“It’s allowing space for vulnerability”: Exploring athlete experiences with trust in interdependent sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although trust is often alluded to within the field of sport psychology (e.g., developing quality relationships, promoting athlete thriving), the construct has received little targeted research attention to date. This is surprising, given that trust has been associated with a wide range of outcomes across work team contexts (e.g., organizational psychology/behaviour) including enhanced perceptions of cohesion, member satisfaction, and performance—all of which have implications for athletes and their sport teams. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to (a) explore how athletes describe and experience trust, (b) examine its implications for individual athletes and teams, and (c) understand the ways it can be enhanced between invested sport partners (e.g., teammates, coaches). Current USport athletes (n = 12) were recruited for individual semi-structured interviews. Athletes described trust as a central component to building quality relationships with their teammates, coaches, and support staff (e.g., athletic therapists) that included both elements of vulnerability and risk. The development of these trusting relationships were influenced by a number of antecedents (e.g., perceived teammate trustworthiness, one’s willingness to trust, environmental/situational factors) that subsequently shaped both individual (e.g., receiving mental health support, playing time) and team-level outcomes (e.g., enhanced team buy-in, perceptions of cohesion). Athletes also expressed potential negative outcomes that could result from trusting others (e.g., emotional exhaustion, groupthink). Our findings reinforce the importance of being purposeful when seeking to develop trusting relationships within sport teams. Implications from this study will be further discussed in relation to both theoretical and practical advancements.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".