| Literature DB >> 34194366 |
Seungjoo Lee1, Sungho Kwon1, Jihoon Ahn1.
Abstract
This study aimed to verify the effects of role modeling on adolescent athletes' self-efficacy and flow state. The subjects were middle school and high school athletes registered with the Korean Sport & Olympic Committee. From the collected data, descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis, and structural equation model analysis were performed. To verify the mediating effects of self-efficacy in the relationship between modeling and flow state, structural equation modeling analysis was conducted. The direct effects of adolescent athlete modeling on flow state (β = 0.416, B = 0.244, p < 0.01) and self-efficacy (β = 0.479, B = 0.500, p < 0.01) were all significant, and the direct effects of self-efficacy on flow state (β = 0.404, B = 0.227, p < 0.01) were also significant. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the indirect effect of modeling on flow state (β = 0.194, B = 0.114, p < 0.01) was significant, and that the partial mediated effects of self-efficacy were significant. Thus, we confirmed that when adolescent athlete use modeling through a role model, their self-efficacy increased which in turn led to a positive effect on the ability to achieve a flow state.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent athlete; flow state; modeling; role model; self-efficacy
Year: 2021 PMID: 34194366 PMCID: PMC8236606 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661557
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Result of descriptive statics and correlations.
| Variable | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M: skill | 1 | |||||||
| M: strategy | 0.788 | 1 | ||||||
| M: performance | 0.732 | 0.821 | 1 | |||||
| E: skill | 0.457 | 0.425 | 0.338 | 1 | ||||
| E: strategy | 0.434 | 0.380 | 0.354 | 0.846 | 1 | |||
| E: performance | 0.390 | 0.396 | 0.355 | 0.792 | 0.801 | 1 | ||
| Flow threshold | 0.382 | 0.460 | 0.434 | 0.450 | 0.474 | 0.452 | 1 | |
| Flow experience | 0.403 | 0.475 | 0.434 | 0.390 | 0.443 | 0.422 | 0.648 | 1 |
| Mean | 5.00 | 4.44 | 4.53 | 7.89 | 7.75 | 7.89 | 4.57 | 3.89 |
| SD | 1.38 | 1.42 | 1.45 | 1.56 | 1.55 | 1.50 | 0.91 | 1.01 |
| Skewness | −0.815 | −0.608 | −0.623 | −0.469 | −0.362 | −0.542 | −0.581 | −0.286 |
| Kurtosis | 0.696 | 0.138 | 0.163 | −0.539 | −0.461 | −0.252 | 0.323 | −0.066 |
p < 0.01.
CR, AVE values, and coefficient determination of entire research model.
| Variables | CR | AVE | Coefficient of determination ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modeling | Self-efficacy | Flow | |||
| Modeling | 0.845 | 0.645 | 1 | – | – |
| Self-efficacy | 0.848 | 0.650 | 0.229 | 1 | – |
| Flow state | 0.799 | 0.665 | 0.173 | 0.163 | 1 |
Parameter-estimated value of each path way.
| Path | Parameter-estimated value |
|---|---|
| Modeling → flow state | 0.244 (0.416) |
| Modeling → self-efficacy | 0.500 (0.479) |
| Self-efficacy → flow state | 0.114 (0.194) |
p < 0.01.
Direct and indirect effect.
| Pathway | Direct effect | Indirect effect | 95% confidence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper | Lower | |||
| Modeling → flow state | 0.416 | 0.000 | 0.564 | 0.261 |
| Modeling → self-efficacy | 0.479 | 0.000 | 0.589 | 0.345 |
| Self-efficacy → flow state | 0.404 | 0.000 | 0.554 | 0.248 |
| Modeling → self-efficacy → flow state | 0.000 | 0.194 | 0.279 | 0.114 |
p < 0.01.
Figure 1Validation of hypothetical research model.