For the PSPP, four points emerged, defined as bodily notice-really worth, recreations ability, shape, physical energy, and you may attractive muscles that have eigenvalues of 1.78, 4.34, step 3.59, step three.46, and you will 6.08 respectively accounting to possess 64% of one’s difference one of several points. Compared with brand new recommended hierarchical model (Fox Corbin, 1989), not, the new physical care about-really worth level plus the attractive muscles subscale showed considerable foundation convergence and you can was in fact subsequently deleted out-of subsequent data. Which grounds overlap between your attractive human body and you can bodily mind-really worth bills has been reported somewhere else (Sonstroem ainsi que al., 1992). The rest around three subscales of physical worry about-thinking taken into account 38% of your own adaptation regarding survey situations. Cronbach (1951) alphas for these subscales had been .ninety for football ability (6 circumstances), .86 for shape (six activities), and you can .85 having real stamina (6 facts).
The POSQ together with displayed a definite basis build to own interpretation. A few things emerged having eigenvalues higher than 1.00 and you can was basically defined as activity (6 items) and you can pride direction (six facts) getting exercise, bookkeeping to have 34% and you can 21% of difference during the participants’ solutions, correspondingly. The brand new interfactor relationship was negligible (r = .04), in line with prior lookup (Appreciate Roberts, 1994; Roberts Treasure 1995) confirming orthogonality of these two issues. Leader coefficients was .71 and .ninety for the task and ego positioning getting do it subscales, correspondingly.
The fresh IMI together with displayed a reliable foundation build because the the things loaded on their particular facts fulfilling the minimum https://datingranking.net/it/incontri-vietnamiti-it/ standards to-be chose to have interpretation. Eigenvalues was higher than step 1.00 toward desire/pleasure (5 issues), imagined proficiency (4 things), effort/pros (5 factors), and you can pressure/stress (cuatro activities) built-in motivation subscales, correspondingly, bookkeeping to have 60.1% of variance from the affairs. Interior accuracy coefficients were .82 (interest/enjoyment), .77 (perceived competence), .76 (effort/ importance), and .77 (tension/ pressure) to your intrinsic inspiration for do it subscales.
Means and you may fundamental deviations of one’s bodily care about-effect (PSPP), activity and you will ego orientations having take action (POSQ), and built-in desire to have do so (IMI) subscales are presented from inside the Table step 1. Significant no order correlations (2-tailed) have been noticed anywhere between task positioning for get it done and both appeal/pleasure (roentgen .29), and effort/importance (roentgen = .36). Self-perceptions out-of shape was basically relevant so you’re able to attention/pleasure (roentgen = .49), understood ability (r .59), effort/pros (r = .49), and stress/tension (r = -.27).
The fresh predictor details was in fact comprising self-perceptions regarding activities ability, physical condition, and bodily strength, together with task and you can ego orientations to possess get it done. New criterion parameters consisted of the latest five measures from inherent determination to own do so, especially, interest/exhilaration, thought of skills, effort/characteristics, and pressure/stress.
74, F(4, 252) = ,p <.0001). Follow-up canonical correlation analysis indicated three significant functions emerged. However, only the first function exceeded the .30 criterion (10% of the variance) suggested as the minimal level for meaningful interpretation (Tabachnick Fidell, 1989). 68 ([R.sup.2]= .46). A minimal canonical loading of .30 is considered to contribute significantly to the multivariate relationship (Pedhazur, 1982). As Table 2 demonstrates, a high positive loading on physical condition, and moderately positive loadings on task orientation for exercise, sports competence, and physical strength, were positively associated to the criterion set of variables composed of interest/ enjoyment, perceived competence, and effort/importance, and were negatively relat ed to tension/pressure for exercise. Ego orientation for exercise, however, failed to significantly contribute to the multivariate relationship. The redundancy index revealed that 16% of the variance in the four indices of intrinsic motivation for exercise could be explained by the linear combination of the predictor variables. A redundancy value of 10% is recommended as a significant and meaningful cutoff for interpretation (Pedhazur, 1982).