.52.: ianvl . v J. . t v... LVh... .1V .1 1‘ .C. r. .. Oduv L... o .. .3111... V'Iv-¢- 130. u. it .1. ar‘ it , AI>.‘.1L(D. “3.51! is. 17 . r R’. \- AUJVV. II; $-34 . mwfiw 1‘11. . fit 2‘ .hfwvsaa...‘ . .Mfihflgififiafifim : § 3 .II .3 ‘°HES!S NIVERSITY Ll Illlll’illll‘lll lmunlllllill 31293 00910 3718 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Analysis of Male Participant Aggression in Intramural Sports presented by Richard Norman McNeil has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree“, EducationalAdministration Major professor Date NOV; 20. 1992 M5 U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Mlchlgan State ¥Unlverslty PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE —- ' fiiflfi macaw ' W21 magma; - N 1 19. :1. 139-3"— MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunlty Institution em AN ANALYSIS OF MALE PARTICIPANT AGGRESSION IN INTRAMURAL SPORTS BY Richard Norman McNeil A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1992 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF MALE PARTICIPANT AGGRESSION IN INTRAMURAL SPORTS BY Richard Norman McNeil The researcher's purpose in this study was to explain why hostile aggression is exhibited by male collegiate intramural sports participants. The objectives were (a) to understand the purpose and motivation for student partici- pation; (b) to determine if knowledge of the consequences is a deterrent of hostile behavior; (c) to ascertain the primary factors and circumstances during intramural games that contribute to acts of hostile behavior; (d) to inquire whether participants rationalize and justify their behav- ior, (e) to identify the sports-related influences and experiences that may contribute to acts of participant hostility; and (f) to discover how participant hostilities can be reduced in intramural sports. In attempting to meet the study objectives, individual focused interviews were complemented by the researcher's on-site observations in obtaining the views and opinions of the subjects. Replies to the interview questions were examined descriptively. The sample included 24 ejected players, 6 intramural officials, and 2 intramural supervi- ears. The following conclusions were drawn from the major findings of the study: 1. Based on the ejected players' strong desire for competition, a hostile response may not contradict their motives for participating. Rather, a hostile response may be expected. 2. By itself, prior knowledge of the consequences of aggression is not sufficient to affect participant behavior during intramural games. 3. The subjects most always blamed their opponents and the officials for causing their hostile behavior. 4. Placing undue importance on winning significantly contributes to tendencies for intramural participants to display acts of hostile aggression. 5. The attitudes and behaviors exhibited by intramu- ral participants are often learned as a result of adoles- cent conditioning and the influences of modeling. 6. In attempting to reduce hostile sports behaviors, intramural administrators should inform participants of the values, rules, and guidelines for intramural sports; revoke intramural privileges for players who violate established guidelines; and continually strive to improve the quality of intramural officiating. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT tu‘ M'IW W Iii-motion would not have been possible without Wat-hum, cooperation and encouragement tron any - .‘l"“' i ;_r;. - luncheon-1o. like to express :‘w Appreciation to the a}. 4' R.‘ ' *flrlt, I would ‘ :(fi‘fi. .l V” ‘r .- “at. of I}! doctoral guidance Committ- 9 Dr. Lou Hckhuio ." t. '1‘ ) '--~ ~ served as my doctoral committee chair. my mentor and T. am also grateful to Dr. Eldon Norma-nut ‘1; a’ glut friend. Ir.‘ , .1?" ‘0 ,2er ,m Dr. to Rouechleln for serving on my doctoral couit- 3;“. m" copywrito by .5 .;« «#3 g... A lost deserving am?” ”Inc Dr. Larry ”8'!" who has been my prclliflonal tenor. or. imitation- [1! m and very good friend. I an very grateful for the asniuuce-rco em encourage- -' it“ provided to as, by an, collugumu m cum on the «2wa Ital-ate II. leg-n taco gouovt.nub: issuing clu- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance, cooperation and encouragement from many individuals. First, I would like to express my appreciation to the members of my doctoral guidance committee. Dr. Lou Hekhuis has served as my doctoral committee chair, my mentor and good friend. I am also grateful to Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker and Dr. Sam Reuschlein for serving on my doctoral commit- tee. A most deserving acknowledgement goes to Dr. Larry Sierra who has been my professional mentor, an inspiration- al person and very good friend. I am very grateful for the assistance and encourage- ment provided to me, by my colleagues and friends on the staff of the Intramural Sports and Recreative Services department at Michigan State University. I would also like to acknowledge all of my fellow graduate students who began this educational journey with me. Their inspiration and encouragement were greatly appreciated. My sincere thanks goes to the many intramural partici- pants and student officials of Michigan State University who voluntarily participated in this study, for without their cooperation the project would not have been possible. Finally, for the years my family has endured the many long nights without a husband and their dad: A most deserving and loving acknowledgement to my wife Judy, daughter Lindsey, and son Adam, thank-you for your patience! LIST OF Chapter I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES o o o o o o e I o o o o o o o I 0 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . Statement of the Purpose . . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . Function of Intramural Sports . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . Limitations and Delimitations . . . . Organization of the Study . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Violence and Sports: A Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . Aggression Theory . . . . . . . . . Freud's Psychoanalytic Theory . . . Instinctual Theory . . . . . . . . . Frustration-Aggression Theory . . . Social Learning Theory . . . . . . Cognitive-Developmentalist Theory . Interactional Formulation Theory . . Aggression Defined . . . . . . . . . . Aggression Versus Aggressiveness . . Instrumental Versus Hostile Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . Aggression Typology . . . . . . . . Examples of Hostile Aggression . . . . Consequences of Participant Aggression Participants' Rationalization of Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Influence of Sports Aggression on Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page xi g.- #00034th III. IV. Response of Intramural Programmers to Hostile Aggression . . . . . . . . Research on Sports Participant Aggression . . . . . . . . . Influences of Sports Behaviors . . . . Reducing Sports Participant Aggression Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background of the Research Site . . . Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . Research Model . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Sampling . . . . . . . . Reliability and Validity . . . . . . Data-Gathering Procedures . . . . . . Identifying the Subjects . . . . . . Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . Interview Procedures . . . . . . . . The Interview . . . . . . . . . . . Focused Interview . . . . . . . . . The Telephone Interview . . . . . . Content Analysis . . . . . . . . . Purpose of Intramural Sports . . . . Description of the Event . . . . . . Factors Contributing to the Event . Aggression in Intramural Sports . . Reducing Aggression in Intramural Sports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . Chronology for Data Collection . . . . Initial Interest . . . . . . . . . . Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . Site Observations . . . . . . . . . Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analyses and Relevance of Data . . . Preparation of the Final Document . FINDINGS o o o O o o o o o o o o I o o 0 Purpose and Motivation for Partici- pating in Intramural Sports . . . . Purpose of Intramural Sports . . . . . The Influence of Competition . . . . Motivation for Participating . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 40 41 44 47 49 49 52 52 53 54 54 55 56 56 57 59 60 61 62 62 62 63 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 66 67 68 69 71 74 75 Consequences of Hostile Participant Behavior . . . . The Ejected Players' Knowledge of Rules Regarding Sportsmanship . Players' Knowledge of Sportsmanship Rules, as Perceived by Officials Consequences of Hostile Behavior . Relationship If Consequences of Actions Are Known . . . . . . . Observation . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . Rationalization and Justification of Hostile Aggression . . . . . . . The Officials' Descriptions of the Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . The Appropriateness of Aggression in Intramural Sports . . . . . . . Opposition to Aggression . . . . . Officials' Response to Aggression Summary . . . . . . . . Factors Contributing to Hostile Participant Aggression . . . . . . The Effect of Game Results . . . The Effect of Playing Style and Level of the Game . . . . . . . . The Effect of Officials . . . . . The Effect of Spectators . . . . . The Effect of Players' Previous Involvement in Sports . . . . . Reducing Participant Aggression . . Individual Players . . . . . . . . The Effect of Intramural Team Managers . . . . . . . . . . The Influence of Intramural Officials . . . . . The Influence of Intramural Admin- istrators . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY, MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY, AND REFLECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . summary 0 C C O O O O O O I C O I 0 Major Findings . . . . . . . Purpose of Intramural Sports . . . ix Page 76 77 79 80 82 83 84 85 90 92 96 96 97 '100 100 104 108 114 116 123 124 128 132 138 145 145 148 148 APPENDICES Motivation for Participating in Intramural Sports . . . . . . . Knowledge of Intramural Rules Regard- ing Sportsmanship . . . . . . . . . Effect of Consequences on Participant Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rationalization and Justification of Hostile Aggression by Participants Influence of Winning, Playing Style, Officials, and Fans on Participant Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . How Sports Aggression Is Learned . . . How Intramural Participants Can Reduce Hostile Aggression . . . . The Effect of Intramural Team Manag- ers on Reducing Player Aggression The Perceived Involvement of Intra- mural Officials in Hostile Par- ticipant Aggression . . . . . . . How Intramural Administrators Can Reduce Hostile Participant Aggres- sion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Educational Application . . . . . . . . . . . . Suggestions for Additional Research . . Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXPLORATORY QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . KOHLBERG'S MORAL STAGES WITH SPORTS . . I LLUSTRAT I ON 3 O . . O . . C O O I O I I HAAN'S MORAL LEVELS WITH SPORTS . . . . ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY INTRAMURAL SPORTS & RECREATIVE SERVICES - REPORT ON PmYER EJECTION . I C I C O O C O I O O BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 149 150 150 151 152 153 154 154 155 156 156 160 162 164 166 168 170 172 173 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Purpose of Intramural Sports and Purpose for Playing Intramural Sports . . . . Participants' Understanding of Intra- mural Rules Regarding Sportsmanship . Respondents' Knowledge of the Conse- quences of Their Action . . . . . . . Subjects' Views of Whether Prior Knowl- edge That Behavior Would Result in Ejection Would Change Players' Action How Unsportsmanlike Conduct Is Rationalized . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects' Views on Whether Acts of Aggression or Violence Are Ever Appropriate in IM Sports . . . . . . . Circumstances When Acts of Aggression Are Appropriate in IM Sports . . . . . The Effect of Winning or Losing on the Incident in Which the Subjects Were Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Effect of Style of Play and Level of the Game on the Incidents in Which the Subjects Were Involved . . . . . . . The Influence or Involvement of the Officials in the Incidents in Which the Subjects Were Involved . . . . . . Respondents' Perceptions of How Player Aggression Is Learned . . . . . . . . xi Page 69 78 81 82 98 98 99 104 108 114 123 12. 13. 14. 15. SubjectS' Views on How Players Can Reduce Hostile Participant Aggression . Subjects' Views of How Team Managers Can Reduce Hostile Participant Aggression Subjects' Views on How Intramural Officials Can Reduce Participant Aggression . Subjects' Views of How Intramural Administrators Can Reduce Hostile Aggression . o Page 127 131 138 144 CHAPTER I STATEMENT or THE PROBLEM Anyone who has ever played, coached, or been a spectator of'a competitive sport has probably witnessed an act of hostile aggression on the field of play or in the stands. It is well documented that the violence prevalent in today's society has spilled on to the floors, rinks, courts, and fields that serve as venues for competitive sports (Schneider & Eitzen, 1982). This violence comes in many forms, in varying degrees, and at almost every level of organized sports (Berkowitz, 1969b; Smith, 1981; White, 1975). Violence is demonstrated through abusive language, fist fights, and bench-clearing brawls that involve not only players, but often coaches, spectators, and even officials. Even though acts of violence in high-profile professional sports such as basketball, baseball, and hockey receive most of the fan and media attention, this behavior affects almost every level of organized sports (Goldstein, 1989; Levine, 1981). Semi-professional, intercollegiate, interscholastic, and even recreative sports organizations are reporting an 2 increase of unacceptable sports-related violence (Goldstein, 1989; Koeberle, 1991; Thirer, 1981). In the research literature it is implied that the aggressive tendencies of impressionable junior athletes and Little Leaguers is related to the violence displayed by professional and collegiate athlete role models. (Bandura, 1963; Coakley, 1981; Frieschlag & Schmedke, 1978; Thirer, 1981). Having described both the scope and depth of the problem of hostile aggression in organized sports, it is not surprising that participant aggression is exhibited in competitive intramural sports (Hokanson, 1970). Whereas substantial research has been conducted on player and fan violence at both the professional and amateur levels, organized recreational sports have been largely neglected in these studies (Bredemeir, 1985; Thirer, 1981). It is unknown whether violence is as prevalent in intramural sports as it is in other levels of play because it has not been studied or substantiated. The objective of this study, then, was to gain a better understanding of hostile aggression as described by intramural sports participants, and the extent to which it occurred. 3 Statsmsn1_9f_ths_zurngse The researcher's purpose in this study was to explain why hostile aggression is exhibited by male collegiate intramural sports participants. Furthermore, in this study, an attempt was made to determine whether or not participants ignored the rules which prohibit and severely punish hostile acts, without consideration for the consequences of their actions. Also of interest in this study was the participants' abilities to rationalize and justify their behaviors as being appropriate responses. Consideration was given to participants' knowledge of the purpose of intramural sports and to individuals' motivation to participate as it affected incidents of aggression. The subjects in this study had an opportunity to discuss the scope of intramural sports aggression and to provide recommendations for addressing this problem. A definition and a thorough explanation and interpretation of aggression are presented in this study. In addition, the difference between accepted aggressiveness and unacceptable aggression is clarified. Several theories of why and how aggression evolves are presented, along with a description of the various types of aggression. 'ca he Competitive sports may be one of only a few activities serving as a social institution where aggression and controlled violence are integral parts of the contest (Berkowitz, 1969b; Coakley, 1981; White, 1975). Thus, aggression in varying degrees is acknowledged, understood, and, to a certain degree, accepted in the structure of the playing rules (Freishlag & Schmedke, 1980; Schneider 8: Eitzen, 1982; Smith, 1982). However, the fact that some players exhibit uncontrolled behavior at times during the game is not readily understood. Such behavior exhibited outside of the structure of sports would not be tolerated socially (White, 1975). The problem the researcher addressed in this study is not unique to Michigan State University (MSU). Rather, as indicated in the literature, it is a problem that is likely to be encountered in all intramural programs across the United States. It is, in fact, a timely topic for the recreational sports professional on college campuses. It is not unreasonable to assume that the explanations and rationale for behaviors at MSU would be quite like those of other intramural programs at similar institutions. If intramural administrators agree with the conclusions from this study, it may help them better understand the 5 incidents of aggression on their college campuses. The researcher's intention was to portray accurately the incidents of participant aggression at MSU and to add sufficient-information about the circumstances surrounding these incidents to make them intelligible and interpretable for the reader. ' The researcher's intention was to describe and explain each research question in such a way as to allow the reader to underStand the data, follow the details of the analysis, and subsequently judge for himself or herself the merit of the writer's inferences. This study was an attempt to examine and explain aggression in intramural sports. If the writer's explanation seems reasonable and plausible, the results may be of interest to those who are involved in similar events. se c u st' 8 To achieve the study purposes, answers were sought to the following questions related to the central theme of the research: 1. Why do participants, in certain circumstances, display hostile acts of aggression that may be counter to their reasons for participating? 6 2. Would a participant's behavior be different if the individual were aware of the consequences of hostile actions? It is not known to what extent the participants in intramural sports are familiar with the punitive action taken against individuals who display hostile acts of aggression. The administrators of the intramural program depend on team managers to relay rules and guidelines governing intramural participation to their players. If the managers do not disseminate this information, the players may not know the consequences of their actions until after the fact. 3. Do the individuals who displayed unacceptable acts of behavior think their actions were appropriate, and, if so, how do they rationalize their behavior? Are these individuals remorseful, and do they understand or believe their action violated the principles of intramural participation? 4. What influences and events have the subjects previously experienced that may have contributed to their acts of hostility during intramural games? 5. If the subjects agree that acts of hostile aggression in intramural sports are not a positive outcome, what corrective measures do they believe would assist in reducing this type of behavior? 7 The exploratory questions that were used during the interview process in this study are listed in Appendix A. The information from the interviews provided the greatest input into answering the research questions. Function of Intramural Sports The scope of the competitive intramural program is designed to provide the MSU community with opportunities to engage in a large number of activities encompassing all skill levels. These activities are offered in ‘men's, women's, and co-recreational settings. The personnel of the Intramural Sports and Recreative Services department schedule and coordinate the use of many indoor and outdoor facilities necessary for successfully administering 29 team and individual sports involving approximately 2,375 teams and approximately 30,000 participants. Assumption of responsibility for individual actions; acceptance of differences in interests, background, and skills; and acceptance of "good sportsmanship" on and off the field are all goals that are discussed and stressed at intramural team managers' meetings and in one-on-one conversations between participants and the student and professional staff. The professional intramural staff members assist in developing the leadership and superVision skills of the student 8 employees and direct numerous hours of training for sports officials and supervisors. The quality of leadership and service conveyed by these student employees to the intramural participants is a central component for the continued success of the intramural department's programs and services. Definition of Tenns Agggession. Often used interchangeably with hostility. Characterizes behavior that exceeds acceptable aggressiveness within the structure of competitive sports. Aggressiveness. The type of competitiveness and assertiveness that is commonplace and needed to perform effectively' within the structure 'of competitive sports (Freishlag & Schmedke, 1980). figzdenline violence. The type of violence that, although formally prohibited by the rules, is more or less accepted by the structure within that sport, or perhaps is minimally punished (Smith, 1982). Qagngzsis thegry of aggrgssion. A behavior theory that suggests that after aggression is instinctively displayed, the individual will experience a resulting reduction of aggression (Lorenz, 1966). 9 Qggnitivg-developnentalist tneozy. As applied to aggression, the focus of this theory is on the moral growth and principles of a person's decision to aggress. t ed '0 e e. Used interchangeably with aggression and hostility to describe the type of behavior that is acknowledged, understood, and, to a certain degree, accepted in the structure of the playing rules of competitive sports (Smith, 1982). e t a '5. An initial evaluation to determine whether the content of ~a document or report merits further inquiry by the researcher (White, 1975). Ejgggign_;gpgn§. A report that is filed by an intramural student supervisor when a participant has been ejected from a contest; Content includes brief biographical information on the ejected player and an account of the incidents pertaining to the ejection. Explgzg;gzy_qn§§§ign§. Specific questions asked by the researcher in the interview, which expand on the primary thesis of the research questions. Field :eseangh tecnnigue. A research method that is used interchangeably with "an anthropological or ethnographic study, in which an event is described and explained primarily through the data-gathering methods of 10 observation, participant observation, and interview (Cusick, 1989). ' s oa t' a theor . A psycho- philosophical theory of death instinct, as described by Sigmund Freud (1950), in which aggression is directed toward one's self (who must die) and is subsequently influenced by the libido against other external objects to prevent self-destruction. ‘ EznstnatiQn-nggnession tnegzy. A theory of aggression that uses Freud's psychoanalytic theory as a premise to suggest that aggression is always a result of some form of frustration (Bollard et al., 1939). a es ' . The type of aggression in which there is an intention to do physical or psychological harm to the opponent. Such aggression exceeds the norms of the structure and rules of the sport. ~HQ§§ile spozts behaviog. The behavior exhibited within the structure of sports that exceeds the norms of aggressiveness and is labeled aggression, violence, or hostility (Bredemier, 1985). H9§tili§1_gi§plnggn§n_. A type of response in which a player displays acts of anger and aggression that include retaliation, frustration, and built-up aggression. 11 1ns§ing§_§ngggy. A behavioral theory that contends that people innately act toward self-preservation and that, to preserve the human species, people must be able to find acceptable means of displacing aggression (Adrey, 1961; Lorenz, 1966; Morris, 1967). e a s'o . The type of aggression in which there is not necessarily an intention to cause an injury, even though the action may result in an injury. The action may be permitted by the rules of the game, but if the action is punished, the punishment is minimal. Inggzgcgignal formnlation. Understanding a moral decision to aggress by analyzing an individual's reasoning as it applies to a specific situation. Inggxyigu. A field research method whereby the researcher meets with individual subjects for the purpose of gathering data. through research and exploratory questions. Intzamunal Spogts and Rgcgeative Services. An "umbrella" term used to encompass the entire area of recreational sports participation with affiliated students, faculty and staff at the university level (Sierra, 1982). m a r . Usually referred to as competitive programs that are structured, scheduled and 12 officiated, including sports that are both team and individually oriented (Sierra, 1982). W- A meeting for managers of teams who wish to enter a team in a competitive intramural activity. Qbfignyngign. A research method in which the observer looks for problems and concepts that give promise of yielding an understanding of the organization that is being studied. The researcher's data yield certain phenomena and indicate that one incident may be related to another (Becker, 1958). Eggxegtional sports. A synonym of intramural sports, which describes, in general, all forms of recreational sports and related activities. e io a s orts ro ess'on 1. An individual who is professionally educated and trained to develop, administer, and supervise intramural or recreational sports programs. s'- ' a v'o ence. A type of sports-related violence that violates not only the formal rules of the game, but the informal norms of player conduct (Smith, 1982). l a e i t eo . A process of learning (behavior) that is the result of societal support, 13 preparation, modeling, and observing the behavior of others. Inggzggignl_§nnpling. The process of data collection for generating theory in which the analyst collects, codes, and analyzes data and decides what data to collect next in order to develop a theory as it emerges (Glaser-8 Strauss, 1967). Unsngnnsnnnlike condnct. Behavior in intramural sports participation that demonstrates a lack of respect for the rights of others, verbal or physical abuse toward officials or other participants, and other forms of irresponsible behavior that may be specific to a sports rule (Intramural Sports & Recreative Services, 1990-91a). 'ta 10 5 nd e im'tat'ons This study was delimited to male participants in three selected competitive intramural sports (outdoor soccer, indoor soccer, and basketball) during Fall Term 1991 and Winter Term 1992 at Michigan State University. It is possible that students from another institution, which has a philosophical basis different from that of the Intramural Sports & Recreative Services department at MSU, might not have the same experiences, opinions, or responses. 14 One of the limitations of this study was a lack of empirical studies with participation aggression in recreational sports as the primary focus. Although there is substantial material on sports aggression in general, a primary focus of these studies has been on professional athletes, spectators, and the effects of the media on aggression. As expected, the observation process permitted the researcher personally to witness only 2 of the 24 ejections used in this study. The researcher did witness numerous instances of aggression, but the behavior that was exhibited was not necessarily from the subjects in this study. As a result, interviews with both participants and officials involved in ejections were the primary source of data for this study. Another limitation was that the researcher was not successful in obtaining interview data from all of the available subjects. Five subjects were not available or did not consent to an interview. It is unknown what contribution those subjects might have made to the study. Ozganiggtion 9f the Study Chapter I included the need for the study, a statement of the problem, and the purpose of this study of participant aggression in intramural sports. The 15 researcher described the value of the research, identified the research questions,' defined specific terms, and reviewed the limitations and delimitations of the study. In the review of literature in Chapter II, the writer describes the environment of the study, discusses several definitions of aggression and their relevance to the study, presents relationships between aggression at various levels of sports, and identifies and discusses several theories of aggression. The methodology used in this study is discussed in Chapter III. The findings are presented and discussed in Chapter IV. A. summary of the findings, conclusions drawn from the findings, and recommendations for further research are presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose in this study was to gather information to assist the researcher to explain why hostile aggression is exhibited by male collegiate intramural sports participants. Furthermore, in this study, an attempt was made to determine whether participants ignored the rules that prohibit and severely punish hostile acts, without Consideration for the consequences of their actions. Also of interest in this study was the participants' abilities to rationalize and justify their behaviors as being appropriate responses. The review of literature contains a historical perspective of sports ‘and aggression; a discussion of various theories and definitions of aggression; a description of several examples, consequences, and participant rationalization of sports-related aggression; and the influence this issue apparently has on children and their behavior. Finally, the writer discusses how intramural professionals respond to participant aggression 16 17 and. presents a variety of methods and suggestions for reducing the phenomenon of aggression in sports. yiglence and Sports: A Historigal Perspectiye The current trend in competitive sports to redefine the role of violence and aggression has historical precedents. In 1906, under the watchful eye of President Theodore Roosevelt, a legislative compromise was reached between opposition forces who desired to ban intercollegiate football because of excessive violence and those who viewed the game as necessary for developing character traits necessary for the survival of America. These reforms occurred at a time when Darwinist theory was a dominant value for a growing population that was attempting to nurture the character, drive, and morality needed to sustain American democracy. Sports were being promoted as a means to instill the "killer instinct" in people preserve a fledgling republic (Roberts, 1970). The relationship between excessive sports violence and a concern over the general anxiety and values of a present society can perhaps be described best by looking at other cultures. In Greece, in the fourth century B.C., sport was intricately connected with religious, social, and other cultural values within the classes. Over time, sports began to display acceptable levels of violence that were 18 consistent with present-day norms and values in comparison to the ancient Greek era (McIntosh, 1979). As a result, contemporary Greek perceptions about violence in sport were not reflecting the concern for any one sport but, in a larger way, reflecting changing cultural views and values. Similarly, in early nineteenth-century European societies, an unwarranted attack (n1 an opposing player might represent far more than-just a violent sports attack. It might have represented a very complex set of value and cultural differences between two countries. Player violence is acceptable if it takes place within a socially acceptable structure. However, when these attacks become personal or against a third-party arbitrator (official), they disregard the structure that labels them acceptable (McIntosh, 1979). i This brief summation of varying cultures is intended to suggest a positive relationship between the views, ethics, and morals of a society and the tolerance or acceptance of violence in organized sports. Although this is not an attempt to include all of the variables for consideration, it seems appropriate to suggest some generalizations. 19 1. Perceptions of what is an acceptable level of sports violence varies not only from sport to sport, but among different cultures. 2. The previously mentioned historical examples suggest that views of sports violence are altered as the values of a culture change. 3. Violence in sports is insignificant when compared to the concerns and tensions of the greater society. 4. In twentieth-century America, the view of acceptable violence in professional sports is probably related to economic considerations. 5. Until the cultural values of America shift to where violence in sports is no longer acceptable, it will probably remain in its current structure. In summarizing this historical perspective, it appears that violence in sports has deep roots in the culture of America that may have been influenced by Greek and European societies. The current attempt to address and control violence in American sports may be successful only if it is a part of reprioritizing the values of current and future society. 20 Agggession Theory Over the past several decades, psychologists, physiologists, sociologists, and physical educators have conducted numerous studies in the field of aggression (Berkowitz, 1972; Bredemeier, 1981, 1985, 1989; Coakley, 1981; Freishlag & Schmedke, 1980; Goldstein, 1989; Schneider & Eitzen, 1982). A major problem facing researchers is the large number of theories on aggression, without any one theory that is widely accepted (Buss & Durkee, 1957; Goldstein, 1989; Smith, 1983). There is disagreement, not only about a universal definition, but also concerning the conceptual framework and methods for measurement (Bredemeier, 1978; Harrell, 1980; Scott, 1970). Six major theories of aggression will be identified in the following discussion, with evidence documented to support the primary theory that was used in this study. These six are Freud's psychoanalytical, instinctual, frustration-aggression, social learning, cognitive- developmentalist, and interactional-formulation theories of aggression. WW Following World War II, Freud (1950) presented his psycho-philosophical theory of the death instinct, in which aggression is directed toward one's self (who must die) and 21 is subsequently influenced by the libido against other external objects to prevent self-destruction. Although many of Freud's supporters have discounted the "death instinct," there has been some support for the concept of innate aggression (Adrey, 1966; Lorenz, 1966; Morris, 1968). Instinctnal Tnegry Supporters of the instinctual theory of aggression (Adrey, 1961; Lorenz, 1966; Morris, 1967) have supported Freud's contention that aggression is innate to mankind. Followers of instinct theory have contended that people innately act toward self-preservation and that, to preserve the human species, people must be able to find acceptable means of displacing their aggression (Adrey, 1961; Lorenz, 1966; Morris, 1967). This theory suggests that, after aggression is instinctively displayed, the individual will experience a resulting reduction or catharsis of aggression. Therefore, if a person is allowed to display this aggression in a socially acceptable manner, such as sports participation, a reduction of the need to aggress will result (Brown, 1981; Hokanson, 1970; Lorenz, 1966; Morris, 1968; Storr, 1968). This reduction has been identified as the catharsis theory of aggression. 22 ErnstzngiQn—Agggessign Theogy Using Freud's psychoanalytic theory as a premise, Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mourer, and Sears (1939) proposed the frustration-aggression theory. This hypothesis originally suggested that aggression was always a result of some form of frustration. Even though the original concepts of Dollard et al. have been questioned (Layman, 1970), their work in 1939 seemed to serve as a springboard for researchers attempting to gain a better understanding of the nature and causes of aggressive behavior. Although it should be clear that frustration does not always lead to aggression, an act of aggression that is the result of frustration generally will be targeted toward the cause of that frustration. Sggigl Lenrning Theory When aggression is the result of some form of frustration, is it an innate reaction or the result of a learned process? From the studies of Dollard (1939), many researchers now contend that aggression is a behavior that is learned as a result of societal support and preparation (Bandura, 1973; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961; Christy et al., 1971; Walters & Brown, 1963). Social learning theorists believe that aggression is learned in a social context through observing and modeling the behavior of 23 others. According to Gorney (1972), Berkowitz (1969b), Moyer (1973), and others; support for the three theories mentioned thus far (psychoanalytic, instinctual, and frustration—aggression) is diminishing. The greatest difference between the psychoanalytic, instinctual, and frustration-aggression theories and the social learning theory is that of catharsis. From the viewpoint of Bandura, there is no logic in catharsis. Aggression results in more, not less, aggression. A participant who displays an act of aggression on the field is not.going to become more passive; rather, the person will likely continue to be aggressive. There is little doubt that social learning theory differs dramatically from instinctual theory. However, there is a substantial social learning element in frustration-aggression theory. Based on the findings of Berkowitz and Bandura, the most realistic explanation for the continued escalation of sports-related aggression and violence is found in social learning theory. . As a result of learning' mechanisms that begin in childhood, each person develops his or her own behavioral learning process. This learning process continues in the context of sports. Parents, coaches, fans, peers, and the media all have an effect on the behavioral learning process 24 of an individual participant (Bandura et al., 1961; Layman, 1970; Smith, 1982; Walters & Brown, 1963). - e e t V's heor Social learning theory has greatly increased the understanding of athletic aggression, but according to Bredemeier (1985), has not provided an adequate interpretation of athletic aggression. . . . The weaknesses inherent in the social learning approach are consequences both of theoretical and empirical limitations. . . . Because researchers are restricted to the assessment of overt behavior arbitrarily defined as aggressive, the investigation of sport participants' reasoning about their own behavior has been neglected. In the absence of theoretical and empirical analyses for the personal meaning sport participants attach to their aggressive behavior, it is difficult to gain an adequate scientific understanding of a class of overt acts motivated by the intent to injure. (p. 57) The primary focus for social learning theorists is that societal development is the drive for athletic aggression. In contrast, the focus for cognitive- developmentalists is on the moral principles of the person initiating the aggression. Jean Piaget (1965) was the first to research moral growth from a cognitive-developmentalist viewpoint. He concluded that moral growth develops from the perspective of equal retribution (an eye for an eye) among children. Specifically, children are able to take into account the 25 reality of situational differences in making moral judgments. Lawrence Kohlberg (1969) used Piaget's premise to develop a six-stage sequence fbr moral development. Kohlberg's thesis was that, when a moral conflict arises, a person resolves it with a situational stage of reasoning. For Kohlberg, justice is central to an individual's view of morality, and at subsequent stages a person gains a better understanding of how justice can resolve moral conflicts. An application to sports situations is demonstrated in Appendix B. Inggznggional Formulation Theory A final theory of aggression is the interactional formulation theory as outlined by Haan et a1. (1983). These authors maintain that cognitive-developmentalists rely too much on abstract reasoning, whereas social learning theorists place too much emphasis on the role of society. Interactional formulation theory suggests that morality is best understood by analyzing an individual's reasoning in a specific situation. In their theory, Haan et al. maintain that every person is a moral actor, who continually analyzes moral situations to establish a moral balance with others. They suggest that moral solutions are the result of these actors 26 entering into a dialogue with other actors as they each encounter 'situations, evaluating the circumstances and trying to maintain a moral balance. This theory seems to combine the influences of societal norms with the individual moral reasoning required in a specific situation and appears to be ian appropriate framework for understanding the rationale for sports-participant aggression. (See Appendix C for Haan et al.'s levels for moral development with sports situations.) In this study of aggression, the theory of interactional formulation has the greatest relevance. Of particular importance is Haan et a1. '5 contention that moral decisions by these actors are the result of analyzing specific situations. These actors, in turn, may have a different moral response, depending on the circumstances and the environment of the situations. A response that may be identified as being moral in a highly competitive athletic event may be identified as being immoral outside the athletic arena. WM Many definitions of aggression have been established through several decades of research. Dollard et a1. (1939) defined aggression as a "sequence of behavior in which the goal is to injure another person" (p. 9). Baron (1977) 27 defined aggression as "any form of behavior with the goal being to harm or injure another person who desires to avoid such contact" (p. 12). Silva (1980) added that aggression as an overt act can be either physical or verbal and has the potential to physically or psychologically injure the person targeted. Finally, Kaufman (1970) contends that aggression needs to be personal--that is, directed toward a living target. '0 e s es ve s Aggression as defined above often is used interchangeably with hostility and needs to be separated from the type of competitiveness, assertiveness, and aggressiveness that is commonplace and needed to perform effectively' within the structure of competitive sports (Freishlag & Schmedke, 1980). Coaches quite often try to motivate their players to play harder or to be more aggressive. Perhaps their real intention is a desire for their team to be more assertive, take control of the game, and let their presence be felt by the opponent. This action often results in increased physical contact--for example, harder blocking in football. However, there is never an intention to injure or harm a player with behavior that is labeled aggressive or assertive. If an injury does result, it is purely accidental and "part of the risk of 28 the game." Just because an injury is the outcome, it cannot necessarily be labeled aggression. Characterizing sports behaviors as hostile or violent should be reserved for only those acts where there is an intention, or high probability, that the action will result in injury (Smith, 1982). Insgrnnentgl Vezsus Hostile Aggzgsslon Hostile aggression is used by individuals whose primary objective is to injure another' person. In competitive sports, the intention is to prevent the opponent from further competition as a result of sustaining an injury. In basketball, for example, these actions may be an elbow to the head or face or perhaps a deliberate push or "undercutting" during a lay-up, with the intention of causing the player to be removed from the entire game. At the time of initiating the injury, the player is not interested in the outcome of the game, only in the outcome that results in the opponent being injured and preferably being removed from the game (Ryan, Williams, & Myer, 1990). The objective is to cause an injury, not to win the game. In contrast, instrumental aggression, although still intended to harm the victim, is behavior that is directed for reasons other than the injury itself. Instrumental aggression may be permitted by the rules of the game, but 29 if it is punished, the punishment is minimal. In contrast, hostile aggression generally is dealt with in strong punitive action. The intention of the action is the characteristic distinguishing between hostile and instrumental aggression. It may require a debatable judgment to determine whether the act was done with an intention to injure as the only objective. A classic example of this fine line occurs in baseball. A pitcher may throw a high inside pitch to establish "control" and "dominance" of the strike zone. The pitcher may not necessarily be hostile toward the batter, but he determines that throwing that pitch, even if it hits the batter, may be advantageous to his team in deterring hitters from "digging in." This judgmental process of labeling enters into the umpire's decision if the pitcher hits the batter. The umpire is forced to determine whether the act was intended to cause harm (hostile) or for the purpose of sending a message to hitters and the actual act of hitting the batter was inconsequential (instrumental). From the preceding example, one can conclude that it is very difficult for an observer to determine the intention of the act, but the outcome may be the same: an injury to an opponent. The difficulty in separating 30 instrumental and hostile aggression can be labeled a "gray area." Because of the "gray area" of ambiguity (from the previous example regarding baseball), the pitcher may be the only one who can determine with certainty whether the act was instrumental or hostile. s'o lo Smith (1982) emphasized that aggression should not be confused with the bodily contact and other forms of aggressiveness that are taken for granted when lone participates in sports activities. A person must automatically accept the inevitability of bodily contact and the possibility of suffering at least an incidental minor injury. Smith further categorized violence in "degrees." He described borderline violence as the type that, although formally prohibited by the rules, is more or less accepted by the structure within that sport, or perhaps minimally punished. Examples would include the hockey fist-fight, the baseball brush-back pitch, and hard tackling in soccer. Smith labeled quasi-criminal violence as the type that violates not only the formal rules of the game but, to a larger degree, the informal norms of player conduct. An example would be a baseball player attacking a pitcher with a bat when he has been hit by a pitch or a hockey player 31 using his stick as a weapon during a fight with an opponent. Criminal violence is that which grossly and viciously exceeds all boundaries of civil conduct and generally results in severe injury or death of the victim and is immediately processed through a court of law. Most often, this action does not take place on the field of play but is associated with a conflict either preceding or following a game. Smith cited an example of a teenage hockey player convicted of manslaughter after killing an opponent in a parking lot following a youth hockey game. Based on the preceding definitions, the researcher expected thatv borderline violence would be most often exhibited and studied, with few, if any, incidents of quasi-criminal violence. Criminal violence is exhibited so seldom that the researcher expected there would be no occurrences of this type of violence during the course of the present study. Enanples of Hostile Aggresslgn Concerns are raised when an acceptable level of aggressiveness in the normal context of the game turns into unacceptable levels of hostile aggression and sports- related violence (Koeberle, 1991; Levine, 1981). Newspapers, sports_ journals, and television throughout 32 America and the world have documented that acts of aggression are a routine event on the playing field. In 1975, Henry Boucha suffered a severe beating from Dave Forbes during a Boston-Minnesota National Hockey League game, causing Boucha to lose 70% of the sight in one of his eyes (Noverr & ziewaez, 1981). In the National Basketball Association in December 1975, Los Angeles Laker Kermit Alexander literally shattered the face of Rudy Tomjanovich of the Houston Rockets with one crushing blow (Noverr & ziewaez, 1981). The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) suspended the Brooklyn College's men's soccer team due to unsportsmanlike conduct following a first-round loss in the 1990 national tournament. Following a hearing by the NCAA men's soccer board, Brooklyn College was banned from participating in the soccer championships for 1991 and 1992 (£r9m_tbs_§xm_te_the_lurx. 1991)- With fewer than five minutes remaining in the Washington, D.C., coaches' all-star high school basketball game, referees were forced to stop the game following a 15- minute brawl between players and fans. The following day's W;§hing§gn_£g§§ noted that the fight was the result of a "seemingly ordinary tackle" (E;9n_thg Qyn to Eng gnzy, 1991). 33 In East St. Louis, Missouri, during the summer of 1991, at the conclusion of a Little League baseball game, shots were fired at a 16-year-old umpire by a parent-aged coach who had been ejected from the game. At the time of the ejection, the coach grabbed a bat and threatened to "bust your head; I'll kill you." He later returned and emptied his gun at the school-age umpire; fortunately, all six shots missed their target. The coach was arrested by police the following day, and the umpire returned to his duties behind the plate (anm thg Gyn to the Juny, 1991). A youth sport baseball coach in North Carolina was charged with voluntary manslaughter in the strangulation death of the father of one of his players. The father had been arguing with the coach about the amount of playing time the boy was receiving. The two men went to the coach's truck to discuss the father's concern, where the father was later found dead (From the Qyn t9 gne Jury, 1991). At the conclusion of an outdoor soccer play-off game at Michigan State University in fall 1990, a disqualified player approached the student official who had ejected him, in what appeared to be an act of apology, by extending his hand. However, instead of apologizing, the ejected player punched the official in the face. The offending player 34 received a multi-year suspension from participation in intramural sports. An example of verbal and psychological violence occurred during a girls' Michigan high school basketball game in fall 1991. Near the end of the game, a player from the team losing by 20 points ran by the "star" player of the winning team and shouted loud enough for all players and several fans to hear, "How's your dad!!?" This was in reference to the recent death of the young player's father. The above-mentioned examples are just a few of the many physical and verbal incidents of aggression that occur on the playing field. The examples also indicate that the scope of violence extends from the most skilled and highest-paid professionals to the Little League and recreational participants. Consegnencgs of Pnnticlpgnt Aggression Smith (1972), Vaz (1982), Silva (1983), and Bredemeier (1985) are among the several authors who have in the past two decades given considerable attention to understanding the causes and processes of sports violence. In spite of extensive research and well-publicized stories of sports hostilities, the frequency of such incidents seems to be on the rise (Goldstein, 1989; Koeberle, 1991; Thirer, 1981). 35 Even as concern about the consequences of hostile sports behavior rises, Bredemeier (1985) stated that it is important to acknowledge how little progress has actually been made in the study of sports aggression. She attributed this lack of progress to two interrelated factors: "a lack of alternate theoretical perspectives to complement the social learning approach to athletic aggression and a discrepancy between perception of aggression by participants in the sport context and by scientists in psychology/sport psychology" (p. 111). Parglglpants' Rationallzgglgn of Aggressign Although only a few studies have been conducted regarding participants' view of sports aggression (Smith, 1983; Vaz, 1982), the examination of participants' rationalization and justification of such behavior has been neglected even more (Bredemeier, 1985). Bredemeier suggested that a better understanding of how participants evaluate their behavior requires further study of judgments about rationalization and justification of sports aggression and general moral reasoning regarding contest interaction. A There are many causes for the value placed on violence and sports, and they are influenced on the societal, institutional, and individual levels. Noted. historian 36 Richard Maxwell Brown (1969) presented the following summary of violence in America: The first and most obvious conclusion is that there has been a huge amount of it. We have resorted so often to violence that we have long since become a "trigger happy" people. . . . It is not merely that violence has been mixed with the negative features of our history such as criminal activity, lynch mobs, and family feuds. On the contrary, violence has formed a seamless web with some of the noblest and most constructive chapters of American history. . . . We must realize that violence has not been the action of only roughnecks and racists among us, but has been the tactic of the most upright and respected of our people. (pp. 75-76) Levine (1981) connected the violence found widespread in America with violence found in the structure of sports. He contends that "there is a positive relationship between a society's cultural, social, and geo-political framework, the place of organized sport in that setting, and its preference, toleration or abhorrence of sports prone to high levels of violence" (p. 26). The acceptance of violence is evidenced in competitive sports, as identified by Coakley (1981) . He gave the following examples as proof that hostile aggression is desired in competitive violence: 1. For the purpose of sustaining spectator interest, the commercialism of sports has emphasized the "glory" of violence. 37 2. The deep traditions of aggression in sports cause players not only to expect to encounter violence, but to see it as necessary to build relationships with coaches and teammates, and to build their self-esteem. 3. Beginning with adolescence, the socialization process for young athletes encourages an "aggressive style. " Aggression is supported and approved by significant others, which serves to perpetuate this behavior as youngsters are learning to play sports. There is little dispute that athletic aggression is seen, in part, as a positive experience influenced by the American culture. However, the seriousness of both physical and. psychological outcomes raises. a question concerning the morality of violence in the sports experience. Bredemeier (1985) raised the question of relationships between the way individuals think about moral issues and the way they behave. Social scientists often have cited the work of Hartshorne and May (1928-1930), who contended that "moral behavior is a function of specific social context rather than personal moral development" (p. 67). As opposed to focusing on.a person's behavior by an outside observer,1 the cognitive-developmentalist explores how individuals explain their choices in a behavioral 38 situation. Moral. reasoning influences their behavior, which serves to explain the moral choices in a given situation. WW Most of the research and.media attention is focused on aggression in professional sports; unfortunately, aggression is not limited to that arena. There has been a noticeable increase in the amount of violence related to nonprofessional sports (Goldstein, 1989; Koeberle, 1991; Thirer, 1981). Coakley (1981), Thirer (1981), and Frieshlag and Schmidke (1978) believe there is a positive relationship between the increased exposure to violence in professional sports and the frequency and severity of young athletes' aggression. The media provide extensive coverage of adolescent idols and heroes displaying acts of aggression with a "win at any cost" attitude. These high- profile professional athletes are, in short, teaching young athletes that aggression, not tolerated in a normal civil society, is an acceptable and perhaps even an encouraged form of response in competitive sports (Frieshlag & Schmidke, 1978). The process for this learned behavior begins at a very young age. Bandura (1963) provided evidence that children "readily imitate aggressive behavior exhibited by a model 39 in the presence of the model and that children exposed to an aggressive model exhibited aggressive behavior in a new setting when the model was absent" (p. 316). Smith (1980) supported.this view, contending that.violence in ice hockey is due to modeling. Children learn aggression from watching their role models and idols, professional athletes, on television and as spectators. ‘ .Bredemeier et al. (1986) conducted a study to examine the relationship between participation in sports and children's :moral-reasoning' ability’ and. their' resulting aggression. The results from their study demonstrate a relationship between sports participation and interest in sports, and between moral reasoning and aggressive tendencies in both sports situations and everyday life. The results of this study indicate that: 1. Participation by boys in high-contact sports was related to decreased moral reasoning and greater tendencies toward aggression in both sport and non-sport situations. The positive relationship between participation in high- contact sports and greater tendencies to aggress suggests that the influence for aggressive behavior may cross the boundary from sports participation into everyday-life situations. 40 2. A positive relationship existed between boys' interest in high-contact sports and decreased moral reasoning and increased tendencies to aggress verbally and physically. This pattern for boys suggest an interest in learning sports skills that permit aggressive behavior. The authors also provided evidence that related the influence of significant others' (parents, peers, coaches) approval and encouragement of aggression in a sports experience, which permits boys to mature into men. 3. The results suggest that interest in sports can be a predictor of moral reasoning and tendencies to aggress. However, longer experience in a single sport was found to be a better predictor of aggressive tendencies than was length of total sports participation. Bredemeier et al. concluded: We suggest that involvement in sports characterized.by a relatively high degree of physical contact may be developmentally counterproductive for most preadolescent children. The types of social interactions fostered by relatively high-contact sports may provide little stimulus for--and may even impede-~moral growth. (p. 316) BBED9n92_Q£_IBEIQEBIAI_EIQQIQEEQI§ 2W Some colleges have been forced to increase supervision and control of participant behavior in selected intramural contests because of increasing concerns over sports 41 aggression and related hostilities (Thirer, 1981) . Because participation in intramural sports is a privilege, individuals who do not comply with rules regarding appropriate conduct can have this privilege revoked. The intramural ice hockey rules at Michigan State University state that "Fighting, slugging~with fist or stick, kicking, or attempting to do so will result in the automatic disqualification of the offending player" (Intramural Sports 8 Recreative Services, 1990-91b). The interpreta- tion of this rule includes even a single punch from a player that might have been in retaliation toward an opponent who initiated the fight. Some programs have extended this desire for team and player sportsmanship by evaluating the conduct of a team for the purpose of allowing that team to compete in the postseason playoffs and for future participation. This evaluation. is accomplished by means of a sportsmanship rating given to each team at the conclusion of games by the officials and supervisors. A season minimum average is required for every team to be eligible to enter the playoffs. In addition, teams that receive unacceptable scores can be prohibited from entering a team in another activity (Recreational Sports Department, 1991). 42 For the most part, the response by intramural programmers has been to act after the fact, by suspending players who are guilty of a variety of unsportsmanlike behaviors. Rules identify unsportsmanlike conduct, and efforts are made to inform captains and managers of the purposes for participation in intramural sports. However, it is not known whether these efforts have an effect and whether the message is passed on to or understood by individual players. Quite often, players are educated about the value of intramural sports only as a result of their ejection. ' o S t i an r o This researcher conducted an extensive computer- assisted literature. review' that included several data bases. The search.produced a limited number of studies and articles whose primary focus was participant aggression in recreational sports (Brown, 1981; Luxbacher, 1985; Marshall, 1980) . However, even though there has been minimal research on aggression in recreational sports, it should be apparent to anyone who has participated in or witnessed intramural sports that competition often results in a high level of emotional arousal among young adults. Psychological data suggest that increased levels of 43 emotional arousal often. result in acts of aggression (Hokanson, 1970). The normal method of dealing ‘with. this form of behavior in intramural sports is to strictly enforce rules that prohibit such behavior. Such enforcement normally results in the ejection of the participant and potential loss of playing privileges in the future (Intramural Sports & Recreative Services, 1990-91a; Thirer, 1981). Wists The following are some of the influences in the learning process specific to aggression in the sports environment: 1. Sports, being' a 'microcosm of society, simply reflect the conventional wisdom, values, and behaviors of the society as a whole. Therefore, violence in sports is a.mirror of violence in society (Schneider & Eitzen, 1982). 2. Because economic incentives and commercialization are available to the highest-performing athletes, attention is focused.on the outcome rather than the meaning of the sports experience (Schneider & Eitzen, 1982). 3. The influence of crowd. behavior is based. on collective theory (Blumer, 1959) . As spectators become more aggressive and vocal, the encouragement of aggression 44 filters down to players on the playing field (Schneider & Eitzen, 1982). 4. Psychological stress may be brought about by the need to establish respect among peers, maintaining self- esteem, and the need to protect oneself physically (Schneider & Eitzen, 1982). 5. Role modeling of professional athletes by millions of spectators has. a particularly strong influence on children and adolescents (Thirer, 1981). 6. In.sports, violence has traditionally been labeled as legitimate, justified, and righteous, with a system of formal and informal mechanisms that support these judgments (Smith, 1972). 7. Self-interest can always be labeled as legitimate, justified, and righteous (Smith, 1972). 8. Individuals develop moral judgments from their experiences of social situations, which have an intrinsic effect on their view of the rights of others (Bredemeier, 1985). 9. Moral action is a result of a specific social context, not the result of personal moral development (Hartshorne & May, 1930). 10. .An athlete's moral response is grounded in the context of the sports environment and is probably not a 45 predictor of moral behavior in everyday life (Bredemeier, 1935). W Because there are so many interrelated causes and contributing influences, it. is difficult to identify specific measures that can be initiated to reduce both the incidence and severity of hostile sports aggression. As many authors have indicated (Bandura, 1973; Baron, 1977; Bredemeier et al., 1986; Coakley, 1982; Levine, 1981), the violence that is deeply rooted in American culture has spread to the sports venue. Because violence has such a long history and spreads across all classes, it is likely to take a long time to reverse this behavioral tendency of sports violence. However, in the same manner in which adolescents are learning that aggression in sports is acceptable, these same children can learn, through proper influences, that aggression is not acceptable and is not encouraged. Specific recommendations for reducing aggression in sports were offered by Lefebvre (1980) and Nighswander and Mayer (1969): 1. .Adolescents need. role :models of nonaggressive behavior. Excellence in athletics should be associated with self-control in addition to performance. 46 2,. Athletes involved in the most hostile types of aggression need to be severely punished. Professional athletes who are earning multimillion-dollar salaries can hardly be expected.to alter their behavior when an economic penalty consists of only a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. 3. Coaches should be held accountable for the actions of their players through fines and suspensions. Placing some of the burden for responsible conduct on a coach, who has an influence on the behavior of his or her players, can influence the behavior of the team. 4. External factors that contribute to on-field aggression should be monitored. Some of these factors include hostile fans, consumption of alcohol by fans, and outrageous conduct on the part of coaches. 5. Increased education should be provided for coaches and officials, in terms of ' identifying potential aggression and the measures that can be taken to prevent or reduce its occurrence. 6. An athlete's ability to maintain self-control should be recognized and reinforced. Acts of self-control in stressful situations should be praised and recognized by parents, coaches, teammates, and league officials and administrators. 47 By themselves, specific measures such as those identified above cannot have a sufficient influence on reducing sports hostilities dramatically. In light of the evidence that attitudes play'a.major role in the acceptance of aggression, sports hostilities by players and fans will not be substantially reduced until people develop negative attitudes and values toward sports violence. Sports- related violence will be reduced only when participants, fans, parents, league officials, and others involved with sports no longer view violence as an acceptable part of the sports structure. What is needed is a combined effort to change the "intrinsic" attitudes regarding sports violence with the "extrinsic" measures that control or' punish unacceptable behavior (Goldstein, 1989). Summer! The review of literature included the history of aggression in sports and.why aggression is deeply rooted in the core of America's values. . Several theories of aggression were presented, as were the applications of these concepts as they pertained to this study. In addition, numerous studies of sports and aggression were reviewed that were relevant to the present research. Based on a review of the literature, it would be fair to conclude that there:is an important relationship between 48 moral judgment and moral action, participant justification and.athletic aggression, and social learning and.cognitive- developmentalist theory in 'the attempt, to understand athletic aggression. Because. an athlete makes moral decisions in the context of a sport-specific situation, it is important to ask the participant his or her reasons for the decision to aggressu By asking participants to discuss their reasons for aggression, individuals may be encouraged to examine their judgments. As previously mentioned, it is not enough to invoke external measures and pressure to control violence by sports participants. Participants must begin to recognize the true value of their participation and be forced to evaluate their judgments as they relate to the well-being and rights of others. To bring about change in athletic aggression, an evolution combining the external influences of sports structure with the athlete's internal reasoning and valuing must take place. CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY The purpose in this study was to gather information to assist the researcher to explain why hostile aggression is exhibited by male collegiate intramural sports participants. Furthermore, in this study, an attempt was made to determine whether or not participants ignored the rules which prohibit and severely punish hostile acts, without consideration for the consequences of their actions. Also of interest in this study was the participants' abilities to rationalize and justify their behaviors as being appropriate responses. The delineation of the methodology includes the selection of the sample, the research model, data-gathering procedures, content- andmdata-analysis composition, and the data-collection timetable. W The environment for this study was the competitive intramural sports program administered by the Department of Intramural Sports and Recreative Services (IM) at Michigan 49 50 State University (MSU) . The subjects were male participants in the competitive programs of outdoor and indoor soccer and basketball. The primary goals of the IM department are to provide experiences to students that will contribute to the lifelong development of recreative and fitness skills, to provide an environment that will encourage interaction of participants from all backgrounds, and to conduct these activities consistent with the University's philosophy of sound educational practices and values. W The data were collected from male participants who had been ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct from the competitive intramural sports program at MSU during Fall and Winter Terms of the 1991-92 academic year. The IM guidelines for sports participation state that "individuals who physically or verbally abuse intramural officials and participants or fight or incite action whether physical or verbal will be automatically suspended. Further action will be decided. upon clarification of the situation; permanent suspension. may follow" (Intramural Sports & Recreative Services, 1990-91a). 51 There is a wealth of information to support the delimitation of this study to male athletes. ‘The extensive coverage of participant violence in professional and collegiate sports, by both the print and television media, has substantiated that individuals involved are almost exclusively males. In addition, Schneider -and Eitzen (1982), Kistler (1957), and others have found that, in sports participation, unacceptable acts of hostility and aggression were generally exclusive to males. For the 1990-91 academic year at MSU, all of the approximately 70 players ejected from competitive intramural sports were males. As a consequence, this study of aggression and hostile behavior in sports participation was limited to males. The sports considered in the study 'were outdoor soccer, basketball, and indoor soccer. These sports were selected because the nature and structure of the games and rules permit a greater level of aggressiveness, lending themselves to more frequent incidents of participant aggression (Berkowitz, 1969a; Schneider & Eitzen, 1982 ; Thirer, 1981). Smith and Russell (1983) suggested that if someone wishes to study aggression and violence in sports, he or she needs to investigate sports whose structure creates an opportunity for aggression, rather than less aggressive sports like softball and volleyball. 52 The study population included 24 ejected players, 6 officials who made". ejections, and 2 intramural student sports supervisors. Five other ejected players were not included in the study. The researcher was not able to locate one of them because of inadequate biographical documentation from the Ejection Report, and.three could.not be contacted by telephone. . Only one of the ejected participants refused to participate in this study. WM Was _The study of theoretical sampling by Glaser and Strauss (1967) served as the model for this exploratory study. They wrote: Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges. This process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory, whether substantive or formal. . . . Theoretical sampling is done in order to discover categories and their properties, and to suggest the interrelation- ships into a theory. (p. 105) The researcher's purpose in this study was to describe and explain why hostile aggression is exhibited by male collegiate intramural sports participants. The sociologi- cal perspective of theoretical sampling holds that "one assumes that if the relationship holds for one group under certain conditions, it will probably hold for other groups 53 under the same conditions" (Glaser a Strauss, 1967, p. 106). The value of this research, then, is that relation- ships that appear with intramural participants in this study will likely be the same for other intramural programs of similar makeup. ReliabilifLandJaliditx Reliability, which is the consistency of the study, is confirmed by the method itself. The method is what connects the interviewer or observer to the incidents and circumstances being studied. Through careful analysis of the method and with a well-planned procedure for inter- views, reliability can be reinforced. The method of using tape-recorded comments or field notes during observations and transcribed interviews was determined to ensure the greatest reliability for field research (Cusick, 1989). Validity concerns the question: Is this explanation believable? According to Cusick (1989), "Validity refers to the extent to which the data conform to the fact." If it can be assumed that people are willing to discuss an event, the potential exists for the use of the interview. Furthermore, if it can be assumed that people are honestly and accurately portraying the information requested, the data can be considered valid. 54 Based on the conclusion of Becker (1958) , as he described problems of inference, if the researcher de- scribes his or her findings in a natural order, the reader of a study can follow the details of the analysis and determine the basis from which conclusions are reached. "This would give the reader, as do present modes of statistical presentation, an opportunity to make his own judgment as to the adequacy of the proof and the degree of confidence to be assigned the conclusion" (p. 411). t - t The procedures for gathering the data were the field research techniques of observation and interview. Documen- tary analysis was used to determine whether the content of the Ejection Report warranted.further consideration for the purpose of the study. W The process following an ejection from an intramural game at MSU requires that an Ejection Report (see Appendix D) be completed, which gives brief biographical information on the ejected player. The documentation in this report includes first-person-witness accounts, a brief narrative about the ejection, and any other relevant information as determined by the game officials and supervisor. 55 Motion Observation occurred with the on-site presence of this researcher during numerous intramural games of the sports being studied. During this period, the researcher observed the interactions among’participants on the field and.court, as well as interactions between participants and officials, players on the bench, players in the penalty box (if called for in the sport), and adjacent fans. An acknowledged weakness of this method is that the observer cannot hope to personally witness all of the ejections from the hundreds of games being played during a particular season. In fact, this researcher personally witnessed only two of the ejections that are included in this study. However, the value of the observation was not in being a "witness" to the ejection. (For every ejection there are the players involved, two or three officials, one supervisor, and generally several other players--more than enough individuals to substantiate the merits and facts of each ejection.) The true value was to observe the interac- tions, as described above, in an attempt to understand the complexity of sports aggression. As revealed in Chapter II, an act of aggression can have many reasons and causes. 56 Support for observation as a valid means of gathering data came from Becker (1958): The observer looks for problems and concepts that give promise of yielding the greatest understanding of the organization he is studying, and for items which may serve as useful indicators to facts which are harder to observe. The observer's data yield that certain phenomena exist and that one incident may be related to another. (pp. 400-401) From these observations, a theoretical model is developed to account for the findings and to look for relationships from other variables (Becker, 1958). W The main body of the data was obtained from confi- dential taped interviews between the subjects and the researcher. The interviews permitted a thorough discussion and elaboration of the research and exploratory questions (see Appendix A). The subjects were offered a choice of a personal one- on-one interview with the researcher or consenting to an interview over the telephone. In all cases, subjects were informed that the findings would be anonymous and that their responses would remain confidential. W Using the biographical information from the ejection card, the researcher contacted ejected players to ask for their consent to participate in this study. It had been 57' the experience of the professional intramural staff at MSU that, given the opportunity to explain their own personal views, ejected participants openly described the incidents relating to their ejections. In addition, Cusick (1990) and Adams and Schvaneveldt (1985) contended that, given suitable preparation and an appropriate environment, the interview has the capacity to be an exceptional responsive technique for acquiring reliable and valid data. One of the main advantages of the interview is that the researcher can thoroughly explain the purpose of the study, ask specific questions, and elaborate on further issues of relevance and interest to the interviewee. .Adams and Schvaneveldt (1985) noted that another advantage of the interview is a high rate of cooperation. In addition to the ejected participants, interviews were scheduled with.officials and supervisors“ By speaking with these individuals, the researcher was able to gain a thorough understanding of the ejection and issues relevant to the incident. Wis! The approach of the interviews was patterned after the work of Merton (1956) in Ins—W. He contended that the function of the focused interview is to study and describe responses in everyday situations, 58 patterns of social situations, and experimental studies of effect. Merton stated that the focused interview contains the following unique characteristics: First, all persons interviewed have been involved in a particular situation or social event. ' Second, through content or situational analysis, one arrives at.a set of propositions concerning the consequenc- es of the situation. From these analyses, the third step is identifying the major areas of inquiry to make sense of the data to be obtained during the interview. As a fourth and final step, the interview is ”focused on the subjective experiences of the subjects in an effort to ascertain their definition of the situation" (p. 3). To be able to achieve one or more of the described purposes, Merton outlined criteria for the success of the focused.interview: 1. Range. The interviewer should allow the subject the freedom to respond to a wide range of elements in each question. 2. Specificity. A primary goal of the interviewer is to reduce any discrepancy between the perception of the event as told by the subject and the content of the reports of the event. 59 3. Depth. The interview should assist interviewees to relate the impressive, cognitive, and evaluative meanings of the situation or event. 4. Personal context. The interviewer should bring out the personal and unique experiences that deeply affect the interviewee and that had the most meaning in the event. A key consideration for effective interviewing is establishing trust. Cusick (1983) suggested that the researcher is "not really interested in their personal lives, only their behaviors, but they have to feel person- ally. comfortable with [the researcher's] presence” (p. 141). He added that, to build this trust, one must be non- threatening, noncritical, and a good confidant. In this study, the subjects are offered the opportunity to tell their view of the reality of intramural participation as they saw it. It was not the role of the researcher to formulate a subjective opinion of their behavior, only to try to understand and make sense of their explanation. W The normal use of a telephone interview is for short- answer market research in which the intention is to elicit as much information as possible in only a few minutes. Parten (1966) noted that it is difficult to elicit lengthy or detailed responses over the telephone. 60 However, in Uhis study (asjpreviously'mentioned), only one of the subjects refused to take part in an interview; in addition, all subjects were comfortable with discussing the exploratory questions at great length. Also, all subjects consented to having the interviews taped. Perhaps their desire to ”tell their side of the story" was impor- tant enough to take the time for a lengthy telephone conversation or to schedule a personal interview with the researcher. The success of this type of a study may be determined by establishing strong rapport and trust between the subjects and the researcher. In addition, permitting the subjects to respond orally rather than in writing and, perhaps most important, having a topic that is of personal interest to the subjects, may also contribute to the effectiveness of the study. W The analysis of the data collected from each subject in the study alluded to each of the research questions, which were as follows: 1. Why do participants, in certain circumstances, display hostile acts of aggression that may be counter to an individual's reason for participating? 61 2. Would a participant's behavior be different if the individual were aware of the consequences of hostile action? 3. Do the individuals who displayed unacceptable acts of behavior think their actions were appropriate, and, if so, how do they rationalize their behavior? 4. What influences and. events have the subjects previously experienced that may have contributed to their acts of hostility during intramural games? 5. If the subjects agree that acts of hostile aggression in intramural sports are not a positive outcome, what corrective measures do they believe would assist in reducing this type of behavior? EnIRQ§£_Q£_IDLIQEBI§1_§EQI£§ In this study, hostile and instrumental aggression was examined, as exhibited by intramural sports participants. An inquiry was made to determine the scope and breadth of knowledge the subjects had of intramural programs and, more important, why they chose to participate. Also, the researcher was interested in determining what, if any, effect the type of competition had on participants' resulting behavior. 62 MW To gain a thorough understanding of the causes and circumstances surrounding sports aggression, the subjects were given the opportunity to describe in great detail the events that led to their ejections. A fOllow-up analysis was made, regarding the justification or appropriateness of their actions. WW The studies reviewed in Chapter II identified some of the primary influences of sports-related hostilities. If the subjects did not mention all of the influences in Appendix A, Question 3, the researcher specifically questioned them as to the relevance of these factors in their‘event. WW An examination was made of the subjects' responses concerning why hostile behavior is exhibited in recreation- al sports activities. The researcher attempted to answer the question: How do players learn that, in certain circumstances, some form of aggression may be appropriate, justified, or deserved? 63 WW Four primary ”classes" were identified that affect aggression in intramural sports participants: the players, their managers, game officials, and program administrators. From the viewpoint of the subjects, an appraisal was made of how each of these classes could influence a reduction in the severity and number of occurrences of aggression by intramural sports participants. M11215 In this study, no attempt was made to test a specific hypothesis or hypotheses. This framework was patterned after that of Liebow (1966) in his work on Tally's Corner. Liebow stated: "Since the data will not have "sense" built into it--that is, it is not collected to test specific hypotheses nor with any firm presumptions of relevance--the proposed analysis is an attempt to make sense of them after the fact” (pp. 11-12). This procedure allowed the intramural participants to describe their views of the reality of aggression. Also, taking the participants' points. of view into account allowed the researcher to avoid the pitfall of his own biases and preconceived opinions of "cause." 64 The many' pages of raw' data were condensed into profiles and taxonomies. ”The most fundamental operation in the analysis of qualitative data is that of discovering significant classes of things, persons and events and the properties which characterize them" (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973). The data were organized to link the patterns and concepts as they emerged so that the reader can make sense of the study. Certain data were distinguished as being more important and relevant to the purposes of this study, whereas additional questions were also raised as a result of the analysis. WWW Mast This topic is of specific interest to those who are charged with planning and administering recreational sports programs to the thousands of college students across the country. It is of personal interest to this researcher because, as an intramural-recreational sports professional, one of his primary functions in administering competitive intramural programs is handling the many facets of each individual ejection in a variety of sports programs. 65 W An initial study was conducted during intramural ice hockey Spring Term 1990. Feedback from those subjects and from‘other individuals resulted in numerous and.appropriate changes in the actual study. W129: Observations took place during Fall Term 1991 at outdoor soccer games and during Winter Term 1992 during basketball and indoor soccer games. During observation, either field notes were taken or comments were made into a microcassette tape recorder for later analysis” The season of these sports lasted approximately eight weeks, with basketball and indoor soccer running'concurrentlyu. On-site observation involved four to six hours per week over the 16-week span of the study. W After the researcher analyzed the Ejection Reports, subjects were contacted and consented either to a taped telephone interview (generally on-the-spot) or a scheduled personal interview with the researcher. Eighteen subjects chose to be interviewed over the telephone, whereas 14 subjects preferred a personal appointment in the campus office of the researcher; The interviews ranged from 20 to 45 minutes in length. 66 Wis From the data collected during the on-site observa- tions and the interviews, the analysis process involved sorting through the maze of raw data to determine their relevance in answering the research questions. WW Analyses, descriptions, and appendices were compiled into.the format of expected dissertation standards. The findings are reported in the following chapter. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The purpose in this study was tongather information.to assist the researcher to explain why hostile aggression is exhibited by male collegiate intramural sports partici- pants. Furthermore, in this study, an attempt was made to determine whether or not participants ignored the rules which prohibit and severely punish hostile acts, without consideration for the consequences of their actions. Also of interest in this study was the participants' abilities to rationalize and justify their behaviors as being appropriate responses. As stated before, this study was not an attempt to test a specific hypothesis. Rather, it was an attempt to make sense of the data after the fact. In presenting the findings, the writer will identify significant classes of characteristics, persons, and events and make sense of the concepts and patterns as they emerge so that the reader can make sense of the study. I The findings are presented in order of the research questions, as stated in Chapter I. The findings are a 67 68 combination- of the data collected from the interview responses, which are cited verbatim, and the observations of the researcher. The subjects ithhis study included 24 ejected student intramural participants, 6 student intramural officials, and 2 student intramural sports supervisors, for a total of 32 subjects. The six officials and two supervisors are often referred to as the ”officiating staff" in the discussion of the findings and in the tables. WM WM Research Question 1: Why do participants, in certain circumstances, display hostile acts of aggression that may be counter to their reason for participating? It was expected that subjects in this study would choose to participate in intramural sports for sound philosophical reasons such as enjoyment of playing a sport, building social friendships, exercise, relief from the rigors of academics, healthy lifestyle alternatives, and many other positive reasons. According to the Program Statement of the Intramural Sports and Recreative Services Department (1990-91c), the overall goals of this program include: "Providing experi- ences that contribute to the student's development of lifelong recreative skills; encouraging positive student 69 interaction; and providing programs that meet the_continu- ally changing desires and needs of the student partici- pants." EBIDQEE.QI.ID§I§EQI§1_§EQ£§§ The 24 ejected players were aSked to describe their understanding of the purpose, goals, and objectives of intramural sports. The two purposes 'most frequently mentioned. (by‘ 10 of the. 24 ejected. players) were ‘to "provide, recreation" and "offer opportunities to play sports" (see Table 1). Table 1.--Purpose of intramural sports and motivation for playing intramural sports. Responses of Ejected Players Purpose Motivation Provide recreation 10 5 Opportunity to play sports 10 9 Offer organized competition 7 12 Offer fitness/keep in shape 4 7 Alternative to studies 4 1 Social interactions 3 3 Stress relief 3 3 70 Typical statements concerning the purpose of intramu- ral sports were given by the following four subjects: Al: Sports have always been a part of my life. I always played everything in high school. I like to play sports for the fun. I also like to play with my friends and the guys I live with. Cory: The purpose of the program is to get people with the same interest of sport to get together. David: Well, because it is a lot of fun, for one thing. Sometimes when you've played for like 15 years, it is something that is important to me. Tom: For guys to play sports and stuff that they did in high school. In addition to the benefits of recreation and sports participation opportunities, the subjects also mentioned the need for fitness, social interaction, alternatives to studying, and stress relief: Michael: The purpose of IM sports is basically to get away from the everyday college, I mean the studying and the academic atmosphere. It's a place to get away and enjoy sports. Mark: To get away from all the school and academics and enjoy yourself, relieve some stress, meet people and play some sports that are fun. Meng: One is for fitness, just to keep in shape, and also just for fun. Simon: To have some fun and a little recreation when you are not studying or in class. Also, to help people stay in shape and exercise. 71 W The Program Statement for Intramural Sports (Intramu- ral Sports & IRecreative Services, 1990-91c) addresses organized competition with this statement: The intramural program provides interaction in dynamic sport situations. . . . Opportunities for initiating and organizing their own competitive experiences as well as work experiences for student officials and student supervisors are provided for MSU' s student community that enhance the ‘on-going educational process. (p. 1) The statement mentions specifically that the competi- tive experience is meant to allow students to ”initiate and organize their own competitive experience" and to enhance the ”on-going educational process,” and that this experi- ence is 'not just for the participants, but for student officials and supervisors as well. Nearly one-third of the ejected players stated that ”offering organized competi- tion” is a purpose of the intramural sports department--the third most popular choice of these subjects. The importance of competition was addressed by the following two subjects: Michael: Just to add competition to school, I guess, and, you know, the leagues are good, but I think they would actually be better if they did something like one for kids who played high school ball and kids who are playing just for fun. Mick: Basically, to provide some organized competi- tion. To give you the chance to play sports you played in school, or since you were a kid. I've been playing for 13 years, and I want to keep playing even though I'm not good enough for the college varsity 72 team. I think there's a lot of guys who were good athletes in high school, and this is their chance to still shine and compete. An element of competition addresses the issue that IM sports may be directed toward those students who are not good enough for the intercollegiate team, as mentioned by the following two subjects: Chris: It gives the kids who don't play with the varsity team a chance to play and provides a chance for competitiveness. It boils down to wanting to play competitive ball or whatever, rather than just pick- up. Paul: It's for people who aren't playing, like, a sport for the varsity school team, I guess. To go out and have fun, but still play something that's not the varsity. In understanding the subjects' responses, it appears that their interpretation of the value of competition was different from the viewpoint of the IM department. The subjects supported the idea that a component of competition is an alternative to those participants who are highly skilled but not skilled enough to compete on the intercol- legiate level. Nowhere in the Program Statement is it mentioned that IM sports is an avenue for competition if a student cannot ”make” the varsity team. Specifically, the statement says, ”Recreational and competitive sports are available for all: skilled, less skilled, physically challenged and partici- pants from all backgrounds and nationalities." 73 Furthermore, a component of the competitive experience is for the student officials and supervisors, as well as the participants. Of the 24 ejected players, only one referred to the value of the experience for anyone other than the participants themselves: David: Well, really, I believe that the IM is meant for the enjoyment of everyone, the players as well as, like, the officials and everyone that is there. In observing intramural games, one sees that the obsession for competition is readily demonstrated by players, who often seem to be so competitive that they are not enjoying the game. Displays of profane verbal out- bursts; confrontations with teammates, opponents, and officials; and general acts of aggression suggest that, for many players, when the game begins the primary reason for playing is to soundly beat one's opponent. In the most competitive games, the atmosphere is definitely not characteristic of fun and recreation. It appears, then, that the ejected participants in this study were not informed, were misinformed, or perhaps had a misconception about the value and purpose of orga- nized competition when compared with the view of the Intramural Department. If these individuals had a "misdie rected" value concerning the objectives of competition, this may help in explaining their behavior and in 74 understanding the broad complexion of sports participant aggression. Wm: An exploratory question dealt specifically with the ejected players' motivation for participating. They were asked directly: Why do you participate in intramural sports? With the exception of "recreation" and "competi- tion,“ the remaining responses were fairly congruent between the purpose of intramural sports and the subjects' motivation for participating. 'An analysis of Table 1 (p.69) indicates that the number of responses for "provide recreation” and ”offer' organized. competition" differed between the question on purpose and the question on motivation for playing. Whereas ten ejected players stated that "providing recreation" is a purpose of intramural sports, only five mentioned this as a reason for playing. Seven others believed that ”offering organized competition" is one of the purposes; however, half (12) of all ejected players indicated that the opportunity for competitionmwas a reason they participated in intramural sports.' The competitive experience from high school appeared to carry over to intercollegiate intramural sports, as indicated by three subjects: 75 Jeff: I've always been competitive throughout high school, and I just enjoy athletics and I love to participate in an organized manner other than just pick-up games at some of the IM buildings. Mark: To keep competing in sports like I did in high school. I like the competition and the chance to play organized sports. Adam: I always played soccer when I was young. This is the best chance for me to be competitive and be a very good player. The opinion that intramural sports are not just for fun was voiced by one of the subjects: Jeff: To keep in shape and to play in games for more than just for fun, the competition and the chance to beat other teams. According to one subject, organized intramurals may be the only avenue for the desired level of competition: Simon: It's really hard to get good competitive games in soccer and football. It's pretty easy in basket- ball because there's always pick-up games, but you really need to have an IM team to play competitive sports in, like, soccer and hockey, at least the sports I play. Summer! From the results of the interviews, the emphasis on competition and the desire to excel and to win came across very strongly; .Although the subjects (ejected players) had a strong desire to play sports, it appears that desire was directed more toward winning and competition than toward the enjoyment of recreation. 76 The problems associated with the strong desire for competition may be one of the central themes in understand- ing sports participant aggression, *The paradox is that the administrators of the IM department want to provide opportunities for students to “initiate and organize their own competitive experience" and to "enhance the ongoing educational process,” but the participants simply want to demonstrate their athletic skill in a very competitive setting. WWW Research Question 2: Would a participant's behavior be different if the individual were aware of the conse- quences of hostile action? It is not known to what extent the participants in intramural sports are familiar with the punitive action taken (against individuals ‘who display hostile acts of aggression. The administrators of the intramural program depend on team managers to relay rules and guidelines governing intramural participation to their players. If the managers do not disseminate this informa- tion, the players may not know the consequences of their actions until after the fact. 77 W W To determine their knowledge of acceptable behavior while playing IM sports, the researcher asked the ejected players to describe their understanding and knowledge of rules pertaining' to sportsmanship and conduct. (The officials and sports supervisors were asked: What do you believe is the players' understanding of the IM rules regarding sportsmanship and conduct?) The results in Table 2 demonstrate that both the ejected players and the officiating staff agreed that players had little knowledge of rules pertaining to sportsmanship. ‘Twenty of the 24 ejected players either did not know or had not considered rules regarding acceptable sportsmanship. None of the officiating staff members in this study believed that players understood the IM rules pertaining to sportsmanship. In general, players readily admitted that they were not familiar with rules of sportsmanship, as indicated by three subjects: Chris: I'm not really familiar with the specific rules of the IM [sport], and.I don't know the rules on conduct. Jeff: ‘Um, geeze, I really, you. know, I really couldn't tell you. I don't really have an understanding of the IM's rules other than, you know, just to have respect and play a game the way it should be played. I really, other than that, I've never been versed in the IM Sports Department rules at all. 78 Tom: I suppose some guys might know. But most guys, I don't think, really think about it. They just.play, and if they do something wrong, the refs call it or kick them out. Table 2.--Subjects understanding of intramural rules regarding sportsmanship. Ejected Officiating Responses Players’ Staff ** Good understanding 1 0 Some understanding 3 0 Should know, but don't 3 4 Don't know 11 2 Don't think about rules of conduct 6 2 Additional comment: Just play as learned 10 4 ** Represents the officials opinion of intramural participants. While admitting that players should know the rules of .sportsmanship, subjects continued by saying that previous playing experiences determined how they played: Mark: Most players should know . . . but when the game begins they probably forget about it and just play the way they always have. Michael: I feel the same as, you know, in high school or college rules. I mean, except for this is an intramural league. I feel if you are fighting or something, you should be taken out of the league. 79 Cory: I didn't really think about the IM rules. I just play the way I always have. I guess, in thinking about it, you're not supposed to fight and stuff because it's just IM. But before now, it didn't really mean anything. As stated by the subjects in this study, intramural players, for numerous reasons, did not know or did not think about what form of behavior should be exhibited.while playing intramural sports. Furthermore, an unsolicited comment from ten ejected players and four members of the officiating staff was that players "just play the way they always have." Wain WW5 The officiating staff members were especially pessi- mistic about players' understanding of what constitutes acceptable behavior: Bill: Generally, no. I think they just go out there and expect to see what they saw in high school and just kind of learn-as-they-go type of thing. Like, as an official at the beginning of the game, you go over a couple different rules with each captain from the different teams, and some of them have never heard them before. Lenny: We'd like to think they know what they are, but they don't. They seem.dumb about it, like: "What did I get that for, all I did was. . . ,” whatever it was they did. ‘ There is an additional concern that, because IM players are college-age adults, they should know, and not have to be told, how to act: 80 Alyssa: I think everyone is aware of that; they should know about fighting and that stuff. At this age, everybody should understand what acceptable behavior is. Mike: I believe they should know, behavior-wise. I know they don't know the sport rules, but they should know the type of conduct they should display. The officials in this study thought that, in general, players are not informed or do not understand the intramu- ral rules regarding sportsmanship. W The results in Table 2 (p.78) show that players did not understand or did not consider rules of sportsmanship while playing IM games. An attempt was made to gain an understanding of the effect that knowledge of sportsmanship rules might have on behavior by asking the ejected players the following question: ‘Were you.aware of the consequences of your action prior to your ejection? The comments of the following three subjects were typical: Simon: Not at all. I mean, when it started, I wasn't thinking that I might have to sit out [games] or what was going to happen; it just happened. Mark: No. I couldn't believe I got ejected. I mean, all we did was have a little shoving and pushing and trash-talking, and stuff like that. It happens all the time. ‘What can you expect when you're going at it and playing intense? Jeremy: I expected only a penalty and didn't figure I could get ejected for just hitting him. I only knew a little bit about the rules; our manager gave us a copy at our first game. 81 In addition to not being aware, two players mentioned that they did not consider the consequences of their actions: Jeff: I didn't think about it beforehand. Tom: Well, I figure you aren't supposed to fight. But I can't say that I was really aware of any conse- quences. An examination of the results in.Table 3 verifies that the ejected players were not aware of or gave minimal, if any, consideration to the consequences of their action, as mentioned by 22 of 24 subjects. Table 3.--Subjects knowledge of the consequences of their action. Ejected Officiating Responses Players Staff ** Definitely aware 2 O Definitely not aware 16 4 Hadn't thought about/don't think about consequences 6 4 ** Represents the officials opinion of intramural participants. ' In addition, the players' viewpoint was supported by the researcher's observations and the opinions of the officiating staff. The officiating staff members were asked whether players were aware of the consequences of 82 their own actions that led to ejections. The opinions of the officiating staff were best summarized by Adel: Because they do not know the rules, they cannot know the consequences of their action. They are mostly surprised when they get ejected. ' MW Won The researcher asked the subjects a follow-up question regarding whether they thought prior knowledge of the consequences of ejection would have affected their own response. Not only was there minimal positive response (one definite and one probably), but eight ejected players and three officials stated that the consequences are irrelevant when it comes to participant behaviors. Table 4.--Subjects' views of whether prior knowledge that behavior would result in ejection would change players' action. Ejected Officiating Responses ‘ Players Staff Definitely would change 1 O Probably would change 1 O Might change 4 1 Would not change 10 4 Consequences don't matter 8 3 83 Two subjects commented that their action should not have resulted in their ejection: Jeremy: I expected only a penalty and didn't figure I could get ejected for just hitting him. If I knew I was going to be ejected, I probably wouldn't have hit him so hard. John: No, I wasn't, and I still don't think I should have been, so it would not have made any difference. Two subjects dismissed any effect of knowing the consequences because ejections are not unexpected: Chuck: I don't know if I really thought about it until after it was over. To tell you the truth, I suppose it might, but I doubt it because it's usually just reactionary-type stuff. Pete: I doubt that it would have made any difference. It was just one of the things that happens. I'm not mad and can accept my suspension. A final comment from a player suggests that ejections are foreseen by some sports participants: Al: Not at all. I'd do it again and pay the price. That's the way you play sports. The response of the officiating staff to this question is best characterized by this comment from a supervisor: Alyssa: It probably wouldn't matter because most of these guys don't think about what's going to happen. They just react the way they're trained or the way they are. Qbserxation In observing intramural games, it appears that players do not think about their actions in advance. Reactions 84 seem to be so spontaneous that there is no opportunity to evaluate one's actions until an incident is over. Emu An examination of Tables 3 and 4, combined with the responses of the subjects, would suggest that prior knowledge of the rules is not sufficient to affect behavior on the intramural courts and fields. From the findings regarding Research Question 1, it seems that the partici- pants recognized the positive values of intramural sports, although they apparently placed much more importance on competition than do the administrators of this program. However, when the .subjects became participants in a competitive game, the virtues and values seemed to be replaced.by the aggressive expectations that.are stereotyp- ical of competitive sports. Based on the ejected. players' strong’ desire for competition, combined with an assumption that sports competition often results in player aggression, the subjects' hostile response might not have contradicted their motives for playing IM sports. Rather, from the players' viewpoint, a hostile response may' have been expected. This generalization was perhaps best described by Jacob, in responding to the consequences of his ejec- tion: 85 Hey, I wasn't thinking about that when the guy came after me. It wasn't like it was, "Gee, I wonder if I will be ejected.” You just react the way you do when you play sports. If a guy comes after you, you defend yourself and go after him; that's the way it is. 3W WW Research Question 3: Do the individuals who displayed unacceptable acts of behavior think their actions were appropriate, and, if so, how do they rationalize their behavior? Are these individuals remorseful, and do they understand or believe their action violated the principles of intramural participation? MW WW: In attempting to answer this question, the researcher asked the ejected players to describe and explain the events and circumstances surrounding their ejection. In addition, they were asked specifically whether they thought their actions were either appropriate or justified. The following two players addressed retaliation as an explanation for aggression: Jeremy: You get mad and want to retaliate. If they do something or take advantage of you, you want to get back at them. It's better if they get called for a penalty because they got caught. You're not as mad as when they get away with stuff. There's a lesser feeling of anger if the player is penalized. Alvaro: I got hit many times, but sometimes it was incidental; it hurt, but it was not a foul. I 86 committed a foul by trying to stop a player on breakaway. I should have received a red card, but he gave me a yellow card. Their players continued to play with violence, and it wasn't necessary. I used my body against a player when we went into the wall to play the ball. He didn't fall, but I knocked him.back a little bit. The official called a dangerous foul on me, but I did not know that was the rule. Soccer must not be a violent game, but the other players are so happy when they hit someone. Although. accepting' some responsibility' during' the interview, one subject characterized the view of blaming the officials: Al: I figured at first that what I was doing and saying was OK, but now I know better. Hey, we all make mistakes, and I'll know better the next time. Researcher: It's OK for you to make a mistake but not the officials? These guys [officials] are stu- dents just like you and do this because they like the game and want a part-time job. It sounds like you're blaming the officials-4that they made you act like this. ‘ Al: Hey, I wasn't looking for a fight, but when a ref makes a bad call you just want to make a point. When the games get carried away, the players get mad. I know I shouldn't have yelled at the refs, it's OK to talk. I guess I have to learn to control my temper. I just get caught up in the game, and it just comes out, I guess. The importance of understanding the role of competi- tion in studying player aggression was exemplified by an ejected player: Chris: We knew coming into the game it was going to be aggressive because both teams needed to win, and the hype and stuff led to a feeling of extreme compet- itiveness. We were down a couple of goals and were getting frustrated, and besides were weren't very happy with the officiating. The refs were kind of letting it get out of hand with pushing and shoving. I got possession of the ball from the other player, and he grabbed.my shirt as I got the ball, and I swung 87 my arm back to knock his hand off my shirt. In swinging my arm around, he might have thought I was trying to hit him. It's the kind of thing that happens so fast that, when it's over, you try to think what happened and you don' t really know. I never intended to provoke a fight. It's not part of the game, but it just happened. Four of the subjects in this study were involved in a single incident that resulted in a fight during a basket- ball game. Three ejected players and one official were interviewed about the incident. Their description of the event follows: Jim: ‘Well, we were getting killed, We only scored seven points in the first half, and we were playing a bunch of Chinese guys, about five feet tall, and we thought we were going to kill them; a couple of them had dress socks on. They were just blowing us out, and we started to come back in the second half, and I just went to block the guy!s shot, but I fouled him and I fell on him. He went berserk, and I was on the ground and Paul [teammate] went after him. I wasn't really involved other than fouling the guy. Researcher: ‘What.was your reaction to this guy who was going berserk on you? Jim: I was just lying on the ground. .All of their team was pretty much right around me; I was on the ground. I didn't get into it. All of a sudden I saw Paul get into it with this Meng guy [opponent]. I think Paul got the best of Meng. He hit him about three or four times. The other guy [Meng] started it. Paul was just trying to finish it. Paul: Well, I read the report [ejection], and I agree with it, only that I didn't sucker-punch the guy. He [Meng] had my teammate around the neck, and they were becoming untangled, and I was trying to pull the guy off. Like a dog that is biting someone, you kick them until they get away. Well, the guy [Meng] wasn't letting go, so I started punching him in the ribs to get him to let go. And I said, I never hit him in the face. Meng: Well, ah, I think it was unnecessary rough- ness on his part. I stole the ball, and I went up to shoot it, make a shot, and, ah, I jumped and he jumped trying to block me. But he, ah, you know, really I think he used unnecessary force because he, like, clobbered me and slammed me, and I just fell and I thought that was really unnecessary and, ah, during all that, I just, you know, I just naturally reacted like, ah, back to him. Researcher: Do you think your response was appro- priate? ' Meng: My response to him? Ah, yeah, because I think like, ah, you know, I gotta protect myself and, ah, you know, if he is going to do something like that, I gotta like, ah, protect myself or like that. The preceding incident was described by an official who was working as a scorekeeper during that game: Mike: It was, you know, when one team is down they like to foul, you know, in a one-and-one situation. Well, Meng had the ball, Jim slapped him pretty hard, extremely hard, brought both of them to the ground. Meng was on top, and as Meng tried to get up, Jim kind of had him in a weird headlock, and a little pushing and shoving started there. He got flared, and a little scuffle came about. As all the players were either trying to get in on it or break them up, Paul came all away around from the back side, and as Meng was getting up, Paul punched him a couple of times. Meng had both his arms being held by Jim, and Paul threw a couple punches in the midsection. And then Paul tried to step away and tried not to get caught. But he:didn't know that me and the scorekeeper were on the back side and saw it all. Researcher: I see. The other officials, they didn't see Paul? Mike: The officials immediately went in and tried to break it up. And they were actually at the back side. I mean, there was a crowd of people and they were on the other side trying to break it up, trying to get all those other players out of the way. They were really close to the situation, so Paul came and sneaked up; both of their backs were to him. Researcher: Did.you.have any conversation with the players after the incident took place? Particularly, did they explain or attempt to rationalize their behavior? 89 Mike: I had a little conversation with Paul. Paul thought he didn't do anything. Researcher: Anything wrong? Or he didn't think he did anything at all? Mike: He didn't understand why he was ejected. Because actually the two refs on the floor didn't do the ejection; I actually tossed them all out. Researcher: So he didn't admit to the fact that he punched the guy? Mike: Exactly. And the thing is, I said me and the scorekeeper both, I mean, he was no more than ten feet in front of us, and [we] watched him blatantly punch, three full punches. As soon as he started punching, I started taking steps in there and.tried to break them up, and I think once he saw me coming he might have pulled away and walked away. But I was looking right at him. I watched him punch him, and then later Paul says, ”I don't understand why I was kicked out." From the perspective of the players, there was a distinction between retaliation and defending oneself. This viewpoint was characterized by the following three subjects: Simon: Yeah, it was justified. I didn't plan on fighting; it just happened. He came after me, and I just went back on him. Mark: I didn't voluntarily fight or anything. I wasn't looking for trouble. He started it, and I just defended myself. Mick: I never retaliated against him. I was just protecting myself against his punches. It had four guys holding me back because I admit I was p off. He threw a punch at me, and I didn't like that. I don't deny that. Up to this point, all of the subjects have stated that their actions were appropriate and/or justified. However, not all of the subjects in this study supported. the position that ‘the actions resulting in ejection were 90 justified. Three subjects acknowledged some responsibility but qualified. their responses with an explanation to justify their action: Bobby: As far as my concern about the call that was made, I think that reaction was justified. I wanted to make sure everything was understood and clear. But as far as my words, what I explicitly said to the supervisor, that was totally uncalled for, and I have no justification for what I told her and all the profanity. ' Cory: The officials, you know, they jumped in as soon as it [fight] happened, but as before the incident happened, there were no penalties called, or, you know, it was just a straightforward game pretty much, and it just happened. There wasn't any bad calls or rough part or, you know, jumping in or, you know, it just happened right away and that was it. Pete: No, but, ah, when someone gets in your face, in my face at least, I'm not going to just stand there and do nothing. Two players did not attempt to rationalize their behavior and acknowledged their responsibility: Jeff: Definitely not because, looking back on it, it was one of those things that, if I had to do over again, I wouldn't do it because I'm not that type of person, and I don't really enjoy making a fool of myself, and I should.have more respect for an official than that. Chris: I wasn't really justified because it's not part of the game; it just happened. ' ' t' n W The officials were asked to‘describe the incident that resulted in players being ejected and to evaluate whether the players believed their actions had been appropriate or 91 justified. Two officials described a typical game with rough and physical play: Lenny: It was a pretty rough game, but not completely out of control. He had called a few penalties, but one guy had ahold of the other guy's jersey, and the player reached back with his hand to knock his grip off. It was a pretty rough and chippy game, with several other penalties. One guy was arguing with.the other official, and the kind of game where the ref is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Everyone was trying to take as much advantage as they could. Generally, it seems, when players get ejected, even for doing something against another player, they seem to take it out on the officials like it's our fault. Mike: Throughout the game, we were letting them play, so it was getting kind of rough out there, a lot of hacking, slapping, and a lot of body contact. Some of the players, I know, just don't like that, especially since it is a noncontact sport. They started getting on the refs, and then they started taking their aggression.out on the other players, especially if one particular player seemed to be getting away with it a lot. One player had a tendency to drive and lead with his forearm a lot, and the refs weren't calling it. So the other team was down a lot, and they were getting frustrated, and they didn't think they were getting any calls, and they weren't making any baskets either. It seemed that the next piece of body contact they decided to take it out on somebody, and they did. Following an ejection, players are required to meet with the Sport Supervisor to complete an Ejection Report. The usual type of interaction was described by one of these supervisors: Scott: Yeah, they definitely feel they are justified. I talk to them after ejections or after the game, and they basically say, "The officials are terrible; I can't believe you have them.on a game like this," "The officials ruined the game," and "You have to do something about it." Most every time, they say it was the officials as the reason they were ejected. 92 One official described an ejection that resulted directly from an interaction between the official and the player: Joe: Well, the ejection of the player was just contributed to by what he did at that time, you know. It wasn't nothing that we did; he was complaining and following me up the court, you know. Researcher: What precipitated him following you up the court, using vulgar language and shouting in your face? Joe: Well, he must have thought something happened that I was responsible for. I guess about a foul that was or wasn't called. Researcher: After you gave him the T [technical foul], what did he do then? Joe: Well, then, after I gave the first one, he kept on going, he never stopped arguing, and then he got another one [technical foul], and then he had to leave. And that's when he really got abusive and swearing. Researcher: What do you speculate is the reason why players respond that way, given the fact that it's an IM basketball game? Joe: Well, they expect us to be perfect, like any other official. They don't respect us, either. They see us as the same age, and most of the players are older than I am, and that has a lot to do with it. They expect a lot from us, and it's not like in high school where they have had officials who have time to get experience, years, and we only have four or five weekends here in IM's. W W: To gain further insight into the rationalization and justification of a hostile response in intramural sports, the researcher asked subjects to respond to the following question: Are there situations in intramural sports when an act of aggression or violence is appropriate? (The 93 researcher eliminated any uncertainty concerning this question Zby clearly' explaining’ the [difference between sports aggressiveness and sports aggression.) Situations involving officials were described as follows: Frank: Yes. If Officials' calls are not adequate or missed, you need to let other guys know you are not going to take it.- Not a flagrant response, but an elbow or something is OK. Michael: Definitely? Maybe like a ref letting it get .too far, a player that is a good player playing against a guy that doesn't know what he is doing and thinks boxing him out is the way, you know, roughing him up or something like that, you know. ' The issue of retaliation and defending oneself was again identified by the subjects as an explanation for participant aggression: Jacob: I know I got out of hand, and understand the strict rules are there to ensure the safety of all the players. But I've been playing sports since I was a little kid, and you can't let the hackers keep doing it. What are you supposed to do? You can't let a guy get away with that stuff. Tom: I just defended myself and started to fight back. What else am I supposed to do, stand there and let him hit me? Nobody does that playing competitive sports. I've always played sports, and that's the way it always is, except here. I got the same penalty as the guy who started it. The aggressor should get the severe penalty, not the defender. Mark: The guy on the other team was on our guy and pounding him. ‘What am.I supposed to do, sit there and let him beat him up? One subject noted the relationship between a player's upbringing and sports behaviors: 94 Mick: You are dealing with people from all different backgrounds. Like me, I'm from the city of Chicago, and.I was raised not to back.down from anything. They were taunting me to get into a fight. I wasn't going to start anything on my own, but I'm not going to back down if someone wants to start up. I was mad and hot, and I know that, but I had no intention of talking to the guy at the time. Give me time to cool off after the game and maybe, yeah, then I can shake hands and say it's over, but I'll be aggressive at the time an incident is happening. Some subjects, while believing that general aggression is not justified, did go on to explain that, under certain circumstances, aggression is appropriate. One of the circumstances that players mentioned was the perceived attempt to injure: Jeff: The only time I think any type of retaliation is justified is when a man is deliberately trying to hurt you and put you out of the game and, ah, and when that's blatant obviously. When you are going up for a lay-up and say a guy just comes and tackles you from nowhere, you know, I think retaliation, at least to pin the guy on the floor and tell him about it, that's not wrong, because if someone is out to hurt me, then they shouldn't be involved in IM, and that point should be known. You are there to have fun, but other than that, a little bit of a cheap shot is OK; no, I don't think any retaliation is justified. If you go on playing the game, pretty soon that guy is going to get his own, and everything comes out in the end. A blatant disregard for man's health I think is deserv- ing of some retaliation. Simon: Ah, I'd say, sometimes it is kind of a yes and no. In some circumstances I've seen people where it was, you know, proper and sometimes not. Researcher: In what situations is it appropriate? Simon: Well, basically, we are very competitive, you know; most of my friends on my team are, too. But, you know, when someone's out there and they intentionally try to hurt someone, you know, it just gets carried away and then it escalates. If they are going to try and hurt one of our players, you are 95 going of course to stick up for him. So I guess that is when it would take effect. Several subjects mentioned that although initiating aggression is not appropriate, retaliation against it is, and perhaps players are expected to respond to aggression with aggression: Jim: I didn't think our team would back down from anyone if they started doing that. Starting it isn't justified. But, ah, but as far as what Paul did, in going after the guy who was after me, I think it was just fine. Cory: No. The only time I could think is to defend yourself if they were doing something to you: I don't think you should ever attack. If maybe, for example, if someone were on top of my player ready to punch him, I'd throw the other kid off of him, but other than that, no, I can't think of anything. David: I wouldn't really say violence. I'd say if it came to defending' a player or defending’ someone against, like, if someone was charging in on the keeper and you got in front and like maybe knocked him down, but not intending to hurt him, just get him out of the way, that's the only thing I think, like physical, like aggression, is allowed: But other than that, no. I think if you are blatantly going out to hurt somebody or going out to knock someone down, the play should be called and that person should be in the box. That is how it usually is called. Meng: No, I don't think it is. I guess like, ah, in just defending yourself and, like, to keep the game, like, you know, and somebody else wants to fight. I guess in defending myself and my teammates, something like that, just to keep, not offensively like, you know, punching anybody out, but just defense. MW Only three subjects were outright opposed to any justification for acts of aggression. Although they 96 understood and accepted that hostilities will take place, they believed such actions are unacceptable during IM sports participation: Chris: No, I don't think it is ever appropriate. I know that during the game there are words exchanged, but I think it's kind of a psychological thing to try and gain an advantage. But physical or bad verbal attacks on players or against refs should never be tolerated. Chuck: No! I really don't think it is appropriate at all, and I do know the players. I know there are words spoken during the game between players that is just trash-type talk to get an advantage or throw him off his game. But as far.as physical attacks or even verbal attacks toward another person, I don't think those have any place in IM sports, no. Paul: No. I think basically it is up to the ref to keep the game under control. I could see how some things happen. It's not usually justified. Some of the players can p you off, though, before a ref can get in there fast enough to stop it or something. 9W All members of the officiating staff believed the players were able to rationalize and justify their behav- ior. The two most frequently mentioned reasons for justification of aggression were retaliation against the action of an opponent or a dispute with an official over a call or non-call that may result in aggression against an opponent, or an argument with an official: Alyssa: Yes“ Players always justify their hostil- ity when they think someone else initiated the hostil- ity, and they think it is justified for sure. 97 Researcher: So it is justified [by thinking] "If someone did something to me, then I'm justified in doing something back to them?" Alyssa: That is the mentality, yes. Researcher: What about the abuse and aggression that is leveled towards officials? Alyssa: Uh, to some extent they think they are justified. If they think the officiating is really bad, they feel like they should be allowed to have the freedom of speech to cuss out an official if they want. I believe they think it is justified. Mike: They might. Like I said, Paul probably did when he thought he was only defending his teammate. Adelz, They definitely think it is appropriate. If they got fouled hard and they don't get the call, they can do the same thing back. They see teammates get away with the very aggressive play and figure it is OK for them. Bill: I think they could justify it to themselves, but mostly for retaliation. The subjects' responses regarding Research Question 3 are summarized in Tables 5, 6, and 7. (There are more categorized responses than subjects because some subjects gave more than one explanation in answering the question). §BEE§I¥ In reviewing the data on the issue of the appropriate- ness and justification for participant aggression, the researcher noted that three themes were continually mentioned by both ejected players and members of the officiating staff: (a) leveling fault or blame at the intramural officials, (b) retaliating for some act 98 initiated by an opponent, and (c) defending themselves against some action or person. Table 5.--How unsportsmanlike conduct is rationalized. Ejected Officiating Responses Players Staff ** Blame/poor officials 7 7 Retaliation ~ 11 6 Defending themselves 9 2 Seeking aggression 4 4 Just happened 4 0 Lost control/temper 3 .0 Losing the game 3 1 Frustration 2 1 Table 6.--Subjects' views on whether acts of aggression or violence are ever appropriate in IM sports. Ejected Officiating Responses Players Staff ** Definitely yes 9 5 Sometimes yes 12 3 Definitely no 3 0 ** Represents the officials view of intramural participants. 99 Table 7.--Circumstances when acts of aggression are appropriate in IM sports. Ejected Officiating Responses Players Staff ** Blame/poor officials 5 4 Retaliation 12 6 Defending themselves 9 2 ** Represents the officials opinion of. intramural participants. Twenty-nine of the 32 subjects believed that participant aggression is, or can be, an appropriate response. An analysis of the data in Table 6 indicates that, of all the subjects, 14 definitely believed that players can justify aggression. In addition, while stating that aggression may not be appropriate, 15 of the subjects went on to rationalize under what circumstances and situations aggression is an appropriate response. Of the 24 ejected players, only three did not justify their action as being acceptable or appropriate. These three subjects not only acknowledged that their action was unacceptable, but they also accepted responsibility for their action and did not attempt to rationalize their behavior. Research Question 4: What influences and events have the subjects previously experienced that may have contrib- uted to their acts of hostility during intramural games? The researcher was concerned with exploring two issues. The first was to assess the effect of four factors common in every intramural game. These four factors are the desire to win, the style of play by the opponents, the involvement of the officials, and the presence of fans. The second issue is how previous sports experiences affect the response of players during intramural games, as described by the subjects in this study. W5 Several of the ejected players indicated that the desire to win had a direct effect on the incident in which they were involved. A few of these responses are as follows: Steve: I think it definitely had an effect on our team, not winning the game. Early in the game, we were down like 14 points, and we pulled within 2 and lost by 4. Adam: If you are losing you are not as apt to take s from players and are more likely to yell at the refs. If you are winning, little stuff just gets ignored, unless someone is like challenging you or really playing cheap and dirty. David: Mainly because we had lost our first two games of the season and, like, you know, you have to win at 101 least three or tie one, and we felt that if we lost the game we were out of the playoffs and, for me, I've played in the playoffs ever since I've been in intra- murals, and it was important, and when that goal was taken away, the ‘whole team's emotions were just racing. Everyone was just like "Why?" and so on. It was pretty emotional at that time, and the other team had the same emotions because they were in the same situation we were. They needed to win that game also. I mean, for records, the tie was probably best for both of us, but to really tie in that situation‘wasn't really what either team wanted. Not only was there a definite desire to win, but one of the results of losing was frustration, which often was vented against opponents and officials: John: I think there was some frustration on their part because we had talented players on our team. It was difficult for them to stop us, however» I was not one of the talented players, but I think they were getting very upset, and they were playing offense for the rest of us, trying to catch up to score points. So I think it figured in the will of their team. Definitely, by being behind, you are always trying to play a little more aggressively and catch up the score. Simon: Well, I was frustrated because they were a better team and being cocky, even though they were beating us, so yeah, I was probably more apt to want to get back at them. Meng: Yeah, I think.mainly they were getting a little frustrated because they were losing and they were missing a lot of shots. I think that is what made them do that. Two of the ejected players thought that, even though the desire to win was not influential in their incident, they believed that, generally, losing results in greater frustration, which may lead to more incidents of aggres- sion: 102 Cory: No, none. I'm sure in some instances it does. You know, if the team is losing they become frustrated and they are going to be more aggressive, and that is when stuff is going to happen. But in our case, no. Al: I didn't really know the score; I knew it was close. But, hey, if your team is losing you will get more mad than if you're winning. Two subjects believed that the incident would have occurred regardless of the outcome of the game: Jim: No, I don't think so. Even if the other team won, I think it still would have happened. Jeff: I think we were behind, but I don't think it would have made any difference. Most of the officials agreed that players from losing teams are much more likely to become hostile toward their opponents and the officials than are players from winning teams: Lenny: If they're losing, sure, they are willing to take a few more shots. Bill: They were down by 3 points, I do believe. The fact that it was close and they wanted to win, yeah, I'm sure it contributed to his response. Alyssa: It plays a key role, I think, because when people are behind, they tend to become more aggres- sive. It depends on the league also. Non-playoff athletes traditionally don't.have that.kind of hostil- ity, but the playoff league, when winning is important and the key focus, they tend to become more aggressive as they lose. Adel: Probably a third of the time winning or losing had an effect on their response, but not all the time. Scott: A lot of teams do have the mentality of winning at all costs. Ah, they expect to win, and.you see a lot of bad attitudes come out.when they see they don't have much of a chance to win, and they get on 103 the officials, or they will try to dunk the ball or do something spectacular to prove to themselves that they are still good. They sometimes just complain to the officials about anything, just because they know they can't win. stgzygtign. The desire to win and the frustration caused by losing were clearly evident to this observer. Players who were winning generally displayed positive attitudes and appeared to sustain a high level of satisfac- tion. On the contrary, players on a team that was losing seemed to care less about their behavior and acted out.this frustration, negatively affecting teammates, opponents, and the officials in the game. m. The outcome of the game had a distinct influence on the incidence of hostile aggression for approximately two-thirds of the subjects in this study (see Table 8). Even though the score of the game did not affect the aggression incident in all cases, as indicated by the seven subjects who responded that winning or losing had ”little or no effect," the majority of participants in this study contended that winning or losing generally affects incidents of player aggression. Table 8.--The effect of winning or losing on the incident in which the subjects were involved. Ejected Officiating Responses Players Staff Definite effect 13 6 104 "Table 8 (cont'd).” Some effect 4 2 Little or no effect 7 0 W W The second factor that is common to all intramural games is the "style" of play and the level of the game. The subjects characterized "style" by describing the play as being aggressive, rough, chippy, finessed, low key, or for fun. The level of the game was portrayed by higher skilled versus lesser skilled and playoff versus non- playoff games. The ejected players were asked whether the level or style of play had an effect on the incident in which they were involved. Rough. play’ quite often leads to ‘hostilities, as depicted by the following players: Simon: If two teams are pretty even, it probably doesn't matter. But if one plays a lot rougher than the other, then you are probably going to have some problems. Mick: It started off aggressive. There was a lot of cheap stuff that went on early in the game, and it was kinda like a snowball effect. We have a lot of guys that are not really good athletes and two that are like under a hundred pounds. They got really taken advantage of when they went out on the floor. Steve: Both teams were scrappy. I mean, you are in the fraternity league; I mean, you are not the cream of the crop, you know what I mean? And, ah, you get a lot of pushing, a lot of physical play, but, I mean, 105 that's expected, you know what I mean, in the frater- nity league, I think. A game that is characterized as being of higher skill may result in a less aggressive style: John: Yeah, I think that has a bearing on it [skill], especially in soccer. I think the skill of probably this player as well as my own skills probably figured into it. Whereas if, you know, the proper conduct is not well known, and also you don't have the kind of control over yourself that maybe a highly skilled player would have. Players noted.a relationship between.the style of play and the success of the officials in calling hard fouls: Simon: Physical, yeah. It tends to get that way any time we play. Researcher: So both teams wanted to play physical, or you think the officials let it become a physical game? Simon: Ah, I think they let it because what happens is, in my opinion, I think that once you get fouled repeatedly and they miscall it and stuff like that, or you do get angry at the refs, it kinda gets carried away. Your emotions get going more and more, and you are more upset so you start, oh, ”I'm going to get that person back; he fouled me hard," and, you know, so I think it gets carried away. As for the start of the game, you know, basketball just is a physical game down low and everything, you know, so you can't take it away from it totally. But I think, yeah, by them not calling or making, you know, bad judgment calls or bad book calls, you know, it lets the game get away because the teams get mad at the refs, and they get mad at the other players, and it causes words and fights and stuff. Jeff: If the refs called more penalties, it wouldn't matter how you played, cause the rougher team would get more fouls. Adam: It's OK to play hard and aggressive, but when guys start getting cheap or maybe hurting someone, then it's time for officials to make more calls, or if they don't, then the players will start to hit back. 106 The officials were asked not. only to describe the ”style" of play that resulted in ejections, but generally to characterize how style and level of play affect intramu- ral games. They responded: Lenny: If you have two good teams that know how to play the game, they aren't as apt to get rough with each other. But in IM's you have a lot of teams that are not very skilled, and they get fed up with losing and frustrated and stuff. Alyssa: It depends on the skill level because the teams that tend to have a better understanding of soccer, or not just soccer but of any sport, and they understand the game and they know how, their skill level is higher, they tend to, it seems like they tend not to be as aggressive. If people are playing an opponent who doesn't have as good as skills as they do, and that opponent is losing and that opponent tends to become aggressive, and it really depends on the other team whether or not they become aggressive back or not, but after a while, if you push someone so long, they will push back. So, I believe it really lies with the officials. Adel: I think that is two-thirds of the.problem, when players start to retaliate. Then one thing leads to another. You have to call more fouls, players get more angry, and it keeps going on. Scott: The skill level definitely has an impact. If you get two teams out there that are both aggressive, you get problems because the officials don't take care of it in the beginning and it just escalates from there. The teams that are not very good against a team that is very good, a lot of times the lesser- skilled teams will foul harder or something because they are not under control, and the team that is better sometimes thinks the other team is just taking shots at them. W. During the observation, there was a clear and distinct difference in player response between those players who were highly skilled and those who were 107 not. The games that resulted in less aggression involved the most highly skilled teams. These players seemed to have a mutual respect for each other's abilities and just ”played the game." This contrasted with games that characterized players with lower skills who still retained a high.desire for competitiveness. The game often resulted in one act of aggression after another. Teams that had little skill but a low drive for competitiveness often had no incidents of aggression. The attitude seemed to be one of ”We know we're not very good, but we want to have fun." Summary. In reviewing the facts of this issue, it was seen that 29 of the 32 subjects in this study judged that the style of play and the skill level of the game had a definite or moderate effect on the incident that led to participant aggression (see Table 9) . Several subjects said that the notable components of style are rough play, deliberate fouls, and the success of the officials in calling the rough or deliberate fouls. The skill of the players and whether the game involved playoff or non- playoff teams also had a decided effect. Table 9.--The effect of style of play and level of the game on the incidents in which the subjects were involved. . Ejected Officiating Responses Players Staff 108 "Table 9 (cont'd)." Definite effect 17 7 Some effect . 4 1 Little or no effect 3 0 W A general assumption can be made that sports officials have an inevitable effect on athletic contests. Specta- tors, players, managers, the media, and other observers generally have some opinion about sports officials. Throughout the data-collection process, whether from the interviews or observation, it was readily evident that the intramural officials are a key issue in the study of participant aggression. To collect data on this issue, the researcher asked the ejected players: What effect did the influence or involvement of the officials have on the incident leading up to and the actions involved in your ejection? One of the primary concerns for officials is to maintain control of games, as described by the following players: Jeremy: The officials could have stepped in earlier and told everybody to knock it off or the game will be canceled. If they would call more penalties early on and get control, then they would send out.a message to 109 the players that they aren't going to take the stuff. They can talk to both teams or the captains. Alvaro: The officials should call more fouls because the game was too hard and dangerous. They should not let the play be so hard. Players should not be allowed to talk to a referee at all. If they do, they receive a suspension and cannot play for a couple games. No one should get to complain against the officials. Meng: I think they could have watched out for the little things like the elbows and the pushing and stuff like that. I think they should have controlled that in the beginning so that, you know, it wouldn't get out of hand. A main criticism many players have about officials is consistency in calls. ‘Three players from.the present study spoke to this controversial issue: Al: It's just like it is in the NHL. I watch a lot of pro games, and when the officials are bad, the games end up bad, with everybody in the box getting penalties. If the refs were consistent, then you'd know that the guy would get caught and then you wouldn't be mad. But the same thing happens in the NHL” The refs just aren't consistent, and there is no excuse. When it's bad, then, hey, it's deserved. Jacob: Well, I would say it was basically inconsis- tency to let, you know, it was sometimes touch calls were made, other times a violent call, you know, not violent, but a very firm, obvious foul was not called. So I think it contributed in some way. Bob: As far as the whole game, there were a lot of calls that were not consistent. Like there would be a hard hit with a fOul here, but another hit there would not be a foul. That really triggers the team that doesn't get the call into wanting to hit more and getting more angry. If there had been either more calls on both teams, or perhaps calling time out, telling both teams "It's getting way out of hand here" and threatening to call the game, I think players would have calmed down enough to not have any more 110 problems and that it's just a game. Even though you want to win, don't lose your cool. Players also noted that officials need to demonstrate initiative to take charge of a situation before it worsens: Steve: I think he handled the situation totally wrong. Just because, um, he didn't, if he had ejected the first two right away, me and the other two guys wouldn't have even been involved. You know what I mean? Actually, he would have broke up, or actually if he would have broke up that first pushing, the first fighting, then the other two, then me and another guy wouldn't have been involved, and no one would have got ejected, you know what I mean? He should have took action sooner. Mark: I think if they would have called more fouls, then they would.have known they couldn't get away with that kind of stuff that started it. And when the fight started, they weren't trying to break it up. Like I said, that's why I went onto the court. Simon: If more fouls were called, then guys know they can't get away with the hacking and cheap shots. If the refs call the fouls, that's all there will be of it. But when they don't, sometimes you have to do something. Another factor described by two subjects was a lack of involvement by the game officials: Chuck: Ah, well, I'd probably say it was the lack of involvement of the officials. It was a game that really wasn't, fouls really weren't called as though we were playing. Basically, we were playing without officials. It was just their lack of involvement that eventually led to a blow-up that normally doesn't happen when the presence of officials is more effec- tive, I guess you could say. Adam: It's the lack of involvement, like you just said. The refs who don't make the calls are the ones who have trouble with players, and [those] seem to be the games that get out of hand. 111 A final criticism was from a player who appeared to despise the presence of intramural officials: Pete: I know they are necessary, but I hate it because they spoil the game. I like open-gym IM basketball because when we just go play a pick-up game, call your own fouls, you know, and then you know, no blood, no foul, I enjoy it a lot more. Although most of the ejected players assessed at least moderate responsibility for the incident on the officials, not all subjects were of that opinion: Jim: Ah, what I remember, I think they were pretty good in the way they called the game. That was like four games ago, but I remember they were pretty good. Jeff: Not much. It was just one of those things that happens. Tom: They tried to break it up the best they could, but I don't think they could have prevented it. The officials were asked to assess their own influence or effect on incidents of player aggression: Lenny: Officials can limit it, but if I called everything I saw, it would ruin the game. The guys who want to get into it are going to do it anyway. Bill: The only thing I can think of the way or maybe that I could have changed the course of that was to not, like, to not, like I walked up to the bench to report the foul, and that is when everything got crazy. If I would have just walked away and waited for everyone to calm«down and just talked to Jeff, you know, by myself away from his team and everybody that was screaming at me, I think it might have been a little bit different. But other than that, anything prior to that, I don't think I could have done any- thing different to prevent, you know, what happened. Dave: In the first case, I would probably say yes because the first guy, uh, he was just asking my partner what the supervisor's name is. But he said 112 that he wouldn't tell him. By the time I got down on the court, he was pretty p off. Researcher: Had he been irate about some calls? Dave: Evidently, I guess, because he asked for the supervisor's name. Researcher: Do you know of any specific calls? Dave: I‘don't remember the specifics. I leave the game at work, you know. Adel: Yeah, I think it's the lack of involvement from the ref that can start players retaliating. When the ref thinks players are getting too rough or too much of an advantage, you think the players are still getting angry by the way opponents play them. The refs play an important part to know when to stop the play and make the call. The two sports supervisors were fairly direct in their assessment of intramural officials: Alyssa: If the officials are there in the beginning controlling the game, and.knowing what they will stand for and what they won't stand for, then that will generally direct how bad or how aggressive the team will be. Scott: If they know the officials, either from a previous year or another game, it's a little easier. But if it is an official they don't know, they may treat him a little harsher. If they've seen him before and he is good, they might say, "Hey, this guy is pretty good,” and they might give him less of a hard time. A key thing is, if an official looks like a.professional andmmakes good, assertive calls and.has strong mechanics, usually the teams won't say nothing. But if he is unsure and indecisive, then that's where a lot of the problems start. He's thinking, "Oh, my gosh, I should have blown my whistle”; then he might not the next time, either. Another thing is communi- cation between the officials; one doesn't know what the other is doing. 9282113311911- From the observations of intramural games, it appeared that the behavior of intramural players was similar to that of players in most other venues of 113 athletic competition. Players recognized that officials are necessary to play the game, but they were very critical of the performance of the game officials. In watching their interactions, the researcher observed that players were continually complaining, telling officials to ”watch” their opponents, and attempting toiget every advantage they could. For the most part, officials tried to avoid any contact or interaction with players. When there was an interaction, it almost always was negative and initiated.by the players. W. The findings indicated that intramural officials did have a decided effect on participant aggres- sion as mentioned by 28 of 32 subjects (see Table 10). From the perspective of the players, this effect seemed to be one of blaming the officials and accusing them (correct- ly or not) of being inconsistent at best and perhaps incompetent at the worst. The officials did recognize that they had an element of power in controlling aggression on the court, but for many reasons they did not exercise that authority. Only 4 of 32 subjects believe the officials had little effect on the incident they were involved in. 114 Table 10.--The influence or involvement of the officials in the incidents in which the subjects were involved. Ejected Officiating Responses Players Staff Definite effect 15 6 Moderate effect . 5 2 Little or no effect 4 0 W The last component of the issue of game involvement is the presence or absence of fans during intramural games. All subjects were asked: What effect did fans have on the incident leading up to and the actions involved in your ejection? The consensus of the subjects in this study was that, in.general, there are so few fans at intramural games that their effect, if any, is minimal: Jeremy: 'We usually don't have any fans, just a couple girl friends once in a while, but I don't pay any attention. Jeff: Ah, there were very limited amounts of fans. I don't think they had any bearing on.the situation at all. Meng: There's no fans, so really, no, I don't think so. 115 The only subjects who spoke of fans as contributing to on-court aggression were two subjects who played on a fraternity team. their comments were as follows: Michael: Oh yeah, I mean we usually have fans at our game because we're in the fraternity league, but then, ah, the independent games we don't have fans. So I like the fans personally. I guess if you've played high school ball at all you like fans. Steve: They contribute. I mean, I was like, I mean, so close to just punching the guy in the face. If there had been a punch thrown, in the fraternity league at least, the benches, I mean, there would.have been totally a whole-out brawl. I mean, there would have been a total fight . . . because there is a lot of rivalry among fraternities. The responses of the officiating staff were similar to those of the ejected players. If fans are present, they attempt to encourage "their" team, which.may result in more player aggression. Alyssa: Well, fans tend to encourage the team, I guess, but I can't see them pushing them toward aggressiveness at all. I really haven't seen it, myself. Sometimes you get those fans who will yell at the opposing team and irritate them, but I don't think that plays a key factor, but it can. Scott: The teams that do have fans, it shows on the players because they are out to show their friends how good they are and stuff. The fans get into the game and start yelling at the players and the refs about anything, trying to get the team fired up. From what I've seen, the teams that do have fans have a greater tendency to act up than teams that don't. Because they have something to prove, they show it up a lot more than they should. The observations of the researcher support the opinions of the subjects. The only games which had more 116 than a few fans, were games during the play-offs. The semi-finals and the finals of the tournament resulted in the greatest fan attendance. However, this level of fan involvement only occurred during two or three games. W W The second issue the researcher wanted to explore was how previous sports experiences affected players' responses during intramural games. To understand the relationship between previous sports experience and hostilities during intramural games, the researcher asked all subjects the following question: How do players learn that in certain circumstances, some form of aggression or violence may be appropriate, justified, or deserved in competitive sports? A response that ten of the ejected players mentioned was the experiences that were cultivated during adolescence by peers, schools, and family. The following four subjects spoke about this experience: Steve: Where do they learn that? I don't know. It's just something. It's the way you are brought up, you know what I mean? I'm brought up in a very athletic family. I played football here at State one year, and, I mean, I've been in sports all my life. Where they learn, I mean TV doesn't help. I mean, these athletes today, I mean, everyone loves to see hockey when they fight, basketball when they fight, baseball when they brush them out. Everyone loves to see it, you.know'what I mean? I mean, when you.watch a hockey game, you want to see a fight: I mean, you don't want to see a great goal, I mean, you want to see a great 117 goal if you are into hockey, but I'm just saying, it's almost like the norm these days, you know? Simon: I guess it has to start, it starts, well, I can't tell you exactly; I mean, I've played all my life. Just street ball, but, like when you don't have, by having officials in intramurals it takes away some of the physical play. When you are playing, like you say, a pick-up game during, you know, fall term because there is no regular basketball league, it's very aggressive, very physical, you know, there is no one there to guide you, so I mean you call your own fouls so, you know, you can punch the guy next to you, and unless he does anything about it, it's very physical. Researcher: Why do players try to justify or why do they respond with a punch during a pick-up basket- ball game? Simon: Yeah, I really don't know. Um, I guess it all stems from competition, and then from there it escalates to, you know, further things. Then it becomes a personal battle, I guess, you know, it can just, you know. . . . Mark: Mostly from the way you have always played. Just because you're playing IM's.doesn't.mean that you are going to play or act any different. Mick: You have a lot of great athletes out there, and this is their chance to play against guys as good or better than them, and they want to win and prove they are better than the other guys. Just because it's IM or whatever is not going to change the way guys are going to play. You can't say, "Hey, this is IM so you have to play like this." They're going to play however they have in the past. Previous experiences with athletic coaches also contributed to this learning process, as the following two subjects mentioned: Michael: I've always been taught that in sports you play for the team, and if a teammate needs help, you do whatever you need to, to help the team. So that probably starts when kids are playing Peewees, and coaches and parents teach them to protect your team- mates and help the team. 118 John: I would react to that by saying that was definitely a conscious response, a conscious effort on the part of coaching in competitive athletics in, you know; my past high school days, definitely a.conscious effort and definitely, certainly, particularly a team sport like basketball and football. Definitely, I would say that [it was a] conscious effort on the part of the coach. The influence of modeling was mentioned by nine ejected players. The comments of three of these subjects follow: Chuck: .Ahm, hum, I think a lot of it is attributed to players seeing other, I didn't think it's a thing that just comes about. I really don't think it is something you just do without any outside influence. Researcher: It is not instinctive? Chuck: Right. I don't think, well, I do think that's inherited by seeing maybe even professionals or watching’ hockey or 'watching the Pistons play or whatever. I think it is more of a, I don't know what you call it, more of it is cultivated more from outside influence. I don't think that it's really, like you say, an instinctive behavior. Researcher: The fact that they are seeing that type of behavior on TV or seeing it in the stands as a fan, those types of environments probably influence that? Chuck: I believe so, yeah. Tom: You see the way guys in college and the pros play on TV and at the games, and kids just learn that's the way you are supposed to act. Everybody cheers for that stuff, and it seems like it's OK. Chris: Hmmmm. I think a lot of it is attributed to players seeing other players; I don't think it just comes about. Probably by watching the players on TV and outside-type influences, but not really instinc- tive. I think guys learn to play that way because they see everybody else play that way, and it kind of feeds on itself. The effect of focusing’ more on winning' than on participating was mentioned earlier. Two subjects indi- 119 cated that this drive to win was part of their learning process in competitive sports: Paul: Some players just play that way, just, ah, I don't know, they like going out there and cheap shotting, and that is their style of play, or they take it too seriously. They might take the game too seriously, or if they are a weak team they, like, get mad or something, and they take it out that way. Researcher: How do they learn to play that way? Paul: Ahm, they probably pick it up if you are really competitive, like competitive people, like maybe they play that way because they hate to lose or something. That's usually, I hate to lose; sometimes I get more aggressive, not violent, but more aggres- sive. Researcher: Is that the kind of coaching you got or just an individual desire on your part? Paul: Usually when you are losing, your coach is _pushing you more, and your team are pushing like, you know, usually you get a lot of conflict happens if you are losing or it's really a close game. A lot of stuff like that happens if it is a close game or if you play two teams that are really aggressive. Researcher: So the desire to win has a bearing on that? Paul: Because if it's close you want to win, and if you are behind you are getting frustrated because you are not winning. Or just like, even if you are getting blown out, you know a couple teams are, like, real cocky, and like rubbing your face in it. Your team usually, I would say, probably wants a cheap shot, you know, if their team is acting real cocky about it. David: I think it just goes to the fact that everyone wants to win and no one likes to lose. And one team is aggressive, and are winning; it really, it's like a really personal, you know, like, inconve- nience to losing; it's they are losing their cool, and they are, like, I want to get back on top, I want to feel what they are feeling. And sometimes if that team is being cocky about it too, ahm, it can hurt a lot worse and it can make emotions race a little bit more. And I think, and you forget, really, why you are playing. You are only thinking I've gotta, you know, save face. I've got to win this game or I've gotta like make a call that looks good or do something 120 for, you know, to at least make yourself look good even if you are losing. I think that is what takes away from a lot of the fun and enjoyment. Researcher: That is the level of competition that you would expect certainly in professional or even intercollegiate athletics. Even though this is recreational, the desire to win.and.the competition is still going to override perhaps philosophical ideals of why you are playing? David: Exactly. I think when two teams that are very equal in strength and both are full of emotion in an important game, the will to win is more important than the enjoyment of the game. Had it been like a situation where a team is up 9 to 1, then if the team that's up so much isn't trying to, like, rub it in the other team, just like play the game, it would be a lot more enjoyable. Or if two teams are the type of teams that the game doesn't mean as much, then they can play for more, like, enjoyment. If I was playing against friends as opposed to playing with people I don't know, then I think when I play with friends, the score really doesn't.matter; then.I can get the enjoyment of it. The media also play a role in how these behaviors are learned, as supported by two subjects: Simon: Probably from watching TV and stuff. It gets on the news, and the fights are what TV shows and everybody talks about. It gets a lot of attention, that's for sure. Adam: Through watching TV and I think if someone sees all the physical play, like I cannot believe how physical basketball is. You know, the Pistons won two championships for that styLe of play, the Bad Boys things. The fans and everybody cheers that. In football the big thing is how strong and physical you are-~basically, all the aggression and violence that you see on TV everyday. It is fair to say that there is not just one influence on this issue. IMore often, many factors contribute to this learning process, as Jeff suggested: 121 Ahm, well, I would think a lot of times it would come from watching professional sports, how everything's glorified, you know. In other words, the hockey fights, everybody wants to see a hockey fight in a hockey game, and the retaliation sometimes when a brawl occurs, especially, like with the Pistons, you know, and any time a Piston fouls a guy hard, then they think.they are.going to fight, and I think that's not right, and it's just a reputation type of thing. But, in general, I would say I think it is instinc- tive. Like I told you before, when somebody thinks they are being threatened and/or trying to be inten- tionally hurt, then, you know, sometimes it causes some type of violence. But I think a lot of times, too, it's just the pressure; there is some pressure to exhibit some type of violence. In other words, when there's a hard foul, the fans want to see a player react and, ah, you know, because they don't want anybody on their team to be pushed.around, and.I think the players do as well. You know, a certain, espe- cially in men's athletics, there's a certain, you know, they have to hold up to their manly image. The responses of the officials paralleled those of the ejected players. Two officials specifically mentioned this conditioning taking place during adolescence: much Alyssa: Oh, I think it starts at the younger level. If that's the*way they generally have always responded to situations such as playing a sport and someone becoming aggressive towards them, then they respond that way all of the time. It's just like a case of classic conditioning. Bill: I would have, if I was going to guess, it would be from, you know, like, ah, sports, ah, sports when they are young, especially unsupervised. Yeah, that's about what I would think. One official specifically addressed the issue of too focus on winning: Dave: Probably a desire to win among their peers. They are there with presumably all their friends and people they interact with, and.I guess I wouldn't want to look bad in front of my friends, right? They want 122 to do their best; they want to win the game. They just get so caught up in it that they can't see the other side of the game. Another official spoke to the issue of modeling: Mike: I think because they see it at a pro level, and in the pros, the most they get in the pros is a tech. Sometimes they get tossed. And they think we go by the same rules or we do the same thing here. Researcher: So they are picking this up in part from watching TV or watching games at a higher, more competitive level? Mike: When they see Bill Lambeer square off with Robert Perish and they do a lot of pushing and shoving and both of them just get T's, they think, well, why can't we do it here, too? The media were the primary factor for yet another official: Adel: The media is highlighting and sensationalizing the violence and hostilities in sport, and I think that is where Americans especially pick up on the violent play. Kids see it all the time, and it never ends. Mary. The findings indicated that the two most influential factors in how players learned to demonstrate acts of aggression during sports participation were prior sports experiences that were learned and cultivated during adolescence and the influences of modeling (see Table 11). The subjects indicated.that.the.effect.of modeling occurred both as a fan attending games and through viewing games on television. Even though there were several different influences, all but 2 of the 32 subjects in this study contend that exhibiting aggression during sports partici- pation was a result of conditioning and a learning process 123 that was in place by the time they reached college. Two of the subjects believe their response was instinctive. Table'11.--Respondents' perceptions of how player aggres- sion is learned. Number of Subjects Response Responding Cultivated during adolescent sports experiences by peers, schools, and family ‘ 10 Modeling of professional athletes 9 Influence of prior coaching 5 Desire to win becomes main focus 4 Glamorized by the media 4 Violent response expected in sports 3 Demonstrates a macho image 3 Instinctive behavior 2 c e si Research Question 5: If the subjects agree that acts of hostile aggression in intramural sports are not a positive outcome, what corrective measures do they believe would assist in reducing this type of behavior? The subjects were asked: What impact could the following individuals have on the effort to reduce the severity and 124 number of incidents of hostile participant aggression: players, managers, officials, administrators? Wm As shown in Table 12, 19 of the subjects in this study believed a change in attitude and perspective by the players is needed to decrease participant hostilities. Table 12.--Subjects' views on how players can reduce hostile participant aggression. Number of Subjects Response Responding Change in attitude to focus on recreation 19 Teammates and managers assist in controlling hostile players 6 Players cannot or will not change their attitudes 6 Do not know or am not sure 5 Greater knowledge of rules by players 3 Three of the subjects commented: Mick: Relax and realize why we are out there. I think maybe a lot of guys take the hostilities they have had during the day and bring them to the games and pass it on to whoever they are playing. But I still think they need to realize it is for fun. Meng: The thing with just the attitude, really. I think, just go into the game to have fun, and, ah, it's not really to win or stuff, just have a good attitude. 125 Cory: Well, I think if you want to reduce the vio- lence or aggression, I think you are just going to have to teach players that, basically, they are just out there to have fun. Maybe try and draw away from the winning; putting such hype on winning is perhaps the big thing. I think it is the only possible thing you could do. The members of the officiating staff also believed that, by focusing on the recreational aspect of intramural sports, players could reduce their own hostilities: Bill: I would say to, ahm, to program themselves to take it as not so serious. I mean, they are not getting paid, you know, up in the six figures to do this. It's fun, and it should be fun. It's competi- tion, yeah, but, I mean, it's not like this is what they are going to make their living at. This is not how they are going to feed their families or anything. I think they should just take it and should be able to accept it as a game. It's like playing Monopoly: You don't beat the crap out of each other because the person's got the card landing on Boardwalk. Lenny: They have to keep things in perspective. They're not playing in the World Cup. This is just IM's. Even though the subjects agreed that players need to have a better perspective on the purpose of intramural sports, they also believed that changing players' attitudes may be difficult: Simon: They really should understand that it is just for fun. That's why they play, so you'd think they could act that way. But I 'm not sure how you get players to act the way they should be thinking. John: That's a hard one; I don't know. I think that is something they have to pick up by themselves. I guess you could maybe have team meetings or something or have talks with them, but to’get through to some of those people, I mean, it's up to them in a way if they want to accept that or not. 126 Alyssa: They could themselves? That's a hard one. The only way to unlearn it is to talk about it and realize what they are doing. I can't see them doing that themselves without some kind of facilitation by the IM program itself. Some of the subjects suggested the influence by a player's teammates and managers could assist in controlling a potentially hostile player: Jeff: Well, I think just ah, let's see, I would say, you know, just remembering that this isn't, you know, a world-championship-type thing. They are there just to have fun and to be reminded by people, you know, and have your teammates reminded also that, hey, this is just something we are doing for recreation. You know, it's not a blood-and-guts, winner-take-all type; it's here, and it is.a privilege we have as opposed to something that's to be given to us by somebody. Chuck: Oh, I think it is important for the teammates in general to get together and come to a conclusion that this is just a sport and your team is playing another team. It's not you're playing another person, not an individual-type deal. I think you've got to establish that before the game starts. You have to have a coach and a team manager or someone who has a little authority on the team--a team captain, whatever it may be, to sit down with the team and tell them, this is a team effort. ‘We are here playing as a team, and the object is to win the game, but if you can channel your aggression into more of a skill-oriented- type aggression, whereas you're channeling your aggression into playing better, harder, I think that would help out a lot. But I think it is important to get it under control before the game starts. It's great to be aggressive and, you know, have some animosity towards the other team, but I think they should channel that energy into play rather than channel that energy into aggression upon an indi- vidual. Three of the subjects took a more defiant position-- that the individual players cannot, or will not, change their attitude or focus to reduce participant hostilities: 127 Steve: Well, see, that's going to be hard to do for the players. I mean, it's got to come through the administration and the referees. You know what I mean? I mean the players, I want to say they just got, you know, to turn the other cheek, but when you are pumped up and you are competing, you can't, you don't do that. So I'm just going to say it's not that they are not at fault, you know what I mean, it's I don't know if they can do anything. Dave: I don't think there is going to be any solution to this at the individual-level thing. Not like a team thing where the whole team is angry. It is in each individual. because, I :mean, I see 'the same players and I remember them from way back, and they are still the same. So I don't think there's anything you can do. . . . I think, like I said, they would have to change their personality, and I don't think you are going to do it. Tom: I don't think they need to act any different. I mean, sport is aggressive by nature and that's the way players are going to be. But certainly, you don't want somebody out there who is going to hurt someone on purpose, but you don't know that until it's too late. fimmmgmy. The evidence demonstrated that most of the subjects believed a change in attitude is essential to reduce player hostilities (see Table 12, p.24). Generally, though, the players and officials contended that intramural participants need to understand that the primary purpose of their participation is recreation. They should not lose that perspective even though that may be difficult to attain. W The question concerning the effect of intramural team managers drew the unanimous response that intramural 128 managers, in their present role, are not effective in controlling the hostilities of their players. The majority of subjects (18 of 32) believed that the managers provided little, if any, assistance in controlling the hostilities of their players: ance some Chris: I don't think a team manager has any place being out there, to tell you the truth. They are just another person on the sidelines. The only thing I have ever seen a team manager do is provoke players or referees. Researcher: Do you think if a manager had a different philosophy or perspective, they could assist in controlling their team? Chris: Yeah, if they were a coach. If they had prior coaching experience and the players respected them as a coach. Like I say, high school or even, you know, like high school to a high school player's coach, yeah, they could do a marvelous job. Researcher: But in IM sports, the manager is just another player who really has no control or influence over his players? Chris: Yeah, pretty much. Jacob: Probably not much because the manager is just one of the guys, who tries to get players there. Once we start, we're mostly on our own, and if there is trouble you just depend on the rest of your team to help out. Adam: If they can relay the information that they get from the meetings and on the rule sheets, that would help. But they don't tell us anything, and we just play and find out too late that we broke a rule or got ejected. The opinion that team managers are of little assist- in controlling player hostilities was also held by members of the officiating staff: Lenny: Nothing at all. It's just a guy who has enough initiative to go to meetings and stuff. But 129 he's out on the court and playing like one of the guys and really isn't in control. Joe: I don't think so. They are just the managers. A.group of guys get together and say they want a team, and they end up just putting some guy's name on the entry card. He's the one to go to the meeting and stuff. Other officials admitted. the shortcomings of the intramural manager but also recognized that, with more initiative and interest, team managers could have a positive effect on the outcome of player aggression: Alyssa: The team manager is very key. It is very important if the team recognizes this person. A lot of time the team manager is just the person; they threw'his name on the card. But if the people respect the team manager, like in a lot of the fraternities, this is their social director, they understand, or if they play sports here, they understand that this person is team manager and they will listen to him. But, ahm, I don't know, the team managers should be responsible. Mike: I think they have to go out and control their team, and I think it should be their responsibility for any actions that happens on their team; they have to be liable for. I think that might control it. Adel: They have to tell their teammates about the rules. They go to the meeting, get the rules, and even know the rules, but they never tell their team- ‘mates. They have to talk to their players. Even.when we bring the captains together at the beginning of the game and tell them it is going to be a tight game, I don't think they say anything to their teammates. A few ejected.players believed that the manager should take a more active role, one that is more characteristic of a traditional athletic team coach: Jeff: Yeah, I think a lot of times, ahm, there's a lack of a team leader on the court to instill any type 130 of disciplinary action. In other words, in high school you had a coach, you know, and he was there, and if you screwed up, he was all over you about it, and if you didn't like it, it was too bad, you're not playing. Or if you reacted to him, you weren't going to play. But in the case, you know, of IM sports, there's really not a head figure that takes that responsibility. Simon: It's not like the guy is a coach or anything. Not like high school or the pros, where you really have an influence on how they are going to act. It's no different than when.you go to the bar; your friends try to help keep you out of trouble, but if some guy wants to fight,there isn't anything'a manager can.do. ngemygtigm. The researcher's observations supported the responses of the subjects regarding team managers. As a spectator at numerous games, the researcher noted that, in.general, team leadership is lacking on intramural teams. Captains get together for customary introductions with the officials at the start of games. But once the ball drops, there is a definite absence of a manager or a model coach. Although some individual players may attempt to control the team, for the most part the dominant player is the one who has the most skill. This player appears to be in charge on the court or field, but only as it applies to winning the game. W. In general, players and the officiating staff recognized that if a manager had enough respect from his players and could assume some responsibility, he could have a positive influence on his team (see Table 13) . Nevertheless, the subjects in this study indicated that 131 most players are reluctant to assume this role. Perhaps Bob best summed up this issue: Of all the IM teams I have played on, the team manager has not taken a lead role. He just gets the sched- ules, helps get organized. I think all players are hesitant to take on a ”coach" role.because the players are their friends, they don't want them mad, and they are afraid to make the wrong decisions. They get a team together, but they don't want to be a coach. Table 13.--Subjects' views of how team managers can reduce hostile participant aggression. Number of Subjects Response Responding Take more time to explain rules and meet with the team 7 Take on a traditional role of an athletic team coach 7 Manager is of little or no effect 18 WWW An analysis of the subjects' responses suggested that the role of intramural sports officials in participant aggression was a very complex and difficult issue. The views of the subjects were varied and diverse; no consensus was evident. One of the primary themes expressed by both ejected players and the officials was that intramural officials 132 need to establish control over the game and the players. Control was defined by the ejected players as follows: Al: I think refs should call more penalties, espe- cially early in the game, to let them know they are in control. If they were more consistent, then players might not get so mad. Chris: They are obligated to‘have control over a game from the get-go. When they see someone holding shirts or pushing, they should call that immediately instead of deciding to let it go to let the players play, sort of thing. They have to get on top of it right away and not wait until half time and say get the captains together and tell them we're going to start to call stuff because the game is getting out of control. Bob: I wish they were both the same. It seems that one is very good, knows the game very well, takes control; but the other one is not so good. There should be more consistency between the two refs. Players pick up on it and think they can get away with certain things with one ref over the other. If they would call more fouls early in the game, even if it is not a really hard foul, call two minutes to get control of the game and let the players know that the refs are in control. I wish the refs would take more of a charge or lead role early, rather than wait until things get out of hand. The officials in this study also recognized the need to establish control. However, they also identified certain consequences and understood that control is not easy to develop, particularly with a younger or new official: Lenny: If we called tighter games I guess, but we could bring the game to a halt. Although if we did that, you wouldn't have any more problems. Mike: Poor training. That goes without saying. We all need more training. They have to learn how to control a game. You learn in the first year most of these guys are rookies; they won't learn how to 133 control a game right off the bat. You keep on telling them, and telling them, but they still don't under- stand. By their second or third year they start coming around. I think that they need more training right off the bat. Researcher: If a younger official needs to go through a full season before he learns how to take care of it, some additional training. or ongoing training as the season is progressing would be help- ful? Mike: Yes. Another primary theme that received considerable comment was preventative officiating. This is defined as action by the officials to prevent trouble from beginning, but once it does begin, to take immediate action to prevent the incident from escalating. Components of preventative officiating include good knowledge of the rules, being attentive to the game, an appearance of professionalism, and always giving a strong and complete effort: John: Ahm, I think they should just be very atten- tive--that they see, possibly see the behavior that may lead.up to an aggressive incident. .Also, stopping aggression when it starts, not allowing it to go on for a series of different plays. Paul: Ah, they could.maybe like get the team together before and talk to each team like before the game. If they did have penalties, just tell what the penalties would be--like if you did this or that, there's a two minute for the first time, the second time red or something. They could talk to the team and tell them what's going to happen if they did this before the game started. Mark: Maybe talk to players more and when they see things starting to get out of hand they could warn them or something. Try to anticipate when games are getting rough and stop it before it gets started. But if two guys just go off on each other, I guess you 134 just toss them and let everybody else know'you are not going to let it go. Tom: Consistency is the biggest thing, I think--that and not being lazy. And if they do make the wrong call, at least they are trying their best. But when they make one call on one end and don't.make it on the other, guys are going to make cheap shots and one thing leads to another. Simon: I think if they just cared more, you know, the guy even told us, he goes, "This is only a game; if I make a mistake, it's only a game." And I said, "Yeah, but why am.I paying a team fee of $30 and you guys are making a salary?” They could at least get into it and at least know the books, the basic facts about it. You know judgment calls that are going to go either way, you are not really going to stop that, but if they just knew the basic facts, it would take some away from the hostility between them and the players. If they got into it more. A student supervisor of officials stated her position on the value of preventative officiating: Alyssa: Become just that--officials. Because the more "official" they are, and how they ref the game, is very important. If they treated every game, even though it's a non-playoff or just an easy game, and they are bored with it, they should officiate to the best of their ability. Because once they win the players' respect, then it's important. Players don't tend to get as hostile when they think the ref isn't right. There was some support from the ejected players that the officials currently do have a positive influence and that they are fairly competent and generally perform acceptably. However, the compliments were also met with a qualification that even though the officials do an adequate job, there is room.for improvement: 135 Steve: Most of the time they are doing what they need to because I think they do a pretty good job. I guess they should look.for more preventative things to call that might lead to trouble. Mick: They are doing a very good job for the most part. But, in all honesty, I think maybe they should, uh, if they see that kind of hostility out there, they should take care of it before it gets out of hand, which obviously wasn't done in my case. I'm not saying me or anybody else is perfect, but if I or anyone else gets out of hand, then it should be dealt with however you guys train them. If it means to take someone out of the game, then so be it. Frank: They are trying, I think, the best they can all the time. But some are better than others, and the weaker ones get intimidated by the better players. The officials can single out the guys who are really aggressive and let them know you mean business. But if the officials called everything and tried to take out all the rough stuff, it would take away a lot from the sport. You're playing a serious game, and they should let the little shoving go. Just don't let it go too far; [it's] tough to do, though. Perhaps the best way to describe the influence of the officials is that they are in a no-win situation. The job may be too difficult, especially considering that the officials are the participants' peers: Dave: Well, ahm, it's kinda hard to say because if you, ahm, you border on, IM is supposed to be for fun and not supposed to be just to win. That's the theory behind it; it's for fun and exercise, but the thing is, you can either call it two ways: You can call it really tight or you can let it go a little bit, the way the players would probably like to play. I think you have a fine line of balancing between a really tight-called game and letting a little bit go. So you are always in a dilemma. Either you tighten up the game and probably reduce the fun and excitement, or you let it go and risk certain confrontation. Pete: Nothing. I mean, when it's a heated game, I mean, if you got people with tempers you are already 136 going to have tempers. If you called more fouls, as long as you don't call no fouls and let it get out of hand. Simon: I don't think a whole lot. Things are pretty good, and everyone seems to try and keep that kind of stuff down, but sometimes it just happens, no matter what you do. So I guess keep doing what you are and just deal with the jerks when they act up. Even one of the more experienced officials admitted that the task might be too difficult: Adel: Due to the nature of how some teams are play- ing, we sometimes make a no-call and see two players run into each other, but it's hard to make a call. As the game goes on, it can lead to serious violence. ‘We need to make the call the first time, before it gets out of hand. We definitely need to make more calls and sooner. But, as I say, sometimes, you know, it is hard to do, but we should still make more calls. mm. Even though intramural officials receive considerably less compensation than their collegiate and professional counterparts, they receive no less abuse. This observer witnessed verbal and physical abuse, as well as taunting and general harassment, directed at intramural officials during and after games by both players and fans. The amount of abuse an intramural official must tolerate may be a reason why players complain about the quality of officiating. Perhaps before an official is able to become experienced, he or she quits, partially because of the abuse that must be endured. m. The complexity and difficulty of understand- ing the role of officials in reducing hostile participant 137 aggression were characterized by the following ejected player: Adam: Call more of the stuff they are not seeing. I know that sounds dumb--how can you call stuff you don't see? But what I mean is, they are letting too much go, and I don't know why. I suppose it is hard to ref your own peers. But if a guy wants to ref, he has to be able to make hard calls. I'm sure it's not easy; I don't think I could. But the guys who want to ref have to call more fouls and stuff. Like I said earlier, when you don't get the call, you get frus- trated, and that's when you start to retaliate. The subjects' comments varied from sharp criticism, such as the officials are not consistent, have poor knowledge of the rules, and show little initiative or interest, to acknowledging that, considering all circum- stances, the officials do a very good job (see Table 14). Two responses were mentioned by twice as many ejected players. Nine ejected.players want officials to "take more control” and nine suggest more "preventative officiating" in an effort to reduce participant aggression. Some respondents also expressed indifference and the view that the officials cannot be successful because the job is too difficult. In essence, the intramural official is "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't." 138 Table 14.--Subjects' views on how intramural officials can reduce participant aggression. Ejected Officiating Responses Players Staff Take more control of game 10 3 Preventative officiating 9 2 Be more consistent in calls 5 2 Increased knowledge of rules and officiating 3 3 Show more effort and initiative 3 1 Doing a good job 3 O Probably cannot do much; job is too difficult 5 1 W Administraters The reactions from the subjects concerning the influence of intramural administrators were as divergent as the views regarding the influence of officials. Some subjects believed that intramural administrators can affect hostile participant behavior, whereas others believed that aggression should be expected, and action should be taken only in cases of severe or violent aggression (Table 15). 139 Table 15.--Subjects' views of how intramural administrators can reduce hostile aggression. Ejected Officiating Responses Players Staff Cannot prevent, react after an incident . 9 2 Suspend playing privileges 8 4 Increase education and training of officials 8 3 Educate players on IM philos- ophy 7 1 Inform players of sports rules and conduct 6 6 Talk and listen to participants 2 1 Do not know 2 1 Three primary themes for a course of action seemed to emerge from the subjects' responses. The first was the importance of education--educating the players concerning the philosophy of intramural sports, informing them of the rules and guidelines regarding sportsmanship, and continu- ing the training to improve the quality of officiating. The second issue was a general consensus that, after as much education as possible has been provided, participants who violate the guidelines of sportsmanship should be punished swiftly and severely. Finally, there appeared to 140 be an acceptance that hostile aggression is going to take place during intramural games. As a result, do not overreact; simply respond as necessary. The importance of recruiting, training, and sustaining high-quality officiating was acknowledged by the following three players: Chris: It's important for them to sit down with the officials and let them know what you expect of them. The refs need to have extensive knowledge of the rules of the game and should be told it is important to stay on top of the game. John: Ahm, I would say the only thing that I can really see in that situation would be to select good officials and educate them well. That's the only thing that I can really see from a managerial point of view. Chuck: I think that it is important for you guys to sit down with the prospective Officials and tell them exactly what you want to have done--that you expect them to have an extensive grasp of the game, extensive grasp of the rules, and that it is important that they do stay on top of the game. They just can't let the game get out of control before they take action. One of the officials also supported this position: Bill: .Ahm, maybe screening out or screening officials or have, like a higher standard--people that.have had, ah, some previous experience where they know what is going on and they've either played it or they have refereed it or they have been an umpire. Just because I think, you know, the more understanding you have in the sport, the better off you are going to be from our point of view. Other than that, I mean, I just can't see, you know, they do a pretty good job, I think. The following two players emphasized the importance of educating players about the rules, guidelines, and.expecta- tions for intramural sports: 141 Jeff: Well, I think every player should be given, you know, a sheet of rules and everything prior to, you know, what they expect, what type of behavior they expect, because then it is all spelled out and.players should know. And if they say this is your warning right now and if it's not and if you don't act up to correct conduct then you are done. And, you know, in that regard, I think they should instill in some of the referees that they are there just to watch the game and make sure nobody gets an advantage. I think that's where you will get, I think, between them and, ah, you know the warnings. I think it's got to all come from the head guy, though; what his feelings are have got to be pushed on to the other people and so on. Mark: Keep talking to the players, managers and officials and try to catch the stuff when it looks like it is going to happen, you know. If everyone is aware that the IM people are going to crack down and try to stop the unnecessary violence, then the more they are told, the better the chances you can stop it. Subjects were equally divided on the idea of prevent- ing aggression by educating players before games are played, Some believed that education can be a preventative course of action, whereas others believed.aggression.cannot be prevented but that, because intramural sports is a privilege, players who respond with an unacceptable level of aggression should be suspended: Steve: I hate to say it, but, ah, yeah, they gotta, I mean, I love competition and.I have said that a million times, but they probably have to kick them out. I got suspended for one game. If they really want to stop it, they really got to have a list of rules that, see, the manager, he didn't read the rules to us. So, I mean, the manager, Andy's [intramural administrator] got to give the managers rules, the rules got to be read to the players, and they got to be strict. Like you are gone for the rest of the season if you get in a fight, and I guarantee you it will reduce it totally. Now there has to be a degree 142 of fighting, you know what I mean? Then that's where it's really got, the referees got to come in, but it's hard though. Researcher: Because officials have to use judgment as to what is acceptable and what is not? Steve: Yes. Pushing and shoving, that ain't s___. You know what I mean? Researcher: Hard physical play versus someone trying to take a swing at somebody? Steve: Yes. If punches are thrown, then, you know, that's grounds; you should be gone because that could start a whole, people can get hurt. You know, that gets all the teams up for that. Frank: Suspend them. If it occurs more than once in an IM sport, take their privileges away for the rest of the year. The officials in.this study strongly supported the use of suspensions against players who exhibited hostile behavior. Even though suspensions may not prevent an initial act of aggression, they send a message to all participants that acts of hostile aggression will not be tolerated: Lenny: A guy went off on Kim [another official] and called.her names and stuff and.was told just not to do it again, but nothing happened to him. That kind of stuff can't be tolerated. There has to be respect for the official's call. If I kick a guy out, I did it for a damn good reason. If the guy comes right back to play without any suspension, they are not going to care. It makes it a big deal!! In that case, the administrators can have a lot of say in making sure that guy doesn't play again or, depending on the circumstances, at least has to sit out some games. Alyssa: Ahm, well, it starts with the official, but it goes through the chain of command. I believe that the coordinator]supervisor/director should back supervisors 100% unless, of course, they are complete- ly wrong, completely wrong. But they should back their decisions 100%, once they train them, of course. So for a person who has done something wrong, punish- 143 ment I believe should be executed completely so that would deter this person from doing this again. And I think that's the main thing that the directors need to do. Adel: I think one thing you can do is when they get ejected or fight, the punishment should be appropriate to what they did. You just can't get away with fighting. Players have to know if they are to come to IM's to fight, and if they do you give them a suspen- sion. Also, like you do, showing up to games now and then to let the players know the IM takes these games serious, and I think it shows that you care what happens on the courts. The current method of responding to ejections at Michigan State involves a meeting between the ejected player along with his manager and the professional staff member responsible for that program. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the event and to assess disciplinary action against the team and/or team that is consistent with department philosophy and.guidelines. (This investigation.procedure is patterned after the case study methodology from Sierra, 1982). Seve- ral subjects stated.that the current method is all that can be done--respond appropriately' after an incident that results in a player's ejection: Adam: I know right now that when you get ejected you guys make the players come in, and I suppose you talk about what they did, why it was wrong, the whole spirit of IM's, and stuff. I think if players know that, even after one incident, they know they are going to be dealt with very seriously, then I think it can help reduce incidents in the future. Incidents happen on the same team, term after term after term, and they get away with stuff, and if they were pun- 144 ished at the beginning, that might lead to things not happening over and over. Bob: The kind of things you are doing now. When you get a red card, you have to talk to a Director and talk out why the player was ejected and get them to realize why they are playing. I don't know how you can do that before they get ejected. That, along with the things I talked about with the refs, the consis- tency and control type of thing. Mick: I don't think anything can really be done before it happens. Just what you are doing now by talking to guys after they get ejected, to tell them about IM's and why they are playing--you know, the kind of stuff we've been talking about. I think this is a good idea. Smmmgzy. The majority of subjects agreed that, even with education and suspension of playing privileges, preventing players from displaying acts of hostile aggres- sion is not only difficult, but perhaps unavoidable (see Table 15, p. 139). The comments of two ejected players summarize the role of the administrator in resolving hostile aggression: Tom: Like I said before, I don't think there is anything to do because there really is nothing wrong. You have to expect that guys are going to be aggres- sive and stuff, and just because you say it's IM's and for fun is not going to make players change the way they think they should play. So I guess I'm saying don't overreact to something that is not there. Simon: I don't think a whole lot. Things are pretty good, and everyone seems to try and keep that kind of stuff down. But sometimes it just happens, no matter what you do. So I guess keep doing what you are and just deal with the jerks when they act up. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY, AND REFLECTIONS fiflflflil! The purpose in this study was to gather information to assist the researcher to explain why hostile aggression is exhibited by male collegiate intramural sports partici- pants. Furthermore, in this study, an attempt was made to determine whether or not participants ignored the rules which prohibit and severely punish hostile acts, without consideration for the consequences of their actions. Also of interest in this study was the participants' abilities to rationalize and justify their behaviors as being appropriate responses. Consideration was given to the participants' knowledge of the purpose of intramural sports and.to their motivation forparticipating as it affected incidents of aggression. The subjects in this study were given an opportunity to discuss the scope of intramural sports aggression and to provide recommendations for addressing this problem. 145 146 As previously mentioned, the problem the researcher addressed is not unique to Michigan State University. Rather, as the literature indicated, it is a problem that is likely to be encountered in all intramural programs across the United States. Some of the benefits this study might offer are as follows: 1. To provide intramural administrators with addi- tional information for understanding participant hostili- ties and aggression. 2. To describe intramural participants' and student officials' views of sports aggression. 3. To provide intramural participants and student officials with an opportunity to suggest solutions and alternatives in attempting to reduce the number and severity of hostile responses by sports participants. 4. To supplement the current research data base on sports aggression, to include intramural student partici- pants and officials. 5. To provide additional understanding of the relationship between intramural rules and guidelines and the outcome of participant behavior. 6. To add to the scope and breadth of knowledge concerning how sports-related aggression is learned. 147 7. To contribute to the nationwide effort to reduce hostile sports aggression in all venues of athletic competition. To achieve the study purpose and to gain an under- standing of sports participant aggression, answers were sought to the following questions associated with.the:major thesis of the research: 1. Do intramural participants understand the purpose of the intramural sports at Michigan State University, and what are their motives for participating? 2. Would a participant's behavior be different if the individual was aware of the consequences of hostile action that results in his own ejection from the game? 3. What are the primary factors, conditions, and circumstances in an intramural game that contribute to hostile participant behavior? 4. Do individuals who display unacceptable behavior think their actions are appropriate, and, if so, how do they rationalize their behavior? 5. What are the sports-related influences that the subjects previously experienced that may have contributed to their acts of hostility during intramural games? 6. If the subjects agree that acts of aggression in intramural sports are not a positive outcome, what correc- tive measures do they believe would assist in reducing this type of behavior? 148 Individual focused interviews were complemented by the researcher's on-site observations in obtaining the views and opinions of the subjects, in an attempt to answer the preceding questions. The exploratory questions in Appendix A served as a guide during the personal interviews. No statistical formula was used to examine the information accumulated in the interviews. Rather, replies to the interview questions were examined descriptively. Major findings from this study are presented in the following section. H i E' 3' W The two responses most frequently mentioned (by 10 of the 24 ejected.players) regarding the purpose of intramural sports were to "provide recreation" and to "offer opportu- nities for continued sports participation". Seven of the 24 ejected players stated that "offering organized.competi- tion" was a purpose of the intramural sports department, the third most popular choice among these subjects. In understanding the responses, it seems that the players' interpretation of the value of competition was different from the viewpoint of the IM department. The subjects supported the idea that a component of competition is an alternative for those participants who are highly skilled, but not skilled enough to compete on the intercol- 149 legiate level. In contrast, as stated in the mission statement, the IM department is not offering competition for students who "aren't good enough" for varsity play; rather, the focus is to'offer opportunities for competition for players of all skill levels. We WM Whereas ten ejected players stated that "'providing recreation" was a purpose of intramural sports, only five mentioned this as a reason for playing. Seven ejected players believed that "offering organized competition" is one of the purposes of IM sports; however, half (12) of all the respondents indicated that the chance for competition was one reason they participated in intramural sports. From the results of the interviews and numerous hours of observation, the emphasis on competition, the desire to excel, and the desire to win came across very strongly. Although.the subjects (ejected.players) had.a strong desire to play sports, it appears that desire was directed more toward winning and competing than toward the enjoyment of recreation. 'The fact that these subjects placed.more value on competition than on recreation and enjoyment may help explain their behavior and help understand the complex issue of sports participant aggression. 150 MW We Both the ejected players and the officiating staff were in near-unanimous agreement that players have little knowledge of rules pertaining to sportsmanship. Twenty of the 24 ejected players either did not know or had not considered the rules regarding acceptable sportsmanship. All subjects representing the officiating staff believed that players in general do not.have an understanding of the IM rules pertaining to sportsmanship. As stated by the subjects in this study, intramural players, for whatever reason, do not know or do not think about what form of behavior should be exhibited ‘while jplaying intramural sports. Further an unsolicited comment from ten ejected players and four members of the officiating staff was that players ”just play the way they always have." W W An appraisal of the results verified that ejected players were not aware of the consequences of hostile behavior that results in player ejections, as mentioned by 22 of the 24 subjects. Prior knowledge of the consequences of hostile behavior appeared to be irrelevant, as only 2 of 24 subjects indicated they would have reacted differently had they know their action would result in ejection. In 151 addition, the players' viewpoint was supported by the observations and the opinions of the officiating staff. Perhaps more discouraging was the fact that eight ejected players and three officials stated that the consequences are irrelevant when it comes to participant behaviors. 8W MW Eighteen of the 24 ejected players stated that their actions had been appropriate and/or justified. Four subjects acknowledged some responsibility but qualified their responses with an explanation of their action. Only two subjects clearly stated that they were not justified in their response. Retaliation toward an opponent, defending themselves against an opponent, and fault or blame leveled at the officials were the three explanations players most frequently gave to justify their act of hostile aggression. All members of the officiating staff believed that players were able to rationalize and justify their behavior. The two reasons most frequently mentioned by the officials were retaliation against the action of an opponent or a dispute with an official over a call or non-call. 152 WWW Ween; Mien The desire to win the game had a distinct effect on the incident of hostile aggression for approximately two- thirds of the subjects in this study. Even though the score of the game did not affect the incident of aggression for all of the subjects, of the seven subjects who responded that the score had "little or no effect," the majority contended.that*winning or losing generally affects incidents of player aggression. With regard to the findings on the component of style, 29 of the 32 subjects in this study judged that the style or level of play had a definite or moderate effect on the incident that led to participant aggression. Several subjects stated that the notable components of style were rough 'play, deliberate fouls, and the success of the officials in calling the rough or deliberate fouls. The skill of the players and whether the game involved playoff or non-playoff teams also had a decided effect. Throughout the data-collection process, both in the interviews and participant observation, it was evident.that intramural officials were a key issue in the study of participant aggression. The findings indicated that intramural officials do have a decided effect on partici- pant aggression. From the perspective of the players, this 153 effect seemed to be one of assessing blame on the officials and accusing them (correctly or not) of being inconsistent at best and perhaps incompetent at the worst. The offi- cials did recognize that they have a certain degree of power in controlling aggression on the court, but for numerous reasons, they do not or did not exercise that authority. The last component of the issue of game involvement is the presence or absence of fans during intramural games. The consensus of the subjects in this study was that, in general, there are so few fans at intramural games that their effect is minimal. H9E_5P9I§§_AQQI£§§iQn_I§_L§§In§Q Even though there were several different influences, all but 2 of the 32 subjects in this study contended that exhibiting aggression during sports participation was a result of conditioning and a learned process that is in place by the time people reach college. The two most influential factors in how players learn to demonstrate acts of aggression during sports participation were prior sports experiences that were learned and cultivated during adolescence and the influences of modeling. The subjects indicated that the effect of modeling occurred both as a spectator at games and through viewing games on television. 154 WWW MW The evidence demonstrated that most of the subjects believed a fundamental change in attitude is essential to reduce.player hostilities. However, these same subjects also admitted that this is easier said than done. Adding to the difficulty in changing player attitudes was the fundamental belief (by 6 of the 24 ejected players) that players do not need to change their attitude or perspec- tive. The belief was that, in the environment of competi- tive sports, hostilities should be expected and, to a certain degree, tolerated. WW saw The unanimous opinion of the subjects was that intramural managers, in their current role, are not effective in controlling the hostilities of the players on their teams. The structure of the IM department at Michigan State places significant responsibility on intramural team managers to disseminate sports rules and to assist in controlling the behavior of their teammates. According to the subjects in this study, the managers are not relaying the information pertaining to rules to their teams, and they are reluctant to assume a "coaching" role 155 of responsibility over the conduct and behavior of their teams. 111W u a O 'c' s III'JE!"!E i The comments from the subjects concerning the intramu- ral officials varied from.sharp»criticism.such as inconsis- tency, poor knowledge of the rules, and little initiative or interest on the part of intramural officials, to the view that, for the most part, intramural officials did a fairly good job. There were also opinions of indifference and the view that student intramural officials cannot be successful because the job is too difficult. Ejected players, as well as the officials in this study, acknowledged. that intramural officials need. to establish. more control over the game. Both parties acknowledged that control is perhaps the most difficult factor to manage. If the game is too tight, with too many whistles and fouls, the game is no fun. Subjects also recognized that if officials do not call enough fouls, the game can easily get out of control and result in incidents of hostile aggression- ‘The desirable middle ground is very difficult for the student intramural officials to maintain. 156 W E: III'Jil'iIE 8. Three primary issues were evident from the responses of the subjects in this study. The first was the impor- tance of educating the players about the philosophy of intramural sports and informing them of the rules and guidelines pertaining to sportsmanship, and striving to improve the quality of intramural officiating. The second concern was that, after players have been informed of the rules and expectations concerning sportsmanship, swift and severe punishment should be given to those participants who violate these guidelines. The last point of significance was that hostile and instrumental aggression, to a certain degree, will occur in any venue of athletic competition, including intramural sports. As a result, the response should be appropriate, but there should be concern not to overreact. W The purpose in this study was to gather information to assist the researcher to explain why hostile aggression is exhibited by male collegiate intramural sports partici- pants. To supplement the major purpose of this study, additional inquiry was made into the consequences, justifi- cation, and rationale of participant aggression. Also of interest.was*whether or not prior sports-related experienc- 157 es contribute to player aggression, and how different persons involved in intramural sports can bring about a reduction in participant hostilities. Through interviews with 24 ejected intramural players and 8 members of the intramural officiating staff, combined with the observa- tions of this researcher, data were collected for analysis. The following conclusions were drawn from the major findings of this study: 1. The ejected players did recognize the positive value of intramural sports, although they apparently'placed much more importance on competition than did the adminis- trators of the intramural program. Based on the ejected players' strong desire for competition, combined with an assumption that sports competition often results in aggression, a player's hostile response may not contradict his motives for playing intramural sports. Rather, from the perspective of the player, a hostile response may be expected. 2. Even though the intramural participants in this study had generally not been informed of rules regarding sportsmanship and conduct, the vieWpoint of the subjects would suggest that prior knowledge of the rules, by itself, is not sufficient to affect behavior during intramural games. Nearly half of the subjects believed that the consequences are irrelevant and that players, in general, 158 will play sports ”the way they always have” and are unable or unwilling to adjust their behavior during intramural participation. 3. Only two of the subjects were willing to accept responsibility for the incident that led to their ejection. The remaining subjects assigned responsibility to other factors associated with the game and, in essence, blamed their opponents or the officials for causing their hostile behavior. The most frequent "causes" of hostile behavior were defending themselves from an opponent, retaliating against the action of an opponent, and blaming the student intramural official. 4. Placing undue importance on winning significantly contributes to tendencies for intramural participants to display acts of hostile aggression, as mentioned by two- thirds of the subjects. The importance placed on winning is also demonstrated by the number of teams that enroll in a play-off versus a non-playoff league and the number of resulting ejections in each league. There were 618 teams in the three sports involved in this study. Whereas 75 % of these teams participated.in a play-off league, 100 % (24 of 24) of the ejections occurred in the play-off league. An intramural game in which the players are being too aggressive and rough is also likely to result in incidents of participant aggression. As a result, it is important 159 for the intramural official to establish and maintain control of the game, to discourage and attempt to prevent hostile participant aggression. 5. The attitudes and behaviors exhibited by intramu- ral participants are learned as a result of adolescent conditioning and are cultivated throughout their succeeding sports experiences. The responses of the subjects in this study support the social learning element of the interacti- onal formulation theory of aggression as discussed on pages 25-26. Only two of the subjects believed their action was instinctive. Rather, intramural participants are influ- enced by their families, peers, coaches, the media, and athletic role models to believe that sports aggression is not only appropriate, but perhaps expected. 6. Intramural participants and their team managers have the opportunity to significantly reduce the severity and frequency of incidents of aggression. However, because players have learned on their own how to respond by the time they participate in‘collegiate intramural sports, they probably cannot change their attitude and behavior. In their present role, intramural team managers are unable or unwilling to accept the responsibility that is necessary to effect a change in participant behavior. 7. As previously stated, on their own, intramural participants are not willing to alter their behavior and 160 intramural managers are not successful in influencing the behavior of their players. In addition, officials only have marginal success in controlling the actions of players during intramural contest. ' As a result, intramural administrators may be in the best position to inspire the necessary innovations to bring about a reduction in participant hostile aggression. If one can accept the conclusion that sports aggression is learned, then an educational process can. assist in ‘teaching intramural participants to respond with acceptable behavior. This process can include informing participants of the values, rules, and guidelines for intramural sports; revoking the privileges of intramural participation for players who violate established guidelines; and continually striving to improve the quality of intramural officiating. i s o c tiona A ' a Based.on the findings and conclusions from.this study, the following recommendations are.suggested.for educational application: 1. If the conclusion that sports aggression is the result of a learning process is accepted, then intramural professionals need to initiate measures to assist partici- pants in understanding and accepting the philosophy, values, and guidelines for intramural sports. These 161 measures could include educating participants about the purposes of intramural sports; emphasizing the value of participation over the ”winning at all costs” mentality; and informing participants of the guidelines, expectations, and rationale for rules of sportsmanship. Intramural administrators need to discover innovative methods to educate participants about the true nature and opportuni- ties of intramural sports. 2. Ensure that all participants are aware of the punitive action taken against players who behave in a hostile, aggressive manner. After the educational compo- nent of aggression has been initiated, strict suspension of ejected players may serve notice to all participants that hostile behavior is not tolerated and results in the loss of intramural privileges. The subjects in this study spoke highly of the current practice at Michigan State University, which requires that ejected players meet with the professional supervisor responsible for that sport to discuss the circumstances of the ejection and the philoso- phy and purposes of intramural sports. 3. Evaluate existing intramural officials' training and teaching clinics to ensure that these students under- stand their contribution to reducing the severity and occurrence of participant hostilities. It is vital that officials recognize and.can practice the concept of keeping 162 the game under control, which is emphasized by players, officials, and supervisors as a major factor contributing to player aggression. Developing pregame instructions that include a quick educational component for all participants may assist players in reinforcing the importance of proper sportsmanship. 4. Because critical information that is disseminated at intramural team managers' meetings is not being received by the players, reevaluate the purpose, structure, and content of these meetings to create the opportunity for players to be better informed. As an alternative, inform players of selected critical rules and guidelines before the start of their game. In addition, because the intramu- ral team manager is not effective, the entire function and intended purpose of this role should be reexamined. 5. The subjects in this study supported the current literature and conclusions of the study that hostile sports aggression is learned as a result of adolescents' condi- tioning and cultivated.throughout their sports experiences. As a result, it is important that intramural professionals advocate the position that participation and opportunity need to be emphasized over the desire to win for those organizations and individuals involved in adolescent.sports programs. In addition, intramural professionals can unite in the effort to pressure collegiate and professional 163 sports organizations to recognize and act on the damaging influence sports aggression has on adolescent athletes. ese C 1. Conduct a similar study at different institutions to determine whether the patterns that emerged from this study are discovered when participants are involved in an intramural department with philosophies, rules, and guidelines that are different from those at Michigan State University. 2. Educating participants about the values, purposes, and rules of intramural sports is a significant component in the effort to reinforce participation without hostile aggression. Thus, there is a need for a study with a control group to determine the effect of an educational program on participant aggression. 3. This writer did not explore in detail the back- ground of intramural and other sports-related experiences of the subjects. For example, it may be beneficial to know the participants' frequency of intramural participation, class standing, and scope of prior sports experiences. In addition, do the hostile behaviors that are displayed during intramural competition affect the students' social, emotional, and developmental behavior in nonathletic environments? 164 4. Evaluate the skills and techniques of experienced intramural officials who are successful in reducing the hostilities of players during games they officiate. If these traits can be identified, they presumably can be taught to and reinforced with younger or rookie officials. 5. The Intramural Sports Department at Michigan State initiated a strict "no fighting" rule for IM ice hockey in 1989. (A player ejected for fighting receives an automatic season suspension.) Before that year, approximately 30 players per season were ejected for fighting during IM ice hockey games. Ejections decreased to 27 and 18 in the two subsequent years. Only two players were ejected for fighting during the 1992 season. A comprehensive study is needed to determine the effect of this type of rule, how it can be implemented on a broader scale, and the effect of the involvement of managers and officials. Hockey is a unique sport in regard to player aggression. As a result, it would.be erroneous to assume that simply initiating this type of a rule would produce the same results in other sports. Beflecflens Even though the researcher is an intramural adminis- trator who has been involved in observing participant behaviors for 15 years, this study provided the impetus to 165 explore issues and concerns, as well as personal opinions, that have developed throughout his career. One of the concerns that. was identified by the dissertation committee was: ‘What if ejected.players do not want to talk to you? In that case, a new strategy for data collection would have been needed. However, as indicated in the literature on field studies, subjects are willing to be sincere, honest, and truthful if the proper conditions are present. The subjects in this study were more willing to discuss the issue of their ejection than the researcher had expected. The subjects were very interested in the topic and went into great detail in explaining their side of the story. It was their side of the story that was paramount to the success of this study. Not only were the subjects interested, but on two occasions the subject was not at home when the researcher initially telephoned, but his roommates wanted to be interviewed! APPENDICES APPENDIX A EXPLORATORY QUESTIONS 166 EXPLORATORY QUESTIONS Exploratory questions will be used during the interview process of the study. The responses of the subjects may require additional or follow-up questions that are unknown at this time. However, it is hoped that information from the interview will provide the greatest input into answering the research questions. I. Describe your understanding of the purpose, goals and objectives of intramural sports. A. Why do you choose to participate in IM Sports? B. What is your understanding of the IM rules regarding fighting and unsportsmanlike conduct? C. Were you aware of the consequences of your action prior to your ejection? II. Describe all events and circumstances leading up to the incident in which you were ejected. A. Why did you become involved in the incident? B. What events and circumstances contributed to your behavior? C. Do you think your actions were justified? IL. Do you believe you had options other than becoming directly involved? 167 III. What effect did the following factors have on the incident leading up to and the actions involved in your ejection? .A. Your team winning or losing. The desire to win or perhaps the frustration of not winning. B. The style of play of your opponents and the level of the game (skill or league). C. The influence or involvement of the officials. D. The presence or absence of fans. IV. Are ther situations in IM Sports when an act of aggres- sion or violence is appropriate? A. How do you think players respond when an opponent attempts to intimidate them? B. How do players learn that in certain circumstances, some form of aggression on violence may be appropriate, justified or deserved? C. Is a fist fight or other physical abuse an appropriate response in certain situations in IM Sports? V. Do you think anything could or should be done to reduce the severity and number of incidents of player aggression? What impact could the following individuals have on this effort: A-Players; B-Managers; C-Officials; D-Administrators. APPENDIX B KOHLBERG'S MORAL STAGE DEVELOPMENT WITH SPORTS ILLUSTRATIONS 168 WWW’ Stage 1: The pumishmant-and-obadience orientation. The physical consequences of action determine its goodness or badness, regardless of the human meaning or value of these consequences. Illustration: When asked about whether or not a pitcher should use an illegal pitch, one player reasons "no, it's wrong; it can get the pitcher expelled from the game." Stage 2: The instrumental-relativist orientation. Right action consists of that which instrumentally satis- fies one's own needs and occasionally the needs of others. Illustration: Two runners make a deal to each false-start twice in an attempt to tire out a third competitor. Stage 3: The interpersonal concordance or "good boy-nice girl" orientation. Good behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved by them. Illustration: In the third quarter, when his team is far ahead, a football coach removes his best.players since that is appropriate sportsperson-like behavior. Stage 4: The "law-and-order" orientation. Right behavior consists of doing one's duty, showing respect for fixed rules and authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake. Illustration: A boxer refuses to throw any "kidney punches," even though he is sure he could get away with it, because one ought to fight by the rules. Stage 5: The social-contact, legalistic orientation. Right action, aside from what is constitutionally and demo- cratically agreed upon, is a matter of personal "values" and "opinion.” 169 Illustration: When it becomes apparent that certain "legal” drugs are being used to improve athletic performance even though the long-range effects of the drugs are unknown, a group of athletics join to seek a change in the rules so that their use will be forbidden. The athletes reason that drug use violates the spirit of the game and is not in.keeping with their rights as individuals. Stage 6: The universal-ethica1-principla orientation. Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles appealing to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. Illustration: In a very close gymnastics meet, the leading gymnast on the losing team decides he is going to attempt a routine he has been working on but has not yet done without safety apparatus. When the judge learns of the gymnast's intention, he refuses to allow the performance, reasoning that all persons.have an unforfeitable right to life and safety and that forfeiting basic human rights cannot be justified by an appeal to lesser goods associated with athletic victory. ' Moral level and stage typing is a difficult and involved process. While these illustrations are typical of the level indicated, no claim is made that the information provided is adequate for definitive moral scoring. APPENDIX C HAAN'S MORAL LEVELS WITH SPORTS ILLUSTRATIONS 170 WWW‘ Level 1: At this level there is no real view of moral interchange between people. The moral balance is seen as an exchange of power: the person of greater power thwarts the person of lesser power. All are entitled to what they can get. Illustration: An athlete is ordered.to the showers by an angry umpire. Level 2: Balances at this level are established by the self-making trade-offs to get what is desired. It is assumed that the self and others want similar things and that others, like the self, are after their own benefit. Illustration: A football lineman intentionally injures another player because "that's just the way the game is played." Level 3: The person now thinks of herself or himself as part of a human collectivity. This appreciation for social existence leads to the assumption that everyone recognizes the need for good faith and moral responsibility. The person naively assumes others will behave morally and so tries to create moral balances that consist of harmonious exchanges of good. Illustration: A shot-putter fails to call the official's attention to a shot that has not been weighed-in because she assumes that no one would try to cheat. Level 4: The naive assumptions of Level 3 inevitably result in disappointment and harm to the self. The person reasoning at Level 4 structures the moral balance through attempts to regulate it with external, impartial formulations that assign everyone the same rights or duties. It is thought that the "common interest" of all is best secured by submit- ting to external regulation, or systematized structured exchange. Illustration: A. new' curfew' rule is strictly’ enforced-no exceptions-because it is in the best interest of the whole team that everyone get a good night's sleep. 171 Level 5: At the final level, the individuality of persons and the complexity of social life are given full consider- ation. The external regulation the ”common interest" is abandoned in favor of situationally specific balances which optimize the potential of all parties in a manner consistent with the particular context. All interests are taken into account and coordinated in a way that is mindful of the participants' future lives together. Illustration: A coach plans a heavy and strenuous workout for her team in preparation for an important game, but after a team discussion, excuses one of her star players from part of the practice because the player needs to study for a final exam. ' Moral level and stage typing is a difficult and involved process. While these illustrations are typical of the level indicated, no claim is made that the information provided is adequate for definitive moral scoring. APPENDIX D MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY INTRAMURAL SPORTS & RECREATIVE SERVICES REPORT ON PLAYER EJECTION 172 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY IN'I'RAMURAL SPORTS REPORT ON PLAYER EJECI'ION Name Address Wham Date Time FieldorCoan Team WWW Address Pm OllidaIMsflagEjeaion M (anharEjeuioa)But‘I!-eto(batad MWMWMQMOIM BI BLIOGRAPHY 173 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, R., & Schvaneveldt, J. (1985). r di raaaaman_maahgga. White Plains, NY: Longman. Adrey, R. (1966). ‘t ' ' e ’ e. New York: Dell. Bandura, A. (1973). e i soc 1 1e n amalyaia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A., Ross, 0., & Ross, S. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. ' i3, 575-582 a Baron, R. A. (1977). a es ' . New York: Plenum Press. Becker, H. S. (1958, December 23). Problems of inference and proof in participant observation. Amamigam Socio- lQQLQ§l_B§Yi§!: 23. 400-401. Berkowitz, L. (1966). On not being able to aggress. Brigish Journal of Social and Clinical Paygaology, 5. Berkowitz, L. (1969a). The frustration-aggression hypothesis revisited. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Bag;a_gf aggmaaaigm. New York: Atherton Press. Berkowitz, L. (1969b). Simple views of aggression: An essay review. American Scientist, 51, 372-383. Berkowitz, L. (1972). Sports, competition, and aggression. In I. D. Williams & L. M. Wankel (Eds.), ocee i o e o t s c om t r ar W. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo. Berkowitz, L., Green, J., & McCauley, J. (1962). Hos tility catharsis as the reduction of emotional tension. gszshiafrz. Zi- 174 Bredemeier, B. (1978). Applications and implications of aggression research. In W. Straub (Ed.), Spam; payghglggy: M amalysis of athlete behaviom. New York: Mouvement Publications. / Bredemeier, B. (1983) . Athletic aggression: A moral concern. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), W (pp. 47-82). New York: Springer-Verlag. / Bredemeier, B. (1985). Moral reasoning and the perceived legitimacy of intentionally injurious sport acts. 522:3; Esxshglegx. 1. 110-124. Bredemeier, B., Cooper, A.B., Shields, L., S. Weiss, M. (1986). The relationship of sport involvement with children's moral reasoning and aggression tendencies. JQurnal_of_fiesrf_2§zsbglegz. 8. 304-318- Bredemeier, B., & Shields, D. L. (1989). Moral reasoning, judgement, and action in sport. In J. H. Goldstein \ (Ed.), 3 a - pszsholegisal_xieseeints- Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum- Brown, H. E. (1981). he effe t o e t 0 on gap-variablas of tha Buss-Durkee hostility-gm; 1; ' vento for o e ' te males' artici ation 'n re a on ost-sea o (1 ch io ’ la of ’ softball gfle . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University. Brown, R. (1969). Historical patterns of violence in America. In H. Graham & t. Gurr (Eds.), Tag histomy of 'ole ' - 'st ' a1 0 arat' W (Report submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence). New York: Praeger. Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Jourmal 9f ggmsalgimg Paychology, 21, 343-348. Center For Sports Law and Risk Management Inc. (1991.) E;Qm_;na_§ym_ag ama_Ja;y, Volume 3, Number 1, 8-10. Christy, P. R., Gelfand, D.M., & Harman, D.P. (1971). Effects of competition-induced frustration on two cases of modeled behavior. Ds2e192menfal.2§zsholegzm 5. 104- 111. 175 Coakley, J. J. (1981). Sociological perspective: Alternative causations of violence in sport . gana R v.89], 5' 44-560 Coakley, J. J. Spomt in agciety: Issues and controva; Slag. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby. Cusick, P. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the Amarlcan high School. White Plains, NY: Longman. Cusick. P- (1989. Spring). Eieldsgrk_resear§h_methgds. Handout, Educational Administration 951-H, Michigan State University. Dollard, J., Miller, N.E., Doob, L.W., Mowrer, 0.H., & Sears, R.R. Er_1;stration ang aggressign. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Epstein, S., S. Taylor, S. P. (1977). Instigation to aggression as a function. of degree of defeat and perceived aggressive intent of opponent. MM Personaliix. 35. 265-270. Feigley, D. A. (1983). Is aggression justifiable? Sournal of Physical Education, Rec_r_eation and Dance, 53;, 63-64. Fishman, C. (1965). Need for approval and the expression of aggression under varying conditions of frustration. Journal of Eersonaligy and Social Psychology, ;. Freishlag, J., & Schmedke, C. (1980). Violence in sports: Its causes and some solutions. In W. F. Straub (Ed.). Spar; psygnglogy: An analysis 9f athlate menayio; (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Mouvement. Freud, S. (1950). Why war? In J. Stached (Ed.), Sol lagnag_pama;a. London: Hogarth. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Theometical aampling--The glscoveay of groundeg theomy. Chicago: Aldine. Goldstein, J. H. (1989). Violence in sports. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), rts s a d la : oc' a d paycnglogical viaypoinaa. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 176 Gorney, R. (1972). T an e d . New York: Simon & Schuster. Geen, R. (1968). Effects of frustration, attack, and prior training in aggressiveness upon aggressive behavior. r o erso 't d oc’ P3 0 , S. Haan, N., Bellah, R., Rabinow, P., & Sullivan, W. (Eds.) (1983). W11 New York: Columbus Press. Harrell, W. A. (1980). Aggression by high school bas- ketball players: An observational study of the effects of opponents, aggression and frustration-inducing fac- tors. lntarnatlonal iguanal gfi Spam; angnolggy, 290-298. Harris, M. B. (1974). Mediators between frustration and aggression in a field experiment. Wm; W 1.0. 561- 571. Hartshorne, H., 8 May, M. (1928-1930). sanglaa_in_;ha nature_gf_gharagter (2 vols.). New York: Macmillan. Hokanson, J. (1970). Psycho-psychological evaluation of the catharsis hypothesis. In E. I. Megaree & J. E. Hokanson (Eds.), Ina gynamics of aggresslgn. New York: Harper & Row. Intramural Sports and Recreative Services. (1990-91a). Qalandar handbook. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Intramural Sports and Recreative Services. (1990-91b). Iga ngckey; gal S. East. Lansing: JMichigan State University. Intramural Sports and Recreative Services. (1990-91c). Wang. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Kaufman, H. (1970). Aggraasion and altruism. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Koeberle, B. E. (1991). Legal implications of fan vio- lence: A need for reassessment. Ina Spogts, Sanka ang geomaatlon Law gepgmtam, 5. 177 Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and segmence: The cognitlva- e m a r ach t sociali t' . In D.A. Goslin (Ed). Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Kistler, P. (1957). Attitudes expressed by male athletes and resulting sport behavior. gollege Physical Educa- W 5.0. 55- 58- Layman, E. (1970). Aggression in relation to play and sports. In.G. Kenyon (Ed.), gQnaampgma;y_paygnglggyygfi apgma. Chicago: Athletic Institute. Lefebvre, L. M. , Leith, L. , & Bredemeier, B. (1980). Modes for aggression assessment and control. IDIQI: W 11. 11- 21 Leith, L. M. (1982). An experimental analysis of the effect of vicarious participation in physical activity of subject aggression- WW 22191121991. 13. 234-241. Levine, P. (1981, February). The historical perspective of violence in sport. A;ana_3_y_ay, S. Liebow, E. (1967). Tally'a corner. Boston: Little, Brown. Lorenz, K. (1966). n a e s'o . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Luxbacher, J. A. (1985). u ti ’ ens na 1 ' o pgtential critigal factors related to athletic e 'o ' ' echo 1 cs a . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. Marshall, J. C. (1980). T 0 et' 've v' e E - e ts n ' l ence o the o n at e. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University (Canada). McIntosh, P. (1979) . ir a - thic ' o agagaalgn. London: Heinemann. Moyer, K. E. (1973, July). The physiology of violence. 29.221151193119921. pp- 35-38- 178 Nighswander, J. K., 8 Mayer, G. R. (1969). Catharsis: A means of reducing elementary school students' aggressive behaviors. WW. 4.1. 461- 466 Noverr, D. A., 8 Ziewaez, L. E. (1981). Violence in American sports. In W. J. Baker 8 J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Sports in Modern America). St. Louis: River City Publishers. Parten, M. (1966). u o s and e : - Ligal_p;ggagn;aa. New York: Cooper Square. Recreational Sports Department. (1991) . W linaa. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan. Roberts, G. (1970). T e st n one life: The cult m nes i e e o T odo e Roose . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Ryan, K., Williams, J., 8 Wimer, B. (1990). Athletic aggression: Perceived legitimacy and behavioral intentions in girls' high school basketball. Spgma_ang www.1z. 48-55. Schatzman, L., 8 Strauss, A. L. (1973). Elalg resaarcn; s n ur oc'olo . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Schneider, J., 8 Eitzen, D. S. (1982). Ih§_§LIBQLQ£§_Q£ WM. Paper presented at the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, Toronto. Schill, T. (1972). Aggression.and.hlood.pressure respons- es of high.and low guilt subjects following frustration. o r f sul in d i ’cal s c 01 Scott, J. (1970). Sport and aggression. In G. Kenyon (Ed- ) . W. Chicago: Athletic Institute. Sierra, L. (1982). s of a Relat'o s 'n th ' ‘ ' ntr mura creatio s Baggrama of the Sig Ten Intagcolleglaae gonfamenca. Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University. 179 Silva, J. M. III. (1979). Changes in the affective state of guilt as a function of exhibiting proactive assertion on hostile aggression. In G. C. Roberts 8 K. M. Newell (Eds-). 25xsh9l9gz_2f_mefgr_behaxigr_and_§nerf. Cham- paign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers. Silva, J. M. III. (1980a) . Assertive and aggressive behavior in sport: A definitional clarification. In C. H. Nadeau (Ed. ) , Esygnolggy of moto; banavlg; ang Spams. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers. Silva, J. M. III. (1980b) . Understanding aggressive behavior and its effects upon athletic performance. c 010 - al ' o t ' (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Mouvement. Silva, J. M. III. (1983). The perceived legitimacy of rule violation behavior in sport. Journal gf Spomt 25y— 2591251. 5. 438-448. ence- oc e la e ' e c ' n of the u s' sanctio o sa t. Paper presented at the Scientific Congress of the Twentieth Olym- piad, Munich. Smith, M. D. (19080). Hockey violence: Interring some myths. In W. F. Straub (Ed.), Spam; psycnolggy: An analysis of athlete behavior (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Mouvement . Smith, M. D. (1981). Sport violence: A definition. Arena_Bexien. 5. 2-8. Smith, M. D. (1983). What is sports violence? A socio- logical perspective. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Spgmaa yiolenga. New York: Springer-Verlag. Smith, M. D., 8 Russel, G. (1983). Elglanga_ang_apama. Toronto: Butter-worths. Storr, A. (1968). e i n. New York: Atheneum. Thirer, J. (1981, February). The psychological perspec- tive: Analysis of violence in sport. Re 'ew, S. 180 Vaz, E. w. (1982). Th ro e sion 1'zat'on of u nockay players. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Walters, R. H., 8 Brown, M. (1963). Studies of rein- forcement of aggression: III. Transfer of responses to an interpersonal situation. Child Development, 34, 563- 571. White, C. (1975). pnyalcal adaaapion and athlapiga. Prentice-Hall. Adminlatrapive theopy and practica in Englewood Cliffs, NJ: