between greater challenge appraisal tendencies and lower levels of perceived stress (Beevor et al., 2024a; Wright et al., 2023) – although from a theoretical standpoint this association has been proposed, in reality the evidence at a dispositional level is scant. Mastery and affect imagery ability may therefore be markers of being better able to cope with stress.

The findings from Study 2 suggest the LSRT intervention was feasible and well received by young adults and the proof of concept changes to the stress appraisals and perceived stress suggest it has the potential be an effective technique to help people cope with stress. The online delivery of the intervention via Zoom also makes it quicker and easier to administer than having to arrange in person sessions meaning that LSRT from a logistical standpoint could be rolled out relatively easily to help young people regulate their stress. An ideal population would be university students who suffer from stress significantly more than the general population (Stallman, 2011) and are likely to be a population that have easy access to electric devices and internet to be able to access the intervention's delivery method. But beyond university students, many other populations who experience stress could benefit from LSRT.

Despite the implications of the research and potential for its application, it is not without limitations. The main limitation as mentioned is that the intervention did not have a control comparison group which reduces the certainty that any of the changes in imagery ability and other outcome variables are due to the specific content of the LSRT. Daily sources of stress and levels of perceived stress are known to fluctuate and have the ability to change over time (e.g., Ardelt & Bruya, 2021; Garett et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2023). It is possible that the changes observed in Study 2 may not be a result of the LSRT, but other factors (e.g., a reduction in perceived stress and more adaptive appraisals could be driven by differences in daily stressors reducing from baseline to post-intervention). Future research should implement a control condition to confirm the changes are a result of LSRT and not simply attributed to natural changes over time.

Additionally, the Study 2 sample included only one male and the entire sample identified as white British. Research suggests there are gender differences in how stress is appraised, levels of perceived stress, and responses to stress exposure (Verma et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2024). Imagery ability has also been shown to differ due to gender (Campos, 2014; Williams & Cumming, 2011; Williams et al., 2024). Therefore, the findings of this present study may not generalise to other demographic groups highlighting the importance for future research to recruit a larger, more heterogeneous sample of genders, ethnicities, and races to investigate whether the effects of LSRT is generalisable to all. However, Study 2 was designed to investigate feasibility and acceptability of the intervention as well as demonstrate proof of concept with the notion for future research to follow up with a larger randomised controlled trials to fully examine the effectiveness of the LSRT intervention in eliciting more adaptive coping with stress.

Collectively, the present two study manuscript suggests that mastery and affect imagery ability are meaningful correlates of stress appraisals and perceived stress levels, and that LSRT appears a potentially effective technique to improve imagery ability, and elicit more adaptive stress appraisals and reduced perceived stress. While both studies were statistically powered, findings should be interpreted with caution until future studies in larger more heterogeneous samples are conducted to examine the full effects of mastery and affect imagery ability in predicting stress appraisals, and perceived stress, as well as the effects of LSRT on these variables.

Although findings suggest that LSRT may possibly improve mastery and affect imagery ability, stress appraisals, and reduce perceived stress, in the short term over a 2-week period, there was no follow-up assessment. As such, it is unknown whether any changes to these variables were sustained over the long-term. Research on LSRT, has yet to establish long-term effectiveness of the training. Therefore, future research needs to assess outcome variables periodically after completing LSRT, to establish how long the improvements last and whether LSRT booster sessions are needed to sustain any improvements.

In conclusion, the present body of work examined the relationships between mastery and affect imagery ability with stress appraisals and perceived stress in young non-athlete populations. Findings in both studies suggest a strong association between higher mastery imagery ability and greater challenge appraisals and lower threat appraisals and perceived stress. To a lesser extent affect imagery ability was also associated with challenge appraisal tendencies when mastery imagery ability was accounted for. The present research was the first to demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a 2-week LSRT intervention designed to improve mastery and affect imagery ability, elicit more positive stress appraisals and decrease perceived stress in young adults. Mean scores of the aforementioned variables at baseline and post-intervention demonstrate proof of concept that LSRT could be an effective technique to improve imagery ability and help regulate stress in the young adult population. However, future work must conduct a full scale RCT to determine whether LSRT is an effective intervention to help regulate stress by instilling feelings of confidence and control to elicit more adaptive stress appraisals. Work should also investigate whether LSRT can improve mastery and affect imagery ability, stress appraisals, and reduce perceived stress in participants with a poorer imagery ability or those with higher perceived stress, and (if effective) whether the LSRT should be modified in these populations for these individuals to gain greater benefits.

	Means (SD)	Cronbach α	Mastery imagery ability	Challenge appraisal tendency	Threat appraisal tendency	Perceived stress
Affect imagery ability	5.67 (1.08)	.77	.487***	.398***	−.157*	−.192**
Mastery imagery ability	4.86 (1.05)	.64		.442***	−.271***	−.214**
Challenge appraisal tendency	4.58 (0.67)	.82			−.359***	−.405***
Threat appraisal tendency	3.95 (1.04)	.93				.564***
Perceived stress	2.01 (0.63)	.86

	Challenge Appraisal Tendencies
Step 1
Gender	−0.09	0.10	−.07	−0.94	.350	−0.28, 0.10
Age	−0.03	0.03	−.05	−0.75	.457	−0.09, 0.04
Step 2
Gender	−0.03	0.09	−.02	−0.63	.707	−0.20, 0.14
Age	−0.02	0.03	−.04	−0.08	.553	−0.08, 0.04
Affect imagery ability	0.14	0.04	.23	3.26	.001	0.06, 0.23
Mastery imagery ability	0.21	0.05	.33	4.60	<.001	0.12, 0.30
	Threat Appraisal Tendencies
Model	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI
Step 1
Gender	0.26	0.15	.12	1.72	.088	−0.04, 0.56
Age	<−0.01	0.05	<−.01	−0.04	.979	−0.10, 0.10
Step 2
Gender	0.22	0.15	.10	1.50	.134	−0.07, 0.51
Age	<−0.01	0.05	<−.01	−0.04	.969	−0.10, 0.10
Affect imagery ability	−0.02	0.08	−.02	−0.31	.760	−0.17, 0.13
Mastery imagery ability	−0.25	0.08	−.25	−3.24	.001	−0.40, −0.10
	Perceived Stress
Model	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI
Step 1
Gender	0.24	0.09	.19	2.68	.008	0.06, 0.42
Age	0.01	0.03	.02	0.24	.814	−0.05, 0.07
Step 2
Gender	0.22	0.09	.17	2.45	.015	0.04, 0.39
Age	<0.01	0.03	.01	0.14	.886	−0.06, 0.06
Affect imagery ability	−0.06	0.05	−.10	−1.27	.206	−0.15, 0.03
Mastery imagery ability	−0.09	0.05	−.16	−1.99	.048	−0.19, <−0.01

	Baseline	Session 1	Session 2	Session 3	Session 4	Post-intervention
Participant retention (n)	27	-	26	26	24	24	21	-
Engagement	-	-	6.18 (1.02)	6.00 (1.00)	6.76^c* (0.44)	6.65 (0.79)	-	-
Imaging as Instructed	-	-	5.53 (1.91)	5.71 (1.45)	5.71 (1.40)	6.12 (1.41)	-	-
Mastery imagery	4.10 (1.27)	.82	-	-	-	-	5.59 (1.12)^a**	.82
Affect imagery	5.46 (0.95)	.64	-	-	-	-	6.25 (0.95)^a***	.88
Challenge appraisal	4.15 (0.74)	.82	-	-	-	-	4.82 (0.47)^a**	.75
Threat appraisal	4.41 (0.76)	.87	-	-	-	-	3.62 (1.00) ^b**	.84
Perceived stress	22.67 (6.12)	.81	-	-	-	-	16.71 (4.84)^b**	.79
LSRT ease	-	-	5.06 (1.48)	5.35 (1.27)	5.59 (1.42)	5.88 (1.36)^c*	-	-
LSRT vividness	-	-	5.00 (1.37)	5.18 (1.29)	5.53 (1.38)	6.06 (1.44)^d*	-	-
LSRT stress	-	-	4.06 (1.48))	3.65 (1.32)	3.76 (1.20)	3.12 (1.27)	-	-
LSRT control	-	-	4.00 (0.50)	4.88 (.93)	5.18 (1.19)	5.24 (1.39)	-	-
LSRT coping	-	-	−.94 (1.09)	.06 (1.44)^e*	.88 (1.50)^e**	1.47 (1.42)^e***	-	-

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Charlie Mathieson

References

Albanese

Liotti

Cornacchia

Mancini

(2022). Nightmare rescripting: Using imagery techniques to treat sleep disturbances in Post-traumatic stress disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, Article 866144. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.866144

Ardelt

Bruya

(2021). Three-demensional wisdom and perceived stress among college students. Journal of Adult Development, 28(2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-020-09358-w .

Armstrong

A. M.

Porter

Quek

White

Haynes

Jackaman

Villemagne

Munyard

Laws

Verdile

Groth

(2021). Chronic stress and Alzheimer’s disease: The interplay between the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, genetics and microglia. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 96(5), 2209–2228. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12750

Arntz

(2011). Imagery rescripting for personality disorders. Cognitive and Behavioural Practice, 18(4), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2011.04.006

Arntz

(2012). Imagery rescripting as a therapeutic technique: Review of clinical trials, basic studies, and research agenda. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 3(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.024211

Arntz

Tiesema

Kindt

(2007). Treatment of PTSD: A comparison of imaginal exposure with and without imagery rescripting. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38(4), 345–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2007.10.006

Avery

Shipherd

A. M.

Gomez

Barczarenner

(2022). Exploring stress mindset and perceived stress between college student-athletes and non-athletes. International Journal of Exercise Science, 15(5), 1554–1562.

Beevor

Ginty

A. T.

Veldhuijzen van Zanten

J. J. C. S.

Williams

S. E.

(2024a). Examining the mediating role of challenge and threat appraisal in the relationships between mastery imagery ability, perceived stress and proactive coping. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 43(4), 344–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366241236759

Beevor

Ginty

A. T.

Veldhuijzen van Zanten

J. J. C. S.

Williams

S. E.

(2024b). Mastery imagery ability moderates the relationship between heart rate reactivity to acute psychological stress and perceptions of stress and physiological arousal. Psychophysiology, 61(4), Article e14486. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14486

10.

Bigham

Mcdannel

Luciano

Salgado-Lopez

(2014). Effect of a brief guided imagery on stress. Biofeedback, 41(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.5298/1081-5937-42.1.07

11.

Blascovich

Mendes

W. B.

(2000). Challenge and threat appraisals: The role of affective cues. In Forgas

J. P.

(Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 59–82). Cambridge University Press.

12.

Boone

J. L.

(1991). Stress and hypertension. Primary Care, 18(3), 623–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4543(21)00350-X

13.

Campos

(2014). Gender differences in imagery. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.010

14.

Ciphr. (2021, June). Workplace stress statistics in the UK. [Data Set]. Ciphr. https://www.ciphr.com/workplace-stress-statistics/

15.

Clark

D. M.

Ehlers

Hackmann

McManus

Fennell

Grey

Waddington

Wild

(2006). Cognitive therapy versus exposure and applied relaxation in social phobia: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 568–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.568

16.

Cohen

Williamson

(1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In Spacapan

Oskamp

(Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 31–67). Sage Publishers.

17.

Cooper

Todd

Turner

Wells

(2007). Cognitive therapy for bulimia nervosa: An A-B replication series. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14(5), 402–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.548

18.

Cumming

Cooley

S. J.

Anuar

Kosteli

M. C.

Quinton

M. L.

Weibull

Williams

S. E.

(2016). Developing imagery ability effectively: A guide to layered stimulus response training. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2016.1205698

19.

Davies

(2015, July 1). BRIO imagery workshop: reflections on applied practice. Birmingham Research in Imagery and Observation (BRIO) Group. https://briogroupworkshop.wordpress.com/tag/imagery-workshop/

20.

Di Corrado

Guarnera

Guerrera

C. S.

Maldonato

N. M.

Di Nuovo

Castellano

Coco

(2020). Mental imagery skills in competitive young athletes and non-athletes. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 633. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00633

21.

Garett

Liu

Young

S. D.

(2017). A longitudinal analysis of stress among incoming college freshman. Journal of American College Health, 65(5), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2017.1312413

22.

Gomes

A. R.

Fara

Gonçalves

A. M.

(2013). Cognitive appraisal as a mediator in the relationship between stress and burnout. Work & Stress, 27(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.840341

23.

Hackett

R. A.

Steptoe

(2016). Psychosocial factors in diabetes and cardiovascular risk. Current Cardiology Reports, 18(10), Article 95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-016-0771-4

24.

Hammen

(2005). Stress and depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143938

25.

Holmes

E. A.

Arntz

Smucker

M. R.

(2007). Imagery rescripting in cognitive behaviour therapy: Images, treatment techniques and outcomes. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38(4), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btep.2007.10.007

26.

Holmes

E. A.

Mathews

(2010). Mental imagery in emotion and emotional disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.001 .

27.

Isaac

A. R.

Marks

D. F.

(1994). Image and Brain. MIT Press. [ https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Image+and+Brain.&author=S.+M.+Kosslyn&publication_year=1994& ]

28.

Johnsen

E. L.

Lutgendorf

S. K.

(2001). Contributions of imagery ability to stress and relaxation. Annals of Behavioural Medicine, 23(4), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796abm2304_6

29.

Jones

M. V.

Meijen

McCarthy

P. J.

Sheffield

(2009). A theory of challenge and threat states in athletes. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2(2), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509840902829331 .

30.

Keller

Litzelman

Wisk

L. E.

Maddox

Cheng

E. R.

Creswell

P. D.

Witt

W. P.

(2012). Does the perception that stress affects health matter? The association with health and mortality. Health Psychology, 31(5), 677–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026743 .

31.

Lang

P. J.

(1979). A bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. Psychophysiology, 16(6), 495–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1979.tb01511.x

32.

Liu

Zhang

Gao

Cao

(2023). Developmental trajectories of depression, anxiety, and stress among college students: A piecewise growth mixture model analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 736. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02252-2

33.

Matud

M. P.

Díaz

Bethencourt

J. M.

Ibáñez

(2020). Stress and psychological distress in emerging adulthood: A gender analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(9), Article 2859. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9092859

34.

Mental Health Foundation. (2018). Stress: statistics. [Data Set]. Mental Health Foundation. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/explore-mental-health/mental-health-statistics/stress-statistics

35.

Moore

L. J.

Vine

S. J.

Wilson

M. R.

Freeman

(2012). The effect of challenge and threat states on performance: An examination of potential mechanisms. Psychophysiology, 49(10), 1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986-2012.01449.x

36.

Morris

(1997). Psychological skills training in sport: an overview (2nd ed.). The National Coaching Foundation.

37.

Osório

J. M. A.

Cruz

J. F. A.

Sofia

R. M. C.

Pexioto

M. M.

(2017). Threat appraisals, performance anxiety, and associations with motivation and emotion regulation in sport competition: An exploratory study with young athletes. In Cruz

J. F. A.

Sofia

R. M. C.

(Eds.), Anger and anxiety: Predictors, coping strategies, and health effects (pp. 239–267). Nova Science Publishers.

38.

Pile

Smith

Lau

J. Y. F.

(2021). Using imagery rescripting as an early intervention for depression in young people. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article 651115. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.651115

39.

Quinton

M. L.

Cumming

Williams

S. E.

(2018). Investigating the mediating role of positive and negative mastery imagery ability. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 35, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.10.011

40.

Quinton

M. L.

Veldhuijzen van Zanten

Trotman

G. P.

Cumming

Williams

S. E.

(2019). Investigating the protective role of mastery imagery ability in buffering debilitative stress responses. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1657. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpysg.2019.01657

41.

Reilly

Dhingra

Boduszek

(2014). Teachers self-efficacy beliefs, self-esteem and job stress as determinants of job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0053 .

42.

Riepenhausen

Wackerhagen

Reppmann

Z. C.

Deter

H.-C.

Kalisch

Veer

I. M.

Walter

(2022). Positive cognitive reappraisal in stress resilience, mental health, and well-being: A comprehensive systematic review. Emotion Review, 14(4), 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221114642

43.

Roberti

Jonathan W

Harrington

Lisa N.

Storch

Eric A

(2006). Further Psychometric Support for the 10‐Item Version of the Perceived Stress Scale. Journal of College Counseling, 9(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.2006.9.issue-2

44.

Schneiderman

Ironson

Siegel

S. D.

(2005). Stress and health: Psychological, behavioural, and biological determinants. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 607–628. https://doi.org/10.1146/annuerev.clinpsy.1.102803.144141

45.

Sinha

(2008). Chronic stress, drug use, and vulnerability to addiction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Journal, 1141(1), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1441.030

46.

Skinner

Brewer

(2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.678

47.

Stallman

H. M.

(2011). Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Australian Psychologist, 45(4), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067.2010.482109

48.

Steptoe

Kivimäki

(2012). Stress and cardiovascular disease. Nature Reviews Cardiology, 9(6), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2012.45

49.

Thompson

S. C.

Spacapan

(1991). Perceptions of control in vulnerable populations. Journal of Social Issues, 47(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j/1540-4560.1991.tb01831.x

50.

Tomiyama

J. A.

(2019). Stress and obesity. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102936

51.

Verma

Balhara

Y. P. S.

Gupta

C. S.

(2011). Gender differences in stress response: Role of developmental and biological determinants. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 20(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-6748.98407

52.

Weibull

Cumming

Cooley

S. J.

Williams

S. E.

(2017). Examining the feasibility of a short intervention for improving exercise imagery ability. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 12(1), Article 20160008. https://doi.org/10.1515/jirspa-2016-0008

53.

White

Hardy

(1998). An in-depth analysis of the uses of imagery by high-level slalom canoeists and artistic gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist, 12(4), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.12.4.387

54.

Williams

S. E.

Cooley

S. J.

Cumming

(2013). Layered stimulus response training improves motor imagery ability and movement execution. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35(1), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb02122.x

55.

Williams

S. E.

Cumming

(2011). Measuring athlete imagery ability: The sport imagery ability questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(3), 416–440. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.3.416

56.

Williams

S. E.

Cumming

(2012). Sport imagery ability predicts trait confidence, and challenge and threat appraisal tendencies. European Journal of Sport Science, 12(6), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.630102

57.

Williams

S. E.

Cumming

(2015). Athlete imagery ability: A predictor of confidence and anxiety intensity and direction. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.630102

58.

Williams

S. E.

Cumming

Balanos

G. M.

(2010). The use of imagery to manipulate challenge and threat appraisal states in athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32(3), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.3.339

59.

Williams

S. E.

Fergus

T. A.

Ginty

A. T.

(2024). Development and valiation of the ease of imagery questionnaire. Assessment. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191124124160233

60.

Williams

S. E.

Veldhuijzen van Zanten

J. C. S. J.

Trotman

G. P.

Quinton

M. L.

Ginty

A. T.

(2017). Challenge and threat imagery manipulates heart rate and anxiety responses to stress. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 117, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.04.011

61.

Williams

S. E.

Quinton

M. L.

Veldhuijzen van Zanten

J. J. C. S.

Davies

Möller

Trotman

G. P.

Ginty

A. T.

(2021). Mastery imagery ability is associated with positive anxiety and performance during psychological stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 568580. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.568580

62.

Wilson

Pritchard

(2005). Comparing sources of stress in college student athletes and in non athletes. Athletic Insight, 7(1), 1–8.

63.

Wright

Veldhuijzen van Zanten

Williams

J. J.

(2023). Examining the associations between physical activity, self-esteem, and internalising symptoms among older adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 95(6), 1274–1287. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12201

	Baseline		Session 1	Session 2	Session 3	Session 4	Post-intervention
	M (SD)	Cronbach α	M(SD)	M(SD)	M(SD)	M(SD)	M (SD)	Cronbach α
Participant retention (n)	27	-	26	26	24	24	21	-
Engagement	-	-	6.18 (1.02)	6.00 (1.00)	6.76^c* (0.44)	6.65 (0.79)	-	-
Imaging as Instructed	-	-	5.53 (1.91)	5.71 (1.45)	5.71 (1.40)	6.12 (1.41)	-	-
Mastery imagery	4.10 (1.27)	.82	-	-	-	-	5.59 (1.12)^a**	.82
Affect imagery	5.46 (0.95)	.64	-	-	-	-	6.25 (0.95)^a***	.88
Challenge appraisal	4.15 (0.74)	.82	-	-	-	-	4.82 (0.47)^a**	.75
Threat appraisal	4.41 (0.76)	.87	-	-	-	-	3.62 (1.00) ^b**	.84
Perceived stress	22.67 (6.12)	.81	-	-	-	-	16.71 (4.84)^b**	.79
LSRT ease	-	-	5.06 (1.48)	5.35 (1.27)	5.59 (1.42)	5.88 (1.36)^c*	-	-
LSRT vividness	-	-	5.00 (1.37)	5.18 (1.29)	5.53 (1.38)	6.06 (1.44)^d*	-	-
LSRT stress	-	-	4.06 (1.48))	3.65 (1.32)	3.76 (1.20)	3.12 (1.27)	-	-
LSRT control	-	-	4.00 (0.50)	4.88 (.93)	5.18 (1.19)	5.24 (1.39)	-	-
LSRT coping	-	-	−.94 (1.09)	.06 (1.44)^e*	.88 (1.50)^e**	1.47 (1.42)^e***	-	-

Imagery Ability,Stress Appraisals,and Perceived Stress: The Feasibility of Layered Stimulus Response Training to Regulate Stress

Abstract

Keywords

Study 1

Methods

Participants

Measures

Procedures

Data Analysis

Results and Discussion

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Multiple Linear Regressions

Study 2

Methods

Participants

Procedure

Measures

Data Reduction and Statistical Analysis

Results

Feasibility

Acceptability

Changes in Outcome Measures

Individual Session Data

Discussion

General Discussion/Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References