Aggression and Violence in Sport: A Reply to Kerr’s Rejoinder

Abstract

In response to Ken’s (1999) rejoinder to the International Society of Sport Psychology’s (ISSP) Position Stand (PS) on aggression and violence in sport (Tenenbaum. Stewart, Singer, & Duda, 1997), this reply refutes Kerr’s criticisms and further advocates the recommendations provided by the ISSP to drastically reduce aggression among athletes and spectators. Specifically, this paper answers Kerr’s (1999) accusations that the PS fails to provide an understanding of the motivation behind aggression in sport, does not distinguish between athlete and spectator violence, makes improper conclusions regarding the media’s influence, and incorrectly blames officials for inflaming aggressive acts. Support is offered to vindicate the PS. The example cited by Kerr to discredit the PS recommendations is shown to be congruent with the ISSP’s suggestions for reducing aggression and violence in sport. Readers are urged to approach with caution arguments that consider aggression an essential component of sport, as such views increase the risk of injury among participants and spectators. Additional suggestions for reducing the incidence of aggression and violence in sport are invited.

La violencia en el deporte. Un análisis desde la Psicología Social

“…Por tanto, focalizar el problema únicamente en los deportistas en sí y en los psicólogos del deporte sería excesivamente restrictivo. Posteriormente, Tenenbaum et al (2000) responden a los cuatro puntos que apoyaban la crítica que Kerr realizó en 1999: 1) Sobre la naturaleza de la agresión y la violencia en el deporte. A la crítica que hace Kerr de que no se proporciona un verdadero entendimiento sobre la motivación de la agresión y la violencia, Tenenbaum responde que sí se ofrece no sólo una explicación, sino varias, como son la frustración, factores contextuales, el aprendizaje, las interacciones con el ambiente, las expectativas sobre la situación, el reforzamiento, el castigo, el modelado, la imitación, el razonamiento moral, la catarsis y la influencia de los medios de comunicación.…”

Who do you think you are? constructing self/identity in women's rugby through aggression, control and unacceptable behavior

“…For example, I know that it hurts when someone tackles me in rugby; however, this type of intentional harm is not included within the traditional definition of aggression. In the sport psychology literature, this type of enthusiastic play is considered assertion (Husman & Silva, 1984;Tenenbaum, Sacks, Miller, Golden & Doolin, 2000). Aggression is something different from assertive behavior.…”

“…Some of what they discussed could be classified as "assertive behavior" as defined in the sport psychology literature as forceful play within the legal bounds of the game (Husman & Silva, 1984. It is important to remember that the sport psychology literature defines assertive behavior as acceptable within sport and aggressive behavior (i.e., behavior intended to harm an opponent) is seen as unacceptable (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986b;Kirker, Tenenbaum & Mattson, 2000;Husman & Silva, 1984;Rascle, Coulomb, & Pfister, 1998;Tenenbaum et al, 2000).…”

“…In this way what was experienced as acceptable and unacceptable heavier was always changing which was different from the sport psychology conception of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. Sport psychology literature considers behaviors undertaken with intent to harm as bad behaviors that fall outside of most sports (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986b;Kirker, Tenenbaum & Mattson, 2000;Husman & Silva, 1984;Rascle, Coulomb, & Pfister, 1998;Tenenbaum et al, 2000). Using the analogy of the rugby pitch can help us understand how these athletes go about constructing what is rugby (i.e., what behaviors and meanings fall within their definition of the sport).…”

“…Quotes like this one from Nina indicate a hole in the sport psychology concept of aggression. Specifically, intent to harm an opponent is used to mark a behavior as unacceptable (Baron, 1977;Bredemeier & Shields, 1986b;Husman & Silva, 1984;Kirker, Tenenbaum & Mattson, 2000;Tenenbaum et al, 2000). However, these women suggested that it was not the intent to harm that marked a behavior as unacceptable; instead, it was the moment after the behavior that was important.…”