1. The Effect of Competition and Educational Moral Reasoning Methodologies on Competitive Populations
The Center for ETHICS*

2. Cognitive Development Instruments for Measuring Moral Development and Moral Reasoning
The Defining Issues Test (DIT)
General Social Perspective
Rest (1981)
The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI)
Ideal Sport Perspective
Hahm, Beller, & Stoll (1989)
The Center for ETHICS*

3. The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (c) Hahm, Beller, Stoll, 1988
21 commonly occurring sport moral dilemmas.
Based in the Ideal of sport competition.

4. Scenarios: Retaliation Drug use Personal responsibilities for actions
Fairness to teammates and competitors
The intentional foul

5. Principles are:
...daily guidelines that we all develop, based on our personal value and belief structure, that can be consistent with universal principles.
I.e. Respect for private property
Respect for the truth
Respect for others

6. Effect of Athletic Competition on Moral Development of University Age Students
SEM = 0.85
SEM = 7.64
Nonathletes Significantly Higher than Athletes p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*

7. Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender on Moral Reasoning of University Age Students
Females Significantly Higher than Males p<.05
Nonathletes Significantly Higher than Athletes p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*

8. Effect of Athletic Competition by
Type of Sport
Nonathlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport Athlete p<.05
Individual Sport Athlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*

9. The Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition
Trend = A steady decline in moral reasoning scores
The Center for ETHICS*

10. The Longitudinal Norms of
Nonathletic Groups
Trend = Moral reasoning remains relatively stable.
The Center for ETHICS*

11. The Effect of Competition on Elite Students
Significant decline in scores from Plebe year to First Class year p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*

12. A Comparison of HBVCI Scores for Elite Freshman College Students to General University Students
The Center for ETHICS*

13. Effect of Intervention and Competition on University Age Athletes
72.2
65.3
62.1
56.0
Significant Difference pretest to posttest p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*

14. Longitudinal Effect of Intervention & Competition on University Age Athletes
71.9
72.2
65.3
62.1
56.0
56.8
Significant Difference from pretest to posttest and posttest p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*

15. A Comparison of Intervention Teaching Methodology on Moral Reasoning
Model A and Model B Significant increase from pre to posttest p<.05.
The Center for ETHICS*

16. Successful Moral Reasoning Methodologies
82.09
72.09
69.56
54.61
Significant Difference Pre to Posttest p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*

17. Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies
Model Pretest Posttest C D E
Model E Significant Decline Pre to Posttest p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*

18. A Combined View of Successful & Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies
The Center for ETHICS*

19. Normative Ranges for DIT Scores*
P Index Score Grade Norms
Junior High School
Senior High School
College/University
Graduate Students
60-Above Graduate/Doctoral Students in Moral Philosophy
The Center for ETHICS*
*Rest, 1986

20. A Comparison of LSM on the DIT Scores for Graduate Students and Law Students*
Graduate School P Index Score
MS candidates William & Mary Univ
Graduate Students Oklahoma Univ
Women Graduate Students Univ. of Toledo
Harvard Graduate Students
1st Year Med Students (Medical College of Ohio) 51.7
Seminarians in Liberal Protestant Seminary
Doctoral Students in Moral Philosophy
1st Year Law School Students
1st Year Law School Students
Hartwell (1990) Study of Law Students
The Center for ETHICS*
*Willging & Dunn, 1981

21. Comparison of First Year Law Students with Peer Group University Age Students
SEM = 10.85
SEM = 7.64
Peers Significantly Higher than Law School Students p<.05

22. Division I HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes
SD+10.81
SD+11.08

23. Division III HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes
SD+10.58
SD+10.45

24. Ten Year Female HBVCI Scores
Trend = a decline in female athlete’s moral reasoning scores

25. Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender: Athletes - Nonathletes
Nonathletes significantly higher than athletes p<.05
Females significantly higher than males p<.05

26. Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition on HBVCI Scores
Trend = steady decline in scores

27. Effect of Competition by Type of Sport
Nonathletes significantly higher than team sport athletes p<.05
Individual sport athletes significantly higher than team sport athletes p<.05

28. What is the difference between moral values and social values?
Moral values: honesty, responsibility, justice, respect
Social values: Teamwork, loyalty, dedication, sacrifice.

29. Descriptive Study 2000
The purpose of this study was to examine high school athletes’ and nonathletes’ moral values and social values.

30. Demographics 27th largest school district in the country
9th – 12th grade randomly selected students
8 High Schools
N = 146 males
N = 76 females
N = 28 Nonathletes
N = 159 Team Sport
N = 35 Individual Sport

31. Instruments and Data Analysis:
RSBH Values Judgment Inventory 
Measures moral reasoning and social values
Valid and Reliable
Chronbach Alpha for moral side =
Chronbach Alpha for social side =
Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances
Equal variances found
MANOVA and ANOVA procedures

32. Results from the moral value side consistent with 14 years of research

33. Moral reasoning scores by gender on the RSBH Values Inventory
A significant difference exists by gender on moral reasoning scores.
Females = a
Males = b
P = .0001
Observed power = .977
Males
Females
Moral reasoning scores

34. Moral reasoning scores by status on the RSBH Values Inventory
A significant difference exists by status on moral reasoning scores.
Nonathletes = a
Individual Sport = b
Team Sport = c
P = .0001
Observed power = .999
Moral reasoning scores
Nonathlete
Ind Sport
Team Sport

35. Of real interest are social value scores compared to the moral value scores…

36. Social Value scores by gender on the RSBH Values Inventory
A significant difference exists by gender on social value scores.
Females = a
Males = b
P = .0001
Observed power = .979
Social Value scores
Males
Females

37. Social Value scores by Status on the RSBH Values Inventory
NO significant differences were found by status.
Nonathletes =
Individual Sport =
Team Sport =
P = .114
Nonathlete
Ind Sport
Team Sport
Social Value scores

38. Comparison of Moral and Social by gender
Males
Females
Moral reasoning scores
Social Value scores
Males
Females
Moral Values
Social Values

39. Comparison of Moral and Social by status
Moral reasoning scores
Nonathlete
Ind Sport
Team Sport
Nonathlete
Ind Sport
Team Sport
Social Value scores
Moral Values
Social Values

41. The purpose of this study was to:
examine the effects of a cognitive sport character education program on high school students’: principled thinking (moral values of honesty, responsibility, and justice) versus social character (values of loyalty and dedication).

42. Subjects ( randomly selected )
Treatment: Male (n=27)
Female (n=25)
Control: Male (n=19)
Female (n=22)

43. Treatment: Moral Reasoning Program Implementation
Classes met twice weekly for 50 minutes
Held in Physical Education or General classes
Met over nine week term

44. Purpose:
To teach students how to become active, critical thinkers, based on the democratic principles of: Honesty, Responsibility, Justice, Respect

45. Moral Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory
Note 1. Higher scores = more principled level of reasoning
Note 2. Significant difference pre to posttest p<.05
Note 3. No change in control scores pre to posttest

46. Moral Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory
SEM =.88 n = 27
Note 1. Higher scores = more principled level of reasoning
Note 2. Significant difference between males and females

47. Social Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory
Note 1. Higher scores = Greater use of loyalty and sacrifice in decisions making
Note 2. No significant difference pre to posttest p<.05
Note 3. No change in Control scores pre to posttest

48. Social Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory
SEM = .65
Note 1. Higher scores = Greater use of loyalty and sacrifice in decisions making
Note 2. Significant difference between males and females

49. Discussion:
1. Cognitive Reasoning appears to improve over a nine week course.
2. Social values appear higher than moral values.
3. Loyalty and Sacrifice highly imbedded in how we teach and model sport.
Difficult to overcome…
4. Perhaps women are not as affected by the negatives of sport social modeling.