Sportsmanship

The history of sportsmanship is framed by the issue of definition that plagues academics when studying sportsmanship. While much research has been done on sportsmanship, there has been no clear definition of the word that is agreed upon by all researchers. Research has shown, however, that sports and sportsmanship can have an influence on students' moral development and task orientation. Sports can teach students about "fairness" and encourage them to set and achieve goals and moral standards. A number of theories have been proposed to explain how people understand sportsmanship, and what motivates athletes to participate in sports.

Keywords Achievement Goal Theory; Moral Character; Motivation; Motivational Orientation; Multidimensional Definition of Sportsmanship; Prosocial Behavior; Self-Determination Theory; Social Learning Theory; Social-Development; Sportsmanship; Sportsmanship Development; Sportsmanship Orientation; Sportspersonship; Structural Development Approach

Physical Education > Sportsmanship

Overview

History

In 1964, James Keating, a sport philosopher, initiated the "modern reflection" on sportsmanship. Keating quite simply defined sportsmanship as "behavior becoming of a sportsperson" (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p. 23). While simple in statement, Keating believed in making a distinction between sport and athletics, suggesting that the term sport shall be used only to label recreational activities that are for fun and diversion and sportsmanship "refers to the spirit of moderation and generosity that is appropriately exercised in such contexts" (p.23) in order for all participants to have an enjoyable experience (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Keating believed that athletics are competitive and the goal of athletics is to win, which is achieved through dedication, sacrifice, and intensity; therefore sportsmanship is not the appropriate virtue for athletics, rather the appropriate virtue for athletics is fair play, as sportsmanship is "too much to expect" (p.23) in athletics (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995).

What is Sportsmanship?

The history of sportsmanship is framed by the issue of definition that plagues academics when studying sportsmanship. While a lot of research has been done on sportsmanship, there has been no clear definition of the word that is agreed upon by all researchers (Shields & Bredemeier, 1993; Vallerand, Deshaies, Cuerrier, Briere, & Pelletier, 1996). Vallerand and his colleagues (1996) have cited several conceptual definitions that have been used in previous research to demonstrate the diverse definitions in use, these include:

• A general attitude toward certain sport behaviors (e.g., Haskins, 1960; Kistler, 1957; McAfee, 1955)

• Respect for prescribed and proscribed norms from an ethics code (e.g., Knoll, 1976)

• A positive social interaction related to game play (e.g., Giebnink & McKenzie, 1985)

• "the tendency to behave in accordance with one's most mature moral reasoning patterns, even when conventional dictates or success strategies would encourage alternative behaviors" (Weiss & Bredemeier, 1986)

With these examples in mind, two definitional issues surface:

• What is sportsmanship and what is not sportsmanship?, and

• How do we learn about sportsmanship behaviors and unsportsmanslike behaviors? (Vallerand et al., 1996).

These two definitional and conceptual issues limit the ability of researchers to effectively conduct valid and reliable research on sportsmanship that can be united and generalized to our understanding of sport behavior (Vallerand et al., 1996).

Research Perspectives

In addition to no one clear and agreed upon definition, the methodology used in how researchers approach studying sportsmanship varies (Vallerand et al., 1996). For example, Shields and Bredemeier (1995) have conducted extensive research in the area of moral and character development in sport. They view sportsmanship, or what they prefer to label sportspersonship, as a central component of character and it is one that "transcends the world of sport" (p. 194). Shields and Bredemeier (1995) believe that sportsmanship "involves an intense striving to succeed, tempered by commitment to a 'play spirit' such that ethical standards will take precedence over strategic gain when the two conflict" (p.194). Shields and Bredemeier (1995) cite an essay by Feezell (1986) that presents the perspective of sportsmanship as "an Aristotelian balance between an 'internal' perspective on sport that takes its goals and procedures quite seriously and an 'external' perspective grounded in the recognition that sport is really quite inconsequential" (p. 188). This perspective views sport as serious and non-serious and suggests that a participant may be committed and playful in their approach to sport with sportsmanship being the balance between the two (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995).

Vallerand and his colleagues (1994, 1996) are another group of researchers who have done extensive studies in the area of sportsmanship, and who have defined sportsmanship in a multidimensional manner. They believe that their multidimensional definition allows for greater understanding of the processes involved in the display of sportsmanship behavior and allows researchers to investigate sportsmanship separately from aggression. Their multidimensional definition of sportsmanship included these five dimensions:

• Respect/concern for one's full commitment to sport participation,

• Negative approach to sportsmanship – win at all costs approach,

• Respect/concern for rules and officials,

• Respect for social conventions, and

• True respect and concern for the opponent.

Research Findings: The Decline of Sportsmanship

While these definitional issues and the use of a diverse set of instruments to measure sportsmanship plague sportsmanship research, there have still been findings that prove to be quite interesting when looking at sportsmanship and its decline in our modern sport culture (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Shields and Bredemeier (1995) cited Kroll and his discussion of the overemphasis on winning as a contributing factor in the decline of sportsmanship. Kroll suggests that emphasis on winning is a factor in whether or not sportsmanship is relevant. This means that when success strategy and ethical strategy collide, and if the participant chooses to take ethical action in some circumstance that does not risk success, then it is not especially noteworthy. However, the true test of sportsmanship is when the strategic plan is compromised for ethical reasons (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). With this in mind, Vallerand and his colleagues (1994, 1996, 1997) and Shields and Bredemeier (1995) have identified a short list of general findings that suggest that there are multiple determinants that impact sportsmanship behavior. Not all sportsmanship research will be cited; rather a selected list includes:

• Athletes with a "win (at all costs) orientation" competitive approach – have a negative approach to sport participation and show a lack of concern and respect for the opponent, the rules, and/or the officials

• The more adolescent athletes display a negative approach toward sport participation and lack of respect and concern, the more likely they are to indicate that they would consider or intend to use steroids

• Anticipated costs and benefits of engaging in a sportsmanlike behavior is a major determinant of the actual behavior

• Motivational style of the athlete can be a determinant of sportsmanship behavior

• Team athletes showed lower levels of concern for the opponent than did individual sport athletes

• Social pressure directed at leading the team members to do whatever possible to enable a team win

• When compared to non-athletes, athletes have less sportsmanlike attitudes or values and elite athletes have less sportsmanlike attitudes than other athletes

These research findings suggest that there are a variety of determinants that may affect an athlete's choice in how he or she behaves in the sport setting. However, there are differing conceptual and theoretical viewpoints that underlie these examples.

Applications

Sportspersonship & the Development of Moral Character

Sportspersonship is one of the four virtues of moral character (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). The four virtues include:

• Compassion,

• Fairness,

• Sportspersonship, and

• Integrity

They are the primary content in moral education and correspond to the moral action processes of

• Interpretation,

• Judgment,

• Choice, and

• Implementation (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995).

Each process of the moral action model, as proposed by Shields and Bredemeier (1995), is grounded in psychological competencies, including perspective taking, empathy, moral reasoning, the self-structure, and autonomy and social problem solving skills. These competencies require the individual to act critically and knowledgeably. Moral action or sportspersonlike behavior can be facilitated by an environment or atmosphere that is moral and supportive. This involves the group norms being supportive or reflective of virtuous behavior.

Physical Education, Sportspersonship & Moral Character

Physical education provides a physical activity context that is ripe for the development of moral character as compared to competitive sport as it is structured in a less competitive manner than organized sport (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). The physical education setting is facilitated by a trained educator and is couched in the values of education and focuses on the students' development of skill, techniques, and values of recreational physical activity and competitive sport. Shields and Bredemeier (1995) have addressed how each virtue associated with moral character can be developed or fostered through a physical education setting that is structured to do so. Sportspersonship is related to moral character in that it reflects the choice an individual makes in relation to how he/she chooses to act when faced with a moral decision (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Underlying this process are the individual's motivational orientation and moral identity. If the individual has a motivational orientation that is guided by one's desire to improve one's own self or skills (task orientation) and he or she has a sense of identity that is "aligned with the moral self" (p. 202). These two factors contribute to acting in a sportspersonlike manner (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Physical educators can contribute to the development of both a task orientation and a moral self through the process of encouraging students to set and define realistic goals that are self-referenced and to also engage students in discussion about morality and physical activity in order to develop the students' sense and understanding of the moral dimensions of the physical activity context (e.g., fairness) (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995).

Viewpoints

Theoretical Perspectives

Underlying sportsmanship research is the link between a person's motivation for participation in sport and their sportsmanship (Vallerand & Losier, 1994). The majority of research in sportsmanship has been grounded in two theoretical perspectives of social learning theory (see Bandura, 1986) and the structural development approach (see Haan, 1983; Kohlberg, 1976); however a third social-psychological approach has been proposed and employed by Vallerand and his colleagues.

Social Learning Theory

The theoretical perspective of social learning theory as it relates to sportsmanship focuses on the observation and modeling of behaviors (Vallerand & Losier, 1994). Bandura (1986) emphasized the social learning process as one that is based on continuous interactions between an individual's cognitions, behavior, and environment. He believed that behaviors are observed and, based on these observations, the individual forms an understanding or an idea of how behaviors are performed (Bandura, 1986). At a later time, the information is coded in the brain and provides a guide for action in future instances through a process of attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation (Bandura, 1986). This theoretical perspective views the learning of what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior in the sport context as the result of an observational and modeling process of significant others. In other words, athletes learn what is appropriate or acceptable behavior based on the behavior they observe being displayed by their peers, coaches, other athletes, and so forth.

Structural Development Approach

Haan's (1983) theory of moral development is the most popular theoretical perspective of the structural development approach to studying sportsmanship. Structural development theories view moral reasoning as a process where there are different levels of development that are hypothesized to represent the major determinant of moral behavior (Vallerand & Losier, 1994). This approach proposes that there are coping and defensive processes that may influence behavior. According to Haan's theory (1983), individuals seek to maintain moral balance and if one individual feels threatened in a particular situation; he or she will act in a manner which attempts to regain moral balance. A simple example is when an athlete is participating in a sport contest, and a player from the opposing team takes a "cheap shot" on the athlete. This "cheap shot" is outside of the rules of the game and the violated athlete experiences a moral imbalance. In order to regain moral balance, he or she may act in a defensive manner and take an opportunity to retaliate by taking a "cheap shot" on the original offender, or a teammate in order to reestablish moral balance. The application of Haan's theory to studying sportsmanship behavior focuses on aggressive behaviors rather than including non-aggressive behavior that is related to sportsmanship (Vallerand & Losier, 1994).

Social-Psychological Approach

Vallerand proposed a social-psychological approach to sportsmanship. The first proposition of this approach addresses the issues related to the definition of sportsmanship (Vallerand & Losier, 1994). Vallerand's social-psychological approach delineates three elements of sportsmanship that need to be distinguished when discussing or researching sportsmanship (Vallerand & Losier, 1994). These include

• Sportsmanship orientations. Vallerand defined sportsmanship orientations as the "self-perceptions and internalized structures relevant to each of the sportsmanship dimensions, as well as the propensity to act in line with each orientation" (Vallerand & Losier, 1994, p.231).

• The development of sportsmanship orientations, including the process by which these develop (Vallerand & Losier, 1994).

• The display of sportsmanship behavior (Vallerand & Losier, 1994).

The social-psychological perspective considers the sportsmanship orientation, how it is developed, and manifested in behavior, but this perspective also focuses on the social context and other factors (such as motivational orientation) that may be a contributing factor in sportsmanship behavior and the actual content of sportsmanship orientations and behaviors (Vallerand & Losier, 1994).

The social-psychological approach proposes that it is critical to identify the social context and social influences that exist when examining sportsmanship (Vallerand & Losier, 1994). Research has suggested that moral and pro-social behavior is influenced by the context and a variety of variables within that context including cooperation, competition, social influence, subjective norms, and group participation (Vallerand, Deshaies, & Cuerrier, 1997). Social-psychology research indicates “that moral meaning and labels that are attached to situations and behaviors are learned through interpersonal interactions” within the sport context and the athletes' interactions with peers, coaches, parents and significant others help to shape the athlete's personal definition of sportsmanship (Vallerand & Losier, 1994, p. 234). After athletes engage in multiple and repeated interactions, the athletes establish an agreement about what sportsmanship is and is not within that social context. Therefore, the social-psychological approach to sportsmanship proposes that sportsmanship behavior can be predicted by:

• The evaluation of consequences of the behavior,

• The subjective probability that these consequences will occur, and

• The salience of these consequences (Vallerand, Deshaies, & Cuerrier, 1997).

Motivational Theories

After reviewing the theoretical perspectives that underlie sportsmanship research, it is important to also briefly review the motivational theories that serve to guide research that seeks to explore how one's motivation to participate in sport impacts his or her sportsmanship behavior.

Sportsmanship & Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory addresses motivation or the reasons why an individual initiates, directs, and sustains behavior. Self-determination theory posits that there are three psychological needs that are vital in human life: the needs to feel competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Vallerand & Losier, 1994).

Competence is the "perceptions of oneself as being efficacious in attaining desired outcomes" ((Vallerand & Losier, 1994, p.233). Relatedness is defined as the "development of satisfying bonds with significant others" (p.233) and relatedness is the "development of satisfying bonds with significant others" (Vallerand & Losier, 1994, p.233). In general self-determination theory as proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991) regards the individual as the initiator or origin of one's own behavior (Vallerand & Losier, 1994).

This perspective suggests that individuals engage in activities that will meet their needs of feeling competent, autonomous, and a sense of relatedness, which views motivation to engage on a continuum of self-determination that is reflective of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation (Vallerand & Losier, 1994). The application of self-determination theory to the area of sportsmanship research has suggested that athletes who are highly self-determined (or intrinsically motivated) are more likely to display sportsmanlike behaviors in that they are less likely to cheat and show respect for others than those individuals who display a non-self-determined motivational profile (Vallerand & Losier, 1994).

Sportsmanship & Achievement Goal Theory

Achievement Goal Theory posits that individuals will possess different meanings that they attach to a particular context and different goals that they try to accomplish when faced with making decisions and behavioral choices in a given situation (Lemyre, Roberts, & Ommundsen, 2002). Achievement Goal Theory proposes that there are two major goals that guide behavior; the goals are task involvement and ego involvement (Lemyre, Roberts, & Ommundsen, 2002). Athletes who possess a task orientation participate for the intrinsic benefits and are focused on self-referenced improvement, whereas athletes who are ego oriented are focused on displaying superior ability, as compared to others, and make attempts to avoid displays of incompetence (Lemyre, Roberts, & Ommundsen, 2002). This theory proposes that individuals are predisposed to one of these goal orientations, which will guide how he or she acts (Lemyre, Roberts, & Ommundsen, 2002). In looking at the relationship between goal orientation and sportsmanship, findings from research have indicated that individuals who have a low task and high ego orientation endorse unsportsmanlike behaviors and are more likely to engage in and be more accepting of intentionally injurious acts (Duda, Olson, & Templin, 1991). Individuals with a high task and moderate ego orientation displayed a high respect for commitment, reasonable social conventions, and respect for rules and officials, but had low respect for the opponent (Lemyre, Roberts, & Ommundsen, 2002).

Conclusion

Sportsmanship is a complex construct as it is a not clearly defined; however the existing research on sportsmanship suggests that the social context, personal motivation for participation, and the environment in which sport is played contributes to the sportsmanship behaviors that may or may not be displayed in that particular environment. As we look at modern sport, we see a decline in sportsmanship at all levels of sport that affects how young athletes are defining and determining appropriate and inappropriate behaviors within the sport context. There are opportunities for coaches and educators to take a proactive role in shaping athletes' definitions of sportsmanship in an appropriate manner.

Terms & Concepts

Achievement Goal Theory: Proposes that individuals have different meanings that they attach to a particular context and different goals that they try to accomplish when faced with making decisions and behavioral choices in a given situation.

Motivational Orientation: Related to achievement goal theory and defines the goals that individuals try to accomplish through their participation in an activity – either task (self-referenced improvement) or ego (displaying superior ability).

Multidimensional Definition of Sportsmanship: Proposed by Vallerand and his colleagues (1994, 1996) and includes: respect/concern for one's full commitment to sport participation, negative approach to sportsmanship – win at all costs approach, respect/concern for rules and officials, respect for social conventions, and true respect and concern for opponent.

Social Learning Theory: proposes that learning is based on the process of observing and modeling behaviors.

Sportsmanship Development: the process of development that leads to differences in sportsmanship orientations (Vallerand et al., 1996).

Sportsmanship Orientation: "self-perceptions and internalized structures relevant to each of the sportsmanship dimensions, as well as the propensity to act in line with each orientation" (Vallerand & Losier, 1994, p. 231).

Sportspersonship: Gender neutral term used for sportsmanship as proposed by Shields and Bredemeier (1995) and defined as "an intense striving to succeed, tempered by commitment to a 'play spirit' such that ethical standards will take precedence over strategic gain when the two conflict" (p. 194).

Structural Development Approach: Views moral reasoning as a process where there are different levels of development that are hypothesized to represent the major determinant of moral behavior.

Bibliography

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Duda, J. L., Olson, L. K., & Templin, T. J. (1991). The relationship of task and ego orientations to sportsmanship attitudes and the perceived legitimacy of injurious acts. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 62, 79-87.

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.218-250). New York: Columbia University Press.

Lemyre, P. N., Roberts, G. C., & Ommundsen, Y. (2002). Achievement goal orientations, perceived ability, and sportspersonship in youth soccer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 120-136. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Sportdiscus. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=SPHS-828712&site=ehost-live

McCollum, S. (2012). Out of bounds. Teaching Tolerance, , 28-31. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=71772297&site=ehost-live

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

Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (2011). Why sportsmanship programs fail, and what we can do about it. JOPERD: The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82, 24-29. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65957741&site=ehost-live

Stevens, G. (2011). Timeless traditions: Rivalries in American high schools and the role of the athletic administrator. Interscholastic Athletic Administration, 38, 18-22. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=69750686&site=ehost-live

Vallerand, R. J., Deshaies, P, Cuerrier, J. P., Briere, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (1996). Toward a multidimensional definition of sportsmanship. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 89-101.

Vallerand, R. J., Deshaies, P., & Cuerrier, J. P. (1997). On the effects of the social context on behavioral intentions in sportsmanship. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 126-140.

Vallerand, R. J. & Losier, G. F. (1994). Self-determined motivation and sportsmanship orientations: An assessment of their temporal relationship. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 229-245.

Suggested Reading

Feezell, R. M. (1986). Sportsmanship. Philosophy of Sport, 8, 1-13.

Giebink, M. P. & McKenzie, T. L. (1985). Teaching sportsmanship in physical education and recreation: An analysis of interventions and generalization effects. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 4, 167-177.

Gould, D. (1981). Sportsmanship: Building character or characters? In V. Seefeldt, F.L. Smoll, R. E. Small, & D. Gould. (Eds.), A winning philosophy for youth sports programs (pp.25-37). East Lansing, MI: Youth Sports Institute.

Horrocks, R. N. (1977). Sportsmanship. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 48, 20- 21.

Keating, J. W. (1964). Sportsmanship as a moral category.Ethics, 75, 25-35.

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