Evaluating the relationship between team building factors and social identity in an online exercise intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An emerging area of research has examined social identity in group-based exercise settings. Researchers have found that individuals who held stronger social identity perceptions with their exercise group exhibited greater exercise adherence (Bruner & Spink, 2009; Strachan et al., 2012). To create a strong social identity with an exercise group, exercise leaders can look to the group dynamics literature which has reported team building (TB) strategies to help foster exercise adherence in a diverse range of populations (e.g., youth and adults; Bruner & Spink, 2011; Spink & Carron, 1993). The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the factors in an online TB protocol and social identity. Following the completion of an 8-week online TB intervention, first year university students (n=27) completed a survey assessing six TB factors (group norms, individual positions, distinctiveness, individual sacrifices, communication/interaction and goal setting) and social identity (Cameron, 2004). Three dimensions of social identity were assessed including ingroup ties (IGT; perceptions of similarity, bonding, belongingness), cognitive centrality (CC; importance of being a team member), and ingroup affect (IGA; feelings associated with group membership). A regression analysis was performed separately for the three dimensions of social identity (IGT, CC and IGA) with the six TB factors entered as predictors. Regression analysis revealed communication and interaction (B=.61) was positively associated with IGT (R2ad =.47). Further, individual sacrifices (B=.54) and communication and interaction (B=.98) were positively associated with cognitive centrality (R2adj=.70). Finally, group norms (B=.67) and interaction and communication (B=.38) were positively associated with IGA (R2adj=.71). These findings offer practical implications for exercise leaders as they can develop their exercise programs to include an online TB protocol. The inclusion of TB factors could help strengthen participants’ social identity perceptions with an exercise group and improve participants’ exercise adherence.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".