What Kind of Character Are We Trying To Build



What Type of Character Does Sport Build?

A Conflict Between Academicians and Athletic Practitioners

The purpose of this paper is to examine the conflict between sport academicians’ theoretical and ideal philosophic arguments and athletic practitioners’ practical perspectives about sport participation as a character building process.1 In brief, sport academicians typically examine the notion of whether sport builds character from an Aristotelian ideal perspective, e.g., the notion of fair play, respect, honesty, justice, and compassion, which connotes moral character. In contrast, athletic practitioners argue the development of character through sport from a practical, working person’s perspective and believe that a person of character is one who displays values such as hard work, perseverance, loyalty, teamwork, and self –sacrifice, hence social character. This conflict in perspectives has lead to academicians claiming that sport does not build character, with athletic practitioners arguing the opposite. To further confound the problem is the muddle that character researchers find themselves: how does one do research in character and sport when the definition and parameter of character is so muddy? Perhaps to better understand sport as a developmental character experience we need to examine: 1) the complex nature of defining character, 2) the historical notion that sport builds character, 3) sport as a moral practice, 4) sport as a social values practice, and 5) methods of empirically analyzing character in light of the dualistic nature of character (moral character versus social character).

The Complexities of Defining Character

Numerous sport academicians have commented on the complexity and ambiguous nature of defining character. “Character is one of those words that we think we know the meaning of, yet when we are asked to define it precisely we struggle to agree upon the common connotations of the term” (Hodge, 1989, p. 23). “The term character is vague, even if modified with the adjective good” (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p. 178). More recently, Gough (1998) acknowledges that the term “character” is theoretically and conceptually complex.

Part of the theoretically and conceptually complex nature of character is that two very different character strands exist. One strand of character is anchored to the practice of moral values such as honesty, justice, responsibility, and respect (moral character). This type of definition is frequently referenced and supported by sport academicians (Arnold, 1994; 1999; Beller & Stoll, 1995; Gough, 1998; Hodge, 1989; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Stoll & Beller, 1998a). In contrast, the other strand is tied to the practice of social values such as teamwork, self-sacrifice, loyalty, and perseverance (social character), which may be more supported by coaches, sport administrators, and the general populace (Kleiber & Roberts, 1981; Rudd, 1998, 1999; Stoll & Beller, 1998; Sage, 1988, 1999).

Moral Character

What is moral character? The concept of moral character is historically rooted in the ancient philosopher Aristotle, who believed that a person of moral character is one who could apply a variety of moral values such as justice, honesty, compassion, respect, and responsibility when choosing right from wrong (Arnold, 1994, 1998; Stoll & Beller, 1998b; Gough, 1998; Lickona, 1991). Furthering Aristotle’s philosophy, to be a person of moral character means that the individual is able to apply moral values willingly, sincerely, and with understanding (Arnold, 1994,1999; Lickona, 1991; Stoll & Beller, 1998). Put more clearly, one must not simply have the ability to recognize dishonesty or know what it means to be dishonest, one must sincerely value the concept of honesty, and perhaps more importantly, have the ability to act honestly when their peers are acting dishonestly (Arnold, 1994, 1999; Frankena, 1973; Lickona, 1991; Stoll & Beller, 1998b). Stoll and Beller, (1998b) have also posited that moral character is the ability to practice the moral values of honesty, justice, responsibility, and respect when no one is watching. A definition as such, strongly supports the notion that a person who truly has moral character can readily apply a set of moral values with a strong understanding and valuing, despite any surrounding peer pressures or societal pressures, e.g., acting honestly in a given situation because it will look good to others.

In sum, the ability to practice moral character as prescribed by Aristotle and supported by numerous moral philosophers and sport ethicists hinges on the moral agent’s ability to use a sophisticated reasoning process in which the moral agent is able to employ the correct moral value or values relative to each moral or ethical dilemma with a full understanding and valuing of the moral value or values applied (Arnold, 1999; Lickona, 1991; Stoll & Beller, 1998). Hence, it may be more accurate to consider moral character in terms of “moral reasoning” as a result of the reasoning process being critical to the concept of moral character. A further explanation of moral reasoning will brought forth later in this paper.

Social Character

What is social character? If we consult our dictionaries we will find descriptors such as “honesty, integrity, morals, and ethics.” These descriptors are consistent with the term moral character and an Aristotelian definition. One would be hard pressed to find mention of social values such as, self-sacrifice, teamwork, loyalty, and perseverance. Yet contrary to the classic dictionary definition or what many sport academicians have purported, much of the general populace and sport milieu may associate character with social values rather than moral values. Why? Sage, (1988, 1998) postulates that there is a strong connection between our sport culture and our overarching American ideology that is predicated on what he calls a “corporate consciousness” (Sage, 1988, p. 637). That is, our country is centered on capitalism and big corporate business, which relies heavily on teamwork, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and perhaps perseverance. Consequently, Sport Sociologists such as (Coakley, 1998; Eitzen, 1999; and Sage, 1988, 1998) have posited that sport is used as a device to transmit and perpetuate vital social values or what may be called social character. Thus, considering the power and dominance of both sport and corporations in America one might expect character to be defined in accordance with popular social values rather than moral values.

A recent and on-going study may be supportive of Sage’s theory. Out of 38 high school coaches who were asked how they define character, 22 out of 38 coaches provided definitions with a strong social tone. Coaches defined athletes of character as those who have a strong work ethic, can persevere, who are team players, and show commitment to the team (Rudd, 1998). As one of many examples that epitomizes the concept of social character, a high school basketball coach stated:

Character is defined in many ways. One who possesses it is motivated, determined, and competitive. This athlete is a winner that finds a way to win, but handles losing in a mature fashion. Finally, this competitor has a solid work ethic and leads by example (Rudd, 1998, unpublished raw data).

So what type of character does sport develop? Is sport a moral practice or a social practice? What type of character do coaches try to build, if any? To answer these questions and to ultimately develop a means for empirically measuring character in the sport milieu, a brief examination of the history of character development is necessary to better understand why a conflict exists between sport academicians and athletic practitioners (coaches, sport administrators, and the general populace).

Historical Perspectives of Sport and Character

For almost 100 years, the notion that “sport builds character,” has been supported in our American culture and more particularly, the American public school system (Armstrong, 1984; Beller & Stoll, 1995; Bredemeier & Shields, 1995; O’ Hanlon, 1980; Solomon, 1997; Sage, 1988, 1998; Stoll & Beller, 1998b). Notably, in the early 20th century, moral character or an Aristotelian approach is not the type of character that was infused into American sport culture.

The notion that sport builds character first began under the British education system in the early 19th century (Armstrong, 1984; Bredemeier & Shields, 1995; Coakley, 1998; Sage, 1998, 1998; Stoll & Beller, 1998). Under the British philosophy, participation in sport by young men was believed to develop qualities such as courage, teamwork, and self-sacrifice. The development of these qualities would in turn develop strong potential leaders and soldiers for the British Empire. A popular saying that exemplified the link between sport and soldierism arose during the 19th century from British general, Arthur Wellington who proclaimed, “The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton” (Sage, 1988, p.636). The concept of sport building character was a national concept in Britain and a concept that was deeply entrenched in Britain’s overarching political ideology to maintain a strong British Empire through sport participation (Arnold, 1994; Bredemeier & Shields, 1996; Sage, 1988, 1998).

In the early 20th century, America adopted Britain’s sport builds character concept with a slightly different emphasis. Akin to Britain’s model, sport was infused into the education system with a national intent. However, during the early part of the 20th century, America was going through a transformation. Industry and the concept of capitalism were blossoming and hence, a strong America was synonymous with the concept of competing for big business, money, and power. In the early 1900’s, sport participation was viewed as the primary medium for developing social traits such as teamwork, self-sacrifice, loyalty, and perseverance that would give graduating high school students the ability to maintain the competitive capitalistic theme that permeated through the American culture (Coakley, 1998; O’Hanlon, 1980; Sage, 1988, 1999). As Sage (1988) posits,

Community youth sports programs and high school athletics gradually became instruments in the expanding role of socializing American youth to some sense of unity, to the sense of common allegiance, for different positions in the social economic, and occupational hierarchy. Sports were recognized as an educational medium for transmitting advanced capitalist ideology in the name of building character (Sage, 1988, p. 637).

In addition to the link between high school athletics and it’s mission to develop the kind of social character that would give graduating high school students the ability to be major contributors in corporate America, competition in the classroom and competition in sport were also strongly connected. The classroom and the playing field were both viewed as highly competitive arenas in which high school students competed in a hierarchical system. Thus, just as there were those that were academically at the top of their class, one also fought for a starting position on a given sports team. This type of system was believed to mirror the reality of the “real world” in which graduating high school students would fight for various job positions in major corporations. In relationship to this competitive ideology, sport was believed to not only foster or enhance the students’ competitive qualities, but to also temper one’s individualistic competitive drive with important societal and corporate values such as, teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice (O’ Hanlon, 1980; Sage, 1988, 1998).

Today, the same coveted social values that were injected into the veins of America’s youth in the early 20th century may still be dominate in the sport milieu and linked to corporate America. As Sage, (1988, 1998) points out, popular locker room slogans such as “There is no I in team,” and “A player doesn’t make the team, the team makes the player,” or the common notion that the quintessential athlete is the one who can be called a “hard worker,” are phrases that exude highly supported American social values such as: team work, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and perseverance. Supportively, a recent newspaper article in the Lewiston Tribune after the Lewis-Clark State College (LCSC) baseball team won the NAIA national baseball championship was entitled, “Character Paves Way for L-C.” The article never mentioned the LCSC baseball team as being a team of moral character. To this author’s knowledge there was no mention of any moral values such as, honesty, fairness, responsibility, or respect. Rather, the article highlighted the team’s ability to use teamwork rather than individual performances, and their ability to come from behind and win. As coach Ed Cheff said, Get them behind, and they come to life. I haven’t seen anything like what they have done the past few weeks.” (Browit, 1999, p. 1B). Or as Browit (1999) states, “The astonishing thing about this team was that the same individual almost never stepped forward in successive times of need” (Browit, p. 3B). Overall, the article and as the title suggests “Character Paves Way for L-C,” purported to establish the teams’ rich possession of social character as critical in winning the national championship Sport as a Moral Practice Versus a Social Practice

Thus far, we have seen that sport can be defined as either moral character or social character. Historically, these two types of character have different roots, with moral character being linked to an Aristotelian moral values perspective, and social character being connected to our greater corporate American ideology that revolves around the values of teamwork, loyalty self-sacrifice, and perseverance. However, what type of character does sport actually build? Again, two different schools of thought may exist. Sport academicians believe that sport should be viewed as a moral practice and therefore, sport should cultivate values such as honesty, justice, responsibility, respect, and compassion. Discordantly, coaches, sport administrators, and the general populace may see sport as a social practice and thus, sport is believed to develop social values such as teamwork, self-sacrifice, loyalty, and perseverance.

Sport as a Moral Practice

Sport academicians believe that sport is a moral practice because athletes are continually in situations that involve the practice of moral values such as honesty, fairness, responsibility, and respect. In other words, athletes compete within a set of moral parameters. Arnold (1994, 1999) elucidates this point of view when he stresses the notion that the athlete who freely chooses to engage in a sport contest has tacitly agreed to follow the written rules of the game. To follow the rules of the game with appreciation and sincerity requires honesty, justice, and responsibility. The athlete who intentionally or deceitfully breaches the written rules of the game is dishonest, unfair, irresponsible, and has violated the “internal good” of the game (Arnold, 1994, 1999; Fraleigh, 1982; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Sport can also be seen as a moral practice because athletes and coaches must make decisions about the use of deceitful strategies to gain an unfair advantage. For example, famous football coach Paul Brown cut footballs into two halves and sowed them on to his backfields’ shirts. Consequently, the opposing team could not discern which team member had the ball (Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller, 1994). Although, there was not a rule against Paul Brown’s strategy, Brown’s strategy allowed his team to gain an unfair and deceitful advantage. As such, athletes and coaches are continually in situations where they must decide between fair and unfair strategies, that is, decide which strategies violate the internal good of the game and give themselves an unfair advantage.

In addition to following the written rules of the game and abstaining from deceitful gamesmanship strategies, sport can be considered a moral practice for reasons that are more implicit. If we are to consider the Aristotle model of character as applied to sport, it is imperative that we consider the moral reasoning process that could be practiced by athletes in an athletic competition. As mentioned, moral character involves a sophisticated reasoning process that goes beyond mindless conformity to rules and standards. Competing in an athletic contest offers the opportunity to go beyond the following of rules that make-up the given sport. Consider a game of soccer as an example, in which touching the ball with one’s hand is a rules violation. Intentionally and deceitfully touching the ball with one’s hands to gain advantage would be dishonest and a violation of the moral values of honesty, and fairness. However, what happens when the athlete unintentionally touches the ball with his or her hands and the referee does not see the infraction? Many might infer that because the referee did not see the infraction the rules of the game were not violated and nor were any moral values violated.

Contrary to what may be normally practiced in the athletic milieu when an athlete inadvertently breaches a written rule, sport academicians may take a different stance. From the position of moral character and what (Arnold, 1994, 1999) asserts about tacitly agreeing to preserve the integrity and intrinsic value of the game, the athlete has the option of confessing to the referee that he or she touched the ball with his or her hand. An action as such, exemplifies what is referred to as moral reasoning and what may be called the ideal sports competition in which the athlete does everything in his or her power to maintain a sports competition that is honest, fair, responsible, and respectful. More broadly considered, the “internal good” of the game is preserved when each athlete takes it upon him or herself to always be honest, fair, responsible, and respectful, rather than deferring responsibility to the referee or allowing one’s personal gain, i.e., winning to take precedence over the moral goodness of the game.

In sum, because practicing moral values, e.g., honesty, fairness, responsibility, and respect in a sport competition can be viewed as the foundation of any give sport, we would expect coaches to make the teaching of moral character or moral reasoning to be paramount. However, the following section may suggest that coaches, sport administrators, and the general populace believe a different set of values take precedence over moral values and moral character.

Sport as a Social Practice

Juxtaposed to the notion that sport is a moral practice in which moral values such as honesty, fairness, responsibility, and respect undergird a given sport competition, coaches, sport administrators, and the general populace may see sport as a social practice bolstered by social values such as teamwork, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and perseverance. Why do coaches, sport administrators, and the general populace espouse such a belief? Rather than considering sport to be it’s own separate microcosm within our greater society, Sage (1988, 1998) has convincingly shown that sport and society may be linked as one. That is, society’s values are a driving force behind what is valued in the sport milieu. According to Sage, (1988):

An adequate account of the sports world’s collective beliefs must be derived from an understanding of its location within society. Sport must be understood as a set of social practices and relations structured by the culture in which it exists. Treating sport as a social practice means situating it in the context of social power and culture. Mottoes and slogans, such as “sports build character,” must be seen in light of their ideological intent (Sage, 1988, p. 634).

The ideological intent that Sage, (1988, 1998) referred to is one of corporations and big business. In other words, America is predicated on a capitalistic corporate ideology in which millions of Americans work for large powerful businesses. Inextricably linked to our corporate ideology is the cultivation of social values such as teamwork, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and perseverance among corporate employees. This in turn maintains our American ideology and keeps our large powerful businesses strong and dominant among the rest of the world (Coakley, 1998; Eitzen, 1999; Sage, 1988; 1998; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995).

To understand sport as a social practice means then that we consider the adoption of a corporate ideology into the sport context. Sport may be used as a vehicle for fostering social values such as, teamwork, loyalty, self-sacrifice and perseverance among its participants who will then display these social values out in the corporate work force. Supportive of this theory are parents and coaches who support values of character that mirror the values of corporate America. Studies by Berlage (as cited in Shields & Bredemeier, 1995) showed that fathers of youth sports participants (soccer and ice hockey) believed that the values most important to the character building process were social values such as authoritarianism, team loyalty, and performance. Concordantly, as previously mentioned in the defining of social character, many coaches associate character with social values such as, work ethic, teamwork, and commitment which mirror the same values that are important to corporate America (Rudd, 1999).

Does sport build character? This question has been asked in numerous studies, articles, and books (Beller & Stoll, 1995; Chandler & Goldberg, 1990; Coakley, 1998; Eitzen, 1999; Hodge, 1989; Gough, 1998; Kleiber & Roberts, 1981; Ogilvie & Tutko, 1971; McCormack & Chalip, 1988; Penny & Priest, 1990; Sage, 1988, 1998; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Stevenson, 1975, 1985; Stoll & Beller, 1998a). The answer may depend on how the researcher defines character and views the practice of sport during the measurement process. We now turn to empirical measures of knowing whether sport builds character.2

Measuring Character from a Moral Perspective

Hall, (1981) was one of the first to measure moral reasoning of athletes. Hall (1981) used Lawrence Kohlberg’s previously created everyday life moral dilemmas and dilemmas that Hall (1981) wrote to reflect moral dilemmas in the sport context. Using a sample of 65 male and female basketball players (level of athlete unknown), Hall (1981) found that athletes used a higher level of moral reasoning when responding to sport context dilemmas but used a lower level of moral reasoning when responding to the everyday life dilemmas.

Bredemeier and Shields, (1984, 1986) added to the work of Hall (1981) by comparing the moral reasoning of athletes to non-athletes. Similar to Hall (1981), Bredemeier & Shields, (1986) used four hypothetical moral dilemmas, two set in the everyday context and two set in the sport context to examine differences in moral reasoning or what may be called moral character between athletes (college and high school) and non athletes (college and high school). A sample of 50 college students (basketball players and non athletes) and a sample of 50 high school students (basketball players and non athletes) were selected and responded to the four different moral dilemmas. Converse to Hall’s (1981) results, Bredemeier & Shields, (1986) discovered that the college non athletes reasoned at a higher level than the college basketball players for both the sport context dilemmas and the everyday dilemmas. Among the 50 high school students, there were no moral reasoning differences found between the non-athletes and basketball players (Shields & Bredemeier, 1986, 1995).

In 1989, Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, responded to what they believed was a dearth of reliable and valid instrumentation available for measuring character in the sport milieu and developed the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI) (Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989). Building off the previous research done by Bredemeier & Shields, (1986) Hahm, Beller, & Stoll (1989) couched their definition in a moral character and deontological ethical perspective and developed a paper and pencil questionnaire that contains 21 scenarios in the sport context. For clarification, deontological ethics means that there is an inherent rightness apart from all consequences or that one is able to apply moral values to an ethical dilemma despite any negative consequences that might occur from being honest, fair, or responsible above all else (Frankena, 1973).

Using a five-point Likert scale, subjects respond to a variety of scenarios that involve issues of retaliation, drug use, personal responsibilities for actions, fairness to teammates and opponents, and the intentional foul. An example scenario from the HBVCI is the following:

During a volleyball game player A hit the ball over the net. The ball barely grazed off player B’s fingers and landed out of bounds. However the referee did not see player B touch the ball. Because the referee is responsible for calling a rule violation, player B is not obligated to report the violation.

Subjects receive a higher score for “strongly disagreeing” with the above type of scenarios rather than “strongly agreeing” with the scenarios. The higher one’s total score, the more one is believed to be using a higher level of moral reasoning and supporting the moral values of honesty, fairness, and responsibility.

Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, (1989) subjected their instrument to rigorous pilot testing to establish reliability and validity. In brief, the HBVCI showed an internal reliability coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) of .86. To establish content validity and construct validity the HBVCI questions were evaluated by several well recognized sport ethicists and general ethicists who agreed that the questions were good questions for measuring moral character. Concurrent validity (.82) was also established by correlating scores on the HBVCI with scores on another reliable and valid paper and pencil instrument for measuring moral character called the Defining Issues Test (Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989).

Over the past ten years, the HBVCI has been employed in a multitude of studies in which athletes (high school and college) are compared to non-athletes (high school and college). Overall, the results are consistently the same with athletes scoring statistically significantly lower than non-athletes. These findings are particularly salient with team sport athletes compared to non athletes, whereas individual sport athletes’ scores are similar to non athlete scores (Beller & Stoll, 1992, 1995; Beller, Stoll, Burwell, & Cole, 1996; Beller, Stoll, Rudd, 1997; Eitzen, 1999; Hahm, 1989; Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989; Penny & Priest, 1990; Rudd, Stoll, & Beller, 1997; Sage, 1988, 1998; Stoll & Beller, 1998a, 1998b).

Illuminating these findings, reconsider the volleyball game scenario from the HBVCI.

During a volleyball game player A hit the ball over the net. The ball barely grazed off player B’s fingers and landed out of bounds. However the referee did not see player B touch the ball. Because the referee is responsible for calling a rule violation, player B is not obligated to report the violation.

From a recent study that employed the use of the HBVCI, 71 out of 169 collegiate team sport athletes “strongly agree” that the volleyball player should not report the rule violation. An additional 73 out of 169 team sport athletes “agree” that the volleyball player should not report the rule violation. In essence, 144 out of 169 team sport athletes either “strongly agree or “agree” with the volleyball player’s action (Rudd, 1999b). Responses as such, have been static across questions on the HBCVI for the last ten years and consequently, team sport athletes consistently score statistically significantly lower than non athletes (Beller & Stoll, 1992, 1995; Beller, Stoll, Burwell, & Cole, 1996; Beller, Stoll, Rudd, 1997; Eitzen, 1999; Hahm, 1989; Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989; Penny & Priest, 1990; Rudd, Stoll, & Beller, 1997; Sage, 1988, 1998; Stoll & Beller, 1998a, 1998b).

Results from the HBVCI unequivocally suggest that the majority of team sport athletes do not practice the concept of moral character from the perspective of a sport academician or an Aristotelian philosophy. More generally understood, most athletes will not sacrifice winning to be honest, fair, and responsible. Given the consistent results from the HBVCI, and the established reliability and validity of the instrument, we are confident that the HBVCI measures character, however not the kind of character that may be instilled by coaches and our general sport society. Sport academicians can continue to exhort the infusion of an Aristotelian model and the ideal notion that athletes do everything in their power to preserve the internal moral well being of sport, however the HBVCI has clearly proven for ten years that this model does not exist in our American sport milieu. Perhaps sport philosophers such as (Arnold, 1994, 1999; Bredemeier & Shields, 1995; Clifford & Feezell; 1997; Fraleigh, 1982; Gough, 1998; Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989; Kretchmar, 1994; Stoll & Beller, 1995,1998; Stoll, 1999) must consider that although sport can be though of as a moral practice, the majority of athlete practitioners do not consider sport to be a moral practice that involves the display of moral character from an Aristotelian perspective Alternatively, athletes and coaches may be operating under a different set of values that they deem essential to winning and being successful in the sport milieu called social character.

Measuring Character From a Social Perspective

In response to the belief that sport may build social character rather than moral character, Rudd, Stoll, & Beller (1999) developed a new paper and pencil instrument to measure both moral and social character called the Rudd-Stoll-Beller-Hahm Value Judgement Inventory (RSBH Value Judgement Inventory). The RSBH Value Judgement Inventory is comprised of two indices: a social character index and a moral character index. The social character index is comprised 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). An example of a social character scenario can be seen with the following:

Sara, the most valuable player for her college tennis team, is very religious. Her religion forbids her to play on Sundays. As luck would have it, Sara’s team must play a make-up match on Sunday against their state rival to qualify for the national tournament. Sara should put her religion aside and play for her team on Sunday.

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 one is believed to support the importance of practicing social character in the sport milieu. The moral character index is comprised of ten scenarios that were selected from the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI). In sum, subjects receive two scores: a social character score and a moral character score. The RSBH Value Judgement Inventory is a relatively new instrument that underwent four pilot studies to establish reliability and validity and to establish the instruments ability to measure two different types of character: moral and social (see Rudd, 1998, for complete reliability and validity information). Recently, more data was collected with the RSBH Value Judgement Inventory and aggregated with the data from the fourth pilot study.

With a recent convenient sample of 205 collegiate athletes (169 male and female team sport athletes and 36 male and female individual sport athletes) versus 149 male and female college non athletes, our hypothesis was confirmed.3 Statistical results from the moral character index mirror previous studies, with non athletes (LSM=26.36, SEM=.5523) scoring significantly higher than team sport athletes (LSM=22.30, SEM=.5280) at the .05 level (2-tailed) regardless of gender. Conversely, team sport athletes (LSM=27.11, SEM=.4533) score statistically significantly higher than non-athletes (LSM=24.84, SEM=.4741) at the .05 level (2-tailed) regardless of gender. In addition, a Pearson correlation shows a statistically significant negative correlation between moral and social character (r = -.516) at the .01 level (2-tailed) for a 169 team sport college athletes.4

These results strongly suggest that social values such as teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice may be more purposefully fostered or valued over moral values such as honesty, fairness and responsibility. Perhaps Sage’s (1988, 1999) theory is correct in that athletic practitioners may more commonly view sport as a social practice in which sport is used as a vehicle to transmit our American corporate ideology, i.e., people who have a strong sense of teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice.

In addition to team sport athletes scoring statistically significantly higher than non-athletes on social character, it is also interesting to consider the negative correlation between moral and social character. That is, as a person scores higher in social character their moral character score tends to decline. As such, a quote by Gough, (1997) should be considered which states:

The character that gets you out of that bottom-of-the ninth jam, or sees you that losing season, is the very same character that makes you treat officials, referees, and umpires with respect, and keeps you from taking a cheap shot at your opponent (Gough, 1997, p.37).

Gough’s quote actually suggests that if an athlete has social character, they will automatically possess moral character or that there is a symbiotic relationship between moral and social character. Yet, contrary to what Gough stated, the results from the RSBH Value Judgement Inventory show a statistically significant negative correlation between moral and social character for team sport college athletes. This may suggest team sport athletes have not been taught to practice both moral and social character. Rather, moral values may come in conflict with social values. In other words, team sport athletes may be in situations in and out of competition in which they must choose between being loyal to one’s team over being honest with a referee or being honest and being disloyal to one’s teammate. Results suggest that team sport athletes are encouraged to choose the former.

Discussion

The major purpose of this paper was to explicate two distinct views concerning the development of character in the sport milieu and to also examine instrumentation to measure character. Sport academicians continually define character from a moral character perspective and believe that sport should be treated as a moral practice. Does sport build character? If one defines and measures character from a moral perspective, ten years of consistent results from the HBVCI would suggest that sport does not build character. Despite these findings, sport academicians such as (Arnold, 1994, 1999; Beller & Stoll, 1995; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Butler, 2000; Clifford & Feezell, 1997; Gough, 1998; Hodge, 1989; Kretchmar, 1994; Spencer, 1996; Stoll & Beller, 1998a) continue to advocate the fostering of moral character in a sport culture that they believe should be viewed as a moral practice.

Contrary to the notion that sport is a moral practice, a philosophical examination of the word character showed that sport also might be viewed as a social practice and defined as social character. In an effort to understand the two contrasting views of character, i.e., moral character versus social character and the true by-products of sport participation, the RSBH Value Judgement Inventory was developed to measure both moral and social character. Results from the RSBH Value Judgement show convincing evidence that team sport athletes support social values such as teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice over moral values such as honesty, fairness, and responsibility. Although the RSBH Value Judgement Inventory does not have the sizeable database that the HBVCI has produced, results from the RSBH Value Judgement Inventory are evidencing strong signs that we may be more accurate to say sport builds social character but not moral character. This evidence may be linked to Sage’s (1988, 1998) theory that sport is used as a vehicle to transmit our overarching American corporate ideology that is predicated on teamwork, loyalty, self-sacrifice.

If moral character is to truly be developed along with sport being viewed as a moral practice, perhaps character must be more clearly defined and targeted pedagogically. Perhaps when people say sport builds character, or that a team displayed character, much of the general populace, coaches, and sport administrators are thinking of social character rather than an Aristotelian moral character definition. The possession and development of social character, e.g., teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice can be beneficial qualities that may help win ball games, however these qualities may not automatically breed moral character. An athlete may be a great team player and sacrifice for the good of the team, and conversely be dishonest, unfair, and irresponsible as suggested by ten years of consistent results from the HBVCI (Beller & Stoll, 1992, 1995; Beller, Stoll, Burwell, & Cole, 1996; Beller, Stoll, Rudd, 1997; Eitzen, 1999; Hahm, 1989; Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989; Penny & Priest, 1990; Rudd, Stoll, & Beller, 1997; Sage, 1988, 1998; Stoll & Beller, 1998a, 1998b).

If moral character is to be developed and practiced, as prescribed by sport academicians, the research is quite clear that moral character can be learned if purposefully taught (Arnold, 1994; Gough, 1998; Lickona, 1991; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Stoll & Beller, 1998a). The research is also quite clear that learning moral character is a complicated process of which three components play a tripartite role: moral knowing, moral feeling, and moral Action (Lickona, 1991). Unfortunately, the debate occurring in this paper and which spurred on the research on social character emphasizes the lack of knowledge by the general public and general sport practitioners about what is character. Sport does appear to build social character, but social character without guidance by moral character may be dishonorable conduct. Further research needs to delve more into this problem and the dilemma of social character versus moral character and hopefully bring some enlightenment to coaching education about what is practiced and how

that practice affects character development.

References

Abrams, J. (1995, October 12). School officials trying to quell fights at sports events. Lewiston Morning Tribune, p.11A.

Arnold, P. (1994). Sport and moral education. The Journal of Moral Education, 23 (1), 75-89.

Arnold, P. (1999). The virtues, moral education, and the practice of sport. Quest, 51 (1), 39-54.

Armstrong, C.F. (1984). The lessons of sports: Class socialization in British and American boarding schools. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1, 314-331.

Beller, J.M. & Stoll, S.K. (Spring, 1992). A moral reasoning intervention program for Division I athletes. The Academic Athletic Journal, 43-57.

Beller, J.M., Stoll, S.K. (1993). Sportsmanship: An antiquated concept. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64 (6) 74-78.

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.

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.

Beller, J.M., Stoll, S.K., & Rudd, A. (1997). The “great character experience.” Assessing the effectiveness of a great books approach to teaching moral character with competitive populations. Research Quarterly, 68 (Suppl. 1), 72.

Blum, D. (1995, March 24). Unsportsmanlike conduct? The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A41-A42.

Bredemeier & Shields, (1984). Sport, gender, and moral growth. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports violence. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bredemeier, B., & Shields, D. (1986). Moral growth among athletes and non-athletes: A comparative analysis. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147, 7-18.

Browit, J. (1999, June 2). Character paves way for L-C. Lewiston Morning Tribune, pp. 1B, 3B.

Butler, L.F. (2000). Fair play: Respect for all. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 71 (2), 32-35.

Clifford, C., & Feezell, R.M. (1997). Coaching for Character. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Coakley, J. (1998). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (sixth ed.). Boston: Irwin, McGraw-Hill.

Dobbins, T. (1995). The post game handshake. Scholastic Coach, 64, 5-7.

Eitzen, D.S. (1999). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Fraleigh, W. (1982). Why the good foul is not good. In W.J. Morgan & K.V. Meier (Eds.), Philosophic inquiry in sport (185-187). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Frankena, W.K. (1973). Ethics. Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey.

Gough, R. (1995). On researching first base with a “science” of moral development in sport: Problems with scientific objectivity and reductivism. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 22, 11-25.

Gough, R. (1998). A practical strategy for emphasizing character development in sport and physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 69, (2), 18-23.

Hahm, C.H. (1989). Moral reasoning and development among general students, physical education majors, and student athletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow.

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).

Hager, P.F. (1995). Redefining success in competitive activities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 66 (5), 26-30.

Hall, E.R. (1981). Moral development levels of athletes in sport-specific and general social situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Women’s University, Denton

Hawes, K. (1998). Sportsmanship: Why should anybody care? NCAA News, pp. 1, 18.

Hodge, P. (1989). Character-building in sport: Fact or fiction. The New Zealand Journal of Medicine, 17 (2), 23-25.

Gathorne-Hardy, J. (1977). The old school tie. New York: The Viking Press

Gough, R. (1998). A practical strategy for emphasizing character development in sport and physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 69 (2), 18-23.

Kretchmar, R.S. (1994). The practical philosophy of sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kleiber, D.A. & Roberts, G.C. (1981). The effects of sport experience in the development of social character: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Sport Psychology 3, 114-122.

Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for Character. New York: Bantam Books.

Lumpkin, A., Stoll, S.K. & Beller, J.M. (1994). Sport ethics: Applications for fair play. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Press.

McCormack, J.B., & Chalip, L. (1988). Sport as Socialization: A critique of methodological premises. The Social Science Journal, 25 (1), 83-92.

McIntosh, P. (1969). Games and gymnastics for two nations in one. In J.G., Dixon, P.C., McIntosh, A.D., & Munrow, R.F. Willets (Eds.), Landmarks in the history of physical education.

McIntosh, P. (1979). Fair play: Ethics in sport and education. London: Heinemann.

Ogilvie, B.C., & Tutko, A. T. (1971). If you want to build character, try something else. Psychology Today, 5, 60-63.

O’Hanlon, T. (1980). Interscholastic athletics, 1900-1940: Shaping citizens for unequal roles in the modern industrial state. Educational theory, 30 (2), 89-103.

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.

Rees, R.C., Howell, F.M., Miracle, A.W. (1990). Do high school sports build character? A quasi-experiment on a national sample. The Social Science Journal, 27 (3), 303-315.

Rudd, A. (1999a). [High school coaches’ definitions of character]. Unpublished raw data.

Rudd, A. (1999b). Measuring moral and social character in the sport context. Unpublished raw data.

Rudd, A (1998). Sports perceived ability to build character. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow.

Rudd, A., Stoll, S.K., & Beller, J.M. (1997). Expressed coaching behavior and its effect on athlete moral development. Research Quarterly, 68 (Suppl.1), 114-115.

Rudd, A., Stoll, S.K. & Beller (1999). Measuring moral and social character among a group of Division IA college athletes, non-athletes, and ROTC military cadets. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70 (Suppl.1), 127.

Sage, G. (1988). Sport participation as a builder of character? The World and I, 3 (10), 629-641.

Sage, G. (1998). Does sport affect character development in athletes? The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69 (1), 15-18.

Shields, D & Bredemeier, B. (1995). Character development and physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Solomon, G. (1997). Does physical education affect character development in students? The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 68 (9), 38-41.

Spencer, A.F. (1996). Ethics in physical and sport education. Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance, 67 (7), 37- 39.

Stevenson, C.L. (1975). Specialization effects of participation in sport: A critical review of the research. Research Quarterly, 46 (3), 287- 301.

Stevenson, C.L. (1985). “College athletics and character:” The decline and fall of socialization research. (D. Chu, J.O. Segrave & B.J. Becker, Eds.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.

Stoll, S.K., & Beller, J.M. (1998a). Can character be measured? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 69 (1), 19-24.

Stoll, S.K., & Beller, J.M. (1998b). Sport as education: On the edge. New York: Columbia University Teachers Press.

Footnotes

1It is important to note before reading the major body of this article that we use the term “sport academician” repeatedly throughout as those persons such as sport philosophers, moral psychologist, and sport sociologists who typically define character from a moral perspective but who also acknowledge that character may be defined from a social perspective by coaches, sport administrators, and the general populace, i.e., athletic practitioners.

2A full discussion of the literature that pertains to measuring character in the sport context is beyond the scope of this paper. In the following sections we highlight the research that we believe has been the most influential in the character measurement community (sport context). We will focus on moral character measurement research versus social character measurement research while noting to the reader that the measuring and studying of moral character is more commonly referred to as moral reasoning (Bredemeier & Shields, 1984, 1986, 1995; Stoll & Beller, 1998a; Hodge, 1989; Hall, 1981).

3Individual sport athletes are not reported in this analysis as a result of an insufficient sample size. Further, when considering the theory that developing social character in sport may be linked to an American corporate ideology that fosters teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice, it is team sports rather than individual sports that have been historically touted as an arena for developing social character.

4A complete statistical analysis can be obtained by contacting Dr. Andy Rudd at Western Oregon University, Teaching Research Division, (503) 838-8807, or rudda@wou.edu.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download