Examining the Relationship Between Collegiate Athletes’ Setback-Related Control Beliefs, Rumination, and Psychosocial Outcomes: A Mediation Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Control beliefs are adaptive for athletes coping with significant obstacles to sport. Our study tested whether the effects of setback-related primary (PC) and secondary control (SC) on adaptive sport-related outcomes were mediated via setback rumination in collegiate athletes. We recruited 200 collegiate athletes using Prolific, from both Canada and the United States of America (Mage = 22.3 years; 125 women, 69 men, five nonbinary individuals, and one nonresponse). We used structural equation modelling to test direct paths from Time 1 PC and SC and rumination to Time 2 competition anxiety and sport commitment and test indirect paths of PC and SC to the outcomes through rumination. Findings revealed PC directly increased sport commitment, and through higher rumination, PC predicted higher competition anxiety. Athletes' SC predicted lower competition anxiety via lower rumination. We discuss the implications of these findings for athletes managing significant sport setbacks and for sport personnel supporting athletes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".