Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Sport: Relationships with Leadership, Team Cohesion, and Athlete Satisfaction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to introduce the construct of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Organ, 1988 Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) into the sport psychology literature and examine its utility in sport. Based upon OCB research in the organizational literature, the Multidimensional Model of Leadership (MML; Chelladurai, 1978 Chelladurai, P. 1978. “A contingency model of leadership in athletics”. In Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Waterloo: University of Waterloo, Canada. [Google Scholar]), the conceptual framework of team cohesion (CFC; Carron & Hausenblas, 1998 Carron, A. V. and Hausenblas, H. A. 1998. Group dynamics in sport, 2nd., Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. [Google Scholar]), and a model of athlete satisfaction (MAS; Chelladurai & Riemer, 1997 Chellardurai, P. and Riemer, H. A. 1997. A classification of facets of athlete satisfaction. Journal of Sport Management, 11: 133–159. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) were selected as theoretically sound antecedents to be associated with OCB in sport. A total of 193 student-athletes from a large Division I university and a smaller Division III university representing a variety of sports participated in the study. Results of the study provide preliminary evidence for OCB as a unique and meaningful construct in sport and support many of the predictions hypothesized in the MML, CFC, and MAS. Results are discussed in the context of previous literature as well as theoretical, research, and practical implications.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it