Unnecessary Roughness? School Sports, Peer Networks, and Male Adolescent Violence Derek A

American Sociological Review http://asr.sagepub.com/

Unnecessary Roughness? School Sports, Peer Networks, and Male Adolescent Violence Derek A. Kreager American Sociological Review 2007 72: 705 DOI: 10.1177/000312240707200503

The online version of this article can be found at: http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/5/705

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Sociological Association

Additional services and information for American Sociological Review can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://asr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://asr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/5/705.refs.html

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 Unnecessary Roughness? School Sports, Peer Networks, and Male Adolescent Violence

Derek A. Kreager Pennsylvania State University

This article examines the extent to which participation in high school interscholastic sports contributes to male violence. Deriving competing hypotheses from social control, social learning, and masculinity theories, I use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to test if (1) type of sport and (2) peer athletic participation, contribute to the risks of male serious fighting. Contrary to social control expectations, analyses suggest that athletic involvement fails to inhibit male violence. Moreover, there is a strong relationship between contact sports and violence. Football players and wrestlers, as opposed to baseball, basketball, tennis, and other athletes, are significantly more likely than nonathletic males to be involved in a serious fight. Additionally, the direct effect of football is explained by the football participation of individuals’ peers. Males whose friends play football are more likely to fight than other males, supporting perspectives that emphasize peer contexts as important mediators. Overall, findings are consistent with the expectations of social learning and masculinity arguments. The theoretical and policy implications of these results are discussed.

n many U.S. secondary schools, inter- munities, becoming core members of a school’s Ischolastic sports play crucial roles in struc- “in-crowd” (Bissinger 1991; Coleman 1961; turing student status hierarchies and peer Holland and Andre 1994). Similarly, nonathletic friends of popular athletes tend to share elevat- friendship networks. “Star” male athletes are ed social status and gain membership in more often venerated by their peers and local com- exclusive peer groups (Eckert 1989). The pre- dominance and visibility of sports in schools encourages all students, regardless of their gen- Direct all correspondence to Derek A. Kreager, der or athleticism, to orient their behaviors Department of Sociology and Crime, Law, and toward these activities and define their own Justice, Pennsylvania State University, 211 Oswald identities in relation to the most popular athletes Tower, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-6207 and athletic cliques. ([email protected]). I thank Kate Stovel, Jerry Herting, and Ross Matsueda for their helpful com- The salience of athletics in adolescent culture ments on drafts of this manuscript. This research fuels ongoing debates about the social role of uses data from Add Health, a program project youth sports. On the one hand, proponents have designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and long argued that interscholastic athletics posi- Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01 tively impact adolescent development. Here, HD31921 from the National Institute of Child Health youth sports are viewed as (1) increasing ado- and Human Development, with cooperative funding lescents’ bonds to schools, conventional peers, from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is and conventional adults (Crosnoe 2001; Larson due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for 1994; McNeal 1995); (2) socializing adoles- assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should con- cents into the basic values of American life, tact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. such as competition, fair play, self-restraint, Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 and achievement (Jeziorski 1994); and (3) help- (www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth/contract.html). ing students develop social and physical com-

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2007, VOL. 72 (October:705–724)

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 706—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW petence, leading to increased self-esteem, social field violence toward perceived outsiders and capital, and upward mobility (Ewing et al. 2002; “weaker” students. Masculinized sports then Otto and Alwin 1977; Spady 1970). Studies, in become socially sanctioned stepping-stones fact, concur on many of these points in consis- toward privilege and power—sites where coach- tently finding positive relationships between es, peers, parents, and the media encourage sports participation and a host of individual masculine identities founded on physical aggres- benefits, including increased self-esteem, locus sion and domination. of control, academic achievement, commitment Seemingly endless reports of high-profile to graduation, educational aspirations, and eco- athlete misbehavior bolster such critical views. nomic attainment (Eccles and Barber 1999; Accounts of brawling, sexual assault, and bul- Fejgin 1994; Mahoney and Cairns 1997; Marsh lying by prominent athletes regularly stream 1993; McNeal 1995; Otto and Alwin 1977). In across our televisions and newspapers, prompt- addition, some research finds a negative rela- ing the question: “Are these activities promot- tionship between sports participation and delin- ing the fair play and sportsmanship outlined in quent behavior (Landers and Landers 1978; their charters, or are they encouraging violence Langbein and Bess 2002; Mahoney 2000; Stark, by already privileged elites?” Answering this Kent, and Finke 1987). The latter lends legiti- question has important implications for school- macy to delinquency prevention programs, such based sporting programs, yet surprisingly little as midnight basketball, that promote sports as research has addressed the youth sports-vio- a means of keeping urban males off of danger- lence relationship. Moreover, studies that have ous inner-city streets (Hartmann 2001). been conducted generally suffer from method- Critical scholars, however, assail traditional ological limitations that strongly curtail sub- views of youth sports as incomplete and prob- stantive conclusions.1 lematic. Buoyed by first-hand accounts from In this article, I move beyond prior research athletes and coaches, these scholars reveal the contradictions and inequities underlying much with theoretically grounded hypotheses and of modern sport (see Gatz, Messner, and Ball- advanced quantitative methods. I rely on three Rokeach 2002, for a review). Rather than build- distinct theoretical traditions—social control, ing socially competent young men and women, social learning, and masculinity theories—to it is suggested, the conditions of contemporary derive competing hypotheses for the sports- athletics embed youth in value systems marred violence relationship. I then test these for five by homophobia, sexism, racism, and ruthless very different sports—football, basketball, base- competition. Within these contexts, middle- ball, wrestling, and tennis—using data from class white males have the most to gain, while the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent disadvantaged minority and female athletes are Health (Add Health). The unique design of the either marginalized or forego long-term attain- Add Health survey not only allows for the lon- ment in favor of short-term status benefits and gitudinal examination of violent outcomes, but illusory professional careers. it also includes a wealth of individual back- Critical feminist scholars have taken partic- ground variables and sociometric data. The ular interest in the relationship between sports measures of friendship networks are of partic- and gendered violence. Rejecting the view that ular interest, as they allow one to move beyond sports help to curb antisocial behavior, some prior research and gain leverage on a potential researchers assert that the hypermasculine cul- mechanism connecting sports to violence (i.e., tures characteristic of many contact sports teach violence as an acceptable means of maintaining valued male identities (Burstyn 1999; Coakley 1 Two problems endemic to sport-violence research 2001; Connell 1995; Crosset 1999; Messner are (1) a reliance on cross-sectional designs that are 1992; Sabo 1994; Young, White, and McTeer unable to distinguish selection from socialization 1994). By rewarding physical aggression with effects and (2) a failure to distinguish effects across on-the-field success and increased prestige, different types of sports (see Baumert, Henderson, contact sports are portrayed as both elevating and Thompson 1998; Begg et al. 1996; Jackson et al. athletes above their peers and increasing off-the- 2002; Nixon 1997; Wright and Fitzpatrick 2006).

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 SPORTS AND MALE VIOLENCE—–707

embeddedness in sports networks increases the and values of sports are assumed to lie within likelihood of individual violence). the value system shared by conventional society, participation in sports should increase ado- THEORETICAL BACKGROUND lescents’ belief in the moral order and, thus, prosocial behavior (Larson 1994). Indeed, many SOCIAL CONTROL PERSPECTIVES youth sports programs have explicit written Sports scholars commonly invoke social control missions to promote fair play, teamwork, and concepts, particularly Hirschi’s (1969) social conventional values (Fine 1987). bonding theory, to examine the linkages between Much of the empirical evidence supports the sports participation and adolescent antisocial dimensions of social control theory outlined behavior (Crosnoe 2001; Larson 1994; McNeal above. Adolescent athletes are less likely to 1995). Rather than focusing on delinquent moti- drop out of high school (Mahoney and Cairns vations, control theories posit that it is the con- 1997; McNeal 1995), more likely to attend col- straining influence of conventional bonds that lege (Eccles and Barber 1999; Marsh 1993; explain variations in individual-level delin- Sabo, Melnick, and Vanfossen 1993), and less quency. Schools (and positive relationships with likely to behave delinquently (Landers and peers and adults within schools) are seen as Landers 1978; Langbein and Bess 2002; important sites for adolescent integration into Mahoney 2000; Stark et al. 1987). None of this conventional society. Accordingly, youth who work, however, addresses violence specifically, are tightly bonded to school and to their student nor does it address the possibility of variation peers are more likely to refrain from violent in antisocial outcomes by forms of athletic behavior than are other, less bonded, youth. engagement. Because interscholastic sports are institu- Control perspectives assume that the moti- tionally sanctioned activities governed by school- vation to commit delinquent acts is constant connected adults, social control perspectives across persons and that group norms support- predict that sports participation should increase ive of crime are weak or nonexistent (Hirschi adolescents’ bonds to conventional society and 1969). Because organization in favor of crime reduce antisocial behavior (Crosnoe 2001; is thought inconsequential, control theorists dis- Larson 1994; McNeal 1995). Hirschi’s (1969) miss the possibility that individuals may be elements of the social bond—attachment, tightly bonded to groups or subcultures that involvement, commitment, and belief—are read- promote antisocial behaviors. Following this ily applied to individual sports participation. logic, violence by male athletes would be inter- First, sports participation should increase attach- preted as evidence that either sports are not ments between athletes and their teammates and coaches (Coleman 1961; Messner 1992). These ties should reduce antisocial behaviors by con- because these activities increase adolescents’ time straining individual tendencies toward aggression spent in structured situations supervised by conven- and delinquency. Second, athletic participation tional authority figures (Agnew and Petersen 1989; should build athletes’ commitment to conven- Osgood et al. 1996). According to these perspec- tional lines of action, because the penalty for tives, the situational properties of sports participation deviance would include the loss of athletic sta- should reduce opportunities for deviance while youth tus and a related decrease in social standing. are taking part in the activity. This differs from the Third, the time required to practice and succeed social control view, in that no assumptions are made in sports should increase adolescents’ involve- about individuals’ motivations or personal characteristics (e.g., social bonds [see Osgood et al. 1996]). ment in conventional activities and decrease, by Instead, the focus is on the activity itself, leaving default, the time available for antisocial behav- 2 open the possibility that unstructured and unsuper- ior (McNeal 1995). Finally, because the rules vised time spent outside of sports may increase athletes’ deviance. As Hirschi (1969:190) pointed out, delinquency may not require large amounts of time, so that time spent in structured activities—such as 2 In a related literature, authors in the routine activ- sports—may not prevent off-the-field delinquent ities tradition assert that sports should curb deviance behaviors in unsupervised settings.

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 708—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW conventional activities or that violent athletes are approach, particularly with regard to the rela- not fully bonded to sports. As there is much evi- tionship between peer behavior and individual dence suggesting that sports involvement is delinquency (Matsueda and Anderson 1998; generally associated with conventional behav- Warr 2002; Warr and Stafford 1991). ior, we are left to conclude that violent male ath- Hughes and Coakley (1991) apply social letes are mavericks within their programs, learning ideas to the seeming paradox of athlete alienated from other players and the conven- deviance. Rather than suggesting that athletes’ tional institutions of school and family. It would antisocial behaviors result from social alien- be this lack of social integration that frees an ath- ation or the rejection of cultural values, they con- lete to behave violently. tend that such behaviors stem directly from the normative definitions learned in sports, a concept they call “positive deviance.” They state that SOCIAL LEARNING PERSPECTIVES the values associated with sports—striving for In contrast to social control theories, social distinction, sacrificing for The Team, playing learning perspectives allow for subgroup vari- through pain, and refusing to accept limits—are ation in attitudes toward violence and law vio- generally associated with individual success lation. Accordingly, individuals learn antisocial and conventional behavior. Yet, these norms values and techniques within intimate social may also create situations where athletes “do relations, particularly among friends and fam- harmful things to themselves and perhaps oth- ily members (Akers 1998; Sutherland 1947). ers while motivated by a sense of duty and Because some individuals and social groups honor” (p. 311). They point to the widespread are thought to have positive attitudes toward use of performance enhancing drugs as a clear criminal behavior (or at least justify such behav- example of such behavior. These drugs are con- ior under certain circumstances), social learn- sidered deviant by broader society, but within ing theorists assume that individuals may be sporting contexts, they are often modeled and tightly bonded to others while simultaneously reinforced as acceptable means to boost per- holding attitudes favorable to law violation. It formance in a highly competitive environment. is this assumption that most separates learning A similar argument may be applied to aggres- theories from those of the social control tradi- sive behavior, in that aggression is often an tion (Matsueda 1997). essential element for on-the-field success. By At the heart of social learning approaches is applying lessons learned in sports, athletes may the idea that delinquency, like any other behav- perceive violence and intimidation as acceptable ior, is learned in social interaction. Sutherland means of achieving off-the-field goals and solv- (1947), in his classic work, postulates that delin- ing problems unrelated to sports. quency results from individuals learning Peer relationships play central roles in the prodelinquency situational definitions (or atti- learning process, particularly during the status- tudes) within intimate social contacts. conscious adolescent years (Coleman 1961). Accordingly, delinquency occurs when a person As noted previously, sports provide males with holds more positive than negative delinquent clear avenues toward increased peer status (Eder definitions of a situation. Akers and colleagues and Kinney 1995; Holland and Andre 1994). (Akers 1998; Akers et al. 1979; Burgess and Team sports in particular may also direct indi- Akers 1966) have expanded on this by includ- vidual behavior toward group norms. Ridicule, ing concepts of operant conditioning from appeals to group loyalty, and status competition behavioral psychology. This more general model are primary mechanisms for ensuring individ- adds specific mechanisms, such as imitation ual conformity to group expectations (Warr and personal and vicarious reinforcement, to 2002). For male athletes, derisive comments the learning process. Individual violence and such as “pussy” and “chicken” pose deep threats delinquency are thus assumed to emanate from to status within the peer group, prompting continual and reciprocal processes of social behaviors meant to regain face. Perceived threats observation, attitude internalization, and real to masculine reputations or social status may and perceived reinforcements from the behav- escalate into “character contests” where vio- ior of self and others. Research has confirmed lence becomes an acceptable means of resolv- the explanatory power of the social learning ing the encounter (Goffman 1967; Luckenbill

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 SPORTS AND MALE VIOLENCE—–709

1977). Situational research of such “honor con- ordinated males. Displays of aggression, inde- tests” consistently finds that peers play impor- pendence, competition, and a rejection of fem- tant roles in the violent transaction (Polk 1999). ininity are thought to be culturally honored Audiences both heighten the visibility of status ways of being a man, so that enacting these threats and become resources for conflict res- qualities allows men to “do” gender while also olution. As Curry (1998) notes in his study of reproducing a system of gender inequality. For athlete barroom violence, peers may simulta- masculinity theorists, understanding the repro- neously encourage violence against perceived ductive processes associated with hegemonic outsiders and bear witness to a group member’s masculinity allows for the recognition of alter- fighting prowess: “These fights with other males native gender forms and opens possibilities for (never members of one’s own team) had a way less oppressive gender regimes. of building team cohesion and expressing mas- Within the masculinity literature, heavy-con- culine courage” (p. 211). Moreover, such activ- tact sports are typically portrayed as important ities also serve to further insulate the athlete avenues for males to construct hegemonic mas- from nonathletic peers and increase disdain for culine identities. Accordingly, these sports those who have not made the sacrifices of sports become “endlessly renewed symbol[s] of mas- (Hughes and Coakley 1991; Messner 2002). culinity” that promote the “violence and homo- Violence by male athletes may thus bind team- phobia frequently found in sporting milieus” mates into exclusive peer groups where indi- (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005:833). In con- viduals are forced to jockey for status with tact sports, on-the-field violence is intertwined displays of aggression, risk taking, and ridicule. with success, prestige, and essentialist images of “maleness.” Contact sport athletes are admired for their strength and determination MASCULINITY PERSPECTIVES AND CONTACT and rewarded with increased prestige and access SPORTS to exclusive peer groups, the latter serving to Aggressiveness and feelings of superiority may insulate athletes from alternative gender con- be endemic to sport culture and increase vio- ceptions. The connection between on-the-field lence among all athletes. However, qualitative violence and identity should then increase con- research by masculinity scholars suggests that tact athletes’ risks of violence beyond the play- sports are not equal in their relationships to ing field (Crosset 1999; Pappas, McKenry, and individual violence. The contention here is that Catlett 2004). Such behavior confirms the con- “hypermasculine” contact sports (e.g., sports tact athlete’s sense of self, connects him to his where physical domination, the use of the body teammates, and protects his powerful position as a weapon, and brutal bodily contact are nec- relative to subordinated masculinities and fem- essary for on-the-field success) create condi- ininities. tions where violence becomes an acceptable In their qualitative study of a middle school, means of “doing” masculinity and maintaining Eder, Evans, and Parker (1997) document how valued masculine identities (Coakley 2001; young boys are able to construct masculine Connell 1995; Crosset 1999; Messner 1992; identities within heavy-contact sports. On foot- Young et al. 1994). By differentiating sporting ball fields and wrestling mats, the authors contexts and emphasizing the gendered nature observe boys setting up “a pattern in which of sport-related violence, masculinity theorists higher status is associated with intimidation of extend social learning ideas and provide addi- others and lower status is associated with sub- tional hypotheses for the relationship between missive behavior” (p. 69). Responses to insults sports and violence. and physical confrontations establish the mas- Stemming from critical feminist perspec- culine pecking order and provide the contact ath- tives, masculinity theories focus on male groups letes with access to high-status groups. Although to illuminate the processes underlying gendered coaches attempt to confine boys’ combative hierarchies (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). behavior to the playing field, violence extends A central concept for these arguments is hege- to informal settings. Memories of “good hits” monic masculinity, commonly defined as the and “take-downs” establish the informal social cultural patterns of action that allow some men order and identify the leaders as the best fight- to maintain dominance over females and sub- ers. Simultaneously, the aggression modeled

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 710—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW on the playing field carries over to disdain for According to masculinity arguments, varia- nonathletes, who are derided as being weak and tions in physical contact across these sports effeminate (e.g., “pussies” and “fags”) and, arguably relate directly to the masculine defi- thus, become subject to violent victimization nitions fostered by players. For football ath- (Eder et al. 1997:76–78). letes, on-the-field violence is likely entwined with male status and identity (Coakley 2001; PHYSICAL CONTACT AND AMERICAN Messner 1992). Social learning approaches would also expect football players’networks to SPORTS reinforce violent behavior as a means of main- To understand the relationship between ado- taining peer status and avoiding ridicule (Akers lescent sports and violence in the United States, 1998; Warr 2002). Although basketball and we must first understand this country’s current baseball players, like virtually all athletes, would sports landscape. Unquestionably, the most associate aggressiveness with definitions of prominent team sports in contemporary U.S. self, these definitions should fall short of vio- society are football, basketball, and baseball. lence because physical violence is an unneces- Each corresponds to its own season and is well- sary and unreinforced dimension for athletic represented nationally at both the collegiate and success. professional levels. Huge industries help pro- Combining learning and masculinity con- mote and broadcast their games, advertise their cepts creates an expectation that football will be merchandise, and capitalize on the celebrity a stronger predictor of fighting than noncontact status of successful players. More important team sports. But what of individual sports? for this study, these sports are also found in Social learning theories would expect peers to most secondary schools and are at different have greater impact on individual behavior in an points on the “contact” continuum. interdependent team sport than in the more Football is considered a heavy-contact sport autonomous environments of individual sports. because physical bodily contact is an acceptable If so, then comparing team and individual sports and necessary component for on-the-field suc- with similar levels of physical contact would cess. It is impossible for a team to win a foot- provide insights into the group nature of male ball game without physically dominating violence. Football and wrestling appear to be opposing players through tackles, blocks, hits, ideal candidates for such a comparison. Similar and other forms of “brutal body contact” to football, wrestling is an exclusively male (Coakley 2001:176). In contrast, the rules of contact sport, but the small size of wrestling basketball prohibit play that is physically vio- teams (typically fewer than 15 wrestlers) and the lent, allowing contact only when it is inciden- individual nature of competition may temper tal to the normal course of a game. Although wrestling’s peer effects. In addition, a noncon- physical and verbal (e.g., trash-talking) intim- tact and gender neutral individual sport, such as idation of opponents are key strategies (Eveslage tennis, provides a useful comparison at the and Delaney 1998), bodily contact to the point opposite end of the contact continuum. Not of violence or to “take down” an opponent is only does tennis have a long history of gender expressly forbidden and severely sanctioned inclusiveness, but it is also played on a surface (Shields 1999). If basketball is less contact- where opponents are physically separated by a oriented than football, baseball lies at the oppo- net. For social learning and masculinity per- site end of the contact continuum. At most spectives, the lack of physical contact, low con- points in a baseball game, opposing players nection with masculinity, and individual nature occupy separate physical spaces and the goals of tennis should limit its connection to male vio- of the game do not require physically defend- lence. ing those spaces. Only on rare occasions (e.g., preventing a double-play, sliding into home, or SELF-SELECTION AND SPURIOUSNESS pitchers “brushing back” batters) are baseball players able to threaten opponents physically, The above perspectives suggest a direct causal and these instances are closely monitored by relationship between sports and violent behav- officials to ensure that actions are not meant to ior. It is likely, however, that factors prior to ath- hurt or injure. letic participation are influential in explaining

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 SPORTS AND MALE VIOLENCE—–711 subsequent outcomes. For example, athletes DATA AND MEASURES may be more likely to possess aggressive traits SAMPLE that increase the likelihood of sports participation, success, and individual violence. If this is I draw from the National Longitudinal Study of the case, then the relationship between sports Adolescent Health (Add Health). Add Health is and violence would be spurious and explained a school-based, nationally representative study by the stable trait of aggressiveness. Aside from of American adolescents in grades 7 to 12. From population heterogeneity in aggressive propen- a list of all high schools in the United States, sities, a spurious sports-violence relationship Add Health selected a stratified sample of 80 may also result from early socialization expe- schools with probabilities proportional to size. riences. Messner (1992) finds that childhood Schools were stratified by region, urbanicity, relationships with fathers, brothers, uncles, and school type, ethnic mix, and size. Additionally, peers contribute to individuals’ definitions of for those high schools not covering grades 7 to masculinity and subsequent desires to partici- 12, the sample included the middle school that contributed the most students to the high pate in sports. These definitions, as well as the school’s incoming cohorts. The result is a sam- environments encountered in early athletic ple of 145 schools of varying sizes, affiliations, teams, may select individuals into secondary and community contexts. school athletic programs and explain subse- From 1994 to 2001, the study collected four quent violence. Parents and coaches may play waves of data from students, parents, and school similar selection roles. If parents encourage administrators. For this analysis, I use data from aggressive children to play sports, or if coach- the first (in-school) and second (Wave I ines select players based on their aggressiveness, home) questionnaires. The in-school survey again it is a pre-existing trait, and not sports per was administered to all available students in se, that causes later violent behavior. Addressing each of the sampled schools. In total, 90,118 these issues of selection and spuriousness is a students (approximately 80 percent of those key component—and, indeed, contribution— listed on school rosters) were surveyed. In each of this article. school, surveys were administered in a single Below, I test several competing hypotheses day during one 45- to 60-minute class period. about the relationship between sports partici- The questionnaire included basic demograph- pation and male adolescent violence. From ic characteristics, school-related activities social control theory, one would expect sports (including sports participation), and risk behav- participation to inhibit violent behavior by bond- iors (including a measure of violence). Also, stu- ing youth to conventional institutions. This con- dents nominated their five best male and five trasts sharply with the hypothesis derived from best female friends. This allows for the con- masculinity perspectives that the contexts of struction of friendship data taken directly from heavy-contact sports produce conditions sup- friends, thereby avoiding possible measurement portive of male violence. Importantly, the mas- error associated with self-reported friends’ behavior. Sixteen schools had less than 50 per- culinity hypothesis adds a sports-specific cent of the students complete the nomination dimension and an explicit focus on male behav- portion of the survey and were dropped from the ior. From social learning perspectives, I also analysis. The resulting sample consists of 75,871 examine the possibility that peer athletic par- students nested in 129 schools. ticipation is an important mediating link. The Wave I in-home survey took place in the Notably, my final modeling explores whether year following the in-school survey and con- pre-existing conditions, such as prior levels of sisted of a random sample of approximately fighting, delinquency, or background charac- 200 students from each of the originally sam- teristics, make spurious the sports-violence rela- pled schools (N = 20,745). The 90-minute inter- tionship. This offers both leverage on the views were administered in individuals’homes question of potential selection effects and con- and, to ensure confidentiality, questions were fidence in interpretations of any sports-vio- completed using laptop computers. Nested with- lence association highlighted in the earlier in 120 schools, 14,396 students completed both analyses. the in-school and in-home questionnaires. As my

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 712—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW hypotheses are primarily concerned with dis- within 12 months of the in-home interview. cerning the prevalence of male violence, I Descriptive statistics for this outcome are list- restricted my analyses to the 6,397 males who ed in Table 1. The variable is coded 0 if a respon- completed both surveys and attended schools dent reported not fighting in the last 12 months with adequate network measures. As with any and 1 if he reported fighting one or more times. large survey, missing data due to item nonre- Approximately 40 percent of male respondents sponse creates problems of representativeness that may bias estimated coefficients. Although reported getting into a serious physical fight. none of the variables in my analyses have greater The serious fighting item was originally than 10 percent missing values, I use imputation measured on an interval scale, with values rang- techniques in STATA to maintain statistical ing from 0 (never) to 4 (seven or more times). power and regain a nationally representative As the distribution for this variable is highly sample of male adolescents. skewed, I chose to present findings using a binary measure capturing the prevalence of serious DEPENDENT VARIABLE fighting. In preliminary analyses, however, I The dependent variable for this analysis is self- also explored alternative modeling specifica- reported violence taken from the first in-home tions of the ordinal scale (e.g., using ordered interview. This measure captures students’self- logit and linear regressions) and found similar reports of getting into a serious physical fight results to those presented here.

Table 1. Variable Descriptives (Survey Adjusted) (N = 6,397)

Mean Variable (Percent) (SE) Minimum Maximum Dependent Measure (Wave I In-Home Survey) —Serious Fighting .40 (.01) 0 1 Independent Variables (In-School Survey) —Age 14.83 (.13) 10 19 —Black .15 (.02) 0 1 —Intact Family .73 (.01) 0 1 —Parent Attachment 4.71 (.01) 1 5 —School Commitment 3.18 (.02) 1 4 —Self-Esteem 4.14 (.02) 1 5 —Family SES 6.12 (.10) 0 10 —Club Member .41 (.01) 0 1 —Body Mass Index 22.59 (.13) 11.22 54.28 —Athlete .63 (.01) 0 1 —Football .26 (.01) 0 1 —Basketball .27 (.01) 0 1 —Baseball .22 (.01) 0 1 —Wrestling .07 (.00) 0 1 —Tennis .04 (.00) 0 1 —Other Sport .36 (.01) 0 1 —Prior Physical Fighting .57 (.01) 0 1 —Minor Delinquency 7.03 (.17) 0 36 —No Reciprocated Male Friends .44 (.02) 0 1 —Friends Outside School 1.02 (.08) 0 10 —Percent Male Friends Football .16 (.01) 0 1 —Percent Male Friends Basketball .17 (.01) 0 1 —Percent Male Friends Baseball .15 (.01) 0 1 —Percent Male Friends Wrestling .02 (.00) 0 1 —Percent Male Friends Tennis .03 (.00) 0 1 —Percent Male Friends Other Sport .20 (.01) 0 1 —Male Friends Average Delinquency 3.84 (.19) 0 36 —Percent Male Friends Physical Fight .31 (.01) 0 1

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 SPORTS AND MALE VIOLENCE—–713

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL INDEPENDENT ticipation rates for these activities, as well as the MEASURES percentage of male nonathletes. As expected, males are most likely to play baseball, football, The primary independent variables are indi- and basketball. Approximately 25 percent of viduals’sports participation, friends’sports par- the sampled males participated in each of these ticipation, and prior levels of violence and risk activities. The individual sports of interest, behaviors. Descriptive statistics for these meas- wrestling and tennis, have lower participation ures, as well as for the background control vari- rates (8 percent and 4 percent, respectively), ables, are listed in Table 1. Add Health asked but they remain adequately represented and respondents about their participation in 12 ath- have relatively low correlations with the team letic activities (baseball/softball, basketball, sports (highest r: wrestling-football = .21). field hockey, football, ice hockey, soccer, Along with being the most common male swimming, tennis, track, volleyball, wrestling, athletic activities, the “big three” sports are also and other sports). Figure 1 displays the male par- positively related to peer status. Figure 2 shows

Figure 1. Male Adolescent Sports Participation

Figure 2. Popularity by Male Adolescent Sports Participation

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 714—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW the mean number of friendship nominations meaning that a respondent either (1) lacks received by athletes participating in the various reciprocated male friendships or (2) has male sports, as well as the mean number of nomina- friends that do not play the sport in question, tions going to nonathletes. The greater popu- to 1, indicating that all of the respondent’s larity of athletes as compared to nonathletes is male friends play the designated sport. To dis- most apparent. On average, athletes have over tinguish between individuals with no recipro- one friendship nomination more than non- cated male friendships and adolescents whose athletes (meanAthlete = 4.6, meanNonathlete = 3.3, male friends do not play sports, I include a p < .001). Among the different sports, base- dummy variable for respondents who lack ball, basketball, and football rate high in their reciprocated male friendship nominations. In association to peer status. Moreover, the “big addition, I control for the number of reported three” sports are very similar in their popular- friendships not listed in the high school or sis- ity levels, which when added to their similar par- ter middle school rosters. Approximately 15 ticipation rates, help to reduce the risk that percent of all friendship nominations were to differences on these qualities could make spu- unknown peers. rious any associations found between the sports and male violence. Of the individual sports, To account for potential selection effects, I wrestling has a relatively high association to include two measures of prior antisocial behav- peer status, while tennis is among the lower ior. The first, prior violence, is taken from the status sports. in-school survey and indicates whether a I use two sets of sports measures. First, I cre- respondent was involved in a fight within 12 ate a global sports measure, coded 1 if the months prior to the survey. Unlike the in-home respondent answered yes to participating in any measure, the in-school violence measure does of the listed athletic activities and 0 otherwise. not refer to the “seriousness” of the fight. It is This measure allows me to test if athletes, ver- therefore not a true lagged dependent measure. sus nonathletes, are more likely to be involved However, its reference to fighting should con- in serious fights. Second, I look at the inde- tinue to capture much of the effects of unob- pendent effects of football, basketball, base- served population heterogeneity. The ball, wrestling, and tennis on future violence. distribution for this variable is similar to the These sports are interesting because they vary Wave I measure, but a moderate correlation along a variety of theoretical dimensions, includ- (.35) between the in-school and Wave I meas- ing physical contact, popularity, and peer con- ures suggests that there remains sufficient vari- texts. I then compare these sports to other sports ation to explain. The second measure, prior 3 and the omitted category of nonathletes. delinquency, is a mean index of six minor I operationalize friends’ sports participation delinquency items (smoking, drinking, getting using six variables, each capturing the propor- drunk, skipping school, doing something dan- tion of the respondents’ male friends who play gerous on a dare, and racing a vehicle) with football, basketball, baseball, wrestling, tennis, possible responses ranging from 0 (never) to or another sport. To more closely approximate 6 (nearly everyday). The Cronbach alpha for objective friendships, I rely on reciprocated the prior delinquency index is .71. To control nominations, meaning that a tie sent by the for friends’ levels of fighting and minor delin- respondent (ego) had to be returned by the quency, I also construct measures that average receiver (alter) for it to be considered a “friendship.”4 Values for these measures range from 0, these behaviors across respondents’ male friends. The peer measure of violence captures the proportion of male friends who have been in a fight, while the peer delinquency 3 Correlations between the sports measures range between .04 (tennis-football) to .24 (baseball-foot- measure captures the average delinquency ball), suggesting that each measure has ample unique among a respondent’s male friends. variance to minimize problems of collinearity. 4 This measure is often termed the send-and-receive network and overcomes potentially problematic sit- same perceptions. I examined alternative network uations where individuals perceive that they have measures (send-or-receive, just send, and just receive) friends while the supposed “friends” do not share the with similar results.

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 SPORTS AND MALE VIOLENCE—–715

Self-esteem and socioeconomic status may MALE VIOLENCE AND SPORTS also be related both to violence and sports par- I use survey-corrected logistic regressions to ticipation (Hughes and Coakley 1991). I con- predict the binary measure of serious fighting. struct two indices. The self-esteem measure is I estimate models in STATA using the SURVEY an index created from three items (“I have a lot commands (Chantala and Tabor 1999). This of good qualities,” “I have a lot to be proud of,” method adjusts standard errors to correct for the and “I like myself just the way I am”) with a correlated error structure resulting from indi- Cronbach alpha of .76. The SES measure cap- viduals sharing similar school contexts. In addi- tures the highest parents’educational and occu- tion, the inclusion of poststratification weights pational attainment, as reported by students in gains population estimates by correcting for (1) the in-school survey. Values in this scale range unequal selection probabilities resulting from from 0 (neither parent achieved a high school the oversampling of specific subpopulations, such as disabled students and siblings, and (2) education or is currently employed) to 10 (at the loss of respondents due to survey attrition.6 least one parent pursued postgraduate education Table 2 reports five survey-adjusted models and has a professional job). of male serious fighting. The first model I include individual background and demo- includes individual background and control graphic variables to control for concepts that variables, as well as a dichotomous measure of prior research has found to be related to delin- athletic participation. The second model dis- quency or sports participation. These variables aggregates the athletic variable into the six include measures for age, black race, family sports categories with nonathletes as the refer- structure, attachment to parents (“How much do ence category. The third model addresses issues you think your mother/father cares for you?” of selection by including measures of prior indi- 1 = not at all to 5 = very much), and commit- vidual fighting and minor delinquency. The ment to school (“How hard do you try and do fourth model adds measures of peer athletic behavior and network structure. Finally, the your school work well?” 1 = I never try at all to fifth model examines the effects of peer-report- 4 = I try very hard to do my best). Of the latter, ed violence and minor delinquency. parent attachment and school commitment are Looking at Model 1, we find few surprises commonly viewed as indicators of social bond- regarding the relationships between individual ing and are therefore important controls for background characteristics and violence. examining the independent effects of sports on Consistent with prior research, age, intact fam- violence. Membership in nonathletic extracur- ily, socioeconomic status, parent attachment, ricular clubs may also indicate school bonding and school commitment are significant negative and confound the relationship between sports risk factors for subsequent male violence, while and violence. I create a dichotomous measure black males are at greater risk of fighting. of club membership with values of 1 for respon- Interestingly, involvement in a nonathletic dents who participated in one of 20 nonathlet- extracurricular activity also decreases the likelihood of getting into a fight by over 25 percent. ic activities and 0 otherwise. Finally, I include This finding, along with the negative effects of a measure of respondents’ body mass index parental attachment and school commitment, (BMI), calculated as: BMI = (kilos)/(meters2). Physical size may be positively related to both male violence (Felson 1996) and sports participation.5 6 In a previous draft of this article, I used HLM to correct for the correlated error structure and explore school-level effects. However, I found little between- school variance in serious fighting and few school- 5 Add Health’s BMI measure does not distinguish level effects. Moreover, the individual-level effects physical size from strength or muscularity. Males in the HLM models were virtually identical to those with relatively high BMI values may therefore be presented in this article. For the sake of parsimony, either more muscular or more obese as compared to I therefore present only the survey-adjusted esti- other males. mates.

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 716—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Table 2. Survey-Adjusted Logistic Regressions of Male Adolescent Violence (N = 6,397)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Beta Odds Beta Odds Beta Odds Beta Odds Beta Odds Variable (SE) Ratio (SE) Ratio (SE) Ratio (SE) Ratio (SE) Ratio Intercept 4.37*** 4.29*** 1.73** 1.82** 1.59* (.51) (.52) (.61) (.63) (.65) Age –.17*** .84 –.16*** .85 –.14*** .87 –.14*** .87 –.13*** .87 (.03) (.03) (.03) (.03) (.03) Black .37** 1.44 .34** 1.41 .42** 1.52 .42** .84 .42** .85 (.11) (.11) (.12) (.12) (.12) Intact Family –.27** .77 –.27** .77 –.18 .84 –.17 .97 –.17 .97 (.09) (.09) (.09) (.10) (.10) Parent Attachment –.12 .89 –.11 .90 .00 1.00 .01 .96 .01 .96 (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) School Commitment –.23*** .80 –.21*** .81 –.04 .97 –.03 .99 –.03 .99 (.05) (.05) (.07) (.07) (.07) Self-Esteem –.12* .89 –.14** .87 –.11 .89 –.11 1.02 –.12 1.01 (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) Family SES –.04** .96 –.04* .96 –.04* .96 –.04* 1.25 –.04* 1.23 (.02) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.02) Club Member –.31*** .74 –.28** .76 –.24** .79 –.24** .90 –.24** .90 (.08) (.08) (.08) (.08) (.09) Body Mass Index .002 1.00 –.007 .99 –.013 .99 –.014 1.04 –.014 1.04 (.01) (.01) (.01) (.01) (.01) Athlete .10 1.10 (.08) Football .34*** 1.41 .23* 1.26 .18 1.19 .18 .81 (.09) (.10) (.11) (.11) Basketball –.01 .99 –.02 .98 .02 1.02 .01 .94 (.09) (.10) (.10) (.10) Baseball –.01 .99 –.05 .96 –.02 .98 –.02 .89 (.10) (.10) (.10) (.10) Wrestling .37* 1.45 .24 1.27 .22 1.25 .21 1.37 (.14) (.16) (.15) (.15) Tennis –.43* .65 –.48* .62 –.45* .64 –.45* .64 (.20) (.20) (.20) (.20) Other Sport –.13 .88 –.14 .87 –.11 .90 –.10 .90 (.09) (.09) (.09) (.09) (continued on next page) provides support for social control arguments Model 2 examines the independent effects of that conventional bonds inhibit youth violence. football, basketball, baseball, wrestling, and Model 1 also suggests, though, that athletic par- tennis participation on male adolescent vio- ticipation may not hold similar inhibitory lence. I also include an indicator of participa- effects. Contrary to the hypothesis derived from tion in other sports, leaving nonathletes as the social control theory, I find that athletic partic- omitted category. The results demonstrate that ipation shows a positive relationship to serious sports differ significantly in their relationships fighting. Albeit nonsignificant, this runs count- to serious fighting. Of the “big three” U.S. er to arguments suggesting that sports partici- sports, only football shows a significant and pation encourages conventional lines of action positive relationship with fighting. Playing foot- and reduces antisocial behavior. It remains ball increases the risk of getting into a serious unclear, however, if the relationship between fight by over 40 percent, compared to nonath- violence and athletic participation varies by letes, while basketball and baseball participation type of sport (as suggested by masculinity argu- show no relationship to fighting. Of the two ments). I now turn to this question. individual sports, wrestling shows a positive

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 SPORTS AND MALE VIOLENCE—–717

Table 2. (continued)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Beta Odds Beta Odds Beta Odds Beta Odds Beta Odds Variable (SE) Ratio (SE) Ratio (SE) Ratio (SE) Ratio (SE) Ratio Prior Physical Fighting 1.40*** 4.07 1.41***4.09 1.40***4.07 (.08) (.08) (.08) Minor Delinquency .04*** 1.04 .04***1.04 .04***1.04 (.01) (.01) (.01)

Peer Network Measures —No Reciprocated Male Friends –.08 .93 .04 1.04 (.09) (.12) —Friends Outside School .04 1.04 .04 1.04 (.02) (.02) —Percent Male Friends Football .35* 1.42 .33* 1.38 (.16) (.16) —Percent Male Friends Basketball –.20 .82 –.22 .81 (.15) (.15) —Percent Male Friends Baseball –.20 .82 –.22 .80 (.15) (.14) —Percent Male Friends Wrestling –.02 .98 –.07 .94 (.24) (.24) —Percent Male Friends Tennis –.55 .58 –.52 .59 (.34) (.34) —Percent Male Friends Other Sport –.14 .87 –.12 .89 (.14) (.14) —Male Friends Average Delinquency –.01 .99 (.01) —Percent Male Friends Physical Fight .31* 1.37 (.14)

F-Statistic (df1, df2) 12.88 (10,128) 10.97 (15,107) 37.64 (17,105) 25.64 (25,97) 27.05 (27,95) *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05.

effect on fighting that is similar to football, with ciation to male violence. Together, these results wrestlers being 45 percent more likely than suggest a continuum of physical contact and nonathletes to get into a fight. Playing tennis masculinity whereby highly masculinized contact shows the opposite effect, significantly decreas- sports increase the risks of violence. Sports low ing the risks of fighting by 35 percent. These in physical contact and less associated with mas- results provide strong support for masculinity culinity, in contrast, seem to curb such behavior. arguments, in that the two heavy-contact and It is possible that the effects of football and exclusively male sports (i.e., football and wrestling are spurious and explained by latent wrestling) show the strongest positive relation- characteristics or prior socialization. Model 3 ships to male violence, while tennis, the sport gains leverage on this question by including with the least amount of physical contact and his- measures of prior fighting and minor delin- torically the least male dominated, has the quency. These variables control for much of the strongest negative association with male vio- effects of state dependence or selectivity into lence. On the other hand, there appears to be lit- sports, while also providing a more conservative tle support for the expectation that involvement test of the sports-violence relationship. There is, in high visibility sports alone increases levels of notably, considerable stability in antisocial behav- violence. Neither baseball nor basketball is asso- ior over time. Self-reported fighting during the ciated with an increased risk of fighting. in-school survey increases the risk of being in a Moreover, wrestling, an individual sport with serious future fight by over 300 percent. Similarly, low participation rates, has a strong positive asso- minor acts of delinquency increase the likeli-

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 718—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW hood of serious fighting, suggesting the gener- reported), yet this interaction was nonsignifi- ality of antisocial behavior (Gottfredson and cant. This suggests that, if anything, football Hirschi 1990). Indeed, these variables attenuate players in football networks are less likely to over one-third of the football coefficient and behave violently than similarly situated non- almost one-half the wrestling coefficient, mak- football males. Perhaps this null effect is not sur- ing the latter nonsignificant. Football, however, prising, as a nonathlete in a football group would remains a strong and significant predictor of vio- have more to prove and be in a more precarious lence, suggesting that self-selection does not social position than a football player in the same account for the entire relationship. situation. Violence for the nonathlete would Model 4 explores the potential mediating role, become a means of demonstrating worthiness derived from social learning theories, of friend- to the football-dominated group. ship network composition on the sports-violence To illustrate the effects of athletic friend- relationship. This model includes peer network ships, Figure 3 presents predicted probabilities measures for each of the six sports categories. The of serious fighting across different proportions results provide support for combined social learn- of football, basketball, baseball, wrestling, and ing and masculinity predictions. Males with a tennis friends (holding other variables at their high proportion of reciprocated friends playing means). The risk of fighting increases with football are significantly more likely to behave higher proportions of football friends. Males violently than those without football friends. Net with all-football friends are expected to have a of the number of friends playing other sports, 45 percent probability of getting into a serious individuals whose friends all play football are 38 fight, more than 8 percentage points higher percent more likely to get into a serious fight than than similar individuals with no football friends those without football friends. All other measures and almost 20 percentage points higher than of peer sports participation are nonsignificant. males with all-tennis friends. Like Haynie’s It is particularly interesting that embeddedness (2002) examination of the relationship between in wrestling networks shows a small negative delinquency and delinquent friendship networks, relationship to violence (a finding that persists this analysis suggests that embeddedness in when all other peer measures are removed from homogeneous peer networks most effectively the model). This suggests that it is the combina- constrains individual behaviors toward group tion of heavy physical contact and a team setting norms and increases opportunities for group- (e.g., football), and not just the physical contact related behavior. In this case, the norms and associated with wrestling, that encourages male opportunities associated with all-football net- violence. Indeed, football friendships fully atten- works are positively associated with increased uate the direct effect of individual football par- male violence. ticipation, decreasing the size of the football As with the potentially spurious relationship coefficient by 35 percent from Model 3. Much between individual sports participation and of the violence associated with football is thus fighting, it is possible that the effects of peer net- explained by athletes in this sport having greater works may be explained by friends’violence or contact with other football players. Moreover, delinquent activities. Such a pattern would embeddedness in a football network significantly reflect the possibility that individuals seek increases the risk of serious violence, regardless friends who are violent and that shared violent of an individual’s level of football participation. tendencies predict both involvement in sports But is the effect of football-playing friends and future individual violence. Model 5 exam- greater for football players than for non-football ines this by including measures of the propor- players? It could be that the relationship between tion of friends who self-report being in a fight football and violence increases as players are (in-school survey) and the average minor delin- 7 more immersed in football peer networks. To test quency of those same friends. As one would this possibility, I included an interaction between expect, the proportion of friends who have been football and football networks in Model 4 (not in a fight is positively associated with individual fighting. Individuals whose friends all report getting into a fight are themselves 38 percent 7 This idea was raised by a reviewer of a previous more likely to get into a fight. The delinquen- manuscript draft. cy of male friends shows no relationship to seri-

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 SPORTS AND MALE VIOLENCE—–719

Figure 3. Predicted Probability of Serious Fighting by Friends’ Sports Participation ous fighting, net of other covariates. More competing hypotheses from prominent per- importantly for my stated hypotheses, the intro- spectives. Contrary to the social control hypoth- duction of the two measures does not signifi- esis, my results suggest that sports fail to protect cantly attenuate the peer football measure. males from interpersonal violence. Indeed, con- Having a high proportion of friends playing tact sports (e.g., football and wrestling) are pos- football maintains a significant association with itively associated with male serious fighting. serious violence. This effect is mediated by peer football partic- To test whether the effects of playing sports ipation, such that embeddedness in all-football or having friends who play sports differ by networks substantially increases the risk for race, social class, or self-esteem, I include serious fighting. These findings are consistent interactions between the sport-specific vari- with hypotheses derived from social learning ables and individual background variables in and masculinity theories and provide impor- the final model (not shown). None of these tant impetus for further research. Although interactions are significant at p < .05. Thus, caveats exist, this study offers leverage on a there appears to be little evidence that norma- potential paradox of youth sports, and this tive pressures resulting from sports participa- understanding may help inform schools’sports tion should be higher for more disadvantaged policies. or insecure youth. Playing hypermasculine contact sports shapes subsequent violence. Some of this relationship DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS is explained by selection effects, with the intro- This analysis represents a quantitative foray duction of prior fighting and delinquency atten- into the relationship between adolescent sports uating a significant proportion of the football and male interpersonal violence. While prior and wrestling direct effects. This is not sur- research has demonstrated that sports partici- prising, given that aggressive kids are likely to pation is associated with many positive out- enter contact sports and the coaches of these comes, few studies have focused on the activities are likely to choose aggressive kids to connections between high school interscholas- fill more competitive teams. However, selection tic sports and violence, despite compelling rea- does not appear to tell the entire story. Net of sons for doing so. The sports-violence prior fighting and delinquency, football remains relationship is a theoretically rich area with a significant predictor of serious fighting and

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 720—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW is only fully mediated with the introduction of tations and maintain their superiority within friends’ football participation. gendered peer hierarchies.8 The theoretical implications of a positive This argument parallels Sutherland’s (1940) football-violence relationship are apparent. explanation for white-collar crime. For If we believe that football players generally Sutherland, white-collar crime results from over- lie at the center of a school’s peer culture (as conformity to the competitive norms within suggested by prior adolescence research and business and is therefore unlikely to stem from the sports-popularity relationship observed deviant identities or social isolation from con- above), it is difficult to explain the football- ventional society. Like athletes in heavy-contact violence connection as resulting from weak team sports, businesspeople are often reinforced social bonds. The social and individual ben- for behaviors that are at odds with legal rules. efits accrued by male contact-sport athletes Because their behaviors occur within respect- do not suggest that they reject conventional ed and high-status institutional settings, how- norms and lie on the fringes of conventional ever, both businesspeople and athletes are able society, and yet increased rates of violence to behave in socially unacceptable ways while from these athletes also suggest that they are avoiding deviant labels and identities. It is only not altogether conforming. This seemingly when misbehavior within these institutions paradoxical pattern was recognized at foot- becomes particularly egregious or highly visi- ball’s inception. Raymond Gettell, a physical ble that the public reevaluates its perceptions and educator at Amherst College at the beginning increases social controls. of the twentieth century, echoed the views of While my findings contribute to our under- many Americans when he described football standing of the relationship between sports and as an essential tool for preparing young men violence, there are obvious limitations. First, for war. According to Gettell, football simul- although I control for prior levels of fighting and taneously (1) provides young males with minor delinquency, it remains possible that opportunities for “physical combat,” (2) sat- unobserved heterogeneity explains the associ- isfies a “primitive lust for battle,” and (3) ation between peer athletic participation and provides a “higher and distinctively civilized violence. One possibility for addressing unob- interest in organization, cooperation, and the served heterogeneity is to look at within-indi- skilled interrelation of individual effort direct- vidual change over time using a fixed effects ed to a common purpose” (see Burstyn approach. In a fixed effects model, longitudinal 1999:73). Gettell’s statements reveal the com- dependent and independent variables measure peting demands facing many athletes. change while controlling for time stable char- On the one hand, parents, coaches, and acteristics. Unfortunately, such an approach is communities expect athletes to abide by con- impossible in the current analysis due to a lack ventional rules, with the threat of team expul- of longitudinal sports measures. Add Health sion potentially deterring misbehavior. On only asked sports-specific questions during the the other hand, these same groups provide in-school survey. Without longitudinal data on contact-sport athletes with situational defi- sports participation, population heterogeneity nitions that support violence as a means of and selection effects can only be addressed by attaining “battlefield” victories, increasing identifying plausible instrumental variables peer status, and asserting “warrior” identities. Given these conflicting definitions, whether or not male contact-sport athletes behave violently likely depends on the situa- 8 tional contexts in which they find themselves. Recent research also suggests that athletes are at In the classroom, constraint and conformity greater risk of alcohol use (Eitle, Turner, and Eitle 2003) and drunk driving (Hartmann and Massoglia validate the conventional identities expected forthcoming). These findings, along with positive of contact-sport athletes, as well as help to connections between minor delinquency and popu- solidify their high status positions within larity (Allen et al. 2005; Kreager forthcoming), sup- schools. In informal peer situations, howev- port views that “in-crowd” athletes are under pressure er, gendered displays of power and aggression to maintain peer status with demonstrations of mas- allow the same males to meet group expec- culinity and risky behaviors (see also Curry 1998).

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 SPORTS AND MALE VIOLENCE—–721

(notoriously difficult in social science research) contributors to a school’s gender regime. The or by including theoretically relevant controls. results of this project clearly demonstrate a link I take the latter approach but recognize the between contact sports and violence, meaning imperfection in this strategy. that these activities may be appropriate sites Second, this study is unable to identify the for disrupting male violence. Strong selection causal mechanisms that explain the observed effects also suggest, though, that much of the relationships. Although some of the results are connection between contact sports and violence consistent with arguments derived from mas- occurs prior to individuals’ high school athlet- culinity and socialization theories, an inability ic experiences. This possibility makes it all the to identify specific mechanisms (e.g., subjects’ more important that coaches, parents, and school identification with hegemonic masculinity, administrators be conscious of their gate-keep- objective reinforcement for violence, or vic- ing roles and use their positions to prevent con- tims as “weaker” peers) leaves open the possi- tinued athlete violence at all developmental bility for alternative explanations. This is a stages. Precluding problematic youth from play- problem often associated with cultural, identi- ing contact sports, not tolerating athletic vio- ty, and values research. These concepts are elu- lence, and fostering a more tolerant atmosphere sive and open to interpretation. Qualitative are three means of breaking the contact sport- research provides the best hope for under- violence relationship. These changes necessitate standing the mechanisms underlying this arti- de-emphasizing the “winning is everything” cle’s findings. Similar to the work of Eder and mentality, an unlikely proposition given the colleagues (1997) and Curry (1998), researchers demands placed on coaches and players to make must return to the field to identify the person- their schools and communities proud. However, al and situational characteristics associated with the positive benefits for individual trajectories athlete misbehavior. Only ethnographic studies may outweigh the costs of a losing team record. can gain leverage on the intersections of context, As Trulson (1986) found when researching mar- opportunity, and motivations that surround tial arts programs, contact sports that emphasize sports-related violence. Based on situational respect for others, self-control, patience, and research of male-on-male violence (Luckenbill humility can serve to reduce the violence of 1977; Polk 1999), I am inclined to believe that aggressive male adolescents. Programs devel- athlete violence typically involves threats to oped according to these ideals may not neces- masculinity, the presence of an audience, and an sarily win as many matches as those built on informal setting such as a party or schoolyard. aggression and competitiveness, but their attrac- It may also be, though, that male athletes active- tiveness lies in positively affecting the lives of ly seek violent encounters to demonstrate their problematic youth while fostering an environ- masculine prowess and group worth. Likewise, ment of inclusiveness and respect. individual characteristics (e.g., athletic ability or position played) and team characteristics Derek A. Kreager is an Assistant Professor of (e.g., win-loss record) may facilitate athlete Sociology and Crime, Law, and Justice at the violence. Addressing these issues is beyond the Pennsylvania State University. His research interests scope of this article, but future qualitative include crime, the life course, deterrence, and social research could better disentangle the proximal network analysis. He is currently working on a proj- causes of sports-related violence. ect with Ross Matsueda and David Huizinga that Despite such limitations, results suggest that analyzes life course trajectories of drug use and sports, particularly male-dominated contact crime. His prior work, focusing on decision making sports, have important consequences for male and delinquent friendships, has been published in adolescent violence. Such findings may also ASR (with Ross Matsueda and David Huizinga) and Social Forces. have certain policy implications. As Connell (1996) states in his insightful look at gender and education, the most important step in address- REFERENCES ing violence and bullying in schools is to Allen, Joseph P., Maryfrances R. Porter, F. Christy become aware of the masculinizing practices McFarland, Penny Marsh, and Kathleen Boykin that contribute to gender privilege and hege- McElhaney. 2005. “The Two Faces of Adolescents’ monic domination. Sports, he argues, are major Success with Peers: Adolescent Popularity, Social

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 722—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Adaptation, and Deviant Behavior.” Child Room: Campus Bars and College Athletes.” Development 76:747–60. Sociology of Sport Journal 15:205–15. Agnew, Robert and David M. Petersen. 1989. Eccles, Jacquelynne S. and Bonnie L. Barber. 1999. “Leisure and Delinquency.” Social Problems “Student Council, Volunteering, Basketball, or 36:332–50. Marching Band: What Kind of Extracurricular Akers, Ronald L. 1998. Social Learning and Social Involvement Matters?” Journal of Adolescent Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Research 14:10–43. Deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Eckert, Penelope. 1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Press. Categories and Identity in High School. New York: Akers, Ronald L., Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza- Teachers College Press. Kaduce, and Marcia Radosevich. 1979. “Social Eder, Donna, Catherine C. Evans, and Stephen Learning and Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of Parker. 1997. School Talk: Gender and Adolescent a General Theory.” American Sociological Review Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University 44:636–55. Press. Baumert, Paul W., John M. Henderson, and Nancy Eder, Donna and David A. Kinney. 1995. “The Effect Thompson. 1998. “Health Risk Behaviors of of Middle School Extracurricular Activities on Adolescent Participants in Organized Sports.” Adolescents’ Popularity and Peer Status.” Youth Journal of Adolescent Health 22:460–65. and Society 26:298–324. Begg, Dorothy J., John D. Langley, Terrie Moffit, and Eitle, David, R. Jay Turner, and Tamela McNulty Stephen W. Marshall. 1996. “Sport and Eitle. 2003. “The Deterrence Hypothesis Delinquency: An Examination of the Deterrence Reexamined: Sports Participation and Substance Hypothesis in a Longitudinal Study.” British Use Among Young Adults.” Journal of Drug Issues Journal of Sports Medicine 30:335–41. 33:193–222. Bissinger, H. G. 1991. Friday Night Lights: A Town, Eveslage, Scott and Kevin Delaney. 1998. “Talkin A Team, A Dream. New York: Harper Perennial. Trash at Hardwick High: A Case Study of Insult Burgess, Robert L. and Ronald L. Akers. 1966. “A Talk on a Boys’ Basketball Team.” International Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory Review of Sport Sociology 33:239–53. of Criminal Behavior.” Social Problems Ewing, Martha, Lori Gano-Overway, Crystal Branta, 14:128–47. and Vern Seefeldt. 2002. “The Role of Sports in Burstyn, Varda. 1999. The Rites of Men: Manhood, Youth Development.” Pp. 31–47 in Paradoxes of Politics, and the Culture of Sports. Toronto, Youth and Sport, edited by M. Gatz, M. Messner Canada: University of Toronto Press. and S. J. Ball-Rokeach. Albany, NY: State Chantala, Kim and Joyce Tabor. 1999. “Strategies to University of New York Press. Perform a Design-Based Analysis Using the Add Fejgin, Naomi. 1994. “Participation in High School Health Data.” Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Competitive Sports: A Subversion of School Carolina Population Center. Retrieved January 12, Mission or Contribution to Academic Goals.” 2007 (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/ Sociology of Sport Journal 11:211–30. files/weight1.pdf). Felson, Richard B. 1996. “Big People Hit Little Coakley, Jay. 2001. Sport in Society: Issues and People: Sex Differences in Physical Power and Controversies. 7th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Interpersonal Violence.” Criminology 34:433–52. Coleman, James. 1961. The Adolescent Society: The Fine, Gary Alan 1987. With the Boys: Little League Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Baseball and Preadolescent Culture. Chicago, IL: Education. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. University of Chicago Press. Connell, Robert W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley, Gatz, Margaret, Michael A. Messner, and Sandra J. CA: University of California Press. Ball-Rokeach. 2002. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–12 in ———. 1996. “Teaching the Boys: New Research Paradoxes of Youth and Sport, edited by M. Gatz, on Masculinity, and Gender Strategies for M. Messner, and S. J. Ball-Rokeach. Albany, NY: Schools.” Teachers College Record 98:206–35. State University of New York Press. Connell, Robert W. and James W. Messerschmidt. Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NJ: Concept.” Gender and Society 19:829–59. Doubleday. Crosnoe, Robert. 2001. “The Social World of Male Gottfredson, Michael and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A and Female Athletes in High School.” Sociological General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford Studies of Children and Youth 8:87–108. University Press. Crosset, Todd. 1999. “Male Athletes’ Violence Hartmann, Douglas. 2001. “Notes on Midnight Against Women: A Critical Assessment of the Basketball and the Cultural Politics of Recreation, Athletic Affiliation, Violence Against Women Race, and At-Risk Urban Youth.” Journal of Sport Debate.” Quest 51:244–57. and Social Issues 25:339–71. Curry, Timothy Jon. 1998. “Beyond the Locker Hartmann, Douglas and Michael Massoglia.

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 SPORTS AND MALE VIOLENCE—–723

Forthcoming. “Re-Assessing the Relationship Matsueda, Ross L. and Kathleen Anderson. 1998. Between High School Sports Participation and “The Dynamics of Delinquent Peers and Deviance: Evidence of Enduring, Bifurcated Delinquent Behavior.” Criminology Effects.” Sociological Quarterly. 36:269–308. Haynie, Dana. 2002. “Friendship Networks and McNeal, Ralph B. 1995. “Extracurricular Activities Delinquency: The Relative Nature of Peer and High School Dropouts.” Sociology of Delinquency.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology Education 68:62–81. 18:99–134. Messner, Michael. 1992. Power at Play: Sports and Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. the Problem of Masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Press. Holland, Alyce and Thomas Andre. 1994. “Athletic ———. 2002. Taking the Field: Women, Men, and Participation and the Social Status of Adolescent Sports. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Males and Females.” Youth and Society Press. 25:388–407. Nixon, Howard L. 1997. “Gender, Sport, and Hughes, Robert and Jay Coakley. 1991. “Positive Aggressive Behavior Outside Sport.” Journal of Deviance Among Athletes: The Implications of Sport and Social Issues 21:379–91. Overconformity to the Sport Ethic.” Sociology of Osgood, D. Wayne, Janet K. Wilson, Patrick M. Sport Journal 8:307–25. O’Malley, Jerald G. Bachman, and Lloyd D. Jackson, James S., Shelley Keiper, Kendrick Brown, Johnson. 1996. “Routine Activities and Individual Tony Brown, and Warde Manuel. 2002. “Athletic Deviant Behavior.” American Sociological Review Identity, Racial Attitudes, and Aggression in First- 61:635–55. Year Black and White Intercollegiate Athletes.” Pp. Otto, Luther and Duane Alwin. 1977. “Athletics, 159–72 in Paradoxes of Youth Sport, edited by M. Aspirations and Attainments.” Sociology of Gatz, M. Messner, and S. J. Ball-Rokeach. New Education 50:102–13. York: State University of New York Press. Pappas, Nick, Patrick McKenry, and Beth Catlett. Jeziorski, Ronald M. 1994. The Importance of School 2004. “Athlete Aggression on the Rink and off Sports in American Education and Socialization. the Ice.” Men and Masculinities 6:291–312. New York: University Press of America. Polk, Kenneth. 1999. “Males and Honor Contest Kreager, Derek A. Forthcoming. “When It’s Good to Violence.” Homicide Studies 3:6–29. be ‘Bad’: Violence and Adolescent Peer Status.” Sabo, Donald. 1994. “Pigskin, Patriarchy and Pain.” Criminology. Pp. 82–88 in Sex, Violence, and Power in Sports: Landers, Daniel M. and Donna M. Landers. 1978. Rethinking Masculinity, edited by M. Messner and “Socialization via Interscholastic Athletics: Its D. Sabo. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press. Effects on Delinquency.” Sociology of Education Sabo, Donald, Merrill J. Melnick, and Beth E. 51:299–303. Vanfossen. 1993. “High School Athletic Langbein, Laura and Roseana Bess. 2002. “Sports in Participation and Postsecondary Educational School: Source of Amity or Antipathy?” Social and Occupational Mobility: A Focus on Race Science Quarterly 83:436–54. and Gender.” Sociology of Sport Journal Larson, Reed. 1994. “Youth Organizations, Hobbies, 10:44–56. and Sports as Developmental Contexts.” Pp. 46–65 Shields, Edgar W. 1999. “Intimidation and Violence in Adolescence in Context, edited by R. K. by Males in High School Athletics.” Adolescence Silberiesen and E. Todt. New York: Springer- 34:503–21. Verlag. Spady, William. 1970. “Lament for the Letterman: Luckenbill, David F. 1977. “Criminal Homicide as a Effect of Peer Status and Extracurricular Activities Situated Transaction.” Social Problems 25:176–86. on Goal and Achievement.” American Journal of Mahoney, Joseph L. 2000. “School Extracurricular Sociology 75:680–702. Activity Participation as a Moderator in the Stark, Rodney, Lori Kent, and Roger Finke. 1987. Development of Antisocial Patterns.” Child “Sports and Delinquency.” Pp. 115–24 in Positive Development 71:502–16. Criminology, edited by M. R. Gottfredson and T. Mahoney, Joseph L. and Robert B. Cairns. 1997. Hirschi. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. “Do Extracurricular Activities Protect Against Sutherland, Edwin H. 1940. “White Collar Early School Dropout?” Developmental Criminality.” American Sociological Review Psychology 33:241–53. 5:1–12. Marsh, Herbert W. 1993. “The Effects of Participation ———. 1947. Principles of Criminology. 4th ed. in Sport During the Last Two Years of High Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott. School.” Sociology of Sport Journal 10:18–43. Trulson, Michael E. 1986. “Martial Arts Training: A Matsueda, Ross L. 1997. “‘Cultural Deviance Novel ‘Cure’ for Juvenile Delinquency.” Human Theory’: The Remarkable Persistence of a Flawed Relations 39:1131–40. Term.” Theoretical Criminology 1:429–52. Young, Kevin, Philip White, and William McTeer.

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 724—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

1994. “Body Talk: Male Athletes Reflect on Sport, Influence of Delinquent Peers: What They Think Injury, and Pain.” Sociology of Sport Journal or What They Do?” Criminology 29:851–66. 11:175–94. Wright, Darlene and Kevin Fitzpatrick. 2006. “Social Warr, Mark. 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Capital and Adolescent Violent Behavior: Aspects of Criminal Conduct. Cambridge, UK: Correlates of Fighting and Weapon Use Among Cambridge University Press. Secondary School Students.” Social Forces Warr, Mark and Mark C. Stafford. 1991. “The 84:1435–53.

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011 ERRATA—–1019

Unnecessary Roughness? School Sports, Peer Networks, and Male Adolescent Violence

Derek A. Kreager Pennsylvania State University

In: AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2007, Vol. 72 (OCTOBER:705–24)

Several of the odds ratios for Models 4 and 5 in Table 2 are erroneous. A revised Table 2 with correct odds ratios is located on the ASR Web site: http://www2.asanet.org/journals/ asr/2007/toc059.html.

The third sentence of the second full paragraph on p. 718 should read as follows: “Indeed, football friendships attenuate the direct effect of football to non-significance, decreasing the size of the football coefficient by 22 percent from Model 3.”

Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on January 10, 2011