Coaching efficacy, moral disengagement, and responses to hostile aggression among high school coaches

Abstract

This mixed-methods study examined the association between high school sport coaches’ moral disengagement and their perceived coaching efficacy, and began to explore coaches’ justifications of and consequences for the hostile aggression exhibited by their athletes. High school coaches in the United States ( N = 449) completed online surveys that included the Moral Disengagement in Sport Scale, Coaching Efficacy Scale II-High School Teams, and questions regarding their beliefs about and responses to athlete’s hostile aggressive behaviors. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to determine the association between coaches’ moral disengagement and their perceived coaching efficacy, and multiple analysis of variance explored differences in moral disengagement and coaching efficacy based on coaches’ justifications for athletes’ hostile aggression. Qualitative analyses involved coding coaches’ responses to questions of when they believed hostile aggression displayed by athletes was justified, and their typical responses to athletes’ hostile aggression. Results suggested that coaches’ moral disengagement was a negative predictor of their total perceived coaching efficacy, as well as specific aspects of their perceived coaching efficacy. Further, a majority of coaches indicated that hostile aggression was never acceptable or justified. Based on these results, differences in moral disengagement were found between coaches who did and did not justify athlete hostile aggression. The most common consequences for hostile aggression involved reduced playing time and additional physical conditioning. The current findings highlight the significance of coaches’ moral disengagement as it relates to their coaching, supporting a need for greater coaching education around coaching philosophies and approaches to disciplining athletes.

Longitudinal effect of self‐control on reactive–proactive aggression: Mediating roles of hostile rumination and moral disengagement

“…The present results indicate that moral disengagement could predict both reactive and proactive aggression after 6 months. This result is in line with the prior finding that there was a positive relationship between moral disengagement and aggression (including reactive and proactive aggression) (Gini et al, 2015; Johnson et al, 2018; Teng et al, 2019), and extend these previous findings by adding longitudinal evidence. Moral disengagement could drive people to achieve the harmful ideas (Bandura, 1999; Bushman & Anderson, 2001), which are involved in both reactive and proactive aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).…”

“…Additionally, a large body of research has supported the view that moral disengagement positively predicted various kinds of aggression such as physical and relational aggression (Kokkinos et al, 2016;Teng et al, 2019;C. Wang et al, 2017), which are involved in both reactive and proactive aggression (Gini et al, 2014(Gini et al, , 2015Johnson et al, 2018). Thus, it is possible that moral disengagement could motivate both reactive and proactive aggression.…”

“…For example, moral disengagement can lead people to view retaliation by hurting others as righteous conduct (Caprara et al, 2009) and change the immoral nature of aggression in cognition, which, in turn, increases aggression (Bandura, 1990), including reactive and proactive aggression. Additionally, a large body of research has supported the view that moral disengagement positively predicted various kinds of aggression such as physical and relational aggression (Kokkinos et al, 2016; Teng et al, 2019; C. Wang et al, 2017), which are involved in both reactive and proactive aggression (Gini et al, 2014, 2015; Johnson et al, 2018). Thus, it is possible that moral disengagement could motivate both reactive and proactive aggression.…”

Youth Athletes’ Moral Decision Making Levels and Sportspersonship Behavior Levels of Coaches

“…This significant correlation between coach behavior and moral decision-making levels of athletes has led the researchers to investigate the subject deeply. When the studies in other countries are evaluated, it is seen that the number of studies on this matter has increased (Delrue et al, 2017;Johnson et al, 2018); however, it is also seen that the studies carried out in Turkish culture are still in a limited level (Gürpınar, 2014;Gençer et al, 2019;Gümüş, 2019;Y. Yıldız, K. Yıldız, & Tutucu, 2019).…”

Moral Disengagement and Aggression in Fight Sport Athletes

“…It can be seen in the study by Garay, Carrasco and Amor (2016) that the relationship between anger, hostility and aggression is mediated by moral disengagement. According to Johnson, Vargas, Watson, Pedersen (2018), most coaches indicated that hostile aggression was never unacceptable or justified, and the most common results of hostile aggression in athletes were detected as reduced playing time and additional physical conditioning. Albouza, d'Arripe-Longueville, Corrion (2017) argued in their study that moral values have relationship to aggression.…”