Social norms and emotion regulation among youth athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence is a critical developmental period within which young athletes are sensitive to influence from others. Thus, key social agents in sport including coaches and teammates may be important sources from whom young athletes learn emotion regulation. This study explored the relationship between athletes’ habitual use of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression and descriptive social norms from teammates and coaches (i.e., perceptions of the extent to which teammates and coaches use cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression). Based on the theory of normative social behaviour, social identity and injunctive social norms (i.e., perceptions of social approval) were examined as moderators. Regression analyses of self-report responses from 169 youth athletes in competitive sports (Mage = 15.5 ± 1.3 years) demonstrated that athletes’ use of cognitive reappraisal was associated with perceptions of teammates’ cognitive reappraisal, but not with perceptions of coaches’ cognitive reappraisal. Athletes’ use of expressive suppression was not associated with their perceptions of social norms around the use of expressive suppression. Moderation results were mostly statistically nonsignificant, with one exception: perceptions of teammates’ use of expressive suppression were positively associated with athletes’ use of expressive suppression under conditions of lower levels, but not moderate or higher levels, of injunctive norms. Overall, the findings demonstrate that athletes’ emotion regulation may be associated with their perceptions of what their teammates do, and that normative influence may depend on the source of norms (e.g., teammates vs. coaches) and the visibility of target behaviour (e.g., cognitive reappraisal vs. expressive suppression).
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".