A two-way study out of difference (ANOVA, LSD-article hoc shot) was focus on to own evaluation mean differences. The brand new bias-remedied percentile bootstrap strategy was utilized in order to make regression analyses (Fang ainsi que al., 2012). To implement this process, i utilized the Model cuatro Processes macro having SPSS created by Hayes (2013). Intercourse, years, years of studies, and you can aggressive height was indeed controlled. New 95% depend on durations of the mediating outcomes is advertised. The fresh analytical benefit top was set to ? = 0.05.

Comparison having Preferred Means Bias

To eliminate reaction prejudice, particular belongings in the brand new questionnaires was in fact indicated in reverse wording, AMOS 21.0 was used to carry out good CFA, to your prominent basis of all the details set to step one, and all product variables were utilized because the explicit variables. The newest CFA efficiency showed that the brand new design match are lower, demonstrating no significant popular approach bias. (? 2 /df = dos.01, RMSEA = 0.07, NFI = 0.34, CFI = 0.50, TLI = 0.44, GFI = 0.55, IFI = 0.50).

Self-Manage and you will Worry about-Efficacy: Group 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, upforit 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 you may Thinking-Control: Correlations

Neuroticism is significantly and you may adversely coordinated that have notice-efficacy and worry about-handle, while extraversion, agreeableness, and you can conscientiousness was indeed significantly and you will definitely correlated with mind-effectiveness and you may worry about-handle. Self-efficacy and worry about-control was positively correlated (select Dining table 1).

This research made use of the Bootstrap means recommended from the Fang ainsi que al. (2012) together with Design 4 Procedure macro to own SPSS created by Hayes (2013) so you can perform mediating impression evaluation; gender, aggressive peak, ages, and you may numerous years of studies was in fact place as the manage 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).