The Center for ETHICS*

The Effect of Competition and Educational Moral Reasoning Methodologies on Competitive

Populations

The Center for ETHICS*

Cognitive Development Instruments for Measuring Moral Development and Moral

Reasoning

The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI)

The Defining Issues Test (DIT)

Ideal Sport PerspectiveHahm, Beller, & Stoll (1989)

General Social PerspectiveRest (1981)

The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (c)

Hahm, Beller, Stoll, 1988

• 21 commonly occurring sport moral dilemmas.

• Based in the Ideal of sport competition.

Scenarios:

• Retaliation

• Drug use

• Personal responsibilities for actions

• Fairness to teammates and competitors

• The intentional foul

Principles are:

• ...daily guidelines that we all develop, based on our personal value and belief structure, that can be consistent with universal principles.

• I.e. Respect for private property

• Respect for the truth• Respect for others

The Center for ETHICS*

LSM on the DIT Scores for University Age Athlete

and Undergraduate Nonathletes

20

35

50

65

80

Athletes Nonathletes

SEM = 0.85SEM = 7.64

Nonathletes Significantly Higher than Athletes p<.05

Effect of Athletic Competition on Moral Development of University Age Students

The Center for ETHICS*

LSM by Gender and Status on the HBVCI Scores

60.0765.1867.83 71.56

41485562697683

Student Athlete Nonathlete

Male Female

Females Significantly Higher than Males p<.05

Nonathletes Significantly Higher than Athletes p<.05

Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender on Moral Reasoning of University Age Students

The Center for ETHICS*

LSM by Sport Type on the HBVCI Scores

59.12 66.01 69.46

414855626976839097

104

Team Sport Individual Sport Nonathlete

Nonathlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport Athlete p<.05

Individual Sport Athlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport p<.05

Effect of Athletic Competition by Type of Sport

The Center for ETHICS*

LSM by Grade on the HBVCI Scores

63.00 62.83 61.07 61.33 59.84

414855626976839097

104

Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth University

Trend = A steady decline in moral reasoning scores

The Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition

The Center for ETHICS*

LSM by Grade on the HBVCI Scores

66.63 67.83 69.23 69.27 66.37

414855626976839097

104

Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth University

Trend = Moral reasoning remains relatively stable.

The Longitudinal Norms of Nonathletic Groups

The Center for ETHICS*

The Effect of Competition on Elite Students

Comparison Mean HBVCI Entrance and Exit

Scores for the USMA Class of 1993

65.91 62.26

424956637077849198

105

Plebes, 89 First Class, 93

N-638 matched pairsSignificant decline in scores from Plebe year to First Class year p<.05

The Center for ETHICS*

Comparison of USMA Freshman 1989 toUSAFA Freshman 1993

66.52 67.02 66.37

41

48

55

62

69

76

83

90

97

104

USMA 1989 USAFA 1993 General Univ.

A Comparison of HBVCI Scores for Elite Freshman College Students to General

University Students

The Center for ETHICS*

Pretest/Posttest LSM for Athletes on the HBVCI Scores

4956637077849198

105

Pretest posttest

CourseControl

65.372.2

56.0

Significant Difference pretest to posttest p<.05

62.1

Effect of Intervention and Competition on University Age Athletes

The Center for ETHICS*

Pretest/Posttest/Post Posttest LSM on the HBVCI Scores

424956637077849198

105

Pretest posttest Post Posttest

Course

Control

62.1

71.9

56.8

65.372.2

56.0

Longitudinal Effect of Intervention & Competition on University Age Athletes

Significant Difference from pretest to posttest and posttest p<.05

The Center for ETHICS*

Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI

72.09

54.61

70.6564.86 69.44

82.09

69.56 70.73 65.93 63.11

414855626976839097

104

Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E

Pretest Posttest

Model A and Model B Significant increase from pre to posttest p<.05.

A Comparison of Intervention Teaching Methodology on Moral Reasoning

The Center for ETHICS*

Significant Difference Pre to Posttest p<.05

54.61

82.09

69.56

72.09

Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI Score

414855626976839097

104

Pretest Posttest

Model A

Model B

Successful Moral Reasoning Methodologies

The Center for ETHICS*

Model Pretest PosttestC 70.65 70.73D 64.86 65.93E 69.44 63.11

Model E Significant Decline Pre to Posttest p<.05

Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI

414855626976839097

104

Pretest Posttest

Model CModel DModel E

Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies

The Center for ETHICS*

Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI

414855626976839097

104

Pretest Posttest

Model AModel BModel CModel DModel E

A Combined View of Successful & Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning

Methodologies

The Center for ETHICS*

P Index Score Grade Norms

20-29 Junior High School30-39 Senior High School40-49 College/University50-59 Graduate Students60-Above Graduate/Doctoral

Students in Moral Philosophy

Normative Ranges for DIT Scores*

*Rest, 1986

The Center for ETHICS*

A Comparison of LSM on the DIT Scores for Graduate Students and Law Students*

Graduate School P Index ScoreMS candidates William & Mary Univ. 49.7Graduate Students Oklahoma Univ. 48.6Women Graduate Students Univ. of Toledo 48.3Harvard Graduate Students 53.51st Year Med Students (Medical College of Ohio) 51.7Seminarians in Liberal Protestant Seminary 57.8Doctoral Students in Moral Philosophy 65.2

1st Year Law School Students 1976 49.51st Year Law School Students 1977 52.1Hartwell (1990) Study of Law Students 48.8

*Willging & Dunn, 1981

LSM on the DIT for Law School Students

and Peer Group Students

20304050607080

Law School Peers

SEM = 10.85

SEM = 7.64

Peers Significantly Higher than Law School Students p<.05

Comparison of First Year Law Students with Peer Group University Age Students

Division I HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes

63.9769.24

424956637077849198

105

Athletes Nonathletes

Scores

SD+11.08

SD+10.81

Division III HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes

68.6873.96

424956637077849198

105

Athletes Nonathletes

Scores

SD+10.45

SD+10.58

Ten Year Female HBVCI Scores

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

1987-1990 1991-1993 1994-1997

Trend = a decline in female athlete’s moral reasoning scores

Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender: Athletes - Nonathletes

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

SAMale

SAFemale

NAMAle

NAFemale

Nonathletes significantly higher than athletes p<.05Females significantly higher than males p<.05

Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition on HBVCI Scores

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Ninth Tenth Eleventh University

Trend = steady decline in scores

Effect of Competition by Type of Sport

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Team Individual Nonathlete

Nonathletes significantly higher than team sport athletes p<.05

Individual sport athletes significantly higher than team sport athletes p<.05

What is the difference between moral values and social values?

Moral values: honesty, responsibility, justice, respect

Social values: Teamwork, loyalty, dedication, sacrifice.

Descriptive Study2000

The purpose of this study was to examine high school athletes’ and

nonathletes’ moral values and social values.

Demographics

N = 146 males

N = 76 females

N = 28 Nonathletes

N = 159 Team Sport

N = 35 Individual Sport

27th largest school district in the country

9th – 12th grade randomly selected students

8 High Schools

Instruments and Data Analysis:Instruments and Data Analysis:

• RSBH Values Judgment Inventory – Measures moral reasoning and social values – Valid and Reliable

• Chronbach Alpha for moral side = .81 - .88• Chronbach Alpha for social side = .61 - .77

• Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances

• Equal variances found

• MANOVA and ANOVA procedures

Results from the moral value side consistent with 14 years of

research

Moral reasoning scores by gender on the RSBH Values Inventory

A significant difference exists by gender on moral reasoning scores.

Females = 30.685 + .920 a

Males = 26.171 + .663 b

P = .0001

Observed power = .977

26.17130.685

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Males Females

Mor

al r

easo

ning

sco

res

Moral reasoning scores by status on the RSBH Values Inventory

A significant difference exists by status on moral reasoning scores.

Nonathletes = 31.531 + 1.143 a

Individual Sport = 28.585 + 1.157 b

Team Sport = 25.168 + .499 c

P = .0001

Observed power = .999

25.168

28.58531.531

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Mor

al r

easo

ning

sco

res

Nonathlete Ind Sport Team Sport

Of real interest are social value scores compared to the moral

value scores…

Social Value scores by gender on the RSBH Values Inventory

A significant difference exists by gender on social value scores.

Females = 38.990 + .736 a

Males = 35.345 + .531 b

P = .0001

Observed power = .979

35.34538.99

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Soc

ial V

alue

sco

res

Males Females

Social Value scores by Status on the RSBH Values Inventory

NO significant differences were found by status.

Nonathletes = 37.448 + .915

Individual Sport = 37.938 + .926

Team Sport = 36.115 + .399

P = .114

36.115

37.93837.448

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Nonathlete Ind Sport Team Sport

Soc

ial V

alue

sco

res

Comparison of Moral and Social by gender

26.17130.685

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Males Females

Mor

al r

easo

ning

sco

res

35.34538.99

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Soc

ial V

alue

sco

res

Males Females

Moral Values Social Values

Comparison of Moral and Social by status

25.168

28.58531.531

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Mor

al r

easo

ning

sco

res

Nonathlete Ind Sport Team Sport

36.115

37.93837.448

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Nonathlete Ind Sport Team Sport

Soc

ial V

alue

sco

res

Moral Values Social Values

The purpose of this study was to:The purpose of this study was to:

• examine the effects of a cognitive sport character education program on high school students’: principled thinking (moral values of honesty, responsibility, and justice) versus social character (values of loyalty and dedication).

Subjects ( randomly selected )Subjects ( randomly selected )

Treatment: Male (n=27)

Female (n=25)

Control: Male (n=19)

Female (n=22)

Treatment:Treatment: Moral Reasoning Program Moral Reasoning Program

ImplementationImplementation

Treatment:Treatment: Moral Reasoning Program Moral Reasoning Program

ImplementationImplementation

• Classes met twice weekly for 50 minutes

• Held in Physical Education or General classes

• Met over nine week term

Purpose:Purpose:• To teach students how to

become active, critical thinkers, based on the democratic principles of: Honesty, Responsibility, Justice, Respect

Moral Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory

Moral Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory

27.83

32.05

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Pretest Posttest

Mo

ral

Rea

son

ing

Sco

res

Note 1. Higher scores = more principled level of reasoning

Note 2. Significant difference pre to posttest p<.05

Note 3. No change in control scores pre to posttest

Moral Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory

Moral Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory

SEM =.88 n = 27

Note 1. Higher scores = more principled level of reasoning

Note 2. Significant difference between males and females

26.54

33.34

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Males

Females

Social Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory

Social Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory

38.85 39.74

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pretest Posttest

Note 1. Higher scores = Greater use of loyalty and sacrifice in decisions making

Note 2. No significant difference pre to posttest p<.05

Note 3. No change in Control scores pre to posttest

Social Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory

Social Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory

37.4841.10

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Male

Female SEM = .65

Note 1. Higher scores = Greater use of loyalty and sacrifice in decisions making

Note 2. Significant difference between males and females

Discussion:Discussion:

•1. Cognitive Reasoning appears to improve over a nine week course.•2. Social values appear higher than moral values.•3. Loyalty and Sacrifice highly imbedded

in how we teach and model sport.

Difficult to overcome…•4. Perhaps women are not as affected by

the negatives of sport social modeling.