Psychological collectivism in youth athletes on individual sport teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering that five of the ten most participated sports among Canadian youth are individual sports (e.g., swimming, gymnastics; Canadian Heritage, 2013), it is vital to gain a better understanding of the social environment within this context. Consequently, the current study examined whether psychological collectivism could predict enjoyment and intentions to return in youth athletes on individual sport teams. In addition, structural interdependence and age were used as moderator variables for the proposed relationships. In total, 142 youth (Mage = 14.44 years; SD = 1.63; 62% female) completed questionnaires at two data-collection periods (T1 – psychological collectivism, structural interdependence, age; T2 – enjoyment, intentions to return), and the results indicated that psychological collectivism positively predicted enjoyment and intentions to return. Also, task interdependence significantly moderated the relationship between psychological collectivism and enjoyment (b = .14, t(137) = -1.90, p = .06) and intentions to return (b = -.17, t(137) = -2.07, p < .05). Specifically, in situations where athletes worked together during competition (e.g., relays), athletes' collectivistic orientation had a stronger relationship with both enjoyment and intentions to return. Similarly, among older athletes, collectivism had a stronger positive relationship with intentions to return (b = .05, t(138) = 2.04, p < .05). Although individual sport rarely requires the extent of teammate interaction during competition that is evident in team sport, our results coincide with previous research and support the presence of interdependence structures, as well as their influence regarding affective experiences and participant intentions (e.g., Evans et al., 2012; Evans et al., 2013).Acknowledgments: Funding provided by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) graduate student scholarship for the first author.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".