Unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport: A multidisciplinary synthesis

Accepted Manuscript Unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport: A multidisciplinary synthesis

Ramón Spaaij, Hebe Schaillée PII: DOI: Reference:

S1359-1789(18)30117-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.11.007 AVB 1251

To appear in:

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

27 April 2018 10 September 2018 26 November 2018

Please cite this article as: Ramón Spaaij, Hebe Schaillée , Unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport: A multidisciplinary synthesis. Avb (2018), https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.avb.2018.11.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport: A multidisciplinary synthesis

PT

Ramón Spaaij Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

SC

RI

Department of Sociology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Hebe Schaillée

NU

Research Unit Sport & Society, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit

D

MA

Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

PT E

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ramón Spaaij, College of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, Victoria 8001, Australia. Email:

AC

CE

[email protected].

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport: A multidisciplinary synthesis

Abstract Physical and psychological harm as a result of unsanctioned aggression and violence in sport continues to be a cause for concern. This article critically reviews and synthesizes

PT

contemporary scientific research on unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport.

RI

The authors identify the need to understand violence in amateur sport within its social

SC

ecology. The proposed framework sensitizes researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to the multi-level web of interacting influences on unsanctioned aggression and violence in

NU

amateur sport, as well as to factors and issues to be considered in relation to the prevention and mitigation of violent behavior in amateur sport. The findings indicate that there is a

MA

dearth of studies that analyze the meanings and narratives of aggression and violence created by amateur sports participants themselves. The article proposes that situational approaches

D

and, in particular, the role of bystanders offer promising directions for future research, policy,

PT E

and practice concerning unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport.

CE

Keywords

Bystander intervention; Moral disengagement; Social ecology of violence; Sport; Third

AC

parties; Violence prevention

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport: A multidisciplinary synthesis

1. Introduction

Sports provide an insightful window onto the complexity of aggressive and violent

PT

behavior. There has been considerable scientific and policy interest in the potentially

RI

pacifying or therapeutic role that sport can play in violence and crime prevention (Harwood,

SC

Lavidor, & Rassovsky, 2017; Mutz & Baur, 2009). At the same time, aggression and violence occur at all levels of sport, from professional and amateur adult competitions to collegiate

NU

and youth leagues. It affects athletes of all ages and in a variety of different sports (Fields, Collins, & Comstock, 2010). In combat and contact sports, certain forms of aggression and

MA

violence are sanctioned or tolerated, necessary for successful performance (Sheldon & Aimar, 2001), and accepted as a fairly normal part of a highly engaged athlete’s role identity

D

(Coakley, 2009; Curry, 1993). Both male and female athletes can enjoy, and find moral

PT E

validation through, the aggression of their sport and experience it as positive (Kerr, 2016; Matthews & Channon, 2016). Moreover, contact sports practices may reproduce or reinforce

CE

unsanctioned aggression and violence (i.e., acts that are outside the rules of the game and potentially harmful to participants) that can have spillover effects to other life domains

AC

(Klimczak, Podstawski, & Dobosz, 2014; Nixon, 1997). This article aims to provide new insight into the factors, processes, and contexts that shape unsanctioned aggression and violence (where violence is considered to be the most extreme expression of aggression) in amateur sport from a multidisciplinary perspective. Developing a robust understanding of violence in sport requires multi-level analyses that integrate work conducted within different academic disciplines and fields (Spaaij, 2014). Scholars in different disciplines have often found similar themes (e.g., the role of collective

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT norms), while also offering complementary insights, concepts, and theories that, in conjunction, provide a fuller analysis of the issue (Fields, Collins, & Comstock, 2007). At least some of the scientific disagreement on aggression and violence in sport is semantic in nature, and there is also “a good deal of agreement” (Sacks, Petscher, Stanley, & Tenenbaum, 2003, p. 167). However, it seems that the development of a holistic, multi-level explanation

PT

for aggression and violence in sport has been hindered by the fragmented nature of the

SC

(Gee, 2010a,b; Kirker, Tenenbaum, & Mattson, 2000).

RI

academic literature and, in particular, a range of methodological and conceptual limitations

This knowledge gap may also hinder the development of effective prevention and

NU

remediation strategies. Preventative and curative action toward violence in sport is firmly on the agenda of authorities and sports governing bodies. Education campaigns and prevention

MA

programs targeting violence in sport operate across the world (Sáenz Ibáñez et al., 2012). For example, in 2011, the Dutch national government introduced the nationwide program

D

“Towards a Safer Climate for Sport,” funded at €7 million per year and implemented by the

PT E

Netherlands Olympic Committee*Netherlands Sports Federation (NOC*NSF) and national sports associations. Programs such as this have established specific interventions such as

CE

public education campaigns, codes of conduct, and stiffer penalties. Most of these interventions focus on the mitigation and remediation of the harmful effects of violent

AC

behavior, but pay relatively scant attention to the multi-level causes of this behavior. For example, an independent evaluation of the “Towards a Safer Climate for Sport” program stressed the need to “do more to [scientifically] underpin what is required to positively influence the social climate on and around Dutch sporting fields” (Romijn, van Kalmthout, & Breedveld, 2016, p. 44; our translation). This article critically synthesizes contemporary scientific research on unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur, non-professional sports, which we define as sports in

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT which participants engage recreationally and largely or entirely without remuneration. Unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport have attracted limited systematic scientific research compared to its professional, elite counterparts. Yet, amateur sport is the level where the bulk of mass participation is concentrated, for instance through sports clubs, programs, schools, and colleges. Individuals engage in amateur sport primarily for fun, social,

PT

and health reasons rather than financial gain (although some athletes consider it a stepping

RI

stone towards a professional sports career). We recognize that violence in different sports

SC

settings (e.g., amateur versus professional) may be driven or fueled by similar social processes and conditions, and that spillover or modelling effects across these different spaces

NU

may exist. Relevant linkages and homologies will be identified in this article. This article is structured as follows. We will first clarify definitional issues and

MA

explore the spectrum of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport. This is followed by a brief discussion of the review methods. The article proceeds by proposing a

D

socio-ecological model that brings together individual, contextual, sociocultural, and

PT E

situational influences. The proposed framework sensitizes researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to the multi-level web of interacting influences on unsanctioned aggression and

CE

violence in amateur sport, as well as to factors and issues to be considered in relation to the prevention and mitigation of unsanctioned aggression and violence. The article proposes that

AC

situational approaches and, in particular, bystander intervention offer promising directions for future research, policy, and practice concerning unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport.

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2. Defining unsanctioned aggression and violence within the context of amateur sport

2.1.

Unsanctioned aggression and violence: definitional dilemmas

The task of defining aggression and violence is an important one because it

PT

determines what behaviors we render (in)visible, how we assess and respond to these

RI

behaviors, and where we look for explanations and remedies. Yet, it is also a notoriously difficult task because violence in sport and society is characterized by its breadth and

SC

diversity. De Haan (2008) notes that the concept of violence “is multifaceted, socially

NU

constructed and highly ambivalent,” and hence essentially contested (p. 28). Wieviorka (2009) argues that what makes violence so difficult to define is the need to adopt a double

MA

perspective that recognises both the “objectivity” of violence and “the way subjectivity influences how it is experienced, lived, observed, represented, desired or undergone by

D

individuals, groups and societies” (p. 2).

PT E

The problem of defining aggression and violence plagues sports research. The debate on the International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP) Position Stand is a case in point

CE

(Kerr, 1999, 2002; Sacks et al., 2003; Tenenbaum et al., 1997, 2000). The ISSP Position Stand defines aggression as any behavior (physical, verbal, or gestural) directed toward

AC

another individual with the intent to injure (Tenenbaum et al., 1997). Kerr (2002) argues this definition does not readily apply to team contact sports. While aggressive acts can be harmful to participants, they may be within the rules or laws of the game. We should therefore distinguish between sanctioned and unsanctioned aggression in sport (Kerr, 2012, 2017). In light of this distinction, Terry and Jackson (1985) define violence as “harm-inducing behavior bearing no direct relationship to the competitive goals of sport, and relates, therefore, to incidents of uncontrolled aggression outside the rules of sport, rather than highly

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT competitive behavior within the rule boundaries” (p. 27). In this article, we draw upon this definition to focus particularly on unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport. This can include both instrumental violence (i.e., a non-provoking situation) and reactive/hostile violence (i.e., a provoking situation) (Abrams, 2010; Sherrill & Bradel, 2017), as long as they occur outside of the rules of a sport.

PT

Additional taxonomic differentiation is important considering that the frequency and

RI

the nature of unsanctioned aggression and violence appear to vary across different forms and

SC

levels of sport (Guilbert, 2004; Levin et al., 1995; Pedersen, 2007). The multi-layered nature of unsanctioned aggression and violence in sport is evident in, for example, Guilbert’s (2004,

NU

2006) distinction between three classes of sports practice in relation to the forms of violence that are represented and exerted. “Hard violence” sports require bodily contact, and winning

MA

may require deliberate physical harm to an opponent (e.g., karate, rugby). “Soft violence” sports allow other forms of violent behavior, especially psychological and verbal violence

D

(e.g., tennis, volleyball). Finally, there are sports where violence is hidden or absent (e.g.,

PT E

shooting) (Guilbert, 2004, 2006). We might consider these different types as part of a layered continuum of intensity rather than as discrete categories. Especially in “hard violence” sports

CE

practices there can be a combination of physical and psychological violence. It is primarily (but not exclusively) in “hard violence” sports practices that both sanctioned and

AC

unsanctioned aggression and violence seem to be relatively normalized (Guilbert, 2004, 2006). Yet, unsanctioned aggression in sport is itself multi-faceted; for example, in relation to the motivation underlying the act (Kerr, 2016, 2017).

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2.2. Narrow versus extended definitions: persisting tensions

Some scholars have questioned the narrow conceptualization of violence as physically inflicted aggressive actions, as proposed in, for instance, the ISSP Position Stand. Young (2012, 2015) laments the narrow parameters of traditional definitions of sports-related

PT

violence. Young (2012) suggests that broadening these parameters to include a wider range of

RI

harmful or abusive behaviors would allow us to see that “the subject matter may be far more expansive and varied than commonly assumed” (p. 13), and to identify “the central ways in

SC

which violence related to sport is acted out and experienced by persons and groups involved”

NU

(Young, 2012, p. 59).

The relatively narrow focus of this article on unsanctioned aggression and violence in

MA

amateur sport does not resolve this definitional conundrum. Previous research and anecdotal evidence suggest that at least 15 of the 18 formations of sports-related violence identified by

D

Young (2012) are enacted and experienced in amateur sport, albeit to varying degrees. These

PT E

include: player violence; crowd violence; individualized fan-player violence; player violence away from the game; street crimes; violence against the self; athlete initiation/hazing;

CE

harassment, stalking, and threat; sexual assault; partner abuse/domestic violence; offences by coaches, administrators, or medical staff; parental abuse; sexism/racism; other identity

AC

violence; and offences against workers and the public. These variegated formations of sportsrelated violence can be contrasted with minimalist definitions of unsanctioned aggression and violence in sport that recede from view the broader social structures and cultural processes within which sports-related violence occurs. This critique is reflected in studies of genderbased violence, child maltreatment, and other forms of physical and emotional abuse in sport. These studies have found that narrow interpretations of violence as physically aggressive acts overlook various modes of socio-cultural domination or “symbolic violence” (Bourdieu,

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2002); that is, the subtle and seemingly unintentional actions exercised through everyday practices of social and institutional life that violate personhood and wellbeing and, in this way, exert control (Brackenridge, 2010; Brackenridge & Rhind, 2014; Messner, 2007). A distinctive advantage of this extended definition of sports-related violence is that it draws attention to a wider range of issues, social processes, and practices that can be

PT

considered violent based on their physical or psychological impact. But this is also a

RI

disadvantage: stretching the meaning of violence this far may cause it to lose both its

SC

distinguishing character and its value and focus as an analytical construct (Spaaij, 2015). Therein lies a major tension and analytical problem in contemporary debates on sports-related

NU

violence.

Another tension, exemplified in the discussion above, is that existing definitions focus

MA

on the objectivity rather than the subjectivity of violence, in Wieviorka’s (2009) aforementioned use of the terms. Objectivist definitions and taxonomies risk reifying

D

aggression and violence in sport, hence creating artefacts. As will be shown below, relatively

PT E

few studies of aggression and violence in amateur sport analyze the meanings and narratives of aggression and violence as participants themselves create them (notable exceptions include

CE

Claringbould, Spaaij, & Vermeulen, 2018; Gill, 2007). Considering these tensions, scholars of aggression and violence in amateur sport would do well to heed De Haan’s (2008)

AC

suggestion to accept that “a proper definition of ‘violence’ should not a priori be seen as a starting point for empirical research but as a temporary outcome, which may or may not prove to be useful in future research. Exploring a diversity of definitions is fruitful because by means of adjusting concepts scientific progress can made” (p. 38).

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3. Methods

The literature search focused on peer-reviewed research published between 1995 and 2017 in books, journals, and reports. To ensure the full breadth of international and multidisciplinary literature was covered in the review, four databases were searched:

PT

Sportdiscus, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Search keywords included

RI

“sport,” “amateur sport,” “recreational sport,” “school sport,” and “college sport” in

SC

combination with “violence” and “aggression” to allow for a comprehensive search with a broad scope of publications. Search results included English-language publications as well as

NU

relevant literature published in Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, and Dutch. The foreign-language literature enabled us to look beyond North America and the United

MA

Kingdom, where the bulk of research has been conducted, to consider the permutations of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport across the western world. In a few

D

cases, we also referred to earlier, influential publications to highlight continuities and

PT E

disjunctures in the literature, especially with regard to elements of the socio-ecological model presented.

CE

Empirical studies and theoretical publications were included in the review. The identified literature captured not only the attitudes, behaviors, and experiences of athletes

AC

themselves, but also of other actors involved in unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport, especially coaches, referees, parents, and spectators. The literature covered both on-field behavior (during competition) and its relationship to off-field behaviors, which are also included in this review. All age groups were covered – children’s, youth, and adult sports. Only literature that examined amateur sports and unsanctioned aggression and violence (broadly defined, as noted above) was included in the review; within this literature, We specifically identified research that focused on “hard violence” sports practices (Guilbert,

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2004), but also included research on other sports practices that provided insight into layers of the socio-ecological model in Table 1 (discussed below). The majority of literature examined in this article addressed a relatively small number of combat and team contact sports (e.g., ice hockey, American football, rugby, Australian rules football) that can be grouped in this category. Yet, the divergent terminologies used in previous research posed some challenges

PT

for our analytical focus on unsanctioned aggression and violence. Existing research varied in

RI

its definitions of aggression and violence, which ranged from narrow to broad. Many

SC

publications did not explicitly differentiate between sanctioned and unsanctioned aggression and violence, while several studies used additional terms such as anti-social,

NU

unsportspersonlike, or delinquent behavior to refer to behaviors that exhibited clear overlap with unsanctioned aggression and violence. In what follows, we use the latter terms

MA

consistently and reinterpret the terminology used by authors where necessary. Table 1

PT E

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

D

summarizes the study contexts of the empirical studies discussed below.

CE

The synthesis of the literature was guided by a relatively broad definition that focused on unsanctioned, harm-inducing behavior (Terry & Jackson, 1985). In the identified

AC

literature, this definition translated mainly into the following behavioral categories within Young’s (2012) wider taxonomy: physical violence and verbal abuse by players towards other players or towards officials (especially referees); physical, psychological, and verbal violence by spectators or parents towards players, officials, or other spectators; physical and psychological violence by coaches towards players; and player violence away from the game. Our thematic analysis of this literature was informed by the socio-ecological model shown in Figure 1.

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

4. A socio-ecological framework of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur

PT

sport

RI

The aforementioned definitional issues highlight the multi-faceted nature of

SC

unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport. Scholars in the disciplines of psychology, sociology, criminology, law, education, anthropology, and history have all

NU

investigated particular pieces or, in socio-ecological terms, “layers” of the sports violence puzzle; yet, they typically fail to bring together and integrate the different approaches in an

MA

interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary way. Much of the contemporary literature on the subject reproduces rather than bridges philosophical, theoretical, and methodological divides (Spaaij,

D

2014), hence hindering the development of a more holistic understanding of the determinants

PT E

of violence in sport. A major challenge is to bring together and integrate insights and explanations emanating from different academic disciplines, research paradigms, and

CE

methodologies. A notable exception is Terry and Jackson’s (1985) integrative review of the determinants of violence in sport (broadly defined), which brings together distal and

AC

proximate causes. More than thirty years on, their study remains one of few attempts to encourage genuine interdisciplinary analysis in the study of unsanctioned aggression and violence in sport. In order to contribute to an interdisciplinary synthesis of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport, this article proposes an integrated model, presented in Figure 1, that focuses attention on the multiple, inter-related influences on unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport. The socio-ecological model acknowledges that unsanctioned

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT aggression and violence in sport amateur result from interaction between the individual, situation, and social environment. It further considers that the environment is made up of different subsystems or levels of analysis, and that processes or mechanisms that affect, and are affected by, behavior operate at each of these levels of analysis (McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988). This framework assists not only with identifying the social

PT

determinants of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport, but also with crafting

RI

strategies to prevent and reduce unsanctioned aggression and violence at the individual and

SC

environmental levels. The model sensitizes us to the importance of strategies directed at the multi-level influences on unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport.

NU

In this article, the research literature on unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport will be discussed with consideration given to multiple dimensions suggested by

MA

the model. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide an exhaustive overview of all layers and factors shown in Figure 1. Instead, we will focus on recent and emergent issues in

D

contemporary scientific research that add to existing knowledge on violence in amateur sport,

PT E

and that contain directions for future research, policy, and practice in this area. We particularly foreground situational approaches that offer a promising terrain for further

CE

research.

AC

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

4.1. Individual influences

A number of cross-sectional and quasi-experimental studies have examined the relationship between sport participation and unsanctioned aggression and violence, with particular attention being given to the influence of individual and personality factors. Two

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT sets of influences are reflected in contemporary research: personal values and demographic factors.

4.1.1. Personal values

PT

Certain personal values and orientations are associated with unsanctioned aggression

RI

and violence in amateur sport. Danioni and Barni’s (2017) cross-sectional study of 172

SC

adolescent team sports participants (e.g., volleyball, soccer, basketball, and rugby) in Italy found that personal values of self-enhancement, focused on achievement, power, and self-

NU

interest, were positively related to unsanctioned aggression and violence towards both teammates (r=.29) and opposing players (r=.35). Values of openness to change, which

MA

promote the interests of the individual and of being a free spirit, were positively correlated with aggressive and violent behaviors towards opponents, but not towards teammates

D

(Danioni & Barni, 2017). Some of the associations between the adolescents’ personal values

PT E

and their sports behavior were moderated by parental pressure towards their children in sport. Specifically, the association between self-enhancement values and aggressive or violent

Barni, 2017).

CE

behavior was stronger when parental pressure to succeed in sport was higher (Danioni &

AC

Research has also examined the role of passion for one’s sport as a predictive factor in unsanctioned aggression and violence. This research has identified an association between having an obsessive passion for sport and aggressive behavior (e.g., injuring other players). A cross-sectional study of 60 high school and college basketball players found that, overall, obsessively-passionately athletes tended to be more aggressive than harmoniously-passionate athletes (Donahue, Rip, & Vallerand, 2009). The former were more likely to report the use of unsanctioned aggression (a large Cohen’s effect size of .71), especially under identity threat

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (a moderate Cohen’s effect size of .40). These athletes appeared to act aggressively toward others who threatened their social identity as a competent athlete. Harmoniously-passionate athletes, whose main goal was to master their skills instead of focusing on the end result (win or lose), were less likely to report the use of aggressive behaviors (Donahue et al., 2009). We should note that this study relied exclusively on self-report data, rather than data on athletes’

PT

actual behavior. Moreover, this research did not conceptualize identity as contextual, and thus

RI

did not elicit how identities can change per situation and in situations. We will return to this

SC

issue in section 4.4.

NU

4.1.2. Demographic factors

MA

Research consistently shows important gender differences in unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport. Male participants are more likely to perceive unsanctioned

D

aggression and violence as legitimate (Conroy et al., 2001) and to exhibit violent behavior

PT E

than female participants, especially in team contact sports (Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006; Messner, 2007; Pappas, McKenry, & Skilken Catlett, 2004; Sønderlund et al., 2014).

CE

Yet, research on male and female soccer players suggests that these differences may be substantially reduced when behavior scores are adjusted for empathy, perceived performance

AC

climate, or sports experience (Kavussanu, Stamp, Slade, & Ring, 2009). We will return to the influence of gender on unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport in the discussion of sociocultural influences, in order to draw connections between individual and sociocultural influences. Moreover, research that focuses on the meanings that female participants in team contacts sports themselves create suggests that women are also potential aggressors. For example, Gill’s (2007) ethnographic study of women rugby players shows that in identifying themselves as both violent protagonists and victims of rape the women

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT were able to articulate an independent and powerful position as women, and redefine what femininity means in a violent context. Age also appears to be a significant factor; yet, it may be moderated by the level of competition. Conroy et al.’s (2001) cross-sectional study of 1,018 sports participants aged 819 years found that increases in athletes’ perceptions of the legitimacy of aggressive behavior

PT

(e.g., physical violence, verbal abuse) were positively related to age and being male, and

RI

contact sport participation. Older participants perceived unsanctioned aggression and

SC

violence in sport as being more legitimate than did younger participants (Conroy et al., 2001). The level of competition seems to be a significant moderating factor. Conroy et al. (2001)

NU

found that aggression was perceived as being increasingly acceptable when the participant was competing at higher levels of sport. In a similar vein, Bloom and Smith’s (1996) study of

MA

the degree to which violence in ice hockey spills over into violent behavior in other social settings found that only players over the age of 17 playing in highly competitive

PT E

D

professionalized leagues were prone to a spillover effect.

CE

4.2. Contextual influences

AC

4.2.1. Type and level of sport

The type and level of sport and the setting in which sport is played are important contextual factors in unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport. A crosssectional study of 2,756 high-school students found no significant differences in violent behavior (e.g., fighting, assault) between athletes and non-athletes (Levin, Smith, Caldwell, & Kimbrough, 1995). However, the study identified that the nature of the sport in which the students participated was related to behavior. While contact sport athletes (e.g., American

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT football, wrestling, basketball) were overall quite comparable to non-athletes, the non-contact sport athletes (male and female) had a lower propensity to exhibit certain forms of violent behavior, such as assault. An explanation for this finding may be in the psychological characteristics of the non-contact sport athletes, and specifically their more sophisticated moral reasoning or their value orientation (Levin et al., 1995).

PT

Other studies have identified an association between contact sport participation and

RI

unsanctioned aggression and violence; yet, this relationship needs to be qualified. An

SC

experimental study on the link between aggression (e.g., instrumental physical force) and sports involvement in male high school students found that contact sports participants (e.g.,

NU

American football) behaved more aggressively than those in low- or non-contact sports (e.g. track and field) (Huang, Cherek, & Lane, 1999). Moesch, Birrer, and Seiler’s (2010) study of

MA

2,438 adolescents similarly concluded that adolescents who accepted violent cognitions and who exhibited violent behavior frequently were over-represented in contact sports. In

D

contrast, non-violent adolescents participated more in individual sports with a focus on

PT E

aesthetic dimensions. The authors interpreted this finding in light of the characteristics of the different types of sport. Team sports with body contact “include more aggressive moments

CE

than do aesthetic sports,” and “this could lead to a transfer of learned behavior in other domains” (Moesch et al., 2010, p. 326). This finding is consistent with other scientific studies

AC

(Conroy et al., 2001; Kreager, 2007), and points to the learning of aggression and violence as an embodied process (Wacquant, 2004). The observed association between contact sport participation and unsanctioned aggression and violence needs to be qualified. It is important to consider the aforementioned distinction between instrumental aggression (i.e., a non-provoking situation) and hostile/reactive aggression (i.e., a provoking situation). Contact sport participation (e.g., American football, soccer) may positively predict instrumental aggression, but not hostile

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT aggression (Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006; Sherrill & Bradel, 2017); although some research, such as Kreager (2007), suggests otherwise. In a study of 38 male university students, contact sport participation was only associated with aggression in a provocation-free competitive context, whereas “contact athletes appeared to increase aggressive responding to provocation to a lesser extent than those who did not participate in contact sports” (Sherrill &

PT

Bradel, 2017, p. 54). Coulomb-Cabagno and Rascle’s (2006) video analysis of 180 handball

RI

and soccer games found that instrumental aggression increased but hostile aggression

SC

decreased as the competition level rose.

These findings may be explained by the fact that the chances of success within

NU

competitive contact sports increase with instrumental aggression and decrease with hostile aggression (Abrams, 2010; Sherrill & Bradel, 2017). As the stakes of the competition

MA

increase, athletes may perceive that punishment and reward structures for unsanctioned aggression and violence are simultaneously changing, causing shifts in perceptions of

D

legitimacy. Participants are generally more likely to exhibit unsanctioned aggression when

PT E

the probability of punishment is low or the instrumental value of unsanctioned aggression is high (i.e., where it is perceived to increase the probability of a positive performance outcome)

CE

(Conroy et al., 2001). These findings can inform debates on aggression and violence in general by showing that the meanings participants attach to aggressive and violent behavior

AC

depend on the specific contexts of justification (De Haan, 2008); in this case, the level and type of sport.

This pattern may be culturally specific. Maxwell, Visek, and Moores’ (2009) study of the perceived legitimacy of aggression in 471 male Hong Kong Chinese athletes confirmed that contact sports (e.g., rugby) participants perceived aggression as more legitimate than did players of non-contact sports (η2=.17). However, it also suggested some cultural differences in this regard. The study identified the tendency among Hong Kong Chinese athletes to

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT perceive all types of aggression as less legitimate with advancing competitive level (with the exception of rugby players). This finding may be explained by differences in socialization experience, which, in the Chinese context, can involve a tendency to disapprove of aggressive behavior (Maxwell et al., 2009). Unfortunately, Maxwell et al.’s (2009) study focused primarily on hostile aggression rather than instrumental aggression, and it is therefore not

PT

possible to verify whether some cross-cultural differences may also apply to the relationship

SC

RI

between instrumental aggression and the level of sport participation.

NU

4.2.2. Issues of selection and spuriousness

How can we explain the common finding in scientific research regarding the

MA

association between team contact sports participation and (instrumental) unsanctioned aggression and violence? A first factor to consider is selection effects. While the

D

aforementioned studies make an important contribution by distinguishing effects across

PT E

different types and levels of sports, their reliance on cross-sectional designs means that they are unable to distinguish selection from socialization effects (Kreager, 2007; Moesch et al.,

CE

2010). To what extent were athletes who exhibit more unsanctioned aggression and violence in contact sports already more aggressive and violent prior to sports participation?

AC

Participation in contact sports “may reflect the individuals’ preferences for such activities rather than the shaping of aggressive behavior through participation” (Huang et al., 1999, p. 1260). The effects of sport participation on unsanctioned aggression and violence may thus be spurious, and explained primarily by population heterogeneity in aggressive propensities or prior socialization experiences. Some studies specifically address issues of selection and spuriousness. Endresen and Olweus’s (2005) longitudinal study found elevated levels of violent behavior outside the

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT sports setting among preadolescent and adolescent boys involved in “power sports” (boxing, wrestling, weightlifting, and martial arts) when compared with boys who did not participate in such sports. There were no indications of selection effects, leading the authors to conclude that “the negative effects of power sports participation are likely to apply to ‘normal or average boys’, and not only to boys with already elevated levels of antisocial involvement”

PT

(Endresen & Olweus, 2005, p. 476). This study’s methodology has been subject to critique,

RI

for example with regard to the validity of the questionnaire, the lack of differentiation

SC

between sports, and the study’s failure to account for the type of guidance or pedagogy used within the selected power sports (Vertonghen & Theeboom, 2010). The relationship between

NU

martial arts practice and unsanctioned aggression among children and adolescents appears to remain contested (Gubbels, van der Stouwe, Spruit, & Stams, 2016; Vertonghen &

MA

Theeboom, 2010).

In line with Endresen and Olweus’s (2005) findings, though instead focusing on team

D

contact sports, Kreager’s (2007) analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent

PT E

Health concluded that self-selection does not account for the entire relationship between playing team contact sports and subsequent male violence. Selection effects were identified,

CE

with prior fighting and delinquency attenuating a significant proportion of direct effects for American football and wrestling. In other words, “aggressive kids are likely to enter contact

AC

sports and the coaches of these activities are likely to choose aggressive kids to fill more competitive teams” (Kreager, 2007, p. 719). But, Kreager concludes, “net of prior fighting and delinquency, football remains a significant predictor of serious fighting and a spurious sports-violence relationship” (Kreager, 2007, 719-720). Here, again, we see the importance of embodied learning and “habitus” (Wacquant, 2004) on aggression and violence in sport.

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4.3. Sociocultural influences

4.3.1. Social learning and socialization

Scientific evidence points to social learning as a robust explanation for unsanctioned

PT

aggression and violence among team contact sports participants, and especially young male

RI

athletes. Violent behavior patterns that are learned through, for example, peer socialization or

SC

particular coaching styles in contact sport settings, might generalize to non-sporting settings (Huang et al., 1999). Some studies have focused specifically on social learning and normative

NU

socialization, and indicate how this process is gendered. Kreager’s (2007) study of 6,397 participants and non-participants aged 10-19 found that it is the combination of heavy

MA

physical contact and a team setting (e.g., in American football), and not merely the physical contact associated with contact sports, that encourages violence. Kreager (2007) demonstrates

D

that the effect is mediated by (gendered) peer networks/contexts, where embeddedness in all-

PT E

football networks substantially increases the risk of male serious fighting. Kreager’s (2007) study presents strong evidence for both social learning and masculinity explanations (with the

CE

latter focusing on the intertwinement of on-field violence, success, prestige, and essentialist images of “maleness” in contact sports). In a similar vein, Conroy et al.’s (2001) findings

AC

suggest that normative socialization in contact sports leads participants to perceive aggressive behavior as more legitimate than peers who were not socialized through contact sports over the years. The length of an athlete’s participation in these sports was found to be positively related to their perceptions of the legitimacy of unsanctioned aggression and violence in sport (Conroy et al., 2001). This finding needs to be viewed in light of age and competition level, as discussed earlier.

21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT These and other studies draw attention to social learning and social norms as a mediating factor in the relationship between contact sports participation and violent behavior. Sønderlund et al. (2014) and O’Brien et al. (2018) interpret unsanctioned aggression and violence in sportspeople as a consequence of particular social norms and hyper-masculine identities present in some team contact sports (e.g., rugby, Australian rules football), which

PT

are maintained and enacted through team bonding practices and demonstrations of

RI

masculinity that frequently involve verbal and physical violence. This conclusion is

NU

(Messner, 2007; Pappas et al., 2004; Spaaij, 2015).

SC

consistent with several sociological studies of unsanctioned aggression and violence in sport

MA

4.3.2. Moral atmosphere

Whereas sociological research foregrounds the role that socialization and social norms

D

play in shaping unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport, psychological and

PT E

pedagogical studies have examined this issue in relation to the concept of moral atmosphere (Bortoli et al., 2012; Guivernau & Duda, 2002; Shields, LaVoi, Bredemeier, & Power, 2007;

CE

Stephens & Kavanagh, 2003). Moral atmosphere refers to a team’s, a group’s, or an organization’s moral climate or ethos, and is often studied in terms of collective norms. There

AC

is consistent evidence that moral atmosphere is an important determinant of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport. For example, Bortoli, Messina, Zorba, and Robazza’s (2012) cross-sectional study of 382 young male soccer players found that a moral atmosphere that encourages aggressive behaviors (e.g. physical violence directed at opposing players) is positively linked to aggressive and violent conduct by players. The authors further identified a weak but significant relation between performance climate (which emphasizes competitiveness, social comparison, and normative-based evaluation) and a moral

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT atmosphere that encourages aggressive behavior. This finding is in line with other research, which shows that performance climate and ego orientation are positive predictors of unsanctioned aggression among young male soccer players (Kavussanu, 2006). Moral atmosphere research has specifically examined the role of coaches, team members, parents, and spectators in shaping sports participants’ moral actions (Bortoli et al.,

PT

2012; Shields et al., 2007; Walters et al., 2016). Several studies highlight the influence of

RI

these actors in creating a climate within which sports participants perceive or learn that

SC

unsanctioned aggression and violence will (not) be tolerated, endorsed, or penalized; for example, with regard to the role coaches or peers play in fostering a prosocial ethics and

NU

atmosphere (Baar & Wubbels, 2013; Rutten et al., 2007, 2008; Vertonghen & Theeboom, 2010). Consistent with most research in this area, a study of self-reported “poor sport

MA

behavior” (including physical violence) among 676 male and female youth sport participants found that perceived coach and spectator behaviors were strong predictors of self-reported

D

poor sport behavior among youth sport participants, followed by team norms (Shields et al.,

PT E

2007). This finding suggests that poor coach, spectator, or parental behavior may provide a cultural script to youth sports participants that unsanctioned aggression and violence will be

CE

tolerated or endorsed. In this regard, Nicholson and Hoye’s (2005) focus group research among Australian amateur sports clubs concluded that poor spectator behavior exhibited by

AC

parents “can be adopted by players, leading to inappropriate player behavior at junior levels” (p. 98). Yet, these studies rarely distinguish between instrumental and hostile aggression, and hence we know relatively little about how moral atmosphere might predict these two types of aggression differently.

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4.3.3. Moral disengagement and neutralization techniques

Moral atmosphere and socialization can, in some instances, result in a normalization of transgressive behavior in amateur sport. According to a mixed methods study conducted in three amateur soccer clubs in the Netherlands, this normalization process can create a climate

PT

within which participants may perceive particular forms of unsanctioned aggression and

RI

violence as legitimate behaviors (Claringbould, Spaaij & Vermeulen, 2018). Such behaviors

SC

typically included the use of instrumental aggression towards opposing players and verbal abuse or intimidation of referees and assistants. This study identified two moral

NU

disengagement mechanisms that participants typically used when they engaged in unsanctioned aggression or violence (Claringbould et al., 2018). First, participants tended to

MA

displace responsibility for their behavior to others, particularly (assistant) referees, and to frame their aggressive or violent behavior as a legitimate response to unfair actions on the

D

part of (assistant) referees or opponents. Second, participants sought to morally justify their

PT E

personal and in-group (i.e. teammates’) behaviors as being “part of the game” and intended to positively influence the outcome of the contest (Claringbould et al., 2018; see also Veldboer

CE

et al., 2003).

These findings are consistent with both the neutralization techniques identified by

AC

Sykes and Matza (1957) and Bandura et al.’s (1996) moral disengagement mechanisms, especially aggressors’ minimization of personal agency through denial or displacement of responsibility, and their appeal to higher loyalties (Ribeaud & Eisner, 2010). Other studies lend further evidence to the importance of these mechanisms. For example, Traclet, Romand, Morlet, and Kavussanu’s (2011) study of amateur soccer players found a tendency among players to displace responsibility for their behavior on coaches and referees, and to justify their acts by portraying them as serving moral or socially worthy purposes, such as

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT preserving the team’s success or reputation. Importantly, Traclet et al. (2011) further showed that some aggressive and violent acts elicited more justifications than others. Specifically, instrumental aggression elicited more displacement of responsibility than hostile behaviors (Traclet et al., 2011).

RI

PT

4.4. Situational influences

SC

It is important to distinguish sociocultural influences on unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport, which encompass a longer-term perspective, from factors in a

NU

given situation, since different mechanisms are necessary for both (Moesch et al., 2010). What the aforementioned individual, sociocultural, and contextual factors can predict is that

MA

some individuals will engage in unsanctioned aggression and violence “at some time, in some place, against some people, in some manner” within amateur sport (Cooney, 2009, p. 586).

D

Recent theory and research in the social sciences of violence seeks to move beyond this by

PT E

focusing attention on the situational dynamics of violence (Collins, 2008, 2009; Weenink, 2014). Situational approaches aim to explain violence through event-level interactions

CE

between individuals. They focus on the specific processes within face-to-face interactions that give rise to, or prevent, violence, and, in doing so, allow us to grasp how unsanctioned

AC

aggression and violence in amateur sport emerge at specific points in time, in specific places, and in specific ways. In other words, even though individual factors and motivations for violent behavior (e.g., self-enhancement, obsessive passion) may be present, and environmental conditions (e.g., moral atmosphere; social learning) may be conducive to unsanctioned aggression and violence, they still need to go through the eye of the situational needle in order for unsanctioned aggression and violence to occur.

25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Systematic situational, micro-level analysis of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport is still in its infancy (an exception is Klimczak et al., 2016). Below we discuss two areas of situationally focused research that warrant attention: conflictual interactions and the role of bystanders.

RI

PT

4.4.1. Conflictual interactions

SC

Unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport often appear to arise from conflictual interactions between actors on and around the playing field. Face-to-face

NU

interactions between players and spectators on the one hand, and (assistant) referees on the other hand, have attracted particular attention in scientific research. It is often argued that

MA

poor officiating (e.g., inconsistent decisions, overlooking fouls) is one of the main sources of unsanctioned aggression and violence in sport (Shapcott, Bloom, & Loughead, 2007; Traclet

D

et al., 2011). Referees frequently report that they have been victims of unsanctioned

PT E

aggression and violence (Ackery, Tator, & Snider, 2012). Some research suggests that “grey areas” in the officiating of amateur sport can give rise to player or spectator violence; for

CE

example, where referees have a greater knowledge and understanding of the technicalities and nuances of the rules compared to the players or spectators (Nicholson & Hoye, 2005;

AC

Veldboer, Boonstra, & Duyvendak, 2003). A study of unsanctioned aggression and violence in Dutch amateur soccer found that contested decisions or perceived partiality on the part of referees were the most common trigger for violent behavior on the soccer pitch (in approximately half of all incidents) (Duijvestijn et al., 2013). Emerging evidence suggests that the issue here is not so much participants’ actual (lack of) knowledge and awareness of the rules and punishments, but rather the extent to which they are convinced of their own rightness (Rijnhout, Giesen, van Hoof, & van Aken,

26

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2016). This sense of rightness, and participants’ willingness to confront officials, seems to be frequently fueled by the passive or active support that bystanders afford participants, particularly at home games. When participants and bystanders perceive the behavior of officials in game situations (e.g., an offside or penalty decision) as illegitimate, they are more inclined to consider it morally legitimate to challenge or even intimidate referees

PT

(Claringbould et al., 2018). Participants and spectators expect officials to be authoritative and

RI

impartial, but they often do not experience officials’ behavior as living up to this expectation

SC

(Claringbould et al., 2018).

NU

4.4.2. Bystanders

MA

Bystanders play an important role not just in the formation of moral atmosphere and social norms, but also in situational dynamics of unsanctioned aggression and violence in

D

amateur sport. For example, Baar and Wubbels’ (2013) study of coaches in amateur sports

PT E

clubs found that coaches attributed peer-directed aggression to group dynamics and situational factors. A noteworthy finding from recent research centers on how bystanders

CE

occupy physical space at amateur sports activities and venues. A group of actors dominating the situational space can mark the rise of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur

AC

sport. The assertion of situational dominance provides a potential pathway to violence by producing a stratification in the emotional balance of the situation (Collins, 2008). In amateur youth sport, one way in which parents and coaches create situational dominance is through physical proximity to the playing field, coupled with verbal and non-verbal communication (i.e., shouting, cursing, threatening) that referees and players may interpret as intimidating (Claringbould et al., 2018). Parents and spectators who are highly identified with their sports team are more likely to exhibit such behaviors (see also Wann, Carlson, & Schrader, 1999).

27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Claringbould, Spaaij, and Vermeulen (2018) found that, in amateur soccer, the physical proximity between spectators (parents and coaches) and linespersons allowed intimidating behavior to be exhibited more freely. While some spectators demonstrated an awareness that their behavior was pushing the boundaries of the socially acceptable, they tended to downplay and morally justify their own behavior. In contrast, they typically disapproved of

PT

the same behaviors when exhibited by opposing spectators or players (Claringbould et al.,

RI

2018).

SC

An important lesson from research on bystanders is that their identities and actions are created and defined in interactions within situations. In contrast to studies that draw on

NU

essentialist notions of identity (see section 4.1.1), social psychological work on helping behavior and violence suggests that group identities are not fixed but can change per situation

MA

and in situations, and that individuals develop lines of action as they identify situationally with a group (Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005). In socio-ecological terms, this work

PT E

D

helps to understand individual behavior in context.

CE

5. Discussion

The research herein indicates both the myriad ways unsanctioned aggression and

AC

violence can manifest themselves in amateur sport, and the multiple actors involved in these behaviors as perpetrators, victims, bystanders, or authority figures. A critical synthesis of the contemporary literature shows that no single factor on its own can provide a sufficient understanding or explanation of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport. The literature reviewed in this article suggests that individual, contextual, sociocultural, and situational influences interact to either facilitate, augment, reduce, or prevent unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport. This conclusion is consistent with previous

28

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT reviews, which found that the social environments and sports contexts within which athletes are embedded have an important influence on how athletes perceive unsanctioned aggression and violence, and on how they act in potentially violent situations (Fields et al., 2007; Kimble et al., 2010; Terry & Jackson, 1985). In other words, while unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport are most visible and most felt at the individual and interpersonal

PT

level, their causes are embedded within social networks and cultural norms within and

RI

beyond sports environments.

SC

A socio-ecological perspective encourages policymakers and practitioners to recognize that the prevention and mitigation of unsanctioned aggression and violence in

NU

amateur sport requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses not only individual factors, but also situational, contextual, and sociocultural influences. The literature suggests that all

MA

actors involved in amateur sport (i.e., coaches, players, parents, officials, spectators) have a role to play and can potentially use their positions to prevent or de-escalate unsanctioned

D

aggression and violence. Some studies particularly emphasize the need to foster a more

PT E

tolerant climate that de-emphasizes hyper-competitiveness and a win-at-all-cost mentality (Fiore, 2003; Kavussanu, 2006; Kreager, 2007), while others point to the need for further

CE

education of coaches, officials, and spectators to increase their awareness and skills in recognizing and handling violent behavior and situations (Baar & Wubbels, 2013; Nicholson

AC

& Hoye, 2005; Sáenz Ibáñez et al., 2012). When considering these potential strategies, it is essential that we take into account the nuances that scientific research has identified, notably with regard to the distinction between instrumental (i.e., a non-provoking situation) and hostile (i.e., a provoking situation) aggression, and how perceptions regarding hostile aggression differ across competitive levels, gender, and cultures. The emergent attention to situational influences in the academic literature on unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport is consistent with two promising

29

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT strands of criminological theory and research. First, it aligns with situational opportunity theories of crime that move beyond offender-focused approaches. Rather than focusing on individuals’ motivations and biographical tendencies that shape criminal activity, situational opportunity theories explore the impact of environmental, physical, and social factors on criminal behavior (Wilcox & Cullen, 2018). Second, situational approaches to unsanctioned

PT

aggression and violence in amateur sport can draw on empirical and theoretical literature on

RI

bystander effects in the rise and de-escalation of violent behavior. From a situational

SC

perspective, bystanders play an unavoidably active role in victim/victimizer interaction and in creating or transforming situational asymmetry that can serve as a pathway to violence.

NU

Whereas Collins (2008) perceives third parties mainly as escalating forces, recent social psychological research emphasizes conciliatory behaviors in violent incidents (Levine et al.

MA

2011).

The situational influences examined in this article draw policy and practical attention

D

to situational prevention and mitigation approaches that are yet to be fully explored and tested

PT E

in amateur sports contexts. Findings from situationally focused studies seem to confirm the potential merits of insights from situational crime prevention and bystander intervention

CE

strategies that have been applied in other contexts, such as school bullying, sexual violence prevention programs, and anti-racism programs (Bennett, Banyard, & Garnhart, 2014;

AC

Nelson, Dunn, & Paradies, 2011; Twemlow, Fonagi, & Sacco, 2004). There may be a policy potential of bystander anti-violence in sport through the focus that situational approaches bring to what people do in the here and now. Insights gained in non-sport settings can be used to develop a specific understanding of what promotes and hinders bystander actions in amateur sport, and what is needed to enhance prevention education initiatives focused on increasing positive social norms and bystander intervention. Further research on situational

30

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT dynamics of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport is needed to provide the necessary evidence base for the development of such interventions.

6. Conclusion

PT

Participation in amateur sport can contribute to the social fabric and health of

RI

communities. The potentially deleterious consequences of unsanctioned aggression and

SC

violence in amateur sport for personal and social development are well documented, especially in relation to children and young people (Fields, Collins, & Comstock, 2010).

NU

Amateur sport is the competition level where the bulk of mass participation is concentrated, for instance through sports clubs, programs, and schools. Unsanctioned aggression and

MA

violence in amateur sport have attracted comparatively limited systematic scientific research relative to its counterparts in particular high-profile, mediatized professional contact sports.

D

However, as we have shown in this article, the body of scientific literature offers important

PT E

insights into this social phenomenon. This article has identified the need for understanding unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport within its social ecology and, to this

CE

end, has examined factors and influences that operate at different levels of analysis. The proposed framework sensitizes researchers and practitioners to the multi-level web of

AC

interacting influences on unsanctioned aggression and violence, as well as to factors and issues to be considered in relation to the prevention and mitigation of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport. In addressing its objective, this article has two noteworthy limitations. First, its critical synthesis of existing scientific literature is not exhaustive. Our primary aim was to explore connections between different levels of analysis, rather than exhaustively review previous literature on each level of analysis independently. This article should therefore be

31

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT viewed in conjunction with previous studies that have focused in depth on particular factors. Second, this article focuses more on substantive findings from scientific research than on methodological aspects of these studies, with the exception of brief methodological descriptions provided in this article and in Table 1. The quality of the reviewed work in terms of methodological approaches and theory varies (Kimble et al., 2010), and recent research

PT

offers significant critical appraisal of established methodologies in this field of study (Gee,

RI

2010b, 2011). We would add to these evaluations that, with noted exceptions, there is still a

SC

dearth of interpretivist studies that analyze the meanings and narratives of aggression and violence created by amateur sports participants themselves. In pursuing more objectivist

NU

definitions, there is a risk that scholars move research away from naturally occurring situations in which participants give meaning to aggressive or violent behavior. Herein lies an

MA

important challenge for future research: to enlarge the space for a diversity of, and dialogue between, definitions and approaches in the study of unsanctioned aggression and violence in

References

CE

PT E

D

amateur sport.

Abrams, M. (2010). Anger management in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

AC

Ackery, A. D., Tator, C. H., & Snider, C. (2012). Violence in Canadian amateur hockey: The experience of referees in Ontario. Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, 22, 86-90. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364-374. Bennett, S., Banyard, V., & Garnhart, L. (2014). To act or not to act, that is the question?

32

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 476-496. Bloom, G. A., & Smith, M. D. (1996). Hockey violence: A test of cultural spillover theory. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13, 65-77. Bortoli, L., Messina, G., Zorba, M., & Robazza, C. (2012). Contextual and individual

PT

influences on antisocial behavior and psychobiosocial states of youth soccer players.

RI

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 397-406.

SC

Bourdieu, P. (2002). Masculine domination. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Brackenridge, C. (2010). Violence and abuse prevention in sport. In K. Kaufman (Ed.), The

NU

prevention of sexual violence: A practitioner’s sourcebook (pp. 401-414). Holyoke, MA: NEARI Press.

MA

Brackenridge, C., & Rhind, D. (2014). Child protection in sport: Reflections on thirty years of science and activism. Social Sciences, 3, 326-340.

D

Claringbould, I., Spaaij, R., & Vermeulen, J. (2018). Grensoverschrijdend gedrag op het

PT E

voetbalveld. Vrijetijdsstudies, 35, 23-35. Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (10th ed.). Boston, MA:

CE

McGraw-Hill.

Collins, R. (2009). The micro-sociology of violence. The British Journal of Sociology, 60,

AC

566-576.

Collins, R. (2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Conroy, D. E., Silva, J. M., Newcomer, R. R., Walker, B. W., & Johnson, M. S. (2001). Personal and participatory socializers of the perceived legitimacy of aggressive behavior in sport. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 405-418. Cooney, M. (2009). The scientific significance of Collins’s Violence. The British Journal of

33

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Sociology, 60, 586-594. Coulomb-Cabagno, G., & Rascle, O. (2006). Team sports players’ observed aggression as a function of gender, competitive level, and sport type. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1980-2000. Curry, T. J. (1993). A little pain never hurt anyone: Athletic career socialization and the

PT

normalization of sports injury. Symbolic Interactionism, 16, 273-290.

RI

Danioni, F., & Barni, D. (2017). The relations between adolescents’ personal values and

SC

prosocial and antisocial behaviours in team sports. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2017.1367951.

NU

Donahue, E., Rip, B., & Vallerand, R. (2009). When winning is everything: On passion, identity, and aggression in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 526-534.

MA

Duijvestijn, P., van Dijk, B., van Egmond, P., de Groot, M., van Sommeren, D., & Verwest, A. (2013). Excessief geweld op en om de voetbalvelden: Praktijkonderzoek naar

D

omvang, ernst en aanpak van “voetbalgeweld”. Amsterdam: DSP-Groep.

PT E

Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2005). Participation in power sports and antisocial involvement in preadolescent and adolescent boys. The Journal of Child Psychology

CE

and Psychiatry, 46, 468-478.

Fields, S., Collins, C. L., & Comstock, R. D. (2010). Violence in youth sports: Hazing,

AC

brawling and foul play. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44, 32-37. Fields, S. K., Collins, C. L., & Comstock, R. D. (2007). Conflict on the courts: A review of sports-related violence literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8, 359-369. Fiore, D. K. (2003). Parental rage and violence in youth sports: How can we prevent soccer moms and hockey dads from interfering in youth sports and causing games to end in fistfights rather than handshakes. Villanova Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, 10, 103-129.

34

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Gee, C. J. (2011). Aggression in competitive sports: Using direct observation to evaluate incidence and prevention focused intervention. In J. K. Luiselli and D. D. Reed (Eds.), Behavioral Sport Psychology (pp. 199-210). New York: Springer. Gee, C. J. (2010a). Predicting the use of aggressive behaviour among Canadian amateur hockey players: A psychosocial examination. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Toronto:

PT

University of Toronto.

RI

Gee, C. J. (2010b). Using a direct observation methodology to study aggressive behavior in

SC

ice hockey: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Behavioral Health and Medicine, 1, 79-90.

NU

Gill, F. (2007). “Violent” femininity: Women rugby players and gender negotiation. Women’s Studies International Forum, 30, 416-426.

MA

Gubbels, J., van der Stouwe, T., Spruit, A., & Stams, G. J. (2016). Martial arts participation and externalizing behavior in juveniles: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and

D

Violent Behavior, 28, 73-81.

PT E

Guilbert, S. (2006). Violence in sports and among sportsmen: A single or two‐ track issue? Aggressive Behavior, 32, 231-240.

CE

Guilbert, S. (2004). Sport and violence: A typological analysis. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39, 45-55.

AC

Guivernau, M., & Duda, J. (2002). Moral atmosphere and athletic aggressive tendencies in young soccer players. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 67-85. de Haan, W. (2008). Violence as an essentially contested concept. In S. Body-Gendrot & P. Spierenburg (Eds.), Violence in Europe: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 27-40). Heidelberg: Springer. Harwood, , A., Lavidor, M., & Rassovsky, Y. (2017). Reducing aggression with martial arts:

35

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A meta-analysis of child and youth studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 96101. Huang, D. B., Cherek, D. R., & Lane, S. D. (1999). Laboratory measurement of aggression in high school age athletes: Provocation in a nonsporting context. Psychological Reports, 85, 1251-1262.

PT

Kavussanu, M. (2006). Motivational predictors of prosocial and antisocial behaviour in

RI

football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 575-588.

SC

Kavussanu, M., Stamp, R., Slade, G., & Ring, C. (2009). Observed prosocial and antisocial behaviors in male and female soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

NU

21, S62-S76.

Kerr, J. H. (2017). The motivation behind unsanctioned violence in international rugby: A

MA

case study of a former elite player. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15(1), 80-91.

D

Kerr, J. H. (2016). Physical aggression and violence in women’s sport: A review of existing

PT E

research. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 47, 43-66. Kerr, J. H. (2012). Violence in rugby. Smashwords (ebook). Available at

CE

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/257426 (accessed June 14, 2016). Kerr, J. H. (2002). Issues in aggression and violence in sport: The ISSP position stand

AC

revisited. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 68-78. Kerr, J. H. (1999). The role of aggression and violence in sport. A rejoinder to the ISSP position stand. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 83-88. Kimble, N. B., Russo, S. A., Bergman, B. G., & Galindo, V. H. (2010). Revealing an empirical understanding of aggression and violent behavior in athletics. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 446-462. Kirker, B., Tenenbaum, G., & Mattson, J. (2000). An investigation of the dynamics of

36

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT aggression: Direct observation in ice hockey and basketball. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 373-386. Klimczak, J., Barczyński, B. J., Podstawski, R., & Kalina, R. M. (2016). The level of bravery and aggressiveness of the sports activity organisers for the youth: Simulation research. Archives of Budo, 12, 345-354.

PT

Klimczak, J., Podstawski, R., & Dobosz, D. (2014). The association of sport and violence,

RI

aggression and aggressiveness: Prospects for education about non-aggression and

SC

reduction of aggressiveness. Archives of Budo, 10, 273-286.

Kreager, D. (2007). Unnecessary roughness? School sports, peer networks, and male

NU

adolescent violence. American Sociological Review, 72, 705-724. Levin, D. S., Smith, E. A., Caldwell, L. L., & Kimbrough, J. (1995). Violence and high

MA

school sports participation. Pediatric Exercise Science, 7, 379-388. Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency

D

intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries

PT E

shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443-453. Levine, M., Taylor, P., & Best, L. (2011). Third parties, violence, and conflict resolution: The

CE

role of group size and collective action in the microregulation of violence. Psychological Science, 22, 406-412.

AC

Matthews, C. R., & Channon, A. (2016). “It’s only sport”: The symbolic neutralization of “violence”. Symbolic Interaction, 39, 557-576. Maxwell, J. P., Visek, A. J., & Moores, E. (2009). Anger and perceived legitimacy of aggression in male Hong Kong Chinese athletes: Effects of type of sport and level of competition. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 289-296. McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 351-377.

37

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Messner, M. A. (2007). Out of play: Critical essays on gender and sport. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Moesch, K., Birrer, D., & Seiler, R. (2010). Differences between violent and non-violent adolescents in terms of sport background and sport-related psychological variables. European Journal of Sport Science, 10, 319-328.

PT

Mutz, M., & Baur, G. (2009). The role of sports for violence prevention: Sport club

RI

participation and violent behaviour among adolescents. International Journal of Sport

SC

Policy, 1, 305-321.

Nelson, J. K., Dunn, K., & Paradies, Y. (2011). Bystander anti-racism: A review of the

NU

literature. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 11, 263-284.

and Social Issues, 21, 379-391.

MA

Nixon, H. L. (1997). Gender, sport, and aggressive behaviour outside sport. Journal of Sport

O’Brien, K. S., Forrest, W., Greenlees, I., Rhind, D., Jowett, S., Pinsky, I., Espelt, A.,

D

Bosque-Prous, M., Sønderlund, A., Vergani, M., & Iqbal, M. (2018). Alcohol

PT E

consumption, masculinity, and alcohol-related violence and anti-social behaviour in sportspeople. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 21, 335-341.

CE

Pappas, N., McKenry, P., & Skilken Catlett, B. (2004). Athlete aggression on the rink and off the ice: Athlete violence and aggression in hockey and interpersonal relationships.

AC

Men and Masculinities, 6, 291-312. Pedersen, D. (2007). Perceived aggression in sports and its relation to willingness to participate and perceived risk of injury. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 201-211. Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2010). Are moral disengagement, neutralization techniques, and self-serving cognitive distortions the same? Developing a unified scale of moral neutralization of aggression. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4, 298315.

38

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Rijnhout, R., Giesen, I., van Hoof, A., & van Aken, M. (2016). Agressie van jeugdige voetballers en de rol van het recht: kennis en (on)begrip van de (spel)regels empirisch getoetst. Aansprakelijkheid Verzekering en Schade, 34, 171-179. Romijn, D., van Kalmthout, J., & Breedveld, K. (2016). VSK monitor 2016: Voortgangsrapportage Actieplan “Naar een veiliger sportklimaat”. Utrecht,

PT

Netherlands: Mulier Institute.

RI

Rutten, E., Deković, M., Stams, G. J., Schuengel C., Hoeksma, J., & Biesta, G. (2008).

SC

On- and off-field antisocial and prosocial behavior in adolescent soccer players: A multilevel study. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 371-387.

NU

Rutten, E., Stams, G. J., Biesta, G., Schuengel, C., Dirks, E., & Hoeksma, J. (2007). The contribution of organized youth sport to antisocial and prosocial behavior in

MA

adolescent athletes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 255-264. Sacks, D. N., Petscher, Y., Stanley, C. T., & Tenenbaum, G. (2003). Aggression and violence

PT E

Psychology, 1, 167-179.

D

in sport: Moving beyond the debate. International Journal of Sport and Exercise

Sáenz Ibáñez, A., Gimeno Marco, F., Gutiérrez Pablo, H., & Garay Ibáñez de Elejalde, B.

CE

(2012). Prevención de la agresividad y la violencia en el deporte en edad escolar: Un estudio de revision. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte, 12, 57-72.

AC

Sheldon, J. P., & Aimar, C. M. (2001). The role aggression plays in successful and unsuccessful ice hockey behaviors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 304-309. Sherrill, A. M., & Bradel, L. T. (2017). Contact sport participation predicts instrumental aggression, not hostile aggression, within competition: quasi-experimental evidence. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 9, 50-57. Shields, D. L., LaVoi, N. M., Bredemeier, B. L., & Power, F. C. (2007). Journal of Sport and

39

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Exercise Psychology, 29, 747-762. Sønderlund, A. L., O’Brien, K., Kremer, P., Rowland, B., De Groot, F., Staiger, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Miller, P. G. (2014). The association between sports participation, alcohol use and aggression and violence: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 17, 2-7.

RI

Sociology of Sport (pp. 324-334). London: Routledge.

PT

Spaaij, R. (2015). Sport and violence. In R. Giulianotti (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of

SC

Spaaij, R. (2014). Sports crowd violence: An interdisciplinary synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 146-155.

NU

Stephens, D., & Kavanagh, B. (2003). Aggression in Canadian youth ice hockey: The role of moral atmosphere. International Sports Journal, 7, 109-119.

MA

Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.

D

Tenenbaum, G., Sacks, D. N., Miller, J. W., Golden, A. S., & Doolin, N. (2000). Aggression

PT E

and violence in sport: A reply to Kerr’s rejoinder. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 315326.

CE

Tenenbaum G., Stewart, E., Singer, R. N., & Duda J. (1997). Aggression and violence in sport: An ISSP position stand. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 1-7.

AC

Terry, P. C., & Jackson, J. J. (1985). The determinants and control of violence in sport. Quest, 37, 27-37. Twemlow, S., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. (2004). The role of the bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1036, 215-232. Veldboer, L., Boonstra, N., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2003). Agressie in de sport: Fysieke en

40

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT verbale agressie in de Rotterdamse amateursport: ervaringen en verklaringen. Utrecht, Netherlands: Verwey-Jonker Instituut. Vertonghen, J., & Theeboom, M. (2010). The social-psychological outcomes of martial arts practise among youth: A review. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 9, 528-537. Wacquant, L. (2004). Body and soul: Notebooks of an apprentice boxer. Chicago, IL:

PT

University of Chicago Press.

RI

Walters, S., Schluter, P., Stamp, D., Thomson, R., & Payne, D. (2016). Coaches and referees'

SC

perspectives of sideline behaviour in children's team sports: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation & Tourism, 23, 51-74.

NU

Wann, D. L., Carlson, J. D., & Schrader, M. P. (1999). The impact of team identification on the hostile and instrumental verbal aggression of sport spectators. Journal of Social

MA

Behavior and Personality, 14, 279-286.

Weenink, D. (2014). Frenzied attacks: A micro-sociological analysis of the emotional

D

dynamics of extreme youth violence. The British Journal of Sociology, 65, 411-33.

PT E

Wieviorka, M. (2009). Violence: A new approach. London: Sage. Wilcox, P., & Cullen, F. T. (2018). Situational opportunity theories of crime. Annual Review

CE

of Criminology, 1, 123-148.

Young, K. (2015). Assessing the sociology of sport: On sports violence and ways of seeing.

AC

International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50, 640-644. Young, K. (2012). Sport, violence and society. New York: Routledge.

41

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1

AC

CE

PT E

D

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT

A socio-ecological model of unsanctioned aggression and violence in amateur sport

42

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 1 Characteristics of the empirical studies Year

Author

Country

Methods

Sample

Sport

Age group

Sport

T P

participation

I R

Behavioral focus/ terminology

type

1995

Levin et al.

United

Questionnaire

2,756

States

Contact sports (e.g., American

High school

football, wrestling, basketball);

SC

Noncontact sports (e.g., tennis,

U N

swimming, track) 1996

Bloom &

Canada

Interview

753

Ice hockey

Smith 1999

Huang et al.

United

Behavioral

States

testing,

16

D E

Conroy et al.

United

Questionnaire

C C

A

Delinquent behavior (e.g.,

Players

Violence (e.g., fighting, assault)

15-18 years

Players

Aggression (e.g., instrumental physical force)

basketball);

T P E

States

12-21 years

Violence (e.g., assault);

damaging property)

American football and

questionnaire

2001

A M

High contact sports (e.g.,

students

Players

1,018

Low contact sports (e.g., track and baseball) Collision sports (e.g., ice

8-19 years

Players

Aggressive behaviour (e.g.,

hockey, American football,

verbal aggression, physical

lacrosse);

aggression)

Contact sports (e.g., basketball, field hockey, soccer); Noncontact sports (e.g., baseball, bowling, golf, tennis)

43

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2003

Veldboer et

Netherlands

Questionnaire

787

al.

Several sports including soccer,

18 years and

field hockey, and water polo

above

Players

Aggression (e.g., intimidating, kicking, or hitting an opposing player)

2004

Pappas et al.

Canada and

Interview

5

Ice hockey

25-30 years

United

Endresen &

Norway

Longitudinal

477

Olweus

2005

Nicholson &

Australia

Focus group

62

Coulomb-

E C

Cabagno &

observation

Rascle

2006

Kavussanu

United Kingdom

2006

Walters et al.

Players and

Violent and antisocial

oriental martial arts

SC

non-

behaviour (e.g., fighting,

participants

attacking other people)

Not

Players,

Poor sport spectator behaviour

specified

parents,

(e.g., verbal abuse, vandalism,

coaches,

physical violence)

New Zealand

C A

Questionnaire

Questionnaire

D E

PT

Structured

180

fighting, sexual assault)

11-13 years (at Time 1)

U N

soccer, and basketball

France

I R

Violence and aggression (e.g.,

Boxing, wrestling, weightlifting,

Australian rules football, netball,

Hoye

2006

T P

players

States 2005

Former

A M

administrators, venue managers, and officials

Soccer and handball

games

Not

Players

Aggression

Players

Antisocial behaviour (e.g.,

specified; primarily adults

325

Soccer

12-17

elbowing an opposing player) 287

Rugby union, touch rugby,

16 years and

Referees and

Sideline behavior (e.g., verbal

netball, and soccer

above

coaches

abuse)

44

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2007

Pedersen

United

Questionnaire

285

States

Several sports including ice

Not

Players and

Aggression (e.g., intent to

hockey, boxing, rugby,

specified;

non-

harm)

American football, wrestling

mean: 23.7

participants

(men) and

T P

21.3 (women)

I R

years 2007

Kreager

United

Secondary

States

analysis

6,397

Gill

United

Ethnography

One club

Shields et al.

United

Players and

specified

club members

9-15 years

Players

U N

Rugby

Kingdom 2007

Not

American football, basketball, baseball, wrestling, and tennis

2007

SC

Players and

Several sports including

Questionnaire

676

A M

States

Basketball, soccer, American

10-19 years

nonparticipants

football, ice hockey,

D E

Violence (e.g., fighting)

Violence (e.g., sexual assault)

Poor sportspersonship (e.g., hitting or kicking others)

baseball/softball, and lacrosse

2007

2008

2009

Rutten et al.

Rutten et al.

Kavussanu et

Netherlands

Netherlands

England

al.

2009

Ackery et al.

PT

Questionnaire

E C

Questionnaire

C A

Questionnaire,

260

331

Soccer and swimming

12-18 years

Players

vandalism)

Soccer

9-19 years

Players

Questionnaire

Antisocial behavior (e.g., verbal abuse)

464

Soccer

15-47 years

Players

observation

Canada

Antisocial behavior (e.g.,

Antisocial behaviors (e.g., pushing from behind, kicking, aggressive to referee)

632

Ice hockey

12-67 years

Referees

Violence (e.g., verbal and physical abuse)

45

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2009

Maxwell et

Hong Kong

Questionnaire

471

al.

Basketball, rugby union, soccer,

2009

Donahue et

14-56 years

Players

and squash Canada

Questionnaire

60

verbal)

Basketball

14-17 years

Players

al. 2010

Gee

Canada

Mixed

678

Ice hockey

13-18 years

Aggressive behaviour (e.g.,

coaches, and

fighting, high sticking,

parents

kneeing)

SC

Players

Violence (e.g., physical,

16-22 years

Players

I R

and archival) Switzerland

Questionnaire

2,438

Contact sports;

12-18 years

U N

Noncontact sports; Team sports;

A M

Individual sports 2011

Traclet et al.

France

Stimulated

30

recall

Soccer

D E

interview 2012

2013

Bortoli et al.

Baar & Wubbels

2016

Rijnhout et

Italy

T P E

Questionnaire

Netherlands

C C

Interview

A

Netherlands

Questionnaire

382

194

Soccer

T P

Players,

(questionnaire

Moesch et al.

Aggression (e.g., harming an opponent)

methods

2010

Aggression (e.g., physical,

psychological)

Antisocial behaviour (e.g., hitting, illegal tackling)

14-16 years

Players

Antisocial behaviour (e.g., pushing, intimidating opposing player)

17 sports

Not

Coaches,

Peer aggression (e.g.,

specified

school

bullying)

teachers 114

Soccer

15-18 years

al.

Players

Aggression (e.g. physical violence, verbal abuse)

46

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2017

Danioni &

Italy

Questionnaire

172

Barni

Team sports including

2017

2018

Sherrill &

United

Bradel

States

Claringbould

Netherlands

et al.

2018

O’Brien et

Questionnaire

Interview and

38

300

13-19 years

physical violence, verbal

and rugby

abuse)

Contact sports (e.g., American

18 and

football)

above

Soccer

al.

Several sports including soccer,

A M

rugby (union/league), hockey, cricket, netball, basketball, athletics, lacrosse, swimming,

D E

and tennis

T P E

C C

A

47

T P

I R

Aggression (e.g., physical force beyond sanctioned limits)

Players,

Transgressive behavior (e.g.,

SC

coaches,

assault, verbal abuse,

officials,

intimidation)

18 years and

Players

U N

1,720

Players

15-18 years (players)

Questionnaire

Antisocial behavior (e.g.,

volleyball, soccer, basketball,

observation

England

Players

above

spectators Violence and antisocial behavior (e.g., assault, vandalism, sexual assault).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights We examine aggression and violence in amateur sport in its social ecology



Individual, situational, contextual, and sociocultural influences are analyzed



Emergent evidence shows the importance of situational factors



Bystander intervention can inform future research and practice

AC

CE

PT E

D

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT



48

Figure 1