When hockey parents are motivationally imbalanced: Passion, need satisfaction, and verbal aggression toward officials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spectators can engage in high levels of verbal aggression toward youth hockey officials. Often, the perpetrators of this aggression are the parents. Our aim was to test the motivational factors involved in explaining why hockey parents sometimes take things too far and engage in verbally aggressive behavior toward officials. We reasoned that verbal aggression toward officials would be a function of two forms of motivational imbalance. First, in line with the dualistic model of passion, we hypothesised that verbal aggression would be positively associated with hockey parents’ obsessive passion, an imbalanced form of passion. Also, based on the compensatory model of passion, we predicted that obsessive passion would be associated with imbalanced psychological need satisfaction involving high need satisfaction from being a hockey parent, but low global need satisfaction. We administered online surveys to Canadian hockey parents (N = 992) assessing their verbal aggression toward officials, passion for being a hockey parent, and psychological need satisfaction from being a hockey parent and in general. Using structural equation modeling, we found support for a model in which high need satisfaction from being a hockey parent and low need satisfaction in general were associated with obsessive passion. Obsessive passion, in turn, was associated with greater verbal aggression toward referees. These findings help reveal why some hockey parents insult, threaten, and engage in other forms of verbal aggression toward officials. They also highlight the importance of maintaining motivational balance among sport parents.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".