نشخوار خشم: سابقه پرخاشگری ورزشکاری؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|31329||2004||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4570 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Volume 5, Issue 3, July 2004, Pages 279–289
Objectives. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between anger rumination (the propensity to think almost obsessively over past experiences that have provoked negative affect in the form of anger) and athlete aggression. It was predicted that high levels of anger rumination would be associated with an increased propensity to aggress. Method. A questionnaire comprising the Anger Rumination Scale ( Sukhodolsky, Golub, & Cromwell, 2001), aggression and demographic questions was distributed to 305 male and female competitive athletes of varying ability who represented several team and individual sports. Results. Principal component factor analysis revealed a single rumination factor rather than the four-factor solution previously described. No differences in Anger Rumination Scale score were found between males and females, team and individual sport players or competitive level. Provocation and anger rumination were significantly correlated with athletes’ reported aggressive behaviour. Aggression was higher in males compared to females. Type of sport was also related to incidence of aggression; athletes who participated in individual sports reported lower levels of aggression than athletes who played team sports. Conclusions. It was concluded that provocation and anger rumination were significant predictors of subsequent aggression and suggestions for preventing rumination, such as thought stopping and thought switching, were made.
Sport brings individuals and groups together in direct competition. Direct competition can often lead to conflict and, as with many conflicts between competing individuals or groups, attempts at hierarchical resolution may involve the use of aggression (Leith, 1982). Baron and Richardson (1994) define aggression as ‘…any form of behaviour directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment (p. 7)’. Behaviour may be verbal or physical and must be directed at another person rather than an inanimate object. Throwing one’s racket to the floor or cursing one’s poor play would not be categorised as aggressive behaviour; rather, they would be signs of frustration or anger. When assessing aggressive behaviour in sport, however, the distinction between sanctioned and unsanctioned aggression must be recognised (Kerr, 1999). Kerr argues that only unsanctioned aggression is cause for concern and points out that many sports have incidences of aggression that are tolerated or informally accepted. Such behaviours, once accepted, become sanctioned even though they do not comply with the official rule structure. In soccer, for example, it is common practice for players to argue with officials. Tolerance of aggressive behaviour simply because it is common does not justify its use nor does it alter the fact that the recipient is often motivated to avoid such behaviour. Therefore, the definition of aggression adopted in this report will follow that suggested by Baron and Richardson with the addition of official endorsement. That is, aggression in sport is any behaviour, not recognised as legal within the official rules of conduct, directed towards an opponent, official, team-mate or spectator who is motivated to avoid such behaviour. This definition assumes, naturally, that behaviour is intentional and, potentially, reflects both hostile and instrumental aggression (Husman & Silva, 1984). Instrumental aggression is included within this definition because the intent to cause injury, which the recipient is unlikely to welcome, is present; however, not all instrumental aggression need fall within the definition. In the pugilistic sport of boxing, for example, where attempts to harm the opponent by punching are integral (instrumental) to the combatants’ success, biting, head butting or kicking an opponent would be considered aggressive acts. Additionally, informally sanctioned behaviour such as arguing with officials would also be considered aggressive if the official rules of the game identify it as unacceptable. Research examining the antecedents of aggression has led to the development of a number of theories. By far the most popular models used to examine aggression in sport are Frustration-Aggression (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939), Frustration-Aggression revised (Berkowitz, 1965, Berkowitz, 1969, Berkowitz, 1989 and Baron and Richardson, 1994) and Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1973). The Frustration-Aggression theory typifies early attempts to explain aggressive behaviour. As with many theories of behaviour its roots were firmly embedded in drive theory (Hull, 1951, Spence and Spence, 1966 and Spence, 1956). Dollard et al., proposed that frustration resulted from the blocking of goals or desires and that the build up of frustration inevitably led to the behavioural expression of frustration through aggressive actions. It was the insistence of inevitability that led to the revision of this theory by, amongst others, Berkowitz (1965). Berkowitz pointed out that not all people respond to frustration with overt aggression; rather, situational cues and learned responses contribute to the probability of aggressive behaviour. We would not expect a Bishop to attack a parishioner with his crosier, for example, regardless of how frustrated he became with his flock. Berkowitz, 1983 and Berkowitz, 1989) subsequently added cognitive factors to his model allowing emotional responses and personal motivation to contribute to the propensity for aggressive behaviour. The proposition that aggressive behaviour can be learned was championed by Bandura, 1973 and Bandura, 1983 Social Learning Theory. Whilst acknowledging the role of physiological, genetic and motivational factors (Baron & Richardson, 1994), Bandura stressed the importance of learned behaviour, acquired through social interaction, to the expression of aggression. Bandura proposed that aggression is learned via observation or direct experience of aggressive acts, together with perceived or actual approval for acting aggressively. In a famous and well-reported experiment, Bandura demonstrated that children replicate the aggressive behaviour of adults who they have observed behaving aggressively towards a Bobo doll (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963); supporting the notion that aggressive behaviour is mimicked. Social learning theory has received some support from research examining aggression in sport. Celozzi, Kazelskis and Gutsch (1981) found that watching a violent ice hockey match increased aggression in persons with high trait aggression scores but talking about violent hockey matches did not. This suggests, indirectly, that aggressive behaviour is learned via observation of others accomplishing their goals through the use of violence. Direct support was provided by Smith (1988) who observed young ice hockey players imitating the aggressive actions committed by professional players. Aggression in ice hockey is actively supported and encouraged; therefore, young children can quickly learn from ‘expert’ role models that aggression is an acceptable and often desired behaviour (Weinberg & Gould, 1999). The majority of aggressive acts, however, are not simple regurgitations of learned behaviour. The aggressor normally acts in response to perceived threat, and is influenced by the situation and various personal factors such as trait aggression, cognition and affect. Research examining the antecedents of athlete aggression in sport has, almost exclusively, focused on situational factors and performance outcome. Aggression has been associated with situational factors such as game location (Keltikangas-Jarvinen and Kelnonen, 1988 and Lefebvre and Passer, 1974), home team advantage (McGuire, Courneya and Widmeyer, 1992 and Varca, 1980), competition level (Butt and Cox, 1992 and Coulomb and Pfister, 1998), frequency of competition (Widmeyer & McGuire, 1997) and opposition aggression (Harrell, 1980 and Russell, 1974). Due to the high frequency of aggressive acts, the bulk of research examining the relationship between aggression and performance has focused on the sport of ice hockey (e.g. McCarthy and Kelly, 1978 and Russell, 1974). These studies have found positive relationships between the use of aggressive behaviour and success; however, others have insisted that aggression can only decrease individual performance (Gill, 1986, Silva, 1980 and Wann, 1997). No attempt, however, has been made to identify cognitive processes that precede the expression of aggressive acts in sport. Berkowitz (1989) claimed that the experience of provocation, frustration or aversive stimuli lead to aggression through the generation of negative affect that is interpreted by the individual as anger (Berkowitz, 1988). If negative affect is interpreted as fear, the individual is more likely to demonstrate avoidance or escape behaviours. Within the general aggression literature, anger has been associated with increased incidence of aggressive forms of expression (Berkowitz, 1983) and recently the concept of ruminating over experiences that cause anger and the emotions they arouse has been implicated in the development of aggression (Averill, 1983 and Spielberger, 1988). Rumination is described as a repetitive and often unavoidable process of dwelling on past experiences (Sukhodolsky, Golub & Cromwell, 2001) and may be associated with counterfactual thinking, the practice of inserting ‘what if?’ statements into appraisals of past events (Spellman & Mandel, 1999). However, counterfactual thinking need not involve repetition, a fundamental characteristic of rumination (Sukhodolsky, Golub & Cromwell, 2001). Counterfactual thinking involves imagining different outcomes to events that have occurred in the past. A football defender who allows an attacker, who subsequently scores, to pass him might imagine what might have happened if he had fouled the player. He might imagine that the subsequent penalty may not have resulted in a goal and, thus, may come to believe that fouling in similar circumstances might be preferable. In this way, the propensity to aggress might increase and may be magnified by repeated rumination of counterfactual thoughts. Sukhodolsky, Golub and Cromwell (2001) devised a scale based on the premise that individuals have a lesser or greater disposition towards rumination or thinking over past events and emotions. The Anger Rumination Scale (ARS) was devised ‘…to measure the tendency to focus attention on angry moods, recall past anger experiences, and think about the causes and consequences of anger episodes (p. 689)’. The 19-item ARS was constructed after exploratory factor analysis of a pool of 25 items revealed four subscales (Angry Afterthoughts, Thoughts of Revenge, Angry Memories and Understanding of Causes) accounting for 54% of the total variance. High internal reliability () and good test-retest reliability (r=0.77) over a one-month period were reported. Confirmatory factor analysis, however, only partially supported the initial factor analysis and it was suggested that a single factor solution might be more appropriate. Sukhodolsky et al. reported higher scores on the Thoughts of Revenge subscale for males (mean=1.88, sd=0.59) compared to females (mean=1.57, sd=0.52). All other scores were similar across gender. High scores on the scale are purported to indicate a greater propensity towards anger rumination. Incorporating rumination into Berkowitz’s revised frustration-aggression model, it could be predicted that anger induced by frustration, followed by rumination of the event, will lead to a greater probability of aggression than without rumination. Thoughts of Revenge in response to provocation from an opponent seem particularly relevant in this respect. A number of studies have identified provocation as the clearest predictor of later aggressive behaviour in sport (Harrell, 1980 and Russell, 1974). Retaliation in sport is often penalised more severely than the infraction that preceded it; the notoriously innocuous retaliation leading to David Beckham’s dismissal during the 1998 World Cup, for example, was regarded by many as the reason for England’s failure to progress. Therefore, if persons who have continual thoughts of revenge are more likely to aggress, the consequences for team performance could be catastrophic. It must be noted, however, that frustration need not be caused by provocation from an opponent; memories of past failures, current failure, point deficits, bad officiating or a host of other factors can initiate the chain of events that lead to aggression (Cox, 1994). The research presented here attempts to confirm that anger rumination contributes to the behavioural expression of frustration by athletes in the form of unsanctioned aggression. In addition, the contribution of gender, sport type (individual and team), competitive level, experience and provocation to aggressive behaviour were also considered to allow comparison with previous research. It was predicted that high ARS score, perceived provocation, participation in team sport and male gender would be associated with higher levels of unsanctioned aggression than would low ARS score, lack of perceived provocation, female gender and participation in individual sport.