Brenda Light Bredemeier

Sports and Character Development

For more than a century, the contention that sport builds character has been popular among educators. The more cautious perspective of researchers is that sport might build character, but only under the right conditions. For example, while the limited research to date suggests that competitive team sports may encourage high social perspective-taking ability, it may also discourage the ability to feel or display empathy. If sports are to have a positive impact on the character development of participants, the leadership and behavior of the coach is key. In this article, the authors report on three aspects of character that may be influenced by sport participation: perspective-taking and empathy; moral reasoning; and motivational orientation. The authors provide research-based recommendations for coaches and others in sport leadership positions. The complete article appears in the March 2006 issue of the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest. The Research Digest is published four times a year and includes manuscripts related to physical activity and health. Articles are available free through the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports at http://www.fitness.gov/pcpfs_research_digs.htm

Competition: Was Kohn Right?:

Kohn was right about one type of competition. But thats not the whole story.

Why Sportsmanship Programs Fail, and What We Can Do about It.

“N ice guys finish last.” This well-worn phrase crops up in sports as frequently as weeds in a garden. It reflects the deeply held belief of many athletes, coaches, fans, and sports media personnel. That it is unsupported by research may be irrelevant. In the sport world, it has truthiness, as comedian Stephen Colbert would say. Most educational institutions and sport leagues have charters or mission statements that proclaim the value of ethics, affirm the building of positive character, and support core values. Many also have formal sportsmanship codes that coaches and athletes are charged to follow. There is no compelling evidence, however, that schools or leagues that have embraced positive-sounding missions and codes have any fewer problems with rule violations or poor sport behavior than those without them. One reason why such well-intentioned efforts may have little long-term effect is because coaches and athletes typically put “sportsmanship” into the same mental basket as being nice, polite, gracious, and courteous. It is about being well-mannered. It is about “showing cordial courtesy to all visiting teams,” as one line reads in the sportsmanship code of the North Atlantic Conference (NAC, n.d.) of the National Collegiate Athletics Association. The NAC goes on to define sportsmanship as including “showing civility toward competitors, coaches and officials” and “being a gracious competitor and accepting both wins and losses with dignity” (NAC). When athletes are told to act like good sports, such exhortations often carry about the same weight as being told to say “please” and “thank you.” Many wonder, “What does being polite have to do with crushing the opposition?” We need to redefine people’s understanding of competition, which should be about striving for excellence.

The Moral Frameworks and Foundations of Contesting Orientations

According to contesting theory (Shields & Bredemeier, 2011), people conceptualize competition either through a metaphor of partnership or war. These two alternate metaphors suggest differing sociomoral relationships among the participants. In the current study of intercollegiate athletes (n = 610), we investigated the two approaches to contesting in relation to formalist and consequentialist moral frameworks (Brady & Wheeler, 1996) and individualizing and binding moral foundations (Haidt, 2001). Correlational analysis indicated that the partnership approach correlated significantly with all four moral dimensions, while the war approach correlated with formalist and consequentialist frameworks and binding foundations (i.e., appeals to in-group loyalty, authority, and purity). Multiple regressions demonstrated that the best predictors of a partnership approach were formalist thinking and endorsement of individualizing moral foundations (i.e., appeal to fairness and welfare). Among our primary variables, the best predictors of a war orientation were consequentialist thinking and endorsement of binding foundations.