As club sports become more prominent at the university and youth sport levels, it is important to investigate their effects on students’ moral reasoning as this may further support the existence of these programs as going beyond simply building sport skills. Even though there have been numerous studies suggesting that individuals’ moral reasoning differs between sport and everyday contexts, it is still not understood if influences on moral reasoning in sport are associated with different levels of moral reasoning in everyday life. This study sought to determine if athlete moral decisions in parallel moral dilemmas were treated the same in their outcome decision making. The results of this study suggest that as club sport athletes progress through their time in school, their moral reasoning in sport progresses to a higher level and becomes more similar to their moral reasoning in daily life situations. This contradicts previous studies in collegiate varsity athletics that have suggested that athletes’ moral reasoning in sport situations decreases as they get older.
Introduction
American universities were originally established with some form of moral education as a main objective; today most of these universities’ missions still include some aspect of developing moral reasoning for their students (Chickering, 2010; Ehrlich, 2000; Hughes & McCabe, 2006). Moral reasoning is generally thought of as a form or practical reasoning with embedded elements of morality as the guiding principles that take an individual toward a particular decision over another based on what they value as right and wrong, good or bad or morally acceptable or unacceptable. It involves the ability to think critically and reflect, to consider a variety of moral principles and values commonly accepted within that context and then weight the specific consequences of those actions. Various aspects are often taken into account such as whether harm might be done by such an action or behavior, the perception of being right or wrong both in the eyes of the individual and from those around him or her and if there is a justification for such a judgment or decision. In essence, one must answer the question of “what should we do morally speaking” with regard to a particular situation or dilemma. Moral reasoning often seeks to apply logical thought patterns to moral values or theories such as utilitarianism but are often contextually specific. In many instances, moral reasoning can also be influenced by those around them, how fatigued an individual might be or what pressures the individual may be under to decide (Timmons & Byrne, 2019).
Lawrence Kohlberg, regarded as the most influential researcher in the field of moral development, expanded on Piaget’s theory on cognitive moral development in children (Kohlberg, 1984; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Kohlberg suggested that although an individual’s behavior may be observed as inconsistent, motives were often consistent (Bredemeier & Shields, 2006). Therefore, to truly understand morality, the standards each individual uses in judging intentions and behavior, and the rules by which he/she tries to conduct his/her life (Taylor, 1967), an individual’s motives must be understood. Thus, he was more interested in why the individual chose the action than the action that the individual chose (Bredemeier & Shields, 2006). Just because the action an individual takes may seem to be moral, does not mean that the motivation behind the action was moral.
Related to an individual’s motives, Kohlberg, through the findings of his interviews, suggested that individuals pass through an organized system of hierarchical modes of thinking (Rich & DeVitis, 1985). He suggested that there are six developmental stages within three levels of morality: the pre-conventional level, the conventional level, and the post-conventional level (Kohlberg, 1984). Kohlberg (1976) explains that the three levels of morality can be seen as three different relationships between self and society’s rules and expectations. At the pre-conventional level, an individual relates society’s rules and expectations as external to self. At the conventional level, the individual identifies with or internalizes the rules and expectations of society. Finally, at the post-conventional level, the individual distinguishes their values from other’s rules and expectations and his morality is defined by self-chosen values. Each level contains two stages, the higher level is more advanced and organized within each stage (Kohlberg, 1976). More recently, the Neo-Kohlbergian approach expands upon Kohlberg’s earlier work to emphasize the role that cognitive processes such as schemas play in shaping moral reasoning. The suggestion is that perhaps the stages should be considered soft stages as an individual gradually develops in their morality rather than makes these more rigid transitions from one stage to the next (Choi et.al, 2020). It is these schemas that interact and influence one another in a dynamic way as one progresses through these soft stages of moral reasoning while developing, through a variety of trial-and-error experiences, more complex moral schemas over time.
Recently there has been a paucity of research regarding the moral judgment aspect of moral development in sport; however, taking its place per chance are the elements of moral action or behavior (Shields, Funk, & Bredemeier (2018). The separation of these aspects in moral reasoning originated from James Rest’s (1979) assertion that there are many processes that an individual goes through from first recognition of, to the execution of an action in a moral dilemma (Rest, 1979). Rest, building upon Kohlberg’s theory, developed a four-component model of morality (Weiss & Smith, 2008). The four component model answers what an individual goes through, psychologically, for moral behavior to occur (Rest 1994). Rest (1994) set forth that morality is multi-faceted, Kohlberg only focused on the facet of moral judgment. Rest’s model assumes that responding to moral dilemmas is the result of all four processes (Thoma, 2006). These processes interacting and operating together are as follows: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character (Rest, 1994). Responding morally to a dilemma requires proficiency in all four processes, deficiency in any can produce failure in the ability of the individual to behave morally (Rest, 1984).
The first component, moral sensitivity, pertains to the ability of the individual to interpret the situation. The second component, moral judgment, is related to determining which course of action is morally right or wrong. Moral motivation, the next component, involves prioritizing and choosing which action to take. The last component, moral character, takes into account the individuals follow through of completing the action. The components are interactive with each component influencing the others (Rest, 1984).
As the shift in literature has been to focus on moral action over moral judgment. Researchers maintain that moral judgment is important as it influences behavior; however, attention shifted to understanding moral action since behavior directly affects others (Kavussanu, 2008). Kavussanu (2008) explained this shift with the example “injuring another player has direct consequences for the player. In contrast, judging the injurious act as legitimate or intending to injure a player have no direct consequences for a person” (p. 124). However, given all this, it is important to recognize that there is a substantial distinction between what an individual believes they should do versus what they then end up doing by action. Moral reasoning, therefore, may not lead to moral behavior or for others to conclude that someone is a moral person. Therefore, it is in this relationship between moral reasoning and the moral person that we might see how one understands and evaluates moral dilemmas, assesses complex issues based in morality and seeks to understand and make decisions about ethical conflicts through their actions. However, it would be unfair to suggest that just because someone reasons to a decision deemed to be moral, that they, in fact, are a morally good person. Rather, in that situation and perhaps under those pressures in that circumstance, they made a morally good decision.
In this light, it would be interesting to understand what nurtures moral reasoning as a function of decisions and behaviors in sport situations and seek to understand if there are any differences in daily life moral reasoning. With the premise that sport is a world in and of itself (Huizinga, 1955), Bredemeier and Shields (1984) compared athlete’s moral reasoning responses in hypothetical sport dilemmas to their moral reasoning responses in hypothetical everyday life dilemmas. Their research suggested that some athletes, dependent on age and sport, elicited lower levels of moral reasoning in sport compared to everyday life contexts. Further research has supported this suggesting that athletes use separate moral systems in sport compared to daily life contexts (Adler & Adler, 1991; Bredemeier & Shields, 1984, 1986b, 2001; Bredemeier et al.,1986; Kavussanu et al., 2013, Ring et al., 2019).
Stoll & Beller (1992) suggest that athletes’ reason from a perspective of what is important today, what makes me feel good, or what someone may tell is right and wrong. Even though there have been numerous studies suggesting that individuals’ moral reasoning differs between sport and everyday contexts, it is still not understood if influences on moral reasoning in sport are associated with different levels of moral reasoning in everyday life. Can moral reasoning learned in a sport context transfer to daily life contexts? Do athletes that have higher moral reasoning in sport contexts also have higher moral reasoning in daily life contexts compared to other athletes? Does higher moral reasoning in hypothetical moral dilemma sport contexts correspond to higher moral reasoning in similar hypothetical moral dilemma daily life situations? Therefore, this study aims to discover if there are differences of an individual’s moral reasoning within club sport and similar daily life contexts.
Sport and Moral Education. Sport has the capability to play a part in the moral education of an individual. Many aspects of sport can help in the encouragement of values such as fair play, cooperation, selflessness, and appreciation for others (Eitzen, 2016). Concurrently, sport provides many decision-provoking situations requiring the participant to decide how they will react (Arnold, 1968; Beller & Stoll, 2004; Weiss & Bredemeier, 1990).
As sport is different from everyday life, game reasoning, or bracketed morality (Bredemeier & Shields, 1994; Bredemeier & Shields, 2001; Kavussanu et al., 2013) suggests that an athlete’s moral reasoning is affected by the social environment within sport. Participants’ decisions may be affected by the contextual differences in space, time, rules, and symbols between sport and everyday life. For example, sport being a competitive environment requires athletes to seek advantages over opponents. The existence of rules also provides external regulation to aid in a fair competitive environment. Athletes often rely on coaches and officials to enforce these rules and therefore, moral responsibility is often delegated to them.
To react ethically, the participant should not only know the rules, but also have an appreciation of the ethical principles on which these rules are based (Beller & Stoll, 2004). Since authority figures, e.g., referees, are responsible for maintaining the rules, athletes can abandon moral responsibility inherent to sport participation (Camiré & Trudel, 2010). To embrace a developmental perspective, an individual must understand that morally positive outcomes of sport participation do not emerge involuntarily but must be nurtured (Weiss et al., 2008). Therefore, the individuals involved must have the opportunity to understand and appreciate the ethical principles for the basis of the rules, rather than simply transferring responsibility to coaches or officials without any thought or respect to these decisions (Booth, 1982; Jantz, 1975; Piaget, 1932).
HBVCI. The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI) is the most widely used tool to measure moral reasoning in sport specific situations. The HBVCI was created on the assumption that sport builds character. It measures how respondents morally reason in a sport context according to the principles of honesty, responsibility, and justice (Beller & Stoll, 2004). The HBVCI has become a useful tool in measuring an individual’s moral reasoning within sport situations, but there has not been a consistent equivalent “out of sporting context” measurement tool utilized within the literature.
The HBVCI is comprised of 16 sport scenarios, scored on a 5-point Likert scale (SA-strongly agree to SD- strongly disagree), that focus on ethical issues ranging from rule violations to unsportsmanlike behavior (Priest et al., 1999). Many of the scenarios ask the respondent choose between following good sportsmanship or a decision more advantageous to winning (Priest et al., 1999). For example, one item from the HBVCI reads,
During a volleyball game, player A hit the ball over the net. The ball barely grazed off of player B’s fingers and landed out of bounds. However, the referee did not see player B touch the ball. Because the referee is responsible for calling rule violations, player B is not obligated to report the violation.
A respondent who selected “strongly agree” would be viewed as an individual who believes in not directing individual responsibility onto others. Related to deontological moral theory, the individual is abandoning a personal moral duty of being just and honest (University of Idaho Center of ETHICS*, 2009).
Morals Transcending the Sporting Context. As noted above, sport has been described as being disconnected from everyday life. With this disconnect, it is important to understand if and how different morals and values learned in the sporting context transcend to an individual’s everyday life. There has been some previous research investigating the diffusion of moral reasoning, related to the specific setting of sport, to other areas of an athlete’s life (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986a, 2001; Kavussanu et al., 2013; Rutten et al., 2008). As athletes make increasing commitment to personal identities based on their sport that are reinforced by coaches, students, alumni and teammates, this in-sport role becomes increasingly separate from other roles in an individual’s life that might take place out of sport. This “role engulfment” may limit the ability for an athlete to carry over values into other aspects into everyday life (Adler & Adler, 1991). Since the context of athletics is different and kept separate from everyday life, Adler and Adler (1991) suggested that the character an individual learns while in their role as a basketball player will not carry into other roles they may take on outside of a basketball context. This discrepancy between everyday life and college athletics must be taken into account when using sport as a vehicle for promoting moral development. When utilizing sport for this purpose, it is important that the athlete is able to transfer the positive values and character learned in sport to other areas of life (Coakley, 2015).
Interestingly, additional research has suggested that athletes tend to have a higher level of moral reasoning in everyday situations than they do in a sporting context (Allison, 1982; Bredemeier & Shields, 1984, 1986b, 2001; Bredemeier et al., 1986; Kleiber & Roberts, 1981). However, the majority of this research has pertained to NCAA Division I sport participation. These studies further suggested that this might be due to certain aspects of the sport setting that make high-level moral response improbable. These include: moral responsibility is controlled by referees, the dialogue is minimal among competing parties, moral exchange is inhibited by conservative structures, and competition is based on participant gain. This coincides with differing effects on moral development in different sport settings. For example, democratic leadership within sport, which gives athletes more responsibility and a sense of ownership, is suggested to positively affect moral development (Bredemeier & Shields, 2006). This style of leadership is more commonly found in collegiate club sport compared to collegiate varsity sport. Thus, this presents a need for further research of recreational sport within the university.
Even with some previous research suggesting promotion of anti-social behavior in sport, the capacity for sport to develop moral socially oriented behaviors in its participants cannot be ignored (Arnold, 1968). Components of sport are not themselves moral or immoral, instead it is the social interactions within the sport experience that influence character (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Participants use morality to evaluate sport behavior with fairness, freedom, and equity at the very foundation of sport (Arnold, 1984; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). But sport has also been defined as being set apart from everyday life and disconnected from or uninfluenced by broader society (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995).
Consequently, as the recreational sport culture continues to be prominent at the university level, it is important to investigate the effects that these recreational sports can have on students’ moral development and reasoning based on their participant-focused organizational structure. Exploring the outcomes of participation will help to support the existence of recreational sport programs at the university level as well as provide administrators with beneficial information on ways to provide optimal programming for students (Arthur-Banning, 2018). This sort of research can lead to a better understanding of the conditions under which certain values do or do not develop. There are numerous factors in the sport setting that influence an individual’s moral development. Shields and Bredemeier’s (1995) comment on the effect of sport atmosphere:
the quality of the sport experience is what matters. The quality of the sport experience derives from the quality of the leadership, the structural qualities of the sport itself, the social milieu in which it occurs and the characteristics of the participants, to name only the most salient factors. (p. 221)
In other words, influences from sport do not come from the sport itself but from the total sport experience, including a combination of social interactions and physical activities (Trulson, 1986) with the understanding that greater autonomy and responsibility in club sports often results in more opportunity for moral decision making.
Similarly, in seeking to identify which characteristics of the participants, the interactions or the activities that may play a role, it is important to understand how gender and sport type may matter in moral reasoning. With regard to gender, it has been widely accepted that that men and women tend to utilize different frameworks for moral reasoning with caring at the forefront of their decisions for women whereas men often utilize justice-based influences as the basis of their reasoning (Elm et al., 2001). Likewise, in understanding the impact that particular sport participation may play in the moral reasoning of athletes, Bredemeier and Shields (1984b) determined that athletes who often were involved in more aggressive sport settings or had the opportunity to display more aggressive behaviors often had lower moral reasoning in the sport settings that those that were not involved in aggressive sport (Bredemeier and Shields (1984b).
Hypotheses. As this project is exploratory in nature, the purpose is to ascertain if the level of a club sport athlete’s moral reasoning in hypothetical moral dilemmas in sport contexts correspond to their moral reasoning in similar hypothetical daily life moral dilemmas (DLMD). Therefore, based upon literature regarding moral development theory, as well as previous studies related to sports and moral development, this study proposes the following hypotheses in the null form:
There will be no significant differences in moral reasoning, as measured by the DLMD scale, the HBVCI, and the DLMD-HBVCI difference between genders.
There will be no significant differences in moral reasoning, as measured by the DLMD scale, the HBVCI, and the DLMD-HBVCI difference, dependent on year in school.
There will be no significant differences in moral reasoning, as measured by the DLMD scale, the HBVCI, and the DLMD-HBVCI difference, dependent on type of sport (contact vs. non-contact).
There will be no significant differences in moral reasoning, as measured by the DLMD scale, the HBVCI, and the DLMD-HBVCI difference between all athletes.
There will be no significant differences between daily life moral reasoning, as measured by the DLMD and sport specific moral reasoning, as measured by the HBVCI, and the DLMD-HBVCI difference, dependent on the variables of year in school, gender, and sport.
Methods
Participants and Setting. Due to the exploratory nature of this project, responses from a small sample of club sport athletes was utilized. Data were collected at a large NCAA Division I-A southeastern university who generally has a make-up of 65% in-state students and 35% out of state students. The University’s Department of Recreation, with the interest in promoting participation in a wide variety of activities, provides 34 club sports for students. Since an individual’s social environment impacts their moral reasoning and development, the morals and values specific to a university’s environment may have an impact on student moral reasoning and development. These morals and values can vary greatly from one university to the next. To eliminate the effect of this variable on participants’ moral reasoning scores, it was of interest for the researcher to utilize only one university in this study. The sample selected for this study was a convenience sample of club athletes at a D-I southeastern university aged 18-23.
Survey instrument. To compare athletes’ moral reasoning in sporting contexts to their moral reasoning in daily life contexts, two scales were used in this study, the HBVCI and the DLMD scale. The HBVCI was designed to measure moral reasoning within a sporting context (Beller & Stoll, 1992; Beller et al., 1996). The scale, reading at a ninth grade level, has established reliability over the past 20 years yielding internal consistency scores with Cronbach alphas between .74 and .88 (University of Idaho Center of ETHICS*, 2009). The HBVCI has a total of 16 questions scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Twelve of the questions are based upon three of the universal deontic codes of conduct: honesty, responsibility, and justice. The remaining four are consistency checks. The range of scores on the HBVCI is 12-60. An egocentric processing of moral dilemmas is indicated by scores in the higher range. Whereas the midpoint of the scale, 36, represents the moderate use of deontological principles when settling ethical issues in sport by an individual.
DLMD Scale. The DLMD scale was developed to mirror the HBVCI. This was done by creating a series of daily life scenarios that were also based on the constructs of honesty, responsibility and justice, to best mirror the HBVCI scale. Each of the scenarios in the DLMD scale were constructed to emulate the corresponding HBVCI sport-specific scenario into a daily life context. To further match both scales, each of the HBVCI scenarios were broken down into three components: value, intensity and central character. The example below demonstrates how the two scales were matched together:
HBVCI: During an intramural basketball game, a student official awarded one free throw shot instead of two to team A. Team B knew the call was wrong, however chose to remain silent, knowing the call was to their advantage. Because the official’s job is to make the proper calls, and it is not a formal game, team B’s action was acceptable.
Value: Honesty
Intensity: Nonformal game, one point: low
Central character(s): Student official and student intramural athletes, peers Corresponding DLMD: After checking out at his local grocery store, a man notices that he was mistakenly given an extra $5 in change. Because it is the cashier’s job to make correct change, the man is not obligated to correct the cashier.
The DLMD scale development process was based on Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988), Churchill’s (1979), and Gerbing and Anderson’s (1988) guidelines which includes confirmatory factor analysis and subsequent steps. The scale was developed through the proceeding steps: 1) Specify domain of construct, 2) Generate sample items, 3) Data collection and survey purification, 4) Assess reliability and validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Churchill, 1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). Since the DLMD scale was modeled after the HBVCI, the measurement of the scales is equivalent. The pilot study of the construction of the DLMD, ranging in scores of 12-60, indicated a Cronbach’s α = 0.796. Bland and Altman, (1997) suggest that for comparison of groups not in clinical settings, values of 0.70 to 0.80 are regarded as acceptable values. Based on the exploratory nature of this research, we maintained that this was an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha value to move forward with data collection of the two instruments.
Data Collection. The researcher obtained club sport presidents’ emails from the assistant director of club sports. The researcher sent an email to the presidents requesting their assistance in the study. Utilizing the Dillman (2000) tailored design method, presidents who agreed to assist in the study sent emails provided by the researcher to their athletes requesting their participation in an online survey. To increase participant response rate, a total of three e-mails were sent to the participants asking for their participation in the study (Dillman et al., 2014). The first e-mail alerted participants to look for the survey in 7 days. The second e-mail was sent 7 days later and included a link to the online survey. The third e-mail was sent seven days later to remind students again to take the online survey. This time frame allowed the data collection to be open for two weeks.
Data were collected online via the Qualtrics survey platform. Participants were emailed a link to the survey, which included the DLMD scale, the HBVCI, and a demographic questionnaire including age, gender, sport, year in school, and team membership along with a cover letter expressing the purpose of the research, listing the instructions, and guaranteeing the confidentiality of the survey. The HBVCI was included with permission from the Center for ETHICS* at the University of Idaho. Email contact to the researcher was provided to answer any questions that arose.
Results
Of the 34 club presidents that were emailed, 9 agreed to participate. The sample included 52 responses. Demographics were reported as follows: gender: 16 male, 36 female; year in school: 17 freshmen, 13 sophomores, 8 juniors, 14 seniors; 23 contact sport athletes, 29 non-contact sport athletes.
Descriptive statistics were generated for moral reasoning score totals for the DLMD and HBVCI as well as the DLMD-HBVCI difference score. The scales’ mean scores are presented in the Table 1. To test Hypotheses 1-3 t tests were used to determine whether scores on the DLMD scale, the HBVCI, and the DLMD-HBVCI difference differed dependent on gender (see Table 2), year in school (see Table 3), and type of sport (see Table 4). To account for the low response rate, year in school was condensed to two categories, (1) freshmen and sophomores, (2) juniors and seniors. The only significant difference observed among Hypotheses 1-3 was related to hypothesis 2: There will be no significant differences in moral reasoning, as measured by DLMD scale and the HBVCI dependent on year in school. There was a significant difference observed (p < .01) on HBVCI scores between years in school. On average, freshmen and sophomores’ HBVCI scores were 8 points lower than juniors and seniors’ HBVCI scores. There was also a significant difference observed (p < .05) on difference scores between years in school. On average freshmen and sophomores’ difference scores were 6 points greater than juniors and seniors’ difference scores.
To test Hypothesis 4: There will be no significant differences in moral reasoning, as measured by the DLMD scale and the HBVCI between all athletes, scores from the HBVCI were compared with scores form the DLMD scale using a paired t test. There was a significant difference (p < .01) between scores on the HBVCI and scores on the DLMD scale. All athletes on average scored higher on the DLMD scale compared to the HBVCI indicating that they have a lower level of moral reasoning in sporting contexts. The mean difference between the two scales was 5.06 with a standard deviation of 8.06.
To Test Hypothesis 5: There will be no significant differences between daily life moral reasoning, as measured by the DLMD and sport specific moral reasoning, as measured by the HBVCI, dependent on the variables of year in school, gender, and type of sport, a multiple regression was run to predict or determine the relationship between the difference scores and the dependent variables (see Table 5). The only significant difference observed is between years in school (p < .05). Holding the other variables constant (gender, type of sport) the predicted difference in moral reasoning scores between the two scales among freshmen and sophomores is on average 5 points greater than the difference scores among juniors and seniors. Juniors and seniors scored higher on both scales as compared to freshmen and sophomores.
Discussion
This study compares club sport athletes’ moral reasoning in sport contexts to their moral reasoning in daily life situations on two scales designed to parallel one another. Generally, club sport athlete’s moral reasoning in sporting contexts were lower than their moral reasoning in daily life contexts. Specifically, when comparing athletes’ moral reasoning in sport, the only variable that was suggested to affect their score was year in school. The later the athlete is in school, the higher the athlete scored on the HBVCI. On average freshmen and sophomores’ HBVCI scores were 8 points lower than juniors and seniors’ HBVCI scores. Lower scores imply a lower level of moral reasoning in freshman and sophomores compared to juniors and seniors. There was also a significant difference observed (p < .05) on difference scores between years in school. Difference scores are the difference between an individual’s score on the HBVCI to the DLMD. On average freshmen and sophomores’ difference scores were 6 points greater than juniors and seniors’ difference scores. Therefore, juniors and seniors moral reasoning in sporting contexts was more similar to their reasoning outside sporting contexts when compared to freshmen and sophomores. This difference was also observed when holding the other variables constant (gender, type of sport). The predicted difference in moral reasoning scores among freshmen and sophomores is 5 points greater than juniors and seniors (p < .05). These findings appear to contradict previous findings that the longer one participates in sports, the lower their moral reasoning in sport (e.g., Allison, 1982; Beller & Stoll, 1992; Bredemeier et al., 1986; Priest et al., 1999). This could be due to the changing era of modern sport. With previous research pushing for the importance of moral development in sport, some sport administrators have begun to focus on programs and policies to improve the moral development of athletes through sport (Pennington, 2017). But, this could also be that those in sport longer have developed a greater ability to determine the accepted moral principles and values within that context, critically reflect and be able to determine the consequences because they have developed more complex moral schemas over time given their experience in the sport.
This could also be somewhat consistent with a number of studies which suggest that academic achievement and moral reasoning are in fact linked, making a case that one who is in school longer should have greater academic achievement and thus have further developed their moral reasoning in the process (O’Flaherty & Gleeson, 2014, 2017). However, it is possible that many of these decisions are made in context and according to who is around them as the social perception can be deemed important. Prosocial moral reasoning or making decision that might be made to gain acceptance or approval from others may differ in sport and nonsport situations and therefor could lead to decisions that administrators are sending messages about in their programs (Gulseven & Carlo, 2021).
Since most studies have focused on collegiate varsity athletics, the findings in this study that the later an athlete is in school the more similar their moral reasoning in the two different contexts suggests that perhaps policies and programs in club sport, while allowing for high-level competitiveness, may have a different effect on an individual than varsity sports. This theory needs further inquiry as the sample in this study consisted of only club sports athletes. Other college student populations need to be studied to take into account other areas within the university, for example other extracurricular activities that may develop a student’s moral reasoning within sport settings.
The difference found in this study compared to previous studies may be related to the structure of club sports. Club teams allow for members to have more responsibility than individuals involved in varsity sport (Noto, 2000). The less structured atmosphere of club sport may provide different outcomes for their participants (Jackovic, 1999). For example, because members are more involved in the team decision-making process, club sport forces students to take ownership in the outcomes of the process. Members can take on different roles within the team including president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer; those not included in the board can still have their say in the running of the program by attending team meetings. This would also support why first- and second-year students exhibited lower moral reasoning scores; in the club sport setting, they may not have had the opportunity to take on increased leadership roles and thus have had fewer opportunities to develop their moral reasoning or understand that a particular decision, based on their previous experiences, elicit a less than desirable outcome for the induvial or team.
Bredemeier and Shields (2006) suggest, to positively affect moral development, a democratic leadership style should be utilized in sport to maximize social and moral growth and allow members to develop a sense of ownership. The effect democratic settings have on moral reasoning has been evident in studies in the classroom (Feldman, 2001). Longitudinal studies have shown that education plays a significant role in the development of moral reasoning (Brownlee et al., 2019; Lind, 2002). Further research suggests that different moral environments, including educational settings, can have an influence on moral reasoning development (Higgins et al., 1984; Kohlberg, 1976). Higgins et al. (1984) found that the moral reasoning of individuals in a democratic education setting were higher than individuals in a traditionally governed educational setting. They attribute this difference to the democratic schools’ ability to put socio-moral decision-making into the hands of students. In transitioning this thought to sport, collegiate club sport gives participants greater responsibility when compared to collegiate varsity sport due to shifting from administrator control over decisions to a more democratic setting. This greater responsibility allows the athletes to better understand and appreciate the ethical principles behind the rules rather than simply transferring responsibility to coaches or officials without any thought or respect to their decisions (Booth, 1982; Jantz, 1975; Piaget, 1932). With sport requiring the participant to decide how they will react to each situation, and with greater responsibility put on the athlete to make those decisions, morally positive outcomes of participation are nurtured (Arnold, 1968; Beller & Stoll, 2004; Weiss & Bredemeier, 1990; Weiss et al., 2008), which it appears also can be supported by the findings of this study. This is also related to previous findings of Higgins et al. (1984) that the moral reasoning of individuals in a democratic education setting were higher than individuals in a traditionally governed educational setting. Democratic schools, as do club sports, put greater decision making in the hands of students.
With greater decision making put into the hands of athletes, the notion of game reasoning (Bredemeier & Shields, 1994) may also be affected. Since greater ownership falls on the club athletes compared to varsity athletes, the social environment within club sport may be more similar to their everyday lives. Bredemeier and Shields (1994), suggested that since a varsity athlete’s social environment is different in sport (i.e. competitiveness, external regulation), their moral reasoning will be different. If social environments are similar among contexts then game reasoning will affect an athlete’s moral reasoning less. In essence, while the moral reasoning of a senior athlete for example was demonstrated to be more developed through their education and experience in the sporting environments and with likely leadership roles of the club sport environment and values, their interactions then tend to be guided by those more developed and experienced values (Weber, 1993).
The findings of this study also suggest that club athletes may be able to carry values that they have learned in sport into aspects of everyday life. This is due to older club sport athletes reporting less differences in their moral reasoning scores between in- and out-of-sport contexts moral reasoning. Alder and Alder (1991) suggested that due to “role engulfment,” the ability to transfer behaviors learned in sport to everyday life may be limited. Therefore, commitment to athlete identities that are reinforced by coaches, students, alumni and teammates, may not be as prominent in club sport as they are in varsity sport, where many of the moral behavior studies have been done. This provides further explanation as to why lessons and values learned in club sport may transfer over to everyday life differentially from varsity sport.
As with previous studies (eg. Beller, 1990; Culpepper & Killion, 2016; Hahm, 1989), there was significant difference (p < .01) between moral reasoning on the HBVCI and moral reasoning outside of sport as demonstrated by the DLMD in this study. The mean difference between the two scales was 5.06 with a standard deviation of 8.06. As the DLMD is a relatively new scale, this finding aids in future use and validation of the scale. The majority of studies comparing the HBVCI to situations outside of sport have utilized the Defining Issues Test (DIT). This study utilized the DLMD instead of the DIT with the interest of comparing scenarios within the sporting context with similar common everyday life scenarios. Whereas the DIT utilizes scenarios that are not common to everyday situations. For example, one of the dilemmas involves whether or not a doctor should give an overdose of a pain-killer to a suffering, weak patient. Therefore, using disparate scenarios, researchers have not been able to compare similar scenarios on and off the field to evaluate individual’s responses which the DLMD has sought to do in its development.
Limitations and Future Research. There were several inherent limitations in this study. The main limitation was the small sample size and inability to accurately calculate the response rate. Due to privacy restrictions, the researcher was only able to obtain the club sports presidents’ email addresses. Since the researcher did not have access to the club sports participants’ emails individually, distribution was dependent on the club presidents. Therefore, the researcher, does not know how many participants were contacted, and if the presidents followed the Dillman’s tailored design method (TDM) as it was presented to them, sending out all three of the emails. In future studies, it would be beneficial if the researcher was able to have access to the club sports participants’ emails directly. With direct communication, the researcher could verify that the tailored design method was carried out, as well as being able to calculate the response rate.
With a larger sample size there would be a possibility to further explore the reasoning behind the differences in this study as opposed to previous studies. One such difference is that each sport was only separated into contact versus non-contact sport. There is a subcategory of contact sports termed collision sports. Tucker and Parks (2001) suggested that collision sport accept more aggressive behaviors than other contact or non-contact sports. Future studies with more respondents should divide sports into the three different categories to delineate if there is a difference among the three.
The divergence in findings on gender could also be further investigated with a larger sample. It would also be of interest to compare genders among traditionally male versus female sports. As opportunities have grown for women to participate in traditionally masculine sports, this may affect their acceptance of the aggression culturally seen in “masculine” sports (Marasescu, 2014), and in turn having an effect on their moral reasoning.
This study utilized the assumption that students started playing in their respective club sport as freshmen. To rule out the effect the total university experience has on moral reasoning over time, there are many variables that would be important to take into account in future studies. Further research should ask number of years each student athlete has participated in their club sport to aid in ruling out the influence of the effect each year of being a student at the university has on their moral reasoning. It would also be beneficial to compare these findings to a sample within the same university that do not compete in club sports, to rule out the effects of the total university experience which would seek to further highlight the benefits of sport participation rather than on the possible influence that educational settings may or may not place on moral reasoning development.
Conclusion. The data of this study suggest that as club sport athletes progress through their time in school, their moral reasoning progresses to a higher level. As time in school and moral reasoning in sport progresses to a higher level, the data also suggest that it becomes more similar to their moral reasoning in daily life situations. This contradicts previous studies that have suggested that athletes’ moral reasoning in sport situations decreases as they get older. With the limited amount of research in club sports and the introduction of a new scale, it is important to continue research to understand if it is the nature of club sports, the introduction of a scale that better relates to everyday situations than previous scales, or a combination of both that supports these findings.
Although schools cannot force students to participate in practices that encourage certain behaviors, they can create environments that are designed to nurture positive moral behavior (Kuh, 1995). As club sports become more prominent at the university level, it is important to investigate the effects that these recreational sports can have on students’ moral development and reasoning. Exploring the outcomes of participation will help to support the existence of recreational sport programs at the university level as well as provide administrators with beneficial information on ways to provide optimal programming for students (Barcelona, 2002). This sort of research can lead to a better understanding of the conditions under which certain values do or do not develop.
IRB Statement and Incentives: IRB approval was received for this study, all participants completed an informed consent prior to taking the survey and no incentives were offered to the participants in order to complete the survey information.
