4.0 Article

Women, Physical Activity, and Quality of Life: Self-concept as a Mediator

期刊

SPANISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/sjp.2016.4

关键词

physical activity; quality of life; self-concept; women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objectives of this research are: (a) analyze the incremental validity of physical activity's (PA) influence on perceived quality of life (PQL); (b) determine if PA's predictive power is mediated by self-concept; and (c) study if results vary according to a unidimensional or multidimensional approach to self-concept measurement. The sample comprised 160 women from Burgos, Spain aged 18 to 45 years old. Non-probability sampling was used. Two three-step hierarchical regression analyses were applied to forecast PQL. The hedonic quality-of-life indicators, self-concept, self-esteem, and PA were included as independent variables. The first regression analysis included global self-concept as predictor variable, while the second included its five dimensions. Two mediation analyses were conducted to see if PA's ability to predict PQL was mediated by global and physical self-concept. Results from the first regression shows that self-concept, satisfaction with life, and PA were significant predictors. PA slightly but significantly increased explained variance in PQL (2.1%). In the second regression, substituting global self-concept with its five constituent factors, only the physical dimension and satisfaction with life predicted PQL, while PA ceased to be a significant predictor. Mediation analysis revealed that only physical self-concept mediates the relationship between PA and PQL (z = 1.97, p < .050), and not global self-concept. Physical self-concept was the strongest predictor and approximately 32.45 % of PA's effect on PQL was mediated by it. This study's findings support a multidimensional view of self-concept, and represent a more accurate image of the relationship between PQL, PA, and self-concept.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据