Cheating and sports: history, diagnosis and treatment

Kamis, Danielle; Newmark, Thomas; Begel, Daniel; Glick, Ira D.

doi:10.1080/09540261.2016.1208162

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some research participants indicated that they had to make negative moral decisions, such as adapting to the situation, trying to win at any cost, and behaving the way everyone behaved. Researchers say that most athletes are determined to win at any cost, often cheating in order to achieve the glory, financial gain, and athletic success (Kamis et al, 2016). Nevertheless, the majority of the subjects stated that they made positive moral decisions: they changed the coach to one who was more concerned about the athlete's health and moral standards, decided to follow the rules and behave morally, adequately evaluated themselves, and did not give in to the pressure of others.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Reasoning in Bodybuilding

Kelaitytė¹,

Karanauskienė²

2020

BJSHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The aim of the research was to disclose the process of moral reasoning in bodybuilding: to reveal the features of bodybuilding sport (athletes’ goals, benefits of the sport and its costs), to find out the circumstances which can affect athletes’ moral decisions, to evaluate bodybuilding athletes’ moral reasoning strategies, and to reveal athletes’ most important moral decisions.Methods. The study employed qualitative research which involved eight bodybuilding athletes. The respondents were selected using the theoretical purposeful convenience sampling strategy. A semi-structured interview method was used to collect information.Results. Athletes’ goals in bodybuilding can be sports related (getting to know the sport, athletic achievements) or personal (moral and psychological toughness, personal improvement, self-realization, material benefits). Bodybuilders benefit from the sport in physical (health and appearance improvement) and social (gained experience, self-realization) ways. The price of this sport is athletes’ hard work, large amounts of money, sacrificed personal life and deterioration of psychological and physical health. Moral reasoning can be influenced by positive circumstances (bodybuilding philosophy, internal beliefs, fighting against cheating, team spirit) and negative (ingrained misdemeanours in sport, corruption, flawed rating system, possibility to avoid responsibility, big price of winning, psychological pressure, inadequate goals). Athletes most often use rational moral reasoning strategies (regarding their beliefs, solution seeking, situational decisions, self-mobilization, setting options, relying on experience). Athletes more often make positive moral decisions (changing the trainer, following the rules, resisting pressure, moral behaviour) than negative (adapting to the situation, acting like the others, winning at any cost).Conclusions. Bodybuilders most often aim for personal goals. Bodybuilding provides its athletes with physical and social benefits. The price of this sport is bodybuilders’ hard work, large sums of money, sacrifice of personal life and health. Certain circumstances might influence athletes to make positive moral decisions while others might influence negative decisions. Bodybuilding athletes use two different moral reasoning strategies: rational or irrational. Bodybuilders’ more often make positive moral decisions, but negative decisions occur as well. Keywords: morality, moral reasoning, bodybuilding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Reasoning in Bodybuilding

Kelaitytė¹,

Karanauskienė²

2020

BJSHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding is also replicated in Sage et al’s (2006) research; taunting (physically or verbally taunting) an opponent ( M = 3.7), body-checking an opposition player, ( M = 3.0), and retaliating to a bad tackle, for example, kicking out ( M = 2.6), were the most common antisocial behaviors among soccer players. Cheating and aggressive behaviors have been widely investigated in recent years (Al-Yaaribi & Kavussanu, 2017, 2018; Al-Yaaribi et al, 2016; Guivernau & Duda, 2002; Hodge & Gucciardi, 2015; Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011; Kamis et al, 2016; Kavussanu, 2008; Kavussanu & Spray, 2006; Kavussanu et al, 2015). Other factors that contribute to antisocial behavior in sports include, though are not limited to, moral disengagement (Boardley & Kavussanu, 2009; Stanger et al, 2018; van de Pol et al, 2020), motivational climate and coach–player interaction (Boardley & Kavussanu, 2009; Miller et al, 2005; Ommundsen et al, 2003 Stanger et al, 2018; Vande Pol et al, 2018), moral climate (Guivernau & Duda, 2002; Spruit et al, 2019), anticipated shaming and guilt (Kavussanu et al, 2015; Stanger et al, 2013), coaching climate (Bartholomew et al, 2011; Hodge & Gucciardi, 2015), and peer deviant behavior (Benson & Bruner, 2018; Benson et al, 2017).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Social Learning Model of Antisocial Coaching Behavior

Kabiri

Shadmanfaat

Smith

et al. 2020

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of antisocial behavior in sports are important, although most lack a theoretical framework. The current study examines the endorsement of antisocial behavior in a sample of coaches using social learning theory. This features a survey of 268 Head Coaches and Assistant Coaches in the Tehran Provincial League, Iran. Results indicate that differential association, differential reinforcement, definitions, and imitation have a significant impact on antisocial behavior, with differential association being the most influential construct. Higher education in coaches was associated with lower levels of antisocial behavior. This suggests that antisocial coaching behavior is learned in a similar manner to prosocial behaviors, and that desistance requires assessment of the learning process.

show abstract

“…Cheating is defined as an intentional rule‐breaking of the game to gain an unfair advantage over others (Kavussanu, 2019). These two behaviors have been investigated in recent years (Al‐Yaaribi and Kavussanu, 2017; Al‐Yaaribi and Kavussanu, 2018; Al‐Yaaribi, Kavussanu, and Ring, 2016; Guivernau and Duda, 2002; Hodge and Gucciardi, 2015; Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011; Kamis et al., 2016; Kavussanu, 2008; Kavussanu and Spray, 2006; Kavussanu, Stanger, and Ring, 2015).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antisocial Behavior in Soccer Players: Using an Integrated Mediation Model of Personal Control and Social Learning Theory

Kabiri

Shadmanfaat

Smith

et al. 2020

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. We aim to explore antisocial behavior in sports using an integrated criminological framework that includes self-control theory, control balance theory, and social learning theory. Methods. A total of three-hundred and ninety-seven (n = 397) professional soccer players in Iran were surveyed. Results. Structural equation modeling was used to assess these data, with results indicating that antisocial behavior occurs via a process of learning. The concepts of differential associations, differential reinforcement, imitation, and definitions all emerged as important factors in the development of antisocial behaviors. Conclusion. While prosocial behaviors represent a basic requirement of sports, the presence was antisocial behaviors remains prevalent. The employment of integrated criminological theory can serve as an effective means to measure and explain antisocial behavior using a sample of Iranian soccer players. This study indicates that antisocial behaviors are learned through social interactions and therefore policy remedies must focus on the social dynamics that drive these negative behaviors.Aggressive and deviant behavior remains an important issue in the sports domain. This includes examinations of sportsmanship, prosocial behavior, antisocial behavior, and transgressive behavior (Kavussanu, 2019). The intrinsic social nature of sport, including the common interactions between players, coaches, fans, and the media, provides opportunities for expressive behaviors that range from antisocial to prosocial. Examples of antisocial behaviors include the intentional injuring of an opponent, cheating, lying, time-wasting, intimidating, and excessive aggression (Benson, Bruner, and Eys, 2017;Boardley and Kavussanu, 2009;Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011;Kavussanu, Stanger, and Ring, 2015;Malete, Chow, and Feltz, 2013;Miller, Roberts, and Ommundsen, 2005). Negative behavior in sport can undermine the legitimacy of the sport itself and pose a threat to the norms of sportsmanship and prosocial behaviors (Kavussanu, Stanger, and Ring, 2015;Spruit et al., 2019). While antisocial behaviors such as cheating and excessive aggression have long been part of sport and competition, criminologists have paid little attention to this line of inquiry to date. Additionally, the existing research on negative behaviors in sport tends to stem from the field of psychology, with these examples often minimizing the role of the social milieu (Al-Yaaribi and Kavussanu, 2018;Kavussanu, 2019).

show abstract

Cheating and sports: history, diagnosis and treatment

Cited by 14 publications

References 5 publications

Moral Reasoning in Bodybuilding

Moral Reasoning in Bodybuilding

A Social Learning Model of Antisocial Coaching Behavior

Antisocial Behavior in Soccer Players: Using an Integrated Mediation Model of Personal Control and Social Learning Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About