دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 38991
عنوان فارسی مقاله

روابط بین باورهای خودکارآمدی، خودارائه گری، اهداف کار های شخصی و عملکرد در وظایف فعالیت بدنی مبتنی بر استقامت

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
38991 2015 11 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Relations between self-efficacy beliefs, self-presentation motives, personal task goals, and performance on endurance-based physical activity tasks
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Volume 22, January 2016, Pages 149–159

کلمات کلیدی
انگیزه قالبگیری - تلاش - پشتکار
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله روابط بین باورهای خودکارآمدی، خودارائه گری، اهداف کار های شخصی و عملکرد در وظایف فعالیت بدنی مبتنی بر استقامت

چکیده انگلیسی

Abstract We conducted two studies with the aim of examining the relations between self-presentation motives and physical activity task performance. In study 1, prior to performing an endurance-based physical activity task, 133 undergraduate participants (Mage = 20.89, SD = 5.21) reported acquisitive-agentic and protective-agentic self-presentation motives alongside task self-efficacy, self-presentational efficacy, and their personal task goals. Using a different endurance-based physical activity task in study 2, we also assessed undergraduate participants' (n = 150; Mage = 20.23, SD = 3.34) dispositional exercise-related self-presentation motivation alongside the variables measured in study 1. Bayesian path analyses revealed indirect relations between agentic self-presentation motives and task performance via participants' personal task goals. Findings also indicated that agentic self-presentation motives may act as intermediaries in indirect pathways linking efficacy beliefs and dispositional exercise-related self-presentation motivation to goal processes and task performance. The results contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between self-presentation motivation and task performance.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

Results Descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, and composite reliability estimates) for all study 1 variables are presented in Table 1. Results showed no indication of problematic reliability. On average, participants aimed to hold their human bridge for 142 s and performed the task for approximately 159 s. Table 1. Descriptive information for Study 1 and Study 2. Study 1 Study 2 Mean SD ρ Mean SD ρ Task self-efficacy 3.24 .79 .89 3.00 .75 .84 Self-presentational efficacy 2.75 .72 .94 2.83 .80 .93 Dispositional exercise self-presentation motivation – – – 4.15 1.02 .93 Acquisitive agency 3.25 1.16 .91 3.05 1.36 .94 Protective agency 3.52 1.37 .93 3.61 1.49 .96 Personal task goal 142.00 64.95 – 134.29 55.60 – Performance 158.85 71.29 – 149.57 65.02 – Note: ρ = composite reliability estimate (Raykov, 1997); self-set goal time in seconds (personal task goal); time in seconds spent holding the wall sit (performance). Table options We observed an acceptable fit for the proposed two-factor self-presentation motive measurement model based on the model-fit criteria. The PPP value was .203, there was a smooth decrease in the PSR, and the confidence interval for difference between the observed and replicated chi-square values included zero, 95% CI −18.45, 43.31. Two chains were estimated and the model reached convergence after 48,600 iterations. The standardized factor loadings are displayed in Table 2. For the acquisitive-agentic factor, all intended loadings were good and significant (i.e., 95% credibility interval did not include zero), whereas non-intended loadings were weak and non-significant. For the protective-agentic factor, all intended loadings were good and significant. Although one acquisitive-agentic item also loaded on the protective-agentic factor, this cross loading was weak (i.e., .18) and was much weaker than its loading on acquisitive agency (i.e., .61). The mean factor loadings for acquisitive- and protective agency were .69 and .73, respectively. Table 2. Study 1 standardized factor loadings for acquisitive- and protective-agentic measures. Subscale and item Factor loading I II Acquisitive-agentic Acquisitive-agentic item 1 .68 −.04 Acquisitive-agentic item 2 .74 −.03 Acquisitive-agentic item 3 .77 .04 Acquisitive-agentic item 4 .64 .08 Acquisitive-agentic item 5 .61 .18 Mean primary factor loading .69 Protective-agentic Protective-agentic item 1 .07 .77 Protective-agentic item 2 .12 .72 Protective-agentic item 3 .07 .69 Protective-agentic item 4 .07 .74 Mean primary factor loading .73 Note: Bold values reflect loadings for the intended factors. Table options The model fit indices for the path analysis were acceptable. The model showed convergence immediately (i.e., PSR values ≤ 1.1 sustained over a few thousand iterations), the PPP value (i.e., .346) was good, and the chi-square difference confidence interval included zero (i.e., 95% CI −16.97, 25.13). The model accounted for a large amount of variance in performance (71%), somewhat less variance in personal task goals and acquisitive agency (35% and 27%, respectively), and very little variance in protective agency (.01%). Model pathways All direct and indirect parameter estimates for the path analysis model are displayed in Table 3. In terms of covariance (i.e., bi-directional) associations, statistically significant (i.e., 95% credibility interval did not include zero) positive pathways were found between the two self-efficacy beliefs and between the two agentic self-presentation motives. In terms of one-directional pathways, significant positive relationships were found from the two self-efficacy beliefs to an acquisitive-agentic motive, from the two self-efficacy beliefs to personal task goals, from acquisitive agency to personal task goals, and from personal task goals to performance. Contrary to our expectations, the direct associations between self-efficacy beliefs and performance, and between acquisitive agency and performance, were not statistically significant. Table 3. Parameter estimates for pathways explored in Study 1 and Study 2. Pathway Study 1 Study 2 Standardized effect Unstandardized effect 95% CI Standardized effect Unstandardized effect 95% CI TSE ←→ SPE .60 .37 .26, .51 .61 .38 .28, .50 TSE → AA .20 .28 .10, .44 .12 .20 .01, .38 TSE → PA −.02 −.02 −.23, .17 .03 .05 −.16, .26 TSE → G .26 .37 .20, .56 .16 .21 .03, .38 TSE → P .08 .13 −02, .28 .02 .03 −.14, .21 TSE → G → P .19 .29 .15, .44 .10 .15 .02, .28 TSE → AA → G .05 .07 .01, .13 .02 .02 −.002, .07 TSE → AA → P .01 .02 −.02, .06 .005 .01 −.02, .04 TSE → AA → G → P .03 .05 .01, .10 .01 .02 −.002, .05 TSE →PA → G .001 <.001 −.02, .02 −.01 −.01 −.04, .02 TSE → PA → P .001 .001 −.02, .02 <−.001 <.001 −.02, .01 TSE → PA → G → P .001 <.001 −.01, .02 −.003 −.003 −.03, .02 SPE → AA .38 .58 .39, .76 .28 .46 .27, .64 SPE → PA −.02 −.03 −.24, .18 −.07 −.12 −.33, .08 SPE → G .22 .34 .15, .54 .24 .30 .11, .47 SPE → P .08 .13 −.04, .31 −.02 −.03 −.22, .15 SPE → G → P .16 .27 .11, .43 .15 .21 .08, .36 SPE → AA → G .09 .14 .04, .24 .05 .06 .001, .14 SPE → AA → P .02 .03 −.04, .11 .01 .01 −.05, .08 SPE → AA → G → P .07 .11 .04, .19 .03 .04 .001, .10 SPE → PA → G .001 .001 −.02, .02 .01 .01 −.01, .05 SPE → PA → P .001 .001 −.02, .02 <.001 <.001 −.02, .02 SPE → PA → G → P .001 <.001 −.01, .02 .008 .01 −.01, .04 AA ←→ PA .52 .67 .53, .87 .56 .80 .62, .99 AA → G .24 .24 .09, .40 .18 .14 .002, .27 AA → P .05 .06 −.06, .19 .04 .03 −.10, .16 AA → G → P .17 .19 .07, .31 .11 .10 .001, .20 PA → G −.07 −.06 −.19, .06 −.18 −.13 −.24, −.02 PA → P −.07 −.06 −.16, .03 −.001 −.001 −.11, .11 PA → G → P −.05 −.05 −.15, .05 −.11 −.09 −.18, −.01 G → P .72 .78 .66, .90 .63 .72 .59, .87 DESPM ←→ TSE – – – .33 .25 .14, .38 DESPM ←→ SPE – – – .45 .37 .26, .50 DESPM → AA – – – .31 .40 .25, .55 DESPM → PA – – – .27 .38 .20, .56 DESPM → G – – – .01 .01 −.14, .15 DESPM → P – – – .08 .09 −.05, .23 DESPM → G → P – .006 .004 −.10, .11 DESPM → AA → G – – – .06 .05 .001, .12 DESPM → AA → P – – – .01 .01 −.04, .07 DESPM → AA → G → P – – – .04 .04 .001, .09 DESPM → PA → G – – – −.05 −.04 −.10, −.01 DESPM → PA → P – – – <−.001 <.001 −.04, .05 DESPM → PA → G → P – – – −.03 −.03 −.08, −.004 Note: 95% CI refers to the Bayesian credibility interval provided for the unstandardized effects; task self-efficacy (TSE); self-presentational efficacy (SPE); acquisitive agency (AA); protective agency (PA); personal task goal (G); performance (P); dispositional exercise-related self-presentation motivation (DESPM). Table options Examination of the indirect effects revealed that there were significant positive pathways from an acquisitive-agentic motive to performance through personal task goals, from both self-efficacy beliefs through personal task goals to performance, and from both self-efficacy beliefs through acquisitive agency to personal task goals. For the longer pathways (i.e., pathways that encompassed more variables), there were significant positive effects from both self-efficacy beliefs through acquisitive agency and then through personal task goals to performance. All indirect pathways involving protective agency were not statistically significant.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.