It's all the same: It is important – self-construal does not moderate the relationship between team cohesion and the perceived importance of a team-competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athletes that perceive an upcoming competition as personally important can be expected to react with both higher motivation as well as higher emotional intensity. Whereas the former facilitates performance, the latter might in some instances debilitate performance. A factor that predicted increased importance of a team-competition is the perceived level of team cohesion. However, it is yet unclear, whether this applies to all members of a team equally. One basic characteristic on which team-members might differ and which might affect the relationship between cohesion and competition-importance is the athletes' self-construal. Athletes with interdependent self-construals are particularly attentive to social and contextual factors, thus, it was expected they would also be more strongly affected by their team's level of cohesion when appraising the personal importance of an upcoming team-competition. German competitive team sport athletes (N = 307, 55% male, M = 23.91 years of age) responded to translations of the Self-Construal Scale, the Group Environment Questionnaire, and the Precompetitive Appraisal Measure in advance of an in-season game. While perceptions of cohesion again significantly predicted perceptions of importance (β = .13 to .25, p = .020 to < .001), interdependent self-construal did not moderate this relationship. This means, neither athletes with high nor those with low interdependent self-construals are particularly sensitive to the effects of team cohesion. Both perceive a pending team-competition as more important if they perceive their team as more cohesive. Thus, both can be expected to benefit equally from increased motivation or potentially suffer from increased emotional intensity.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".