Advertisement

A preliminary investigation of the decision making process towards match fixing

  • Vassilis BarkoukisEmail author
  • Lambros Lazuras
  • Panagiotis Kourelis
Article

Abstract

Match fixing represents a major threat to sport integrity and action is needed to tackle this phenomenon across levels and types of sport. The present study examined, for the first time, the psychological factors associated with athletes’ intentions to engage in match fixing, by utilizing the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Ninety nine athletes from team sports (M = 21.98 years, SD = 2.25) participated in the study and completed a survey measuring the variables of TPB (i.e., attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and intentions). The results of the analyses indicated that approximately 30% of the athletes reported that have been engaged in a match that they believe was fixed, and intentions to engage in match fixing were significantly associated with perceived social approval of match fixing among referent others. Further analysis showed that athletes with prior experience of match fixing also perceived stronger social norms in favor of match fixing as compared to athletes without such experience. Our findings are novel and have implications about the role of social norms in understanding and preventing match fixing in sport, and we provide specific recommendation for future studies and policy-making in this area.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Carpenter, K. (2012). Match-fixing: The biggest threat to sport in the 21st century? International Sport in Law Review, 2, 13–24.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harvey, A., & Levi, H. (2014). Don’t fix it. Players Questionnaire – Results & Analysis. FIFPro/Birkbeck.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behaviour: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behaviour: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bobek, D. D., & Hatfield, R. C. (2003). An investigation of the theory of planned behaviour and the role of moral obligation in tax compliance. Behavioural Research in Accounting, 15(1), 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chudzicka-Czupała, A., Grabowski, D., Mello, A. L., Kuntz, J., Zaharia, D. V., Hapon, N., et al. (2016). Application of the theory of planned behaviour in academic cheating research–cross-cultural comparison. Ethics & Behaviour, 26(8), 638–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2009). Using the theory of planned behaviour and cheating justifications to predict academic misconduct. Career Development International, 14(3), 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ntoumanis, N., Ng, J. Y., Barkoukis, V., & Backhouse, S. (2014). Personal and psychosocial predictors of doping use in physical activity settings: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 44(11), 1603–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. London: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forrest, D. (2012). The threat to football from betting-related. International Journal of Sport Finance, 7(2), 99–116.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(2), 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manning, M. (2009). The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 649–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviours are influenced by perceived norms: A test of the theory of normative social behaviour. Communication Research, 32(3), 389–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rimal, R. N., & Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Communication Theory, 25(4), 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behaviour. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201–234). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72(2), 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Education and Sport SciencesAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Sociology & PoliticsSheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations