Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between superstition and confidence in sport. The Superstitious Rituals Questionnaire, a single-item confidence question, the confidence subscales from the Athletic Coping Skills Inventory- 28, Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2, Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool-3, Trait Sport Confidence Inventory, and the New General Self-Efficacy Scale were used to measure superstitions and self-efficacy among the athletes. A convenience sample of current and former NCAA athletes (N = 109, n = 61 males, n = 48 females) were sent the link to the questionnaire on Qualtrics. Results showed that athletes used a mean of 13 superstitions. Superstitions from the Pre-game/Meet subscale were the most used, while superstitions from the Fetish subscale were the most effective. Three Pearson correlations among Team Rituals use subscale and confidence were negative and statistically significant. Correlations among superstition effectiveness and confidence were positive and significant for the Fetish (five), Clothing and Appearance (three), and Prayer (one) subscales. Gender differences were assessed by ANOVAs for confidence and superstition use and effectiveness. An ANOVA was also performed to test the differences between high and low confidence groups and superstition use and effectiveness. Overall, the NGSE was correlated the most with superstition use and effectiveness (significant for 5/14 correlations). Also, the Fetish subscale was the most effective and the most consistent correlation with the confidence measures (5/6). This study provides insight for future research in superstition and confidence. Also, this study allows sports psychologists to utilize lucky charms in their application of superstitions and pre-performance routines in sport.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".