The Battle of Identity and Hubris in Sports: Are Empathy and Sportsmanship the Hidden Heroes Among Student-Athletes?

Abstract

This study aims to examine the effect of athletic identity on hubristic tendencies in sports through the mediating roles of empathy and sportsmanship. Designed based on a relational survey model, the study reached 527 licensed student-athletes enrolled in faculties of sport sciences across Türkiye. Ethical principles were meticulously followed during the data collection process, and valid, reliable scales were used to measure Athletic Identity, Hubris in Sport, Empathy in Sport, and Sportsmanship levels. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling and Hayes’ (2022) PROCESS macro (Model 6). Findings revealed that athletic identity had a significant total effect on hubris, but this effect was indirect, mediated by empathy and sportsmanship. Notably, sportsmanship emerged as the strongest negative predictor of hubristic tendencies (β = -0.35, p < .001). Athletic identity was found to enhance empathy, which in turn fostered sportsmanship and ultimately reduced hubris. The sequential mediation pathway (Athletic Identity → Empathy → Sportsmanship → Hubris) was statistically significant. Furthermore, moderation analyses showed that the effect of athletic identity on hubris varied depending on levels of empathy and sportsmanship. Specifically, individuals with low empathy and sportsmanship showed a stronger association between athletic identity and hubristic attitudes. In conclusion, athletic identity alone does not lead to positive or negative outcomes; rather, its impact depends on the presence of ethical and emotional values. This study highlights that empathy and sportsmanship are not merely supportive elements in athlete development, but also guiding factors, offering a multidimensional perspective to the sports psychology literature.

Keywords

• Athletic Identity
• Hubris
• Arrogance
• Empathy
• Sportsmanship
• Indirect Effect
• Moderation

Project Number

1919B012430682

Sporda Kimlik ve Kibir Savaşı: Sporcu Öğrencilerde Empati ve Sportmenlik Sporun Gizli Kahramanları mı?

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, sporcu kimliğinin sporda kibir (hubris) üzerindeki etkisini, empati ve sportmenlik değişkenleri aracılığıyla doğrudan ve dolaylı yollarla incelemektir. İlişkisel tarama modeline dayalı olarak desenlenen çalışmada, Türkiye genelindeki spor bilimleri fakültelerinde öğrenim gören 527 lisanslı sporcu öğrenciye ulaşılmıştır. Veri toplama sürecinde etik ilkeler titizlikle gözetilmiş; Sporcu Kimliği, Sporda Hubris, Sporda Empati ve Sportmenlik düzeyleri geçerli ve güvenilir ölçeklerle ölçülmüştür. Elde edilen veriler, yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ve Hayes’in (2022) önerdiği PROCESS makrosu (Model 6) aracılığıyla analiz edilmiştir. Analiz bulguları, sporcu kimliğinin sporda kibir üzerinde anlamlı bir toplam etkiye sahip olduğunu, ancak bu etkinin doğrudan değil; empati ve sportmenlik aracılığıyla dolaylı olarak gerçekleştiğini ortaya koymuştur. Özellikle sportmenlik düzeyi, hubristik eğilimlerin en güçlü negatif yordayıcısı olarak öne çıkmıştır (β = -0.35, p < .001). Sporcu kimliği, empatiyi artırmakta; empati ise sportmenliği güçlendirmekte ve nihayetinde hubrisi azaltmaktadır. Ardışık dolaylı etki yolu (Sporcu Kimliği → Empati → Sportmenlik → Hubris) istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, moderasyon analizleri sporcu kimliğinin hubris üzerindeki etkisinin empati ve sportmenlik düzeylerine göre farklılaştığını göstermiştir. Özellikle empati ve sportmenliği düşük bireylerde, güçlü sporcu kimliği kibirli tutumlarla daha fazla ilişkilidir. Sonuç olarak, sporcu kimliği tek başına olumlu ya da olumsuz sonuçlar doğurmaz; bu kimliğin etik ve duygusal değerlerle desteklenmesi belirleyici rol oynar. Bu çalışma, sporcu gelişiminde empati ve sportmenliğin yalnızca destekleyici değil, yönlendirici birer unsur olduğunu göstermekte ve spor psikolojisi literatürüne çok boyutlu bir bakış açısı sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Sporcu Kimliği
• Hubris
• Kibir
• Empati
• Sportmenlik
• Dolaylı Etki
• Moderasyon

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK

Project Number

1919B012430682

Thanks

Bu çalışma, TÜBİTAK 2209-A Üniversite Öğrencileri Araştırma Projeleri Destekleme Programı kapsamında desteklenen proje doğrultusunda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sağladığı mali ve bilimsel destekten ötürü Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu’na (TÜBİTAK) teşekkür ederiz.

References

1. Bandura, A. (2014). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 45-103). Psychology press.
2. Baron, M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
3. Belousov, L. (2016). Paralympic sport as a vehicle for teaching tolerance toyoung people. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 233, 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.128
4. Brewer, B. W., & Cornelius, A. E. (2001). Norms and factorial invariance of the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS). Academic athletic journal, 16, 103-113.
5. Burke, P. J. (1980). The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective. Social psychology quarterly, 18-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033745
6. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. New York: Routledge.
7. Carroll, N., & Gibson, J. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge companion to philosophy of literature (p. 283). London: Routledge.
8. Chang, W. H., Wu, C. H., Kuo, C. C., & Chen, L. H. (2018). The role of athletic identity in the development of athlete burnout: The moderating role of psychological flexibility. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39, 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.07.014

9. Chantal, Y., Robin, P., Vernat, J. P., & Bernache-Assollant, I. (2005). Motivation, sportspersonship, and athletic aggression: a mediational analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6(2), 233-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2003.10.010
10. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2014). Research methods, design, and analysis. Global Edition. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge.
11. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
12. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91-119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91
13. Erkuş, A., & Yakupoğlu, S. (2001). SPOR ortamında empati ölçeği (sem) geliştirme çalışması. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 22-31.
14. Gapin, J. I., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2011). Athletic identity and disordered eating in obligatory and non-obligatory runners. Journal of sports sciences, 29(10), 1001-1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.571275
15. Gencheva, N., Angelcheva, M., Marinov, T., & Ignatov, I. (2017). Assessment of sportsmanship in case of institutionalized adolescents, deprived of parental cares. Assessment, 42, 103-109.
16. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simpleguide and reference. 11.0 update (4 th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
17. Griffith, K. A., & Johnson, K. A. (2002). Athletic identity and life roles of Division I and Division III collegiate athletes. Journal of Undergraduate Research, 5(1), 225-231.
18. Gürbüz, S. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde aracı, düzenleyici ve durumsal etki analizleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
19. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th Edn Pearson new international edition). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.
20. Hareli, S., Weiner, B., & Yee, J. (2006). Honesty doesn’t always pay–the role of honesty of accounts for success made in an educational setting in inferences of modesty and arrogance. Social Psychology of Education, 9(2), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-006-0004-6
21. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.4.527
23. Jakovljević, M. (2011). Hubris syndrome and a new perspective on political psychiatry: need to protect prosocial behavior, public benefit and safety of our civilisation. Psychiatria danubina, 23(2.), 136-138.
24. Karasar, N. (2023). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
25. Kavussanu, M., & Boardley, I. D. (2009). The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 31(1), 97-117.https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.31.1.97
26. Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C. M. (2006). Contextual influences on moral functioning of male youth footballers. The Sport Psychologist, 20(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.20.1.1
27. Keating, J. W. (2001). Sportsmanship as a moral category. In W. J. Morgan (Ed.), Ethics in sport . Human Kinetics.
28. Lally, P. (2007). Identity and athletic retirement: A prospective study. Psychology of sport and exercise, 8(1), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.03.003
29. Lamont-Mills, A., & Christensen, S. A. (2006). Athletic identity and its relationship to sport participation levels. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 9(6), 472-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2006.04.004
30. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate behavioral research, 39(1), 99-128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
31. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Sage publications.
32. Nelson, T. A., Goodchild, M. F., & Wright, D. J. (2022). Accelerating ethics, empathy, and equity in geographic information science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(19), e2119967119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119967119
33. Ocete, C., Pérez-Tejero, J., Coterón, J., & Reina, R. (2022). How do competitiveness and previous contact with people with disabilities impact on attitudes after an awareness intervention in physical education?. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 27(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1834527
34. Öztürk, P., & Koca, C. (2013). Sporcu kimliği ölçeğinin türkçe formunun psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 24(1), 1-10.
35. Picone, P. M., Dagnino, G. B., & Minà, A. (2014). The origin of failure: A multidisciplinary appraisal of the hubris hypothesis and proposed research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0177
36. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
37. Proios, M. (2012). Factor validity of the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale in a Greek sample. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(4), 305-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.705518 Raosoft, (2025).
38. Reifsteck, E. J. (2011). The relationship between athletic identity and physical activity levels after retirement from collegiate sports. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
39. Robinson, T. (2008). Sportsmanship in youth athletics. ABDO Publishing Company.
40. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and personality psychology compass, 5(6), 359-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x
41. Serrano-Durá, J., Molina, P., & Martínez-Baena, A. (2021). Systematic review of research on fair play and sporting competition. Sport, Education and Society, 26(6), 648-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1786364
42. Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. (2010). Çok Boyutlu Sportmenlik Yönelimi Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Uyarlamasi: Geçerlik Ve Güvenirlik Çalişmasi. Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(1), 1-10.
43. Stornes, T., & Bru, E. (2002). Sportspersonship and perceptions of leadership: An investigation of adolescent handball players' perceptions of sportspersonship and associations with perceived leadership. European Journal of Sport Science, 2(6), 1-15.https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2002.10142577
44. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts?. Social psychology quarterly, 16-35. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786972
45. Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 943-956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206287363
46. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political psychology (pp. 276-293). Psychology Press.
47. Thelwell, R. C., Wagstaff, C. R., Rayner, A., Chapman, M., & Barker, J. (2017). Exploring athletes’ perceptions of coach stress in elite sport environments. Journal of sports sciences, 35(1), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1154979
48. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: a tale of two facets. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(3), 506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506
49. Tutar, Ö. F., & Nacar, E. (2022). Sporda kibir (hubris) sendromu; ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Munzur Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 51-59.
50. Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (1997). Development and validation of the multidimensional sportspersonship orientations scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.19.2.197
51. Van Rens, F. E., Ashley, R. A., & Steele, A. R. (2019). Well-being and performance in dual careers: The role of academic and athletic identities. The Sport Psychologist, 33(1), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2018-0026
52. Yazıcıoğlu, Y., & Erdoğan, S. (2004). SPSS uygulamalı bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Detay Yayıncılık.
53. Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of consumer research, 37(2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257