View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Relationships among Moral and Contesting Variables and Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Relationships among Moral and Contesting Variables and Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport
Language: English
Authors: Shields, David Light, Funk, Christopher D., Bredemeier, Brenda Light
Source: Journal of Moral Education. 2018 47(1):17-33.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Prosocial Behavior, Antisocial Behavior, College Athletics, Intercollegiate Cooperation, Athletes, Correlation, Moral Values, Regression (Statistics), Moral Development, College Students
DOI: 10.1080/03057240.2017.1350149
ISSN: 0305-7240
Abstract: The current study of US intercollegiate athletes (n = 1066) involved in multiple sports investigated relationships among moral (moral reasoning maturity, moral value evaluation [MVE], and moral identity), contesting (partnership and war orientations) and behavioral (prosocial and antisocial) variables in sport. Among other relationships, results demonstrated that prosocial behavior was positively correlated with moral reasoning maturity, higher appreciation of moral values, moral identity and a partnership contesting orientation. In contrast, antisocial behavior was negative correlated with moral reasoning maturity, MVE, moral identity and a partnership orientation. In addition, antisocial behavior was positively correlated with a war contesting orientation. Regression analyses demonstrated that prosocial behavior was best predicted by the partnership contesting orientation and moral identity; antisocial behavior was best predicted by the war orientation followed closely by moral identity. Results are discussed in relation to Kohlbergian moral theory and contesting theory.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 86
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1164520
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG8_1bIYNjJOY5pAVZoWP_fAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLIut0q9D8nI5z5MhwIBEICBm-abCtICWUrkVnlxOv9n665seuFk_5aAFijWdrQL6OahQbQGxUSqSrad3wgSV516weRZN9sd1t-gtl7tOnEikWKspKNXHLvwAKzedXQngLh4dSF63fc5ySll7cwGS2vawlr9jCQlHXQ0v7SALRkGA71uP3mrKsRORF5nQ1P5ZvOLFQaas_8rhiIDYXeN3d65IykHnlLLgPusB8S1
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0126826437;moe01mar.18;2019Feb01.11:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0126826437-1">Relationships among moral and contesting variables and prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport. </title> <p>The current study of US intercollegiate athletes (n = 1066) involved in multiple sports investigated relationships among moral (moral reasoning maturity, moral value evaluation [MVE], and moral identity), contesting (partnership and war orientations) and behavioral (prosocial and antisocial) variables in sport. Among other relationships, results demonstrated that prosocial behavior was positively correlated with moral reasoning maturity, higher appreciation of moral values, moral identity and a partnership contesting orientation. In contrast, antisocial behavior was negative correlated with moral reasoning maturity, MVE, moral identity and a partnership orientation. In addition, antisocial behavior was positively correlated with a war contesting orientation. Regression analyses demonstrated that prosocial behavior was best predicted by the partnership contesting orientation and moral identity; antisocial behavior was best predicted by the war orientation followed closely by moral identity. Results are discussed in relation to Kohlbergian moral theory and contesting theory.</p> <p>Keywords: Moral development; moral value; moral identity; contesting orientation; prosocial behavior; antisocial behavior; sport</p> <p>Given its rich interpersonal elements, its cultural prominence, and its dense symbolic significance, it is no wonder that many social scientists have examined sport for its potential to provide a platform for the development and display of moral character. More than three decades ago Bredemeier and Shields ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref1">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]) launched a research program in this domain of inquiry, drawing from the then-prominent moral development theories of Kohlberg ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref5">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref6">52</reflink>]) and Haan ([[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref7">38</reflink>]]; Haan, Aerts, & Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref8">40</reflink>]). Since then, there has been a rapid expansion of sport moral research drawing from multiple theoretical perspectives, constructs and orientations (for reviews, see Kavussanu, [[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref9">45</reflink>]]; Shields & Bredemeier, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref10">67</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref11">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study examines relationships among prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport and important constructs drawn from moral and contesting theories. Specifically, within a sample of US intercollegiate athletes, we investigated relationships among sport-related prosocial and antisocial behavior and three constructs drawn from Kohlberg-related theory (moral reasoning development, moral value evaluation [MVE] and moral identity) and two constructs (partnership and war contesting orientations) drawn from contesting theory, which pertains to how contests are interpreted. We sought to determine the best predictors of prosocial and antisocial sport behavior. Below, each area of inquiry is outlined in relation to sport moral research.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-2">Prosocial and antisocial behavior</hd> <p>Since moral behavior implicates moral motivations and judgments as well as overt actions (Kohlberg & Candee, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref12">53</reflink>]; Shields & Bredemeier, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref13">66</reflink>]), it can be difficult to operationalize. To resolve some of the complications associated with assessing moral behavior, most sport research in recent years has focused on the related concepts of prosocial and antisocial behavior. Drawing from Bandura's ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]) distinction between proactive and inhibitive forms of morality, prosocial behavior is conceptualized as intentional behavior that benefits at least one other, while antisocial behavior reflects a volitional failure to inhibit self-benefitting behavior that results in harm or disadvantage to one or more others (Kavussanu & Boardley, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref15">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>When Kavussanu and Boardley ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref16">47</reflink>]) developed the Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport Scale (PABSS), it helped to facilitate a significant advance in morality-related sport research. Research has shown that prosocial behavior in sport is positively related to a task goal orientation (Kavussanu & Boardley, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref17">47</reflink>]; Kavussanu, Stanger, & Boardley, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref18">49</reflink>]) and, in the case of prosocial behavior toward opponents, moral identity (Kavussanu et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref19">49</reflink>]) and empathy (Kavussanu & Boardley, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref20">47</reflink>]; Kavussanu et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref21">49</reflink>]). With regard to antisocial behavior, research has revealed it to be positively linked to hostility, anger and moral disengagement (Kavussanu et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref22">49</reflink>]), as well as ego goal orientation (Kavussanu & Boardley, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref23">47</reflink>]); it is also negatively correlated with empathy (Kavussanu & Boardley, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref24">47</reflink>]; Kavussanu et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref25">49</reflink>]), task orientation (Kavussanu et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref26">49</reflink>]), moral identity (Kavussanu et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref27">49</reflink>]; Kavussan, Stanger & Ring, 2015) and anticipatory guilt (Kavussanu, Stanger, & Ring, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref28">50</reflink>]). To date, prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport have not yet been investigated in relation to general moral reasoning maturity, MVE, or contesting orientations (see below).</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-3">Moral development</hd> <p>Moral reasoning development was a popular focus in sport psychology research in the later part of the last century, but is less commonly investigated today. Previously, moral development was most often conceptualized as progress through an invariant, age-related sequence of stages in moral reasoning competence. While Kohlberg's ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref29">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref30">52</reflink>]) six-stage theory was most influential, numerous similar models also achieved prominence in the field, including those offered by Gibbs ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref31">34</reflink>]), Haan ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref32">39</reflink>]) and Rest ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref33">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>Sport psychology research drawing from Kohlbergian-related approaches has demonstrated that moral stages or levels are related to antisocial behavior in predictable ways. In one early study of collegiate basketball players, Bredemeier and Shields ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]) found athletes' use of low-stage preconventional reasoning was positively correlated with aggressiveness as assessed by their coaches, while higher-stage postconventional reasoning was associated with lower aggression scores. In subsequent research, similar relationships emerged. Less mature moral reasoning was found to relate to increased acceptance of potentially injurious acts (Bredemeier, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]; Bredemeier, Weiss, Shields, & Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]) and aggressive action tendencies in children (Bredemeier, 1994). Conversely, increased moral reasoning maturity has demonstrated negative correlations with acceptance of aggression in high school and college basketball players (Bredemeier, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref37">20</reflink>]). Stephens ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref38">78</reflink>]); Stephens & Bredemeier, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref39">79</reflink>]; Stephens, Bredemeier, & Shields, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref40">80</reflink>]) found that athletes' endorsement of preconventional moral motivations was predictive of self-reported temptation to cheat, lie, or aggress. More recently, Rutten et al. ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref41">64</reflink>]) found that a sport-specific measure of moral reasoning correlated positively with prosocial behavior and negatively with antisocial behavior.</p> <p>Over the past decade, despite an impressive body of empirical research that supports many of the key tenets of Kohlberg's model (Boom, Wouters, & Keller, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref42">18</reflink>]; Gibbs, Basinger, Grime, & Snarey, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref43">37</reflink>]), the 'grand theory' approach to moral development that Kohlberg represented has given way to a more splintered field reflected in a variety of research traditions and approaches (Lapsley, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref44">58</reflink>]). However, we contend that post-Kohlbergian analyses of moral reasoning development remains an essential component of moral psychology and, thus, we included a neo-Kohlbergian assessment of moral reasoning maturity in the current investigation. Specifically, we drew from Gibbs' ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref45">35</reflink>]; Gibbs, Basinger, & Fuller, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>]) reformulation of the Kohlbergian stages. Gibbs ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref47">34</reflink>]) accepted the main outlines of the first four Kohlbergian stages but jettisoned the last two stages (the postconventional level) because, in his view, they reflected moral philosophies more than empirically substantiated stages.</p> <p>Based on the previous research cited above, we hypothesized that moral reasoning maturity will be associated with lower antisocial behavior. In addition, we anticipated a positive relationship between moral reasoning maturity and prosocial behavior since both tend to reflect concern for social cooperation and mutual respect.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-4">Moral value evaluation</hd> <p>It has long been recognized that moral reasoning is important, but insufficient, to explain moral behavior (Blasi, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref48">11</reflink>]). Typically, associations between moral reasoning and behavior tend to be low to moderate in size (Walker, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref49">85</reflink>]), indicating that other important processes are implicated in moral functioning. Another process is MVE. The construct of MVE responds to the question, how important are moral values to the person? MVE is a largely affective process that attributes relative importance to moral values and the need to uphold them (Beerthuizen & Brugman, 2013, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>]). Much like the kinds of rapid moral judgment described by Haidt ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref51">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref52">42</reflink>]), MVE is a quick-intuitive process that typically precedes more cognitive and reflective moral reasoning (Beerthuizen & Brugman, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref53">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>To date, the construct of MVE has not been studied in the sport context. However, previous research on adolescents has demonstrated that MVE is positively related to moral reasoning maturity and moral identity (Beerthuizen & Brugman, 2013), so we hypothesized the same would be found in the current investigation with college athletes. Also, there is evidence that higher MVEs are negatively correlated with antisocial behavior (Beerthuizen & Brugman, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>]) and delinquency (Beerthuizen, Brugman, & Basinger, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref55">10</reflink>]; Beerthuizen & Brugman, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>]; Tarry & Emler, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref57">81</reflink>]), so we hypothesized that MVE would be negatively related to antisocial behavior in sport. While no previous research has examined MVE in relation to prosocial behavior, we anticipated a positive relationship between the two because both are concordant with respect for others and regard for interpersonal harmony.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-5">Moral identity</hd> <p>As the field of moral psychology sought to address the judgment–action gap, the theme of 'moral identity' emerged as one of the most significant bridges to moral behavior (Aquino & Reed, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref58">2</reflink>]; Blasi, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref60">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref61">13</reflink>]; Lapsley & Narvaez, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref62">59</reflink>]). Similar to MVE, moral identity research relates to how important moral values are but takes the concept a step further. A person's moral identity generally refers to 'the cognitive schema a person holds about his or her moral character' (Aquino, Freeman, Reed, Lim, & Felps, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>], p. 124). While people may consider moral values to be important without integrating those values into their sense of self, if moral values are prioritized in importance over other values, they are likely, in time, to become core dimensions of identity (Blasi, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref64">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Blasi ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref65">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref66">16</reflink>]) maintained that moral motivation is largely, though not exclusively, tethered to moral identity. As a person's identity increasingly integrates moral concerns and themes, the motivation to maintain self-consistency increases the likelihood that behavior will reflect the person's cherished moral values and ideals (Blasi & Oresick, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref67">17</reflink>]). A recent meta-analysis of 111 studies on moral identity and moral behavior largely confirms these expectations (Hertz & Krettenauer, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref68">43</reflink>]), finding that 'moral identity strengthens individuals' readiness to engage in prosocial and ethical behavior as well as to abstain from antisocial behavior' (p. 129).</p> <p>Based on Blasi's work, moral identity was isolated by Shields and Bredemeier ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref69">66</reflink>]) as a particularly important construct to understanding the moral thought–action link in sport. Research on moral identity and sport behavior is limited, but results generally fit the pattern hypothesized by Blasi and reported in the Hertz and Krettenauer ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref70">43</reflink>]) meta-analysis. Thus, in a study by Sage, Kavussanu, and Duda ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref71">65</reflink>]), the researchers found that moral identity negatively predicted antisocial judgment and behavior. Similarly, Kavussanu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref72">50</reflink>]) found that moral identity was negatively related to antisocial behavior, though in a follow-up study they found that the relationship was mediated by anticipatory guilt. In a third study in the same investigation, they found that priming moral identity reduced antisocial behavior and that this effect was mediated by moral judgment and emotion. Shields, Funk, and Bredemeier ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref73">72</reflink>]) found that moral identity was negatively related to moral disengagement in sport, and Kavussanu, Hatzigeorgiadis, Elbe, and Ring ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref74">48</reflink>]) similarly found that moral identity negatively predicted moral disengagement about doping. The current investigation sought to further investigate links between moral identity and other moral constructs. Specifically, we hypothesized that moral identity would correlate positively with moral reasoning maturity, MVE and prosocial behavior. We expected it to correlate negatively with antisocial behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-6">Contesting orientations</hd> <p>Moral judgments require interpreting the situation in order to identify and evaluate the moral issues involved (Rest, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref75">62</reflink>]). In sports, a prominent structural element of the situation is the zero-sum goal structure that pits participants' game-relevant interests in opposition to each other. In traditional social interdependence theory (Deutsch, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref76">29</reflink>]; Johnson & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref77">44</reflink>]), it is postulated that the goal structure of a situation exerts a powerful influence on whether behavior within the situation will be primarily cooperative and prosocial or antagonistic and antisocial. Thus, in contesting situations (defined by negative goal interdependence), there is strong contextual pressure to behave in antisocial ways (Kohn, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref78">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Recently, Shields and Bredemeier ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref79">69</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref80">70</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref81">71</reflink>]), building on research into the cognitive function of conceptual metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref82">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref83">56</reflink>]; Landau, Keefer, & Meier, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref84">57</reflink>]), have proposed contesting theory, which reinterprets social interdependence theory from a constructivist perspective. Two central tenets of contesting theory are: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>) how participants interpret the purpose of the contest's goal structure will influence their cognitions, attitudes and behaviors about and within the contest; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref86">2</reflink>) the interpretation of the contest structure is contoured by one or the other of two conceptual metaphors: contest-is-partnership (<emph>partnership</emph>) or contest-is-war (<emph>war</emph>). A conceptual metaphor, which operates mostly below awareness, works by creating a conceptual mapping between elements of a target concept and analogous elements of a source concept (Lakoff & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref87">55</reflink>]; Shields & Bredemeier, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref88">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>When utilizing the <emph>partnership</emph> conceptual metaphor, contests are construed in a collaborative light; the purpose of a contest is to use its oppositional tension to promote enjoyment and some form of excellence. When employing a <emph>war</emph> conceptual metaphor, contests are interpreted in a more antagonistic light and the purpose is largely reduced to designating a winner or winners who receive tangible or symbolic rewards. Though athletes usually have both metaphors in their cognitive repertoire, only one can be activated and utilized at any given moment (Lakoff & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref89">55</reflink>]). A person's relative preference for activating the different metaphors is referred to as their contesting orientation (Shields, Funk, & Bredemeier, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref90">73</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref91">73</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref92">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>To begin to test the hypotheses of contesting theory, Shields, Funk, and Bredemeier ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref93">73</reflink>]) developed the Contesting Orientations Scale (COS). In initial testing, COS demonstrated excellent factor validity, strong gender invariance and good construct validity. Moreover, contesting orientations provided additional predictive utility for sportspersonship orientation over and above a number of other predictors, including goal orientation, empathy, moral identity and moral disengagement. A follow-up study demonstrated that contesting orientations predicted prosocial behavior in sport but not in non-contesting situations (Shields, Funk, & Bredemeier, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref94">74</reflink>]). Shields, Funk, and Bredemeier ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref95">75</reflink>]) also demonstrated that priming one or the other of the conceptual metaphors (partnership or war) led to predictable, if minor, changes in reported moral beliefs and emotion attributions. In a study of predictors of moral disengagement in sport, contesting orientations were found to be significant predictors, with the partnership orientation predicting lower, and the war orientation higher, use of moral disengagement (Shields et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref96">72</reflink>]). Based on this research, we hypothesized that the partnership contesting orientation would be positively related, and the war orientation negatively related, to moral reasoning maturity, MVE, moral identity and prosocial behavior. We further hypothesized that the war orientation would be positively related to antisocial behavior in sport.</p> <p>In addition to the specific hypotheses identified previously, we had two exploratory questions for which we had insufficient theory or data to offer informed hypotheses. Specifically, among the study variables, what are the best predictors of prosocial behavior and what are the best predictors of antisocial behavior, in sport?</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0126826437-8">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) student-athletes (<emph>N</emph> = 1,066, 63% male) of multiple racial identities (72% White/Caucasian, 15% Black/African-American, 7% Hispanic/Latino/a, 1% Asian/Asian-American, 4% Multi-racial/Multi-ethnic, 1% other), ranging in age from 18 to 27 (<emph>M</emph> = 20.41, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.6), who had competed for a mean of 6.1 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 5.5) in their primary sport: baseball/softball (<emph>n</emph> = 678), basketball (<emph>n</emph> = 317) and wrestling (<emph>n</emph> = 71). Participants were drawn from across multiple NAIA member institutions representing multiple geographic regions of the US.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-9">Procedures</hd> <p>After approval by the Institutional Review Board of the lead author's institution, participants were recruited through the NAIA's national office. Specifically, the NAIA had implemented an online educational program for its student-athletes and the registration procedure was modified so that athletes, upon registering, were given the option to participate in this study. Interested students were directed to an external site (SurveyMonkey), which housed both the consent form and survey; those who declined to participate were taken directly to the program's educational materials. Approximately 96% of eligible student-athletes agreed to participate in the study. All instruments were administered in a random order. All information was collected anonymously and no incentives were provided.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-10">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0126826437-11">Demographic and control variables</hd> <p>To control for their potential effects, we collected participants' age, gender, primary sport and years of participation in their primary sport. Since previous research has found that the amount of contact in a sport may relate to aspects of moral functioning (e.g., Bredemeier & Shields, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref97">25</reflink>]; Bredemeier, Weiss, Shields, & Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref98">26</reflink>]; Vallerand, Deshaies, & Cuerrier, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref99">84</reflink>]), we also included sport type as a control variable. Specifically, we coded as '1' participants in the low contact sports of baseball and softball; we coded as '2' participants in basketball and those in wrestling were coded '3.'</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-12">Prosocial and antisocial behavior</hd> <p>To assess the frequency of pro- and antisocial behavior, we used PABSS (Kavussanu & Boardley, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref100">47</reflink>]). In responding to PABSS, athletes are asked to indicate how often they engaged in prosocial and antisocial behaviors during the current or most recently completed sport season. Participants answer each item using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often. The 20-item PABSS consists of four subscales: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>) prosocial behavior toward teammates (four items; e.g., 'Gave constructive feedback to a teammate'); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref102">2</reflink>) prosocial behavior toward opponents (three items; e.g., 'Helped an injured or hurt opponent'); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref103">3</reflink>) antisocial behavior toward teammates (five items; e.g., 'Verbally abused a teammate'); and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref104">4</reflink>) antisocial behavior toward opponents (eight items; e.g., 'Tried to injure an opponent'). As is evident in the sample items, PABSS is designed to measure prosocial and antisocial behavior rather than moral behavior specifically. Because our interest was in prosocial and antisocial behavior globally, and to reduce the number of variables needed in analyses, we combined the teammate and opponent subscales into single indices, as has been done in other research (Erickson & Côté, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref105">31</reflink>]), resulting in a prosocial behavior subscale and an antisocial behavior subscale.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-13">Moral reasoning maturity</hd> <p>Moral reasoning development was assessed with the Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form Objective (SRM-SFO) (Basinger, Brugman, & Gibbs, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref106">6</reflink>]). The SRM-SFO consists of 10 sections, each containing three subsections. Each section begins with the identification of a specific moral issue (e.g., 'What do you think about telling the truth?'). Each of these issues is drawn from one of five general moral themes (contract and truth, affiliation, life, property and law and legal justice) reflected in Kohlberg's original scoring system (Colby et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref107">28</reflink>]). The first subsection of each of the 10 sections assesses how important the respondent feels the issue is in general. The second subsection begins with a stem in the following form: 'If you had to give a reason WHY it is important for people to [e.g., tell the truth] what reason would you give?' The stem is followed by four possible reasons (each reflecting a different moral stage) and the respondent replies by indicating 'yes,' 'no,' or 'unsure' to each one. Finally, the respondent is asked to indicate which of the provided reasons is closest to the reason they would give. Moral reasoning maturity is calculated by considering the relative weighting that the respondent gave to the moral stages combined with their selection of which reason best reflects their own reasoning (for scoring details, see Beerthuizen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref108">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-14">Moral value evaluation</hd> <p>The SRM-SFO <bold>(</bold>Basinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref109">6</reflink>]) was also used to assess MVE. While the SRM-SFO was designed primarily to assess maturity in moral judgment, it also has an MVE component that has shown promise in previous research (Beerthuizen & Brugman, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref110">9</reflink>]; Beerthuizen et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref111">10</reflink>]). MVE is derived from the first subsection of the SRM-SFO (see above) which asks respondents to indicate how important a moral theme is to them. Response options range from 1 = not important to 3 = very important. The MVE score is calculated by averaging the responses to the 10 subsection questions. Scores can range from 1—indicating that the moral themes are not important at all to the respondent; to 3—indicating that all of the moral themes were judged to be very important.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-15">Moral identity</hd> <p>Moral identity was measured with the internalization subscale of Aquino and Reed's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref112">2</reflink>]) Moral Identity Scale (MIS). Participants are presented with nine moral traits (e.g., caring, fair, honest, helpful), asked to envision a person having those traits and then asked to respond to five items related to the imagined person (e.g., 'It would make me feel good to be a person who has these characteristics'). Participants respond to each item on a Likert scale anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The mean score across items is then calculated.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-16">Contesting orientation</hd> <p>The COS (Funk, Shields, & Bredemeier, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref113">33</reflink>]; Shields et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref114">73</reflink>]) was used to assess the degree to which participants endorsed a partnership and/or war conceptual metaphor for contesting. The COS asks participants to rate their agreement or disagreement with 12 statements, using a Likert scale anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Six items addressed the war conceptual metaphor (e.g., 'In sport the goal is to conquer your opponent') and six items addressed the partnership conceptual metaphor (e.g., 'In tight contests, I want my opponents to be at their best').</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0126826437-18">Data screening and preliminary analyses</hd> <p>Prior to the main analyses, data were screened for out of range values, plausible means and standard deviations and extreme outliers. In addition, missing data analysis was performed. Overall, only 4.1% of the data points were missing, with no significant patterns. To handle missing data, multiple imputation was used, which provides less biased estimates than other common procedures such as mean imputation (Baraldi & Enders, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref115">5</reflink>]; Enders, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref116">30</reflink>]). Specifically, a series of multiple regression models, which estimated and imputed missing data based on the existing complete data, were generated iteratively via a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm, resulting in 20 imputed data sets. Analyses were then performed on each data set and pooled results presented (Baraldi & Enders, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref117">5</reflink>]). Next, the assumptions of multivariate regression were checked and no problems with multicollinearity found. Finally, the internal consistency of each scale was examined (Table 1). All scales showed acceptable (α = .71) to very good (α = .90) internal consistency, with the exception of moral reasoning maturity, which was marginally below the standard cutoff of.70 (ɑ = .69) but still higher than what has been reported in other published research (e.g., Beerthuizen & Brugman, 2013, ɑ = .59).</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations and reliabilities (N = 1066).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td align="left" /><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">7</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td align="left">1. Prosocial Behavior</td><td align="char" char="."> (.71)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">2. Antisocial Behavior</td><td align="char" char=".">.08<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0002">*</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">(.90)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">3. Moral Reasoning</td><td align="char" char=".">.16<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">–.11<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">(.69)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">4. Moral Value Evaluation</td><td align="char" char=".">.25<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">–.21<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.10<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">(.85)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">5. Moral Identity</td><td align="char" char=".">.34<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">–.28<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.22<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.41<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">(.85)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">6. Contesting-Partnership</td><td align="char" char=".">.27<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">–.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.06<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0002">*</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.26<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.33<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">(.81)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">7. Contesting-War</td><td align="char" char=".">–.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.19<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">–.17<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">–.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.27<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0003">**</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">(.88)</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left"><italic>M</italic></td><td align="char" char=".">3.33</td><td align="char" char=".">1.83</td><td align="char" char=".">2.84</td><td align="char" char=".">2.65</td><td align="char" char=".">4.39</td><td align="char" char=".">4.03</td><td align="char" char=".">3.81</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">SD</td><td align="char" char=".">.62</td><td align="char" char=".">.61</td><td align="char" char=".">.24</td><td align="char" char=".">.31</td><td align="char" char=".">.65</td><td align="char" char=".">.65</td><td align="char" char=".">.83</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Reliability (Alpha) on the diagonal.</p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>p</emph> ≤ .05</item> <item>3 <emph>p</emph> ≤ .01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0126826437-19">Descriptive statistics and correlations</hd> <p>Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, reliabilities and zero-order correlations among the study's primary variables. As hypothesized, moral reasoning demonstrated a significant negative correlation with antisocial behavior and a significant positive correlation with prosocial behavior. MVE was positively correlated with moral reasoning and moral identity and also demonstrated the hypothesized relationships to both prosocial behavior (positive) and antisocial behavior (negative). Moral identity evinced the hypothesized relationships as well, correlating positively with moral reasoning, MVE and prosocial behavior and negatively with antisocial behavior. Finally, these variables relationships to contesting orientations largely matched expectations. Specifically, as predicted, partnership contesting orientation correlated positively with moral reasoning, MVE, moral identity and prosocial behavior and negatively with antisocial behavior. War orientation correlated negatively with moral reasoning and positively with antisocial behavior, but did not show the expected correlations with MVE, moral identity, or prosocial behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-20">Predictors of prosocial and antisocial behavior</hd> <p>To determine which variables have significant utility for predicting prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport, we conducted two sequential regressions, one on prosocial behavior and one on antisocial behavior (Table 2). First, to control for their effects, we entered our control variables (age, gender, sport type and number of years competing). Then, in a second step, we entered the moral and contesting variables.</p> <p>Table 2. Predictors of prosocial and antisocial sport behavior.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Analysis</td><td align="center">Prosocial Sport Behavior</td><td align="left" /><td align="center">Antisocial Sport Behavior</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Predictor</td><td align="center"><italic>B</italic></td><td align="center">95% CI</td><td align="center"><italic>β</italic></td><td align="center">Δ<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td align="center">Total <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td align="left" /><td align="center"><italic>B</italic></td><td align="center">95% CI</td><td align="center"><italic>β</italic></td><td align="center">Δ<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td align="center">Total <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Step1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.03<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.03<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.09<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.09<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="center">[–.01,.00]</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="center">[–.01,.00]</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Gender<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0001">a</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.22</td><td align="center">[–.43, –.28]</td><td align="char" char=".">.17<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">–.36</td><td align="center">[–.43, –.28]</td><td align="char" char=".">–.28<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Sport Type<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0002">b</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="center">[–.01,.10]</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="center">[–.01,.10]</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Years Played</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="center">[.00,.01]</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="center">[.00,.01]</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Step 2</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.14<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.17<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.08<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="char" char=".">.17<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Moral Reasoning</td><td align="char" char=".">.18</td><td align="center">[.02,.34]</td><td align="char" char=".">.07<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0003">*</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="center">[–.03,.01]</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Moral Value</td><td align="char" char=".">.23</td><td align="center">[.10,.37]</td><td align="char" char=".">.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">–.20</td><td align="center">[.03,.07]</td><td align="char" char=".">–.10<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0004">**</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Moral Identity</td><td align="char" char=".">.18</td><td align="center">[.12,.24]</td><td align="char" char=".">.19<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">–.15</td><td align="center">[.07,.14]</td><td align="char" char=".">–.16<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Contesting—Partnership</td><td align="char" char=".">.17</td><td align="center">[.12,.23]</td><td align="char" char=".">.19<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">–.08</td><td align="center">[.12,.21]</td><td align="char" char=".">–.09<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0004">**</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="left">Contesting—War</td><td align="char" char=".">–.05</td><td align="center">[–.09, –.01]</td><td align="char" char=".">–.07<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0003">*</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="center">[–.08, –.03]</td><td align="char" char=".">.17<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">***</xref></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Gender was coded '1' for male and '2' for female.</p> <ulist> <item>2 Sport was coded '1' for low-contact (baseball/softball), '2' for medium-contact (basketball) and '3' for high-contact (wrestling).</item> <item>3 <emph>p</emph> ≤ .05</item> <item>4 <emph>p</emph> ≤ .01</item> <item>5 <emph>p</emph> ≤ .001.</item> </ulist> <p>In looking at prosocial behavior, the initial model containing only control variables (Step 1) accounted for roughly 3% of the variance (<emph>p</emph> < .001), with females demonstrating more prosocial behavior than males (<emph>β</emph> = .17). The addition of moral and contesting variables (Step 2) accounted for an additional 14% of the variance in prosocial behavior (<emph>p</emph> < .001). All the variables added in this step accounted for significant unique variance. Specifically, the moral variables and partnership orientation were significant positive predictors, while war orientation was a significant negative predictor. Examination of the standardized coefficients in the final model indicated that the partnership contesting orientation (<emph>β</emph> = .19) and moral identity (<emph>β</emph> = .19) explained the most unique variance in prosocial behavior scores.</p> <p>In the regression analysis of antisocial behavior in sport, the initial model containing only the control variables (Step 1) accounted for approximately 9% of the variance (<emph>p</emph> < .001), with females reporting less antisocial behavior than males (<emph>β</emph> = −.28). The addition of the moral and contesting variables (Step 2) significantly added to the prediction (<emph>p</emph> < .001), with the full model accounting for approximately 16% of the variance in antisocial behavior. All of the moral and contesting variables, with the exception of moral reasoning, were significant predictors. The war orientation contributed positively and the others negatively. Examination of the standardized coefficients in the final model indicated that of the non-control variables, war orientation contributed most to the prediction of antisocial behavior (<emph>β</emph> = .17), closely followed by moral identity (<emph>β</emph> = −.16).</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-21">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study examined relationships among moral, contesting and behavioral variables. Examination of the pattern of correlations in Table 1 reveal that prosocial behavior in sport is associated positively with moral reasoning maturity, attribution of importance to moral values, moral identity, and a partnership contesting orientation, with magnitudes ranging from relatively weak (moral reasoning: <emph>r</emph> = .16, <emph>p</emph> < .001) to moderate (moral identity: <emph>r</emph> = .34, <emph>p</emph> < .001). In contrast, antisocial behavior in sport is negatively correlated with moral reasoning maturity, attribution of importance to moral values, moral identity and a partnership contesting orientation. In addition, antisocial behavior in sport was correlated positively with a war contesting orientation. Again, correlations ranged in magnitude from relatively weak (moral reasoning: <emph>r</emph> = −.11, <emph>p</emph> = .001) to moderate (moral identity: <emph>r</emph> = −.28, <emph>p</emph> < .001). Regression analyses indicated that all the moral and contesting variables were significant predictors of prosocial behavior and all but moral reasoning maturity accounted for unique variance in the prediction of antisocial behavior. Below, we discuss these results first in terms of a Kohlbergian perspective, second in terms of contesting theory and end with an integration of the two.</p> <p>From a Kohlbergian perspective, these results are generally congruent with expectations. Moral reasoning competence is one probable contributor to morally-related behavior in sport, but other variables, like moral identity, may be equally if not more important in predicting behavior. However, it is important to recognize that, from a Kohlbergian perspective, the importance of considering moral reasoning is not reducible to the strength of its correlation with behavior, nor the amount of variance it may explain in a regression model. Moral reasoning is important because morality itself is tethered to the reasons that motivate behavior (Blasi, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref118">14</reflink>]). Prosocial behavior is moral behavior, for example, only to the degree that it reflects moral intent. Ultimately, as Bandura ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref119">3</reflink>]) argued, it may be behavior that matters most, but to know whether behavior is <emph>moral</emph> behavior, it is reasoning that matters most (Turiel, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref120">82</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-22">Conclusion</hd> <p>While neither correlations nor regressions can provide direct support for causal pathways, the findings of the current investigation are at least congruent with a Kohlbergian perspective that posits moral reasoning maturity as a distal influence on moral behavior, endorsement of the importance of moral values as a more proximate determinant and moral identity as exercising the most direct influence. Such a model of influences fits well within several thought–action models within the Kohlbergian tradition (Beerthuizen & Brugman, 2013; Blasi, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref121">12</reflink>]; Kohlberg & Candee, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref122">53</reflink>]; Rest, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref123">62</reflink>]). Future researchers may well want to explore these causal links more directly.</p> <p>One unexpected finding from the present research was that moral reasoning maturity correlated more strongly with prosocial than antisocial behavior and was only significant in the prediction of prosocial behavior. While we anticipated the direction of the correlational links, we thought the relationship of moral reasoning maturity with antisocial behavior would be stronger than its relation with prosocial behavior. Prosocial behaviors are often labeled by philosophers as supererogatory, meaning that they are considered good, but not required, from a moral standpoint (Frankena, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref124">32</reflink>]; cf. Turiel, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref125">83</reflink>]). Since Kohlberg's theory focuses on duty and justice, one might expect moral reasoning to relate more directly to actions that are unambiguously within the moral domain, which is truer of the antisocial than prosocial behaviors. One possible explanation for our findings is that the neo-Kohlbergian stage model on which our assessment of moral maturity was developed terminates with 'conventional' morality, excluding the post-conventional stages. Arguably, conventional morality may blend, even confuse, prosocial behavior with morality in a way that may make doing 'nice' things just as important as doing morally 'necessary' things. Clearly, this pattern needs greater scrutiny.</p> <p>A further contribution of the present investigation comes from the introduction of MVE into sport morality research. While other studies have looked at values and value hierarchies (Whitehead, Telfer, & Lambert, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref126">86</reflink>]), the MVE concept brings into sharp relief the issue of how much importance a person attaches to moral values. We would not expect moral behavior from a person who has a good understanding of a moral precept but does not really consider it important.</p> <p>Turning to contesting theory, the finding that contesting orientations are moderately correlated with prosocial and antisocial behavior supports the position put forward by Shields and Bredemeier ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref127">71</reflink>]) that the root metaphors (partnership/war) contain implicit moral implications. Inclusion of contesting orientations in future research on prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport, including how such orientations may mediate or moderate the effects of other variables, is clearly warranted.</p> <p>In addition to the expected finding that the partnership and war orientations differentially relate to prosocial and antisocial behavior, the current research added new insights into the contesting orientations. Previous research (Shields, Funk, & Bredemeier, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref128">76</reflink>]), demonstrated that the two orientations are themselves differentially predicted by Brady and Wheeler's ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref129">19</reflink>]) formalist and consequentialist forms of moral thinking with formalism associated with the partnership orientation and consequentialism associated with the war orientation. In discussing their results, Shields et al. suggested that the partnership orientation may be predicted by the formalist moral framework in part because both moral formalism and partnership thinking tend to draw from more cognitively elaborate reasoning than their counterparts (cf. Reynolds, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref130">63</reflink>]). In the current study, the finding that the partnership orientation was weakly but still significantly related to moral reasoning maturity, while the war orientation was negatively related to it, offers further evidence that partnership thinking may reflect a developmental advance over the war orientation. The rationale for this explanation comes from the fact that the war metaphor maps rather easily and directly onto the win-lose goal structure of the contest whereas the partnership metaphor is possible only when two seemingly disparate ideas are held in a synthetic tension: the contest is 'us again them' and 'we are all benefitting.' The synthesis is created by seeing how the mutual challenge provides an opportunity for enjoyment and striving toward excellence. Further research is needed into the developmental pathways of the contesting orientations.</p> <p>Much like achievement goal orientations, contesting orientations are not explicitly moral constructs, but they still carry moral significance. In commenting on the ego orientation, Nicholls ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref131">60</reflink>]) observed that 'when winning is everything, it is worth doing anything to win' (p. 133). Similarly, when opponents are viewed as enemies in a war, they are likely to be given less moral consideration. Findings from this study, as well as previous research on sportspersonship (Funk et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref132">33</reflink>]; Shields et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref133">73</reflink>]), would seem to support this view. This suggests that researchers need to incorporate an analysis of how conceptual metaphors operate during the various components and processes of moral functioning. While it is clear that contesting orientations relate to moral reasoning, MVE, and moral identity, as well as prosocial and antisocial behavior, identifying these relationships is only the first step. Future research is needed to uncover the underlying processes responsible for these relationships.</p> <p>Finally, it is important to recognize that this research had several limitations that need to be acknowledged. All participants were US intercollegiate athletes and results cannot be generalized to other ages, countries, or competitive levels. Moreover, only three sports were included and results cannot be generalized to other sport areas. It is also important to recognize that the moral reasoning measure had marginal reliability and, potentially, that could have masked stronger relationships with other variables. The study was also cross-sectional in design and, consequently, no cause-effect relationships could be investigated. Even with these limitations, the current study provides substantial new insights into relations among the variables investigated.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-23">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-24">Notes on contributors</hd> <p> <bold> <emph>David Light Shields</emph> </bold>, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at St. Louis Community College and Coordinator of the Teacher Education Programs at the Meramec and Wildwood campuses. His academic interests focus on character education and moral development, especially in the context of sports.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Christopher D. Funk</emph> </bold> is completing his Ph.D. at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He is a specialist in research methods, data analysis, and character education.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Brenda Light Bredemeier</emph> </bold>, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Her interests are in character education and social justice.</p> <hd id="AN0126826437-25">Acknowledgment</hd> <p>The authors wish to extend appreciation to Kristin Gillette and the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) for their invaluable assistance with data collection.</p> <ref id="AN0126826437-26"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref63" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V.K.G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 123–141. doi:10.1037/a0015406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref58" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref103" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W.M. Kurtines, & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Theory, research, and applications, Vol. 1 (pp. 71–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref115" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baraldi, A.N., & Enders, C.K. (2010). An introduction to modern missing data analyses. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 5–37. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref106" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Basinger, K.S., Brugman, D., & Gibbs, J.C. (2007). Sociomoral reflection measure—Short form objective. Unpublished manuscript, Urbana University, Ohio.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref108" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beerthuizen, M.J. (2012). The impact of morality on externalizing behaviour—Values, reasoning, cognitive distortions and identity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://igi-tur-archive.library.uu.nl</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref53" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beerthuizen, M.J., & Brugman, D. (2012). Sexually abusive youths' moral reasoning on sex. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18, 125–135. doi:10.1080/13552600.2010.519126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref50" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beerthuizen, M.J., & Brugman, D. (2016). The relationship of moral value evaluation with externalizing behaviour across value areas in adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 84–98. doi:10.1080/17405629.2015.1066669</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beerthuizen, M.J., Brugman, D., & Basinger, K.S. (2013). Oppositional defiance, moral reasoning and moral value evaluation as predictors of self-reported juvenile delinquency. Journal of Moral Education, 42, 460–474. doi:10.1080/03057240.2013.803955</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1–45.10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental Review, 3, 178–210.10.1016/0273-2297(83)90029-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. Kurtines, & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 128–139). New York, NY: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blasi, A. (1990). Kohlberg's theory and moral motivation. In D. Schrader (Ed.), New directions in child development: Vol. 47. The legacy of Lawrence Kohlberg (pp. 51–57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blasi, A. (2009). The moral functioning of mature adults and the possibility of fair moral reasoning. In D. Narvaez, & D.K. Lapsley (Eds.), Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 396–440). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511627125.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blasi, A. (2013). The self and the management of the moral life. In K. Heinrichs, F. Oser, & T. Lovat (Eds.), Handbook of moral motivation: Theories, models, applications (pp. 229–248). Boston, MA: Sense.10.1007/978-94-6209-275-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blasi, A., & Oresick, R. (1987). Self-inconsistency and the development of self. In P. Young-Nisdendrafth, & J. Hall (Eds.), The book of the self: Person, pretext, and process (pp. 69–87). New York, NY: University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boom, J., Wouters, H., & Keller, M. (2007). A cross-cultural validation of stage development: A Rasch re-analysis of longitudinal socio-moral reasoning data. Cognitive Development, 22, 213–229. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.10.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brady, F.N., & Wheeler, G.E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 927–940.10.1007/BF00705573</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bredemeier, B.J. (1985). Moral reasoning and the perceived legitimacy of intentionally injurious sport acts. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 110–124.10.1123/jsp.7.2.110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bredemeier, B.J. (1994). Children's moral reasoning and their assertive, aggressive, and submissive action tendencies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 1–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bredemeier, B.J., & Shields, D.L. (1984a). Divergence in moral reasoning about sport and life. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1, 348–357.10.1123/ssj.1.4.348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bredemeier, B.J., & Shields, D.L. (1984b). The utility of moral stage analysis in the investigation of athletic aggression. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1, 138–149.10.1123/ssj.1.2.138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bredemeier, B.J., & Shields, D.L. (1986a). Athletic aggression: An issue of contextual morality. Sociology of Sport Journal, 3, 15–28.10.1123/ssj.3.1.15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bredemeier, B.J., & Shields, D.L. (1986b). Game reasoning and interactional morality. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147, 257–275.10.1080/00221325.1986.9914499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bredemeier, B.J., Weiss, M.R., Shields, D.L., & Cooper, B. (1986). The relationship of sport involvement with children's moral reasoning and aggression tendencies. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 304–318.10.1123/jsp.8.4.304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bredemeier, B.J., Weiss, M.R., Shields, D.L., & Cooper, B. (1987). The relationship between children's legitimacy judgments and their moral reasoning, aggression tendencies and sport involvement. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, 48–60.10.1123/ssj.4.1.48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Speicher, B., Hewer, A., Candee, D., Gibbs, J.C., & Power, C. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment, Vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, & P. Coleman (Eds.), Handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 21–40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enders, C.K. (2013). Dealing with missing data in developmental research. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.1200810.1111/cdep.12008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erickson, K., & Côté, J. (2016). A season-long examination of the intervention tone of coach–athlete interactions and athlete development in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 264–272. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.08.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frankena, W.K. (1973). Ethics (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Funk, C.D., Shields, D.L., & Bredemeier, B.L. (2016). Contesting orientations, self-determined motivation, and sportspersonship: Further validation of the contesting orientations scale. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 27, 66–77.10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.08.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, J.C. (1979). Kohlberg's moral stage theory: A Piagetian revision. Human Development, 22, 89–112. doi:10.1159/000272431</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, J.C. (2014). Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, J.C., Basinger, K.S., & Fuller, D. (1992). Moral maturity: Measuring the development of sociomoral reflection. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, J.C., Basinger, K.S., Grime, R.L., & Snarey, J.R. (2007). Moral judgment development across cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg's universality claims. Developmental Review, 27, 443–500. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haan, N. (1978). Two moralities in action contexts: Relationship to thought, ego regulation, and development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 286–305.10.1037/0022-3514.36.3.286</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haan, N. (1991). Moral development and action from a social constructivist perspective. In W. Kurtines, & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development, Vol.1: Theory (pp. 251–273). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haan, N., Aerts, E., & Cooper, B.B. (1985). On moral grounds: The search for a practical morality. New York, NY: New York University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon/Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haidt, J. (2013). Moral psychology for the twenty-first century. Journal of Moral Education, 42, 281–297.10.1080/03057240.2013.817327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hertz, S.G., & Krettenauer, T. (2016). Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior?: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 20, 129–140. doi:10.1037/gpr0000062</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kavussanu, M. (2007). Morality in sport. In S. Jowette, D. Lavallee, S. Jowette, & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 265–277). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kavussanu, M. (2008). Moral behaviour in sport: A critical review of the literature. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 124–138. doi:10.1080/17509840802277417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kavussanu, M., & Boardley, I.D. (2009). The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 97–117.10.1123/jsep.31.1.97</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kavussanu, M., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Elbe, A., & Ring, C. (2016). The moral disengagement in doping scale. Psychology of Sport And Exercise, 24, 188–198. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kavussanu, M., Stanger, N., & Boardley, I.D. (2013). The prosocial and antisocial behaviour in sport scale: Further evidence for construct validity and reliability. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31, 1208–1221. doi:10.1080/02640414.2013.775473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kavussanu, M., Stanger, N., & Ring, C. (2015). The effects of moral identity on moral emotion and antisocial behavior in sport. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4, 268–279. doi:10.1037/spy0000040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: Vol. 1: The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2: The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohlberg, L., & Candee, D. (1984). The relationship of moral judgment to moral action. In L. Kohlberg (Ed.), Essays on moral development: Vol. 2: The psychology of moral development (pp. 498–591). San Francisco: Harper & Row.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition (Rev ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landau, M.J., Keefer, L.A., & Meier, B.P. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1045–1067. doi:10.1037/a0020970</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lapsley, D.K. (2006). Moral stage theory. In M. Killen, & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 37–66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lapsley, D.K., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). (2004). Moral development, self, and identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rest, J.R. (1984). The major components of morality. In W. Kurtines, & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 356–629). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, S.J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 233–243. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rutten, E.A., Schuengel, C., Dirks, E., Stams, G.M., Biesta, G.J., & Hoeksma, J.B. (2011). Predictors of antisocial and prosocial behavior in an adolescent sports context. Social Development, 20, 294–315. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2010.00598.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sage, L., Kavussanu, M., & Duda, J. (2006). Goal orientations and moral identity as predictors of prosocial and antisocial functioning in male association football players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 455–466.10.1080/02640410500244531</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (1995). Character development and physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (2007). Advances in sport morality research. In G. Tenenbaum, & R.C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd ed.). (pp. 662–684). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (2008). Sport and the development of character. In L. Nucci, & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 500–519). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (2009). True competition: A guide to pursuing excellence in sport and society. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (2010). Competition: Was Kohn right? Phi Delta Kappan, 91, 62–67.10.1177/003172171009100516</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (2011). Contest, competition, and metaphor. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 38, 27–38.10.1080/00948705.2011.9714547</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D.L., Funk, C.D., & Bredemeier, B.L. (2015a). Predictors of moral disengagement in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 37, 646–658. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D.L., Funk, C.D., & Bredemeier, B.L. (2015b). Contesting orientations: Measure construction and the prediction of sportspersonship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 20, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.03.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D.L., Funk, C.D., & Bredemeier, B.L. (2016a). Testing contest theory: Conceptual metaphors and prosocial behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 27, 213–221.10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D.L., Funk, C.D., & Bredemeier, B.L. (2016b). The contesting theory of competition: Evidence from metaphor priming. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 446–466.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D.L., Funk, C.D., & Bredemeier, B.L. (2016c). The moral frameworks and foundations of contesting orientations. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38, 117–127.10.1123/jsep.2015-0139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields, D.L., Funk, C.D., & Bredemeier, B.L. (in press). Can contesting orientations predict grittier, more self-controlled athletes? Journal of Positive Psychology. doi:10.1080/17439760.2017.1350738</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephens, D.E. (2000). Predictors of likelihood to aggress in youth soccer: An examination of coed and all-girls teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 311–325.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephens, D.E., & Bredemeier, B.L. (1996). Moral atmosphere and judgments about aggression in girls' soccer: Relationships among moral and motivational variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 158–173.10.1123/jsep.18.2.158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephens, D.E., Bredemeier, B.L., & Shields, D.L. (1997). Construction of a measure designed to assess players' descriptions and prescriptions for moral behavior in youth sport soccer. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 370–390.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tarry, H., & Emler, N. (2007). Attitude, values and moral reasoning as predictors of delinquency. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 169–183. doi:10.1348/026151006X113671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turiel, E. (2014). Morality: Epistemology, development, and social opposition. In M. Killen, J.G. Smetana, M. Killen, & J.G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed.). (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turiel, E. (2015). Morality and prosocial judgments and behavior. In D.A. Schroeder, W.G. Graziano, D.A. Schroeder, W.G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 137-152). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vallerand, R.J., Deshaies, P., & Cuerrier, J. (1997). On the effects of the social context on behavioral intentions of sportsmanship. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 126–140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, L.J. (2004). Gus in the gap: Bridging the judgment-action gap in moral functioning. In D.K. Lapsley, & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development, self, and identity (pp. 1–20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehead, J., Telfer, H., & Lambert, J. (Eds.). (2013). Values in youth sport and physical education. New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By David Light Shields; Christopher D. Funk and Brenda Light Bredemeier</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref131"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1164520
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Relationships among Moral and Contesting Variables and Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shields%2C+David+Light%22">Shields, David Light</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Funk%2C+Christopher+D%2E%22">Funk, Christopher D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bredemeier%2C+Brenda+Light%22">Bredemeier, Brenda Light</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Moral+Education%22"><i>Journal of Moral Education</i></searchLink>. 2018 47(1):17-33.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prosocial+Behavior%22">Prosocial Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Antisocial+Behavior%22">Antisocial Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Athletics%22">College Athletics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intercollegiate+Cooperation%22">Intercollegiate Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Athletes%22">Athletes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Values%22">Moral Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regression+%28Statistics%29%22">Regression (Statistics)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Development%22">Moral Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03057240.2017.1350149
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0305-7240
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The current study of US intercollegiate athletes (n = 1066) involved in multiple sports investigated relationships among moral (moral reasoning maturity, moral value evaluation [MVE], and moral identity), contesting (partnership and war orientations) and behavioral (prosocial and antisocial) variables in sport. Among other relationships, results demonstrated that prosocial behavior was positively correlated with moral reasoning maturity, higher appreciation of moral values, moral identity and a partnership contesting orientation. In contrast, antisocial behavior was negative correlated with moral reasoning maturity, MVE, moral identity and a partnership orientation. In addition, antisocial behavior was positively correlated with a war contesting orientation. Regression analyses demonstrated that prosocial behavior was best predicted by the partnership contesting orientation and moral identity; antisocial behavior was best predicted by the war orientation followed closely by moral identity. Results are discussed in relation to Kohlbergian moral theory and contesting theory.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 86
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1164520
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1164520
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03057240.2017.1350149
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 17
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Prosocial Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Antisocial Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Athletics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intercollegiate Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Athletes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moral Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regression (Statistics)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moral Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Relationships among Moral and Contesting Variables and Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shields, David Light
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Funk, Christopher D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bredemeier, Brenda Light
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0305-7240
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 47
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Moral Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1