Educational Research and Evaluation Development ...

This article was downloaded by: [HEAL-Link Consortium] On: 14 October 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 786636649] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Research and Evaluation

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714592776

Development and validation of the Moral Orientation of Students in Physical Education Questionnaire (MOSPEQ) Miltiadis Proiosa a Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Online publication date: 13 October 2010

To cite this Article Proios, Miltiadis(2010) 'Development and validation of the Moral Orientation of Students in Physical

Education Questionnaire (MOSPEQ)', Educational Research and Evaluation, 16: 3, 249 — 268 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2010.523289 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2010.523289

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Educational Research and Evaluation Vol. 16, No. 3, June 2010, 249–268

Development and validation of the Moral Orientation of Students in Physical Education Questionnaire (MOSPEQ) Miltiadis Proios* Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 07:19 14 October 2010

(Received 3 November 2009; final version received 1 July 2010) The purpose of the present study was to develop and validate an instrument assessing the moral orientation of physical education students. Three types of validity (content, construct, and criterion oriented) were used. Two hundred and sixty-nine physical education students (males n ¼ 128 and females n ¼ 141; Mage ¼ 14.94) filled in 3 questionnaires: moral orientation assessment (Moral Orientation Students in Physical Education Questionnaire [MOSPEQ]), dispositional goal orientation assessment (Task and Ego Orientation in Sports Orientation Questionnaire [TEOSQ]), and attitudes towards sportspersonship (Multidimensional Sportspersonship Orientation Scale [MSOS]). MOSPEQ demonstrated both positive reliability and strong factorial validity. Construct validity research yielded predicted relations within predisposition for the achievement of goal orientation and behaviors characterized by fairness. We discuss the use of the scale to measure moral orientation in physical education students. Keywords: moral orientation; physical education; development; validation

Introduction Nowadays, physical education constitutes an integral part of school curricula at all levels. Within the framework of physical education, competitive activities are developed and several moral issues (conflicts) emerge, on which the participants have to make a decision (Shields & Bredemeier, 2000). According to Shea (1996), such decisions are formed on the basis of the weight of judgments made, concerning what one should be or do – being at the same time steadily related to morality. This is probably due to the fact that morality is presented as one’s ability to decide what is right and what is wrong (Staub, 1978), as well as that the function of morality aims at providing the basic guidelines so as to determine the way in which humans could settle their conflicting interests (Rest, Bebeau, & Volker, 1986). Moral decision making has been maintained to be performed by people in two ways (Lapsley, 1997). In the first way, people decide what is morally right by gauging the consequences of each decision they make (teleological). While, in the second way,

*Email: [email protected] ISSN 1380-3611 print/ISSN 1744-4187 online Ó 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2010.523289 http://www.informaworld.com


250

M. Proios

people decide what is morally right by applying some socially defined template of moral rules for behavior (deontological). Kohlberg (1969), based on Piaget’s (1932/1965) stances and Kant’s (1787/1952) viewpoint concerning justice (see also Rawls, 1971), considered moral development as a par excellence cognitive function having moral reasoning as its pivotal coordinate; and this was to become the dominant theory. In addition, Kohlberg (1958, 1969) maintained that, in order to evaluate moral judgment development, specific criteria or indexes should exist enabling the identification of its stages. Furthermore, Kohlberg (1976), with a view to studying ethics, took under consideration the moral categories – ‘‘modal’’ categories (e.g., rights, duties, responsibility) and ‘‘element’’ categories (e.g., welfare, equality, reciprocity, rules, and social order) – as they are analyzed by moral philosophers (see Frankena, 1973). More specifically, the content of the ‘‘element’’ category has to do with deontological reasons, principles, or philosophies, as well as with teleological reasons, principles, or philosophies (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). Therefore, knowing the reasons or principles (either deontological or teleological) that lead to an action, or the basis on which a person acts, the moral orientation of this person is established, that is, whether he/she acts according to the principles of fairness or the consequences of his/her action. Deontological ethics The word deon means ‘‘duty’’ or ‘‘commitment’’ in Greek (Beauchamp, 1991). For Kohlberg (1976), deontological ethics comprises the moral orientations of ‘‘normative order’’ and ‘‘justice or fairness’’ (for more details, see Proios, 2010). Deontological theories by definition are based on duty; that is, morality introduces moral obligations and duties. Duties are often related with conformity to moral rules. Thus, in order for humans either to perform or not, such moral actions should conform to some rule or norm. Whether this rule or norm is right or wrong is determined regardless of the consequences or the way happiness or pleasure is allocated. In sport, often, one anticipates situations where doing one’s duty towards others does not necessarily increase pleasure or decrease others’ pain. For instance, it’s a player’s duty to make efforts so as to achieve a victory for his/her team. However, the achievement of such a victory does not entail pleasure to everyone – namely the defeated team. Thus, the supporters of the deontological theory consider that what is right and what is wrong has nothing to do with pleasure, pain, or consequences. Morality is based on whether one’s actions are in conflict with moral norms or not, as well as the motive underlying these actions. Thus, an action is good only if performed by virtue of one’s wish to do his/her duty and conform to a rule. Teleological ethics ‘‘Teleology’’ comes from the Greek word telos, meaning ‘‘end’’ or ‘‘purpose’’. According to Kohlberg (1976), teleological ethics comprise two moral orientations (utility consequences and ideal-self) (for more details, see Proios, 2010). Teleological ethics focus on the conditions necessary to achieve happiness and the consequences of the action, contrary to the deontological ethics, which emphasize legitimacy and justice. All voluntary human actions are teleological in that people speculate on the means for the successful outcome of an action, in which aim and behavior are interrelated. During a football game, John – as a player in one of the teams – is in



251

a position to score a goal when he realizes that another player is lying on the ground injured and in need of help. He readily speculates whether to continue the game, scoring – in all probability – a goal, or kick the ball outside the field and have the game interrupted so that the injured player can receive the necessary first aid. Eventually, he decides to continue playing and score the goal ensuring thus a victory for his team. In this case, John took into consideration the consequences of interrupting such a phase (and not scoring). The interruption of the game would not mean a wrong action. What would be wrong for John were the consequences, that is, not to score the goal and thus not achieve a victory for his team. Thus, from a teleological point of view, human actions are neither wrong nor right as such. What is of interest here is the consequences of these actions. Thus, consequences render an action right or wrong. For instance, deception is right or wrong depending on its consequences. Let’s assume that a football player fakes hampering by an opponent while trying to gain a penalty (so as to score), attempting to deceive the referee. Although deception generally in society is considered an immoral action, in sports however it is considered right, since it contributes to the achievement of the aim (i.e., winning). Teleological theories, in general, require pleasure and pain (happiness or sadness) to be relocated on the basis of the consequences of one’s actions. Thus, the defenders of the teleological theory are hedonists who consider that all moral actions promote pleasure and avoid pain. Relation between deontological and teleological ethics According to Kohlberg’s theory (1981), some actions can be judged as either right or wrong. For instance, Kohlberg maintained that it is universally considered as right or wrong for Heinz to steal the medicine under the specific circumstances of that classical dilemma (Kohlberg & Candee, 1984). Referring to moral problem solving, he claimed that the function of judgments on the basis of justice aims at settling conflicting views in a way accepted by all parties. Furthermore, Kohlberg maintained that the principles of justice play a pivotal role in problem solving by means of deontological ethics. Yet, both Kant’s (1787/1952) principle on justice or respect of personality and Mill’s (1857/1957) principle on utility or maximum wellbeing of most would be consistent with the judgment concerning Heinz’s right to steal. Heinz’s story is a moral dilemma used by Kohlberg as part of the research approach concerning the development of morality. The present story is about a husband who is compelled to steal a medicine – because he has no money – in order to save his wife. Another claim of Kohlberg’s, further supporting the relation between deontological and teleological ethics is that all orientations can be used by an individual. Yet, he has underlined that the most essential structure of morality is a justice structure (Kohlberg, 1976). Justice can refer to all moral orientations. For instance, on the one hand, sustaining law and order may be anticipated as justice (normative order), and maximizing the welfare of the group may be anticipated as justice (utility consequences) as well. On the other hand, however, the core of justice is the allocation of rights and duties by means of the notions of equality and reciprocity. In addition, justice is a normative rationale, the balancing of social actions and relations (Kohlberg, 1976). The literature on physical education and sport reveals that, for at least the last 3 decades, researchers share a quite significant interest on issues touching morality


252

M. Proios

(e.g., Bredemeier, 1994; Bredemeier & Shields, 1984a, 1984b, 1986; Bredemeier, Weiss, Shields, & Cooper,1987). More specifically, in the field of physical education, there has been an extensive study of the impact of several theoretical approaches on moral development, such as structural development and social learning, teaching strategies in improving children’s moral reasoning (Bredemeier, Weiss, Shields, & Shewchuk, 1986; Miller, Bredemeier, & Shields, 1997; Orlick, 1981; Romance, Weiss, & Bockoven, 1986; Solomon, 1997a, 1997b; Solomon & Bredemeier, 1999), evaluation of Fair Play for Kids in intervention programs (De Busk & Hellison, 1989; Gibbons & Ebbeck, 1997; Gibbons, Ebbeck, &Weiss, 1995). Furthermore, the impacts of (a) school environment on sportsmanship (Proios, Doganis, & Proios, 2006), (b) fair play instruction on students’ social skills (Vidoni & Ward 2009), (c) physical education on the promotion of sociomoral growth (Solomon, 2007), and (d) sport experiences on altruistic behavior (Kleiber & Roberts, 1981) have also been studied. Thus, as is evident, the need to apprehend morality is considered more than necessary. For this reason, since the early 1980s (according to Bredemeier & Shields, 1998), ‘‘Sport psychologists began to use the tools of structural developmental research to investigate moral competencies and how they related to other moral phenomena in the sport realm’’ (p. 263). These assessments are based on Piaget’s (1932/1965), Kohlberg’s (1976), Haan’s (1978), and Gilligan’s (1982) theories by establishing applicable instruments (for further information, see Bredemeier & Shields, 1998, pp. 263–268). However, it should be noted that these instruments comprised social issues as well. To this, it should be added that the studies towards this direction in the field of sports are limited, exhibiting significant inadequacies hindering their applicability (Bredemeier & Shields, 1998; Shields & Bredemeier, 2001). The above-mentioned findings have led some researchers to formulate the view that ‘‘there is an urgent need to develop and employ valid and reliable measures that can shed light on such important questions as what aspects of organized sport enhance participant’s moral development and what aspects are detrimental to it’’ (Bredemeier & Shields, 1998, p. 272), and ‘‘how are team norms relative to moral behavior developed, and what strengthens, weakens, or modifies these norms’’ (Weiss & Smith, 2002, p. 273). A recent work, presenting the development and validation process of a scale aiming to evaluate and validate the moral content of judgments in sport (Proios, 2010), has moved to this direction. The researcher, taking into consideration the theories of moral development evaluating moral judgment, developed a scale using part of the judgments’ moral content categories as ‘‘items’’ (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). These items provide information on the more profound reason or motive for one’s choices in decision making. The Moral Content Judgment in Sport Questionnaire (MCJSQ; Proios, 2010) scale comprises 25 items focusing on five factors which correspond to these ‘‘items’’ (normative order, fairness, egoistic consequences, social consequences, and harmony-serving consequences). The first two items are deontological, while the remaining three are teleological ethics oriented. Considerations on the development of the Moral Orientation of Students in Physical Education Questionnaire (MOSPEQ) The MOSPEQ was developed on the basis of the information provided by the literature on moral development and the moral content judgment construct developed by Proios (2010). According to moral development theories, moral



253

content judgment and the moral structure of judgment constitute the two components contributing to moral judgment study (Nisan, 1984). The term ‘‘moral content’’ refers mainly to behavioral guidelines or rules internalized by a person concerning right and wrong, while the term ‘‘moral structure’’ is related to the stages of moral judgment, as described by Kohlberg (Nisan, 1984). Proios (2010), for the development of the MCJSQ items, used the components of ‘‘elements’’, part of the categories of moral content judgment (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). He came to choose ‘‘elements’’ as, along with ‘‘issues’’ and ‘‘norms’’, they constitute tools for the analysis of moral judgment. More specifically, issues concern moral choice, norms refer to general values directing such a choice, while elements provide information concerning the actual motives underlying issues and norms. The ‘‘elements’’ category of moral content is grouped into five moral orientations (upholding normative order, fairness, egoistic consequences, utilitarian consequences, and ideal or harmony-serving consequences) (for further information, see Proios, 2010). As has already been stated, the first two orientations reveal the deontological, while the rest of them reveal the teleological orientation of the individual. Also, moral orientation explains the way in which an individual acts, or is about to act, based on the principles of justice or taking into consideration the consequences of such an action. Some of the items of the instrument MCJSQ were used as items (questions) for this questionnaire. For the development of the MOSPEQ (determination of the items), the psychometric evaluation of MCJSQ was extended on the basis of the intercorrelation matrix. More specifically, a ‘‘variable reduction scheme’’ was used (Gorsuch, 1983, p. 362) for the rejection of the variables exhibiting the lower intercorrelations to the constructs determining the two orientations, namely the deontological (normative order, fairness) and the teleological (egoistic consequences, social consequences, and harmony-serving consequences) one. The reduction variables led to the choice of 14 indicators (items) exhibiting high intercorrelations to the constructs revealing common concepts (deontological or teleological ethics). The internal consistency of the items of both constructs – deontological and teleological – was considered satisfactory: a ¼ .77 and a ¼ .71, respectively. Both scales had their alpha above or very close to the recommended criterion of a ¼ .70 (Nunnally, 1978). Aim and hypotheses The aim of the present study was to develop and validate the MOSPEQ instrument, based mainly on the theoretically established MCJSQ. A series of hypotheses were made in the framework of the MOSPEQ validation. The development of the MOSPEQ items took place within the framework of cognitive-developmental theory and moral philosophers’ views on morality. According to Cronbach and Meehl (1955), items measuring the same construct are expected to exhibit high levels of interrelation. Thus, we sought to test the following hypothesis: H1: The interrelations between the items will be significant; even higher will be the interrelations between items within each of the two subscales. Moral philosophers supported mainly two theories concerning the study of ethics – the deontological and the teleological one (Frankena, 1973).

254

M. Proios

The components of the ‘‘elements’’, which represent one of the criteria for the study of the judgments’ moral content, comprise moral orientations (either deontological or teleological) (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). These constructs (moral orientations) can be used by an individual (Kohlberg, 1976). Thus, our second hypothesis is this:


H2: The factor analyses for the factor validity of the MOSPEQ instrument are expected to support a two-factor correlated model. According to Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental theory (1969), human development is directly related to age. Data by age group show people developing over time (Rest, Deemer, Barnett, Spickelmier, & Volker, 1986), and changes occur in moral reasoning and behaviors given an interaction of maturation and knowledge which in turn is associated with education and social experience (Kohlberg, 1969, 1976; Piaget, 1932/1965). In the literature, it is maintained that there are differences concerning gender in moral reasoning (for a review, see Jaffee & Hyde, 2000; Walker, 1995, 2006). Gilligan (1982) maintained that moral reasoning in women tends to reflect care orientation, whereas men usually make use of justice in order to deal with moral dilemmas. These gender differences previously observed led us to adopt the following hypothesis: H3: There will be age/education and gender-related difference in the two dimensions of MOSPEQ. Shields and Bredemeier (1995) suggested that it is necessary to examine the reasons motivating individuals to choose certain principles or values. The same authors have argued that one of the factors affecting moral intentions and behaviors is a person’s goal achievement orientation. Nicholls (1989) suggested that goal achievement affects individuals’ viewpoints concerning what is acceptable in an achievement context, and Shields and Bredemeier (2007) have extended this observation by suggesting that goal orientations (task and ego) may consolidate descriptive and prescriptive elements. Considerable research has established a link between goal orientations and moral functioning (e.g., Duda, Olson, & Templin, 1991; Kavussanu, 2006). Based on this research, we anticipated that: H4a: The two subscales of MOSPEQ can be anticipated by the perspectives of goal (task and ego) orientations. H4b: The deontological orientation will exhibit a positive relationship with task orientation and a negative relationship with ego orientation. On the contrary, the teleological orientation will exhibit a positive relationship with ego orientation and a negative with task orientation. Previously, moral behavior in sport has been mainly studied by means of a dimension of ethics called ‘‘sportspersonship’’. Shields and Bredemeier (1995) define sportspersonship as the virtue to coordinate the play impulse with the competitive impulse, in the light of moral goals. Gough (1997) claimed that sportspersonship cannot be viewed outside the framework of moral behavior in sport. Apart from the debate concerning the definition of ‘‘sportspersonship’’, the term itself is often used in the evaluation of moral behavior (e.g., Dunn & Dunn, 1999).


255

Vallerand and colleagues (Vallerand, Brie`re, Blanchard, & Provencher, 1997; Vallerand, Deshaies, Cuerrier, Brie`re, & Pelletier, 1996) proposed a five-dimensional conceptualization of sportspersonship. The five dimensions are: concern and respect for rules and officials; concern and respect for opponents; acceptance of the implicit social conventions latent in sport (e.g., being a good loser); commitment to one’s sport; and a negative approach to sport participation (e.g., a ‘‘win at all costs’’ attitude). Due to parallels of conceptualization, we anticipate: H5: Four of the MSOS subscales (commitment, social conventions, respect for rules and officials, and respect for the opponent) will be positively correlated with the deontological orientation and negatively with the teleological one.


Method Participants Two hundred and sixty-nine physical education students, both males (n ¼ 128) and females (n ¼ 141), from three different schools (1st n ¼ 62, 2nd n ¼ 107, and 3rd n ¼ 100) participated in the present study. The participants were involved in different physical activities (physical education: n ¼ 126; recreation sport: n ¼ 40; organized sport: n ¼ 103, in 13 different sports). Their age ranged from 13 to 17 years (M ¼ 14.94, SD ¼ 1.23). More specifically, age/education is divided into two levels (13–15 years/high school, n ¼ 165; 16–17 years/senior high school, n ¼ 104).

Measures Moral Orientation of Students in Physical Education Questionnaire (MOSPEQ) The 14-item instrument that emerged from the reduction variables of the MCJSQ was tested. Specifically, the items reflect deontological (7 items) or teleological (7 items) ethics definitions of moral orientation in decision making in physical education settings. The items were given the heading, ‘‘Do I believe that my actions in physical education are characterized by . . .’’. For each item, subjects responded on a 9-point Likert-type scale anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Task and Ego Orientation in Sports Questionnaire (TEOSQ) A validated Greek version (Papaioannou & McDonald, 1993) of the Task and Ego Orientation in Sports Questionnaire (TEOSQ; Duda & Nicholls, 1992) was used in order to assess dispositional goal orientations. TEOSQ is a questionnaire comprising 13 items. It includes two independent subscales which measure task (7 items) and ego (6 items) orientations, regarding participation in sports. TEOSQ has demonstrated adequate internal consistency with satisfactory alpha coefficients for both task (a ¼ .79) and ego (a ¼ .81) subscales (Duda & Whitehead, 1998). In the present study, the alpha coefficients were .73 and .82 for task and ego, respectively. Multidimensional Sportspersonship Orientation Scale (MSOS) A validated Greek version (Pavlopoulou, Goniadou, Zachariadis, & Tsorbatzoudis, 2003) of the Multidimensional Sportspersonship Orientation Scale (MSOS;

256

M. Proios

Vallerand et al., 1997) has been used in order to estimate attitudes towards sportspersonship. The scale consists of 25 items, which assess five dimensions of sportspersonship: ‘‘commitment’’, ‘‘social conventions’’, ‘‘rules and officials’’, ‘‘opponent’’, and ‘‘negative approach to sports’’. The participants answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). The reliability of the MSOS has been maintained (Vallerand et al., 1997). In the present study, the alpha coefficients for the five dimensions of MSOS were the following: for ‘‘commitment’’ a ¼ .71; for ‘‘social conventions’’ a ¼ .86; for ‘‘rules and officials’’ a ¼ .71; for ‘‘the opponent’’ a ¼ .68; and for ‘‘negative approach’’ a ¼ .51. The low level of internal consistency on the ‘‘negative approach’’ subscale has also been pointed out by Vallerand et al. (1997). The low value of the ‘‘negative approach’’ subscale was the reason for its exclusion from subsequent analyses.


Procedure The investigator initially asked for the relevant permission to conduct the study – in accordance with the research Code of Conduct established by the Research Committee of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece (Annex 1) – from the school Administrators. Then, the researcher contacted the teaching staff during whose lectures he would come in contact with the students. Finally, the author got to the classrooms and, after having informed the students what they would be asked to do and the reasons for doing it, he asked them to fill in the questionnaire forms. During the completion of the questionnaires, the participants posed no questions to the author. Results The aim of the present study was to develop and validate the Moral Orientation Student in Physical Education Questionnaire (MOSPEQ). This instrument is to be validated on the basis of three types of validity: content, construct, and criterion oriented (American Psychological Association, 1966). Content validity This method of validating a research instrument examines the extent to which the items of the questionnaire are related to the subject the researcher aims to study (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Content validation provides evidence for the construct validity of an assessment tool (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). The construct validation of an assessment instrument unavoidably involves validation and sometimes refinement of the targeted construct (Smith & McCarthy, 1995). For the MOSPEQ development, this element has been referred to in the introductory part of the present study. Generally, it should be noted that the content validation approach for MOSPEQ is consistent with the methodology used to establish content validity in the development of psychological instruments (Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995), as is evident in the following analyses. Construct validity Construct validity focuses on how well the variables chosen by the researcher to represent a hypothetical construct ‘‘really capture’’ the essence of that hypothetical


257

construct (Stapleton, 1997). The construct validity method was used to examine whether MOSPEQ measures the two moral orientations (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). The following methods were used: Interrelations, Factor analysis, and Differences between the groups. Interrelations among the MOSPEQ items


If two tests are presumed to measure the same construct, a correlation between them is predicted (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). In the present study, the interrelations among the items (questions) were estimated by factor analysis (Table 1). More specifically, highly significant correlations were established between items of the same construct. Lower were the correlations between items of different constructs (deontological or teleological). However, it should be noted that no significant correlation was found between some of the above-mentioned items. Factor analysis Factor analyses are ‘‘intimately involved with questions of validity’’ (Nunnally, 1978, p. 112). They are used to reveal the latent structure (dimensions) of a set of variables. Factor analyses limit the space dedicated to attribute from a larger number of variables to a smaller number of factors, and thus they are ‘‘nondependent’’ procedures (i.e., they do not assume that a dependent variable is specified). In the present study, factor analyses were used to examine the structure of the factors included in MOSPEQ. Specifically, both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA). This analysis was used because the correlation between the observed and latent variables was uncertain (Byrne, 2001). MOSPEQ is a new tool designed to measure two orientations of morality. Thus, EFA was used to determine the extent to which the item measurements (the observed variables) were related to the two latent constructs.

Table 1. Inter-correlations between the MOSPEQ items (items: 1 to 7 deontological ethics; 7 to 14 teleological ethics).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1

2

– .27** .31** .27** .31** .46** .42** .07 .24** .19** .04 .18** .06 .12

.35** .23** .20** .30** .40** .17** .16** .22** .11 .15* .17** .11

3

4

.26** .24** .37** .29** .44** .30** .45** .03 7.01 .13* .16** .15* .19** .09 .11 .02 .05 .10 7.03 .02 7.05

Note: **5.01, *5.05.

5

6

7

8

9

.38** .32** .11 .05 .22** .15* .03 .19** .01

.50** .28** .17** .22** .14* .12* .08 .12*

.09 .17** .13* .05 .12* .00 .03

.14* .15* .30** .32** .29** .33**

.21** .19** .25** .18** .38**

10

11

12

13

.25** .20** .39** .20** .28** .40** .27** .37** .42** .42**

258

M. Proios


Both the Bartlett test of thoroughness (w2(91) ¼ 864.98, p ¼ .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO ¼ 0.807) indicated that factor analysis was appropriate for the data (Stevens, 1996). Items loaded with more than .40 were considered as loaded with one factor (Hinkin, 1995). Then, variants multicolinearity was examined by means of communalities (Harman, 1976). Values that approached the unity were not considered a threat for the existence of multicolinearity. Two factors derived from the analysis. The factor loadings, crossloadings, eigenvalues, and variance statistics are presented in Table 2. Since the items of the two factors consist of the ‘‘elements’’ related to moral values and are used to evaluate the moral orientation, we searched for an empirical examination of the relationship among these two factors (moral orientations). The results revealed some correlation between the two moral orientations, namely low exception of the ‘‘egoistic consequences’’ moral orientation (Table 3). Confirmatory factor analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis was applied because there was a priori knowledge of the number of factors at the initial stages of the questionnaire development (Stevens, 1996). A two-factor model was postulated.

Table 2.

Pattern matrix for the MOSPEQ items (with oblique rotation solution). Factors Deontological ethics

Items 1. A wish to put the rules into practice in the same way for everyone. 2. Acknowledgement of my infringements. 3. Acknowledgement of my faults. 4. Respect to the opponent. 5. A disposition not to degrade the opponents’ dignity. 6. Fair play. 7. Conformity to the referees’ decisions. 8. An effort to gain award. 9. A pursuit for the satisfaction of my team’s wishes. 10. An effort to help my team. 11. An effort to improve my skills. 12. A reliance on my own virtue (self-respect). 13. Courage and nerve. 14. A pursuit for the achievement of my goals. Percentage of variance explained Eigenvalues

Teleological ethics

h

.66

.43

.57 .57 .67 .61 .75 .75

.34 .32 .48 .37 .57 .57 .35 .41 .27 .43 .48 .47 .55

.59 .64 .45 .66 .69 .68 .73 16.39 2.29

26.65 3.73

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s index of internal consistency, and correlations between the MCJSQ subscales. Factors 1. Deontological ethics 2. Teleological ethics *p 5 .05.

M

SD

a

1

5.58 7.76

1.29 1.08

.78 .74

– .16*



259

Variables observed to measure deontological orientations were hypothesized to be indicators of the latent construct ‘‘Deontological Ethics’’, while those that measure teleological orientations were hypothesized to be indicators of the latent construct ‘‘Teleological Ethics’’. The two constructs were allowed to co-vary freely. In addition, in order to provide further evidence concerning the viability of the proposed model, two alternative models were also examined (e.g., Biddle & Marlin, 1987): a two-factor model consisting of correlated latent factors and a two-factor model consisting of uncorrelated latent factors. Four measures of model fit are reported: x2, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). According to Hu and Bentler (1999), for CFI and GFI a cut-off value close to .90 for a correlated two-factor model (Mc) and a cut-off value close to .60 for RMSEA are needed before stating a relative good fit between the observed data and the hypothesized model. The AMOS program was used to test whether the data fitted each model (Arbuckle, 1997). Values of goodness-of fit indices for CFAs of (a) a correlated twofactor model (Mc) and (b) an uncorrelated two-factor model are shown in Table 4. Examination of the multiple fit indices on the first model revealed that RMSEA was .064, indicating a good model fit, just like the CFI (.90) and GFI (.94). In contrast, the second model (Mu) indicated an extremely poor fitting model. We looked for possible misspecification of the model by examining the standardized residuals between pairs of items together with the salience of the item content (Motl & Conroy, 2000). Motl and Conroy suggest that large values (42.0) are problematic because they indicate under- or overprediction. The largest values (3.52) were for the items ‘‘An effort to help my team’’, and ‘‘Acknowledgement of my infringements’’. The former item is a clear indicator of teleological ethics, characterized by the ‘‘element of social utilitarianism’’, the benefit for the group rejecting the individual benefit, whereas the latter one is characterized by the ‘‘element of normative order’’ in which the individual once more rejects benefit for him/herself. The elimination of both items, as they also exhibited twofold values on both factors (.32 and .31, respectively), improved the model fit (Table 4). Internal consistency reliability Internal consistency refers to the interrelatedness of a set of items (Schmitt, 1996). The internal consistency estimate (alpha reliability, Cronbach, 1951) in the present study was computed separately for the two MOSPEQ subscales. Both subscales had their alpha above the recommended criterion of .70 (Table 3).

Table 4.

Goodness-of-fit indices of models tested.

Models Mu: 14-item Mc: 14-item Mc: 12-item

x2

Df

p

GFI

CFI

RMSEA

311.47 248.27 132.82

(77) (76) (53)

.001 .001 .001

.93 .94 .96

.87 .90 .95

.074 .064 .052

Note: Mc ¼ correlated five-factor model; Mu ¼ uncorrelated five-factor; GFI ¼ goodness-of-fit index; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation.

260

M. Proios


Differences between the groups Another validation process for the new measure, which arose from the hypotheses of the present study, was the examination of differences among groups (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). In the present study, the existence of differences in MOSPEQ between age/education and gender was hypothesized. Firstly, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted in order to examine the impact of age/education on the moral orientation of the physical education students. In the present analysis, the two subscales of MOSPEQ were used as dependent variables, while age/education (two levels) was used as an independent one. The results revealed a significant main impact in the case of age/education (Wilks’ lambda ¼ .979, F(2, 266) ¼ 2.91, p 5.05, Z2 ¼ .02), which leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The univariate F test showed that age/education had a significant relationship only to the subscale of Teleological ethics (F(1, 269) ¼ 3.71, p 5.05, Z2 ¼ .01), where the scores of teleological ethics were significantly reduced between the high school and senior high school physical education students (M ¼ 7.85, SD ¼ 1.04, and M ¼ 7.59, SD ¼ 1.14, respectively). A second multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted in order to examine the effect of gender on the moral orientation of the physical education students. In the present analysis, the two MOSPEQ subscales were used as dependent variables, while Gender was used as an independent one. The results showed a significant main effect in the case of Gender (Wilks’ lambda ¼ .948, F(2, 266) ¼ 7.33, p 5.001, Z2 ¼ .05), which leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The univariate F test showed that Gender had a significant relationship only to the subscale of Deontological ethics (F (1,269) ¼ 14.64, p 5.001, Z2 ¼ .05), where the scores of females were significantly higher than those of males (M ¼ 5.86, SD ¼ 1.06 and M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.45, respectively). Criterion-related validity Criterion-related validity refers to the relationship between a measure and other independent measures (Hinkin, 1995). In this study, we examined how the two MOSPEQ subscales related to a criterion. We examined two subcomponents of criterion-related validity: predictive validity and concurrent validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Predictive validity. In predictive validity, the operationalization ability to predict something that – theoretically – it should be able to predict is assessed. More specifically, in the present study, we theorize that a measure of goal orientations should be able to predict moral orientations. Thus, two sets of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, one each for the deontological and teleological ethics. In these analyses, task and ego orientation represented one functional set, and therefore they were entered together in one step (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The results of the analyses (Table 5) indicated that task orientation was a positive predictor for both orientations (deontological and teleological). Ego orientation emerged as a negative predictor only in the orientation of deontological ethics. Concurrent validity. Concurrent validity refers to the correlation between the test scores and the scores of the performance of a criterion, when both tests are performed at the same time. The MOSPEQ concurrent validity examination was

261


performed by correlating its two subscales with the four MSOS scales – Commitment, Social Convention, Rules and Officials, and Opponent (Table 6). The results of this test partly confirmed a hypothesis stated in the present study. Ethics of deontological orientation exhibited a stronger correlation with the four sportspersonship attitudes, in comparison to teleological ethics orientation, which exhibited a high correlation with dimension commitment.


Discussion and conclusion The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a scale in the framework of the cognitive-developmental theory, in order to evaluate the students’ moral orientation in physical education settings. More specifically, to establish whether the components of ‘‘elements’’ comprise notions of deontological ethics and reveal developmental characteristics. The results of the above-mentioned procedures provided adequate evidence on the reliability and validity of a new measure of morality in physical education settings (MOSPEQ), which exhibits developmental characteristics as well. This instrument measures the students’ moral orientation in physical education activities, that is, it reveals whether they act or are about to act on the basis of moral principles or take into consideration the consequences of their actions. MOSPEQ was developed taking into consideration the content of the MCJSQ instrument, yet it has a different structure. More specifically, MOSPEQ was structured after taking into consideration the moral philosophers’ views on morality, as well as their viewpoint on the ways in which a moral decision is made, while MCJSQ was structured based on Kohlberg’s (1976) theory – cognitive developmental – on the study of the moral content of judgments. The development of the questionnaire on the basis of a theory – the cognitive development theory – was the reason why a correlation between the items of the Table 5. Variable

Hierarchical regression of Moral Content Judgment Questionnaire in Sport. B

Deontological Ethics Task 0.60 Ego 70.34

B 95% CI

b

t

0.34 5 4 0.86 70.54 5 4 0.15

0.29 70.17

4.60* 73.42*

DR2

0.13** Teleological Ethics Task 0.95 Ego 0.09

0.75 5 4 1.15 70.07 5 4 0.24

0.53 0.06

9.35* ns 0.28*

Note: DR2 ¼ R2 unique to each step. *p 5.001. CI ¼ confidence interval. ns ¼ not significant.

Table 6.

Correlations between the subscales of the MCJSQ and the Subscales of the MSOS.

Deontological Ethics Teleological Ethics Note: *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01.

Commitment

Social Convention

Rules and Officials

Opponent

.26** .62**

.47** .11

.61** .03

.47** 7.02


262

M. Proios

scales with same constructs was used as a testing method for the hypothesis that the interrelations between them are significant. The statistically significant bivariate correlation supported the hypothesis, showing that the items on this scale share a common content (ethics). In addition, it showed the existence of similar constructs among the items, by presenting higher interrelation values among the specific items. The factor analyses used in the present study confirmed that the two orientations a priori specified were fairly reliably reproduced. Exploratory factor analysis of a two-factor model, that is, Deontological and Teleological Ethics, was indicated by means of the 14-item scale. These factors were consistent with the theoretical framework (see Proios, 2010); while the confirmatory factor analysis results demonstrated a good fit of the two-factor correlated model. The correlated fitness of the model supports Kohlberg’s (1976) claim that all moral orientations can be used by a single individual, as all of them may refer to fairness. For example, not only the Law and Support of Order (deontological ethics) but also the Maximization of the Team’s Welfare (teleological ethics) may be considered as fairness (utilitarian consequences). In addition, the internal consistency of the MOSPEQ was acceptable. Moreover, the significant correlation between moral orientations, although low, is probably due to diversified interpretation of the meaning each individual gives to the items. For example, one element among the items is Duty (Commitment). According to Kant’s moral philosophy (1787/1952), the element of ‘‘Duty’’ relates to an ideal normative order which is an example of deontological moral orientation. Mill (1857/1957), on the contrary, supports that the sense of duty has a utilitarian character, raising the question of whether this sense is inherent or acquired. Thus, assuming it is inherent, he poses the question of how plausible it is that another individual’s pleasure or pain is the object of such a sense of duty – a characteristic of utilitarian ethics. The validity of constructs of the MOSPEQ was supported by testing the hypothesis that the moral orientation would be differentiated by groups (age/ education and gender). Since studies relying on the cognitive developmental model necessitate examination of changes by age (Rest et al., 1986), the present study examined these as well. The results of the present study revealed age-dependent changes in the students’ moral orientation, supporting thus the developmental character of the cognitive developmental theory – yet with some reservation. More specifically, while teleological ethics was significantly reduced with age, in the case of deontological ethics – although revealed to improve with age – improvement was rather insignificant. Such an absence in sport settings by age groups yet in school as reported in some studies (Bredemeier, 1994; Bredemeier et al., 1986) may reflect the participants’ rather narrow age span. In addition, this result provided support for the contention that males and females may differ in their moral principles in physical education activities. Genderrelated differences in moral functionings, such as judgment/reasoning, have also been supported in other sport-related studies (Abrahamsen & Roberts, 2003; Bredemeier & Shields, 1986; Kavussanu & Roberts, 2001; Miller, Roberts, & Ommundsen, 2005). Specifically, the results of this study indicated that the moral principles between males and females are diversified in relation to the moral orientation deontological ethics, that is, moral principles related to duty or rightness and justice or fairness. This supports the theoretical assertion that boys and girls use different styles of moral judgment (Chodorow, 1989; Eisenberg, 1982; Ford & Lowery, 1986; Gilligan, 1982; Hoffman, 1977; Holstein, 1976). Gilligan (1982) and Gilligan and



263

Attancucci (1988) maintained that there are two different moral ‘‘voices’’ – ‘‘justice’’ and ‘‘care’’ – voices that directed the individuals to the apprehension of the moral problems in a different way as well as in different strategies resolving them. As concerning the result of the present study that females are rather deontological ethics oriented compared to males, it is further supported by the findings of other studies, in which the sample was of the same age group to the present one (e.g., Abrahamsen & Roberts, 2003; Miller et al., 2005). More specifically, the above-mentioned studies revealed higher scores by females versus males in moral maturity and moral functionings (moral judgment, reasoning, intention, and behavior). In addition, the tracing of gender differences in the present study only in one moral orientation (deontological) reveals that differences between males and females in moral reasoning are traced when this moral reasoning has to do with deontological principles (duty and rightness) rather than teleological ones (consequences and aim of moral actions). As regards the predictive validity of MOSPEQ, the hypothesis made was that the dimensions of MOSPEQ can be anticipated by the goal orientation perspectives. The hierarchical regression analyses revealed that goal orientations anticipate, to a significant extent, the moral orientations, ranging from 13 to 28% of the variance. This result complies with a recent study which found that both goal orientations predicted dimensions of morality (Kavussanu, 2006). In addition, it was assumed that the dimensions of MOSPEQ would be significantly correlated to task and ego orientation. The results of regression analyses indicated a significant positive relationship between the dimensions of deontological and teleological ethics and task orientation. A significant negative relationship was established between the dimension of deontological ethics and ego orientation. These results are consistent with previous studies that revealed a relation between task orientation and moral variables (Duda et al., 1991; Dunn & Dunn, 1999; Kavussanu, 2006; Lemyre, Roberts, & Ommundsen, 2002) and others which have shown that ego orientation is positively related to antisocial behavior and negatively to prosocial behavior (Duda et al., 1991; Dunn & Dunn, 1999; Kavussanu, 2006; Kavussanu & Ntoumanis, 2003; Kavussanu & Roberts, 2001; Lemyre et al., 2002). The establishment of a relationship between the moral principles leading to the performance of an action expressing moral orientation and the inclination to perform such an action, expressed by the achievement goal orientation, demonstrated how important it is to identify the reasons or moral principles, in order to characterize an action as moral (Mill, 1857/1957). At the same time, the above-mentioned establishment highlighted the significance of MOSPEQ for the assessment of morality in physical education. However, the present study revealed an unexpected relationship between deontological ethics and ego orientation. Similar exceptions have been reported in other studies as well (e.g., Gano-Overway, Guivernau, Mayar, Waldron, & Ewing, 2005; Kavussanu & Roberts, 2001; Stephens, 2000, 2001). Shields and Bredemeier (2008) maintained that, ‘‘These inconsistent results highlight the need for more complex investigations that examine various motivational profiles, as well as interactions between dispositional . . .’’ (p. 508). The last assumption of the present study was that attitudes of sportspersonship have a positive correlation with the subscales of the MOSPEQ. This hypothesis was supported, providing thus further evidence that the MOSPEQ assesses moral orientation. As far as the positive correlation between the dimension commitment and the subscale teleological ethics is concerned, it is plausible due to the fact that


264

M. Proios

perfectionism (element of teleological ethics) determines good regardless of right; then right is determined as the factor that maximizes good (Rawls, 1971). Specifically, in sport activities, good is the success of the team or the protection of the teammates – something which, of course, is not considered right as well – since success can derive from the breaking of a rule or deception of the referee. In sum, the results of the present study provide evidence for the reliability and validity of MOSPEQ. In conclusion, the findings of the study suggest that MOSPEQ is an instrument that can be used in a variety of research areas. For instance, it can be used for the assessment of moral orientation of participants in physical education activities. However, further studies are needed in order to obtain additional support for its psychometric properties and applicability in sport or greater social settings. Although the results of the present study provided strong evidence concerning the validity and reliability of the MOSPEQ, nondiversification of deontological ethics in relation to age, regardless of the conclusion on teleological ethics, can be considered as a limitation. In addition, the established relation between the dimension commitment and teleological ethics can also be considered a limitation. Notes on contributor Miltiadis Proios is an assistant professor in the Department of Physical Education and Sport Science (TEFAA) of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. His research interests include moral judgment and moral decision making in physical education and sport. Publications have appeared in the International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, the International Journal of Physical Education, and Perceptual and Motor Skills.

References Abrahamsen, F.E., & Roberts, G.C. (2003). Moral functioning in youth soccer. In R. Stelter (Ed.), Proceeding of the XIth European Congress of Sport Psychology (p. 18). Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen, Institute of Exercise and Sport Sciences. American Psychological Association. (1966). Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: Author. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Arbuckle, J.L. (1997). AMOS users guide version 3.6. Chicago, IL: SmallWalters. Beauchamp, T.L. (1991). Philosophical ethics: An introduction to moral philosophy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Biddle, B.J., & Marlin, M.M. (1987). Causality, confirmation, credulity, and structural equation modeling. Child Development, 58, 4–17. Bredemeier, B. (1994). Children’s moral reasoning and their assertive, aggressive, and submissive tendencies in sport and daily life. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 1–14. Bredemeier, B., & Shields, D. (1984a). Divergence in moral reasoning about sport and everyday life. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1, 348–357. Bredemeier, B., & Shields, D. (1984b). The utility of moral stage analysis in the understanding of athletic aggression. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1, 138–149. Bredemeier, B., & Shields, D. (1986). Moral growth among athletes and nonathletes: A comparative analysis. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147(1), 7–18. Bredemeier, B., & Shields, D. (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 Technology.



265

Bredemeier, B., Weiss, M.R., Shields, D., & Cooper, B. (1987). The relationship between children’s legitimacy judgments and their moral reasoning, aggression tendencies and sport involvement. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, 48–60. Bredemeier, B., Weiss, M.R., Shields, D., & Shewchuk, R.M. (1986). Promoting moral growth in a summer sport camp: The implementation of theoretically grounded instructional strategies. Journal of Moral Education, 15, 212–220. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chodorow, N. (1989). Feminism and psycholoanalytic thinking. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences (3rd ed.). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment: Vol. 1. Theoretical foundations and research validation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 296–334. Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychology tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. De Busk, M., & Hellison, D. (1989). Implementing a physical education self-responsibility model for delinquency-prone youth. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 104–112. Duda, J.L., & Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299. Duda, J.L., Olson, L.K., & Templin, T.J. (1991). The relationship of task and ego orientation to sportsmanship attitudes and the perceived legitimacy of injurious acts. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 79–87. Duda, J.L., & Whitehead, J. (1998). Measurement of goal perspectives in the physical domain. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 21–48). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Dunn, J.G.H., & Dunn, J.C. (1999). Goal orientation, perceptions of aggression, and sportspersonship in elite male youth ice hockey players. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 183–200. Eisenberg, N. (1982). The development of reasoning regarding prosocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 219–246). New York, NY: Academic Press. Ford, M.R., & Lowery, C.R. (1986). Gender differences in moral reasoning: A comparison of the use of justice and care orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 777–783. Frankena, W.K. (1973). Ethics (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gano-Overway, L.A., Guivernau, M., Mayar, T.M., Waldron, J.J., & Ewing, M. (2005). Achievement goal perspectives, perceptions of the motivational climate and sportspersonship: Individual and team effects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 215–232. Gibbons, S.L., & Ebbeck, V. (1997). The effect of different teaching strategies on the moral development of physical education students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 85–98. Gibbons, S.L., Ebbeck, V., & Weiss, M.R. (1995). Fair play for kids: Effects on the moral development of children in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 247–255. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 223–237. Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NL: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gough, R.W. (1997). Character is everything: Promoting ethical excellence in sports. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Haan, N. (1978). Two moralities in action contexts: Relationships to thought, ego regulation, and development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 286–305. Harman, H.H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Haynes, S.N., Richard, D.C.S., & Kubany, E.S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238–247.


266

M. Proios

Hinkin, T.R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988. Hoffman, M.L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 712–722. Holstein, C. (1976). Development of moral judgment: A longitudinal study of males and females. Child Development, 47, 51–61. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariances structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J.S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 703–726. Kant, I. (1952). The critique of pure reason (Great books of the western world, 42). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica. (Original work published 1787) Kavussanu, M. (2006). Motivational predictors of prosocial and antisocial behaviour in football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 575–588. Kavussanu, M., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). Participation in sport and moral functioning: Does ego orientation mediate their relationship? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 1–18. Kavussanu, M., & Roberts, G.C. (2001). Moral functioning in sport: An achievement goal perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 37–54. Kleiber, D.A., & Roberts G.C. (1981). The effect of sport experience in the development of social character: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 114–122. Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in years ten to sixteen (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). New York, NY: Rand McNally. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization. The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior. Theory, research and social issues (pp. 31–53). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development, Vol. I: The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Kohlberg, L., & Candee, D. (1984). The relationship of moral judgment to moral action. In W.M. Kurtines & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 52–73). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Lapsley, D. (1997). Moral psychology. Boulder, CO: Westview 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. Mill, J.S. (1957). Utilitarianism. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1857) Miller, B.W., Roberts, G.C., & Ommundsen, Y. (2005). Effect of perceived motivational climate on moral climate on moral functioning, team moral atmosphere perceptions, and the legitimacy of intentionally injurious acts among competitive youth football players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 461–477. Miller, C.S., Bredemeier, B., & Shields, D. (1997). Sociomoral education though physical education with at-risk children. Quest, 49, 114–129. Motl, R.W., & Conroy, D.E. (2000). Validity and factorial invariance of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32, 1007–1017. Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nisan, M. (1984). Content and structure in moral judgment: An integrative view. In W.M. Kurtines & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 208– 226). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Orlick, T. (1981). Cooperative play socialization among preschool children. Journal of Individual Psychology, 37, 54–63. Papaioannou, A., & McDonald, A.I. (1993). Goals perspectives and purposes of physical education as perceived by Greek adolescents. Physical Education Review, 16, 41–48.



267

Pavlopoulou, E., Goniadou, S., Zachariadis, P., & Tsorbatzoudis, H. (2003). The role of motivation to sportspersonship in physical education and sport. Hellenic Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 48(2), 65–72. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child (M. Gabain, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1932) Proios, M. (2010). Development and validation of a questionnaire for the assessment of moral content judgment in sport. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 189– 210. Proios, M., Doganis, G., & Proios, M. (2006). Form of the athletic exercise, school environment, and sex in development of high school students’ sportsmanship. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 103, 99–106. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rest, J., Bebeau, M., & Volker, J. (1986). An overview of the psychology of morality. In J. Rest (Ed.), Moral development: Advances in research and theory (pp. 1–27). New York, NY: Praeger. Rest, J., Deemer, D., Barnett, R., Spickelmier, J., & Volker, J. (1986). Life experiences and developmental pathways. In J.R. Rest (Ed.), Moral development, advances in research and theory (pp. 28–58). New York, NY: Praeger. Romance, J.T., Weiss, M.R., & Bockoven, J. (1986). A program to promote moral development through elementary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 126–136. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353. Shea, J.E. (1996). Ethical decisions in sport: Interscholastic, intercollegiate, Olympic and professional. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (1995). Character development and physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (2000). Moral reasoning in the context of sport. Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/*lnucci/MoralEd/Sields.htm Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (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, NY: Wiley & Sons. Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (2007). Advances in sport morality research. In R. Eklund & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 662–684). New York, NY: Wiley. Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (2008). Sport and development of character. In L.P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 500–519). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Smith, G.T., & McCarthy, D.M. (1995). Methodological considerations in the refinement instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 300–308. Solomon, G.B. (1997a). Character development: Does physical education affect character development in students? The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68, 38–41. Solomon, G.B. (1997b). Fair play in the gymnasium: Improving social skills among elementary school students. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68, 22–25. Solomon, G.B. (2007). The promotion of sociomoral growth through physical education: Field testing of a curricular model. The Physical Educator, 64(3), 129–141. Solomon, G.B., & Bredemeier, B. (1999). Children’s moral conceptions of gender stratification in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30, 350–368. Stapleton, C.D. (1997, April). Basic concepts in exploratory factor analysis (EFA) as a tool evaluate score validity: A right-brained approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407419) Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality. Vol. 1: Social and personal influences. New York, NY: Academic Press. Stephens, D.E. (2000). Predictors of likelihood to aggress in youth soccer: An examination of coed and all-girls teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23(3), 311–325. Stephens, D.E. (2001). Predictors of aggressive tendencies in girls’ basketball: An examination of beginning and advanced participants in a summer skills camp. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 257–266.

268

M. Proios


Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum. Vallerand, R.J., Brie`re, N.M., Blanchard, C.M., & Provencher, P. (1997). Development and validation of the multidimensional sportspersonship orientation scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 197–206. Vallerand, R.J., Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J.P., Brie`re, N.M., & Pelletier, L.G. (1996). Toward a multidimensional definition of sportspersonship. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 89–101. Vidoni, C., & Ward, P. (2009). Effects of fair play instruction on student social skills during a middle school sport education unit. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 14, 285–310. Walker, L.J. (1995). Sexism in Kohlberg’s moral psychology? In W. Kurtines & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral development: An introduction (pp. 83–107). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Walker, L.J. (2006). Gender and morality. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral education (pp. 93–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Weiss, M.R., & Smith, A.L. (2002). Moral development in sport and physical activity: Theory, research, and intervention. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 243–280). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.