Perceived Esteem Support Predicts Competition Appraisals and Performance Satisfaction Among Varsity Athletes: A Test of Organizational Stressors as Moderators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizational stressors may be important factors influencing athletes' sport experiences. In this study, we examined organizational stressors as “background variables” (Gump & Matthews, 1999 Gump, B. B., & Matthews, K. A. (1999). Do background stressors influence reactivity to and recovery from acute stressors?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(3), 469–494. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01397.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) that may impact athletes' perceptions of support and appraisals of competitive stressors. Perceptions of available esteem support, organizational stressors, competitive appraisals, and performance satisfaction were prospectively examined among varsity team sport athletes (N = 84). Esteem support was positively related to athletes' perceptions of satisfaction with performance, and the indirect effect through secondary appraisal was significant. Two types of organizational stressors moderated the association between esteem support and secondary appraisal: More frequent coaching stressors weakened the association between esteem support and secondary appraisal, whereas more frequent team and culture stressors strengthened the association between esteem support and appraisal. These results support previous research (cf. Freeman & Rees, 2009 Freeman, P., & Rees, T. (2009). How does perceived support lead to better performance? An examination of potential mechanisms. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 429–441. doi:10.1080/10413200903222913[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), indicating that perceived available esteem support was positively associated with athletes' assessments that they had the necessary resources to cope with competitive stressors, which positively predicted performance satisfaction after a competition. Furthermore, these findings suggest that higher levels of coaching stressors were associated with poorer perceptions of having the necessary resources to cope with competition stressors, whereas conversely, higher team and culture stressors were not necessarily detrimental to athletes' perceptions of their resources to cope with competitive demands. These results suggest that different types of organizational stressors may have differential impacts on athletes' sport experiences.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".