Hubris: Athletes, Perceptions of Authority, and Feelings of Invulnerability on a College Campus

The purpose of this research was to utilize the concept of hubris to frame a discussion of differences between collegiate athletes and collegiate non-athletes. Surveys were distributed to a collegiate student population that included both athletes and non-athletes and included questions that served as proxies for varying dimensions of hubris, such as perceptions of campus police (conventional authority structures) and taking measures of self-protection (feelings of invulnerability), while controlling for race and gender. Statistical results indicate that contrary to the previous ideas, college athletes have better perceptions of campus authority structures. Significant differences are identified and discussed between male athletes and male non-athletes; male athletes and female athletes; and minority athletes and minority non-athletes. In accordance with previous ideas, athletes take fewer measures of self protection relating to feelings of invulnerability. These conclusions are significant across racial categories and between male and female athletes, but do not relate to differences between female athletes and female non-athletes. As a way of interpreting the results, the author advocates the integration of interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks. INTRODUCTION With the increasing commercialization of college sports (Sperber, 2000; Upthegrove, Rosicigno, & Zubrinsky, 1999), elite athletes have the potential to develop larger-than-life personalities (Coakley, 2004). Indeed, Bob Knight and Bill Self (basketball coaches in the Big XII) both agree college sports has become a large, profitable industry as exemplified by the multibillion-dollar contract the NCAA has with CBS to air the men’s basketball tournament (“Knight, Big 12 coaches”). On a related note, Adler and Adler (1999) show how college athletes deal with the fame, spotlight, and attention of being elite athletes on a college campus. Oftentimes, athletes developed aggrandized views of themselves and were set apart from the rest of the collegiate community (Adler & Adler, 1999). As a result of being separated from their community setting, athletes have the potential to develop extreme personalities that do not strictly adhere to current norms, values, or laws of society. These extreme personalities may result in athletes’ feeling invulnerable and/or disobeying current authority structures. Cox (2007) states athletes and non-athletes differ based on many personality characteristics. Athletes often believe they are invincible, above the law, or incapable of being hurt (Goodman, 1995; McMahon, 2004). Elite athletes, especially in performance sports, exhibit more competitiveness (Cox, 2007) and thrill-seeking behavior, which demonstrates invincibility or invulnerability (Patel & Luckstead, 2000). Examples of athletes engaging in high-risk behaviors include Ben Roethlisberger and Kellen Winslow (from the National Football League) and Corey Lidle and Thurman Munson (from Major League Baseball). Roethlisberger and Winslow were seriously injured while riding high performance motorcycles (“Browns GM: Risk-taking athletes,” 2006), while Munson and Lidle were killed piloting small airplanes (Weinbaum, 2006). In conjunction with feelings of invulnerability, some elite athletes have a decreased acceptance of current authority figures and structures, resulting in criminal activity, deviant behavior, and the belief that the “jock culture” supersedes current authority structures (Safai, 2002). Athletes engaging in deviant behavior and violating laws is nothing new in American culture (Leonard, 1998). Elite athletes displaying a pride-driven arrogance, an inflated sense of self, and decreased acPage 4 THE SMART JOURNAL