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

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.

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.