Running head: Article Review: Sports Context

Article Review: Predictors of Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior in an Adolescent Sports Context Jo Friesen University of Calgary

ARTICLE REVIEW: SPORTS CONTEXT In their 2011 exploratory study, Rutten et al., examined the relationship between different factors that arise in a sports context, and antisocial and prosocial behavior in adolescents, in hopes of determining which factors might predict both types of behavior, and be amenable to intervention. The authors conducted a multi-level analysis in order explore the relationship between variables and to determine which factors might have an influence beyond individual differences. This allowed them to investigate both the links between factors, as well as the degree to which both individual characteristics and team characteristics influenced behavior. Rutten et al., (2011) hypothesized that a positive fair play attitude, higher levels of moral reasoning, a favorable moral atmosphere, and a supportive coach-athlete relationship would lead to less antisocial and more prosocial behavior. While the authors did not link their hypothesis to one specific theory, it was based on prior research results, and included a consideration of Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Reasoning. The study included a literature review of prior studies that had considered how involvement in sports potentially influences the behavior of adolescent athletes. In general, findings demonstrated that antisocial behavior was positively associated with a greater extent of sports participation and aggressive tendencies, and negatively correlated with a positive attitude towards fair play. Prosocial behavior was positively correlated with higher levels of moral reasoning, a positive atmosphere, and a coach who modeled empathic relations and prosocial responsibilities. The literature review provided a comprehensive look at not only the specific variables the authors would be researching, but also other foundational research looking at the relationship between sports and behavior, which provided a good understanding for why the authors chose to focus on their chosen variables. The study looked at the experiences of 439 male athletes, between the ages of 14-17, who were involved in one of four sports: soccer, basketball, athletics or taekwondo. While

ARTICLE REVIEW: SPORTS CONTEXT random selection was used to choose teams from urbanized areas, the study was based on adolescents already involved in sports, whom had therefore self-selected not only to be involved in sports, but which sport(s) to participate in. The authors do attempt to control for a variety of individual characteristics, but there is no discussion regarding whether or not athletes that chose team sports over individual sports are qualitatively different, nor is consideration given as to whether or not the athletes are involved in more than one sports context. A look at the demographics of the chosen sample showed that the chosen participants were, on average, from a lower socioeconomic background (SES), with a lower level of formal education than the general population, which led to a concerning generalization when the authors stated that the sampling of urban adolescent males from lower socioeconomic backgrounds with lower educational levels resulted in an overrepresentation of boys with externalizing behavior problems (Rutten et al., 2011, p. 302). This statement is related to the finding that 20% of the sample had externalizing behavior problems compared to 10% of the general population. However, relating this finding to the athletes SES and educational levels is unfounded, and other factors such as the difference between males involved in sports and those not involved in sports should have been considered. Further consideration could also have been given to further factors that might influence antisocial and prosocial behaviors, such as individual temperament, religious beliefs, parenting style and family history of antisocial or prosocial behavior. This study provides a comprehensive look at the measures that were used to assess the different independent (moral atmosphere, moral reasoning, fair play attitude, relational support from the coach, attachment-related support from the coach), dependent (antisocial and prosocial behavior in a sports context) and control variables (externalizing behavior in general, prosocial behavior in general, social desirability). Since the authors were interested in looking at both

ARTICLE REVIEW: SPORTS CONTEXT individual and team characteristics, they also defined which demographic variables the study would control for (SES, age, cultural background, level of education, extent of sports participation, type of sport). This allowed the study to attempt to separate out how much of the variance could be attributed to individual differences, and how much was related to team characteristics. Each of the instruments used was described in terms of the source of the tool, whether any adaptations were made to fit the sports context, internal consistency, factor validity, discriminant validity, the type of scale used, and sample questions. The authors provided good evidence to support the use of each instrument, but since some instruments were modified to fit the context of the study, further studies would need to be conducted to determine if the results could be replicated. Further studies could also incorporate measures of team dynamics, and coach responses, as the lack thereof was a limitation of this study. There are a couple of concerns regarding replicating this study in general. First, since the authors did modify a number of the instruments they used, those specific modifications would need to be made available to other researchers at a level of detail beyond what was presented in the study. A second concern is that there is little discussion of the methodology used to gather the research information. No information is provided as to the time frame of data collection, whether questionnaires were filled out in a group or individual setting, how questionnaires were distributed and/or collected, and how actively involved coaches were in soliciting compliance. Replication of this study would be difficult without knowledge of the study procedures, as it would be challenging to control for potential confounds that might arise due to method of delivery, or changes across time or setting. This was a cross-sectional study, based on a survey research design, which the authors note is a limitation. Using a cross-sectional study allowed the authors to consider athletes in different

ARTICLE REVIEW: SPORTS CONTEXT contexts. However, by limiting the study to measure the variables at only one moment in time, the authors were unable to determine changes that might occur over time. Further research that used a longitudinal design would allow researchers to consider how antisocial or prosocial behavior might differ over time, and if an individual changed sports contexts. The survey research design allowed for the authors to gather a significant amount of information from a large number of individuals in a cost effective manner. Overall response rate was high, with all randomly selected teams choosing to participate, and 90% of the athletes participating. The authors did not discuss any reasons why athletes may have chosen not to participate, nor if participation varied from sport to sport, or from team to team. Without this information it is difficult to determine if those who did not participate are qualitatively different from those who did, however the overall high response rate mitigates this concern. While an experimental study might allow for an understanding of causation between the significant variables and antisocial and prosocial behavior, such an experiment would involve randomly selecting from all adolescents (not just athletes) and random assignment of an athlete to a sport, which could introduce other potential confounds into the study and may raise ethical and logistical concerns. With the current study, students participated with informed consent, the surveys were easy to administer and content was not controversial. The authors did not address how potentially disturbing patterns of responses might be addressed (for example, if all surveys regarding a specific coach yielded concerns about the nature of the athlete-coach relationship). While it may be that no such concerns arose in tabulating the results, ethically the researchers needed to be aware of the potential for such concerns, especially considering the age of the participants. Study results showed support for the research hypothesis in three of the four areas. As expected, a better moral atmosphere, higher levels of moral reasoning and a positive relationship

ARTICLE REVIEW: SPORTS CONTEXT with the coach were all related to either more prosocial or less antisocial behaviors. Specifically, the relationship with the coach was found to be important at both the team and individual level, lending support to the notion that who the coach is plays an important role. Further studies could be done to look at the relationship between coach and athlete temperament, and the effect of coaching style. Moral atmosphere and higher levels of moral reasoning were both positively correlated to prosocial behavior in the sports context, and trends between antisocial behaviors were noted, but results were not significant except between antisocial behavior and moral reasoning in athletes in athletics. Unexpectedly, no association was found between fair play attitude and antisocial or prosocial behavior. Rutten et al. (2011) suggest this may be due to the reality that a certain base line of fair play attitude is necessary to maintain involvement in organized sports, and therefore there may not be enough variation to demonstrate a relationship between fair play attitude and type of behavior. In addition to the relationships found between control variables, the authors found that most of the variance in antisocial behavior and prosocial behavior was related to individual characteristics (80% and 87% respectively), with the remaining portions attributable to team characteristics. The team characteristics portion was significant enough to conclude that team context, and coach specific characteristics, play a role in determining antisocial and prosocial behavior. Overall, this study provides an excellent look into the links between sports involvement and antisocial and prosocial sports behavior. Of particular interest is importance of the team characteristics and coach relationship, as linking outcomes to the sporting context may change recommendations given to parents and teachers for student participation in sports. Rather than assuming that any sports involvement would be beneficial for an adolescent, this research points to the need to consider the team context, as well as coach characteristics. This research is also

ARTICLE REVIEW: SPORTS CONTEXT significant, as it provides insight into areas amenable to intervention, such as the coaching relationship or the level of moral reasoning, and provides parents and adolescents with information as to what factors may be important to consider when choosing a sporting environment. Overall, this study confirms the importance of considering context, while also taking into account individual differences.

ARTICLE REVIEW: SPORTS CONTEXT References Rutten, E.A., Schuengel, C., Dirks, E., Stams, G.J., Biesta, G.J., & Hoeksma, J.B. (2011). Antisocial and prosocial behavior in an adolescent sports context. Social Development, 20(2), 294-315. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2010.00598.x