Printer Friendly

The differences in sport aggression, life aggression, and life assertion among adult male and female collision, contact, and non-contact sport athletes.

Aggression is a negative personality trait that has been associated with sport participation. Aggression is operationally defined as an intentional physically or psychologically harmful behavior that is directed at another living organism (Thirer, 1993). The frequency of aggression in sports on all levels has led to a great deal of academic research. Even the International Society of Sport Psychology recently recognized that sport aggression has become a social problem both on and off the playing field and has recommended ways to curtail this behavior (Tenenbaum, Stewart, Singer, & Duda, 1997). The particulars of this position have recently been challenged (Kerr, 1999), reaffirmed (Tenenbaum, Sacks, Miller, Golden, & Doolin, 2000), and clarified (Kerr, 2002).

Aggression has been studied on many levels including behavior within the context of sport and within daily life. A popular theory explaining aggression is the Revised Frustration-Aggression Theory (Berkowitz, 1965). This theory consists of aspects from Bandura's (1973) Social Learning Theory and Smith's (1972) theory on frustration and aggression. Berkowitz proposed that either frustration or another stimulus (e.g., threat) increases a person's arousal and anger levels, which increases one's readiness to aggress. However, aggression will only occur if the person has learned the appropriateness of such behavior in that specific situation. In other words, aggression not only depends on the strength of the association between the situation and aggressive behavior, but also the degree of readiness to aggress and the presence of aggressive cues (Berkowitz). This easily generalizes to the sport socialization process. During an athletic contest, the potential for a frustrating situation is unlimited. Combine that with aggressive behavior that is rewarded by teammates, coaches, and parents, or vicariously learned from role models on television or during live contests, and the potential for aggression in sport rises exponentially.

Two types of aggression have been defined in sport research, hostile and instrumental. Hostile, or reactive aggression is behavior performed with the sole intention of inflicting harm on a person (Silva, 1983). Instrumental aggression in sport is behavior that intentionally causes injury or harm to an opponent in pursuit of another non-aggressive goal such as scoring or winning (Bredemeier, 1975). Assertiveness is distinct from aggressiveness in that it is the nonhostile, noncoercive tendency to behave with intense and energetic behavior to accomplish one's goal (Bredemeier, 1994; Silva, 1978). In the sport realm, these types of behavior are often within the rules of competition. It is hard to distinguish the relationship between aggression and assertion because they have often been conceptually confused in the literature (Silva, 1978), and can usually only be differentiated by a person's intention, which remains dependent on self-report. However, researchers have utilized various measurements to assess athlete aggression (Allawy, 1981; Bredemeier, 1994; Reid & Hay, 1979; Ryan, Williams, & Wimer, 1990; Silva, 1983; Wall & Gruber, 1986).

Recent trends in research link patterns of sport aggression to goal orientations (Duda et al., 1991; Dunn & Dunn, 1999), moral reasoning (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986; Bredemeier, 1994; Rosenberg, 2003), and gender (Silva, 1983). Aggression has also been examined in reference to different sport types (e.g., contact vs. non-contact and individual vs. team; Allawy, 1981; Bredemeier & Shields, 1986; Colley, Roberts, & Chipps, 1985; Mace & Baines, 1989; Silva, 1983). It has been shown that sports with contact have positive associations with the amount of aggressiveness of their participants (Allawy; Bredemeier, 1994; Gardner & Janelle 2002; Reid & Hay, 1979; Silva, 1983; Tucker & Parks, 2001). Silva has differentiated contact sports into three distinct levels: collision (contact is necessary and integral to play), contact (contact is legal and occurs incidentally), and non-contact (contact between opponents is not allowed). Silva studied the relationships between the contact level of sport and legitimacy ratings of rule violations (i.e., aggressive behavior) in sport across women and men. Differences were found between amount of contact and years of experience in legitimacy ratings for men and women. In a similar study, Tucker and Parks found that athletes in collision sports scored higher on legitimacy ratings than those in contact and non contact sports. Further, a significant interaction effect was found in this study with greater gender differences in non contact sports than in collision and contact sports with women scoring lower than men. More recently, Gardner and Janelle did not find differences in legitimacy ratings across low and high contact, college sport athletes, but did find males to perceive aggressive and assertive behavior as more legitimate than females. In addition, behavior in sport situations was overall perceived as more legitimate than in life situations.

A limitation in the research on aggression is that studies in collision sports may be gender biased. Most collision sports have traditionally only been available for men, excluding women from participation and therefore from research. Further, many traditional collision sports for men have modified rules to disallow certain types of contact in the women's version (e.g. ice hockey, lacrosse). This has created a gap in the literature regarding aggression and contact sport type utilizing male and female athletes from the same sports. The relationship between aggression and female collision sport athletes may be different from the relationship for male athletes. The Revised Frustration-Aggression Theory would predict that through participation in sport, females would learn to be as aggressive as their male counterparts because of the opportunity for observational learning and the presence of situational cues and reinforcements. More specifically, if women played the same collision sports as men they would show similar aggression levels because of the similar sport socialization processes. In fact, given similar situations, women have shown to be just as aggressive as men (White & Kowalski, 1994). However, women and men have been shown to differ on their acceptance of sport aggression in relation to sport type participation (Bredemeier, 1994; Silva, 1983; Gardner & Janelle, 2002).

The reason for aggression differences remains vague. It is unclear whether the differences found across gender and sport types are due to different sport socialization processes or from an existing disparity in those who gravitate towards certain sports (Morgan, 1980). Exposure to contact in sports has been found to be previously related to men's traditional ideals of masculinity and negative attitudes towards women (Maier & Lavrakas, 1981), however these trends may be changing (Smith & Stewart, 2003). On the other hand, women participating in perceived low-feminine sports (i.e., collision and contact) held more liberal gender-role attitudes than high-feminine sport participants (Salisbury & Passer, 1982). Perhaps the gravitation of a woman towards a non-traditionally feminine sport reflects an upbringing that encouraged individuality and non-conformity. Less stereotypical-feminine athletes may be drawn to collision sports because of the innate non-feminine, traditionally masculine qualities of contact activities and the emancipation that participation in such sport brings to them. In fact, there are supporters of the notion that participation in contact sport may be beneficial for women. It is believed that a woman uses her body in contact as a means to express and learn about herself (Rail, 1992) and can actually help empower girls and women by teaching them about their physical capabilities (Theberge, 2003). This could mean that women may experience a different collision and contact sport socialization process than men. It is necessary to examine sport aggression in women across sport groups to conclude if the differences already found between male athletes apply to female athletes. Once the relationship has been examined across sport types and between genders on sport aggression, it is also important to examine how the findings relate to personality traits found in daily life. Research in this area is non-conclusive and some researchers have suggested that behavior exhibited in sporting activities may not reflect everyday life personality behavior and traits (Bredemeier, 1994; Bredemeier et al., 1986; Smith & Stewart; 2003; Thirer, 1993).

The direct comparison of sport aggression variables (i.e., hostile and instrumental) between the same male and female collision, contact, and non-contact sports has not yet been explored. Comparisons of perceived legitimacy ratings in Silva (1983), Tucker and Parks (2001), and Gardner and Janelle (2002), integrated various sports per contact level, including both team and individual sports; a variable that may have confounded results. Further, these investigations only utilized one type of women's collision sport out of five in that category for men and categorized wrestling as a contact sport rather than a collision sport. The present study was conducted to investigate any differences between different domains of aggression and the same interactive team sports for men and women across three levels of contact. The relationship between sport type and daily life aggression was included since sport and daily life variables have been shown to differ. Furthermore, since assertion is closely related conceptually to aggression and is the socially desirable alternative behavior to aggression, its relationship to sport types was relevant to this investigation. Once differences in the personality variables across contact sport types and gender were established, the relationships between the dependent measures were examined. The goal of this study was to investigate if adult women and men have the same pattern of self-perceived sport aggression, life aggression, and life assertion across collision, contact, and non-contact sport types. In addition, the relationships between sport hostile aggression, sport instrumental aggression, life aggression, and life assertion variables were explored. These comparisons were examined while controlling for differences in age, education, team affiliation, years of experience, and individual success.

Method

Participants and Sampling

One hundred and sixty-one club sport athletes (N = 92 females; N = 69 males) from the Mid-Atlantic region participated in this study. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 43 years (M = 28.76 females; M = 27.67 males) and ranged in sport experience from less than one year to thirty years (M = 10.05 females; M = 9.27 males). Participants were grouped according to their sport type: collision, contact, non-contact, or a combination of sports. The sports chosen to represent each sport type were rugby for collision (n = 59 females; n = 44 males), soccer for contact (n = 19 females; n = 9 males), and volleyball for non-contact (n = 14 females; n = 16 males). As an attempt to keep competitive levels similar, only competitive teams associated with organized leagues under a national governing body were approached. Further, only interactive team sports were used to guard against the nature of sport effect previously found between team and individual sport groups (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986). In terms of higher levels of competition, individual success was categorized into none, local, regional, and national levels. Participants were asked the highest level of education they had completed or were currently seeking. Education was categorized into high school/GED/associate degree, bachelor degree, and masters' degree/doctorate degree/professional groups. The frequencies and percents of individual success and education are presented in Table 1.

Data Collection Procedure

Representatives from each team were contacted by phone or email and were asked if their team would be willing to participate in research on sport attitudes. An attempt was made to collect all data before practice sessions (n = 27). However, due to the preference of team representatives, to ensure a larger attendance of players, and lack of other alternatives, questionnaires were also administered after practice (n = 92), before games (n = 21), via ground mail (n = 8), and via electronic mail (n = 13). Those surveys given on game days were given at least one half hour before competition. Since the scales used were trait rather than state measures, it was believed that overall results would not be significantly affected by varying collection times. Regardless, a preliminary analysis was conducted to ascertain any differences in responses across collection times. One logistical hardship of using adult competitive leagues was that some teams did not practice and/or did not have formal warm-up periods prior to games. Men's soccer, in particular, fell under this category, which resulted in a small sample size for this group.

Instrumentation

Life aggression. The Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI) assesses global hostility through seven individual sub-scales and one scale measuring guilt (Buss & Durkee, 1957). Participants respond either true or false to statements to indicate whether the individual action or thought described is self-descriptive. Preliminary concurrent validity has been shown for the items in the scale (Buss, 1961). Three of the sub-scales that loaded on a "motor" factor of aggression (Buss & Durkee) were used in this study to comprise a composite measurement of life aggression: assault (10 items), indirect hostility (9 items), and verbal hostility (13 items). During the initial construction of the BDHI, the highest correlation found between the three sub-scales was .40 indicating that the scales measure relatively independent components (Buss & Durkee). These individual sub-scales have been used in many studies (Bredemeier, 1975; Buss, 1961; Wann, Fahl, Erdmann, & Littleton, 1999). A test/retest with a five-week separation showed moderate stability with the assault (r = .78), indirect (r = .72), and verbal hostility (r = .72) subscales (Buss, 1961).

Life assertion. The Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) is a 30-item inventory that measures perceived assertiveness (Rathus, 1973). It measures assertive behavior along a six-point scale ranging from 3 = "very characteristic of me, extremely descriptive" to -3 = "very uncharacteristic of me, extremely non-descriptive." One item was amended in the present study to prevent sexual orientation bias (item 11 was changed from "I often don't know what to say to attractive members of the opposite sex" to "I often don't know what to say to attractive persons"). Evidence for test-retest reliability (r = .78), split-half reliability (r = .77), and concurrent validity (r = .77) has been provided (Rathus).

Sport aggression. The short form, the BAAGI-S (Bredemeier, 1975), has 15 hostile and 15 instrumental items with the highest factor loadings, representing the elements of anger, hostility, and frustration (Stephens, 1998; Wall & Gruber, 1986). Items are answered on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = "strong agreement" to 4 = "strong disagreement." Lower scores represent higher levels of aggression for each subscale. However, during the present investigation, scores were reversed so that higher scores would indicate higher levels of aggression. Bredemeier's testing of the original scale on female athletes showed high alpha reliability coefficients for both hostile (.90) and instrumental (.86) subscales. The two subscales were highly and negatively correlated (-.69). Evidence was provided for concurrent and predictive validity (Bredemeier) and intra-class coefficients were significant (Wall & Gruber). Significant correlations with the Crown Marlowe Social Desirability Scale suggested that hostile aggression was socially undesirable and instrumental aggression was more socially desirable (Bredemeier).

Demographic information. Background information including age, primary sport, years of experience, education, individual success (i.e., highest level achieved), and perceived contact level of sport was collected in the questionnaire packet. This information was collected because these variables have been shown to have confounding effects in previous aggression research (e.g., Bredemeier, 1994; Howe, 1973; Silva, 1983; Widemeyer, 1984). Statistical Analysis

Four general linear models were applied to the data to study the main effects of gender and primary sport type and their interaction on the dependent measures of life aggression, life assertion, hostile sport aggression, and instrumental sport aggression. The analyses were conducted while controlling for age, years of experience, individual success, education level, and team differences. Years of experience, individual success, and education levels were entered into the model as fixed factors and age was entered as a covariate. The team effect was treated as a random factor and as a nested variable within gender and primary sport type. This ensured that the calculations of the F statistics for the main effects of gender and sport type, as well as their interaction, would utilize the sums of squares of the nested team factor rather than the overall residual sums of squares. Three additional general linear models were performed as further exploration into the independent variables effect on the life aggression components of assault, indirect, and verbal aggressions. Least Significance Difference post hoc analyses were employed to find the differences between levels of significant main effects or interactions when applicable. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationships between life aggression, life assertion, and sport aggression variables.

Results

Data Collection Comparison

Post hoc analysis of the individual subscales was done on an exploratory basis. Data analysis comparing the different data collection procedures suggested that there was little effect on the results due to differences in collection methodology. There was one difference found on the life assault subscale between "before practice" collection (M = 4.380) and "after practice" collection (M = 2.963) with the after practice participants scoring higher on assault. However, due to the number of comparisons executed in this analysis, these results may have been due to a Type I error.

Gender and Sport Type Differences

The means, number of cases, and standard deviations for males' and females' sport hostile aggression, sport instrumental aggression, life assertion, and life aggression are presented in Table 2. A test for the homogeneity of variances was conducted with no significant violations found. There were no significant sport type main effects for any of these dependent variables, indicating that there were no differences among collision, contact, and non-contact sport groups in life aggression, life assertion, sport hostile aggression, and sport instrumental aggression. A significant gender main effect was found, F(1, 35.863) = 4.959, p < .05, [[eta].sup.2] = .121, power = .582, showing men (M = 12.21, SD = 22.78) to have significantly higher assertion scores than women (M = 4.69, SD = 24.69). No other significant gender effects were found. Furthermore, a significant sport type by gender interaction was not observed for any of the dependent variables.

The means, number of cases and standard deviations for the three life aggression subscales are presented in Table 3. Analyses did not show any differences across sport type for assault, indirect hostility, or verbal hostility, suggesting that these variables do not differ across collision, contact, and non-contact sport athletes. Gender main effects were found for the assault and indirect hostility scales. Men scored significantly higher on the assault scale F(1, 20.094) = 4.435, p < .05, [[eta].sup.2] =. 181, power =. 518, while women scored significantly higher on the indirect hostility scale F(1, 63.033) = 4.792,p < .05, [[eta].sup.2] = .071, power = .578. No interactions between gender and sport type were found in any of the three scales. Men (M = 4.63, SD = 2.38) scored significantly higher on the assault scale than women (M = 3.18, SD = 2.22), while women (M = 5.67, SD = 1.86) scored significantly higher on the indirect hostility scale than men (M = 4.59, SD = 1.75).

Life and Sport Relationships

Correlations for the dependent variables of sport hostile aggression, sport instrumental aggression, life aggression, and life assertion are presented in Table 4. Sport hostile aggression and sport instrumental aggression scores were negatively related for both women (r = -.437, p < .01) and men (r = -.252,p < .05). The sport aggression variables were each significantly related to total life aggression across gender. The correlations between total life aggression and sport hostile aggression scores were significant for women (r = .460,p < .01) and men (r = .451, p < .01). Total life and sport instrumental aggression scores were significantly negatively correlated for women (r = -.360, p < .01) and men (r = -.256, p < .05). These results indicate that athletes with high levels of life aggression are more likely to have high levels of sport hostile aggression and low levels of sport instrumental aggression. Life assertion was positively related to life aggression but was significant for women only (r = .295, p < .01). Life assertion was not significantly correlated to sport hostile or instrumental aggressions for either women or men. Although not a primary purpose of this study, more specific analyses of the correlations between sport aggression, life aggression, and life assertion variables with the life aggression subscales were conducted and reported in Table 5. The subscales themselves were all significantly positively correlated to one another for men. However, only the assault and verbal hostility scales were significantly correlated for women.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to identify the differences between sport hostile aggression, sport instrumental aggression, life aggression, and life assertion across collision, contact, and non-contact sport groups for both female and male adult athletes. By studying the differences of both sport aggression and life aggression across all sport types for both men and women using the same sports for each, the relationship between contact in sport and aggression can be more accurately reported. This accurate reporting could then be useful in any future attempts to predict and control aggressive behavior.

Sport Hostile and Instrumental Aggression

The results indicated that sport hostile and instrumental aggression did not differ across sport type or gender. The similarities in reported hostile aggression across gender and between men's sport groups are contrary to previous research (e.g., Bredemeier et al., 1986; Kemler, 1988; Reid & Hay, 1979; Silva, 1983; Tucker & Parks, 2001). In previous work, perceived legitimacy of rule violating behavior in college athletes (Silva; Tucker & Parks) and perceived physical aggression in children (Bredemeier et al.), increased as a function of contact level for both male and female athletes. These results support Gardner and Janelle's (2002) findings that perceived legitimacy ratings of aggressive behavior in sport are not a function of the level of contact in sport. They suggested the differences in aggression levels across contact levels may not be present in higher levels of sport. The present analysis held personal level of sport success consistent and still did not yield differences. Perhaps these differences are not or no longer found in college and adult athletes. In both cases, male groups demonstrated higher levels of aggression. The lack of significant differences in instrumental aggression between sport types or gender is consistent with Bredemeier's (1994) work where no gender differences were reported when studying children's sport assertion. The results imply that women and men do not differ in instrumental aggression. However, when interpreting these results, one should consider that Stephens (1998) has questioned the construct validity of certain items of the BAAGI-S suggesting that they may measure constructs other than sport instrumental aggression.

Perhaps the expansion in the last thirty years of women's sport participants since the adoption of Title IX has resulted in similar sport socialization processes for both women and men. With more participants and more women's sports turning corporate, the level of pressure and competition could now be more similar to men's sports. These similarities might have influenced women's sport aggression in a way that they are now on par with men's sport aggression. The high demands from sport on an athlete in addition to greater chances in vicariously learning through an increase in exposure to women in sport perhaps in the media, could have modified social norms regarding sport aggression for female athletes. These chances for learning and opportunities for frustrating situations are consistent with the Revised Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1965). Again, the present study only contained the sports of rugby, soccer, and volleyball; thus, it is unclear whether the results are indicative of actual sport contact types or these specific sports.

Life Aggression and Life Assertion

The mean life aggression scores of the present study, given in Table 2, are comparable to those from Buss and Durkee's (1957) original testing of the BDHI on college men and women. The results showed that total life aggression and life assertion did not differ between sport contact types. The absence of differences across men's sport groups is contrary to previous research with children (Bredemeier, 1994; Bredemeier et al., 1986), where higher levels of contact sport participation and interest was related to higher life aggression. Interestingly, Bredemeier and colleagues found that sport interest was a better predictor of three morality variables than sport participation and had strong predictive qualities for physical and nonphysical aggression. Perhaps sport interest, rather than participation, would have yielded different results in this study. Furthermore, physical size was recently found to be related to life aggression in male contact athletes, non-contact athletes, and non-athletes (Lemieux, McKelvie, & Stout, 2002). Although contact athletes reported more life aggression than non-contact athletes, there was no difference between physically bigger (in terms of height and weight) non-athletes. The researchers also propose the possibility that previous findings related to differences in aggression across contact sports might have been related to the tendency for bigger individuals to participate in contact sports than non-contact sports.

The absence of differences between men and women in total life aggression contradicts previous work (Bredemeier, 1994; Buss & Durkee, 1957; Gardner & Janelle, 2002). Men did score higher on life assertion and assault aggression, but lower on the indirect hostility scales than women, indicating that there may be gender socialization differences in the expression of aggression. The gender difference in assertion found is consistent with previous findings from Nevid and Rathus (cited in Rathus, 1981) and Gardner and Janelle (2002), yet contrary to Bredemeier (1994), suggesting that males report higher levels of assertion than females. The assault differences are consistent with prior findings where boys reported more physical aggression than girls (Bredemeier, 1994; Bredemeier et al., 1986). Perhaps this is indicative of socializing women to express their aggression and assertion but only in more circuitous means than men, tending to be more passive aggressive and relational aggressive. However, consideration should be given to the large variance in assertion scores before any conclusions are drawn based on this gender difference. It should also be noted that DeGiovanni and Epstein (1978) suggested that existing assessment tools of assertion failed to conceptually differentiate aggression from assertion. Among other scales, they stated that the RAS appeared to confound aggression and assertion with the positive correlations of 13 items to ratings of aggressiveness.

Life and Sport Relationships

The results support the significant positive relationship between both men's and women's sport hostile aggression scores and their total life aggression scores. Additionally, for both women and men, life aggression scores were significantly negatively related to their sport instrumental aggression scores. The results indicate that athletes with high levels of life aggression are more likely to have high levels of sport hostile aggression but low levels of sport instrumental aggression. These results are consistent with the original testing of the BAAGI long form (Bredemeier, 1975). This suggests that trait aggression may be consistent across sport and life domains for both men and women and refutes the theory that sport personalities do not reflect those of everyday life (e.g. Bredemeier, 1994; Bredemeier et al., 1986; Thirer, 1993). Different conclusions are drawn for assertiveness if sport instrumental aggression can be used as a valid measure of sport assertion. The findings indicate that sport instrumental aggression for both men and women is not related to assertion in daily life, implying that assertion may not be consistent across sport and life domains. However, without an instrument validated to measure sport assertiveness, conclusions are merely tentative. Interestingly, life assertion was positively related to life aggression but was only significant for women. Perhaps this suggests that women can be categorized as either forward (i.e., high in aggressive and assertive behavior) or not forward (i.e., low in aggressive and assertive behavior).

Conclusion

This study revealed that there were no differences in life aggression, life assertion, sport hostile aggression, and sport instrumental aggression between different contact sport types or interactions between sport types and gender when controlling for individual's age, years experience, education, team, and success level. The only differences that were indicated were that male and female athletes have varying levels of reported life assertion, assault, and indirect hostility. This study completes a gap in the existent research in comparing the same noncontact, contact, and collision sports between male and female adult athletes. The contribution of these results is that they counter previous suggestions that a greater degree of contact sport participation is related to aggression and may be detrimental to moral and character development more so than sports with less contact. Differences found in children's sport and life aggression across varying levels of contact sports had led to conclusions that contact sport participation is counterproductive to moral advancement for pre-adolescents (Bredemeier, 1988; Bredemeier, et al., 1986). Although the present examination was confined to an adult sample, it included athletes that had been participating in their sport since childhood. The transition between youth participation and adult participation is unclear. However, previous differences found in children's aggression were not present in this adult sample. Correlations between life and sport variables generally supported previous findings (Bredemeier, 1975; Buss & Durkee, 1957).

It is suggested that future research expand the type (e.g. coactive team, individual) and number of sports per category to clarify whether the current results represent contact types or are specific to the sports of rugby, soccer, and volleyball. Regardless, the absence of gender differences in hostile aggression for same sport participants is interesting and may be a product of increased participation in sports by women. Results should also be interpreted with caution as even though the differences found between men and women had moderate (indirect hostility) and large effect sizes (assertion and assault aggression), the observed powers were low. A larger number of participants would be necessary in any follow up studies to observe a higher power.

Silva (1983) suggested that as women's involvement in highly competitive organized sports increased, aggression differences found between male and female athletes might change. In addition, in 1972, Smith predicted that as the expansion of women in contact sports increased, and as winning became more important, women's sports would become more violently aggressive. Thirty years later, we have seen a dramatic increase in women's participation in all types of sports including physical contact activities. It is evident from the media and college campuses that women's contact and collision sport participation is increasing. In the present investigation, the absence of gender differences in sport aggressions and total life aggression lend support to Silva and Smith's predictions. Perhaps the increasing extrinsic rewards in sport, the promotion of a "win at all costs" attitude, and the reinforcement of harmful acts in sport, have forced athlete's aggression to transcend sport type as well as gender.

References

Allawy, M.H. (1981). Differences in athletic aggression among Egyptian female athletes. Medicine and Sport, 15, 63-66.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: a social learning analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Berkowitz, L. (1965). The concept of aggressive drive: Some additional considerations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.301-329). New York: Academic Press.

Bredemeier, B.J. (1975). The assessment of reactive and instrumental athletic aggression. In D.M. Landers (Ed.), Psychology of sport and motor behavior H (pp.71-84). Penn State HPER Series No. 10. The Pennsylvania State University.

Bredemeier, B.J. (1988). The moral of the youth sport story. In E.W. Brown & C.F. Branta (Eds.), Competitive sports for children and youth: An overview of research and issues (pp. 285-296). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Bredemeier, B.J. (1994). Children's moral reasoning and their assertive, aggressive, and submissive tendencies in sport and daily life. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 1-14.

Bredemeier, B.J., & Shields, D.L. (1986). Moral growth among athletes and nonathletes: A comparative analysis. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147(1), 7-18.

Bredemeier, B.J., Weiss, M.R., Shields, D.L., & Copper, B.A.B. (1986). The relationship of sport involvement with children's moral reasoning and aggression tendencies. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(4), 304-318.

Buss, A.H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 4, 343-349.

Buss, A.H. (1961). Psychology of aggression. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Colley, A., Roberts, N., & Chipps, A. (1985). Sex role identity, personality and participation in team and individual sports by males and females. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 16(2), 103-112.

DeGiovanni, I.S., & Epstein, N. (1978). Unbinding assertion and aggression in research and clinical practice. Behavior Modification, 2 (2), 173-192.

Duda, J.L., Olson, L.K., & Templin, T.J. (1991). The relationship of task and ego orientation to sportsmanship attitudes and the perceived legitimacy of injurious acts. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(1), 79-87.

Dunn, J.G., & Dunn, J.C. (1999). Goal orientations, perceptions of aggression, and sportspersonship in elite male youth ice hockey players. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 183-200. Howe, B. (1973). Aggressive responses of rugby players. New Zealand Journal Of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, April.

Kemler, D.S. (1988). Level of athletic, instrumental, and reactive aggression between contact and non-contact, male and female high school athletes under pre- and posttesting conditions. Unpublished master's thesis, Southern Connecticut State University.

Kerr, J.H. (1999). The role of aggression and violence in sport: A rejoinder to the ISSP position stand. Sport Psychologist, 13(1), 83-88.

Kerr, J.H. (2002). Issues in aggression and violence in sport: The ISSP position stand revisited. Sport Psychologist, 16(1), 68-78.

Lemieux, P., McKelvie, S.J., & Stout, D. (2002). Self-reported hostile aggression in contact athletes, no contact athletes and non-athletes. Athletic Insight, 4(3). Retrieved September 15, 2005, from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss3/ SelfReportedAggression.htm.

Mace, R., & Baines, C. (1989). Personality characteristics and mood states of females in sport. Physical Education Review, 12(2), 158-162.

Maier, R.A., & Lavrakas, P.J. (1981). Some personality correlates of attitudes about sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 12(1), 19-22.

Morgan, W.P. (1980). The Trait Psychology Controversy. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51(1), 50-75.

Rail, G. (1992). Physical contact in women's basketball: A phenomenological construction and contextualization. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 2 7 (1), 1-25.

Rathus, S.A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4, 398-406.

Rathus, S.A. (1981). Psychology. New York: CBS College Publishing.

Reid, R., & Hay, D. (1979). Some behavioral characteristics of rugby and association footballers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 10(4), 239-251.

Rosenberg, D. (2003). The banality of violence in sport and the McSorley affair. Avante, 9(2), 30-42.

Ryan, M.K., Williams, J.M., & Wimer, B. (1990). Athletic aggression: Perceived legitimacy and behavioral intentions in girl's high school basketball. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 48-55.

Salisbury, J., & Passer, M. (1982). Gender-role attitudes and participation in competitive activities of varying stereotypic femininity. Personality and Social Psychology, 8(3), 486-493.

Silva, J.M. (1978). Assertive and aggressive behavior in sport: A definitional clarification. In Naedau, C.H. et al. (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport (pp. 199-208). Champaign, III: Human Kinetics.

Silva, J.M. (1983). The perceived legitimacy of rule violating behavior in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5,438-448.

Smith, M.D. (1972). Aggression and the female athlete. In D.V. Harris (Ed.), Women and sport: A national research conference (pp. 91-114). University Park, PA: Penn State University.

Smith, D., & Stewart, S. (2003). Sexual aggression and sports participation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 384-396.

Stephens, D.E. (1998). Aggression. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp.277-292). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Tenenbaum, G., Stewart, E., Singer, R.N., & Duda, J. (1997). Aggression and violence in sport: An ISSP position stand. Sport Psychologist, II, 1-7.

Tenenbaum, G., Sacks, D.N., Miller, J.W., Golden, A.S., Doolin, N. (2000). Aggression and violence in sport: A reply to Kerr's rejoinder. Sport Psychologist, 14(4), 315-326.

Theberge, N. (2003). "No fear comes": Adolescent girls, ice hockey and the embodiment of gender. Youth & Society, 34 (4), 497-516

Thirer, J. (1993). Aggression. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 365-378). New York: MacMillian Publishing Company.

Tucker, L.W., & Parks, J.B. (2001). Effects of gender and sport type on intercollegiate athlete's perceptions of the legitimacy of aggressive behaviors in sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18(4), 403-413.

Wall, B.R., & Gruber, J.J. (1986). Relevancy of athletic aggression inventory for use in women's intercollegiate basketball: A pilot investigation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 17, 23-33.

Wann, D.L., Fahl, C.L., Erdmann, J.B., & Littleton, J.D. (1999). Relationship between identification with the role of sport fan and trait aggression. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 1296-1298.

White, J., & Kowalski, R. (1994). Deconstructing the myth of the nonaggressive woman: A feminist analysis. Special issue: Transformations: Reconceptualizing theory and research with women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 487-508.

Widemeyer, W.N. (1984). Aggression - performance relationships in sport. In J.M. Silva and R.S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 274-286). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Linda A. Keeler

East Tennessee State University

Address Correspondence To: Linda A. Keeler, Box 70654, Johnson City, TN 37614, Phone: (423) 439-4382, E-mail: keeler@etsu.edu.
Table 1. Frequencies and Percents of Athlete's Individual
Success and Education by Gender (N = 161)

 Female (n = 92) Male (n = 69)

Descriptor n % n %

Success
 None 48 52.2 27 39.1
 Local 6 6.5 6 8.7
 Regional 29 31.5 30 43.5
 National 9 9.8 5 7.2

Education
 H.S./GED/A.A. 7 7.6 7 10.1
 B.A./B.S. 57 62.0 41 59.4
 M.A./PhD/Prof 28 30.4 20 29

Table 2. Means, Number of Cases, and Standard Deviations
of Sport and Life Variables by Gender and Sport Type

 Sport Sport
 hostile instrumental Life Life
Sport Type aggression aggression assertion aggression

Female

Collision (n = 59)
 M 17.17 24.99 7.09 15.80
 SD 6.06 4.71 25.53 4.89
Contact (n = 19)
 M 17.31 25.17 -2.78 15.37
 SD 6.47 3.02 27.58 4.89
Non-contact (n = 14)
 M 19.57 25.04 4.36 14.93
 SD 6.58 5.24 14.80 5.09
Total (N = 92)
 M 17.57 25.03 4.69 15.58
 SD 6.21 4.46 24.69 4.87

Male

Collision (n = 44)
 M 22.58 24.73 13.91 16.48
 SD 6.26 5.91 22.63 4.82
Contact (n = 9)
 M 13.44 29.67 21.00 14.78
 SD 3.43 3.16 17.63 4.06
Non-contact (n = 16)
 M 18.91 24.81 3.25 15.80
 SD 5.11 6.19 23.84 6.07
Total (N = 68)
 M 20.48 25.41 12.21 16.10
 SD 6.47 5.87 22.78 4.99

Table 3. Means, Number of Cases, and Standard Deviations
of Life Aggression Subscales by Gender and Sport Type

 Female

 Assault Indirect Verbal
Sport Type aggression hostility hostility

Collision
 M 3.15 6.02 6.63
 SD 2.23 1.74 2.85
 n 59 59 59
Contact
 M 3.68 4.89 6.79
 SD 1.86 2.05 3.24
 n 19 19 19
Non-contact
 M 2.64 5.29 7.00
 SD 2.62 1.86 2.00
 n 14 14 14
Total
 M 3.18 5.67 6.72
 SD 2.22 1.86 2.80
 n 92 92 92

 Male

 Assault Indirect Verbal
Sport Type aggression hostility hostility

Collision
 M 5.05 4.55 6.89
 SD 2.12 1.76 2.32
 n 44 44 44
Contact
 M 4.22 3.89 6.67
 SD 2.73 1.69 1.73
 n 9 9 9
Non-contact
 M 3.67 5.13 7.00
 SD 2.72 1.68 2.56
 n 15 15 15
Total
 M 4.63 4.59 6.88
 SD 2.38 1.75 2.28
 n 68 68 68

Table 4. Pearson Correlation Coefficients
of Sport and Life Variables by Gender

 Female

 Measure 1 2 3 4

1. Sport hostile aggression --
2. Sport instrumental aggression -.437 ** --
3. Life aggression -.460 ** -.360 ** --
4. Life assertion 0.97 .122 .295 ** --

 Male

 Measure 1 2 3 4

1. Sport hostile aggression --
2. Sport instrumental aggression -.252 * --
3. Life aggression -.451 ** -.256 ** --
4. Life assertion -.149 .097 .121 --

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 5. Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Sport and Life
Variables with Individual Life Aggression Subscales by Gender

 Assault Indirect Verbal
Measure aggression hostility hostility

Female
 Sport hostile aggression .376 ** .263 * .328 **
 Sport instrumental aggression -.196 -.370 ** -.224 *
 Life assertion .252 * -.076 .365 **
 Life aggression .754 ** .534 ** .789 **
Male
 Sport hostile aggression .473 ** .434 ** .124
 Sport instrumental aggression -.088 -.356 ** -.185
 Life assertion .184 -.250 * .260 *
 Life aggression .800 ** .698 ** .817 **

* p < .05. ** p < .01.
COPYRIGHT 2007 University of South Alabama
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Keeler, Linda A.
Publication:Journal of Sport Behavior
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 1, 2007
Words:6675
Previous Article:Who do I root for now? the impact of franchise relocation on the loyal fans left behind: a case study of Hartford Whalers fans.
Next Article:The early years of sport psychology: the work and influence of Pierre de Coubertin.
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters