Ethics is essential in every aspect of life. In this article, the application of ethical practices in sport is the focus. Mainly, the study is concerned with establishing whether ethical behavior in games can have an impact on the student selection of the colleges, perception of the team's inclusion climate and also affect the willingness of the members to cheat. From the article, it is evident that ethics has been a significant concern in the field of sport with unethical behaviors leading to many coaches being relieved of their duties. Other than that, it is also evident from the article that ethical practices mostly from the coaching staffs have a critical impact on the psychological makeup of the sportsperson and later influence their performance on the pitch or the court. It is with such regard that the study aimed to establish the impact of ethical behaviors among coaches with critical measures such as satisfaction, college selection and cheating on sports.
The research question leading this research is as follows. The first is, does coaching unethical behavior have an impact on the athlete's inclusion climate? The second question is that, do coaching unethical practices have to an effect on the athletes’ satisfaction? The last question is that do coaching unethical behaviors have influence n athletes cheating? From the authors' viewpoint, the social cognitive theory has a paramount role in the relationship between the coaches and the players. The authors argue that the players copy and also get influenced by the behavior of their coaches. It is an implication that if the coaches are ethical, their participants will have a specific type of influence on the athletes. As a result, the authors hypothesize that abusive coach behaviors, for instance, unethical actions hurt the athlete's college choice and the level of participation. Otherthan that, the authors also hypothesized that abusive coach behaviors arelikely to impact the athletes’ willingness to cheat to perform well and impress the coaches. Lastly, they also hypothesize that abusivecoaches’behaviors will likelyinhibit the athletes’ inclusion climate on the team. Though there is a different hypothesis which the researchers have used to lead this research, the mentioned hypothesis has theweight and are the key to the research study ( Yukhymenko–Lescroart, Brown &Paskus, 2015).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The measures are many in his case. Inclusion limit within the team and the willingness to cheat are some of the measures that lead this research study. Other than that, there are also other measures such as ethical leadership among the coaches, control variables, abusive coaching behavior, and ethical leadership. These measures form the foundation of the research in this study. Based on the nature of the study, the analysis was complex since there were many variables which formed part of this study. Most of the analysis was done on software using a different version that was in line with the type of variables and measures under review. There was a multilevel approach to data analysis, and this was critical for the research questions. From the results, the authors were correct in all of their predictions( Yukhymenko–Lescroart, Brown &Paskus, 2015). The result reaffirmed that in case there are abusive behaviors among the coaches, the athletes are likely to be influenced. This is the same ideas that the social cognitive theory discussed in this research also shared. In this case, therefore, unethical behavior from the coach will influence the athletes’ satisfaction with the college, willingness to cheat and even inclusion climate on the team. It is an implication that the coaches have to take it as their duty to behave well to foster a culture of ethical behavior among the athletes under their care ( Yukhymenko–Lescroart, Brown &Paskus, 2015).
Reference
Yukhymenko–Lescroart, M. A., Brown, M. E., &Paskus, T. S. (2015). The relationship between ethical and abusive coaching behaviors and student-athlete well-being. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology , 4 (1), 36.
