Abstract:
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.
