焦虑和自我效能在运动中的作用

IF 1.6 3区 心理学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES Human Movement Science Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2024.103306
S. Harris, C.J. Rathbone, K. Wilmut
{"title":"焦虑和自我效能在运动中的作用","authors":"S. Harris,&nbsp;C.J. Rathbone,&nbsp;K. Wilmut","doi":"10.1016/j.humov.2024.103306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Previous research suggests that affective factors may influence perception of potential movement differently compared to perception during movement itself. To build on this the current study investigated the roles of general and movement-specific anxiety, self-efficacy, general resilience and motor control in how 41 adults with typical motor skills thought they would behave (perceptual judgement) and how they actually behaved (executed action). Participants completed several standardised scales and two movement-specific scales, a perceptual judgement task and an executed action task. In the perceptual judgement task participants judged whether they would need to turn their shoulders to walk through different sized apertures between 0.9 and 1.9 their shoulder width-to-aperture ratio. This involved a static (standing still) and a dynamic (walking towards) condition. The executed action task involved actually walking through the different sized gaps between the doors. Findings were discussed within an ecological framework drawing strongly on Newell's constraints-based approach (1986). Results indicated a relationship between higher movement-specific anxiety and bigger safety margins. This highlights the importance of measure specificity in being able to detect nuanced relationships between affective factors and the perception-action cycle. Notable differences were also shown in the point of behaviour change (critical ratio) between perceptual judgement and executed action, illustrating the importance of studying perception and action together since they can be subject to different constraints. The findings contribute novel insights into the roles of these factors in how adults with typical motor skills perceive and realise their intentions and abilities to act in the world.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55046,"journal":{"name":"Human Movement Science","volume":"98 ","pages":"Article 103306"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of anxiety and self-efficacy in movement\",\"authors\":\"S. Harris,&nbsp;C.J. Rathbone,&nbsp;K. Wilmut\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.humov.2024.103306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Previous research suggests that affective factors may influence perception of potential movement differently compared to perception during movement itself. To build on this the current study investigated the roles of general and movement-specific anxiety, self-efficacy, general resilience and motor control in how 41 adults with typical motor skills thought they would behave (perceptual judgement) and how they actually behaved (executed action). Participants completed several standardised scales and two movement-specific scales, a perceptual judgement task and an executed action task. In the perceptual judgement task participants judged whether they would need to turn their shoulders to walk through different sized apertures between 0.9 and 1.9 their shoulder width-to-aperture ratio. This involved a static (standing still) and a dynamic (walking towards) condition. The executed action task involved actually walking through the different sized gaps between the doors. Findings were discussed within an ecological framework drawing strongly on Newell's constraints-based approach (1986). Results indicated a relationship between higher movement-specific anxiety and bigger safety margins. This highlights the importance of measure specificity in being able to detect nuanced relationships between affective factors and the perception-action cycle. Notable differences were also shown in the point of behaviour change (critical ratio) between perceptual judgement and executed action, illustrating the importance of studying perception and action together since they can be subject to different constraints. The findings contribute novel insights into the roles of these factors in how adults with typical motor skills perceive and realise their intentions and abilities to act in the world.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Movement Science\",\"volume\":\"98 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103306\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Movement Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167945724001313\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Movement Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167945724001313","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以往的研究表明,与运动过程中的感知相比,情感因素可能会对潜在运动的感知产生不同的影响。在此基础上,本研究调查了一般焦虑和特定运动焦虑、自我效能感、一般复原力和运动控制在 41 名具有典型运动技能的成年人如何看待他们的行为(知觉判断)和他们如何实际行动(执行动作)中的作用。受试者完成了几个标准化量表和两个特定动作量表、一个感知判断任务和一个执行动作任务。在知觉判断任务中,受试者要判断自己是否需要转动肩膀才能通过肩宽与孔径比为 0.9 到 1.9 之间的不同大小的孔径。这包括静态(站立不动)和动态(朝前走)两种情况。执行的行动任务包括实际穿过门之间不同大小的缝隙。研究结果在生态学框架内进行了讨论,主要借鉴了纽厄尔的基于约束的方法(1986 年)。结果表明,较高的特定动作焦虑与较大的安全裕度之间存在关系。这凸显了测量特异性在检测情感因素与感知-行动循环之间细微关系中的重要性。感知判断和执行行动之间的行为变化点(临界比率)也存在显著差异,这说明了将感知和行动结合起来研究的重要性,因为它们可能会受到不同的限制。这些发现有助于深入了解这些因素在具有典型运动技能的成年人如何感知和实现他们在世界上行动的意图和能力方面所起的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The role of anxiety and self-efficacy in movement
Previous research suggests that affective factors may influence perception of potential movement differently compared to perception during movement itself. To build on this the current study investigated the roles of general and movement-specific anxiety, self-efficacy, general resilience and motor control in how 41 adults with typical motor skills thought they would behave (perceptual judgement) and how they actually behaved (executed action). Participants completed several standardised scales and two movement-specific scales, a perceptual judgement task and an executed action task. In the perceptual judgement task participants judged whether they would need to turn their shoulders to walk through different sized apertures between 0.9 and 1.9 their shoulder width-to-aperture ratio. This involved a static (standing still) and a dynamic (walking towards) condition. The executed action task involved actually walking through the different sized gaps between the doors. Findings were discussed within an ecological framework drawing strongly on Newell's constraints-based approach (1986). Results indicated a relationship between higher movement-specific anxiety and bigger safety margins. This highlights the importance of measure specificity in being able to detect nuanced relationships between affective factors and the perception-action cycle. Notable differences were also shown in the point of behaviour change (critical ratio) between perceptual judgement and executed action, illustrating the importance of studying perception and action together since they can be subject to different constraints. The findings contribute novel insights into the roles of these factors in how adults with typical motor skills perceive and realise their intentions and abilities to act in the world.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Movement Science
Human Movement Science 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.80%
发文量
89
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: Human Movement Science provides a medium for publishing disciplinary and multidisciplinary studies on human movement. It brings together psychological, biomechanical and neurophysiological research on the control, organization and learning of human movement, including the perceptual support of movement. The overarching goal of the journal is to publish articles that help advance theoretical understanding of the control and organization of human movement, as well as changes therein as a function of development, learning and rehabilitation. The nature of the research reported may vary from fundamental theoretical or empirical studies to more applied studies in the fields of, for example, sport, dance and rehabilitation with the proviso that all studies have a distinct theoretical bearing. Also, reviews and meta-studies advancing the understanding of human movement are welcome. These aims and scope imply that purely descriptive studies are not acceptable, while methodological articles are only acceptable if the methodology in question opens up new vistas in understanding the control and organization of human movement. The same holds for articles on exercise physiology, which in general are not supported, unless they speak to the control and organization of human movement. In general, it is required that the theoretical message of articles published in Human Movement Science is, to a certain extent, innovative and not dismissible as just "more of the same."
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Optimising children's movement assessment batteries through application of motivational and attentional manipulations The role of anxiety and self-efficacy in movement “Acute responses to barefoot running are related to changes in kinematics, mechanical load, and inflammatory profile” Talking on a mobile phone and doing math have a similar impact on walking in community-dwelling older adults?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1