THE LOCKER ROOM AS A DEVELOPMENTAL CONTEXT: PREDICTING PERCEPTIONS OF
PROSOCIAL AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN YOUTH HOCKEY PLAYERS
Scott Anthony Graupensperger
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green
State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
May 2016
Committee:
Marie S. Tisak, Advisor
John Tisak, Co-Chair
Eric Dubow
© 2016
Scott Graupensperger
All Rights Reserved
iii
ABSTRACT
Marie S. Tisak, Advisor
While many studies have investigated prosocial and aggressive behavior in youth sport, the
specific contexts that correspond with sport participation have rarely been studied. To further the
understanding of sport as a developmental context, the current study examined the specific
setting of the youth hockey locker room and the perceptions of prosocial and aggressive
behaviors within it. Specifically, to gain a deeper understanding of locker room social behaviors,
the present research used hierarchical multiple regression to test the hypothesis that age,
perceived adult supervision, task cohesion, and social cohesion would predict the perceptions of
prosocial and aggressive locker room behavior. The results indicated that both adult supervision
and task cohesion significantly predicted perceived prosocial behavior and inversely predicted
perceived aggression. The presence of an adult figure in the locker room appears to predict the
perception of more positive social behavior. These findings also suggest that athletes who
perceive more unity in working towards a shared goal perceive greater prosocial behavior and
lesser aggressive behavior. Ultimately, the findings from the current study contain highly useful
practical implications for youth sport programs and coaches as they strive to create sport
environments that are conducive to building character.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am sincerely grateful for my many sources of support and encouragement
throughout this process. This experience wouldn’t have been what it was without the
relationships formed with my cohort and fellow lab members. Additionally, I’d like to thank the
players of the BGSU Club Hockey Team that I coached (i.e., “the boys”) for keeping me
passionate about group dynamics research in sport. On a similar note, I am grateful for every
player that I have ever shared the ice with, as my life would have never been the same without
hockey. I would also like to thank the Pro Ambitions Hockey Camp, and the youth hockey
players and parents who volunteered to participate in my study.
My thesis advisor, Dr. Marie Tisak, deserves my most sincere thanks for all of her hard
work throughout this project, and for imparting her immense amounts of wisdom on me.
Likewise, I’d like to thank Dr. John Tisak for spending hours in front of a chalkboard teaching
me the nuts and bolts of statistics, and for always keeping things interesting even when I had the
“deer in headlights” look on my face. Finally, I could never thank Dr. Vikki Krane enough for
not only her relentless belief in me, but for always keeping me believing in myself.
Finally, I have the most incredible family, whose endless support follows me all around
the country. There have been times where I have doubted myself, and my mother, Jeanie, has
always been the first one to encourage me to never stop chasing my dreams. She may never fully
understand how much her support has meant to me over the years. My stepdad, Pete, for teaching
me from a young age that hard work and dedication can open doors to success. And thanks to my
father, Scott Sr., for keeping me humble and teaching me to appreciate all of the smaller things in
life.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….....
1
Context…………………………………………. ......................................................
1
Organized youth activity…………………………………………. ...............
2
Positive youth development………………………………………. ..
4
Supervision………………………………………. ...........................
6
Moral Development…………………………………………. ..................................
7
The moral domains of social development………………………………. ...
8
Components of morality………………………………. ...............................
8
Prosocial behavior………………………………………. .................
9
Aggressive behavior………………………………………...............
11
Peers and moral development………………………………. .......................
12
Cohesion………………………………. ...................................................................
13
The development of cohesion with age………………………………. ........
18
CURRENT STUDY………………………………...............................................................
19
GOALS AND HYPOTHESES………………………………. .............................................
22
METHOD………………………………. .............................................................................
26
Measures………………………………. ...................................................................
26
Demographics………………………………. ...............................................
26
Prosocial and aggressive behavior………………………………. ................
27
Adult supervision………………………………. ..........................................
28
Cohesion………………………………. .......................................................
29
vi
RESULTS………………………………. .............................................................................
30
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Model for Prosocial Behavior …….....................
33
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Model for Aggressive Behavior ……. ................
35
DISCUSSION………………………………. .......................................................................
37
Practical Implications……………………………….................................................
40
Limitations and Future Directions………………………………. ............................
41
REFERENCES………………………………. .....................................................................
48
APPENDIX A: PARENTAL DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS…………………………. ..
69
APPENDIX B: CHILD PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS……………. ....
70
APPENDIX C: SOCIAL BEHAVIOR QUESTIONAIRE …………………………...........
71
APPENDIX D: SUPERVISION QUESTIONAIRE …………………………. ...................
73
APPENDIX E: CHILD SPORT COHESION QUESTIONAIRE ………………………. ...
74
APPENDIX D: HSRB APPROVAL ………………………. ...............................................
77
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................................................
44
2
Bivariate Correlations and Reliabilities .....................................................................
45
3
Hierarchical Regression on Prosocial Behavior ........................................................
46
4
Hierarchical Regression on Aggressive Behavior .....................................................
47
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
1
INTRODUCTION
Researchers interested in developmental outcomes of youth sport participation have often
focused solely on the gameplay, while paying little attention to the many surrounding contexts
that are associated with involvement in a particular sport. Of interest is the psychosocial
development of young athletes through sport participation. Experts in the area of youth sport
psychology, Weinberg and Gould (2003), assert that there is an acute need for research to
provide a more complete understanding of when and how social behaviors, such as aggression,
are most likely to occur in sport settings. An example of a sport related context, seen in the sport
of ice hockey, is the locker room. According to the USA Hockey, Inc. Season Final Registration
Report, there were 358,744 active and registered youth hockey players in America during the
2014-2015 season (USA Hockey, Inc., 2015), and despite past research studying youth hockey as
a whole, little attention has been given to the context of the locker room and how it may impact a
child’s development. Preliminary analysis reveals that youth hockey players spend over four
hours a week in a locker room, on average, confirming that this context may have a large impact
on young athletes.
The following review discusses the importance of context in terms of youth development,
the development of morality and its components, and finally, team cohesion and its potential
impact on the behavior found inside a youth hockey locker room.
Context
Bronfenbrenner (1979) was critical of developmental psychology by pointing out that
much of the research in the field is overly focused on the child, while researchers know very
little about the child’s environments and how certain contexts can affect the course of
development. Moreover, Bronfenbrenner posits that development of any kind is context
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2
dependent. The various ways in which children spend their time exposes them to distinct
learning environments and unique opportunities for growth and development (Larson & Verma,
1999; Whiting, 1980). Within different contexts, the situational variables are plentiful; including
structured versus non-structured activities, level of adult supervision, and cooperative versus
competitive activities. The large number of contextual variables provides many unique
opportunities for social interactions in children.
Organized youth activity. One specific context for development that has been examined
is the organized youth activity setting. Activities in which children are supervised in a structured
setting have been found to provide children with beneficial experiences that encourage initiative,
identity exploration, and the development of teamwork skills (Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin,
2003). Hansen and colleagues also explain that there is a degree of variation within the context
of organized youth activities that can offer distinct patterns of learning experiences, such as
service and faith-based activities being reported to provide experiences in prosocial norms, while
the context of youth sports has been more related to emotional development experiences.
Longitudinal research shows a predictive relationship between participation in organized youth
activities and positive outcomes such as reduced problem behavior, adjustment skills, and
staying in school (DeMartini, 1983; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Eccles & Templeton, 2002).
The developmental benefits found in organized youth activities are far greater than in
unorganized comparison activities (Hansen et al., 2003). Because organized youth activities such
as sport often involve a common group goal, high levels of cooperation, and are of voluntary
nature, Larson and Verma (1999) suggest that it is the ideal context for development, when
compared to other non-structured or mandatory activities (i.e., hanging out with friends,
academic classes). Children are constantly learning and developing, and although organized
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
3
youth activities may be the most germane context to the current study, it is but one of many that
a child will experience.
Participating in organized youth sport is highly significant from a developmental
standpoint, in that sport provides unique social opportunities and exposes a child to adaptive
demands that resemble those found in important life settings (Scanlan, 2002). Sport programs
have a unique ability to teach and build transferrable life skills that lead to positive outcomes for
youth participants (Turnnidge, Côté, & Hancock, 2014). Experiences found in the context of
youth sport, specifically in a team setting, have the potential to help prepare a child for teamwork
and other social settings in the future. Furthermore, sport participation can provide
developmentally constructive outcomes such as character-building, identity development,
confidence, and meaningful peer and adult social connectedness (e.g., Camiré & Trudel, 2010;
Fraser-Thomas & Côté, 2009; Shields & Bredemeier, 2008). Moreover, Hansen and colleagues
(2003) assert that within the context of youth sport, children learn emotional regulation skills
such as the ability to control their temper.
Forneris, Camiré and Trudel (2012) suggest that those with a vested interest in youth
sport (e.g., parents) hold the expectancy that sport participation be a developmentally
constructive activity in which youth learn competencies that will extend beyond the realm of
sports. Specifically, Arnold (1994, 2001) suggests that sport participation is laden with moral
values such as instilling respect for oneself and opponents, equal opportunity, cooperation, and
fairness. Similar research has shown that sport activities promote the development of social
responsibility, self-control, and moral reasoning (Coakley, 1983; Matsuba & Walker, 1998).
Moreover, there is a large volume of evidence suggesting that participation in extracurricular
activities, such as organized youth sport, is associated with less antisocial behavior (e.g., school
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
4
dropout and arrest) during adolescence (e.g., Mahoney, 2000; Rutten, et al., 2007; Vazsonyi,
Pickering, Belliston, Hessing, & Junger, 2002).
While there is an abundance of empirical support for sport as a developmentally
beneficial context, Coakley (2011) warns of the common misperception that sport involvement
alone can magically yield positive developmental outcomes due to its “inherently good and pure
nature.” The positive impact of sport on youth development, has been largely unquestioned
(Coakley, 2011) – suggesting that there is a need for deeper exploration on the developmental
impact of youth sport participation. Although not inherent, there has been progress in the past
decade to formulate frameworks that ensure developmentally productive outcomes.
Positive youth development (PYD). Stemming from several disciplines, PYD is a
theoretical perspective that views youth as a valuable resource to be fostered, rather than a
problem that requires management (Damon, 2004). Turnnidge and colleagues (2014) assert that
an important component of this approach is that it engages youth in activities that build upon
existing strengths. Three common goals of a developmentally constructive youth sport program
are: (a) providing opportunity for physical activity and health, (b) developing foundational motor
skills for recreational or elite sport participation, and (c) facilitating psychosocial development
through opportunity to learn life-skills (e.g., discipline, commitment, and teamwork) (Côté &
Fraser-Thomas, 2007).
In the sport context, PYD has been operationalized as consisting of four developmental
outcomes that are referred to as the four C’s: confidence, competence, connectedness and
character (Côté, Bruner, Erickson, Strachan & Fraser-Thomas, 2010). When combined, the 4C’s
create a holistic athlete development framework (Vierimaa, Erickson, Côté, & Gilbert, 2012) that
organized youth activities should aim to provide to ensure that the overall sport experience is
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
5
developmentally constructive (Lerner et al., 2005). This framework proposes that all young
people possess the potential for positive, successful, and healthy development (Lerner et al.,
2005). Weiss and Wiese-Bjornstal (2009) describe PYD as the development of personal skills
that will help children to one day become a successful and functional member of society. Past
research suggests that the context of youth sport has the capacity to promote the framework of
PYD (Weiss, 2008), which Weiss and Wiese-Bjornstal explain is partially a result of the fact that
physical activity programs such as youth sports involve supervision from coaches that organize
activities specifically designed for optimal youth outcomes.
Petitpas, Cornelius, Van Raalte, & Jones (2005) established a PYD based framework
designed to be used for planning youth sport programs to ensure that they appropriately foster
development. This framework consists of three conditions that must be met in order for a sport
experience to maximize healthy youth development: (a) Must take place in an appropriate
context, which involves intrinsically motivating activities, a valued role within the team,
voluntary participation, clear goals and rules, and take place within a psychologically safe
environment, (b) must involve being surrounded by external assets that include a close
relationship with coach or mentor, adult monitoring, and community service opportunities, and
(c) must promote the acquisition of internal assets such as goal-setting, problem-solving skills, a
sense of purpose and identity, and confidence building in skills that can be applied outside of
sport (Petitpas et al., 2005). With these three conditions being satisfied, sport can provide an
effective forum for youth to learn about themselves and acquire life-skills that will help them as
they transition into adulthood. Ultimately, developmental outcomes in youth sport are contingent
upon many factors including the nature of the specific sport (Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2007), the
actions of adults involved (Lauer, Gould, Roman, & Pierce, 2010), and the social relationships
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
that are a result of the sport participation (Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010).
Supervision. There exists an important link between environmental factors, such as the
amount of adult supervision, and the behavior of athletes. Establishing meaningful relationships
with caring adults is a highly important asset in young peoples’ lives in terms of promoting
optimal development and low levels of risky behavior (Bower, Johnson, Warren, Tirrell &
Lerner, 2015; Li & Julian, 2012). Strong coach-athlete relationships are consistently associated
with less antisocial and more prosocial behavior in sport (Rutten, Schuengel, Dirks, Stams, &
Biesta, 2011; Rutten et al., 2007). In general, the presence of supportive non-parental adults is
associated with favorable youth developmental outcomes (Bowers et al., 2012). Because
aggression is more common in contexts that lack adequate adult supervision (e.g., playground;
Snyder et al., 2003) it is important that coaches and involved adults maintain supervision.
There is also something to be said for sport experiences in which the children involved
are less supervised. In a summary of relevant research, Green and Chalip (1998) point out that
adult supervision has the potential to ruin the fun and take away from the value of peer
socialization in youth sport. There is a large body of literature addressing the developmental
benefits of youth-initiated deliberate play that is largely unsupervised by adults (e.g., Côté,
Baker, & Abernathy, 2007; Côté & Erickson, 2015). Without an adult present, children are
exposed to more diverse social situations in sport (Lester & Russell, 2008), which allows childautonomy in negotiating and solving social circumstances (Jarvis, 2007). In a less structured
environment with less adult supervision, children begin to develop responsibility for the nature
of their own social participation (Côté & Erickson, 2015), which has a positive impact on
developing interpersonal social skills that are critical for continued sport participation (Bruner,
Eys, & Turnnidge, 2013) as well as the ability to work with and establish productive
6
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
7
relationships with teammates at the higher levels of sport (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett,
2002). While adult supervision may improve behavior of young athletes, there are also
developmentally constructive properties to less supervised situations.
Moral Development
Sport can be an effective platform to instill transferrable life skills such as strong moral
character (e.g., Fraser-Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2005; Turnnidge, Côté, & Hancock, 2014).
Although researchers acknowledge that character is a broad term, in the current study, character
will be investigated specifically in terms of locker room social behaviors between teammates. As
Kohlberg (1969) describes, morality is the systematic thoughts and emotions regarding right and
wrong in social relationships, which begin forming during childhood and gradually develop into
adulthood. Bolter and Weiss (2012) purport that the terms ‘character’ and ‘moral development’
are often used interchangeably in the context of sport, where character refers specifically to
perspective-taking and moral reasoning embodied by the engagement of prosocial behaviors and
the avoidance of antisocial behaviors (Bredemeier & Shields, 2008; Vieremaa, et al., 2012),
while Weiss, Smith, and Stuntz (2008) identify moral development as an umbrella term used in
reference to sportspersonship, prosocial behavior, and fair play. Although explicit
conceptualizations of right and wrong are different for each individual based on their varying
understandings of rights, justice, fairness, and the welfare of people (Turiel, 1983; 2006), sport
can be valuable domain to instill broad character values.
Throughout the last century, the concept of morality has taken on various theories and
emphasis. The cognitive-developmental emphasis of morality suggests that the development of
morality takes place through a process of sequential stages (Gibbs, 2003; Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget,
1932/1965) or domains (Turiel 1966, 1983). The moral identity theory (Damon, 1978), on the
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
8
other hand, emphasizes the development of morality as a product of an overall self-identity,
which leads the individual to feel a sense of moral responsibility.
The moral domains of social development. Turiel (1975, 1978, 1983) divides social
development into three distinct domains: moral, societal, and psychological. The moral domain
involves issues relating to justice, fairness, rights, and welfare, including acts of hitting, lying,
and stealing. The social domain pertains to systems of social relations, such as groups and social
systems, such as whether to address an adult by his/her first name of last name. Lastly, the
psychological domain refers to aspects such as personality, self, and identity, such as personal
choice (Nucci, 1981). The most notable difference between Turiel’s domain theory and those of
Piaget (1932/1965) and Kohlberg (1969, 1971) is that Turiel considers the moral and social
domain to be separate entities, while Piaget and Kohlberg consider morality and social
conventions to be the same conceptual domain (Turiel, 1983).
Morality is distinguished as its own domain by adhering to the criteria of generalizability,
obligation, inalterability, and independence from authority and rules (Smetana, 2006). The
generalizability criterion refers to the judgment of moral transgressions, such as hitting, to be
wrong, regardless of the social context (e.g., sport or school). Children judge that peers are
obligated to follow moral rules and that such rules are not alterable (cannot change or be
eliminated). This rigidity of moral rules poses an issue in sport as athletes commonly experience
bracketed morality in which competition and sport are perceived as isolated from conventional
contexts in that ethics and moral codes do not apply (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986). Lastly, moral
transgressions are considered wrong even in the absence of specific prohibitory rules (e.g., an
authority eliminates the rule or does not have a certain rule, such as prohibiting stealing).
Components of morality. The context of team sport is a favorable domain for studying
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
9
social behaviors as they relate to peer groups (Holt, Black, Tamminen, Fox, & Mandigo, 2008).
Generally speaking, the term ‘morality’ is made up of two separate dimensions (Tisak, Tisak &
Goldstein, 2006). The first is the positive component, which entails behavior that is intended to
benefit another (e.g., sharing), and is commonly referred to as prosocial behavior (reviewed in
Carlo, 2006). The other is the negative component of morality, which is behavior that involves a
negative consequence to another or that violates their rights and welfare, such as aggression
(reviewed in Tisak, et al., 2006). Although ‘character’ can be a very broad term, character
outcomes in sport are typically investigated in terms of two moral dimensions: prosocial
behavior and antisocial behavior (Kavussanu, Seal, & Phillips, 2006; Sage, Kavussanu, & Duda,
2006), however, the current study will specifically investigate aggression rather than all
antisocial behaviors.
Prosocial behavior. In sport psychology literature, prosocial behavior is commonly
defined as voluntary behavior with the intent of benefitting another (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998),
such as encouraging a teammate. This definition, despite focusing on behavior during gameplay,
has been widely accepted in sport psychology. Nonetheless, the many different aspects of
prosocial behavior have caused ambiguity in establishing a concrete definition among
researchers within developmental psychology (Tisak & Ford, 1986). For example, prosocial
behavior has been defined as the concern for another’s well-being (Cialdini, Kenrick, & Bauman,
1982), while other researchers maintain that prosocial behavior cannot be defined by using
unobservable and abstract motivations (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989; Gelfand & Hartmann, 1980).
Additionally, the behaviors considered to be prosocial have varied among researchers. Many
have limited the definition to helping and sharing behaviors, while others have added altruistic
and comforting behaviors (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Galliger, Tisak, & Tisak, 2009; Jackson &
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 10
Tisak, 2001).
The definition for the current study is grounded in the framework of Tisak, Holub, &
Tisak (2007), which coded prosocial behavior into 5 categories: sharing, helping, compliance,
social activity, and self-directed activity. To avoid limiting the definition of prosocial behavior in
ways that past research has, the current study, in line with Tisak and Ford (1986), defines
prosocial behavior as any action that is perceived to benefit others, or prompt harmonious
relations with others (Hay, 1994).
Specifically, prosocial behavior is a form of positive peer interaction that is key to a
child’s healthy development because it can encourage feelings of acceptance, support, belonging,
and caring (Carlo 2006; Sebanc, 2003). Additional longitudinal self-report research findings
suggest that prosocial behaviors are related to better adjustment for adolescents (Wentzel, Barry,
& Caldwell, 2004).
Regarding the developmental changes occurring in the rate and frequency with which a
child behaves prosocially, the existing literature has been far from univocal as prior research has
shown that prosocial behavior can increase, decrease, or remain unchanged depending on the age
of the participants and the specific type of prosocial behavior being measured (Jackson & Tisak,
2001). Some sources of literature suggest that the rate of prosocial behavior increases with age
(Eisenberg & Mussen 1989; Galliger et al., 2009; Romano, Tremblay, Boulerice, & Swisher,
2005), as children become gradually more reliant on their peers (Greener & Crick, 1999).
However, a similar study examining mother-child and teacher-child reports found that the level
of prosocial behavior gradually decreases along the developmental trajectory (Nantel-Vivier, et
al., 2009), finally plateauing during early adolescence, despite increasing levels of empathy and
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 11
moral reasoning during this age period. As it currently stands, there is need to further investigate
how the rate and frequency of prosocial behavior changes with age.
Aggressive behavior. The negative component of morality concerns the welfare of an
individual and violations of rights (Tisak & Ford, 1986), which includes matters of aggressive
moral infractions (Caprara et al., 2014). Throughout the years, many debates have taken place
over the various definitions of aggression and the many different forms it may take (Coie &
Dodge, 1998; Parke & Slaby, 1983). For purposes of the current study, aggression can be
understood in a three-part definition. The first part to defining aggression is “any form of
behavior that is intended to injure someone physically or psychologically,” (Berkowitz, 1993, p.
3). An alternate understanding of this, and part two of the current definition of aggression, is
“behavior that is aimed at harming or injuring another person or persons” (Parke & Slaby, 1983
p. 550). The third and final aspect of defining aggression is “an act that injures or irritates
another person” (Eron, 1987, p. 435). Although these three parts are quite similar, and possibly
redundant, they coalesce to create a specific yet encompassing understanding of an oftenambiguous term.
The three-part definition of the current study is broad enough to include many different
acts of aggression, even those that are not traditionally associated as an aggressive act.
Aggression has been differentiated into two forms. The first type of aggressive behavior is overt
aggression, which is physical acts of aggression or verbal threats (e.g., punching, threatening to
hit), while the second type is relational aggression in which the offender attempts to cause harm
to the victim by damaging their reputation or friendships (e.g., rumor spreading) (Crick &
Bigbee, 1998). Vaillancourt and Hymel (2006) classify physical and verbal aggression into an
“overt/direct” category and relational aggression into a “covert/indirect” category. Different
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 12
forms of aggression such as property loss or damage, direct physical violations, verbal attacks,
and relationally destructive behavior are all accounted for in the working definition of aggression
(Tisak et al., 2006).
Peers and moral development. There is a large body of literature suggesting that having
strong peer relationships (e.g., with teammates) can help a child develop moral sensitivity (i.e.,
the ability to identify an ethical problem and to understand the ethical consequences of a
decision), increased moral reasoning, and prosocial actions and mannerisms (Bandura, 1986;
Damon, 1988). Peer relationships largely influence and shape the developmental benefits of
youth sport participation (Evans, Adler, MacDonald, & Côté, 2015; Smith, 2003). Weiss and
Stuntz (2004) suggest that moral development is likely to occur through peer interactions that are
found in youth sport, such as cooperation and conflict. The bulk of the research in this area has
focused on the perceived social approval of aggressive acts of peers, and one’s own attitudes and
behaviors in sports (Weiss & Smith, 2002). Solomon (2004) indicates that the level of moral
reasoning (i.e., ability to decipher between right and wrong) is negatively correlated to the level
of aggression in sports. In other words, youth athletes with higher moral reasoning are likely to
exhibit lower levels of aggression. An important finding of research in this domain is that youth
athletes perceive their peers (i.e., teammates) as being more approving of violence and
aggression than themselves (Mugno & Feltz, 1985; Smith, 1974, 1978; Stuart & Ebbeck, 1995)
which is important because team norms and attitudes have a high level of influence on a child’s
likelihood of behaving aggressively in sport (Stephens, 2000, 2001). Such findings suggest that
youth sport is a fertile context to study the development of aggression, antisocial behaviors, and
prosocial behaviors.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 13
Cohesion
The team setting in youth sports has a significant influence on the development of
individual behavior (Bruner, et al., 2013; Holt et al., 2008). An important concept in regards to
inter-team social behavior is the level of perceived cohesion, which is defined as “a dynamic
process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the
pursuit of instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs” (Carron,
Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213).
While sport cohesion research has largely focused on adult populations, a series of focus
groups and open-ended questionnaires with youth athletes from many different sport disciplines
allowed researchers to examine the perceptions of cohesion in younger athletes (Eys, Loughead,
Bray, & Carron, 2009a). This age-appropriate cohesion instrument was empirically supported
(Eys, Loughead, Bray, & Carron, 2009b) and interpreted to suggest that the perception of
cohesion in younger athletes is based on task and social orientations (Eys et al., 2009a). Task
orientation is when an athlete is primarily concerned with the unity surrounding the achievement
of team objectives, while a social orientation is when an athlete is primarily concerned with
developing and maintaining social relationships and activities within the group. Because of this
distinction, cohesion is measured in terms of two distinct dimensions: task cohesion (i.e., the
level of unity a group possesses towards a common goal) and social cohesion (i.e., the level of
unity in regards to social aspects) (Bruner, Eys, Wilson, Côté, 2014).
The simplified conceptual model of cohesion in younger athletes, by Eys and colleagues
(2009a), falls in line with past research suggesting that youth have a more simplified view of
peer experiences (Rubin, Wojslawowicz, Rose-Krasnor, Booth-LaForce, & Burgess, 2006).
Furthermore, Martin, Carron, Eys, and Loughead (2012) developed an expanded conceptual
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 14
framework for cohesion in an even younger athlete population. This expansion supports that
young athletes are able to understand the concept of cohesion in regards to sports teams (Martin,
Carron, Eys, & Loughead, 2011).
Relevant literature supports the relationship between perceived team cohesion levels and
intra-team social behaviors. Recently, in a study that examined cohesion as a mediating factor
between social identity and prosocial/antisocial behavior, Bruner, Boardley, and Côté (2014)
found a significant positive correlation between both task and social cohesion and prosocial
behavior between teammates. Moreover, Bruner and colleagues found a significant negative
relationship between task cohesion and antisocial behavior. Further empirical support of this
relationship comes from Taylor and Bruner’s (2012) study on youth soccer players that found
higher perceptions of cohesion to be positively associated with emotional regulation and
negatively associated with antisocial behavior (e.g., social exclusion). Despite these past
correlational findings, a predictive relationship between cohesion and social behavior has yet to
be supported empirically.
Cohesion is an important concept to study because such affiliation with group members is
a very commonly reported motive for youth to participate in organized sports (e.g., Russell,
2014; Weiss & Petlichkoff, 1989). Carron and Eys (2012) established a framework that
categorizes the correlates of cohesion into four distinct dimensions: environmental factors,
personal factors, leadership factors, and team factors.
Environmental factors are those which are related to the specific setting in which the
group interactions take place. When a group interacts in close proximity (i.e., physically close to
each other), they have a greater tendency to bond and have more opportunity for communication
(Eys, Burke, Dennis, & Evans, 2015). Some situations in sport involve greater physical
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 15
proximity among group members such as having a team locker room, rooming together for away
games, and taking the same classes in school (Eys et al., 2015). Another environmental factor
that is associated with cohesion is team size, where task cohesion decreases as the size of the
team increases – a negative relationship that has been attributed to the fact that in larger groups,
it is more difficult to reach a group consensus (Carron, Eys, Burke, Jowett, & Lavallee, 2007;
Carron, Hausenblaus, & Eys, 2005; Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carron, 1990). Furthermore,
Widmeyer and colleagues found an inverted-U relationship between social cohesion and team
size in a three-on-three basketball league, where medium sized teams of six showed significantly
greater cohesiveness than smaller teams of three or larger teams of nine.
Personal factors, such as characteristics and behaviors of team members, are also
associated with cohesion. Satisfaction is an important personal factor that is associated with both
task and social cohesion (Eys et al., 2015). Reimer and Chelladurai (1998) found that satisfaction
in sport teams can come from many sources such as the opportunity to feel competent and
valued, as well as feeling socially related to the other members of the team. Widmeyer and
Williams (1991) summarize the relationship between cohesion and satisfaction by stating that
athletes who are highly satisfied are more likely to positively influence the team dynamic, and
that athletes who experience high levels of cohesion are more likely to be satisfied. Another
personal factor that is a correlate of cohesion is the amount of social loafing (i.e., the tendency
for team members to exert less effort for group task) that takes place within the team (Eys et al.,
2015). While athletes in team settings may exert less effort because they believe they will not be
individually identified, McKnight, Williams, and Widmeyer (1991) found that members of a
swimming relay team showed a negative correlation between task cohesiveness and social
loafing (i.e., as task cohesion level increased, social loafing decreased).
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 16
Leadership factors are another important correlate to cohesion, specifically the behavior
of the coach. In a study on the techniques used by coaches to build cohesion in golf teams,
Widmeyer and Williams (1991) found that the coaches do not play a significant part in the team
developing group cohesion, but they did find that the coach’s decision style could influence the
level of cohesion. When coaches allow their players to have a part in decisions regarding the
team, the players will perceive the team to have more cohesion, when compared to a team that
had a coach who made all the decisions (Westre & Weiss, 1991). Transformational leadership,
which is a coaching style in which the leaders of a team and the participants engage in a mutual
and ongoing process of building each other up to higher levels of motivation, moral reasoning,
and self-consciousness (Bass & Riggio, 2006), has been found to be positively associated with
the perception of team cohesion (Price & Weiss, 2013).
Finally, team factors are correlated to level of perceived cohesion in athletes. Roles,
which are sets of behaviors that are expected from teammates who are in a specific position of
the group, are a team factor that is associated with cohesiveness. Cohesion is higher when
teammates are more accepting of their roles (Benson, Eys, Surya, Dawson, & Schneider, 2013),
whatever that role may be. Additionally, Gammage, Carron, & Estabrooks (2001) found that the
presence of team norms (i.e., a standard for behavior that is expected of team members) is
associated with having higher cohesiveness. Norms reflect the team consensus about behaviors
that are considered acceptable (Eys et al., 2015), and have been divided into four athlete-specific
contexts: competition, practice, off-season, and social (Munroe, Estabrooks, Dennis, & Carron,
1999). There is a circular relationship between the presence of norms and cohesion in which the
development of norms leads to the development of cohesiveness, and as the team develops
cohesiveness they also develop greater conformity to team norms (Eys et al., 2015).
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 17
Cohesion is most often studied in regards to its effect on team performance, and with an
adult population, leaving much room for research in the areas of youth sport, specifically
regarding how the level of perceived cohesion may influence social behaviors. Past research has
found that level of cohesion is positively correlated to team success (e.g., Carron, Bray, Eys,
2002; Dobersek, Gershgoren, Becker, & Tenenbaum, 2014; Fuster-Parra, Garcia-Mas, Ponseti,
& Leo, 2015), collective-efficacy (Filho, Tenenbaum, & Yang, 2015; Spink, 1990), and positive
attitudes towards exercise (Estabrooks & Carron, 1999). Additionally, there is evidence that
cohesion is positively related to satisfaction from sport participation in interactive team sports
(Spink, Nickel, Wilson, & Odnokon, 2005), individual team sports (e.g., swimming, crosscountry skiing) (Evans & Eys, 2015), and youth exercise groups (Bruner & Spink, 2011), while
it is negatively correlated to anxiety levels (Eys, Hardy, Carron, & Beauchamp, 2003) and
depression levels (Terry et al., 2000). Another positive behavioral outcome associated with a
high level of cohesion is significantly increased effort, which was found in a study of high school
basketball players (Bray & Whaley, 2001).
The advancement and development of measures of youth sport cohesion (e.g., Eys et al.,
2009a; 2009b; Martin et al., 2012) have allowed for research to reveal that cohesion is
significantly related to many of the goals of PYD (Bruner et al., 2014). Taylor and Bruner (2012)
studied the impact of cohesion on personal development in elite level youth athletes (soccer), and
found that a high level of task cohesion is associated with satisfaction of psychological needs,
which is in turn associated with aspects of positive youth development (i.e., leadership
opportunities, emotional regulation, goal setting, and decreased social exclusion). This finding
was later supported in a study involving a wide variety of youth sports, reporting that at the
individual level, perceptions of both task and social cohesion are in association with higher
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 18
levels of positive youth development (Bruner et al., 2014). Such findings suggest that perceived
cohesion may have a bi-directional relationship with personal development of a young athlete.
The development of cohesion with age. From a purely developmental standpoint,
perceptions of team cohesion remain largely understudied. For example, while Gruber and Gray
(1981) measured cohesion levels across different skill levels of basketball teams, they
inadvertently grouped skill level based upon age, finding that elementary school and junior high
school teams had higher levels of cohesion than did high school teams. These results were later
supported by Granito and Rainey (1988) in a study that found that cohesion levels were greater
in high school football teams than in college football teams. Although neither of these studies
were designed with the intent of studying developmental differences in levels of cohesion, the
findings are in line with Carron and colleagues’ (2005) suggestion that athletes at lower levels
have greater cohesion because they can more easily reach consensus regarding task and social
unity. Despite theoretical ambivalence on this relationship between cohesion and age, there is
enough evidence to suggest that this link is worthy of investigation.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 19
CURRENT STUDY
Bandura (1973) stated that the best way to understand behavior is by taking a closer look
at the context in which the behavior occurs, rather than the individual that is exhibiting the
behavior – suggesting the importance of context when researching the development of social
behaviors (e.g., prosocial and aggressive). As seen in the bioecological model, environmental
forces of specific contexts share a joint influence with a child’s biology to mold development
(Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Despite the contributions of past
research suggesting the importance of a child’s environment, many contexts remain
understudied. Previous research involving sport participation has heavily focused on the context
of sport gameplay, and rarely addressed the surrounding contexts that go along with sport.
Because the context of youth sport is considered to be a positive means of teaching children
social behavior, the associated situations and contexts warrant an in depth look; therefore, the
current study seeks to gain a further understanding of the youth hockey locker room as a context
for social development. According to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theory of ecological systems, the
sports team and locker room fall within the child’s most immediate level of environment known
as the microsystem, making this an important developmental context.
Sullivan’s (1953) developmental model of interpersonal relationships suggests that team
sports may be beneficial during middle childhood (i.e., ages 7-9 years) as peer group acceptance
becomes increasingly important, and children begin to need a sense of belonging. Sport
involvement during early adolescence (i.e., ages 10-14 year) allows for teammates to experience
close relationships with peers of the same sex, which Sullivan refers to as “chumships”, that can
meet interpersonal intimacy needs, buffer against loneliness, facilitate social adjustment, and
provide feelings of security, psychological well-being, and self-worth.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 20
As opposed to relationships with adults, Piaget‘s (1932/1965) theory of cognitive
development explains that peer relationships are balanced and equal, which provides cognitive,
social, moral, and emotional growth through the opportunity to disagree, negotiate, and resolve
conflicts with peers. Hartup (2005) reviewed the ways in which children learn from other
children, summarizing the dynamics of peer influence by stating that behavior change in youth
can be understood as a function of children’s interactions with one another. Moreover, Piaget
believed that the experiences between peers that stem from conflict, such as problem solving, are
essential to the development of social perspective-taking as well as moral development. In other
words, experiences between peers such as conflict, discussion, and cooperation are likely to
increase prosocial behaviors and help to develop moral reasoning. Brustad (1992) recommends
that youth sport research utilize the framework of cognitive-developmental theory because the
cognitive-developmental characteristics will ultimately affect children’s evaluation of
information coming from socialization agents (e.g., teammates).
A tightknit area of peer interaction, such as the locker room, may have an important
impact on a child’s development, which can be understood through the social cognitive theory.
Bandura (1986) claims that starting at a young age, a child’s peers can serve as behavior change
agents through the processes of modeling, reinforcement, and punishment, in which children use
each other to learn social behaviors. Teammates serve as a source of information as to what
behaviors are socially accepted and those that are not, through behavioral norms. From this
perspective, a child may experience vicarious reinforcements such as witnessing a fellow player
be rewarded in some way for an aggressive act. Children who believe that teammates are more
approving of aggressive behavior have a higher likelihood of endorsing aggressive actions in
sports (Weiss & Smith, 2002). Social behaviors are observationally learned and reinforced,
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 21
which is important to consider when children participate in team sports.
Children often exhibit multiple forms of peer interactions (e.g., prosocial, aggressive) that
can contribute to their own as well as their peer’s development (Ladd, Kochenderfer, &
Coleman, 1997; Parker & Asher, 1987). Therefore, it is important that systematic research on the
youth hockey locker room examine both aggressive and prosocial behavior. Focusing only on
aggression in the sport of hockey, as past studies have done (e.g., Gee, Leith, & Sullivan, 2015;
Loughead & Leith, 2001; Pappas, McKenry, & Catlett, 2004), may limit the research, and
neglect the developmentally constructive properties of youth ice hockey. The current study
explored social behaviors amongst teammates in the youth hockey locker room, and identified
predictors of both types of behavior that can ultimately be used by youth sport organizations to
guide policies and enhance youth hockey players’ experiences.
Lastly, drawing form the social identity perspective, behaviors of individuals that are a
member of a group for a period of time become more normative, and loyalty to the group
increases in a process known as depersonalization (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell,
1987). Over time, members begin acting in ways that are consistent with the team’s social norms,
which assimilates them into the group, leading to an increase of social acceptance by other group
members (Krane & Kaus, 2014). This is important to the current study in that individual
members may adopt the social behaviors of the team, whether aggressive or prosocial.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 22
GOALS AND HYPOTHESES
1.) In the locker room, do youth athletes perceive more prosocial or aggressive behavior?
The locker room is stereotypically viewed as a symbolic shrine that is the center of team
bonding (Curry, 1991). Despite the apparent significance of the locker room, this context has yet
to be investigated in terms of character development for youth athletes. The current study sought
to initially reveal whether social behaviors in the locker room are perceived to be predominantly
prosocial (e.g., sharing, encouraging) or aggressive (e.g., hitting, name calling). To better
understand the perceptions of social behavior in the locker room, the participants are first asked
to rate their own behavior towards peers, and then asked about their peers behaviors towards
themselves. Because youth tend to overestimate their own level of prosociality (e.g., Holub,
2005), we assessed the total amount of prosocial and aggressive behavior perceptions (i.e.,
created a composite by combining ‘participant to peer’ and ‘peer to participant’ behavior
perceptions) as well as just the perceptions of teammates social behaviors (i.e., peer to
participant) as these two calculations may differ. Ultimately, to understand whether youth
athletes perceive the locker room to be an environment that has more frequent prosocial or
aggressive behavior, it is important to assess the perception of their own behavior as well as their
teammate’s behaviors. Based on the realistic conflict theory, it is believed that the superordinate
goals of teammates in the locker room setting will promote primarily prosocial behavior (Sherif,
1966) similar to the historic Robber’s Cave study of group dynamics (Sherif, Harvey, White,
Hood, & Sherif, 1961).
This study also addressed whether children perceive themselves as more prosocial to
peers, or peers as more prosocial toward them, within the specific context of the youth hockey
locker room. Similarly, the current study addressed whether youth hockey players perceive
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 23
themselves as more aggressive to peers, or peers more aggressive towards them. Past research
findings have led to the prediction that young athletes will perceive themselves as more prosocial
than their peers, and their peers as more aggressive than themselves (Galliger et al., 2009; Tisak,
Tisak, & Laurene, 2012).
2.) Description of Bivariate Correlations
An important aspect of the current study was investigating the presence of meaningful
statistical relationships between the main variables. Although merely finding a significant
bivariate correlation provides little deeper understanding of behavior, it is a worthwhile step in
terms of exploration. From a developmental psychology standpoint, it is useful to investigate
variables that correlate with age; therefore an important goal of the current study was exploring
whether age was significantly related to prosocial and aggressive behavior, task and social
cohesion, and adult supervision. Moreover, the current study also sought to investigate the
presence of meaningful relationships between each of the aforementioned variables. As a control,
all variables were also investigated in terms of their potential correlation to length of tenure with
the athletes’ current team.
3.) Predictors of perceived prosocial and aggressive locker room behavior
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate variables that predict locker room
social behaviors. Despite past evidence showing that aggressive behavior decreases with age, and
prosocial behavior increases with age (Brame, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2001; Romano et al., 2005;
Tisak & Tisak, 1996), the locker room is a unique social atmosphere that may not be comparable
to the contexts of such past studies. It is vital to note that the rules of ice hockey change for older
children in that more instrumental aggression (e.g., body-checking) is allowed. Fraser-Thomas,
Jeffery-Tosoni, and Baker (2014) completed a qualitative study on aggression in ice hockey,
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 24
finding that there develops a complex power dynamic through being able to legally body-check
an opponent, which they claim serves as a backdrop for other aggressive behaviors such as
bullying. Similarly, Emery, McKay, Campbell, and Peters (2009) found that aggression increases
in older age groups of youth hockey players, and concluded that body-checking influences
attitudes of aggression. Because of these past findings, age was controlled for in the first step of
the prediction analyses.
It was expected that adult supervision level would be positively associated with prosocial
behavior and negatively associated with aggressive behavior. Therefore, adult supervision was
also investigated as a potential predictor of prosocial and aggressive behavior. It was also
expected that there would exist an inverse relationship between age and adult supervision level in
that younger age predicts higher levels of adult supervision, while older age predicts lower levels
of adult supervision. As such, it was important to use a statistical analysis that would control for
collinearity between the variables (i.e., hierarchical multiple regression).
Based on the work of Bruner et al. (2014) and Taylor and Bruner (2012), it was expected
that there would exist a positive relationship between both types of team cohesion and prosocial
teammate behavior, as well as an inverse relationship between cohesion and aggressive behavior.
This hypothesis is in line with Johnson and Johnson’s (1989) social interdependence theory
which posits that team members who work together on group-level tasks make personal
investments in developing fluid working relations and subsequently engage in more mutual
helping behaviors. This theory also contends that when team members share a collective task
they have greater interpersonal liking for fellow members and create a more harmonious
environment. Past research has extended social interdependence theory to children as well (e.g.,
Bertucci, Johnson, Johnson, & Conte, 2011). Because of strong theoretical justification and
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 25
findings from similar past research, task cohesion and social cohesion were included as potential
predictors of prosocial and aggressive behavior perceptions.
Based on the limited available research (i.e., Granito & Rainey, 1988; Gruber & Gray,
1981), it was expected that age would be negatively correlated with both types of team cohesion.
That is, it was predicted that younger athletes would have higher perceptions of task and social
cohesion. Because it was hypothesized that both types of cohesion would be strongly related to
one another, it was important to control for other variables. To the author’s knowledge, there is
not yet a theory that could explain a relationship between age and cohesion. While it is known
that children’s conceptualization of cohesion becomes more complex with age (Eys et al.,
2009a), there is no theoretical justification to hypothesize any specific relationship between
cohesion levels and age.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 26
METHOD
Data for this study were collected from 251 male youth hockey players who attended the
Pro Ambitions Summer Hockey camp, at locations across North America. Upon signing their
child up for the summer hockey camp, parents were emailed the opportunity to have their child
participate in this study. The age of campers ranged from 6 – 16 years old, however, because of
readability issues, data for the present study only investigated responses from youth hockey
players that were at least 8 years old. Data from 20 participants were omitted because they were
not eight years old yet. We sent out a recruitment email to the parents of 3,074 youth hockey
players, of which 487 opened the survey. Of the initial 487 participants who opened the
questionnaire, 216 decided not to participate, or did not make it past the demographic questions.
In total, 251 participants fit the age requirement and submitted a completed questionnaire with
enough data to be analyzed.
Of the 251 participants that are included in analyses, 86.6% were Caucasian, and 80.5%
reported coming from a family with at least one parent who completed a Bachelor’s degree or
higher. Although the sample was predominantly Caucasian and was high in socioeconomic
status, this causes no external validity concerns as ice hockey is a highly affluent sport, played
primarily by Caucasians. Participants had a mean age of 10.98 years old (SD = 1.92), had an
average of 6.12 years of experience in hockey (SD = 2.22), and an average of 3.24 years spent
with the current team (SD = 2.08). Finally, it was revealed that participants spent an average of
4.04 hours per week in the locker room (SD = 1.98). These data are presented in Table 1.
Measures
Demographics. To collect the basic demographic information about the child
participants, questions were asked of the parental consent giver, as well as of the youth athletes
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 27
themselves. Following the description of the study and the question of parental consent, parents
were asked questions regarding the child’s date of birth, parental education levels, and the
ethnicity of the child (see Appendix A). Demographic questions asked of the child included age,
years of experience playing hockey, most recent level of hockey played, retrospective estimated
average hours per week spent in the locker room during the past season, how many years prior to
the season of interest had they been a part of team or organization, and finally to list any other
sports that they play (see Appendix B).
Prosocial and aggressive behavior. To assess the level of perceived prosocial and
aggressive behavior, the current study utilized a modified version of a measure developed by
Tisak and Tisak (2007), which has been used in prior similar research (e.g., Galliger et al., 2009;
Tisak et al., 2012), but never before in a sport-specific population (see Appendix C). The
questionnaire assessed children’s views of how often their peers act prosocially and aggressively
towards them, as well as how often they act prosocially and aggressive towards peers. When
investigating the levels of perceived prosocial and aggressive behavior in the locker room, it is
important to assess the behavior of the participant as well as the participants’ perception of
teammate behavior. Whereas past research using this scale has differentiated between participant
behavior and peer behavior, the current study combines these two questions to create a
contextual variable that measures how much prosocial and aggressive behavior takes place in the
locker room. By creating a composite measure that analyzed both participants’ perceptions of
their own as well as their peers’ social behavior, a more complete understanding of locker room
behavior was afforded. To simplify the wording, the term “kind” was used in place of prosocial,
and “not kind” in place of aggressive. Participants were asked the following four questions, and
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 28
in line with the original scale developers (i.e., Tisak & Tisak, 2007) responded using a 4-point
Likert-type scale of 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = a lot, 4 = all the time:
There are some days that teammates are kind to each other, and some days
that they are not kind.
1.
In the locker room, how often are you kind or nice to your teammates?
2. In the locker room, how often are your teammates kind or nice to you?
3. In the locker room, how often are you not kind to your teammates?
4.
In the locker room, how often are your teammates not kind to you?
The means of question one and question two were compared to investigate whether young
athletes view themselves or their peers as more prosocial, while the means of question three and
question four were compared to investigate whether participants view themselves or their peers
as more aggressive. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, questions one and two combine to
create a subscale that measures overall prosocial behavior in the locker room context. Similarly,
questions three and four combine to formulate a subscale that measures overall aggressive
behavior in the locker room context.
Adult supervision. To assess the participant’s perceptions of the amount of supervision,
a series of simple items were designed. These items are formatted similarly to the measure used
for social behavior. The amount of perceived adult supervision was obtained through five 4-point
Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = a lot, 4 = all the time) questions asking:
1.
When you are in the locker room before practice, how often is there an adult supervising
the team’s behavior?
2. When you are in the locker room before a game, how often is there an adult supervising
the team’s behavior?
3. When you are in the locker room after practice, how often is there an adult supervising
the team’s behavior?
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 29
4. When you are in the locker room after a game, how often is there an adult supervising the
team’s behavior?
5. How often are you and your teammates in the locker room without any adult supervision?
Four of the five questions ask about a specific context (i.e., before/after practice and before/after
game), while the fifth item is reverse scored. Because this scale assesses the perception of adult
supervision in a variety of common locker room situations, the mean score of the five items
generates a score of overall locker room supervision perception (see Appendix D).
Cohesion. To measure level of perceived cohesion, the current study utilized the Child
Sport Cohesion Questionnaire (Martin et al., 2012; see Appendix E). This questionnaire is
currently the most valid cohesion measure for youth sport participants. The questionnaire
consists of sixteen 5-point Likert-type Scale questions ranging from “1 = strongly disagree” to “5
= strongly agree.” Two items are spurious negatively worded items that are implemented to
avoid response agreement tendencies (i.e., circling all 5’s). Of the fourteen items (not including
the spurious negative items), seven are designed to measure task cohesion, while the remaining
seven measure social cohesion. The task cohesion items assess the level of cohesion working
towards a goal (e.g., “In games, we all get along well”). The social cohesion items relate to the
level of cohesion as a social unit (e.g., “We stick together outside of our sport”).
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 30
RESULTS
Missing data were deemed to be completely at random, which was assessed using Little’s
(1988) missing completely at random (MCAR) test. Because the MCAR statistic did not reject
the null hypothesis that missing values diverged from randomness, missing values for scalescored variables (i.e., adult supervision, social cohesion, and task cohesion) were replaced using
the expectation-maximization algorithm (Dempster, Laird, & Rubin, 1977; Wu, 1983). Missing
values for the prosocial and aggressive behavior items were not replaced because sufficient
subscale items were not available to create a mean for the participant. This imputation approach
is an adequate method of dealing with missing values, where highly correlated subscale items are
available for calculating estimates (Osborne, 2013; Schafer & Graham, 2002).
Means and standard deviations of all major variables were calculated (Table 1) as well as
the inter-correlations (Table 2). Using Cronbach’s alpha to test the reliability of the scales, it was
determined that each subscale had a strong internal consistency (i.e., α > .80), well above the
widely accepted threshold of .70 (Nunnally & Berstein, 1994). Because the perceived
supervision measure was the only instrument that had not been used in past research, it was the
main concern during reliability analysis – resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of .90. Because the
prosocial and aggression subscales only had two items each, alphas were not calculated,
however, this instrument has been used in past research (e.g., Galliger et al., 2009; Tisak et al.,
2012). This composite measure of social behaviors included perceptions of participants own
behavior, as well as perceptions of teammate’s behavior. Although these are independent
constructs, participant prosocial behavior perceptions correlated strongly with teammate
prosocial behavior perceptions (r = .40, p < .01), as did perceptions of participant aggressive
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 31
behavior with perceived teammate aggressive behavior (r = .45, p < .01) – supporting
researchers’ decision to create a composite of the two constructs.
1.) In the locker room, do youth athletes perceive more prosocial or aggressive behavior?
First, to assess whether young athletes perceive themselves to be more or less prosocial
than peers, the means of the two relevant components were compared using a paired samples ttest. This same statistical test was completed to compare the means of the two aggressionspecific dimensions as well, to assess whether youth athletes view teammates as either more or
less aggressive than themselves. Descriptive statistics (Table 1) indicate that participants
reported perceiving moderately high levels of prosocial behavior for themselves (M = 3.45, SD =
0.59), as well as their teammates (M = 3.05, SD = 0.68), while perceiving low levels of
aggressive behavior for themselves (M = 1.31, SD = 0.47) as well as their teammates (M = 1.62,
SD = 0.61). When compared to teammates, participants perceived themselves to be significantly
more prosocial (t(250) = 9.20, p < .001) and significantly less aggressive (t(246) = -8.35, p <
.001). This finding is in line with past research suggesting that children tend to overestimate their
own prosocial behavior (Holub, 2005; Tisak et al., 2012) and overestimate peer aggression
tendencies (Mugno & Feltz, 1985; Smith, 1974, 1978; Stuart & Ebbeck, 1995).
To analyze whether youth hockey players perceived more prosocial behavior or more
aggressive behavior in the locker room, the current study compared the means of each social
behavior type using a paired samples t-test. Descriptive statistics (Table 1) show that overall,
youth hockey players report moderately high levels of perceived prosocial behavior and
moderately low levels of perceived aggressive behavior in the locker room. A simple paired
samples t-test revealed that total perceived prosocial behavior (M = 3.25, SD = 0.53) was
significantly greater than total perceived aggressive behavior (M = 1.46, SD = .46) in the youth
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 32
hockey locker room (t(246) = 32.16, p < .001). Moreover, to account for the possibility that
participants overestimated their own perceived prosocial behavior, or underestimated their own
perceived aggressive behavior towards teammates, a separate paired samples t-test was run to
compare the perception of peer behavior towards the participants, separately. Results indicated
that perceived peer prosocial behaviors towards participants (M = 3.05, SD = 0.68) were
significantly greater than perceived peer aggressive behaviors toward participants (M = 1.62, SD
= 0.61) (t(247) = 19.61, p < .001), showing that skewed estimations did not negate the significant
difference between perceived prosocial locker room behaviors and perceived aggressive locker
room behaviors.
2.) Description of Bivariate Correlations
An inspection of the bivariate correlations between key variables (i.e., Table 2) revealed
interesting significant associations. Age was related negatively to perceived prosocial behavior (r
= -.14, p < .05), and positively to perceived aggressive behavior (r = .14, p < .05), suggesting
that older hockey players perceived less prosocial and more aggressive behavior than younger
players. As hypothesized, age was inversely related to task cohesion (r = -.16, p < .05), however,
age had no significant relationship with social cohesion. Not surprisingly, age was strongly
associated with the amount of perceived supervision in the locker room (r = -.40, p < .01), since
older athletes tend to require less adult assistance.
As anticipated, social cohesion was strongly related to task cohesion (r = .64, p < .01),
but not so strongly as to consider these two constructs to be redundant or in danger of
multicollinearity (i.e., r > .9 between predictors; Field, 2013). Social cohesion was positively
related to perceived prosocial behavior (r = .37, p < .01) and negatively to perceived aggressive
behavior (r = -.15, p < .05), while task cohesion correlated with perceived prosocial behavior (r
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 33
= .46, p < .01) and perceived aggressive behavior (r = -.38, p < .01), indicating that increased
cohesion levels were associated with perceptions of more positive, prosocial behaviors, and less
aggressive behaviors. Moreover, supervision was significantly related to both social cohesion (r
= .18, p < .01) and task cohesion (r = .32, p < .01), indicating that higher supervision levels may
be bi-directionally related to a more cohesive team. There was also a strong inverse relationship
between perceptions of prosocial behavior and perceptions of aggressive behavior (r = -.55, p <
.01). It is also worth noting that athlete’s length of tenure with current team was not associated
with either cohesion levels or social behaviors.
3.) Predictors of perceived prosocial and aggressive locker room behavior
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Model for Prosocial Behavior
The present study investigated variables that predict perceptions of prosocial behavior in
the locker room. Hierarchical regression (blockwise entry) was used to predict perceived
prosocial behavior based on age, perception of supervision, social cohesion, and task cohesion.
When using hierarchical regression, the foundation of the model should be based on theory and
relevant past findings (Pedhauzer, 1982), and the hierarchical ordering for entry should rely on
causal priority (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Past research shows that age is an
important variable when predicting prosocial behavior (Brame et al., 2001; Romano et al., 2005;
Tisak & Tisak, 1996), and was therefore entered into the regression model first, followed by
supervision, social cohesion, and task cohesion, in the second step. Furthermore, the relationship
between age and social behavior cannot be bi-directional, and is subsequently a causal
relationship, which Cohen and colleagues (2003) suggest is a basis to include age in step one.
A significant regression equation was found for predicting perceptions of prosocial
behavior on age independently of other variables in step one (F(1, 249) = 4.60, p <.05).
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 34
Moreover, a significant regression equation was also found for step two, which added three
additional predictor variables: perceptions of adult supervision, social cohesion, and task
cohesion (F(3, 246) = 24.93, p <.001). Whereas the model with only age as a predictor (i.e., step
one) explained 1.8% of the total variance in perceived prosocial behavior, adding supervision,
social cohesion, and task cohesion in step two increased the variance explained to 25%.
Table 3 reports the results of the multiple regression analysis. While age was a significant
predictor of perceived prosocial behavior (β = -.14, p < .05) in step one, controlling for
perceived supervision, task cohesion, and social cohesion in step two revealed that age was no
longer a significant predictor (β = -.01, p > .05). Adding adult supervision, social cohesion, and
task cohesion in step two predicted perceived prosocial behavior above and beyond the effect of
age. Task cohesion was found to be the strongest predictor of perceived prosocial behavior (β =
.32, p < .001), followed by adult supervision (β = .17, p < .01), while social cohesion was not a
significant predictor of perceived prosocial behavior (β = .13, p > .05).
It is good practice to always observe the variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance
collinearity diagnostics. Many authors agree that multicollinearity is only a concern when
tolerance is below .2 and/or the VIF is above 10 (e.g., Menard, 2002; Myers, 1990; O’Brien,
2007), which is not the case in the current study as the lowest tolerance level for the model is
.548, and the highest VIF value is 1.82 (Mean VIF = 1.50). The Durbin-Watson test statistic,
testing the assumption of independent errors, was 1.73. Conservatively, values that fall between
1 and 3 show no cause for concern, and the closer to 2, the better (Field, 2013). Based on this
conservative rule, 1.73 is close enough to 2 that the assumption has more than likely been met.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 35
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Model for Aggressive Behavior
The present study also used hierarchical regression to investigate predictors of perceived
aggressive behavior in the youth hockey locker room. Consistent with the previous analysis, age
was entered in step one, with perceived adult supervision, task cohesion, and social cohesion
added in step two. Significant regression equations were found predicting perceptions of
aggressive behavior on age (F(1, 245) = 4.91, p <.05) in step one, as well as in step two which
predicted perceptions of aggressive behavior on adult supervision, social cohesion, and task
cohesion (F(3, 242) = 13.32, p <.001). Age in step one accounted for 2% of the variance in
perceived aggressive behavior, while adding the additional predictors to the model in step two
accounted for 18% of the total variance. Adding task cohesion, social cohesion, and perceived
supervision (i.e., step 2) to the model resulted in a ΔR2 of .16.
Table 4 represents the model parameters for predicting perceived aggressive locker room
behavior. When age was included individually in step one, it significantly predicted perceived
aggressive behavior (β = 0.14, p < .05), but after step two factored in perceived adult
supervision, social cohesion, and task cohesion, age was no longer a significant predictor of
perceived aggression – indicating that the addition of these three variables predicted perceived
aggressive behavior above and beyond the effect of age. Task cohesion was the strongest
predictor of perceived aggressive behavior (β = -0.41, p < .001), suggesting that as task cohesion
increases, perceptions of aggression decrease. Perceived supervision was also a significant
predictor of perceived aggressive behavior (β = -.18, p < .01), indicating that higher levels of
perceived supervision is associated with lower levels of perceived aggressive behavior. Lastly,
despite being related to perceived aggression in the correlation matrix, social cohesion did not
significantly predict perceived aggressive behavior (β = 0.14, p > .05).
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 36
The largest VIF value was 1.84, and the average VIF score was 1.51, which suggests that
multicollinearity is of no concern in this model. None of the tolerance levels fall below the 0.2
threshold, therefore there is no cause for concern. The assumption of independent errors was met
with a Durbin-Watson test value of 1.77.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 37
DISCUSSION
Based on the current findings, the locker room appears to be a constructive context in
which perceptions of behavior are largely prosocial in nature, and perceived aggression is
relatively uncommon. This finding supports that the specific sport related context of the locker
room is an environment that is constructive to the development of character. Based on the 4C’s
model of positive developmental outcomes (Côté & Gilbert, 2009), building character is a
primary goal of youth sport participation, which has been measured in previous sport psychology
research by calculating the difference between antisocial behavior and prosocial behavior
(Erickson & Côté, 2016). In line with Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, the prosocial
behaviors found in the locker room may serve as models of reinforcement in which young
athletes learn appropriate behavior through peer observation. The primarily prosocial peer
interactions in the locker room create a constructive dynamic between children in which
behavior is learned from one another (Hartup, 2005). Whereas some contexts, such as the
playground, feature more aggressive behavior than prosocial behavior (Snyder et al., 2003), the
current study reveals that the perceptions of behavior in the locker room are significantly more
prosocial than aggressive, and therefore appears to serve as a context in which young athletes
may learn transferrable group social skills.
As predicted, the current study revealed that young athletes view peers as less prosocial,
and more aggressive than themselves. This finding is consistent with decades of past research,
which has consistently found that young athletes perceive peers as being more approving of
aggressive behavior than themselves (Mugno & Feltz, 1985; Smith, 1974, 1978; Stuart &
Ebbeck, 1995). This finding is also consistent with developmental psychology literature
(Galliger et al., 2009; Holub, 2005; Tisak et al., 2012). More specifically, Holub (2005)
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 38
investigated children’s social competency, finding that children commonly overrate their own
prosocial ability. It is highly likely that the participants in the current study overrated their own
prosocial behavior while underrating their own aggressive behavior. This self-report limitation
will be further addressed below.
The focus of the current study was to investigate variables that may predict perceptions of
prosocial and aggressive behavior in the youth hockey locker room. As anticipated, age initially
predicted both prosocial and aggressive behavior before controlling for perceptions of adult
supervision, task cohesion, and social cohesion. In the final regression models, it was revealed
that perceived adult supervision and task cohesion significantly predicted perceived prosocial
and aggressive locker room behavior, while age and social cohesion did not. Pearson’s
correlations revealed that age was significantly related to adult supervision as well as task
cohesion, which might explain why age was no longer a significant predictor upon adding these
variables to the regression models in step 2.
Adult supervision was related to perceived prosocial behavior and inversely related to
perceived aggressive behavior. These results corroborate existing literature consistently showing
that greater adult supervision is positively related to prosocial behavior (e.g., Tisak et al., 2012),
and inversely correlated with aggressive behavior (e.g., Snyder et al., 2003). Age is likely
inversely related to adult supervision because of factors such as younger ice hockey players
needing help with equipment (e.g., tying skates), and older players wanting more autonomy in
sport experiences.
Perceptions of task cohesion significantly predicted perceived prosocial behavior and
perceived aggressive behavior. As predicted, this finding supports the social interdependence
theory (Johnson & Johnson, 1989) which claims that team members with a shared task invest in
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 39
developing smooth interpersonal interactions and have greater interpersonal liking and harmony
within the group (Bertucci, et al., 2011). Bruner and colleagues (2014) found a similar positive
relationship between task cohesion and prosocial behavior of athletes, which was explained
through qualitative work from Eys et al., (2009b) suggesting that task cohesion is associated with
better teamwork and communication. Bruner et al., (2014) also speculated that stronger
intragroup processes, such as greater teamwork, may lead to more prosocial teammate behavior,
such as encouragement, and enhanced valuing of teammate contributions that in-turn reduces
antisocial teammate behaviors such as aggression.
Moreover, task cohesion was inversely related to age – a finding that corroborates
existing literature (e.g., Granito & Rainey, 1988; Gruber & Gray, 1981). Carron and colleagues
(2005) suggest that less experienced athletes playing at lower levels have greater cohesion as
consensus is more easily reached regarding task and social unity, which was supported by the
current findings. Furthermore, Carron, Shapcott, and Burke (2007) assert that cohesion decreases
as the level of play increases, which may be reflected in the inverse relationship between age and
task cohesion. It can also be speculated that as athletes get older there is increased pressure on
them to stand out from their teammates, resulting in more selfish play. This, however, is purely
speculation, and is a topic that deserves further investigation.
Social cohesion was strongly related to prosocial behavior, and inversely related to
aggressive behavior. Eys and colleagues (2009b) found that high levels of social cohesion often
leads to the formulation of meaningful friendships, which may partially explain why athletes
with high perceptions of social cohesion are more prosocial and less aggressive to teammates
(Bruner et al., 2014). Another interesting finding is that supervision is strongly related to both
social and task cohesion, suggesting that teams who have more frequent adult presence work
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 40
better towards the pursuit of unified goals and are more united in regards to social aspects. This
finding adds to Carron and Eys’ (2012) correlates of cohesion framework. Lastly, although no
hypotheses were formulated regarding tenure with current team, it was surprising that this was
not related to either type of cohesion, or perceptions of either type of social behavior.
Practical Implications
The timely findings from the current study support Weinberg and Gould’s (2003) call for
research that provides youth sport stakeholders necessary information regarding when and how
aggression is manifested in the youth sport setting. Specifically, this study effectively
investigated predictors of appropriate and inappropriate social behaviors in the youth hockey
locker room – a context in which young athletes spend a considerable amount of time – that can
be used to inform youth sport program and coaching policies. The practicality of this research is
quite timely, given that the locker room is a place where youth sport research should look to
better understand pernicious sport issues such as bullying and sport attrition.
Given the clear connections between adult supervision and locker room behaviors, it is
imperative that youth hockey programs adamantly ensure the presence of adequate adult
supervision in the locker room at all times, regardless of the athlete’s age. Doing so appears
likely to improve the perceptions of prosocial behavior and reduce the perceptions of aggressive
behavior, thus establishing an environment that better promotes character building in young
athletes. Often it seems that the coaches are responsible for the supervision of the locker room,
which may be problematic as coaches already have many responsibilities that often times make it
so that they are not able to be present in the locker room. Before a game or practice, coaches may
have responsibilities such as creating the game or practice plans, meeting with opposing coaches,
or even scouting the games taking place before their team plays. The same is true following a
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 41
game or practice. It would be beneficial for teams to have parents take turns volunteering as
locker room monitors, though this may undermine the perceived sanctity of the locker room in
many ways. This is a quandary that may require future research.
Given that task cohesion levels predict perceptions of prosocial and aggressive behavior,
it may encourage character development if youth sport coaches focus on increasing team
cohesion. The benefits of cohesion in sport teams are already well documented in the sport
psychology literature (e.g., increased performance, increased sport satisfaction), and it can now
be derived that cohesion may also increase the character building qualities of sport participation.
Specifically, coaches may take caution against practice plans that involve too much intrateam
competition, and instead focus on ways of increasing how the team members work together. By
doing so, coaches may contribute to greater levels of perceived prosocial behavior and lesser
levels of perceived aggressive behavior in the locker room.
Limitations and Future Directions
By collecting data via online survey, it made it possible to use a geographically diverse
sample, though this procedure did not come without limitations. Reaching youth hockey players
required emailing parents or guardians, which created a limitation in that we could not be
absolutely certain that parents were not influencing the participant responses. Precautions were
taken to the best of our ability, by stressing to the parents the importance of letting their child
take the questionnaire in private. It should be noted, however, that parents were allowed to first
look over the questionnaire so they knew exactly what their child would be asked. Future
research efforts should make certain that parents are not influencing the responses of the child
participants.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 42
It appears that many of the recruited youth hockey players began to take the questionnaire
(i.e., answered at least one question) only to terminate immediately - leading to a rather high
attrition rate. In line with responsible and ethical research practices, it was made very clear to the
youth participants that they could choose to stop the questionnaire at any point. Perhaps many
were simply curious to see the questionnaire, and had no real intent of completing it. Future
research may consider ways to ensure participants are serious about completing the questionnaire
before they begin.
Admittedly, participants were all male primarily due to the convenience of recruitment,
although females changing in a male dominated locker room may have been overly problematic
to the study. While the current study cautiously included only male participants, the reality of the
sport of hockey is that both males and females play and often do so on co-ed teams. Because of
the complicated nature of males and females dressing together in a locker room, future research
may take aim at this dynamic.
While ice hockey is already an affluent sport, recruiting participants from a rather
expensive summer hockey camp may have created a highly homogenous sample. Apart from the
cost involved in the summer hockey camp, it is also plausible that these athletes are much more
serious about the sport based on year round training. The current sample may neglect recreationlevel players. Furthermore, participants were volunteers for the study rather than random sample,
and more importantly is that parents also volunteered to let their child participate. This may have
influenced the sample as parents of highly-aggressive children may not have allowed their
children to participate in the study, or even allowed their children to attend the summer hockey
camp at all. It may be reasonable to assume that the majority of the participants were wellbehaved children if their parents felt comfortable sending them to an all-day weeklong summer
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 43
hockey camp. Additionally, the retrospective nature of the study is a limitation in that the study
took place during the off-season and children may not accurately remember their perceptions
from three or four months prior (i.e., hockey seasons typically end in March, data was collected
during July and August). Future research would benefit from recruiting participants during the
season and directly from the youth sport organizations that the athletes are members of.
An additional limitation was the self-report nature of the study, especially regarding
prosocial and aggressive behavior. Using observational and peer nomination techniques to assess
social behaviors (e.g., Kavussanu, Stamp, Slade, & Ring, 2009; Ridgers, Stratton, & McKenzie,
2010) could extend the findings from the current study. Furthermore, without an element of
experimental manipulation, causality cannot be established between any of the relationships. As
such, future research should look to experimental design to test whether adult supervision causes
more prosocial behavior and/or less aggressive behavior. Similarly, experimental work could
seek to investigate group-based cohesion interventions (e.g., teambuilding) to determine whether
this variable truly causes increased prosociality and decreased aggression.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 44
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
Variable
Age
Total Prosocial Behavior
Total Aggressive Behavior
Prosocial Behavior (Participant to Peer)
Prosocial Behavior (Peer to Participant)
Aggressive Behavior (Participant to Peer)
Aggressive Behavior (Peer to Participant)
Supervision
Social Cohesion
Task Cohesion
Years with Current Team
Years of Hockey Experience
Hours in Locker Room per week
N
251
251
247
251
251
250
248
251
251
251
245
250
251
Range
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-5
1-5
-
Mean
10.98
3.25
1.46
3.45
3.05
1.31
1.62
2.94
3.69
3.69
3.24
6.12
4.04
SD
1.92
0.53
0.46
0.59
0.68
0.47
0.61
0.76
0.77
0.74
2.08
2.22
1.98
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 45
Table 2. Bivariate Correlations and Reliabilities
Variable
1
2
3
4
1. Prosocial Behavior
2. Aggressive Behavior
-.55**
3. Age
-.14*
.14*
4. Supervision
.30**
-.28** -.40** (.90)
5. Social Cohesion
.37**
-.15*
-.04
.18**
6. Task Cohesion
.46**
-.38** -.16* .32**
7. Years with Current Team
.00
.02
.19** .01
Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01. Parentheses represent Cronbach’s Alpha (α).
5
6
7
(.87)
.64**
.10
(.90)
.00
-
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 46
Table 3. Hierarchical Regression on Prosocial Behavior (N = 251)
Variable
B
Step 1
Intercept
3.66
Age
-0.04
Step2
Supervision
0.12
Social Cohesion
0.09
Task Cohesion
0.23
Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
SE B
0.20
0.02
β
F
4.60*
-0.14*
0.17**
0.13
0.32***
P
.000
.033
20.18***
0.04
0.05
0.05
ΔR2
.02
.23
.008
.063
.000
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 47
Table 4. Hierarchical Regression on Aggressive Behavior (N = 247)
Variable
B
SE B
Step 1
Intercept
1.09
0.17
Age
0.03
0.02
Step2
Supervision
-0.11
0.04
Social Cohesion
0.09
0.05
Task Cohesion
-0.30
0.05
Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
β
0.14*
-0.18**
0.14
-0.41***
F
4.91*
ΔR2
.02
13.32***
.16
P
.000
.028
.009
.065
.000
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 48
REFERENCES
Arnold, P. J. (1994). Sport and moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 23, 75-89.
Arnold, P. J. (2001). Sport, moral development, and the role of the teacher: Implications for
research and moral education. Quest, 53, 135-150.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Bandura A. (1973) Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Benson, A. J., Eys, M., Surya, M., Dawson, K., & Schneider, M. (2013). Athletes’ perceptions of
role acceptance in interdependent sport teams. Sport Psychologist, 27, 269-280.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. Mcgraw-Hill Book
Company.
Bertucci, A., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Conte, S. (2011). The effects of task and
resource interdependence on achievement and social support: An exploratory study of
Italian children. The Journal of Psychology, 145, 343-360.
Bolter, N. D., & Weiss, M. R. (2012). Coaching for character: Development of the
Sportsmanship Coaching Behaviors Scale (SCBS). Sport, Exercise, and Performance
Psychology, 1, 73-90.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 49
Bowers, E. P., Geldhof, G. J., Schmid, K. L., Napolitano, C. M., Minor, K., & Lerner, J. V.
(2012). Relationships with important nonparental adults and positive youth development:
An examination of youth self-regulatory strengths as mediators. Research in Human
Development, 9, 298–316.
Bowers, E. P., Johnson, S. K., Warren, D. J., Tirrell, J. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2015). Youth–adult
relationships and positive youth development. In Promoting Positive Youth Development
(pp. 97-120). Springer International Publishing.
Brame, B., Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Developmental trajectories of physical
aggression from school entry to late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 42, 503–512.
Bray, C. D., & Whaley, D. E. (2001). Team cohesion, effort and objective individual
performance of high school basketball players. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 260–275
Bredemeier, B. J., & Shields, D. L. (1986). Athletic aggression: An issue of contextual
morality. Sociology of Sport Journal, 3, 15-28.
Bredemeier, B. J, & Shields, D. L. (2008). Sport and the development of the moral self. In D.
Hackfort, J. Duda, & R. Lidor (Eds.), Handbook of research in applied sport and exercise
psychology. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American
Psychologist, 34, 844-850. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.844
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 50
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In
W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 793–828).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bruner, M. W., Boardley, I. D., & Côté, J. (2014). Social identity and prosocial and antisocial
behavior in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 56-64.
Bruner, M. W., Eys, M. A., & Turnnidge, J. (2013) Peer and group influences in youth sport. In
J. Côté & R. Lidor (Eds.), Conditions of Children’s Talent Development in Sport,
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 157–78.
Bruner, M. W., Eys, M. A., Wilson, K. S., & Côté, J. (2014). Group cohesion and positive youth
development in team sport athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3,
219-227. DOI: 10.1037/spy0000017
Bruner, M. W., & Spink, K. S. (2011). Effects of team building on exercise adherence and group
task satisfaction in a youth activity setting. Group dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 15, 161-172. DOI: 10.1037/a0021257
Brustad, R. J. (1992). Integrating socialization influences into the study of children’s motivation
in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 59-77.
Camiré, M., & Trudel, P. (2010). High school athletes’ perspectives on character development
through sport participation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15, 193-207.
Caprara, G. V., Tisak, M. S., Alessandri, G., Fontaine, R. G., Fida, R., & Paciello, M. (2014).
The contribution of moral disengagement in mediating individual tendencies toward
aggression and violence. Developmental Psychology, 50, 71.
Carlo, G. (2006). Care-based and altruistically-based morality. Handbook of moral development,
551-579.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 51
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in
sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sport and exercise psychology
measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in
sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 119-126.
Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.). Morgantown: Fitness
Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., Burke, S. M., Jowett, S., & Lavallee, D. (2007). Team cohesion:
nature, correlates, and development. Social Psychology in Sport, 91-101.
Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Eys, M. A. (2005). Group dynamics in sport. Fitness
Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Shapcott, K. M., & Burke, S. M. (2007). Group cohesion in sport and
exercise. Group Dynamics in Exercise and Sport Psychology, 117-139.
Cialdini, R. B., Kenrick, D. T., & Baumann, D. J. (1982). Effects of mood on prosocial behavior
in children and adults. The Development of Prosocial Behavior, 339-359.
Coakley, J. (1983). Leaving competitive sport: retirement or rebirth? Quest, 35, 1-11.
Coakley, J. (2011). Youth sports what counts as “positive development?” Journal of Sport &
Social Issues, 35, 306-324.
Coie, J.D., & Dodge, K.A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.); Vol. 3. Social, Emotional and Personality
Development (pp. 779–862). New York: Wiley.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 52
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2007). Practice and play in the development of sport
expertise. Handbook of Sport Psychology, 3, 184-202.
Côté, J., Bruner, M., Erickson, K., Strachan, L., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2010). Athlete
development and coaching. Sport Coaching: Professionalism and Practice, 63-83.
Côté, J. & Erickson, K. (2015). Diversification and deliberate play during the sampling years. In
J. Baker & D. Farrow (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Sport Expertise (pp. 305-316).
New York: Routledge.
Côté, J, & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2007). Youth involvement in sport. In P.R.E. Crocker (Ed.),
Introduction to sport psychology: A Canadian perspective (pp. 266-294). Toronto:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and
expertise. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4, 307-323.
Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: a multi
informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337.
Curry, T. J. (1991). Fraternal bonding in the locker room: A profeminist analysis of talk about
competition and women. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 119-135.
Damon, W. (Ed.). (1978). Moral Development. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
Damon , W. The moral child. New York, NY: Free Press, 1988
Damon, W. (2004) What is positive youth development? Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 591, 13–24.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 53
DeMartini, J. R. (1983). Social Movement Participation: Political Socialization, Generational
Consciousness, and Lasting Effects. Youth and Society, 15, 195-223.
Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M., Rubin, D.B., 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via
the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39,
1–38.
Dobersek, U., Gershgoren, L., Becker, B., & Tenenbaum, G. (2014). The cohesion–performance
relationship in sport: A 10-year retrospective meta-analysis. Sport Sciences for
Health, 10, 165-177.
Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student Council, Volunteering, Basketball, or Marching
Band What Kind of Extracurricular Involvement Matters? Journal of adolescent
research, 14, 10-43.
Eccles, J. S., & Templeton, J. (2002). Extracurricular and other after-school activities for youth.
Review of Research in Education, 113-180.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R.A.(1998). Prosocial Development. In W. Damon, (Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 701–778).
New York: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (Eds.). (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children.
Cambridge University Press.
Emery, C. A., McKay, C. D., Campbell, T. S., & Peters, A. N. (2009). Examining attitudes
toward body checking, levels of emotional empathy, and levels of aggression in body
checking and non-body checking youth hockey leagues. Clinical Journal of Sport
Medicine, 19, 207-215.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 54
Erickson, K., & Côté, J. (2016). A season-long examination of the intervention tone of coach–
athlete interactions and athlete development in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 22, 264-272.
Eron, L. D. (1987). The development of aggressive behavior from the perspective of a
developing behaviorism. American Psychologist, 42, 435.
Estabrooks, P. A., & Carron, A. V. (1999). Group cohesion in older adult exercisers: Prediction
and intervention effects. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 575-588.
Evans, M. B., Adler, A., MacDonald, D. J., & Côté, J. (2015). Bullying victimization and
perpetration in adolescent sport teams. Pediatric Exercise Science. Advance Online
Publication. DOI: 10.1123/pes.2015-0088
Evans, M. B., & Eys, M. A. (2015). Collective goals and shared tasks: Interdependence structure
and perceptions of individual sport team environments. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sports, 25, e139–e148.
Eys, M. A., Burke, S. M., Dennis, P., & Evans, M. B. (2015). The sport team as an effective
group. In J. M. Williams & V. Krane (Eds.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth
to peak performance (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Eys, M.A., Hardy, J., Carron, A.V., & Beauchamp, M.R. (2003). The relationship between task
cohesion and competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 66–
76.
Eys, M. A., Loughead, T. M., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009a). Development of a cohesion
questionnaire for youth: the youth sport environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 31, 390-408.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 55
Eys, M. A., Loughead, T. M., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009b). Perceptions of cohesion by
youth sport participants. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 330-345.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. Sage Publications.
Filho, E., Tenenbaum, G., & Yang, Y. (2015). Cohesion, team mental models, and collective
efficacy: Towards an integrated framework of team dynamics in sport. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 33, 641- 653. PubMed doi:10.1080/026 40414.2014.957714
Forneris, T., Camiré, M., & Trudel, P. (2012). The development of life skills and values in high
school sport: Is there a gap between stakeholder's expectations and perceived
experiences? International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 9-23.
Fraser-Thomas, J., & Côté, J. (2009). Understanding adolescents’ positive and negative
developmental experiences in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 3-23.
Fraser-Thomas, J. L., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster
positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 19-40.
Fraser-Thomas, J., Jeffery-Tosoni, S., & Baker, J. (2014). “I like that you can hit a guy and not
really get in trouble”: Young ice hockey players' experiences with body
checking. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 121-133.
Fry, M. D., & Gano-Overway, L. A. (2010). Exploring the contribution of the caring climate to
the youth sport experience. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 294-304.
Fuster-Parra, P., García-Mas, A., Ponseti, F. J., & Leo, F. M. (2015). Team performance and
collective efficacy in the dynamic psychology of competitive team: A Bayesian network
analysis. Human Movement Science, 40, 98-118.
Galliger, C. C., Tisak, M. S., & Tisak, J. (2009). When the wheels on the bus go round: Social
interactions on the school bus. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 43-62.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 56
Gammage, K. L., Carron, A. V., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2001). Team cohesion and individual
productivity the influence of the norm for productivity and the identifiability of
individual effort. Small Group Research, 32, 3-18.
Gee, C. J., Leith, L. M., & Sullivan, P. J. (2015). Predicting within-competition aggressive
behavior among youth ice hockey players: A multi-factorial psychosocial investigation.
Athletic Insight, 7, 47.
Gelfand, D. M., & Hartmann, D. P. (1980). The development of prosocial behavior.
Developmental Perspectives, 216-266.
Gibbs, J. C. (2003). Equipping youth with mature moral judgment. Reclaiming Children and
Youth, 12, 148-153.
Gould , D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002) ‘Psychological characteristics and their
development in Olympic champions’. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204.
Granito, V., & Rainey, D. (1988). Differences in cohesion between high school and college
football teams and starters and nonstarters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 471 – 477.
Green, B. C., & Chalip, L. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of parental purchase decision
involvement in youth sport. Leisure Sciences, 20, 95-109.
Greener, S., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Normative beliefs about prosocial behavior in middle
childhood: What does it mean to be nice? Social Development, 8, 349-363.
Gruber, J. J., & Gray, G. R. (1981). Factor patterns of variables influencing cohesiveness at
various levels of basketball competition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 52,
19-30.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 57
Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in organized
youth activities: a survey of self‐reported developmental experiences. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 13, 25-55.
Hartup, W. W. (2005). Peer interaction: what causes what? Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 33, 387-394.
Hay, D. F. (1994). Prosocial development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 2971.
Holt, N. L., Black, D. E., Tamminen, K. A., Fox, K. R., & Mandigo, J. L. (2008). Levels of
social complexity and dimensions of peer experiences in youth sport. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 30, 411-431.
Holub, S. C. (2005). Young children’s perceived competence: Validation of a new instrument
and ecological influences on overly positive self-perceptions in preschoolers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, OH.
Jackson, M., & Tisak, M. S. (2001). Is prosocial behaviour a good thing? Developmental
changes in children's evaluations of helping, sharing, cooperating, and comforting.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 349-367.
Jarvis, P. (2007) Dangerous activities within an invisible playground: A study of emergent male
football play and teachers’ perspectives of outdoor free play in the early years of primary
school, International Journal of Early Years Education, 15, 245–59
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 58
Kavussanu, M., Seal, A. R., & Phillips, D. R. (2006). Observed prosocial and antisocial
behaviors in male soccer teams: Age differences across adolescence and the role of
motivational variables. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 326-344.
Kavussanu, M., Stamp, R., Slade, G., & Ring, C. (2009). Observed prosocial and antisocial
behaviors in male and female soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21,
62–76. doi:10.1080/10413200802624292
Kohlberg , L. A. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. In D. H. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.
Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development. Moral Education, 23-92.
Krane, V., & Kaus, R.J. (2014). Gendered social dynamics in sport. In M. Beauchamp & M. Eys
(Eds.), Group dynamics advances in sport and exercise psychology: Contemporary
themes (2nd ed.) (pp. 335-349). New York: Routledge.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance,
friendship, and victimization: Distinct relation systems that contribute uniquely to
children's school adjustment? Child Development, 68, 1181-1197.
Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world:
work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 701.
Lauer, L., Gould, D., Roman, N., & Pierce, M. (2010). Parental behaviors that affect junior
tennis player development. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 487-496.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. Theokas, C., Naudeau, S., Gestsdottir, S., … von Eye,
A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development
programs, and community contributions of fifth grade adolescents: Findings from the first
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 59
wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25,
17-71.
Lester, S., & Russell, W. (2008) Play for a change: Play, policy and practice: A review of
contemporary perspectives – Summary report, Play England. Online. Retrieved from
http://www.playengland.org.uk/ resources/play-for-a-change-symmary.pdf (accessed XX
Month, 20XX).
Li, J., & Julian, M. M. (2012). Developmental relationships as the active ingredient: A unifying
working hypothesis of “what works” across intervention settings. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 82, 157–166.
Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing
values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202.
Loughead, T. M., & Leith, L. M. (2001). Hockey coaches' and players' perceptions of aggression
and the aggressive behavior of players. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 394-407.
MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, & Williams J. (2004) Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
distribution of the produce and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavior
Research, 39, 99–128
Mahoney, J. L. (2000). School extracurricular activity participation as a moderator in the
development of antisocial patterns. Child Development, 71, 502-516.
Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., & Loughead, T. (2011). Children’s perceptions of
cohesion. Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 7, 11–25.
Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2012). Development of a cohesion
inventory for children's sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 16, 68-79. DOI: 10.1037/a0024691
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 60
Matsuba, M. K., & Walker, L. J. (1998). Moral reasoning in the context of ego functioning.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 464-483.
McKnight, P., Williams, J. M. and Widmeyer, W. N (1991). The effects of cohesion and
identifiability on reducing the likelihood of social loafing. Paper presented at the meeting
of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology. October, Savanah,
GA.
Menard, S. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mugno, D. A., & Feltz, D. L. (1985). The social learning of aggression in youth football in the
United States. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences. 10, 26-35.
Munroe, K., Estabrooks, P., Dennis, P., & Carron, A. (1999). A phenomenological analysis of
group norms in sport teams. Sport Psychologist, 13, 171-182.
Myers, R. H. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (Vol. 2). Belmont, CA:
Duxbury Press.
Nantel-Vivier, A., Kokko, K., Caprara, G. V., Pastorelli, C., Gerbino, M. G., Paciello, M., Côté,
S., Pihl, R. O., Vitaro, F. and Tremblay, R. E. (2009), Prosocial development from
childhood to adolescence: a multi-informant perspective with Canadian and Italian
longitudinal studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 590–598.
Nucci, L. (1981). Conceptions of personal issues: A domain distinct from moral or societal
concepts. Child Development, 114-121.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3,
248-292.
O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality
& Quantity, 41, 673-690.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 61
Osborne JW (2013). Best practices in data cleaning: a complete guide to everything you need to
do before and after collecting your data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 121–122.
Pappas, N. T., McKenry, P. C., & Catlett, B. S. (2004). Athlete aggression on the rink and off the
ice athlete violence and aggression in hockey and interpersonal relationships. Men and
Masculinities, 6, 291-312.
Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1983). The development of aggression. Handbook of child
psychology, 4, 547-641.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are lowaccepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression and behavioral science. Explanation and Prediction,
2.
Petitpas, A. J., Cornelius, A. E., Van Raalte, J. L., & Jones, T. (2005). A framework for planning
youth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. The Sport Psychologist, 19,
63-80.
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. (Original
work published 1932).
Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2013). Relationships among coach leadership, peer leadership, and
adolescent athletes’ psychosocial and team outcomes: A test of transformational
leadership theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 265-279.
Ridgers, N. D., Stratton, G., & McKenzie, T. L. (2010). Reliability and validity of the system for
observing children's activity and relationships during play (SOCARP). Journal of
Physical Activity & Health, 7, 17-25.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 62
Riemer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Development of the athlete satisfaction questionnaire
(ASQ). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 127-156.
Romano, E., Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., & Swisher, R. (2005). Multilevel correlates of
childhood physical aggression and prosocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 33, 565-578.
Rubin, K. H., Wojslawowicz, J., Burgess, K., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Booth-LaForce, C. (2006).
The friendships of socially withdrawn and competent young adolescents. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 139-153.
Russell, J. S. (2014). Competitive sport, moral development and peace. The Bloomsbury
Companion to the Philosophy of Sport, 228-244.
Rutten, E. A., Schuengel, C., Dirks, E., Stams, G. J. J. M., Biesta, J. J., & Hoeksma, J. B. (2011).
Predictors of antisocial and prosocial behavior in an adolescent sports context. Social
Development, 20, 294-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9507.2010.00598.x.
Rutten, E. A., Stams, G. J. J., Biesta, G. J., Schuengel, C., Dirks, E., & Hoeksma, J. B. (2007).
The contribution of organized youth sport to antisocial and prosocial behavior in
adolescent athletes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 255-264.
Sage, L., Kavussanu, M., & Duda, J. (2006). Goal orientations and moral identity as predictors of
prosocial and antisocial functioning in male association football players. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 24, 455-466.
Scanlan, T. K. (2002). Social evaluation and the competition process: A developmental
perspective. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and Youth in Sport: A
Biopsychosocial Perspective (pp. 298-308). Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 63
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the
art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.
Sebanc, A. M. (2003). The friendship features of preschool children: Links with prosocial
behavior and aggression. Social Development, 12, 249-268.
Sherif, Muzafer (1966). In Common Predicament: Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and
Cooperation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 24–61.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W., & Sherif, C.W. (1961). Intergroup Conflict and
Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: The University Book
Exchange. pp. 155–184
Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (2008). Sport and the development of character. Handbook of
Moral and Character Education, 500-519.
Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in
children’s moral and social judgments. Handbook of moral development, 119-153.
Smith, A. L. (2003). Peer relationships in physical activity contexts: A road less traveled in
youth sport and exercise psychology research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 2539.
Smith, M. D. (1974). Significant others' influence on the assaultive behavior of young hockey
players. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 9, 45-58.
Smith, M. D. (1978). Social learning of violence in minor hockey. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith
(Eds.). Psychological Perspectives in Youth Sports, (pp. 91-106). Washington DC:
Hemisphere.
Snyder, J., Brooker, M., Patrick, M. R., Snyder, A., Schrepferman, L., & Stoolmiller, M. (2003).
Observed peer victimization during early elementary school: Continuity, growth, and
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 64
relation to risk for child antisocial and depressive behavior. Child Development, 74,
1881-1898.
Solomon, G. B., (2004). A lifespan view of moral development in physical activity. In M. R.
Weiss (Ed.). Developmental Sport Psychology : A Lifespan Perspective (pp. 453-474).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Spink, K. S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 12, 301-311.
Spink, K. S., Nickel, D., Wilson, K., & Odnokon, P. (2005). Using a multilevel approach to
examine the relationship between task cohesion and team task satisfaction in elite ice
hockey players. Small Group Research, 36, 539 –554
Stephens, D. (2000). Predictors of likelihood to aggress in youth soccer: An examination of coed
and all-girls teams. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 23, 311-325.
Stephens, D. E. (2001). Predictors of aggressive tendencies in girls' basketball: An examination
of beginning and advanced participants in a summer skills camp. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 72, 257-266.
Stuart, M. E., & Ebbeck, V. (1995). The influence of perceived social approval on moral
development in youth sport. Pediatric Exercise Science, 7, 270-270.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry: edited by HS Perry and ML
Gawel.
Taylor, I. M., & Bruner, M. W. (2012). The social environment and developmental experiences
in elite youth soccer. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 390-396.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 65
Terry, P. C., Carron, A. V., Pink, M. J., Lane, A. M., Jones, G. J., & Hall, M. P. (2000).
Perceptions of group cohesion and mood in sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 4, 244-253.
Tisak, M. S., & Ford, M. E. (1986). Children's conceptions of interpersonal events. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 291-306.
Tisak, M. S., Holub, S. C., & Tisak, J. (2007). What nice things do boys and girls do?
Preschoolers' perspectives of peers' behaviors at school and at home. Early Education
and Development, 18(2), 183-199.
Tisak, M. S., & Tisak, J. (2007). An instrument to assess children’s views of who is nice and not
nice. Register of Copyrights, United States of America (#-TXu1-354-863).
Tisak, M. S., & Tisak, J. (1996). Expectations and judgments regarding bystanders and victims
responses to peer aggression among early adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 383392.
Tisak, M. S., Tisak, J., & Goldstein, S. E. (2006). Aggression, delinquency, and morality: A
social-cognitive perspective. Handbook of moral development, 611-629.
Tisak, M. S., Tisak, J., & Laurene, K. R. (2012). Children’s judgments of social interactive
behaviors with peers: The influence of age and gender. Social Psychology of Education,
15, 555-570.
Turiel, E. (1966). An experimental test of the sequentiality of developmental stages in the child's
moral judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 611.
Turiel, E. (1975). The development of social concepts. In D. DePalma and J. Foley (Eds.), Moral
development. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 66
Turiel, E. (1978). Social regulations and domains of social concepts. New Directions for Child
and Adolescent Development, 45-74.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge
University Press.
Turiel, E. (2006). Thought, emotions, and social interactional processes in moral development.
Handbook of moral development, 7-35.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
Turnnidge, J., Côté, J., & Hancock, D. J. (2014). Positive youth development from sport to life:
Explicit or implicit transfer? Quest, 66, 203-217.
USA Hockey Incorporated (2015). 2014-2015 Season Final Registration Reports [Membership
Statistics]. Retrieved from http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/document/0077/6505/201415_Memebership_Reports.pdf.
Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating roles of sex
and peer‐valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396-408.
Vazsonyi, A. T., Pickering, L. E., Belliston, L. M., Hessing, D., & Junger, M. (2002). Routine
activities and deviant behaviors: American, Dutch, Hungarian, and Swiss youth. Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 397-422.
Vierimaa, M., Erickson, K., Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2012). Positive youth development: A
measurement framework for sport. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching,
7, 601-614
Warneken, F., Chen, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Cooperative activities in young children and
chimpanzees. Child Development, 77, 640-663.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 67
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Weiss, M.R. (Ed.). (2004). Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective.
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Weiss, M. R. (2008). “Field of Dreams:” Sport as a Context for Youth Development. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 434-449.
Weiss, M. R., & Petlichkoff, L. M. (1989). Children's motivation for participation in and
withdrawal from sport: Identifying the missing links. Pediatric Exercise Science, 1, 195211.
Weiss, M. R., & Smith, A. L. (2002). Friendship quality in youth sport: Relationship to age,
gender, and motivation variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 420437.
Weiss, M.R., Smith, A.L., & Stuntz, C.P. (2008). Moral development in sport and physical
activity: Theory, research, and intervention. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport
psychology (3rd ed., pp. 187-210). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weiss, M. R., & Stuntz, C. P. (2004). A little friendly competition: Peer relationships and
psychosocial development in youth sport and physical activity contexts. In M. R. Weiss
(Ed.). Developmental Sport Psychology : A Lifespan Perspective (pp. 165-196).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Weiss, M., & Wiese-Bjornstal, D. (2009). Promoting positive youth development through
physical activity. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Research Digest,
10, 1-8.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 68
Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in Middle School:
Influences on Motivation and School Adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology,
96, 195.
Westre, K. R., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors
and group cohesion in high school football teams. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 41-54.
Whiting, B. B. (1980). Culture and social behavior: A model for the development of social
behavior. Ethos, 8, 95-116.
Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1990). The effects of group size in
sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 177-190.
Widmeyer, W. N., & Williams, J. M. (1991). Predicting cohesion in a coacting sport. Small
Group Research, 22, 548-570.
Wu, C. J. (1983). On the convergence properties of the EM algorithm. The Annals of Statistics,
95-103.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 69
APPENDIX A: PARENTAL DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
Parental Demographic Questions
1. What is your child’s date of birth? (MM/DD/YYYY)
__________________________________________________________
2. Of the child’s parents, what is the highest degree earned? (Please circle best response)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Less than a high school diploma
High school diploma or GED
Some college, but no degree
Associates Degree (example: AA, AS)
Bachelor’s Degree (Example: BA, BS)
Master’s Degree (Example: MA, MS)
Professional Degree (Example: MD, JD, DDS)
Doctorate (Example: PhD, EdD)
Prefer not to answer
3. Please specify the ethnicity (or race) of the child: (Please circle the best response)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
White
Hispanic or Latino
Black or African American
Native American or American Indian
Asian / Pacific Islander
Other
Prefer not to answer
We are asking for you to give your consent that you are okay with your child participating in our
study. By selecting "yes", the survey will move onto the portion where your child will be
answering the questions.
Do you give your parental consent?
Yes
No
Thank you for your participation in our study
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 70
APPENDIX B: CHILD PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
Child Participant Demographic Questions
1. What is your age?
_______________
2. How many years have you been playing hockey?
________________
3. What is the most recent level of hockey you played (Please select one)
Mite
Squirt
Pee Wee
Bantam
Midget Minor
4. On average, how many hours per week (during season) do you spend in locker room/
dressing area? ____________________
5. How many years have you been a part of your current team or organization?
_____________________
6. Please list any other sports you play
_________________________________________________________________
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 71
APPENDIX C: SOCIAL BEHAVIOR QUESTIONAIRE
Social Behavior Questionnaire – Adapted from Tisak and Tisak (2007)
There are some days that teammates are kind to each other, and some days that they are not.
1. In the locker room, how often are you kind or nice to your teammates? (Please select one)
1 = never
2 = sometimes 3 = a lot of times
4 = all the time
If you answered – sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question. If
you answered never, please skip the next question.
What are some things you do in the locker room that are kind for teammates?
2. In the locker room, how often are your teammates kind or nice to you? (Please circle one)
1 = never
2 = sometimes 3 = a lot of times
4 = all the time
If you answered – sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question. If
you answered never, please skip the next question.
What are some things that teammates do for you in the locker room that are kind?
______________________________________________________________________________
3. In the locker room, how often are you not kind to your teammates?
1 = never
2 = sometimes 3 = a lot of times
4 = all the time
If you answered – sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question. If
you answered never, please skip the next question.
What are some things that you do in the locker room when you are not kind to teammates?
____________________________________________________________________________
4. In the locker room, how often are your teammates not kind to you?
1 = never
2 = sometimes 3 = a lot of times
4 = all the time
If you answered – sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question. If
you answered never, please skip the next question.
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 72
What are some things that teammates do in the locker room that are not kind?
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 73
APPENDIX D: SUPERVISION QUESTIONAIRE
Supervision Questionnaire
1 = never
2 = sometimes 3 = a lot of times
4 = all the time
1. When you are in the locker room before practice, how often is there an adult supervising the
teams behavior?
1 = never
2 = sometimes 3 = a lot of times
4 = all the time
2. When you are in the locker room before a game, how often is there an adult supervising the
teams behavior?
1 = never
2 = sometimes 3 = a lot of times
4 = all the time
3. When you are in the locker room after practice, how often is there an adult supervising the
teams behavior?
1 = never
2 = sometimes 3 = a lot of times
4 = all the time
4. When you are in the locker room after a game, how often is there an adult supervising the
teams behavior?
1 = never
2 = sometimes 3 = a lot of times
4 = all the time
5. How often are you and your teammates in the locker room without any adult supervision?
1 = never
2 = sometimes 3 = a lot of times
4 = all the time
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 74
APPENDIX E: CHILD SPORT COHESION QUESTIONAIRE
Child Sport Cohesion Questionnaire (Martin, Carron, Eys, and Loughead, 2012)
The following questions ask about your feelings toward the team you most recently played a
season with. Please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 5 to show how much you agree with each
statement.
1. Our team members all share the same goals.
1
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
Agree
2. I invite my teammates to do things with me.
1
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
3. We all have the same beliefs.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
4. Some of my best friends are on this team.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
5. I like the way we work together as a team.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
Agree
4
Agree
4
Agree
4
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 75
6. Our team does not work well together.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
7. We get together with each other a lot.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
8. As a team, we are united.
1
2
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
4
Agree
3
4
Sometimes
Agree
Agree
9. I call or message my teammates a lot.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
4
Sometimes
Agree
4
Agree
10. My team gives me the chance to improve my skills.
1
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
11. I like to spend time with my teammates.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
12. I do not get a long with my teammates.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
Agree
4
Agree
4
Agree
13. I will keep talking to my teammates when the season ends.
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 76
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
Agree
14. We stick together outside of our sport.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
4
Agree
15. We like the way we work together as a team.
1
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
Agree
16. In games, we all get along well.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Sometimes
Agree
4
Agree
Note 1: Task cohesion items: #1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 15, 16
Social cohesion items: #2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14
Spurious Items: #6, 12
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 77
APPENDIX D: HSRB APPROVAL
DATE:
June 30, 2015
TO:
FROM:
SCOTT GRAUPENSPERGER, B.A.
Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board
PROJECT TITLE:
SUBMISSION TYPE:
[760988-2] WHAT HAPPENS IN THE LOCKER ROOM: A STUDY OF
PROSOCIAL AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN YOUTH HOCKEY
PLAYERS
Revision
ACTION:
APPROVAL DATE:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW TYPE:
APPROVED
June 30, 2015
June 15, 2016
Expedited Review
REVIEW CATEGORY:
Expedited review category # 7
Thank you for your submission of Revision materials for this project. The Bowling Green State University
Human Subjects Review Board has APPROVED your submission. This approval is based on an
appropriate risk/benefit ratio and a project design wherein the risks have been minimized. All research
must be conducted in accordance with this approved submission.
The final approved version of the consent document(s) is available as a published Board Document in
the Review Details page. You must use the approved version of the consent document when obtaining
consent from participants. Informed consent must continue throughout the project via a dialogue between
the researcher and research participant. Federal regulations require that each participant receives a copy
of the consent document.
Please note that you are responsible to conduct the study as approved by the HSRB. If you seek to
make any changes in your project activities or procedures, those modifications must be approved by this
committee prior to initiation. Please use the modification request form for this procedure.
You have been approved to enroll 500 participants. If you wish to enroll additional participants you must
seek approval from the HSRB.
All UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS involving risks to subjects or others and SERIOUS and UNEXPECTED
adverse events must be reported promptly to this office. All NON-COMPLIANCE issues or COMPLAINTS
regarding this project must also be reported promptly to this office.
This approval expires on June 15, 2016. You will receive a continuing review notice before your project
expires. If you wish to continue your work after the expiration date, your documentation for continuing
review must be received with sufficient time for review and continued approval before the expiration date.
Good luck with your work. If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Research Compliance
at 419-372-7716 or [email protected]. Please include your project title and reference number in all
correspondence regarding this project.
-1-
Generated on IRBNet
PREDICTORS OF LOCKER ROOM SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 78
This letter has been electronically signed in accordance with all applicable regulations, and a copy is retained within Bowling Green
State University Human Subjects Review Board's records.
-2-
Generated on IRBNet