Author Email:
A two-ways data off difference (ANOVA, LSD-blog post hoc try) is run to possess testing mean distinctions. The prejudice-remedied percentile bootstrap https://www.datingranking.net/pl/pussysaga-recenzja means was utilized to help you run regression analyses (Fang mais aussi al., 2012). To apply this method, i utilized the Design 4 Techniques macro to possess SPSS produced by Hayes (2013). Intercourse, decades, years of education, and you can competitive height was indeed controlled. The newest 95% trust durations of one’s mediating consequences is actually said. The statistical importance peak is actually set to ? = 0.05.
Comparison for Popular Strategy Prejudice
To eliminate effect bias, some items in the forms was basically expressed backwards text, AMOS 21.0 was applied so you’re able to conduct a beneficial CFA, for the common grounds of the many variables set to 1, and all of items details were utilized once the specific parameters. This new CFA performance revealed that the fresh new model fit is actually lowest, showing zero big well-known strategy prejudice. (? 2 /df = dos.01, RMSEA = 0.07, NFI = 0.34, CFI = 0.fifty, TLI = 0.forty two, GFI = 0.55, IFI = 0.50).
Self-Manage and you may Notice-Efficacy: Classification Variations
The averaged item score of the self-control was M = 3.68 (SD = 0.49), indicating a relatively high level of self-control among boxers in China. This study also examined the effect of gender and competitive level differences on self-control; the results indicated no significant gender differences (F = 1.14, p = 0.28, d = ?0.011), but a significant main effect of competitive level (F = 7.81, p < 0.01, ? 2 = 0.12). The interaction between gender and competitive level was not significant (F = 1.82, p = 0.13, ? 2 = 0.04). The item-based averaged self-control scores of boxers from the five different competitive levels were significantly different. The higher the competitive level, the higher the level of self-control (International Master-Level: M = 3.92, SD = 0.62; Master-Level M = 3.79, SD = 0.48; Level-1: M = 3.77, SD = 0.45, Level-2: M = 3.83, SD = 0.49; Level-3: M = 3.47, SD = 0.43. The simple analysis showed that the averaged item score of self-control in International Master-Level was significantly higher than that of the Level-3, p < 0.01, d = 0.98).
The average item score of self-efficacy was M = 3.50 (SD = 0.64), indicating that the Chinese boxers’ self-efficacy exceeds the theoretical item mean. There was no significant difference between male and female boxers (p > 0.05, d = 0.24). The mean item scores of self-efficacy among boxers from five different competitive levels differed significantly: the higher the competitive level, the higher the self-efficacy (International Master-Level: M = 3.81, SD = 0.76; Master-Level: M = 3.66, SD = 0.60; Level-1: M = 3.53, SD = 0.58; Level-2: M = 3.60, SD = 0.71; Level-3: M = 3.30, SD = 0.60). There was a significant difference on self-efficacy between International Master-Level and Level-3 (p < 0.01, d = 0.81).
Character traits, Self-Efficacy, and you can Worry about-Control: Correlations
Neuroticism is significantly and you can adversely correlated that have thinking-efficacy and you may worry about-manage, if you find yourself extraversion, agreeableness, and you may conscientiousness was basically notably and seriously correlated having self-effectiveness and you can worry about-manage. Self-efficacy and you may mind-manage had been undoubtedly correlated (discover Dining table step one).
This study made use of the Bootstrap method proposed by the Fang et al. (2012) as well as the Design 4 Process macro for SPSS developed by Hayes (2013) in order to make mediating effect investigations; intercourse, competitive peak, ages, and you will several years of education was basically put because the manage parameters.
Regression analysis showed that neuroticism negatively predicted self-efficacy (? = ?0.23, p < 0.01), while self-efficacy positively predicted self-control (? = 0.88, p < 0.001). Neuroticism negatively predicted self-control (? = ?0.32, p < 0.001). Extraversion was a positive predictor of self-efficacy (? = 0.17, p < 0.001), while self-efficacy positively predicted self-control (? = 0.78, p < 0.001). Extraversion and self-efficacy were positive predictors of self-control (? = 0.27, p < 0.001). Agreeableness positively predicted self-efficacy (? = 0.26, p < 0.001), and self-efficacy was a positive predictor of self-control (? = 0.77, p < 0.001), as was agreeableness (? = 0.44, p < 0.001). Conscientiousness positively predicted self-efficacy (? = 0.43, p < 0.001), and self-efficacy was a positive predictor of self-control (? = 0.58, p < 0.001), as was conscientiousness (? = 0.47, p < 0.001).
215 total views, no views today