A-two-ways data out of variance (ANOVA, LSD-blog post hoc try) are work at having review mean differences. This new prejudice-remedied percentile bootstrap means was applied so you’re able to conduct regression analyses (Fang mais aussi al., 2012). To make usage of this technique, we made use of the Design cuatro Processes macro getting SPSS developed by Hayes (2013). Intercourse, decades, many years of degree, and you can aggressive level have been managed. The brand new 95% rely on periods of one’s mediating effects are claimed. The fresh new statistical advantages height try set to ? = 0.05.
Testing getting Preferred Means Bias
To get rid of response prejudice, specific contents of the forms was indeed indicated backwards text, AMOS 21.0 was utilized so you’re able to carry out an excellent CFA, on preferred foundation of all variables set to step one, and all of item parameters were used just like the explicit details. The new CFA results revealed that the fresh new design complement is reduced, demonstrating no severe well-known method prejudice. (? dos /df = 2.01, RMSEA = 0.07, NFI = 0.34, CFI = 0.50, TLI = 0.forty-two, GFI = 0.55, IFI = 0.50).
Self-Control and you can Notice-Efficacy: Group Variations
The averaged item score of the self-control was M = 3.68 (SD = 0 www.datingranking.net/pl/alua-recenzja.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 may Self-Control: Correlations
Neuroticism was notably and you will negatively correlated with notice-efficacy and you will care about-manage, when you’re extraversion, agreeableness, and you may conscientiousness were somewhat and you can definitely coordinated that have care about-efficacy and you will care about-control. Self-efficacy and you will care about-control were definitely synchronised (come across Dining table step one).
This study used the Bootstrap approach suggested because of the Fang ainsi que al. (2012) as well as the Model 4 Processes macro to own SPSS produced by Hayes (2013) so you can make mediating impression investigations; gender, aggressive level, age, and you may numerous years of education was in fact lay due to the fact handle details.
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).