Values and physical activity among sports science students in France and China: a transcultural analysis.

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the relationships between values and physical activity in France (a Western European individualistic country) and in China (an East Asian collectivist country). Method: Six hundred and twenty-seven sport science students in France (N = 308, Mage = 18.99, SD = 1.64) and China (N = 319, Mage = 20.44, SD = 1.09) completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire long version and the Portrait Values Questionnaire. Results: In both France and China, moderated regression analysis revealed that hedonism positively/negatively predicted physical activity, while security-societal, security-personal, and conformity-rules values negatively predicted physical activity. In contrast, stimulation and universalism-nature values positively predicted physical activity only in France. In China, benevolence and benevolence-care positively predicted physical activity, while power dominance negatively predicted physical activity. Additionally, we found evidence of measurement invariance of the value questionnaire. Discussion and conclusion: Our findings add to the literature by showing that the value-behavior link is partly the same across countries and partly different. Further, our findings show that for certain populations, the previously established hierarchy of human values does not replicate.

Does Spontaneous Favorability to Power (vs. Universalism) Values Predict Spontaneous Prejudice and Discrimination?

OBJECTIVE: We conducted five studies testing whether an implicit measure of favorability toward power over universalism values predicts spontaneous prejudice and discrimination. METHOD: Studies 1 (N = 192) and 2 (N = 86) examined correlations between spontaneous favorability toward power (vs. universalism) values, achievement (vs. benevolence) values, and a spontaneous measure of prejudice toward ethnic minorities. Study 3 (N = 159) tested whether conditioning participants to associate power values with positive adjectives and universalism values with negative adjectives (or inversely) affects spontaneous prejudice. Study 4 (N = 95) tested whether decision bias toward female handball players could be predicted by spontaneous attitude toward power (vs. universalism) values. Study 5 (N = 123) examined correlations between spontaneous attitude toward power (vs. universalism) values, spontaneous importance toward power (vs. universalism) values, and spontaneous prejudice toward Black African people. RESULTS: Spontaneous positivity toward power (vs. universalism) values was associated with spontaneous negativity toward minorities and predicted gender bias in a decision task, whereas the explicit measures did not. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the implicit assessment of evaluative responses attached to human values helps to model value-attitude-behavior relations.

The influence of referees' expertise, gender, motivation, and time constraints on decisional bias against women.

The influence of player gender on referees' decision making was experimentally investigated. In Experiment 1, including 145 male handball referees, we investigated (a) the influence of referees' level of expertise on their decisional biases against women and (b) the referees' gender stereotypes. Results revealed that biases against women were powerful regardless of the referees' level of expertise and that male referees' stereotype toward female players tends to be negative. In Experiment 2, including 115 sport science students, we examined the influence of the participants' gender, motivation to control bias, and time constraints on gender bias. Results indicated that participants' gender had no impact on gender bias and that participants were able to reduce this bias in conditions in which they were motivated to control the bias.

Aggressor-victim dissent in perceived legitimacy of aggression in soccer: the moderating role of situational background.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the aggressor-victim difference in perceived legitimacy of aggression in soccer as a function of score information (tied, favorable, unfavorable), sporting penalization (no risk, yellow card, red card), and type of aggression (instrumental, hostile). French male soccer players (N = 133) read written scenarios and rated the legitimacy of the described aggressive act depending on a specific perspective (aggressor or victim) and situational information. A significant aggressor-victim difference in perception of instrumental aggression was found in situations where the score was tied or where there was no risk to be caught. In addition, aggressors were affected by such information, whereas victims were not. The discussion focuses on explanations and implications of such divergences in aggressive sport situations.

Referees' use of heuristics: the moderating impact of standard of competition.

The influence of players' standard of competition on referees' decision making was investigated. Standard of competition was examined by studying 30 handball matches, 15 at League and 15 at National standard. At both standards, we examined two types of refereeing decision (sporting and disciplinary) after transgressions that varied in ambiguity. The results indicated that referees made more lenient decisions at higher standards of competition, but this tendency depended on the type of decision being made and ambiguity in the offence. The hypothesis that referees use standard of competition as a judgemental heuristic, but in varying ways, was supported.

Aggressor and victim perspective-related differences in perceived legitimacy of aggression in soccer.

The purpose of this role-playing study was to explore the perceived legitimacy of aggression in soccer as a function of perspective-related differences (aggressor vs victim) and type of aggression (instrumental vs hostile). 120 soccer players watched videotaped aggressive interactions in soccer and took the perspective of the actors (aggressor then victim or the reverse). Then they rated the legitimacy of each aggressive behavior depending on its ultimate goal (instrumental then hostile or the reverse). When participants adopted the aggressor perspective, they perceived instrumental aggression as more legitimate than hostile aggression. In contrast, when participants took the perspective of the victim, no significant difference was found regardless of the type of aggression. The discussion focussed on implications and consequences of such divergences in aggressive sport situations.