It’s not how Many Sports you Play, it’s how you Play the Game: An Exploration of Adolescent Character and Youth Sport Free

Youth sport participation has been associated with a wide variety of indicators of positive development, including decreased depressive symptomology, and increased life skills, positive youth development, and well-being (e.g., Agans & Geldhof, 2012; Bean & Forneris, 2017; Côté et al., 2008; Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Petitpas et al., 2005; Rose-Krasnor et al., 2006). Although, for the most part, little is known about the ideal “dosage” of sport needed to support positive development, there is one strong theoretical model for considering participation patterns over the course of many years. The Developmental Model of Sport Participation (DMSP) suggests that early diversification of sport experiences (termed “sampling”) is beneficial for both elite and recreational athletes because it is less likely to lead to drop out (Côté et al., 2009; Ettekal et al., 2015; Wall & Côte, 2007) and, as well, is associated with benefits for mental health (Rose-Krasnor et al., 2006) and sport enjoyment and performance (Côte, 1999; Wall & Côte, 2007). In contrast, intensive specialization in a single sport is discouraged by the DMSP for younger youth (Côté et al., 2009; Murata et al., 2021). The practice of early specialization may be rare in the general population of youth sport participants (Bell et al., 2019; DiSanti & Erickson, 2019), and may be limited by racial and financial factors for many youth (Dagkas et al., 2019; Farrey, 2014). It is therefore potentially more relevant to the general population of sport participants to examine degrees of sampling rather than specialization per se, as sampling can also be cost-prohibitive (Baker et al., 2021) but it is widely promoted to parents and young athletes (Jayanthi et al., 2019).

To date, the links between sport sampling and psychosocial development, including character, remain understudied and unclear. A recent scoping review examined 53 studies of sport sampling and revealed that most focused on participation and performance outcomes; only 8% of the studies examined outcomes related to personal development (Murata et al., 2021). In addition, within the literature examining aspects of psychosocial development in relation to sport sampling, several studies have observed no effect. For example, Strachan and colleagues (2009) found no difference in developmental assets between specializers and samplers in a highly-competitive sample, and Russell and colleagues (2017) found no difference in motivation and sport enjoyment between non-elite adolescent specializers and samplers. As noted by Murata and colleagues (2021), there is a clear need for additional research on the effects of youth sport sampling, especially research that examines the development of non-sport outcomes, in light of widespread efforts to promote sampling in youth sport (Jayanthi et al., 2019).

As we have noted, character in particular is an aspect of psychosocial development that has not yet been examined in relation to sport sampling (Côté & Vierimaa, 2014; Murata et al., 2021), despite theoretical work asserting that personal development and character are important components of youth sport that can be promoted through sampling (Côté et al., 2008; Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Waldron et al., 2020). For example, Waldron and colleagues (2020) note that sampling may help to alleviate potential moral tensions or harmful social norms experienced in any one particular sporting context, as sport is not always conducive to positive character development (Boardley & Kavussanu, 2011; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995).

There are many youth programs and interventions focused on promoting character development among adolescents, because it can lead to positive outcomes for youth and improvements for broader society (Ettekal et al., 2015; Lerner & Schmid Callina, 2014; Snyder, 2014). However, there are also many different definitions of “character” (Berkowitz, 2012; Lerner et al., 2022; Lickona & Davidson, 2005; Seider, 2012), encompassing factors such as self-discipline, civic contribution, integrity, etc. Broadly, character can be understood to involve a system of mutually beneficial relations between an individual and the context that enable the individual to engage morally with their world (Camiré et al., 2021; Lerner et al., 2022; Nucci, 2019). However, societal and cultural rules are often established by individuals in positions of power, potentially resulting in dominant cultural values (including patriarchy, racism, colonialism, and capitalism) being prioritized in the definition and operationalization of character in research (e.g., Camiré et al., 2021; Kochanek & Erickson, 2020). Youth exhibitions of “character” should ideally be understood within the context of the specific measurements used and the relevant social context of the study participants. For example, due to limited prior theoretical work on the potential impact of sport sampling on character, the present study examined both sport-specific demonstrations of character (i.e., generosity, honesty, leadership, moral disengagement, and respect, as displayed during sport) and character attributes not specifically linked to sport (i.e., general character, empathy, moral courage, resilience) to enable us to examine associations between sport participation and character at both levels.

This approach to differentiating character as a general attribute of an individual from character as displayed in specific contexts reflects existing understandings in the character literature. For example, Rudd and Mondello (2006) differentiate the “social character” understood by athletes and coaches (e.g., leadership, resilience, etc.) from the “moral character” that interests most character researchers (e.g., honesty, empathy, etc.). Character has been widely assessed in regard to sport-specific attitudes and behaviors, such as sportspersonship or team leadership (Naylor & Yeager, 2013; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995), and/or as something more widely applicable that can be learned through sport, such as diligence or respect (Perkins & Noam, 2007). However, there is some debate over whether character attributes gained or practiced through sport can be transferred to other non-sport contexts (Shields et al., 2015; Shrout et al., 2017; Turnnidge et al., 2014); hence our inclusion of variables of both types in the present study. Furthermore, although some advocates of youth sport have posited that participation in sport can naturally confer character benefits (Petitpas et al., 2005; Sage, 1998), some studies suggest that the sport environment can encourage poor character (Boardley & Kavussanu, 2011; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Thus, youth sport cannot be assumed to confer positive developmental outcomes for participants, although it has the potential to do so. In particular, the way in which youth approach their participation in sport may contribute to their psychosocial development.

Achievement orientation (Duda, 1989) is one widely-used measure of how youth approach their engagement with sport, differentiating between task orientation (focused on self-improvement) and ego orientation (focused on out-performing others). Prior studies have shown that task-involving motivational team climates are associated with better character among athletes than ego-involving team climates (Agans et al., 2018), and that task-orientated athletes tend to exhibit better sportspersonship and moral character than athletes with ego orientations (Biddle et al., 2003; Boardley & Kavussanu, 2010; Kavussanu & Ntoumanis, 2003; Lemyre et al., 2002). Qualitative research further suggests that the win-at-all-costs attitude associated with ego orientation may be one reason for ego-oriented athletes’ lower levels of moral reasoning compared to task-oriented athletes (Tod & Hodge, 2001). In sum, there is a strong theoretical foundation for the idea that achievement orientation is an important predictor of youth sport participants’ character, both in general and specific to the context of their sport. In fact, Lee and colleagues (2008) assert that achievement orientation is the process through which sport promotes (or fails to promote) moral development.

However, the literature also has mixed findings with regard to the associations between achievement orientation and character for athletes who compete at different levels. For example, in the collegiate athletic context, the association between task orientation and moral character was not supported, but ego orientation was negatively associated with moral reasoning (Lata & Mondello, 2010). Shrout and colleagues (2017) also found differences between youth sport participants and those involved in high school or elite sport in moral reasoning and in the association between moral reasoning and task orientation. Ego orientation was consistently associated with poor moral reasoning for athletes at all levels of competition (Shrout et al., 2017). Therefore, although there is reason to assume that achievement orientation will be a significant predictor of character attributes among high school athletes, there is also some ambiguity over the extent of the expected associations.

There remains a significant gap in the literature on sport sampling in relation to young athletes psychosocial development in general, and character development in particular (Murata et al., 2021). Although efforts are underway to promote sampling and discourage specializing in youth sport (Jayanthi et al., 2019), it is unclear whether following these recommendations would have any attendant benefits for youth development. Data on this issue are important to help families make informed decisions about how to prioritize their resources (Baker et al., 2021). The present study therefore sought to examine whether different patterns of childhood sport participation were associated with character attributes among high school athletes, or whether adolescent character was more strongly predicted by athletes’ achievement orientation than by participation patterns. We examined these associations for a broad range of character attributes, including both non-sport-specific character and sport-specific character, in keeping with observations in the literature of differences in athlete character attributes across these two types of character (e.g., Boardley & Kavussanu, 2011; Naylor & Yeager, 2013; Perkins & Noam, 2007; Rudd & Mondello, 2006). In sum, in the present study, we tested whether sport participation alone is associated with character development, or whether character is developed through how youth play the game in regard to their achievement orientations.

This study used data from the pre-test survey in a pre-existing data set originally collected to evaluate a character education program for high school athletes in the United States (see Ettekal et al., 2017). For the present study, we used information about athletes’ history of childhood participation in different sports and data on their adolescent character attributes and achievement orientation. We used these data to examine whether sport participation patterns marked by higher levels of sampling during childhood were associated with both sport-specific and general measures of character in adolescence, and whether task/ ego orientation might be a better predictor of these character attributes.

This study used secondary data from a study of 445 adolescent athletes (Mage = 16.3 years, SD = 1.18), who competed on their school’s team for soccer (30.8%), American football (14.2%), volleyball (4.0%), basketball (15.7%), indoor track (12.4%), baseball (5.8%), softball (6.5%), or tennis (10.3%). The participants were relatively evenly divided between freshmen (17.5%), sophomores (24.9%), juniors (25.4%), and seniors (24.9%), with 7.2% missing data for grade. Participants were 48.5% female, 52.1% Caucasian/White, 17.8% African American/Black, 10.6% Asian/ Asian American, 7.0% Hispanic/Latino, and 8.3% from other racial/ethnic groups, with 4.3% declining to provide race/ethnicity data. Participants reported their mother’s highest level of education as being a high school degree or less (26.7%), some college or associate’s degree (44.3%), or bachelor’s degree or higher (27.2%), with 1.8% declining to report maternal education data.

The broader study from which these data were derived was reviewed and approved by the Tufts University Institutional Review Board. Parental consent forms were distributed to all athletes on two sport teams each athletic season (football and soccer in the fall; indoor track and basketball in the winter; tennis and baseball/softball in the spring) at four urban high schools in mid- to low-income communities in the northeastern United States. Schools were selected based on their interest in participating in the character education program that was being evaluated in the original study, and teams were selected to participate based on which sports were offered across all four schools. Parental consent forms were distributed by coaches and returned anonymously to the athletic director or to collection boxes at each school. A comparison of the study sample to participation rosters at each school suggested that 42% of consent forms were returned, and 99% of youth with parental consent participated in the study. Data were collected at the beginning of the athletic season for each sport (i.e., late summer for fall sports; early winter for winter sports; and early spring for spring sports), using paper surveys distributed by the research team. More information about the study method is outlined in previous work (see Ettekal et al., 2017).

For all measures, composite scores were calculated by taking the mean across all items when responses were available for at least 80% of items. Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas for all measures are shown in Table 1 

Sport Participation. Sport participation patterns were calculated for the time period during which the DMSP recommends sport sampling, i.e., childhood through approximately age 12 (Côté et al., 2009). We assessed athletes’ histories of sport participation using a table developed for this study, which listed 28 different sports and asked the athletes to indicate whether they had participated in each sport in each grade from kindergarten through Grade 5.

Character. Our measures of character included both sport-specific and general measures, recognizing the lack of consensus on the specific attributes that constitute character in sport. In total, we examined five measures of sport-specific character and four measures of general character. Two of the general character measures in this study were developed through exploratory factor analyses, as reported in prior studies (see Agnes et al., 2018). Sport-specific measures of character (all using 5 point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) included generosity (4 items; e.g., “I am willing to give up the opportunity for personal achievement to help my team succeed,” newly developed), honesty (3 items; e.g., “If I knew I could never get caught, I would be willing to cheat in a game [reverse-coded]”; Ashton & Lee, 2009), leadership (3 items; e.g., “I try to always set a good example for my teammates,” newly developed), moral disengagement (8 items; e.g., “Injuring an opponent is a way of teaching him/her a lesson”; Boardley & Kavussanu, 2008), and respect (15 items; e.g., “It is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game”; Doty, 2005). Measures of general character (all using 5 point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, with two exceptions, which are each noted), included empathy (9 items; e.g., “It bothers me when bad things happen to good people”; 1 = not at all like me to 5 = very much like me; Lerner et al., 2005), moral courage (8 items; e.g., “When I hear someone make a derogatory remark or joke about some person or group, I say something to challenge it”; 1 = not at all true for me to 4 = really true for me; Bronstein et al., 2007), character (8 items; e.g., “I usually do the right thing”; Lerner et al., 2005), and resilience (6 items; e.g., “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”; Smith et al., 2008).

Task and Ego Orientation. Task and ego orientation were measured using items from Duda (1989) focused on athletes' orientation toward task-related success (7 items; e.g., “I feel most successful in sport when I work really hard”) and performance-related success (6 items; e.g., “I feel most successful in sport when I'm the best”). All items were measured on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Demographics. Maternal education was assessed across three categories, with “low maternal education” including youth with mothers who completed some high school, graduated from high school, or earned a GED, “mid-range maternal education” including youth whose mothers completed some college or a two-year degree, and “higher maternal education” including youth with mothers who completed four years of college or a graduate degree. Participants selected their gender from the binary options of “male” and “female,” and indicated their race/ethnicity by selecting all options that applied from a list including African American/Black, Arab/Arab American, Asian/Asian American, Caucasian/White, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native/Pacific Islander, and Other.

Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 25. We first coded the self-reported participation data into five categories, representing the different patterns of participation observed in the data. We coded youth as “heavy sampling” for a given year if they participated in three or more different sports that year and “less sampling” if they participated in only one or two sports. We then combined these data across the six years from kindergarten through Grade 5 and developed labels for the resulting patterns. We defined the No Early Participation group (n = 52) as youth who reported no sport participation during this time period. The Heavy Sampling group (n = 151) consisted of youth who were sampling three or more sports in at least one year of every consecutive two-year period. The Less Sampling group (n = 55) consisted of youth who were participating in only one or two sports in at least one year of every consecutive two-year period. The Limited Sampling group (n = 45) included youth who participated in only one or two sports every year during this time period. Finally, the Inconsistent Participation group (n = 142) included youth whose participation varied considerably (e.g., including years with no participation, years with heavy sampling, and years with less sampling, combined in ways that did not fit into any of the above patterns).¹

We then explored the relation between patterns of youth sport participation and character, both in general and specific to the sport context (see Measures) and assessed whether task and ego orientation might be better predictors of character development than sport participation patterns. The participation pattern groups were used as predictors of character outcomes, with the Heavy Sampling group used as the reference group, as it most closely matched the DMSP recommendation of sampling without specializing before age 12 (Côté et al., 2009). We estimated separate regressions for each outcome, controlling for participant demographics (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, and maternal education), as we did not have a priori hypotheses about the associations among the character attributes measured. Regression analyses controlling for participant demographics (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, and maternal education) were also used to explore the associations between task/ego orientation and character attributes, because these factors are known to be associated with sport participation (Dagkas et al., 2019; Farrey, 2014).

The present study explored sport-specific and general character attributes in relation to childhood sport participation patterns and achievement orientations among adolescent athletes in the United States. Specifically, we examined whether patterns of participation in kindergarten through Grade 5 were associated with adolescent character, or if “how you play the game” (i.e., having a task or an ego orientation) was a better predictor of character attributes.

Our exploration of the potential associations between sport participation patterns and measures of character focused on differences between the Heavy Sampling group and each of the other groups, as the DMSP highlights this type of sampling as the recommended pattern for participation prior to age 12 (Côté et al., 2009). We observed few consistent character differences between youth in the Heavy Sampling group and youth with other patterns of participation, after controlling for race, gender, and maternal education. Of the nine character attributes tested, only one difference was observed in the non-sport-specific character attributes, and differences in the sport-specific character attributes were inconsistent in their directionality. Specifically, youth in the Limited Sampling group had higher general character than youth in the Heavy Sampling group; youth in the Less Sampling group had higher honesty in sport and lower moral disengagement than youth in the Heavy Sampling group; youth in the Inconsistent Participation group had lower generosity, higher honesty in sport, lower moral disengagement, and higher respect than youth in the Heavy Sampling group; and youth in the No Early Participation group had lower generosity, higher honesty in sport, lower leadership, and lower moral disengagement than youth in the Heavy Sampling.Table 2 presents the regression coefficients and p values for these results.

Last, we examined whether task and ego orientation predicted character attributes over and above sport participation patterns. Our results showed significant associations between non-sport-specific and sport-specific character and both task and ego orientation (see Table 3). After controlling for gender, race, maternal education, and sport participation pattern, task orientation was positively associated with three of the four general measures: character (p < .001), empathy (p < .001), and moral courage (p = .014). In addition, task orientation was a significant predictor of character on all the sport-specific measures: positive associations were observed for generosity (p < .001), honesty in sport (p = .046), leadership (p < .001), and respect (p < .001), and negative associations were observed for moral disengagement (p = .001). Ego orientation, conversely, was associated with significantly lower scores on two of the four general character measures: character (p = .016) and empathy (p = .014). Ego orientation was also a significant predictor of lower character on four of the five the sport-specific measures: negative associations were observed for honesty in sport (p < .001), leadership (p = .017), and respect (p < .001), and positive associations were observed with moral disengagement (p < .001).

Sport sampling is the focus of much attention and scholarship (e.g., Baker et al., 2021; Côté et al., 2009; Kliethermes et al., 2021; Strachan et al., 2009; Waldron et al., 2020), and recent work has highlighted the need for continued empirical study of the topic (Mosher et al., 2022). Arguably, this need exists particularly in regard to the character facets of psychosocial development, given the presence of theoretical discussions of this relation but relatively few empirical findings pertinent to these discussions (Côté et al., 2008; Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Waldron et al., 2020). These observations build on longstanding research suggesting that sampling a variety of sports during childhood is more beneficial for athlete health and retention in sport than specializing in a single sport during this period (Côté et al., 2009; Murata et al., 2021). However, Baker and colleagues (2021) have pointed out that policies encouraging sampling may further marginalize youth with existing structural disadvantages (e.g., access to resources or opportunities). It is therefore important to assess sport sampling in relation to other developmental outcomes, such as character, which may be more relevant to the majority of participants who will not go on to have long-term athletic careers. If sport sampling in childhood is an important predictor of positive development, efforts to promote widespread sampling may be justified. If, however, childhood patterns of sport participation have a negligible association with the development of character attributes, it may be less important to ensure that all youth are sampling a variety of sports.

Consequently, our study focused on exploring associations between sport participation patterns, achievement orientations, and character. Although much of the literature on sport sampling and specialization focuses on continued participation and tracking toward elite competition (Côte, 1999; Murata et al., 2021; Wall & Côte, 2007), character development is a topic of considerable interest in the youth sport field (Naylor & Yeager, 2013; Perkins & Noam, 2007; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Furthermore, prior research suggests that factors related to how sport is played, such as having a task versus an ego orientation to sport (Kavussanu & Ntoumanis, 2003; Lemyre et al., 2002), may be more important for character development than the extent to which a young person samples many different sports. Our study linked these literatures by assessing the extent to which youth engaged in different participation pathways exhibited differences in both sport-specific and general character, and by testing the relative influence of these pathways compared to athletes’ task and ego orientation.

With regard to associations between sport participation patterns and youth character, our results showed that youth whose participation aligned most closely to DMSP recommendations for childhood sport participation (i.e., the Heavy Sampling group) did not show consistently higher scores for positive character attributes than youth with other self-reported patterns of participation and, in fact, for several character indices, their scores reflected lower levels of character. In addition, youth who did not participate in sport in their early years, or who had early participation patterns with some years of non-participation (i.e., the Inconsistent Participation group), showed differences from the Heavy Sampling group across more of the measured character attributes than did youth who experienced different amounts of sampling. This result suggests that playing versus not playing sport in childhood may be more important than the extent of sport sampling.

However, prior work showed more positive outcomes for sport participants in general compared to non-participants (Agans & Geldhof, 2012; Zarrett et al., 2009), whereas the results were mixed in the present study. This difference from the prior literature may be a result of the fact that all study participants were engaged in sport at the time of the study regardless of their childhood participation patterns. Our results are also consistent with the general lack of empirical evidence for personal development outcomes in the sport sampling literature (Murata et al., 2021), which may be related to evidence that many youth sport coaches do not intentionally promote life skills (Bean & Forneris, 2017). In addition, as the tested associations were between self-reports of sport participation patterns in kindergarten through Grade 5 and character outcomes assessed in high school, it may be that any associations between participation patterns and character are not sufficiently strong to maintain influence across this time frame.

Overall, our study showed that adolescent athletes’ concurrent achievement orientations (i.e., their levels of task and ego orientation) were stronger predictors of their character than their childhood patterns of sport participation. These results suggest that the number of sports youth play early in life is less influential for character development than their approach to playing sport in later adolescent years, and this finding aligns with prior studies suggesting that sport contexts contribute to character through the quality of the experience (Bolter & Weiss, 2013; Gould & Carson, 2010). As Mosher and colleagues (2022) have noted, there is a need for better understanding of the processes through which youth sport participation patterns may affect athletes’ physical and psychosocial development. Our findings reinforce existing evidence (e.g., Biddle et al., 2003; Boardley & Kavussanu, 2010; Lee et al., 2008) that the way youth approach their engagement with sport (i.e., with a task or ego orientation) is an important factor to include in future models, especially those focusing on character development. Furthermore, for parents and coaches, our results indicate that, although sampling before age 12 has been widely promoted (e.g., Côté et al., 2009), participating in a wider variety of sports at this age is less relevant for character development than learning to adopt a task-oriented achievement orientation (e.g., Agans et al., 2018; Kavussanu & Ntoumanis, 2003; Lemyre et al., 2002).

The present study provides some insight into the relations among childhood patterns of sport participation and character development, but has limitations that restrict us from more fully addressing this issue. Specifically, our exploratory use of retrospective self-reports within a cross-sectional data set prevented us from assessing the processes through which sport participation may be related to character development (Bredemeier & Shields, 2006). Our measurement of sport participation also did not assess intensity or duration of participation, which limited our ability to determine the extent of specialization. To better understand whether youth are truly seeking to specialize in a particular sport, or if they are just participating in one sport because it is the only thing available to them, future research should include measures of participation frequency and the purpose behind participation decisions (e.g., Rose-Krasnor et al., 2006). Similarly, future research should include measures of the degree to which sport contexts feature play and deliberate practice, as these activities are important experiential aspects of sampling and specializing as theorized in the DMSP (Côté & Vierimaa, 2014). In addition, our measurement of sport-specific character included some items that may not have had universal relevance across all sports, as well as some measures that have not been validated outside this population. Future research should include measures of character that have been psychometrically assessed in diverse populations, and should assess the extent to which the sport contexts in which youth are engaged are intentionally contributing to character development (Bolter & Weiss, 2013; Gould & Carson, 2010). Future studies might also further validate the measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis to assess character attributes as latent constructs and test more psychometric properties (e.g., invariance; reliability that establishes essential tau equivalence and computing omega coefficients instead of alpha coefficients; see Cronbach, 1951; Flora, 2020).

In sum, longitudinal research that gathers more detailed data about sport participation and character development from childhood through adolescence is needed to adequately address the limitations of the secondary data analysis approach used in the present research. Such research should also include information about the broader ecological system of contexts in which participants are embedded, as these contexts also contribute toward character development (Ettekal et al., 2015; Lerner & Schmid Callina, 2014). In addition, further research on participation patterns among diverse samples of recreational youth sport participants and non-participants is needed to better understand the ways in which economic and social pressures and biases (Dagkas et al., 2019; Hartmann & Manning, 2016; Kochanek & Erickson, 2020) may be limiting the opportunities of some youth to sample multiple sports early in life; further research on the impact of policies or rhetoric encouraging sampling on families who do not have the means to support their children to play multiple sports is also imperative. As the present study only involved current athletes, there is also a need to examine these factors among youth who are not engaged in high school sports.

Although sport sampling versus specialization is a popular topic, much of the research focuses on performance and participation outcomes (Kliethermes et al., 2021; Murata et al., 2021; Wall & Côte, 2007) and there is relatively little empirical work on the underlying processes (Mosher et al., 2022). Our data suggest that there are additional aspects of this issue in need of attention, especially with regard to character-related outcomes. Specifically, we did not find that childhood sport participation patterns meaningfully predicted adolescent character outcomes among current high school athletes. Instead, athletes’ task and ego orientation were stronger predictors of character attributes than participation patterns, suggesting that how one participates in sport— in regard to the purpose and focus of one’s participation—may be more important than variety in childhood participation. Sampling a variety of sports in childhood is widely promoted (e.g., Jayanthi et al., 2019), but these recommendations are based on research related to performance outcomes such as injury and drop-out prevention, not psychosocial outcomes such as character. The present study reinforces existing literature on achievement orientation in sport (e.g., Biddle et al., 2003; Boardley & Kavussanu, 2010; Lee et al., 2008; Tod & Hodge, 2001), and indicates that the number of sports in which high school athletes participate in their early years is less important for their character development than their approach to playing the game.