Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors in Sport: The Roles of Personality Traits and Moral Identity

Authors: Mevlüt YILDIZ (1), Ender ŞENEL (1), İbrahim YILDIRAN (2)
(1) Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Turkey.
(3) Gazi University, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Turkey.

Corresponding Author:
Ender SENEL
Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Sports Sciences
Kotekli/Mugla, 48000
endersenel@gmail.com
00902522111951

(1) Dr. Ender SENEL is a research assistant in Physical Education and Sport Teacher Education Department at the Mugla Sitki Kocman University, studying teaching and learning approaches in physical education and sport.

Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors in Sport: The Roles of Personality Traits and Moral Identity

ABSTRACT
This study aimed to examine the roles of personality traits and moral identity in displaying prosocial and antisocial behaviors by athletes actively participating in contact team and individual sports. In this study, two different models were hypothesized. In the first model, it was proposed that the positive effect of extraversion on prosocial and antisocial behaviors enhance with the moderator role of internalization of moral identity; in the second model, it was proposed that the adverse effect of psychoticism on prosocial and antisocial behaviors decrease with the mediator role of internalization of moral identity. There were 296 athletes recruited from various branches. Data were collected by using Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors in Sport Scale, developed by Kavussanu and Broadley (29), adapted to Turkish by Sezen-Balçıkanlı (45), Moral Identity Scale, developed by Aquino and Reed (3), adapted Turkish by Yılmaz and Yılmaz (57), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, developed by Francis et al. (19), adapted to Turkish by Karancı, Dirik and Yorulmaz (26). Models were analyzed in Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) program by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internalization of moral identity was correlated with prosocial teammate positively, antisocial teammate, and opponent negatively. A positive correlation was found between extraversion and prosocial teammate and opponent, a negative correlation was found between extraversion and antisocial teammate. It can also be stated that extravert athletes exhibit more prosocial behaviors, however with the role of internalization of moral identity, the positive effect of extraversion on prosocial behaviors increases, the adverse effect of it on antisocial behaviors decreases. It is possible to conclude that extravert athletes will display more prosocial and less antisocial behaviors with the acquisition of internalization of moral identity. The support that athletes are taught to adopt internalization can lead to enhance prosocial behaviors and decrease antisocial behaviors.

Keywords: Personal Traits, prosocial and antisocial behaviors, and moral identity.

INTRODUCTION
The personality traits of athletes shape their behaviors. Allen, Greenlees, and Jones (2) stated that athletes’ personality traits contributed their behaviors when they participated in competitive sports. Personality is defined as the mental qualities contributing to an individual’s permanent and distinctive models of feeling, thinking, and behaving (9). Most theorists point out that personality includes almost everything related to a person – emotional, social, physical, and mental (14). Sports context emerges as an area where the distinctive features that distinguish individuals from each other are exhibited. These distinctive features that make people whom they are and is conceptualized as personality can influence the one’s behavior exhibiting against opponents, teammates, officials, and managers. At this point, the moral identity can have positive or negative impacts on athletes’ behaviors.

The identity is indistinguishability of essential or generic character in different situations. The way a person sees oneself is different from the totality of features that make up that person, in short, personality (16). Moral identity is conceptualized to the extent to which moral goals, moral values, and moral virtues are essential to one’s identity (21). Yılmaz and Yılmaz (57) indicate that the people having moral identity can explain daily behaviors by consulting moral schemas created in their minds; thus, these individuals can use the concepts such as love, respect, and tolerance when they explain the reasons of their daily behaviors. When considered from this point of view, it can be asserted that the athletes with moral identity are more likely to adopt positive behaviors.

The positive and negative behaviors of athletes in the sport have been conceptualized with different terms. The most prominent of these are prosocial and antisocial behaviors, which researchers have examined seriously in recent years (5, 6, 7, 22, 29, 31, 33, 41). Prosocial and antisocial behaviors are two aspects of “morality” proposed by Bandura (4). Prosocial behavior is based on the idea of protecting others’ interests (39). Prosocial behaviors are defined as voluntarily acted behaviors to benefit or help a person or a group (12, 13). Helping an injured opponent can be an example of the prosocial behavior in sport (7). Antisocial behaviors are behaviors harming someone or causing an instance to the detriment of an individual. Physically threatening or scaring an opponent can be an example for the antisocial behavior (43).

The personality traits of athletes can affect the attitudes they will maintain and the behaviors they will enact inside or outside the field. As mentioned before, having a moral identity can influence attitudes and behaviors positively or negatively. There are studies examining the relationship between moral identity, personality traits, prosocial and antisocial behaviors, the roles of moral identity, and personality traits in the literature (25; 34; 39). However, the studies conducted with the participation of the athletes competing in contact team and individual sports are limited (8, 22, 23, 24, 33, 46, 50). Besides, these studies focused on the factors such as moral disengagement, empathy and empathic skill, psychopathy, social identity, coaching style, basic psychological needs, motivational climate, narcissism, moral emotion, as well as included the athletes in contact team sports and excluded the athletes in contact individual sports. It is essential to examine the impacts of personality traits and moral identity on the athletes’ behaviors adopted and exhibited in the sports context. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate the roles of personality traits and moral identity in displaying prosocial and antisocial behaviors by athletes actively participating in contact team and individual sports.

METHODS

Participants
Competitive contact sport athletes (n=296) from both team (n=158) and individual (n=138) sports (Football, n=64; Basketball, n=36; Handball, n=28; Korfball, n=31; Muay Thai, n=16; Boxing, n=21; Kick Boxing, n=16; Wrestling, n=22; Wushu, n=19; Hockey, n=13; Karate, n=16, Taekwondo, n=14) were recruited for this study (67.2% male, 32.8% female; mean age=23.77±3.62). The participants trained for an average of 4.95±1.04 per week and 2.25±0.61 hours per day. They had been competing in their sports for an average of 11.08±4.63 years.

Measures
Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors: Prosocial and antisocial behaviors towards teammates and opponents were measured with a 20-item Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sports Scale (PABSS) (29, 45). Athletes were asked to rate how they engaged in different behaviors. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (never) and 5 (very often). Sezen-Balçıkanlı (45) provided evidence for construct validity and internal consistency coefficient for prosocial opponent (a=0.72), prosocial teammate (a=0.70), antisocial opponent (a=0.75), and antisocial teammate (a=0.72). Table 1 presents the alpha values, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results for the scale. The higher scores in prosocial teammate and opponent indicate that the athletes are more prone to prosocial behaviors while those in antisocial teammate and opponent mean that the athletes are more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviors.

Table 1

Moral Identity: The two dimensions of moral identity (Internalization and Symbolization) were assessed with 10-item Turkish version of Moral Identity Scale (MIS) (57). Aquino and Reed (3) developed the scale and provided evidence for construct validity. The items were answered using a 7-point scale, anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). The scale assesses individuals’ internalization and symbolization of moral identity. Yılmaz and Yılmaz (57) provided internal consistency coefficients for internalization (a=0.76) and symbolization (a=0.77). Table 2 shows alpha values and fit indices of the scale.

Table 2

Personality Traits: Three dimensions of personality were measured with the Turkish version of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised/Abbreviated Form (EPQR-A) (19; 26). Athletes answered each item of the 20-item Turkish version EPQR-A with “yes” or “no.” Karancı, Dirik, and Yorulmaz (26) provided construct validity and Kuder-Richardson alpha coefficients for extraversion (a=.78), neuroticism (a=.65), and psychoticism (a=.42). Table 3 displays the alpha values and fit indices of the questionnaire.

Table 3

Data Collection
Data were collected through online and printed surveys. The online form was sent to the athletes who wanted to participate in the study voluntarily. The researchers also collected the data with a printed form in the 2016-2017 season. Researchers informed the recruited athletes about the study and the survey. Athletes provided the demographic data before completing PABSS, MIS, and EPQR-A.

Analysis
The researchers conducted independent t-test in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 22.0) to indicate gender and sports branch differences. The Pearson Correlation test showed the relationships between moral identity, personality traits, prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport. Path analyses in Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS 18.0) program described the role of personality and moral identity in exhibiting prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport. CFA provided fit indices for PABSS, MIS, and EPQR-A.

RESULTS
The findings related to demographic information and features including gender differences, individual and team differences regarding moral identity, personality traits, and prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sports were presented in this section.

The findings related to demographic data

Table 4

Table 4 presents gender differences in moral identity, personality traits, prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport. Independent sample t-test was conducted to ascertain whether there were gender differences for internalization, symbolization, extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, prosocial teammate and opponent, antisocial teammate and opponent. Female athletes reported lower scores than males regarding neuroticism (p<0.05, t=-2.096) while there were no significant differences for the other variables. Table 5

Table 5 shows the differences in moral identity, personality traits, prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport. There were no significant differences for all variables.

Table 6

Table 6 displays the correlation analysis between age, sport age, training frequency (day/week), daily training duration (hour), moral identity, personality traits, prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport. Antisocial teammate positively correlated with age (p<0.05, r=.125), sport age (p<0.05, r=.123), and training frequency (p<0.05, r=.135). Symbolization positively correlated with training frequency (p<0.01, r=.177) and daily training duration (p<0.05, r=.120). The findings related to moral identity, personality traits, and prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport

Table 7

While internalization positively correlated with extraversion (p<0.01, r=.153), a negative correlation was found with psychoticism (p<0.01, r=-.219). Internalization positively associated with prosocial teammate (p<0.01, r=.363) and prosocial opponent (p<0.01, r=.265). Negative correlations were observed between internalization, antisocial teammate (p<0.01, r=-.197) and antisocial opponent (p<0.01, r=-.184). Symbolization positively correlated with prosocial teammate (p<0.05, r=.132), antisocial teammate (p<0.01, r=.248), and antisocial opponent (p<0.01, r=.198). Extraversion positively correlated with prosocial teammate (p<0.01, r=.222) and prosocial opponent (p<0.005,r=.139) while negative correlation was found with antisocial teammate (p<0.01, r=-.162). Psychoticism were positively connected with antisocial teammate (p<0.01, r=.495) and antisocial opponent (p<0.01, r=.447) while negatively associated with prosocial teammate (p<0.01, r=-.190).

Figure 1. The role of internalization in the effect of psychoticism on prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport (model 1)
Figure 1

In model 1, it is hypothesized that the athletes having dominant psychotic features exhibit antisocial behaviors more than prosocial behaviors, however, with the role of internalization of moral identity, the negative impact causing the reduction in prosocial behaviors and positive impacts causing the increment in antisocial behavior will decrease. This model shows the paths to change negative impacts of psychoticism traits on prosocial behaviors while reducing antisocial behaviors in sports via internalization of moral identity. The paths between psychoticism and prosocial teammate (path 1), prosocial opponent (path 2), antisocial opponent (path 3), antisocial teammate (path 4), and internalization (path 5) were hypothesized as direct effects as well as those between internalization and prosocial teammate (path 6), prosocial opponent (path 7), antisocial opponent (path 8), antisocial teammate (path 9). The indirect effects were presented with the paths between psychoticism and prosocial teammate (path 10), prosocial opponent (path 11), antisocial opponent (path 12), antisocial teammate (path 13) via internalization. The results related to the model were displayed in Table 8.

Table 8

The fit indices showed that the model had acceptable fit indices; however, because the regression coefficients between internalization and antisocial opponent-teammate (path 8 and 9), those between psychoticism and prosocial opponent (path 2) were insignificant (p>0.05), this model was relatively rejected. Psychoticism negatively predicted internalization (path 5) approximately by 22% (p<0.05, R2= -.219). Internalization positively predicted prosocial teammate (path 6) at about 34% (p<0.05, R2=.338) while it predicted prosocial opponent (path 7) approximately by 27% (p<0.05, R2=.267). Psychoticism positively affected both antisocial opponent (path 3) (p<0.05, R2=.427) and antisocial teammate (path 4) (p<0.05, R2=.474 at about 43% and 47%, respectively, while it negatively predicted prosocial teammate (path 1) approximately by 12% (p<0.05, R2=-.116). After excluding statistically insignificant hypotheses (path 2, 8 and 9) from the model, the parameters were calculated again.

Figure 2. The role of internalization in the effect of psychoticism on prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport (model 1.1)
Figure 2

Figure 2 presents the new model by excluding insignificant hypotheses (model 1.1). In this model, it was hypothesized that psychoticism negatively predicts internalization, the athletes having dominant psychotic features exhibited antisocial behaviors, prosocial behaviors would decrease, with the role of internalization of moral identity, negative impact of psychoticism causing reduction in prosocial behaviors would reduce. The paths between variables were renumbered after excluding insignificant hypotheses. The hypotheses between psychoticism and internalization (path 1), antisocial opponent (path 2), antisocial teammate (path 3), prosocial teammate (path 4) represented the direct effects while the hypotheses between psychoticism and prosocial opponent (path 5), prosocial teammate (path 6) via internalization displayed the indirect effects. The results for the model 1.1 were displayed in Table 9.

Table 9

It was found that psychoticism negatively affected internalization (R2=-.219, p<0.01) by about 22% (path 1). Psychoticism positively predicted antisocial teammate (path 3) (R2=.495, p<0.01) and antisocial opponent (path 2) (R2=.447, p<0.01) approximately by 49% and 45%, respectively, while it negatively affected prosocial teammate (path 4) (R2=-.123, p<0.01) at about 12%. Psychoticism had the indirect negative impact on prosocial teammate (path 6) via internalization. Internalization had a mediation role in the relationship between psychoticism and prosocial teammate. Psychoticism indirectly and negatively affected prosocial opponent (path 5).

Figure 3. The role of internalization in the effect of extraversion on prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport (model 2)
Figure 3

Figure 3 presents the hypothesis that the extravert athletes will exhibit prosocial behaviors more than antisocial behaviors, with the role internalization of moral identity, extravert athletes will display more prosocial behaviors and avoid antisocial behaviors. This model shows the positive impacts of extraversion on prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sports and the role of internalization of moral identity in increasing the positive impacts of extraversion. The paths between extraversion and prosocial teammate (path 1), prosocial opponent (path 2), antisocial opponent (path 3), antisocial teammate (path 4), and internalization (path 5) were hypothesized as direct effects as well as those between internalization and prosocial teammate (path 6), prosocial opponent (path 7), antisocial opponent (path 8), antisocial teammate (path 9). The indirect effects were presented with the paths between psychoticism and prosocial teammate (path 10), prosocial opponent (path 11), antisocial opponent (path 12), antisocial teammate (path 13) via internalization. The results related to model 2 were shown in Table 10.

Table 10

In model 2, the regression coefficients between extraversion and prosocial opponent (path 2) and antisocial opponent (path 3) were insignificant (p>0.05). Extraversion positively predicted internalization (path 5) approximately by 22% (R2=.205, p<0.01). It was also seen that extraversion negatively influenced antisocial teammate (path 4) at about 14% (R2=-.135, p<0.01). Extraversion positively affected prosocial teammate (path 1) at the level of 17% (R2=.170, p<0.01). Internalization predicted prosocial teammate (path 6) (R2=.337, p<0.01) and prosocial opponent (path 7) (R2=.249, p<0.01) positively (34% and 25%), antisocial teammate (path 9) (R2=-.176, p<0.01) and antisocial opponent (path 8) (R2=-.176, p<0.01) negatively (18% for both). After excluding statistically insignificant hypotheses from the model 2, the parameters were calculated again.

Figure 4. The role of internalization in the effect of extraversion on prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport (model 2.1)
Figure 4

In Figure 4, the new model, proposed after excluding statistically insignificant hypotheses, was shown (model 2.1). The model proposes that extraversion positively predicts internalization of moral identity, directly affects prosocial teammate and indirectly prosocial teammate and prosocial opponent via internalization, negatively and directly predicts antisocial teammate, indirectly and negatively affects antisocial opponent and antisocial teammate via internalization. The hypotheses between extraversion and prosocial teammate (path 1), antisocial teammate (path 2), and internalization (path 3) show the direct effects while the indirect effects were displayed between extraversion and prosocial teammate (path 4), prosocial opponent (path 5), antisocial opponent (path 6), antisocial teammate (path 7) via internalization. The results related to model 2.1 were displayed in Table 11.

Table 11

Extraversion positively predicted internalization of moral identity approximately (R2=-.153, p<0.01) by 15% (path 3). While extraversion directly and negatively affected antisocial teammate (R2=-.098, p<0.01) approximately by 10% (path 2), it positively predicted prosocial teammate (R2=.115, p<0.01) at about 11% (path 1). Extraversion had a negative and indirect impact on antisocial teammate via internalization (path 7). The negative impact of extraversion on antisocial teammate decreased relatively via internalization when compared to direct impact. Extraversion indirectly predicted prosocial teammate (path 4). Extraversion positively and indirectly affected prosocial opponent via internalization (path 5). Extraversion had an indirect impact on the antisocial opponent (path 6).

DISCUSSION
This study aimed to examine the effects of psychoticism and extraversion on prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport and the role of internalization of moral identity.

Gender and Sport Branch Differences
In results related to personality traits, male athletes reported higher scores in neuroticism than females. Because Eysenck and Eysenck (15) stressed that neuroticism indicated the extreme reactivity and the individuals having high scores in this dimension might be anxious, depressive, nervous, withdrawn, overemotional, and diffident, the male athletes in this study were more likely to have these features when compared to females. Furnham’s (20) determination of “the neurotic individuals avoid the circumstances including struggle, and social interaction” clarifies this difference. O’Sullivan, Zuckerman, and Kraft (38) found that male university athletes playing baseball (6.36±4.87) and football (5.56±3.78) and female athletes playing hockey (9.67±2.94) reported lower scores in neuroticism-anxiety than other university students. Allen, Greenlees, and Jones (2) found out that female athletes had higher scores than males regarding neuroticism. Some studies conducted with the participation of non-athletes indicated that females had higher scores than males (18, 44). Tok (52) revealed gender invariance in neuroticism. In another study, Eagleton, McKelvie, and De Man (11) pointed out that gender was not related to neuroticism, psychoticism, and extraversion. Ulucan and Bahadır (53) reported that female weightlifters had higher neuroticism scores than males.

The analysis showed personality traits did not change according to sports branches (team or individual). The results of Nia and Besharat (37) in neuroticism and extraversion supported this finding. McKelvie, Lemieux, and Stout (35) stated that the athletes had lower neuroticism scores than non-athletes, expressed that there was no significant difference according to contact and non-contact branches. Newcombe and Boyle (36) found similar results between contact and non-contact branches. Eagleton, McKelvie, and De Man (11) revealed that team athletes displayed higher scores in extraversion than individual athletes and found no significant difference between these groups regarding neuroticism. Allen, Greenlees, and Jones (2) compared team athletes’ extraversion and neuroticism scores with the scores of individual athletes and found that individual athletes reported lower scores.

Some researchers asserted that personality has impacts that are more significant on female behaviors (49, 59). Eisenberg et al. (13) stated that personality was a more specific feature in prosocial behavior perception when compared to males. Pursell et al. (39) suggested that gender differences could in the extent to which perceived prosocial behavior were confounded with perceived personality. In this study, antisocial and prosocial behaviors did not differ according to gender. Kavussanu and Boardley (29) tested the relationship between genders (1=male, 2=female) and prosocial-antisocial behaviors in sport, found negative correlations with prosocial teammate-opponent and antisocial teammate and positive correlation with the antisocial opponent. Kanacri et al. (25) revealed that females had higher scores in prosocial behaviors than males. Bruner et al. (8) reported that females had lower scores in antisocial behaviors against the opponent. Jones et al. (24) showed that antisocial behaviors differed according to gender.

Some research in literature asserted that males were more likely to have antisocial behaviors (27, 28, 30, 33, 47). Stone (51) conducted a study in which university students participated and revealed that females had more antisocial personality traits when compared to males. Al-Yaaribi, Kavussanu, and Ring (1) found out that male basketball players reported higher scores in prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Yıldız, Şenel, and Şahan (58) found that males scored higher than females regarding prosocial teammate. According to Pursell et al. (39), in both male and females, prosocial behavior negatively affected aggression. It was also found in this study that moral identity did not differ according to genders. Kavussanu, Stanger, and Ring (33) indicated that females had higher scores in moral identity.

The relationship between Personality Trait, Moral Identity, Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors
While positive relations were found between extraversion and prosocial teammate and opponent, antisocial teammate negatively correlated with extraversion. Psychoticism negatively associated with prosocial teammate and positively correlated with antisocial teammate and opponent. According to personality theory by Eysenck and Eysenck (15), people having high scores in extraversion are more social individuals while people having high scores in psychoticism tend to be stiff and reserved. Therefore, it can be deduced that the athletes competing in body contact sports and having dominant extrovert personality traits are more likely to have prosocial behaviors and avoid antisocial behaviors. Contrary to this, Pursell et al. (39) found no significant associations between extraversion and prosocial behaviors. However, Xie et al. (56) recruited adolescents and revealed a positive correlation between extraversion and prosocial behavior. Slobodskaya (48) found similar results and stated positive correlations between these two dimensions. In the study of Wolters et al. (54), extraversion positively correlated with both antisocial and prosocial behaviors.

In this study, results showed positive correlations between internalization and extraversion, and negative correlation with psychoticism. Internalization positively correlated with prosocial behaviors while it negatively associated with antisocial behaviors in sport. These results showed that extravert athletes interiorized moral identity while the athletes, having dominant psychotic features, avoid internalization of moral identity. It can be deduced that the athletes who interiorized moral identity are more prone to prosocial behaviors. Côté et al. (10) found a positive correlation between moral identity and prosocial behaviors while Xiao-qiang (55) revealed that moral identity predicted prosocial behavior. Reynolds and Cercanic (40) stated that moral identity affected moral behavior. Sage, Kavussanu, and Duda (43) found a negative correlation between antisocial behavior and moral identity; however, moral identity had no impact on prosocial behaviors for football players. While some studies found out that moral disengagement enhanced antisocial behaviors (23), it was found that moral disengagement could reduce prosocial behaviors (22). Some studies showed a positive correlation between moral identity and prosocial behaviors (32) while some stated negative correlation with antisocial behavior (33, 43). Kavussanu, Stanger, and Ring (33) recruited athletes from contact sports and found that moral identity negatively affected antisocial behaviors.

Hypothesized Models
In this study, two different structural equation models proposing that personality traits (neuroticism and psychoticism) of the athletes competing in contact sports directly and indirectly via internalization of moral identity affect prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport (model 1 and 2). Even though the fit indices for both models indicated acceptable fit, there were insignificant estimations in these models. After excluding insignificant hypothesis (regression directions) after the first analysis, model 1.1 and 2.1 were tested again. In model 1.1, it was determined that psychoticism negatively influence internalization (R2=-.219, p<0.01) by about 22% (path 1). Psychoticism positively predicted antisocial teammate (path 3) (R2=.495, p<0.01) and antisocial opponent (path 2) (R2=.447, p<0.01) approximately by 49% and 45%, respectively, while it negatively affected prosocial teammate (R2=-.123, p<0.01) at about 12% (path 4). Psychoticism had an indirect negative impact on prosocial teammate via internalization (path 6). Internalization had a mediation role in the relationship between psychoticism and prosocial teammate. Psychoticism indirectly and negatively affected prosocial opponent (path 5).

In model 2.1, extraversion positively predicted internalization of moral identity approximately (R2=-.153, p<0.01) by 15% (path 3). While extraversion directly and negatively affected antisocial teammate (R2=-.098, p<0.01) approximately by 10% (path 2), it positively predicted prosocial teammate (R2=.115, p<0.01) at about 11% (path 1). Extraversion had a negative and indirect impact on antisocial teammate via internalization (path 7). The negative impact of extraversion on antisocial teammate decreased relatively via internalization when compared to direct impact. Extraversion indirectly predicted prosocial teammate (path 4). Extraversion positively and indirectly affected prosocial opponent via internalization (path 5). Extraversion had an indirect impact on the antisocial opponent (path 6).

CONCLUSION
In the field of sports psychology, the relationship between prosocial and antisocial behavior and moral identity has been of considerable interest (i.e., 33, 42, 43). The most comprehensive and detailed one of these studies was the one conducted by Kavussanu, Stanger, and Ring (33) providing experimental results. The determination of the process causing the athletes’ choice for antisocial and prosocial behaviors and examination of the active factors in this process is necessary for the quality of precautions to popularize moral behaviors in sport. Various factors can play roles in exhibiting and preferring antisocial behaviors. According to Farley (17), when socially acceptable experiences related to the existing environment are insufficient, the likelihood of exhibiting antisocial behaviors among individuals having high stimulation needs an increase. Accordingly, removing the processes causing athletes to behave antisocially plays a critical role in popularizing philosophy of fair play. Besides, the behaviors, which athletes see as examples in peer relations, can have an impact in exhibiting prosocial and antisocial behaviors. The results of model 1.1 revealed that the athletes having dominant psychotic features were more likely to behave antisocially, but, with the role of internalization of moral identity, they would be more prone to prosocial behaviors. It was found that internalization had no impact on reducing antisocial behaviors of the athletes having dominant psychotic features; however, internalization was influential in enhancing prosocial behaviors of these athletes. Based on the model 2.1, extravert athletes were more likely to display prosocial behaviors. The internalization of moral identity played a critical role to enhance prosocial behaviors of these athletes in model 2.1.

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES
This study is limited to the athletes competing in body contact sports. In future studies, the athletes can be categorized as contact-noncontact and individual-team. Determining the personality traits of the athletes competing in sports having specific features will play a critical role in the popularization process of moral behaviors in sports. The specific features of each sport, with individual differences of the athletes, may affect the process of exhibiting any behavior model. Moreover, the comprehensive and experimental measurement should be conducted in future.

This study presents the evidence for the coaches and the educators to reduce and avoid the antisocial behaviors of athletes having dominant psychotic features with an education program encouraging them to internalize moral identity. The results also show that extravert athletes display prosocial behaviors and extraversion has a vital role to increase these behaviors. The personality traits can be difficult to change; however, these results propose that negative impacts of personality can be reduced with moral identity.

REFERENCES
1. Al-Yaaribi, A., Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C. (2016). Consequences of prosocial and antisocial behavior for the recipient. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 26, 102-112.

2. Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., & Jones, M. (2011). An investigation of the five-factor model of personality and coping behaviour in sport. Journal Of Sports Sciences, 29(8), 841-850.

3. Aquino, K., & Reed, I. I. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(6), 1423.

4. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral Disengagement In The Perpetration Of In Humanities. Personality And Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.

5. Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2009). The influence of social variables and moral disengagement on prosocial and antisocial behaviours in field hockey and netball. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(8), 843-854.

6. Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2010). Effects of goal orientation and perceived value of toughness on antisocial behavior in soccer: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32(2), 176-192.

7. 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(1), 56-64.

8. Bruner, M. W., Boardley, I. D., Benson, A. J., Wilson, K. S., Root, Z., Turnnidge, J., Sutcliffe, J., & Cote, J. (2017). Disentangling the relations between social identity and prosocial and antisocial behavior in competitive youth sport. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(5) 1-15.

9. Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th Edn.). New York: Wiley.

10. Côté, S., DeCelles, K. A., McCarthy, J. M., Van Kleef, G. A., & Hideg, I. (2011). The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: Emotion-regulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior. Psychological Science, 22(8), 1073-1080.

11. Eagleton, J. R., Mckelvie, S. J., & De Man, A. (2007). Extraversion and neuroticism in team sport participants, individual sport participants, and nonparticipants. Perceptual And Motor Skills, 105(1), 265-275.

12. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial Development. In N. Eisenberg, & W.Damon (Eds.) (5th Ed.).Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Social Emotional And Personality Development (pp. 701-778) New York: Wiley.

13. Eisenberg, N., R.A. Fabes, & T.L. Spinrad (2006). Prosocial Development. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, And Personality Development, Vol.3, (pp. 646–702). Hoboken, Nj. John Wiley & Sons.

14. Ewen, R. B. (2014). An introduction to theories of personality. Psychology Press.

15. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (junior and adult). Hodder and Stoughton.

16. Faccini, L. (2010). How “to be or not to be”: The answer is in identity. In Melissa E. Jordan (Ed.), Personality Traits Theory, Testing And Influences. Nova Science Publishers.

17. Farley, F. (1973). A theory of delinquency. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Montreal.

18. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 116(3), 429.

19. Francis, L. J., Brown, L. B., & Philipchalk, R. (1992). The development of an abbreviated form of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A): Its use among students in England, Canada, the USA and Australia. Personality and individual differences, 13(4), 443-449.

20. Furnham, A. (1981) Personality and activity preferences. Br. J. Social Psychol. 20, 57-68.

21. Hardy, S. A. (2006). Identity, reasoning, and emotion: An empirical comparison of three sources of moral motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(3), 205-213.

22. Hodge, K., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2015). Antisocial and prosocial behavior in sport: the role of motivational climate, basic psychological needs, and moral disengagement. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37(3), 257-273.

23. Hodge, K., & Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport: The Role of coaching style, autonomous vs. controlled motivation, and moral disengagement. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(4), 527-547.

24. Jones, B. D., Woodman, T., Barlow, M., & Roberts, R. (2017). The darker side of personality: Narcissism predicts moral disengagement and antisocial behavior in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 31(2), 109-116.

25. Kanacri, B. P. L., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Zuffianò, A., Castellani, V., & Caprara, G. V. (2014). Trajectories of prosocial behavior from adolescence to early adulthood: Associations with personality change. Journal of Adolescence, 37(5), 701-713.

26. Karancı, N., Dirik, G., & Yorulmaz, O. (2007). Eysenck kişilik anketi-gözden geçirilmiş kısaltılmış formu’nun (EKA-GGK) Türkiye’de geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 18(3), 1-8.

27. Kavussanu, M. (2007). Morality in sport. In S. Jowett & D. E. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 265–278). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

28. Kavussanu, M. (2012). Moral behavior in sport. In S. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sport and performance psychology (pp. 364 –383). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

29. Kavussanu, M., & Boardley, I. D. (2009). The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(1), 97-117.

30. Kavussanu, M., Boardley, I. D., Sagar, S. S., & Ring, C. (2013). Bracketed morality revisited: How do athletes behave in two contexts? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35(5), 449-463.

31. 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(4), 326-344.

32. Kavussanu, M., Stanger, N., & Boardley, I. D.(2013). The Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviour in Sport Scale: Further evidence for construct validity and reliability. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31, 1208 –1221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.775473

33. Kavussanu, M., Stanger, N., & Ring, C. (2015). The effects of moral identity on moral emotion and antisocial behavior in sport. Sport, Exercise, And Performance Psychology, 4(4), 268.

34. Mann, F. D., Engelhardt, L., Briley, D. A., Grotzinger, A. D., Patterson, M. W., Tackett, J. L., Strathan, D.B., Heath, A., Lynskey, M., Slutske, W., Martin., N. G., Tucker-Drob., E.M., Paige Harden, K. (2017). Sensation seeking and impulsive traits as personality endophenotypes for antisocial behavior: Evidence from two independent samples. Personality And Individual Differences, 105, 30-39.

35. McKelvie, S. J., Lemieux, P., & Stout, D. (2003). Extraversion and neuroticism in contact athletes, no contact athletes and non-athletes: A research note. Athletic insight, 5(3), 19-27.

36. Newcombe, P. A., & Boyle, G. J. (1995). High school students’ sports personalities: Variations across participation level, gender, type of sport, and success. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 277-294.

37. Nia, M. E., & Besharat, M. A. (2010). Comparison of athletes’ personality characteristics in individual and team sports. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 808-812.

38. O’Sullivan, D. M., Zuckerman, M., & Kraft, M. (1998). Personality characteristics of male and female participants in team sports. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 119-128.

39. Pursell, G. R., Laursen, B., Rubin, K. H., Booth-Laforce, C., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2008). Gender differences in patterns of association between prosocial behavior, personality, and externalizing problems. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(2), 472-481.

40. Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1610.

41. Rutten, E. A., Schuengel, C., Dirks, E., Stams, G. J. J., Biesta, G. J., & Hoeksma, J. B. (2011). Predictors of antisocial and prosocial behavior in an adolescent sports context. Social Development, 20(2), 294-315.

42. Sage, L. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2010). Moral identity and social goals predict eudaimonia in football. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 461–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.05.008

43. Sage, L., Kavussanu, M., & Duda, J.L. (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.

44. Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168.

45. Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. (2013). The Turkish adaptation of the Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport Scale (PABSS). International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(18), 271-276.

46. Sezen-Balcikanli, G., & Yildiran, İ. (2018). Elit salon hokeyi oyuncularında empatik beceri ile prososyal davranışlar arasındaki ilişki. Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(1), 1-8.

47. Shields, D. L., Funk, C. D., & Bredemeier, B. L. (2018). Relationships among moral and contesting variables and prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport. Journal of Moral Education, 47(1), 17-33.

48. Slobodskaya, H. R. (2007). The associations among the big five, behavioural inhibition and behavioural approach systems and child and adolescent adjustment in Russia. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 913-924.

49. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

50. Stanger, N., Kavussanu, M., Willoughby, A., & Ring, C. (2012). Psychophysiological responses to sport-specific affective pictures: A study of morality and emotion in athletes. Psychology of Sport And Exercise, 13(6), 840-848.

51. Stone, M. (2008). Predicting behavior from psychopathic and antisocial personality traits in a student sample (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University).

52. Tok, S. (2011). The big five personality traits and risky sport participation. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(8), 1105-1111.

53. Ulucan, H., & Bahadır, Z. (2011). Haltercilerin kişilik özelliklerinin farkli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Beden Egitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 175-183.

54. Wolters, N., Knoors, H., Cillessen, A. H., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). Behavioral, personality, and communicative predictors of acceptance and popularity in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(5), 585-605.

55. Xiao-qiang, Z (2012). Moral identity and prosocial behavior of college students in china and their influencing factors. Journal of Chongqing Technology and Business University (Social Science Edition), 4, 028.

56. Xie, X., Chen, W., Lei, L., Xing, C., & Zhang, Y. (2016). The relationship between personality types and prosocial behavior and aggression in Chinese adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 56-61.

57. Yılmaz, F., & Yılmaz, F. (2015). Ahlaki kimlik ölçeği türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalişmasi. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(4), 111-134

58. Yıldız, M., Şenel, E., & Şahan, H. (2015). The relationship between prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport, general self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy: Study in department of physical education and sport teacher education. Journal of Human Sciences, 12(2), 1273-1278.

59. Zakriski, A. L., Wright, J. C., & Underwood, M. K. (2005). Gender similarities and differences in children’s social behavior: Finding personality in contextualized patterns of adaptation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 844–855.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
2018-07-31T14:48:48+00:00August 21st, 2018|Commentary, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors in Sport: The Roles of Personality Traits and Moral Identity