Obsessive passion in youth hockey parents: relationships with need satisfaction and verbal aggression toward officials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Verbal aggression toward officials in hockey is a problem. Parents are generally thought to be perpetrators of much of this verbal aggression. Obsessive passion toward being a hockey parent may be a reason for referee abuse. Obsessive passion, as defined in the dualistic model of passion, has been shown to predict various maladaptive outcomes, of which verbal aggression toward referees may be one. In line with the need-density hypothesis, obsessive passion may be a result of unmet needs in general which are instead met within the activity of being a hockey parent. Relying on basic need satisfaction theory, the need-density hypothesis, and the dualistic model of passion, this study examined the relationships between unmet needs inside and outside of the activity of being a hockey parent and obsessive passion, as well as the relationship between obsessive passion and verbal aggression toward officials. I distributed an online survey to Canadian hockey parents (N = 941; 75% female, Mage = 41.8 years, SD = 6.2 years) that asked them about their psychological needs met in general and needs met by being a hockey parent, level of obsessive passion, and verbal aggression toward officials. Path analysis was used to examine the relationships among the variables. I found that obsessive passion strongly predicted verbal aggression toward officials (b = .506, p < .001), and that obsessive passion was negatively associated with needs met in general (b =- .172, p <.001) and had no relationship with needs met while being a hockey parent (b = .004, p = .902). Finding no relationship between needs met by being a hockey parent and obsessive passion contradicts findings by other authors on the compensatory nature of obsessive passion. These findings enhance our understanding of both the role of obsessive passion in hockey parenting and the antecedents of verbal aggression toward officials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".