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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. The Center for ETHICS* ModelPretestPosttest C70.6570.73 D64.8665.93 E69.4463.11 Model E Significant Decline Pre to Posttest p<.05 Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies

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

19. The Center for ETHICS* P Index ScoreGrade Norms è 20-29Junior High School è 30-39Senior High School è 40-49College/University è 50-59Graduate Students è 60-AboveGraduate/Doctoral Students in Moral Philosophy Normative Ranges for DIT Scores* *Rest, 1986

20. The Center for ETHICS* A Comparison of LSM on the DIT Scores for Graduate Students and Law Students* Graduate SchoolP Index Score MS candidates William & Mary Univ.49.7 Graduate Students Oklahoma Univ.48.6 Women Graduate Students Univ. of Toledo48.3 Harvard Graduate Students53.5 1st Year Med Students (Medical College of Ohio)51.7 Seminarians in Liberal Protestant Seminary57.8 Doctoral Students in Moral Philosophy65.2 1st Year Law School Students 197649.5 1st Year Law School Students 197752.1 Hartwell (1990) Study of Law Students48.8 *Willging & Dunn, 1981

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

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

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

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

31. Instruments and Data Analysis: RSBH Values Judgment Inventory  –Measures moral reasoning and social values –Valid and Reliable Chronbach Alpha for moral side =.81 -.88 Chronbach Alpha for social side =.61 -.77 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 = 30.685 +.920 a Males= 26.171 +.663 b P =.0001 Observed power =.977 MalesFemales 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 = 31.531 + 1.143 a Individual Sport = 28.585 + 1.157 b Team Sport= 25.168 +.499 c P =.0001 Observed power =.999 Moral reasoning scores NonathleteInd SportTeam 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 = 38.990 +.736 a Males= 35.345 +.531 b P =.0001 Observed power =.979 Social Value scores MalesFemales

37. Social Value scores by Status on the RSBH Values Inventory NO significant differences were found by status. Nonathletes = 37.448 +.915 Individual Sport = 37.938 +.926 Team Sport= 36.115 +.399 P =.114 NonathleteInd SportTeam Sport Social Value scores

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

39. Comparison of Moral and Social by status Moral reasoning scores NonathleteInd SportTeam Sport NonathleteInd SportTeam 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.