Perceptions of the individual sport team environment are shaped by the structure of teammate interdependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interdependence guides interactions and relationship development among group members. Across two studies, we tested the proposition that interdependence structures (i.e., task interaction among teammates during competition, competition against other teammates, and the presence of a collective outcome) have an influence on interdependence perceptions among teammates as well as perceptions of group cohesion, competitiveness, and satisfaction. Study 1 was a paper and pencil survey completed by 210 individual sport athletes from 12 university- and college-level teams. Results using multiple mediation analyses demonstrated that participants who had to work alongside teammates during competition reported increased interdependence perceptions that were, in turn, associated with increased cohesion and satisfaction as well as decreased competitiveness. Meanwhile, there were no differences in these group perceptions between participants who competed in the same event as all of their teammates and those who did not. Study 2 involved a weekly e-mail survey with 17 university-level individual sport athletes who reported interdependence perceptions on a continual basis over the course of their competitive season. Pooled time series analyses showed that interdependence perceptions were higher when assessed on weeks that were close in time to competitions with a collective group outcome. These studies reveal how task and outcome interdependence structures shape the group environment. Coaches and group leaders would be well-advised to consider the structure of interdependence in their group and its influence on group functioning and individual member satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".