Geneviève Coulomb-Cabagno

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.