Intra-team communication and the peer-initiated motivational climate in competitive youth soccer teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teammate interactions play an important role in the motivational patterns of individual group members (see Vazou et al., 2005). The current study aimed to better understand this link by examining athletes’ perceptions of intra-team communication (Sullivan & Short, 2011) in relation to their assessment of the peer-initiated motivational climate (Ntoumanis & Vazou, 2006). Male and female athletes (N = 149, Mage = 14.51 ± 1.14 years) representing 13 competitive youth soccer teams completed study measures (i.e., PeerMCYSQ, SECTS-2) prior to a weekly practice session. As hypothesized, bivariate correlations indicated positive relationships between (a) acceptance-, distinctiveness-, and positive conflict-related dimensions of intra-team communication and task-related climate, .20 ≤ r ≤ .54, all p < .03, and (b) the negative conflict-related dimension of intra-team communication and ego-related climate, r = .58, p < .001. A negative relationship was also found between acceptance-related communication and ego-related climate, r = -.18, p < .05. Further, two regression analyses were conducted with athletes’ perceptions of the peer-initiated motivational climate as dependent variables (i.e., task- and ego-related climates) and the four dimensions of intra-team communication as independent variables. Results revealed that acceptance communication, β = .40, significantly predicted task-related climate, R2adj = .29, F(4,135) = 15.38, p < .001, while negative conflict communication, β = .59, significantly predicted perceptions of an ego-related climate, R2adj = .35, F(4,135) = 19.78, p < .001. Findings highlight the salience of different forms of intra-team communication in relation to motivational climate assessments, and offer considerations for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".