There is an almost inflationary use of the notion “role models”. It seems like a magical term which is taken for granted to be positive and able to influence children and youth to become morally responsible citizens. Many newspapers, governmental agencies, sport federations, NGOs and politicians are repeatedly praising and advertising the ethical value of “role models” in sport. But often there is a lack of differentiation regarding this concept and term. Identifying role models, especially sporting role models, is generally based upon the assumption that they are or need to be positive and worthy of emulation.

The influence of sporting role models with regard to moral development and prosocial behaviour is explicitly supported by governmental agencies such as the Federal Office of Sport (FOSPO) in Switzerland or UK Sport in the United Kingdom. UK Sport defines rights and responsibilities of athletes as follows:

The Swiss FOSPO in cooperation with Swiss Olympic^[2] drafted seven principles of the Charter for Ethics in Sport. The fifth principle consists of ‚teaching fairness’ and emphasises the responsibilities of athletes, coaches and officials in doing so:

Besides this governmental activism, there are several private initiatives which use the assumed “power of sporting role models” to promote social change. One example is the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation^[4] which is strongly endorsed by its Academy consisting of former international sport legends^[5]. This prestigious foundation dedicated its Magazine 2009 to “The Importance of Role Models”. Boris Becker, vice-chairperson and ex-tennis-champion, defined his conviction:

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has the conviction that “sport gives us heroes to admire and positive role models who inspire young people to overcome the odds and aim high for success”. Therefore, UNICEF has appointed many former Olympians and other sports personalities such as David Beckham, Marcel Desailly and Roger Federer as “Goodwill Ambassadors”. UNICEF mainly takes advantage of these influential champions “to raise funds and advocate for the rights of children”.^[6]

Another organisation dedicated to “bring sport and play to the lives of children affected by war, poverty, disease and illness” is Right to Play (RTP) founded by former Norwegian Olympic star Johann Koss. This athlete-driven international humanitarian organisation assumes that “star athletes are the heroes of children as well as entire nations”. Furthermore, RTP is convinced that owing to this special status of athletes in society, they have a unique access to decision makers. RTP believes that time and energy offered by athletes forms a win-win situation, since it allows admired champions “to give back”.^[7]

What is the impact of these athletes on children and youth? Who decides on "valuable role models"? What is the specific influence of sporting heroes and role models on the moral development and the prosocial behaviour of children and youth? What role model characteristics are needed for children and youth to identify with? What are limits and risks of role modelling? And what are the consequences when role models behave in a negative or harmful way? Are sport and its actors really able to build character?

This paper has been developed using a hermeneutic interpretative research approach. No empirical data was collected and analysed. Due to the interdisciplinary character and complexity of the topic, comprehensive literature reviews touched on various research areas such as sport science, psychology, pedagogy, philosophy and sociology. Technical literature comprised primarily journal articles, monographs, anthologies, press releases and websites mainly originating from the USA, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and Switzerland.

The content of this paper is structured into six chapters. The first chapter introduces and situates the problem within a political and social context, thus outlining the current discourse. The second chapter emphasises the various definitions of role models, mentors and heroes and focuses on particularities linked to sport, media and athletes. The third chapter deals with the theoretical framework of role modelling with an in-depth perspective on Bandura’s theories about social learning and self-efficacy. Chapter four raises issues related to moral development and prosocial behaviour within the sport context. The fifth chapter concentrates on responsibilities and virtues of sporting role models and elaborates on controversies these inferences might cause and finally, chapter six presents summarising recommendations which are divided in two parts according to the degree of interaction.

 

Role models, heroes, celebrities, idols, mentors and stars are part of our everyday life and seem to be interchangeable terms which are easily understood. This assumption turns out to be wrong since there are various interpretations and definitions with regard to these notions which are often ? but not systematically – used as synonyms. This “confusion of terminology” (Lyle, 2009, p. 6) necessitates clarifications and differentiations.

Bandura (1977) has a broad understanding of role models and identifies “anyone with whom an individual comes into contact that might influence that individuals’ behaviours, attitudes, and aspirations” as models (in May, 2009, p. 448).

With regard to this conceptual definition, role models are not coercively high-profile celebrities, but can include peers, parents, coaches and teachers as well (Bush, Martin and Bush, 2004; Payne et al., 2003). There is a distinction between direct role models (such as parents, teachers and peers) which are generally in close contact with an individual and “can influence everyday behaviour” (May, 2009, p. 448) and indirect role models (such as show-business celebrities, professional athletes) which can potentially influence behaviours and attitudes of individuals through magazines, television, internet, etc. (Bush et al., 2004; May, 2009). Many role model studies have often concentrated on direct role models with whom the individual has direct contact. It is generally assumed that parents have the most influence on adolescents (Payne et al., 2003; Hart, Atkins and Donnelly et al., 2006). Recent research has indicated that vicarious others might influence individual behaviour as well. Bush and colleagues (2004) stated that “vicarious role models can be socialization agents and can have a significant effect on the career aspirations, educational choices, and the self-views of young adults” (p. 110).

Some authors (Pleiss and Feldhusen, 1995) differentiate between heroes, role models and mentors. This often neglected degree of interaction between a role model and a young person is conceived as a continuum (MacCallum and Beltman, 2002). Only a limited interaction takes place with media celebrities (heroes) whereas extended interactions are possible with teachers, coaches, peers or parents (role models and mentors). A mentor has a personal relationship with the mentee and is actively involved in providing support. As Adriaanse and Crosswhite (2008) state: “A mentor can be a role model for the mentee but doesn’t have to be one” (p. 383).

In order to avoid confusion using different terms interchangeably, this paper is going to use three main terms to define three different types of models situated on the above mentioned continuum: mentors, role models and heroes/heroines. The concept of the continuum which ranges from very interactive relationships with a close person to one-way attachments with little or no real contact involved is broadly accepted (Pleiss and Feldhusen, 1995; Payne et al., 2003; Lyle, 2009; MacCallum and Beltman, 2002; Adriaanse and Crosswhite, 2008). Some heroes or heroines might not even be human beings and only exist virtually. Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned that an individual can have multiple significant others, heroes, role models, etc over time and that degrees of influence can vary as well (May, 2009).

The British Sunday Mail reported on January 25th 2004 that psychologists at Leicester University asked more than 2 500 British teenagers to name the celebrities they most admired. Football star David Beckham came out first, followed by Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair and Brad Pitt.^[8] In a study mainly targeting advertisers, Bush et al. (2004) confirmed the trend among young people that role models are more often athletes: “Regardless of their public behavior, teenagers do consider athletes as important role models.” (p. 114). There is tremendous interest in sport celebrities by the media and the private sector. May (2009) noted as well that “companies spend millions of dollars using athletes to serve as public spokespersons thus supporting the idea that athletes are role models“ (p. 445). The corporate sector’s interest goes way beyond sport merchandise and equipment. Besides being sponsored by Nike, tennis star Roger Federer was contracted by the traditional Swiss chocolate company Lindt and Sprüngli and signed a 10-year sponsorship with Credit Suisse in 2009 which promised to make a “significant annual contribution” to the Roger Federer Foundation.^[9] Athletes such as Roger Federer stand for much more than outstanding sport performance and serve as trustworthy, prestigious and impressive figureheads.

The UK based Committee on Culture, Media and Sport consulted various experts with regard to the topic ‘drugs and role models in sport’. After consultation was concluded, they wrote: „We note the research quoted by DCMS^[10] which indicates that sporting heroes are likely to exert more influence on young people than anyone other than their immediate family“ (Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2004, p. 44). The British Psychological Society (BPS), who was consulted by the above mentioned Committee, wrote that “due to their success and prominence in the public domain, sports heroes are likely to act as role models to a wide range of individuals, from those who have only a causal interest in sport activities to those with aspirations to achieve greatness” (Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2004, p. 42).

Penner and Fritzsche (1993) demonstrated the influence of sports heroes by noting that no university students volunteered when asked to assist an AIDS victim carry out a school project. One week later the famous basketball player Magic Johnson held a press conference (November 1991) in which he announced being HIV positive and his withdrawal from professional sports (Gutman, 1992). As a consequence of this shocking news, the assistance rate in the above mentioned school project soared from zero to 83% (Penner and Fritzsche, 1993).

Delaney and Madigan (2009) tried to systemise sporting heroes and identified eight different categories: The first type of hero is the winner who is “determined by outcome assessment” and does not really care about the process. The second category is “skilled performer” and comprises athletes who “give off an aura of invincibility” such as Michael Jordan, Roger Federer or Mohammed Ali. A third category focuses on the “heroes of social acceptability” who are admired for upholding social values and “good sportsmanship and dedication” (such as Jesse Owens or Lance Armstrong). The “group servant” represents the fourth category, who puts the needs of the team above individual needs like a martyr. The fifth type of heroes are “risk takers”, mainly involving extreme sport athletes. The sixth category deals with “reluctant heroes” who are rather quiet and modest, whereas the seventh type is called “charismatic hero” displaying “unique qualities that distinguish him or her from the rest of the group”. Category eight is maybe the most fascinating type focussing on the “anti-hero” which is the opposite of the group servant. The anti-hero “does not demonstrate the desired values and norms of society and yet still possess a fan following”. Representatives of this last category include, for example, Dennis Rodman or Tonya Harding (pp. 70-72). Even though this categorisation by Delaney and Madigan (2009) is an interesting attempt, it does raise some new questions and is not set in stone. As a matter of fact, an athlete can literally change category over night. The most recent example for such a washout is Tiger Woods. Whereas Delaney and Madigan (2009) had put him in the skilled performer category, the golf star mutated into an anti-hero in December 2009 when rumours turned out to be true regarding his extra-marital affairs.

According to Kruse (2006), sporting role models are individualised as a result of a triangular interaction process between recipients, athletes and the media (p. 9). As this author suggests, the media play a crucial role in the construction of athletes as role models and heroes. Nowadays, there is growing media intrusion shedding light on every angle of a sport star’s private life. While drunken excesses, drug abuse or extra-marital relationships of famous athletes were rarely known to the broad public, today’s transparency destroys the often idealised heroes and discloses their weaknesses and vices: “The notion of the impeccable sporting hero becomes increasingly difficult to maintain in a media culture that thrives on scandal and sensationalism” (Lines, 2001, p. 300). Pleiss and Feldhusen (1995) refer to this phenomenon as the “hero crisis” outlining the loss of “traditional conceptions of heroes and heroines as people who embody noble values and ideals” (pp. 166-167).

Lines (2001) describes the sporting hero as a person who “has traditionally been perceived of as epitomizing social ideals and masculine virtues” (p. 285). Male attractiveness is compatible with being a sportsman. A successful male athlete becomes a hero, an idol or even a sex symbol. However, a successful female athlete is often ridiculed as she is disturbing the social order and risking her femininity. As a consequence, female athletes are “marginalized, trivialized and objectified” in the media coverage and public discourse (Lines, 2001, p. 286; Hargreaves, 2000). While impressive female athletes do perform and exist, the neglect and invisibility of such credible female role models in the media forms a vicious circle, thus literally fortifying existing gender stereotypes. However, the mere media presence of sporting females does not automatically create empowering female role models, since female sport stars are often restricted to “heterosexual feminine appropriate images” (Lines, 2001, p. 290). Heroines are presented either as nice, hard-working and humble girls who perform outstandingly in a brave or courageous way, or as sexualised pin-ups (Hargreaves, 1994, 2000; Lines, 2001). Both kinds of constructed sporting heroines are intended to please the “male gaze, with men positioned as the dominant audience of mediated sport” (Lines, 2001, p. 291). As a matter of fact, media sport coverage is mainly produced by men, about men and for men.

Different individuals such as parents, coaches, teachers or celebrities can serve as role models. Is it enough that a potential role model is willing to assume the role purposefully and is aware of his or her responsibility to have an impact? Or is the role model “defined by the observer’s attention and identification”? (Lyle, 2009, p. 26). Delaney and Madigan (2009) clearly state that a role model is constructed by choice of the recipient: “A hero is someone that we admire. Consequently, heroes are chosen, whether they want to be or not. Conversely, someone cannot claim to be a hero. Such status needs to be conferred by others” (p. 68).

But what is happening, if a sport star consciously denies adopting the role and responsibility of displaying exemplary behaviour? The former NBA All-Star Charles Barkely raised this issue in 1993 in a Nike commercial advertisement:

I am not a role model. I’m not paid to be a role model. I am paid to wreak havoc on the basketball court. Parents should be role models. Just because I dunk a basketball doesn’t mean I should raise your kids. (quoted in May, 2009, p. 443; Bush et al, 2004, p. 114).

Barkley explicitly refused to adhere to the widely shared premise that all high-profile athletes should be role models. The fallacy that sporting excellence automatically results in exemplary moral behaviour turns out to be a problem when admired star athletes do not care and spurn social or legal rules. In contrast with this passive interpretation of role modelling, an active role would suggest that individuals voluntarily assume their responsibility with regard to modelling. The awareness of adhering to this kind of ethical code seems to be expected among some top-athletes. Mark Richardson, a former British athlete who competed mainly in the 400m, said that “sportsmen and -women are in a very privileged position – they are living the dream – and have to conduct themselves in a proper manner because of their very powerful and influencing effect on the younger generation” (Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2004, p. 43). Officials, managers and politicians point out that athletes are often “recipients of public funding” and should therefore “be role models in terms of their conduct within the sporting arena” (Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2004, p. 44). The problem with this claim is the lack of consistency. Due to the already mentioned media influence, it is not sufficient to display exemplary on-field behaviour which is in total contrast to athletes’ off-field behaviour (Shields, 2001). If role models do have an impact on children and young people, their messages are only credible if they are authentic and consistent (Lyle, 2009).

Modelling is at least a two-way interaction between an observer and a potential role model. Kruse (2006) wrote that “role models or exemplary behaviour cannot be decreed or enforced” (p. 9). Guggenbühl (2002) agrees with this statement and emphasises the impracticality and absurdity to force a particular role model onto young people:

Practical experience shows that children and adolescents do not want to be told with whom they shall identify. What is adopted by youth is often a mystery (...). The selection of a role model is the result of a complicated psychological process, within which the personal disposition of the child, the subculture of youth and the spirit of the time plays an important role (....). Which role model is chosen cannot be predetermined.

Teenagers, especially often tend to boycott exemplary behaviours in order to seal themselves off from the adult world: "Adolescents in particular are driven by their antagonistic relationship with adults, to reject any official example or model and rather choose alternative figures."  (Guggenbühl, 2002).

Lockwood, Jordan and Kunda (2002) emphasise the fact that individuals chose positive or negative role models depending on the respective “regulatory concerns” (p. 854). Besides the successes of high-profile athletes, people can also be motivated by negative role models who have experienced a blow of fate such as surviving a deadly disease. According to Lockwood et al. (2002), “negative role models can inspire one by illustrating a feared, to-be-avoided self, pointing to possible future disasters, and highlighting mistakes that must be avoided so as to prevent them” (p. 854). Once again, it is up to the recipient to decide on adequate role models and what characteristics one wants to emulate. 

 

In order to facilitate a better understanding of role models and the mechanism of role modelling, three specific theories aiming to provide logical clues as to why role modelling occurs are presented here. This theoretical framework is mainly woven by the work of Albert Bandura. 

From a psychological point of few, role modelling is an essential element to explain learning. Bandura (1977) based his Social Learning Theory (also known as Social Cognitive Theory) mainly on the idea that people learn by watching others. The principals of this theory were developed for the purpose of explaining how individuals model human action, thought and motivation. Key factors influencing this learning are the environment, behaviour and cognition (Bandura, 1977). Is the attribute of similarity (personal capabilities, age, gender, etc.) relevant to influence children and young people? Or is the competence of a model more significant? Is it effective to have multiple, coping or masterly models to get a message across? Bandura (1986) emphasises the importance of adult modelling on the internal processing and behaviour they desire in children and youth.

Within the framework of social-cognitive learning theory there is a distinction between modelling and imitation. According to this theory, modelling consists of more than just copying observed behaviour. The brain is not recording a precise copy of the observed behavioural sequences, but remembering general patterns of behaviour (Mietzel, 1998, p. 163).

Bandura (1986) identified four major components for his Social Learning Theory describing a “multiprocess analysis of observational learning” (p. 51). First of all, the attention of the observer needs to be raised. This attentional process involves the extent to which model and observer characteristics are interpersonally attractive. Bandura (1977) pointed out that “models who possess engaging qualities are sought out, while those lacking pleasing characteristics are generally ignored or rejected” (p. 24). Mietzel (1998) mentioned enthusiasm displayed by the role model as another crucial ability to gain an observer’s attention. The second component described by Bandura (1977) comprises retention processes. A transfer of an observed behaviour into the brain is necessary before this behaviour can be reproduced. These response patterns must be represented symbolically in “visual imagery” (p. 26) or in verbal codes. The third component implies (motor) reproduction processes which convert “symbolic representations into appropriate actions” (p. 27). At this stage, a learner receives the opportunity to improve and reinforce an observed behavioural pattern through objective feedback (Mietzel, 1998). Bandura (1986) called this process “cognitive rehearsal” (p. 61). Since the Social Learning Theory distinguishes between acquisition and performance, it depends on motivational processes, ? as the fourth component ? if an observer is going to reproduce a behaviour or not. Bandura (1977) emphasised that “people do not enact everything they learn” (p. 28). Behavioural patterns are more likely to be imitated if the observed consequences are rewarding and provide sufficient incentives. Bandura (1977) mentioned many aspects influencing observational learning and pointed out that “the provision of models, even prominent ones, will not automatically create similar behavior in others” (p. 29).

Lockwood and Kunda (1997) use the term “superstars” referring to role models which are defined as “individuals of outstanding achievement”. The assumption that “superstars” inspire and motivate young adults is called a “cultural cliché”. At the same time, they do also emphasise the other side of the coin by stating that “superstars can demoralize and deflate less outstanding others” (p. 91). Lockwood and Kunda (1997) identify “attainability” and “relevance” as two key aspects which determine the impact of a role model on others: “the perceived relevance of the superstar to the self and the believed attainability of the star’s success” (p. 92). Therefore, role modelling is only an inspiration if the goal is attainable. Otherwise there is a danger of demoralisation. Bandura (1977) supports this point of view:

When models are unusually productive, and observers posses limited skills, their creative efforts may be self-devaluated by the unfavourable comparison. Prolific, creative modelling can thus dissuade the less talented. (p. 49).

Lockwood et al. (2002) analysed the “motivation by positive or negative role models” and tried to identify the mechanism which determines who will best inspire an individual (p. 854). Results showed that individuals who were “promotion-focused” (using a strategy of pursuing desired outcomes) have been particularly motivated by “positive role models”. On the other hand, “prevention-focused individuals, who use a strategy of avoiding undesired outcomes, will find negative role models to be especially motivating” (Lockwood et al., 2002, p. 861). Generally, the motivational impact of role models heavily depends on the congruence of “current regulatory concerns” (promotion or prevention) between the model and the audience (Lockwood et al., 2002, p. 862).

Bandura (1977) identified two major problems with regard to observational learning. There may be “inconsistencies in behaviour of the same model over time”. Furthermore, there could be discrepancies between what models preach and how they really act (p. 44). The following proverb by Romano Guardini emphasises this fact: „Most effective is the being of the educator; the second is what he is doing and the third what he is saying.“ (quoted in Luther and Hotz, 1998, p. 245). Particulalry in the domain of moral development, actions and messages need to be consistent. Doty (2006) quoted the saying by Ralph W. Emerson “Your actions speak so loudly I can’t hear what you say” (p. 3), and pointed out that this maxim is even more true for teaching virtues and other character qualities than it is for other types of behaviour. Lickona (1983) is even more explicit with regard to children who "need to see us lead good lives, but they also need to know why we do it. For our example to have maximum impact, they need to know the values and beliefs that lie behind it (...). We teach, directly, by telling. We need to practice what we preach, but we also need to preach what we practice" (p. 22). According to Berkowitz (2002), adults should verbally express their expectations of good behaviour and provide many opportunities to practice good behaviour and to be acknowledged for doing so. Age-appropriated opportunities for children and youth are needed to reflect and discuss moral issues.

Bandura (1986) points out the “increasing use of symbolic modelling (TV, etc.), parents, teachers and other traditional role models may occupy less prominent roles in social learning”. However, he acknowledges that the strength of this kind of modelling is its “tremendous multiplicative power” (p. 39).

The effectiveness of role models to influence learners to actually act in a certain way may also depend on the characteristics of these models (Bandura, 1997). If a model is similar, rather than dissimilar, to a learner and demonstrates a highly skilled activity, there is more chance for the learner to be motivated. This type of behavioural mechanism can be associated with Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. According to Bandura (1995), self-efficacy is “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (p. 2). There are three mediating factors associated with this theory: Self-efficacy expectancy is concerned with the learners’ perceptions of how capable they feel they are to actually carry out the behaviour. Secondly, there is outcome expectancy. This factor postulates that if there is a high probability that the behaviour will result in the specific outcome, there is a greater chance that the learner will adopt the behaviour. Thirdly, outcome value: If the outcome of the behaviour is desirable then there is a greater likelihood of the behaviour being undertaken (Bandura, 1997).

The above theory is particularly useful to explain the performance of motor skills but it also has relevance to physical activity involvement. Bandura (1997) has indicated that women are very sensitive to their beliefs of physical efficacy and that training videos often neglect the benefits of assumed similarity and therefore use superstars to demonstrate exercises.

Besides mastery experiences, social persuasion and psychological responses (including moods, physical reactions, etc.), social modelling is one of four major sources of self-efficacy according to Bandura (1986). Self-efficacy is partly influenced by vicarious experiences mediated through modelled achievement. Modelling can promote self-efficacy, because the perception of similar people who behave in a successful way typically raises the efficacy beliefs of observers that they too possess the capabilities to handle comparable situations. If a model is totally different from an observer, the belief of personal efficacy is not much influenced by the models` behaviour and the produced results (Bandura, 1997).

Whereas Bandura’s theoretical frameworks have focused on observations and cognitive factors associated with the learner, another effective approach is one that concentrates on the significantly increased interaction between the role model and the learner. This approach is perhaps more suited to mentoring relationships, but is still relevant to discuss possible influences of role models and heroes.

The context is at the centre of this approach, especially if learning or modelling, occurs within the real environment in which the behaviour is taking place. The framework is analogous to a master/apprentice relationship. Haney (1997) relates the process to one in which the master guides, advises, coaches and motivates the learner. The expert provides the learner with appropriate support to execute the intended behaviour. As the learner starts to adopt the behaviour, the scaffolding is gradually reduced until the apprentice is able to work on his or her own. Mietzel (1998) refers to this approach as “Lehrlingsschaft” (p. 109) and emphasises the importance of the masterly double function as role model (demonstrating skills) and coach (providing positive and negative feedback).

There may be issues relating to differences between learner and mentor which may inhibit the process to a certain degree. Gender, ethnicity, social status or education may be particular barriers and a narrow-minded expert may rather turn out to be counterproductive in building a trustful and creative environment (Cleminson and Bradford, 1996).

 

According to the Freudian perspective of the 1920s, “human nature is instinctually anti-social and undeveloped and has to be corrected and socialised” (Vessels and Huitt, 2005). This psychoanalytic standpoint perceived moral character development as a “constant struggle between biological predispositions to act selfishly and aggressively and social pressures to act in a prosocial manner” (Vessels and Huitt, 2005, p. 13).

The 20th century was clearly embossed by this psychoanalytic approach and prompted schools, governments, churches, political parties, etc to take the lead in moral education and defining values. In the course of the century, scepticism and opposition progressively arose towards this asserted authority and inconsiderate instructions.

In the last decade, many people have deplored a decay of values which is even more promoted by the media and increasing sensationalism. This demand is accommodated by reports on violence, scandals, drugs, fraud, corruption, etc.

It is generally agreed that the family has the main responsibility for moral and character formation of children. As Turiel (1998) notes, it seems that everyone wants children and youth in their society to be guided in the process of becoming less aggressive, more empathic, more principled, more charitable and more respectful of self and others. Since well educated and morally reliable citizens form the basis of every democratic society, ethical values are of public interest. Narvaez (2006) refers to contrary opinions stating that “some argued that parents should be the ones to teach values, not teachers” (p. 704). Bandura (1977) clearly rejected this parental sole claim: “Parents of course are not the exclusive source of children’s moral judgements and conduct. Other adults, peers, and symbolic models play influential roles as well” (p. 44). Potential role models such as coaches or teachers are “representatives of the community and the primary liaison between the child and the society”, and therefore “must be given the authority to help children develop character skills that promote active and positive citizenship because the community, like the family, is responsible for raising good citizens” (Narvaez, 2006, p. 705).

Berkowitz et al. (2006) label teachers as “adults with supervisory, caretaker responsibility for children” who “provide an opportunity for emotional attachment”. Sport coaches can be included into this category of adults.

[Like parents, teachers and coaches] provide children with feedback regarding their competence, likeability and worth, and sometimes dramatically influence children’s self-esteem. They strongly impact the broad developmental outcomes of children not only through what they teach explicitly and what they model, but also through their relationship itself. (p. 694).

As a matter of fact, even if moral education was not an explicit and intentional part of school curriculum, “values education is embedded in the fabric of classrooms and instructional practice” (Narvaez, 2006, p. 705). The same principle is valid for sport lessons and sport fields or gyms where coaches set standards, decide on performance, treat players in a certain manner, respect cultural differences, etc. Moral considerations and values are intrinsically tied to any kind of education, instruction, coaching, training or mentorship. 

The work of Piaget and Kohlberg considerably influenced the discourse with regard to moral character development in the 1970s and beyond. This dominating cognitive-developmental theory proposes:

All children are predisposed to engage in moral and ethical thinking, feeling, choosing and behaving. Morality is viewed as the result of the development of moral thinking based on a concept of justice. Moral schemas are thought to guide thinking about moral issues with thinking providing a guide to behaviour. (Vessels and Huitt, 2005, p. 15).

Kohlberg (1981, 1985) postulates six dominant ways in which people argue about moral issues. This sequential typology begins with punishment based on obedience and evolving through instrumental hedonism, approval-seeking conformity, respect for authority, contractual legalistic observance and culminating in private conscience. An individual can only proceed from one stage to another when the preceding stage had been accomplished. This mechanism can be explained by Bandura’s presumption that “modelling of moral standards that are too discrepant from one’s dominant stage has little impact because they cannot be assimilated” (1977, p. 42). The Kohlbergian theory states that the ability of moral judgement can be improved through frequent opportunities to discuss moral dilemmas. In contrast to Freud or Bandura, Kohlberg’s work can be considered as an “attempt to clarify moral stages mainly on cognitive considerations” (Arnold, 2001, p. 136).

In order to live up to the complexity of moral development, Berkowitz (2002) identified seven psychological components of a moral person which he defines as ‘moral anatomy’. His multidimensional approach integrates moral identity, behaviour, values, emotion, reasoning, and personality. The seventh component is focussing on ‘metamoral’ characteristics which might not be inherently moral (such as optimism or self-control). This holistic model is very useful in order to understand the complex issue of moral development.

Fabes et al. (1999) define moral reasoning as “the ability or tendency to think about and make decisions in situations in which there may be conflicting values, norms, rules or laws, needs, or desires” (p. 10-11). Even though Bandura (1986) relates to “conflicting claims” regarding the link between moral reasoning and behaviour (pp. 497-498), Fabes et al. (1999) acknowledge an “overall evidence for significant relations between moral reasoning and moral behaviours” (p. 11). Lickona (1991) tried to connect psychological and behavioural elements when he stated that “Good character consists of knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the good ? habits of the mind, habits of the heart, and habits of action” (p. 51). Just knowing how to behave does not mean that a person is really going to demonstrate the desired behaviour in a specific situation (Mietzel, 1998; Nucci, 2006).

Eisenberg and Mussen (1989) agree that “moral judgment and moral conduct are associated”, but do not believe in a “one-to-one correspondence between them. An individual with mature, sophisticated concepts and judgments about moral issues may or may not ordinarily behave in prosocial ways.“ (p. 6). Fabes et al. (1999) have found that “higher levels and stages of moral reasoning and other-oriented modes of moral reasoning are related positively to prosocial behaviours.” (p. 11)

What does it mean to act prosocially? Eisenberg and Mussen (1989) define prosocial behaviour as "voluntary actions that are intended to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals” and specify that there are various intentions to behave prosocially, which range from “selfish reasons (reward), gaining approval of others” to truly other-oriented motives (p. 3). Prosocial behaviour and altruism are often confused or used as synonyms, but they are two distinct concepts. Whereas prosocial behaviours include a broad spectrum of activities such as sharing, comforting, rescuing and helping, altruism is the motivation to help others out of pure regard for their needs rather than paying attention to the action. For example donating anonymously for a humanitarian cause is the prosocial action while altruism is what motivates a person to act. Eisenberg and Mussen (1989) point out that „altruistic children tend to be active, sociable, competent, assertive, advanced in role taking and moral judgment, and sympathetic" (p. 151).

Bearing in mind the ‘moral anatomy’ model presented by Berkowitz (2002), moral behaviour is one of seven components of moral development. And prosocial behaviours are moral actions and behavioural patterns such as e.g. telling the truth. Following the ‘moral anatomy’ concept, the tendency to act with altruism is part of the moral personality.

A third component of the ‘moral anatomy’ model (Berkowitz, 2002) which is important to mention regarding sporting role models is the moral identity and its virtues. Virtues are defined as “habitual ways of thinking, feeling, committing, and acting that reflect moral character” (Vessels and Huitt, 2005, p. 19) and are considered “an effective and common way to discuss character” (Doty, 2006, p. 3).

Vessels and Huitt (2005) have reviewed several lists of relevant virtues regarding moral development by various researchers. Among the most important “basic emotions that play a fundamental role in morality” (Vessels and Huitt, 2005, p. 13), respect, honesty, tolerance, and fairness are frequently named, often relating to empathy as the fundamental virtue. Hart et al. (2006) define empathy as “awareness and affective reaction to another’s emotional experience” and call it “an important constituent to the prosocial personality” (p. 638). Arnold (2001) establishes a direct connection between good moral character and the broad range of virtues a person is willingly disposed to act upon. With regard to good moral character in sport, Bredemeier and Shields (1995) name four crucial virtues which facilitate a consistent display of moral action on playing fields: “compassion, fairness, sportspersonship, and integrity” (p. 194).

The famous French author Albert Camus used to say “that it was from sports that he learned all that he knew about ethics” (quoted in Keating (1964;2006), p. 141). People engage in sport activities for various reasons including health, fitness, fun, social contacts, relaxation and others. One of these other factors is moral development. With regard to common inappropriate behaviours in sport such as cheating, fouls, violence, verbal abuse, etc which seem to be tolerated (or even expected) to a certain extent, what kind of socio-moral context are we talking about? Does sport really build character?

Schwier (1990) differentiates between constitutive and regulative rules with regard to sports and disciplines. The constitutive rules consist of a compulsory and standardised system of rules which is inherent of any game and discipline. Regulative rules, on the other hand, are rather informal and exceed the framework of constitutive rules. Schauerte (2007) describes the consequences of breaking or sticking to regulative rules:

Through compliance or contempt, the action of a protagonist can be ranked on its ethical-moral level in regard to its role model quality. (Schauerte, 2007, p. 31).

Media and the public discourse commonly refer to the relevance of regulative rules in terms of sportspersonship or fair play. With regard to youth sport, Stephens and Bredemeier (1996) share this point of view and identified “at least two types of behavioural guides”. Besides the system of sport rules, they emphasised “a moral atmosphere, or socio-moral context, featuring normative influences on participants‘ thinking and behavior“ (p. 169).

Bredemeier and Shields (1984, 1995) clearly make the distinction between the morality within the realm of sport and everyday life. Huizinga (1955) noted in his classic ‘Homo Ludens’ that playing was "stepping out of ‘real life’ into a temporary sphere of activity with a disposition all of its own" (p. 8). Bredemeier (1994) states that “play, games, and sport are important socialization contexts that frequently have been described as conceptually and emotionally distinct from everyday life” (p. 2) and coined the term "bracketed morality" to describe the morality that happens in sport. This morality is valid on the pitch only and with no real world consequences (Bredemeier and Shields, 1984, 1986a, 1986b, 1995). Sport legitimises aggressive behaviour (e.g. boxing) which would be considered immoral and unacceptable in everyday life. Shields (2001) supports his approach with empirical findings:

If athletes want to compete successfully, they need to suspend their usual level of morality and behave egocentrically (Bredemeier and Shields, 1986a, 1986b; Bredemeier, 1994). Bredemeier et al. (1986a) use the term ‘game reasoning’ to describe the process of moral reasoning that mainly occurs in the context of competitive sports. However, Shields (2001) crucially distinguishes between competition and “de-competition” and uses these two distinct archetypes as “conceptual tools to examine the dynamics of contrasting social processes”. Pure competitors or de-competitors do not exist, but form two extreme poles of a continuum. Both of these ideal types want to win, because this is the catalyst of every game or tournament. But Shields (2001) differentiates: “For true competitors, one cannot win without winning fairly; for de-competitors, the concluding scoreboard is the only arbiter of winning”. In summary, the difference between competition and de-competition consists of “contrasting views of all the elements involved in a contest: the opponents, the officials, the rules, the goal, and the process”. Competition and de-competition share only “the external, structural arrangement of mutually exclusive goal attainment”, but are “defined with reference to the subjective orientation of the participants”. These differences easily become obvious and observable when participants play the game (Shields, 2001).

Two points are connoted with regard to “bracketed morality”. Firstly, personal freedom from daily concerns is one attractive aspect of sport that motivates many people, thus allowing them to relax and to ‘step out of real life’ for a defined period of time. It reduces relational responsibility and egocentrism is not only accepted, but legitimately expected. The second aspect states that “not all action supportive of self-interest is morally appropriate, even in sport.” Morality in sport is just bracketed, but not abolished. Mitigating circumstances with regard to moral behaviour are considered, but there is no pure moral anarchy:

Bracketed morality is a form of moral action that is nested within a broader, more encompassing morality. It is set apart by its relative leniency, yet it remains connected to basic moral presuppositions. It is a playful deviation, not a serious detachment. (Shields, 2001).

When this attributed freedom is used to gouge these minimal criteria, “bracketed morality ceases to be a nonserious and playful deviation from the morality of everyday life and loses its legitimacy” (Shields, 2001; Bredemeier and Shields, 1986a, 1986b; Bredemeier, 1994). 

Harris (1994) argues that true heroes have moral and social responsibilities and that they “compensate for qualities perceived to be missing in individuals and society and display ideal behaviors that people strive to emulate” (p. 1). Other authors also associate heroism with patriarchal moral attributes such as bravery, courage or loyalty. Lines (2001) applies this logic to the sport arena and points out that “sporting heroes [are] admired for high morals and exemplary sporting behaviour” (p. 286). According to Delaney and Madigan (2009), “a hero is usually someone who is admired for his or her achievement, courage, skill, dedication, or integrity” (p. 67). Furthermore, heroes are supposed to “serve as agents of social control” which prominently include the anchoring of traditional gender stereotypes (p. 69). Today, the definition of what is regarded as feminine or masculine in a given society is different from what it was yesterday. And tomorrow, it will be different from what it has been today. Aside from the chronological factor, the way masculinity and femininity are interpreted is also largely determined by socio-cultural contexts: “A culture is remembered for its heroes and heroines, and sport constructs them and influences our perceptions of them continuously.” (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 1). As a matter of fact, virtues of heroism and sports are often exclusively male, however, an in-depth consideration of this challenging gender dimension would go beyond the scope of this paper.

According to Narvaez (2006) virtues are not innate, but are “patterns of behavior developed with practice, effort and guidance from parents, teachers, and mentors, until external guidance is unnecessary. In other words, virtue development requires apprenticeship under guidance of the community” (p. 719). This means that significant others and their values, beliefs and behaviours can considerably influence the moral development and prosocial behaviour of children and youth. With regard to the degree of interaction between a sporting role model and a young person which is conceived as a continuum (MacCallum and Beltman, 2002), the following sport examples emanate from a regular and personal relationship between athletes and significant others such as team-mates, parents or the coach.

Stephens and Bredemeier (1996) found in their study on aggression in girls’ soccer that “youth sport participants’ self-defined likelihood to aggress was best predicted by players’ perceptions of how their team-mates would act in a similar situation” (p. 169). Unfair game tactics by team-mates would therefore increase the likelihood of an individual to behave unfairly as well. Guivernau and Duda (2002) confirm these results and report a “significant positive correlation between athletes’ team pro-aggressive norms and their SLA [self-defined likelihood to aggress]” (p. 79). Besides the influence of team-mates, sport specific research has also identified a link between parental influence and aggression. Stuart and Ebbeck (1995) studied the social approval offered by parents to act aggressively. According to this research, mothers had the highest impact on moral development of young children, while team-mates’ approval was most relevant to older youngsters.

Various studies agree that athletes are significantly more influenced by their coach when faced with a moral decision than by any other individual (Stephens and Bredemeier, 1996; Guivernau and Duda, 2002; Kavussanu and Spray, 2006). Especially among female athletes, the “players’ own ego orientations were less predictive of likelihood to aggress than the players’ perceptions of their coach’s ego orientation” (Stephens and Bredemeier, 1996, p. 170). In their study on moral functioning of male youth footballers, Kavussanu and Spray (2006) found:

[If coaches] (…) encourage engagement in behaviours such as verbally or physically provoking an opponent, diving to seek an advantage (…), it has a strong effect on the manner players viewed these behaviours, their intention to engage, as well as their reported engagement in the behaviours over the course of the football season. (p. 17).

Therefore, it needs to be clearly acknowledged that coaches indeed are sporting role models and do impact “on young athletes’ acquisition of certain values, such as fair play and respect for the rules or cheating and aggressive/injurious play” (Guivernau and Duda, 2002, p. 81).

There seems to be a contradiction with regard to heroic attributes and virtues combined with the characteristics of a successful athlete. Spencer (1996) specifies this paradox:

Perhaps this is the real dilemma – not whether athletic heroes still exist, but whether the qualities needed to attain athletic excellence actually prevent the development of true heroic qualities. (p. 48).

She uses the trail against the former athlete O.J. Simpson as an example and differentiates between a “football hero” and an “American hero” (p. 48). Goodman (1993) stresses the qualities a society tries to seek in its heroes such as selflessness, social consciousness, modesty, loyalty or integrity and states:

These are precisely the opposite of those needed to transform a talented but otherwise unremarkable neighborhood kid into a Michael Jordan or a Joe Montana [American football legend]. Becoming a star athlete requires a profound and long-term kind of self-absorption, a single-minded attention to the development of a few rather odd physical skills, and an overarching competitive outlook. (p. 103).

Egocentric behaviour which is required and often expected by successful athletes stands for a rather low level of moral judgement following the already mentioned Kohlbergian theory (1981, 1985). Is it therefore not hypocritical to automatically equate high-profile athletes with individuals of exemplary moral behaviour?

The approach offered by Shields (2001) with regard to competitors and de-competitors can help to explain this paradox of athletic performance. While both ideal types adhere to sportspersonship, competitors are “fundamentally guided in their actions by the ideals of fairness, respect, and noninjurious play”. This viewpoint contrasts with de-competitors who “tend to adopt a conventional or nonmoral view of sportspersonship”. De-competitors consider sportspersonship as “behaviour that conforms to the minimal demands of politeness, civility, and rule obedience” (Shields, 2001). Potential competitors can be distinguished from potential de-competitors in situations when moral norms conflict with strategic game interests. Competitors want to win, but minimal moral norms are upheld regardless of whether the rules require that or not, thus combining athletic excellence with “true heroic qualities” (Spencer, 1996, p. 48). For de-competitors, on the other hand, “rules are partially tolerated restraints, and circumvention of rules is to be expected when detection is unlikely. Thus, rather than rules providing the minimal floor for sportspersonship, they provide its maximal ceiling” (Shields, 2001). The perception of officials and referees is another crucial difference between competitors and de-competitors. While competitors welcome and respect the referee as a person who ensures “equality of opportunity and treatment and minimization of risk”, for de-competitiors officials are part of the adversary (Shields, 2001).

With regard to the concept of “bracketed morality“ described by Bredemeier and Shields (1986a) and Shields (2001), there seems to be another contradiction when Lines (2001) suggests that the sporting hero is “embodying values that learnt on the playing fields will readily transfer into everyday life” (p. 285). Due to inconsistent on-field and off-field behaviour, athletes find themselves often confronted with a moral dualism. Is there not a danger of transferring egocentric morality of sport into daily life?

Nowadays, sport metaphors are eagerly used in business, economics, advertisement or politics. If political issues are compared to games, sensitive issues can lose a certain degree of seriousness which allows “bracketed morality” to enter the scene. The theory of “game reasoning” (Shields, 2001) should be reserved for the vast realm of sport and not euphemistically misused to justify e.g. political acts under a protecting umbrella. Politics is not a game, because decisions and actions do have real world consequences, and therefore cannot afford to be based on “bracketed morality”. Bredemeier (1985) understands morality as “a process of balancing one’s own needs and interests with those of others” (p. 120), and this process cannot be minimised or trivialised with regard to politics and public interest.

However, not everything that is happening on a sport field is unfavourable and driven by egocentric morality. When Lines (2001) proposes that sporting heroes can transfer on-field values into everyday life, this would then be the moment in which athletes serve as role models influencing to a certain extent the moral development and prosocial behaviour of children and youth.

In his study on black male basketball players as role models, May (2009) reported that several youngsters chose a role model, because of their contribution to the community: “Michael Jordan is a good person, and he gives back to his neighbourhood and does stuff for the kids” (p. 451). Some high-profile athletes seem to overcome the moral dualism and paradox of athletic excellence by arranging their off-field behaviour in an exemplary, generous way. The young males interviewed by May (2009) generally had a complex and critical view of role models, and some teenagers emphasised e.g. that “giving back is an important part of one’s role as a professional athlete” (p. 458). The findings in this study suggest that young people are able to discern ‘good’ and ‘bad’ behaviours of the same sport star or between different high-profile athletes. This observation corresponds with Lines (2001) who is convinced that “young people can make informed and articulate judgements about sport stars as villains, fools and heroes” (p. 301). Adolescents were able to describe a certain skill or character trait they admire, and simultaneously disapprove certain off-field behaviours such as doping, reckless driving or violent incidents. Furthermore, the choice of a certain role model is a dynamic process which is subject to change over time. May (2009) points out that young people “might actually select multiple role models that represent examples to be followed in the various realms of their everyday lives (…) and have varying degrees of influence” (p. 459).

As a matter of fact, any celebrity has to reckon with the possibility of being picked as someone’s role model for whatever reasons. The potential influence of an athlete is mainly linked to his or her awareness and conviction of being a passive or active role model. But even the willingness and dedication does not guarantee that exemplary behaviour is going to be noticed, appreciated and reproduced by youngsters. As already mentioned, young people are deciding themselves which characteristics of which role model they want to emulate.

 

What preconditions are needed if sport and its actors should help to develop moral consciousness and promote prosocial behaviour among youngsters? Doty (2006) observed:

Coaches and parents say they are teaching respect and fair play, but the results do not show it. If coaches and parents are using sport as a venue to develop character in young athletes, and many say they are, either they are teaching and modelling the wrong behaviours, or the kids are not learning. (p. 6-7).

Shields (2001) refers to the cultural adage ‘sport builds character’ and provocatively comments: "As researchers, we believe that sport does no such thing. At least not automatically.” Sport does not have many impacts by chance or hope, but needs to be concerted, well-directed and used intentionally as a tool or instrument:

If sport is to be of any positive benefit, from a moral standpoint, then deliberate effort and planning need to occur. And that effort and planning needs to be informed by an understanding of the real moral dynamics that characterize sport experience. (Shields, 2001).

This concluding chapter formulates suggestions which consider the influence of sporting role models on the moral development and prosocial behaviour of children and youth. This paper used three main terms to define three types of models situated on a continuum: mentors, role models and heroes/heroines. This concept relates to the degree of interaction between the observer and a potential model (MacCallum and Beltman, 2002).

The following recommendations are divided into two categories. The first group of suggestions, which target a lower degree of interaction (sporting heroes/heroines) refers mainly to one-way relationships with little or no real contact involved. The second group of suggestions addresses higher degrees of interaction (sporting role models), usually consisting of mainly reciprocal contacts. Mentors are not specifically considered in this approach, but all suggested recommendations would as well concern a mentor-mentee relationship.

Human beings are not perfect and their weaknesses or vices are too evident to be erased by nice words or exemplary behaviour. If an injured athlete or incompetent coach tries to hide deficiencies and override problems, their function as role models becomes hypocritical. In order to face the challenges of dealing with youth, the key word is authenticity (Guggenbühl, 2002). The credibility of a role model is increased if she or he is able to admit and communicate weaknesses, doubts and troubles. It is even more impressive to see how they were or are able to deal with everyday hassles or more serious problems. Arnold (2001) agrees with this standpoint and adds:

If morality is to be conveyed indirectly or directly, it is best done in an unobtrusive way by those who are authentically moral and possess the qualities that are occasionally extolled and which are a necessary part of the practice called sport. (p. 147).

Social and moral values in sport can only be taught effectively if potential role models show a true commitment to such values themselves. Rough edges and clear statements are required with regard to influencing prosocial behaviour and morality among children and young people.

If role models really intend to influence children or young people, they are only credible if their implicit and explicit messages are authentic and consistent. Therefore, inconsistencies between what models preach and how they really behave should be avoided. Many heroes/heroines and role models (parents, coaches, etc) are not really aware of this hidden potential and need to grasp “the power of their own lives, deeds, and words as catalyst for children’s positive development” (Berkowitz et al., 2006, p. 695). Even though human beings should be free to change opinions and standpoints once in while, it is crucial to remember that actions and messages ? especially in the domain of moral development – need to be consistent in order to have an impact.

Even though the proverb “Your actions speak so loudly I can’t hear what you say” (quoted in Doty, 2006, p. 3) suggests that words are less significant than deeds, role models and heroes/heroines need to communicate messages explicitly. There is no such thing as a neutral and value-free education (Luther and Hotz, 1998). Not speaking out clearly when moral and social values are endangered is an alarming sign of indifference. Adult models should verbally express their expectations of good behaviour and provide many opportunities to practice good behaviour and to be acknowledged for doing so (Berkowitz, 2002). Arnold (2001) suggests that “acts of consideration or sportspersonship, although not required by the rules, should be recognized and commended as in keeping with sport as a valued practice”. Besides reinforcing exemplary actions positively, it is another important aspect that “cheating, dangerous play, or unacceptable behaviour should not be condoned but condemned” (p. 145). Kavussanu and Spray (2006) recommend that especially coaches should actively intervene with regard to immoral conduct, and Arnold (2001) specifies:

Just as virtues have to be nurtured and cultivated in upbringing, so too do such vices as callousness, ignorance, fearfulness, spite, bigotry, cruelty, and injustice have to be discouraged. (p. 139).

One of the best sport examples of verbal intervention is the „Stand up speak up“ project, initiated by Nike and football star Thierry Henri. This initiative encourages people to speak up in order to actively combat racism and other forms of discrimination.^[11] 

Usually the aim of a public speaker is to inform, persuade or entertain a group of people. To achieve this objective, even an outstanding speaker does a better job if he or she knows the interests, likes and dislikes of the audience. Who is present and why do they want to listen? Once these questions are solved, the right language and messages can be used to gain rapport with the audience and tailor the speech to reach the intended goals. This metaphor of public speaking can be used in the context of role modelling. What aims are going to be reached if a Swiss ski star is talking to Malawian children who have never seen snow in their lives? Are these kids able to identify with this athlete and really appreciate his or her message? Research has shown that “superstars can demoralize and deflate less outstanding others” (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997 p. 91; Bandura, 1977). Role models really need to matter to the audience and be relevant. But a role model can be considered relevant to an individual even if there is not a total congruence. The second important aspect mentioned by Lockwood and Kunda (1997) is the “attainability of the star’s success” (p. 92). Therefore, role modelling is only an inspiration, if the goal is attainable. Otherwise there is a danger of demoralisation. Of course relevance and attainability are subjective issues and can depend on age, origin, gender, disability, education, sport disciplines, social status, ethnicity, etc. It is crucial to be aware that on the one hand, a role model can decide which part of the role he or she wants to portray, but on the other, it is the observer (or audience) who is picking and assimilating a certain behaviour or message. This is why the observer’s perspective always needs to be considered carefully. Knowing the audience means delivering better, motivating and more appropriate messages.

Parents, coaches, teachers or religious educators are within the range of potential role models with a higher degree of interaction. These often familiar people have the desire and find themselves frequently in a position to stimulate prosocial development. Eisenberg and Mussen (1989) recommend to use “several practices” (p. 151), and Berkowitz et al. (2006) agrees that “positive youth development requires a complex, multifaceted set of educational strategies. No one strategy or limited set of strategies is likely to impact all the diverse psychological categories that comprise the optimally developed person” (pp. 690-691). Therefore, the following suggestions are a choice of possible strategies with no claim to be complete.

Various studies have acknowledged that sport coaches can have a significant influence on young athletes with regard to moral issues (Stephens and Bredemeier, 1996; Guivernau and Duda, 2002; Kavussanu and Spray, 2006). Due to this finding, proper coaching education seems to be crucial. Aside from coaches, educational opportunities should be provided as well for parents, sport organisers, officials, etc in order to improve the “moral climate in sport teams”. Coaches should receive more information “about how relevant their role is to young athletes’ moral functioning” and need to realise the “indirect influence on their athletes’ moral development through the relationship they emphasise and messages they convey among the team members” (Guivernau and Duda, 2002, p. 81). Furthermore, coaches should be educated “about their role in maintaining fair play” and encouraged to “actively promote fair play in the team.” (Kavussanu and Spray, 2006, p. 17). According to Stephens and Bredemeier (1996) a coach “can provide the type of experience that contributes to a child’s development of social values”. In order to achieve this purpose, a coach needs to know how to create “a team atmosphere that emphasizes mastery as opposed to a performance-outcome approach, coupled with a philosophy of sport based on a sense of fair competition” (p. 171). Another constitutional part of coach education should emphasise the personal preconditions of an ideal educator or coach. Brux (1997) mentioned authenticity, esteem, trustfulness, respect and empathy as the most important pillars.

Coaching education should also involve an explicit and critical debate concerning role models. Such a self-reflecting discussion sheds light on personal core values, goals and utopias with regard to children and youth (Guggenbühl, 2002).

Since parents, coaches and teachers occupy similar positions on the continuum, defining various degrees of interaction and possible strategies to stimulate prosocial and moral development can be used interchangeably and complementary. Berkowitz et al. (2006) defined five core parental behaviours that most clearly “promoted positive youth outcomes”^[12]. These five strategies consists of induction (parents explain disciplinary behaviour), nurturance (involving warmth and affection), demandingness (holding high but realistic standards), modelling (teaching by example) and democratic family processes which comprises empowerment through decision making (p. 694). The ability to be empathetic seems to be a guiding principle to educate children and youth and to stimulate social and moral development.

Bennett (1996) provided a popular manual of stories from the Bible and other literary sources as well as descriptions of historical figures. This publication intended to promote virtues of responsibility, friendship, courage, compassion, honesty, etc. Research focusing on the impact of this approach has shown that a mere presentation of moral stories does not influence children’s moral development (Narvaez, 2002). Nucci (2006) remarks that “the simple exposure of students to presumably moral content does not result in moral development” (p. 670). Berkowitz (2002) suggests that there needs to be age-appropriate opportunities for youngsters to reflect and debate moral issues.

The importance of e.g. fair play should not only be assumed to be understood by everybody on a team, but coaches or captains should facilitate an open discussion (Kavussanu and Spray, 2006) about such a topic once in a while. Such a debate increases the awareness that fair play is not just based on respecting rules, but includes tolerance, sense of responsibility, self-determination, identity, etc. (Brux, 1997).

Sport offers the opportunity to set up a moral dilemma within a game situation. In order to make effective use of such an exercise to stimulate moral and social development, there needs to be “correspondence between the domain of the focal issue(s) of the lesson and the content of the discourse”. Furthermore, engaging students in “cognitive reflection” can recess the intended message (Nucci, 2006, p. 671). In accordance with the Kohlbergian theory, Kähler (1985) suggests that coaches or teachers should call attention to moral implications when a moral dilemma or conflicting situations arise during a lesson. This obvious link to real-life settings and an increased awareness of conflicts and possible causes, could promote moral and social development.

Learning by doing is the creed of promoting prosocial behaviour by providing opportunities for children to engage in prosocial activities. Such an involvement assigns them responsibilities for others (Eisenberg and Mussen, 1989). As already mentioned, there is no single strategy to facilitating moral development in children and adolescents, but Hart et al. (2006) found that “involving youth in activities that benefit their communities can be synthesized into a broad-based effort to promote ethical development” (p. 652). Sport and games – especially with their sociable component ? offer a broad field of activities where any form of community service is requested and volunteerism often needed. Hart et al. (2006) describe research which found that “youth participation in community service is increased by the presence in the home of a parent who volunteers. Not only do parents serve as role models for community service, but for activism as well”. Willingly or unwillingly, “in addition to structuring home environments that contribute to the emotional regulation and positive emotionality leading to prosocial behavior, parents serve as role models for their children” (p. 640). Coaches who spend their leisure time to support young athletes voluntarily are sporting role models who stimulate prosocial behaviour ‘by doing’. 

Last but not least, the crucial distinction between “competition and de-competition” proposed by Shields (2001) needs to be emphasised. It is not the competitor with the desire to win who automatically induces immoral or anti-social behaviours on sports fields. It is the antagonist concept of the de-competitor which needs to be explicitly tackled and discouraged. Within this spirit of promoting real competition, Kavussanu and Spray (2006) suggest e.g. that “coaches need to deemphasize a motivational climate that encourages social comparison and treat all players equally” (pp. 19-20). Even if some athletes are outstandingly skilled and powerful, only competitors have the authentic potential to influence moral development and social behaviour of children and youth as sporting role models. Of course the same interrelation is valid for coaches and parents who respect and clarify the nature of competition, and actively discourage any form of de-competition. “If we can make sport truly competitive, it can build character. And, simultaneously, it takes character to make sport truly competitive” (Shields, 2001).