A-two-means research out of variance (ANOVA, LSD-article hoc try) is work with to own investigations indicate differences. The fresh prejudice-fixed percentile bootstrap method was applied to perform regression analyses (Fang et al., 2012). To make usage of this method, i made use of the Design cuatro Process macro to possess SPSS produced by Hayes (2013). Gender, decades, years of knowledge, and you can competitive level had been managed. The newest 95% confidence menstruation of your own mediating consequences try claimed. The fresh new mathematical value level is set to ? = 0.05.
Research to have Popular Approach Prejudice
To stop effect bias, specific belongings in the forms was indeed expressed backwards text, AMOS 21.0 was used so you’re able to conduct quizy secret benefits a great CFA, toward prominent basis of the many parameters set to step one, and all sorts of item variables were utilized since specific parameters. The fresh CFA performance indicated that the new model complement try lower, indicating no really serious prominent method prejudice. (? dos /df = 2.01, RMSEA = 0.07, NFI = 0.34, CFI = 0.50, TLI = 0.49, GFI = 0.55, IFI = 0.50).
Self-Handle and Self-Efficacy: Class Distinctions
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).
Personality traits, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Control: Correlations
Neuroticism is somewhat and you can negatively coordinated that have care about-effectiveness and notice-manage, when you find yourself extraversion, agreeableness, and you can conscientiousness was basically rather and you will positively coordinated that have care about-efficacy and you can self-handle. Self-efficacy and you may care about-handle had been definitely correlated (find Table step 1).
This study used the Bootstrap strategy recommended because of the Fang ainsi que al. (2012) while the Design cuatro Techniques macro to possess SPSS produced by Hayes (2013) in order to perform mediating impression review; sex, competitive level, many years, and you will years of degree were place as 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).