Informal role structures influence athletes' perceptions of team cohesion, satisfaction, and intentions to return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roles (i.e., sets of behavioural expectations for team members) constitute an important structural aspect of sport teams (Carron & Eys, 2012). Previous research has demonstrated that positive role-related perceptions (e.g., clarity, acceptance) are critical for effective team functioning, though this body of research focused mostly on formal roles that are typically prescribed by coaches (e.g., captainship, playing positions; Eys et al., 2014). Recent literature suggested that various informal roles (i.e., those that emerge more naturally without coach assignment) such as team comedians, mentors, and distracters may also have important ramifications for sport team functioning and athlete experiences (e.g., Cope et al., 2011). The purpose of the current study was to assess how perceptions of informal role occupancies influence group cohesion (Carron et al., 1985), athlete satisfaction (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998), and intentions to return (Spink, 1995) in sport teams. Data were collected from 16 intercollegiate teams at two time points (NT1 = 231, NT2 = 203; 1-2 weeks apart). The results revealed that the number of teammates that athletes nominated as occupants of informal roles at time 1 predicted several dimensions of outcome variables at time 2 (e.g., athletes' intentions to return to the team were positively predicted by the number of teammates they nominated as mentors, ? = .18, p = .001, and negatively predicted by the number of teammates they nominated as distracters, ? = -.13, p = .006). These findings provide statistical evidence that supports the importance of informal role structures within interdependent sport team settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".