Comparisons of Opinions among NTUPES, TDTU, and HUS students

CHAPTER IV- RESULTS

4.3 Comparisons of Opinions among NTUPES, TDTU, and HUS students

In order to test for differences of the research variables among NTUPES,TDTU, AND HUS students, ANOVA was conducted. Table 4.6 showed the result of the differences.

Table 4.6

Comparisons of responses among NTUPES, TDTU and HUS students

Dependent variables Introjected regulation Identified regulation Table 4.6 indicates that for the construct of personality, NTUPES students tend to have significantly higher scores on Extraversion (mean value = 3.88; p < 0.000) and conscientiousness (mean value = 3.74; p < 0.000) than the HUS and TDTU students.

However, there are no differences among these three groups on emotional stability, openness to experience and agreeableness (mean value = 3.28 ~ 3.69; p = 0.116 ~ 0.516).

For the construct of exercise motivation, TDTU students tend to have significantly higher scores on amotivation (mean value = 2.19; p < 0.000) than the NTUPES and TDTU students. HUS students seems to have the highest score on external regulation (mean value = 2.27; p < 0.000). TDTU and NTUPES students have the greater scores on identified regulation (mean value = 4.36, p< 0.05) than NTUPES and HUS students. Lastly, NTUPES students has higher scores on intrinsic motivation (mean value = 4.34, p =0.001) than HUS and TDTU students. However, there are no differences among these three groups on introjected regulation (mean value = 3.15 ~ 3.35; p = 0.169).

For the construct of basic psychological needs, NTUPES students report the highest scores on autonomy (mean value = 4.31; p < 0.000) and relatedness (mean value = 4.25; p < 0.01) than the TDTU and HUS students. However, there are no differences among these three groups on competence (mean value = 3.77 ~ 3.94; p = 0.241).

For the construct of exercise behavior, NTUPES students seem to have the significantly higher scores on exercise level (mean value = 41.61; p < 0.09) than the HUS and TDTU students.

48 4.4 Overall hypotheses testing

To test the hypotheses as stated in this study section, six multiple regression equations were estimated and the results are shown in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7

Regression analysis for the influences of personality, basic psychological needs on exercise motivation and exercise behavior.

Basic psychological

Basic psychological needs .183** .356***

Exercise motivation .139**

R² .416 .257 .361

F 108.078 13.808 19.490

P .000 .000 .000

According to table 4.7, support for research hypothesis 1 was found by the significant positive path coefficient of 0.464 between personality and basic psychological needs (p<.000). Personality accounted for approximately 41.6% of the variance of basic psychological need.

Regarding the influences of personality and basic psychological needs on exercise motivation, personality (=0.114, p <0.05) and basic psychological needs (=.183***, p<.01) both had a positive and significant influence on the exercise motivation, accounted for approximately 25.7% of exercise motivation. Thus, H2 and H4 were supported. That means the personality and basic psychological needs have positive and direct impact on exercise motivation.

Finally, regarding the influence of personality, basic psychological needs and exercise motivation and exercise behavior, personality (=0.318**, p<0.01) and basic psychological needs (=0.3556***, p <.000) and exercise motivation ((=0.139, p <.01) had the significant positive and significant impact on exercise behavior. Total variance

explained accounted for approximately 27.2% of exercise behavior. Thus, H3, H5 and H6 were supported. That means the personality, basic psychological needs and exercise motivation have positive and direct impact on exercise behavior.

Figure 4.1: Standardized regression weights for whole model. With * p< 0.05, **

p < 0.01, *** p < 0.000

We recognized that the H2, H4 and H6 the correlation coefficient were low (β=

0.114 ~ 0.183, P < 0.05 ~0.000), this issue can be explained by the factors of exercise motivation were complicated. There are five factors of exercise motivation variable;

there are amotivation, external regulation. introjected regulation, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation.

50 Table 4.8

Summary of Hypothesis

Hypothesis Results

H1: The personality of students will have a positive and

direct impact on their basic psychological needs. Accepted H2: The personality of students will have a positive and

direct impact on exercise motivation. Accepted

H3: The personality of students will have a positive and

direct impact on exercise behavior. Accepted

H4: The basic psychological needs of students will have a

positive and direct impact on exercise motivation. Accepted H5: The basic psychological needs of students will have a

positive and direct impact on exercise motivation. Accepted H6: The exercise motivation of students will have a positive

and direct impact on exercise behavior. Accepted

4.5 Test of interrelation between internal factors of the construct

Regression analysis was conducted to test the relationship of the latent variables.

For examples, there are five dimensions in personality construct and three dimensions in basic psychological needs. After running the linear regression analysis for the data, we will find how the five dimensions of personality effect on three dimensions of basic psychological needs. The results were shown in the table 4.9.

51 Table 4.9

Regression analysis for the relationship of personality, basic psychological needs and exercise motivation on exercise behavior.

Autonomy Competence Relatedness Amotivation External reguation

(ES: Emotional stability; EX: Extraversion; OE: Openness to experience; AG: Agreeableness; CS: Conscientiousness;

AUTO: Autonomy; COMP: Competence; RELA: Relatedness; AMO: Amotivation; ER: External regulation, INR:

Introjected regulation; IDR: Identified regulation; IM; Intrinsic motivation.)

52 Table 4.10

Regression analyses factors between personality and basic psychological needs Dependent variables

For regression model M1.1, extraversion, openness and conscientiousness were significant predictors for autonomy (β = 0.139 ~ 0.219, p< 0.05 ~ 0.000), when the contribution of emotional stability and agreeableness were not significant. The model predicted 31.6 % of the variance in autonomy need.

For regression model M1.2, emotional stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness were significant predictors for competence (β = 0.140 ~ 0.379, p< 0.01 ~ 0.000), when the contribution of agreeableness was not significant. The model predicted 29.8% of the variance in competence need.

For regression model M1.3, extraversion, openness and conscientiousness were significant predictors for relatedness (β = 0.120 ~ 0.327, p< 0.05 ~ 0.000), when the contribution of emotional stability and agreeableness were not significant. The model predicted 40.1% of the variance in relatedness need.

53 Table 4.11

Regression analyses factors between personality and exercise motivation Dependent variables

Regarding the influences of exercisers' personality on their exercise motivation (hypothesis 2):

For regression model M2.1, extraversion was the only significant predictor for amotivation (β = -0.303, p< 0.05). The model predicted 31.2% of the variance in amotivation.

For regression model M2.2, emotional stability was the only significant predictor for external regulation (β = -0.104, p< 0.05). The model predicted 31.1% of the variance in external regulation.

For regression model M2.3, there are not any significant predictors for introjected regualtion (β = -0.142 ~ 0.94, p>0.05).

For regression model M2.4, extraversion, openness and conscientiousness were the significant predictors for identified regulation (β = 0.216 ~ 0.323, p< 0.05). The model predicted 33.7% of the variance in identified regulation.

For regression model M2.5, extraversion, openness and conscientiousness were the significant predictors for intrinsic motivation (β = 0.238 ~ 369, p< 0.01). The model predicted 46.5% of the variance in intrinsic motivation.

Table 4.12

Regression analyses factors between personality and exercise behavior Dependent variables Predictor

For regression model M3.1, extraversion, openness and conscientiousness were the significant predictors for intrinsic motivation (β = 0.324 ~ 0.401, p< 0.05 ~ 0.01).

The model predicted 46.5% of the variance in identified regulation.

55 Table 4.13

Regression analyses for factors between basic psychological needs and exercise motivation.

Regarding the influences of exercisers' basic psychological needs on their exercise motivation (hypothesis 4):

For regression model M2.6, relatedness was the only significant predictor for amotivation (β = -0.224, p< 0.01). The model predicted 26.6% of the variance in amotivation.

For regression model M2.7, competence was the only significant predictor for external regulation (β = -0.194, p< 0.05). The model predicted 32.7% of the variance in external regulation.

For regression model M2.8, autonomy was the only significant predictor for introjected regulation (β = 0.235, p< 0.01). The model predicted 28% of the variance in introjected regulation.

For regression model M2.9, autonomy and relatedness were the significant predictors for identified regulation (β = 0.245 ~ 0.287, p< 0.000). The model predicted 40.6% of the variance in identified regulation.

For regression model M2.10 autonomy, competence and relatedness were the significant predictors for intrinsic motivation (β = 0.194 ~ 0.372, p< 0.000). The model predicted 35.5% of the variance in intrinsic motivation.

Table 4.14

Regression analyses for factors between basic psychological needs and exercise behavior.

Dependent variables Predictor

(Basic psychological needs) β t R² Exercise behavior (M3.2) (Constant)

Autonomy

1.107**

.268**

3.356

2.956 .417

Extraversion .333*** 4.071

Relatedness .208* 2.255

Regarding the influences of exercisers' basic psychological needs on their exercise participation (H5):

For regression model M3.2, autonomy, competence and relatedness were the significant predictors for intrinsic motivation (β = 0.208 ~ 0.333, p< 0.05 ~ 0.000). The model predicted 35.5% of the variance in intrinsic motivation.

57 Table 4.15

Regression analyses for factors between exercise motivation and exercise behavior. External regulation -.144 -.735

Introjected regulation .086 .093 Identified regulation .214* 2.031 Intrinsic motivation .415*** 6.037

Regarding the influences of exercisers' motivation on exercise behavior (H6), For regression model M3.3, amotivation (β = -0.244, p< 0.000), identified regulation (β = 0.214, p< 0.05) and intrinsic motivation ((β = 0.415, p< 0.000) were the significant predictors for exercise behavior. The model predicted 43.3% of the variance in exercise behavior.

Regression analysis was used to test the interrelationship of factors in each construct. The findings were:

1. Extraversion, openness and conscientiousness were significant predictors for autonomy, relatedness, identified regulation, intrinsic motivation when the contribution of emotional stability and agreeableness were not significant.

2. Emotional stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness were significant predictors for competence, when the contribution of agreeableness was not significant. The model predicted 29.8% of the variance in competence need.

3. Extraversion was the only significant predictor for amotivation.

4. Emotional stability was the only significant predictor for external regulation.

5. Relatedness was the only significant predictor for amotivation.

6. Competence was the only significant predictor for external regulation.

7. Autonomy was the only significant predictor for introjected regulation.

8. Autonomy and relatedness were the significant predictors for identified regulation.

9. Autonomy, competence and relatedness were the significant predictors for intrinsic motivation

10. Amotivation, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation were the significant predictors for exercise behavior. However, amotivation has a negative effect on exercise behavior.

4.6 Summary

From the table 4.6, we showed the differences among three school on personality (extraversion, conscientiousness), exercise motivation (amotivation, external regulation, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation), basic psychological needs (autonomy and relatedness) and exercise behavior.

NTUPES students seem to have higher level of personality, autonomous motivation, basic psychological needs and exercise behavior; however; lower level ò amotivation and external regulation than HUS and TDTU’ students.

To examine the proposed research questions, SEM was used. The gathered data were first analyzed by to test the reliability and validity of the questionnaires. Based on the literature review, all the hypotheses were proposed and tested. The results indicated that all the hypotheses were supported., that means the student has a higher levels of personality, basic psychological needs and self-determined regulation to exercise would favorably influence exercise behavior

Finally, regression analysis was conducted to examine the interrelationship among factors in each construct. Many relationships were found between the factors of these construct. These factors can be the predictors for other factors in the relationship.

CHAPTER V – DISCUSSIONS, SUGGESTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Our study was designed to determine the influences of personality and basic psychological needs on exercise motivation, which then affect on exercise behavior of sport management students in NTUPES, TDTU and HUS. This chapter was divided into three sections with the first section discussing the findings of this study, the second section concluding the findings of this study and third section suggesting recommendation.

5.1 Discussions

This study found that the NTUPES students tend to have significantly higher scores on extraversion and conscientiousness than the students in HUS and TDTU;

however, there are no differences among these three groups on emotional stability, openness to experience and agreeableness. NTUPES students seem to have significant lower level of amotivation and external regulation but significant higher level of identified regulation and intrinsic motivation than the other two universities. According to Deci and Ryan (1985), there are five dimensions of motivation, were ranged from the continuum of self-determination. That means Taiwanese students in sport management department have the higher level of self-determination than students in Vietnam.

The higher scores on basic psychological needs (autonomy and relatedness) and exercise behavior of NTUPES students were found in this study. The differences between TDTU, HUS and NTUPES or in another word, there are the differences between Taiwanese and Vietnamese sport management students. There are at least two possible explanations for the differences. One explanation is that there is the diversity in cultural issues and belief, even Vietnam and Taiwan are the Asian countries but the culture and way of thinking are different. The second is related to the economic, with

the lower level of economic than Taiwan, Vietnamese should pay more attention on earning money, saving expense for their living cost

These results were supported by the present finding of this study, that student with higher level of personality and basic psychological needs will positively influence on exercise motivation, which then positively affect exercise behavior. According to our results that NTUPES students seem to have higher level of personality (extraversion and conscientiousness), higher level of basic psychological needs (autonomous and relatedness), they also have higher level of autonomous motivation, and the highest level of exercise behavior can be effected by supported hypothesis.

Personality was found to have a positive influence on basic psychological needs, exercise motivation and exercise behavior, especially extraversion, openness to experience and conscientiousness. These finding coincides with the self-determination theory. The results of these studies indicated that extraversion, openness and conscientiousness impacted positively on exercise behavior. These results support a large body of research on personality and exercise behavior including the only other study to use the FFM (Coumeya & Hellsten, 1998). There appears to be a growing consensus that extraversion, openness and conscientiousness are the most strongly personality dimensions (Coumeya & Hellsten, 1998; Potgieter & Venter, 1995; Szabo, 1992; Yeung & Hemsley, 1997b), although one recent study (Yeung & Hemsley, 1997a) provided a inverse relationship between extraversion and exercise class attendance.

However, the positive correlations between extraversion and exercise behavior in the present studies are show the most related in the literature.

This study aimed to further clarify the relationship between individuals' personality, exercise motivations and exercise behavior. As expected from previous research (e.g., Rhodes, 2006), Extraversion was found to be positively correlated with exercise frequency, though no relationships were found for Emotional Stability,

Agreeableness. McCrae and John (1992) argue that Extraversion is associated with increased activity levels, positive emotionality, and assertiveness and in some cases sensitivity to reward, all of which would tend to encourage exercise participation. Given the largely consistent relationship between Extraversion and exercise across many studies and the clear theoretical basis for hypothesizing that higher Extraversion will be related to a more active, outgoing lifestyle, this finding may help to contribute to the conclusion that Extraversion is related to many types of exercise outcomes, such as participation, frequency and performance.

Personality traits predicted a substantial amount of variance in exercise behavior, with Extraversion, Openness and Conscientiousness and emerging as the strongest predictors. As expected, the effects of the personality traits were mostly subsumed into the motivation variables, which themselves made a fritter substantial contribution to predicting exercise behavior. It appears that the Extraversion, openness and Conscientiousness traits are mediated by identified regulation and intrinsic motivation.

In another study, external regulation is known to be more important for exercise participation; however, current study found that external regulation has negatively related to exercise behavior but no significantly.

Conner, Rodgers and Murray (2007) conducted a study using a sample of University students and identified that Conscientiousness significantly influenced exercise intentions during an unusual week, such as a reading week, but had no influence when the behavior was performed during a normal week of term. Previous findings on emotional stability and agreeableness relating to exercise have also been contradictory and this research further confirms that finding relationships is heavily dependent on the sample and type of exercise outcome.

Exercise behavior is more likely under the conditions of self-determined regulation, personality and basic psychological needs because these variables are high

and significant predictor of exercise behavior (Wankel, 1993). One investigation (Edmunds, Ntoumanis & Duda, 2007) already documented the positive implications of self-determined regulation for exercise behavior among overweight and obese patients.

Future research is needed to investigate if these findings hold true in other populations (e.g., sedentary people and people without weight problems).

The hypothesis that higher levels of personality, basic psychological needs and self-determined regulation to exercise would favorably influence exercise behavior was supported. It was found that self-determined regulation, as measured by SDT, significantly and positively affected enjoyment, positive affect, and exercise frequency, while adversely affecting negative affect. This finding suggests that exercising primarily for self-determined reasons provides exercisers with positive behavioral and emotional benefits that may increase their likelihood of adhering to an exercise program.

These findings have been supported in other investigations (Edmunds et al., 2006) and have very important implications for promoting physical activity and exercise in the general population (Edmunds et al., 2007; Frederick, 2002).

Providing an environment that fosters autonomy might be particularly important for exercise novices, in which participants are more likely to experience boredom, physical discomfort, early fatigue, and not obtain immediate benefits, while finding the activity extrinsically motivating (Frederick, 2002). It has been found that students who engage in exercise for more extrinsic than intrinsic reasons tend to have negative effects on exercise behavior (Frederick, 2002). It is plausible to surmise, therefore, that novices might be more likely to start exercising for extrinsic reasons, thus creating an environment that fosters self-determined motivation. This, in turn, would create more favorable perceptions of exercise, resulting in higher levels of exercise behavior.

Three of five exercise motivation scales (amotivation, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation) were correlated with exercise behavior. As predicted by

self-63

determination theory, the strength of these correlations increased and the direction of correlation became positive as autonomy increased. This provides support for the continuum of motivation suggested by Deci and Ryan (2000), further validating Self-determination Theory, and makes for a strong recommendation that programs designed to encourage exercise participation should focus on increasing autonomous exercise regulation rather than extemal factors. Indeed, extemal regulation had a negative relationship with exercise participation and indicates that, for those already engaged in physical activity at least, providing extemal rewards or punishments may well decrease exercise frequency.

The finding in the current study that perceived autonomy and relatedness significantly and positively influenced self-determined regulation to exercise is consistent with other investigations which indicated favorable effects of perceived competence and autonomy on self-regulation (e.g., Edmunds et al., 2006; Vallerand et al., 1997). Thus, it appears that the combination of identified regulation and intrinsic motivation play an important mediating role in understanding the ways in which perceiving basic psychological needs to higher or lower levels of exercise behavior.

SDT posits that high levels of perceived autonomy and relatedness should lead to greater autonomy and self-determined regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to Ryan and Deci, high perceived relatedness and autonomy, in turn, is more likely to encourage regular exercise because these actions are consistent with the person’s values, goals, needs, fun and relationship. In other words, the person is more likely to perceive exercise as an end in itself (i.e., the pleasure derived from physical activity) rather than a means to an end (e.g., weight loss, improved appearance, more social interaction).

Regardless of the theoretical explanation, the direct relation between personality and basic psychological needs, exercise motivation, exercise behavior may have an important practical implication. Specifically, personality may need to be taken into

account when developing and administering exercise interventions rather than assuming that targeting social cognitions will necessarily subsume personality differences. For example, individuals in a cardiac rehabilitation program with at-risk personalities (i.e., low Extraversion and Conscientiousness and Emotional stability) could be screened at the beginning of the program and given additional attention, even if they possess a positive social-cognitive profile (e.g., positive attitude, high perceived control).

Moreover, individuals might be matched to exercise programs that fit their personality (e.g., extraverts assigned to group classes), or interventions could be developed based on personality profiles that maximize exercise adherence (e.g., low Conscientiousness individuals might spend more time on goal setting).

The overall present findings have important implications for promoting exercise behavior among sport management students. For instance, personality influences exercise motivation and exercise behavior by increasing a person’s feelings of relatedness and autonomy (Edmunds et al., 2007a; Frederick, 2002). Specifically, exercise motivation may be enhanced when exercise participants are provided with

在文檔中 IR:Item 987654321/6673 (頁 55-0)