Do it for the team: Youth perceptions of cohesion and role commitment in interdependent sport.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Role commitment, defined as “a dynamic and volitional psychological bond reflected in the dedication to and responsibility for one’s role” (Eys et al., 2020, p. 91), is suggested to be a critical perception contributing to sport group functioning (Carron & Eys, 2012). As such, understanding what facilitates athletes’ commitment to their role responsibilities is important in a performance context. Across two studies, the present work sought to examine if (a) cohesion serves as a potential antecedent of the affective, normative, and continuance bases of role commitment, (b) the bases of role commitment subsequently relate to direct perceptions of role commitment, and (c) role commitment is associated with intentions to return. Youth team sport athletes from Canada (n = 187; Study 1) and Spain (n = 419; Study 2) completed surveys at two time points in their seasons. In Studies 1 and 2, cohesion perceptions at Time 1 positively predicted affective and normative bases of role commitment at Time 2. Further, affective and normative bases of role commitment were positively correlated with direct role commitment perceptions. Finally, in Study 2, role commitment was positively associated with intentions to return. This research project demonstrates that one way to promote role commitment may be to emphasize and enhance the social relationships among team members and the team’s unity toward achieving its goals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".