1
Master Thesis
University of Amsterdam
The mediating effect of bottom-line mentality on the relation between soccer player’s narcissism and antisocial behavior toward opponents, moderated by the manager’s ethical leadership, in Dutch professional soccer.
Author: Johan Plat
Student number:11158077
Supervisor: Dr. Annebel H.B. De Hoogh Programme code: MSc EPBK
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Johan Plat, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Abstract
This paper aimed to prove that player’s bottom-line mentality mediates the relation between player’s narcissism and antisocial behavior toward opponents, as moderated by manager’s ethical leadership, in Dutch professional soccer. Data was collected from 163 professional soccer players in the Dutch Eredivisie and Jupiler League, who answered questions about the previous season, playing for 52 different clubs in and outside The Netherlands. The results indicated a positive relation between player’s narcissism and player’s bottom-line mentality, as well as a positive relation between bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior toward opponents. Next to that, bottom-line mentality was found to mediate between player’s narcissism and antisocial behavior toward opponents. No proof was found for the moderating effect of manager’s ethical leadership between bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior toward opponents.
4
Table of Content
Master Thesis ... 1 Statement of Originality ... 2 Abstract ... 3 Table of Content ... 4 1. Introduction ... 5 2. Literature review ...112.1 Antisocial behavior toward opponents and the relation with bottom-line mentality ...11
2.2 Narcissism and the relation with bottom-line mentality ...15
2.3 The moderating role of ethical leadership...17
3. Method ...22
3.1 Sample and procedures ...22
3.2 Measures ...22
3.3 Analytical strategy ...24
4. Results ...27
4.1 Correlations ...27
4.2 Direct effects ...27
4.3 Indirect mediation effect ...31
4.4 The conditional effect: simple moderation ...34
4.5 The conditional indirect effect: moderated mediation ...36
5 Discussion ...38
5.1 Theoretical and practical implications ...38
5.2 Limitations ...41
5.3 Further research ...41
References ...43
5
1. Introduction
During my professional soccer career in The Netherlands, I have seen a lot of antisocial behavior toward opponents on the pitch. Sage, Kavussanu and Duda (2006) described antisocial behavior as voluntary behavior to harm or disadvantage the recipient. Severe physical fouls as intentionally kicking, hitting, spitting, punching, hooking and even biting the opponent, but also verbal violence, for example cursing or insulting. If the referee sees this behavior and judges this to be bad enough to hand the player a red card, this player has to leave the game and no one is allowed to substitute him. So after the red card, you are playing with one man less than the opponent. The names of my former teammates who have received a red card because of antisocial behavior immediately pop up in my head. This is due to the fact that running wasn’t the favourite part of the game to me, and with one man down, I had to run even more. Even worse were the moments when I saw someone getting badly injured because of a foul. I can still hear the terrible noise of my teammate breaking a leg. He had to recover for over a year, and then still wasn’t the player that he used to be. I can’t count the days, weeks and even months that I was in pain after being the victim of a bad tackle. It even often occurred during training against my own teammates.
Antisocial behavior toward opponents always is an hot item in sports, mainly because of the injuries that come along with aggressive actions. If players do not harm other players, the injuries that occur because of contact and foul play will be prevented. This means that teams can play and train with their best players more often, also because there will be less suspended players. Because of that, the level of play in soccer will increase and the fans can see their favourite players more often. It will also spare money, because less medical assistance is needed to get the players recovered from injuries. Of course it also averts a lot of pain and grief for the individual player. Ekstrand, Hägglund, and Waldén (2010) found that 21 per-cent of the match injuries were caused by foul play on the pitch according to the referee, and 57 per-cent of the total amount of injuries occurred in matches. Ekstrand et al.
6
This means that foul play in matches account for six injuries a year in a team in professional soccer. To be clear, this is only foul play that is noticed and assessed as foul play by the referee. The referee cannot see every foul and sometimes makes a mistake. Also, only injuries that caused players to skip trainings and matches were named injuries in this research, but a lot of players do play through with pain. Next to that, this is only foul play in matches, and the matches in this research only account for 16 per cent of the total hours of exposure (475,000 of training and 91,000 of match play).
Another reason why it’s important to prevent antisocial behavior towards opponents is because this will improve the honesty and the beauty of the game. Fraleigh (as cited in Simon et al., 2014) wrote that it’s important to keep the basic complex soccer skills that are central to the game more important than fouling. Accordingly, antisocial behavior can be seen as breaking the rules of the game and therefore as disrespecting to what is really valuable in soccer (Simon et al., 2014).
Reducing antisocial behavior will also improve the position of the clubs in the fair play ranking. On the website of the KNVB (Royal Dutch Soccer Association) can be read that in The Netherlands, teams are monitored and assessed on fair play. Some elements that are part of the assessment of fair play are the amount of red and yellow cards, social behavior of players, and respecting the opponent. The KNVB and also the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) both offer an amount of money to the fairest club.
At last, professional soccer players serve as role models and idols for a lot of people. Their behavior and attitudes are copied a lot. For example haircuts, soccer tricks, clothing styles and antisocial behavior as diving (trying to mislead the referee that someone fouled you) is being imitated a lot by especially children. Bricheno and Thornton (2007) found that children named soccer players as the second most important role models ranked only behind relatives. In line with the role model part, the image and reputation of the player and the club will be more positive if players engage in less antisocial behavior toward opponents.
Engaging in antisocial behavior toward opponents may derive from having a bottom-line mentality. Bottom-bottom-line mentality is defined as ‘’one-dimensional thinking that revolves
7
around securing bottom-line outcomes to the neglect of competing priorities’’ (Greenbaum, Mawritz & Eissa, 2012, p,344) Greenbaum, Mawritz and Eissa (2012) found that having a bottom-line mentality is related to social undermining behaviors as thwarting co-workers and competing with them for status and recognition. If people with a bottom-line mentality are social undermining co-workers, it’s plausible that they may be engaging in antisocial behavior toward opponents.
Wolfe (as cited in Greenbaum, Mawritz & Eissa, 2012) found that employees with a bottom-line mentality are more likely to treat every situation as if the bottom-line is the only important outcome. In business and management, the bottom-line mostly refers to financial outcomes as profits or losses (Greenbaum et al., 2012), but in this research in the context of soccer, the bottom-line is about winning. Doing everything possible to win the game while everything else is discarded. Employees with a bottom-line mentality strive for bottom-line outcomes, and ignore ethical and environmental concerns when this stands in their way of securing the bottom-line (Callahan, 2007). Lance Armstrong and his doped wins in the Tour de France (Albergotti & O'Connell, 2013) and Diego Maradona and his goal with ‘the hand of God’ (Archetti, 2001) are very (in)famous examples of securing the bottom-line while neglecting ethical standards. Because of this lack of ethical behavior of people who strive for bottom-line outcomes, I hypothesize that a bottom-line mentality leads to more antisocial behavior toward opponents.
A player’s adaptation of a bottom-line mentality may emanate from a narcissistic personality. Narcissism as a dimension of someone’s personality is described as an affective and cognitive preoccupation with oneself and an excessive and defensive assertion of status and superiority (Locke, 2009). Narcissists are preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, believe they are special and unique, require excessive admiration, have a sense of entitlement, and are interpersonally exploitative and arrogant and haughty (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Narcissism is hot for different reasons. First, more and more studies indicate a rising level of narcissism in Western societies (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell & Bushman, 2008a, 2008b). This is also reflected in the social media
8
where life appears to be mostly about self-promotion and -glorification. Next to that, after the rise of Donald Trump narcissism got even more attention all around the world. For example, Nutt (2016) wrote about the narcissistic traits of Trump and discussed other comments on Trump’s self loving nature. Also in soccer narcissism is getting more notice, because (among a lot of soccer players) superstar Cristiano Ronaldo has a lot of narcissistic traits and these traits evoke a lot of mixed feelings in the soccer fans all over the world as can be read on the following webpage (Sheen, 2016).
Wallace and Baumeister (2002) found that narcissism has a positive relation with performance on tasks that are publicly evaluated, but a negative relation with performance on privately evaluated tasks. They perform best when they can earn admiration. In professional soccer, players are evaluated publicly and they can earn a lot of admiration by their performance. The best way to find glory in soccer is by winning and by being the best. Because narcissists are constantly striving for admiration and because of their feeling of superiority and arrogance, it’s very likely that narcissistic soccer players have a bottom-line mentality. Thus, narcissism as a personality factor may predict antisocial behavior toward opponents through a bottom-line mentality.
Famous (former) players like Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Luis Suarez, Eric Cantona and Vinnie Jones do possess a lot of narcissistic traits, and they are often named for their bottom-line mentality, but they are also notorious because of their antisocial behavior. Luis Suarez for example got suspended for months because he had bitten his defender. An even more outrageous act of violence was committed by Eric Cantona. He once launched a kung-fu kick at a fan of the opponent after already having received a red card. He was banned for playing soccer for nine months and got a fine of £10,000 from the FA, the English Football Association. He even had to face assault charges at court, and was sentenced two weeks imprisonment. The manager of Eric Cantona at that time, Sir Alex Ferguson, decided to fine Cantona in name of their club Manchester United for an additional £20,000 according to the article of Smith and Stone (2015).
9
Ethical leadership may lower the amount of antisocial behavior of players with a bottom-line mentality. Leaders can discourage behavior by means of punishing undesired behavior, and they have a big influence on ethical norms (Treviño, Brown & Hartman, 2003; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes & Salvador, 2009). Brown, Trevino and Harrison (2005) defined ethical leadership as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (p. 120).
No research has been done on the moderating role of a manager’s ethical leadership, between bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior toward opponents. However, I have reason to believe that players with a bottom-line mentality will be more susceptible to ethical leadership than players lower on bottom-line mentality. The manager decides who will play in the starting eleven and this decision has a large impact on the player’s future perspective and also on the status of the player within the team. So players with a bottom-line mentality also want to be the best player in the eyes of the manager. Their bottom-line mentality makes them want to ‘win’ from their teammates as well. The one-dimensional thinking about the bottom-line outcome extends to the objective of pleasing the coach. Thus if the manager sets high standards of morality and fair play, the player with a bottom-line mentality will be more receptive to follow the rules of the ethical leader than players lower on bottom-line mentality.
The purpose of this research is to investigate the mediating role of bottom-line mentality between a soccer players’ narcissism and antisocial behavior toward opponents. In addition the moderating effect of ethical leadership between bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior toward opponents will be researched. This leads to the following research question: To what extent is the relationship between soccer player’s narcissism and their antisocial behaviour towards opponents mediated by player’s bottom-line mentality and does the manager’s ethical leadership weaken this relationship?
Thus I like to extend previous research of antisocial behavior toward opponents, by showing that bottom-line mentality is related to antisocial behavior. Next to that, this research
10
tries to prove that narcissism is related to antisocial behavior through bottom-line mentality. Furthermore, this contributes to existing literature by investigating the moderating impact of manager’s ethical leadership on the relation between bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior toward opponents. It is important to investigate factors that can lower the positive relation between having a bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior toward opponents, because antisocial behavior has a lot of negative consequences as was explained earlier. Also, an important difference compared to existing literature is the fact that this research is conducted with professional soccer players as participants, using objective indicators of foul play (number of red and yellow cards). In research this has not been done with the described variables.
11
2. Literature review
2.1 Antisocial behavior toward opponents and the relation with
bottom-line mentality
Antisocial behavior as a construct originated from Bandura’s (1999) dual aspects of morality: proactive and inhibitive morality. Proactive morality can be seen as ‘’doing good’’ while inhibitive morality as the power to refrain from doing bad things. Building on the two morality dimensions of Bandura, the terms prosocial behavior and antisocial behavior were then used to refer to proactive and inhibitive morality (Kavussanu, Seal, & Phillips, 2006; Sage, Kavussanu, & Duda, 2006), where antisocial behavior corresponded with inhibitive morality and prosocial behavior with proactive morality. The present research focuses on antisocial behavior.
A lot of studies of morality, fair play and (anti-)social behavior draw on the social cognitive theory of moral thought and action of Bandura (1991) as a guide. Bandura (1991) stated that to assess moral behavior, multidimensional rules or standards are used. Even in soccer where there are referees who are trained and educated to let the players commit to the rules of the game, still a lot of situations can be judged differently based on intentions or other situational or contextual factors. Because of the importance of intention, Sage, Kavussanu and Duda (2006) described antisocial behavior as voluntary behavior to harm or disadvantage the recipient. Examples of antisocial behavior are intentionally injuring an opponent or intentionally break the rules of the game.
As already mentioned in the introduction, engaging in antisocial behavior toward opponents could come together with having a bottom-line mentality. Bottom-line mentality is a one-dimensional way of thinking to secure the bottom-line while everything else is discarded. People with a bottom-line mentality only care about the bottom-line. ‘’The only way they can win is by securing the bottom line; any other outcome is considered a loss. By approaching the bottom line with a one-dimensional, win–lose mentality, employees are apt to see just about anyone as an opponent who could interfere with bottom-line attainment’’ (Greenbaum et al. 2012). People with a bottom-line mentality gun for bottom line outcomes
12
and do not take note of possible negative consequences, so if they harm people, they do not feel that they did anything wrong. Everything has to give way for the bottom line. In soccer, this could mean that players will do everything to win a game, even if they have to harm an opponent to reach that goal.
Bottom-line mentality was only recently conceptualized and defined (Greenbaum et al. 2012). A four-item bottom-line mentality measure was created and the relation between employee bottom-line mentality and social undermining was proved. As I already mentioned earlier, it’s likely that if people with a bottom-line mentality are social undermining colleagues, they also are willing to engage in antisocial behavior toward opponents. Because the measure of bottom-line mentality is relatively new, there is not a lot of research regarding the construct and antisocial behavior.
However, theory describes three often recurring predictors of antisocial behavior that are related to pursuing bottom line outcomes: achievement-goal theory, moral disengagement and motivational climate. The achievement-goal theory (Nicholls, 1989) implies that people like achievement situations, because they want to show their competence. Nicholls (1989), suggested that there are two goal orientations in sport: task orientation and ego orientation. People with a task orientation use self referenced criteria as standard of success. To measure success, they compare the achievement with their own previous performances for example and they feel satisfied when they perform in line with their own qualities. On the other hand, the ego oriented people compare their performance with other individuals. They only feel successful when they have outperformed others. So ego oriented people are only interested in winning and beating others. People with a bottom-line mentality in soccer are also focused on winning and beating others. Thus it is plausible to state that ego orientation is closely related to a bottom-line mentality.
Because ego oriented people only see their achievement as satisfying when they beat others, they are more inclined to engage in antisocial behavior toward opponents than the task oriented people. Ego orientation is proven to have a positive relation with antisocial behavior in sports (Sage & Kavussanu, 2007; Kavussanu & Ntoumanis, 2003; Kavussanu,
13
2006; Boardley & Kavussanu, 2010), whereas self-referenced improvement as task orientation has the opposite effect (Sage & Kavussanu, 2007; Kavussanu & Ntoumanis, 2003; Kavussanu, 2006). Outcomes of research by Duda, Olson and Templin (1991) correspond to these results: low task orientation and high ego orientation lead to unsportsmanlike play/cheating. Ego orientation in this research also was positively related to approving aggressive behavior. Next to that, Boixados, Cruz, Torregrosa and Valiente
(2004), found that an ego orientation, leads to more rough play and cheating than a task
orientation.
Results of studies into motivational climate in relation with antisocial behavior are comparable to the previous stated results. Ryan and Deci (2000, 2008) stated that there are two broad types of motivation: autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation is when people do things because they are interested in the task or activity or because they enjoy it, so that the motivation comes from the self (intrinsic). Controlled motivation is when someone engages in an activity because of pressure from outside the self (extrinsic) (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Athletes with controlled motivation are not really interested in the activity itself but merely on the outcome and the effect that comes with the outcome; ego enhancement, fame and rewards (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In other words, their focus is on winning, just like the ego oriented people in the achievement-goal theory and like the people with a bottom-line mentality in soccer.
Research has shown that also just like the ego oriented people, probably because of the focus on winning, controlled motivated people are more likely to engage in immoral behavior (Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis & Lens, 2010). Furthermore, controlled motivation was positively related to antisocial behavior toward opponents, and this was mediated by moral disengagement (Hodge & Lonsdale 2011).
Moral disengagement is defined by Jones, Woodman, Barlow, and Roberts as ‘’a process by which one suspends moral standards in an effort to reduce negative selfjudgment, which one would otherwise experience when violating these standards’’ (p.109). Moral disengagement emanates from a process that is described by Bandura (1991)
14
that explains why people do not always act the way they should. Bandura states that people can act against their own moral standards without self-sanction or regret through the selective use of eight psychosocial maneuvers. One relevant mechanism of moral disengagement for this present research is moral justification. ‘’In this process of moral justification, detrimental conduct is made personally and socially acceptable by portraying it as serving socially worthy or moral purposes’’ (Bandura, 1999).
Antisocial behavior could be justified in soccer, for example, by assessing it as a way of helping the team to win a game. This is the same concept as the one-dimensional way of thinking to secure the bottom-line while everything else is discarded. Players often don’t care about the fact that they kicked an opponent because it was just what they had to do to win. So players with a bottom-line mentality are morally disengaging automatically because they feel that everything is allowed to try to win. They justify their antisocial behavior by their need to win. Thus also moral disengagement may be related to bottom-line mentality and just like ego orientation and controlled motivation, moral disengagement is positively related to antisocial behavior according to several researches (Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011; Boardley & Kavussanu, 2007; Boardley & Kavussanu, 2010; Traclet, Romand, Moret & Kavussanu, 2011; Jones, Woodman, Barlow & Roberts, 2016).
Bottom-line mentality is, especially in relation with sport, not researched a lot, but maybe people are morally disengaging and people are ego orientated or controlled motivated as a result of their bottom-line mentality. The bottom-line mentality is then the underlying reason why people are ego oriented for example. Boixados, et al. (2004) found some indication for this idea by showing that ego orientation and the importance of winning are correlated. Furthermore, people with a bottom-line mentality do not care about negative
consequences of their actions, because they justify their actions by assessing it as a way to
win a game. This is exactly the same process as moral justification in moral disengagement.
Stephens and Bredemeier (1996) found that if a coach creates a bottom-line environment, this will lead to cheating and unfair play. Cruz et al, (as cited in Cecchini et al, 2007) did write in accordance with the finding of Stephens and Bredemeier that an overemphasis on the
15
results in sports is positively related with aggressive play. All together, I have reason to believe that bottom-line mentality leads to antisocial behavior toward opponents.
2.2 Narcissism and the relation with bottom-line mentality
Narcissism is originated from Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. Narcissism is extensively researched in both the social-personality literature and the clinical psychology and psychiatric literature. In clinical and psychiatric literature, narcissism is viewed as a personality disorder (NPD). ‘’NPD refers to an enduring and inflexible character structure associated with grandiosity, a lack of empathy and a desire for admiration’’ (Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, 2011). As previously mentioned, narcissists have symptoms like a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, a belief that they are special and unique, they require excessive admiration, have a sense of entitlement, and are interpersonally exploitative and arrogant and haughty (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The APA list contains a total of nine traits of narcissism. A person must have five out of nine of these traits and next to that, the individual must have feelings of distress to be diagnosed with NPD. In the social-personality literature, narcissism is viewed as a trait that is normally distributed in the population. In the present research, trait narcissism is used.
There are two distinct dimensions of trait narcissism: vulnerable and grandiose narcissism (Miller, Hoffman, Gaughan, Gentile, Maples & Campbell, 2011). ‘’Grandiose narcissism primarily reflects traits related to grandiosity, aggression, and dominance, whereas vulnerable narcissism reflects a defensive and insecure grandiosity that obscures feelings of inadequacy, incompetence, and negative affect’’ (Miller et al, 2011). Mostly vulnerable narcissism is studied in the clinical context and grandiose narcissism in the organizational context. In this research, because I expect soccer players to have more of the grandiose characteristics than the vulnerable characteristics, I will focus on grandiose narcissism.
Grandiose narcissism is described as an affective and cognitive preoccupation with oneself and an excessive and defensive assertion of status and superiority (Locke, 2009).
16
Furthermore, a connection between narcissistic and aggressive dispositions and tendencies to describe the self as having more humanizing and less dehumanizing traits than other people is discovered (Locke, 2009). Narcissists have an inflated view of the self, admire the self, and are in need of attracting more admiration (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007).
Narcissists possess traits such as authority, confidence, dominance, decisiveness and high self-esteem which are the traits that people perceive in a leader (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). They are arrogant, ruthless, amoral, egocentric and they lack empathy (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). These characteristics could already offer insight into the possible link between narcissism, bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior. Lack of empathy, for example, is an important trait of narcissists, because empathy is positively related to prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987) and negatively linked to aggression (Miller & Eisenberg, 1988). Narcissists need to meet their own expectancies of being the best. They need to reinforce their superior view of the self. Stucke and Sporer (2002) found that narcissists tend to engage in aggressive behavior, especially when their self-image is threatened. In soccer this could mean that players have a bottom-line mentality because they need to show their superiority, and they will engage in antisocial behavior toward opponents because they will do everything to prevent them from losing.
To my best knowledge, there is no clear evidence on the link between narcissism and bottom-line mentality. However, it’s likely that soccer players who are egocentric, in need of admiration, with the need to dominate others, do have a bottom-line mentality. In professional soccer, winning players will be admired, so narcissists will do everything to win. Winning leads to reinforcement of their image of superiority so they will do everything to achieve that.
Several researches support the view that narcissists strive for admiration and attention. When narcissists experience the opportunity for personal glory, they are motivated to perform well (Roberts, Woodman, Lofthouse & Williams, 2015). Narcissists also performed better in front of an audience or when their performance could be evaluated by others (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). Next to that narcissists are very sensitive to rewards, while
17
they ignore punishments (Foster & Trimm 2008). Players get rewarded in soccer with winning bonuses, but also with admiration of fans, colleagues and coaches. So narcissists will do everything to win, while they discard the consequences, just like individuals with a bottom-line mentality.
Morf, Weir and Davidov (2000) found that males high on narcissism enjoy the activities most when ego goals are made salient, whereas males low on narcissism are more motivated by mastery-focused goals. Males high on narcissism feel very positive about the task, get excited to continue doing the task in the absence of external reinforcement and experience the least fear in the ego orientation according to Morf et al. (2000). This is probably because in that case they can demonstrate their abilities and they can show their superiority over others.
Narcissists are also eager to win because they need to dominate the opponent and they need to show superiority to constantly elevate their status. Next to that, narcissists see their opponent as inferior to themselves, so winning is the only option in their mind. Bottom-line mentality in soccer is about doing everything to win.
Jones et al. (2016) interestingly found a relation between narcissism and antisocial behavior in contact sports, via moral disengagement. Players with a bottom-line mentality are automatically morally disengaging, as I already mentioned, because they justify their behavior with their need to win. Therefore, in this research we will investigate if narcissism leads to antisocial behavior, via bottom-line mentality. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H1: Player’s narcissism will be positively related to player’s bottom-line mentality. H2: Player’s bottom-line mentality will be positively related to antisocial behavior toward opponents.
H3: Player’s narcissism will be indirectly related to player’s antisocial behavior toward opponents through their bottom-line mentality.
2.3 The moderating role of ethical leadership
Ethics did not get a lot of attention in leadership research, until researchers started to investigate moral problems regarding transformational leadership (Treviño et al. 2003). After
18
that, researchers started to distinguish ethical leaders who socially use power, versus unethical leaders with self-oriented use of power (De Hoogh & Den Hartog 2009). Ethical leaders were then named authentic or socialized leaders and unethical leaders were addressed as pseudo-transformational leaders or personalized leaders (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Howell & Shamir, 2005). Trevino and collegues (2003) did the early descriptive work on ethical leadership as a separate construct. They described ethical leadership along two related dimensions: being a moral person and being a moral manager. The first is about the qualities of the ethical leader as a person at work and beyond, such as honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and concern for others. A moral person over thinks the effect of his actions. Followers feel trusted and heard when they go to the moral person. The moral manager concept refers to how leaders promote ethics in the workplace in their role as a manager, for instance, through giving the right example themselves when encountering an ethical dilemma, setting and communicating ethical standards, and using reward/punishment to ensure that ethical standards are followed.
Most of the theory about ethical leadership is drawn on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986). This theory suggests that leaders are ethical role models for followers and that followers learn from reward and punishment. So followers copy ethical behavior of leaders and leaders can also influence the followers behavior by setting ethical norms through punishing or rewarding certain behavior. Ethical leadership is described by Brown, Trevino and Harrison (2005) as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (p. 120). An ethical leader “must be viewed as an attractive, credible, and legitimate role model who engages in normatively appropriate behavior and makes the ethics message salient” (Mayer et al., 2009, p. 130). Ethical leadership is a positive form of leadership and puts the collective above the self. On the contrary, unethical leaders are immoral and focus on the self (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).
19
Leader behaviors of ethical leaders are according to Resick, Hanges, Dickson and Mitchelson (2006): integrity; ethical awareness; community orientation; encouraging; empowering; and managing ethical accountability. According to De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008), ethical leaders underline moral values and meaning in their decision making, and explain followers how their actions lead to the desired goals. Bedi, Alpaslan and Green (2016) did find that follower perceptions of ethical leadership were positively associated with follower ethical behavior and followers who perceived their leader as ethical were more likely to view their work context as ethical. So an ethical leader also influences the ethical climate.
Also, self-reported poor sport behaviors are related to perceived norms of the coach and by coach’s behavior (Shields, LaVoi, Bredemeier & Power, 2007). Furthermore, coaches’ attitudes toward fair play may predict athletes’ antisocial behavior according to several studies (Biesta, Stams, Dirks, Rutten, Veugelers & Schuengel, 2001; Luxbacher, 1986; Shields, Bredemeier, Gardner, & Bostrom, 1995; Stephens, 2001; Rutten, Deković, Stams, Schuengel, Hoeksma & Biesta, 2008). This behavior included aggression, cheating and willingness to injure. In addition, Guivernau and Duda (2002) found that the coach’s norms for cheating and aggression were the most important factor to influence the athletes’ choice to act unethically, when athletes encountered moral dilemmas. Brown and Trevino (2006) stated that an essential part of leadership is to show moral behavior that does not renounce ethical standards in a strive for bottom-line outcomes. So an ethical leader has to ensure that ethical standards will not be neglected in securing the bottom-line.
An important outcome of ethical leadership is that the leader’s ethical behavior will be imitated by followers and an ethical leader promotes positive and lower negative behavior (Mayer et al., 2009), so if the manager is ethical, players will also be more ethical. Ko, Ma, Bartnik, Haney and Kang (2017) found multiple studies in their review on ethical leadership supporting this view. Bedi, Alpaslan and Green (2016) also found proof that ethical leadership has several positive consequences for the follower, including ethical behavior, job satisfaction and commitment. So ethical leaders positively influence follower’s ethical behavior.
20
The ethical leader ensures that players know that it’s good to have a bottom-line mentality, but still unacceptable to engage in antisocial behavior toward opponents. As previously mentioned, I expect that people with a bottom-line mentality will be more receptive to an ethical leader because they need to secure the bottom-line. The manager is very important because he/she chooses who will play and who will not. To be able to secure the bottom-line, players have to be chosen to play by the manager, so they will do everything to please the manager. Therefore, in this study, I will try to show that the manager’s ethical leadership influences the relation between bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior toward opponents. I will investigate that with the following hypotheses:
H4: The positive relationship between player’s bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior toward opponents is moderated by the manager’s ethical leadership. More specifically, I expect the relationship between bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior toward opponents to be weaker when players experience higher levels of manager’s ethical leadership.
Taken the above together, I expect an indirect mediated moderation as formalized in hypothesis 5:
H5: The positive indirect relationship of player’s narcissism and antisocial behavior toward opponents through player’s bottom-line mentality is moderated by the manager’s ethical leadership. Manager’s ethical leadership acts as the second stage moderator influencing the path between bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior.
After the literature research and reasoning, I created the following research model that can be seen in Figure 1:
21 Figure 1: Research Model
This paper aims to prove that player’s bottom-line mentality mediates the relation between player’s narcissism and antisocial behavior toward opponents, as moderated by manager’s ethical leadership, in Dutch professional soccer.
Besides that, the relation between player’s narcissism and being the team captain will be investigated. Narcissists possess traits and characteristics that are often perceived in a leader (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002), for example: dominance, high self-esteem, extraversion, confidence and generalized self-efficacy. Next to that narcissists are according to some studies likely to emerge as leaders in teams and groups (Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van Vianen, Beersma & McIlwain, 2011; Brunell, Gentry, Campbell, Hoffman, Kuhnert &
DeMarree, 2008). So it’s plausible that player’s narcissism is related to being the team
22
3. Method
3.1 Sample and procedures
The mediating role of bottom-line mentality on the relation between player’s narcissism and antisocial behavior toward opponents, as moderated by the manager’s ethical leadership, in Dutch professional soccer, was investigated through quantitative research. Digital (mobile) surveys were sent via Whatsapp to professional soccer players in the Dutch professional soccer leagues Eredivisie and Jupiler League, to collect the required data. This was done using the personal network of the researcher through convenience and snowball sampling, and nothing was promised to the participants. The questionnaire was available in English and Dutch, it was completely anonymous and the collected data was treated strictly confidential. The respondents have answered the questions in hindsight about the previous season. The population was about 38 teams of approximately 25 soccer players, so a total of somewhat 950 players.
The sample consists of a total of 149 players who fully completed the mobile questionnaire and another 14 players who answered all the questions except the question about their age. Of the 149 players who answered the age question, the oldest player was 37 and the youngest was 17 (Mean = 24.9). Taken all 163 respondents together, 143 had the Dutch nationality and 20 did not. The respondents were spread over a total of 25 clubs. Because the questions were asked about the season before, and some players changed clubs in the meantime, the answers related to a total of 52 different clubs and 54 different coaches in and outside The Netherlands.
3.2 Measures
Antisocial behavior toward opponents was measured with a factor from the ‘Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport Scale’ of Kavussanu and Boardley (2009). The factor is named ‘antisocial behavior toward opponents’ and is measured by asking the participants eight questions that can be answered on a five point Likert scale that include options of never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), often (4), and very often (5). An example of one item is: How often have you tried to injure an opponent in the last season?
23
Next to the measure ‘antisocial behavior toward opponents’, the amount of red and yellow cards, and the amount of suspended games were measured. Furthermore the player’s own opinion about his unfairness on the pitch was analyzed as an additional indication of antisocial behavior. Self-reported unfairness was measured using a single question: ‘’What do you think about yourself regarding fair play on the pitch?’’ – ‘’I am...’’ (1 = extremely fair, 7 = extremely unfair).
Bottom-line mentality was measured with four questions from the BLM scale of Greenbaum, Mawritz and Eissa (2012) that was adjusted to a soccer and competition context. The players answered the questions about themselves on a seven point Likert scale. An example of one question and answer is: (a) “is solely concerned with winning,”, (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Narcissism was measured using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) 13 (Gentile et al, 2013), consisting of 13 items. Although the NPI 40 and NPI 16 are longer measures the reliability of the NPI 13 is comparable. The NPI 13 saves time but still is reliable (Gentile et al, 2013). An example of one item is: ‘’I like having authority over other people’’, (1 = disagree strongly, 7 = agree strongly).
The variable manager’s ethical leadership was measured with the ELS scale of Brown, Trevino and Harrison (2005) with ten items. An example of an item is: ‘’Listens to what employees/players have to say’’, (1 = never, 7 = very often or always). The players were answering them about their manager of the previous season.
The question ‘’Were you the first or second captain last season?’’ was asked to create the variable ‘’Team captain’’. Players could answer this question with yes (1) and no (0).
Five control variables were measured. ‘’Dutch nationality’’ was measured with the following question. ‘’Do you have the Dutch nationality?’’- yes (1), no (0), ‘’Highest division’’ represents the answer to the following question: ‘’Did the club that you played for last season play in the highest division?’’ – yes (1), no (0), ‘’Age’’ was measured by asking ‘’What is your age?’’. ‘’Tenure manager‘’, was the answer on: ‘’How many months did you work with the
24
coach you had last season?’’ Finally, respondents indicated the amount of matches that they played with the coach.
3.3 Analytical strategy
Statistical analysis on the survey data was performed using the Statistical software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequencies were checked to see if there were any missing values or outliers, and to check on errors. There were no errors and no outliers, and the only missing values were in the age variable. This was probably because respondents wanted to be sure to participate anonymously, although confidentiality already was guaranteed in the survey. There were nocounter-indicative items, so recoding reverse coded items was not needed.
Furthermore, normality checks, skewness and kurtosis were computed. The variables ‘’Player’s narcissism’’, ‘’Player’s bottom-line-mentality’’, ‘’Manager’s ethical leadership’’, ‘’Antisocial behavior’’ and ‘’Unfairness’’ were normally distributed because they all had a kurtosis and skewness between -1 and 0 or between 0 and 1, except for kurtosis of the ELS which was slightly above two, namely 2.013. After transforming the amount of yellow cards and the amount of red cards into a ratio, by dividing the amount of cards by the amount of played matches, it appeared that the skewness and kurtosis of these two variables were far above two. The variable ‘’Yellow card ratio’’ was then again transformed so that skewness was 1.2. This was done by firstly adding one and then divide one by the total sum and then adding a minus sign to prevent reverse coding, in SPSS under tab ‘’Transform’’ and ‘’Compute Variable’’: -(1/(yellow card ratio+1)). Several methods were then applied to also transform the ‘’Red card ratio’’ and the ‘’Amount of suspended games’’ into variables with an acceptable skewness, however, this could not be achieved. Thus ‘’Red card ratio’’ and ‘’Amount of suspended games’’ were then removed from further analysis. Because ‘’Yellow card ratio’’ was divided by amount of matches played, and 11 players did not play any matches, N=152 instead of 163 for this variable.
After that, scale reliability was checked, thus, the Cronbach’s Alpha of variables were computed. The variables ‘’Player’s narcissism’’, ‘’Player’s bottom-line-mentality’’, ‘’Manager’s
25
ethical leadership’’ and ‘’Antisocial behavior’’, reported a Cronbach’s Alpha higher than 0.7, which means a high level of internal consistency, as can be seen in the correlation matrix in Table 1 along the diagonal. Because of that, no items had to be removed from the scales.
As the last preliminary step, the scale means were computed to create the variables that represent the measured items and also the correlations were computed. Correlation analysis and several regression analysis showed that from all the ‘’control’’ variables including ‘’Dutch nationality’’, ‘’Highest division’’, ‘’Age’’, ‘’Tenure manager’’, ‘’Amount of matches played’’, only the first two had some significant effects. So only ‘’Dutch nationality’’ and ‘’Highest division’’ were then used as control variables in the analysis.
Table 1, shows the scales, variables, standard deviations, means, correlations and Cronbach’s Alpha’s:
Table 1
Scale, Mean, Standard Deviation, Pearson Correlation and Scale Reliability Variables Scale M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Team captain (1=yes) 0-1 .20 .40 - 2. Highest division (1=yes) 0-1 .50 .50 .03 - 3. Dutch nationality (1=yes) 0-1 .88 .33 .14 -.15 - 4. Player's narcissism 1-7 3.99 .77 .12 .01 .01 (.79) 5. Player's BLM 1-7 4.59 1.23 .06 -.17* .04 .46** (.81) 6. Manager's ethical leadership 1-7 3.74 .60 .06 -.06 .11 .04 .01 (.84) 7. Antisocial behavior 1-5 2.05 .58 .24** -.11 .09 .30** .29** -.03 (.79) 8. Unfairness 1-7 3.12 1.16 .12 -.19* .26** .13 .28** .03 .44** - 9. Yellow card ratio -.90 .08 .29** -.10 .01 .10 .02 .02 .25** .29** - Note: N=163 except for Yellow card ratio, where N=152. Reliabilities (Cronbach Alpha's) are reported along the
diagonal
M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation
* correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed)
** correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed)
Following the correlation analysis, linear regression analysis were undertaken to test the direct relationships that were hypothesized in Hypotheses 1 and 2. The mediating effect proposed in Hypothesis 3 was tested using a PROCESS macro in SPSS from ‘’PROCESS for Mediation and Moderation Analysis’’, written by Andrew F. Hayes (2012). Model 4 from the PROCESS manual which can be used to test a direct and mediation effect was applied to test Hypothesis 3. Furthermore, Model 1 for simple moderation was administered to test Hypothesis 4. The independent and moderator variable were mean centered prior to the
26
analysis. Finally, Model 14, a model to test conditional indirect effect, was applied to test Hypotheses 5. The outcome variables antisocial behavior, unfairness, and yellow card ratio were mean centered prior to analysis and also ‘’mean center for products’’ was selected. In all the tests, the two control variables were added. Bootstrap sample 5000 times was selected because of Hayes’ (2012) recommendation. Confidence intervals were set on a 95% interval.
27
4. Results
4.1 Correlations
As can be derived from Table 1, there is no significant correlation between being the team captain and player’s narcissism. Being the team captain does have a significant positive relation with two of the three outcome variables, namely antisocial behavior toward opponents, and yellow card ratio.
The control variable highest division is negatively correlated to both player’s bottom-line mentality and (self-reported) unfairness. So players who play in the highest division are scoring lower on bottom-line mentality than players who do not, and high division players view the self as more fair. Also the other control variable nationality significantly correlates with unfairness but then positively. This means that Dutch players view themselves as more unfair than players from other countries.
Player’s narcissism is positively related to player’s bottom-line mentality and antisocial behavior. Player’s bottom-line mentality is also positively related to antisocial behavior and unfairness. This taken together tends to indicate support for Hypothesis 1, 2 and 3. Interestingly manager’s ethical leadership does not correlate with any of the variables. This is remarkable taking into account that several studies found proof that follower perceptions of ethical leadership were positively associated with follower ethical behavior (Mayer et al., 2009; Bedi et al., 2016; Guivernau & Duda 2002).
4.2 Direct effects
The results of the regression analysis of player’s narcissism as a predictor of player’s bottom-line mentality can be viewed in Table 2 below:
28 Table 2
Results of linear regression analysis of player's narcissism as a predictor of player's bottom-line mentality
Player's bottom-line mentality Variable R R
2
R2 change B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Step 1 .168 .028 .101 Highest division -.405 .193 -.165 -2.099 .037* Dutch nationality .050 .294 .014 .171 .864 Step 2 .494 .244 .215 .000*** Highest division -.418 .171 -.171 -2.448 .015* Dutch nationality .024 .260 .006 .090 .928 Narcissism .736 .109 .464 6.727 .000***
Note: N=163; Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
Linear regression was performed to investigate the ability of player’s narcissism to predict player’s bottom-line mentality, after controlling for highest division and nationality. In the first step, two predictors are entered: highest division and Dutch nationality. This model is not significant (R2 = .28, p > .05), although highest division does have a significant impact (Beta = -.165, p < .05). In step 2 player’s narcissism is added and the total variance that is explained by the model increased significantly with 21.5% (R2 change = .215, p < .001) from 2.8% in step 1 to 24.4% in step 2. In this model, two out of three variables are statistically significant, with player’s narcissism reporting a higher Beta value (.464, p < .001), than highest division (beta = -.171, p < .05). This means that players from the highest division scored .171 lower on bottom-line mentality than players from a lower division. Hypothesis 1 proposed that a player’s narcissism would be positively related to player’s bottom-line mentality and the results show that if a player’s narcissism increases for one, player’s bottom-line mentality will significantly increase for .464. So H1 is supported.
The next direct effect that was investigated is the effect between player’s bottom-line mentality and player’s antisocial behavior. The results of this regression can be viewed in Table 3 below. Table 4 shows the regression analysis of player’s bottom-line mentality as a predictor of unfairness and Table 5 shows the same predictor but then as a predictor of the yellow card ratio. Again the two control variables were added in Step 1.
29 Table 3
Results of linear regression analysis of player's bottom-line mentality as a predictor of player's antisocial behavior toward opponents
Antisocial behavior toward opponents Variable R R
2
R2 change B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Step 1 .126 .016 .276 Highest division -.109 .092 -.094 -1.184 .238 Dutch nationality .127 .141 .071 .900 .370 Step 2 .305 .093 .077 .001** Highest division -.055 .090 -.047 -.610 .542 Dutch nationality .120 .136 .068 .885 .378 Bottom-line mentality .134 .036 .282 3.680 .000***
Note: N=163; Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
Table 4
Results of linear regression analysis of player's bottom-line mentality as a predictor of player's fairness
Unfairness Variable R R
2
R2 change B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Step 1 .302 .091 .000*** Highest division -.343 .177 -.148 -1.942 .054 Dutch nationality .851 .269 .241 3.161 .002 Step 2 .389 .151 .060 .000*** Highest division -.248 .174 -.107 -.1.426 .156 Dutch nationality .839 .261 .238 3.216 .002** Bottom-line mentality .236 .070 .249 3.361 .001**
Note: N=163; Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
Table 5
Results of linear regression analysis of player's bottom-line mentality as a predictor of player’s yellow card ratio
Yellow card ratio Variable R R
2
R2
change B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Step 1 .101 .010 .468 Highest division -.17 .014 -.102 -1.232 .220 Dutch nationality -.002 .020 .-.010 -.119 .905 Step 2 .101 .010 .000 .677 Highest division -.017 .014 -.101 -.1.203 .231 Dutch nationality -.002 .020 .010 -.121 .903 Bottom-line mentality .001 .006 .009 .110 ..912
Note: N=152; Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
Table 3, 4 and 5 show the results of the three outcome variables. Although the correlation matrix (Table 1) showed that the outcome variables are correlated, the results of the regression analysis are different for each variable. To start with Table 3 and antisocial
30
behavior, in Step 1, the model is not significant (p > .05), and explains only 1.6% of the variance in antisocial behavior. After having added bottom-line mentality in Step 2, the total model as a whole explains 9.35% (R2 = .093, p < .01), so bottom-line mentality significantly predicts an additional 7.7% (R2 change = .077, p < .001) variance in antisocial behavior, after controlling for highest division and Dutch nationality. The beta of bottom-line mentality is .282, which means that if player’s bottom-line mentality increases by one, antisocial behavior increases for .282. So this supports H2.
In Table 4, the results of linear regression analysis of player's bottom-line mentality as a predictor of player's unfairness are displayed. Again after controlling for highest division and Dutch nationality. Interestingly, in Step 1, the model is significant (R2 = .091, p < .001), where highest division has a beta of -.148 (p > .05) and Dutch nationality .241 (p < .01). So of the two control variables only Dutch nationality is significant. In step 2, where bottom-line mentality is entered, the model is also significant (p < .001) with an R2 of .151. So the total variance that is explained by the model is 15.1%. In this final model, two out of three predictor variables are significant, namely Dutch nationality (beta = .238, p < .01) and bottom-line mentality (beta = .249, p < .01). Because unfairness was coded so that the highest reported level means extremely unfair, this means that if bottom-line mentality increases by one, a player’s unfairness increases by .249. This also supports H2. Next to that, it means that Dutch players score .238 higher on fairness, which means that they see themselves as more unfair compared to non-Dutch players.
Table 5 shows the results of regression analysis of player's bottom-line mentality as a predictor of player’s yellow card ratio, controlled for highest division and Dutch nationality. The table shows that not one variable significantly predicts yellow card ratio, because p > .05 for all the predictors and also for the model as a whole.
H2 proposed that a player’s bottom-line mentality will be positively related to antisocial behavior toward opponents. Based on the three analysis above, which show that two out of three outcome variables, namely antisocial behavior and also unfairness, are significantly predicted by bottom-line mentality, H2 was supported.
31
4.3 Indirect mediation effect
The results of the regression analysis of Model 4 in PROCESS, can be viewed in the tables below:
Table 6
Model 4 in PROCESS: Results of regression analysis of narcissism as a predictor of antisocial behavior mediated by bottom-line mentality.
Consequent
Bottom-line mentality Antisocial behavior Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Narcissism .736 .109 <.001 .159 .064 <.05 Bottom-line mentality - - - .086 .041 <.05 Highest division -.418 .171 <.05 -.077 .089 >.05 Dutch nationality .024 .260 >.05 .117 .134 >.05 constant 1.837 .509 <.001 .950 .272 <.001 R2=.244 R2=.128 p<.001 p<.001 Effect SE p LLCI ULCI Direct effect .159 .064 <.05 .034 .285 Total effect .223 .057 <.001 .111 .335 Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Indirect effect .064 .032 .008 .135
Table 7
Model 4 in PROCESS: Results of regression analysis of narcissism as a predictor of unfairness mediated by bottom-line mentality.
Consequent
Bottom-line mentality Unfairness
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Narcissism .736 .109 <.001 .027 .125 >.05 Bottom-line mentality - - - .228 .080 <.01 Highest division -.418 .171 <.05 -.252 .175 >.05 Dutch nationality .024 .260 >.05 .839 .262 <.01 constant 1.837 .509 <.001 1.352 .533 <.05 R2 =.244 R2 =.152 p<.001 p<.001 Effect SE p LLCI ULCI Direct effect .027 .125 >.05 -.219 .272 Total effect .195 .113 >.05 -.027 .417 Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Indirect effect .168 .074 .038 .328
32 Table 8
Model 4 in PROCESS: Results of regression analysis of narcissism as a predictor of yellow card ratio mediated by bottom-line mentality.
Consequent
Bottom-line mentality Yellow card ratio Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Narcissism .736 .109 <.001 .013 .010 >.05 Bottom-line mentality - - - -.003 .006 >.05 Highest division -.418 .171 <.05 -.019 .014 >.05 Dutch nationality .024 .260 >.05 -.003 .020 >.05 constant 1.837 .509 <.001 -.930 .042 <.001 R2=.244 R2=.023 p<.001 p>.05 Effect SE p LLCI ULCI Direct effect .013 .010 >.05 -.006 .033 Total effect .011 .009 >.05 -.006 .028 Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Indirect effect -.003 .004 -.012 .006
As was already concluded based on Table 2, also in Table 6, 7 and 8 a significant effect (p<.001) of narcissism on bottom-line mentality can be seen. Two players that differ by one unit on narcissism are estimated to differ by .736 units on bottom-line mentality.
Table 6 shows that two players who have reported the same level of narcissism, but differ by one unit in their level of bottom-line mentality, are estimated to differ by .086 units in antisocial behavior. The sign is positive and significant (p<.05), which means that those players who score relatively higher on bottom-line mentality, are estimated to also be higher on antisocial behavior. This supports H2.
The indirect effect of .064 means that two players who differ by one unit in narcissism are estimated to differ by .064 units in antisocial behavior as a result of the tendency for those who have a narcissistic personality to score higher on bottom-line mentality, which in turn leads to more antisocial behavior. The indirect effect is statistically different from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is entirely above zero (.008 to .135). This is in support of H3.
Next to that, the direct effect of narcissism on antisocial behavior is also significant (p<.05). The total effect of narcissism on antisocial behavior is .223, which means that two
33
players differing by one unit in narcissism, are estimated to differ by .223 units in antisocial behavior. The effect is again positive, so the players who score higher in narcissism report more antisocial behavior. This effect is significantly different from zero (p<.001), with a 95% confidence interval from .111 to .335.
The results regarding unfairness as is displayed in Table 7, show that two players who have the same level of narcissism, but differ by one unit in their level of bottom-line mentality, are estimated to differ by .228 units in unfairness. The sign is positive, which means that those players who are relatively higher in bottom-line mentality are estimated to be more unfair. The effect was statistically significant (p<.01).
In addition, the effect .839 of Dutch nationality means that players with the Dutch nationality, score .839 units higher on unfairness than players with another nationality. So Dutch players see themselves as more unfair than players from other countries.
The direct and total effect on unfairness is not statistically different from zero, but the indirect effect is different from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is entirely above zero (.038 to .328). This indirect effect of .168 means that two players who differ by one unit in their reported narcissism, are estimated to differ .168 units in their fairness as a result of the tendency for those who have a narcissistic personality to score higher on bottom-line mentality, which in turn leads to more unfairness. This is in support of H3.
Finally, the analysis regarding yellow card ratio shows no significant effect at all. To conclude, in line with H3, bottom-line mentality does act as a mediator between narcissism and antisocial behavior, and also between narcissism and unfairness, so H3 was supported.
34
4.4 The conditional effect: simple moderation
The results of the regression analysis of Model 1 are depicted in Tables 9, 10 and 11: Table 9
Model 1 in PROCESS: Results of regression analysis of bottom-line mentality as a predictor of antisocial behavior, moderated by ethical leadership Antisocial behavior Antecedent Coeff. SE p intercept 1.964 .142 <.001 Highest division -.058 .091 >.05 Dutch Nationality .127 .138 >.05 Bottom-line mentality .134 .037 <.001 Ethical leadership -.045 .075 >.05 Bottom-line mentality x ethical leadership .010 .056 >.05
R2=.096
p<.001
Conditional effect of bottom-line mentality on antisocial behavior at values of ethical leadership
Ethical leadership Effect SE p -.601 .128 .051 <.05
0 .134 .037 <.001 .601 .140 .049 <.01
Note: values for the moderator are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean, N=163
Table 10
Model 1 in PROCESS: Results of regression analysis of bottom-line mentality as a predictor of unfairness, moderated by ethical leadership
Unfairness Antecedent Coeff. SE p intercept 2.504 .274 <.001 Highest division -.250 .175 >.05 Dutch Nationality .839 .265 <.01 Bottom-line mentality .236 .071 <.01 Ethical leadership -.012 .144 >.05 Bottom-line mentality x ethical leadership .011 .107 >.05
R2=.151
p<.001
Conditional effect of bottom-line mentality on unfairness at values of ethical leadership
Ethical leadership Effect SE p -.601 .229 .097 <.05
0 .236 .071 <.01 .601 .242 .094 <.05
35 Table 11
Model 1 in PROCESS: Results of regression analysis of bottom-line mentality as a predictor of yellow card ratio, moderated by ethical leadership
Yellow card ratio
Antecedent Coeff. SE p intercept -.892 .021 <.001 Highest division -.017 .014 >.05 Dutch Nationality -.004 .021 >.05 Bottom-line mentality .000 .009 >.05 Ethical leadership -.003 .012 >.05 Bottom-line mentality x ethical leadership .011 .009 >.05
R2
=.022
p>.05
Conditional effect of bottom-line mentality on yellow card ratio at values of ethical leadership
Ethical leadership Effect SE p -.563 -.006 .008 >.05
.017 .000 .006 >.05 .597 .007 .007 >.05
Note: values for the moderator are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean, N=152
As can be seen in the three tables above regarding the moderating effect, the regression coefficient for the interaction is not significant (p>.05 for all the three outcome variables). This means that ethical leadership does not significantly influence the relation of bottom-line mentality with the three outcome variables. Therefore, H4 is not supported.
36
4.5 The conditional indirect effect: moderated mediation
The results of the regression analysis of Model 14 in PROCESS, are displayed below: Table 12
Model 14 in PROCESS: Results of regression analysis of narcissism as a predictor of antisocial behavior, mediated by bottom-line mentality and moderated by ethical leadership Antisocial behavior Antecedent Coeff. SE p Narcissism .276 .109 <.05 Bottom-line mentality .146 .070 <.05 Ethical leadership -.089 .126 >.05 Bottom-line mentality x Ethical leadership .022 .093 >.05 Highest division -.140 .154 >.05 Nationality .212 .232 >.05 constant -1.220 .490 <.05
R2=.104
p<.001
Conditional indirect effects of narcissism on antisocial behavior at values of ethical leadership
Ethical leadership Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI -.601 .098 .065 -.023 .234
0 .108 .054 .010 .225 .601 .117 .067 -.001 .264
Note: values for the moderator are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean, N=163
Table 13
Model 14 in PROCESS: Results of regression analysis of narcissism as a predictor of unfairness, mediated by bottom-line mentality and moderated by ethical leadership
Unfairness
Antecedent Coeff. SE p
Narcissism .028 .126 >.05 Bottom-line mentality .227 .080 <.01 Ethical leadership -.013 .145 >.05 Bottom-line mentality x Ethical leadership .012 .107 >.05 Highest division -.253 .177 >.05 Nationality .839 .266 <.01 constant -.726 .562 <.05
R2=.152
p<.001
Conditional indirect effects of narcissism on unfairness at values of ethical leadership
Ethical leadership Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI -.601 .162 .079 .027 .333
0 .167 .074 .039 .323 .601 .172 .098 .013 .394
Note: values for the moderator are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean, N=163
