Players' gender and male referees' decisions about aggression in French soccer: a preliminary study


BACK Soccer Guide Feature Article Players' gender and male referees' decisions about aggression in French soccer: a preliminary study Author: Sex Roles: A Journal of Research The tendency for men to manifest a higher level of aggressiveness and/or to display more aggression than women is well documented (Buss & Perry, 1992; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Knight, Guthrie, Page, & Fabes, 2002). In the sport context, there is also a growing evidence that men display more aggression or perceive aggression to be more legitimate than women do (Conroy, Silva, Newcomer, Walker, & Johnson, 2001; Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2005; Tucker & Parks, 2001). Despite the lack of consensus on the definition of what is aggression in sport, one that is often accepted is aggression in sport, one that is often accepted is behavior that transgresses the rules of the considered activity with the intent to harm someone (Tenenbaum, Stewart, Singer, & Duda, 1996). Referees are directly concerned with aggression because they are responsible for enforcing the rules appropriately. Nevertheless, referees are underrepresented in the literature about sports. Furthermore, there are only a small number of studies that actually deal with the relationships between refereeing and aggression, particularly as a function of the gender of players in a masculine-typed sport such as soccer. It is precisely the goal of this study to address these issues. Most studies of officiating have investigated the influence of referees on the home advantage, that is "the consistent finding that home teams in sports competitions win over 50% of the games played under a balanced home and away schedule" (Courneya & Carron, 1992, p. 13). According to these authors, four factors could explain why the home advantage occurs: crowd factors, learning factors, travel factors, and rule factors. Nevill and Holder (1999) believed that crowd factors were the most important and that officials may be influenced in their decisions under pressure from the crowd. In this perspective, Nevill, Balmer, and Williams (2002) showed video sequences of incidents recorded during the English Premier League during the 1998/1999 season to 40 officials. Twenty-two referees were allocated to a noise group (crowd noise) and 18 to a silent group. The data revealed no significant difference between the two groups concerning the away team, but the crowd noise significantly reduced the number of fouls awarded against the home team. Folkesson, Nyberg, Archer, and Norlander (2002) showed that the referees' concentration and performance, particularly for the younger ones, were influenced by players, coaches, and the public's threats and aggression. McMahon and Ste-Marie (2002) also showed that decisions made by rugby referees were a function of experience, not so much in the detection of infractions as in the use of more varied information. All these findings support the evidence that bias may be exhibited in the referees' decision-making process. This fact is also confirmed by other studies that have included such variables as the color of the uniforms, the reputation of the teams, or the referees' prior decisions. Thus, Frank and Gilovich (1988) indicated that referees in football and ice hockey perceived players wearing black uniforms to be the more aggressive ones. Consequently, they also tended to penalize them more, perhaps because the black color is associated with aggressiveness. Jones, Paull, and Erskine (2002) studied the impact of a team's aggressive reputation on the decisions made by football referees. Fifty incidents, spread out among five categories--manifest foul committed by the team, ambiguous foul committed by the team, manifest foul committed against the team, ambiguous foul committed against the team, and no foul--were shown to 38 referees, first with explicit information about the aggressive reputation of the team, and then without any such information. The latter group just had to judge each incident on its own merit. The results revealed that information about the aggressive reputation of the team affected the number of yellow and red cards (i.e., the severity of the sanction) but not the overall number of decisions awarded. The team with an aggressive reputation was penalized more severely than the other team. Finally, Plessner and Betsch (2001) reported that decisions may also be influenced by prior decisions; referees were less likely to award a penalty to a team if they had previously awarded this team, and they were more likely to award a penalty to a team if they had previously awarded the other team. ... Back To Article Overview

Soccer Guide Feature Article

Players' gender and male referees' decisions about aggression in French soccer: a preliminary study
Author: Sex Roles: A Journal of Research

The tendency for men to manifest a higher level of aggressiveness and/or to display more aggression than women is well documented (Buss & Perry, 1992; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Knight, Guthrie, Page, & Fabes, 2002). In the sport context, there is also a growing evidence that men display more aggression or perceive aggression to be more legitimate than women do (Conroy, Silva, Newcomer, Walker, & Johnson, 2001; Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2005; Tucker & Parks, 2001). Despite the lack of consensus on the definition of what is aggression in sport, one that is often accepted is aggression in sport, one that is often accepted is behavior that transgresses the rules of the considered activity with the intent to harm someone (Tenenbaum, Stewart, Singer, & Duda, 1996). Referees are directly concerned with aggression because they are responsible for enforcing the rules appropriately. Nevertheless, referees are underrepresented in the literature about sports. Furthermore, there are only a small number of studies that actually deal with the relationships between refereeing and aggression, particularly as a function of the gender of players in a masculine-typed sport such as soccer. It is precisely the goal of this study to address these issues.

Most studies of officiating have investigated the influence of referees on the home advantage, that is "the consistent finding that home teams in sports competitions win over 50% of the games played under a balanced home and away schedule" (Courneya & Carron, 1992, p. 13). According to these authors, four factors could explain why the home advantage occurs: crowd factors, learning factors, travel factors, and rule factors. Nevill and Holder (1999) believed that crowd factors were the most important and that officials may be influenced in their decisions under pressure from the crowd. In this perspective, Nevill, Balmer, and Williams (2002) showed video sequences of incidents recorded during the English Premier League during the 1998/1999 season to 40 officials. Twenty-two referees were allocated to a noise group (crowd noise) and 18 to a silent group. The data revealed no significant difference between the two groups concerning the away team, but the crowd noise significantly reduced the number of fouls awarded against the home team. Folkesson, Nyberg, Archer, and Norlander (2002) showed that the referees' concentration and performance, particularly for the younger ones, were influenced by players, coaches, and the public's threats and aggression. McMahon and Ste-Marie (2002) also showed that decisions made by rugby referees were a function of experience, not so much in the detection of infractions as in the use of more varied information. All these findings support the evidence that bias may be exhibited in the referees' decision-making process. This fact is also confirmed by other studies that have included such variables as the color of the uniforms, the reputation of the teams, or the referees' prior decisions. Thus, Frank and Gilovich (1988) indicated that referees in football and ice hockey perceived players wearing black uniforms to be the more aggressive ones. Consequently, they also tended to penalize them more, perhaps because the black color is associated with aggressiveness. Jones, Paull, and Erskine (2002) studied the impact of a team's aggressive reputation on the decisions made by football referees. Fifty incidents, spread out among five categories--manifest foul committed by the team, ambiguous foul committed by the team, manifest foul committed against the team, ambiguous foul committed against the team, and no foul--were shown to 38 referees, first with explicit information about the aggressive reputation of the team, and then without any such information. The latter group just had to judge each incident on its own merit. The results revealed that information about the aggressive reputation of the team affected the number of yellow and red cards (i.e., the severity of the sanction) but not the overall number of decisions awarded. The team with an aggressive reputation was penalized more severely than the other team. Finally, Plessner and Betsch (2001) reported that decisions may also be influenced by prior decisions; referees were less likely to award a penalty to a team if they had previously awarded this team, and they were more likely to award a penalty to a team if they had previously awarded the other team.

...

Back To Article Overview