Quantitative analysis reveals self-regulation affects healthy behaviors while well-being does not in student-athletes.
Introduction: Student athletes often face significant health challenges such as stress, sleep deprivation, and mental strain. Objective: This study was conducted to examine the role of self-regulation and subjective well-being in influencing healthy lifestyle behaviors in student athletes in Indonesia. Methodology: The method used is quantitative with multiple linear regression and simple linear regression designs. The sample involved in this study amounted to 255 Indonesian student athletes using accidental sampling techniques. The research instruments consisted of The Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ) (α = 0.91), Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) (α = 0.807) and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (α = 0.861; α = 0.853), and The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (α = 0.906). Results: The results showed that the major hypothesis was rejected, namely there was no joint influence between self-regulation and subjective well-being on healthy lifestyle behaviors in student athletes (F = 2.166 and sig. = 0.117). Furthermore, the results of minor hypothesis 1 were rejected, namely subjective well-being did not show a significant influence on healthy lifestyle behaviors (t = -0.432 and sig. = 0.666). However, the results of hypothesis 2 are accepted, namely self-regulation affects healthy lifestyle behaviors (t = 2.006 and sig. = 0.046). Discussion: Healthy lifestyle behaviors of student athletes will be difficult to realize if self-regulation and subjective well-being are applied together by student athletes. Likewise, subjective well-being cannot be used as a predictor of increased healthy lifestyle behavior in student athletes. Meanwhile, self-regulation can partially be a predictor of healthy lifestyle behavior. Conclusions: This study indicates the design of self-regulation from within student-athletes to achieve and maintain healthy lifestyle behaviors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takalapeta et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: