Abstract
According to contesting theory (Shields & Bredemeier, 2011), people conceptualize competition either through a metaphor of partnership or war. These two alternate metaphors suggest differing sociomoral relationships among the participants. In the current study of intercollegiate athletes (n = 610), we investigated the two approaches to contesting in relation to formalist and consequentialist moral frameworks (Brady & Wheeler, 1996) and individualizing and binding moral foundations (Haidt, 2001). Correlational analysis indicated that the partnership approach correlated significantly with all four moral dimensions, while the war approach correlated with formalist and consequentialist frameworks and binding foundations (i.e., appeals to in-group loyalty, authority, and purity). Multiple regressions demonstrated that the best predictors of a partnership approach were formalist thinking and endorsement of individualizing moral foundations (i.e., appeal to fairness and welfare). Among our primary variables, the best predictors of a war orientation were consequentialist thinking and endorsement of binding foundations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
