The Relationship between Children’s Legitimacy Judgments and Their Moral Reasoning, Aggression Tendencies, and Sport Involvement

• Brenda Jo Bredemeier ^[1] ; Maureen R. Weiss ; David L. Shields ^[1] ; Bruce A.B. Cooper ^[2]
  1. [1] University of California, Berkeley

     University of California, Berkeley

     Estados Unidos

     
  2. [2] University of California–San Francisco
• Localización: Sociology of sport journal, ISSN 0741-1235, Vol. 4, Nº. 1, 1987, págs. 48-60
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Dialnet Métricas: 7 Citas
• Resumen

  • The purpose of this study was to investigate (a) the relationship between children’s judgments regarding the legitimacy of potentially injurious sport acts for adults and for children, (b) the relationships between children’s legitimacy judgments and their moral reasoning, aggression tendencies, and sport involvement, and (c) the relative ability of the latter three variables to predict legitimacy judgments. Analyses were based on 78 girls and boys in grades 4 through 7 who participated in a moral interview, completed aggression ten dency and sport involvement questionnaires, and evaluated the legitimacy of potentially injurious sport acts depicted in a series of slides. Analyses revealed that children accepted more acts as legitimate for adults than for children. Boys’ legitimacy judgments were significantly related to their moral reasoning, aggression tendencies, and involvement in high-contact sports, but girls’ legitimacy judgments were correlated only with their life aggression tendencies. Children’s aggression tendencies were found to be the best predictors of their legitimacy judgments.