Ah! An emotion-filled, hectic week for passionate cricket lovers like us. Since the
telecast of the ball-tampering video during day 3 of the third test match between
Australia and South Africa at Newlands, Cape Town, a lot has transpired – cheating,
confession, punishment, and apology. These are not new to either sports or sports
psychology. Gender deception, bribery, match and spot fixing, doping and, the latest
hype, ball tampering are all well known.
Perhaps, tampering the cricket ball to extract enhanced reverse swing, although argued
for being a relatively lower level offence, fits best into the definition of “cheating,”
which is a “deceptive behavior intended to break the rules and make illegitimate gains.”[1]
Apart from match and spot fixing, where players are bribed mostly to underperform,
resorting to illegitimate means or cheating is driven by an ultimate motive to win.
The modern sport in general, not limited to any particular sport or team or individual,
has been criticized for their “winning at all cost” attitude.[2] Perhaps, this attitude
has been termed as “popular mythology” that is ruining the modern sports.[2
3] The Australian “win at all cost” attitude has been blamed, by the sports and telecast
media, as being the primary motivation behind the index “sandpaper-gate” cheating
saga. Indeed, “goal orientation” has been an important variable in sports psychology
research that is studied as a predictor of cheating. Grossly, two types of goal orientations
have been defined: (a) Task orientation, where the goal is mastering a skill or task
and (b) Ego orientation, where the goal is to attain success by outperforming an opponent.[4]
This “motivation-cheating” relationship in sports was very recently examined by Ring
and Kavussanu using an experimental design.[5] They reported that athletes having
higher ego orientation and lower task orientation use illegitimate means to win. Several
previous studies have uniformly found a positive correlation between ego orientation
and cheating among athletes, footballers, and tennis players.[6
7
8
9
10] Social learning theories have aided the moral growth in sports for a long time
now.[11] Mezirow's transformative learning theory, in particular, has been used to
transform “winning at all costs” perspective to a more acceptable, “give us back our
game” (GUBOG) perspective in sports.[12] GUBOG is an approach that aims at developing
sporting talent while maintaining the human rights and dignity of the sportsperson.
Interestingly, studies have also hypothesized that moral-antisocial attitudes mediate
the relationship between ego orientation and cheating.[5
6
7
8
9
10] Recently, Kavussanu and Stanger[13] reviewed the existing literature and endorsed
this relationship. A couple of other findings from that review are particularly interesting
in the current context. First, “anticipated guilt for acting antisocially inhibits
antisocial behavior.” This realization, however, seems to have come a little late,
when Steven Smith said “anytime you think about making a questionable decision, think
about who you are reflecting, you are reflecting your parents. And to see the way
my… old man is paining… and my mom… it hurts.” Second, “antisocial behavior brings
anger in teammates.” The way past cricketers, mostly Australians, reacted on this
issue reflects just this. By “antisocial behavior,” here, we precisely indicate the
tampering incident and genuinely believe that it was just a “slip” in the moral behavior
of those accused, and are not drawing any parallels onto the characteristics of antisocial
personality or pathology. Neither are we questioning the personal motivations of players
nor do we have any intention of demeaning the integrity of a team.
Now moving onto confession, punishment, and apology. All the three cricketers who
were found guilty in the “Newlands saga” have publically confessed their mistake and
sought apologies. “Apologies” have been put forth as to serve a role of “social lubrication.”[14]
It has also been observed that apologies can magically transform an act—from something
offensive into something acceptable.[15] Fascinatingly, psychological and neural bases
of how apology emolliates reactive aggression and promotes forgiveness are also being
experimentally studied.[16] While guidance based on conflict resolution and related
psychological aspects on “how” and “when” apologies should be given is available,[17]
we can never be certain whether or not these three cricketers took advice on giving
apologies. Consider the confessions made by Steven Smith and Cameron Bancroft immediately
after the incident (on the 3rd day of the test match) and the ones that came about
5 days later. A distinction is very much evident, isn't it? Social psychology literature
(although not directly related to sports) suggests that improper timing of an apology,
i.e., immediately after a transgression, invokes suspicion and raises questions about
its sincerity.[17
18] Results from experimental studies that used hypothetical situations have also
shown that later apologies were more effective and that this was mediated by a feeling
of being heard and being understood.[14] The later (emotion fueled) apologetic confessions
that came after a strict ban being imposed on them seem to be an attempt to convert
a relatively retributive punishment (where punishment is proportionate to crime) to
a restorative one (where offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their
actions and to repair the harm they have done)[19] and a plead for forgiveness, not
just from fans and fraternity, but also from authorities. Considering that the offence
has been committed against “cricket” and not just the opponent team, arguably, a retributive
punishment is a popular choice. However, should they agree to become the emissaries
of something like the GUBOG approach in cricket, a restorative judgment may well be
considered.
Significant emotional reactions were evident during these confessions, and it is important
to discuss them as well from a psychological perspective. The emotion that was displayed
portrays “repentance.” Perhaps, repentance and forgiveness are closely related.[20]
Socio-psychological research has shown that repentance leads to increased perceptual
validation, which is socially verifying that one is correct about one's interpretation
of an event and that such validation marks forgiveness.[21] Literature also suggests
that forgiveness restores baseline-prosocial orientation.[22] With a conception that
“sandpapergate” was just a slip in the morality of the sportspersons in question,
forgiveness hence becomes much more pertinent. Santelli et al.[23] had shown that
transgressor's repentance mediates victims' (in this case, cricket and sports' fans
and community) regulatory focus and their forgiveness of the transgressor.
On the other hand, with some sports journalists going on to even call the kind of
emotions “Hansie tears,”[24] alternate and more cynical views shall also be reflected
in this article. As we consider that antisocial affinities mediate cheating, such
affinities have also been found as major risk factors for susceptibility to false
confessions.[25] Although in a strict sense, they do not qualify for a “false confession,”
incompleteness and minimization have been speculated in the stereotypic public statements
made by the three cricketers. There are some descriptions in criminal psychology,
where suspects have made false confessions and accepted prosecution, in order to evade
stricter interrogations.[16] Intriguingly, experimental studies have shown that altruism
toward fellow group members is at play in false confessions.[26] Only time will tell
whether or not these confessions, perhaps not in a concrete sense, are closer to “altruistic
false confessions” that were made in order to protect other team members (members
of a larger “leadership” group), who might well be involved in the “plan,” from further
interrogations and punishments.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.