Social identity and the influence on golfing performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social identity theory states that individuals will define themselves in terms of their group memberships (Haslam, 2004). The theory asserts that individuals will begin to adopt normative group characteristics through a process of depersonalization (Hogg & Terry, 2000). While research has been conducted with respect to fan identification in sport, little research has been done with athletes (Branscombe & Wann, 1991). Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine which athletes benefit the most from team identification. Participants (N = 155) were professional golfers from the PGA and LPGA tours who have competed in both individual match play tournaments and team based match play tournaments. Participants were classified into either a higher or lower golfing ability condition based on their lifetime World Golf Ranking statistic. Results of a MANOVA indicated an overall difference between higher and lower golfing ability, F(4,150) = 2.59, p = .039, ?2 = .065. In particular, the results showed a significant difference between higher ability golfers and lower ability golfers in relation to individual match play, but no significant difference in team match play. Results are discussed in terms of how performance within a team setting is facilitated due to social identity.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".