The relation between the moral atmosphere of the sports context and moral behavior by young athletes: A meta-analysis
Masterscriptie Forensische Orthopedagogiek Graduate School of Child Development and Education Universiteit van Amsterdam M. IJntema (11121742) en T. Smit (10274669) Begeleiding & eerste beoordelaar: dr. A. Spruit Tweede beoordelaar: prof. dr. G. J. J. M. Stams Amsterdam, 1 augustus 2018
Abstract
Sports represents one of the most popular leisure activities in Western countries. Most of the Western children between 5 and 15 years old participate in sports. Sports participation can have both a positive and negative impact on the development of moral behavior of young athletes. Several factors in the sports context influence this development. Moral sports climate has a major influence on this relation. Yet, little is known about the strength of the influence of moral climate on moral behavior of young athletes and the factors that moderate this relation. A meta-analysis of 21 published studies and 1 unpublished study containing 117 effect sizes and N=34600 young athletes with a mean age of 18 years and younger, was conducted to examine the relation between moral sports climate and moral behavior of young athletes. The results show that there is an overall significant association between moral sports climate and moral behavior in young athletes (r = .379). Only some study characteristics significantly moderated the relation between the moral sports context and moral behavior by young athletes.
Sports represents one of the most popular leisure activities for youth in Europe and the US (Ntoumanis, Taylor and Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2012). For example, the 2014/2015 Taking Part Survey (DCMS, 2005) conducted in Great Britain showed that 87% of youth between 5-15 years old participate in sports. In the Netherlands, the NOC*NSF Olympic committee found that the number of youth participating in sports has never been as high as in the year 2016: 69% of youth between 5 and 18 year participated in sport or physical activities. A remarkable 67% of these young athletes were member of a sport club or sport association.
It is generally assumed that practicing sport has a positive influence on the development of young athletes (Coakley, 2011). It contributes to personal character development, provides in social capital and reforms youth who are at risk for criminal behavior (Coalter, 2007). More specifically, sport participation is assumed to have a positive impact on self-esteem and body image, and it builds personality and character through discipline, teamwork and responsibility (Coakley, 2011). Social capital can be gained through positive relationships in sports context with non-familial individuals, which enhances self-esteem and reduces negative behavior (McHale et al., 2005). Youth at risk for criminal behaviors learn to have self-control, obey authorities and conform to rules (Coakley, 2011). Participation in sports is supposed to help youth to socially integrate and cooperate, learn how to win and lose, and create a sense of moral belief (Hansen, Larson & Dworkin, 2003; Nucci & Young-Shim, 2005; Rutten et al., 2004). In this way, youth can learn new specific skills and discover new capabilities within themselves. Youth can also understand deeper norms and values which are bound together with the context of the social climate of the club/team culture, and in broader perspective, in the context of society (Balish, McLaren, Rainham & Blanchard, 2014; Simon, 2000). In addition, Balish et al. (2014) found that participating in
sports can be related to experiencing a sense of belonging, life-satisfaction, a decrease of depression and even an increase in positive academic results.
Although some studies have been indicating that sport participation can have a positive impact on the development of youth, others have found negative relations between sport participation and the development of youth. For example, Shields and Bredemeier (1995) state that antisocial behavior can arise in organized youth sport, when the sports context is based on competition, self-interest and ego-orientated goals. Moreover, sports are linked with underage and excessive use of alcohol (Denham, 2011; Kwan, Bobko, Faulkner, Donnelly & Cairney, 2014), added up with substance and doping abuse (Yesalis & Bahrke, 2000). Also, less direct negative relations can be found, such as the modeling-effect when youth identifies with scandals of famous professional athletes (Hughes & Shank, 2005) or when they are linked to a jock identity, which is associated with delinquent behavior (Miller, Melnick, Barnes, Sabo & Farrell, 2007).
Following the different findings about the behavioral outcomes through participating in sports, it can be concluded that the relation between sport and youth development is ambiguous (Weiss, 2008; Weiss & Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009). Sport participation will not necessarily lead to positive or negative developmental outcomes. It is rather expected that these developmental outcomes are dependent on different factors in the sports context (Spruit et al., 2016). The type of sport for example, is expected to have a different influence on behavioral outcome (Côté & Fraser Thomas, 2007). Other influencing factors are the personal beliefs about sport, the quality of the relationships between participants and coaches, and the level of sports’ integration into someone’s life (Perks, 2007; Petitpas, Cornelius & Van Raalte, 2008; Vermeulen & Verweel, 2009). At last, the influence of the club culture and the moral climate prevailing in the sports context are expected to play a role in affecting the behavior of youth (Miller, Roberts & Ommundsen, 2005). Especially the last factor, the moral
climate in the sports context, is considered of substantial influence in developmental outcomes (Guivernau & Duda, 2002). So far, longitudinal and cross-sectional studies have investigated the relation between the moral climate and moral behavior in sports (Kavussanu & Stanger, 2017). Yet, still little is known about the strength of the relation between the moral climate and the behavior of young athletes, and the factors that influence this association (Kavussanu & Stanger, 2017; Shields, LaVoi, Power & Bredemeier, 2007). Therefore, the aim of this meta-analytic review is to examine the relation between moral climate and moral behavior of individual young athletes and test the potential moderators.
The moral climate in sports context can be conceptualized as a team or club’s common moral rules, based on collective norms and values of the existing club culture (Steinfeldt, Rutkowski, Vaughan & Steinfeldt, 2011). It also provides the base for moral judgments and related behavior of the team members (Steinfeldt et al., 2012). Stephens and colleagues (1997) highlight that the collective team and club norms can influence the behavior and actions of team members, meaning that the moral climate can also predict the likelihood that a team member will play fairly or not. Stephens and Bredemeier (1996) underline this finding: in their research of moral climate and the influence of fair play among young female soccer players, they found that the likelihood of team members to conduct unfair acts would increase if they had the belief that other team members would play unfairly. This conclusion can also be found in the study of Steinfeldt and colleagues (2011), who state that the moral atmosphere predicts the on-field moral functioning of high school football-players. Guivernau and Duda (2002) describe similar mechanisms, and state that aggression during sports can be predicted by athletes’ perceptions of the pro-aggressive norms of their team and/or coach. The coach is one of the significant influencers in the construction of moral climate and the moral actions of the team members (Guivernau & Duda, 2002). The results of the study of Guivernau & Duda (2002) revealed that the team members’ perception of the coach’s norms for cheating and
aggression influences their choice to engage in inappropriate acts on the field. In this way, the coach has a major impact on the development of certain sportive norms and values, fair play and respect towards other athletes. Other research has shown that if socio-moral atmosphere of the sports environment is positive, young athletes tend to show more prosocial behaviors. For example, a high-quality relationship between coach and athlete, combined with a positive role model orientation of the coach, can protect against antisocial behavior (Rutten et al., 2007). The younger athletes perceived transgressive behavior that is accepted by teammates and the coach, the more they will be judging such behavior as acceptable for themselves (Stephens, 2000). Besides this on-field moral influence of the coach, there also is a significant impact created by off-field actors such as parents and spectators. This impact, caused by e.g. affinitive support and positive coaching, has been shown to be a predictor of adequate behavioral regulation in youth (Arthur-Banning, Wells, Baker & Hegreness, 2009). The joint effects of perceptions of coaches, team members and spectators of what is acceptable behavior directly influences the level of moral judgment and thereby? behavioral outcomes of the young athletes (Kavussanu, Roberts & Ntoumanis, 2002; Rutten et al., 2008). Therefore, the moral climate and the culture of the club are expected to play a major role in young people’s behavior in the sports context, and in broader perspective in society (Nucci & Young-Shim, 2005).
The moral sports climate provides written and unwritten rules on how people can behave, and within this context, certain moral behavior can intend to be prosocial or antisocial (Kavussanu & Stanger, 2017). These behaviors can have positive and negative consequences for the athletes and for the name and integrity of the game (Kavussanu & Stanger, 2017). Examples of antisocial behavior are intentionally injuring an opponent, intimidate or hurt opponents physically and emotionally, verbally abusing team members or opponents and being rebellious towards the referee (Kavussanu, 2008; Sage, Kavussanu and Duda, 2006).
Contrarily, prosocial behavior is defined as a cooperative attitude, where people voluntary help, take care of each other and share their resources and skills. Prosocial behavior is found when people cheer for their teammates, help a team member or opponent off the ground after a fault or support another in case of experiencing failure (Bolter & Kipp, 2016; Kavussanu, 2008). Both prosocial and antisocial acts can be made before, during or after the game. Here, a distinction should be made between on-field and off-field behavior. On-field behavior occurs during the match or training, with supervision of the referee and coaches under sport-related rules. Off-field behavior occurs before or after the match or training when the athletes are not under the guard of rules, referee or coaches (Rutten et al., 2008).
It becomes clear that the social context plays an important role in the moral behavior of youth. Several theories are constructed to explain the relation between the moral climate in the sports context and moral behavior of young athletes. For example, the theory of Kohlberg (1984) on moral development in relation to moral behavior in the sports context focuses on the impact of moral atmosphere on moral reasoning and moral behavior of people (Power, Higgins & Kohlberg, 1989; Shields, Funk & Bredemeier, 2018). According to Kohlberg, moral behavior is the result of the development of social experiences, interaction and information processing and learning (Jones & McNamee, 2000; Shields, Funk & Bredemeier, 2018. When an individual behaves morally, he or she must have the cognitive capacity to make moral judgments in a moral dilemma. According to Kohlberg, morality in the sports context is based on obedience to rules or obedience to athlete’s/ coaches’ intentions (Mouratidou, Chatzopoulos & Karamavrou, 2007). The developmental steps of each young athlete are influenced by the level in which he or she accepts and follows the rule-setting authorities (Schempp, 1996). For Kohlberg, ‘justice’ is the key for morality, and every developmental stage represents a higher level of the way justice can resolve moral conflicts for an individual (Weiss & Bredemeier, 1983). In a higher stage, the young athlete can
increase reflexivity and his/her external locus of control is transformed into more self-control (Schempp, 1996). The given sports context in which the moral actions occurs, might influence the moral behavior and judgment of young athletes. Therefore, Kohlberg refers to the moral atmosphere where the group affects a person’s moral reasoning and behavior (Jones & McNamee, 2000). By creating a sport atmosphere with a philosophy of sport-based fairness, the context can provide an experience that contributes to the development of socio-moral norms and values of youth (Stephens & Bredemeier, 1996).
Besides Kohlberg’s theory, the social learning theory of Bandura (1977) can also be seen as a theoretical explanation of moral development and the influence on behavior of young athletes. In his theory Bandura (1977) emphasizes the importance of the social context for learning. In the social context, learning is described as a triangle in which the person, the environment and the behavior influence each other (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara & Pastorelli, 1996). The social learning perspective describes that moral development occurs through learning socially accepted norms, values and behavior (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2006). Significant others such as parents, coaches, teammates and role models, transmit moral norms through modeling and the reinforcement of such behaviors (Stuart & Ebbeck, 1995). Parents for example, can encourage prosocial behavior in their children when they advise them to help opponents rise after they have fallen in a duel or congratulate the opponent with the win after the game. Contrarily, parents who swear towards the referee can boost their own children to make violations in the game or verbally harm their opponents. Young athletes can also be influenced by role models and tend to copy certain sport specific behaviors, such as demonstrating the ‘hulk’-celebration of Christiano Ronaldo in football and the ‘dab’ of Usain Bolt in athletic sports.
In concordance, Bandura and colleagues (1996) proposed that moral disengagement may influence moral behavior of athletes (in specific: prosocial and antisocial behavior).
Previous research shows a positive relation between moral disengagement and antisocial behavior in sports contexts and non-sports contexts (Stanger, Kavussanu, Boardley & Ring, 2013; Boardley & Kavussanu, 2009; Bandura et al., 1996). Moral disengagement occurs when an athlete believes that existing norms and rules do not apply to oneself in the sports context, and therefore approves his or her own antisocial behavior for the cause of a higher justified goal (Stanger, Boardley, Kavussanu & Ring, 2013). Moral disengagement can arise when young athletes deal with moral dilemmas. This occurs when they must integrate morally relevant social information in sports contexts, while being confronted to determine the morality of the conducted behavior (Kavussanu, Stamp, Slade & Ring, 2009) Moral disengagement focuses on the cognitive restructuring of inhumane behavior. Bandura (2002) argues that moral behavior must be in balance with moral cognition. Moral disengagement allows people to behave in a bad way while they see themselves as a good moral developed human being (Aquino & Reed, 2002). The degree of disengagement can be influenced by social actors in the sports climate, like coaches, team members, parents and spectators (Boardley & Kavussanu, 2011). Social actors can therefore regulate moral disengaged behavior of young athletes, by disapproving the moral disengaged behavior followed by setting adequate consequences (Traclet, Romand, Moret, & Kavussanu, 2011). Therefore, following the theory of Bandura (1996), the degree of moral cognition and behavior of social actors in the sports atmosphere influences the moral behavior of young athletes.
So far, little is known about the relation between the moral climate and moral behavior of individual young athletes (Kavussanu & Stanger, 2017; Shields, LaVoi, Power & Bredemeier, 2007). Previous research studying behavioral outcomes of youth in the sports context has mainly focused on achievement goal perspective and motivational climate in the sports context of youth, leaving the moral climate as a less investigated corner (Spruit et al., 2016; Boardley & Kavussanu, 2009; Bortoli, Messina, Zorba & Robazza, 2012;
Gano-Overway, 2013; Wang, Chia & Chang, 2013). Therefore, it is important to shed light on this seemingly important relation between moral sports climate and moral behavior of youth, and the possible factors which are influencing this relation.
There are several moderating factors which could influence the relation between moral sports climate and moral behavior of youth. One of these moderating factors is the age of the athlete. At different ages and during different developmental stages, people can be more vulnerable and sensitive for the impact of social relations and contextual influences (Kohlberg, 1984; Strong et al., 2005). As children grow older, their sensitivity for obedience towards their parents, coaches and teachers decreases, while the compliance towards their peers increases (Nickerson & Nagle, 2004; Prochaska, Rodgers & Sallis, 2001; Chassin, Presson, Sherman, Montello & McGrew, 1986). Moreover, positive peer interactions form the basis for prosocial moral behavior (Carlo et al., 1999; Bukowski & Sippola, 1996). Also, previous research shows that children and young adults are more sensitive for contextual influences then adults (Keresztes, Piko, Pluhar & Page, 2008). Additionally, Kavussanu (2006) found that older athletes showed more antisocial and less prosocial behavior compared to younger athletes. Kavussanu (2006) argues that from the age of 12, youth are more vulnerable for changing characteristics in the sport environment (for example when the sport-climate changes focus from enjoyment to self-competence). In other words, besides age the sport environment is a moderating factor in the relation between the sport climate and moral behavior of youth too. For youth, the sports context plays an important role in providing a social environment for resolving moral conflicts and thereby it promotes moral development (Solomon, 2004; Lerner, Brown & Kier, 2005; Kohlberg, 1981). The social environment and the prevailing atmosphere in which a young athlete plays sports will affect the development of his or her moral functioning in sport (Kavussanu, Roberts & Ntoumanis, 2002).
Another factor of influence in the relation between moral climate and moral behavior of youth is gender. The meta-analysis of Hyde (1984) shows that in general, males display more aggressive behavior than females. This phenomenon accounts specifically in the period from preschool to adulthood (Hyde, 1984). Also, in the sports context, studies found more aggressive behavior in male players than in female players (Silva, 1983; Bredemeier, 1994; Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006; Shields, LaVoi, Bredemeier & Power, 2007). For example, Shields, LaVoi, Bredemeier and Power (2007) found in their study of social correlates of poor sports person ship that boys (self)reported more unsportsmanlike behavior than girls did. An explanation for these gender differences in sports context is that antisocial behavior is mediated by empathy. Girls are more vulnerable for empathy in the caring climate, whereas boys are more vulnerable for recognition of their performance, making them more eager to play dominant or aggressive (Kavussanu, Stamp, Slade & Ring, 2009). Previous research shows that male players consider aggression and rule-violating behavior as more legitimate (Duda, Olson & Templin, 1991; Tucker & Parks, 2001). Behavioral gender differences can also be explained by the fact that different genders are attracted to different types of sports. For example, masculine-typed sports attract more males than females. Masculine-typed sports refer to more confrontation or domination where aggressive behavior is prevailing, e.g. in boxing and team sports (Meaney, Dornier & Owens, 2002), whereas feminine-typed sports are more orientated to flexibility and grace, such as dancing and skating (Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006; Koivula, 2001). The sports characterized by aggressiveness will allow male athletes to build their masculinity and masculine status, which may result in more aggressive behavior (Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006). Therefore, boys could be more vulnerable for environmental influences.
Besides sex differences, different sport settings (e.g. professional or recreational) are moderating factors in the relation between the moral climate and moral behavior of young
athletes (Shields, LaVoi, Bredemeier & Power, 2007; Kavussanu et al., 2009). For example, various levels of competition-settings will affect the athlete’s perception and tolerance about the legitimation of aggression. Previous research of Conroy and colleagues (2001) shows that aggression in sports becomes more legitimate as the level of competitions increases. In high-competition sport settings, young athletes are focused on ego-orientated goals (e.g. emphasis on winning and self-competence), which is related to lower levels of moral functioning and greater approval of unsportsmanlike behaviors (Kavussanu & Roberts, 2001). Additionally, young athletes tend to use more instrumental aggression as a strategy for winning (Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006; Sheldon & Aimar, 2001). Therefore, the moral climate in a high-competition sport setting influences the moral behavior of youth, in which young athletes are inclined to show less prosocial behavior. Besides the behavior of the athlete him-/herself, antisocial behavior of parents, coaches and teammates in high-competition sport settings can increase as well, which again will affect the moral behavior of the young athletes (Silva, 1983).
Also, the moral climate prevailing in on- or off-field sport settings is expected to influence the relation between moral climate and behavior of youth. Various studies reported differently on the effect of on- or off-field settings on moral behavior. For example, Steindfeldt, Rutkowski, Orr & Steinfeldt (2012) found that a lower level of prosocial moral atmosphere significantly related to on-field antisocial behavior in youth. In contradiction, Rutten and colleagues (2008) conclude that the effect of off-field antisocial behavior is larger compared to the effect of on-field antisocial behavior on moral behavior of young athletes.
In the current study we will perform a meta-analysis on the relation between moral climate and young athlete’s moral behavior. The main research question of this meta-analysis is: what is the strength of the association between moral climate and moral behavior of young athletes? The hypothesis in this meta-analysis is that there is a positive relation between a
positive moral climate and prosocial behavior, and a positive relation between a negative moral climate and antisocial behavior. During the meta-analysis, multiple study, sample, sports, moral climate and behavior characteristics will be tested for their influence on this relation.
Method Inclusion criteria
Several inclusion criteria were formulated to select the studies for this meta-analysis. The first criterion is that articles had to report on moral climate in the sports context measured by a scale on moral climate (including team norms, moral atmosphere, moral context, moral environment and socio moral climate). Studies reporting on caring climate in the sports context were also included since these refer to a moral environment to play sports in (Gano-Overway, 2013). The scales of moral climate had to focus on behavior or norms of coaches, team members, parents and spectators in the socio moral or caring climate. We excluded studies focusing on the motivational climate within the sports context, because these do not involve the moral orientations of the context as the club, coaches, team members and parents. As the second criterion, studies had to report on moral behavior of the athlete measured by a scale on behavior (including prosocial behavior, antisocial behavior, aggression, etc.). Hereby we made a subdivision into prosocial or antisocial behavioral outcomes. We operationalized prosocial and antisocial behavior by using the definitions of Kavussanu (2008); Kavussanu & Stanger (2017) and Sage, Kavussanu and Duda (2006). As the third criterion, we included studies with a sample of children who are 18 years old or younger. As the fourth criterion, the included studies had to provide sufficient statistical information to calculate an effect-size. Selection of the studies and handling with publication bias
All studies examining the relation of moral climate in the sports context on prosocial or antisocial behavior available until January 2018 were included in the meta-analysis. Five electronic databases were searched: ScienceDirect, PsychINFO (including Medline), Web of Knowledge (all databases), EBSCOhost (all databases), and Google Scholar. The search string included four combined variables: a moral climate element, a behavioral element, an age element and a sport element. For the moral climate element, the following keywords were used: “moral atmosphere”, “moral climate”, “caring climate”, “team norm” and “fair play attitude”. For the behavioral element, the following keywords were used: “behavio*r”, “antisocial”, “prosocial”, “aggress*”, “violen*”, “sportsmanship” and “moral functioning”. “Youth”, “child*”, and “adolescent*” were used as the age element. The last keyword used is “sport” to ensure the search was focused on studies which investigated the effect of the moral climate in the sports context. Besides the usage of the electronic databases we searched reference sections of related articles for qualifying studies which could be included in our meta-analysis.
With this search string we tried to find all representing studies which contribute to the understanding of the effect of the moral sports climate on the behavior of young athletes. However, a common problem is that studies which did not find any significant effect are often not published. This creates a bias in overall published effect, also called “publication or file drawer bias” (Duval & Tweedie, 2000). In this way it seems that all studies find a possible significant effect. Studies without any effect would be underexposed in this way, and therefore, the meta-analysis could give an underrepresentation of studies without significant effects. To be ahead of the problem of publication bias, we screened unpublished studies by searching all databases, including the American Doctoral Dissertations, in EBSCOhost.
The initial search resulted in 192 articles, selected on relevance and judged on the title. In total, we found 144 articles, and after extraction of double articles, 42 articles were
screened on usability for the meta-analysis. In total, 22 articles could be included to perform the analysis. “Appendix” presents a flow chart of the search of articles for this meta-analysis.
Coding the studies
The included studies were coded according to the guidelines of Lipsey and Wilson (2001). All studies were double coded by the authors. In case of differences in coding, the authors re-examined the concerning codes until consensus on the completion was found.
The potential moderators of the association between sports participation and moral behavior were grouped into study, sample, sports, moral climate and behavioral characteristics. For study characteristics, we coded elements that influenced the strength of the relation between sports participation and moral behavior in youth: the design of the study (cross sectional or longitudinal), the impact factor and the publication year.
One of the sample characteristics we coded for was gender. As earlier described, previous research found more aggressive behavior in male players than in female players (Silva, 1983; Bredemeier, 1994; Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006; Shields, LaVoi, Bredemeier & Power, 2007). It can be expected that strength of the effect size differs for the two gender groups. Therefore, gender differences are expected to mediate the effect of the moral climate on moral behavior. Next, we coded if the sample was located in the United States, Europe or outside these Western countries. Besides country, we coded the proportion Caucasian athletes in the sample. At last, we coded for the mean age of the young athletes and for the mean years of experience in the sports the youth athletes participated in.
The type of moral climate in the sports context was coded as a moderator. First, we made a subdivision between the moral climate measured by ‘behavior’ of others, ‘norms’ of others and a ‘mix’ of these two in the moral climate. We hereby tend to make a distinction if behavior of young athletes is directly influenced or enforced by behavior of others (through
modeling, e.g. when a parent compliments the behavior of the athlete) or is influenced indirectly (through existing moral norms and values in the sports context, e.g. shake hands after the match). Some effect sizes consist out of both behavior and norms. For example, coaching behavior related to sportsmanship can consist of ‘sets good expectations for good sportsmanship’ (norms) and ‘models, reinforces good sportsmanship and punishes poor sportsmanship’ (behavior) (Bolter & Kipp, 2016). Therefore, we added a ‘mix’ of behavior or norms as third coding variable for type of moral climate. Second, we coded if the moral climate was influenced by social actors such as a coach/trainer, team member, parent/spectator or a mix between these, since different social actors can influence the moral behavior of young athletes (Shields, Bredemeier, LaVoi & Power, 2005). Third, we coded if the moral climate was orientated prosocial or antisocial. At last, we coded who the informant of the measured behavior or norms in the moral climate was. Hereby we made a subdivision between self-reports, coach-reports, parent-reports or reports of other informants in the sports context.
This meta-analysis puts interest in the moral behavioral outcomes of young athletes, related and influenced by the moral climate of the sports context. First, we coded whether the moral behavior was a prosocial or antisocial outcome. Second, we coded the conduct of the young athletes as ‘behavior’, ‘anticipated behavior’ or a ‘mix’ between those. To specify, ‘anticipated behavior’ was identified as behavioral intentions and judgments about behavior, whereas ‘behavior’ consisted all observable behavior by young athletes. Further, we coded if the behavior occurred on-field or off-field. We expected higher effect sizes for on-field behavior and smaller effect sizes for off-field behavior because off-field behavior takes place in a different context than the sports context. In this off-field context other factors may affect the behavior of youth.
Different sports, settings and environment characteristics were coded as potential moderators. First, we coded different types of sport. The type of sport can be significant in whether the sports participation is related to prosocial or antisocial behavior of youth (Rutten et al., 2007; Shields, LaVoi, Bredemeier & Power, 2007). For example, Endresen and Olweus (2005) and Verthongen & Theeboom (2010) describe that the atmosphere by contact-sports (e.g. wrestling, power lifting, boxing, etc.) is merely built on beliefs in the value of toughness and consists of violent attitudes towards opponents, which can enhance more aggressive behavior in the sports context and everyday life. Also, in a contact-sport setting, physical aggression is rewarded with on-field success and increased prestige. In this way contact sports elevate athletes above their peers and increase off-field violence towards outsiders and “weaker” peers. Thus, a masculine and dominant attitude is encouraged by coaches, peers and parents, causing a more aggressive atmosphere and dominant behavior (Kuśnierz & Bartik, 2014). Therefore, we expect that different behavioral outcomes will occur in contact or non-contact sports contexts. Subsequently, we coded if the effect size was found over a non-contact or non-contact sport. Second, we made a subdivision between individual and team sports. Based on previous research, there is an assumption that youth in team sports will show positive developmental outcomes because of the constructed social relationships and socializing-aspect through collaboration (Coakley, 2011). Third, sport setting and location characteristics were coded as potential moderators, because the setting and context of sport can affect the relation between sports participation and prosocial and antisocial behavior (Bailey, 2005; Gano-Overway et al., 2009). Hereby we coded whether the sport took place in a ‘club’ or ‘school-based’ location, or ‘other’ location. For sport setting, we coded if the sport activity was voluntary, or was part of a treatment program or intervention.
According to the guidelines of Lipsey and Wilson (2001), statistical analyses out of the selected studies are transformed into usable effect sizes. All effect sizes were transformed into correlation coefficient r. Effect sizes were coded in the expected direction. This means that a positive correlation indicated that a positive moral atmosphere was related to more positive moral behavior, and a negative moral atmosphere relation was related to more antisocial behavior. A negative correlation indicated that young athletes showed antisocial behavior in a positive moral atmosphere or showed prosocial behavior in a negative moral atmosphere. If an article indicated that the relation was not significant, we coded this effect size as zero, following the guidelines of Lipsey and Wilson (2001).
Continuous variables were centered to their mean, and categorical variables were re-coded into dummy variables. We checked for extreme values of the effect sizes (>3.29 SD from the mean: Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) but no outliers were found in this meta-analysis. Correlation coefficients r were re-coded into Fisher z-values for the usage of the analysis (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). For interpretation and reporting, Fisher z-values were transformed back into correlation coefficients after the analysis. Based on the formulas of Lipsey and Wilson (2001) the standard errors and sampling variance of the effect sizes were estimated.
In most studies, it was possible to extract multiple effect sizes. This meta-analysis took account for the interdependency of effect sizes (Van den Noortgate & Onghena, 2003). While using a multilevel approach, this meta-analysis accounts for the hierarchical structure of data and for the effect sizes which were nested within the studies. Therefore, more statistical power is generated. In this way the moderator analyses allow to assess the influence of study, sample, sports, moral climate and behavioral characteristics on the relation between a moral sports climate and moral behavior of young athletes. This meta-analysis used a 3-level random effects model. The effects are accounted for three levels of variance: level 1 contains the sampling variance for each effect size, level 2 contains the variance between effect sizes
within a specific study and level 3 contains the variance between studies (Wibbelink & Assink, 2015). For this meta-analysis we used R (version 3.5.0) within the foreign- and metafor-package, employing a multilevel random effects model (Wibbelink & Assink, 2015). This model is often used for multilevel analyses (Spruit et al., 2016; ter Beek et al., 2018; van Dam et al., 2018; van der Put et al., 2017)
Results
To assess the relation between moral sports climate and moral behavior of young athletes, a multilevel meta-analysis of 22 independent studies and 117 effect sizes was conducted. The overall correlation between moral climate and moral behavior of young athletes as well as the results of the moderator analyses are presented in table 2.
Overall relation between moral sports climate and moral behavior of young athletes We found a significant association between a moral sports climate and moral behavior by young athletes (r = .379; 95% CI: 0.306 to .486; p >.001). These results suggest that there is a significant relation between the moral sports climate and moral behavior of young athletes. The likelihood ratio test comparing models with and without between-study variance (level 3) showed significant variance at the between-study level (σ²level3 = 0.034, χ² (1) =
464.666; p <.0001). The variance between the effect sizes within studies (level 2) was significant as well (σ²level2= 0.027, χ² (1) = 41.602; p <.0001), which indicates that there is a
heterogeneous effect size distribution. About 5.3% of the total effect size variance was accounted for the sampling variance (level 1), 42.3 % for the variance between effect sizes within studies (level 2), and 52.4 % for the variance between studies (level 3). Since we found a heterogeneous effect size distribution, the assumption for homogeneous effect sizes is not met. Therefore, we will not check for publication bias and will not perform a trim and fill procedure, because this procedure will not give a reliable estimate of effect sizes (Duval & Tweedie, 2000).
We used moderator analyses since we want to know if there are moderating effects in the relation between the moral climate and moral behavior by young athletes. These analyses focuses on the effects of study, sample and sports characteristics. We also checked for the type of moral climate, the actors of the moral climate and behavioral characteristics. See table 2 for the results.
Study Characteristics
We investigated several study characteristics for a moderating effect on the relation between the moral sports climate and moral behavior by young athletes. The publication year of the study significantly moderated the relation between a moral sports climate and moral behavior by young athletes (F(1,115) = 10.538; p < .001). This means that larger effect sizes were found in older studies. The type of study also significantly influenced the relation between a moral sports climate and moral behavior in young athletes (F(1,115) = 4.264; p < .05). Only among studies using cross-sectional designs, significant results were found (r= .411). For longitudinal studies, the relation between the moral sports climate and moral behavior was not significant. The impact factor of the journal did not moderate the strength of the relation between the moral sports climate and moral behavior in young athletes.
Sample Characteristics
None of the sample characteristics which we checked as a possible moderator had a moderating effect on the relation between a moral sports context and moral behavior by young athletes. Gender did not moderate the strength of the relation. This indicates that it makes no difference whether the athlete is a boy or a girl in the relation between a moral sports climate and moral behavior by young athletes. Additionally, the proportion of young athletes from ethnic minority groups did not moderate the relationship between a moral sports context and moral behavior by young athletes. At last, we checked whether the mean age of young athletes influences the relation. However, the mean age of young athletes does not
moderate the strength of the relation between a moral sports context and moral behavior by young athletes.
Sports characteristics
No moderating effects were found for sports characteristics. Sports participation whether in a team or individually does not moderate the relation between a moral sports context and moral behavior by young athletes.
Type of moral climate
The type of moral climate (measured by norms, behavior, or a mix) did not moderate the relation between a sports context and moral behavior by young athletes. It does not matter whether the studies have measured only moral norms, moral behavior or a mix of moral behavior and moral norms. It has no effect on the relation between a moral sports context and moral behavior of young athletes.
Actors of moral climate
We checked for the influence of the actor of the moral sports climate (i.e., coach/teacher, team members, parents/spectators, or a mix between those three) as a possible moderator on the relation. However, the actor of the moral sports climate did not moderate the relation between a moral sports context and moral behavior by young athletes. This means that the moral norms and behavior of all actors equally contribute to the moral behavior of young athletes.
Moral behavior
We calculated all codes for moral behavior, anticipated behavior and a mix of these, regardless whether they were accounted for prosocial or antisocial behavior. In this way, we could perform analyses over the general outcome of behavior influenced by the moral climate. However, no significant moderation effects were found for moral behavior. This means that
neither moral behavior, nor anticipated behavior or a mix of those two influence the strength of the relation between the moral climate and moral behavior.
Type of behavior
For the type of behavior, we made a distinction between prosocial and antisocial behavior to test whether the relation was significantly influenced by one of the two. However, no significant moderation effect was found for type of behavior. Next, we subdivided both prosocial and antisocial behavior in ‘behavior’, ‘anticipated behavior’ and a ‘mix’ of these two to analyze whether this subdivision has any influence. After the analysis, it turned out that both prosocial and antisocial behavior were not influenced by behavior, anticipated behavior or the mix. At last, we performed a moderator analysis over the moderators on-field and off-field, for example to see whether behavior during official games or behavior off field would differ. No significant effects were found for this moderator (see table 2 for the results).
Discussion
Sports can play a major part in the behavioral development and socialization process of young children and adolescents (Camiré & Trudel, 2010, Coakley, 2011, Coalter, 2007). Little is known about the strength and potential moderators of the influence of the relation between the moral climate and moral behavior of young athletes (Kavussanu & Stanger, 2017; Shields, Funk & Bredemeier, 2018). This meta-analysis is the first systematic review that examined the relation between a moral sports atmosphere and moral behavior of youth. Overall, we found a significant association (r = .396), which indicates that there is a significant relation between a moral sports climate and moral behavior of young athletes. This means that the moral sports climate influences the moral behavior of young athletes. More specific, a positive moral sports climate is associated with more positive moral behavior by youth, while a negative sports climate is associated with less moral behavior.
The moderator analysis showed that there is significant influence of study characteristics. Early published studies yielded larger effect sizes then recently published studies. This indicates that studies conducted before or around the millennium showed more impact, which could mean that the moral climate used to have more effect then it does in the present time. A possible explanation for this could be the fact that the social environment of youth changed dramatically over the last decades. The digital world and especially social media for instance nowadays have major impact on the behavior of youth (Slater, 2007). Where previously the social actors from the direct environment, such as parents, the coach and team members, directly play a role, now more people, like sports celebrities, or certain trends could have an influence on the moral behavior of young athletes (Bush, Martin & Bush, 2004). Another explanation is that nowadays more developed and detailed instruments are developed and used to measure moral behavior, since Bredemeier and Shields (1998) argued that more valid and reliable measures of moral dimensions were needed.
Consequently, the differences in the constructs (moral atmosphere and moral behavior) could be more specified and differentiated with modern developed instruments (Boardley & Kavussanu, 2009). Additionally, stricter interpretations of significant results arose with the development of modern instruments, causing that significant effects emerged less quickly (Pek & Flora, 2018). Besides the year of publication, the design of the study is a significant moderator of the relation between moral sports climate and moral behavior. Studies with a cross-sectional study design showed larger effect sizes then longitudinal studies. The moral climate in a sports club can be influenced through different events happening at the club, on the field or in society, causing the moral climate to fluctuate (Keegan, Spray, Harwood & Lavallee, 2011). Therefore, the moral climate can be time dependent, making it more sensitive to yield significant effects for cross-sectional designs.
Further, no significant influence of sample or sport characteristics on the relation between the sports climate and moral behavior of young athletes was found. This means that the relation is not significantly influenced by gender, ethnicity, age or mean years of experience. Also, no significant influence was found for type of sports, type of moral climate or type of behavior. Further, the moderator analysis for type of social actor was not significant. In line with previous research (Guivernau & Duda, 2002), this meta-analysis shows that both team members, coaches and parents have significant impact on athlete’s tendencies to act prosocial or antisocial. The norms in the moral sports context are transmitted through the morality of social actors, and therefore influence the impact of the actions, attitude and behavior of young athletes. Nevertheless, although not statistically significant, meaningful differences can still be found for type of social actor. Our research shows that team members have the most influence on the moral behavior of the young athlete, followed by the influence of the coach. This is in line with previous research of Stephens and colleagues (1997). This this can be related to the increase in the influence of peers and de
decrease influence of adults (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007). In this developmental stage peer pressure plays an important role. The young athletes show more appropriate behavior that fits within the group. Besides, adolescence is a developmental stage in which young people start to become more autonomous (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007).
Several limitations of this meta-analysis should be mentioned. Since mainly substantial, but no significant, effects were found, it can be argued that the power devalued for several moderators (Ellis, 2010). When the statistical power is low, the chance of making a type II error will be present. It is also possible to find no effects at all, while there actually are effects (Ellis, 2010). Since we only found a limited amount of effect sizes for several characteristics, statistical comparisons were difficult to perform. It is expected that more significant results can be found when the categories of moderators are filled with more effect sizes. For example, we had to focus on moral behavior in general instead of making a division between prosocial and antisocial behavior. Also, there were only 3 included studies which addressed individual sports. Therefore, we could not properly investigate the moderating effect of participating in a team or individual sports on the moral behavior of young athletes. For future research, it is interesting to investigate this moderator. Earlier research shows different findings on the influence of individual or team/sports on moral behavior. For example, Doty (2006) found that there is no difference between participating in a team sports or playing individual sports, while other research describes that participating in a team sports pressures an athlete in transgressive acts more than individual players (Boardley & Kavussanu, 2007; Vallerand et al., 1997). Another example accounted for sport location, where little diversion in effect sizes regarding the location (sport club, school based or other location) or the setting (voluntary or intervention) was found.
Another limitation is the fact that we could not check for publication bias since the assumption for a homogeneous effect size distribution was not met. Because there is
heterogeneity in effect sizes, the examination of a funnel plot would be inappropriate (Terrin, Schmid, Lau, & Olkin, 2003). In case of publication bias, there could be an overrepresentation of significant effect sizes (Thornton & Lee, 2000). However, in our study, the publication bias effect is not very likely. In most of the studies, the general research subject differed from our research subject. For example, a large amount of studies focused mainly on the motivational climate or on the stage of moral reasoning of young athletes in the sports climate, and thence only put side-interest in the moral climate. Only a few studies focused only on the association between moral sport climate and moral behavior. Because of this, the effect sizes which focused on the relation between a moral sports climate and moral behavior by young athletes will be seen as side-issues for the general scope of these studies. If the effect sizes about the motivational climate and/or stage of moral reasoning would still give interesting results, and effect sizes concerning our research subject would report less robust effects, the manuscript would still be interesting enough to be published. This would counter publication bias for our research subject, and therefore this limitation solved itself.
Despite these limitations, this meta-analysis has several strengths. First of all, this study is the first meta-analytic review about the relation between a moral sports context and moral behavior in youth. Second, the statistical power of a multilevel meta-analysis is more powerful than other studies (Van den Noortgate & Ongehna, 2003). Third, since we used a multilevel approach which allowed for the inclusion of multiple effect sizes per study, we could perform moderator analyses. This led to a better understanding of (the lack of) moderating influences on the relation between the moral sports climate and moral behavior (Hedges & Pigott, 2001). A meta-analysis also contributes to increasing validity (Finckh & Tramer, 2008). Since we have a large number of young athletes in total (N = 34600), the results are generalizable. At last, this meta-analysis included one non-published and non-peer
reviewed study. This contributes to reducing the publication bias which increases the reliability of the results.
Since our study find marginal to non-significant results over the moderating factors, we prospect that other factors are also influencing the relation. Therefore, we suggest that future research should focus deeper on other possible moderating factors between a moral sports climate and moral behavior of young athletes. For example, the included studies were mostly based on Western countries and the studies who coded for ethnicity were mostly Caucasian. There was only one study who was focusing on an African country. Moral behavior of young athletes is based on the specific social context and the moral atmosphere of that context has influence on the moral behavior of these adolescents (Kavussanu & Spray, 2006). It is expected that different countries and different cultures are moderating the relation between a moral atmosphere and moral behavior by young athletes (Carlo, Fabes, Laible & Kupanoff, 1999). It is known that non-Western cultures are more focused on the community and close networks in which children adhere to duties and traditions, take care of each other and make little distinction between self and others (Jackson et al., 2008). Whereas Western-countries in general are more focused on the individual (Turiel, 2002). Halgunseth, Ispa and Duane (2006) have researched the influence of parental control on children’s moral behavior. They indicated that the cultural background influences this relation. For example, Mexican parents more often reject aggressive behavior of their children than parents from Africa, India or the Philippines do. Cultural values will influence the behavior of adolescents (Halgunseth, Ispa & Rudy, 2006). So, culture could moderate the moral atmosphere and the behavior of young athletes.
Another interesting moderator effect which should be investigated in the future is the influence of hours of sports participating per week. Not all included studies in this meta-analysis reported hours of training or participating sports during a week. Therefore, we were
not able to check this as a possible moderator for the relation between a moral atmosphere and moral behavior by youth. Based on the literature we will expect that the hours of participating in a sports context will be influencing the behavior of young athletes (Rutten et al., 2007), making it an interesting moderator to investigate in the future.
Our meta-analysis shows that different sample, sport, moral climate and behavioral characteristics influence the relation between a moral sports climate and moral behavior by young athletes. Nevertheless, they do not significantly affect this relation. The results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution, since the amount of found effect sizes were limited for certain categories. Future research should therefore focus on specific group-, setting- and sports characteristics. Sufficient information about the moral climate and influencing factors on moral behavior can be collected, enabling future research to investigate meaningful comparisons. Empirical evidence over moral behavior can be used so that athletes, coaches, teammates, parents and spectators can create a positive moral environment to play sports in. Policymakers and interventions can benefit from these results, since they can contribute to a better understanding of what kind of positive effects sports and the sports environment can have on the development of youth, and sports with a positive moral atmosphere can be integrated in programs for positive youth development.
Conclusion
It becomes clear that there is a significant relation between the moral sports climate and moral behavior of youth. This means that a positive moral climate is correlated with prosocial moral behavior and a negative sports climate with antisocial behavior. Moreover, we have been able to detect which moderators influence this relation significantly and which do not. The moderator analyses have shown that the study characteristics significantly influenced the relation, whereas the sample, sport, moral climate and behavior characteristics did not significantly moderate the relation between moral climate and moral behavior of young athletes. Nevertheless, we demonstrated which characteristics influence the relation
between a moral sport climate and moral behavior in young athletes. Future research is necessary to reveal influencing factors and discover factors which contribute to a positive environment to play sports in and develop.
References
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423-1440. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
Arthur-Banning, S., Wells, M. S., Baker, B. L., & Hegreness, R. (2009). Parents behaving badly? The relationship between the sportsmanship behaviors of adults and athletes in youth basketball games. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32, 3-18.
Bailey, R. (2005). Evaluating the relationship between physical education, sport and social inclusion. Educational review, 57, 71-90. doi:10.1080/0013191042000274196
Balish, S. M., McLaren, C., Rainham, D., & Blanchard, C. (2014). Correlates of youth sport attrition: A review and future directions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 429-439. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.04.003
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101-119. doi:10.1080/0305724022014322
Bandura, A., Babaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01791.x
Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2007). Development and validation of the moral disengagement in sport scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 608-628. doi:10.1123/jsep.29.5.608
Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2009). The influence of social variables and moral disengagement on prosocial and antisocial behaviors in field hockey and netball. Journal of Sport Sciences, 27, 843-854. doi:10.1080/02640410902887283
Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2011). Moral disengagement in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4, 93-108. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2011.570361 Bolter, N. & Kipp, L. (2016). Sportspersonship coaching behaviours, relatedness need
satisfaction, and early adolescent athletes’ prosocial and antisocial behavior. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 20-35. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2016.1142461
Bortoli, L., Messina, G., Zorba, M., & Robazza, C. (2012). Contextual and individual influences on antisocial behavior and psycho-biosocial states of youth soccer players.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 397-406.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.01.001
Bredemeier, B. J. L. & Shields, D. L. (1998). Moral assessment in sport psychology. Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement, 1, 257–276.
Bredemeier, B. J. L. (1994). Children’s moral reasoning and their assertive, aggressive and submissive tendencies in sport and daily life. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 1-14. doi:10.1123/jsep.16.1.1
Bukowski, W. M., & Sippola, L. K. (1996). Friendship and morality. Friendship in childhood and adolescence, 5, 238-261
Bush, A. J., Martin, C. A., & Bush, V. D. (2004). Sports Celebrity Influence on the Behavioral Intentions of Generation Y. Journal of Advertising Research, 44, 108-118. doi:10.1017/S0021849904040206
Camiré, M., & Trudel, P. (2010). High school athletes’ perspectives on character development through sport participation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15, 193-207. doi:10.1080/17408980902877617
Carlo, G., Fabes, R. A., Laible, D., & Kupanoff, K. (1999). Early adolescence and prosocial/moral behavior II: The role of social and contextual influences. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 133-147. doi:10.1177/0272431699019002001
Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Sherman, S. J., Montello, D., & McGrew, J. (1986). Changes in peer and parent influence during adolescence: Longitudinal versus cross-sectional perspectives on smoking initiation. Developmental Psychology, 22, 327-334. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.3.327
Coakley, J. (2011). Youth Sports: What counts as ‘positive development’? Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35, 306-324. doi:10.1177/0193723511417311
Coalter, F. (2007). Sport clubs, social capital and social regeneration: ill-defined interventions with hard to follow outcomes? Sport in Society, 10, 537-559.
doi:10.1080/1743043701388723
Conroy, D. E., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2006). Coach training as a strategy of promoting youth social development. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 128-144. doi:10.1123/tsp.20.2.128 Conroy, D. E., Silva, J. M., Newcomer, R. R., Walker, B. W., & Johnson, M. S. (2001).
Personal and participatory socializers of the perceived legitimacy of aggressive behavior in sport. Aggressive behavior, 27, 405-418.
Coté, J. & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2007). Youth involvement in sport. Retrieved from: http://researchgate.com
Coulomb-Cabagno, G., & Rascle, O. (2006). Teams sports players’ observed aggression as a function of gender, competitive level, and sport type. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1980-2000. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00090.x
Department for Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS). (2005). Taking Part Survey; Created by the Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-digital-culture-media-sport
Denham, B. E. (2011). Alcohol and marijuana use among American high school seniors: Empirical associations with competitive sports participation. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28, 362-379. doi:10.1123/ssj.28.3.362
Doty, J. (2006). Sports build character?! Journal of College and Character, 7, 1-9, doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1529
Duda, J. L., Olson, L. K., & Templin, T. J. (1991). The relationship of task and ego orientation of sportsmanship attitudes and the perceived legitimacy of injurious acts. Research of Quarterly of Exercise and Sport, 62, 79-87. doi:10.1080/02701367.1991.1060.7522 Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing
and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455-463. doi:10.111/j.0006-341X.2000.0045.x
Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2005). Participation in power sports and antisocial involvement in preadolescent and adolescent boys. Journal of child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 468-478. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.00414.x
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com Finckh, A., & Tramèr, M. R. (2008). Primer: strengths and weaknesses of
meta-analysis. Nature Reviews Rheumatology, 4, 146-152. doi:10.1038/ncprheum0732 Fry, M. D., & Gano-Overway, L. A. (2010). Exploring the contribution of the caring climate
in youth sport experience. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 294-304. doi:10.1080/10413201003776352
Gano-Overway, L. A. (2013). Exploring the connections between caring and social behaviors in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84, 104-114. doi:10.1080/02701367.2013.762322
Gano-Overway, L. A., Newton, M., Magyar, T. M., Fry, M. D., Kim, M. S., & Guivernau, M. R. (2009). Influence of caring youth sport contexts on efficacy-related beliefs and social behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 45, 329-340. doi:10.1037/a0014067 Guivernau, M., & Duda, J. L. (2002). Moral atmosphere and athletic aggressive tendencies in
young soccer players. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 67-85. doi:10.1080/03057240120111445
Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in organized youth activities: a survey of self-reported developmental experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 25-55. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.1301006
Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2001). The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6, 203-217. doi:10.1037/1082989X.6.3.203
Hughes, S., & Shank, M. (2005). Defining scandal in sports: Media and corporate sponsor perspectives. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 207-216.
Hulgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Duane, R. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77, 1282-1297.
Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722-736. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.722 Jackson, L. A., Zhao, Y., Qiu, W., Kolenic, A., Fitzgereld, H. E., Harold, R., & Von Eye, A.
(2008). Cultural differences in morality in the real and virtual worlds: A comparison of Chinese and the U.S. Youth. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 11, 279-286. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0098
Jones, C., & McNamee, M. J. (2000). Moral reasoning, moral action, and moral atmosphere of sport: some critical remarks on the limitations of the prevailing paradigm. Sport, Education & Society, 5, 131-148. doi:10.1177/1356336X05052893
Kavussanu, M. (2006). Motivational predictors of prosocial and antisocial behavior in football. Journal of Sports Science, 24, 575-588. doi:10.1080/024640410500190825 Kavussanu, M. (2008). Moral behavior in sport: A critical review of literature. International
Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 124-138. doi:10.1080/17509840802277417
Kavussanu, M., & Roberts, G. C. (2001). Moral functioning in sport: An achievement goal perspective. Journal of sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 37-54.
Kavussanu, M., Roberts, G. C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2002). Contextual influences on moral functioning of college basketball players. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 347-367. doi:10.1123/tsp.16.4.347
Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C. M. (2006). Contextual influences on moral functioning of male youth footballers. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 1-23. doi:10.1123/tsp.20.1.1
Kavussanu, M., Stamp, R., Slade, G., & Ring, C. (2009). Observed prosocial and antisocial behaviors in male and female soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 62-76. doi:10.1080/10413200802624292
Kavussanu, M. & Stanger, N. (2017). Moral behavior in sport. Current opinion in psychology, 16, 185-192. doi:10.1016/j.copysc.2017.05.010
Keegan, R., Spray, C., Harwood, C., & Lavallee, D. (2011). From ‘motivational climate’to ‘motivational atmosphere’: A review of research examining the social and environmental influences on athlete motivation in sport. Sport Psychology, 1-55.
Keresztes, N., Piko, B. F., Pluhar, Z. F., & Page, R. M. (2008). Social influences in sports activity among adolescents. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 128, 21-25. doi:10.1177/1466424007085228
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com. doi: 10.111/j.2044-8295-1982.tb01814.x
Koivula, N. (2001). Perceived characteristics of sports categorized as gender-neutral, feminine and masculine. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 377-393.
Kuśnierz, C., & Bartik, P. (2014). The impact of practice of selected combat sports on signs of aggression in players in comparison with their non-training peers. Journal of Combat Sports & Martial Arts, 5, 17-22. doi:10.5604/20815735.1127448
Kwan, M., Bobko, S., Faulkner, G., Donnelly, P., & Cairney, J. (2014). Sport participation and alcohol and illicit drug use in adolescents and young adults: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Addictive behaviors, 39, 497-506.
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.11.006
Lerner, R. M., Brown, J. D., & Kier, C. (2005). Adolescence: development, diversity, context and application. Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
McHale, J.P., Vinden, P.G., Bush, L., Richer, D., Shaw, D., & Smith, B. (2005). Patterns of personal and social adjustment among sport-involved and noninvolved urban middleschool children. Sociology of Sport Journal, 22, 119-136.
doi:10.1123/ssj.22.2.119
Meaney, K. S., Dornier, L. A., & Owens, M. S. (2002). Sex-role stereotyping for selected sport and physical activities across age groups. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 743-749. doi:10.2466/pms.2002.94.3.743
Miller, K. E., Melnick, M. J., Barnes, G. M., Sabo, D., & Farrell, M. P. (2007). Athletic involvement and adolescent delinquency. Journal of youth and adolescence, 36, 711-723. doi:10.1007/s1096400691239
Miller, B. W., Roberts, G. C., & Ommundsen, Y. (2005). Effect of perceived motivational climate on moral functioning, team moral atmosphere perceptions, and the
legitimacy of intentionally injurious acts among competitive youth football players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 461-477. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2004.04.003 Mouratidou, K., Chatzopoulos, D., & Karamavrou, S. (2007). Moral development in sport
context: Utopia or reality? Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 4, 163-184.
Nickerson, A. B., & Nagle, R. J. (2004). The influence of parent and peer attachments on life satisfaction in middle childhood and early adolescence. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.com. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-2312-5_3
Ntoumanis, N., Taylor, I. M., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2012). A longitudinal examination of coach and peer motivational climates in youth sport: Implications for moral attitudes, well-being, and behavioral investment. Developmental Psychology, 48, 213-223. doi:10.1037/a002493
Nucci, C., & Young-Shim, K. (2005). Improving socialization through sport: an analytic review of literature on aggression and sportmanship. Physical Educator, 62, 123-159. Retrieved from
http://proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/docview/1437936272?accountid=14615
Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with black boys: the role and influence of environmental and cultural factors of the academic performance of African American males. Urban Education, 38, 431-459. doi:10.1177/0042085903038004005
Pek, J., & Flora, D. B. (2018). Reporting Effect Sizes in Original Psychological Research: A Discussion and Tutorial. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.com
Petitpas, A., Cornelius, J. A., & Van Raalte, J. (2008). Youth development through sport: It’s all about relationships. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
Perks, T. (2007). Does sport foster social capital? The contribution of sport to a lifestyle of community participation. Sociology of Sport Journal, 24, 378-401.
doi:10.1123/ssj.24.4.378
Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Critical assessments of contemporary psychology. Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com
Prochaska, J. J., Rodgers, M. W., & Sallis, J. F. (2001). Association of parent and peer support with adolescent psychical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 2016-210. doi:10.1080/02701367.2002.106009010
Rutten, E. A., Stams, G. J. J. M., Dekovic, M. Schuengel, C., Hoeksma, J. B., & Biesta, G. J. J. (2004). Jeugdsport en morele socialisatie: Effecten van fair-play sociomoreel redeneren, moreel klimaat en relationele steun van de trainer op anti- en prosociaal gedrag in en om het veld. Pedagogiek, 24, 324-341.
Rutten, E. A., Stams, G. J. J. M., Biesta, G. J. J., Schuengel, C., Dirks, E., & Hoeksma, J. B. (2007). The contribution of organized youth sport to antisocial and prosocial behavior in adolescents athletes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 255-264. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9085-y
Rutten, E. A., Dekovic, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., Schuengel, C., & Hoeksema, J. B., & Biesta, G. J. J. (2008). On- and off-field antisocial and prosocial behavior in adolescent soccer players: A multilevel study. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 371-387. doi:10.10106/j.adolescence.2007.06.007
