Investigating social identity and testosterone reactivity in combative sports athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testosterone concentrations change rapidly in the context of athletic competition (Archer, 2006). Also, simply watching one's team compete has similar effects on testosterone concentrations (CarrA© & Putnam, 2010). Despite these findings, there remains widespread variation in testosterone responses to competitive interactions. One potential factor that may underlie such variability is an athlete's social identity - identity formed through membership on a team. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between social identity and testosterone responses in male combative sports athletes' watching video footage of their teammate competing (win/loss). Male combative sport athletes (n=28, Mage = 29.43, SD=1.11) completed a questionnaire assessing three dimensions of social identity (ingroup ties, cognitive centrality, and ingroup affect) and provided saliva samples before and after watching video footage of teammates competing. Multiple regression analysis indicated that perceptions of ingroup ties moderated the relationship between competition outcome and testosterone response, F(1,20)=6.00, p=.02. Simple slopes analyses revealed that athletes who identified strongly with their team and teammates had an increase in testosterone when watching a teammate win, and a decrease in testosterone when watching a teammate lose. However, the opposite pattern of neuroendocrine response was observed in athletes who had low identification with their team. Specifically, a decrease in testosterone was observed when watching a teammate win, and an increase in testosterone was observed when watching a teammate lose. These findings indicate that social identity may play a salient role in moderating one's testosterone response when watching their teammates in a competitive performance.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".