“I do what you do”: Youth athletes’ emotion regulation is related to what their teammates do
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As effective emotion regulation is important for performance, youth athletes must learn to regulate their emotions. Extending previous research that largely focused on intrapersonal mechanisms, recent researchers have emphasized the need to consider the social processes through which athletes learn emotion regulation. Focusing on two most-researched strategies (cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression), the present study examined the relationships between athletes’ perceptions of their teammates’ and coaches’ emotion regulation (i.e., descriptive norms) and their own emotion regulation. Using the theory of normative social behavior, athletes’ social identity with their team and perceptions of approval of emotion regulation (i.e., injunctive social norms) were examined as moderators. Online surveys were administered to collect responses from 169 youth athletes who were aged 15.5 years on average, and the data were analyzed using the PROCESS macro in SPSS. Across the results, there were no significant effects involving coach descriptive norms. For cognitive reappraisal, there was a positive main effect of teammate descriptive norms, which increased as a function of injunctive norms (positive moderation). For expressive suppression, as opposed to teammate descriptive norms, teammate injunctive norms had a positive main effect, and there was negative moderation, whereby teammate descriptive norms were positively related to expressive suppression only under conditions of lower injunctive norms. The visibility of the two strategies may explain the different findings: because teammates’ expressive suppression is likely less noticeable than cognitive reappraisal, athletes’ expressive suppression may depend more on injunctive norms (i.e., teammates’ explicit approval) than descriptive norms (i.e., teammates’ expressive suppression usage).
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".