Constructing a grounded theory of grit in sport: understanding the development and outcomes of long-term passion and perseverance in competitive athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To be successful, athletes are expected to overcome the many setbacks and demands of sport throughout the entirety of their competitive career. Grit – or passion and perseverance over long terms – has been linked to positive outcomes in the sport domain, but progress in the field has been hindered by a lack of sufficient theory. The purpose of this study was to construct a grounded theory of competitive athletes’ grit in sport, and constructivist grounded theory methodology was adopted. Twenty-seven participants (14 women, 13 men; 22 athletes, 5 coaches) involved in competitive sport participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Data analysis involved an iterative process of initial coding, focused coding, axial coding, and theoretical integration. Results showed grit to be a malleable dispositional tendency that was formed over time as athletes amassed significant sport experiences. With the encouragement from supportive others, athletes would adopt adaptive cognitions about success and failure. These cognitions would then develop into a propensity to identify and strive towards long-term goals in sport. Participants described grit as leading to several outcomes, including sport-specific goal achievement, adaptive outcomes, and maladaptive outcomes. Our research advances the study of grit in sport by providing researchers and practitioners a deeper understanding of the processes that encapsulate competitive athletes’ sport-specific grit. Implications for practice (e.g., how sport support persons might foster grit in athletes) and recommendations for future research (e.g., improving the measurement of grit in sport) are also discussed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".