Rethinking youth sports.

In today's society, aggressive behavior and violence are not uncommon in many families, communities, schools, media outlets and places of business. We all pay a high price for this violence in human terms, as well as increased costs for attempts at prevention and intervention. Youth sports has traditionally been viewed as an avenue for channeling negative aggressive behavior into a positive, constructive direction. However, with the decline of sportsmanship and fair play and the increased emphasis upon aggressive, win-at-all-costs behaviors in sports, some question the value of youth sport participation. Does this participation, in fact, promote and encourage aggressive behavior and violence in our youth? We recommend there is a need for a different way for our youth to visualize and participate in sports and games.

There is a need to defocus high levels of competitiveness and aggressive behavior that are currently encouraged and supported in youth sports. For this change in focus to occur, youngsters, parents, and coaches need an alternative. We suggest cooperative games.

Cooperative games create situations in which success in a skill-perceived task (an activity or a game) is determined by a joint or cooperative effort toward some goal in which there is a common interest. The reward is not attainable by working alone or against one another. Emphasis is placed upon the process and not the outcome of the game or activity.

In contrast, competitive games contain situations in which success in a skill-perceived task is determined by performing better than one's opponent, rather than a cooperative effort, where one team or individual wins and the other team(s) or individual(s) does not. Emphasis is placed upon the outcome of the game or activity, not the process.

Cooperative play, when introduced at an early age, can provide an alternative to the aggressive behavior and violence that can be associated with youth sports. Aggressive, non-sharing, noncooperative, non-caring, and non-helping behaviors have been connected with strictly competitive play being taught to young children. According to Kohn (1992), competitive games can "encourage" aggressive behavior. For example, in a competitive game of hockey, players are told to hit hard and be violent in order to win.

Through youth sports, children are taught to compete against one another, sometimes ruthlessly, where only a few can achieve success. It appears that play has been lost, implying that fun has also been lost. Orlick (1978) explains:

Children are encouraged to delight in others' failures . . . Exposing young children to irrational competition does not teach them how to compete in a healthy manner; it merely pressures them into competition. As children grow older, they have been so conditioned to the importance of winning that they can no longer play for fun or enjoyment (p. 27).

Children learn how to compete in ways that foster unfriendly competition. According to Orlick, children have lost a sense of helping others and may leave competitive games with a feeling of having failed.

America has an obsessive passion with competition. The genesis of this obsession is difficult to pinpoint. Nevertheless, competition has created a nation of children who grow up without knowing how to play and enjoy pure fun. According to Ellis (1973), play is stimulus-seeking behavior. Kraus (1990) states that play is self-motivated and for intrinsic purposes. Children look for ways to have fun and obtain pleasure through play, and most games taught to children by adults are competitive, not cooperative. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, several individuals (Stewart Brand, Pat Farrington, Terry Orlick, and Andrew Fluegelman) experimented with a different approach to competition, a radical departure from traditional views. This approach became known as the New Games Movement, which spiraled into a decade of rethinking how people play.

New Games Movement

A Vietnam veteran, Stewart Brand, who was inspired by the protests of war and its conflicting views, initiated the New Games Movement. Brand designed a game known as "Slaughter," a form of "soft war" that was intense and competitive, but stressed fun and play for the sake of play (Fluegelman, 1976).

From Brand's original thought of helping people find a connection between war and play, others began to add and separate from his original idea. Pat Farrington proposed an ideology toward play that included trust and cooperation. She believed that play should instill a sense of community by allowing individuals to express themselves in recreation. Farrington explained that "games are not so much a way to compare our abilities as a way to celebrate them" (Fluegelman, 1976).

In 1973, on a large, grassy, plot outside of San Francisco, the first of many New Games tournaments began. The New Games tournaments were a starting point and testing ground for the ideology that people can play for the sake of play with fun as the main emphasis. According to Fluegelman (1981), the games evolved into a whole new way of looking at play. As new games were developed and existing games revised, challenge and cooperation were emphasized along with noncompetitiveness. The New Games Movement served as a catalyst to a new age of thought for children and the education that was being provided, especially in the realm of play.

Cooperative Games

One of the major supporters and theorists of cooperative play is Terry Orlick. He described cooperative games as including cooperation, creativity, and choice. Cooperative games, typically, are competitive games that have been modified so that the games are no longer competitive in nature. An example of a cooperative game is musical chairs played where the participants have to share chairs when the number of chairs decreases, until everyone is sharing one chair. Cooperative games emphasize helping others, collaboration, and cooperation.

Benefits of Cooperative Games

Cooperative games can help teach children and adults that working together with others, and the group as a whole, is more important than individual achievement. If cooperative games were emphasized, it is possible that learning cooperation while playing games would carry over to other aspects of life, perhaps lowering the potential of aggressive behavior and violence.

The movement from competitive games to cooperative games can be beneficial for many reasons. Cooperative games can increase self-esteem, decrease aggressive behaviors, and enhance positive socialization. There have been efforts to study the effects of cooperative games on young children (Chambers & Abrami, 1991; Milton, Cleveland, Bennett-Gates, 1995). One such study evaluated the effects of competitive and cooperative games on aggressive and cooperative behaviors in young children (Bay-Hintz, Peterson & Quiltich, 1994). To evaluate the differences in behavior between competitive and cooperative games, the participants played both types of games, during which behaviors were recorded. The results revealed that during cooperative games, cooperative behaviors increased and aggression decreased. Conversely, competitive games were accompanied and followed by a decrease in cooperative behaviors and an increase in aggression (Bay-Hintz et al). It appears how we play can influence how we behave.

While cooperative games can decrease the occurrence of aggressive behaviors, the cooperative behaviors exhibited can also lead to positive socialization with others. Cooperative behaviors, such as sharing, turn taking, and helping others, can lead to better socialization with peers (Orlick, 1981). Furthermore, sharing in a cooperative environment increased almost three times as much as in a competitive environment. Conversely, children in the competitive environment decreased their sharing almost three times as much as the children in the cooperative environment. Along with the higher amount of sharing and positive socialization, there tends to be an increase in the children's happiness with the tasks (Grineski, 1989; Orlick).

When children have positive socialization and cooperative behaviors, there is a tendency for an increase in self-esteem. The increase in self-esteem results as a collaboration of several different aspects and occurrences. One occurrence that could happen is that with less aggressive behavior, children may increase their friendships, which, in turn, can increase their self-esteem. Another reason for an increase in self-esteem is that through cooperative learning and play, the child discovers hidden talents. A third way in which cooperation and positive socialization can attribute to positive self-esteem is that children can pass on their new information to others, testifying their new abilities.

Feelings of self-worth, success, and being liked can increase self-esteem. In a study by Chambers and Abrami (1991), being part of a successful team resulted in the participants feeling successful, believing in themselves, and identifying as deserving of an award. Being part of an unsuccessful team brought about negative feelings of self-worth and abilities. In a competitive setting, the loser had feelings of worthlessness, while the winner had feelings of worthiness. Cooperative games emphasize that competition is not the best way for children to enjoy themselves.

Cooperative Games into Action

Competitive games have their place with adults and older children, but for younger children, cooperative games and activities should be provided over competitive games whenever possible. Leisure professionals might ask at what age and in what quantity should cooperative games be taught. Orlick (1982), who is one of the leading educators on cooperative games, believes all games should be played in a cooperative spirit, but do not have to be cooperative in structure. Although, he says that it is extremely important for preschoolers and elementary-school children to be taught only cooperative games. He does not support teaching preschoolers and elementary-school children competitive games of any nature. Orlick believes that a combination of competitive games and cooperative games can be taught to upper-elementary and high school students. But cooperative values should always be used. Learning and participating in cooperative activities and games can bring positive results to everyone involved. Milton, et al. (1995) demonstrated how cooperative activities and learning experiences could positively affect people. During the study, a group of inner-city youth worked cooperatively while being informed of the importance of park environments and nature. Participants in the study showed improvement in their knowledge of related information. Furthermore, many of the participants continued their interest in the subject months after the study ended. Through the program, the children's social skills, perceptions of self, and interest in the material grew. Learning to be cooperative does assist in preparation for success in future life endeavors.

The main focus of cooperative play, games, and activities is working together for the well-being and improvement of those involved. There is a carryover from cooperative games into the lives of the individuals that participate. Lives in which sharing, helping, and caring are fact, not fiction.

Venues for Cooperative Games

Although the appeal of competitive sports will probably never disappear, if more cooperative play, games, and activities were performed and more attention given, the chance for popularity could increase. The increase in popularity of cooperative play, games, and activities can show parents, coaches, and children that competition is not the only way to enjoy leisure time.

School is a place where a tremendous amount of influence can be exhibited in the area of cooperative games and activities, particularly in physical education classes. Cooperative games can be incorporated through school boards, school administrators, and teachers working together in the best interest of children. Cooperative games that promote positive social behavior can be a vehicle to curb aggressive behavior and combat violence in the schools. The leisure professional can also encourage cooperative games by sharing information and demonstrating cooperative games and activities in their facilities.

Cooperative games can be beneficial to the professionals that facilitate this type of play. For example, individuals working in settings where morale is low and threat of violence high -- mental hospitals, camps, highly competitive companies, certain schools or YMCAs -- could utilize cooperative games and activities. Cooperative games can help motivate and teach staff that aggressive behavior and winning is not always as important as believing in oneself and performing to the best of one's ability.

Conclusion

Aggressive behavior and violence in youth sports are of concern for the leisure professional. Through cooperative play, games, and activities, the introduction of competition can be balanced so that children understand that participation does not have to include winners and losers. Although the price of violence may be high, it does not have to be promoted through youth sports. A combination of cooperative and competitive games is a viable option that should be utilized whenever possible.

References

Bay-Hintz, A. K., Peterson, R. F., & Quilitch, H. R. (1994). Cooperative games: a way to modify aggressive and cooperative behaviors in young children.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 435-446.

Chambers, B. & Abrami, P. C. (1991). The relationship between student team learning outcomes and achievement, causal attributions, and affect. Journal of Educational Psychology 83, 140-146.

Ellis, M. J. (1973). Why people play. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Fluegelman, A. (1976). The new games book. Garden City, New York: Headlands Press.

Fluegelman, A. (1981). More new games. Garden City, New York: Headlands Press.

Grineski, S. (1989). Children, games, and prosocial behavior: Insight and connections. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 60, 20-25.

Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: the case against competition (rev. ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kraus, R. (1990). Recreation and leisure in modern society (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

Milton, B., Cleveland, E., and Bennett-Gates, D. (1995). Changing perceptions of nature, self and others: A report on a park/school program. Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 32-39.

Orlick, T. (1978). The cooperative sports and games book. New York: Pantheon Books.

Orlick, T. (1981). Positive socialization via cooperative games. Developmental psychology, 17, 426-429.

Orlick, T. (1982). The second cooperative sports and games book. New York: Pantheon Books.

RELATED ARTICLE: Research into Action: Providing a Balance in Sports Programming

Research Into Action is published monthly by the Society of Park and Recreation Educators, National Recreation and Park Association. As an accompaniment to "Research Update," its goal is to turn research findings into field action by highlighting management strategies. Founding editors are Dr. Ruth Russell and Dr. Daniel D. McLean, Department of Recreation and Park Administration, Indiana University.

Introduction

The aggressive nature of youth sports is becoming a potential detriment to the positive social development of youth in America. The carryover of aggressive behavior attributed to participation in youth sports programs is causing some to question the value of youth sports. This month's Research Update suggested that cooperative games were a viable alternative to the highly competitive youth sports programs that have become predominant in so many communities. This report does not propose the dissolution of youth sports programs, nor does it suggest how the programs can be better organized -- rather, it suggests alternatives to a steady diet of competitive youth sports programming.

Impact of the Research

Relatively little new was presented in the Research Update. Its value is in reminding park and recreation professionals of the need to provide a balanced opportunity for growth and development of young people and that a part of that responsibility lies with professionals and their agencies. Cooperative games focus on process versus outcome and strive for a common interest among the participants. Research on the use of cooperative games has shown increased personal self-esteem, decreased aggressive behaviors, increased cooperation, and enhanced positive socialization. In each case, cooperative games allowed youth to build social skills and self-images that permitted them to progress as effective contributing members of society.

How to Use This Research

The opportunities to use this research for improved youth programming and impact in the community are numerous. Some examples of how individuals and organizations might enhance youth activities through cooperative games include:

1. Incorporate cooperative games as a key component of youth activities programs.

2. Work with local schools to provide support for physical education teachers, teachers, and playground leaders with cooperative games activities and strategies for implementation of cooperative games in the classroom. Do the same with daycare facilities.

3. Establish a consortium or recreation provider agencies and focus on the positive aspects of youth sports, incorporating cooperative games as part of the process.

4. Embody cooperative games into the "Benefits of Recreation" information provided by the National Recreation and Park Association, state park and recreation associations, and local park and recreation agencies.

5. Sponsor a local workshop on "how-to" conduct cooperative games.

6. Work with local youth sports organizations and share the values and benefits of cooperative games. Suggest strategies for implementing them as part of their regular youth sports programs.

For More Information

Orlick, T. 1982. The second cooperative sports and games book. New York: Pantheon Books.

Kohn, A. 1992. No contest The case against competition (revised edition) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Georgianna Ramsey and Bryan Rank are undergraduate students in the Department of Health Education and Recreation at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Research Update is edited by Dr. Irma O'Dell of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.