Violence in Sports - On and Off the Field of Play - Case Study Example

Violence in Sports: On and Off the Field of Play It is a prevalent finding that violence in sports and sports-related violence is on the increase in Western society, as seen with English football hooliganism, riots, physical assault and sexual attacks on women by male athletes and coaches (Adler & Adler, 1991; Carrol, 1980; Case & Boucher, 1981; Messner, 1990; Pappas, McKenny & Catlett, 2004; Dunning, 2005; Kreager, 2007; Rutten et. al., 2008; Coakley, 2009). Violent sports refer to contact sports where violence is an integral part of the sport, such as, boxing or wrestling, for example, whereas violence in sports is related to violence committed on the field, such as, a fight between players (Dunning, 2005; Coakley, 2009). Sports-related violence refers to violence that is a direct consequence of sports, which can refer to violence committed by sports players or spectators (Adler & Adler, 1991; Dunning, 2005; Coakley, 2009). This subject has resulted in a large amount of empirical and anecdotal research being conducted by many different disciplines, such as, psychology and sociology. There are many explanations and theories for violence in sports and sports-related violence, such as, the frustration-aggression hypothesis, social learning or that sport is a cathartic process (Lorenz, 1963, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907), for example. In addition to this, there is great debate as to whether sports reduce aggression in its players or fuel it. Moreover, contention has risen with regards to whether sport encourages violence among its spectators or whether sports-related violence is due to the composition of the crowd (Carroll, 1980; Case and Boucher, 1981; Coakley, 1981; Dunning, 2005; Coakley, 2009). This paper will examine violence in sports: both on and off the field of play. Many of the principle features of sport are that it should be an entertainment game through which there is no hostility but a friendly environment based on the notion of fair play (Dunning, 2005). In spite of this, it has been argued that violence is an inherent feature of modern sports (Dunning, 2005; Coakley, 2009). Dunning (2005) further argues that “all sports are inherently competitive and concerned with dividing people” (p.904) and that such division can lead to frustration and aggression against those players and/or supporters of the opposite team (Adler & Adler, 1991; Dunning, 2005; Coakley, 2009). Additionally, sports-related violence has become an accepted part of the sporting culture (Fields, Collins & Comstock, 2009). With this in mind, prevention of such violence and aggression should focus on changing these beliefs so that sports-related violence may be prevented or, in the very least, reduced. Thus, regardless of sporting ideals of fair play and non-hostile competition, sports are environments wherein hostility to out-groups or opposing teams are nurtured and strong group membership is encouraged. Such factors can surely explain incidence of violence in sports both on and off the field of play. As mentioned above in the introduction, there have been several explanations of violence in sports. For example, it has been argued that sport is a means through which aggression can be diffused. In other words, sport is seen as a cathartic process (Lorenz, 1963, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907; Dunning, 2005) or it has been claimed that it is an outlet for aggression and violence (Goodhart & Chataway, 1968, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.904). In support of this explanation, the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard et. al., 1939, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907) refers to the theory that aggression is the fundamental consequence of frustration. In light of this hypothesis, it has been argued that participation in sports, which can be viewed as make-believe violence, reduces violence and aggression (Dollard et. al., 1939, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907; Lorenz, 1963, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907; Dunning, 2005). This notion has been supported by the findings of Feshback and Singer (1971, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907), adding external reliability to this belief. Hence, if this explanation is valid then it should be the case that participating in, and watching sports, would reduce the incidence of violence. From animal observations, Lorenz (1963, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907) claimed that observing another behavior can act as a mediator. Therefore, it was argued that watching sports works on the same principles and should diffuse the aggressive tendencies of sports crowds (Lorenz, 1963, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907; Dunning, 2005). Animal studies are a useful means through which animal behavior can be explained; however, such studies can have only limited explanatory power for explaining complex human behavior, such as that under investigation in this paper. Thus, though we can extrapolate some understanding of human behavior, without empirical evidence from human studies can any meaningful information be obtained. In other words, the extent to which such findings support this explanation of violence in sports is questionable. However, this explanation has been argued to be an overly simplistic and reductionist explanation of violent behavior (Dunning, 2005). Moreover, such an explanation cannot explain the prevalence of sports-related violence and aggression (Adler & Adler, 1991; Carrol, 1980; Case & Boucher, 1981; Messner, 1990; Pappas, McKenny & Catlett, 2004; Dunning, 2005; Kreager, 2007; Rutten et. al., 2008; Coakley, 2009). Therefore, sports can be viewed as an avenue through which some individuals diffuse their aggressive tendencies but also that this is not the case for all individuals who participate in these activities. A second explanation of violence in sports is that violent behavior in sports can be learned by its players and spectators, as a form of social learning (Bandura, 1997; Dunning, 2005; Kreager, 2007; Coakley, 2009). Such an idea was demonstrated by Phillips (1983, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907) who conducted a survey of homicides in the USA between 1973 and 1978. The results of this study demonstrated that homicide rates increased by twelve percent following a heavyweight championship match. It is certainly the case that sports players have also been found to demonstrate violent behavior off the field of play. For example, research has shown that there is a high incidence of violent crimes committed by male athletes and coaches (Bohmer & Parrot, 1983, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.911; Koss & Gaines, 1993, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.911; Nelson, 1991, 1994, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.911). From this it can be said that there is a relationship between sports and the incidence of violent crime committed by the males involved in those sports. Research has demonstrated that players of contact sports are significantly more likely to commit aggressive behaviors when provoked than players of non-contact sports (Rees, Howell & Miracle, 1990, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907-908). This would suggest that certain types of sports, namely those that involve contact or violence, can result in inappropriate aggression and violence against other people. As such, prevention of violence committed by sports players should aim to focus on those individuals that participate in contact sports whether professionally or not. A survey study of emergency department admissions in relation to rugby and soccer matches in Wales between 1995 and 2002 was conducted by Sivarajasingam, Moore and Shepherd (2005). This study found that violent physical assaults which resulted in hospital treatment were significantly higher when a national team had won the match, as opposed to if the team had lost. What is more, the type of sport had no effect on the incidence of violence; however, both sports examined were contact sports and thus could account for this violence in light of the aforementioned findings of Rees, Howell and Miracle (1990, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907-908). The results of this study would suggest that sports-related violence is increased due to a team winning their match and their supporters celebrating in a violent manner. Nonetheless, this study fails to take in account the fact that the losing team’s supporters visiting on the away game may be responsible for the hospital admissions. Thus, the results of this study could be said to be both low in ecological validity and external reliability. It should be concluded from this that there will always be violence related to the results of a contact sporting event due to the competitive nature of sports that is nurtured by both the institutions of sports and its supporters (Adler & Adler, 1991; Dunning, 2005; Coakley, 2009). Rutten et. al. (2008) conducted a multilevel analysis of the actions of three hundred and thirty-one soccer players in relation to antisocial and prosocial behavior on- and off-field. It was found that twenty-one percent of the variance for off-field actions and eight percent of on-field actions were related to antisocial behavior. It was also found that fourteen percent of the behavior on-field was demonstrated prosocial behavior. From this evidence, sports can be seen as promoting violence among these individuals. However, this study also demonstrated that sports players can demonstrate prosocial behaviors as opposed to antisocial ones, which could be accounted for by notions of fair play or individual characteristics. A longitudinal study performed by Kreager (2007) investigated whether participation in school sports resulted in violent incidents committed by males in order to validate masculinity, social control and social learning theories of violent behavior. In this sense, social control theories refer to the notion that individuals within crowds will positively influence the behavior of others as a form of behavioral regulation (see Kreager, 2007). Similarly, social learning theories would argue that aggression and violence demonstrated on the field and by other members of the crowd is learned through observation and then enacted by others (Bandura, 1977; see also Kreager, 2007). Finally, masculinity theories refer to ideas that violence in sports is a means through which males can construct their masculine identity and oppress those that do not conform to hegemonic masculinity (see Kreager, 2007). It was found that there was a strong correlation relationship between violence and contact sports but that these findings did not support social control theories of violence in sports in those players and other spectators fail to regulate the behavior of others. On the other hand, the findings of this study supported both social learning theories and masculinity theories of violence, adding construct validity to these theories. For example, players of contact sports, such as, soccer players and/or wrestlers, were significantly more likely to commit violence than players of non-contact sports. Furthermore, it was found that the male friends of players of contact sports were significantly more likely to be involved in violent acts than others. In light of this evidence, it can be seen that sports, whether direction participant or association, leads to a greater likelihood of violence being committed against others. Hence, it can be said from the above evidence in this section that sports are an arena in which violent behavior and aggression toward others is learned through observation of such acts. Future research should aim to investigate the mediating effects of referees and commentators in order to examine whether prosocial mediation reduces incidence of sports-related violence. What is more, such example of violence in sports, on and off the field of play, refutes the constructs that sports is a cathartic process of aggression reduction, mentioned above (Dollard et. al., 1939, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907; Lorenz, 1963, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.907; Goodhart & Chataway, 1968, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.904). The argument that sports promotes violence in its players and supporters could be debated in light of evidence that demonstrates that individual characteristics or collective features of these individuals maybe the route for incidents of violence. For example, a selective review study of social-psychological literature on sports riots found that there are many contributing factors to spectator violence. These factors were social, situational, cognitive and environmental (Russell, 2004). In addition, it was found that the characteristics of rioters following sports events were generally physically aggressive, sensation seeking, antisocial and impulsive. This would suggest that there are many contributing factors that promote violence in spectators of sporting events. Further research is required in order to investigate in more detail the characteristics of spectators that results in them performing acts of violence. In a review study of spectator violence by Case and Boucher (1981) it was argued that there are several different explanations for this phenomenon. For example, it was found that sociological perspectives explained spectator violence in terms of organizational and collective factors. Such a finding has been supported by similar research by Coakley (1981), which adds external reliability to this result. In addition, it was found that psychological perspectives explained this in terms of the characteristics of individual spectators. A review study, such as this one, is a useful means through which a large amount of empirical data can be gathered and analyzed efficiently though a problem with this type of research is that it can be negatively affected by researcher bias. Nevertheless, this study demonstrated that there are numerous and different explanations for spectator violence. Each explanation has its own merits and so should be considered with an objective mind and as individual contributing factors to this phenomenon. On a very similar note, Dunning (2000, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.911) argued that soccer/football hooliganism is the result of the social composition of the fans. Dunning (2005) claims that many soccer fans comprise of males of the lower classes where it is more socially acceptable to commit violence and demonstrate aggressive tendencies. In light of this, Dunning (2005) contends that the sport of soccer is an inherently masculine culture wherein excitement and sensation are key components. It could be claimed that the individuals that make up the majority of soccer’s spectators may have a tendency to gain pleasure from violent behavior, as it is part of their personality to accept violence and aggression as an everyday occurrence. Carroll (1980) conducted a review study examining the research on English football hooliganism. It was found that there are many contributing factors to football hooliganism, such as, violence demonstrating by football players and the composition of the crowd, for example. From this is can be said that there is no single explanation of for sports-related violence. Thus, this should advocate to researchers to take a holistic stance as opposed to that of a reductionist stance. Moreover, this evidence demonstrates that the actions of sports players has a direct influence on the behavior of their spectators, which would support the earlier section on social learning that violent behavior I observed and learned (Bandura, 1977; Adler & Adler, 1991; Dunning, 2005; Kreager, 2007; Coakley, 2009). In addition, such evidence supports the explanation that the individual and collective characteristics of the spectators lead to violent behavior. Therefore, sports-related violence and violence in sports cannot rest on any one explanation whether psychological or sociological. It is also the case that the composition of the crowd has a direct influence on the behaviors exhibited following sports events. One other explanation of violence in sports and sports-related violence is that of sports as a masculine culture (Adler & Adler, 1991; Dunning, 2005; Coakley, 2009). In this sense, it is believed that modern sports function to maintain traditional ideals of male dominance and the oppression of women (Dunning, 2005; Coakley, 2009). Therefore, this could explain the occurrence of incidents of violence against women perpetrated by sports players. Additionally, Sheard and Dunning (1973, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.910) argued that modern sport was developed in order to help the continuation of hegemonic masculinity and that these sports are contexts in which these masculine behaviors occur most frequently. This is supported by (Messner, 1987, as cited by Dunning, 2005, p.910, Messner, 1990). As such a finding has been supported by so many studies it can be said that it is high in external reliability and predictive validity. In this sense, a means through which violence in sports and sports-related violence could be prevented would be by challenging prevailing discourses relating to sports as a traditionally hegemonic masculine culture by highlighting the frequency of females and homosexual males within sports. Such an act would hopefully reduce tendencies for violence that is associated with traditionally masculine activities. Future research should aim to investigate the extent to which discourse could change the viewed of participants and spectators of sports. A study by Welch (1997) investigated violence against women demonstrated by professional soccer players. It was found that the finding that soccer celebrities and high scorers commit more violent crimes against women than other players is overrated. As such, it may be the case that incidences of sports violence are overrepresented in statistics and mass media coverage, which could lead to misrepresentation of sports players being overly violent due to their profession. According to Messner (1990), sports violence can be explained in two ways: the first explanation is that sports violence is a means through which the hegemonic masculine culture is constructed; the second explanation of sports violence is related to notions of gender identity from feminist theories in that sports violence is a way in which male athletes can construct their own identity in relation to this hegemonic masculine sports culture. Consequently, from this, it would appear that the culture of sports influences both the actions and the identity of the men that participate in it. Furthermore, such a masculine culture fosters a climate of violence as an integral part of this. Pappas, McKenny and Catlett (2004) conducted an interview study on five former hockey players, examining violence in relation to sports. It was found that the socialization associated with sports and ideals of masculinity produces an ethos of violence and aggression. In addition to this, it was found that alcohol consumption and objectification of women were associated with the increase of sports-related violence. On one hand, a strong point of this study is that the interview research method is an excellent means through which to obtain a large amount of detailed information on a particular topic, such as, violence in sports and sports-related violence. Therefore, this is likely to result in the findings of this study being high in ecological validity, which means that these findings are more useful in explaining violence in sports both on and off the field of play. On the other hand, a problem with this study, and those like it, is that the sample size is very small, which means that it is possible that the sample does not accurately represent the target population. Also, the sample of this study consisted of former hockey players, which means that the results can only be properly generalized to other hockey players. Thus, the explanatory power of this study is limited and can only make implications for other sports. Hence, it can be said from the findings of this study that the culture of sport nurtures violent tendencies in some athletes, particularly when these individual’s are under the influence of alcohol. It can also be said that participation in team sports leads to increase in hegemonic masculinity wherein women are oppressive and treated as trophies or objects. In this sense, sports can be viewed as a traditionally masculine culture that promotes ideals of violence and the oppression of anyone that does not fit in with this hegemonic masculinity. As such, violence is more likely to be committed against those individuals who do not conform to these notions. However, with the introduction of female participation in traditionally masculine sports, this is now challenging traditional notions of sports and the sports culture (Messner, 1990; Adler & Adler, 1991; Young & White, 1995; Dunning, 2005; Coakley, 2009). Will such violent sports, regardless of the sex of the players, continue to foster violence in players and spectators? Moreover, will females participating in contact sports result in female spectators demonstrating increased likelihood of violence? It should be hoped that this will not be the case and that female participation in sports will lead to a kind of diffusion in violence and a creation of non-hostility. In conclusion, violence in sports and violent sports may act as a therapeutic way or cathartic manner in which some individuals diffuse or reduce their aggressive tendencies; however, from the evidence highlighted in this paper, it is clear to see that violent sports produce violent tendencies in both those who play and those who watch it. It is also the case that sports is a traditionally masculine culture that encourages individual to act in masculine ways. Moreover, it is also clear to see that, although the crowd is made up of individuals who are more likely to commit violent acts, the ethos of violence in sports and the idea that violence is socially accepted as a part and a result of sports increases the likelihood that spectators will become perpetrators of violent crimes. Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that there is no single explanation for violence in sports or sports-related violence, and as such, researchers should aim to take a holistic means through which to explain this social phenomenon in order to accurately explain why such events occur. Research investigating violence in sports and sport-related violence is certainly still required in order to produce an effective means through which such behavior can be prevented. References: Adler, P. & Adler, P. (1991). Backboards & Blackboards: College Athletes and Role Engulfment. USA: Columbia University Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. NJ: General Learning Press. Carrol, R. (1980). Football Hooliganism in England. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 15(2): 77-92. Case, R. W. & Boucher, R. L. (1981). Spectator Violence in Sport: a Selected Review. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 5(2): 1-14. Coakley, J. J. (1981). Sociological perspective: alternative causations of violence in sport. ARENA Review, 5(1): 44-56. Coakley, J. (2009). Sports & Society: Issues and Controversies. (10th Edition). McGraw-Hill Dunning, E. (2005). Violence and Sport. In, W. Heitmeyer. & J. Hagan. International Handbook of Violence Research, Vol 1. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.903-918. Fields, S. K., Collins, C. L. & Comstock, R. D. (2009). Sports-Related Violence: Hazing, Brawling, and Foul Play. Br J Sports Med, 44: 1-3. Kreager, D. A. (2007). Unnecessary Roughness? School Sports, Peer Networks, and Male Adolescent Violence. American Sociological Review, 72(15): 705-724. Messner, M. A. (1990). When bodies are weapons: Masculinity and violence in Sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 25(3): 203-220. Pappas, N. T., McKenny, P. C. & Catlett, B. S. (2004). Athlete Aggression on the Rink and off the Ice: Athlete Violence and Aggression in Hockey and Interpersonal Relationships. Men & Masculinity, 6(3): 291-312. Russell, G. W. (2004). Sport riots: A social-psychological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(4): 353-378. Rutten, E. A., Dekovic, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., Schuengel, C., Hoeksman, J. B., Biesta, G. J. J. (2008). On- and off-field antisocial and prosocial behavior in adolescent soccer players: A multilevel study. Journal of Adolescence, 31(3): 371-387. Sivarajasingam, V., Moore, S. & Shepherd, J. P. (2005). Winning, losing, and violence. Injury Prevention, 11: 69-70. Welch, M. (1997). Violence Against Women By Professional Football Players: A Gender Analysis of Hypermasculinity, Positional Status, Narcissism, and Entitlement. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 21(4): 392-411. Young, K. & White, P. (1995). Sport, Physical Danger, and Injury: The Experiences of Elite Women Athletes. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19(1): 45-61. Read More