Social identity and moral behaviour in competitive youth ice hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has identified important links between the identity youth form through membership on school sport teams (i.e., social identity) and their moral behaviour toward teammates and opponents (Bruner et al., 2014). However, to date researchers have not examined these links in competitive sport or examined group- and individual-level effects separately. As such, the aim of the current study was to investigate the hierarchical effects of social identity on moral behaviour in competitive youth ice hockey. Male and female adolescent athletes (N=376) from 28 competitive youth ice hockey teams completed measures of social identity (i.e., ingroup ties, cognitive centrality, ingroup affect; Bruner et al., 2014) and moral behaviour in sport (i.e., prosocial teammate behaviour, prosocial opponent behaviour, antisocial teammate behaviour, antisocial opponent behaviour; Kavussanu & Boardley, 2009). Multilevel analyses demonstrated: (a) at the individual level perceptions of ingroup ties and ingroup affect negatively predicted antisocial behaviour towards teammates, (b) at the group level ingroup affect positively predicted greater prosocial behaviour towards teammates and negatively predicted antisocial behaviour toward teammates and opponents, and (c) at the group level ingroup ties negatively predicted prosocial behaviour towards opponents and positively predicted antisocial behaviour towards teammates and opponents. The findings extend past research by investigating the hierarchical effects of social identity on moral behaviour in competitive sport.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Insight Development Grant (430-2013-000950).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".