For decades sports psychologists have disputed the question of whether aggression in any form is instinctive/ biological or is modelled by our interaction in society i. e. we learn it. Aggression is defined by Coakley (2014) as “verbal or physical actions grounded in intent to dominate, control, or do harm to another person” and emphasizes the two main components: that the behavior is aimed at another human with intention to inflict harm and that the behavior is reasonably thought to be as such that can actually cause harm.
Frankl (2001) cites Bredemeier (1983) definition of aggressive behavior in sport as: “The intentional initiation of violent and or injurious behavior; “Violent’ means any physical, verbal or nonverbal offense, while ‘injurious behaviors’ stand for any harmful intentions or actions”. Bandura (1978) distinguishes two forms of aggression, namely hostile and instrumental. In these, aggression is thought of as intentional but not always to cause body harm of another person.
In hostile aggression the intention is to inflict body harm, while in instrumental aggression the intention is to seek some external goal other than harming the individual such as intimidation, prestige, money or victory (Bandura, 1978). However, there is assertiveness. Aggression is not assertiveness. Assertiveness is to standing up for your rights (Abrams, 2014). The intention does not entail intent to do body harm but to use your voice or physical effort to make your presence felt.
It is within the rules of the game. This is sometimes confused with instrumental aggression as no harm is intended or done, but in this form of aggression, anger plays a role and unintentional injury may result. Besides, in assertiveness bold statements and shouting may occur. Any harm is incidental (Abrams, 2014). Numerous theories elaborated over the decades have infused the literature trying to offer explanations of the various sources of aggression observed in sports.
Eller (2006, as cited by Psychology 216, 2009) interpreted sources of aggression as coming from either an internal bio-psycho source, or the external influences of social values, human kind and social interaction. Other scholars have identified a third group, the drive theories characterized by impulsiveness created by the innate needs. Initially, the catharsis theories were used explain the differences between assertiveness, instrumental aggression and hostile aggression (Psychology 216, 2009).
The fundamental concept of this group of theories is that people had to purge themselves of natural aggressive tendencies or it will build up and it will burst out in aggression (Psychology 216, 2009). It also proposes that sports are an acceptable outlet to chann aggression so as to allow the individual to maintain their mental balance (Psychology 216, 2009). Bandura (1978) corroborated that early thinkers, like Aristotle, thought people were naturally aggressive and that because our ancestors were aggressive we carry the trait (internal) to be aggressive.
Such credence is conveyed in the instinct theory, which originated from the writings of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud and ethologist Konrad Lorenz (Frankl, 2014). Freud had postulated that aggression is a trait of all humans and starts in childhood, is motivated by sexual drives (the oedipal complexes), and should resolve by adulthood (Frankl, 2014). Lorenz combined Freud’s psychoanalysis with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and interpreted aggression as a form of natural selection allowing survival and success of populations (Frankl, 2014).
The instinct theory further expounds that from their physical profile like facial appearance, shape of the skull, etc. one can deduce if they shall be aggressive or not (Bandura, 1978). For example, a shorter basketball guard sees an opening and passes the ball to a tall, huge forward to dunk a ball (more aggressive physique) but while on the way up the forward elbows an opponent. This player could retaliate with aggression by seeking some gain without causing body harm, such as the referee call a foul.
This demonstrates then is instrumental aggression. If, however, the elbowed player, releasing more energy as Freud postulated, turns around and punches another player, this is hostile aggression and beyond the rules of the game (Psychology 216, 2009). Still others may demonstrate no aggression and try to assert themselves without intention to harm, such as calling out the aggressor (assertiveness). Hence, not all basketball players elbowed are going to retaliate by punching someone.
It is well recognized that in sports accidental injury can occur and that no blame can be placed. Moreover, the rules do not ban these occurrences. Bushman and Anderson (2001) criticized this theory as being too simplistic (Psychology 216, 2009). The instinct theory has been challenged in that it fails to explain how not all athletes exposed to the same situation react with aggression or with the same level of aggression, which would be the case if the theory hold true.
To try to explain gaps in other theories, including the instinct theory, John Dollard and a group of researchers at Yale University in 1939 proposed the frustration-aggression theory, which is another example of the catharsis theory (Frankl, 2001). They based their studies on prison populations. This is also a form of the drive theory and attributes aggression to an impulse created by an inner need whereby frustration causes aggression and this forms a cycle where continued aggression leads to more frustration and then further aggression and onwards Bandura, 1978).
In other words, there is need to expel or “catharsis” the frustrations from time to time or this manifest as bursts of aggression. Frustration results from the gap between expectations and achievements (Bandura, 1978). Other researchers have subsequently determined that apart from frustration, other causes exist for aggression. This theory has since been modified to include these factors including tension. In the modified frustration-aggression theory frustration only heightens the susceptibility to aggression (Coakley, 2014, Cox 2007).
The frustrated person cannot postpone the urge to aggress or more frustration builds up. This theory does explain the spectrum of aggression seen as the response can vary from assertiveness for less frustration to instrumental aggression and even intention to harm someone or hostile aggression. However, research shows that the mere presence of frustration does not seem to suggest aggression which this theory postulates should occur (Psychology 216, 2009).
There is research to show that catharsis of aggression leads to increased, not decreased, aggression Psychology 216, 2009). Bushman demonstrated this, for example, in the punching bag experiment where 3 groups were asked to demonstrate aggression by punching a bag or sitting still. The ones who sat still showed least aggression, while those who thought of the opponent showed the greatest aggression and the punch bag did not reduce their aggressive feeling over time Psychology,216 2009).
Moreover, it has been shown that football players show more aggression over the season and not less, although they have been expulsing aggression on opponents over time (Psychology 216, 2009). Apart from these catharsis theories, there is research to show that aggression appears to be related to developmental attributes starting early in life and continues to adulthood (Patterson et al. 1989 as cited by Psychology 216, 2009). From this, the moral reasoning theory was
