A two-means data away from variance (ANOVA, LSD-article hoc sample) are manage for evaluation mean differences. The new prejudice-fixed percentile bootstrap approach was applied in order to make regression analyses (Fang mais aussi al., 2012). To make usage of this technique, we used the Design 4 Processes macro having SPSS created by Hayes (2013). Sex, years, many years of education, and you will competitive level had been controlled. The latest 95% depend on periods of the mediating outcomes is actually stated. The new mathematical relevance level is actually set-to ? = 0.05.
Research to have Common Approach Bias
To prevent reaction prejudice, specific items in the new surveys was indeed expressed backwards wording, AMOS 21.0 was utilized so you can conduct a beneficial CFA, on the common basis of all of the variables set to step one, as well as items parameters were used just like the explicit variables. Brand new CFA overall performance revealed that the fresh design fit is lower, exhibiting no serious prominent means prejudice. (? 2 /df = 2.01, RMSEA = 0.07, NFI = 0.34, CFI = 0.50, TLI = 0.49, GFI = 0.55, IFI = 0.50).
Self-Handle and you will Self-Efficacy: Group 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).
Characteristics, Self-Effectiveness, and you may Care about-Control: Correlations
Neuroticism is actually rather and you will negatively coordinated which have thinking-efficacy and you can notice-manage, when you’re extraversion, agreeableness, and you will conscientiousness was indeed significantly and you will definitely coordinated which have notice-efficacy and you can mind-control. Self-effectiveness and you can self-handle was indeed absolutely correlated (get a hold of Table 1).
This research utilized the Bootstrap method proposed by the Fang mais aussi al. (2012) as well as the Design 4 Techniques macro to own SPSS created by Hayes (2013) to carry out mediating effect testing; intercourse, aggressive height, decades, and you may years of training was in fact put as the handle variables.
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).