1994
DOI: 10.1123/jsep.16.1.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Children's Moral Reasoning and Their Assertive, Aggressive, and Submissive Tendencies in Sport and Daily Life

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between children's moral reasoning and their assertive, aggressive, and submissive action tendencies in sport and daily life contexts. The 106 fourth- through seventh-grade children were asked to reason about hypothetical sport and daily life moral dilemmas and to respond to two behaviorally validated, self-report instruments designed to assess action tendencies in sport and daily life conflict situations. Multiple regression analyses indicated that… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

7
77
2
9

Year Published

2001
2001
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(95 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
7
77
2
9
Order By: Relevance
“…These improvements coincide with the attached results of other studies about PSRM [9,18] or other similar Education in Values Models [21][22][23][24][25][26].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…These improvements coincide with the attached results of other studies about PSRM [9,18] or other similar Education in Values Models [21][22][23][24][25][26].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Specifically, in past work, males were higher than females in aggressive tendencies (Bredemeier, 1994) and unsportsmanlike attitudes (Duda et al, 1991) and more likely to judge injurious acts as legitimate (Duda et al, 1991;Kavussanu & Roberts, 2001). Males also scored lower than females in indices of moral functioning (Kavussanu & Roberts, 2001), maturity of moral reasoning , and prosocial behavior (Kleiber & Roberts, 1981).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They seem to confirm the superiority of the final value "self-sacrifice" (Rokeach, 1973;Durán 2013), and the prosocial and universalist power (Schwartz, & Bilsky, 1987). Furthermore, in contrast to the legitimate criticism of Fraleigh (1984) and Bredemeier (1994) on how difficult it is to achieve the highest of ethical behaviours in competitive sports, our work demonstrates real examples of the behaviours of young athletes who have achieved this. The next to score is level 4 which reflects a concern for others (rivals and opponents), however with behaviours that do not involve the sacrifice of one's own interests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 72%