Development of the Attitudes to Moral Decisions in Youth Sport Questionnaire

Objectives: To develop a questionnaire on attitudes to moral decision making in youth sport and describe the levels of ethical attitudes in young competitors. Method and results: The Attitudes to Moral Decisions in Youth Sport Questionnaire (AMDYSQ) was developed through 5 qualitative and quantitative studies. First, 11 focus group interviews with 50 competitors, aged 11 to 17 years, identified their attitudes to moral issues. Subsequently, exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses with samples of 435 and 218 competitors eliminated unsuitable items, to improve conceptual clarity and factorial validity, and reduced a 56-item pilot questionnaire to a 3-factor 18-item instrument measuring Acceptance of Cheating, Acceptance of Gamesmanship, and Keeping Winning in Proportion. Then exploratory modifications were made in a restricted framework to develop a 9-item gender invariant instrument using a sample of 1126 competitors. Males, older and team sport athletes scored higher than females, younger and individual sport athletes on acceptance of cheating and gamesmanship. Acceptance of gamesmanship was also higher among athletes at higher competitive levels. Finally, with 375 participants, the 3factor model was cross-validated and concurrent validity was demonstrated by correlations with a similar instrument. Conclusion: We present a sound psychometric instrument that provides important foundational information about 3 ethical attitudes in young competitors. AMDYSQ Questionnaire 4 Development of the Attitudes to Moral Decisions in Youth Sport Questionnaire (AMDYSQ) The view that sport is a theatre for the expression of moral behaviour and indeed has an influence on moral development, has been widespread, yet research to investigate the credibility of the claims has been somewhat equivocal (Shields, & Bredemeier, 1995). The bulk of early research into fairplay, or violations of its principles, was conducted through a variety of attitudinal studies (e.g. Blair, 1985; Case, Greer, & Lacourse, 1987; Goodger & Jackson, 1985; Maloney & Petrie, 1972; Mantel & Vander Velden, 1974). The results of these studies in North America suggest that instrumental attitudes are more commonly associated with older athletes, competitive success, males rather than females, and higher levels of participation. However, Lee and Williams (1989) found no reliable relationships between the endorsement of fouls and experience, playing position, or level of performance, among young athletes in the United Kingdom. Subsequently several studies by Kavussanu (e.g. Kavussanu & Ntoumanis, 2003) have sought to clarify the roles of the many interacting variables which underpin inconsistent findings in this field. The influence of sport participation on moral behaviour outside of the sporting context is also equivocal. Segrave and Hastad (1982; Segrave & Hastad, 1984; Segrave, Hastad, Pengrazi, & Peterson, 1984; Segrave, Moreau, & Hastad, 1985) have reported a negative relationship between sport participation and delinquency. However, Telama and Liukkonen (1999) reported that boys involved in organised sport were more disposed to aggression than boys who did not do sport. In contrast to the work of Segrave and his coworkers, Begg, Langley, Moffit, and Marshall (1996) conducted a longitudinal study that showed that high involvement in individual sports – but not in team sports – was associated with increased delinquency. AMDYSQ Questionnaire 5 Bredemeier and her co-workers have provided the major impetus to the study of moral development and behaviour in youth sport in an extensive research program that drew heavily upon the structuraldevelopmental models developed by Kohlberg (1976; Colby & Kohlberg, 1987) and Haan (e.g. Haan, 1978; Haan, Aerts, & Cooper, 1985). Nevertheless, after prolonged investigation and careful evaluation of the evidence, Shields and Bredemeier (1995) concluded that there is not sufficient evidence for establishing a causal link between physical activity and moral development. More recently, the assessment of attitudes towards fairplay among young athletes has been the subject of research by Vallerand and his co-workers (see, for example, Vallerand, 1994; Vallerand & Losier, 1994; Vallerand, Deshaies, Cuerrier, Brière, & Pelletier, 1996; Vallerand, Brière, Blanchard, & Provencher, 1997), and Boixadós and Cruz (1995) and Boixados, Cruz, Torregrosa, and Valiente (2004). Vallerand and Losier (1994) provided an alternative socio-psychological perspective. They observed that Haan, in particular, has had a great influence on the study of moral behaviour in sport, but that the theory relied exclusively on the developmental aspects of moral dialogue between protagonists. The catalogue of research by Bredemeier and her co-workers derived from this perspective addressed the issue of sportsmanship largely through a focus on aggressive behaviour. Consequently, Vallerand and Losier contended, attention was diverted from other issues relevant to sportsmanship research, and indeed, the “... content of sportsmanship behaviours has yet to be identified.” (Vallerand & Losier, p. 230.) Vallerand (1994) argued (a) for a socio-psychological approach to the study of sportsmanship that recognises the social origins of ethical behaviour, (b) that it was necessary to define the content of sportsmanship as a pre-requisite for the investigation of sportsmanship behaviour, orientations, and development, and (c) that an understanding of the concept by athletes is reached through interaction with salient adults and peers. Thus, the AMDYSQ Questionnaire 6 nature of sportsmanship emerges by a consensus within a social context. Vallerand further argued that this process implies that the definition of sportsmanship is best obtained from the athletes themselves. Thus, the resulting Multi-dimensional Sportsmanship Orientation Scale (MSOS; Vallerand et al., 1997) has proved to be a major step toward recognising the socialpsychological roots of the concept and provided an operational definition that drew upon the lived experience of the athletes themselves. The MSOS was developed through a number of stages by identifying potential items suggested by an open-ended questionnaire that asked adolescent athletes to provide their definition of sportsmanship and examples of sportsmanlike behaviour. Items were categorised to provide good coverage of the facets of the constructs involved prior to selection. An EFA revealed five factors that explained 50% of the variance. The final form of five scales, each of five items, was piloted with a large sample of adolescent athletes and gave satisfactory psychometric properties. The scales represent (a) Commitment to participation, (b) Respect for social conventions, (c) Respect for rules and officials, (d) Respect for opponents, (e) A negative approach to participation. The last focuses on the importance of winning at all costs and is scored with reverse polarity. The MSOS, then, identifies primarily positive sociomoral attitudes involved in sports participation with only a single scale that addresses unsportsmanlike behaviour. Boixadós and Cruz (1995) advanced a multidimensional definition of fairplay incorporating (a) Respect for rules, (b) Good relationships with opponents, (c) Equality of opportunity and conditions, (d) Avoidance of ‘victory at all costs’, (e) Honour in victory and defeat, and (f) Commitment to do one’s best. However, when data from a 35-item questionnaire administered to teenage soccer players were subjected to EFA, they revealed three attitude components: (a) Rough play, (b) Spirit of the game and enjoyment, and (c) Commitment to Winning, of which two could be construed as representing anti-social AMDYSQ Questionnaire 7 constructs. The final scale comprised 27 items and explained 30.8% of the variance, supporting the authors’ comment that the scale did not represent all aspects of the fairplay concept.