The role of sport norms and organizational pressure on coaches’ use of interpersonal violence: The mediating role of perceived instrumental effects of violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpersonal violence (IV) in sport is a pervasive issue that threatens athletes' physical, social, and psychological well-being. Sociological theories suggest that organisational pressure and adherence to sport norms, such as traditional masculinity and sport ethic, may contribute to coaches' beliefs in the instrumental benefits of violence, leading to the perpetration of IV. Despite prior research into these risk factors, no study has simultaneously examined individual, organisational, and societal factors influencing coaches' use of IV. This study aimed to explore how coaches' beliefs regarding the instrumental effects of IV mediate the relationship between three independent variables-organisational pressure, masculinity norms, and conformity to sport ethic norms-and the perpetration of three forms of IV (physical, instrumental, psychological/neglect) against athletes. A total of 766 coaches aged 18 and over and involved in organised sports were recruited via email and social media ads. Three separate mediation models were examined, and the three forms of IV were analyzed using probit links and interpreted as probabilities and odds ratios. No indirect effects were found for instrumental and physical violence. However, full mediations were found for conformity to sport ethic norms and organisational pressure in relation to psychological violence and neglect. Furthermore, masculinity norms were partially mediated by beliefs in the instrumental effects of IV concerning psychological violence and neglect. These findings provide insights into the specific sport norms and organisational factors that should be targeted when designing programs to prevent IV perpetrated by coaches in sports.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".