Aggression

Aggression is an interesting feature of sport.  Many athletes perform better than expected when they are able to harness the motivating effects that aggressive moods bring.  Others, however, find aggression harms their performances, as they are distracted by the feeling and it leads to unsuccessful decision-making.

However, much of what we describe as “aggressive” is not seen as such by sports psychologists.  Let’s take a peek into a textbook and see what we can find (see Sport Psychology: Concepts and Applications, 5th edition, Richard Cox).

***

What is aggression?

Sports psychologists define aggression quite tightly.  For a behaviour to be labelled aggressive, it must be aimed at another person with the goal of (successfully) inflicting physical harm.

French footballer Eric Cantona’s flying kick in response to a fan’s verbal jibe is a perfect example of what sports psychologists would term aggressive behaviour:

However, simply squaring up to another player, which we might consider to be quite common aggressive behaviour, is not considered by the experts to be aggressive.

Footballers squaring up, by Alasdair Middleton

***

I think this limited view is odd, because I subscribe to the idea that most human behaviours are there for evolutionary reasons.

So I have always believed that most aggressive displays were partly for self-preservation purposes, in that they evolved to allow males to compete and assess each other’s relative strength and fitness without actually killing each other.

You can see this in animals in other species quite easily, especially where the males have horns or large teeth.  Crocodiles, for example, compare their prowess by how much water they can displace.  Whales compete to sing the lowest notes.  In general, it seems to me that the more of an offensive arsenal or capacity for indiscriminate destruction that an animal possesses, the more ritualised its aggressive behaviours become.

So disqualifying behaviours because they are not causing real physical harm seems to be counter-productive to me.

***

Hostile and instrumental aggression

After getting off to a bit of a shaky start, sports psychologists then go on to differentiate between two different kinds of aggression, as follows:

• Hostile – this aggressive behaviour type is purely intended to make the victim suffer, in retaliation for some prior misdemeanour
• Instrumental – this aggressive behaviour type is engaged in for the purpose of winning.  The behaviour is incidental to the goal and there may be no anger involved.  However, there is intent to harm.

***

Aggression and assertiveness

Aggression and assertive behaviour are certainly different, as sports psychologists are at pains to tell us.  Assertive behaviour contains no intent to harm, although harm may be inflicted as a result of the unusual effort or energy.

***

Theories of aggression

Aggression is commonly described by sports psychologists in four different ways:

• Instinct theory – this theory suggests that aggression comes from an innate drive, like any other instinct.  Sport is therefore seen as an outlet for this drive and can be used to release the pent-up need.  Under this theory, aggressive behaviours on the sports field should lead to reduced aggressive behaviours elseswhere.
• Social learning theory – this theory suggests that aggressive behaviours are learned and that aggression simply leads to more aggression.  Under this theory, aggressive behaviours on the sports field should lead to increased aggressive behaviours elseswhere.
• Moral reasoning theory – this theory suggests that aggressive behaviours are related to a person’s state of moral development.  Under this theory, contact sports that generally engender aggressive behaviour would lead to athletes being less moral in the rest of their lives.
• Frustration theory – this theory suggests that aggression is a natural reaction to a frustration.