Aggressor-Victim Dissent in Perceived Legitimacy of Aggression in Soccer

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the aggressor-victim difference in perceived legitimacy of aggression in soccer as a function of score information (tied, favorable, unfavorable), sporting penalization (no risk, yellow card, red card), and type of aggression (instrumental, hostile). French male soccer players (N = 133) read written scenarios and rated the legitimacy of the described aggressive act depending on a specific perspective (aggressor or victim) and situational information. A significant aggressor-victim difference in perception of instrumental aggression was found in situations where the score was tied or where there was no risk to be caught. In addition, aggressors were affected by such information, whereas victims were not. The discussion focuses on explanations and implications of such divergences in aggressive sport situations.

Can people empathize with offenders and victims during violent scenes? Behavioral and brain correlates of affective and cognitive empathy considering victim vs. offender perspective using the Bochumer affective and cognitive empathy task (BACET).

“…Most previous studies used experimental settings in which participants were required to act along with their moral values, but only a few investigations have delved into the perpetrator's perspective. Results of perspective-taking experiments have shown that people adopting the role of an offender are more likely to approve aggressive behaviors than people under the victim's perspective (Rascle et al, 2010).…”