Embracing athletic identity in the face of threat.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When reminded of the impending end to their athletic career, it may benefit athletes to prioritize other identities and goals that will be more important in the future. However, by applying a general process model of psychological threat and defense (Jonas et al., 2014), we conducted 2 studies to test the idea that individuals may actually report stronger identification as an athlete to counter goal-discrepant perceptions aroused by a sport career threat. Both studies used a between-subjects design, where participants were assigned to a condition in which they either envisioned the end of their athletic career, a control condition, their own mortality (i.e., a universal goal-discrepant threat, Study 1 only), or the end of their student career (Study 2 only). In Study 1, with a sample of interuniversity sport athletes (n = 81), participants in the universal goal-discrepant threat and the end of athletic career threat conditions reported greater identification as an athlete relative to a control condition. Study 2 (n = 85) replicated these findings, and also revealed that reflecting on the end of their athletic career elicited a distinct pattern of identification when contrasted with a condition where participants imagined the end of their student career. These studies provide novel evidence of how a mere reminder about the end of an athletic career can influence athletic identity exclusivity. Consistent with theories of psychological threat and defense, university sport participants may turn toward their athletic identity as a way to counter goal-discrepant thoughts.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".