This blog is intended to be used as a coaching resource, it gives the reader the background theory behind what aggression in sport is and the related theories. It then suggests potential strategies the coach, athlete and both together could implement to help reduce aggression in their sporting environment.
This blog is a coaching resource to aid both athletes and coaches to gain a better understanding of aggression within the sporting environment and how it can be controlled. It aims to give a comprehensive definition of aggression then look at the theories behind the principle of aggression using relevant academia to provide evidence behind the content. The types of aggression will be covered using sport specific examples to reinforce the difference between these. Finally the situations in which aggression can occur and the significance of controlling aggression for both the coach and athlete will be covered, with strategies for each to cope with reducing aggressive behaviour.
Before aggression is defined here is an interesting thought to contemplate, why is it that that some sporting performers act so aggressively and act immorally while performing yet they don’t in society? Bredemeier & Shields (1986) described this temporary suspension of everyday morality in sport as Bracketed Morality.
The Ottawa Senators player has sustained a heavy eye injury duting the fight with a Boston Bruins player
Connelly (1988) states competition usually requires some sort behaviour that is intense and requires a forceful effort in order to participate, however when this forcefulness goes too far it becomes aggression.
There are various definitions of the term aggression but one that is generally accepted within sports psychology is Baron and Richardson (1994) who state that it is “Any form of behaviour towards the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment”. Aggression is not only the conventional physical form you may think of, verbal acts can also be classified as aggressive behaviour.
Gill (1986) identified 3 key factors for an act to be aggressive, these are:
The act must actually happen either physically or verbally, the act of thinking an aggressive action is not enough.
It must harm another person either physically or emotionally e.g. physically hitting someone with a baseball bat or emotionally by smashing a racket on the floor which causes anxiety in the other performer.
It must be an intentional action, sometimes this will be pre-meditated.
Others have also suggested that it has to be outside the rules of the sport.
Aggression is a broad principle with many aspects to it. Tenebaum et al (1997)state that aggressive behaviour can be classified according to the primary reinforcement sought via the act. There are 2 types of aggression both with different reinforcements behind them; these are Hostile and Instrumental aggression (Husman & Silva, 1984). The purpose of Hostile aggression is to soley harm somone (Woods, 2001) and Tenebaum et al (1997). This form of aggression is often known as “reactive aggression” as it can be spontaneous and is accompanied by anger (Woods 2001). A perfect illustration of this in sport is Roy Keane, see the BBC link then watch the video.
The second form of aggression is Instrumental aggression. Woods (2001) & Silva, 1980) state that instrumental aggression is a means to an end. Tenebaum et al (1997) secondthis sayingInstrumental aggression is where the major reinforcement is the achievement of a subsequent goal. This is also called channelled aggression and is not accompanied by anger (Woods, 2001) In the case of instrumental aggression, an athlete may intend to injure the opponent, but the most important goal to be achieved by the aggressive act is to win the competition, to be acknowledged by the coach etc. A sporting example would be a hard check by the enforcer in ice hockey. The action is within the rules and the player isn’t solely intending to injure the player, their actual motivation is to put them out of the game so their team has the best chance of winning.
A check in has intent to harm but the motivation behind this is not solely to cause harm but to gain an advantage.
Often acts in sport are coined as aggressive but in fact the player is actually displaying Assertive behaviour. This is defined as behaviour that involves the use of legitimate physical or verbal force to achieve ones purpose” (Silva, 1980) e.g. sledging in cricket to cause psychological discomfort for the batsman. For an act to be assertive it must be goal directed with no specific intention to harm with the use of legitimate force with no rules broken (Silva, 1980, Woods, 2001, Husman & Silva 1984, Silva 1979).Thirer, (1994) also states the distinction is that the intent, when one is being assertive, is to establish dominance rather than to harm the opponent. Any physical injuries that may occur via assertive behaviour is accidental and an unintentional by-product
Wiggins-James et al (2006) states it is important to realise that acts of aggression may be interpreted differently depending on the nature of the sport. For example a player punching another in Tennis is unacceptable but in boxing it is a vital component of the sport. In terms of aggression necessity in sport Smith, (1983) suggested the perceived legitimacy of aggression in sport has been defined as the extent to which aggression and violence in sport are perceived to be necessary, good, or justified.
The term aggression is commonly used in modern sports as Husman and Silva (1984), noted, such behaviour requires unusual energy and effort, which in most other social settings would appear to be aggressive behaviour. Aggression is also misused in sports commentary as it is in the wrong context because the performer may actually be showing forceful behaviour rather than aggression (Wiggins-James, 2006).
Coaches also misuse the term as it has been noted that coaches frequently use the term aggression and encourage aggressive behaviour by their athletes without meaning behaviour that intends to harm (Connelly, 1988) what they actually mean is to be assertive. Lange and Jakubowski (1976) have also highlighted this lack of differentiation as their study indicated that some people mistake assertiveness for rudeness or even aggression.
When dealing with aggressive and assertive behaviour there is always an area of ambiguity see fig 1, Connelly (1988) notes that is always the possibility that an athlete may exhibit legal behaviour with an underlying intent to cause injury.
To fully understand aggression it would be beneficial to look at what actually causes it in the first place. Below is a list of factors that cause aggression,
Nature of the sport – Is the sport Contact or Non contact? Contact sports have a higher chance.
Rivalry - This can be either between teams or certain players.
The Event – What is its importance? Are there any expectations?
Score – The larger the differential the increased chance of aggression.
Extrinsic Rewards – e.g. Do they get monetary/win bonus? For a good example see the New Orleans Saints Bounty Video.
There are 3 main theories regarding aggression in sport these are Instinct Theory, Frustration-aggression Theory and Social Learning Theory (SLT).
Instinct Theory
This was the first theory for aggression in sport and was defined by Freud, and Lorenz (1966). This theory is based on a nature approach; it argues that aggressive behaviour is innate, genetically inherited and as a result inevitable. It suggests aggression is due to our evolutionary development, our life instinct and our death instinct. Aggression is a trait of our self destructive death instinct and this clashes with our life instincts until it is balanced.
The theory suggests aggression is built up and needs to be released to maintain our well being. This aggression can be directed towards another person or displaced and it argues that sport allows this release through a Catharsis. Rather than releasing our aggression in an inappropriate place we may wait until a more appropriate time to release it, and we use displacement when we want to do something that we know is not acceptable, If your boss at work makes you angry you may want to hurt them but you resist so the sporting environment provides the perfect opportunity to release this aggression. We re-direct this emotional response from a dangerous target to a safe one (Woods, 2001).
However the theory has Criticisms:
Levels of aggression actually tend to increase in sport not decrease as Freud suggests (Berkowitz,1972).
No innate aggressive characteristics have ever actually been found and there has never been any support found for Catharsis.
Aggressive sports players often don’t show the same aggressive characteristics in society away from their sport.
Aggressive behaviour is often learnt and is linked to culture not just innate.
Frustration-Aggression Theory
Dollard et al (1939) suggested an interactionist approach toward aggression, they argued that aggression is partly due to innate characteristics as Freud (1950) suggests but it is also partly learnt from others. A performer becomes aggressive when the goal is blocked and this leads to frustration in the performer and eventually aggression. They state that frustration will always lead to aggression and aggression is always caused by frustration.
An example could be a performer’s aggression drive increases due the opponent playing well. As a result frustration in the performer increases so they commit an aggressive act e.g. a personal foul in basketball, the player is then satisfied as there has been a cathartic release, however if the performer is punished for the act then further aggressive acts may follow.
The Frustration-aggression Theory
The main criticisms of the theory include:
Not all frustration leads to aggression.
Not all aggressive behaviour is caused by frustration some behaviours are learnt.
It doesn’t account for situational factors or individual differences.
Miller (1941) also argued factors such as fear of retaliation, respect for another person or fear of penalties for aggression might stop someone who was frustrated from becoming aggressive.
Berkowitz (1969) then revised the Frustration-aggression theory and came up with the Cue Arousal Theory.
Berkowitz (1969) states being frustrated heightens one's predisposition toward violent actions. Contextual factors come into play and how an individual interprets the situational cues at hand best predicts whether this athlete will exhibit aggression. This incorporates learning and arousal into the explanation for aggressive behaviour. Frustration causes an increase in arousal but aggression only occurs if there are socially acceptable cues present. For example if the coach reinforces behaviour or if the performer thinks there is no official watching.
Berkowitz’s (1969) Cue Arousal Theory
Berkowitz (1969) also proposes that sport related cues are more likely to increase aggression:
People associated with aggressive acts (a coach, player or fans)
Sports associated with aggression (contact sports)
Places associated with violence (a venue linked to previous experiences of violence acts)
Objects associated with aggression (bats, boxing gloves etc)
Criticism:
Tajfel (1978) suggested that people may be aggressive simply because they are in a situation where aggression is legitimate or where somebody is seen as legitimate target for aggression.
If this theory is correct then it may explain why some players are able to maintain composure and control their arousal levels and not act aggressively.
Social Learning Theory (SLT)
Bandura (1973) adopts the nurture approach, rejecting the idea that aggression is innate and proposes that aggressive behaviours are learnt through observation and copying actions. In essence, aggression is primarily a learned behaviour which is the result of an individual's interactions with his or her social environment over time (Bandura, 1973) so here catharsis has no place. If this copied action is reinforced (by coaches, fans, team mates or parents) then it is repeated in similar situations, this is known as a Vicarious Experience. It is also based on the premise that aggressive behaviour is acquired via operant conditioning. Operant conditioning occurs when one is reinforced or rewarded for performing a behaviour.
Vicarious Experience (Wiggins-James 2006) is the process of watching other performers and copying their actions, it is more likely to be successful if the model is a significant other or someone of a similar ability. Research concerning vicarious catharsis specifically suggests that individuals tend to be more aggressive after observing aggression in the sport world (Tenebaum et al, 1997).
If a performer sees a role model in the media not being punished for aggressive acts or play, then they feel that this is acceptable behaviour and imitate it. This view is supported by Silva (1984) who says that one of the main promoters and maintainers of aggressive behaviour in sport is vicarious reinforcement with "the tendency to repeat behaviours that we observe others rewarded for performing." Conversely, "we are less likely to perform a behaviour that we have seen another individual being punished for doing."
Criticism:
It does not fully explain how some people may be aggressive without observing others if placed in a particular situation.
It does not explain how the same people can observe an aggressive act and the majority will not produce an aggressive response and only a minimal number will mimic the action (Stafford-Brown et al, 2007).
Whilst there are negative characteristics to SLT it should be viewed that if players can be taught negative behaviour they can conversely be taught acceptable behaviour so therefore it is possible to control arousal levels and modify behaviour if correct reinforcement is provided.
One key strategy is to punish aggressive players using penalties e.g. monetary fines or threatening their status as a starter or squad member in general. The reasoning for this is that Tenebaum et al (1997) suggests “aggression occurs in sport where the reward value outweighs punishment value” so to counteract this Tenebaum et al (1997) makes the recommendation that coaches should make fundamental penalty revisions so that rule-violating behaviour results in punishments that have greater punitive value than potential reinforcement.
Conroy et al. (2001) suggest, as the stakes of competition increase, players may perceive that the reinforcement and punishment structures within their sport are simultaneously changing to facilitate aggression. Duda, Olson, & Templin (1991) also stated that winning has become an essential part of sport, and increased professionalism breeds an atmosphere of “winning at all costs." The traditional causes of sport engagement, such as fun and fair play, appear to have decreased substantially. Research has shown that when athletes place a strong emphasis on beating others, they are more likely to endorse cheating and perceive intentionally injurious acts as more acceptable.
This is in line with a study by Visek and Watson (2005) who discovered in their investigation of ice hockey players that as they increased in age and competitive level, there was a correspondingly increasing trend in their perceived legitimacy of aggressive ice hockey behaviour and their attitudes about sport tended to become increasingly professionalized. So the longer a player remains in the sport and the more important the contest, the more professionalized he may become with an increased emphasis on winning at the cost of fairness, equity, and sports personship.
Another strategy a coach can use is positive reinforcement and reward for non-aggressive behaviour with athletes who show non aggressive behaviour being praised and publicised as good role models. According to Morra and Smith (1995), aggression in ice hockey can be traced to the National Hockey League (NHL). Recent headlines cite professional teams setting records for penalty minutes and extreme player aggression. If the NHL serves as the pinnacle of the sport, it is reasonable to expect that younger players may emulate the professionals. So if we highlight positive role models and reward these for their actions then young performers get a positive person to base their vicarious experiences on. A perfect role model to reinforce this is Gary Lineker who throughout his entire footballing career never received a yellow card.
Gary Lineker is a greater positive role model
Tenebaum et al (1997) suggests Coaches/managers should encourage athletes to engage in pro-social behaviour like visiting community projects and get the club and general media to help reinforce and highlight this positive message. This strategy is so important because as Cox (2007) maintains at the moment some of the most influential people in sport actually promote rather than discourage violence because it sells tickets. Strategies like this would allow the athletes to see the benefits of their positive work which would hopefully then encourage younger athletes and the general public to follow in the same actions.
Coaches also need strategies in place to prevent themselves turning to aggression. Recently the coach of Fiorentina attempted to attack one of his players, subsequently he has been sacked over the incident.
Cox (2007) also suggested coaches who promote aggression should be fined or suspended and this is exactly what has happened to the NFL’s New Orleans Coaching staff who have received various suspensions without pay over their involvement in the Bounty programme
A strategy that athletes themselves can implement is increased peer pressure. Individually and collectively they can encourage positive play and highlight responsibility to their team so discouraging aggressive play. This would encourage the team as a whole as they would observe a fellow respectable member acting in the correct way and it would also in turn make the athlete themself more aware of their behaviour.
Tenebaum et al (1997) suggests athletes should take part in programs aimed at helping them reduce behavioural tendencies toward aggression. The tightening of rules and imposing of harsher penalties is only part of the answer to inhibiting aggression in sport. Ultimately there needs to be a changing of reinforcement patterns and the athlete must assume responsibility for their behaviour.
Strategies to reduce Aggression: Both the Coach & Athlete
A crucial strategy that both the coach and athlete can use is to decrease arousal by employing relaxation methods. The coach can teach or provide the opportunities to learn these techniques and the athlete can go away and implement these techniques into their lives. In terms of the athlete they can substitute negative thoughts with positive ones and break the habit of aggressive responses so when they start to feel angry they say “STOP!” (Woods, 2001). Finally they can use Somatic stress management techniques such as Self Talk and Deep Breathing or Cognitive methods like Imagery before the competition (Wiggins-James 2006).
Another approach is to reduce the importance of the event and winning by setting performance rather than outcome goals. In modern sport there is an over emphasis on winning which has increased aggressive tendencies. If there is a return to valuing fair play and emphasis on trying your hardest then aggression would decrease (see John Wooden, excellent coach on this philosophy). Outcome goals are those that judge an athlete against others and the end result e.g. whether they win or not, Performance goals are goals used by the athlete to judge their performance against their standards not against another competitor (Wiggins-James, 2006) e.g. whether they achieved an agreed number of passes. This strategy then allows the athlete to change the focus of attention away from winning which distracts them from the aggression stimuli which are increased by the pressure of outcome goals (Woods, 2001).
Conclusion
To conclude there are 3 main theories of aggression; Instinct, Frustration-aggression and Social Learning Theories with the later revised Frustration-aggression theory to Cue Arousal Theory. These all have extensive research as to why aggression occurs in sport however the Cue Arousal Theory is probably the most accurate as it combined both aspects of innate aggression and learnt aggression. Coaches and athletes need to recognise the distinction between aggressive behaviour and the more valued assertive behaviour. Finally all of the current research supports that aggression in sport always causes a negative correlation with performance so it is vital that any coach or athlete that wants to be successful follows the suggested strategies put forward within the relevant academia.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analyses. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1979). The social learning perspective: Mechanisms of aggression. In H. Toch (Ed.), Psychology of crime and criminal justice (pp. 198-236). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Baron, R.A., Richardson, D.R (1994) Human Aggression, New York, Plenum.
Berkowitz, L, (1969), Roots of aggression: A re-examination of the frustration-aggression hypothesis, New York: Atherton.
Berkowitz, L (1972) Sports, Competition, and Aggression, In I,D, Williams and L, M, Wankel (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Canadian psychomotor learning and sport psychology symposium (PP, 321-326) Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo.
Bredemeier, B.J., & Shields, D.L. (1986). Athletic aggression: An issue of contextual morality. Sociology of Sport Journal, 3, 15-28.
Conroy, D.E., Silva, J.M., Newcomer, R.R., Walker, B.W., & Johnson, M.S. (2001). Personal and participatory socializers of the perceived legitimacy of aggressive behavior in sport. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 405-418.
Cox, R (2007) Sport Psychology: Concepts and Applications, 6th ed., London, McGraw Hill.
Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Duda, J.L., Olson, L., & Templin, T. (1991). The relationship of task and ego orientation to sportsmanship attitudes and the perceived legitimacy of injurious acts. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 62, 79-87.
Gill, D.L (1986) Psychological Dynamics of Sport, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers (chapter 12).
Husman, B.F., & Silva, J.M. (1984). Aggression in sport: Definitional and theoretical considerations. In J.M. Silva & R.S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport, (pp. 246-260). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lange, A.J., & Jakubowski, P. (1976). Responsible assertive behavior: Cognitive/behavioral procedures for trainers. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. New York: Harcourt Brace
Miller, N.E. (1941). The frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychological Review, 48,337- 342.
Morra, N., & Smith, M.D. (1995). Interpersonal sources of violence in hockey: The influence of the media, parents, coaches, and game officials. Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp.142-155). Madison: Brown & Benchmark.
Silva, J. (1979). Changes in the affective state of guilt as a function of exhibiting proactive assertion or hostile aggression. In G.C. Roberts & K.M. Newell (Eds.), Psychology of motor behaviour and sport-1978. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Silva, J.M. (1980). Assertive and aggressive behavior in sport: A definitional clarification. In C.H. Nadeau, R. Halliwell, K.M. Newell, & G.C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior in sport—1979 (pp. 199-208). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Smith, M.D. (1983). Violence and sport. Toronto: Butterworth & Co.
Thirer, J. (1993). Aggression. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Hand-book of research on sport psychology (pp. 365-378). New York: Macmillan.
Wiggins-James, N, James, R, Thompson G (2006) A2 PE for AQA, Oxford, Heinmann..
Woods, B (2001) Psychology In Practice, Abingdon, Oxon, Hodder & Stoughton.
