Trends in Moral Reasoning and Social Reasoning: Implications for Future Leaders in Sport Amukela M. Gwebu, University of Idaho Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D., University of Idaho Jennifer Beller, Ph.D. Washington State University

1
Trends in Moral Reasoning and Social Reasoning
Implications for Future Leaders in Sport
Amukela M. Gwebu, University of IdahoSharon Kay
Stoll, Ph.D., University of IdahoJennifer
Beller, Ph.D. Washington State University
Sponsored by the Center for ETHICSUniversity of
Idaho
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to discuss
trends in character education of high school and
college athletes, crucial issues in character
education, and effective strategies for teaching
values in formal and hidden curricula. Ten
current studies conducted on high school and
university populations using the Rudd Stoll
Beller Hahm (RSBH) Values Choice Inventory
indicate a decline in moral reasoning and social
reasoning. The RSBH, a 20 question tool, is valid
and reliable. The social character index has a
Cronbach alpha of .72 and the moral character
index has a Cronbach alpha of. 88. A repeated
measures ANOVA was run to detect differences by
Time and the main factors of Gender and Status
(non-athlete, team, and individual sport). Scores
for 7 high schools (2004) across the board for
both moral reasoning and social reasoning are
lower than normal in relation to 70,000
inventory base. Among the three university
populations one institution is higher than the 60
000 inventory base, though not significantly
higher indicating that the higher score of this
particular group maybe a statistical anomaly.
Wilks Lambda were run. Between subjects ANOVA
was run to detect differences by status. After a
significant F, Fishers LSD post-hoc was run team
sport athletes scored significantly lower, than
non-athletes and individual sport athletes but
higher in social reasoning. Males scored
significantly lower than females in both
categories. The data sets from these institutions
indicate the students have few reasoning tools to
make good decisions about social and moral
reasoning than at other time in our history of
data collection from 1987. In addition womens
scores that previously were higher are declining
towards the levels of their male counterparts.
Our educational system and our social environment
have directly and negatively affected these
students. The schools in the study have
implemented a character education intervention
program to increase the reasoning tools for these
student athletes, and preliminary data suggests
that a specific type of moral education
intervention using role models as instructors
appear to improve moral reasoning.
What is moral reasoning? Moral Reasoning, as
defined, is a systematic process of evaluating
personal values and developing a consistent and
impartial set of moral principles to live by
(Lumpkin, Stoll, Beller, 1995). Moral
reasoning is imperative to accomplish is a
philosophic process based on the laws and customs
of philosophic reasoning. Moral reasoning is not
ideology, or theology, or some mystical practice
of making people become good. Rather moral
reasoning is based on the assumption that as
reasoning individuals, each of us can, through
self-examination, cognitive dissonance, and a
specific methodology, grow cognitively about our
moral decision making process. Moral reasoning
does not promise behavioral change, but it does
promise individual soul searching and reflection
on personal beliefs, values, and principles.
Without this process, dissonance is impossible
and cognitive moral growth will not increase.
Implications for Research and Interventions We
have been involved in long-term research
intervention with Division I football teams. We
develop curriculums based in moral reasoning in
which the head coach and selected coaches teach
the curriculum in 15-minute modules, three times
a week during their season through spring ball.
From the data gleaned from these populations, we
know that success in moral reasoning is
predicated on 1. The coaches must be dedicated
to the philosophy of intervention and believe in
the moral bases of the intervention program. 2.
The coaches in applying the curriculum and
intervention must stay on task and follow the
curriculum design. 3. The coaches must carry
through and follow each lesson plan without
drifting too far a field. 4. The coaches must
finish the entire program. 5. The coaches or
coordinator must pre-test and post-test.
Moral Reasoning in Athlete Populations a 20 Year
Review We have been studying moral reasoning and
moral education intervention programs in athletic
populations for 20 years. Below find what we
know about the process of moral reasoning and
moral development. 1. Athlete populations score
significantly lower on moral reasoning
inventories than do non-athlete populations. 2.
Male revenue producing sport athletes score
significantly lower than non-revenue producing
sport athletes do. 3. Females score
significantly higher than males, either revenue
producing or non-revenue producing. 4. Female
scores are dropping and we predict they will
converge with the mens scores if no intervention
takes place. 5. Longitudinal studies of discrete
competitive populations drop over a four-year
period whether high school or college. 6. Moral
reasoning scores of non-intervened athletic
populations are decreasing at significant
rates. 7. The longer one is in athletics, the
more affected is ones moral reasoning. 8.
Intervention programs can have a positive effect
on moral reasoning. 9. Effective intervention
programs have a long-term effect on moral
reasoning. 10. Moral reasoning is one facet of a
highly complex process of moral development.  
Moral Education What it is and is not. Moral
education is the deliberate cultivating of moral
growth and moral judgment that can be
articulated through moral action. Moral education
is the encouragement of a capacity for moral
judgment. Moral education then is about the
ability not only to form moral judgments but also
to have the courage to act upon them. When moral
judgment is translated into an appropriate moral
action, moral education is most clearly expressed
McIntosh in his 1979 work said, the morally
educated person is expected not only to be able
to make moral judgments but act upon them. (p.
167). Moral education is beyond the scope of
moral training, which implies drilling to
encourage individuals to conform to moral rules
without much understanding of the principles
involved. In contrast, moral education
encourages reflection about moral issues in light
of moral principles which are translated to
appropriate moral action (Arnold, 1994).

• What this means for Coaches and Athlete
  populations
• Coaches should teach athletes to value the
  experience of competition and movement without
  the emphasis on winning.
• Model a total educational experience for
  student-athletes. Covering both objective-
  subjective purposes of athletics.. For example
  working with academics, not as a separate entity
• Coaches and teachers believe passionately in the
  philosophy moral bases of intervention. Idealism
  rather realism ought to, or should be rather
  than relative practices. Walk the walk to talk to
  the talk!
• The student-athletes have no formal character
  education. Student athletes need unique-dynamic
  curriculum to address lack of understanding of
  acceptable social and moral behavior.

Moral Education in the Development of Personal
Character Moral education is a lifelong
endeavor. We arent necessarily born moral or
immoral and morality doesnt mysteriously occur
in childhood and stay rooted in our psyches for
life. (There is some research arguing that we
are born with empathy, see S. Lamb, 1988).
Rather, all of us grow, mature, and develop or do
not develop morally through our education and
environment and we are highly affected by moral
role models.