Contact sport participation predicts instrumental aggression, not hostile aggression, within competition: quasi-experimental evidence
| Published date | 09 January 2017 |
| Date | 09 January 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-01-2016-0207 |
| Pages | 50-57 |
| Author | Andrew M. Sherrill,Lauren T. Bradel |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Aggression, conflict & peace,Sociology,Gender studies,Gender violence,Political sociology, policy & social change,Social conflicts,War/peace |
Contact sport participation predicts
instrumental aggression, not hostile
aggression, within competition:
quasi-experimental evidence
Andrew M. Sherrill and Lauren T. Bradel
Abstract
Purpose –Findings are mixed with regard to the link between contact sport participation and aggression.
One possibility is that contact sport participation may be associated with instrumental aggression but
not hostile aggressio n. The purpose of this paper is to employ a qua si-experimental design to investigat e
the prediction that you ng men who regularly participa ted in contact sports during hig h school, compared to
those who did not, exhib it a greater disposition towar d aggression in response to a non- provoking
situation (instrumental aggression) and no dispositional difference in response to a provoking situation
(hostile aggression).
Design/methodology/approach –The Taylor Aggression Paradigm was used to manipulate three levels of
provocation (no provocation, low provocation, high provocation) and observe aggressive behavior in
participants who varied in contact sport participants (yes, no).
Findings –Results indicated a significant two-way interaction between provocation level and contact sport
participation such that contact sport participation positively predicted aggression before provocation was
initiated (instrumental aggression), not after (hostile aggression).
Originality/value –This is one of only a limited number of studies to examine the link between contact sport
participation and aggression at varying levels of provocation. Findings suggest the form of aggression
associated with contact sport participation is predominately instrumental.
Keywords Competition, Violence, Aggression, Athlete, Contact sports, Provocation
Paper type Research paper
Popular culture, news media, and academia often portray contact sports as violent enterprises
that promote hostility in their participants and spectators (Kerr, 2005). However, the form of
aggression inherent in contact sports may not be predominately hostile but rather controlled,
socially acceptable, and instrumental for success (Abrams, 2010). A contact sporting event is not
a series of unconstrained retaliatory actions but a strategic sequence of potentially harmful
physical actions that are permitted by regulations. Consider how spectators cheer an American
football linebacker each time he tackles his opponent and helps his opponent off the ground.
Conversely, consider how when unsportspersonlike conduct occurs (e.g. using physical force
beyond sanctioned limits), officials punish the offender. This study explores the possibility that
contact athletes are not especially hostile but rather receive extensive training in the identification
of appropriate contexts (e.g. competition) to use aggression motivated by strategy, not emotion.
The definition of “hostile aggression”(also described as “reactive”or “affective”) includes three
criteria: the actor’s use of any behavior intended to harm another person, the actor’s belief the
target desires to avoid harm, and the actor’s perception of antecedent provocation (Anderson
and Bushman, 2002; Geen, 2001). The definition of “instrumental aggression”includes only the
first two criteria and specifies that harming the target is merely a proximal goal while the ultimate
goal is some other outcome (Anderson and Bushman, 2002; Geen, 2001). The contact sport
Received 3 January 2016
Revised 14 April 2016
Accepted 29 April 2016
Opinions expressed in this paper
are those of theauthors and do not
necessarilyrepresent the opinions
of the Federal Bureauof Prisons or
the Departmentof Justice.
Andrew M. Sherrill, PhD, is a
Postdoctoral Fellow at the
Emory University, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA.
Lauren T. Bradel,PhD, is a Staff
Psychologist at UnitedStates
Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, Federal
TransferCenter, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, USA.
PAGE50
j
JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH
j
VOL. 9 NO. 1 2017, pp.50-57, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1759-6599 DOI 10.1108/JACPR-01-2016-0207
To continue reading
Request your trial