A Mixed-Method Examination of Coaches’ Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Toward Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athletes often upregulate and downregulate pleasant or unpleasant emotions to feel or perform better (i.e., for hedonic or instrumental reasons). In addition to athletes regulating their own emotions, interpersonal emotion regulation (IER) also occurs in sports, wherein individuals attempt to regulate the emotions of others. Although previous research has examined IER between teammates, studies have rarely considered coaches’ efforts to regulate athletes’ emotions. The current mixed-method study explored coaches’ beliefs about athletes’ emotions and engagement in IER. Analysis of quantitative survey data ( N = 208) and qualitative interview data ( n = 10) from competitive level coaches ( M age = 44.0 ± 13.2 years) revealed that coaches perceived both benefits and detriments of various emotions, and coaches’ beliefs about emotions influenced the ways they attempted to regulate athletes’ emotions. Most coaches reported frequently engaging in affect-improving IER. Although the coaches generally opposed the idea of intentionally worsening athletes’ emotions, sometimes their feedback to athletes had the effect of worsening their emotions. Coaches also emphasized the need to consider athletes’ individual differences when engaging in IER. The current findings highlight the relevance of coaches’ IER, suggest several directions for future research, and offer useful considerations for coaches and coach education programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".