Understanding social identity and moral behaviour in competitive youth ice hockey: A narrative perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important component of young athletes’ self-concept is the identities they form through their membership on sport teams – their social identities. Social identity has been found to play a salient role in regulating teammate behavior in youth participating in a range of sports (Bruner, Boardley, & Côté, 2014). This study aimed to better understand how social identity can influence moral behaviour specifically in competitive youth ice hockey. Thirty-six male and female competitive youth ice hockey players (M age = 12.4, SD =1.7) participated in narrative interviews. Four team roles (team captain, verbal cheer leader, social captain, most aggressive player) as identified by the head coach were purposefully sampled from nine teams. Athletes participated in a semi-structured interview near the beginning and end of the regular season. Narrative analysis confirmed that the four team roles were distinct from one another, highlighting unique characteristics for each role with respect to social identity, team norms and moral behaviour toward teammates and opponents. For example, while each of the roles reported identifying strongly with their respective team, the most aggressive role athletes often felt underappreciated and frustrated and this prompted them to act antisocially toward opponents. Collectively, the findings suggest that athletes’ roles, and their social identities developed through team membership may influence young athletes’ compliance and promotion of team norms, and their moral behaviour toward teammates and opponents. Additionally, the results indicate that youth-sport coaches and practitioners should be cognizant of how different roles on a team may impact social identity, norm compliance and moral behaviour.Acknowledgments: The project is supported by an Insight Development Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC 430—2013-00950).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".