Aggression in Athletes, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Today, more so than ever before, athletes are penalized or censured for engaging in undue aggression on the field, often resulting in injury to another.  While such behaviors are certainly not new, the reality is that modern media, in expanding the venues in which athletics are viewed to a degree not long ago unfathomable, also creates additional pressures on the athletes to succeed at all costs.  Such pressure, then, translates to outbursts in the form of rage.  On one level, the athlete is driven to win by an innate motivation to compete; on another, and in an increasingly wide variety of athletic events, media and fan attention is so enormous that parameters of correct behavior are abandoned, and the athlete’s sense of self-worth enables a survival mode unconcerned with inappropriate violence.  Given the duration and expanse of this issue, it seems that only a gradual and consistent shift of societal emphasis can ease the extremes of aggression exhibited by athletes today.

Aggression in Athletics

There is an inevitable conundrum in any discussion of aggression in athletics, simply because the two are synonymous to the average person.  On one level, aggression is commonly held to be a state of behavior that causes injury to an outside party or to property (Indiana University).  The greater reality, however, is that aggression is completely subject to degree; as we denounce the overtly aggressive acts that cause harm to another, we simultaneously seek an aggressive, or combative, spirit in athletics.  Definitions exist, certainly, in that “assertive behavior” is the acceptable form aggression takes when athletes conform to legitimate standards of play.  Similarly, “hostile” aggression is the level of assertion no longer deemed correct (Lemieux, McKelvie, & Stout, 2002).  It seems irrational, in fact, to conceive of an athlete of a non-aggressive nature in this sense.  Athletes train and practice with extreme dedication, intent on developing physical and mental capabilities that will aid them in excelling, so an “aggressive” focus on such appears to be, not merely ancillary, but essential.  Consequently, when problems arise, a significant component in the issue is that actual definition of aggression itself.  This being the case, then, it must be accepted that aggression in this context refers to the overtly hostile type.

It also follows an identified, and logical, pathway.  Cognitive neoassociation theory holds that aggression tends to breed further aggressive behavior (Lemieux, McKelvie, & Stout, 2002), which supports that assertive behavior may then easily cross the threshold into hostile aggression.

Studies reveal the unsurprising tendency for such behaviors to be more pronounced in contact sports, as there are physical manifestations of conflict occurring.  The goal is not a personal best, but the overcoming of another individual or team, and this may be abetted by a greater show of sheer physicality.  Then, in contact sports, there is the immense factor of reward; incapacitating the rival has meaning for the athlete’s own team and for the audience, both of whom tend  to vehemently express approval and validate the aggression (Lemieux, McKelvie, & Stout, 2002).

Furthermore, there can be no understating of the influence of that audience.  A recent study of football fans in Khuzestan emphatically reveals that outrageously aggressive behavior from fans is by no means only a Western phenomenon.  What the study uncovered, interestingly, is that the actual athletic competition is not necessarily the motivating factor in the audience aggression.  The outcome of the game, as well as calls made by referees during it, certainly fuel spectator anger, when these things defy the spectators’ expectations.  The entire environment, however, is significantly involved as well; narrow access to and from the stadium, it seems, is as likely to generate spectator aggression as consuming too much alcohol, or merely a delay in the kick-off time (Heydarinejad, Gholami, 2012,  p. 41).  Such research is critical, because there is no strict  dichotomy between the athletic competition and the audience response to it. In basic terms, players respond to the support offered by fans in the stadiums, and it is in the nature of sporting events for athletes of any kind to work to fulfill the desires of the audience.  Consequently, when extremely loyal fans of a team express violence as called for to defeat the opposing team, the athletes are in a sense granted societal permission to indulge in hostile aggression.  Multiple studies, in fact, reinforce that fans typically and freely admit to wishing severe harm on competitors, and would be inclined to commit such harm themselves if anonymity were enabled (Wann, Culver, Akanda, Daglar, De Devititis, & Smith, 2005, p. 292).  In such environments, then, it seems that influences both within and outside of the field of play promote aggression.

Issue and Solutions

It appears inescapable that accounts of undue hostility and physical aggression from athletes are significantly generated by the volatile nature of athletic competition itself, and in a way beyond the athletic context.  On one level, any such competition is intrinsically both intensely physical and defined by an absolute agenda: winning.  This is as true of the beach volleyball tournament as it is of the Super Bowl, and this factor of physical rivalry must exist irrespective of potential reward or disgrace; the athletes, all of them, are on the playing field to demonstrate their superior abilities through defeating the opposing team.  Added to this, however, is the immense component of the shifting character of sports.  In plain terms, today’s football hero is tomorrow’s loser, and careers are made and ended in a single game.  Consequently, the professional athlete is driven to perpetually assert their worth, time after time.  There are the threats to the career if failure occurs, but no less important is the threat to the athlete’s sense of self identity and value.  These are individuals who typically have been encouraged to determine their worth as human beings in terms of maintaining a consistently victorious presence on the field; an imminent lapse, then, takes on immense meaning, and must be avoided at all costs:  “Impulsive acts of rage and aggression often emerge following threats to an overinflated and unstable sense of self-worth” (DeFife, 2009).  Then, it is likely that modern opportunities for athletes who succeed at high levels spur on these demands for establishing identity through athletic achievement.  As the media creates international sensations of athletes, another definition of the self comes into play, and one as potentially harmful to a true sense of self as its being entirely invested in ability.

The circumstances then appear virtually formulaic.  The athlete is driven to achieve, achievement equates to winning over a rival, and both motivations enhance a sense of identity based on athletic ability.  It is only rational, then, to anticipate that extremes of aggressive behavior would erupt when this critical ambition is hampered or threatened.  Some athletic hostility may genuinely be prompted unintentionally, as the heat of the moment in the competition triggers an assault.  At the same time, aggression is rarely so isolated a behavior.  As noted, if it does indeed foster further aggressive tendencies, then there is a additional cause for concern, as studies indicate that college football players tend to be more dominant and aggressive off the field than their non-athletic counterparts (Lemieux, McKelvie, & Stout, 2002).  Consequently, in an era when sports and athletic competition is an industry of immense and international proportions, such patterns bespeak serious issues for society itself.

They also point to a solution, if one requiring extensive and widespread commitment.  Essentially, the way the athlete perceives themselves must be altered, and this can only occur through changing how society esteems them.  If, and on a consistent basis, the public uniformly decries aggression, and beyond the usual manner of expressing brief disapproval, the athlete loses incentive to act in such a way.  Similarly, through a societal emphasis on the value of decent behavior as paramount in athletics, the athlete is enabled to secure a sense of identity removed from winning at all costs.  Ultimately, for hostile aggression in athletics to be eased or ended, it is the public surrounding the athletics that must completely alter its reactions and expectations.

Conclusion

With disturbing regularity, the media offers stories of athletes exceeding the bounds of play and aggressively attacking their fellow athletes.  Assertion is necessary for athletics, and assertion may easily evolve into aggression, but the larger problem is that aggression itself is, while ostensibly condemned by society, equally reinforced by it as well.  For athletes to maintain both self-esteem and careers, they are exhorted to defeat their rivals, and the public too often echoes the athletes’ own inabilities to control their conduct.  For such hostile aggression to be properly addressed, society must take on the responsibility of demanding behavior that is in the true, non-aggressive nature of sports, and validate athletes in a way promoting the best of their assertiveness.

References

DeFife, Jared. (2009).  “Aggressive Athletes: Out of Control and Unapologetic.”  Psychology Today.  Retrieved 5 Aug., 2012, from

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-shrink-tank/200911/aggressive-athletes-out-control-and-unapologetic

Heydarinejad, Sedighe., & Gholami, Sajad. (2012). Identification of Factors of Aggression Incidence  Among Football Spectators in Khuzestan.  Studies In Physical Culture & Tourism, 19 (1),  37-41.

Indiana University. (N/A). Violence/Aggression/Deviance.  Retrieved 4 Aug., 2012, from http://www.indiana.edu/~cspc/violence.htm

Lemieux, Patrice, McKelvie, Stuart J., & Stout, Dale. (2002).  Self-reported Hostile Aggression in Contact Athletes, No Contact Athletes and Non-athletes.  Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology.  Retrieved 4 Aug., 2012, from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss3/SelfReportedAggression.htm

Wann, Daniel L., Culver, Zachary,  Akanda, Rubaba, Daglar, Melek, De Devititis, Carla, & Smith, Anthony. (2005).  The Effects of Team Identification and Game Outcome on Willingness to Consider Anonymous Acts of Hostile Aggression.  Journal of Sport Behavior, 28 (3), 282-294.  Retrieved 4 Aug., 2012, from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/620866309?