MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743335226

Moral disengagement in sport...or different moral matrix

2014· article· en· W2743335226 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shea M. Balish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoral disengagementMoralitySocial psychologyPsychologyMoral developmentMoral authorityHarmPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Morality is often described as a moral matrix—a consensual hallucination—in which it is difficult to “step outside” and understand different moral matrices. A new synthesis in the study of moral psychology has converged on a set of psychological foundations on which cultures build moral matrices. Individuals from western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic (WEIRD) societies primarily rely on individualizing foundations (concerns for harm & fairness) while most other societies have a boarder moral matrix that also includes binding foundations (e.g., concerns for authority & in-group loyalty; See Haidt, 2007). Given that the study of “moral disengagement” in sport has mainly examined WEIRD societies (e.g., Canada, United States) the purpose of this study was to test if the moral disengagement in sport scale (short) actually measures, in part, an orientation towards binding foundations. Study one examined current and former athletes (n = 171) from western countries (e.g., Canada, United States). Bias corrected bootstrap analyses revealed that moral disengagement not only mediated the negative relationship between individualizing foundations and common moral dilemmas in sport (-.33, 95% CI = -.46 - -.22), but also for the positive association between binding foundations and moral dilemmas (.17, 95% CI = .06 - .26). Study two, which examined current and former athletes (n = 245) from eastern countries (e.g., India, Philippines), replicated this finding for both individualizing (-.37, 95% CI = -.52, -.23) and binding foundations (.12, 95% CI = .02- .25). As predicted, those in the eastern sample scored higher on both binding orientation ( p < .001, d = .61), and “moral disengagement” (p < .001, d = .65). These results suggest that the MDSS-S may measure an orientation towards binding foundations, which many cultures view as moral, not immoral. An increased emphasis on descriptive (rather than prescriptive) research with morally diverse groups seems warranted. Acknowledgments: The author is supported by a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Doctoral Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC 767-2012-1381) and by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the CIHR Training Grant in Population Intervention for Chronic Disease Prevention: A Pan-Canadian Program (Grant #: 53893). The author would also like to thank Chris Blanchard and Julie Hopper for helpful comments and criticisms.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and SportSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207