Why drop out? The impact of social influences on former competitive adolescent athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While many psychosocial and physical advantages are associated with sport participation, approximately 70% of youth drop out of sport before adolescence (Eitzen & Sage, 2009). During adolescence, social relationships with parents, peers, and coaches become critical to one’s motivation, enjoyment, and long-term sport participation (e.g., Keegan et al., 2009). The purpose of this study was to explore former competitive adolescent athletes’ perceptions of how social influences (parents, peers, and coaches) shaped their sport experiences and eventual drop out. Participants included 15 former athletes (nine females and six males; Mage = 21.6; SD = 1.25). Selection criteria did not specify one specific sport background or length of time in and out of sport, as we aimed to purposively sample athletes from diverse backgrounds. Participants took part in semi-structured interviews and were asked questions about how peers, parents, and coaches influenced their motivation, dropout, and enjoyment in sport. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed according to Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis guidelines, moving sequentially from individual-level to group-level analyses in the generation of codes and higher-order themes. The most prominent themes amongst coach influence included positive and negative experiences, methods, style, and behaviour. Peer influence was dominated by themes of friendship and hostility, as well as their contribution to motivation. Parental influence was the least variable across participants, with certain priorities and characteristics consistent throughout the sample. Knowledge of these lived experiences can be utilized in future education practices to minimize drop-out rates, increase enjoyment, and aid in the facilitation of positive sport experiences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 teacher head, 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".