English Arsenal soccer fans beat a Galatasaray fan before the UEFA Cup final in central Copenhagen. (Kieran Doherty/Reuters)

Aggression and Violence in Sport

Materials presented here are based on discussions by Coakley (1994); Leonard II (1998); LeUnes & Nation (1996); McPherson & Curtis (1989); Pargman (1998); Wann (1997). See end of page for additional sources and a list of references.

The purpose of this article is to

• introduce little (and big) league parents to the theories and facts about the sources and character of violent behavior in sports
• discuss moral and social implications of player and spectator aggression in and around sports settings
• provide suggestions to alleviate the ever growing problem of violent behavior in the sport milieu.

Introduction

The use of the word "aggression" is somewhat confusing. The term aggression is employed to describe angry violent behavior with intent to hurt a person or cause damage to property. "Aggressive" behavior is also used to depict a strong and somewhat adventurous effort. Thus an aggressive sales person or athlete, for example, may be perceived as obnoxious or violent by some and as motivated and hard working by others.

Theories of Aggression

CATHARTIC MODELS

The word 'catharsis' is derived from the Greek word 'katairein,' meaning 'to cleanse.' The expression of aggression in a controlled sport environment, according to cathartic models is an acceptable forum for the release of accumulated aggressive energy.

Instinct Theory

Instinct theory of aggression is based on works by Sigmund Freud and Konrad Lorenz.

Aggression, according to Freud (1950) is an inborn drive similar to sex or hunger. Aggression is an integral part of our existence and like any other drive, may be regulated through discharge or fulfillment.

Lorenz (1966) argues that humans like animals possess aggressive instincts. For example, we are innately predisposed to protect our safety and possessions. Biological instinct theory portrays humans as aggressive mammals that are driven by a biological instinct to fight, flight, or guard their mate, offsprings and territory. Thus, rather than overlook man's natural instincts when addressing remedies to acts of violence in society, Lorenz proposes that we consider controlled environments that allow the discharge of aggression in a positive societal context. Competitive games and sports, according to Lorenz (1966), are one example of a safe and socially acceptable outlet for pent-up aggression.

The enactment of aggression, according to the biological instinct theory, leads to the fulfillment of the need to be aggressive just as a hungry animal is satiated after a good feeding.

Questions Regarding Instinct Theory and the Catharsis Hypothesis

Berkowitz (1969, 1972) provided the following arguments:

• inadequate controlled systematic research
• use of ambiguous terms
• gross analogies and oversimplifications
• certain societies do not display aggressive behavior or include aggressive games in their culture.

The Frustration-Aggression (F-A) Hypothesis

A drive-based model of aggression was originally proposed by Dollard, Dobb, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears (1939). The F-A model posits that aggression is a universal reaction to frustration. Initially the F-A hypothesis predicted that:

• incidents of frustration lead to some expression of aggression, and
• acts of aggression result from some form of frustration

A crucial question in the F-A hypothesis researcher's mind is whether it is a biologically driven expression or is it a learned one?

Based on the view that all behavior is a by-product of various degrees of natural and environmental influences on the living organism, Berkowiz reformulated the initial F-A hypothesis. Thus, frustration does not automatically invoke aggression. Neither does exposure to aggressive models always lead to expressed aggression. Instead, Berkowitz postulated that frustration acts as a "readying mechanism" for an aggressive reaction. Frustration, and more frustration, gradually augment one's likelihood to display an aggressive response.

Berkowiz does not entirely dismiss the acute cathartic effect of expressed aggression. An aggressive reaction to a real or perceived provocation does, according to Berkowiz, result in a temporary feeling of relief. To describe the urge for a feeling of satisfaction following vented aggression, Berkowiz coined the term "completion tendency." Continuous reinforcement of one's completion tendency will lead to a learned expectation to "complete" each F-A cycle. This, however, is a vicious cycle; each completion cycle leads to a future expectation of the ability to vent one's frustrations. Thus, acute displays of aggression and a following relative calm lead to long term recurring incidents of gradually escalating "completion" needs.

Berkowitz's conclusion that biological instincts and learning are closely intertwined is crucial to the derivation of solutions to the problematic infiltration of aggressive behaviors into all levels of sport participation and competition. Young athletes promptly learn that they can get away with certain foul behaviors that they would otherwise find quite difficult to justify in an every day, off-the-field situation. In some cases small, and in other cases significant modifications to the existing rules would gradually inculcate newly learned, more restrained reactions to incidents of on-field (erroneous calls by contest officials, fouls, etc...) frustration provoked aggression.

Berkowitz's distinction between "legitimate" (no fault) and "illegitimate (at fault) aggression is an important dichotomy to a better understanding of aggression in the sport context. Hitting in football, choking in judo, and/or punching in boxing are all examples of legitimate, within the rules acts of aggression in sports. Yet, despite the physical and aggressive nature of sports, such as boxing and football, neither sport's rules would tolerate choking. On the other hand, the rules of judo or wrestling allow a variety of aggressive acts, such as, pinning down, throwing, choking etc... but do not permit hitting or punching. Soccer players legally engage in rough shoulder to shoulder contact but risk a warning or ejection for pulling on another player's shirt or pants.

The "threshold of tolerance" toward aggressive acts that fall within the twilight zone of the continuum between "legitimate" (no fault) and "illegitimate (at fault) aggression is an area that requires close and careful inspection. When, or under what circumstances, for example, may a hit in football be regarded as "legitimate" force and at what point, if any, it may be construed as "too much" and thus represent "illegitimate" force. I find the constant apparent abuse of the thin, and invariably clear line between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" aggression by athletes very frustrating. Most competitors are serious students of their game or sport. They are trained to push the limit, reach new heights--further raising the bar on the "legitimate" to "illegitimate" force continuum not excluded.

Two concrete examples of soccer rules that create fertile grounds for stretching the "threshold of tolerance" are the shoulder check and the slide tackle. Redefining the slide tackle in soccer as an illegal game strategy may not eliminate it from occurring in the game, but it may definitely help reduce excessively aggressive defensive play. A positive side effect resulting from such a change in game rules may be an added advantage to the offensive players. A less vulnerable attacker may be able to score more often--a sorely needed feature in the present game.

Social Learning Theory

While acknowledging the existence of physiological mechanisms for aggression and rage, Albert Bandura (1973, 1977) is strongly critical of the instinct and the F-A hypothesis of aggression. Bandura's work led him to believe that aggressive behaviors are modified and shaped by learning and experience and seldom represent the work of isolated biological instincts. Successful, unchallenged aggressive acts, according to Bandura, lead to further aggression. The circular pattern of aggression may continue and escalate until this vicious cycle is interrupted by a counteracting reinforcer.

Referring to Bandura's social learning theory of aggression, Cox (1990, p. 282) states that it "provides the single most viable explanation for the continued rise of aggression and violence in amateur and professional sports."

CATHARSIS IN SPORT RESEARCH

(1) Does athlete aggression lead to catharsis?

(2) Does spectator aggression lead to catharsis?

Sport Aggression and Psychological Constructs

AROUSAL AS THE "READYING MECHANISM" FOR HOSTILE AGGRESSION

Zillman, Katcher, & Milarsky (1972)--Subjects who were both aroused by exercise and angered by shock delivered the highest levels of electric shock to an accomplice. One speculation stemming from this report is that sports that involve high levels of arousal, and a substantial amount of contact, will also result in increased levels of hostile aggression.

GENDER AS THE "READYING MECHANISM" FOR HOSTILE AGGRESSION

The overwhelming majority of studies conducted on sport aggression involved only male subjects. More recent studies conducted in the sport and nonsport milieu present few differences between male and female athletes. In fact, the more competitive female become, the more they display "male like" aggressive attitudes and conduct. When females display a higher threshold for F-A it is often the outcome of our societal sexist socialization process. Still, under high stress and provocation women display a F-A response that is very similar to their male counterparts.

PERSONALITY AS THE "READYING MECHANISM" FOR HOSTILE AGGRESSION

The debate over the question whether there is a relationship between personality traits and aggressive behavior is on going. At the present time, the available data does not provide clear answers to this question.

GUILT AS THE "HINDER MECHANISM" FOR HOSTILE AGGRESSION

Genuine feelings of guilt may inhibit the recurrence of violent behavior. However, within the context of the "game frame" athletes often do not experience genuine feelings of guilt. Feelings of alienation between rival teams contribute to a dehumanization of the opponent. The degree to which opponents are treated as objects or obstacles to be overcome, rather than a human being who's role is to help elevate the level of the game, appears to be related to the degree of contact in the particular sport. For example, professional football players, boxers, basketball players, ice hockey players, soccer players, etc... expect various levels of physical contact in their game. Injuries that result from the use of excessive force in any of these sports are so prevalent that athletes expect to get hurt and hold the position that their opponents expect the same. The general attitude displayed by athletes in heavy contact sports is captured in the following cliche: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." If you're not ready to get hurt, go look for another game. Since violent injurious conduct is so "natural" to the game process, it is perceived as an unavoidable part of the game, and as such is regarded by many as a legitimate game strategy (intimidation--roughing up the quarterback is as a game strategy in football or shaking up the forward as a game strategy in soccer).

The use of excessive force and intimidation tactics are especially disturbing when rationalized and legitimized in youth sports. All involved in a typical youth soccer league in North America are still fairly fresh students of this game. Thus, errors in judgement by players, coaches, referees and parents are quite common. This reality creates fertile grounds for the brewing of F-A generated responses. Brushing aside inappropriate outbursts by players, coaches or parent toward the referee as incidents of the "heat of the moment," for example, may lead to later more frequent and serious incidents. Dealing with instances of verbal or physical aggression in a constructive manner will pave the way for a safer and more pleasant league experience to all involved.

Factors Promoting Hostile Aggression¹

¹This section is based on the thorough discussion found in LeUnes & Nation (1996, pp. 249-297)

PHYSICAL FACTORS

These factors seem to be facilitators of aggression. They interact with other variables to produce aggression in situations in which the likelihood of violent behaviors is high

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS

• Vicarious Reinforcement
• Vicarious Punishment (Hallo Effect)
• Role Models

DIRECT EXTERNAL REWARDS

Tangible Rewards -- Money, Cars, Women (groupies), Services...

Status Rewards --"Dr. Death," "the Bone Crusher," ...

Expression of injury (Pain and Intimidation): If it works "Why not give her/him some more? ..."

Deindividuation -- As density increases, personal identity and evaluation decreases and conformity to group norms increases (may lead to the dangerous "group think" phenomenon). Loss of personal responsibility (similar to the "Ringelmann Effect") occurs which leads to a higher threshold for tolerance of increased hostility and acts of violence.

Inurement to Violence --Increased tolerance to aggression resulting from over exposure.