A systematic observation of hostile aggression in Junior B hockey

Aggressive behaviours within the sport of hockey appear to be increasing in both prevalence and consequence (Biasca, Wirth, & Tegner, 2002). Accordingly, this area of inquiry is currently garnering a considerable amount of attention from society and academics alike. The problem however, is that our current understanding of these behaviours has been deemed both incomplete and unreliable. The inconsistencies inherent within this body of knowledge have been traced back to a variety of methodological shortcomings. The purpose of this investigation was to assess hostile aggression using a more ecologically valid and comprehensive research design. Ten Junior B hockey games were tapped and subsequently coded by three independent observers, using a validated operational list. Two hundred and fifty-nine behaviours were extrapolated and examined according to the score differential, period, position of the aggressor, status of the aggressor's team, and whether the aggressor was a member of the home or visiting team. It was concluded that the frequency of aggressive behaviours significantly differed according to the score differential, and status of the aggressor's team (p < .01). However, these hostile acts did not differ according the aggressor's position, period, and the home versus away status of the aggressor's team (p > .01). It was also determined that the majority of aggressive acts (69.1 1%) across these ten games went unsanctioned. This highlights the profound influence that "positive misses" have on penalty measures of aggression, while concurrently highlighting the ecological validity present with observational designs. Consequently, by assessing aggressive behaviour in a more inclusive and ecologically valid manner, a more accurate picture of the frequency and distribution of hostile aggression may be provided.

Role Differences in the Perception of Injustice

The current dissertation examined role differences in the perception of injustice; specifically, differences in how victims and offenders respond to a situation that they both agree is unfair. Past research has demonstrated that role affects reactions to transgressions and injustice, including recall of transgressions, and attributions of blame and responsibility (e.g., Baumeister, Stillwell, & Wotman, 1990; Mikula, Athenstaedt, Heschgl, & Heimgartner, 1998). However, to date, little work has examined role differences in perceptions of why an event is perceived as unfair (i.e., how an injustice is framed) or how justice should be restored. These were the perceptions I focused on in the present thesis. I also examined potential concerns that may motivate victims' and offenders' justice reactions, as well as the potential interaction between role and relationship quality in predicting justice reactions. In Studies 1 and 2, several of the predicted role differences in concerns were found; however, these did not lead to the expected differences in framing and restoration. In Study 1, using a vignette methodology, I found differences primarily in how victims and offenders believed justice should be restored. Overall, the significant role effects showed an accommodating response pattern (e.g., offenders proposed punishment more than did victims and neutral observers, whereas victims recommended minimal compensation more than did offenders and neutral observers), inconsistent with previous research and my hypotheses. Study 2, which employed a sample of romantic couples, substantiated the accommodating pattern found in Study 1. Study 3, which sampled a broader range of relationships, also showed i \ examples of accommodating reactions. In addition, Study 3 provided some support for the hypothesized interaction between role and relationship quality, such that responses were more accommodating as relationship quality increased. For example, offenders more strongly endorsed methods of restoration such as offender apology and recognition of the relationship with increasing relationship quality. Overall, the results from this dissertation support the general notion that victims and offenders respond to injustice differently, and, in-line with previous research on other justice-related responses (e.g., Mikula et at, 1998), suggest that victims and offenders show an other-serving, accommodating tendency in justice reactions when relationship quality is high.

Facing Aggression: Cues Differ for Female versus Male Faces

The facial width-to-height ratio (face ratio), is a sexually dimorphic metric associated with actual aggression in men and with observers’ judgements of aggression in male faces. Here, we sought to determine if observers’ judgements of aggression were associated with the face ratio in female faces. In three studies, participants rated photographs of female and male faces on aggression, femininity, masculinity, attractiveness, and nurturing. In Studies 1 and 2, for female and male faces, judgements of aggression were associated with the face ratio even when other cues in the face related to masculinity were controlled statistically. Nevertheless, correlations between the face ratio and judgements of aggression were smaller for female than for male faces (F1,36= 7.43, p= 0.01). In Study 1, there was no significant relationship between judgements of femininity and of aggression in female faces. In Study 2, the association between judgements of masculinity and aggression was weaker in female faces than for male faces in Study 1. The weaker association in female faces may be because aggression and masculinity are stereotypically male traits. Thus, in Study 3, observers rated faces on nurturing (a stereotypically female trait) and on femininity. Judgements of nurturing were associated with femininity (positively) and masculinity (negatively) ratings in both female and male faces. In summary, the perception of aggression differs in female versus male faces. The sex difference was not simply because aggression is a gendered construct; the relationships between masculinity/femininity and nurturing were similar for male and female faces even though nurturing is also a gendered construct. Masculinity and femininity ratings are not associated with aggression ratings nor with the face ratio for female faces. In contrast, all four variables are highly inter-correlated in male faces, likely because these cues in male faces serve as ‘‘honest signals’’.