社會體育 參與者와 非參與者間의 人性特性에 關한 比較硏究
A Comparison Study on Personality Traits of the Sports for All Between the Participants and the Non-Participants
- 경희대학교 스포츠과학연구원
- 체육학논문집
- 제21집
-
1993.12169 - 180 (12 pages)
- 6
The Study was made for the purpose of defining what kind of effects social athletics give to humanity formation and what is the superior character of humanity in participant groups.<BR> The study stands on the principle that the formation and rariation of personality changes and develops due to circumstances. for the study, 8 groups were selected, which were composed of 436 participants and 427 non-participants in socal Athletics.<BR> The tool is the humanity-checking list for elementary, school highschool, University and general public, reated by Prof. Jeong, Bum Mo.<BR> The list was checked thru self-administration methods entry.<BR> The study was concluded as follows.<BR> 1) With comparison of Male elementary school participant groups there appears a very high significance(P<.001)in Dominance, stability discretion and Sociality, In activity there appears no significant difference, while participant groups are slightly high. On the other hand, in impulsiveness non-participant groups show a high significance(p<.01)<BR> 2) With comparison of Female Elementary school participant groups there appears a very high significance(p<.001) in fields such as Dominance, stability, discretion, and sociality. In activity and impulsiveness there is no significant difference, while in activity participant group, but in impulsiveness non participant groups, shows a slightly high significance respectively.<BR> 3) With comparison of male adult groups, in stability and impulsiveness there appears a high significant difference(P<.001), while in stability participant groups, but in impulsiveness non participant groups show a high significance respectively. Indiscretion non-participant groups show a higher significance (P<.01). And in activity, Dominance, Sociality there is no significant difference, while in activity and Dominance non-participant groups but in sociality participant groups show a slightly high significance.<BR> 4) With comparison of female adult groups, in activity, stability and impulsiveness there appears a high significant difference(P<.001), while participant groups in activity and stability as well as non-participant groups in impulsiveness show a higher significance respectively. In sociality participant groups show a high significant difference(P<.01) while no significant difference in Dominance and discretion appears but participant groups show a slightly high signficance.<BR> 5) With Comparison of 4 elementary school groups, in Dominance, stability, discretion, and soiality 2 participant male and female groups show a significant difference(P<.001).<BR> In impulsiveness male participant groups show a lower significant difference(P<.01). In activity no signficant difference appears.<BR> 6) With comparison of 4 adult groups, in stability all of male and female participant groups show a high significant difference, while in impulsiveness 2 non-participant male and female groups show a high significant difference. In activity also there appears a significant difference(P<.001) with a low significance in female non-participant groups. In the rest groups there is no significant difference. And in Dominance, discretion and sociality there appears a significant difference (P<.05). In Dominance and sociality female non-participant groups show a significant difference, while in discretion male non-participant groups show a significant difference.<BR> 7) With comparisom of 4 participant groups. in stability there appears a significant difference(P<.001), but there is no significant difference between female elementary school children and male adults. In Dominance, impulsiveness, discretion there appears a significant difference(p<.01).<BR> In Dominance there is a difference between elementary school children and adults. In impulsiveness, there is no difference
ABSTRACT<BR>Ⅰ. 序論<BR>Ⅱ. 硏究對象 및 方法<BR>Ⅲ. 硏究結果 및 考察<BR>Ⅳ. 結論 및 提言<BR>參考文獻<BR>
(0)
(0)