Justifications of Aggressive Behavior in Contact and Semicontact Sports by 1 School of Health, Physical Education, and Leisure Services University of Northern Iowa The present study examines the extent to which athletes in selected contact and semicontact sports report agreement or disagreement with the use of intentional acts of aggression during competition. Eighty-five male athletes responded to the Bredemeier Athietic Aggression Inventory-Short Form and the Mintah Huddleston Aggression Justification Inventory. Overall results revealed no significant differences between subjects' use of hostile and instrumental aggression in sport and between the hostile and instrumental justifications provided for such behavior. Results indicated that contact- sport participants disagree more with the use of instrumental aggression than semicontact-sport participants. Other aspects There are a number of differing views one can take on the inherent value of sports. Of course, there is the common argument that sports are a vital part of society – an important step in the process of socialization. After all, sports can teach participants some useful lessons. Playing sports allows an athlete to discover the importance of teamwork, the spirit of competition, and the factor of self-esteem. Yet, there are other arguments that point out the more negative aspects of sports. These tend to focus on how sports can induce aggressive or violent behavior, by both the players and the spectators. An example of such brutality would include riots and/or conflicts that have ensued following a sporting event. Thus, to better understand these and other societal perceptions of sports, a clear definition of aggression is in order. Essentially, there are two popular philosophies of aggression in sports: the instinct (or catharsis) theory and the frustration-aggression hypothesis. The two theories primarily differ in their definition of aggression. Aside from these theories, and for our purposes, aggression can be defined as “angry violent behavior with intent to hurt a person or cause damage to property” (Frankl 1). Some important considerations follow from this basic definition. First, it assumes that aggression is an act, rather than a state of being. It also supposes that aggression is intentional, where the intent is to injure. The explanation includes both physical and emotional harm (for a person). Finally, in this definition, deliberate harm to property is also considered to be an aggressive act. Clearly, an alternative interpretation of aggression will presume some assumptions other than these. The first popular theory, termed instinct or catharsis, differs from the previous definition in its treatment of aggression. The instinct theory is based on the infamous works of Sigmund Freud, who argued that aggression is “an inborn drive similar to sex or hunger” (Frankl 2). Thus, according to Freud, aggression comprises an important part of what makes us human. The word catharsis is actually Greek, and essentially means “to cleanse” (Frankl 2). Thus, the instinct and/or cathartic theory maintains that aggression, as a natural instinct, should be expressed. Its proponents, therefore, support the release of such inborn aggression in a controlled environment, i.e. a football game. Konrad Lorenz, who later extended Freud’s original hypothesis, even posited that discharging instinctual aggression in positive societal contexts (such as sporting events) satisfies a basic human need. The frustration-aggression (FA) hypothesis, developed by five theorists in 1939, also disagrees with the more conventional definition of aggression. The FA hypothesis argues that aggression is simply a generic response to frustration (hence the theory’s name). The theory’s premise focuses on the cyclic nature of frustration and aggression. In this respect, frustration leads to some expression of aggression, while acts of aggression are the direct result of frustration. In instinct theory, aggression is viewed as the consequence of biological instincts; in the frustration- aggression hypothesis, on the other hand, aggression is believed to result from instigation. A current interpretation of the FA model asserts that once an individual acts out his/her aggression, he/she is more likely to act out aggression in the future. So, if an athlete’s aggressive behavior is ignored (or, more dangerously, rewarded), that athlete is more inclined to repeat the conduct in a like situation. In the end, it is undeniable that aggression is somehow related to sports. The definitive nature of this relationship, however, has yet to be determined. Whether aggression is an innate emotion or a simple reaction to provocation, its mere existence will continue to affect our perceptions of sports and their apparent value to society. Introduction The use of the word "aggression" is somewhat confusing. The term aggression is employed to describe angry violent behavior with intent to hurt a person or cause damage to property. "Aggressive" behavior is also used to depict a strong and somewhat adventurous effort. Thus an aggressive sales person or athlete, for example, may be perceived as obnoxious or violent by some and as motivated and hard working by others. Baron (1977, p. 12, cited in Cox, 1990, p. 266) offers the following definition for aggression: "Aggression is any form of behavior directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment." Thus: • Aggression is an act not a cognitive state • Aggression is not accidental, it is an intentional act to harm • Aggressive acts involve both bodily and psychological harm • Aggressive acts involve only living beings; harm to objects does not count as aggression • The receiver of aggression does not want to get hurt Bredemeier (1983) defined 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." Thus: • An accidental foul or injury inflicted on another athlete resulting from inferior skills, will not be considered as aggression. • An intentional foul, although not resulting in any harm or injury, is considered as sport aggression. • Bredemeier's (1983) definition isn't clear about (a) whether harm to objects counts as aggression or (b) whether acts performed in a sadistic--masochistic relationship may be viewed as aggressive... The Frustration-Aggression (F-A) Hypothesis A drive-based model of aggression was originally proposed by Dollard, Dobb, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears (1939). The F-A model posits that aggression is a universal reaction to frustration. Initially the F-A hypothesis predicted that: • incidents of frustration lead to some expression of aggression, and • acts of aggression result from some form of frustration The F-A model differs from Instinct theory in that aggression may be the result of instigators other than biological instincts. A more recent view of the F-A hypothesis suggests that the magnitude of the expressed aggression is dependent on: • the amplitude of the frustration • the individual's threshold for frustration • the amount of frustrating incidents, and • the magnitude of the anticipated retaliation to one's expressed aggression (For example, consider a "yellow" or "red" card for rough play or an altercation between two or more players during a soccer match. The "yellow" card acts as a warning and the "red" card signals the ejection of the offender from the current, and in some cases future games. Now, compare foul behavior in sport to foul conduct in every day life situations where the penalty may be decided in a court of law based on criminal assault charges. In which of the above described environments would you expect to observe more restraint? The soccer field, or the side-walk behind the soccer field's stands? A crucial question in the F- A hypothesis researcher's mind is whether it is a biologically driven expression or is it a learned one? Based on the view that all behavior is a by-product of various degrees of natural and environmental influences on the living organism, Berkowiz reformulated the initial F-A hypothesis. Thus, frustration does not automatically invoke aggression. Neither does exposure to aggressive models always lead to expressed aggression. Instead, Berkowitz postulated that frustration acts as a "readying mechanism" for an aggressive reaction. Frustration, and more frustration, gradually augment one's likelihood to display an aggressive response. Berkowiz does not entirely dismiss the acute cathartic effect of expressed aggression. An aggressive reaction to a real or perceived provocation does, according to Berkowiz, result in a temporary feeling of relief. To describe the urge for a feeling of satisfaction following vented aggression, Berkowiz coined the term "completion tendency." Continuous reinforcement of one's completion tendency will lead to a learned expectation to "complete" each F-A cycle. This, however, is a vicious cycle; each completion cycle leads to a future expectation of the ability to vent one's frustrations. Thus, acute displays of aggression and a following relative calm lead to long term recurring incidents of gradually escalating "completion" needs. Berkowitz's conclusion that biological instincts and learning are closely intertwined is crucial to the derivation of solutions to the problematic infiltration of aggressive behaviors into all levels of sport participation