This article was downloaded by: [University of Bath]On: 05 October 2014, At: 22:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sport andExercise PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijs20

Attitudes towards soccer coaches’ useof punishment in Japan and England: Across-cultural studyHaruka Hagiwara a & Sandy Wolfson ba Department of Educational Psychology , Tokyo GakugeiUniversity , Tokyo , Japanb Department of Psychology , Northumbria University , Newcastle-upon-Tyne , UKPublished online: 24 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Haruka Hagiwara & Sandy Wolfson (2013) Attitudes towards soccer coaches’use of punishment in Japan and England: A cross-cultural study, International Journal of Sport andExercise Psychology, 11:1, 57-69, DOI: 10.1080/1612197X.2012.723930

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.723930

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Attitudes towards soccer coaches’ use of punishment in Japan andEngland: A cross-cultural study

Haruka Hagiwaraa and Sandy Wolfsonb*

aDepartment of Educational Psychology, Tokyo Gakugei University, Tokyo, Japan; bDepartment ofPsychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

(Received 16 April 2012; final version received 21 August 2012)

Punishment serves a wide variety of functions, including retribution, deterrence, incapacitation,rehabilitation and behavioural shaping to comply with cultural norms. These uses, and theappropriateness of various forms of punishment, have been widely debated from practical,legal and ethical standpoints. Research demonstrates cross-cultural differences in theprevalence of types of punishment and societal attitudes towards punitive behaviour; theseare known to exist in home, educational, work and sports environments. The present studyused a 2 × 2 × 2 design in which Japanese and English football (soccer) players and coachesread a vignette describing a coach who used either physical or verbal punishment inresponse to a troublesome player. Participants then rated the coach on items measuringacceptance of the coach’s behaviour and perceptions of his popularity. The results showedthat the English and Japanese coaches and players viewed the coach similarly when he usedverbal punishment. However, statistical interactions revealed that the English groups saw thecoach as significantly more popular and acceptable when he used verbal rather than physicalpunishment, whereas the Japanese participants did not distinguish between the two forms ofpunishment. The Japanese group also scored higher on scales measuring Sensitivity toPunishment (SP) and Attitudes towards Punishment. The results are interpreted in terms ofcross-cultural differences in these characteristics as well as to related variations in conceptsof individualism versus collectivism, shame and guilt, and attitudes towards leadership.

Keywords: punishment; football; soccer; cross-cultural

Introduction

Punishment is believed to serve a wide range of varied functions based on a multitude of prin-ciples such as retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration (Miethe &Lu, 2005). Its forms, including verbal chastisement, imprisonment, labour and financial restitu-tion, have been debated in education, home and sport settings (Boonin, 2008; Goodman, 2006;Ripoll-Nunez & Rohner, 2006; Seifried, 2008). The use of physical, or corporal, punishmenthas been a particularly controversial topic. Corporal punishment has been defined as any kindof physical or bodily infliction, including spanking, slapping and more violent assaults(Barnes, 2003; Paolucci & Violato, 2004).

While some theoristsmaintain, both from ethical and practical perspectives, that physical punish-ment violates human rights and ultimately has a negative impact on behaviour (Gershoff, 2002; Lar-zelere, 2000;Morita, 2003;UnitedNations, 1989), others suggest that such disciplinemay not alwayshave harmful affective, cognitive or behavioural effects (see Paolucci&Violato, 2004). Indeed, some

© 2013 International Society of Sport Psychology

*Corresponding author. Email: s.wolfson@northumbria.ac.uk

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2013Vol. 11, No. 1, 57–69, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.723930

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

theorists have justified the implementationof physical actions inhome, education and sport settings toprevent or deter wrongdoings and send potential offenders a strong message of the consequences oftheir behaviours (David, 2005;Miethe & Lu, 2005); these benefits are seen as distinct from the moreself-serving end products of easing the punisher’s frustration or satisfying a desire for revenge (Sei-fried, 2008). In addition, such punishment has sometimes been deemed more acceptable if not tooextreme and if the target understands the reasons behind the punishment, accepts it and has a positiverelationship with the punisher (McCord, 1997; Seifried, 2008).

The role of culture could be an important variable affecting the use, effects and acceptabilityof different forms of punishment (Huesmann & Podolski, 2003). For example, a country’s legalposition on punishment may both represent its citizens’ attitudes and reinforce societal norms.Corporal punishment in law is more common in developing countries than highly industrialisedsocieties in Europe. Notwithstanding, countries such as the USA and Japan maintain capitalpunishment, often conceptualised as the most extreme form of corporal punishment (Miethe &Lu, 2005).

One context in which corporal punishment appears to vary involves the home environment,where parents may engage in physical punishment in order to shape their children’s behaviour andwarn them of dangers (Scarre, 2003). Taylor and Redman (2004) assert that in the UK more than75% of parents use physical discipline, and Ghate, Hazel, Creighton, Finch, and Field (2003)report that 58% of British parents use minor physical discipline while 9% of them practicemore severe corporal punishment. A cross-cultural comparison between students in the USAand Japan (Chang, Pettit, & Katsurada, 2006) revealed similar experiences with physical punish-ment (USA 91%, Japanese 86%), although typical sites on the body for physical punishment weredifferent. The American students reported that they have been hit on the bottom (97%) and thehand (71%), while the head (76%) and the face (56%) were the most common two places onthe body used for physical punishment for the Japanese counterparts. The American sample inthis study, however, may not be representative of other westernised countries such as those inEurope, nor might they be consistent in other contexts.

Corporal punishment in schools has been banned in most Western countries (Taylor &Redman, 2004), although Benthall (1991) indicates that some British independent fee-chargingschools continue to use it. In comparison, physical punishment appears to be more common inJapanese schools (Maki, Imahashi, Hayashi, & Terasaki, 1992; Sakamoto, 1995) despite the pro-hibition of corporal punishment established by the School Education Law in Japan (Takahashi &Kumeda, 2008). In fact, 68% of Japanese college students recalled that they had been punishedphysically by teachers at school (Chang et al., 2006). Furthermore, Ando and Kosuge’s (1994)study revealed that more than 80% (85.1% male, 79.2% female) of students experienced physicalpunishment, including smacking or punching, in schools by mostly male teachers.

It is perhaps in the context of sport settings where a variety of forms of punishment are likelyto be found. Goodman (2006) suggests that punishment in sport might be used to maintain orcreate stability, order and mastery of skills, and Mageau and Vallerand (2003) note that it maybe deemed an efficient strategy to enhance motivation, particularly because engagement in phys-ical activity can be perceived negatively by reluctant participants due to the requirement ofdemanding training and strict discipline.

Athletes from different countries or cultures often play for the same team, and many clubshave employed foreign coaches, so the cross-cultural study of punishment in sport is a potentiallyvaluable topic. Unfortunately, the literature allows for few direct cross-cultural comparisons(Chang et al., 2006). In Japan, 25% of college students who joined a sport club at junior highschool or high school had experienced corporal punishment, with 27.5% of them expressing apositive view of its use (Takahashi & Kumeda, 2008). Ae’s (1990, 1991, 1995, 2000) studiesof punishment in youth sports reported that more than 50% of athletes experienced physical

58 H. Hagiwara and S. Wolfson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

punishment, with half of both punished and non-punished performers also supporting the use ofpunishment within specific conditions and holding positive feelings to coaches who punishedthem (Ae, 1990, 2000).

Studies of punishment in England tend to examine punishment more generally, rather than inthe context of physical punishment, the latter of which is in many cases prohibited. One finding isthat athletes appear to be far more likely to prefer coaches who provide low frequencies of punish-ment (Amorose & Horn, 2000; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979). Moreover, in Western youth sports,punitive technical instruction and punishment are discouraged (Barnett, Smoll, & Smith, 1992).Smith et al.’s (1979) coach effectiveness training encourages supportive behaviours such asreward, encouragement and technical instruction rather than punitive instruction and punishment.Coaches trained with these principles were evaluated more positively than a non-trained controlgroup by their players, and positive overt and player-perceived behaviours were observed usingthe Coaching Behavior Assessment System. Nevertheless, punishment in the form of physicalactivity is sometimes imposed on young athletes when their performance is worse than expectedor when they do not comply with strict codes of discipline (David, 2005). It is possible that differ-ences in the salience of hierarchical relationships and reciprocity, believed by some writers to bemore emphasised in Japanese than western cultures (see Christopher, 1983), could underlie vari-ations in the acceptability of punishment. Such differences have been hypothesised as emanatingfrom fundamental societal differences with regard to collectivism versus individualism, whereconformity and independent behaviour are, respectively, normative in Japan and England(Wendt, Euwema, & van Emmerik, 2009). Not only might cross-cultural differences exist, butthe key figures in the coach–athlete relationship could differ in their views. For example,coaches have been found to behave more autocratically than athletes prefer (Chelladurai, Hagg-erty, & Baxter, 1989; Salminen, Liukkonen, & Telama, 1992), and it has been noted that players’perceptions often differ from those of their coach (Smith et al., 1979).Hence, it is important tocompare the perceptions of coaches’ use of punishment from the perspective of both playersand coaches.

The present study takes a cross-cultural approach and aims to compare association soccerplayers and coaches from England and Japan with regard to their views on the use of punishment.Soccer is one of the most popular sports in both England and Japan, so it represents a commonvehicle for comparison in the two countries. International transfer speculation and movement ofplayers and coaches is widespread and commonplace in the modern game. The growing emphasison social cohesion within soccer (Holt & Sparkes, 2001) suggests that within-group relationships,communication, role clarity and team goals are highly important to team functioning. Thusknowledge of cultural practices and attitudes among coaches and teammates can be critical.Coaches who deal with a multicultural group might adapt their leadership styles where possibleto get the most from their players.

As punishment may be an emotive issue and one in which response biases may arise, ques-tionnaires which contain explicit questions about verbal and corporal punishment may be proble-matic. The present investigation thus uses a vignette methodology, where a penalty manipulationis imbedded in a narrative about a soccer player and coach. Participants only receive one versionof the vignette in order to reduce the likelihood of social desirability responses.

Method

Design

The study employed a 2 × 2 × 2 independent design, varying coach nationality (English or Japa-nese), role (coach or player), and type of punishment (verbal or physical) used by a coach towards

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

a player in a short coaching scenario. Dependent measures were evaluations of the coach usingLikert scales.

Participants

The participants of this study consisted of English soccer players (N = 42), English soccer coaches(N = 36), Japanese soccer players (N = 41) and Japanese soccer coaches (N = 45). The averageages of English players, English coaches, Japanese players and Japanese coaches were, respect-ively, 20.98 (ranging from 17 to 31), 32.79 (22 to 57), 18.42 (18 to 19) and 32.57 (22 to 60) yearsold, although one Japanese player and one Japanese coach did not provide their ages. The Englishplayers were from a university or a Premier League academy league, and the coaches operated in auniversity or professional soccer league. The Japanese players and coaches were members or staffof a university league in East Japan. All players and coaches were male due to their wider acces-sibility. The study was approved by the School of Life Sciences Ethics Committee at NorthumbriaUniversity.

Measurement

Participants received a pack which included an in-house questionnaire designed to gather demo-graphic information; a hypothetical situation to be read and responded to; the Sensitivity to Pun-ishment (SP) subscale from the SP and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) (Torrubia,Avila, Molto, & Caseras, 2001); and the Attitudes towards Punishment (AP) Questionnaire (Gra-ziano, Lindquist, Kunce, & Munjal., 1992).

Two versions (verbal/physical punishment) of a vignette were created and piloted for the pur-poses of this study. The piloting led to a number of iterations, including the clarity of the neutralcommon background to the scenarios and description of the punishment given by the coach. In thefinal version, both began with identical innocuous background information about a fictitious malecoach:

Coach Carl has been working with a university football team three times a week for one year. He hasconsiderable experience as a coach and a strong motivation to improve his team to get promoted fromthe Second Division of the Central College League to the First Division.

The scenario went on to describe a problem player:

At the beginning of the season, Philip, who is one of the key players of the team, was often late fortraining sessions. Although the team made a relatively good start, Coach Carl thought discipline wasnecessary to keep the team organised well. Despite his repeated warning, Philip was late for a trainingsession again.

The punishment manipulation was then introduced. Participants were randomly assigned toone of two conditions. The “physical punishment” condition scenario ended with “Then,Coach Carl smacked Philip in front of the other players”. In the “verbal punishment” condition,the final sentence was “Then, Coach Carl criticised Philip loudly in front of the other players”.

The vignette was followed by 18 five-point Likert type items on which participants respondedusing a scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The items referred to liking, approvaland expectations of success for the coach. These included first-person perspectives from the par-ticipant (e.g. I believe Coach Carl’s behaviour is acceptable) as well as statements of others’ per-spectives (e.g. Society thinks Coach Carl’s behaviour is acceptable).

60 H. Hagiwara and S. Wolfson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Participants also completed the SP subscale from the SPSRQ (Torrubia et al., 2001), consist-ing of 24 items measuring cognitions and emotions about the threat of punishment in situations inwhich aversive consequences can occur (Cooper & Gomez, 2008; Torrubia et al., 2001). Thisscale has satisfactory reliability and validity to measure individual differences in terms of SP,and it has been used internationally (Sava & Sperneac, 2006; Takahashi & Shigematsu, 2008).Participants are asked to choose “yes” or “no” for each item. The sum of “yes” answers is thescore of the SP, and higher score indicate more SP.

The AP scale comprises 11 items and was originally created by Graziano et al. (1992) tomeasure parents’ current AP towards their children. The scale was modified for this study byreplacing the words “parents” and “children” in the original version with “coaches” and“players”, respectively. Participants answer on a five-point Likert scale with the endpoints“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Higher scores reflect more positive AP.

Translation

Aside from the SP measure, where the existent Japanese version created by Takahashi, Yamagata,and Shigematsu (2007) was used, all measurements were originally developed in English andwere translated into Japanese with a qualified translator for the Japanese participants. Back trans-lations that have been deemed an essential part of the process in cross-cultural research (Sireci,Yang, Harter, & Ehrlich, 2006; Weeks, Swerissen, & Belfrage, 2007) were then conducted bytwo translators who were blind to the original version. The translators knew both languagesand cultures, and discussions were held to ensure linguistic and content equivalence.

Procedure

The data were gathered in person, by post or email depending on the availability of participants.All were asked to read the information sheet carefully and to sign an informed consent sheet ifthey agreed to take part. Each participant was randomly assigned to either the verbal or physicalpunishment condition. After completing the study, a debrief sheet was provided.

Results

In order to assure that the method of data collection (email or hard copy) were equivalent, testswere run to check for differences on all variables. As these tests showed no differences, the twomethods of collection were collapsed together.

To examine the properties of the in-house scale, a principal component analysis was carriedout. Two components were then extracted after varimax rotation (see Table 1). Reflecting the con-tents of the items, component 1 was named Acceptance and component 2 was Popularity.

A 2 × 2 × 2 multivariate analysis of variance, varying coach nationality (England or Japan),type of punishment (verbal or physical) and role (coach or player) was carried out as the corre-lation between the Acceptance and Popularity scores was sufficiently high; r = 0.600 (Tabachnick& Fidell, 2007). The standardised factor scores were used as dependent variables (e.g. Wilska,2003), with higher scores reflecting more acceptance and popularity towards the coach. Thetotal N of 160 was reduced to 153 with the deletion of missing cases. Because sample sizeswere different, the homogeneity of the variance–covariance matrices was tested (Tabachnick &Fidell, 2007). As the test of homogeneity was rejected at significant levels (Box’s M = 75.460,F(21,56239.23) = 3.426, p < 0.001.), Pillai’s criterion was used to evaluate multivariate signifi-cance instead of Wilks’ lambda as selected by most researchers (Olson, 1979; Tabachnick &Fidell, 2007).

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

With regard to the vignette, the Japanese sample (M = 0.37) were higher overall than theEnglish sample (M =−0.39) on Acceptance (F1,153 = 50.51, p < 0.001), but there was noeffect for Popularity. There were also main effects for type of punishment on both subscales,with verbal punishment (M = 0.54) deemed more acceptable than physical (M =−0.55)(F1,153 = 102.22, p < 0.001) and also more preferred (verbal M = 0.22; physical M =−0.21)(F1,153 = 7.41, p < 0.007). Players (M = 0.18) scored higher than coaches (M =−0.20) on theAcceptance subscale (F1,153 = 12.71, p < 0.001) but not on Popularity.

Interactions on both subscales were found between nationality and punishment (see Figures 1and 2). On the Acceptance scale, the Japanese (M = 0.60) and English (M = 0.47) groups rated thecoach similarly in the verbal punishment condition; however, in the physical punishment con-dition, the scores of the Japanese sample remained relatively high (M = 0.14) whereas theEnglish sample decreased markedly (M =−1.25) (F1,153 = 33.94, p < 0.001). Similarly, on thePopularity scale, the scores for the Japanese (M = 0.08) and English (M = 0.36) groups inthe verbal condition were similar, whereas in the physical condition the Japanese scores remainedthe same (M = 0.08) while the English scores decreased (M = −0.50) (F1,153 = 7.45, p < 0.007).Post hoc independent t-tests showed that on both scales there was a significant difference betweenthe two nationalities in the physical punishment condition but not in the verbal punishmentcondition. There were no other significant interactions relevant to the coach evaluation.

On the SP scale, for which a Cronbach alpha of 0.85 indicated appropriate internal consist-ency (Gliem & Gliem, 2003), the Japanese (M = 9.80) scored higher than the English (M =5.40) (F1,153 = 33.11, p < 0.001).

On the AP scale (Cronbach alpha 0.93), the Japanese (M = 2.67) showed more positive APthan the English group (M = 1.87) (F1,153 = 38.47, p < 0.001). In addition, the players scoredhigher (M = 2.53) than the coaches (M = 2.02) (F1,153 = 15.85, p < 0.001).

Table 1. Principal component analysis of evaluation of coach.

Rotated component matrix with factor loadings

Component

1 2Acceptance Popularity

I think Coach Carl’s behaviour was appropriate 0.879 0.258Coach Carl’s behaviour is acceptable 0.863 0.319I support Coach Carl’s method of discipline 0.861 0.344I believe Coach Carl’s method will get his team promoted 0.833 0.294The players think Coach Carl’s behaviour was acceptable 0.820 0.301Coach Carl’s method of discipline is effective 0.819 0.332Society thinks Coach Carl’s behaviour is acceptable 0.751 0.280I respect Coach Carl 0.721 0.488The players think Coach Carl’s method of discipline is effective 0.698 0.419Other coaches support Coach Carl’s method of discipline 0.696 0.475Other coaches think Coach Carl’s method will get his team promoted 0.681 0.425The players respect Coach Carl 0.599 0.585Supporters think Coach Carl’s coaching style works 0.334 0.793Other coaches like Coach Carl 0.336 0.789I would like to be Coach Carl’s friend 0.256 0.783I like Coach Carl 0.415 0.756Coach Carl has a lot of friends 0.205 0.733I think Coach Carl’s coaching style works 0.600 0.601

62 H. Hagiwara and S. Wolfson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

There was a low but significant correlation (P = 0.30, df = 158, p < 0.001) between scores onthe two questionnaires.

Discussion

The results reveal that Japanese coaches and players share views about a coach who directs verbalchastisement towards a player whose behaviour is troublesome. However, when the coach inflictsphysical punishment on the player, the views of the Japanese sample remain stable, while theEnglish group show more negative responses with regard to their acceptance of the coach andviews of his popularity. Thus both sets of coaches endorsed verbal punishment, but only the Japa-nese participants perceived corporal punishment as equally appropriate. This was true for bothcoaches and players, although the players scored higher than the coaches overall, regardless ofthe kind of punishment used, on the Acceptance subscale.

The findings of the modified AP scale (Graziano et al., 1992) may be implicated in thisfinding. Originally designed to measure AP of children by parents, the scale for this study waschanged to refer to punishment of players by their coaches. Overall, the Japanese groupshowed significantly more positive attitudes towards the use of punishment by coaches thanthe English sample. Some of the items on this scale refer to the effect of punishment on the reci-pient, such as whether it is harmful, resented or beneficial. The results, then, are in keeping withresearch by Ando and Kosuge (1994), who found that a large percentage of students had

Figure 1. Ratings of acceptance of coach (high scores = high acceptance).

Figure 2. Ratings of popularity of coach (high scores = high popularity).

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

experienced physical punishment in Japanese schools, along with Ae’s (1990, 1991, 1995, 2000)finding that both punished and non-punished Japanese performers not only supported the use ofpunishment but maintained positive feelings towards those who had punished them. It is possiblethat cultural norms related to punishment are incorporated into people’s acceptance of differentpractices, such that a wider range of punishments are deemed appropriate in Japan.

Interestingly, however, the Japanese group also scored higher on the SP scale. Items on thistest refer to a wide range of affective and cognitive variables such as paying more attention tothreat than pleasant events, being troubled by punishment at home or in school as a child, andrefraining from behaviours that might be illegal. It may seem ironic that people who are sensitiveto punishment are more willing to accept and like a coach who uses physical punishment, but sen-sitivity is not necessarily consistent with acceptance. It is perhaps the acknowledgment that thiskind of behaviour exists, even necessarily, that actually makes people more sensitive to it. Steven-son (1991) notes a prevalence of sensitivity to others in Japanese children as young as kindergar-ten age, who show higher levels of sharing and helping than those in the USA.

These results might be interpreted with regard to possible cultural differences in individualismversus collectivism. Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) suggest that the English can begenerally categorised as individualist while Japan is regarded as one of the collectivist societies.The central basis of individualism is that each member of society is relatively autonomous, withindependent personal goals and needs (Matsumoto, 2000), while collectivism assumes thatgroups are united and reciprocally obligated (Oyserman et al., 2002), pursuing orderliness andconformity (Hofstede, 2001) and emphasising respect and obedience to leaders (Scandura, VonGlinow, & Lowe, 1999). This could imply that Japanese people may be more likely to hold nega-tive attitudes towards group members who fail to conform or adhere to their place in hierarchicalstructures. The lack of respect shown by a player towards his coach could be seen as an inap-propriate departure from societal norms which is generally deserving of punishment.

Differences related to leadership style which emanate from this perspective may cast furtherlight on the findings. The concept of punishment is acknowledged in some models of coachingand leadership style (Atwater, Dionne, Camobreco, Avolio, & Lau, 1998). According toMartens (1987), some coaches use a cooperative style to facilitate their athletes’ goal achieve-ment. These coaches are likely to prioritise the athlete’s welfare rather than outcome and preferenhancing intrinsic motivation. Other coaches use a more autocratic style and feel responsiblefor all aspects of performance and learning. They are likely to organise practices and strategies,favouring extrinsic motivation by using reward and punishment (McMorris & Hale, 2006). Such adistinction is reflected in a number of leadership models. Fiedler (1967) differentiated betweenrelations-oriented leaders and task-oriented leaders, and Lyle (1999) referred to democratic andautocratic styles of coaching.

Fukushige and Spicer (2011) have made a comparison between Japanese and British workerswith regard to preference for leadership styles. They suggested that the British followers preferredtransformational leadership styles that are idealised and inspire motivation in followers, whereastransactional leadership styles—where followers expect rewards in exchange for successfully car-rying out their duties and leaders correct followers’ mistakes and errors when necessary—areendorsed for the Japanese subordinates. Research by Chelladurai, Imamura, Yamaguchi,Oinuma, and Miyauchi (1988) has shown that Japanese athletes prefer more autocratic behaviour,while those in a Western culture (specifically Canada in their study) prefer task-oriented leader-ship. These preferences impact on cultural variations in perceptions of the effectiveness of coach-ing styles (Chelladurai et al., 1988; Jung, Yammarino, & Lee, 2009; Kim, Williams, & Gill,2003). As noted, obedience as well as respect to leaders is emphasised in collective cultures(Scandura et al., 1999), and the Japanese hierarchy of organisation is relatively rigid (Chen,1995). Dorfman et al. (1997) have proposed that a less verbal communication style is incorporated

64 H. Hagiwara and S. Wolfson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

into the ideal leadership model in Japan. That is, subordinates or individuals who occupy a lowerposition in society, or are even just young, are expected to respect and comply with leaders orolder people. In sport settings, athletes are almost always in the position where they occupy alower hierarchical position compared to coaches. These factors might make Japanese playersand coaches more accepting of a wider range of punishments by coaches. In Western countries,including the English, athletes are more likely to favour an interpersonal, democratic coachingstyle (Philippe & Seiler, 2006; Salminen & Liukkonen, 1996) which may allow for the communi-cation of verbal criticism (Martens, 2004), but not physical punishment.

The characterisation of Japan as being relatively more a shame-culture and England a guilt-culture (Benedict, 1946) could contribute to an additional interpretation of the findings of thepresent study. Guilt may begin with a public transgression but is dealt with through an internalfocus on the self, manifest in feelings of remorse and a desire to repair the problematic situation.On the other hand, shame encompasses an awareness of others’ evaluations and criticism (Azami,2008; Sabini & Silver, 1997; Smith, Webster, Parrott, & Eyre, 2002; Tangney, Stuewig, &Mashek, 2007). From this perspective, it is conceivable that Japanese people would tend to bemore concerned about evaluation, with parents or coaches more inclined to use punishment toshape others’ behaviour, demonstrate authority (Martens, 2004; Morita, 2003), highlight theimportance of social conformity and norms (Izard & Ackerman, 2000) and accept their shareof responsibility for preserving expected behaviours (Lewis, 1971). Meanwhile, guilt may be rel-evant to the acceptance of being the target of punishment, with remorse and contrition promotingactions such as apology or reparation (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994). From this pointof view, the perception of guilt might be effective in changing or stopping undesirable behaviours,seen as one of the main purposes of punishment (McNamee, 2002; Seifried, 2008). Such possibledifferences and their implications might be pursued more explicitly in future research.

Some problems related to the generalisability of the findings in the present study may exist.Most participants were recruited from specific regions within England and Japan, namely, NorthEast England and East Japan. Further investigations might attempt to discover whether the find-ings can be generalised to the entire nations. Generalisability to other sports might also be exam-ined. It is possible that soccer evokes stronger reactions due to its popularity. As well, the gapbetween coaches and players in their perceptions of leadership style has been found to belarger in team sports than individual sports (Salminen & Liukkonen, 1996), so type of sportmay be an important factor in any study of player–coach differences (Chelladurai, Malloy,Imamura, & Yamaguchi, 1987). In addition, teenaged male participants were used in thepresent study, and it is possible that this specific group are not representative of soccer players.Perhaps players of that age group are more likely to be accepting of a coach’s authority andassume that his behaviour is appropriate. Research also suggests that the results may not applyto female players and coaches (see Fasting & Pfister, 2000; Kavussanu, Stamp, Slade, & Ring,2009; Takahashi & Kumeda, 2008). Finally, it might also be noted that the intentions of thecoach in the two versions of the vignette might have been imagined to differ considerably interms of venting frustration and attempting to change the behaviour of the player.

Campbell and LeVine (1968) warned that socialisation results in an unquestioning assumptionthat the norms of one’s culture are appropriate and valid, along with the perception that departuresfrom these are unnatural or immoral. This ethnocentrism can be problematic, leading to illusorysuperiority (Taylor & Brown, 1988) and distaste for other values. Brislin (1993) has noted thatclashes are likely to arise between people who have acquired and accepted different values andassumptions to guide their behaviour. This may be highly problematic in professional sport con-texts, where teammates and coaches may come from a variety of backgrounds. For example, anEnglish coach working with a Japanese soccer team could be seen as wholly inadequate if his orher responses to a transgression do not match the players’ expectations. An understanding and

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

knowledge of each others’ values and views can contribute to team cohesion and good coach–player relationships. Information about possible cultural differences might thus be integratedinto coaching qualification courses. For example, if research continues to suggest that Japaneseplayers would prefer a more autocratic leadership style (Chelladurai et al., 1988), coachescould be alerted to this and instructed on methods of varying autocratic and democraticperspectives.

The main finding in this study was that Japanese and English soccer players and coaches didnot differ in their reactions to a coach who verbally criticised a player. They rated him similarly interms of their acceptance of his behaviour and his popularity. However, when the coach usedphysical punishment, only the responses of the Japanese sample remained at the same level,whereas the evaluation of the coach by the English group became significantly more negative.This may be due to the individualist/collectivist distinction between the societies, preferencesfor leadership styles, and perhaps differences in shame versus guilt perspectives. The fact thatthe Japanese group scored higher on SP as well as acceptance of punishment lends support tothe potential impact of these cultural variations.

In Japan, autocratic behaviours that used to be seen frequently in sports have been discour-aged recently, and a more communicative approach has been encouraged in coach education(Japan Football Association Technical Department, 2005; Noji & Yoshida, 1996). It might beassumed that this kind of education has suppressed the acceptance of punishment, but theresults of the present study suggest that cultural differences remain. Future research needs toinvestigate whether the situation will change as well as how different punishment styles areimplemented and perceived in real situations.

Notwithstanding, Triandis (1994) has suggested that the problem of ethnocentrism extends tocross-cultural research. For example, when comparisons are drawn between two or more nations,researchers might infer that “their” country has demonstrated the appropriate behaviours and atti-tudes, while the “other” countries are peculiar or “wrong” in some way and thus need to have theirvalues explained. The consideration of the distinctions drawn in the current research could beexamined in the light of this potential bias.

ReferencesAe, M. (1990). Supo-tsu sidosya no boryoku koui ni tsuite [Sport coaches’ violence to youth athletes in

coaching]. Bulletin of Tokyo Women’s College of Physical Education, 25, 9–16.Ae, M. (1991). Boryoku wo mochiita supo-tsu shido no ataeru eikyo: Gakusei heno tsuiseki tyosa yori [The

influence of sport coaches’ violence on youth athletes: From a follow-up study]. Bulletin of TokyoWomen’s College of Physical Education, 26, 10–16.

Ae, M. (1995). Gakkoki no kyogi supo-tsu shido ni okeru taibatsu: Mensetsuho ni yoru chosa [Violent pun-ishment in coaching girl students]. Bulletin of Tokyo Women’s College of Physical Education, 30, 85–91.

Ae, M. (2000).Undobu shidosya no boryokuteki koudou no eikyo: Syakaiteki eikyo katei no shiten kara [Theinfluence of coaches’ violence on youth female athletes from a viewpoint of social influence process].Research of Physical Education, 45(1), 89–103.

Amorose, A.J., & Horn, T.S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athletes’ gender,scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches’ behaviour. Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 22, 63–84.

Ando, F., & Kosuge, Y. (1994). Gokko ni okeru taibatsu ni kansuru ichikosatsu: Kyoiku gakubu gakusei notaibatsu taiken to taibatsu ishiki chosa wo moto ni [A study of corporal punishment in school: Aninquiry of students in the college of education relating to their experience and cognition of corporal pun-ishment]. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Hirosaki University, 72, 66–89.

Atwater, L.E., Dionne, S.D., Camobreco, J.F., Avolio, B.J., & Lau, A. (1998). Individual attributes and lea-dership style: Predicting the use of punishment and its effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,559–576.

66 H. Hagiwara and S. Wolfson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Azami, R. (2008). Haji to zaiakukan no kenkyu no douko [Recent studies on shame and guilt]. The JapaneseJournal of Research on Emotions, 16(1), 49–64.

Barnes, J. (2003). Corporal punishment. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 74(5),7–8.

Barnett, N.P., Smoll, F.L., & Smith, R.E. (1992). Effects of enhancing coach-athlete relationship on youthsport attrition. The Sport Psychologist, 6(2), 111–127.

Baumeister, R.F., Stillwell, A.M., & Heatherton, T.F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach.Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 243–267.

Benedict. (1946). The Chrysanthemum and the sword. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Benthall, J. (1991). Invisible wounds: Corporal punishment in British schools as a form of ritual. Child

Abuse and Neglect, 15, 377–388.Boonin, D. (2008). The problem of punishment. New York, NY: Cambridge.Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture’s influence on behaviour. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Campbell, D.T., & LeVine, R.A. (1968). Ethnocentrism and intergroup relations. In R. Abelson, E. Aronson,

W.J. McGuire, T.M. Newcomb, M.J. Rosenberg, & P.H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive con-sistency: A sourcebook (pp. 551–564). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Chang, I.J., Pettit, R.W., & Katsurada, E. (2006). Where and when to spank: A comparison between U.S. andJapanese college students. Journal of Family Violence, 21(4), 281–286.

Chelladurai, P., Haggerty, T.R., & Baxter, P.R. (1989). Decision style choices of university basketballcoaches and players. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 201–215.

Chelladurai, P., Imamura, H., Yamaguchi, Y., Oinuma, Y., &Miyauchi, T. (1988). Sport leadership in a cross-national setting: The case of Japanese and Canadian university athletes. Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 10, 374–389.

Chelladurai, P., Malloy, D., Imamura, H., & Yamaguchi, Y. (1987). A cross-cultural study of preferred lea-dership in sports. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 12, 106–110.

Chen, M. (1995). Asian management systems: Chinese, Japanese, and Korean styles of business. London:Routledge.

Christopher, R.C. (1983). The Japanese mind: The Goliath explained. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Cooper, A., & Gomez, R. (2008). The development of a short form of the sensitivity to punishment and sen-

sitivity to reward questionnaire. Journal of Individual Differences, 29(2), 90–104.David, P. (2005). Human rights in youth sport: A critical review of children’s rights in competitive sports.

Abingdon: Routledge.Dorfman, P.W., Howell, J.P., Hibino, S., Lee, J.K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western

and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures.Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233–274.

Fasting, K., & Pfister, G. (2000). Female and male coaches in the eyes of female elite soccer players.European Physical Education Review, 6(1), 91–108.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Fukushige, A., & Spicer, D.P. (2011). Leadership and followers’ work goals: A comparison between Japan

and the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(10), 2110–2134.Gershoff, E.T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviours and experiences: A

meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539–579.Ghate, D., Hazel, N., Creighton, S., Finch, S., & Field, J. (2003). The national study of parents, children and

discipline in Britain. Economic and Social Research (ESRC). Retrieved March 3, 2012, http://www.prb.org.uk/publications/Parents%20Children%20and%20Discipline%20Summary%20final.pdf

Gliem, J., & Gliem, R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coeffi-cient for Likert type scales.Midwest research to practice conference in adult, continuing and communityeducation, pp. 82–88.

Goodman, J.F. (2006). School discipline in moral disarray. Journal of Moral Education, 35(2), 213–230.Graziano, A.M., Lindquist, C.M., Kunce, L.J., & Munjal, K. (1992). Physical punishment in childhood and

current attitudes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(2), 147–155.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organizations

across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Holt, N.L., & Sparkes, A.C. (2001). An ethnographic study of cohesiveness in a college soccer team over a

season. Sport Psychologist, 15(3), 237–259.Huesmann, L.R., & Podolski, L.R. (2003). Punishment: A psychological perspective. In S. McConville

(Ed.), The use of punishment (pp. 55–88). Devon: Willan Publishing.

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Izard, C.E., & Ackerman, B.P. (2000). Motivational, organizational, and regulatory functions of discreteemotions. In M. Lewis & J.M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 253–264).New York, NY: Guilford.

Japan Football Association Technical Department. (2005). Supo-tsu Shinrigaku: Nihon sakka kyokai kouninA-kyu kouchi yousei kousyukai kyotsu kamoku wa-ku bukku [Sport psychology: The official workbook ofJapan Football Association for the training programme for the A-license coaches]. Tokyo: JapanFootball Association.

Jung, D., Yammarino, F.J., & Lee, J.K. (2009). Moderating role of subordinates’ attitudes on transforma-tional leadership and effectiveness: A multi-cultural and multi-level perspective. The LeadershipQuarterly, 20, 586–603.

Kavussanu, M., Stamp, R., Slade, G., & Ring, C. (2009). Observed prosocial and antisocial behaviours inmale and female soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(S1), S62–S76.

Kim, B.J., Williams, L., & Gill, D.L. (2003). A cross-cultural study of achievement orientation and intrinsicmotivation in young USA and Korean athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 168–184.

Larzelere, R.E. (2000). Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: Anupdated literature review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(4), 199–221.

Lewis, H. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York, NY: International University Press.Lyle, J. (1999). Coaches’ decision making. In N. Cross & J. Lyle (Eds.), The coaching process: Principles

and practice for sport (pp. 210–232). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.Mageau, G.A., & Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of

Sport Science, 21, 883–904.Maki, M., Imahashi, M., Hayashi, K., & Terasaki, H. (1992). Choukai/Taibatsu no housei to jittai [Laws and

realities about discipline/corporal punishment]. Tokyo: Gakuyo shobou.Martens, R. (1987). Coaches guide to sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Martens, R. (2004). Successful coaching. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Matsumoto, D. (2000). Culture and psychology: People around the world. Australia: Wadsworth.McCord, J. (1997). On discipline. Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 215–217.McMorris, T., & Hale, T. (2006). Coaching science: Theory into practice. Chichester: Wiley.McNamee, M. (2002). Irrational or insensitive: Is guilt a proper emotional response to the causing of an unin-

tentional injury? European Journal of Sport Science, 2(1), 1–10.Miethe, T.D., & Lu, H. (2005). Punishment: A comparative historical perspective. New York, NY:

Cambridge.Morita, Y. (2003). Shitsuke to Taibatsu [Discipline and punishment]. Nagasaki: Douwakan.Noji, T., & Yoshida, T. (1996). Supo-tsu kei no bukatsudo ni okeru taibatsu no syoso to sono haikei ni

kansuru yobiteki kousatsu [A preliminary study on aspects and backgrounds of punishment insports]. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Kochi University, 52, 129–138.

Olson, C.L. (1979). Practical considerations in choosing a MONOVA test statistic: A rejoinder to Stevens.Psychological Bulletin, 86(6), 1350–1352.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism:Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.

Paolucci, E.O., & Violato, C. (2004). A meta-analysis of the published research on the affective, cognitive,and behavioural effects of corporal punishment. The Journal of Psychology, 138(3), 197–221.

Philippe, R.A., & Seiler, R. (2006). Closeness, co-orientation and complementarity in coach-athlete relation-ships: What male swimmers say about their male coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7,159–171.

Ripoll-Nunez, K.J., & Rohner, R.P. (2006). Corporal punishment in cross-cultural perspective: Directions fora research agenda. Cross-Cultural Research, 40(3), 220–249.

Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (1997). In defense of shame: Shame in the context of guilt and embarrassment.Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 27(1), 1–15.

Sakamoto, H. (1995). Taibatsu no kenkyu [A study on corporal punishment]. Tokyo: San Ichi Shobou.Salminen, S., & Liukkonen, J. (1996). Coach-athlete relationship and coaching behaviour in training ses-

sions. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 59–67.Salminen, S., Liukkonen, J., & Telama, R. (1992). The differences in coaches’ and athletes’ perception of

leader behaviour of Finnish coaches. In T. Williams, L. Almond, & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Sport and phys-ical activity: Moving towards excellence (pp. 517–522). London: Spon.

Sava, F.A., & Sperneac, A.-M. (2006). Sensitivity to reward and sensitivity to punishment rating scales:A validation study on the Romanian population. Personality and Individual Differences, 41,1445–1456.

68 H. Hagiwara and S. Wolfson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Scandura, T.A., Von Glinow, M.A., & Lowe, K.B. (1999). When East meets West: Leadership “best prac-tices” in the United States and the Middle East. In W.H. Mobley (Ed.), Advances in global leadership(pp. 235–248). Stamford: JAI.

Scarre, G. (2003). Corporal punishment. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 6, 295–316.Seifried, C. (2008). Examining punishment and discipline: Defending the use of punishment by coaches.

Quest, 60, 370–386.Sireci, S.G., Yang, Y., Harter, J., & Ehrlich, E.J. (2006). Evaluating guidelines for test adaptations: A meth-

odological analysis of translation quality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 557–567.Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive-behavioural

approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 59–75.Smith, R.H., Webster, J.M., Parrott, W.G., & Eyre, H.L. (2002). The role of public exposure in moral and

nonmoral shame and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 138–159.Stevenson, H.W. (1991). The development of orosocial behaviour in large-scale collective societies: China &

Japan. In R.A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation and prosocial behaviour (pp. 89–105).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, B.G. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.Takahashi, H., & Kumeda, M. (2008). Gakkoundobukatsudo ni okeru taibatsu ni kan-suru chosakenkyu [An

investigation of bodily punishment in school athletic clubs]. Bulletin of Centre for Educational Researchand Development, 17, 161–170.

Takahashi, Y., & Shigematsu, K. (2008). Batsu no kaihi to hosyu heno sekkin no kanjusei wo sokutei suru 3syakudo no hikaku [A comparison of three scales measuring individual differences in Sensitivity toPunishment and Reward]. The Japanese Journal of Personality, 17(1), 72–81.

Takahashi, Y., Yamagata, S., & Shigematsu, K. (2007). Nihongoban SPSRQ (batsu no kaihi to hosyu henosekkin no kanjusei syakudo) no shinraisei to datousei no kento [An investigation of the reliability andvalidity of the Japanese version of SPSRQ (Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to RewardQuestionnaire)]. The 71st Annual Convention of the Japanese Psychological Association, p. 41.

Tangney, J.P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D.J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behaviour. Annual Review ofPsychology, 58, 345–372.

Taylor, J., & Redman, S. (2004). The smacking controversy: What advice should we be giving parents?Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46(3), 311–318.

Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mentalhealth. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Molto, J., & Caseras, X. (2001). The sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity toreward questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s anxiety and impulsivity dimensions.Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 837–862.

Triandis, H.C. (1994). Culture and social behaviour. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.United Nations (1989). UN conventions on the rights of the child. New York, NY: United Nations.Weeks, A., Swerissen, H., & Belfrage, J. (2007). Issues, challenges, and solutions in translating study instru-

ments. Evaluation Review, 31(2), 153–165.Wendt, H., Euwema, M.C., & van Emmerik, I.J.H. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cul-

tures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 358–370.Wilska, T.-A. (2003). Mobile phone use as part of young people’s consumption styles. Journal of Consumer

Policy, 26, 441–463.

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 2

2:55

05

Oct

ober

201

4