AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE IN SPORT:Defining Aggression, Catharsis hypothesis

<< ETHICS IN SPORT PSYCHOLOGY:Competence, Integrity, Social Responsibility

AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE IN SPORT:The Catharsis Effect, Fan Violence >>

Sport Psychology(psy407)

Lesson 33

AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE IN SPORT

A number of critical questions come to mind as one contemplates the issue of sport aggression. Does

participating in or observing violent sporting events serve as a catharsis, or release from aggressive

tendencies? Conversely, do these events merely teach and encourage further aggression on and off the

playing field? Is it possible to eliminate aggression and violence from sports? If so, how?

In the following two lectures we will be discussing aggression and violence in sport. Topics to be addressed

include:

Defining aggression

Theories of aggression

Catharsis hypothesis

Measurement issues

Fan violence

Performance issues

Situational factors contributing to aggression

Reducing aggression in sport

Defining Aggression

Two factors must be presented in order for a behavior to be labeled aggression. First, the behavior must be

aimed at another human being with the goal of inflicting physical harm. Second, there must be a reasonable

expectation that the attempt to inflict bodily harm will be successful. Consequently, the following behaviors

are not really examples of aggression:

1. Doing destructive violence to an inanimate object such as a door or a water cooler.

2. Unintentionally injuring another person during athletic competition.

3. Aggressive behavior in which there is no chance for the intended victim to be injured (e.g.,

aggressor and victim are separated by bars or by teammates)

Over the years, two basic kinds of aggression have been identified. The first is hostile aggression. For

individuals engaged in hostile aggression, the primary goal is the injury of another human being. The intent

is to make the victim suffer, and the reinforcement is the pain and suffering that is caused. This sort of

aggression is always accompanied by anger on the part of the aggressor. A good example of hostile

aggression occurs when a cricket bowler throws a full-toss at the batsman who has angered him.

The second major kind of aggression is instrumental aggression. For individuals engaged in instrumental

aggression, the intent to harm another individual is present, but the goal is to realize some external goal

such as money, victory or prestige. The aggressor views the aggressive act as instrumental in obtaining the

primary goal. A parallel cricket example for instrumental aggression would be on in which the bowler has

been "ordered" by his coach to hit a batsman in retaliation for some earlier infraction. The bowler is not

necessarily angry at the batsman, but sees hitting the batsman as instrumental in achieving the team goal of

winning the game.

It must be emphasized that neither type of aggression is acceptable. The aggressor is guilty of purposely

inflicting harm with the intent to injure another person. This must be discouraged at all levels of

competition, especially the professional level, because young athletes everywhere emulate the pros.

A third category of behavior that is often confused with aggression is assertiveness, or assertive behavior.

Generally, when coaches encourage their athletes to be more aggressive, what they really want is that they

be more assertive. Coaches want their athletes to assert themselves and make their presence felt.

Sport Psychology(psy407)

Assertiveness involves the use of legitimate physical or verbal force to achieve one's purpose. However,

there is no intent to harm the opponent. Even if the opponent is harmed as a result of a tackle in soccer, it

is not necessarily aggression. It is merely assertive play, as long as it is within the sprit of the agreed-on rules

and the intent to harm is not present. Assertiveness requires the expenditure of unusual effort and energy,

but if there is no intent to harm, then any resultant harm is incidental to the game.

Theories of Aggression

Theories of aggression fall into four main categories:

Instinct theory,

Social learning theory

Theory of moral reasoning,

The frustration-aggression hypothesis.

Instinct Theory

Instinct theory is based upon the writings of Sigmund Freud and ethologists such as Konrad Lorenz, Freud

(1950) viewed aggression as an inborn drive similar to hunger , thirst, and sexual desire. According to Freud,

aggression is unavoidable since it is innate, but as with any drive it can be regulated through discharge, or

fulfillment. Since humankind is innately aggressive, it benefits society to promote athletic sports and games

that provide a socially acceptable outlet for aggression.

Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory posits that aggression is a function of learning and that biological drive and

frustration are inadequate explanations of the phenomenon. Acts of aggression serve only to lay the

foundation for more aggression, and do not result in reduction or purging of the drive to be aggressive.

Perhaps the leading advocate of social learning theory, relative to aggression, is Bandura (1973). Bandura

proposes that aggression has a circular effect, i.e., one act of aggression leads to further aggression. This

pattern will continue until the circle is broken by some type of positive or negative reinforcement.

Theory of Moral Reasoning and Aggression

Theory of moral reasoning proposes that an individual's willingness to engage in aggression is related to her

stage of moral reasoning. Since human aggression is viewed as unethical, this theory suggests that a

relationship a relationship should exist between the level of moral reasoning and overt acts of athletic

aggression.

Reformulated Frustration-Aggression Theory

As originally presented by Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mourer, and Sears (1939), frustration-aggression theory

proposes that aggression is a natural response to frustration, and that the aggressive act provides a catharsis,

or purging, of the anger associated with the frustration. Frustrations caused by events that are believed to be

arbitrary or illegitimate are particularly galling to athletes.

References

Cox, H. Richard. (2002). Sport Psychology: Concepts and Applications. (Fifth Edition). New York: McGraw-

Hill Companies

Lavallec. D., Kremer, J., Moran, A., & Williams. M. (2004) Sports Psychology: Contemporary

Themes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers

100

Table of Contents: