Perceptions matter: Parental pressure, support, and the socialization of adolescent athletes' coping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent athletes' perceptions of low parental support are related to less adaptive forms of coping (Lafferty & Dorrell, 2006), however researchers have yet to investigate parental pressure and the socialization of athletes' coping. This study examined parental socialization of coping and the influence of perceived parental support and pressure on athletes' coping. Competitive soccer players (15 males, 10 females, M age = 13.8, SD = .5) completed the Coping Instrument for Competitive Sport (Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002) and the Parental Involvement in Activities Scale (Anderson et al., 2003), which measures parental support and pressure. Athletes' parents (12 fathers, 13 mothers, M age = 46.4, SD = 5.37) completed the Socialization of Coping questionnaire (Abaied & Rudolph, 2010). Perceived parental support was related to socialization of engagement coping (r = .57, p < .01) and negatively associated with athletes' disengagement coping (r = -.48, p < .05). Parental pressure was associated with disengagement coping (r = .61, p < .01) and socialization of disengagement coping (r = .45, p < .05). Socialization of disengagement coping was related to disengagement coping (r = .52, p < .01). Regression analyses revealed a main effect for parental pressure on athletes' use of disengagement coping (ß = .73, 95% CI 0.17-1.01, p < .05). Results suggest that athletes' perceptions of parental pressure are important in predicting athletes' use of disengagement coping in competitive sport.Acknowledgments: This study was supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded to the first author
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".