Impact of Athletic Identity and Emotional Competence on Athletes’ Attitudes toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athletes have been found to have more negative attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help than non-athletes (Watson, 2005) despite experiencing comparable amounts of mental illness (Markser, 2011). The purpose of the present study was to examine factors that are associated with athletes’ help-seeking attitudes, including athletic identity and emotional competence. A sample of 144 college student-athletes from a small, private Midwestern college in the United States participated in the study. The athletes competed at the NCAA Division III level. Participants were asked to complete the following measures: Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder, 1993), Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help- Short Form (Fischer & Farina, 1995), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994), Self-Stigma of Seeking Help Scale (Vogel, Wade, & Haake, 2006), the Problem Orientation Scale of the Social Problem Solving Inventory for Adolescents (Frauenknecht & Black, 1995), and the Rumination subscale of the Inhibition Rumination Scale (Roger, Guarino de Scremin, Borril, & Forbes, 2011). Correlational analysis and hierarchical multiple regression analysis were used to examine the extent to which athletic identity and emotional competence, as measured by alexithymia, problem orientation, and rumination, predicted attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help. Results revealed that both athletic identity and the emotional competence variables entered as a block predicted unique variance in the athletes’ attitudes toward seeking help. Among emotional competence variables, alexithymia had a significant negative bivariate relationship with attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help and emerged as worthy of further study. Problem orientation was identified as a significant predictor in the regression models, however, functioned as a suppressor variable and did not have a significant bivariate correlation with attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help. Findings, implications, and directions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".