Character and Moral Development in Sport Physical Education

Currently, the "sport builds character" claim is highly debated, most often in the ideological sense rather than based on any reliable and valid empirical evidence (Shields et al., 2001). The argument for sport building character is focused on the ideas that participants in sport must overcome adversity, learn persistence, develop self-control, learn cooperation, and deal with victory or defeat and, as a result, develop a sense of fairness, courage, persistence, self-control, and courage (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). From this viewpoint, sport is viewed as an embodiment of freedom and equality and is a context in which the participant chooses to engage. Conversely, the argument against sport as a means to build character focuses on sport as a morally neutral domain, that the positive attributes one may develop through sport are not necessarily transferred and utilized outside of the sport context, and that sport merely "builds characters" (Chandler, 1988; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p. 175). This argument is supported by the regular incidence of negative activity such as collegiate recruiting scandals, aggressive behavior or assault, hazing rituals, and the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Keywords Athletics; Character; Character Development/Education; Cognitive Development; Compassion; Fairness; Integrity; Moral Action; Moral Balance; Moral Development; Physical Education; Sport Participation; Sportspersonship

Overview

The saying "sport builds character" can be traced back, in modern history, to the British use of sport in school and military training as a means to maintain and expand the British Empire (Bredemeier & Shields, 1994; Chandler, 1988; Gerdy, 2000; Ogilvie & Tutko, 1971; Sage, 1998; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Shields & Bredemeier, 2001; Shields, Bredemeier, & Power, 2002; Stevenson, 1975). This belief was then adopted in the United States during the American Industrial Revolution as a way to socialize immigrants into the American way of life (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Sport then began to be shaped by the capitalist and patriarchal values that were prominent in the United States (Coakley, 2004).

Currently, the "sport builds character" claim is highly debated, most often in the ideological sense rather than based on any reliable and valid empirical evidence (Shields et al., 2001). The argument for sport building character is focused on the ideas that participants in sport must overcome adversity, learn persistence, develop self-control, learn cooperation, and deal with victory or defeat and, as a result, develop a sense of fairness, courage, persistence, self-control, and courage (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). From this viewpoint, sport is viewed as an embodiment of freedom and equality and is a context in which the participant chooses to engage. This commitment symbolizes the individual's moral obligation to follow the rules of the activity, yet once those rules are broken the activity is no longer considered sport (Arnold, 1984). The experience of sport participation is one that provides an opportunity for the athletes to develop moral virtues (e.g. persistence, courage, fairness) as they learn to uphold the sense of fairness and justice in the sport context.

Conversely, the argument against sport as a means to build character focuses on sport as a morally neutral domain, that the positive attributes one may develop through sport are not necessarily transferred and utilized outside of the sport context, and that sport merely "builds characters" (Chandler, 1988; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p. 175). This argument is supported by the regular incidence of negative activity such as collegiate recruiting scandals, aggressive behavior or assault, hazing rituals, and the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Sage (1998) points out that sport may have the power to shape participants' values, beliefs, and consciousness, but that the uniqueness of the "sporting process is not in learning skills or in teamwork but in the social relations of sporting encounter" (p.17). The debate surrounding whether or not sport actually does foster character in its participants may be linked to the lack of a clear definition of what character actually is, as well as whether or not one's character can actually be measured (Gough, 1995; Holowchak, 2001; Sage, 1998; Shields et al., 2002; Stoll, 1999; Stoll & Beller, 1998).

Defining Character

Identifying a singular and concise definition of character is difficult as it is a vague and socially constructed notion. The definition of character has been shaped and modified throughout time, originally defined as a distinctive mark, evolving into the equivalent of "personality" (Shields et al., 2002). Character has been defined by sport and exercise scientists as:

• The "…inner dimension of self-agency in which the various processes of moral action become synthesized, coordinated and "owned" as self-expressions" (Shields et al., 2002, p. 541),

• The "possession of those personal qualities and virtues that facilitate the consistent display of moral action" (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p. 193), and

• "…having the wisdom to know what is right and having the courage to do what is right" (Docheff, 1997, p. 34).

With these definitions in mind, Shields and Bredemeier (1995) offer four virtues that can be used to describe character within the sport context. The virtues included are:

• Compassion,

• Fairness,

• Sportspersonship, and

• Integrity.

Compassion is considered one's moral sensitivity. Fairness involves equal consideration of others. Sportspersonship is identified by the desire and drive to succeed coupled and controlled by one's commitment to play within the spirit of the game. Lastly, integrity is the true picture of one's ideals and is having the ego strength to follow through on one's moral choice.

Moral development is an important part of character and has been operationally defined "as the evolution of a person's grasp of the interpersonal rights and responsibilities that characterize social life" leading to the development of one's character (Shields & Bredemeier, 2001, p. 585). Theories of moral development attempt to describe how moral virtues and conceptions are learned.

Further Insights

Structural development theorists believe that there is a definite sequence of development that individuals undergo in order to acquire the specific cognitive abilities necessary to make moral judgments and actions. This transformation is reflected in one's moral reasoning level/stage and can be assessed in both a quantitative and qualitative manner in terms of maturity and adequacy (Weiss & Bredemeier, 1990). Constructivist approaches are the most utilized theoretical frameworks used in sport. For the purpose of this summary the theories of Kohlberg, Gilligan, and Haan will be briefly summarized, including the moral action models of Rest (1984) and Shields and Bredemeier (1995).

Kohlberg's Six Stage Approach

Kohlberg's six-stage approach to moral development proposes that the individual makes moral judgments based on a universal orientation of justice and fairness (Kohlberg, 1976). Three levels are comprised of two stages each.

• Preconventional Level: Characterized by an egocentric social perspective where one follows rules that then shifts from viewing issues as black and white, to a more right is relative perspective. For example, consider an athlete is faced with the decision of whether or not to skip practice. At this level, the athlete will chose not to skip practice simply because it is against the rules, yet this reasoning will evolve to include whether or not skipping practice serves one's own interest. For example, the athlete may decide to skip practice because there is something else that she wants to do such as hang out with friends.

• Conventional Level: Involves viewing relationships with others with an awareness of shared agreements. In this case the athlete may choose to attend practice, reasoning that it is what is considered "good" and is expected by the coach and parents. This then progresses to the athlete feeling a sense of obligation to the team because he or she agreed to attend practice when joining the team and believes that he/she serves a role on that team.

• Postconventional/Principled Level: Involves a sense of obligation as part of a social contract and involves one's belief in the validity of moral principles and commitment to conduct one self within those guidelines. At this level, the athlete would base his/her decision about whether not to attend practice only after considering the needs for and respect of all others based on the belief in universal moral principles.

There have been a number of criticisms, including of the research methodology, of Kohlberg's model that have resulted in more moral principles being added to the stage theory and an objection to the idea that some moral principles are more or less adequate. These have led to many modifications and extensions of his theory by other theorists including those by his own students, such as Carol Gilligan.

Moral Perspective Orientations of Gilligan

Gilligan (1982) believed that Kohlberg's theory was inadequate because his focus on justice does not consider the female-oriented themes of care, relational responsiveness, and responsibility. According to Gilligan, males experience separation from the female caregiver as they establish gender identity, while females establish this identity through attachment to their caregivers. These two distinctly different experiences shape the contrary understandings of self, responsibility, and relationship. Gilligan (1982) suggests that males develop a strong sense of autonomy and justice and females develop relationship and care. For example, a female athlete who knows her teammate is drinking with some other students on Friday nights may choose not to report her to the coach because she believes that this would be a violation of the existing relationship between her and her teammate. The athlete does not have much consideration for the idea of justice and that telling may be the right thing to do, since the teammate is breaking the team rules. Gilligan's theory may be applicable to some situations in the sport environment, such as the example given above, but situations that occur during actual competition may not be subject to these same considerations.

Haan's Model of Interactional Morality

Haan contends that morality occurs as a result of daily human interaction and the human interdependence for maintaining the balance in the give and take relationship; what she called moral balance (Haan, 1978, 1983, 1991). Moral balance is the dynamic process of establishing an interpersonal agreement about one's rights, privileges, and responsibilities that involves engagement in moral dialogues, either verbal or nonverbal, for the re-establishment of moral balance and preservation of interpersonal commitments. The interactional morality model is based on five levels couched in three phases that are representative of improved moral adequacy and maturity. These levels are similar to Kohlberg's stage model in that they evolve from an egocentric to an increasing interest in equality with others, but each incorporates the concept of moral balance and how this is viewed and achieved at each level (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). The levels progress from an assimilation phase, concern for the self; to the accommodation phase, in which one gives more than one receives; to the final equilibrium phase with equal recognition to all parties involved.

In sport, an athlete may be participating in a game and another athlete begins to play rough and starts to push when in head-to-head competition. In the assimilation phase, moral dialogue could occur when the athlete physically responds to being pushed by pushing back to re-establish balance. In the accommodation phase, the athlete being pushed may respond by not pushing back, but may apologize when nothing was her fault because she may believe that the opponent was acting for an acceptable reason, regardless of whether or not that reason is known. In the final equilibrium phase, the victimized athlete may ignore the rough acts because he/she forgives the other athlete, recognizing that all people can do wrong.

Rest's Four Component Model of Moral Action

Rest (1984) offers a four-component model of moral action based on the theoretical underpinnings of both Piaget and Kohlberg. The model of moral action is focused on answering the question, "What do we have to suppose went on in the head of a person who acts morally in some situation?" (Rest, 1984, p. 25). The four components are as follows:

• Interpretation: The individual imagines the possible courses of action that may be taken and the outcomes of those actions.

• Judgement & Identification: The individual identifies and assesses the choices one has in a given situation.

• Choice: the individual is aware of his/her options, both moral and non-moral, that reflect different values and motives.

• Implementation: The individual executes the moral action choice.

In the example of the athlete's decision whether or not to attend practice when a non-athlete friend offers an invitation to go hang out, the athlete will interpret the situation by determining what options she has (i.e. go to practice and have no repercussions or skip practice and have to sit out the next game and have parents angry when she is not at school to be picked up after practice). The athlete will then judge the choices she has resulting in the choice of action, which in this case the athlete chooses the morally appropriate choice and chooses to hold up her commitments and obligation to her team, coaches, and parents. The final component involves the strength to implement that moral choice by saying "no" to her friends and attending practice.

Shields & Bredemeier's Twelve Component Model of Moral Action in Sport

Shields and Bredemeier (1995) created an adaptation of Rest's model to focus on moral functioning in sport, which places the four components into two groups and includes the addition of an integrated core of "character." Rest's components of interpretation and judgment are grouped together in this adaptation. The expression of character is one's ability to make moral judgments and enter moral dialogue with others. Choice and implementation make up the second group and include the psychological necessities needed to implement and maintain one's moral vision, as well as motivation to do and to sustain. An individual develops character through the process of making judgments by interpreting experiences and cultural influences. For example, an athlete may choose not to engage in aggressive behavior after judging and examining his/her own experiences with aggressive behaviors, observing others' experiences, and also considering the opinions and influence of the coach, parents, and significant others. Morality may be more or less an important piece of one's self-concept and is a function of the development and individual differences that begin developing in childhood through middle adolescence. As a result, moral themes vary from one person to another and are the themes that the individual believes are important to him/her.

For each of the four components from Rest's model, Shields and Bredemeier (1995) incorporate three main sources of influences into the model: contextual factors, personal competencies, and ego-processing variables. Contextual factors influence to what extent behavior conforms to environmental influences, for example, if a coach demands that his athletes are on time for practice everyday or they will not play in the next game, the athletes will most likely follow these expectations. Personal competency influences one's role-taking ability, perspective taking, and moral reasoning stage. The athlete's personal competencies in these areas will mediate how the athlete will act when faced with a moral dilemma. Ego-processing is the mediator of the psychological process of manipulating different kinds of information. Strength and weakness of ego-processing (e.g., level of maturity, strength to carry out one's convictions) will determine how effectively the individual carries out the moral action.

Cognitive-Developmental & Age-Related Issues

Moral development is, in part, a function of cognitive development; therefore it is important to address age-related developmental factors that are critical to understanding the nature of development and its effects on the sport experience and moral reasoning capabilities. The child progresses through stages of development reflecting differing levels of egocentricity, understanding of complex relationships and others' viewpoints, as well as what significant others are important for feedback.

Prior to the age of seven (early childhood), children are unable to understand others and their viewpoints due to an egocentric view (Piaget, 1952). During this time the ability to reason about abstract or hypothetical relationships is challenging to the child (Brustad, 1998). This level of development is reflected in moral development theory in Kohlberg's (1976) preconventional level and Haan's (1978) assimilation phase and the perspectives used at these levels to reason. At this time, parents are the main source of social influence and feedback for the child as they have not developed the social skills and role-taking ability to begin developing social networks outside of the family system (Brustad & Partridge, 2002).

Between the ages of 8 and 11 (later childhood), children begin to understand other's viewpoints and the ability to role-take and to think and reason abstractly begins to develop (Brustad, 1998; Passer & Wilson, 2002). Complex relationships must be presented in a concrete or visible manner in order for the child to solve problems within those relationships (Brustad, 1998). This stage of development is reflected in the perspective used in Kohlberg's (1976) shift from the preconventional level to conventional level and Haan's (1978) assimilation to accommodation phase. Parents are still the primary source of social influence and feedback due to the level of reliance the child has on the parents, yet the shift to peer influence begins during this stage (Brustad & Partridge, 2002).

Finally during the early years of the adolescent phase (11 to 14 years), the child can comprehend more than one viewpoint, including the group perspective (Passer & Wilson, 2002), and has also begun to reason abstractly at the same capacity as an adult (Brustad, 1998). This stage of development may be reflected in the perspective shift reflected in Kohlberg's (1976) conventional level to postconventional level and Haan's (1978) accommodation to equilibrium phase. The important social influence and source of feedback has shifted away from parents to peers at this stage of development (Passer & Wilson, 1998).

These factors are important for having a complete understanding of the moral development research findings and for implications that can be made from this area of research about coach, administration, and policy decisions at different levels of youth and scholastic sport programming.

Applications

Character Education/Moral Education in Sport & Physical Education

Character and moral education is not a process inherent to the sport and physical education setting. In order to foster the development of character and morality, the social climate must be structured in a manner that is conducive to creating social interactions that are beneficial and effective toward developing and enhancing students' moral and character development (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Coaches and physical education teachers may implement the following activities and teaching strategies:

• Creating opportunities for students to work together in a cooperative manner in order to achieve a common task or purpose

• Establish group meetings for students to engage in dialogue about the appropriate group norms

• Encouraging students to recognize their classmates' moral rights

• Providing students opportunities to have a sense of autonomy and power over their own learning (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995).

• Discussion of the moral aspects of new activities in order for students to explore the moral issues inherent in a specific activity

• Rotation of students through multiple activities or roles in a particular activity in order to experience multiple vantage points

• Utilization of cooperative games and peer-teaching, incorporate hypothetical moral dilemmas into class activities

• Discussion of physical games and sports and the rules in the context of existing for moral balance

• Opportunity for students to establish and prioritize their values

• Encouragement of autonomy and built-in situations where students have to practice their social problem-solving skills and negotiate perspectives.

Sport and physical education are domains that are ripe with opportunities for coaches and physical education teachers to foster the character and moral maturity in their athletes or students. A number of theoretical perspectives on moral development provide the framework for the basis of these practical suggestions, which take into consideration a variety of external and internal factors that contribute to how an individual interprets an experience that informs future decisions, moral maturity and character.

Terms & Concepts

Character: The "…inner dimension of self-agency in which the various processes of moral action become synthesized, coordinated and "owned" as self-expressions" (Shields et al., 2002, p.541), "the possession of those personal qualities and virtues that facilitate the consistent display of moral action" (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p. 193), and "…having the wisdom to know what is right and having the courage to do what is right" (Docheff, 1997, p. 34).

Character Development/Education: "The possession of those personal qualities or virtues that facilitate the consistent display of moral action" (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p.192).

Compassion: An individual's moral sensitivity.

Fairnesss: Equal consideration for others.

Integrity: True picture of one's ideals and includes having the ego strength to follow through on one's moral choices.

Moral Action: "Interpreting the situation, constructing a situation-specific moral ideal, selecting the moral ideal, over competing values" (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p.192).

Moral Balance: An agreement that is specific to the situation and creates an equal environment for all individuals involved in terms of rights, obligations, privileges, and the give-and-take relationship (e.g., rules of a game create moral balance in the game situation).

Moral Development: "The evolution of a person's grasp of the interpersonal rights and responsibilities that characterize social life" leading to the development of one's character (Shields & Bredemeier, 2001, p. 585).

Sportspersonship: An individual's desire and drive to succeed coupled with and controlled by one's commitment to play within the spirit of the game.

Bibliography

Arnold, P. J. (1984). Sport, moral education, and the development of character. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 18, 275-281.

Bredemeier, B. J. & Shields, D. L. (1994). Applied ethics and moral reasoning in sport. In J. Rest & D. Navarez (Eds.), Moral development in the profession: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 173- 187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brustad, R.J. (1998). Developmental considerations in sport and exercise psychology measurement. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 461-470). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technologies.

Brustad, R.J. & Partridge, J.A. (1998). Parental and peer influence on children's psychosocial development through sport. In F.L. Smoll & R.E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport (2nd ed.) (pp. 187-210). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Chandler, T.J.L. (1988). Sports, winning, and character building: What can we learn from Goffman's notion of self-formulation? Physical Education Review, 11 , 3-10.

Coakley, J. (2004). Sport in society: Issues and controversy (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Docheff, D. (1997). Character in sport and physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 68 , 34, 37.

Gerdy, J. R. (2000). Sport in school: The future of an institution. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gough, R.W. (1995). On reaching first base with a "science" of moral development in sport: Problems with scientific objectivism and reductivism. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 22, 11-25.

Haan, N. (1978). Two moralities in action contexts. Journal of personality and social Psychology, 36, 286-305.

Haan, N. (1983). An interactional morality of everyday life. In N. Haan, R. Bellah, P. Rabinow, & W. Sullivan (Eds.), Social science as moral inquiry (pp. 218-249). New York: Columbia University Press.

Haan, N. (1991). Moral development and action from a social constructivist perspective. In W.M. Kurtines & J.L. Gerwirtz (Eds.) Handbook of moral behavior and development, Volume 1: Theory (pp. 251-273). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Holowchak, M.A, (2001). Can character be measured? A reply to Stoll's reply to Gough. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 28, 103-106.

Jacobs, F., Knoppers, A., & Webb, L. (2013). Making sense of teaching social and moral skills in physical education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 18, 1-14. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84342260&site=ehost-live

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Naylor, A.H., & Yeager, J.M. (2013). A 21st-century framework for character formation in sports. Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X), 88, 212-224. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86994390&site=ehost-live

Ogilvie, B.C. & Tutko, T.A. (October 1971). Sport: If you want to build character, try something else. Psychology Today, 60 , 61-63.

Passer, M.W. & Wilson, B.J. (2002). Motivational, emotional, and cognitive determinants of children's age readiness for competition. In F.L. Smoll & R.E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport (2nd ed.) (pp. 83-104). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.

Rest, J.R. (1984). The major components of morality. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 356-629). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

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

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

Shields, D.L. & Bredemeier, B.L. (2001). Moral development and behavior in sport. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed.) (pp.585-603). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Shields, D.L., Bredemeier, BL., & Power, F.C. (2002). Character development in sport . In F.L. Smoll & R.E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport (2nd ed.) (pp. 537-559). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

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

Stoll, S. K. (1999). Should character be measured? A reply to Professor Gough and the reductionist argument. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 26, 95-104.

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

Weiss, M. R. & Bredemeier, B. J. (1990). Moral development in sport. In K. B. Pandolf & J.O. Holloszy (Eds.), Exercise and Sport Sciences Review, 18 (pp. 331-378). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

Suggested Reading

Bredemeier, B. L. (1985). Moral reasoning and the perceived legitimacy of intentionally injurious sport acts. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 110-124.

Bredemeier, B.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.

Bredemeier, B.J. & Shields, D.L. (1998). Moral assessment in sport psychology. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 257-276). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technologies.

Hellison, D. (1983). Teaching self-responsibility (and more). Journal of Physical, Education, Recreation, and Dance, 54, 23-28.

Romance, T.J. (1988). Promoting character development in physical education. Strategies, 1, 16-17.

Romance, T.J., Weiss, M.R., & Bockhoven, J. (1986). A program to promote moral development through elementary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 126-136.