Exploring coach perceptions of social identity, and its implications for teammate moral behaviour in youth sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiencing a strong sense of social identity can result in a variety of beneficial outcomes (e.g., morale, self-esteem; Haslam et al., 2009), and research highlights the significant role that leadership plays in facilitating identity perceptions (Slater et al., 2014). Whereas studies with youth athletes' have demonstrated relations between social identity and moral behaviour (Bruner et al., 2014, 2017), coach perceptions and experiences pertaining to this association remain unclear. As such, the current study sought to examine coaches' perceptions of the identification derived from team membership in youth sport and whether these social identities influence athletes' moral behaviour. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven head coaches (Mage = 48.29 years; SD = 6.73 years; Mexper. = 11.57 years; SD = 5.35 years) of male (n = 3) and female (n = 4) elite youth ice hockey teams. Thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2017) facilitated the identification of five themes (Ts). Generally, coaches discussed how athletes (and parents) joined elite hockey teams with a preconceived meaning and value attributed to team membership (i.e., cognitive centrality) (T1), and that the coaches' role in social identity development lies in ensuring athletes' enjoyment (i.e., in-group affect)(T2) and establishing connections with teammates (i.e., in-group ties) (T3). Interestingly, coaches identified parents who prioritize their child's individual performance as a barrier to the adoption of social identity (T4). Finally, whereas coaches highlighted several examples of moral behaviours, explicit links to identity perceptions were not made (T5). Both practical implications and future directions will be discussed.Acknowledgments: SSHRC Insight Grant (435-2016-0591)
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".