2) Instrumental Aggression:
Goal - to receive some other external goal.
Intent - to harm the opponent
Reinforcement - the external reward
e.g. Baseball pitcher --- high inside fast ball to establish superiority at the plate - pitcher not necessarily angry at batter but sees hitting the batter as instrumental in obtaining his primary goal (winning).
3) Assertiveness
(Often confused with aggression) involves legitimate, physical, or verbal force to achieve one goal. There is no intent to harm therefore it is not aggression.
Distinguishing between aggressive acts in sport that are acceptable with those that are unacceptable is based upon three issues.
1. What is morality?
Finding a common moral value is difficult yet essential in defining aggression in sport.
2. Morality in sport compared to everyday life.
(a) The game frame negates morality making sport devoid of moral considerations;
(b) The game frame has no consequence for moral reasoning; or,
(c) The game frame alters moral meanings.
3. Understanding the game.
Every game and sport has its own culture or accepted way of doing things. Understanding this culture is vital in distinguishing between acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior.
E.g. the football fanatic sees the hard hip and shoulder as acceptable aggression but the chess player may find this unacceptable.
Therefore one’s perspective of the game and the influence of the game’s culture constitute one’s views on aggression in sport.
How does aggression affect performance?
Hostile aggression: performance would appear to wane in light of the aggressor being more concerned with harming the opponent than defeating the opponent. (E.g. Geelong 1995).
Instrumental aggression: performance would be more likely to improve given that the player harms the opponent in order of gaining an advantage. I.e. winning. (e.g. Geelong 1989)
According to Bredemeier and Sheilds, "it will be important to identify ways in which such
Variables as gender, degree of sport involvement, and external rewards influence reasoning about athletic aggression".
Aggression versus Violence
"There's a big difference between aggression and violence. Aggression can be defined as an act used to gain power and it can be used in any setting. Violence is intent to harm. Violence would be ethically wrong in sports." (Jason Arquilla, 94)
One of the finest lines in sports revolves around aggression versus violence. In many contact sports, a normal act of aggression would lead any normal person to jail for assault. However, sports have allowed many aggressive acts as part of the game. At what point does aggression turn into violence in sports? Is there a defining set of rules; perhaps the do's and don’ts that a league abides by? I think the best way to determine this difference is:
Violence can mean both intentionally destructive acts and constructively assertive acts. Aggression however, is any forceful action which has as its purpose the restructuring of power. Destructive aggression (not violence) is characterized by activities which are hurtful to others. Constructive aggressiveness is a virtue that encompasses qualities such as self-assertion and self-affirmation, physical and social courage. The determination of what is considered constructive versus destructive is usually based upon the legality and effect. If the aggressor's act is within the formal rules or informal norms of the contest, and if the recipient of the aggressive act does not sustain an injury beyond that would be considered "appropriate," then the aggressive act may be deemed constructive. (Jeff Goldstein, 92)
Through these definitions, Goldstein has been able to account for the aggressive behaviors that athletes endure, yet also show how aggression can turn to violence. Sports thrive off constructive aggression. It is the ability to prove a point, or to gain power without breaking rules. Goldstein continues by further defining these types of aggression and their involvement in sports:
In contrast to this global understanding, other social scientists define aggression as the initiation of an overt act with the intent to bring psychological or physical harm to another. Further delineation of aggressive motives serves to differentiate two forms of aggression. Reactive, or hostile, aggression is an common consequence of the frustration inherent in competitive sport, particularly in contests where contact is legitimized. A second form of aggression is instrumental or goal aggression and is described as the attempt to inflict pain or injury for some goal other than that of injury itself. In sport, an orientation toward personal success and team victory, magnified by commercialization, effects, promotes the utilization of instrumentally aggressive tactics to provoke, intimidate, or "take out" opposing players. Both reactive and instrumental aggression involves the intent to injure, and both are acknowledged, especially in contact sports, to be in the "nature of the game".
Some social scientists have tried to determine if an act is reactive or instrumental during the time that it is committed. For instance, the act in which football player puts an unusually hard hit on another player is impossible to determine if it is reactive or instrumental without knowing the thoughts of the athlete. The difficulty in the linguistics and the conceptual ambiguities has caused a lack in consensus about the basic definitions concerning athletic aggression. It is only the mind of the athlete that could solidify the scientist beliefs.
