MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799705389 · doi:10.1080/10413200.2018.1468363

Perceived Esteem Support Predicts Competition Appraisals and Performance Satisfaction Among Varsity Athletes: A Test of Organizational Stressors as Moderators

2018· article· en· W2799705389 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine A. Tamminen, Catherine M. Sabiston, Peter R.E. Crocker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Sport Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStressorPsychologyAthletesCoachingSocial supportSelf-esteemPerceptionClinical psychologyTest (biology)Social psychologyPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Sport PsychologySame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207