Shy Like Me: Exploring Links Between Coaches’ Shyness and Beliefs About Shy and Exuberant Children in a Team Sports Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined links between coaches’ shyness and their perceptions of shy and verbally exuberant children in a team sports context. Participants were a community sample of N = 465 adults ( n = 379 males; n = 86 females) aged 18–78 years ( M = 43.48 years, SD = 9.96) with previous experience coaching children in team sports. Measures included demographic questions, respondents’ self-reported shyness, responses to vignettes describing hypothetical shy and verbally exuberant children in a team sports context, and an assessment of potential problems for shy athletes. Among the results, coaches’ shyness was significantly associated across both vignettes with overall worry ( F (1, 406) = 5.40, p = .021), greater anticipation that these children would experience peer difficulties ( F (1, 401) = 4.39, p = .037), and lower efficacy for working with these children ( F (1, 405) = 6.12, p = .014). These findings suggest that shyness among coaches may be manifested as higher threat perception and lower confidence in the context of children's behavioral management. As a result, children with different behavioral tendencies may not reap all the benefits that team sports participation can provide. This highlights the importance of sports coaches’ personality traits on the outcomes for shy and verbally exuberant team members and the need for support for shy coaches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".