Peer motivational climate and cohesion: Relationships with intentions to return for child and adolescent soccer players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the importance of peer interactions (e.g., Ullrich-French & Smith, 2009) and cohesion (e.g., Spink et al., 2010) in relation to sport participation, the current study examined the relationships among perceptions of the peer-initiated motivational climate, group cohesion, and intentions to return to the team and coach. Child (i.e., 9-13 years old) and adolescent (i.e., 14-17 years old) athletes (N = 359, Mage = 12.19 ± 2.38 years) representing 38 competitive male and female soccer teams completed age-appropriate measures of study variables prior to a weekly practice. Bivariate correlations revealed positive relationships between perceptions of task and social cohesion, a task-related climate, and intentions to return to the team and coach, .15 ≤ r ≤ .72, all p < .05. Subsequent mediation analyses revealed that perceptions of task cohesion significantly mediated the relationship between the task-related climate and intentions to return to both the team and coach using data from the adolescent sample only. Given the non-significant result of the initial mediation model using data from the child sample, an alternative model was explored and revealed that perceptions of a task-related climate mediated the relationship between task and social cohesion and intentions to return to the team and coach. As it pertains to the future participation of young athletes, the current study highlights the salience of the overall group environment (i.e., peer-initiated motivational climate and group cohesion), and provides context-related implications for future research (e.g., child vs. adolescent team interventions) aimed at optimizing adherence-related behaviours.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".