Predictors of Purpose and Integrity Among Intercollegiate Athletes

Contesting theory focuses on the way contestants think about the competitive process, the relationships within it, and the contest’s normative structures. The theory is rooted in research into the cognitive function of conceptual metaphors (Lakoff, 2014; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999; Landau, Keefer, & Meier, 2010). In their pioneering work, Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) maintained that conceptual metaphors are essential to the mental processing of abstract concepts and experiences. A conceptual metaphor, which typically operates below awareness, functions by creating a mental mapping between elements of a target domain and analogous elements of a source domain. The resulting concept map promotes particular ways of perceiving the abstract concept. And almost all abstract concepts can be interpreted through multiple conceptual metaphors, each highlighting some features of the concept or experience while hiding other features that are less congruent with the metaphor.

What does it mean to compete? The meaning, purpose, goals, function, and norms of a contest become mentally accessible only as viewed through metaphorical scaffolding built from previous concrete life experiences (Shields & Bredemeier, 2011a). Shields and Bredemeier (2009, 2011a) have suggested that people—building on early experiences of cooperative play and antagonistic “battles”— develop two foundational conceptual metaphors for contesting: contest-is-partnership and contest-is-war (or battle). Typically, these conceptual metaphors, like most other conceptual metaphors, operate outside consciousness and yet significantly structure perceptual and interpretational processes that, in turn, influence ways of relating and behaving. Although it is likely that athletes have access to and utilize both conceptual metaphors, only one can be cognitively active at a time. For example, an athlete may predominantly think in a manner structured by the partnership metaphor, but if confronted with a particularly aggressive opponent may shift into thinking through the war metaphor. Although athletes may shift back-and-forth between metaphors even within a single contest, research suggests that people have dispositional preferences between the metaphors (Funk, Shields, & Bredemeier, 2016; Shields, Funk, & Bredemeier, 2015a, 2016a). A person’s relative preference for activating the different metaphors is referred to as their contesting orientation (Shields et al., 2015a).

When utilizing the contest-is-partnership conceptual metaphor (hereafter abbreviated partnership), contests are mentally construed in a largely collaborative light. Although participants who unconsciously frame the contest as a partnership certainly want to win, the process of striving to win is ultimately viewed as more important than winning itself. Such participants seek within the contest’s inherent oppositional tension opportunities to promote mutual enjoyment and performance excellence. In contrast, when employing a contest-is-war conceptual metaphor (hereafter abbreviated war), contests are interpreted in a more all-encompassing antagonistic light and the goal is largely reduced to designating a winner or winners who often receive tangible, symbolic, or psychological rewards. Opponents are metaphorically rendered into enemies (Shields & Bredemeier, 2011a).

A person’s contesting orientation has important implications for character-related dispositions and behavior. Within the sport context, the partnership orientation has been found to be a significant positive predictor of several dimensions of sportspersonship, whereas the war orientation negatively predicts aspects of it (Funk, Shields, & Bredemeier, 2016; Shields, Funk, & Bredemeier, 2015a, 2016b). Similarly, the partnership orientation predicts prosocial, and the war orientation antisocial, behavior toward teammates and opponents (Shields, Funk, & Bredemeier, 2018b). Within sport, the war orientation also predicts higher levels, and partnership lower levels, of moral disengagement (Shields, Funk, & Bredemeier, 2015b). Beyond sport-tethered variables, the partnership orientation is associated with higher levels of empathy (Shields et al., 2015b), more advanced moral reasoning (Shields, Funk, & Bredemeier, 2018b), higher moral identity (Shields et al., 2015b, 2018b), and greater moral attentiveness (Shields et al., 2015b). Conversely, the war orientation is negatively associated with empathy (Shields et al., 2015b), as well as moral identity and moral reasoning maturity (Shields et al., 2018b).

Finally, Shields & Funk (2019) found that the partnership orientation was a positive predictor, and the war orientation a negative predictor, of purposefulness among intercollegiate athletes. The construct of purpose has become of increasing interest to character educators in recent years, and we turn now to a greater explication of that literature and how it relates to contesting theory.

Victor Frankl (1959) suggested that the need to find meaning or purpose in life is the most powerful human motivation, and research over the past couple decades has supported the importance of purpose to mental and physical health and well-being. Purposefulness has been shown to relate, for example, to self-esteem (Bigler, Neimeyer, & Brown, 2001), resiliency (Benard, 1991), coping (Whitty, 2003), happiness (French & Joseph, 1999), life satisfaction (Bronk, Hill, Lapsley, Talib, & Finch, 2009), and overall well-being, thriving or flourishing (Benson, 2006; Bronk, 2012; Ryff & Singer, 2008; Seligman, 2011). Conversely, as Frankl anticipated, lacking a sense of purpose is associated with a range of negative outcomes, such as antisocial behavior (Shek, Ma, & Cheung, 1994), substance abuse (Okasaka et al., 2008), and depression (Bigler et al., 2001). Because of its apparent importance to a broad range of positive qualities, purposefulness has been referred to as a virtue or character strength (Malin, Liauw, & Damon, 2017; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Damon (2008) defines purpose as “a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is at the same time meaningful to the self and consequential for the world beyond the self” (p. 33). Thus, a person who is purposeful has a long-term commitment to a goal that is both personally meaningful and contributes to the world in some significant way.

Purposefulness is related to several dimensions of character, making it a critical construct for moral and character educators. Shields (2011) defines personal character broadly to include intellectual, moral, civic, and performance components, all of which can be advantaged by a prosocial sense of purpose (Bredemeier & Shields, 2019; Shields & Funk, 2019). Being purposeful tends to deepen relevant intellectual motivation and achievement (Pizzolato, Brown, & Kanny, 2011; Yeager & Bundick, 2009), gives expression to moral values (Damon, 2008; McAdams, 2009), often involves civic participation (Benson, Clary, & Scales, 2007; Damon, 2008), and encourages capacities for sustained and effective action (Bronk & Baumsteiger, 2017; Côté, 2002).

Although some people may develop an enduring purpose early in life (Damon, 2008), it is more typically a key developmental task of later adolescence and early adulthood (Bronk & Baumsteiger, 2017; Eccles, Brown, & Templeton, 2008), and it is certainly a central task for college students (Flowers, 2002). Bronk (2014) suggests that an important and largely unaddressed question is how extracurricular activities, like youth sports, might support the development of purpose.

In their study of purpose among intercollegiate athletes, Shields and Funk (2019) suggest that sports may provide a “transitional” purpose that mirrors many aspects of an enduring life purpose, even if the goal horizon is not as far nor the commitment as enduring. Certainly, sustained dedication almost invariably precedes being able to compete at the college level (Debois, Ledon, & Wylleman, 2015), and few athletes would sustain their resolve through the years of training if they did not find sport personally meaningful (Jackson, Gucciardi, Hodge, & Dimmock, 2017). Whereas most youth athletes do not see themselves continuing in sports professionally, many do perceive sport as serving, at least indirectly, their far horizon goals (Finkenberg & Moode, 1996; Jackson et al., 2017). And many athletes experience a significant “beyond-the-self” dimension to their sport experience as they are often called upon to sacrifice for the sake of the team (Prapavessis, & Carron, 1997).

Whether sports provide a helpful venue for the development of purpose may depend, at least in part, however, on how participants think about the meaning and purpose of contesting. The two contesting orientations offer different prospects when it comes to developing a sense of purpose (Shields & Funk, 2019). Those athletes prone to perceive contests through the partnership metaphor tend to see their sport experiences as opportunities for growth and mastery, and their relationships within sport as enabling a mutually enjoyable quest for excellence (Shields & Bredemeier, 2009, 2011a). These characteristics of the partnership mindset may help facilitate a robust, activity-rich setting for sharing values, goals, and aspirations both within and beyond the team, all of which are important for developing a sense of purpose (Bundick, 2011). Of course, experiencing sport as more war-like can promote in-group harmony and clear, shared goals among teammates. Correspondingly, it is not surprising that Shields and Funk (2019) found that the war contesting orientation was also positively related to purpose, though not as robustly as the partnership orientation.

The first major goal of the present investigation was to replicate and extend the findings of Shields and Funk (2019) in terms of predictors of purpose, expanding from a unidimensional to a multidimensional approach to purpose. The second major goal was to investigate predictors of integrity.

Shields and Bredemeier (1995) have argued that integrity is “the cornerstone of character” (p. 194). Integrity refers to the strength of one’s personal commitment to moral principles (Schlenker, 2008). It entails overcoming obstacles, temptations, or distractions in order to faithfully implement one’s deeper intentions. In the moral psychology literature, integrity is often counterpoised to expediency (Schlenker, Miller, & Johnson, 2009). This stems from the fact that integrity does not come without costs. Standing up for one’s beliefs and refusing to compromise on one’s principles can have negative outcomes. And whereas most people affirm the value of integrity in the abstract, they may also think it is too idealistic to expect it. As Miller and Schlenker (2011) indicate, “expediency may seem appealing if it is packaged as a blend of a bit of principles and a lot of guile” (p. 3). Empirically, integrity has been shown to predict a range of prosocial behaviors, even after controlling for empathy (Schlenker, 2008). Scoring higher on integrity has also been shown to predict less antisocial behavior and less rationalization of behaviors like lying, stealing, and cheating (Schlenker, 2008).

The variables of purpose and integrity are likely connected. For many of the same reasons Erikson (1980) saw fidelity as emerging from a consolidated identity, we hypothesized that seeking and especially having purpose, along with a sense of purpose that focuses beyond the self, would predict integrity. As adolescents actively seek and eventually consolidate a sense of purpose, they are likely to develop a coherent set of stable values and principles (Bronk & Baumsteiger, 2017). And if those values and principles include a focus beyond the self, the person may be less swayed by hedonistic temptations to deviate from integrity.

These observations led us to adopt three hypotheses: (1) seeking purpose will be positively but weakly related to integrity; (2) having purpose will positively predict integrity; (3) focusing beyond-the-self will be the best purpose-related predictor of integrity. We also anticipated that the partnership contesting orientation would support integrity, whereas the war contesting orientation would negatively predict it.

In addition to finding athletes’ purposefulness related to contesting orientations, Shields and Funk (2019) also found that purposefulness could be partially predicted by a set of variables that previous research had connected to contesting orientations. Specifically, purposefulness was predicted positively by athletic and moral identity and empathic concern; it was predicted negatively by fear of failure, likely because such performance-related anxiety tends to create a sense of uncertainty for the future making a consistent focus on far-horizon goals more difficult (Conroy & Elliot, 2004).

In the current investigation, we sought to elaborate on the Shields and Funk (2019) investigation in several important aspects. Whereas the Shields and Funk (2019) study focused only on the degree to which athletes had a sense of life purpose, in the current investigation we broadened the focus to include three aspects of purpose: seeking purpose, having found purpose, and the degree to which the person focuses beyond-the-self as they think about their long-term goals. Bronk et al. (2009) found that searching for purpose is itself a positive contributor to life satisfaction, but only during adolescence and emerging adulthood, making this dimension of purpose particularly important to include in research on college students. And despite its inclusion in the definition of purpose, most previous research has not included an assessment of the social contribution dimension of purpose.

Whereas identity and empathy have long been connected to purpose development (Bronk, 2014), the Shields and Funk (2019) findings with regard to contesting orientations and fear of failure were unique. Consequently, the current investigation sought to replicate the predictive utility of contesting orientations and fear of failure with a new sample of intercollegiate athletes from different sports and using different measures of purpose. And we also sought to build on the previous research by examining other potential predictors. Specifically, we included achievement goal orientations, grit, self-control, and contingent self-esteem. Below, we elaborate briefly on the new predictor variables and their reason for inclusion.

Previous research has shown a close connection between contesting orientations and achievement goal orientations (Shields et al., 2015a). Whereas there are multiple variants of Achievement Goal Theory (AGT), achievement goals have been primarily examined with the use of a dichotomous model that distinguishes between two types of goals, namely task and ego goals (Nicholls 1984, 1989). Task-oriented individuals adopt self-referenced criteria for success, view effort as the primary predictor of success, and focus on improvement and mastery. In contrast, ego-oriented individuals define success as outperforming others, believe that success is primarily a reflection of high innate ability, and are motivated to display superior ability or, minimally, to avoid appearing incompetent. Whereas neither purpose nor integrity have yet been investigated in relation to achievement goals, it is plausible that those who are more oriented toward self-referenced criteria of success and who focus on growth will be more inclined to think long-term about self-transcending life goals and, free from the need to outperform others, act more consistently with their own moral principles.

Whereas most contesting orientations research has focused on moral dimensions of sport, research has also demonstrated that athletes who have a higher preference for the partnership orientation have more grit and self-control than athletes who score higher on war orientation (Shields, Funk, & Bredemeier, 2018a). These dimensions of “performance character” (Shields, 2011) may also be related to the seeking and identification of purpose. Finding a sense of life purpose is a challenging developmental task, and both grit and self-control may be advantageous. Grit can be defined as a combination of perseverance and consistent passion for long-term goals (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). Much like purposefulness, grit has also been found to predict career success (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Vallerand, Houlfort, & Forest, 2014), lower depression (Barton & Miller, 2015), and greater life satisfaction and happiness (Duckworth, 2016; Singh & Jha, 2008). Integrity, which requires resistance to momentary temptations, is also likely related to the interest-sustaining and determination-enhancing qualities of grit.

Self-control can be defined as “the capacity to override natural and automatic tendencies, desires, or behaviors; to pursue long-term goals, even at the expense of short-term attractions; and to follow socially prescribed norms and rules” (Bauer & Baumeister, 2011, p. 65). Self-control involves inhibiting impulses incongruent with longer-term goals, as well as activating and enhancing momentarily weak but ultimately more desirable impulses (Fujita, 2011). Such tendencies and abilities may help adolescents who Damon (2008) might call dreamers or dabblers move into becoming fully purposeful. The connections between self-control and integrity are obvious.

Another psychological characteristic that might help late adolescents search for and become purposeful is to have a relatively non-contingent sense of self-worth. When a person has a contingent self-worth, their self-esteem fluctuates based on performance outcomes, evaluations by others, or meeting certain standards (Kernis & Lakey, 2010; Paradise & Kernis, 1999). Since the pursuit of far-horizon goals will almost invariably confront a number of social and pragmatic obstacles, those with more contingent self-esteem may be less likely to continue the pursuit in an effort to protect their self-esteem. Similarly, a non-contingent self-esteem is likely to enable integrity by freeing the individual to act on principle without being overly concerned with evaluations by others.

In short, in addition to testing the hypothesized relations between contesting orientations and fear of failure, on the one hand, and dimensions of purpose and integrity, on the other, the present study investigated the following additional hypotheses:

All three dimensions of purpose as well as integrity will be positively predicted by task goal orientation, grit, self-control, and non-contingent self-esteem.

All three dimensions of purpose as well as integrity will be negatively predicted by ego goal orientation.

Participants were freshman student-athletes (N = 2241, 54.6% male) drawn from multiple institutions from across the United States belonging to the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). Participants were of multiple racial identities (74.3% White/Caucasian, 10.0% Black/African-American, 6.1% Hispanic/Latino/a, 1.2% Asian/Asian-American, 6.8% Multi-racial/Multi-ethnic, and 1.6% other or not given), ranged in age from 18 to 28 (M = 19.0, SD = 1.28), and had competed for a mean of 10.27 years (SD = 4.30) in their primary sport: baseball/softball (η = 857), basketball (η = 556), track and field (η = 315), golf (η = 213), wrestling (η = 132), tennis (n = 139), and swim/diving (n = 29).

After obtaining approval for the investigation by the Institutional Review Board, 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 prior to accessing the educational content, the athletes 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. Student-athletes who were under 18 or failed to answer all survey questions were not included. All instruments were administered in random order. All information was collected anonymously and securely, and no incentives were provided. After collection, data were imported into SPSS for screening and analysis.

Demographic and Control Variables. Because both purpose and integrity have developmental dimensions, we deemed age an important control variable. We also controlled for sex since sport is a highly gendered space. We controlled for participants’ primary sport (based on level of physical contact) since previous research has found that the level of contact in a sport has implications for moral variables (Bredemeier & Shields, 1984; 1986; Bredemeier, Weiss, Shields & Cooper, 1986, 1987). Finally, since length of exposure to the sport environment may also have implications for study variables, we also controlled for years of participation in the participants’ primary sport.

Sex was coded “1” for males and “2” for females. Participants in the low contact sports of baseball, softball, track and field, golf, tennis, and swim/diving were coded “1,” whereas participants in the medium contact sports of basketball and wrestling were coded “2.”

Contesting Orientations. The Contesting Orientations Scale (COS; Shields et al., 2015a) 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 reflect the partnership conceptual metaphor (e.g., “The purpose of competition is to bring out the best in everyone”) and six items reflect the war conceptual metaphor (e.g., “In sports, like in war, opponents stand between you and success”). Since both scales reflect openness to contesting, they are not completely orthogonal; respondents can score high on both orientations, low on both, or high on one and low on the other. Both the partnership (a = .89) and war (a = .79) scales showed good reliability in the current sample.

Purpose: Seeking and Found. This research used, with permission, the COA portion of the Revised Youth Purpose Survey from the Stanford Center on Adolescence Youth Purpose Project, funded in part by the John Templeton Foundation and the Thrive Foundation for Youth. The COA Purpose Scale (Bundick, Andrews, Jones, Mariano, Bronk, & Damon, 2006), adapted by the Stanford Center on Adolescence from the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006), assesses the extent to which individuals feel that they are seeking purpose (four items, for example, “I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life”) or have found purpose (six items, for example, “I have discovered a satisfying life purpose”) in life. Respondents indicate how much they agree or disagree with each item using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Reliability in the current study (a = .92 for seeking purpose and .88 for found purpose) was very good.

Purpose: Beyond-the-Self (PBS). At the time of data collection, we were aware of no survey measure that sought to capture the beyond-the-self dimension of purpose. Consequently, for this study, we developed a pilot measure designed to assess whether respondents think primarily about themselves or about service to others when thinking about their long-term goals in life. The PBS consists of four items, each scored on a 7-point scale. Much like the widely used Purpose in Life Test (PIL; Crumbaugh & Maholick), the anchors for each side of the scale are different for each item. The full measure is included in Table 1. Given that the PBS scale was specifically constructed for this study and had no prior work done on its validity and reliability, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on the scale. Results indicated that the 4-item, one-factor model provided an excellent fit to the data (χ² = 2.27, p = .32, CFI = 1.00, SRMR = .01, RMSEA = .01). However, the reliability (a = .67) was marginal in this study’s sample; thus results should be interpreted with some caution.

Fear of Failure. Fear of failure was measured with the five-item Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory-Short Form (PFAI-S; Conroy, Willow, & Metzler, 2002). The long-version PFAI consists of five factors that assess fears of (a) experiencing shame and embarrassment, (b) devaluing one’s self-estimate, (c) having an uncertain future, (d) important others losing interest, and, (e) upsetting important others (Conroy, 2001). The short form is made up of the most representative item from each of the five factors, such as. “When I am failing, I am afraid that I might not have enough talent.” Respondents indicate how frequently they believe each statement on a 5-point scale ranging from -2 (do not believe at all) to 2 (believe 100% of the time). Prior research indicates that the PFAI-S is highly correlated with the long-form measure (Conroy et al., 2002). Reliability in the current sample was good (a = .82).

Achievement Goal Orientation. The Perceptions of Success Questionnaire (POSQ; Roberts, Treasure, & Balague, 1998) was used to assess athletes’ achievement goal orientations. The scale consists of two six-item orthogonal subscales that measure dispositional tendencies to adopt task goals or ego goals in sport. Athletes are asked to indicate when they feel most successful in sport, responding to the items on a Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). Both the task (a = .94) and ego (a = .90) subscales demonstrated excellent reliability in the current sample.

Grit. Grit was measured with the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). The Grit-S has eight items rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). Reliability was acceptable (a = .74) in the present study.

Self-Control. To assess a person’s dispositional level of self-control, we used the Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS; Tangney et al., 2004). The BSCS contains 13-items such as “I have a hard time breaking bad habits” and “I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals.” Participants respond to each item by indicating how much each reflects how they typically are. Responses range from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The total score is calculated by averaging responses across the items. The BSCS demonstrated good reliability (a = .84) in the current sample.

Contingent Self-Esteem. To assess the degree to which self-esteem is contingent, we used the Contingent Self-Esteem Scale (CSES; Paradise & Kernis, 1999). The CSES is a 15-item measure that utilizes a 5-point Likert scale of the degree to which self-esteem depends on external factors (e.g., “Even in the face of rejection, my feelings of self-worth remain unaffected”). Higher scores reflect more contingent self-esteem. The scale showed good reliability (a = .82) in the current study.

Integrity. Integrity was assessed with the 18-item Integrity Scale (IS; Schlenker, 2008; Schlenker et al., 2009). The IS assesses the strength of people’s commitment to moral principles. Sample items include, “The true test of character is a willingness to stand by one’s principles, no matter what price one has to pay,” and “One’s principles should not be compromised regardless of the possible gain.” Respondents indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a five-point scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). Importantly, scoring high on the IS does not require the endorsement of a particular moral theory since it is not concerned with how respondents justify their moral principles. What the IS is designed to measure is the level of commitment to principles however those principles are derived or justified. Reliability in the current sample was good (a = .82).

Descriptive statistics for all variables, internal reliability values, and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 2. The correlations demonstrated that all aspects of purpose, as well as integrity, were, as expected, positively correlated with the partnership contesting orientation. The war orientation correlated positively, but weakly, with seeking purpose, and negatively with both the beyond-the-self aspect of purpose and integrity. Several other correlations are also worth noting.

Seeking purpose correlated positively with fear of failure, both goal orientations, and contingent self-esteem. Found purpose correlated positively with both goal orientations and self-control; it correlated negatively with fear of failure and contingent self-worth. Purpose-beyond-self correlated positively with task orientation, grit, and self-control, while correlating negatively with fear of failure, ego orientation, and contingent self-worth. Integrity was positively associated with a task orientation, grit, and self-control, and negatively with fear of failure, ego orientation, and contingent self-worth.

The primary aims of the current study were to investigate potential predictors of multiple dimensions of a person’s sense of life purpose and, secondly, their integrity. Multiple multivariate regression analysis was considered. However, a univariate approach was utilized for two primary reasons: 1) our research questions were fundamentally univariate in nature (i.e., examining the relationship between predictors and specific dimensions of purpose and integrity); and, 2) the weak intercorrelations among the outcome variables didn’t suggest approaching them as a multivariate construct, but rather as individual, distinct variables. Thus, we conducted four sequential regressions, each conducted in two steps, with the seeking, found, and beyond-self purpose scales and the integrity scale serving as outcome variables. To control for their effects, we entered sport type and demographic variables (age, gender, and years competed) in the first step. In step 2, we entered our eight predictor variables: partnership and war contesting orientations, fear of failure, task and ego goal orientations, grit, self-control, and contingent self-esteem. For the integrity analysis, we also added the three purpose scales to the second-step variables. Multicollinearity concerns were not evident, with all tolerance values > 0.5.

Seeking Purpose. The initial model that included sport type and demographic variables was not significant, which indicated that it did not explain a statistically significant portion of the variance in the outcome variable. The model including our primary predictor vari ables added significantly to the step 1 model, with the resulting model accounting for roughly 16% of the variance in purpose scores (Table 3a). Partnership and war contesting ori entations, fear of failure, task orientation, and contingent self-esteem all predicted positively to seeking purpose scores; none of the other variables made a significant contribution to the model. Examination of the β values suggests that contingent self-esteem contributed the most unique variance to the prediction of seek ing purpose, followed by the partnership and task orientations.

Found Purpose. Similar to the first analysis, the initial model that included sport type and demographic variables did not explain a significant portion of the variance in found purpose, whereas the model including the primary predictor variables was significant and accounted for roughly 26% of the variance in found purpose scores (Table 3b). Partnership orientation, task orientation, grit and self-control all predicted positively to found purpose scores; none of the other variables made a sig nificant contribution. Examination of the β values suggests that grit contributed the most unique variance to the prediction model of found purpose, followed by partnership orien tation, task orientation, and self-control.

Purpose-Beyond-Self. As can be seen in Table 3c, the initial model was significant, with age and gender explaining about 3% of the variance. Older and female athletes demonstrated slightly more beyond-the-self focus than younger and male athletes. The model including our primary predictor vari ables added significantly with the resulting model accounting for roughly 12% of the variance in purpose scores. This time, the ego and war orientations, both negative predic tors, appeared to contribute the most unique variance to the prediction of this aspect of purpose, with contingent self-esteem also making a significant negative contribution. The beyond-the-self aspect of purpose was positively predicted by the partnership orientation, task orientation, fear of failure, and grit.

Integrity. The initial model that included the control variables was significant, explaining about 2% of the variance. Gender predicted integrity, with females scoring slightly higher than males, as well as sport contact level, with higher-contact sports demonstrating slightly lower integrity. The final model, which included the purpose variables as well as the variables that were included in the second step of the previous regressions, added about 27% of explained variance resulting in a total explained variance of about 29% (Table 4). The beyond-the-self dimension of purpose appeared to contribute the most unique variance, followed by the partnership orientation. Other significant positive contributors were task orientation, grit, self-control, contingent self-esteem, and found purpose. The only significant negative predictor to integrity was the war contesting orientation.

The twin foci of this study—purpose and integrity—are central concerns for character educators. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that having a sense of life purpose, especially one with a strong beyond-the-self component, is a potent moral asset (Bronk, 2014; Damon, 2008), and integrity can be viewed as core to good moral character (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Researchers have also identified older adolescence as a critical time for developing purpose and integrity, as the young person seeks to establish and sustain significant relationships, develop a value-oriented internal sense of coherence, and find direction and meaning in their life (Bronk & Bauymsteiger, 2017; Eccles et al., 2008).

In this investigation, we focused on freshman college students who share experience in one specific type of environment—U.S. intercollegiate athletics—and we examined purpose and integrity in conjunction with a set of factors likely to interact with the affordances offered by sport.

One goal of the present investigation was to replicate, if possible, the Shields and Funk (2019) findings that (a) contesting orientations, particularly the partnership orientation, were significant predictors of purpose, and (b) fear of failure was a negative predictor. With regard to the contesting orientations, the earlier findings were largely replicated. In the regression models, the partnership orientation contributed substantial unique variance to the prediction of seeking and found purpose. The war orientation made a small, but still significant, contribution to the prediction of seeking purpose, but no contribution to the prediction of found purpose.

With regard to fear of failure, the current investigation, using a different measure of purpose, did not replicate the Shields and Funk (2019) findings, though the direction of relation was the same. Given these results, the Shields and Funk findings on fear of failure should be viewed with caution.

The replication of the earlier finding that a partnership orientation is a substantial predictor of purpose is notable, though given the cross-sectional nature of the study no causal inferences can be drawn. It may be that thinking of opponents as “partners” in a mutual quest for excellence and enjoyment may create an environment that is beneficial to purpose formation. Purpose is facilitated by positive peer relations among those with similar interests (Bronk, 2014), and the partnership orientation reduces the tendency to dehumanize or diminish competitors (which includes teammates vying for position or playing time). Such an environment may allow for shared purpose-related interests to develop, become shared, and build. Alternatively, a poignant experience of purpose in life, particularly if it is benevolent, may facilitate thinking of opponents as partners.

Interestingly, even though the partnership and task orientations are fairly highly correlated (.48), each offered substantial unique utility for the prediction of both dimensions of purpose, and thus it may be beneficial for coaches and other sport educators to try to promote both. Helping athletes appreciate opponents, focus on self-referenced criteria for success, and prioritize improvement and mastery over outcomes are strategies likely to support both partnership and task orientations.

Grit and self-control also made significant independent contributions to the prediction of found, but not seeking, purpose. Given the cross-sectional research design, it is impossible to know whether these executive skills tend to promote purpose or whether seeking and finding purpose improve grit and self-control. It is also quite possible that the relationship is bidirectional and that they mutually reinforce each other.

Another intriguing finding is that contingent self-esteem made a positive contribution to the prediction of seeking (but not found) purpose. It may be that some athletes who have a relatively unstable self-esteem seek to address their concerns about self-worth through seeking purpose. However, this finding should be viewed with considerable caution since the correlations between contingent self-esteem and the seeking and found dimensions of purpose were insignificant.

Like the instruments used in most research on purpose, the measure of purpose in the Shields and Funk (2019) investigation did not include a beyond-the-self component, nor was it included in the measure of seeking and found purpose. Inclusion of this element of purpose yielded some important new insights. First, both the partnership and war contesting orientations yielded significant independent contributions to the prediction of this aspect of purpose, though in opposite directions. Based on beta weights, the war orientation contributed the most unique variance closely followed by the ego goal orientation, and both were negative predictors. The partnership orientation, a positive predictor, contributed the next most to the prediction model. These results suggest that there may be, as one would anticipate, an inherent tension between the antagonism built into the war orientation, along with the similar equation of success with outperforming others that is a hallmark of the ego orientation, and a focus on benefitting others that is so central to the beyond-the-self dimension of purpose. The rationale for the contribution of grit is relatively straight-forward, paralleling the other dimensions of purpose, but the reason for the positive contribution of fear of failure is unclear. Given its negative correlation with this dimension of purpose and its relatively small contribution to the regression model, it is likely an artifact of covariance with other variables in the model and may not carry much theoretical interest.

Interestingly, contingent self-esteem, which was a significant positive predictor of purpose-seeking, was a significant negative predictor of the beyond-the-self dimension of purpose. This is consistent with the view that individuals with unstable self-esteem may be engaged in purpose-seeking for largely compensatory reasons, trying to buttress their sense of self-worth, rather than having a commitment to using their talents to make a contribution to others or society. As noted earlier, however, no cause-effect conclusions can be drawn from the current study.

Purpose has been called a virtue or character strength (Malin, Liauw, & Damon, 2017; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). As such, we anticipated that it would be an excellent predictor of personal integrity. Thus, purpose was added as a predictor variable in the investigation of integrity. The results largely fit expectations. Seeking purpose was most weakly associated with integrity, reaching significance only in the correlation analyses. The found aspect of purpose, however, offered a positive and unique contribution to the prediction of integrity. Still, it was the beyond-the-self dimension of purpose that stood out as the most potent predictor. Whereas the present study does not allow causal inferences, we again suspect that a bidirectional process is involved, such that those who are more committed to contributing to others concurrently develop commitment to their moral principles which, in an ongoing cycle, reinforces their dedication to service.

Not surprisingly, a partnership orientation also made a significant independent positive contribution to integrity, whereas a war orientation contributed negatively. As Shields and Bredemeier (2011a) noted, there are implicit moral norms inherent in the core contesting metaphors, with the partnership metaphor more naturally aligned with values of equality and justice. By design, of course, contests pit people in oppositional relationships. Viewed through the war metaphor, these oppositional relationships are taken at face value; and even in a metaphorical war, expedient, self-serving compromises of ethical principle may be viewed as minor costs in the pursuit of victory. Viewed through the partnership metaphor, however, these contest-based oppositional relationships are seen as serving further ends that are mutually beneficial for all involved. Thus, for athletes (or competitors in other arenas) these findings suggest that it makes an ethical difference whether they see themselves as fundamentally at war when they compete, albeit metaphorically, or, alternatively, whether opponents are viewed as partners who “cooperate,” even as each strives to win, to achieve shared goals (enjoyment/excellence). Informed by the partnership metaphor, the “conflict” of the contest may be viewed from a meta-perspective that orients to a common good amid often intense opposition. This steadfast focus on mutual benefit aligns well with a moral commitment to integrity.

Whereas their contributions were smaller, grit, self-control, task goal orientation and contingent self-esteem also positively predicted integrity. Most likely, the executive skills embedded in grit and self-control support integrity by enabling the person to stay focused on long-term goals and not get distracted by momentary whims or temptations. The finding that contingent self-esteem made a positive contribution to the regression model of integrity was unexpected. However, its independent contribution was quite small and given its negative correlation with integrity, the finding was likely an artifact of covariance with other variables.

The findings of the present investigation suggest important implications for coaches and other character educators working with student-athletes. Based on both the correlational and regression analyses, one finding stands out above the others: the best predictors of purpose and integrity are a partnership contesting orientation and a task goal orientation. Both variables positively predicted integrity and all three dimensions of purpose.

Taken together, the findings suggest that if coaches promote a mindset about competition rooted in the partnership metaphor and support task-oriented goals, they may create an atmosphere that affords opportunities for developing purpose and supporting integrity. Though cause-effect cannot be established in the current investigation, and the relationships may well be bidirectional, coaches who create sport cultures that support partnership and task orientations are likely to be nurturing character development.

How can they do this? One strategy is helping athletes become conscious of the way their experience of competition is heavily influenced by the typically unconscious use of the two contesting metaphors. It is difficult to reduce the influence of a metaphor that operates outside conscious awareness. By consciously monitoring what triggers the adoption of the war metaphor, athletes can gain more control over their perceptions, emotions, and actions. Additionally, coaches who encourage appreciative attitudes toward opponents, respect for officials, adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of the rules, upholding the best traditions of the sport, and the pursuit of growth and excellence over a narrow quest of victory, can support character growth.

Developing a partnership approach to competition not only has advantages within sport, it may help athletes discover personally meaningful and socially beneficial goals in domains other than sports (e.g., school, business, law, politics) where social interaction is similarly structured by competition (Bredemeier & Shields, 2019; Shields, 2013; Shields & Bredemeier, 2010, 2011b). Finally, engaging the team in community service and social justice work, whether sport-related or not, may encourage a partnership culture, help develop beyond-the-self life goals, and deepen commitment to moral principles (Bredemeier & Shields, 2019).

Although the current investigation offers important new insights about purposefulness and integrity in upper youth sports, it also has important limitations. With regard to purpose, the present investigation did not examine the content of that purpose. The beyond-the-self aspect of purpose was included, but it was at an abstract level and did not address specific goals. Future researchers may also wish to consider comparing how our brief assessment of the beyond-the-self dimension of purpose compares with other measures (e.g., Gitima, Mariya, & ZiYoung, 2018).

Given its cross-sectional design, the study also presents only a snapshot of the relationships it addressed. Whereas purpose is often defined as having enduring qualities, it is also something that evolves through the life cycle (Bronk et al., 2009). It is certainly possible that what gives first-year college student-athletes a sense of purpose may change, and possibly even disintegrate, as they move beyond their early college and athletic careers. Future researchers may wish to incorporate a longitudinal design to address these and related issues, as well as incorporate mixed-methods and qualitative approaches.

Finally, the study was limited by sample characteristics and assessment methods. Results from the study cannot be generalized to other ages, competitive levels, or cultural contexts. Future researchers may wish to test the generalizability of our findings by assessing additional populations with other measures. In addition, effect sizes were rather low in the current investigation. This could, of course, reflect relatively weak predictive efficacy for the variables used to predict purpose and integrity. It could also be an artifact of measurement difficulties, and there may be benefit to additional investigation into the psychometric properties of the measures used. Despite these limitations, the study provides evidence that appropriately guided sport experiences may support an important developmental task of older adolescents: developing a sense of life purpose and a commitment to integrity.