Self‐determination, restrictive eating, and psychological needs: Challenges for young athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the mediating role of self-determination for sport in the relationship between psychological needs in a sport context, and restrictive eating behaviors among adolescent athletes, while controlling for confounding variables. METHOD: Self-report online surveys were completed by 983 adolescent athletes (41.3% identified as girls, M = 14.63 years, SD = 0.765). Structural equation modeling was conducted to investigate the hypothesized associations between basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration in sport, self-determination for sport, and restrictive eating behaviors, controlling for the level of competition and the type of sport practiced. Gender differences between the associations were assessed using moderation analysis. RESULTS: = 0.62; SD = 1.31). Both associations between basic psychological need frustration and satisfaction and restrictive eating behaviors were mediated by self-determination for sport (β = 0.054, 95% bootstrap IC = 0.027-0.089; β = -0.045, 95% bootstrap IC = -0.079 to -0.021). Further, gender moderated an association so that frustration of basic psychological in sport more strongly predicted restrictive eating behaviors in girls (β = 0.256; p = 0.008), compared with boys. DISCUSSION: Our study reveals considerable gender differences in the mechanism underlying the adoption of restrictive eating in adolescent athletes. The research also fills a gap in the literature by supporting the assumptions of the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in eating behaviors, specifically in the sport context.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".