United States Sports Academy - "America's Sports University"

Abstract

The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to develop a paper and pencil instrument that measures two types of character: moral versus social; (2) to determine if college athletes, particularly team sport athletes support social character over moral character as a result of the way character may be defined and fostered by many coaches, parents, and general society. To test our hypothesis that athletes support the practice of social character over moral character we developed a paper and pencil instrument called the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. Participants in the study were N=595 college students from a variety of colleges/universities (National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, II, III and National Association for Intercollegiate Athletics). More specifically, there were n=293 team sport athletes, n= 76 individual sport athletes and n=225 non athletes (and 1 subject that did not indicate their status). College athletes were compared to college non athletes in order to understand the effects of sport participation on moral and social character.

Saliently, results showed that on average, team sport athletes' social character index scores were higher than their moral character index scores. Also of salience, non-athletes scored significantly higher than team sport athletes on the moral character index whereas team sport athletes scored significantly higher than non-athletes on the social character index. Reasons for why there were differences between team sport athletes and non-athletes on the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory are discussed as well as other findings.

Introduction

Since the early part of the 20th century, participation in American sport has been widely and strongly viewed as a vehicle for developing character (Armstrong, 1984; Ogilvie & Tutko, 1971; Sage, 1988, 1998; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). In response to this claim, researchers from a variety of disciplines have empirically tested the popular notion that sport builds character (see for example, Beller & Stoll, 1992, 1995; Hodge, 1989; Kleiber & Roberts, 1981; Ogilvie & Tutko, 1971; Penny & Priest, 1990; Rudd, Stoll & Beller, 1997; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Contrary to what many may believe, results from these studies have suggested that sport does not build character.

From the numerous studies, character development research that has used an instrument called the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI) may be the most profound because of the sizeable, accumulative database and replication (Belier & Stoll, 1992, 1995; Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989; Penny & Priest, 1990; Rudd, Stoll, & Beller, 1997). With a database of over 60,000 athletes and non-athletes and over 250 university studies, the HBVCI has consistently found that the majority of athletes will not support the moral ideal in competition, i.e., moral character. However, despite the well-published and disseminated research, we have continued to hear from coaches, parents, and the media that sport builds character or that athletes frequently display character (Browit, 1999; Docheff, 1997; Herman, 2000; Zimmerman, 2001). As a result, we began to wonder if there is another way to define character, which might explain why athletes do not support the notion of moral character.

From the character development literature, newspapers, media, and personal communications with coaches, parents, and the general populace we discovered that many individuals appear to define character from a social perspective rather than a moral perspective. Thus, many define character in terms of social values such as teamwork, loyalty, self-sacrifice, work ethic, and perseverance which may be considered as "social character'' as opposed to "moral character'' which has been denoted by moral values such as honesty, fairness, and responsibility (see for example, Arnold, 1999; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). The purpose of this study then was two-fold: (1) to develop a paper and pencil instrument that measures two types of character in the sport context: moral versus social; (2) to determine if college athletes, particularly team sport athletes support social character over moral character as a result of the way character may be defined and fostered by many coaches, parents, and general society. To test our hypothesis that athletes support the practice of social character over moral character we developed a paper and pencil instrument called the Rudd-Stoll-Beller-Hahm Value Judgment Inventory. This article will present the findings from our instrument and general study.

Method

Participants

A sample of N=595 college students from a variety of colleges/universities (National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, II, III and National Association for Intercollegiate Athletics) participated in the study. More specifically, there were n=223 non-athletes, n=290 team sport athletes, and n=76 individual sport athletes that responded to all of the questions on the social character index (first 10 questions of RSBH Value Judgment Inventory). There were also n=296 males and n=293 females that responded to all of the questions on the social character index. The number of subjects that responded to all of the questions on the moral character index (last 10 questions of RSBH Value Judgment Inventory) were n=221 non-athletes, n=289 team sport athletes, and n=76 individual sport athletes. Lastly, there were n=294 females and n=292 males that responded to all of the questions on the moral character index.

Definition of the Non Athlete

For the purpose of this study, non-athletes were defined as any student who was not currently participating in college athletics at the time of the administration of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. In most cases this means that a non-athlete was someone who had never been involved in athletics or someone who had been involved in athletics but not at the college level. There was also the possibility that there could have been non-athletes in the sample who were collegiate competitors at one time.

Although there may be non athletes in the sample that in the past competed at one level or another, because they no longer compete at a high level, we hypothesized that their competitive values that relate to character in the sport context would not be the same as the sample of athletes that currently compete. Thus, we would have some indication of how sport participation affects athletes who compete versus those that do not in terms of moral and social character.

Procedure

College non-athletes were administered the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory while in their respective academic classes. College team sport athletes and college individual sport athletes were administered the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory also in academic classes or at practice or in an athletic training room. With every administration of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory, both college athletes and college non-athletes were told that their participation in the study was anonymous and that there participation was voluntary.

Design

A retrospective causal-comparative design in which college athletes were compared to college non-athletes was used to understand the effects of sport participation on moral and social character (see Gay & Airasian, 2002 for causal-comparative designs).

Instrumentation

In 1998, the Rudd-Stoll-Beller-Hahm (RSBH) Value Judgment Inventory was developed to measure moral and social character (Rudd, 1998). To do so, the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory is comprised of two indices: a social character index and a moral character index. The social character index consists of ten sport context scenarios that mostly take place outside the lines of competition. Concomitantly, these scenarios are infused with the social values of teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice. Subjects are asked to respond to each scenario via a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree).

The moral character index is comprised of ten gamesmanship scenarios that were selected from the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI). These 10 questions were selected based on their high internal reliability ranging from .81 to .88 over six different studies (see for example, Beller & Stoll, 1992, 1995; Beller, Stoll, Bunnell, & Cole, 1996; Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989). In sum, subjects receive two scores: a social character index score and a moral character index score.

The more frequently subjects agree with the social character scenarios, the higher one scores on the social character index. The higher the score, the more it is suggested that individuals are believed to support social values and more generally social character in the sport milieu. Concurrently, for the moral character index, the more frequently subjects "disagree" with the various gamesmanship practices, the higher one's score and the more one is believed to support moral character in sport.

Four pilot studies were conducted to establish the reliability and validity of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. Specifically, for the fourth pilot study, the sample contained n=149 non-athletes, n=169 team sport athletes and n=36 individual sport athletes. There were also n=182 males and n=172 females. An internal reliability analysis indicated a Cronbach alpha of .72 for the social character index and a Cronbach alpha of .86 for the moral character index. The internal reliability for the current sample used in this study showed a Cronbach Alpha of .87 for the moral character index and a Cronbach Alpha of .73 for the social character index.

As part of establishing the validity of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted during the fourth pilot study to seek evidence of construct validity. Results from the factor analysis are somewhat difficult to interpret, however, the first factor does suggest that there is a distinct contrast between social character (questions 1-10) and moral character (questions 11-20). Thus, there is evidence to suggest that our instrument is measuring two distinct constructs; moral character versus social character (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1: Total Variance Explained

Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues	Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings	Rotation
Factor	Total	% Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% Variance	Cumulative %	Total
1	6.28	31.40	31.40	5.76	28.84	28.84	4.08
2	1.57	7.86	39.27	1.04	5.22	34.05	2.70
3	1.30	6.52	45.79	0.69	3.46	37.52	3.25
4	1.09	5.43	51.22	0.46	2.32	39.83	2.57
5	1.06	5.32	56.53	0.36	1.82	41.65	1.38
6	0.96	4.78	61.33
7	0.81	4.05	65.37
8	0.79	3.93	69.30
9	0.77	3.86	73.16
10	0.66	3.28	76.44
11	0.62	3.09	79.52
12	0.60	3.01	82.53
13	0.58	2.89	85.41
14	0.52	2.59	88.00
15	0.47	2.37	90.37
16	0.43	2.15	92.52
17	0.43	2.13	94.65
18	0.40	2.00	96.64
19	0.36	1.81	98.45
20	0.31	1.55	100.00

Table 2: Factor Matrix

	Factors
1	2	3	4	5
Quest. 1	-0.23	0.15	0.19	-5.04E-02	0.26
Quest. 2	-0.55	0.31	0.19	-5.71	2.01E-03
Quest. 3	-0.53	0.39	-8.95E-02	-7.61E-02	-0.12
Quest. 4	-0.15	2.55E-02	0.17	0.15	-6.51E-02
Quest. 5	-0.49	0.35	0.22	0.10	0.20
Quest. 6	-0.46	0.24	0.17	6.74E-02	-0.28
Quest. 7	-0.38	0.28	-2.00	9.03E-02	7.40E-02
Quest. 8	-0.64	0.22	-0.16	0.15	-4.85E-02
Quest. 9	-0.24	8.21E-02	-0.13	0.14	0.24
Quest. 10	-0.34	1.56E-02	0.22	0.13	-0.09
Quest. 11	0.61	-7.83E-02	.6.14E-02	9.52E-02	0.14
Quest. 12	0.65	0.31	-9.39E-02	-0.25	2.19E-02
Quest. 13	0.61	9.18	0.31	9.12E-02	-1.19E-02
Quest. 14	0.61	0.15	0.27	-0.14	-0.18
Quest. 15	0.60	1.79E-02	0.31	0.15	8.08E-02
Quest. 16	0.62	0.41	-9.56E-02	-0.21	9.48E-02
Quest. 17	0.72	0.20	6.90E-02	2.10E-02	-0.10
Quest. 18	0.55	0.23	-0.38	0.28	-7.11
Quest. 19	0.67	0.26	-8.50E-02	0.14	3.07E-02
Quest. 20	0.61	1.19E-02	1.89E-02	0.30	8.04

Analysis

A 3x2 (teams sport athletes, individual sport athletes, and college non athletes) x (males and females) univariate factorial analysis of variance was used to compare differences between college team sport athletes, college individual sport athletes, and college non athletes and to also compare males and females on the moral and social character index. A Tukey Post hoc test was used to detect specific group differences after a significant F test was found.

For clarification, although comparing differences between gender on the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory was not the focus of this study, gender was introduced into the analysis as a result of previous studies with the HBVCI that have shown that overall females score significantly higher than males (Belier & Stoll, 1992, 1995., Penny & Priest, 1990; Rudd, Stoll, & Beller, 1997). As well, a previous study by Rudd (1998) showed that overall, males scored significantly higher than females on the social character index part of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. Thus, we were concerned with interaction effects.

Results

Results from the univariate factorial analysis of variance revealed that there was a significant difference between team sport athletes, individual sport athletes, and non athletes on the moral character index F (2, 580) = 31.04, p<. 05. There was also a significant difference between team sport athletes, individual sport athletes, and non athletes on the social character index F (2, 583) = 22.86, p<. 05.

A significant difference between males and females on the moral character index F (1, 580) = 87.23, p<. 05 was also found. There was also a significant difference between males and females on the social character index F (1, 583) = 68.33, p<. 05 There was no gender interaction for either of the two univariate analyses.

More specifically, a Tukey's post hoc indicated that non-athletes scored significantly higher (M=27.51, SD=7.13) than team sport athletes (M=20.75, SD=6.41) on the moral character index. Further, individual sport athletes scored significantly higher (M=26.02,

SD=6.87) than team sport athletes (M=20.75, SD=6.41) on the moral character index. And non-athletes (M=27.51, SD=7.13) scored only slightly higher than individual sport athletes (M=26.02, SD=6.87) on the moral character index. Finally, overall there was a significant difference between males and females in which females scored significantly higher (M=27.56, SD=6.81) than males (M=20.42, SD=6.36) on the moral character index.

Dissimilarly, a Tukey's post hoc test indicated that team sport athletes scored significantly higher (M=28.47, SD=5.92) than non-athletes (M=23.30, SD=5.35) on the social character index. Team sport athletes (M=28.47, SD=5.92) also scored significantly higher than individual sport athletes (M=25.46, SD=5.59) on the social character index.

And individual sport athletes (M=25.46, SD=5.59) scored significantly higher than non-athletes (M=23.30, SD=5.35). Also on the social character index, males scored significantly higher (M=28.87, SD=6.18) than females (M=23.35, SD=4.72).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument that could measure two types of character: moral versus social and to then determine if college athletes, team sport athletes in particular, support social character over moral character. Concurrently, this study was aimed towards ascertaining the effect of sport participation on moral and social character and therefore we compared college athletes (team sport athletes and individual sport athletes) to college non-athletes.

Team sport athletes scored significantly higher than non-athletes and individual sport athletes on the social character index. And individual sport athletes scored significantly higher than non-athletes on the social character index. In contrast, team sport athletes scored significantly lower than non-athletes and individual sport athletes on the moral character index. Lastly, non-athletes scored only slightly higher than individual sport athletes on the moral character index. All group differences on moral and social character are consistent with previous studies using the HBVCI to measure moral character (for example, Beller & Stoll, 1995, Beller, Stoll & Rudd, 1997; Rudd, Stoll & Beller, 1997) or a previous study using the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory to measure moral and social character (Rudd, Stoll & Beller, 1999).

As for explanations of the group differences, page limitations do not allow for a full explication of all the various differences. Instead, we will briefly address differences between team sport athletes and non-athletes given those were the comparisons of most interest.

The reason why team sport athletes scored significantly higher than non athletes on the social character index may be as a result of the emphasis that coaches, parents, and general society place on values such as teamwork, loyalty, self-sacrifice, perseverance, and work ethic in team sports. Why such values are emphasized may be related to our American ideology that emphasizes capitalism and corporation. Those such as (Berlage, 1982; Coakley, 1998; O'Hanlon, 1980; Sage, 1988, 1998) have maintained that sport is used as a vehicle to instill the types of values among sport participants that will allow them to go out into society and contribute to corporate America.

As for why team sport athletes scored significantly lower than non athletes on the moral character index, the reason may relate to the socialization process in the sport milieu in which many team sport athletes learn that winning takes precedence over the moral ideal (see for example, Dreyfuss, 2001; Eitzen, 1999; Hawes, 1998; "A Purpose," 1999). Therefore, many athletes have not been taught to appreciate moral idealism or the notion of moral character in competition.

In conclusion, there is evidence from our study to suggest that sport may build social character, e.g., teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice as a possible result of the emphasis that is placed on social character. In opposition, there is little evidence to suggest sport builds moral character when defining character from a moral idealistic standpoint.

References

1. A purpose pitch. (1999, May 17). Sports Illustrated, 90, 24.
2. Armstrong, C.F. (1984). The lessons of sports: Class socialization in British and American boarding schools. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1, 314-331.
3. Arnold, P. (1999). The virtues, moral education, and the practice of sport. Quest, 51 (1), 39-54.
4. Beller, J.M. & Stoll, S.K. (Spring, 1992). A moral reasoning intervention program for Division I athletes. The Academic Athletic Journal, 43-57.
5. Beller, J.M., & Stoll, S.K. (1995). Moral reasoning of high school student athletes and general students: An empirical study versus personal testimony. Pediatric Exercise Science, 7 (4), 352-363.
6. Beller, J.M., Stoll, S.K., Burwell, B., & Cole, J. (1996). The relationship of competition and a Christian liberal arts education on moral reasoning of college student athletes. Research on Christian Higher Education, 3, 99-114.
7. Beller, J.M., Stoll, S.K., & Rudd, A. (1997). The "great character experience."
8. Assessing the effectiveness of a great books approach to teaching moral character with competitive populations. Research Quarterly, 68 (Suppl.1), 72.
9. Berlage, G.I. (1982). Are children's competitive team sports teaching corporate values? Arena review, 6, 15-21.
10. Browit, J. (1999, June 2). Character paves way for L-C. Lewiston Morning Tribune, pp. 1B, 3B.
11. Coakley, J. (1998). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (sixth ed.). Boston: Irwin, McGraw-Hill.
12. Docheff, D. (1997). Character in sport and physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68 (9), 34, 37.
13. Dreyfuss, I. (2001, June 17). Youth officials look for ways to stem adult violence.
14. Statesman Journal, p. 7B.
15. Eitzen, D.S. (1999). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
16. Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P (2000). Educational research.. Competencies for analysis and Application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
17. Hahm, C.H., Beller, J.M., & Stoll, Stoll, S.K. (1989). The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory. (Available from C.H. Hahm, J.M. Beller, and S.K. Stoll, the Center for Ethics, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844).
18. Hawes, K. (1998). Sportsmanship: Why should anybody care? NCAA News, pp. 1, 18.
19. Herman, J. (2000, May 22). They're 'good guys, good players.' Statesman Journal, p.3B.
20. Hodge, P. (1989). Character-building in sport: Fact or fiction. New Zealand Journal of Medicine, 17 (2), 23-25.
21. Kleiber, D.A. & Roberts, G.C. (1981). The effects of sport experience in the development of social character: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Psychology 3, 114- 122.
22. Lumpkin, A., Stoll, S.K. & Beller, J.M. (1999). Sport ethics. Applications for fair play.
23. (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: McGraw Hill.
24. Ogilvie, B.C., & Tutko, A. T. (1971). If you want to build character, try something else.
25. Psychology Today, 5, 60-63.
26. O'Hanlon, T. (1980). Interscholastic athletics, 1900-1940: Shaping citizens for unequal roles in the modern industrial state. Educational Theory, 30 (2), 89-103.
27. Penny, W.J., & Priest, R.F. (1990). Deontological sport values choices of United States academy cadets and selected other college-aged populations. Unpublished manuscript, Office of Institutional Research, United State Military Academy.
28. Rudd, A. (1998). Sport 's perceived ability to build character. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of idaho, Moscow.
29. Rudd, A., Stoll, S.K., & Beller, J.M. (1997). Expressed coaching behavior and its effect on athlete moral development. Research Quarterly, 68 (Supp1.1), 114-115.
30. Rudd, A., Stoll, S.K. & Beller, J.M. (1999). Measuring moral and social character among a group of Division IA college athletes, non-athletes, and ROTC military cadets.
31. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70 (Supp1.1), 127.
32. Sage, G. (1988). Sport participation as a builder of character? The World and I, 3 (10), 629-641.
33. Sage, G. (1998). Does sport affect character development in athletes? The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69 (1), 15-18.
34. Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (1995). Character development and physical activity.
35. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
36. Stoll, S.K., J.M. Beller, Cole, J., Burwell, B. (1995). A comparison of moral reasoning scores of student athletes in Division I and Division III NCAA member collegiate/ institutions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66 (suppl). 81.
37. Zimmerman, P. (2001, September 3). New England Patriots. Sports Illustrated, 95 (9) 162-163.

---

Footnotes

1. A study by Stoll, Beller, Cole, and Burwell (1995) revealed that there was not a significant difference between Division I and Division III athletes on the HBVCI.

Results suggest that athletes have similar competitive values regardless of the competitive level of the university. Therefore, researchers felt it was acceptable to use a sample of athletes from various university levels and to then compare an aggregation of the athletes to the sample of non-athletes.