Search

The purpose of this study was to investigate the aggressor-victim difference in perceived legitimacy of aggression in soccer as a function of score information (tied, favorable, unfavorable), sporting penalization (no risk, yellow card, red card), and type of aggression (instrumental, hostile). French male soccer players (N = 133) read written scenarios and rated the legitimacy of the described aggressive act depending on a specific perspective (aggressor or victim) and situational information. A significant aggressor-victim difference in perception of instrumental aggression was found in situations where the score was tied or where there was no risk to be caught. In addition, aggressors were affected by such information, whereas victims were not. The discussion focuses on explanations and implications of such divergences in aggressive sport situations. (Contains 1 note, 2 tables and 2 figures.)

Most researchers have defined aggression in sport as overt acts violating the formal rules and intentionally causing harm. Such conduct in team sports may also be conceptualized as a kind of social interaction, which would suggest aggression is not judged as an isolated act but as a set of actions and reactions between individuals. In many contexts, including sports, individuals who transgress social norms and/or cause harm to another are confronted with negative reactions and asked to account for that violation. In this sense, the episode may constitute an integral part of the aggressive situation and partially determine the interaction. This study explores the athletes' perception of accounts given for aggression in soccer. Social psychologists have differentiated several account types. Apology expresses the acceptance of personal responsibility, whereas excuse and justification attempt to minimize this responsibility in terms of (uncontrollable) causes and reasons, respectively. Last, denials fully reject personal responsibility. Verbal explanations use different combinations of acknowledgement of association and harmfulness. Previous studies of accounts selection for interpersonal transgressions found a predominance of apology when the action was accidental, while excuse was favored when the action was intentional. Because others' negative reactions may become more severe for perceived intentional harm in the justice system, aggressors may attempt to convince officers and judges that their acts were unintentional or uncontrollable to shift responsibility. This same justification might be reflected in team sports. Referees have considerable power to penalize or remove deviant players, so athletes may favor responsibility-rejecting accounts. (Contains 1 table.)