Importance of perceived teammate support as a predictor of student-athletes’ positive emotions and subjective well-being

Abstract

Student-athletes may have high stress, and the level of their subjective well-being could be low due to the dual role of being a student and an athlete. In the field of sport psychology, social support has received focal attention to identifying its impact on individuals’ subjective well-being. However, there is a lack of research that focuses on teammate support and subjective well-being. Thus, this study examined how the perception of teammate support influences subjective well-being through positive emotions based on the environmental psychology model and the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. This study collected 313 responses from university student-athletes in Singapore and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling analysis. Results showed that perceived teammate support had a positive influence on subjective well-being through positive emotion. Also, there was a direct effect of perceived teammate support on subjective well-being. The results support the critical role of perceived teammate support in enhancing the student-athletes’ subjective well-being. The findings of this study are beneficial for coaches and student-leaders to design strategies to improve the subjective well-being of student-athletes.

Keywords

Positive emotions social support

Introduction

Student-athletes need to balance countless demands and challenges from both the academic and sport aspects compared to nonathlete students. Beyond school commitments, student-athletes spend at least 30 h per week on training, practicing, competing, and traveling.¹ Therefore, playing the dual role of being a student and an athlete can be taxing on their mind and body, resulting in stress. Even though stress is an inevitable part of competitive sports, these stresses can have dysfunctional effects on student-athletes’ subjective well-being due to burnout, injuries,² and eventually, drop out of their sport.³ That is, as compared to nonathlete counterparts, athletes face more sources of stressors that present a problem. On top of that, moving to university is one of the significant transitional events of students whereby their lifestyle may undergo a tremendous change, such as having to adapt to an independent lifestyle away from home. As such, this transition can also cause depression and anxiety.⁴ Moreover, during this transition, social support from regular contacts, such as family and friends, is significantly reduced,⁵ which can be detrimental to their subjective well-being.

In the field of psychology, numerous studies showed a critical role of social support in individuals’ subjective well-being. For example, Kapp⁶ highlighted how acceptance of a person’s drive could help improve subjective well-being due to better recognition and responsiveness. Similarly, Wilson et al.⁷ noted that perceived social support is linked to psychological well-being and explained how social support heightens well-being by encouraging a more balanced, self-forgiving, and positive outlook. That is, social support is one of the essential variables to improve subjective well-being.⁸ In the field of sport psychology, researchers also highlighted the integral role of social support in athletes’ well-being.^9,10 In particular, among diverse social support, teammate support is critical to understand student-athletes’ life, as athletes often refer to teammates as their closest friends¹¹ or as family.¹² However, despite the importance of teammate support, little research has been conducted to understand the integral role of teammate support in student-athletes’ life.

Hence, to fill this research gap, this study investigates the impact of teammate support on student-athletes’ subjective well-being. In addition, based on the environmental psychology model¹³ and the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions,¹⁴ this study employs positive emotions as a mediator to better explain student-athletes’ subjective well-being. Specifically, the environmental psychology model¹³ provides a mechanism to understand how environmental changes can influence the behavior of student-athletes. Meanwhile, the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions explains how positive emotions can increase individuals’ subjective well-being.¹⁴ The findings of this study will provide a greater understanding of how teammate support plays a critical role in improving subjective well-being, as well as an important insight to coach or student leaders in promoting positive emotions, which can lead to subjective well-being in student-athletes.

Literature review

Teammate support

Barrera et al.¹⁵ defined social support as the different ways of receiving help from various relationships, such as family, friends, and neighbors, whereas Lin¹⁶ defined it as “perceived or actual instrumental and/or expressive provisions supplied by the community, social networks, and confiding partners” (p. 9). Social support consists of four dimensions, including emotional support, esteem support, informational support, and tangible support.¹⁷ Emotional support is associated with feelings of others presenting for security and comfort, and esteem support is related to others encouraging self-esteem. Informational support is related to others providing guidance or advice, and tangle support is related to others providing instrumental assistance.¹⁸ Social support is positively associated with lesser negative feelings and life satisfaction.¹⁹ That is, perceived social support can be viewed as the existence of support resources, and perceived available support can be an indicator of subjective well-being outcomes.²⁰

Positive emotions are pleasant-valenced emotions, such as joy, interest, contentment, and love, which are a trait-like dimension of emotional characteristic that represents individuals’ tendency to experience positive emotions.²¹ The attainment of the desired goal or emerged positive opportunity is directly related to positive emotions,²² and positive emotions can contribute profoundly to subjective well-being,¹⁴ and previous studies showed that social support had a significant relationship with positive emotions. For example, Li et al.²³ examined the relationship between social support and positive emotions among mobile phone-addicted adolescents and found that positive emotions were derived from social support. Wilson et al.⁷ also found that perceived social support was highly associated with positive emotions, such as mindfulness and self-compassion, as well as lower levels of negative feelings (e.g., depression and stress).

In the sport context, coaches, family, friends, and teammates are the crucial providers of support. Among them, teammates can be one of the most valuable sources for emotional support to student-athletes.²⁴ According to the environmental psychology model,¹³ Mehrabian and Russell¹³ explained that environmental factors influence an individual’s emotional response. When a person perceives higher social support from one’s environment, he or she experiences significantly higher positive emotions than the remote environment. Empirically, Chen²⁴ found that teammates are providers for emotional, esteem, tangible, and informational supports. For example, injured skiers received emotional, informational, and tangible support from their teammates.²⁵

However, the dimensions of support each provider offers may differ. Family sport culture has a consistent and enduring effect on young people participating in sports.²⁶ In spite of the coaches’ proximal environment, Berntsen and Kristiansen²⁷ found that controlling behavior by coaches can decrease motivation in athletes. Thus, the influence of teammates’ support on student-athletes requires empirical evidence to link the relationship between social support and positive emotions. Based on the findings of previous research between social support and positive emotions, this study expects the same pattern for teammate support with the following hypothesis:

H1: Perceived teammate support has a positive influence on positive emotions.

The term well-being is generally used to reference for individuals, while “quality of life” is generally used to reference for societies or communities.²⁸ Subjective well-being can be viewed as the set of perceptions, aspirations, and evaluations that individuals have about life domains, and subjective well-being perspectives emphasize how people feel for their action and situations.²⁹ Previous studies investigated the relationship between social support and subjective well-being. Liu et al.³⁰ examined students’ school-related social support and subjective well-being and found that students’ subjective well-being increases when teachers’ and classmates’ supports are well provided. Consistent with the results of parental support among adolescents,³¹ Harshemi et al.³² also highlighted how associations and resources among communities could be an effective way of providing social support, and as a result, improve their psychological well-being. Similarly, in the sport context, Malinauskas³³ examined the relationship between social support (i.e., family, friends, and significant other), stress, and life satisfaction among injured university athletes; the results showed that perceived social support significantly mediated the relationship between perceived stress and life satisfaction. With the focus of this study on teammate support, we hypothesize that there is a significant relationship between teammate support and subjective well-being. As such, the following hypothesis is:

H2: Perceived teammate support has a positive influence on subjective well-being.

Positive emotions and subjective well-being

In recent years, there is an increase in research on the role of positive emotions. According to the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions,¹⁴ positive emotions are not merely for temporary contentment or satisfaction but serve as an evolutionarily adaptive function of expanding one’s attention, cognition, and behaviors.¹⁴ Over time, the broad mindset allows for durable personal resources to be built, and individuals can use these benefits to handle various life challenges. Fredrickson³⁴ further explained that positive emotions could expand the attention and cognition of an individual, eventually causing a boost in their subjective well-being.

Previous studies investigated the relationship between positive emotions and subjective well-being. Positive emotion is a significant factor influencing one’s flourishing, which is also known as optimal well-being.³⁴ Kok et al.³⁵ highlighted that heightened positive emotion causes an individual to perceive stronger social connectedness and the accumulation of positive emotion, and social connectedness gradually creates a positive impact on individuals’ psychological health. Similarly, Lyubomirsky et al.³⁶ asserted that positive emotions facilitate social success that eventually leads to enhancing one’s subjective well-being. Cohn et al.³⁷ noted that the relationship between positive emotions and subjective well-being comes from byproducts of experiencing positive emotions. In other words, the experience of positive emotions aids the building of resources, such as coping skills, which acts as a defense against future potential stressors, maintaining an individual’s subjective well-being. In addition, positive emotions enable individuals to combat stress and facilitate the restoration of the physiological and psychological health that suffered from previous negative emotions.^38,39 Following this notion, the present study predicted that the experience of positive emotions among student-athletes would work the same way and cause a positive effect on their subjective well-being. With the review of previous studies, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

H3: Positive emotions have a positive influence on subjective well-being.

The environmental psychology model and the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions

The environmental psychology model elaborates on how environmental cues act as stimuli that affect individuals’ responses.¹³ Specifically, according to Mehrabian and Russell,¹³ the external stimulus is a factor that influences the inner states of individuals, which is the “internal processes and structures intervening between stimuli external to the person and the final actions, reactions, or responses emitted” (Bagozzi,³⁸ p. 46). In the context of sport, social support can be viewed as one of the environmental elements influencing the internal states of athletes,³⁹ and teammate support is an especially important external factor influencing their life.³³ For example, when athletes feel a connection to their peers and coach as they feel a sense of belonging in their social support group, it satisfies their need for relatedness, and thus, the athlete experiences satisfaction.³²

Furthermore, environmental stimuli can affect individuals’ emotional responses.¹³ Emotions have gained scholarly attention in sport psychology because they influenced on performance and psychological well-being.⁴⁰ In particular, the impact of positive emotion has been a new focus in diverse fields as it is a critical variable influencing individuals’ subjective well-being.^35,38 According to Fredrickson,¹⁴ positive emotions can expand the thought–action repertoires, which can contribute to increasing permanent personal resources in the social, intellectual, psychological, and physical areas, and it can enhance ones’ emotional and physical well-being.³⁵ Fredrickson³⁴ also stated that positive emotions have a long-lasting consequence and are the drives for individual growth, which can transform individuals and provide them with a better life in the future. Positive emotions not only allow the individuals to feel good in the present but also the upward–spiral effect affects the broadening thinking and thus, allow these individuals to increase the likelihood of feeling good in the future.⁴¹ Therefore, this study used positive emotions as a mediator in the relationship between teammate support and subjective well-being and proposed the following hypothesis (Figure 1):

Figure 1.

A hypothesized model.

H4: Positive emotion mediates the relationship between teammate support and subjective well-being.

Method

Participants

This study collected data from student-athletes from four different universities in Singapore, such as Nanyang Technological University, National University of Singapore, Singapore University of Social Science, and Singapore Institute of Technology. The study obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board of a university where the two authors are affiliated. Upon approval, the questionnaires were distributed through both online and face-to-face modes. The link to the online survey was shared and distributed via commonly used platforms, such as Whatsapp and email. At the same time, hard copy questionnaires were also distributed in the various campuses of the universities. Participants were informed of their rights, confidentiality, anonymity, and withdrawal from the study. Informed consent (hardcopy and online consent) was obtained from all participants before they proceeded with the survey. It took approximately 15 min for each participant to complete the survey. Three hundred thirty-six individuals participated in this research survey; 313 were valid after conducting data screening and were used for data analysis. Among the respondents, there were more males (n = 184, 58.8%) than females (n = 129, 41.2%). Most of the respondents were single (n = 285, 91.1%), while the remaining fell in one of these categories, including divorced (n = 1, .3%), married (n = 10, 3.2%), and preferred not to answer (n = 17, 5.4%). The average age of respondents was 23 years old, and they were largely from year 2 (n = 96, 30.7%), followed by year 4 (n = 92, 29.4%), year 3 (n = 76, 24.3%) and year 1 (n = 49, 15.7%). The majority of them are archers (n = 68, 21.7%), followed by soccer players (n = 25, 8%), basketball players (n = 22, 7%), track and field athletes (n = 21, 6.7%), and badminton players (n = 18, 5.8%).

Measures

The questionnaire comprised the measurement of feelings toward the perception of teammate support, positive emotions towards their team, and subjective well-being. The questionnaire also included questions to gather information on participants’ sport commitment and background information. First, this study used the Perceived Available Support in Sport Questionnaire (PASS-Q) by Freeman et al.⁴² to measure the student-athletes’ level of perceived teammate support. The PASS-Q consisted of 16 items across four factors: emotional support, esteem support, informational support, and tangible support. It includes items such as, “My teammate provides me with comfort and security” and “My teammate gives me tactical advice.” The items were measured via a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

Positive emotions were assessed with the ten positive items from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Scale developed by Watson et al.⁴³ This study used the stem sentence (“When I imagine my team, …”), and items were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) I do not feel this emotion at all to (7) I feel this emotion strongly.

Subjective well-being was measured using the Flourishing Scale. The Flourishing Scale comprised of 8 items based on the individual self-perception in areas, such as relationships, self-esteem, purpose and meaning, and optimism.⁴⁴ A high score indicates that the participants have higher levels of subjective well-being. It includes items such as, “I am optimistic about my future” and “People respect me.” The items were measured via a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

Data analysis

The study first screened data for any violation of assumptions. Incomplete data answered less than 50% were removed before further analysis was carried out. Following this, univariate outliers using z-scores and multivariate outliers using Mahalanobis distance were excluded.⁴⁵ As a result, this study excluded 17 univariate outliers and 31 multivariate outliers; 265 responses have remained. In addition, the value of Mardia’s standardized coefficient was 57.45, indicating the data were non-normally distributed.⁴⁶ Therefore, this study used Satorra and Bentler’s (S–B) method⁴⁷ and robust standard errors.⁴⁸

The measurement model was tested for reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and overall model fit by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); structural equation Modeling (SEM) was conducted to identify model fit indices and test hypotheses in the research model. Several indices were considered to evaluate model fits in this study: comparative fit index (CFI) and non-normed fit index (NNFI) which have to be greater than 0.90; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) to be close to 0.06 and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) to be less than 0.08.⁴⁹ In addition, a Monte Carlo simulation approach was employed to test the mediating effect. This study used SPSS 25.0 and EQS 6.3 for the data analyses.

Results

Measurement model

The measurement model fit indices of the initial result of CFA were acceptable: S–B χ²_(df) = 861.01₍₅₁₂₎, CFI = .960, NNFI = .956, RMSEA = .051, and SRMR = .044. After that, this study assessed the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the measurement model. First, Rho coefficients of each factor ranged from .890 to .979 signifying acceptable composite reliability.⁵⁰ The average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from .672 to .865, and this indicates convergent validity (Table 1).⁴⁵ Lastly, discriminant validity further supported by the results whereby the square root of AVE values is greater than the correlations among each factor (Table 2).⁵¹

Table 1.

Factor loading (λ), Rho, and AVE values for the measurement model.

Factors and items	λ	Rho	AVE
Perceived teammates support
Emotional support		0.962	0.865
PTS_Emo 1	0.882
PTS_Emo 2	0.939
PTS_Emo 3	0.958
PTS_Emo 4	0.939
Esteem support		0.950	0.826
PTS_ES 1	0.924
PTS_ES 2	0.924
PTS_ES 3	0.912
PTS_ES 4	0.875
Informational support		0.960	0.856
PTS_IS 1	0.914
PTS_IS 2	0.956
PTS_IS 3	0.930
PTS_IS 4	0.900
Tangible support		0.890	0.672
PTS_TS 1	0.657
PTS_TS 2	0.918
PTS_TS 3	0.874
PTS_TS 4	0.805
Positive emotions		0.979	0.820
Attentive	0.846
Interested	0.923
Alert	0.877
Excited	0.934
Enthusiastic	0.934
Inspired	0.918
Proud	0.908
Determined	0.920
Strong	0.909
Active	0.885
Well-being		0.963	0.764
WB 1	0.884
WB 2	0.889
WB 3	0.907
WB 4	0.903
WB 5	0.891
WB 6	0.835
WB 7	0.850
WB 8	0.830

λ: standardized loading; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted.

Table 2.

Values of correlation and squared root of average variance extracted (AVE) among all factors.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
(1) Perceived teammates support—emotional support	0.930^a
(2) Perceived teammates support—esteem support	0.898*	0.909^a
(3) Perceived teammates support—informational support	0.772*	0.846*	0.925^a
(4) Perceived teammates support—tangible support	0.730*	0.814*	0.804*	0.820^a
(5) Positive emotions	0.737*	0.696*	0.614*	0.572*	0.906^a
(6) Well-being	0.565*	0.537*	0.482*	0.450*	0.551*	0.874^a

^aSquare root of the AVE value.

*p < .005.

Structural model

The result of SEM showed that the model fit indices were acceptable with the following results: S-B χ²_(df) = 887.03₍₅₂₀₎, CFI = .957, NNFI = .954, RMSEA = .052, and SRMR = .050. According to the results of testing hypotheses, all hypotheses were supported. Specifically, perceived teammate support had positive effects on positive emotions (β = .732, SE =.061, p < 0.001) and subjective well-being (β = .351, SE = .122, p < 0.001), supporting H1 and H2. Positive emotions had a positive effect on subjective well-being (β = .294, SE = .076, p < 0.001), supporting H3 (Table 3). The results of mediating effects of positive emotions showed that perceived teammate support had an indirect effect on subjective well-being (β = .262, SE = .076, Monte Carlo confidence intervals = [0.07, 0.464], p < .01), indicating supporting H4. Perceived teammate support explained 53.6% of variance in positive emotions, and perceived teammate support and positive emotions explained 36.1% of variance in subjective well-being (Figure 2).

Table 3.

Results of the hypothesized model.

Hypothesized path	β	SE	P value
Direct effect
H1: Perceived teammates support → Positive emotions	.732	.061	p < .001
H2: Perceived teammates support → Well-being	.351	.122	p < .001
H3: Positive emotions → Well-being	.294	.076	p < .001
Indirect effect
H4: Perceived teammates support → Positive emotions → Well-being	.262	.076	p < .01

Figure 2.

A structural model. Note: *p < .001.

Discussion

Student-athletes play a dual role, making them more challenging to maintain their subjective well-being. Researchers measured their subjective well-being with diverse factors (e.g., stress, burnout) to understand student-athletes’ life better.^2,52 In addition, previous studies highlighted forms of social support (e.g., parental support) and explained their association with students’ psychological health.³² However, there is limited research that established the importance of social support in student-athletes’ subjective well-being, especially when teammates are a vital form of social support for student-athletes. Thus, to address this research gap, we developed the research model based on the environmental psychology model¹³ and the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions¹⁴ and examined the relationships among perceived teammate support, positive emotions, and subjective well-being. The findings of this study contribute to the linkage between the two theoretical models by providing empirical evidence and a deepening understanding of the role of teammate support in positive emotions and subjective well-being of student-athletes.

The findings of this study showed that all the hypothesized relationships were positively supported. First, we found that perceived teammate support had a positive influence on positive emotions (H1). This finding indicates that the higher the perception of support from teammates, the more positive emotions experienced. It is consistent with previous studies that showed the positive effect of teammate support on positive emotions.³⁸ Similarly, Greenglass and Fiksenbaum⁵³ highlighted that social support plays an influential role in coping with negative mental conditions, such as depression and promoted proactive coping. That is, relating it to the current finding, it can be inferred that the strength of social support from one’s teammates plays an important role in generating positive emotions of student-athletes.

Next, this study found a significant direct positive effect of teammate support on subjective well-being (H2). Much previous research showed a similar result with this finding. For instance, early findings by Sarason et al.⁵⁴ showed social support to be a predictor of subjective well-being. Rees and Freeman^55,56 also asserted that the various forms of social support perceived by athletes had a positive association with psychological health outcomes. More recently, Lu et al.⁵⁷ mentioned that social support is one of the factors that had a positive impact on their psychological health, specifically reducing stress and burnout. In a similar vein, Lu and Hsu¹⁰ observed injured athletes and found that the level of social support was positively associated with their subjective well-being. Among the various forms of social support from coaches to parents that are accessible to student-athletes, the present study narrowed its focus on teammate support and found its importance in enhancing subjective well-being.

Third, according to the results, we found that positive emotions had a positive effect on student-athletes’ subjective well-being (H3). This path can be explained using the broaden-and-build theory.¹⁴ Fredrickson¹⁴ states that positive emotions have the broadening effect on the thought–action repertoires and by doing so, individuals can build important and long-lasting resources. Over time, the accumulated positive emotions produce an upward spiral, which eventually increases their subjective well-being.⁵⁸ Adopting this concept, past studies have also established the onset of positive emotions to yield psychological benefits, such as resilience,⁵⁹ confidence, and effective coping which enhances subjective well-being.³⁶ In the case of the current study, with student-athletes having to juggle their roles as a student and athlete, the challenges faced would undermine their physical and mental status.¹ Thus, it implies that experience of positive emotions broadens their mental capabilities and builds resources, such as coping skills, that would buffer the stress faced by student-athletes and enhance their overall subjective well-being.

Lastly, this study found the significant indirect effect of perceived teammate support on subjective well-being (H4). That is, teammate support resulted in student-athletes’ positive emotional reaction, leading to their subjective well-being. Li et al.²³ mentioned that, when perceived social support increases, greater positive emotions may be experienced and thus, reduces the level of depression. Moreover, Greenglass and Fiksenbaum⁵³ underlined that the consequences of social support rendered to students lead to psychological benefits, such as coping skills, which eventually promoted their psychological functioning and overall subjective well-being. This result can be further explained by the environmental psychology model¹³ and the broaden-and-build theory.¹⁴ That is, when student-athletes are aware and evaluate the support from teammates to be sufficient, it generates positive emotions in them; these positive emotions, in turn, cause positive change in their subjective well-being.

Theoretical and practical implications

Past studies attempted to highlight factors, such as coaching behavior^60,61 and psychological skills,^62,63 to be influential on student-athletes’ subjective well-being. However, to date, the role of teammate support and its effect on subjective well-being have not been explored in the context of student-athletes. This study provides valuable information on the importance of teammate support to the student-athletes. Also, we found that positive emotions experienced by teammate support subsequently enhance subjective well-being. These findings contribute to extending the literature on one particular form of social support (i.e., teammate support). In addition, while most previous research focused on adapting the environmental psychology model¹³ in the service-related research fields, this study applied the environmental psychology model to a sport setting. As such, this study contributes to extending the environmental psychology model to be applicable in the field of sport psychology. Furthermore, the current study has established a strong relationship between positive emotions and subjective well-being, which add to the current literature of broaden-and-build theory.¹⁴ That is, this study extended the application of the environmental psychology model¹³ and the broaden-and-build theory¹⁴ by explaining the relationship between constructs; the findings contribute to the theoretical advancements in the field of sport psychology.

From a practical viewpoint, the findings showed that student-athletes’ perceived teammate support is an essential factor to consider in understanding subjective well-being in universities. Student-athletes’ subjective well-being has shown to be related to many academic and sport outcomes, such as grades, sports performance, behaviors, and even drop out. Thus, having teammates who are more likely to be going through the same process can provide more understanding and support to an individual. As such, to ensure the subjective well-being of the student-athletes, all sport teams need to promote the importance of teammates by implementing cooperative practice and organizing team-building social events. The team building programs mentioned here refer to programs that are not just sport-related but aimed at encouraging the bond to go beyond the sport by being supportive in other areas, such as academic performance. This can be done through organizing activities, including study sessions within teams. In addition, team managers can provide short workshops on teamwork and communication skills to establish the importance of teammate support, and it can bring results where teammates not only express their support to one another but are also equipped with the right choice of words or actions, causing a positive effect on one’s subjective well-being.

Limitations and future research

Even though this study has discovered new insights, some limitations in the current study should be addressed. The first limitation is that this study did not examine the hours spent together with their teammates during and outside of training. According to Tian et al.,⁶⁴ students perceive greater support from their teachers and friends as they have more frequent interaction with them, and thus, contributing to their subjective well-being in school. In addition, this study did not take into consideration the diverse demographic factors that can influence the relationship between perceived teammate support and subjective well-being, such as age, gender, and year of study. As such, future research needs to consider diverse moderators that can influence student-athletes’ perception of teammate support. The second limitation is that the nature of sports may contribute differently to the results. For instance, Singh and Singh⁶⁵ found that individual, team, and dual- sport athletes have significant differences when it comes to different support forms of different providers. Athletes train together, but during a competition, team sports and individual sports play differently. In team sports, teammates may be more willing to help one another as the competition depends on every member of the team. However, in individual sports, it is one player against another, as even the teammates that one trains with will become one’s opponents in competitions. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the nature of sport in the relationship between perceived teammate support and subjective well-being in future research. Lastly, in previous studies, researchers found several key factors that can influence athletes’ and sport participants’ emotions and psychological well-being, such as coaching climate,⁶⁶ burnout, and coping skills.⁶⁷ Moreover, Cho and his colleagues noted that nostalgia, which can be considered as a longing for the past,^68–72 is a critical factor affecting individuals’ psychological and behavioral outcomes.^73–76 Therefore, we suggest future research further investigates diverse antecedents of student-athletes’ future behavior and well-being to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their life.

Conclusion

This study focused on teammate support and how it affects positive emotions and subjective well-being among university student-athletes in Singapore. We highlighted how social support could be helpful to student-athletes’ health and life, causing upward spirals in emotions and subjective well-being. Since teammate support has proven to be a significant factor in aiding student-athletes flourish in their lives, we suggest that sports team managers and coaches give more attention to facilitating an atmosphere of support and bonding.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Eunsoon Lee

References

Brown

Hainline

Kroshus

, et al. Mind, body and sport: Understanding and supporting student-athlete mental wellness. Indianapolis: IN: NCAA, 2014.

Cresswell

Eklund

RC.

The nature of player burnout in rugby: key characteristics and attributions. J Appl Sport Psychol 2006; 18: 219–239.

Crane

Temple

A systematic review of dropout from organized sport among children and youth. Eur Phys Educ Rev 2015; 21: 114–131.

Yang

Peek-Asa

Corlette

, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors associated with symptoms of depression in competitive collegiate student athletes. Clin J Sport Med 2007; 17: 481–487.

Hudd

Dumlao

Erdmann-Sager

, et al. Stress at college: effects on health habits, health status and self-esteem. Coll Stud J 2000; 34: 217–227.

Kapp

SK.

Social support, well-being, and quality of life among individuals on the autism spectrum. Pediatrics 2018; 141: S362–S368.

Wilson

Weiss

Shook

NJ.

Mindfulness, self-compassion, and savoring: factors that explain the relation between perceived social support and well-being. Personal Individual Diff 2020; 152: 1–9.

Hagiwara

Iwatsuki

Isogai

, et al. Relationships among sports helplessness, depression, and social support in American college student-athletes. J Phys Educ Sport 2017; 17: 753–757.

Kristiansen

Roberts

GC.

Young elite athletes and social support: coping with competitive and organizational stress in “Olympic” competition. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010; 20: 686–695.

10.

Hsu

Injured athletes’ rehabilitation beliefs and subjective well-being: the contribution of hope and social support. J Athletic Train 2013; 48: 92–98.

11.

Evans

Eys

Wolf

Exploring the nature of interpersonal influence in elite individual sport teams. J Appl Sport Psychol 2013; 25: 448–462.

12.

Raabe

Zakrajsek

Readdy

Teammate influence on collegiate swimmers’ basic psychological need satisfaction. J Intercollegiate Sport 2016; 9: 27–49.

13.

Mehrabian

Russell

JA.

An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1974.

14.

Fredrickson

BL.

What good are positive emotions?

Rev Gen Psychol 1998; 2: 300–319.

15.

Barrera

Sandler

Ramsay

TB.

Preliminary development of a scale of social support: studies on college students. Am J Commun Psychol 1981; 9: 435–447.

16.

Lin

Conceptualizing social support. In: Lin

Dean

Ensel

(eds) Social support, life events, and depression. New York: Academic Press, 1986, pp. 17–30.

17.

Rees

Hardy

An investigation of the social support experiences of high-level sport performers. Sport Psychol 2000; 14: 327–347.

18.

Cutrona

Russell

DW.

Type of social support and specific stress: toward a theory of optimal matching. In: Sarason

Sarason

Pierce

(eds) Social support: An interactional view. New York: Wiley, 1990, pp. 319–366.

19.

Tao

Dong

Pratt

, et al. Social support: relations to coping and adjustment during the transition to university in the People’s Republic of China. J Adolesc Res 2000; 15: 123–144.

20.

Freeman

Rees

Perceived social support from team-mates: direct and stress-buffering effects on self-confidence. Eur J Sport Sci 2010; 10: 59–67.

21.

Soskin

Carl

Alpert

, et al. Antidepressant effects on emotional temperament: toward a biobehavioral research paradigm for major depressive disorder. CNS Neurosci Therap 2012; 18: 441–451.

22.

Depue

Iacono

WG.

Neurobehavioral aspects of affective disorders. Ann Rev Psychol 1989; 40: 457–492.

23.

Jiang

Ren

Mediator effects of positive emotions on social support and depression among adolescents suffering from mobile phone addiction. Psychiatria Danubina 2017; 29: 207–213.

24.

Chen

LH.

Gratitude and adolescent athletes’ well-being: the multiple mediating roles of perceived social support from coaches and teammates. Soc Indicat Res 2013; 114: 273–285.

25.

Bianco

Social support and recovery from sport injury: elite skiers share their experiences. Res Quart Exer Sport 2001; 72: 376–388.

26.

Strandbu

Bakken

Stefansen

The continued importance of family sport culture for sport participation during the teenage years. Sport Educ Soc 2019; 12: 1–5.

27.

Berntsen

Kristiansen

Perceptions of need-support when “having fun” meets “working hard” mentalities in the elite sport school context. Sports Coach Rev 2018; 30: 1–23.

28.

Gasper

Understanding the diversity of conceptions of well-being and quality of life. J Socio-Econ 2010; 39: 351–360.

29.

Diener

Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am Psychol 2000; 55: 34–43.

30.

Liu

Mei

Tian

, et al. Age and gender differences in the relation between school-related social support and subjective well-being in school among students. Soc Indicat Res 2016; 125: 1065–1083.

31.

Kocayörük

Altıntas

İçbay

MA.

The perceived parental support, autonomous-self and well-being of adolescents: a cluster-analysis approach. J Child Family Stud 2015; 24: 1819–1828.

32.

Harshemi

Marzban

Sebar

, et al. Acculturation and psychological well-being among Middle Eastern migrants in Australia: the mediating role of social support and perceived discrimination. Int J Intercult Relat 2019; 72: 45–60.

33.

Malinauskas

The associations among social support, stress, and life satisfaction as perceived by injured college athletes. Soc Behav Personal Int J 2010; 38: 741–752.

34.

Fredrickson

BL.

The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol 2001; 56: 218–226.

35.

Kok

Coffey

Cohn

, et al. How positive emotions build physical health: perceived positive social connections account for the upward spiral between positive emotions and vagal tone. Psychol Sci 2013; 24: 1123–1132.

36.

Lyubomirsky

King

Diener

The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success?

Psychol Bull 2005; 131: 803.

37.

Cohn

Fredrickson

Brown

, et al. Happiness unpacked: positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion 2009; 9: 361–368.

38.

Bagozzi

RP.

Principles of marketing management. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1986.

39.

DeFreese

Smith

AL.

Athlete social support, negative social interactions, and psychological health across a competitive sport season. J Sport Exercise Psychol 2014; 36: 619–630.

40.

McCarthy

PJ.

Positive emotion in sport performance: current status and future directions. Int Rev Sport Exercise Psychol 2011; 4: 50–69.

41.

Fredrickson

Joiner

Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychol Sci 2002; 13: 172–175.

42.

Freeman

Coffee

Rees

The PASS-Q: the perceived available support in sport questionnaire. J Sport Exercise Psychol 2011; 33: 54–74.

43.

Watson

Clark

Tellegen

Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Personal Social Psychol 1988; 54: 1063–1070.

44.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

, et al. New well-being measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicat Res 2010; 97: 143–156.

45.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

46.

Byrne

BM.

Structural equation modeling with EQS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006.

47.

Satorra

Bentler

PM.

Correction to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: Eye von

Clogg

(eds) Latent variables analysis: applications for developmental research. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage, 1994, pp. 399–419.

48.

Bentler

Dijkstra

Efficient estimation via linearization in structural models. In: Krishnaiah

(ed) Multivariate analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985, pp. 9–42.

49.

Bentler

PM.

Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model Multidiscip J 1999; 6: 1–55.

50.

Bland

Altman

DG.

Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. Bmj 1997; 314: 572.

51.

Fornell

Larcker

DF.

Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res 1981; 18: 39–50.

52.

Gabana

Steinfeldt

Wong

, et al. Gratitude, burnout, and sport satisfaction among college student-athletes: the mediating role of perceived social support. J Clin Sport Psychol 2017; 11: 14–33.

53.

Greenglass

Fiksenbaum

Proactive coping, positive affect, and well-being: testing for mediation using path analysis. Eur Psychol 2009; 14: 29–39.

54.

Sarason

Pierce

Sarason

IG.

Social support: the sense of acceptance and the role of relationships. In: Sarason

Sarason

Pierce

(eds) Social support: an interactional view. Oxford: England: Wiley, 1990, pp. 97–128.

55.

Rees

Freeman

The effects of perceived and received support on self-confidence. J Sports Sci 2007; 25: 1057–1065.

56.

Rees

Freeman

Social support and performance in a golf-putting experiment. Sport Psychol 2010; 24: 333–348.

57.

Lee

Chang

, et al. Interaction of athletes’ resilience and coaches’ social support on the stress-burnout relationship: a conjunctive moderation perspective. Psychol Sport Exer 2016; 22: 202–209.

58.

Fredrickson

Branigan

Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires. Cognit Emot 2005; 19: 313–332.

59.

Tugade

Fredrickson

BL.

Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. J Personal Social Psychol 2004; 86: 320–333.

60.

Roxas

Ridinger

LL.

Relationships of coaching behaviors to student-athlete well-being. Higher Educ Politics Econ 2016; 2: 95–109.

61.

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

Brown

Paskus

TS.

The relationship between ethical and abusive coaching behaviors and student-athlete well-being. Sport Exer Perform Psychol 2015; 4: 36–49.

62.

Dubuc-Charbonneau

Durand-Bush

Moving to action: the effects of a self-regulation intervention on the stress, burnout, well-being, and self-regulation capacity levels of university student-athletes. J Clin Sport Psychol 2015; 9: 173–192.

63.

Golby

Wood

The effects of psychological skills training on mental toughness and psychological well-being of student-athletes. Psychology 2016; 7: 901–913.

64.

Tian

Liu

Huang

, et al. Perceived social support and school well-being among Chinese early and middle adolescents: the mediational role of self-esteem. Social Indicat Res 2013; 113: 991–1008.

65.

Singh

Comparative study of social support among individual, team and dual sports athletes. Int J Curr Res Rev 2017; 9: 19–22.

66.

Cronin

Allen

Examining the relationships among the coaching climate, life skills development and well-being in sport. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2018; 13: 815–827.

67.

González-García

Martinent

Pelegrín

Sport emotions profiles: relationships with burnout and coping skills among competitive athletes. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2020; 15: 9–16.

68.

Cho

Ramshaw

Norman

A conceptual model for nostalgia in the context of sport tourism: re-classifying the sporting past. J Sport Tourism 2014; 19: 145–167.

69.

Cho

Joo

Chi

CGQ.

Examining nostalgia in sport tourism: the case of US college football fans. Tourism Manag Perspect 2019; 29: 97–104.

70.

Cho

Lee

Moore

, et al. Development of the nostalgia scale in sport tourism context for sport fans and spectators. J Travel Res 2017; 56: 1094–1106.

71.

Cho

Pyun

Lim

SH.

Enhancing the stability of the leisure nostalgia scale: assessment of the measurement invariance between two different leisure populations. Leisure Stud 2020; 39: 294–303.

72.

Cho

Pyun

Wang

CKJ.

Leisure nostalgia: scale development and validation. J Leisure Res 2019; 50: 330–349.

73.

Cho

Importance of leisure nostalgia on life satisfaction and leisure participation. Service Industr J 2020; 40: 90–109.

74.

Cho

Joo

Moore

, et al. Sport tourists’ nostalgia and its effect on attitude and intentions: a multilevel approach. Tour Manag Perspect 2019; 32: 100563.

75.

Cho

Khoo

Lee

HW.

Nostalgia, motivation, and intention for international football stadium tourism. Asia Pacific J Tour Res 2019; 24: 912–923.

76.

Cho

Joo

Woosnam

Testing cross-cultural validation of a nostalgia scale for sport tourism: a multilevel analysis. J Hospital Tour Res 2020. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1177/1096348019899461.