Theories Of Aggression

For decades sports psychologists have disputed the question of whether aggression in any form is instinctive/ biological or is modelled by our interaction in society i.e. we learn it. Aggression is defined by Coakley (2014) as “verbal or physical actions grounded in intent to dominate, control, or do harm to another person” and emphasizes the two main components: that the behavior is aimed at another human with intention to inflict harm and that the behavior is reasonably thought to be as such that can actually cause harm. Frankl (2001) cites Bredemeier (1983) definition of aggressive behavior in sport as: "The intentional initiation of violent and or injurious behavior; 'Violent' means any physical, verbal or nonverbal offense, while 'injurious
Aggression is not assertiveness. Assertiveness is to standing up for your rights (Abrams, 2014). The intention does not entail intent to do body harm but to use your voice or physical effort to make your presence felt. It is within the rules of the game. This is sometimes confused with instrumental aggression as no harm is intended or done, but in this form of aggression, anger plays a role and unintentional injury may result. Besides, in assertiveness bold statements and shouting may occur. Any harm is incidental (Abrams, 2014). Numerous theories elaborated over the decades have infused the literature trying to offer explanations of the various sources of aggression observed in sports. Eller (2006, as cited by Psychology 216, 2009) interpreted sources of aggression as coming from either an internal bio-psycho source, or the external influences of social values, human kind and social interaction. Other scholars have identified a third group, the drive theories characterized by impulsiveness created by the innate
They based their studies on prison populations. This is also a form of the drive theory and attributes aggression to an impulse created by an inner need whereby frustration causes aggression and this forms a cycle where continued aggression leads to more frustration and then further aggression and onwards Bandura, 1978). In other words, there is need to expel or “catharsis” the frustrations from time to time or this manifest as bursts of aggression. Frustration results from the gap between expectations and achievements (Bandura, 1978). Other researchers have subsequently determined that apart from frustration, other causes exist for aggression. This theory has since been modified to include these factors including tension. In the modified frustration-aggression theory frustration only heightens the susceptibility to aggression (Coakley, 2014, Cox 2007). The frustrated person cannot postpone the urge to aggress or more frustration builds up. This theory does explain the spectrum of aggression seen as the response can vary from assertiveness for less frustration to instrumental aggression and even intention to harm someone or hostile aggression. However, research shows that the mere presence of frustration does not seem to suggest