Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 7 of 7 items for

  • Author: David Light Shields x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Brenda Light Bredemeier and David Light Shields

Open access

David Light Shields and Brenda Light Bredemeier

Most coaches assume that athletes already know what “competition” means and how to engage in it. We propose, in contrast, that competition is often misunderstood and that coaches need to intentionally teach about it, and help their athletes come to appreciate its purpose and values. Social scientists, too, have often misunderstood competition and, as a result, have frequently concluded that it leads to such negative outcomes as hostility, prejudice and aggression. To clarify the meaning of competition, it is helpful to distinguish it from a related process that can also occur within a contest. In keeping with the word’s etymology, we define competition as: a form of partnership with an opponent that enacts an enjoyable quest for excellence.In contrast, when participants view the contest not as a partnership for excellence, but as a miniature battle or war, contesting should be designated de-competition. De-competition is a separate, distinguishable process with its own dynamics. The distinction between competition and de-competition has significant and far-reaching practical implications, since the two processes tap different motives, focus on different goals, foster a different type of relationship with opponents, lead to different approaches to rules and officials, stimulates different types of emotions, and promote different ideas about what an ideal contest entails. When coaches deliberately teach and foster true competition, competition can be reclaimed for excellence, ethics, and enjoyment.

Restricted access

David Light Shields, Christopher D. Funk and Brenda Light Bredemeier

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.

Restricted access

David Light Shields, Christopher D. Funk and Brenda Light Bredemeier

Researchers have made productive use of Bandura’s (1991) construct of moral disengagement (MD) to help explain why sport participants deviate from ethical ideals. In this study of intercollegiate athletes from diverse sports (N = 713), we examined MD in relation to other character-related variables: empathy, moral identity, moral attentiveness, and contesting orientations. We also examined whether moral attentiveness conforms to the pattern of “bracketed morality” found in moral reasoning (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995) and moral behavior (Kavussanu, Boardley, Sagar, & Ring, 2013). Results indicated that MD correlated positively with perceptual moral attentiveness and war contesting orientation; MD correlated negatively with empathy, moral identity, reflective moral attentiveness, and partnership contesting orientation. Results of hierarchical regression demonstrated that gender, contesting orientations, moral identity, and one form of moral attentiveness were significant predictors of MD. Finally, sport participants were found to be less morally attentive in sport than in everyday life.

Restricted access

David Lyle Light Shields, Douglas E. Gardner, Brenda Jo Light Bredemeier and Alan Bostrom

The present study drew from the model of moral action proposed by Shields and Bredemeier (1995) according to which a sport team’s collective norms influence behavior. The focus was on team cheating and aggression norms in relation to demographic variables, leadership style, and team cohesion. Participants were baseball and softball players (N=298) at the high school and community college level. It was found that age, year in school, and years playing ball all correlated positively with expectations of peer cheating and aggression, and with the belief that the coach would sanction cheating if necessary to win. MANOVA results indicated higher anticipations of cheating and aggression among males, college athletes, winning team members, and nonstarters. Significant relationships between leadership style variables and collective team norms, and between team cohesion variables and collective team norms, were also obtained.

Restricted access

Douglas E. Gardner, David L. Light Shields, Brenda Jo Light Bredemeier and Alan Bostrom

The relationship between perceived leadership behaviors and team cohesion in high school and junior college baseball and softball teams was researched. Study participants, 307 athletes representing 23 teams, responded to the perceived version of the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) and the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ). Correlational and multivariate analyses indicated significant relationships between perceived leader behaviors and team cohesion. Specifically, coaches who were perceived as high in training and instruction, democratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback, and low in autocratic behavior, had teams that were more cohesive. A MANOVA indicated there were significant differences between genders and athletes at the two school levels in their perceptions of coaching behaviors and team cohesion, though these demographic variables did not significantly moderate the leadership-cohesion relationship.

Restricted access

David Light Shields, Nicole M. LaVoi, Brenda Light Bredemeier and F. Clark Power

The present study examined personal and social correlates of poor sportspersonship among youth sport participants. Male and female athletes (n = 676) in the fifth through eighth grades from three geographic regions of the U.S. participated in the study. Young athletes involved in basketball, soccer, football, hockey, baseball/ softball, or lacrosse completed a questionnaire that tapped poor sportspersonship behaviors and attitudes, team sportspersonship norms, perceptions of the poor sportspersonship behaviors of coaches and spectators, and the sportspersonship norms of coaches and parents. Preliminary analyses revealed significant gender, grade, sport area, and location differences in self-reported unsportspersonlike behavior. The main analysis revealed that self-reported poor sport behaviors were best predicted by perceived coach and spectator behaviors, followed by team norms, sportspersonship attitudes, and the perceived norms of parents and coaches. Results are discussed in relation to the concept of moral atmosphere.