Alan Traclet

Antisocial behavior in soccer: A qualitative study of moral disengagement

This study was designed to examine (a) the moral disengagement mechanisms athletes use when they engage in antisocial behaviors in soccer and (b) whether the frequency of these mechanisms differs depending on the type of behaviors. Participants were 30 soccer players competing at a regional level. During a semi-structured interview, these participants were presented with video clips of their antisocial acts that occurred during regular games and were asked to explain why they engaged in these behaviors. Their explanations were coded based on the moral disengagement mechanisms described by Bandura (1999). Content analyses revealed that (a) the more frequent mechanisms used by the players were displacing responsibility to others (e.g., referees) and moral justification, and that (b) cheating acts and instrumental aggression elicited more displacement of responsibility than hostile behaviors.

Referees’ decision-making and player gender: the moderating role of the type of situation

The influence of player gender on referees’ decision-making was examined in 30 handball matches played at the highest regional level. The results indicated that referees make more lenient decisions toward male players when administering sporting sanctions, but more severe decisions toward male players when administering disciplinary sanctions, depending on whether or not the players were able to succeed in their action despite the foul. The findings are congruent with the hypothesis that referees use player gender as a judgmental heuristic. We suggest that further experimental studies examining the effects of referee gender and level of expertise, and of level of competition are needed to better understand the extent and limits of referees’ use of player gender as a decision-making heuristic.

Moral disengagement in the legitimation and realization of aggressive behavior in soccer and ice hockey.

The aim of the present study was to verify that the level of tolerance for aggression is higher in a collective context than in an individual context (polarization effect), and to test the association between moral disengagement, team and self-attitudes toward aggression, and tolerance and realization of aggressive acts in Swiss male soccer and ice hockey. In individual or collective answering conditions, 104 soccer and 98 ice hockey players viewed videotaped aggressive acts and completed a questionnaire, including measures of the perceived legitimacy of videotaped aggression, of the teammates, coach, and self attitudes toward transgressions (modified TNQ), of the moral disengagement in sport (modified MDSS-S), and of self-reported aggressive behavior. A multilevel analysis confirmed a strong polarization effect on the perception of instrumental aggression, the videotaped aggressive acts appearing more tolerated in the collective than in the individual answering condition. Using a structural equation modeling, we found that the moral disengagement, which mediates the effects of perceived coach and ego attitudes toward transgressions, correlates positively with the tolerance of hostile aggression within teams, and with the level of aggressive acts reported by the participants. Aggr. Behav. Aggr. Behav. 42:123-133, 2015.

Aggression in Soccer: An Exploratory Study of Accounts Preference

Most researchers have defined aggression in sport as overt acts violating the formal rules and intentionally causing harm (Widmeyer, Dorsch, Bray, & McGuire, 2002). Such conduct in team sports may also be conceptualized as a kind of social interaction (Mummendey & Mummendey, 1983), which would suggest aggression is not judged as an isolated act but as a set of actions and reactions between individuals. In many contexts, including sports, individuals who transgress social norms and/or cause harm to another are confronted with negative reactions and asked to account for that violation (Ohbuchi, 1999; Petrucci, 2002; Weiner, 1995). In this sense, the episode may constitute an integral part of the aggressive situation and partially determine the interaction (Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989). For instance, an athlete who provides an acceptable explanation of a violation might mitigate the negative reactions from others (e.g., opponents or referees), whereas an unsatisfactory response might lead to social reproaches or penalization. Research on accounts episodes in sports should consider the equivocal relationship between sport and aggression. Although the idea that sports build moral values is strong, competitive team sports often are counter to the development of ethics, sportsmanship, or fair play (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986). Empirical research conducted on attitudes of coaches and athletes revealed that aggression is considered as a salient and appropriate dimension in sports. For instance, Stephens (2000) and Stephens and Bredemeier (1996) argued that a team’s pro-aggression norms predicted self-aggressive tendencies, although these are contrary to ideological conventions.There is evidence that team sports athletes display less mature moral reasoning and a tendency to consider aggression as more legitimate than nonathletes (Bredemeier, 1985; Bredemeier & Shields, 1986). Athletes approved aggression under circumstances, such as close games or retaliation (Conroy, Silva, Newcomer, Walker, & Johnson, 2001). Although a growing number of studies have investigated the endorsement or rejection of aggressive behaviors in sport, to date, little is known about how athletes explain their aggressive behaviors. Many athletes accept a certain amount of aggression as part of the game, which raises the question about whether and what account selections players really make. The answer to these questions may increase our understanding of aggressive situations in sport and broaden a complementary knowledge base for account and sport research on aggression. Thus, the central purpose of this study was to explore the athletes’ perception of accounts given for aggression in soccer. Social psychologists have differentiated several account types (Ohbuchi, 1999; Schönbach, 1990). Apology expresses the acceptance of personal responsibility, whereas excuse and justification attempt to minimize this responsibility in terms of (uncontrollable) causes and reasons, respectively. Last, denials fully reject personal responsibility. Verbal explanations use different combinations of acknowledgement of association and harmfulness (Itoi, Ohbuchi, & Fukuno, 1996). Previous studies of accounts selection for interpersonal transgressions (Itoi et al., 1996; Ohbuchi, Suzuki, & Takaku, 2003) found a predominance of apology when the action was accidental, while excuse was favored when the action was intentional (Ohbuchi & Sato, 1994). FelAggression in Soccer: An Exploratory Study of Accounts Preference

Aggressor-victim dissent in perceived legitimacy of aggression in soccer: the moderating role of situational background.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the aggressor-victim difference in perceived legitimacy of aggression in soccer as a function of score information (tied, favorable, unfavorable), sporting penalization (no risk, yellow card, red card), and type of aggression (instrumental, hostile). French male soccer players (N = 133) read written scenarios and rated the legitimacy of the described aggressive act depending on a specific perspective (aggressor or victim) and situational information. A significant aggressor-victim difference in perception of instrumental aggression was found in situations where the score was tied or where there was no risk to be caught. In addition, aggressors were affected by such information, whereas victims were not. The discussion focuses on explanations and implications of such divergences in aggressive sport situations.

Aggressor and Victim Perspective-Related Differences in Perceived Legitimacy of Aggression in Soccer

The purpose of this role-playing study was to explore the perceived legitimacy of aggression in soccer as a function of perspective-related differences (aggressor vs victim) and type of aggression (instrumental vs hostile). 120 soccer players watched videotaped aggressive interactions in soccer and took the perspective of the actors (aggressor then victim or the reverse). Then they rated the legitimacy of each aggressive behavior depending on its ultimate goal (instrumental then hostile or the reverse). When participants adopted the aggressor perspective, they perceived instrumental aggression as more legitimate than hostile aggression. In contrast, when participants took the perspective of the victim, no significant difference was found regardless of the type of aggression. The discussion focussed on implications and consequences of such divergences in aggressive sport situations.

The ‘aggressive style’: genesis of an ambiguous resource for Swiss hockey and football players

Abstract In this study, we investigated what drives players to endorse an aggressive style in Swiss ice hockey and football. We selected a sample of 16 players on the basis of their penalty statistics. We used semi-directed retrospective interviews to collect players’; biographic narratives. The results show a socialization process into an aggressive style, supported by the dominant gender and socialization norms of the sport, which is under the influence of the structure of the sports organization. However, there are large differences between players, with only some of them adopting an aggressive style. Although many studies have underlined the influence of moral disengagement, the present results suggest that time also matters and that the diversity of career paths may explain the diversity in attitudes. Socialization differences in the sports field, bodily capital, a career path marked by thwarted reputation are the key factors that drive players to adopt an aggressive style.