Recreational Sports Journal, 2012, 36, 113-126
© 2012 Nirsa Foundation
Official Journal of the NIRSA Foundation
www.RSJ-Journal.com
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Examination of a Hazing Workshop
Intervention for Intercollegiate
Sport Club Athletes
Anthony D. Capretto and Linda A. Keeler
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of an interactive, educational workshop on hazing knowledge, intentions to haze and intentions to prevent
hazing. Components of the workshop included discussion on hazing definitions,
prevalence, causes, consequences, and prevention. Nineteen sport club officers at
a midsize university served as the intervention group and a convenience sample
of 44 sport club student-athletes served as a control group. Hazing knowledge
increased among workshop attendees and workshop attendees had greater hazing
knowledge before and after the intervention in comparison with the control group
who received no intervention. However, intentions to haze and the intentions to
prevent hazing did not differ among groups. The intervention group increased
their knowledge of where to report hazing acts and attitudes toward alternative
activities to hazing. Recommendations for future research and hazing interventions
for administrators are provided.
Keywords: deviance, prevention, university, recreation, athletics
The relationship between hazing and sport has been documented in the literature
dating back to 1927 when three Louisiana State University football players gave
haircuts to freshman students (“Notes on Hazing,” 1927). Binge drinking, sexual
incidents, and humiliating activities are just a few of the more prevalent behaviors
that individuals are coerced to engage in as part of hazing (Allan & Madden, 2008).
Hazing can result in both severe psychological and physical damages (Allan &
Madden, 2008) and is illegal in 44 states (Stophazing.org, 2010). Hoover (1999)
found that 80% of student-athletes representing universities competing in the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) experienced hazing. Despite the
prevalence of hazing, there has been limited research on the topic. One possible
reason for lack of research is difficulty in defining the term.
The definition of hazing may differ among individuals, organizations, and state
governments (e.g., Chico State Recreational Sports, 2010; Hoover, 1999; Steinbach, 2006). Hoover (1999) defined hazing as, “any activity expected of someone
joining a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers, regardless of the
Capretto is with the Dept. of Kinesiology, California State University, Chico. Keeler is with the Dept.
of Physical Education, Health, and Recreation, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.
113
114 Capretto and Keeler
person’s willingness to participate” (p. 8). In comparison, Crow and Macintosh
(2009) expanded on Hoover’s (1999) definition by citing that hazing occurs when
the “athlete’s positive development” is questioned (p. 449). In addition, one main
difference between the hazing laws of various states is the application of “consent
as a defense.” In some states, an individual who conducts hazing can be held liable
even if the person hazed offers consent to the activity.
The variations of hazing definitions have also contributed to the difficulty of a
consensus operational definition among researchers and professionals. For instance,
Kirby and Wintrup (2002) stated that because there is no consensus definition of
hazing, subsequent research on why it occurs is extremely challenging. In fact,
when describing their definition of hazing, the authors used a combination of four
previously generated definitions compiled into one operational definition. As a result
of this definitional dilemma, it may become challenging for the general public to
understand what encompasses hazing and could explain why researchers have not
evaluated prevention methods.
The hazing prevalence rate in the collegiate environment is of concern due to
the large number of groups that are sponsored on campus. One such sponsored group
that has high prevalence rates of hazing on college campuses are athletic teams.
For instance, Allan and Madden (2008) found that 74% of varsity athletes, 64% of
club sport athletes, 49% of intramural sport participants, and 42% of recreational
club members experienced hazing. Not only is there a high prevalence of hazing
on college campuses, there is a general lack of knowledge and awareness among
athletes and sometimes coaches and administrators (Crow & Macintosh, 2009).
As a result of the combination of lack of knowledge and awareness, hazing may
continue to be problematic at the university level unless interventions are developed,
evaluated and implemented.
Researchers have generally investigated why hazing occurs (e.g., Coakley,
2007; Hoover, 1999) or how the media covers it (e.g., Popke, 2000; Popke, 2003;
Steinbach, 2000). In a discussion of sport deviance, Coakley (2007) wrote that
there is “an unquestioned acceptance of norms, rather than a rejection of norms” (p.
154) for which athletes strive to show that they are fit to be a part of an exclusive
sports team. Additional investigations into the reasons why individuals participate
in hazing activities have been conducted primarily in the collegiate environment,
most likely due to the predominance of group activities (e.g., Greek life, athletic
teams) in this realm (e.g., Allan & Madden, 2008; Crow & Macintosh, 2009; Hoover,
1999). Overall, there seems to be multiple reasons why student-athletes haze, but
the consequences of such behaviors can be devastating to the individuals involved,
the team, and the organizations that are represented.
The consequences of participating (voluntarily or involuntarily) in hazing
activities for victims can range from psychological to physical and range in severity (see Popke, 2000; Popke, 2003; Steinbach, 2000 for details). After reporting
acts of hazing violations, victims have also been subjected to much criticism from
their teammates, coaches, and even their surrounding community (e.g., Howard &
England Kennedy, 2006; Popke, 2000). When ostracizing behaviors occur, it may
be the reason why hazing behaviors go unreported by those who experience them.
On the other hand, perpetrators of hazing are not immune to the consequences of
Examination of a Hazing Workshop Intervention 115
conducting such harmful acts. Community-service (Popke, 2000), being expelled
from one’s school (Howard & England Kennedy, 2006; “Notes on Hazing,” 1927;
Popke, 2000; Popke, 2003), and misdemeanor battery charges (Popke, 2003) have
all been recorded as punishments levied out to perpetrators. Therefore, presenting
appropriate educational methods that address the consequences of participating in
hazing behaviors, either as a victim or a perpetrator, may decrease the prevalence
of hazing.
From a team and organizational standpoint, acts of hazing present an assortment
of cost (Steinbach, 2000), liability (Crow & Rosner, 2002; Pearson & Beckham,
2005), and image (Allan & Madden, 2008) issues for the university. Multiple
researchers (e.g., Crow & Rosner, 2002; Pearson & Beckham, 2005) have cited
that university administrators need to become more accountable in recognizing and
preventing acts of hazing. It is vital that administrators attempt to prevent hazing
activities on campus to morally protect individuals and ethically, legally, and financially to provide a standard duty of care. Thus, there is a need to determine and
disseminate effective hazing prevention practices on college campuses.
Although policies and laws have been created to curtail the incidence of
hazing, research on intervention practices is lacking in the literature. It has been
suggested that dispersing accountability to students, coaches, and administrators
(Hoover, 1999), presenting hazing educational materials (Allan & Madden, 2008;
CAMPUSPEAK, 2005; Hoover & Pollard, 2000; Keeler & Clement, 2006), and
providing alternative activities for initiation (Etzel, Watson, Visek, & Maniar, 2006;
Hoover, 1999; Waldron, 2010) could decrease the prevalence of hazing behaviors.
In addition, Hoover (1999) mentioned that issuing appropriate team initiation
activities and having administrators provide a clear hazing policy were necessary
components to hazing prevention. Likewise, Allan and Madden (2008) suggested
that hazing educators should focus efforts on the negative impact hazing has on
individuals. However, before one can expect a decrease in the prevalence of hazing
behaviors, individuals may need to fully comprehend what defines the behavior and
what expected outcomes may result. Hazing researchers have not yet evaluated the
impact of any known prevention programs (e.g., Allan & Madden, 2008; Hoover,
1999; Hoover & Pollard, 2000).
The National Hazing Prevention Week (NHPW) Resource Guide includes the
suggestion that athletic teams undergo an educational session with administrators at the onset of the academic year to outline an expectation of appropriate
behaviors (CAMPUSPEAK, 2005). Allan and Madden (2008) recommended
a similar approach to all college students when a student enters campus. Crow,
Ammon Jr., and Phillips (2004) suggested that teams take part in presentations
addressing hazing at specified points throughout the year. Sport hazing researchers
have provided a number of recommendations to eradicate hazing in sport, yet no
empirical tests of these recommendations appear in the literature. The purpose of
this investigation was to examine the effect of an educational hazing workshop on
hazing knowledge, intentions to haze, and the intentions to prevent hazing among
intercollegiate sport club officers. A questionnaire was presented before and after
an interactive educational workshop to measure sport club officers’ knowledge of
hazing, intentions to haze, and intentions to prevent hazing. In addition, a control
116 Capretto and Keeler
group comprised of other sport club athletes was used for comparison purposes to
gauge for similarities and differences between the two populations.
Methods
Participants
A convenience sample of two officers (club presidents, vice-presidents, treasurers, trip leaders, or safety officers) from each of 17 sport club teams (n = 34) at a
midsize, west coast university were recruited for the educational workshop held
during the Spring semester. Participants were selected based on the leadership roles
that they held within their respective clubs and the potential for each participant
to disperse information to fellow team members. All participants were required
to attend the workshop as part of officer training by the sport club director at the
university. In addition, a nonequivalent sample of nonofficer club student-athletes
were sent an electronic survey to serve as a self-selected, convenience control
group. The following teams were represented: cycling (coed), women’s field hockey,
men’s inline hockey, men’s lacrosse, women’s lacrosse, men’s rugby, women’s
rugby, women’s soccer, tennis (coed), men’s ultimate, women’s ultimate, men’s
volleyball, women’s volleyball, wakeboard (coed), men’s water polo, women’s
water polo, and water ski (coed). Thirty-two intervention participants completed
the pretest survey before the workshop, while only 19 participants completed the
posttest follow-up to the workshop. Forty-four participants (a 14% response rate)
completed the control group survey.
Design and Procedure
A quasi-experimental pretest and posttest design was used to compare the effects of
an interactive workshop on hazing perceptions and attitudes of sport club athletes.
Permission from an Internal Review Board was granted before the commencement
of this study. One month before the scheduled date of the educational workshop,
sport club officers were notified via e-mail that they must attend a mandatory
officer training per requirements of the sport club program. In accordance with
university sport club policy, the sport club director would levy a $100 fine to the
sport clubs that failed to be represented at the mandatory officer training by two of
their officers, which may have affected their rerecognition status in future years.
The intervention group completed the survey immediately before the workshop
and within 24 hr after the workshop. The control group, who did not attend the
workshop, also completed the survey one time during the same time frame. An
informed consent form was provided to all subjects that outlined areas including,
but not limited to, the study purpose, steps taken to ensure anonymity and assurance
of the voluntary nature of the research. The control group was notified one week in
advance, one day prior, and on the day of the intervention that an athletic attitudes
survey would be sent via an e-mail hyperlink to the electronic survey. The survey
that the control group completed was identical to that of the intervention group
and was available on the day of and the day following the educational workshop.
All participants were offered a chance to win a $25 gift certificate to the university
bookstore as an incentive to participate in the study.
Examination of a Hazing Workshop Intervention 117
Workshop Intervention
The educational workshop was administered inside a classroom on a university
campus for 1 hr and 30 min by the lead author. Components of the workshop
included discussion on hazing definitions (Crow & Macintosh, 2009), prevalence
in sport (Allan & Madden, 2008; Hoover, 1999), reasons why athletes may haze
(Coakley, 2007; Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, & Brewer, 2007), the consequences
of participating in hazing (Hazing Prohibition Act of 2003, 2003; Matt’s Law, 2006),
and alternative activities to hazing (CAMPUSPEAK, 2005; Waldron, 2010). In
addition, interactive components were included in the workshop including small
group discussions. Moreover, a 911 phone call from a fraternity hazing death that
occurred in the early 2000s at the participant’s university was played during the
consequences portion of the workshop. An outline of the workshop can be obtained
from the lead author.
Instruments
The questionnaire used in this investigation was formulated in two ways: 1) by
tailoring questions to the topics of hazing definitions, prevalence, purposes, consequences, and prevention; and 2) adapting questions from the Hazing Education
Initiative (2006) interactive quiz on hazing knowledge. Development of response
items was completed by two researchers with expertise in the topic and followed
guidelines in the practice of social research. A final draft of response items was
submitted to a small group of student athletes at a different institution for feedback on clarity of wording. Adjustments were completed as a result. Surveys were
administered electronically via Student Voice.
Questions included basic demographic information such as: age, gender,
ethnicity, status in school (i.e., Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Graduate),
years on club team, years participated in particular sport, as well as questions that
assess their experiences, knowledge, and perceptions of the aforementioned hazing
topics. Various response types were provided based on the type of question asked.
Hazing knowledge was measured by summing the correct number of responses
provided by respondents for 17 true/false statements. Intentions to haze (9 items)
was measured by a 5 point Likert scale (1 = very likely; 5 = very unlikely). Intentions to prevent hazing (5 items) were measured by a 5 point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). Thus, the lower the score on each Likert
scale equated to potentially more deviant intentions. One open-ended response,
“To the best of your ability, define hazing” was also qualitatively compared with
the definition of hazing suggested by Hoover (1999) and to a definition used by a
university sport clubs’ department (Chico State Recreational Sports, 2010). In addition, three exploratory items were included in the questionnaire. To assess hazing
policy awareness, participants were asked to respond to an item, “I am aware of
the current hazing policy set forth by CSUC administrators.” To assess knowledge
of where athletes can report acts of hazing, participants were asked to respond to
the statement, “I know where I can report hazing acts if so desired.” Participants
were also given the statement, “If administrators supply you with appropriate team
initiation activities, the prevalence of hazing will decrease on my team” to evaluate
attitudes toward alternate activities. For these three items, response choices ranged
118 Capretto and Keeler
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A copy of the questionnaire can
be obtained from the lead author.
Data Analyses
Basic descriptive statistics were conducted for both the intervention and control
groups. Due to the creation of intentions to prevent and intentions to haze scales
for the purpose of this investigation, preliminary interitem reliability analyses were
conducted to ensure that questions used in each scale were consistent within that
scale. Dependent (paired) t tests were used to compare the intervention group’s
pretest and posttest scores on hazing knowledge, intentions to haze, intentions to
prevent hazing and exploratory questions. Independent t tests were conducted to
compare both the pretest scores and posttest scores of intervention group to the
control group across all variables. The independent variable in the between groups
t tests was group (control or intervention) and the dependent variables were hazing
knowledge, intentions to haze, intentions to prevent hazing, and exploratory questions. All data were entered into Minitab 16 Statistical Software (2011) for analysis.
To evaluate the effect size of each t statistic, eta-squared calculations were performed
with the general guideline that an eta-square of .01 = small, .06 = moderate, and
.14 = large effect (see Cohen, 1988).
For the qualitative analysis of the open-ended definition question the key terms
considered necessary in the qualitative evaluation of meeting the criteria for the
operational definition of hazing suggested by Hoover (1999) were abuse, humiliation, and the willingness of the participant. The key terms necessary in the evaluation
of meeting the criteria of the definition used by the university recreational sports
program were the mention of physical and psychological abuse. The primary and
secondary researchers separately coded all responses as correct or incorrect for both
operational definitions. In the case of any disagreement in analyzing definitions, a
third professional familiar with hazing was asked to make the final coding decision.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Thirty-four club officers attended the educational workshop, with 32 (17 women;
15 men, 0 transgender) completing the pretest survey. Two officers arrived late for
the start of the workshop and missed the pretest survey and therefore were excluded
from the study. Only the 19 participants (11 women, 8 men, 0 transgender) who
completed the posttest survey after the workshop were included in the data analyses.
Respondents ranged in age from 19–22 (90%), 23–25 (5%), and 30 or older (5%).
The mean years played on each team was 2.4 (SD = 1.17). Respondents ranged
from having 2–30 years of sport participation (M = 9.42; SD = 7.31). Furthermore,
respondents ranged in classification from freshman (1), sophomore (5), junior (4),
senior (8) to graduate students (1). Lastly, 17 (89%) respondents reported their
ethnicity as Caucasian, while 2 (11%) preferred not to respond.
The control group consisted of a self-selected convenience sample of 44 (24
women, 20 men, 0 transgender) sport club athletes. Respondents ranged in age
from 18 years (5%), 19–22 (77%), 23–25 (16%), and 26–29 (2%). The mean years
Examination of a Hazing Workshop Intervention 119
played on each team was 1.9 (SD = 1.11). Participants ranged from 0.5 to 20 years
of sport participation (M = 5.6; SD = 4.74). Respondents ranged in classification
from freshman (9), sophomore (11), junior (8), senior (14), to graduate students (2).
Lastly, respondents ranged in ethnicity from Caucasian (31; 70%), Black/African
American (3; 7%), Multiracial (3; 7%), Latino/Latina/Hispanic (2; 5%), Biracial
(2; 5%), Other-Eskimo (1; 2%), and 2 (5%) preferred not to respond.
Hazing Knowledge
Means, standard deviations and t statistics can be found in Table 1 and Table 2.
All t values were found to be statistically significant at the < .05 level indicating
that the intervention group had higher hazing knowledge scores than the control
group at both the pretest and posttest. Further, the intervention group’s posttest
knowledge scores were higher than the pretest scores. Interestingly, scores from
the pretest intervention group and control group indicated one response item that
was answered more incorrectly than other response items. “Requiring new team
members to carry water bottles is considered hazing” was answered correctly
(i.e., True) by only 47% of the intervention group at pretest, while 100% of the
group answered this question correctly at posttest. Only 34% of the control group
respondents answered the same question correctly.
Table 1 Hazing Items Means and Standard Deviations for
Intervention (Pre- and Posttest) and Control Groups
Intervention (n = 19)
Pretest
Posttest
Hazing knowledge
M
SD
Intentions to haze
M
SD
Intentions to prevent hazing
M
SD
Policy awareness
M
SD
Where to report hazing
M
SD
Supply with activities
M
SD
Control (n = 44)
15.90
0.88
16.52
0.51
15.16
1.26
38.26
7.18
39.32
6.39
38.93
6.18
19.79
4.32
19.37
4.55
19.57
2.90
3.58
1.07
4.05
0.52
3.30
1.13
3.16
1.34
4.32
0.58
3.09
1.33
2.90
0.99
3.42
0.83
3.00
1.20
120 Capretto and Keeler
Table 2 Summary of Hazing Item Paired and Independent Sample
t test Statistics for Intervention (Pre- and Posttest) and Control
Groups
Knowledge
Prepost
Precontrol
Postcontrol
Intentions to haze
Prepost
Precontrol
Postcontrol
Intentions to prevent hazing
Prepost
Precontrol
Postcontrol
Policy awareness
Prepost
Precontrol
Postcontrol
Where to report hazing
Prepost
Precontrol
Postcontrol
Supply with activities
Prepost
Precontrol
Postcontrol
t
p
df
η2
–3.62
2.69
6.18
0.00**
0.01**
0.00**
18
48
61
0.42a
0.13b
0.39a
–0.89
–0.35
0.22
0.38
0.73
0.83
18
30
33
0.04c
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.20
–0.18
0.76
0.84
0.86
18
25
24
0.01d
0.00
0.00
–1.84
0.95
3.63
0.08
0.35
0.00**
18
36
60
0.16a
0.01d
0.18a
–4.01
0.18
5.09
0.00**
0.86
0.00**
18
33
60
0.47a
0.00
0.30a
–2.54
–0.36
1.59
0.02*
0.72
0.12
18
41
48
0.26a
0.00
0.04c
Note. η2 = eta squared. Degrees of freedom (df) reflect t-test calculation with unequal variances assumed.
a
Large effect size (Cohen, 1988); b Moderate-large effect size; c Small-moderate effect size; d Small
effect size.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Intentions to Haze
Intentions to haze responses from the pretest and control groups combined resulted
in an Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.89 and posttest responses resulted in an alpha
coefficient of 0.94 indicating high interitem reliability. Therefore all questions were
kept in the scale for analyses. No statistical differences were found in intentions
Examination of a Hazing Workshop Intervention 121
to haze scores between the intervention pre- and postresponses or in the pre- and
postcomparison with the control group (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations, see Table 2 for t statistics).
It was observed that a ceiling effect may have occurred for two items: 1) “What
is the likelihood that you would personally require new members to participate in
the following initiation activities during your next season-A physically abusive
task?”; and 2) “What is the likelihood that you would personally require new members to participate in the following initiation activities during your next season-A
sexually abusive task?” Responses for each item ranged from 3 (uncertain) to 5
(very unlikely) suggesting that no respondents were likely or very likely to conduct
the two behaviors. The two items were therefore eliminated from the comparison
analyses; however, there was no resulting statistical change.
Intentions to Prevent Hazing
Cronbach alpha analysis of the questions for the pretest and control groups combined revealed an alpha coefficient of 0.79 and an alpha coefficient of 0.90 on the
posttest responses, indicating high reliability for the intentions to prevent hazing
questions. Therefore all questions were kept in the scale for analyses. No t statistics
were found to be statistically significant for either the prepost comparison of the
intervention group or for the pre- and postcomparison with the control group (see
Table 1 for means and standard deviations, see Table 2 for t statistics).
Additional Analyses
Hazing Defined. The evaluation of the pre- and posttest responses, and control
group responses revealed that no responses matched that of Hoover’s definition
and only a small percentage of the pretest (1; <1%), posttest (5; 26%) and control
group (9; 20%) scores matched the definition used by the university sport clubs
program.
Exploratory Questions. A statistical significance difference was found between
posttest and control group policy awareness scores (see Tables 1 and 2). No other
comparisons for policy awareness were statistically different. It was observed that
intervention posttest scores for knowledge of where to report hazing were statistically higher than pretest intervention and control group scores. The intervention
group’s posttest alternative activity attitudes scores were also statistically higher
than pretest scores. All other comparisons for attitudes of alternate activities were
not statistically different.
Discussion
This was the first known empirical examination of a sport hazing intervention. It
was found that the educational workshop increased hazing knowledge for sport
club officers but did not affect intentions to haze or intentions to prevent hazing.
Additional analyses performed outside the proposed hypotheses also revealed that
122 Capretto and Keeler
the workshop intervention increased knowledge of where to report hazing and
alternative initiation activities to hazing for sport club officers.
Hazing Knowledge
It was hypothesized that administering a hazing educational workshop for sport club
officers would increase their knowledge of the subject matter from pre- to posttest.
Upon initial inspection, the intervention group had higher knowledge scores than
the control group at the onset of the study. Despite this difference, the hypothesis
was still supported as the intervention group increased their hazing knowledge
after the intervention and the increase had a large effect (Cohen, 1988). This lends
evidence to Allan and Madden (2008) and Crow, Ammon Jr., and Phillips’ (2004)
suggestions that meetings or workshops would be an effective tool for increasing
hazing knowledge among athletes. The preexisting knowledge differences between
groups may have been due to the particular roles officers play in having to know
policies and procedures relating to the university and their status as a university
sport club. In addition, it may be attributed to having more experience on their team,
more experience in sport, and a greater percentage of upperclassman in officer
positions. A randomized controlled study is recommended for future research to
minimize initial group differences.
Intentions to Haze
It was hypothesized that by administering an educational workshop for sport club
officers, their intentions to haze would decline. No significant differences were
found between the intervention group before and after the workshop or between
the intervention group responses and the control group. The fact that differences
were not found may be explained in large part due to the low intentions to haze
that officers already had before the educational workshop. The low intentions may
have been attributed to a recently publicized hazing violation by a sport club team
at the participant’s university. Club officers may already have known the consequences to hazing as observed with this particular team (i.e., season suspension)
and decreased their intentions to haze as a result. Future research is needed in this
area with a wider scope and diverse student athlete populations.
Intentions to Prevent Hazing
It was also hypothesized that sport club officers would increase their intentions
to prevent hazing after the workshop intervention. No statistically significant differences were found within or between groups. Again, it could be that sport club
athletes already have high intentions to prevent hazing and thus a workshop may
not be effective in increasing those scores due to a ceiling effect. However, there
is a variety of evidence that suggests that hazing occurs at high rates in college
athletics. If athletes have low intentions to haze and high intentions to prevent
hazing, but are not preventing it when the opportunity presents itself, then hazing
interventions need to include possible assertiveness and/or safety training to help
the prevention process.
Examination of a Hazing Workshop Intervention 123
Additional Analyses
The analysis of the participant responses by the primary and secondary researchers
revealed that participants have varying opinions on what they define as hazing and
responses did not match two different operational definitions. This inaccuracy in a
common definition or understanding of hazing supports the findings by Kirby and
Wintrup (2002) and Crow and Macintosh (2009). Although a small percentage of
participants satisfied criteria for matching one of the two definitions used in the
present analysis, the majority of participants did not accurately define hazing. Those
participants who defined hazing accurately did have internet access while taking
the survey and may have searched for and used a definition of hazing from the web.
In actuality, two responses were identical and later determined to be copied from a
popular encyclopedia style website. Although clearly a limitation of administering
surveys electronically, researchers may be able to take some precautions to limit
plagiarism in future studies.
No differences were found within the intervention group or between the pretest
policy awareness scores and the control group. However, it was found that the effect
size was large for the intervention group from pretest to posttest (Cohen, 1988),
signifying an effect of some kind was observed. It is hypothesized that with a larger
number of study participants, differences may be found in policy awareness as a
result of attending a workshop. The workshop attendees did report greater awareness at posttest than the control group. It was found that the effect size was large
for this difference, signifying approximately 18% of the variance explained by the
two groups. This may be likely due to discussing the university recreational sport
hazing definition in the educational workshop for sport club officers. This positive
increase may support the claims by multiple researchers (e.g., Allan & Madden,
2008; CAMPUSPEAK, 2005; Hoover & Pollard, 2000, Keeler & Clement, 2006)
that providing educational materials may be effective in educating student-athletes
on hazing. Future research should include multiple follow-up examinations of
participants following an intervention to test the participant retention of the educational material.
The analysis of intervention responses before and after the workshop on where
to report acts of hazing revealed a large difference (Cohen, 1988) with workshop
attendees increasing their perceptions on this item after the workshop. This positive difference is likely due to the materials presented in the educational workshop
in reference to the participant’s university and where to go if one would need to
report acts of hazing. At onset, the intervention group did not differ to the control
group in knowledge of where to report hazing, but there was a large difference
found after the workshop with workshop attendees reporting higher scores than
the control group. Empowering students with knowledge of where to report hazing
acts may lead to a decrease in hazing overall. These findings support the need to
provide preventative hazing interventions on campus.
In previous research, Etzel and colleagues (2006), Hoover (1999), and Waldron (2010) reported that if administrators provide alternative initiation activities to student-athletes, acts of hazing might be thwarted. The findings from this
research may support their claims as there was a large positive difference found
in the intervention group responses from before to after the workshop. However,
124 Capretto and Keeler
further research is needed to measure the long-term effect of providing alternative
activities on actual number of hazing occurrences.
Limitations
Although the present investigation offers preliminary support for the effectiveness
of an educational hazing workshop on some aspects of hazing knowledge and
awareness, there were limitations. Before the workshop, intentions to haze and
prevent hazing were already low and high, respectively, for all respondents. These
high scores may indicate genuine good intentions of those involved; however, it
may also indicate that participants were responding in a socially desirable manner.
Given the secrecy of hazing behavior (Hoover & Pollard, 2000; Kirby & Wintrup,
2002), social desirable answers may be a common occurrence in hazing research.
Inclusion of a social desirability detection scale, such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) during pre- and postassessments
while assessing interventions may be necessary to help discern honest responses.
There were limitations related to the web-based administration of the assessments. Following the administering of the educational workshop, the link to the
postworkshop survey was not operational and immediately available to workshop
participants. Therefore, the primary researcher dismissed the participants and sent
an operational link to the survey the following day. Ultimately, this led to a smaller
sample size for the intervention group at posttest and may have impacted the
results. Despite these limitations, preliminary evidence has been found to support
implementation of educational workshops aimed at improving hazing knowledge
and awareness among collegiate sport club athletes; however, future studies are
necessary to expand the generalizability of the findings beyond one university’s
sport club program.
Implications and Future Research
Based on the present findings, it is recommended that hazing educational workshops be used and evaluated as a component to annual presentations to studentathletes to increase their knowledge about the hazing phenomenon. In addition,
educational workshops that include specialized information relating to the specific
student-athletes’ university in question should be a component of the curriculum.
The recommendation to implement an educational workshop is made with the
stipulation that continued empirical testing be included to determine effectiveness.
Future research on evaluating athletic hazing educational workshops or any
type of hazing prevention technique for student-athletes should include diverse
populations of athletes. It is unclear if there are differences in hazing knowledge
and intentions between intramural, club and varsity athletes or between NCAA
and other division levels. Likewise, expanding the number of participants in an
educational workshop to include additional universities may assist with evaluation
and effectiveness purposes, as well as provide researchers with statistical power
to detect mean differences. In addition, longitudinal studies may be necessary to
investigate whether providing alternative activities to hazing actually decreases
the prevalence of hazing among student-athletes. Following the educational workshop in this study, sport club officers had reported that if administrators provided
Examination of a Hazing Workshop Intervention 125
alternative activities to hazing, the prevalence of hazing would decrease on their
teams. Investigations in the relationship between providing such alternative activities
and prevalence of hazing would be beneficial to guide administrators. Overall, the
present investigation is the first known empirical testing of an intervention aimed
at affecting hazing in sport. Given the potentially serious negative consequences
of hazing, similar studies should be undertaken.
References
Allan, E.J., & Madden, M. (2008). Hazing in view: College students at risk. Retrieved from
http://www.hazingstudy.org/publications/hazing_in_view_web.pdf
CAMPUSPEAK. (2005). National hazing prevention week resource guide. Retrieved from
http://www.chaptertools.net/site_files/12196786382047596355.pdf
Chico State Recreational Sports. (2010). Competitive club handbook: 2010-2011.
Coakley, J. (2007). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (9th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Crow, B., Ammon, R., Jr., & Phillips, D.R. (2004). Anti-hazing strategies for coaches and
administrators. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 17(4), 13–15.
Crow, R.B., & Macintosh, E.W. (2009). Conceptualizing a meaningful definition of hazing in sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9, 433–451.
doi:10.1080/16184740903331937
Crow, R.B., & Rosner, S.R. (2002). Institutional and organizational liability for hazing in
intercollegiate and professional team sports. St. John’s Law Review, 76(87), 87–114
Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358
Etzel, E.F., Watson, J.C., Visek, A.J., & Maniar, S.D. (2006). Understanding and promoting
college student-athlete health: Essential issues for student affairs professionals. NASPA
Journal, 43(3), 518–546.
Hazing Education Initiative (2006). How much do you know about hazing? [Quiz and
answers]. Retrieved from Florida State University, Hazing Education Initiative website:
http://hazing.fsu.edu/HAZING%20QUIZ%20COMPLETE.pdf
Hazing Prohibition Act of 2003, 1207 H.R. Res. ξ ξ 484-485 (2003). Retrieved from http://
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.1207.IH
Hoover, N. (1999). National survey: Initiation rites and athletics for NCAA sports teams.
Retrieved from Alfred University website http://www.alfred.edu/sports_hazing/docs/
hazing.pdf
Hoover, N.C., & Pollard, N.J. (2000). Initiation rites in American high schools: A national
survey. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/PDFS/ED445809.pdf
Howard, A., & England Kennedy, E. (2006). Breaking the silence: Power, conflict, and
contested frames within an affluent high school. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,
37, 347–365. doi:10.1525/aeq.2006.37.4.347
Keeler, L.A., & Clement, D. (2006). College students’ perceptions of hazing in athletics and
the effectiveness of high school hazing policies and consequences at reducing hazing.
Contemporary Athletics, 2(1), 29–45.
Kirby, S.L., & Wintrup, G. (2002). Running the gauntlet: An examination of initiation/hazing and sexual abuse in sport. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8(2), 49–62.
doi:10.1080/13552600208413339
126 Capretto and Keeler
Matt’s Law. 1454 Cal. S. Bill ξ 245.6 (2006). Retrieved from http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/0506/bill/sen/sb_1451-1500/sb_1454_bill_20060223_introduced.html
Notes on hazing from two states. (1927, December). Journal of Education, 106, 560.
Pearson, D.R., & Beckham, J.C. (2005). Negligent liability issues involving colleges and
students: Balancing the risks and benefits of expanded programs and heightened supervision. NASPA Journal, 42(4), 460–477 Retrieved from NASPA Journals database.
Popke, M. (2000, May). Rite answers. Athletic Business [Electronic version]. Retrieved from
http://athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=74&zoneid=9
Popke, M. (2003, December). Uncivil rights. Athletic Business [Electronic version]. Retrieved
from http://athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=677&zoneid=33
Steinbach, P. (2000, July). Off-season healing. Athletic Business [Electronic version]. Retrieved
from http://athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=129&zoneid=4
Steinbach, P. (2006, May). Head games. Athletic Business [Electronic version]. Retrieved
from http://athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=1201&zoneid=8
Stophazing.org. (2010). State anti-hazing laws. Stophazing.org: Educating to eliminate
hazing. Retrieved from http://www.stophazing.org/laws.html
Van Raalte, J.L., Cornelius, A.E., Linder, D.E., & Brewer, B.W. (2007). The relationship
between hazing and team cohesion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30, 491–507.
Waldron, J.J. (2010). Reducing hazing in sport teams. Retrieved from http://appliedsportpsych.org/Resource-Center/Coaches/Articles/hazing-teams