{"id":169,"date":"2004-03-08T13:45:30","date_gmt":"2004-03-08T19:45:30","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2015-03-20T08:37:41","modified_gmt":"2015-03-20T13:37:41","slug":"what-type-of-character-do-athletes-possess","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/what-type-of-character-do-athletes-possess\/","title":{"rendered":"What Type of Character Do Athletes Possess?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Submitted by: Andy Rudd, PhD. & Sharon Stoll, PhD.<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h2>\n

The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to develop a paper and pencil
\ninstrument that measures two types of character: moral versus social;
\n(2) to determine if college athletes, particularly team sport athletes
\nsupport social character over moral character as a result of the way character
\nmay be defined and fostered by many coaches, parents, and general society.
\nTo test our hypothesis that athletes support the practice of social character
\nover moral character we developed a paper and pencil instrument called
\nthe RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. Participants in the study were N=595
\ncollege students from a variety of colleges\/universities (National Collegiate
\nAthletic Association Division I, II, III and National Association for
\nIntercollegiate Athletics). More specifically, there were n=293 team sport
\nathletes, n= 76 individual sport athletes and n=225 non athletes (and
\n1 subject that did not indicate their status). College athletes were compared
\nto college non athletes in order to understand the effects of sport participation
\non moral and social character.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Saliently, results showed that on average, team sport athletes’ social
\ncharacter index scores were higher than their moral character index scores.
\nAlso of salience, non-athletes scored significantly higher than team sport
\nathletes on the moral character index whereas team sport athletes scored
\nsignificantly higher than non-athletes on the social character index.
\nReasons for why there were differences between team sport athletes and
\nnon-athletes on the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory are discussed as well
\nas other findings.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

Since the early part of the 20th century, participation in American sport
\nhas been widely and strongly viewed as a vehicle for developing character
\n(Armstrong, 1984; Ogilvie & Tutko, 1971; Sage, 1988, 1998; Shields
\n& Bredemeier, 1995). In response to this claim, researchers from a
\nvariety of disciplines have empirically tested the popular notion that
\nsport builds character (see for example, Beller & Stoll, 1992, 1995;
\nHodge, 1989; Kleiber & Roberts, 1981; Ogilvie & Tutko, 1971; Penny
\n& Priest, 1990; Rudd, Stoll & Beller, 1997; Shields & Bredemeier,
\n1995). Contrary to what many may believe, results from these studies have
\nsuggested that sport does not build character.<\/p>\n

From the numerous studies, character development research that has used
\nan instrument called the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI) may
\nbe the most profound because of the sizeable, accumulative database and
\nreplication (Belier & Stoll, 1992, 1995; Hahm, Beller, & Stoll,
\n1989; Penny & Priest, 1990; Rudd, Stoll, & Beller, 1997). With
\na database of over 60,000 athletes and non-athletes and over 250 university
\nstudies, the HBVCI has consistently found that the majority of athletes
\nwill not support the moral ideal in competition, i.e., moral character.
\nHowever, despite the well-published and disseminated research, we have
\ncontinued to hear from coaches, parents, and the media that sport builds
\ncharacter or that athletes frequently display character (Browit, 1999;
\nDocheff, 1997; Herman, 2000; Zimmerman, 2001). As a result, we began to
\nwonder if there is another way to define character, which might explain
\nwhy athletes do not support the notion of moral character.<\/p>\n

From the character development literature, newspapers, media, and personal
\ncommunications with coaches, parents, and the general populace we discovered
\nthat many individuals appear to define character from a social perspective
\nrather than a moral perspective. Thus, many define character in terms
\nof social values such as teamwork, loyalty, self-sacrifice, work ethic,
\nand perseverance which may be considered as “social character” as
\nopposed to “moral character” which has been denoted by moral values
\nsuch as honesty, fairness, and responsibility (see for example, Arnold,
\n1999; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). The purpose of this study then
\nwas two-fold: (1) to develop a paper and pencil instrument that measures
\ntwo types of character in the sport context: moral versus social; (2)
\nto determine if college athletes, particularly team sport athletes support
\nsocial character over moral character as a result of the way character
\nmay be defined and fostered by many coaches, parents, and general society.
\nTo test our hypothesis that athletes support the practice of social character
\nover moral character we developed a paper and pencil instrument called
\nthe Rudd-Stoll-Beller-Hahm Value Judgment Inventory. This article will
\npresent the findings from our instrument and general study.<\/p>\n

Method<\/h2>\n

Participants<\/h3>\n

A sample of N=595 college students from a variety of colleges\/universities
\n(National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, II, III and National
\nAssociation for Intercollegiate Athletics) participated in the study.
\nMore specifically, there were n=223 non-athletes, n=290 team sport athletes,
\nand n=76 individual sport athletes that responded to all of the questions
\non the social character index (first 10 questions of RSBH Value Judgment
\nInventory). There were also n=296 males and n=293 females that responded
\nto all of the questions on the social character index. The number of subjects
\nthat responded to all of the questions on the moral character index (last
\n10 questions of RSBH Value Judgment Inventory) were n=221 non-athletes,
\nn=289 team sport athletes, and n=76 individual sport athletes. Lastly,
\nthere were n=294 females and n=292 males that responded to all of the
\nquestions on the moral character index.<\/p>\n

Definition of the Non Athlete<\/h3>\n

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

Although there may be non athletes in the sample that in the past competed
\nat one level or another, because they no longer compete at a high level,
\nwe hypothesized that their competitive values that relate to character
\nin the sport context would not be the same as the sample of athletes that
\ncurrently compete. Thus, we would have some indication of how sport participation
\naffects athletes who compete versus those that do not in terms of moral
\nand social character.<\/p>\n

Procedure<\/h3>\n

College non-athletes were administered the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory
\nwhile in their respective academic classes. College team sport athletes
\nand college individual sport athletes were administered the RSBH Value
\nJudgment Inventory also in academic classes or at practice or in an athletic
\ntraining room. With every administration of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory,
\nboth college athletes and college non-athletes were told that their participation
\nin the study was anonymous and that there participation was voluntary.<\/p>\n

Design<\/h3>\n

A retrospective causal-comparative design in which college athletes were
\ncompared to college non-athletes was used to understand the effects of
\nsport participation on moral and social character (see Gay & Airasian,
\n2002 for causal-comparative designs).<\/p>\n

Instrumentation<\/h3>\n

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

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

The more frequently subjects agree with the social character scenarios,
\nthe higher one scores on the social character index. The higher the score,
\nthe more it is suggested that individuals are believed to support social
\nvalues and more generally social character in the sport milieu. Concurrently,
\nfor the moral character index, the more frequently subjects “disagree”
\nwith the various gamesmanship practices, the higher one’s score and the
\nmore one is believed to support moral character in sport.<\/p>\n

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

As part of establishing the validity of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory,
\nan exploratory factor analysis was conducted during the fourth pilot study
\nto seek evidence of construct validity. Results from the factor analysis
\nare somewhat difficult to interpret, however, the first factor does suggest
\nthat there is a distinct contrast between social character (questions
\n1-10) and moral character (questions 11-20). Thus, there is evidence to
\nsuggest that our instrument is measuring two distinct constructs; moral
\ncharacter versus social character (see Tables 1 and 2).<\/p>\n

Table 1: Total Variance Explained<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Total Variance Explained<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Initial Eigenvalues<\/td>\nExtraction Sums of Squared Loadings<\/td>\nRotation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Factor<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n% Variance<\/td>\nCumulative %<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n% Variance<\/td>\nCumulative %<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n6.28<\/td>\n31.40<\/td>\n31.40<\/td>\n5.76<\/td>\n28.84<\/td>\n28.84<\/td>\n4.08<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n1.57<\/td>\n7.86<\/td>\n39.27<\/td>\n1.04<\/td>\n5.22<\/td>\n34.05<\/td>\n2.70<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\n1.30<\/td>\n6.52<\/td>\n45.79<\/td>\n0.69<\/td>\n3.46<\/td>\n37.52<\/td>\n3.25<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n1.09<\/td>\n5.43<\/td>\n51.22<\/td>\n0.46<\/td>\n2.32<\/td>\n39.83<\/td>\n2.57<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\n1.06<\/td>\n5.32<\/td>\n56.53<\/td>\n0.36<\/td>\n1.82<\/td>\n41.65<\/td>\n1.38<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\n0.96<\/td>\n4.78<\/td>\n61.33<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\n0.81<\/td>\n4.05<\/td>\n65.37<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\n0.79<\/td>\n3.93<\/td>\n69.30<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\n0.77<\/td>\n3.86<\/td>\n73.16<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/td>\n0.66<\/td>\n3.28<\/td>\n76.44<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/td>\n0.62<\/td>\n3.09<\/td>\n79.52<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/td>\n0.60<\/td>\n3.01<\/td>\n82.53<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/td>\n0.58<\/td>\n2.89<\/td>\n85.41<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/td>\n0.52<\/td>\n2.59<\/td>\n88.00<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/td>\n0.47<\/td>\n2.37<\/td>\n90.37<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/td>\n0.43<\/td>\n2.15<\/td>\n92.52<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/td>\n0.43<\/td>\n2.13<\/td>\n94.65<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18<\/td>\n0.40<\/td>\n2.00<\/td>\n96.64<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19<\/td>\n0.36<\/td>\n1.81<\/td>\n98.45<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20<\/td>\n0.31<\/td>\n1.55<\/td>\n100.00<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table 2: Factor Matrix<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\n
Factors<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
1<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
2<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
3<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 1<\/td>\n-0.23<\/td>\n0.15<\/td>\n0.19<\/td>\n-5.04E-02<\/td>\n0.26<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 2<\/td>\n-0.55<\/td>\n0.31<\/td>\n0.19<\/td>\n-5.71<\/td>\n2.01E-03<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 3<\/td>\n-0.53<\/td>\n0.39<\/td>\n-8.95E-02<\/td>\n-7.61E-02<\/td>\n-0.12<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 4<\/td>\n-0.15<\/td>\n2.55E-02<\/td>\n0.17<\/td>\n0.15<\/td>\n-6.51E-02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 5<\/td>\n-0.49<\/td>\n0.35<\/td>\n0.22<\/td>\n0.10<\/td>\n0.20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 6<\/td>\n-0.46<\/td>\n0.24<\/td>\n0.17<\/td>\n6.74E-02<\/td>\n-0.28<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 7<\/td>\n-0.38<\/td>\n0.28<\/td>\n-2.00<\/td>\n9.03E-02<\/td>\n7.40E-02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 8<\/td>\n-0.64<\/td>\n0.22<\/td>\n-0.16<\/td>\n0.15<\/td>\n-4.85E-02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 9<\/td>\n-0.24<\/td>\n8.21E-02<\/td>\n-0.13<\/td>\n0.14<\/td>\n0.24<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 10<\/td>\n-0.34<\/td>\n1.56E-02<\/td>\n0.22<\/td>\n0.13<\/td>\n-0.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 11<\/td>\n0.61<\/td>\n-7.83E-02<\/td>\n.6.14E-02<\/td>\n9.52E-02<\/td>\n0.14<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 12<\/td>\n0.65<\/td>\n0.31<\/td>\n-9.39E-02<\/td>\n-0.25<\/td>\n2.19E-02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 13<\/td>\n0.61<\/td>\n9.18<\/td>\n0.31<\/td>\n9.12E-02<\/td>\n-1.19E-02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 14<\/td>\n0.61<\/td>\n0.15<\/td>\n0.27<\/td>\n-0.14<\/td>\n-0.18<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 15<\/td>\n0.60<\/td>\n1.79E-02<\/td>\n0.31<\/td>\n0.15<\/td>\n8.08E-02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 16<\/td>\n0.62<\/td>\n0.41<\/td>\n-9.56E-02<\/td>\n-0.21<\/td>\n9.48E-02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 17<\/td>\n0.72<\/td>\n0.20<\/td>\n6.90E-02<\/td>\n2.10E-02<\/td>\n-0.10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 18<\/td>\n0.55<\/td>\n0.23<\/td>\n-0.38<\/td>\n0.28<\/td>\n-7.11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 19<\/td>\n0.67<\/td>\n0.26<\/td>\n-8.50E-02<\/td>\n0.14<\/td>\n3.07E-02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quest. 20<\/td>\n0.61<\/td>\n1.19E-02<\/td>\n1.89E-02<\/td>\n0.30<\/td>\n8.04<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h3>\n

A 3×2 (teams sport athletes, individual sport athletes, and college non
\nathletes) x (males and females) univariate factorial analysis of variance
\nwas used to compare differences between college team sport athletes, college
\nindividual sport athletes, and college non athletes and to also compare
\nmales and females on the moral and social character index. A Tukey Post
\nhoc test was used to detect specific group differences after a significant
\nF test was found.<\/p>\n

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

Results<\/h3>\n

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

A significant difference between males and females on the moral character
\nindex F (1, 580) = 87.23, p<. 05 was also found. There was also a significant
\ndifference between males and females on the social character index F (1,
\n583) = 68.33, p<. 05 There was no gender interaction for either of
\nthe two univariate analyses.<\/p>\n

More specifically, a Tukey’s post hoc indicated that non-athletes scored
\nsignificantly higher (M=27.51, SD=7.13) than team sport athletes (M=20.75,
\nSD=6.41) on the moral character index. Further, individual sport athletes
\nscored significantly higher (M=26.02,<\/p>\n

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

Dissimilarly, a Tukey’s post hoc test indicated that team sport athletes
\nscored significantly higher (M=28.47, SD=5.92) than non-athletes (M=23.30,
\nSD=5.35) on the social character index. Team sport athletes (M=28.47,
\nSD=5.92) also scored significantly higher than individual sport athletes
\n(M=25.46, SD=5.59) on the social character index.<\/p>\n

And individual sport athletes (M=25.46, SD=5.59) scored significantly
\nhigher than non-athletes (M=23.30, SD=5.35). Also on the social character
\nindex, males scored significantly higher (M=28.87, SD=6.18) than females
\n(M=23.35, SD=4.72).<\/p>\n

Discussion<\/h2>\n

The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument that could measure
\ntwo types of character: moral versus social and to then determine if college
\nathletes, team sport athletes in particular, support social character
\nover moral character. Concurrently, this study was aimed towards ascertaining
\nthe effect of sport participation on moral and social character and therefore
\nwe compared college athletes (team sport athletes and individual sport
\nathletes) to college non-athletes.<\/p>\n

Team sport athletes scored significantly higher than non-athletes and
\nindividual sport athletes on the social character index. And individual
\nsport athletes scored significantly higher than non-athletes on the social
\ncharacter index. In contrast, team sport athletes scored significantly
\nlower than non-athletes and individual sport athletes on the moral character
\nindex. Lastly, non-athletes scored only slightly higher than individual
\nsport athletes on the moral character index. All group differences on
\nmoral and social character are consistent with previous studies using
\nthe HBVCI to measure moral character (for example, Beller & Stoll,
\n1995, Beller, Stoll & Rudd, 1997; Rudd, Stoll & Beller, 1997)
\nor a previous study using the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory to measure
\nmoral and social character (Rudd, Stoll & Beller, 1999).<\/p>\n

As for explanations of the group differences, page limitations do not
\nallow for a full explication of all the various differences. Instead,
\nwe will briefly address differences between team sport athletes and non-athletes
\ngiven those were the comparisons of most interest.<\/p>\n

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

As for why team sport athletes scored significantly lower than non athletes
\non the moral character index, the reason may relate to the socialization
\nprocess in the sport milieu in which many team sport athletes learn that
\nwinning takes precedence over the moral ideal (see for example, Dreyfuss,
\n2001; Eitzen, 1999; Hawes, 1998; “A Purpose,” 1999). Therefore,
\nmany athletes have not been taught to appreciate moral idealism or the
\nnotion of moral character in competition.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, there is evidence from our study to suggest that sport
\nmay build social character, e.g., teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice
\nas a possible result of the emphasis that is placed on social character.
\nIn opposition, there is little evidence to suggest sport builds moral
\ncharacter when defining character from a moral idealistic standpoint.<\/p>\n

References<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. A purpose pitch. (1999, May 17). Sports Illustrated, 90, 24.<\/li>\n
  2. Armstrong, C.F. (1984). The lessons of sports: Class socialization
    \nin British and American boarding schools. Sociology of Sport Journal,
    \n1, 314-331.<\/li>\n
  3. Arnold, P. (1999). The virtues, moral education, and the practice
    \nof sport. Quest, 51 (1), 39-54.<\/li>\n
  4. Beller, J.M. & Stoll, S.K. (Spring, 1992). A moral reasoning intervention
    \nprogram for Division I athletes. The Academic Athletic Journal, 43-57.<\/li>\n
  5. Beller, J.M., & Stoll, S.K. (1995). Moral reasoning of high school
    \nstudent athletes and general students: An empirical study versus personal
    \ntestimony. Pediatric Exercise Science, 7 (4), 352-363.<\/li>\n
  6. Beller, J.M., Stoll, S.K., Burwell, B., & Cole, J. (1996). The
    \nrelationship of competition and a Christian liberal arts education on
    \nmoral reasoning of college student athletes. Research on Christian Higher
    \nEducation, 3, 99-114.<\/li>\n
  7. Beller, J.M., Stoll, S.K., & Rudd, A. (1997). The “great
    \ncharacter experience.”<\/li>\n
  8. Assessing the effectiveness of a great books approach to teaching
    \nmoral character with competitive populations. Research Quarterly, 68
    \n(Suppl.1), 72.<\/li>\n
  9. Berlage, G.I. (1982). Are children’s competitive team sports teaching
    \ncorporate values? Arena review, 6, 15-21.<\/li>\n
  10. Browit, J. (1999, June 2). Character paves way for L-C. Lewiston Morning
    \nTribune, pp. 1B, 3B.<\/li>\n
  11. Coakley, J. (1998). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (sixth
    \ned.). Boston: Irwin, McGraw-Hill.<\/li>\n
  12. Docheff, D. (1997). Character in sport and physical education. Journal
    \nof Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68 (9), 34, 37.<\/li>\n
  13. Dreyfuss, I. (2001, June 17). Youth officials look for ways to stem
    \nadult violence.<\/li>\n
  14. Statesman Journal, p. 7B.<\/li>\n
  15. Eitzen, D.S. (1999). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes
    \nof sport. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.<\/li>\n
  16. Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P (2000). Educational research.. Competencies
    \nfor analysis and Application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.<\/li>\n
  17. Hahm, C.H., Beller, J.M., & Stoll, Stoll, S.K. (1989). The Hahm-Beller
    \nValues Choice Inventory. (Available from C.H. Hahm, J.M. Beller, and
    \nS.K. Stoll, the Center for Ethics, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844).<\/li>\n
  18. Hawes, K. (1998). Sportsmanship: Why should anybody care? NCAA News,
    \npp. 1, 18.<\/li>\n
  19. Herman, J. (2000, May 22). They’re ‘good guys, good players.’ Statesman
    \nJournal, p.3B.<\/li>\n
  20. Hodge, P. (1989). Character-building in sport: Fact or fiction. New
    \nZealand Journal of Medicine, 17 (2), 23-25.<\/li>\n
  21. Kleiber, D.A. & Roberts, G.C. (1981). The effects of sport experience
    \nin the development of social character: An exploratory investigation.
    \nJournal of Psychology 3, 114- 122.<\/li>\n
  22. Lumpkin, A., Stoll, S.K. & Beller, J.M. (1999). Sport ethics.
    \nApplications for fair play.<\/li>\n
  23. (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: McGraw Hill.<\/li>\n
  24. Ogilvie, B.C., & Tutko, A. T. (1971). If you want to build character,
    \ntry something else.<\/li>\n
  25. Psychology Today, 5, 60-63.<\/li>\n
  26. O’Hanlon, T. (1980). Interscholastic athletics, 1900-1940: Shaping
    \ncitizens for unequal roles in the modern industrial state. Educational
    \nTheory, 30 (2), 89-103.<\/li>\n
  27. Penny, W.J., & Priest, R.F. (1990). Deontological sport values
    \nchoices of United States academy cadets and selected other college-aged
    \npopulations. Unpublished manuscript, Office of Institutional Research,
    \nUnited State Military Academy.<\/li>\n
  28. Rudd, A. (1998). Sport ‘s perceived ability to build character. Unpublished
    \ndoctoral dissertation. University of idaho, Moscow.<\/li>\n
  29. Rudd, A., Stoll, S.K., & Beller, J.M. (1997). Expressed coaching
    \nbehavior and its effect on athlete moral development. Research Quarterly,
    \n68 (Supp1.1), 114-115.<\/li>\n
  30. Rudd, A., Stoll, S.K. & Beller, J.M. (1999). Measuring moral and
    \nsocial character among a group of Division IA college athletes, non-athletes,
    \nand ROTC military cadets.<\/li>\n
  31. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70 (Supp1.1), 127.<\/li>\n
  32. Sage, G. (1988). Sport participation as a builder of character? The
    \nWorld and I, 3 (10), 629-641.<\/li>\n
  33. Sage, G. (1998). Does sport affect character development in athletes?
    \nThe Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69 (1), 15-18.<\/li>\n
  34. Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (1995). Character development and
    \nphysical activity.<\/li>\n
  35. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.<\/li>\n
  36. Stoll, S.K., J.M. Beller, Cole, J., Burwell, B. (1995). A comparison
    \nof moral reasoning scores of student athletes in Division I and Division
    \nIII NCAA member collegiate\/ institutions. Research Quarterly for Exercise
    \nand Sport, 66 (suppl). 81.<\/li>\n
  37. Zimmerman, P. (2001, September 3). New England Patriots. Sports Illustrated,
    \n95 (9) 162-163.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n

    Footnotes<\/h2>\n

    1. A study by Stoll, Beller, Cole, and Burwell (1995) revealed that there
    \nwas not a significant difference between Division I and Division III athletes
    \non the HBVCI.<\/p>\n

    Results suggest that athletes have similar competitive values regardless
    \nof the competitive level of the university. Therefore, researchers felt
    \nit was acceptable to use a sample of athletes from various university
    \nlevels and to then compare an aggregation of the athletes to the sample
    \nof non-athletes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Submitted by: Andy Rudd, PhD. & Sharon Stoll, PhD.<\/div>\n

    Abstract<\/h2>\n

    The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to develop a paper and pencil
    \n instrument that measures two types of character: moral versus social;
    \n (2) to determine if college athletes, particularly team sport athletes
    \n support social character over moral character as a result of the way character
    \n may be defined and fostered by many coaches, parents, and general society.
    \n To test our hypothesis that athletes support the practice of social character
    \n over moral character we developed a paper and pencil instrument called
    \n the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. Participants in the study were N=595
    \n college students from a variety of colleges\/universities (National Collegiate
    \n Athletic Association Division I, II, III and National Association for
    \n Intercollegiate Athletics). More specifically, there were n=293 team sport
    \n athletes, n= 76 individual sport athletes and n=225 non athletes (and
    \n 1 subject that did not indicate their status). College athletes were compared
    \n to college non athletes in order to understand the effects of sport participation
    \n on moral and social character.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,296],"tags":[60,8,31,61],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-2J","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":2038,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/winning-by-deemphasizing-winning-establishing-climates-for-moral-development-in-sports\/","url_meta":{"origin":169,"position":0},"title":"Winning by Deemphasizing Winning: Establishing Climates for Moral Development in Sports","date":"July 31, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by Luke Nielsen Luke Nielsen is an educator and strength and conditioning coach at Saint Ansgar High School in Saint Ansgar, Iowa. He received his Master of Sports Science degree from the United States Sports Academy, and is currently pursuing a terminal degree through the Academy. ABSTRACT Purpose: This\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":272,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/non-economic-societal-impacts-of-intercollegiate-athletics\/","url_meta":{"origin":169,"position":1},"title":"Non-Economic Societal Impacts of Intercollegiate Athletics","date":"March 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: David Larimore, Ph.D & George Chitiyo, Ph.D Abstract: Intercollegiate athletics impact society in numerous positive ways. A number of studies have been done seeking to establish the effects of these sports programs on athletes, their institutions, and society at large. This paper is a synthesis of the literature\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5951,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/prosocial-and-antisocial-behaviors-in-sport-the-roles-of-personality-traits-and-moral-identity\/","url_meta":{"origin":169,"position":2},"title":"Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors in Sport: The Roles of Personality Traits and Moral Identity","date":"August 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Mevl\u00fct YILDIZ (1), Ender \u015eENEL (1), \u0130brahim YILDIRAN (2) (1) Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Turkey. (3) Gazi University, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Turkey. Corresponding Author: Ender SENEL Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Sports Sciences Kotekli\/Mugla, 48000 endersenel@gmail.com 00902522111951 (1) Dr. Ender SENEL is a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Commentary"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 4","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Table-4-3.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":181,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-survey-among-youth-high-performance-athletes-at-different-coubertin-schools\/","url_meta":{"origin":169,"position":3},"title":"A Survey Among Youth High Performance Athletes at Different Coubertin Schools, Olympic Talent Training Centers and at Other Spor","date":"March 3, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Kristina Bohnstedt & Norbert Mueller INTRODUCTION The high performance sport system of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) was based on a well organized and supported search and support for talents. The \u201cSport Schools for Children and Youth,\u201d which were invented in 1952 and extended into perfectly organized\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Facilities"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":106,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/ethic-in-coaching\/","url_meta":{"origin":169,"position":4},"title":"Ethic in Coaching?","date":"February 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Sue Dulaney The history of public relations is littered with confirmations and allegations of unethical behavior demonstrated by coaches and athletes. The latest firing of Indiana University's notorious Bobby Knight and the suspension of baseball's John Rocker are two recent cases that involved poor decision making on the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":121,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/athletes-expectations-for-success-in-athletics-compared-to-academic-competition\/","url_meta":{"origin":169,"position":5},"title":"Athletes’ Expectations for Success in Athletics Compared to Academic Competition","date":"February 15, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by:Jeffrey W. Lucas, The University of Akron and Michael J. Lovaglia, The University of Iowa INTRODUCTION In this paper, we describe a study in which we investigate attitudes held by student-athletes and non-athlete students towards academic and athletic success. Athletic success is largely viewed in the United States as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1103,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169\/revisions\/1103"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}