نیاز به پشتیبانی و مقررات رفتاری برای ورزش در میان مشتریان طرح ورزش ارجاعی: نقش واسطه ای رضایت نیازهای روانشناختی

Abstract Objectives Based on predictions drawn from self-determination theory (SDT: Deci & Ryan, 2000, The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268) this study examined specific differential mediating effects of psychological need satisfaction in the relation between support for psychological needs and the internalization of behavioural regulation for exercise. Methods 133 former female exercise referral scheme clients (mean age = 54.51) completed measures of need support provided by their exercise practitioners, satisfaction of the psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, the latter including measures of interpersonal relatedness and social assimilation, and behavioural regulations for exercise.

.

Results Table 2 shows the means, SDs and intercorrelations among the variables. The correlations among the behavioural regulations conformed to a simplex-like pattern, with stronger more positive correlations between more adjacent regulations than between more distal regulations. This is consistent with SDT's conception of a continuum of ordered variations in self-determination ( Ryan & Connell, 1989). Current physical activity was significantly associated with autonomy, competence, social assimilation, identified regulation and intrinsic regulation. Table 2. Means, SDs and intercorrelations among the variables. Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Need support 2.84 1.13 .97 2 Autonomy 2.32 1.66 .37*** .70 3 Competence 2.41 1.04 .42*** .57*** .87 4 Personal relatedness 2.29 1.30 .68*** .55*** .69*** .82 5 Social Assimilation 2.89 1.24 .41*** .53*** .60*** .65*** .87 6 Amotivation 1.40 .66 −.24** −.54*** −.48*** −.41*** −.50*** .83 7 External regulation 1.59 .88 −.33*** −.51*** −.45*** −.41*** −.52*** .48*** .77 8 Introjected regulation 1.71 1.27 −.26** −.15 .04 .17* −.19* −.07 .14 .79 9 Identified regulation 3.23 .91 .27** .56*** .60*** .55*** .47*** −.56*** −.29** .23** .76 10 Intrinsic motivation 2.78 1.07 .55*** .73*** .74*** .67*** .54*** −.58*** −.54*** .02 .59*** .87 11 Current physical activity 31.82 22.77 .04 .31** .25** .16 .25** −.12 −.13 −.06 .25** .20* Note. Cronbach's alpha reliabilities on the diagonal. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Table options Table 3 shows the results of the regression analyses. The standardised bootstrap estimates of the total and specific indirect effects together with bias corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals are presented. The normal theory tests replicated these results and are not reported. Need support was significantly positively related to all four mediators, with the strongest effect being for personal relatedness. In model one 35.75% of the variance in amotivation was explained (F5,127 = 14.14, p < .001). Autonomy and social assimilation were significantly negatively related to amotivation. The total effect of need support on amotivation was significant while the direct effect when controlling for the mediators was non-significant. The total indirect effect and the specific indirect effects through autonomy and social assimilation were significant. Collectively, the results show that autonomy and social assimilation were significant mediators of the relation between need satisfaction and amotivation, with need support associated with higher autonomy and assimilation which in turn were associated with lower amotivation. Table 3. Summary of mediated regression analyses: direct and indirect effects of need support on behavioral regulations through psychological needs. B SE β IV (Need support) to mediators Autonomy .37 .08 .36*** Competence .37 .07 .40*** Personal relatedness .78 .07 .68*** Social Assimilation .46 .09 .41*** Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Amotivation External Introjected Identified Intrinsic B SE β B SE β B SE β B SE β B SE β Mediators to DVs Autonomy −.18 .05 −.31*** −.21 .06 −.27** −.22 .12 −.21 .23 .07 .30*** .39 .05 .42*** Competence −.07 .06 −.11 −.06 .08 −.07 .18 .15 .15 .31 .08 .36*** .41 .07 .40*** Personal relatedness −.01 .06 −.02 .07 .08 .11 .43 .15 .44** .16 .08 .23** .00 .07 .00 Social Assimilation −.12 .05 −.23** −.26 .06 −.37*** −.38 .12 −.37** .00 .07 .01 .01 .06 .01 Total effect of IV on DV Need support −.10 .04 −.18** −.21 .06 −.28*** −.06 .10 −.06 .22 .07 .27** .50 .07 .53*** Direct effect of IV on DV Need support .05 .05 .09 −.06 .07 −.07 −.21 .13 −.19 −.11 .07 −.14 .21 .06 .22*** Standardised bootstrapped indirect effect estimates and bias corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals Amotivation External Introjected Identified Intrinsic 95% CI 95% CI 95% CI 95% CI 95% CI Effect Lo Hi Effect Lo Hi Effect Lo Hi Effect Lo Hi Effect Lo Hi Total indirect effect −.27 −.46 −.11b −.20 −.36 −.06b .13 −.03 .32 .40 .23 .60b .31 .15 .45b Autonomy −.10 −.27 −.04b −.09 −.20 −.03b −.08 −.16 .01 .10 .04 .21b .15 .08 .23b Competence −.04 −.14 .02 −.03 −.12 .04 .06 −.03 .17 .15 .05 .28b .16 .07 .28b Personal relatedness −.02 −.16 .12 .08 −.09 .24 .31a .09 .52b .16 .01 .35b .01 −.12 .12 Social Assimilation −.10 −.21 −.01b −.15 −.28 −.06b −.15a −.28 −.06b −.00 −.01 .09 −.01 −.06 .06 Note: **p < .01; ***p < .001. a Indirect effects are significantly different at p < .05. b 95% confidence interval does not encompass zero. Table options In model two 37.85% of the variance in external regulation was explained (F5,127 = 15.47, p < .001). Autonomy and social assimilation were significantly negatively related to external regulation. The total effect of need support on external regulation was significant and the direct effect when controlling for the mediators non-significant. The total indirect effect and the specific indirect effects through autonomy and social assimilation were significant. The results show that autonomy and social assimilation were significant mediators of the relation between need satisfaction and external regulation. Need support was associated with greater autonomy and social assimilation which in turn were associated with lower external regulation. In model three 13.85% of the variance in introjected regulation was explained (F5,127 = 4.08, p < .001). Personal relatedness was significantly positively related and social assimilation significantly negatively related to introjected regulation. Neither the total nor the direct nor the total indirect effects of need support on introjected regulation were significant. This might appear to rule out significant mediating effects. However, the total effect was closer to zero than the direct effect and the total indirect effect was of the opposite sign to the direct effect. The specific indirect effect through social assimilation was significant and consistent in sign with the direct effect (both negative) whereas the specific indirect effect through personal relatedness was significant and positive. This pattern of results indicates a suppressor effect with inconsistent mediation by social assimilation and personal relatedness ( MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000). Furthermore, in multiple mediator models, significance of the total indirect effect is not a necessary precondition for significant specific indirect effects ( Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Therefore it is legitimate to interpret the specific indirect effects found here. Effect contrasts showed that the specific indirect effect through personal relatedness was significantly greater than that through social assimilation. The results show that personal relatedness and social assimilation were significant mediators of the relation between need satisfaction and introjected regulation. Overall, the fostering of personal relatedness by need support was associated with greater introjection, but this effect was partially offset by the promotion of social assimilation being associated with lower introjection. In model four 47.90% of the variance in identified regulation was explained (F5,127 = 23.35, p < .001). Autonomy, competence and personal relatedness were significantly positively related to identified regulation. The total effect of need support on identified regulation was significant and the direct effect when controlling for the mediators was non-significant. The total indirect effect and the specific indirect effects through autonomy, competence and personal relatedness were significant. The results show that autonomy, competence and personal relatedness were significant mediators of the relation between need satisfaction and identified regulation. In model five 71.52% of the variance in intrinsic regulation was explained (F5,127 = 63.79, p < .001). Autonomy and competence were significantly positively related to intrinsic regulation. The total effect of need support on intrinsic regulation was significant and the direct effect when controlling for the mediators was reduced but remained significant. The reduction in the effect (from .53 to .22,) was significant (p < .001), indicating partial mediation. The total indirect effect and the specific indirect effects through autonomy and competence were significant. The results show that autonomy and competence were significant mediators of the relation between need satisfaction and intrinsic regulation. Fig. 1 summarizes the results, showing the significant specific indirect effects of need support through psychological needs on each of the behavioural regulations, and the direction of the effects. Significant specific indirect effects of need support on each of the behavioral ... Fig. 1. Significant specific indirect effects of need support on each of the behavioral regulations through psychological needs.