the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

Taylor-Hanson, in review). However, although a significant differences exist with females
scoring higher than males in these studies, females still do not use a very high level of reasoning
in making decisions. Thus it is of interest to examine underlying reasons concerning decisionmaking
and whether males and females use the same underlying structures to make moral
decisions.
Moral Reasoning of Athletic Training Students
Because intercollegiate sport has become so institutionalized over the past 150 years, a
large number of coaches, administrators, and medical personnel such as athletic trainers are
engaged in the daily practice of sport administration. While much research on moral reasoning
has occurred with athlete populations little in know about the moral reasoning of these other
athletic-related populations. Yet, because these individuals help set the environment and
standards of how sport participation should be carried out it becomes important to know more
about how they think and reason relative to how higher education institutions and the NCAA say
sport should be conducted.
Moreover, because one of the first lines of defense against doping at the collegiate,
Olympic, and professional levels should be the certified athletic trainer, it becomes important to
understand how athletic trainers and athletic training students reason about commonly occurring
and doping specific issues. While the responsibility athletic trainers includes the prevention and
care of athletic injuries, they are often called upon to deliver information and recommendations
about a variety of substances to curious, driven athletes. Additionally as the result of their
relationships with athletes, certified athletic trainers may be in the best position to provide
counsel and may be one of the first to suspect if an athlete is doping. However, recently
researchers have raised concerns about the ability of certified athletic trainers to reason from a
33