How expected versus actual role experiences relate to perceptions of group cohesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many athletes experience a discrepancy between the roles they expect to fulfil and the roles they actually occupy. In the present study, we draw from advances underscoring met expectations theory to consider how expected versus actual role experiences influence athletes' perceptions of group cohesion. To do so, we applied polynomial regression with response surface methodology to disentangle the independent and joint contributions of initial role expectations and actual role experiences on perceptions of group cohesion. In total, 153 Canadian Interuniversity Sport athletes participated across two time points. Role expectations were assessed at the onset of the competitive season, actual role experiences were assessed near the end of the season, and cohesion was assessed at both time points. In all analyses we controlled for tenure, team performance, gender, and initial perceptions of group cohesion. As predicted, when athletes surpassed their task-oriented role expectations, they reported higher perceptions of task cohesion (p's < .001). Further, when athletes surpassed their social involvement expectations, they reported higher perceptions across all four group cohesion dimensions (p's < .05). Notably, these response surface patterns—pertaining to both task and social cohesion—were primarily driven by the positive influence of actual role experiences (p's < .01), as initial role expectations had a negligible influence on cohesion. Together, these results reveal the interplay between athletes' role experiences and their perception of the broader group environment. Efforts to improve team dynamics may benefit from focusing on improving the quality of role experiences, in conjunction with developing realistic role expectations. Acknowledgments: Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Joseph-Armand Bombardier Doctoral Canada Graduate Scholarship.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".