Examining the influence of athletes' punishment experiences on decisions to cease participation in competitive hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsupportive coaching behaviours, dislike for the coach, and conflicts with the coach have been cited by athletes as reasons for ceasing sport participation (Crane & Temple, 2015). It is suggested that another coaching behaviour – namely the use of punishment tactics – may contribute to negative sport experiences and perhaps extend to decisions to cease sport participation. This proposition is supported by a wealth of information on the consequences of punishment use in the parenting and education literature, such as loss of self-esteem, development of counter-productive behaviour, avoidance of a punitive adult, increased risk of poor mental health, erosion of relationships, and increased anxiety, anger, and fear (Durrant & Ensom, 2004). However, few researchers have examined the use of punishment in sport, empirically. This study examined athletes' experiences of punishment in competitive hockey and the potential influence of these experiences on their decisions to cease participation in the sport. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 former female and male competitive hockey athletes, 18-19 years of age. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Participant accounts revealed that yelling, benching, and physical conditioning exercises were forms of punishment experienced regularly throughout their youth hockey involvement. These punishment experiences reportedly had negative effects on the participants' perceived athletic worth, enjoyment and fun in hockey, interest in other activities, and their sport relationships. Findings are interpreted to suggest that punishment experiences contributed to athletes' decisions to cease participation in competitive hockey. Recommendations for future research and practice are suggested.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".