Aggression

A sports commentator’s ‘definition’ of aggression is often different to that of the sports scientist. The scientist defines aggression as ‘behaviour with the intent to harm, often outside the rules of the game’. They regularly state that firm and committed play is ‘aggressive’ but this is what sports scientists would refer to as ‘assertion’. Aggression can be physical acts such as punching an opponent or verbal actions. The latter is an attempt to embarrass or mentally hurt an opponent.

Aggression is an intentional behaviour that involves intent to harm or cause injury to another individual, often outside the rules of the game.

Instrumental aggression is when the act of aggression involves intent to harm with the goal to win.

Hostile aggression is the actions or behaviours where there is intent to harm, and the primary goal is to harm, usually accompanied with anger.

Assertion is forceful or committed play (not aggressive) within the rules or laws of the game.

Types of Aggression

To differentiate between the different types of aggressive behaviour, psychologists have categorised aggression as being hostile or instrumental.

Hostile aggression is used to describe behaviours or actions where the primary goal is to injure an opponent. This type of aggression is often accompanied with anger and is usually viewed very badly by fellow performers and the press. Quite often the terms ‘lost it’ and ‘the red mist descended’ are used when hostile aggression is seen in sport. An example being when boxer Mike Tyson bit a chunk out of Evander Holyfield’s ear during a bout in 1997. Other examples are that of Roy Keane and his horrendous tackle on Alfie Haarland and Emmanuel Adebayor’s stamp on Robin Van Persie.

Instrumental aggression is used to describe an act where a performer ‘intends’ to harm their opponent; however, this behaviour is an ‘instrument’ to achieve another goal such as winning. This type of aggression is usually a calculated or ‘cold-blooded’ act which is not accompanied by anger. Instrumental aggression is sometimes encouraged by team-mates or coaches. For example players in contact sports are told to ‘hit their opponent hard’ or ‘take them out’ in the first 10 minutes of a match to ‘let them know you are there’.

Instinct Theory

Freud (1950) viewed aggression as an innate drive, a natural instinctual behaviour that we are all born with. This theory states that humans are biologically determined to act aggressively in an attempt to dominate those around them, a survival instinct. It is how one may react when feeling threatened, just like the head of a pride of lions, the alpha male will be aggressive when challenged by another member of the group. Instinct theory suggests that emotions cause aggressive feelings and energy to build up inside us. This energy is released by aggressive acts that release this pent up hostility, which enables us to be comfortable and stable. Activities like kick-boxing and cage fighting are supposed to provide an ideal opportunity for the release of this aggressive energy or cathartic release, enabling them to be non-aggressive in other situations. Being a trait theory, it is suggested that some people are born with aggressive characteristics that result in them being more aggressive than others, in sport and also in life in general, however, many researchers have criticised this view.

Social Learning

Bandura (1970) believed that aggression was not an innate characteristic but learnt behaviour. His experiments identified that we learn through watching and observing other people’s aggressive actions. When we learn through observing others the people we imamate are called models. Reinforcement is central to this learning; if the behaviour is rewarded or has a positive outcome, then it is more likely to be copied. If actions are reinforced by ‘significant others’ then replicating a model’s behaviours are more likely to occur. If people have negative consequences after behaving in a certain way or they are punished then modelling is less likely to occur.

Example of Social Learning Theory

Marty McSorley was an ice-hockey player for the Boston Bruins in the NHL for 17 years. He was renowned for his tough play and his unpredictable temperament, often being involved in fights on the ice. In his career he had nine suspensions for dirty and dangerous play, five of which were stick related. Reporters described him as a “ticking time bomb” and “a filthy player”. Late in the 2000 season, McSorley smashed his stick into opponent Donald Brashear’s head with just three seconds remaining in the game. Brashear was skating with his back to McSorley and suffered a concussion as a result. McSorley received a 23 game suspension which ended his career. Later in the same year, an exact replica of the incident occurred during a youth hockey game with a 15 year old player suffering severe concussion.

Frustration Aggression Hypothesis

Dollard et al. proposed the frustration-aggression hypothesis in 1939. They suggested that sports performers have a drive to achieve a goal when taking part in competitions. Most of the time the goal is outcome related, winning the game. However, the goal could be a process or performance goal, such as a wide receiver in American Footballer trying to find space to receive a pass or making a set number of completed passes in a game. An opponent tries to prevent the wide receiver from making the catches, being an obstruction that gets in the way of the receiver achieving their goal. The frustration-aggression implies that a performer will get frustrated if their goal is blocked and when frustration builds up this leads to a player being aggressive; maybe punching or elbowing the defender during a play. This aggressive behaviour acts as a catharsis for the built up frustration; thus making the player to feel better, enabling them to focus on the task at hand, reducing the likelihood of being aggressive. However, if the player is punished for aggression this often leads to further frustration.

Aggressive Cue

Due to the criticisms of the previous theories Berkowitz (1969) developed the aggressive cue theory of aggression. He proposed that frustration led to increased arousal and this in turn increased the likelihood of aggression. However, aggression only occurred if ‘socially learned cues’ were present. For example using the example above, the wide receiver may be being continually hit hard in tackles and this would increase arousal. They player may lash out against the opponent but only if his coach has previously tolerated this behaviour. However, if the player has learned that they will be punished by his coaches for acting aggressively the likelihood of aggression is reduced. Certain football fixtures seem to be associated with aggressive acts more than others. Local derbies in football result in red and yellow cards on the pitch and spectator violence off it. Frustration and arousal combined with fans encouraging players to ‘get stuck in’ means that aggressive acts are more frequently witnessed. Other aggressive cues can include:

• Playing against players who have a reputation for being unfair or dirty,
• Playing against opponents where there has been a history of unsavoury incidences (e.g. they were aggressive or had celebrated a previous win excessively) and
• Venues that may have been sites of previous aggression, such as local derbies.

Causes of aggression can include over-arousal, under developed moral reasoning and bracketed morality.

Coaches and players have a moral responsibility to reduce aggressive behaviours in sport, because they are role models for youngsters who play the sport. National Governing Bodies like the FA and RFU have a major role in reducing aggression and poor behaviour in professional players in an attempt to stop children learning aggressive behaviours from their heroes. Aggression is often a result of over-arousal, this can be manifested cognitive or somatic effects. Players and coaches can use cognitive techniques, which are methods that focus on psychological arousal; they are focused on the ‘mind’ of the performer.

Somatic methods focus on reducing physiological arousal. In controlling this arousal an aggressive performer may contain their aggressive tendencies and not act aggressively.

Coaches and managers can help to reduce the incidences of aggression by:

• Having performers agree to behaviour contracts.
• Punishing performers who are aggressive, even if they are not punished by the official at the time for example fines or suspensions. If a manager tells a player who is overly aggressive to leave the club this helps to show the other players that aggressive actions will not be tolerated.
• Substituting the player or changing their position/role.
• Giving aggressive players a position of responsibility, thus making them a role model, e.g. making them captain,
• Positively reinforce non-aggressive players. For example praise a player who makes a strong but fair challenge on an opponent.
• Show the players positive role models who are successful without being aggressive. For example Jonny Wilkinson always plays hard and rarely makes tackles that are outside the laws of the game.
• Educating the players about aggression; telling players why opponents try to wind them up and why it is important to play hard but fair may stop them getting aggressive.

Good referees can also help to reduce the amount of aggression shown by players. They can do this by talking to players and warning them that they will be sent off if they act aggressively and this could help to calm them down. Punishing players, for example sending them to the sin bin or in hockey giving them a green card, shows to other players that aggressive acts will not be tolerated. Giving sanctions early in the game also helps to control the players. Being consistent with implementing the rules and making good decisions decreases players’ frustrations, possibly decreasing arousal and aggression.