Justifications for Unethical Behaviour in Sport: The Role of the Coach

Results

The purpose of this study was to investigate athlete justification for unethical behaviour in sport with particular emphasis on the role of the coach. The majority of participants did not agree with any of the justifications. However, as the results show, some athletes did agree with certain justifications including the coach suggesting that the athlete engage in specific forms of unethical behaviour.

The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine whether significant sex differences existed when comparing the statements on the questionnaire that relate to the four justifications for unethical behaviour. For those who did indicate some level of agreement with the justifications and types behaviours, Table 1 indicates that significant sex differences do exist at the .05 level for all four of the justifications.

Table 1
Kruskal-Wallis Test - Median Values and Significance Levels for Justifications for Unethical Behaviour by Sex

Justification	Male	Female	P
Coach suggests it	22	24	.029
Win	23	26	.005
Opponents doing the same	22	26	.007
Not Getting Caught	23	26	.006

Males generally reported stronger levels of agreement with these justifications for unethical behaviour. Females appeared most comfortable with cheating if the coach suggested it, in levels similar to the males.

However, the percentages of male participants in agreement with the justifications were consistently greater than the females for each of the justifications, and in fact, the highest level of agreement for females was 11% (for the justification of "opponents doing the same thing"). This percentage was lower than all four of the justifications with which the males agreed (see Table 2). The lowest reported level of overall agreement for males in any category was 12% and that was for the justification of "winning". In terms of "opponents doing the same thing", twice as many males as females indicated that this was justifiable with over 25% reporting some level of agreement.

Table 2
Percent of Participants Indicating Some Level of Agreement with the Justifications for and Types of Cheating by Total by Sex

Justification	Total	Male	Female
	(N=91)	(N=31)	(N=60)
Opponents doing the same	13%	26%	11%
Coach Suggests it	9%	14%	9%
Not Getting Caught	7.5%	14.5%	6%
Win	5.5%	12%	3.5%

The coach suggesting that an athlete engage in cheating was the third most frequently reported justification for males (14%), and was reported less frequently than believing that opponents were engaging in unethical behaviour (26%) or that it was justifiable as long as they did not get caught (14.5). For the females, the coach suggesting that the athlete engage in unethical behaviour was the second most frequently reported justification (9%) with opponents doing it being the most frequently reported justification (11%).

Table 3 reports the percentage of females and males who feel that each of the forms of behaviour is justified if the coach suggests it. For females, the results indicate that there are not strong levels of agreement for any form of unethical behaviour. The only result worthy of note is that there is slight agreement that bending the rules might be justifiable if the coach suggests it. For the others forms of cheating, the data suggest that female athletes feel that engagement cannot be justified even if their coach suggests that they do so.

Table 3
Levels of agreement that certain behaviours can be justified if the coach suggests it

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Agree Slightly	No Opinion	Disagree	Disagree Slightly	Strongly Disagree
Females
Bend the rules	0	2%	28%	8%	5%	27%	30%
Illegal Equipment	0	0	2%	7%	7%	27%	58%
Cheating	0	0	2%	3%	10%	28%	57%
PE Drugs	0	0	2%	2%	3%	23%	70%
Males
Bend the rules	13%	10%	10%	16%	10%	13%	26%
Illegal Equipment	3%	3%	0	13%	19%	16%	45%
Cheating	3%	3%	6%	13%	6%	22%	45%
PE Drugs	3%	0	3%	13%	16%	26%	39%

There were male athletes who strongly agreed that all forms of behaviour are justifiable as long as the coach suggests it. Similar to the females, the highest percentage reports agreement when the behaviour is bending the rules.

The influence of the coach is apparent in these data. More females agreed with bending the rules if the coach suggests it than any other of the combinations of justifications and types of unethical behaviour. Twelve per cent of males indicated that they could justify the use of performance-enhancing drugs if the coach were to suggest it, reinforcing the point that the coach can be very influential in the lives of the athletes they direct. It is interesting to note that the other justifications (others do same, not caught, and win) are all controlled by the athlete; that is, they decide whether the justification suits their individual needs. In the case of the coaching justification, the consequences perceived as being controlled by another indicate that blame or responsibility is shifted from the athlete to the coach. Perhaps the athlete has relinquished power, or perhaps the coach has assumed the power to decide what would be an appropriate outcome. The coach's power is clearly a factor in the relationship.

continue >>>

le Journal en français

MAY 2004
Vol. 4, No. 4
Front Page
CONTENTS

Justifications for Unethical Behaviour in Sport: The Role of the Coach

Discussion and Conclusion

References

Download a PDF of this article click here
174 KB, 17 pages

Print version of this article click here