Collective goals and shared tasks: Interdependence structure and perceptions of individual sport team environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across two studies, we tested the proposition that interdependence structures (i.e., task interaction among teammates during competition, competition against teammates, presence of a collective outcome) influence interdependence perceptions among teammates as well as perceptions of group cohesion, competitiveness, and satisfaction. Study 1 was a paper-and-pencil survey completed by 210 individual sport athletes from 12 university- and college-level teams. Multiple mediation analyses demonstrated that participants who had to work alongside teammates during competition reported increased interdependence perceptions that were, in turn, associated with increased cohesion and satisfaction as well as decreased competitiveness. There were no differences according to whether participants competed in the same event as all of their teammates or not. Study 2 involved a weekly e-mail survey with 17 university-level individual sport athletes who reported interdependence perceptions on a continual basis over the course of their competitive season. Interdependence perceptions were higher during weeks that were close in time to competitions with a collective group outcome. These studies reveal how interdependence structures shape the group environment and support applied efforts that consider ways to structure teammate interdependencies in ways to optimize group functioning and promote member satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".