I discussed last year my opinions on how assertiveness was important for success in hockey and aggression was not. A year later I have now immersed myself in the literature and done my own research on aggression and success. Thus, I have much to add. Within this context the definitions of aggressive and
assertive are:
Assertive – an action that is forceful, vigorous, and legitimate, but the individual performing this behaviour has no intent to cause harm to any living being; instead has a strong intention to complete a task while respecting the well-being of others.
Everyone involved in hockey knows aggression exists, and the literature has supported this social norm for all levels of hockey. What stands important is working towards changing the culture where young boys and girls are encouraged to use and accept aggression. However, first we must understand why aggression is so prevalent in hockey.
I have found two plausible explanations for this social norm of aggression. The first explanation I’ve found is the frustration-aggression theory. This theory simply means that frustration or failure is followed by acts of aggression. From my review of the literature I did not find research to significantly support this theory for individual failure and frustration, such as missing an opportunity or making a mistake. However, I did find enough evidence to suggest that some of the existence of aggression is the result of team frustration. Specifically, the research illustrated that when a team is losing by two or
more goals late in a game, players were significantly more likely to be aggressive.
My second explanation for the existence of aggression, as I touched on last year, is that aggression leads to success. Research has found that players do believe that aggression is necessary for success. Further, research has supported Bandura’s
aggression and success not causations. Secondly, although the definition of aggression is set in the literature, the measures of aggression are not without flaws. A lot of the research has measured aggression by observational tactics such as recording body checks or penalties taken. The problem is that these measures are assuming that all of these actions always include the intent to cause harm. Therefore, a researcher may record a slashing penalty as an aggressive behaviour, but the player could have had no intention to hurt the other player, he/she merely wanted to win a puck battle and was being
assertive, not aggressive.
Therefore, my research and past research, which claims to find correlations between aggression and success, may in fact be more indicative of the relationship between assertiveness and success. This is what I believe is the true relationship. However, future research will need to be able to distinguish
aggression from assertiveness before this relationship can be illustrated through an academic study.
Now we can apply this knowledge to help change our culture. First off, we need to be teaching players how to properly deal with frustrations. Instilling fair play, respect and sportsmanship is fundamental in sports. However, this doesn’t seem to always be the case with hockey. More specifically, researchers Cote, Trudel, Bernard, Boileau, and Marcotte (1993) believe that some coaches are actually encouraging aggression by displaying contradicting behaviours when losing by two or more goals. Such contradicting
behaviours included arguing with the referee after telling the players to respect the officials. Cote et al. suggest that these incongruences may be interpreted by the players as permission to violate the rules. So as coaches and parents, be aware that the actions you choose influence how young players choose their actions.
Moreover, it is essential to be emphasising that players need to be assertive, not aggressive. It appears that our current culture is sending out mixed messages about aggression. Players are told to go out and be aggressive, but are then told not to hit players from behind. The word assertiveness needs to be utilized in order to change the culture. I strongly believe that if we started to encourage assertiveness, and separate aggressive from assertive, then we will start to see a decline in on-ice aggression at all levels.
Conversely, if you find yourself being too aggressive, contemplating hurting players, then you need clarify your intentions. You are probably getting results, but you probably also receive the odd suspension. You could get the same results without the suspensions if you firmly set your intention on performing tasks
while respecting the well-being of others. You may even be thinking that aggression really isn’t that bad. It’s more so unfortunate for the other guy and you even get away with it sometimes. However, the kind of player you are is also a reflection of the kind of person you are. So, if you want to stay an aggressive player, careless of injuring other players, you will have to live with that player off the ice. You can take it from me, a player who has played my share of hockey on the line between aggressive and assertive, that life is a lot more enjoyable being the player and the person who doesn’t disregard the well-being of other people.
A full look at my research and accompanying sources will be made available soon.
