Perceived motivational climate in male youth soccer: relations to social–moral functioning, sportspersonship and team norm perceptions

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00038-9Get rights and content

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the relationship between the perceived motivational climate, sportspersonship, social–moral functioning and team norms in a sample of young male Norwegian soccer players.

Hypotheses: It was expected that a performance-oriented motivational climate would be associated with lower levels of social–moral functioning, sportspersonship and the perceptions of team norms that would approve of illegitimate behaviours in soccer. By contrast, a mastery-oriented climate was hypothesised to be beneficial with respect to social–moral functioning, sporstspersonship and morally constructive team norm perceptions.

Method: A cross-sectional study of 279 male soccer players (aged 12–14 years) taking part in the international youth soccer tournament, The Norway Cup, was conducted in which players responded to a questionnaire measuring different dimensions of social–moral functioning, including moral judgements, priority for more mature social–moral motives or reasons faced with moral dilemmas, amoral and sportspersonship behaviours and team norm perceptions.

Results: Canonical correlation analysis coupled with multivariate analysis of variance showed that players who perceived the motivational climate as predominantly mastery oriented reported more mature levels of social–moral reasoning and better sportspersonhip behaviours. These players were also less apt to report amoral behaviour and perceive team norms as strongly disapproving of pro-aggressiveness. In contrast, players perceiving the motivational climate as predominantly performance-oriented were more apt to report amoral behaviours in soccer and were less likely to express sportspersonship behaviour.

Conclusions: The findings illustrate the importance of studying motivational conditions in order to provide an understanding of social–moral functioning, sportspersonship and social–moral team norms in youth soccer.

Introduction

The role of sport in developing social–moral competence among young athletes has stimulated considerable research interest. Research on social–moral functioning in sport has been informed by perspectives such as social learning theory (Bandura, 1991), social-cognitive theory e.g. Ames, 1984, Duda, 1992, Dweck, 1986, Nicholls, 1989, Roberts, 2001, Roberts, Treasure and Kavussanu, 1997, Vallerand and Losier, 1994), and by moral development and constructivist theories e.g. Kohlberg, 1984, Rest, 1984, Haan, 1991). These approaches have been used to examine the psychological underpinnings of a variety of social moral aspects of sport including social–moral reasoning, assaultive and antisocial behaviour in sport (Bredemeier and Shields, 1993, Roberts, 1993, Roberts, Treasure and Kavussanu, 1997, Shields and Bredemeier, 1995, Weiss and Bredemeier, 1990), sportspersonship behaviours (Vallerand, Brière, Blanchard and Provencher, 1997, Vallerand, Deshaies and Cuerrier, 1997) and social approval of illegitimate behaviours through the social–moral team norms that are extant (Kavussanu, Roberts and Ntoumanis, in press, Stuart and Ebbeck, 1995). The present study uses achievement goal theory that suggests that to understand social–moral functioning and group norm perceptions approving of cheating behaviours in achievement contexts such as sport, it is essential to consider the meaning of achievement in the context to the athletes and the goals the individuals are trying to accomplish.

One virtue sport supposedly fosters is sportspersonship. The development of our understanding of the concept has, however, suffered from the lack of a precise definition and an over reliance on broad theoretical approaches. In essence, a sport participant manifests sportspersonship when he or she tries to play well and strive for victory, avoids taking an unfair advantage over the opponent, and reacts graciously following victory and defeat (Lemyre, Roberts and Ommundsen, 2002, Feezel, 1986). In an effort to generate a much-needed conceptual base to promote research development, recent work from Vallerand and colleagues has contributed to a better understanding of the sportspersonship concept. Vallerand and Losier (1994) have adopted a social-psychological view of sportspersonship that separates the latter from aggression and assumes a multidimensional definition that consists of five clear and practical dimensions: Full commitment toward sport participation; respect for social conventions; respect and concern for the rules and officials; true respect and concern for the opponent; and negative approach toward sportspersonship.

Rest (1984) proposed a four-component interactive model of social–moral action that seems well suited when examining sportspersonship and other social–moral aspects in sport. In line with previous studies (e.g. Kavussanu and Roberts, 2001, Kavussanu, Roberts and Ntoumanis, in press), we used this model as a heuristic device in the present study. The first component of Rest’s model deals with interpreting the sport situation by recognising possible courses of social–moral action. The second encompasses forming a moral judgement involving both judgements about the social moral legitimacy of inappropriate sport behaviours, as well as the level of maturity reflected in the moral reasoning behind a course of action when faced with a sport-specific dilemma in which the particular inappropriate behaviours are embedded. Kohlberg (1984) distinguished between three social–moral maturity levels; a pre-conventional level, a conventional level and a post-conventional level. At the pre-conventional level of morality, the athlete adopts an individualistic or egocentric perspective in his or her approach to moral problems. At the next level, the athlete approaches moral conflicts by means of cues reflected through social norms and regulations. Here, justifications for behaviours focus on doing one’s duty, showing respect for rules and regulations. At the third level, the post-conventional, the athlete will make use of justification for a behaviour that reflects a self-chosen ethical principle that is centred on justice for all. The third component within Rest’s model includes deciding what one intends to do as a solution to the dilemma, while the fourth aspect comprises executing and implementing one’s intended behaviour. Behaviours might include incidences of amoral actions as well as sportspersonship behaviours.

For the purposes of the present study we utilised components two, three and four of Rest’s model. When examining component four, we included sportspersonship behaviour in addition to indices of amoral behaviour. In order to capture the perceived judgments by significant others as either approving or disapproving of one’s amoral actions (Bandura, 1991), we also included an examination of the relationship between the motivational climate and how the players perceived the moral atmosphere in terms of social moral team norms. Kohlberg (Power, Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989) used the term moral atmosphere to refer to a group’s shared norms for moral behaviour. Sport teams, like all groups, develop a moral atmosphere comprising of collective norms that help shape the moral actions of each group member. Within soccer a system of sport rules developed to define the game and guard against any unfair advantage to either team exists. In addition to the prescribed rules of the game, however, collective social–moral team norms comprising perceptions for what is considered acceptable and unacceptable exist. An example is the ‘professional foul’ in soccer where players often pull on the shirts of opponents, but referees seldom call the offence.

Achievement goal theory holds that the state of motivational goal involvement the individual adopts in a given achievement context is a function of both motivational dispositions and situational factors (Roberts, 2001, Roberts, Treasure and Kavussanu, 1997). Individuals enter an achievement setting with the disposition tendency to be task and/or ego-oriented (goal orientation), but the motivational dynamics of the context will also have a profound influence on the adopted goal of action (Ames, 1984, Ames and Archer, 1988). If the sport context is characterised by a value placed on interpersonal competition, social comparison, the coach emphasising “winning” and achieving outcomes, and a public recognition of the demonstration of ability, a performance climate as Ames terms it prevails (c.f., Ames, 1984). This reinforces individuals’ likelihood of being ego involved in that context. If, on the other hand, the context is characterised by learning and mastery of skills, on trying hard to do one’s best, and with the coach using private evaluation of demonstrated ability, a mastery climate as Ames terms it, then individuals are more likely to be task involved in that context (Treasure & Roberts, 1995).

Research has shown that, as a function of achievement goals, athletes differ in various aspects of moral behaviour as well as in views regarding what represents social–moral acceptable behaviour in sport. For example, athletes who are primarily concerned with outperforming others (ego-oriented), have been found to display less mature moral reasoning, and tend to indicate greater approval for unsportspersonlike behaviour, and perceive intentionally injurious and aggressive acts in sport as legitimate (Duda, Olson and Templin, 1991, Dunn and Dunn, 1999, Kavussanu and Roberts, 2001). By contrast, among task oriented athletes, who tend to use self-referenced criteria to judge competence and feel successful when they have achieved learning or mastery of the task, greater approval of sportspersonship (Dunn & Dunn, 1999) has been observed.

Shields and Bredemeier (1995) have argued that situational influences such as competition and cooperation may have great influence on both athletes’ moral action as well as on how they perceive the collective standards of moral action as reflected in the social–moral norms of their team. Competitive structures may focus the individual’s attention on the self and in the case of team sports on those of the in-group as well. This may reduce players’ sensitivity to the welfare of opposing players. Extensive involvement in competitive contexts may reduce the person’s ability for empathy; thus reducing the consideration of others’ needs faced with a moral dilemma situation (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Indeed, several studies have shown that participation in competitions is associated with both reduced sportspersonship as well as the frequency of pro-social behaviour, and with increased antisocial behaviour, hostility and aggressiveness (Deutsch, 1985, Gelfand and Hartmann, 1978, Straub and Norenberg, 1981, Vallerand and Losier, 1994).

Recently, however, it has been argued that it may not be the competitive structure in and of itself that induces social–moral dysfunction on the individual and group level (Bredemeier, 1999). Rather, it may be the perceived situational goal structure, or the perceived motivational climate that may shape the athletes’ moral functioning, actions and collective social–moral team norm perceptions by influencing how they perceive competition and the opposing players. Indeed, moral development theorists (e.g. Kohlberg, 1984, Rest, 1984) agree that moral behaviour is intentional motivated behaviour. Thus, to predict social–moral perceptions and actions, we need to consider the motivational characteristics of the situation at hand.

If a performance climate prevails, the coach and the athletes may come to view competition as a process of striving against others. In this type of situation, the players may perceive pressure from the coach to perform well or they will be punished, and pressure to outdo opponents and win in order to receive recognition and attention. This may induce psychological stress among the participants wanting to fulfil coach and team-mates’ expectations (Newton & Duda, 1999). Players may resort to cheating, the violation of rules and behave aggressively as a means of coping with an environment that is perceived as emphasizing normative ability and performance. In a practice situation, which then may include a high degree of intra-team rivalry, a performance climate may lead to a negative relationship toward other members of the team. In competition, by contrast, a performance climate may generate a strong inter-team rivalry. A hostile atmosphere towards opposing players may result, leading to the development of team norms or shared social moral perceptions among team members that reflect a derogatory, depersonalised picture of opposing players as mere obstacles to be overcome in the quest for one’s own team’s victory (Bredemeier, 1999). In this situation, players may also regress to more egocentric moral thinking that better fits in with their mission of winning. Here processes of selective awareness may enter into amoral action by influencing players to focus their attention inward to the relative neglect of awareness of others (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995).

Taken together, a performance climate may come to generate less empathetic judgments towards opposing team members (2nd component in Rest’s model), more egocentric reasoning (also 2nd component in Rest’s model), pave the way for amoral intentions (3rd component), amoral actions and lack of sportspersonship (4th component) as well as antisocial team norms that allow for aggressiveness and amoral behavioural acts towards opponents. Indirectly supporting such a line of reasoning, Kavussanu and Roberts (2001) found that an ego oriented achievement goal corresponded to lower levels of moral functioning and greater approval of unsportsmanlike behaviours. Further, a performance-oriented climate has been shown to relate to amoral collective team norms (Kavussanu et al., in press).

By contrast, when a mastery climate prevails, the preoccupation with progress and improvement makes players more likely to interpret competition as striving with others. As Bredemeier (1999) argues, members of opposing teams should then be seen as co-creators of an experience that helps both parties to test limits and to excel. Players’ moral judgements and moral motives, (2nd component of Rest’s model), is then more likely to be characterised by sensitivity to the needs of others. Players would be expected to perceive as illegitimate all acts of amoral and unsportspersonlike behaviour, as well as making a higher priority moral motives or reasons that take into account the needs of all parties (more advanced moral motives). The focus on progress and improvement should detract from trying to win at all cost, including demonstrating aggressiveness and cheating. Perceiving the motivational climate as one where understanding, progress, improvement and the intrinsic value of learning are of primary importance and the primary reasons for soccer involvement, may reduce psychological stress for players in terms of pressure to win and outperform others. As their need to cope with competitive pressure should be minimized, players would be expected to be less tempted to resort to cheating, violate rules and behave aggressively. A mastery climate, therefore, should be expected to reduce the intention of, and involvement in, amoral behaviour and instead, energize sportspersonship behaviours built upon sensitivity and respect for opposing teams (3rd and 4th components).

Indirect support for such a supposition is given by Stephens, Bredemeier and Shields (1997) when they reported that young soccer players’ perceptions of the importance their coach places on task-oriented goals was significantly, and negatively, correlated with the temptation of players to hurt and the likelihood to lie.

A mastery climate may also elicit the development of pro-social team norms that install empathetic concern for the opponents and foster perceptions that it is inappropriate to aggress against opponents (Guiverneau & Duda, 1998). Thus, the sensitivity towards opposing players generated by a mastery climate would be expected to create shared perceptions of social moral norms among the players that disapprove of amoral actions toward opposing players.

Based on the current theoretical reasoning and previous empirical research, we made the following hypotheses: When a performance climate prevails players may come to:

  • 1.

    Regard cheating and aggression as legal and legitimate as a means to attain their main goal of winning and outperforming others;

  • 2.

    Think in more egocentric terms when justifying cheating and aggressive behaviour and thus use less mature moral reasoning criteria when making a priority between different types of criteria to resolve a moral dilemma;

  • 3.

    Reinforce intentions of players’ to cheat and behave aggressively, and to behave amorally and show lack of sportspersonship;

  • 4.

    Perceive team norms as approving of their own amoral actions.

In contrast, we hypothesised that the relationships for a mastery climate would be in the opposite direction.

Section snippets

Participants and procedures

Participants were 279 experienced male soccer players (aged 12–14 years) from a variety of Norwegian Soccer Districts taking part in an international youth soccer tournament—The Norway Cup. Parental consent was obtained during registration to the tournament. The participants responded to questionnaires pertaining to perceptions of the motivational climate of their team, sportspersonship, social–moral reasoning and behaviour as well as their perceptions of social–moral team norms. All

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics were computed for each of the perceived motivational climate variables and the social–moral variables. The means and standard deviations for both sets of variables are presented in Table 1. The descriptive statistics show that on average, the players perceived the climate as highly mastery oriented and relatively low in terms of signalling performance-oriented cues. Generally, they reported scores in favour of positive social–moral functioning and they perceived the

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of perceived motivational climate on young soccer players’ social–moral cognition, sportpersonship, and self-reported amoral behaviours. The influence of the perceived motivational climate was evident in several ways.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief to the final manuscript. Any errors or faults, however, remain our own.

References (57)

  • C. Ames

    Competitive, co-operative, and individualistic goal structures: A motivational analysis

  • C. Ames et al.

    Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1988)
  • A. Bandura

    Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action

  • B.J. Bredemeier

    Moral reasoning and the perceived legitimacy of intentionally injurious sport acts

    Journal of Sport Psychology

    (1985)
  • B.J. Bredemeier

    Character in action: The influences of moral atmosphere on athlethes’ sport behavior

  • B.J. Bredemeier et al.

    Divergence in moral reasoning about sport and life

    Sociology of Sport Journal

    (1984)
  • B.J. Bredemeier et al.

    Athletic aggression: An issue of contextual morality

    Sociology of Sport Journal

    (1986)
  • B.J. Bredemeier et al.

    Moral psychology in the context of sport

  • L. Cronbach

    Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests

    Psychometrica

    (1951)
  • M. Deutsch

    Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective

    (1985)
  • J.L. Duda

    Motivation in sport settings: A goal perspective approach

  • J. Duda et al.

    Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1992)
  • J.L. Duda et al.

    The relationship of task and ego orientation to sportsmanship attitudes and the perceived legitimacy of injurious acts

    Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

    (1991)
  • J.G.H. Dunn et al.

    Goal orientations, perception of aggression, and sportsmanship in elite male youth ice hockey players

    The Sport Psychologist

    (1999)
  • C.S. Dweck

    Motivational processes affecting learning

    American Psychologist

    (1986)
  • N. Eisenberg

    The caring child

    (1992)
  • R.M. Feezel

    Sportsmanship

    Journal of the Philosophy of Sport

    (1986)
  • K. Fox et al.

    Children’s task and ego goal profiles in sport

    British Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1994)
  • D.M. Gelfand et al.

    Some detrimental effects of competitive sport on children

  • S.L. Gibbons et al.

    Fair-play for kids: Effects on the moral functioning of children in physical education

    Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

    (1991)
  • M. Guiverneau et al.

    Integrating concepts of motivation and morality: The contribution of norms regarding aggressive and rule-violating behaviors, goal orientations, and the perceived motivational climate to the prediction of athletic aggression

    Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology

    (1998)
  • N. Haan

    Moral development and action from a social-constructivist perspective

  • M. Kavussanu et al.

    Motivation in physical activity contexts: The relationship of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy

    Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology

    (1996)
  • M. Kavussanu et al.

    Moral functioning in sport: An achievement goal perspective

    Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

    (2001)
  • Kavussanu, M., Roberts, G. C., & Ntoumanis, N. (in press). Contextual influences on moral functioning of college...
  • L. Kohlberg

    Essays on moral functioning:

    (1984)
  • P.-N. Lemyre et al.

    Achievement goal orientations, perceived ability and sportspersonship in youth soccer

    Journal of Applied Sport Psychology

    (2002)
  • M. Newton et al.

    The interaction of motivational climate, dispositional goal orientations, and perceived ability in predicting indices of motivation

    International Journal of Sport Psychology

    (1999)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text