The purpose of the study was to investigate how modeling and imagery effect performance, concentration, and self-efficacy. Imagery is a form of mental practice that involves thinking about the skill to be performed, encoding and rehearsing the skill, and then physically performing the skill (McCullagh & Weiss, 2001). Modeling is another cognitive process that is often used to modify performance. In modeling, the learner is shown a demonstration and then tries to reproduce the skill. McCullagh & Weiss (2001) suggested that imagery and modeling are similar cognitive processes. Both strategies have been found to enhance performance. However, some studies have shown a model of correct performance before beginning imagery to ensure that subjects are imagining the skill correctly. Not until recently have studies tried to eliminate the confounding element of modeling and imagery on the performance and learning of a motor skill (McCullagh & Ram, 2000). The present study randomly assigned participants to either a modeling or imagery group. The participants performed a total of three 15 second acquisition trials interspersed with modeling or imagery depending on group assignment. The modeling group watched a videotape of a correct model while the imagery group received verbal instructions. After this initial stage, all participants were switched to the opposite condition and performed one trial. Finally, participants were allowed to choose whichever treatment they thought would be most helpful for their last performance trial. In addition to form and outcome performance measures, self-efficacy was assessed as well as concentration. Data were analyzed with repeated measures analyses of variance or t-tests dependent on grouping of data. For acquisition outcome, there was a significant group main effect F(1,20)=13.2, p< .002. Modeling participants (M=6.5) were closer to the criterion of seven squat lifts than the imagery group (M=4.7). When the participants switched to the other intervention, their performance was not significantly different. For form there was a significant trials main effect F(2,38)=6.4, p <.004, indicating improvement over trials. When the participants switched to the other intervention, their performance was not significantly different. In addition, the participants’ preferred intervention showed no significant differences for form and outcome. In terms of preference for conditions, more participants selected modeling as opposed to imagery. The results for concentration, self-efficacy level, and self-efficacy strength revealed no significant differences. These findings suggest that modeling may be a viable and preferred intervention for individuals first learning motor skills.