Relational Efficacy Beliefs in Athlete Dyads: An Investigation Using Actor–Partner Interdependence Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first purpose of this study was to examine the interrelationships among three forms of relational efficacy within performing dyads, namely, self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and relation-inferred self-efficacy. The second objective was to examine the relationships between these efficacy beliefs and athletes' perceptions of their commitment to and satisfaction with their current partnership. Participants were 120 junior tennis players (age, M = 14.30 years, SD = 1.21) performing within 60 intact pairs (i.e., doubles). Results revealed that self-efficacy and other-efficacy were predictive of athlete commitment and satisfaction, respectively. In addition, by utilizing actor-partner interdependence models, partner as well as actor effects were evident. The findings illustrate that relational efficacy beliefs may not only have implications for the individual holding such beliefs, but also for his or her relational partner. Implications for the future study of efficacy beliefs within dyadic contexts are discussed.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".