Athletic Aggression: An Issue of Contextual Morality

Abstract

The designation of an act as aggressive involves an implicit or explicit moral judgment. Consequently, research on aggression must address the value issues involved. The present article suggests that Haan’s theory of interactional morality can be used to provide a framework for social scientific research into moral issues. Haan’s model, however, must be adapted to the unique context of sport. This study applies the concept of frame analysis as a procedure for clarifying the moral reasoning associated with athletic aggression. In contrast to similar acts in everyday life, moral ambiguity characterizes some sport acts intended to deliver minor noxious stimuli. The label of aggression must be used with caution when designating such acts.

Observed Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors in Male Soccer Teams: Age Differences across Adolescence and the Role of Motivational Variables

“…Various aspects of morality have been investigated including moral reasoning in response to daily life and sport dilemmas (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986a, 1986b, judgments about the legitimacy of injurious acts (Bredemeier, 1985;Duda, Olson, & Templin, 1991), moral intention (Vallerand, Deshaies, Cuerrier, Pelletier, & Mongeau, 1992), moral judgment, intention, and behavior as indicators of moral functioning (Kavussanu & Roberts, 2001), and sportspersonship orientations (Vallerand, Briere, Blanchard, & Provencher, 1997). In addition, aggressive tendencies and behavior have been examined (Bredemeier, 1994;Stephens & Bredemeier, 1996), and it has been suggested (Bredemeier, 1983) that aggression, operationally defined as the initiation of an attack with the intent to injure, may be conceptualized and investigated as a moral issue.…”

Physical Contact in Women's Basketball: A First Interpretation

“…This was found to be the case especially in heavy contact sports like football (Hughes & Coaklcy, 1978;McMurtry, 1971;Shaw, 1972;Tatum, 1979;Underwood, 1979;Yeager, 1979), rugby (Jones & Pooley, 1986;Dunning & Sheard, 1979;Sheard & Dunning. 1973), and hockey (Faulkner, 197~1;McMurtry, 1974;Mulvoy, 1974Mulvoy, , N6i-on, 1977Poupart, 1979;Schultz & Fischler, 1981;Smith, 1979a,b;Vaz, 1974Vaz, , 1976); as well as in incidental contact sports like soccer (Bredemeier, Lefebvre & Leitli, 1980;Harrison, 1974;Lefebvre, Lcith & Bredemeier, 1980;Pilz, 1979), team handball (Pilz, 1979) and basketball (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986;McCallum, 1988;Montvillc, 1987;Newman, 1987). It is also known that violent behaviors are accepted, but only if thcy do not disrupt the flow of the game or lead to important injuries (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986;Coakley, 1986).…”

“…In general, aggression has been regarded as the more generic concept, and defined as any behavior designed to physically or psychologically injure another person (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986;Butt, 1987;Cratty, 1983;Gill, 1986;Hussman & Silva, 1984;Silva, 1984;Smith, 1983;Widmeyer, 1984). As for violence, most often than not, it has referred to the physical side of aggression and has been defined as behavior intended to physically injure another person (Coakley, 1981(Coakley, , 1986Leonard, 1988;Simon, 1985;Smith, 1983).…”

Behavioral Sport Psychology

“…Poor ecological validity associated with self-report instruments may explain why there is a disconnect between athlete's self-report scores and their actual overt behavior (Bredemeier & Shields, 1984, 1986a, 1986bGee & Sullivan, 2006;Stephens, 1998). Predominantly, these research studies have queried athletes about their aggressive beliefs and/or attitudes at home or during a practice situation, as to not interfere with a team's competitive preparation.…”