PREDICTORS OF PROSOCIAL AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN ADOLESCENCE : A CRICTICAL REVIEW
ABSTRACT
Sport has existed in society in various forms as a significant promoter of moral character (Spivey, 2004). Despite a firm belief on the character building properties of sports, it is only in the recent years that there have been empirical investigations on the moral issues in sports. The main purpose of this critical review was to identify the predictors of prosocial and antisocial behaviours in adolescents. The review will mainly explore the social interactions and sport type as factors that influence prosocial and antisocial behaviours in adolescent athletes. Findings from this critical review will discuss how coach-athlete and inter-team relationships and different sport type influences an athlete’s development of moral behaviours.
INTRODUCTION
Many researchers have noted that early adolescence is a period of time when multiple transitions occur (Simmons, Burgeson, & Reef, 1988; Wigfield Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996). No other developmental period is characterised by so many changes at so many different levels as in adolescence. With so many rapid and multiple changes comes a heightened possibility for both positive and negative outcomes.
Sports represents one of the most important organised leisure activities for school-aged children and adolescents and provides specific experiences and new opportunities. These opportunities allow for specific skill and knowledge acquisition required to perform their sport and be exposed to the moral values that are the foundation of sports-related rules and norms (Simon, 2000).
The social nature of sport provides ample opportunities to exhibit both the prosocial and anti-social behaviours (Kavussanu, 2008). Prosocial behaviour is widely accepted as the behaviours intended to help or benefit another individual (e.g. helping an opponent off the floor, kicking the ball out of play if an opponent is injured, being respectable towards referee and opponents) (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). These behaviours are intended to have positive consequences for others (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989) however, it has received limited attention in sport research (Kleiber & Roberts, 1981). There has been more inclination to investigate the negative or antisocial behaviours such as aggression, abusing opponents, faking injury. Antisocial behaviour has been defined as voluntary behaviour intended to harm or disadvantage other individual (Kavussanu et.al, 2006). Kavussanu and Boardly (2009) emphasized that both prosocial and antisocial behaviours should be examined in order to understand social behaviour in sport since the young athletes can show high rates of both prosocial and antisocial behaviours (Shields, Bredemeier, LaVoi & Power, 2005). Though there are many factors that may influence the prosocial and antisocial behaviours, the purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the research pertaining to social interactions (Coach-athlete and team/peer groups) and sport type as predictors of prosocial and antisocial behaviours in adolescents in sport context. Major theoretical approaches to moral behaviour seen in the literature have been discussed in this review namely, Social Learning Theory (SLT),
Goal achievement theory and Social Identity Theory (SIT).
Social interactions
Coach-athlete
In previous studies, supportive coach– athlete relationships have shown to be associated with more prosocial behaviour and less antisocial behaviours in adolescent athletes (Rutten et al., 2007, 2008). Further, Nucci and Kim (2005) identified that sports coach are considered as an important person within the sports context, who are in a position to influence antisocial behaviour in athletes. The coach acts as a natural mentor and is considered an important role model(Beam, Chen, & Greenberger, 2002).
Rutten et al. (2008), in his study investigated the influence of social moral atmosphere, social moral reasoning, fair play attitude and relational support on the prosocial and antisocial behaviours of soccer players from social learning theory perspective. Social learning theory emphasizes that human behaviours are learnt through modelling, that is, from observing the emotional reactions, behaviours and attitudes of other people (Bandura, 1977). According to this theory, supportive coaches are expected to act as a positive role model for their interaction with peers, and are more likely to teach their athletes social skills that may generalize to other relationships. Many studies have also employed the theoretical framework of Goal achievement theory to understand moral behaviours in sports ( Kavussanu, 2006; Boardley & Kavussanu, 2009). According to this theory, athletes in achievement contexts are motivated to demonstrate competence (Ames, 1992; Nicholls, 1989). Goal orientations and perceived performance climate are the two major constructs and individuals enter an achievement setting with a tendency to either be task (skill improvement) or ego-oriented (winning at any cost). The adopted goal of action is influenced by the two types of motivational climate namely mastery climate where the emphasis is on participation and learning and task climate where the focus is on outperforming others (Ames, 1984; Ames & Archer, 1988). The motivational climate is created by significant others such as teachers, parents and coaches (Ames, 1992). Another qualitative study among young competitive swimmers and soccer players (Biesta et al., 2001) investigated the influence of the coach on the athletes fair play attitude.
In these studies, participants were asked to indicate the quality of their relationship with their coach, the support provided by him, whether they felt their coach was reliable and psychologically available (Rutten et al., 2010, 2007). They also employed hypothetical scenarios describing the behaviours likely to occur during their game such as faking an injury, injuring an opposing player and pushing another player when the referees are not looking, after their game such as an argument in the changing room, and asked players to report how often they engaged in these behaviours (Rutten et al., 2007, 2008, 2010, Kavussanu). They indicated the extent to which they and their coaches had respect for the opponent and the formal and informal rules of the game (Rutten et al., 2008, Biesta et al., 2001). Data about the moral environment and moral reasoning in context of sport were also collected (Rutten et al., 2010). In addition, they were also asked to indicate experiences of when they felt successful in their sport, the motivational climate of the team and their participation in the team (Kavussanu, 2006).
This work revealed some interesting findings. Supportive coach–athlete relationships proved to be associated with less antisocial and more prosocial behaviour in the sports context. Coaches may have a positive impact by being psychologically available and trustworthy (Rutten et al., 2010). Similar trend was found in the study by Rutten et al. (2007). Athletes with task orientation and in mastery motivational climate positively predicted prosocial behaviour while athletes who were ego goal-oriented and in performance motivational climate positively predicted antisocial behaviour (Kavussanu, 2006). Additionally, hostile, rejecting, and unresponsive coaches may even harm adolescent athletes’ behavioural adjustment, especially in a performance-oriented motivational climate. The coaches’ attitudes towards fair play was found to influence their athletes’ choices of engagement in antisocial and prosocial behaviour (Biesta et al., 2001).
Teams/ Peer groups
Sport teams represent a rich context to investigate the role of peer groups on the social development of adolescents (Holt, Black, Tamminen, Fox, & Mandigo, 2008). Membership in sport teams fulfils a fundamental human need for belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In a study by Bruner, Boardley and Côté (2014), examined social identity as predictor of prosocial and antisocial behaviour in youth sport by integrating Social identity theory. According to Social identity theory people define and evaluate themselves in terms of the groups to which they belong (Hogg & Abrams, 2001). It has been defined as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his/her knowledge of his/her membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1981). Social identity is conceptualized as having three main dimensions namely, cognitive centrality (importance of being a group member); ingroup affect (positive feelings associated with group membership); and ingroup ties (perceptions of bonding, belongingness and similarity with other group members) (Cameron, 2004).
In the studies, the participants were encouraged to reflect on how they felt about their team, team mates and the sports club environment in general (Bruner et al., 2014; Rutten et al., 2008). They also used hypothetical scenarios to identify if the participants had engaged in that kind of prosocial or antisocial behaviour towards teammates or opponents (Bruner et al., 2014). In addition, they also indicated the normative expectations, manners, communication, and possibilities for participation in the team (Rutten et al.,2008).
The findings of these studies confirmed the important role teammates and the team atmosphere in shaping behaviours of athletes. Athletes who reported deeper feelings and attachment with being in their team reportedly engaged more frequently in prosocial behaviours toward their teammates such as offering constructive feedback or encouraging (Bruner et al., 2014). These findings were in line with the Social identity theory. In addition, the perceptions of how well the team functions and works collectively toward its goals (i.e., task cohesion) and sociomoral reasoning was found to be a significant factor that could explain the influence of team-membership on prosocial behaviour toward teammates and antisocial behaviour toward teammates and opponents (Bruner et al., 2014; Rutten et al., 2007).
However a surprising finding in contrary to previous studies was that young athletes with stronger connections to team members (i.e., ingroup ties) did not significantly report engagement in more frequent antisocial behaviour toward opponents. This could have been because only prevailing norms of antisocial behaviour within the team can influence a highly identifying team member to act antisocially towards the opposition (i.e., behavioural standards of group members) (Bruner et al., 2014). In addition, ingroup ties and ingroup affect did not predict prosocial behaviour toward opponents. Infrequent opportunity for such acts could have accounted for this finding.
The major strengths of these studies are that they have included both prosocial and antisocial behaviours and a wider range of behaviours likely to occur in their sport thus, giving more complete understanding of socio-moral conduct in sport context. The bias to appear socially and morally desirable was also considered and social desirability bias test was conducted in most of the studies (Rutten et al., 2007; Kavussanu, 2006). However, some studies (Hardy & Carlo, 2005), ignored this factor and it is important to carefully consider the findings.
Though these studies have shown that positive influence of coach-athlete and team on moral behaviours of athletes, it is important to consider that most of the studies conducted were self-reported. There are high possibilities that these scores could have been different from the scores reported by the researcher through observation. These studies focused mostly on a single sport (i.e. football, rugby) which effects its generalisability to other sport type. There is also a possibility of gender bias as in some studies only male athletes were considered (Rutten et al., 2010; Kavussanu, 2006) thus the findings of these studies cannot be generalised to other female athletes.
Sport type
There have been limited studies that have considered different types of sport and its impact on the development of prosocial or antisocial behaviour in athletes. There are different types of sport namely, individual (Athletics) -team (soccer), contact (taekwondo)- noncontact (swimming). Rutten et al. (2007), in his study with competitive swimmers and soccer players examined whether different sports type differ in its impact on prosocial and antisocial behaviours of athletes. The study found that there were no effect of sport type on the prosocial and anti-social behaviours of the athlete.
On the contrary, Rutten et al. (2010) in his study with athletes from two individual sports (athletics-non contact and taekwondo-contact) and two team sports (soccer-contact and basketball) found that soccer players reported the higher levels of antisocial behaviour followed by basketball players while athletes performing individual sports (athletics and taekwondo), displayed the lowest levels of antisocial behaviour. This could be possibly because of the legitimacy of aggressive behaviour that is greater in contact sport when compared to non-contact sports.
However, the lower levels of antisocial behaviour in Taekwondo performing athletes is surprising in spite of it being a contact sport and the athletes win only when they beat their opponents physically. Discipline and self-regulation found inherent to most of the martial arts could have contributed to such results. Sporting activities itself or the environmental factors related to distinctions between contact and non-contact sports, team and individual sports can effect the relations between type of sport and degree of antisocial behaviour (Kavussanu et al., 2006). Also the role of opponent can also frustrate the athlete lead to antisocial behaviour. Also, these findings are limited to specific sport mentioned in the study as the behaviours measured were explicitly based on behaviours likely to occur in that sport.
Conclusion
Based on the studies reviewed, Sport was found to promote prosocial behaviour and reduce antisocial behaviour in athletes. Sport not only entails respect for the rules of the game, but also involves respect for one’s opponents, mutual co-operation, sportsmanship, and fair play. (Rutten at al.,2010; Arnold, 2001). However, at the same time it is important to consider the impact sport may have on antisocial behaviours. Youth sport may promote antisocial behaviour since it based on competition, self-interest and intention to win (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). The perceived legitimacy of aggressive behaviour in contact sport (Conroy,2001), the attributes of macho’ attitudes, norms, and ideals in power sport athletes (Endresen and Olweus, 2005) and lower level of concern for opponents in team athletes (Vallerand et al.,1997) can in general effect the positive outcomes of behaviours in athletes. One of the limitations of these studies has been that they haven’t examined the motives or reasons underlying the behaviours. Understanding the motives behind the prosocial or antisocial behaviour of athletes can help to gain insights on to the real nature of behaviour (altruistic reasons or selfish reasons).
Future Recommendations
Based on the studies reviewed it is recommended that more longitudinal, experimental and intervention studies can be done. This can help to understand if an athletes’ behaviour remains constant over time or if athletes’ behaviours can be actually changed. More observational research method can be employed to avoid social desirability bias that occurs in self-reported method. Male and female athletes from other sports such as cricket, wrestling or tennis can be included in studies to understand how these sport specifically effect their moral behaviour. Such studies can help in establishing interventions that could avoid development of antisocial behaviours in athletes. Majority of studies have studied the antecedents of prosocial and antisocial behaviour, in future the consequences of these behaviours can be looked at (e.g. influence of morally relevant behaviour on performance, interpersonal relationships etc).