Social justice attitudes and behavioural intentions of NCAA student-athletes: the role of life skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the United States of America alone, athletes - and particularly professional athletes - have long been utilising their unique positionality as a platform to advocate for social justice and to be actively engaged activists for social change. While social justice advocacy and activism are increasingly seen within professional sports, engagement in such efforts has been more limited among collegiate student-athletes. As such, the purpose of this study was to examine how life skills moderate the relationship between attitudes and behavioural intentions pertaining to social justice among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student-athletes. A sample of 218 Division I NCAA student-athletes completed an online survey that assessed their perceived life skills learned in sport, social justice attitudes, and social justice behavioural intentions. The analytical approach included a series of moderation analyses testing the moderation effect of each life skill on the relationship between social justice attitudes and behavioural intentions. Emotional skills, interpersonal communication, and social skills each significantly and positively moderated the relationship between student-athletes' social justice attitudes and social justice behavioural intentions. However, problem-solving and decision-making, goal-setting, time-management, teamwork, and leadership skills had non-significant interaction effects. The results suggest that life skills, especially interpersonal skills beneficial to social interactions, can be assets for student-athletes as they consider progressing towards social justice action. Efforts should also be put forward to better comprehend the role of coaches using an implicit and/or explicit approach to life skills and its impact on their social justice awareness and behaviour intention.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".