Self-Determination, Coping, and Goal Attainment in Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to verify, during a stressful sport competition, the associations between motivational antecedents and consequences of the coping process. Using a two-wave design, we tested a model that incorporates motivational orientations, coping dimensions, goal attainment, and affective states among athletes ( N = 122). Path analyses using EQS revealed that self-determination toward sport positively predicted the use of task-oriented coping strategies during a stressful sport competition, while non-self-determined motivation predicted the use of disengagement-oriented coping strategies. Task-oriented coping, in turn, was positively associated with the level of goal attainment experienced in the competition, whereas disengagement-oriented coping was negatively associated with goal attainment. Finally, level of goal attainment was positively linked to an increase in positive emotional states from pre- to postcompetition, and negatively associated with an increase in negative emotional states. Findings are discussed in light of coping frameworks, self-determination theory, and the consequences of motivational and coping processes on psychological functioning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".