Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Questionnaire of Sports Ethics – a Tool for Assessing Moral Behaviour in Sport

Questionnaire of Sports Ethics – a Tool for Assessing Moral Behaviour in Sport persons. Authors of the article constructed a tool for assessing methods of moral behaviour in sport on the basis of the concept of ethical codes. The aim of this work is to present a tool for assessing a profile of moral behaviour of people involved in sport (both competitors, coaches and sports activists). Material/Methods: The Questionnaire of Sports Ethics consists of 52 statements which are classified into 5 scales that correspond to specific ethical codes. Respondents assess to what extent a form of behaviour described in the questionnaire is proper (praiseworthy, mark 3) or improper (needed to be condemned, mark -3). Results: The new tool is both reliable and accurate. Conclusions: A theory of 5 ethical codes organizes a multitude of worldview thoughts explaining the way of activities assessment in the sphere of sport depending on the culture. Word count: 2 035 Tables: 5 Figures: 0 References: 11 Background: The concept of ethical codes describes and explains morality of modern sports- Received: December 2010 Accepted: October 2012 Published: December 2012 Corresponding author: Artur Ziólkowski, PhD. Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport in Gdansk, Poland 80-336 Gdask, K. Górskiego 1 E-mail: aziolkowski@awf.gda.pl Phine: +4858 554-72-95 Introduction When moralising (assessing) any human behaviour, a cultural context is crucial [1, 2]. The reports of culture anthropologists show that what is subject to moral assessment in one culture does not have to be subject to it in another one [3]. Formulation of moral assessments is therefore influenced by certain beliefs and appraisals connected with human behaviour dominating in a given culture and being reflected in patterns of features called ethical codes or ethics [4]. In order to diagnose the way of moral behaviour in sport, the authors of this article formulated the Questionnaire of Sports Ethics (QSE). An inspiration for creating the tool was the idea of five ethical codes suggested by Wieslaw Baryla and Bogdan Wojciszke [5, 6]. The authors list the following types of codes: ethics of autonomy, productivity, dignity, collectivism and divinity. They believe that each of the listed codes is independent of the remaining ones and oscillates around a kind of central tendency determined by its typical sins and virtues. There is more than one code that is fundamental as far as the basis for moral assessment of every human being is concerned. Every code (ethics) has got its call signals (releases) in the environment which either activates it or not. Therefore, moralising is conditioned by a specific situational context, connected with the presence or with the lack of call signals, responsible for releasing a specific ethical code. A description of ethical codes including typical central values, virtues and major sins can be found in Table 1. Tab. 1. Characteristics of five ethical codes [7] ETHICS OF AUTONOMY Central value good of another individual ETHICS OF COLLECTIVISM good of a social group ETHICS OF COMMON GOOD good of a community as a whole Cardinal virtues respect for norms of which the respect for good, law and interests society as a whole is a respect for good, law and freedom of a social group; sustaining a of individuals; helping other beneficiary, even when a specific group integrity, loyalty towards the individual or social groups gain people, loyalty towards individuals group, conformism nothing or they lose violating norms of which the society as a whole is a beneficiary, even when a subject, a specific individual or social groups gain nothing when obeying them ETHICS OF PRODUCTIVITY production of goodness usefulness, effectiveness, diligence, economy, postponing bonuses, success Major sins doing harm to another individual, violating rights of individuals (physical, psychological, moral), disloyalty to individuals acting to the detriment of a group, disloyalty to the group, nonconformism, breaking the group's integrity, disavowing the group ETHICS OF DIGNITY Central value Cardinal virtues living with dignity spirituality (terrestrial or extra-terrestrial), honour, contempt for material values, sustaining integrity (of class, of caste) self-tarnishing, loss of "honourable capability", improper form, pursuit of material values, changing time-honoured customs Major sins lack of productivity, laziness, waste (of values, time), rapid consumption, valuing emotions When constructing the tool, we made an assumption that if one can discuss popular moral behaviour (in out-of-sports situations), one can also discuss moral behaviour with regard to sport basis, adopting cultural and social factors for differentiation of moral assessments, resulting from a participation in sports culture. It has been assumed that moral assessments with regard to sport are based on the same central values which determine major "virtues" and "sins" within five ethical codes. Aim The aim of this work is to present a tool for assessing a profile of moral behaviour of people involved in sport (competitors, coaches and sports activists). In the following part, the Questionnaire of Sports Ethics has been presented. A way of its formulation has been described and selected evaluation analyses of the new diagnostic tool have been presented. Method The construction of the questionnaire has been divided into three phases. In the first phase 50 people (students from different fields of study at the University of Physical Education and Sport) were asked to express their opinion concerning typical moral and immoral behaviour in sport. Each student was supposed to list at least 5 examples of good and bad behaviour connected with sports competition in the prepared form. After collecting the material, the repeated content was eliminated and possibly uniform grammatical form was given to the remaining material. In the second phase of formulating the tool, the list of morally relevant behaviour in sport was assessed by three competent referees. The referees were given a thorough instruction being a development of the specific codes' characteristics. Each referee assessed behaviour paying special attention to one specific ethical code. Only those examples of behaviour were chosen as to which referees' opinions were unanimous as far as specific ethical code was concerned. At this stage of formulating the tool, some items were modified or completely rejected. Then, the referees used a seven-point scale in order to assess whether the behaviour was moral or immoral. Taking into consideration different referees' assessments, an average assessment was assumed which presented information on the level of intensification of each of the five ethical codes within each behaviour. In the third phase of formulating the tool, 10-11 items (behaviour patterns) were chosen which were markers of ethics according to the referees, i.e. behaviour patterns strongly indicating one of the ethical codes to which they were related. 100 students from secondary schools were tested with a usage of the sample version of the test and after calculating an accuracy of each scale, the final version has been assumed. The final version of the questionnaire comprises 52 statements divided into 5 scales corresponding to individual ethical codes. Respondents assess to what extent a form of behaviour described in the questionnaire is proper (praiseworthy) or improper (needed to be condemned). Assessment has been made with a usage of a seven-point scale, from -3 (in the case of very inappropriate behaviour) to +3 (in the case of very appropriate behaviour). On average it took 15 minutes to fill in the form. The instruction and the sheet have been enclosed in the Appendix (Tables A1 and A2). A Way of Calculating QSE's Results For each ethical code in sport one can calculate an average result (summing up points achieved by the respondents for their answers according to the key and dividing them by the number of questions on the scale. A respondent gets from 1 to 7 points for every answer. In the case of some items, the direction of marking on the scale is turned around so as the higher number on a given scale showed a more intense influence of the ethical code. Because of different numerical strength on scales (ethical codes) it is suggested that results be presented with a usage of arithmetic means. A key for calculation of average results for each scale (ethical code) is presented in the table below (Table 2). Tab. 2. A key for calculation of the results in separate sports ethics Name of the scale Ethics of autonomy Ethics of dignity Ethics of collectivism Ethics of common good Ethics of productivity Number of an item in the text 1*,6, 11*, 16, 21*, 26, 31, 36, 41, 46*, 51* 2, 7*, 12, 17, 22, 27, 32*, 37*, 42*, 47, 52* 3*, 8, 13*, 18*, 23, 28, 33, 38, 43*, 48* 4*, 9*, 14, 19, 24, 29, 34*, 39*, 44, 49* 5, 10*, 15*, 20*, 25*, 30, 35, 40*, 45, 50 Number of items 11 11 10 10 10 Comment: when the number is followed by "*" turn the scale around Results Accuracy The accuracy research of the Questionnaire of Sports Ethics was conducted among secondary school students from the last years (sport championship schools and sports secondary schools) and among first year's students of Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport. After verification of the research material, in total 244 respondents were among the examined sample. In the group of respondents there were 36.2% of women and 63.8% of men aged 17-22. Active sports persons constituted 58.9% and the percentage of those who did not train or who practiced sport recreationally was 41.1%. The Questionnaire of Sports Ethics is characterized by high accuracy (Cronbach's Alpha=0.891). External Accuracy The tool's accuracy has also been confirmed by the research. Separate ethical codes characterizing popular reasoning of respondents correlate positively with all ethical codes in sport. The highest correlations were noted between analogous general ethical codes (EC) and ethical codes in sports situations (SEC). Tab. 3. Ethical codes and sports ethics of young people (N=244) Ethics of autonomy in sport Ethics of autonomy 0.36 0.01 244 0.30 0.01 244 0.36 0.01 244 0.32 0.01 244 0.31 0.01 244 Ethics of dignity in sport 0.31 0.01 244 0.33 0.01 244 0.42 0.01 244 0.39 0.01 244 0.31 0.01 244 Ethics of collectivism in sport 0.22 0.01 244 0.38 0.01 244 0.25 0.01 244 0.31 0.01 244 0.31 0.01 244 Ethics of common good in sport 0.23 0.01 244 0.27 0.01 244 0.39 0.01 244 0.24 0.01 244 0.30 0.01 244 Ethics of productivity in sport 0.12 0.066 244 0.25 0.01 244 0.15 0.016 244 0.26 0.01 244 0.27 0.01 244 Ethics of collectivism Ethics of common good Ethics of dignity Ethics of productivity Factor Accuracy (Internal) In order to determine the structure of ethical codes, factor analyses were conducted with a usage of the principal components method with non-orthogonal Promax rotation with Kaiser's normalization (for subscales that can correlate with one another) [7]. In order to identify the number of factors, a criterion of scree graph was used . During the analysis, 4 factors were distinguished which saturated similar sets of items. Positions with considerable factor charges were taken into consideration. Two more factors could not have been identified. Factor I includes the biggest number of items and can be interpreted in the field of two ethics: common good and collectivism. The most representative positions for the factor are: a) counted to the subscale of collectivism in the questionnaire, in other words 8 (0.56), 18 (0.45), 23 (0.55), 33 (0.61), 38 (0.46), 43 (0.57), 48 (0.48); b) counted to the subscale of common good in the questionnaire, in other words 14 (0.50), 19 (0.61), 24 (0.68), 29 (0.38), 34 (0.49), 44 (0.48), 49 (0.63). Factor II can be interpreted as ethics of autonomy. The most representative positions for the factor are: 1 (0.43), 11 (0.64), 16 (0.57), 21 (0.63), 26 (0.46), 46 (0.60), 51 (0.56). Factor III can be interpreted as ethics of productivity. The most representative positions for the factor are: 5 (0.43), 10 (0.63), 15 (0.64), 20 (0.65), 25 (0.67), 30 (0.42), 35 (0.54), 50 (0.52). The last factor from the distinguished ones, factor IV can be interpreted as ethics of dignity (however, factor charges of some items included in them are not significant. The most representative positions for the factor are: 2 (0.56), 12 (0.54), 17 (0.54), 42 (0.48), 47 (0.43). One can therefore assume that the Questionnaire of Sports Ethics measures at least 4 distinguished ethics in the concept of Baryla and Wojciszke [5, 6]. The presented data indicate a certain compliance of the Questionnaire of Sports Ethics' factor structure with the theoretical model being fundamental for its construction. The tool can be recognized as accurate and reliable. Conclusions So far quite a lot of diagnostic tools concerning the moral sphere have been developed [8, 9, 10]. The concept of ethical codes can gain significant value in describing and explaining the character of contemporary sports persons' morality. A theory of 5 ethical codes organizes a multitude of worldview thoughts explaining the way of activities assessment in the sphere of sport depending on the culture. Sport as an occurrence of social globalism and universalism is based on theories that interpret moral good and bad in a different way. So far not much research concerning ethical codes understood in such a way and conditioning a direction for moralizing (using rules for determining assessment criteria for specific behaviour patterns in sport depending on the situation) has been conducted [11]. One should remember about the cultural determinants as far as moralizing sports situations is concerned. With regard to conducting research it is worth searching for criteria for moral assessment both for sport fouls and desirable behaviour patterns with a usage of proper assessment tools depending on types of moral behaviour. Acknowledgement The authors would like to express their gratitude to Professor Andrzej Pawlucki for his inspiration and methodological help. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity de Gruyter

Questionnaire of Sports Ethics – a Tool for Assessing Moral Behaviour in Sport

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/questionnaire-of-sports-ethics-a-tool-for-assessing-moral-behaviour-in-vNChpGPQLg

References (15)

Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by the
ISSN
2080-1297
eISSN
2080-9999
DOI
10.2478/v10131-012-0027-7
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

persons. Authors of the article constructed a tool for assessing methods of moral behaviour in sport on the basis of the concept of ethical codes. The aim of this work is to present a tool for assessing a profile of moral behaviour of people involved in sport (both competitors, coaches and sports activists). Material/Methods: The Questionnaire of Sports Ethics consists of 52 statements which are classified into 5 scales that correspond to specific ethical codes. Respondents assess to what extent a form of behaviour described in the questionnaire is proper (praiseworthy, mark 3) or improper (needed to be condemned, mark -3). Results: The new tool is both reliable and accurate. Conclusions: A theory of 5 ethical codes organizes a multitude of worldview thoughts explaining the way of activities assessment in the sphere of sport depending on the culture. Word count: 2 035 Tables: 5 Figures: 0 References: 11 Background: The concept of ethical codes describes and explains morality of modern sports- Received: December 2010 Accepted: October 2012 Published: December 2012 Corresponding author: Artur Ziólkowski, PhD. Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport in Gdansk, Poland 80-336 Gdask, K. Górskiego 1 E-mail: aziolkowski@awf.gda.pl Phine: +4858 554-72-95 Introduction When moralising (assessing) any human behaviour, a cultural context is crucial [1, 2]. The reports of culture anthropologists show that what is subject to moral assessment in one culture does not have to be subject to it in another one [3]. Formulation of moral assessments is therefore influenced by certain beliefs and appraisals connected with human behaviour dominating in a given culture and being reflected in patterns of features called ethical codes or ethics [4]. In order to diagnose the way of moral behaviour in sport, the authors of this article formulated the Questionnaire of Sports Ethics (QSE). An inspiration for creating the tool was the idea of five ethical codes suggested by Wieslaw Baryla and Bogdan Wojciszke [5, 6]. The authors list the following types of codes: ethics of autonomy, productivity, dignity, collectivism and divinity. They believe that each of the listed codes is independent of the remaining ones and oscillates around a kind of central tendency determined by its typical sins and virtues. There is more than one code that is fundamental as far as the basis for moral assessment of every human being is concerned. Every code (ethics) has got its call signals (releases) in the environment which either activates it or not. Therefore, moralising is conditioned by a specific situational context, connected with the presence or with the lack of call signals, responsible for releasing a specific ethical code. A description of ethical codes including typical central values, virtues and major sins can be found in Table 1. Tab. 1. Characteristics of five ethical codes [7] ETHICS OF AUTONOMY Central value good of another individual ETHICS OF COLLECTIVISM good of a social group ETHICS OF COMMON GOOD good of a community as a whole Cardinal virtues respect for norms of which the respect for good, law and interests society as a whole is a respect for good, law and freedom of a social group; sustaining a of individuals; helping other beneficiary, even when a specific group integrity, loyalty towards the individual or social groups gain people, loyalty towards individuals group, conformism nothing or they lose violating norms of which the society as a whole is a beneficiary, even when a subject, a specific individual or social groups gain nothing when obeying them ETHICS OF PRODUCTIVITY production of goodness usefulness, effectiveness, diligence, economy, postponing bonuses, success Major sins doing harm to another individual, violating rights of individuals (physical, psychological, moral), disloyalty to individuals acting to the detriment of a group, disloyalty to the group, nonconformism, breaking the group's integrity, disavowing the group ETHICS OF DIGNITY Central value Cardinal virtues living with dignity spirituality (terrestrial or extra-terrestrial), honour, contempt for material values, sustaining integrity (of class, of caste) self-tarnishing, loss of "honourable capability", improper form, pursuit of material values, changing time-honoured customs Major sins lack of productivity, laziness, waste (of values, time), rapid consumption, valuing emotions When constructing the tool, we made an assumption that if one can discuss popular moral behaviour (in out-of-sports situations), one can also discuss moral behaviour with regard to sport basis, adopting cultural and social factors for differentiation of moral assessments, resulting from a participation in sports culture. It has been assumed that moral assessments with regard to sport are based on the same central values which determine major "virtues" and "sins" within five ethical codes. Aim The aim of this work is to present a tool for assessing a profile of moral behaviour of people involved in sport (competitors, coaches and sports activists). In the following part, the Questionnaire of Sports Ethics has been presented. A way of its formulation has been described and selected evaluation analyses of the new diagnostic tool have been presented. Method The construction of the questionnaire has been divided into three phases. In the first phase 50 people (students from different fields of study at the University of Physical Education and Sport) were asked to express their opinion concerning typical moral and immoral behaviour in sport. Each student was supposed to list at least 5 examples of good and bad behaviour connected with sports competition in the prepared form. After collecting the material, the repeated content was eliminated and possibly uniform grammatical form was given to the remaining material. In the second phase of formulating the tool, the list of morally relevant behaviour in sport was assessed by three competent referees. The referees were given a thorough instruction being a development of the specific codes' characteristics. Each referee assessed behaviour paying special attention to one specific ethical code. Only those examples of behaviour were chosen as to which referees' opinions were unanimous as far as specific ethical code was concerned. At this stage of formulating the tool, some items were modified or completely rejected. Then, the referees used a seven-point scale in order to assess whether the behaviour was moral or immoral. Taking into consideration different referees' assessments, an average assessment was assumed which presented information on the level of intensification of each of the five ethical codes within each behaviour. In the third phase of formulating the tool, 10-11 items (behaviour patterns) were chosen which were markers of ethics according to the referees, i.e. behaviour patterns strongly indicating one of the ethical codes to which they were related. 100 students from secondary schools were tested with a usage of the sample version of the test and after calculating an accuracy of each scale, the final version has been assumed. The final version of the questionnaire comprises 52 statements divided into 5 scales corresponding to individual ethical codes. Respondents assess to what extent a form of behaviour described in the questionnaire is proper (praiseworthy) or improper (needed to be condemned). Assessment has been made with a usage of a seven-point scale, from -3 (in the case of very inappropriate behaviour) to +3 (in the case of very appropriate behaviour). On average it took 15 minutes to fill in the form. The instruction and the sheet have been enclosed in the Appendix (Tables A1 and A2). A Way of Calculating QSE's Results For each ethical code in sport one can calculate an average result (summing up points achieved by the respondents for their answers according to the key and dividing them by the number of questions on the scale. A respondent gets from 1 to 7 points for every answer. In the case of some items, the direction of marking on the scale is turned around so as the higher number on a given scale showed a more intense influence of the ethical code. Because of different numerical strength on scales (ethical codes) it is suggested that results be presented with a usage of arithmetic means. A key for calculation of average results for each scale (ethical code) is presented in the table below (Table 2). Tab. 2. A key for calculation of the results in separate sports ethics Name of the scale Ethics of autonomy Ethics of dignity Ethics of collectivism Ethics of common good Ethics of productivity Number of an item in the text 1*,6, 11*, 16, 21*, 26, 31, 36, 41, 46*, 51* 2, 7*, 12, 17, 22, 27, 32*, 37*, 42*, 47, 52* 3*, 8, 13*, 18*, 23, 28, 33, 38, 43*, 48* 4*, 9*, 14, 19, 24, 29, 34*, 39*, 44, 49* 5, 10*, 15*, 20*, 25*, 30, 35, 40*, 45, 50 Number of items 11 11 10 10 10 Comment: when the number is followed by "*" turn the scale around Results Accuracy The accuracy research of the Questionnaire of Sports Ethics was conducted among secondary school students from the last years (sport championship schools and sports secondary schools) and among first year's students of Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport. After verification of the research material, in total 244 respondents were among the examined sample. In the group of respondents there were 36.2% of women and 63.8% of men aged 17-22. Active sports persons constituted 58.9% and the percentage of those who did not train or who practiced sport recreationally was 41.1%. The Questionnaire of Sports Ethics is characterized by high accuracy (Cronbach's Alpha=0.891). External Accuracy The tool's accuracy has also been confirmed by the research. Separate ethical codes characterizing popular reasoning of respondents correlate positively with all ethical codes in sport. The highest correlations were noted between analogous general ethical codes (EC) and ethical codes in sports situations (SEC). Tab. 3. Ethical codes and sports ethics of young people (N=244) Ethics of autonomy in sport Ethics of autonomy 0.36 0.01 244 0.30 0.01 244 0.36 0.01 244 0.32 0.01 244 0.31 0.01 244 Ethics of dignity in sport 0.31 0.01 244 0.33 0.01 244 0.42 0.01 244 0.39 0.01 244 0.31 0.01 244 Ethics of collectivism in sport 0.22 0.01 244 0.38 0.01 244 0.25 0.01 244 0.31 0.01 244 0.31 0.01 244 Ethics of common good in sport 0.23 0.01 244 0.27 0.01 244 0.39 0.01 244 0.24 0.01 244 0.30 0.01 244 Ethics of productivity in sport 0.12 0.066 244 0.25 0.01 244 0.15 0.016 244 0.26 0.01 244 0.27 0.01 244 Ethics of collectivism Ethics of common good Ethics of dignity Ethics of productivity Factor Accuracy (Internal) In order to determine the structure of ethical codes, factor analyses were conducted with a usage of the principal components method with non-orthogonal Promax rotation with Kaiser's normalization (for subscales that can correlate with one another) [7]. In order to identify the number of factors, a criterion of scree graph was used . During the analysis, 4 factors were distinguished which saturated similar sets of items. Positions with considerable factor charges were taken into consideration. Two more factors could not have been identified. Factor I includes the biggest number of items and can be interpreted in the field of two ethics: common good and collectivism. The most representative positions for the factor are: a) counted to the subscale of collectivism in the questionnaire, in other words 8 (0.56), 18 (0.45), 23 (0.55), 33 (0.61), 38 (0.46), 43 (0.57), 48 (0.48); b) counted to the subscale of common good in the questionnaire, in other words 14 (0.50), 19 (0.61), 24 (0.68), 29 (0.38), 34 (0.49), 44 (0.48), 49 (0.63). Factor II can be interpreted as ethics of autonomy. The most representative positions for the factor are: 1 (0.43), 11 (0.64), 16 (0.57), 21 (0.63), 26 (0.46), 46 (0.60), 51 (0.56). Factor III can be interpreted as ethics of productivity. The most representative positions for the factor are: 5 (0.43), 10 (0.63), 15 (0.64), 20 (0.65), 25 (0.67), 30 (0.42), 35 (0.54), 50 (0.52). The last factor from the distinguished ones, factor IV can be interpreted as ethics of dignity (however, factor charges of some items included in them are not significant. The most representative positions for the factor are: 2 (0.56), 12 (0.54), 17 (0.54), 42 (0.48), 47 (0.43). One can therefore assume that the Questionnaire of Sports Ethics measures at least 4 distinguished ethics in the concept of Baryla and Wojciszke [5, 6]. The presented data indicate a certain compliance of the Questionnaire of Sports Ethics' factor structure with the theoretical model being fundamental for its construction. The tool can be recognized as accurate and reliable. Conclusions So far quite a lot of diagnostic tools concerning the moral sphere have been developed [8, 9, 10]. The concept of ethical codes can gain significant value in describing and explaining the character of contemporary sports persons' morality. A theory of 5 ethical codes organizes a multitude of worldview thoughts explaining the way of activities assessment in the sphere of sport depending on the culture. Sport as an occurrence of social globalism and universalism is based on theories that interpret moral good and bad in a different way. So far not much research concerning ethical codes understood in such a way and conditioning a direction for moralizing (using rules for determining assessment criteria for specific behaviour patterns in sport depending on the situation) has been conducted [11]. One should remember about the cultural determinants as far as moralizing sports situations is concerned. With regard to conducting research it is worth searching for criteria for moral assessment both for sport fouls and desirable behaviour patterns with a usage of proper assessment tools depending on types of moral behaviour. Acknowledgement The authors would like to express their gratitude to Professor Andrzej Pawlucki for his inspiration and methodological help.

Journal

Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activityde Gruyter

Published: Dec 1, 2012

There are no references for this article.