Dr.Sc.Psych., Associate Professor P.A. Kislyakov¹
PhD, Associate Professor M.S. Belov²
Dr.Sc.Psych., Associate Professor E.A. Shmeleva¹
PhD, Associate Professor A.V. Kornev^1
1Russian State Social University, Moscow
²Ivanovo State Energy University, Ivanovo

Keywords: prosocial behavior, antisocial behavior, moral standards, sports psychology, psychometric research, physical education and sports.

Background. Sports as a social institution and a specific socio-cultural activity domain with its traditional competitions and special training practices – give room to multiple social behavioral models. Athletes often face morally challenging situations that may be responded by aggression and egoism or tolerance, responsibility and fairness. It is not unusual that some competitors tend to neglect any morality-driven responsibility to freely vent out the physical and verbal aggression or resort to cheating – with heavy losses for the fair play principles and competitive climates. It should be emphasized in this context that the modern physical education and sports, when they fair, facilitate progress in many personality moral values including respect, honesty, cooperation and help to those in need [2]. The above alternative sport-specific behavioral models with their dichotomous norms are commonly referred to in the western sports psychology as the prosocial and antisocial behaviors (prosocial behavior and antisocial behavior, respectively).

Prosocial behavior may be defined as the actions intended to help or bring benefits to the others, in contrast to antisocial behavior i.e. the actions coming in conflict with the common rules and standards that may be harmful to antisocial behavior others [1, 3]. Prosocial and antisocial behavioral models are more explicit in modern contact/ team sports including football, basketball, rugby, hockey etc. Despite the fact that the antisocial behavior is sports are punishable by the rules, with the sports referees controlling them by removals from the court, penalties and disciplining measures on the one hand, and the sports federations adopting codes of ethics and disciplinary sanctions on the other hand – the statistics of unfair play, unsportsmanlike behaviors and disqualifications in competitions is still high.

Foreign psychology has accumulated valuable practical experience of the antisocial behavior / prosocial behavior tests and research in sports, with analyses of the athletes’ moral standards, cheating, fair play and other aspects, and lists of the prosocial behavior predictors in sports including: social identity, moral identity, empathy, sport motivations, sportsmanship, coaching style, psychological climate in the team etc. [5-7]. It was in 2009 that Maria Kavussanu and Ian Bordley, professors of the University of Birmingham, offered the PABSS (prosocial behavior / antisocial behavior) test method [8] later on adopted by many nations (including the USA, Canada, UK, Turkey, China, Singapore, New Zealand, Portugal, Belgium, Lithuania) in different (sports-, age-specific) versions to effectively test and analyze behaviors and morality in sports [6].

In the Russian sports science, ethics of the sports-related behaviors have been analyzed by the athletes’ humanistic priorities survey (A.V. Ternavsky, 2008), aggression prevention and correction study (S.O. Zakamorny, 2012), athletes’ ethical culture surveys (G.I. Pasmurov, 2012; S.V. Klyuev, 2017), and sports axiology studies (E.A. Litinskaya, 2013).

Objective of the study was to rate and analyze the prosocial behavior / antisocial behavior in athletes using the adapted Russian version of the PABSS (prosocial behavior / antisocial behavior) test method (Kavussanu, Boardley, 2009).

Methods and structure of the study. The test method rates the prosocial behavior / antisocial behavior expressions in relations with the opponents/ teammates/ trainees, on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 ‘never’, to 5 ‘very often’). The test method applies the following four scales: (1) antisocial behavior in relations with the teammates/ trainees (e.g. 5 points for "verbally insulting a teammate"); (2) prosocial behavior in relations with the teammates/ trainees (e.g. 4 points for "praising a teammate"); (3) antisocial behavior in dealing with the opponent (e.g. 8 points for an "attempted injure to the opponent"); and (4) prosocial behavior (e.g. 3 points for "helping the injured opponent").

We sampled for the tests the 18-40 (M = 25.4) year old athletes (n=126, 42.5% male and 57.5% female sample) from Moscow and Ivanovo, with 47.2% and 52.8% of the sample competing in team sports (volleyball, basketball, football) and individual sports (athletics, chess, table tennis, skiing, powerlifting), respectively, with their sports records of 2 to 25 years (M = 10.1). We used for the online survey purposes the relevant Google Forms service, with the survey data processed using the SPSS 23 and Amos 23 based qualitative and quantitative data processing toolkits.

Results and discussion. The qualitative analysis found the sample seldom to occasionally prone to antisocial behavior in relations with the teammates, trainees and opponents. Most of the sample reported frequent prosocial behavior to the teammates – and seldom/ occasional prosocial behavior in dealing with the opponents: see Figure 1 hereunder.

Figure 1. Prosocial behavior and antisocial behavior test rates, %

Furthermore, to analyze the prosocial behavior / antisocial behavior test data in more detail, we run a binary correlation analysis using the Mann-Whitney U-criterion for the following variables: gender, sport (team or individual), sports record (2-10 years, 11-25 years): see Table 1 hereunder.

Table 1. Averaged sports-, gender- and record-specific antisocial behavior / prosocial behavior test data

Note: *significant difference; T- teammates; O- opponents

As demonstrated by the above data, female subsample was found less prone to prosocial behavior in relations with the teammates/ trainees. More prone to the antisocial behavior in relations with the teammates and opponents was the team sport subsample. It should also be noted that the antisocial behavior / prosocial behavior manifestations tend to grow with the sport record on every scale. This finding may mean that that with the growing training and competitive experiences the athletes, on the one hand, make progress in the skills and emotionality – often manifested in the antisocial behavior to teammates/ opponents; and, on the other hand, develop sensitivity with growing prosocial behavior to their teammates.

Conclusion. The survey showed the growing relevance of the antisocial behavior prevention and prosocial behavior encouragement initiatives for the sport communities. As demonstrated by some foreign study reports, the prosocial behavior in relations with the teammates contribute to the teamwork and team identity thereby consolidating the sport community to effectively prevent potential emotional burnouts. Further progress in the sports-specific ethical behavioral standards will make it possible to fully mobilize the resources of modern sports as a positive socialization and humanization institute for social progress. Therefore, moral and ethical progress aspects should be given a growing priority by the sport communities. Future research may be designed to analyze correlations (on a Russian sample) between the sport-specific social behavior and the priority personality qualities (motivations, self-esteem, emotional/ volitional controls, moral identity, etc.) in the relevant socio-psychological contexts (coaching styles, psychological climates etc.).

The survey was sponsored by the RFRF under Research Project No. 18-313-20001.

References

1. Aronson E., WilsonT., Aikert R. Social Psychology. Psychological laws of human behavior in society. Transl. L. Ordanova et al. M.: OLMA-Press publ.; St. Petersburg: Prime Euroznak publ., 2002. 557 p.
2. Gonashvili A.S. Systemic-relational approach to issues of morals and fair play ethics in sport sports reserve athletes' training. Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka, 2015, no. 6, pp. 6-9.
3. Kislyakov P.A., Shmeleva E.A., Govin O. Contemporary volunteering in cultivating prosocial personality behavior. Obrazovanie i nauka. 2019. v. 21. No. 6. pp. 122-146.
4. Nasledov A.D. IBM SPSS Statistics 20 and AMOS: Professional Statistical Data Analysis. St. Petersburg: Piter publ., 2013. 416 p.
5. Alemdag S. Investigation of prosocial and antisocial behaviors of young athletes in terms of moral decision making attitudes. Pedagogics, psychology, medical-biological problems of physical training and sports. 2019. Vol. 23. no. 3. pp. 112-117.
6. Graupensperger S.A., Jensen C.J., Evans M.B. A meta-analytic review of studies using the Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport Scale: Associations among intergroup moral behaviors. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology. 2018. Vol. 7. no. 2. pp. 186-204.
7. Hodge K., Lonsdale C. Prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport: the role of coaching style, autonomous vs. controlled motivation, and moral disengagement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 2011. Vol. 33. pp. 527-547.
8. Kavussanu M., Boardley I. D. The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2009. Vol. 31. no. 1. pp. 97-117.

Corresponding author: pack.81@mail.ru

Abstract

Objective of the study was to rate and analyze the prosocial behavior / antisocial behavior in athletes using the adapted Russian version of the PABSS (prosocial behavior / antisocial behavior) test method (Kavussanu, Boardley, 2009).

Methods and structure of the study. The test method rates the prosocial behavior / antisocial behavior expressions in relations with the opponents/ teammates/ trainees, on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 ‘never’, to 5 ‘very often’). The test method applies the following four scales: (1) antisocial behavior in relations with the teammates/ trainees (e.g. 5 points for "verbally insulting a teammate"); (2) prosocial behavior in relations with the teammates/ trainees (e.g. 4 points for "praising a teammate"); (3) antisocial behavior in dealing with the opponent (e.g. 8 points for an "attempted injure to the opponent"); and (4) prosocial behavior (e.g. 3 points for "helping the injured opponent").

We sampled for the tests the 18-40 (M = 25.4) year old athletes (n=126, 42.5% male and 57.5% female sample) from Moscow and Ivanovo, with 47.2% and 52.8% of the sample competing in team sports (volleyball, basketball, football) and individual sports (athletics, chess, table tennis, skiing, powerlifting), respectively, with their sports records of 2 to 25 years (M = 10.1). We used for the online survey purposes the relevant Google Forms service, with the survey data processed using the SPSS 23 and Amos 23 based qualitative and quantitative data processing toolkits.

Results and conclusions. In the majority of the examined athletes, antisocial behavior was situational, in relation to both their opponents and teammates (coaches). Most athletes demonstrated prosocial behavior towards their teammates. Prosocial behavior towards opponents was either frequent or infrequent. Antisocial behavior towards both teammates and opponents was more common in team sports. With increasing sports experience, there was an increase on all the scales of prosocial and antisocial behavior in sports.

The survey showed the growing relevance of the antisocial behavior prevention and prosocial behavior encouragement initiatives for the sport communities. As demonstrated by some foreign study reports, the prosocial behavior in relations with the teammates contribute to the teamwork and team identity thereby consolidating the sport community to effectively prevent potential emotional burnouts. Further progress in the sports-specific ethical behavioral standards will make it possible to fully mobilize the resources of modern sports as a positive socialization and humanization institute for social progress. Therefore, moral and ethical progress aspects should be given a growing priority by the sport communities. Future research may be designed to analyze correlations (on a Russian sample) between the sport-specific social behavior and the priority personality qualities (motivations, self-esteem, emotional/ volitional controls, moral identity, etc.) in the relevant socio-psychological contexts (coaching styles, psychological climates etc.).