University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors

(USC Thesis Other)

Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PHYSICAL AGGRESSION IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
STUDENT-ATHLETES’ PERCEPTIONS AND REPORTING BEHAVIORS
by
Jason Christopher Pappas

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2010
Copyright 2010 Jason Christopher Pappas
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank many individuals who have helped
me make this dissertation possible. First and foremost, I would like to thank my
chair, Dr. Helena Seli, who not only served as my advisor, but also encouraged me
every step of this process. Dr. Seli exhibited a dedication in the past couple of years
in assisting me with my goals that we set forth. Your love for students and valuing
their educational experience is unmatched.
I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr.
Melora Sundt and Dr. Brandon Martin, who provided me valuable feedback
throughout the dissertation process and who have given me the support to persevere
until the end. This dissertation would also not have been possible without the
statistical talents of Dr. Yuying Tsong. Thank you so much helping me sort my data
and making sense of it all. Also, I would like to thank Venus Lee for her ability to
keep me on task while providing guidance and suggestions.
Finally, words cannot express the gratitude and heartfelt love that I have for
my family, wife Cara, son Anthony and daughter Alexa. You have made sacrifices
throughout the years just because you believed in me. Without my wife’s
encouragement and support, I would not have finished this degree. You are truly an
inspiration and person I look up to the most.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER I 1
Background of the Problem 1
Prevalence of Physical Aggression 3
Operational Definition of the Terms 6
Physical Aggression. 6
Sport Type 7
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 8
Research Questions 9
Significance of the Study 10
Methodology 11
Assumptions of the Study 12
Limitations of the Study 12
Delimitations of the Study 14
Organization of the Study 14
CHAPTER II 16
Introduction 16
Perceptions of Physical Aggression 18
Reporting Behaviors and Predictors 23
Gender 23
Race 26
Social consequences for reporting 27
Perpetrator and victim relationship 29
Sport type 32
Group size 33
Situational ambiguity 35
Personnel receiving reports 38
Conclusion 38
CHAPTER III 40
Introduction 40
iv

Research Questions 41
Research Design 42
Instrumentation 43
Population and Sample 49
Data Collection 52
Data Analysis 54
CHAPTER IV 55
Introduction 55
Intercorrelations 56
Research Question 1: Likelihood to Report Acts of Physical
Aggression of Different Degrees 57
Age 57
Gender 58
Race 58
Individual vs. Team Sport 59
Contact vs. Non-Contact Sport 60
Research Question 2: Likelihood to Report a Serious Act of Physical
Aggression based on Bystander Group Characteristics, and
Relationships among the Perpetrator, Victim, and Bystander
Student-Athletes 62
Number of bystanders 62
Gender of bystanders 63
Relationship among perpetrator, victim, and bystander student-athlete 63
Research Question 3: Personnel Most Likely to Receive a Serious
Report of Physical Aggression Based on Demographics and the
Relationship of the Bystander Student-Athlete with the Victim 64
Teammate/student-athlete victim 65
Stranger victim 73
CHAPTER V 82
Introduction 82
Impact of Internal Factors 83
Impact of External Factors 87
Personnel Receiving Reports of Physical Aggression 92
Implications 94
Practitioners 94
Researchers 99
Limitations 102
Conclusion 104
REFERENCES 106
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic Information of Participants 51
Table 2: Sport Information of Participants 52
Table 3:Means, Standard Deviations and Zero-order Pearson Product
Correlations for Measured Variables 57
Table 4: Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for
Likelihood to Report Three Levels of Aggression with Significant
Post Hoc Tests 61
Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations of Likelihood to Report 62
Table 6: Multivariate Statistics, T-tests, Means and Standard
Deviations of Likelihood to Report Bystanders 64
Table 7: Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for
Likelihood to Report When Aggression is against a Teammate
with Significant Follow up and Post Hoc Tests 66
Table 8: Means and Standard Deviations of Likelihood to Report
When Aggressions is Against a Teammate 67
Table 9: Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for
Likelihood to Report When Aggression is against a Stranger with
Significant Follow up and Post Hoc Tests 75
Table 10: Means and Standard Deviations of Likelihood to Report
When Aggressions is Against a Stranger 75

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A: Survey of Student-Athletes' Perspectives and Reporting
Behaviors 45
Figure B: E-mailed Recruitment Tool 53
vii

ABSTRACT
This study examined internal (personal) and external (situational) factors that
previous research found affected perceptions of physical aggression and associated
reporting behaviors among student-athletes. Results of this study suggested certain
factors significantly impacted a student-athlete’s decision to report and who received
that report. Internal factors included age, gender and race. External factors included
the type of sport an athlete participates in, bystander group characteristics and
relationship strength of people involved (perpetrators, victims and bystanders). This
study found all factors affected reporting behaviors except for age. However, only
sport type and existing relationships affected who received the report of physical
aggression. Although completely eliminating physically aggressive behaviors
among student-athletes is an unrealistic goal, the findings of this study contribute to
decreasing its occurrence by increasing the levels of violence reporting. This study
also provided guidance for future intervention strategies.
1

CHAPTER I
Overview of Study
Background of the Problem
Physical aggression represents an important concern in today’s society. It is a
significant healthcare problem, costing society thousands of lives, millions of dollars
and insurmountable physical and psychological harm (Valente, 2000). According to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), expenses for physical assault,
sexual assault and stalking exceed $5.8 billion each year, of which nearly $4.1
billion are costs for direct physical and mental health services (National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, 2003). Although physical aggression is a broad term
that can refer to intimidating gestures, bullying, pushing, slapping, punching, and
kicking that is non-gender specific, many studies of physical aggression focus on
issues related to sexual assault. Although most of the research focuses on victims,
studies often ignore the fact that society spends a significant amount of money
incarcerating and rehabilitating physically aggressive people. Based on statistics,
physical aggression is a growing problem that shows no signs of stopping in
American society today (Crosset, Benedict, & McDonald, 1995).
Physical aggression is a learned behavior instilled in childhood and
developed through early adulthood (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004).
Therefore, a significant amount of research focuses on the problem in a K-12 and
higher education setting. A variety of studies (Crosset et al., 1995; Fisher, Cullen, &
2

Turner, 2000; Himelein, 1995; Koss & Gaines, 1993; Koss, 1988; Koss, Gidycz, &
Wisniewski, 1987) document the problem of physical aggression among college
students, but similar to studies of the general population, most of the research
focuses specifically on sexual assaults. Twenty percent of freshman women, for
example, experience sexual assault during an academic year and sexual assault
continues to be prevalent on college campuses (Banyard, Plante, Ward, Cohn,
Moorhead, & Walsh, 2005; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Himelein, 1995; Koss,
Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987).
Since physical aggression is a significant issue in the higher education setting
(Chandler, Johnson, & Carroll, 1999; Young, 1990), researchers focus on particular
sub-populations which demonstrate higher incident rates. Of the different sub-
populations, student-athletes are the most disproportionately involved in cases of
physical aggression such as fights, sexual abuse and gang rapes (Koss & Gaines,
1993). The frequency of physical aggression among this sub-population is a major
concern for school administrators and society because student-athletes are often
highly publicized representatives for schools and role models for others. Campus
violence is a more significant issue for school administrators dealing with marketing,
fundraising and risk management efforts due to recent federal reporting requirements
for criminal incidents occurring on campuses as well as civil ligation against student-
athletes and the institutions they represent (Chandler et al., 1999). Since student-
athletes are increasingly achieving celebrity status on campuses (Chandler et al.,
3

1999), they influence the actions of their peers as well as young children who look
up to them in society. Moreover, the physically aggressive tendencies learned and
practiced in the athletic realm affect other aspects of their life unrelated to their sport
(Chandler et al., 1999). Thus, studying the student-athlete population in the context
of colleges and universities will significantly benefit students, school administrators
and community members.
Although current research shows that physical aggression incident rates are
higher amongst student-athletes than other sub-populations on college campuses,
research (Chandler et al., 1999; Young, 1990) also shows that many incidents go
unreported. The unreported incidents do not get addressed, therefore, victims cannot
receive help, others cannot prevent the incidents from happening in the future and
the severity of the situation is falsely devalued (Chandler et al., 1999; Young, 1990).
Current resources for victims often include medical attention and counseling
services. Preventative measures targeted towards the perpetrator include educational
programs, safety precautions and adjustments of student-athletes’ attitudes towards
physical aggression. Therefore, increasing the reporting of physical aggression helps
both the perpetrators and victims.
Prevalence of Physical Aggression
Based on current statistics, there were a disproportionate number of male
student-athlete perpetrators and female victims. Crosset, Benedict and McDonald
(1995) find that male student-athletes were overrepresented in reports of physical
4

aggression. Male student-athletes, for example, perpetrated 35% of the physical
battering reports even though they accounted for only 3% of the male student
population (Crosset et al., 1995). In examples of sexual assault, members of athletic
teams or clubs at a large midwestern university accounted for 21% of the reported
sexual assaults, 18% of the attempted sexual assaults and 14% of the cases of sexual
abuse even though male student-athletes accounted for less than 2% of the male
student population (Frintner & Rubinson, 1993). Fifteen percent of the male student-
athlete population in a study at a large southeastern university reported using
physical force to obtain sexual favors (Boeringer, 1996). In relation to the student-
athlete population, law enforcement agencies across the country received a
disproportionate amount of reports accusing male student-athletes of committing
sexual assault.
Between 1986 and 1996, more than 425 professional and college athletes
were publicly reported for violent crimes against women (Benedict, 1997). Just in
1995 and 1996 alone, 199 athletes were charged with physical or sexual attacks on
women (Benedict, 1997). The Center for the Study of Sport in Society conducted a
study to examine the prevalence of sexual assault and domestic abuse among athletic
teams at ten NCAA schools. The basketball and football teams were ranked among
the top twenty in the nation. The study revealed that of the 69 sexual assaults
reported internally on their campuses between 1991 and 1993, male athletes were
5

responsible for nearly 20 percent, despite the fact that they constituted only three
percent of the student population (Benedict, 1997).
When it comes to charges and convictions, Crosset, Ptacek, McDonald, and
Benedict (1996) found that in a three year study of ten Division I institutions, 8.5%
of the general college population were charged with assault, while 36.8% of student-
athletes were charged with assault. Although the exact numbers of sexual assaults
cases varied from campus to campus, overall student-athletes reportedly committed
significantly more sexual assaults than non-student-athletes. At an institution where
athletes comprised 2% of the campus population, student-athletes were implicated in
20% of reported sexual assaults or attempted sexual assaults cases, 14% of sexual
abusive cases and 11% of battery cases including coercion and intimidation (Nattiv
& Puffer, 1991; Overman & Terry, 1991; Wechsler et al., 1997). Crosset (2000)
found that in 1995, male student-athletes constituted 3.7% of the student population
but were responsible for 19% of sexual assaults reported to campus judicial affairs
offices. Another study by Crosset et al. (1996), found student-athletes commit one in
three college sexual assaults. Furthermore, Koss and Gaines (1993) indicated in
comparison to fraternity members and non-student-athletes, student-athletes were
inordinately involved in cases of gang rape. Overall, researchers found across the
country more reported cases, charges and convictions of violence existed among
student-athletes than the general student population and other sub-groups. This
study, in particular, investigated perceptions of physical aggression (why student-
6

athletes were disproportionately overrepresented in incidents), along with (the
factors that influence) the reporting or non-reporting of such behaviors.
Operational Definition of the Terms
Physical Aggression.
Although physical aggression had multiple definitions, most definitions
consisted of two common features: the victim perceived the aggressive act as (1)
harmful and (2) intentional (Harre & Lamb, 1983; Felson, 1996). Researchers
defined several types of aggression including physical, hostile and relational
aggression. The term “physical aggression” referred to harmful and intentional
contact between a perpetrator and victim (Harre & Lamb, 1983; Felson, 1996). The
term “violence” is typically used interchangeably with studies to refer to physical
aggression (Felson, 1996). The term “hostile aggression” referred to an emotional
state of a player being angry and primarily bent on physically harming an opponent
in the athletic realm, but did not make physical contact (Lemiuex, McKelvie &
Stout, 2002). Although physical and hostile aggression were the traditional focuses
of past studies, researchers were beginning to argue that subtle, non-physical forms
of behavior also met the criteria for aggression. To support this belief, psychologist
Nicki R. Crick and colleagues (Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Grotpeter &
Crick, 1996; Werner & Crick, 1999) extended the definition of aggression to include
harmful acts such as social ostracism and the spreading of malicious rumors.
Termed relational aggression, such behaviors attempted to harm others through
7

social isolation and by damaging interpersonal relationships. However, this study
focused only on physical, not relational, aggression.
Sport Type.
Research examined aggression in reference to different sport types (Keller,
2007). For the purposes of this study, the researcher examined contact/non-contact
sports and individual/team sports. Silva (1983), who studied the relationship between
the level of contact in a sport and the legitimacy ratings of aggressive behavior,
separated sports into three distinct levels: (1) collision, (2) contact, and (3) non-
contact. Silva (1983) defined collision sports as those where contact was necessary
and integral to participate, such as in boxing, football, rugby, hockey and wrestling.
Silva (1983) defined contact sports as those where contact was legal, but occurred
incidentally such as in basketball, soccer, water polo, baseball, softball, lacrosse and
field hockey. Silva (1983) defined non-contact sports as those where contact
between opponents was not allowed such as in golf, tennis, rowing, track and field,
volleyball, gymnastics and swimming and diving. Aggression was also examined in
reference to individual and team sports. Team sports involved multiple players
directly and simultaneously cooperating to accomplish a clearly defined common
goal of defeating an opposing team (Maxwell, 2003). Examples of team sports
included football, basketball, volleyball, soccer and baseball. Individual sports
involved one player competing against another to accomplish a clearly defined goal
(Maxwell, 2003). Examples of individual sports included swimming and diving,
8

golf, tennis, gymnastics and track and field. Since their individual scores were
tallied together for a team score, some researchers did not classify the
aforementioned as individual sports. However, for the purposes of this study, they
were considered individual sports. This study will use these definitions of sport
types when analyzing perceptions of physical aggression and associated reporting
behaviors among student-athletes.
Statement of the Problem
Limited research existed regarding the extent of student-athletes’ physically
aggressive behaviors in their professional, personal and social life. Moreover, no
research existed regarding student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors
related to physical aggression. Due to the lack of understanding of what facilitated
and hindered reporting behaviors among student-athletes, it is difficult to suggest
effective methods for intervention and decreasing the occurrence of physical
aggression among student-athletes. This is a significant concern because the
problem’s frequency was increasing (Staffo, 2001) and negatively affecting students,
school administrators and community members (Chandler et al., 1999).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to further the understanding of physical
aggression and reporting behaviors among student-athletes. Specifically, this study
examined the factors that contributed to or hindered the reporting of physical
aggression. Although completely eliminating physically aggressive behaviors is an
9

unrealistic goal, the findings of this study contribute to decreasing its occurrence by
increasing the levels of appropriate perceptions of violence and violence reporting.
This study also provided guidance for future intervention strategies and research
topics.
Research Questions
This study contributed to filling the gap in existing research regarding
student-athletes’ perceptions of physical aggression and the associated reporting
behaviors. The three main research questions were:
1. Are there differences in student-athletes’ likelihood to report an act of
physical aggression based on the following factors:
a. Age
b. Gender
c. Race
d. Type of sport the athlete plays (contact versus non-contact; individual
versus team)
e. Level of aggression
2. How likely are student-athletes to report a serious act of physical aggression
based on the following:
a. Number of bystanders?
b. Gender of the bystanders?
10

c. Relationship between the 1) perpetrator and victim, 2) victim and
bystander, and 3) bystander and perpetrator?
3. Who are student-athletes most likely to report a serious act of physical
aggression to?
a. To what extent does the choice of person to report to vary by the 1)
age, 2) gender, 3) race, and 4) type of sport the athlete plays (contact
versus non-contact; individual versus team)
b. To what extent does the choice of person vary by the bystanders’
relationship to the victim?
Significance of the Study
Students, school administrators and community members will benefit from
the knowledge gained in this study because it provided insight into the characteristics
of these student-athletes as well as their perceptions of physical aggression and
reporting behaviors associated with it. All stakeholders have a better understanding
of the differences in perceptions, the consequences of those differences and how to
openly discuss effective methods for decreasing both the occurrence and severity of
physically aggressive behaviors. Understanding which factors predict lack of
reporting gave administrators an opportunity to address the factors and implement
proactive interventions.
11

Methodology
To accomplish the purpose of this study, the researcher electronically
distributed surveys using Qualtrics software to a random sampling of student-athletes
at Division I institutions. All student-athletes had an equal chance of completing the
survey because it was distributed to the entire student-athlete population. The
survey gathered information regarding the participants’ demographics, perceptions of
physical aggression and associated reporting behaviors. The demographics section
explored various personal factors including age, gender, race and sport type. The
perceptions of physical aggression and associated reporting behaviors sections
explored the likelihood of a student-athlete to report an incident varying in degrees
of physical aggression severity, bystander perceptions, bystander group sizes,
bystander group genders and perpetrator-victim-bystander relationship levels. The
reporting behaviors section also explored who received the reported information
from the student-athlete and their relationship.
The dependent variables in this study were perceptions of physical aggression
and the associated reporting behaviors. The independent variables in this study were
age, gender, race, sport type and relationship type. This survey-based design method
was viewed as an effective way to gather data from various sources, as well as
insight on their perceptions of physical aggression and reporting behaviors
associated with it. The researcher used SPSS to analyze the data.
12

Assumptions of the Study
For the purposes of this study the researcher made several assumptions
regarding the participants and research design. The researcher assumed that
participants possessed the intelligence to interpret the questions and the ethics to
honestly complete the survey themselves as opposed to having someone else
complete it for them. The researcher assumed that the research design accurately
fulfilled its purpose, utilized reliable and valid measures, obtained a random sample
of student-athletes representative of the population and garnered a strong return rate
in a reasonable amount of time.
Limitations of the Study
The design of the study presented a range of limitations. The major
limitation to this study was that it was correlational, therefore no causal relationships
were determined. The researcher only determined that the independent and
dependent variables were related, but could not conclude that the changes in the
dependent variables were a result of the independent variables. Other limitations
included consistency, social desirability and self-selection biases. Consistency bias
could have occurred when participants’ words did not match their actions. The
researcher only measured what student-athletes reported they would do in a
hypothetical situation, but did not measure what they actually did when they
witnessed physical aggression. Participants could have also misinterpreted
questions, answered them inaccurately or had someone else complete the survey.
13

Social desirability bias could have occurred when participants reported answers they
believed were acceptable. The researcher could not ensure the participants honestly
completed the survey. Self-selection bias occurred when individuals voluntarily
assigned themselves into a group, which could have caused a biased sample. The
student-athletes who chose to complete the survey could have not accurately
represented the student-athlete population. Limitations of this study could have
compromised results and lead to incorrect or limited conclusions.
Although the study had several limitations, the researcher could control
several factors such as how many student-athletes received the survey, what type of
people received the survey, how the survey was administered, what topics the survey
addressed and how the questions were asked. To control the type of people who
received the survey, the researcher instructed athletic academic directors to distribute
the survey only to student-athletes. To control how the survey was administered, the
researcher provided the survey administrators a template e-mail to send to student-
athletes. In order to control the types of topics addressed in the survey, the
researcher asked specific questions. To control how the questions were asked, the
researcher carefully developed the questions and distributed the same survey to all
the participants. Moreover, an information sheet was attached explaining the
confidentiality of the study between the researcher and the participants. The factors
the researcher controlled provided internal and external validity as well as reliability
by reducing the possible limitations of the study.
14

Delimitations of the Study
This study was confined to the perceptions of physical aggression and
associated reporting behaviors of student-athletes at four major Division I
institutions. This study focused only on perceptions and reporting behaviors. This
study focused on student-athletes because the sub-population indicated a high
incident rate of physical aggression. This study surveys student-athletes at the four
major Division I institutions because they were the most convenient population for
the researcher to access and therefore the most feasible. This study was limited to
the findings within the boundaries of the institutions selected and may not have
accurately reflected all student-athletes.
Organization of the Study
This chapter introduced the problem of physical aggression among student-
athletes. It provided background about the topic, defined key terms and explained
the significance of studying perceptions of physical aggression among student-
athletes and the reporting behaviors associated with it. It described the methodology
for studying the topic, identified the research hypotheses and identified assumptions,
limitations and delimitations of the study. Chapter 2 reviewed the existing literature
regarding perceptions of physical aggression and the reporting behaviors associated
with it. Chapter 3 detailed the methodology used in this study. It included the
research design, sampling procedure and the instruments used to collect and analyze
15

the data. Each of these sections concluded with the rationale, as well as strengths
and limitations of the design elements.
16

CHAPTER II
Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter will provide an in-depth analysis of several theories behind
physical aggression, including social learning theory and cultural spillover theory.
An overview will also be provided on the reporting behaviors of physical aggression,
along with its predictors, including the gender, sport type, race and relationship of
the perpetrator, victim and bystander. This chapter will also analyze the effects of
bystander group size and situational ambiguity.
Success in male team sports is associated with control, domination,
competitiveness, physical strength, and aggression (Caron, Halteman, & Stacy, 1997;
Melnick, 1992; Nixon, 1997; Smith & Stewart, 2003; Walker, 2003). Since physical
aggression is often legitimized, rewarded and learned on the playing field, previous
research indicates that student-athletes compared to non-athletes, tend to be involved
in more violence off the field (Riedel & Welsh, 2008). In fact, student-athletes
commit one in three college sexual assaults (National Coalition Against Violent
Athletes, 1997). Current research discusses physical aggression on college campuses
in general terms, but does not specifically focus on the subpopulation of student-
athletes. Even less is known about the reporting behaviors among student-athletes.
Reporting behaviors are often dependent upon student-athletes’ perceptions of
physical aggression. Unfortunately, many incidents go unreported (Federal Bureau
17

of Investigation, 1998). The lack of reports prevents an accurate representation of
the problem. Most research focuses on a specific type of physical aggression –
sexual assault. Although this study discusses the topic, it also includes other types of
physical aggression. The prevalence of physical aggression and the lack of research
about the topic amongst student-athletes make it a topic worth studying.
The purpose of this study was to examine student athletes’ perceptions of
physical aggression and reporting behaviors related to it. The following literature
review analyzes the perception of physical aggression, attitudes toward it and the
reporting behaviors associated with it. A number of factors such as gender, race and
socio-economic status are discussed and examined in relationship to perceptions of
violence as well as reporting behavior. This study helps fill the previously outlined
gap in research about perceptions of violence and reporting behaviors among
student-athletes so that college administrators, community members and student-
athletes themselves can gain a better understanding of physical aggression, increase
the rates of reporting physical aggression, and as a result, reduce the occurrence of it.
Several studies (Nattiv & Puffer, 1991; Overman & Terry, 1991; Wechsler,
Davenport, Dowdall, Grossman, & Zanakos, 1997) demonstrate that athletes are
more often involved than non-athletes in incidents associated with abusive behavior.
College student-athletes report more criminal and aggressive behavior (including
hitting a significant other) than non-student-athletes (Boeringer, 1996; Young, 1990).
A survey of 200 college police departments show that assaults by athletes are
18

reported on the average every 18 days (Caron et al., 1997). Thus, an understanding
of perceptions of physical aggression is essential in determining reporting behaviors.
Perceptions of Physical Aggression
The amount of physical aggression student-athletes inflict and experience is
largely dependent on perceptions of what constitutes violence. The culture of
athletics, especially in contact sports, involves provocation, encouragement by
coaches (Reilly, 1995; O’Brien & Wolff, 1996), peer pressure, desire to win (Scher,
1993; Weinstein, Smith, & Wisenthal, 1995; Pilz, 1996), revenge, retaliation, and
often physically aggressive role models (Pooley & Golding, 1987). Therefore, some
applied sport researchers suggest via social learning theory (Bandura, 1973) and
cultural spillover theory (Boeringer, 1996; Brown, Summer, & Nocera, 2002), that
student-athletes are taught that aggression is an acceptable manner to settle conflict
on and off the field (Caron et al., 1997; Mintah, Huddleston, & Doody, 1999; Rowe,
1998). Consequently, student-athletes may not perceive hitting, punching, kicking,
and bodily intimidation as physically aggressive in any aspects of their lives.
The foundation of social learning theory (Bandura, 1973) is grounded in the
dual processes of reinforcement and modeling. This theoretical perspective accounts
for the social leaning of behaviors in three ways. First, social learning results from
direct instruction featuring rewards for approved behavior and punishment for
disapproved behavior. In athletics, aggression is often rewarded, especially in
contact sports. The more physically aggressive athlete receives positive recognition
19

and reinforcement (Pappas, McHenry, & Catlett, 2004). Reinforcement may be
either positive, through explicit or implicit approval and/or material reward, or
negative, by means of disapproval, criticism or punishment. In athletics,
reinforcements for violent acts come from several sources. One source is the
immediate reference group of the athlete, such as coaches, teammates, and family.
Another source is the structure of sport and implementation of rules by governing
bodies and officials. Still another source is the attitude of fans, media, and society
(Lance & Ross, 2000). For example, in boxing, the athlete who exhibits the most
physical aggression is usually the one who receives monetary gain, wins the
competition and increases notoriety. These rewards increase the frequency of the
athletes’ physical aggression on the playing field. According to cultural spillover
theory (Boeringer, 1996), the learned behavior of physical aggression is also more
likely in other situations (Feather, 1982) because athletes assume this behavior is
rewarded in all aspects of their life. Consequently, Mintah et al. (1999) find athletes
feel justified in using aggression to achieve a desired performance outcome or
reward on and off the field. Mintah et al. (1999) explains that athletes use their
competitive nature within their sport to carry over to situations of control off the
playing field.
Second, social learning takes place by repetitive construction of relations
between certain circumstances and the behavior that is expected in those
circumstances (Bandura, 1973). In athletics, coaches and peers repeatedly promote
20

and expect players to demonstrate physical aggression. For example, in football,
coaches publicly bellow phrases such as “hit harder” to instruct players to hit and
push their opponents further distances. This increases its frequency on the playing
field and according to cultural spillover theory makes it more likely in other
situations (Feather, 1982) because athletes assume that this behavior is expected in
all aspects of their life.
Third, social learning involves the use of role modeling (Bandura & Walters,
1963; Bandura, 1973). In athletics, physically aggressive players are often glorified
role models. For example, in hockey, role model Marty McSorley is known as
Wayne Gretzky’s personal on-ice enforcer and is one of the top five players with the
most penalty minutes for getting into physical altercations during competition in the
history of the sport (Very Major Penalty, 2000). McSorley, received 18 months
probation and the longest suspension in the National Hockey League history for
swinging his stick and hitting another player in the head with seconds left in the
February 21, 2000 Boston Bruins-Vancouver Canucks game (Very Major Penalty,
2000). The player lost consciousness and suffered a grade 3 concussion (Very Major
Penalty, 2000). Role models such as McSorley increase the frequency of physical
aggression on the playing field and according to cultural spillover theory, make it
more likely in other situations (Feather, 1982) because some athletes see this
behavior modeled in one aspect of their life and assume it applies to all aspects.
Since athletics, especially professional contact sports, are given considerable media
21

coverage and the behaviors of players such as McSorley make them popular role
models, it is not unexpected for young athletes to imitate the behavior of their
professional heroes. Research indicates that imitative behavior includes the
emulation of violence (Bandura, 1973). In one study, 56% of the junior hockey
players claim they learn extra aggressive behavior from observing professional
hockey, and then include them in their own playing style (Smith, 1977). The
findings of another study indicate that interpersonal aggression is common in the
lives of hockey players both on and off the ice (Pappas et al., 2004). Therefore,
violent role models increase the likelihood of student-athletes using physical
aggression in all aspects of their life.
Athletes are often afforded special treatment due to their exceptional athletic
ability (Benedict, 1997; Benedict, 1998; Eskenazi, 1990; Hoffman, 1986). This
privilege grows progressively as athletes gain popularity throughout their career. For
example, student-athletes receive special admissions criteria, separate academic
support, superior housing accommodations, finer dining facilities and celebrity social
status (Benedict, 1998). Therefore, compared to the general student body, student-
athletes often believe they deserve additional sexual privileges including more
frequent sexual contacts and more consensual partners (Benedict, 1998). Since
student-athletes enjoy special privileges, they sometimes believe they have a right to
become physically aggressive when their sexual advances are denied by an unwilling
participant (Benedict, 1998). Moreover, victims of physical abuse believe student-
22

athletes’ celebrity status make it exceptionally difficult to successfully prosecute
them and win retribution (Chandler et al., 1999; Silva, 1983; Tucker & Parks, 2001).
For sexual assault cases, the conviction rate for athletes is less than half at 38%
(Crosset et al., 1996) and few cases of sexual assault among student-athletes go to
trial. Moreover, the media can downplay the severity of student-athletes’ crimes in
order to protect them. However, on the flip side, the additional media hype they
receive may also distort reality by giving off the impression that violence is much
more prevalent among student-athletes than non-student-athletes. Regardless,
perpetrators, victims and society as a whole perceive student-athletes’ physical
aggression as more acceptable because of the preferential treatment they receive.
Although most athletes achieve a masculine identity through achievement,
dominance, competence and competitiveness (Gilligan, 1982), some of their peers
offer a different perspective. Some student-athletes define and express masculinity
by achieving academic success, respecting women and having strong upstanding
character to do what is morally right even though it is an unpopular decision (Martin
& Harris, 2006). Additionally, these student-athletes aspire to achieve commendable
identities beyond their more publicized reputations as athletes (Martin & Harris,
2006). However, since statistics reflect that student-athletes are more physically
aggressive than their counterparts, research concludes that few student-athletes share
this unique perspective (Martin & Harris, 2006). This study will identify if and how
these perceptions influence the acceptance of physical aggression.
23

Reporting Behaviors and Predictors
Although many acts of physical aggression occur, many incidents go
unreported. Researchers theorize that official information regarding violence
against women underestimates the prevalence because people are usually victimized
by perpetrators they know and are less likely to inform authorities (Gartner &
Macmillan, 1995). Factors affecting reporting behaviors include the perpetrator’s
and victim’s gender, race, socio-economic status, social consequences and
relationship to each other (Allen et al., 1996; Richardson, Vandenberg, &
Humphries, 1986; Taylor & Epstein, 1967. This section will discuss the factors
affecting reporting behaviors.
The following section will discuss current research on the predictors and
factors of physical aggression and reporting behaviors.
Gender.
The first factor that will be addressed is gender. For perpetrators, a few
studies (Allen, et al., 1996; Richardson et al., 1986; Taylor & Epstein, 1967) find no
significant differences between male and female physical aggression, however most
research on the topic refutes this finding (Allen, et al., 1996; Richardson et al., 1986;
Taylor & Epstein, 1967). Social and developmental researchers find that consistent
gender differences in physical aggression are present from early childhood and
remain relatively stable through adolescence (Carlo, Raffaelli, Laible, & Meyer,
2002). A meta-analysis by Eagly and Steffen (1986) finds that men are more
24

aggressive than women and that this sex difference is more pronounced for physical
rather than psychological aggression. Males at all ages are more likely than females
to commit major acts of violence, be arrested and be incarcerated (U.S. Department
of Justice, 1995). According to the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes
(n.d.), male student-athletes comprise 3.3% of the population, but they represent
19% of sexual assault perpetrators and 35% of domestic violence perpetrators.
Although some studies find gender cannot be used to predict the likelihood of
physical aggression, most studies find it a good indicator.
Researchers hypothesize the ideals of masculinity instilled at a young age and
concentrated focus on males in studies account for the gender difference of
physically aggressive perpetrators. Groups of males typically value displays of
“hypermasculinity” (Mosher & Sirkin, 1984) and “hostile masculinity” (Malamuth,
Addison, & Koss, 2000). These forms of masculinity promote the ideas that men are
naturally more aggressive than women, should be physically aggressive, should use
violence as a legitimate means to solve problems, should be superior to women and
should use physical aggression when pursuing women (Muelenhard & Cook, 1988;
Muelenhard & Linton, 1987). Therefore, males are either socialized to be physically
more aggressive than females (Godenzi, Schwartz, & DeKeseredy, 2001) or tend to
congregate with others to form groups where their values go unchallenged
(Kilmartin, 2000). This socialization starts at a young age. Compared to girls, more
boys participate in organized athletic activities through their adolescent years (Carlo
25

et al., 1999). This trend typically transcends race and other stable demographic
categories including socio-economic status (Allen et al., 1996). Therefore, for young
men, participation in sports plays a central role in reinforcing societal expectations of
physically aggressive behavior in comparison to women (Messner & Sobo, 1990;
Morrison & Eardley, 1985).
Since most existing research supports the interpretation that males are
physically more aggressive than females, little research exists regarding female
aggression (Allen et al., 1996). Some researchers suggest aggression research is so
dominated by males to the extent that the definition developed fits male styles of
physical aggression (Bjorkvist, Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1992). Therefore, statistics
may underrepresent the amount of physical aggression by females and make it seem
that males are more aggressive than females. Overall, limited research exists
regarding female physical aggression and none exists regarding female student-
athletes. Although most of the research focuses on female victims of physical
aggression by male student-athletes, this study will analyze perpetrators and victims
of both genders and compare the gender differences.
For victims of physical aggression, a recent study by Luthra and Gidycz
(2006) finds that 25% of females and 10% of males self-report physical violence
perpetration against a dating partner. It is likely that a portion of women who report
violence perpetration do so in self-defense (Harned, 2001). Limited research exists
26

regarding male victims of physical aggression and no research exists regarding male
victims of physical aggression by female student-athletes.
Race.
The second factor that will be addressed is race. Most existing research
concludes that race does not affect victim’s reporting behaviors of physical
aggression, however few studies analyze it. Harris (1992) finds that African
American and Caucasian subjects do not differ in the number of past aggressive
behaviors reported (Harris, 1992). Graham, Hudley and Williams (1992) identify no
differences between African American and Latino middle school students in their
attributions of the aggressive behavior of others. A few studies examine differences
between Caucasians and Hispanics in perceptions and evaluations of aggression.
Hosch, Chanez, Bothwell and Munoz (1991) find no significant difference between
Caucasians and Hispanics in their tendency to find a defendant guilty of physical or
sexual abuse. However, a tendency of Hispanics to be more punitive in their
sentencing than Caucasian subjects exists (Hosch et al., 1991). Harris (1995) finds
Hispanics, particularly Hispanic males, are more approving of physical punishment
and aggressive behaviors, especially in response to affronts. The few studies
analyzing race only surveyed African Americans, Caucasians and Latinos. Asians,
Asian Americans, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders have not been studied in
depth in previous research. The limited research concludes that race does not affect
reporting behaviors; however, race affects the acceptance of physical aggression
27

among the general population. Unfortunately, no research exists proving this holds
true among student-athletes.
Although the aforementioned studies show race does not affect a
perpetrator’s likelihood of displaying physical aggression, one study finds that
African American men are physically more aggressive than men from other ethnic
groups because African American men often lack traditional resources necessary to
express masculinity such as wealth, material possessions and positions of power due
to racism in the United States (Oliver, 1989). Instead, they typically rely on
alternative modes of masculinity (Harris, 1995b). According to Oliver (1989),
African American men express masculinity by earning a reputation for being the
“tough guy” or “player.” “Tough guys” are men who induce fear in others.
“Players” are men who establish reputations for engaging in sexual relations with
multiple women. African American men often use physical aggression to achieve
these reputations (Oliver, 1989). Unfortunately, limited research exists on the topic
and no research exists proving this trend holds true among student-athletes. In
conclusion there are no definitive findings that a relationship exists between race and
physical aggression. This dissertation will examine whether any differences in
perceptions and reporting behaviors emerge among different ethnicities.
Social consequences for reporting.
The fourth factor that will be addressed is social consequences such as desire
for group acceptance and fears of retaliation due to peer pressure. For perpetrators,
28

a great deal of pressure exists within peer groups to adhere to normative expectations
(Lance & Ross, 2000). If normative behavior in a sport is highly aggressive, it is
inevitable that physically aggressive behavior will be internalized and accepted in all
aspects of life according to cultural spillover theory (Lance & Ross, 2000). For
example, research indicates that the internalization of violence as normative behavior
often takes place in hockey (Vaz, 1979). Highly aggressive athletes have higher
occurrence of physical aggression than less aggressive athletes (Pappas et al., 2004).
Male athletes have the highest occurrence of physical aggression because if they
choose not to conform to the traditional standards of masculinity, they are not
accepted or respected by their male peers, especially within the sports culture
(Harper, 2004). Gilbert and Gilbert (1998) suggest that involvement in sports
increases the likelihood of young men being welcomed into male peer groups. On
the contrary, males who are not engaged in sports find it difficult to gain respect and
acceptance from their male peers (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998). Failure to live up to
society’s expectations of masculinity results in dire social consequences such as
being ostracized and publicly humiliated (Harper, 2004). Desires to avoid negative
consequences and gain acceptance by peers, means that male student-athletes are the
most likely to display physically aggressive behavior in all aspects of their life.
For victims, a great deal of pressure exists within peer groups to not report
acts of physical aggression especially if the perpetrator is a fellow student-athlete
(Dobash & Dobash, 1992). Types of retaliation include ostracizing, physical abuse,
29

and mental abuse. Social consequences are often dependent upon gender (Hanmer,
Radford, & Stanko, 1989). Women may choose not to call the police because they
know that they may not be taken seriously, may be blamed for their victimization,
may incur the wrath of their victimizer, family, or friends, may not be able to control
the legal process once it decides to treat the incident as a “real crime,” may lose their
home and children, and, ultimately, may not be protected from further violence
(Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Hanmer et al., 1989). However, female self-reported
violence perpetration may not be as socially stigmatizing as male-reported violence
perpetration. Male victims who report physical aggression often suffer more social
consequences because they are perceived as weak and unable to defend themselves
(Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Hanmer et al., 1989). These social consequences might
explain why women may be more comfortable reporting physical aggression
perpetration than men. Social consequences are a major factor affecting reporting
behaviors of physical aggression by student-athletes and may explain the differences
between male and female reporting patterns. This dissertation will examine these
potential differences among student-athletes.
Perpetrator and victim relationship.
The fifth factor that will be addressed is the perpetrator’s and victim’s
relationship. Strangers frequently use the law to solve their disputes, whereas those
who know each other tend not to use the same means (Black, 1976). Legal
intervention is most common where interaction, intimacy, and integration are scarce.
30

In subsequent work, Black (1979; 1984) and Horwitz (1990) elaborate on this
positive relationship between law and relational distance. When people interact on a
regular basis, have close ties to each other, and desire the relationship to continue,
they usually choose more informal means to solve disputes or deal with harmful
behaviors. People view intimate relationships as private (Black, 1979). Therefore,
legal intervention is an accusation of failure, a source of embarrassment and shame,
and a cause of breakdowns in those relationships (Black, 1979). Moreover, victims
of intimate violence compared to those perpetrated by strangers are less likely to
define acts of physical aggression as serious criminal acts (MacKinnon, 1983).
Since victims are more likely to be assaulted by people they are acquainted with and
less likely to define physical aggression as serious criminal acts, they are less likely
to report acts of physical aggression to authorities (Black, 1976). Although research
exists analyzing the effects of perpetrator and victim relationships, no research exists
proving this holds true among the student-athlete population.
Some of the current research on physical aggression focuses on the
perpetrator’s and victim’s characteristics, however new approaches to physical
aggression are now emerging. Another view is the bystander approach to sexual
violence prevention that began more than ten years ago with Jackson Katz (1994)
and the Mentors in Violence Prevention Program. With this unique approach,
gender, race, socio-economic status, and the childhood upbringing of bystanders are
analyzed (Banyard, 2008). The research on bystander behavior suggests that most
31

people want to respond but may not do so for three reasons: social influence,
audience inhibition, and diffusion of responsibility (Latane & Nida, 1981). The first
reason why most people want to respond to bystander physical aggression but do not
is social influence. Social influence contributes to the social inhibition of helping.
Latane and Nida (1981) explain that “since apparent helping situation is likely to be
ambiguous, an individual looks to other people to help define it. The presence of
others can thus inhibit helping when individuals see the inaction of others and
interpret the situation as less critical than it actually is or decide that inaction is the
expected pattern of behavior” (p. 309). Social influence is probably the most
obvious reason why people do not report physical aggression behavior. It is based
on multiple factors, such as individually deciding whether it is justifiable to report,
whether it is a behavior that is a common practice or whether it is worth reporting at
all. The next reason is audience inhibition. Latane and Nida (1981) state “that the
bystander who decides to intervene runs the risk of embarrassment if, say, the
situation is misinterpreted and is not actually an emergency – the more people
present, the greater the risk. The presence of others can inhibit help when
individuals are fearful that their behavior can be seen by others and evaluated
negatively” (p. 309). Audience inhibition has the potential to limit the reporting of
physical aggression behavior in a group setting, an accepting organization, such as a
Greek organization, team gatherings, and other peer pressure environments.
32

Finally the last reason, “diffusion of responsibility can be viewed as a means
of reducing the psychological cost associated with nonintervention. When others are
present, such costs are shared and nonintervention becomes more likely. The
knowledge that others are present and available to respond, even if the individual
cannot see or be seen by them, allows the shifting of some of the responsibility for
helping to them” (Latane & Nida, 1981, p. 309). This reason often delays or
misrepresents the actual occurrence of the reporting behavior.
In addition to these three reasons, fear of retaliation may also inhibit
individuals from intervening (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). A fifth reason is
provided by recent research on social norms suggesting that individuals may not
intervene due to misperceptions regarding how others feel about the situation
(Berkowitz, 2002). Although factors affecting bystander behavior are significant
contributors to reporting behavior, limited research exists on the topic and none
exists about student-athletes in this context.
Sport type.
Previous research shows that contact sports are positively associated with the
amount of aggressiveness displayed by their participants (Silva, 1983; Tucker &
Parks, 2001). However, more recent research refutes this finding and shows
physically aggressive behavior is not significantly related to the amount of contact
associated with their sport (Keller, 2007; Gardner & Janelle, 2002). Other research
by Mintah, Huddleston and Doody (1999) find that semi-contact sport athletes agree
33

more with aggression simply as a part of the competition than contact sport athletes
who view it as a necessity.
Group size.
Studies found that an individual is more likely to help when alone as opposed
to in a group situation (Latane & Nida, 1981; Latane & Dabbs Jr., 1975; Petty,
Harkins, Williams & Latane, 1977) because of three social psychological processes:
1) social inhibition, 2) social influence and 3) diffusion of responsibility. Social
inhibition occurs when an individual risks negative consequences such as
embarrassment for helping, especially if the individual misinterprets the situation and
a large number of bystanders witness the situation (Latane & Nida, 1981). In other
words, high risk is associated with highly ambiguous situations and larger groups of
bystanders. Therefore, the presence of other bystanders can inhibit helping when
individuals believe others will observe their behavior and evaluate it negatively.
Since helping situations are likely to be ambiguous, social influence occurs when an
individual looks to others for social cues to define the situation and appropriate
behavior (Latane & Nida, 1981). Therefore, the inaction of other bystanders in a
situation can lead individuals to inaccurately interpret a situation as not critical or
decide inaction is the expected behavior. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when an
individual perceives responsibilities and costs shared among a group of bystanders
(Latane & Nida, 1981). The individual falsely believes more bystanders is
associated with a greater likelihood of the victim receiving help. Therefore, the
34

individual relieves himself/herself of the responsibility to help by shifting it to
others. However, researchers find the victim is actually less likely to receive help as
the number of bystanders increases, and thus, most likely to receive help when there
is a single witness (Latane & Nida, 1981). These three social psychological
processes can occur individually or in combination with each other and persuade
bystanders to not help victims. The inverse relationship between a bystander’s
willingness to help victims and the number of bystanders witnessing the situation is
the result of the bystander effect.
All of these studies find the likelihood for a bystander helping a victim
decreases if more bystanders are present. However, these studies do not test
bystanders in live emergency situations involving a violent crime which has
potentially severe and dangerous negative consequences for both the bystander and
victim. The victim’s need is commonly caused by impersonal accidents (e.g. a
falling bookcase), physical illness (e.g. nervous seizures), or non-violent crimes (e.g.
book theft) (Fischer, Greitemeyer, Pollozek & Frey, 2006). If bystanders are
exposed to violent situations, little potential for danger and negative consequences
for bystanders and victims exist (e.g. children squabbling) (Fischer et al., 2006).
Despite the research cited above, studies find contradicting evidence occurs
in violent emergency situations. Only a few studies investigate the bystander affect
by exposing participants to dangerous violent emergencies that imply high costs for
helping (endangering the bystander) and high costs for not helping (endangering the
35

victim) (Schwartz & Gottlieb, 1976; Harari, Harari & White, 1985). The results of
these studies indicate an individual is actually less likely to help when alone as
opposed to in a group situation because the individual believes others will provide
support and/or view the individual as a good Samaritan. Although Latane and Nida
(1981) find social influence and diffusion of responsibility persuade bystanders to
not help a victim, Fischer, Greitemeyer, Pollozek & Frey (2006) find these two
social psychological processes can have the opposite effect. They find a bystander
who helps a victim believes others will follow his/her lead and provide support.
Therefore, the risks of embarrassment or retaliation are reduced and diffused among
the group. Moreover, others are more likely to perceive the bystander as a good
Samaritan who will help someone in need, which enhances self-confidence and
public reputation. Fischer et al. (2006) define the positive relationship between a
bystander’s willingness to help victims and the number of bystanders witnessing the
situation as the result of the reverse bystander effect.
Situational ambiguity.
Situations requiring help are not always obvious and interpreted as such.
Unambiguous situations communicate a clear need for bystander help. For example,
if a bystander hears a victim verbally request assistance or a sees a victim’s safety is
at risk, the bystander is likely to interpret a clear need for help. Ambiguous
situations do not communicate a clear need for bystander help. For example, if a
bystander hears an unidentifiable, unnatural sound or sees the victim’s safety is not
36

at risk, the bystander is likely to be uncertain of the situation’s severity and
appropriate behavior. Fischer, Greitemeyer, Pollozek and Frey (2006) find if a
bystander only hears an emergency, helping is significantly reduced in a group
situation compared to an individual one. However, if a bystander hears and sees an
emergency, the differences between an individual and group’s likelihood to help is
significantly reduced regardless of a victim’s gender and relationship to the
bystander (Fischer, Greitemeyer, Pollozek & Frey, 2006). Therefore, seeing a
situation reduces ambiguity because bystanders are provided more cues to interpret
the situation and to determine the appropriate behavior (Fischer, Greitemeyer,
Pollozek & Frey, 2006; Solomon, Solomon & Stone, 1978).
The ambiguity of a situation affects a bystander’s likeliness to help. Clark
and Word (1974) find bystanders in ambiguous situations will not help because they
are not provided with enough information. However, other researchers disagree. As
stated previously, social influence and diffusion of responsibility can either increase
or decrease a bystander’s likelihood to help (Harari, Harari & White, 1985; Latane &
Nida, 1981; Latane & Dabbs Jr., 1975; Petty, Harkins, Williams & Latane, 1977;
Schwartz & Gottlieb, 1976). Therefore, the results of these studies are inconclusive
regarding whether or not a bystander will help a victim in an ambiguous situation
because their actions are dependent upon the group’s. Bystanders will likely look to
each other for help assessing the severity of an ambiguous situation and subsequently
defining the appropriate behavior (Latane & Nida, 1981). However, bystanders will
37

not look to each other for direction in an unambiguous situation in which need for
help is clear because they will know the severity of the situation and the appropriate
corresponding behavior (Clark & Word, 1974; Latane & Darley, 1970). Therefore,
Latane & Darley (1970) conclude social psychological processes are more likely to
affect ambiguous situations rather than unambiguous situations. Research supports
the conclusion that a bystander will help a victim in an unambiguous situation, but is
inconclusive regarding ambiguous situations.
Although most of the research regarding situational ambiguity views the
topic as dichotomous, Clark and Word (1974) take a different perspective. They
view situational ambiguity as occurring on a gradated scale and introduce the
concept of intermediate levels of situational ambiguity. Clark and Word (1974)
agree with other researchers that bystanders will help in unambiguous situations.
However, they disagree with other researchers that studies are unable to determine if
bystanders will help in ambiguous situations. Clark and Word (1974) find
bystanders in ambiguous situations will definitely not help because they are not
provided with enough information to be concerned. In other words, a bystander is
not likely to look to others for information about how to interpret a situation if the
bystander perceives unambiguous cues communicating a clear need for help, or does
not perceive enough cues to even be concerned with the situation. Clark and Word
(1974) find studies are unable to determine if bystanders will help only when
situations contain intermediate levels of ambiguity. Therefore, they conclude social
38

influence has minimal impact beyond upper and lower boundaries of situational
ambiguity.
Personnel receiving reports.
Many studies investigate the factors predicting reporting of physical
aggression. However, minimal studies investigate which specific types of personnel
(employee supervisors, community people or close friends) receive those reports.
Some studies investigate the likelihood of employee supervisors receiving a report of
physical aggression (Hertzog, Wright & Beat, 2008), while others investigate the
likelihood of community personnel (i.e., law enforcement) receiving a report of
physical aggression (Felson, Messner & Hoskin, 1999). Workplace supervisors
receive a report of physical aggression from 29% of the 303 companies with sexual
harassment policies (Hertzog, et al., 2008). Police (community personnel) receive
reports of physical aggression in about 40% of the incidents that occur (Felson, et al.,
1999). A victim calls the police in a quarter of the incidents (25.1%) and a third-
party calls the police in 14.4% of the incidents. No studies investigate the likelihood
of friends receiving a report of physical aggression. Moreover, no studies exist
comparing the likelihood of different types of personnel receiving reports or the
factors predicting which personnel receive the reports.
Conclusion
This chapter summarizes existing research regarding physical aggression
among student-athletes as well as predictors of reporting behaviors. Social learning
39

theory (Bandura, 1973) and cultural spillover theory (Boeringer, 1996) significantly
affects perceptions of what constitutes physical aggression and how much of it is
acceptable. These perceptions in turn affect reporting behaviors by victims and
bystanders. The existing research analyzes perpetrator and victim characteristics
such as gender, race, socio-economic status, social consequences and level of
familiarity with each other. However, a population that has not been studied in this
context is student-athletes, which are considered the most violent sub-group of
college students based on statistics (Boeringer, 1996; Caron et al., 1997; Crosset et
al., 1995; Frintner & Rubinson, 1993; Young, 1990). The focused study of this
population and the potential contribution to interventions is the goal of this
dissertation study.
40

CHAPTER III
Methodology
Introduction
Physical aggression represents a significant concern in American society
today. Although student-athletes are among the sub-populations that are engaged in
violence such as fights, sexual abuse and gang rapes at an alarmingly high rate (Koss
& Gaines, 1993), researchers have not studied this population in depth.
Unfortunately, most of the limited research focused on the victims instead of the
perpetrators or bystanders. This research trend only allowed society to reactively
prevent certain people from becoming victims of physical aggression in the future.
Society could not proactively prevent physical aggression until it gained a better
understanding of perpetrators and bystanders. The limited existing research
regarding perpetrators focused on particular sub-populations that demonstrated
higher incident rates. The existing research only produced demographic trends and
incident rates. None of the research analyzed perceptions of physical aggression and
associated reporting behaviors.
The purpose of this study was to fill a gap in existing research regarding
student-athletes’ perceptions of physical aggression and associated reporting
behaviors. This study examined the perpetrator’s, victim’s and bystander’s
characteristics in relationship to perceptions of physical aggression and associated
reporting behaviors among college student-athletes. Although completely
41

eliminating physically aggressive behaviors is an unrealistic goal, the findings of this
study contributed to decreasing its occurrence by increasing violence reporting. To
investigate this topic, this chapter includes the research questions, hypotheses and a
description of the research methodology. Further information regarding the
sampling procedure, population, instrumentation and procedure for data collection
and analyses are also described below.
Research Questions
To help fill the gap in the current literature, the three main research questions
for this study were:
1. Are there differences in student-athletes’ likelihood to report an act of
physical aggression based on the following factors:
a. Age
b. Gender
c. Race
d. Type of sport the athlete plays (contact versus non-contact; individual
versus team)
e. Level of aggression
2. How likely are student-athletes to report a serious act of physical aggression
based on the following:
a. Number of bystanders?
b. Gender of the bystanders?
42

c. Relationship between the 1) perpetrator and victim, 2) victim and
bystander, and 3) bystander and perpetrator?
3. Who are student-athletes most likely to report a serious act of physical
aggression to?
a. To what extent does the choice of person to report to vary by the 1)
age, 2) gender, 3) race, and 4) type of sport the athlete plays (contact
versus non-contact; individual versus team)
b. To what extent does the choice of person vary by the bystanders’
relationship to the victim?
Research Design
Since the purpose of non-experimental research designs is to describe current
existing characteristics such as attitudes and relationships (McMillan, 2003), this
study used a non-experimental research design to investigate student-athletes’
perceptions of physical aggression and associated reporting behaviors. The research
design utilized a quantitative approach, driven by research questions that contribute
to gaining a broader understanding of the problem from many individuals as opposed
to deep insight into one particular aspect conveyed by a select few.
This study examined data from four Division I institutions gathered by
electronic quantitative surveys. This study used quantitative data because the goal of
the researcher was to include a large representative sample of student-athletes.
43

Moreover, quantitative data did not require the researcher to personally interpret the
data, which made it easier to analyze and determine relationships (Creswell, 2008).
Instrumentation
For the purposes of this study, the researcher used electronic surveys to
efficiently and conveniently gather data regarding perceptions of physical aggression
and associated reporting behaviors. The independent variables in this study were
age, gender, race, social consequences of reporting, relationship familiarity and sport
type (contact/non-contact and individual/team). The dependent variables in this study
were the perceptions of physical aggression and the associated reporting behaviors.
These quantitative techniques were specifically used to assess the relationship
between the independent and dependent variables. The research design could
demonstrate correlations, but did not provide sufficient conditions for confirming
causal claims (Lauzen & Dozier, 2002).
The instrument developed for this study was the Survey of Student-Athletes’
Perceptions and Reporting Behaviors (Figure A), which consisted of 12 questions
adapted from several studies. The first four questions collected nominal and interval
level data measuring student-athletes’ demographics (age, gender, and race/ethnicity)
and type of sport they played. Similar to previous studies using a quantitative Likert
scale to measure perceptions of physical aggression, the rest of the survey collected
interval level data using a five-point Likert ranging from Very Unlikely to Very
Likely to indicate respondents’ tendencies in hypothetical situations. The next three
44

vignettes with four questions each assessed the respondents’ perceptions and
likelihood to report incidents of low (punch in the face), medium (punch in the face
causing the victim to bleed and fall down) and high (threaten with a knife) levels of
physical aggression. The last four questions in the survey assessed respondents’
likelihood to report the incident dependent on different situational factors: 1)
bystander group characteristics (number and predominant gender of people), 2)
relationship among the perpetrator, victim and respondent, and 3) relationship
between the bystander and person receiving the report (athletic personnel, university
personnel, community personnel or friend/roommate/teammate).

45

Figure A
Survey of Student Athletes’ Perceptions and Reporting Behaviors

46

Figure A: Continued

47

Figure A: Continued

48

Figure A: Continued

In order to ensure that the latent constructs examined in the study were
measured through valid and reliable items, a pilot test was conducted with a sample
49

of student-athletes. The researcher calculated Cronbach’s alpha for the variables and
surveyed the participants regarding the clarity of all the questions. In order to
generalize the results for the overall college student-athlete population, the
researcher ensured that the instrument was reliable and valid. By computing
correlation values among the different questions, the researcher calculated
Cronbach’s alpha to determine the reliability of the measurement for the variable,
such as teammate loyalty and fear of retaliation. Since the research design was a
survey, the researcher can only draw conclusions about correlations, not causal
relationships. The researcher gathered results from a large variety of student-
athletes, therefore, the researcher could conclude the results were externally valid
and representative of all student-athletes.
Population and Sample
This study focused on the college student-athlete population. Therefore, the
sample was drawn from college student-athletes at four Division I institutions.
Division I student-athletes were the most convenient population for the researcher to
access and therefore the most feasible. The population being studied contained male
and female student-athletes representing a variety of sports, a broad age range (18-22
years of age) and different racial backgrounds. The population being studied
included student-athletes from both contact and non-contact as well as individual and
team sports. The goal of the researcher was to garner between 200 and 400
completed electronic surveys to draw valid and reliable conclusions representing a
50

total of approximately 2,700 student-athletes from 37 men’s and women’s sports.
Since the sample was drawn from the population of interest, the findings can be
generalized for Division I college student-athletes.
A total of 343 surveys were collected. After excluding 31 surveys that did
not have consent to participate in this study and two that were incomplete, a final
total of 304 surveys were analyzed in this study. Women accounted for 155
responses (51.5%) and men accounted for 146 respondents (48.5%). The
respondents ranged in age between 18- and 25-years-old, with a mean age of 19.91
years (SD=1.50). The racial and ethnic backgrounds of respondents were Caucasian
(n=204, 67.3%), African American (n=54, 17.8%), Asian American/Pacific Islander
(n=19, 6.3%) and Hispanic (n=18, 5.9%). The remaining respondents were non-
resident alien and Native American. Table 1 illustrates the demographic
composition of respondents’ age, gender and race/ethnicity.
51

Table 1
Demographic Information of Participants
n %
Age
M Years 19.91
SD 1.50
18 60 19.7
19 80 26.3
20 56 18.4
21 63 20.7
22 33 10.9
23 7 2.3
24 2 .7
25 and above 3 1.0
Sex
Male 146 48.5
Female 155 51.5
Race/Ethnicity
Asian American/Pacific Islander 19 6.3
Hispanic 18 5.9
Native American 2 .7
African American 54 17.8
White 204 67.3
Non-Resident Alien 6 2.0

The largest group of respondents participated in the following sports: track
and field (n=51, 17.2%), football (n=47, 15.8%), swimming/diving (n=30, 10.1%),
baseball (n=28, 9.4%), and water polo (n=26, 8.8%). Table 2 illustrates the type of
sport coded by Contact and Non-Contact categories as well as Individual and Team
categories.
52

Table 2
Sport Information of Participants
n %
Team vs.
Individual
Contact vs.
Non-Contact
Baseball 28 9.4 Team
Basketball 17 5.7 Team
Cross Country 8 2.7
Field Hockey 1 .3 Team Contact
Fencing 3 1.0 Contact
Football 57 15.8 Team Contact
Golf 15 5.1
Gymnastic 2 .7
Pistol 2 .7
Rifle 2 .7
Rowing 19 6.4 Team
Soccer 16 5.4 Team Contact
Swimming/Diving 30 10.1
Softball 7 2.4 Team
Tennis 5 1.7 Team
Track and Field 51 17.2
Volleyball 18 6.1 Team
Water Polo 26 8.8 Team Contact

Data Collection
In order to collect data, the researcher first obtained approval to conduct the
study from the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board. Next,
the researcher contacted athletic administrators at four different Division I
institutions to solidify their cooperation in the study during the fall of 2009. Then,
the researcher simultaneously e-mailed a recruitment tool (Figure B) including a
brief description of the study, an electronic link to the online survey, a declaration of
confidentiality, a declaration of volunteer participation, directions for administering
the survey and the researcher’s contact information. The survey hosted by Qualtrics
53

took participants 15 minutes to complete. Respondents had 30 days to complete the
survey and a reminder was sent every week. The survey was accessible 24 hours a
day. The goal was to gather between 200 to 400 completed surveys.
Figure B
E-mailed Recruitment Tool

54

Data Analysis
To analyze the data, the researcher coded the survey responses, inputted the
coded data into SPSS and interpreted the data using various statistical tests. To
determine if age, gender, race and the type of sport predicted reporting behaviors of
physical aggression among student-athletes, the researcher used T-tests, analyses of
variance (ANOVA) and multiple analyses of variance (MANOVA) to produce
descriptive statistics that included frequencies, means and standard deviations of
each independent variable (i.e., age, gender, race and sport type). The researcher
used a categorical score (i.e., male = 1, female = 2) to measure gender, race and type
of sport. The T-tests for independent samples compared the means of reporting
behavior, as determined by scores on the bystander behavior scale for all groups (i.e.,
male, female, etc.). To determine varying levels of perceptions and reporting
behaviors, the researcher calculated means and standard deviations for each response
ranked on a numeric scale (very unlikely = 1, unlikely = 2, undecided = 3, likely = 4,
very likely = 5 and unanswered = 0). The researcher used ANOVAs to explore the
differences between group means on dependent variables (perceptions and reporting
behaviors). The researcher used MANOVAs to explore the differences between
group means on dependent variables (perceptions and reporting behaviors) at
different levels of physical aggression (low, medium and high).
55

CHAPTER IV
Results
Introduction
This chapter will discuss the results for the three following major research
questions.
1. Are there differences in student-athletes’ likelihood to report an act of
physical aggression based on the following factors:
a. Age
b. Gender
c. Race
d. Type of sport the athlete plays (contact versus non-contact; individual
versus team)
e. Level of aggression
2. How likely are student-athletes to report a serious act of physical aggression
based on the following:
a. Number of bystanders?
b. Gender of the bystanders?
c. Relationship between the 1) perpetrator and victim, 2) victim and
bystander, and 3) bystander and perpetrator?
3. Who are student-athletes most likely to report a serious act of physical
aggression to?
56

a. To what extent does the choice of person to report to vary by the 1)
age, 2) gender, 3) race, and 4) type of sport the athlete plays (contact
versus non-contact; individual versus team)
b. To what extent does the choice of person vary by the bystanders’
relationship to the victim?
Intercorrelations
Results of the intercorrelations between participant characteristics and
likelihood of reporting are represented in Table 3. Results indicated there was a
positive association between age and the type of sport they play (individual vs.
team), revealing that those student-athlete participants who play team sport also
reported to be older than those who play individual sport, r = .14, p = .014.
However, there was no relationship between playing contact vs. non-contact sport
and age. In addition, more female student-athlete participants reported to play
individual sport and non-contact sport, r = -.21, p < .001, r = .18, p = .002.
Three vignettes were given with different levels of aggression – low level
with someone punching another in the face, medium level with someone punching
another in the face leading to the victim bleeding and falling, and finally the high
level with someone pulling a knife on someone else. Age was not related to the
likelihood of the student-athlete participants’ self-perceptions in reporting for any of
the three levels. Gender differences were found. Female student-athlete participants
reported more likelihood to reporting the incidents for all three levels of aggression, r
57

= .27, p < .001; r = .28, p < .001, and r = .18, p = .001. Finally, those who play in
individual sport or non-contact sport reported more likelihood to reporting only when
the incident were at the medium and high level of aggression, r = -.16, p = .007, r = -
.17, p = .003, for individual players, and r = .15, p = .010, r = .12, p = .039, for non-
contact players.
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations and Zero-order Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7

M SD
1. Age 19.91 1.50 -.14* .14* -.04 -.09 -.07 -.09
2. Sex -- -.21*** .18** .27*** .28*** .18**
Type of Sport 3. Ind/Team -- -.50*** -.04 -.16** -.17**
4. Contact -- .09 .15* .12*
Perception 5. V – Low 2.98 .99 -- .79*** .52***
6. V – Medium 3.55 1.04 -- .63***
7. V – High 4.33 .94 --
Note. All scores are scaled scores. 1: Age (years); 2: Sex (1 = Male, 2 = Female); Type of Sport = the type of sport the
student-athlete participant plays, 3: Ind/Team (1 = individual sport, 2 = team sport), 4: Contact (1 = Contact sport, 2 =
Non-contact sport); Perceptions = the student-athlete’s perception of the likelihood they will report the incident with the
level of aggression given in the vignette, 5. V – Low (low level of aggression – punching someone in the face), 6. V –
Medium (medium level of aggression – punching someone in the face causing the victim to bleed and fall down), 7. V –
High (high level of aggression – pulling a knife on another person).
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Research Question 1: Likelihood to Report Acts of Physical Aggression of
Different Degrees
Age.
Due to the insufficient group size of those who are age 23 and older, only
respondents who are 22-years-old and below were included in this analysis. A 3 X 5
(18-, 19-, 20-, 21-, and 22-years-old) MANOVA was conducted to examine if a
58

relationship exists between student-athletes’ age and their likelihood to report
different levels of physical aggression (low, medium, and high). Results indicated
no relationships exist between student-athletes’ age and their likelihood to report
different levels of physical aggression (Wilks’ Lambda Λ= .98, F (12, 751.69) = .55,
p = .881, η2 = .008).
Gender.
A 3 X 2 MANOVA was conducted to examine if differences exist between
male and female student-athletes’ likelihood to report different levels of physical
aggression (low, medium, and high). Results indicated gender affects student-
athletes’ likelihood to report different levels of physical aggression (Wilks’ Lambda
Λ = .92, F (3, 296) = 9.13, p < .001, η2 = .085). Post Hoc univariate tests indicated
that female students were more likely to report acts of physical aggressions at all
levels. The results were as follows: low level F (1, 298) = 23.22, p < .001, η2 =
.072; medium level F (1, 298) = 25.20, p < .001, η2 = .078, and high level F (1, 298)
= 9.48, p = .002, η2 = .031.
Race.
Insufficient group sizes for Native American and Non-Resident Alien
respondents were collected. Therefore, only Asian American/Pacific Islander,
Hispanic, African American, and Caucasian student-athletes were included in the
analyses to examine if differences exist in student-athletes’ likelihood to report
different levels of physical aggressions based on their race. A 3 X 4 MANOVA was
59

conducted. Results indicated race affects student-athletes’ likelihood to report
different levels of physical aggression (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .87, F (9, 701.07) = 4.53,
p < .001, η2 = .045). Post Hoc univariate tests indicated differences in reporting
likelihood based on race in all three levels of physical aggression: low level F (3,
290) = 6.49, p < .001, η2 = .063; medium level F (3, 290) = 6.47, p < .001, η2 =
.063, and high level F (3, 290) = 11.69, p < .001, η2 = .108. More specifically, in all
three levels of physical aggression, African American students were less likely to
report the incident than Asian American/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Caucasian
student-athletes. No differences exist among Asian American/Pacific Islander,
Hispanic, and Caucasian student-athletes’ likelihood to report acts of physical
aggression.
Individual vs. Team Sport.
A 3 X 2 MANOVA was conducted to examine if differences exist in student-
athletes’ likelihood to report different levels of physical aggression based on whether
they play an individual or team sport. Results indicated that a difference exists
(Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .95, F (3, 292) = 5.42, p = .001, η2 = .053). Post Hoc
univariate tests indicated differences existed in reporting behaviors of medium (F (1,
294) = 7.38, p = .007, η2 = .024) and high (F (1, 294) = 8.95, p = .003, η2 = .030)
level acts of physical aggression between student-athletes who play individual and
team sports. However, no differences exist in reporting behaviors of low level acts
of physical aggression (F (1, 294) = .45, p = .502, η2 = .002). More specifically,
60

student-athletes who play individual sports were more likely to report medium and
high level acts of physical aggression, compared to their counterparts who play team
sports.
Contact vs. Non-Contact Sport.
A 3 x 2 MANOVA was conducted to examine if differences exist in student-
athletes’ likelihood to report different levels of physical aggression based on whether
they play a contact or non-contact sport. Results indicated no differences exist
(Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .97, F (3, 292) = 2.57, p = .055, η2 = .026).
Results of the multivariate and univariate statistics are illustrated in Table 4.
Table 5 summarizes the means and standard deviations of likelihood to report by age
groups, sex, race, and types of sport.
61

Table 4
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Likelihood to Report Three Levels of Aggression
with Significant Post Hoc Tests
Source Λ F df p Significant post hoc test
Age .98 .55 12 .881 No differences
Gender .92 9.13 3 .000

Low*** 23.22 1 .000 Female > Male

Medium*** 25.20 1 .000 Female > Male

High** 9.48 1 .002 Female > Male
Race .87 4.53 9 .000

Low*** 6.49 3 .000 API, Hispanic, White > Black

Medium*** 6.45 3 .000 API, Hispanic, White > Black

High*** 11.69 3 .000 API, Hispanic, White > Black
Individual/Team .95 5.42 3 .001

Low .45 1 .502

Medium** 7.38 1 .007 Individual > Team

High** 8.95 1 .003 Individual > Team
Contact/Non-Contact .97 2.57 3 .055 No differences
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

62

Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations of Likelihood to Report Three Levels of Aggression
Aggression Low Medium High
M SD M SD M SD
Age
18 3.01 .87 3.61 .97 4.40 .93
19 3.03 .94 3.59 1.05 4.43 .88
20 3.14 1.01 3.63 .98 4.38 .84
21 2.82 1.05 3.46 1.12 4.19 1.04
22 3.03 1.02 3.54 1.08 4.27 .98
Sex
Male 2.72 .97 3.27 1.07 4.17 1.09
Female 3.25 .93 3.85 .92 4.50 .75
Race
Asian American 3.09 .98 3.55 .86 4.57 .70
Hispanic 3.19 .82 3.86 .97 4.34 .90
African American 2.45 1.02 3.01 1.19 3.70 1.30
White 3.07 .94 3.66 .96 4.48 .75
Type of Sport I
Individual 3.02 .95 3.75 .94 4.52 .76
Team 2.94 1.02 3.41 1.09 4.19 1.03
Type of Sport II
Contact 2.85 1.00 3.31 1.10 4.16 1.11
Non-Contact 3.03 .99 3.65 1.01 4.40 .85
Note. All scores were scaled scores.

Research Question 2: Likelihood to Report a Serious Act of Physical Aggression
based on Bystander Group Characteristics, and Relationships among the
Perpetrator, Victim, and Bystander Student-Athletes
Number of bystanders.
The researcher conducted a Repeated Measure MANOVA to examine if
student-athletes’ likelihood to report a serious act of physical aggression differed
based on the number of bystanders in the group (just one person, 10 people, and 20
people or more). Results indicated that differences exist in student-athletes’
63

likelihood to report based on the different number of bystanders (Wilks’ Lambda Λ =
.85, F (2, 300) = 26.98, p < .001, η2 = .152). Post Hoc univariate tests revealed that a
smaller number of bystanders are associated with a higher likelihood of student-
athletes to report acts of physical aggression.
Gender of bystanders.
The researcher conducted a Repeated Measure MANOVA to examine if
student-athletes’ likelihood to report a serious act of physical aggression differed
based on the predominant gender of the bystander group. Results indicated that
differences exist in student-athletes’ likelihood to report based on the predominant
gender of the bystander group (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .84, F (1, 302) = 57.78, p < .001,
η2 = .161). More specifically, when the bystander group consisted of predominantly
females, student-athletes were significantly more likely to report acts of physical
aggression than when the bystander group consisted of predominately males.
Relationship among perpetrator, victim, and bystander student-athlete.
The researcher conducted a three-paired Sample T-test to examine if there
were any differences in student-athletes’ likelihood to report a very serious act of
physical aggression based on the relationship between 1) the perpetrator and victim,
2) the victim and student-athlete bystander, and 3) the perpetrator and student-athlete
bystander. Results indicated that student-athlete bystanders were significantly more
likely to report a serious act of physical aggression in three relational situations: 1)
the perpetrator and victim were not friends (t (301) = -12.09, p < .001); 2) the victim
64

and student-athlete bystander were friends (t (300) = 12.50, p < .001), and 3) the
perpetrator and student-athlete bystander were not friends (t (302) = -14.77, p <
.001).
Results of the multivariate statistics and t-tests with group means and
standard deviations of likelihood to report by number and gender of the bystanders,
and the relationships between the perpetrator, victim, and bystander are illustrated in
Table 6.
Table 6
Multivariate Statistics, T-tests, Means and Standard Deviations of Likelihood to Report by Bystanders
Likelihood M SD Λ F df p
Number of Bystanders*** .85 26.98 2 .000
1 person 3.75 1.16
10 people 3.59 1.07
20 people or more 3.27 1.21
Sex of Bystanders*** .84 57.78 1 .000
Predominately female 3.78 1.04
Predominately male 3.37 1.16
Friend Not Friend
Likelihood M SD M SD t p
Relationship
Perpetrator and Victim*** 2.88 1.18 3.66 1.05 -12.09 .000
Victim and Participant*** 4.22 1.02 3.52 1.03 12.50 .000
Perpetrator and Participant*** 2.97 1.10 3.82 1.03 -14.77 .000
Note. All scores were scaled scores. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Research Question 3: Personnel Most Likely to Receive a Serious Report of
Physical Aggression Based on Demographics and the Relationship of the
Bystander Student-Athlete with the Victim
The likelihood of who received a serious report of physical aggression
committed by a teammate/student-athlete was examined in two situations: 1) when
65

the victim was another teammate/student-athlete and 2) when the victim was a
stranger. In each situation, the researcher examined if differences exist in the
personnel who received the report based on the bystander student-athletes’ age,
gender, race, and type of sport the student-athlete played (contact vs. non-contact;
individual vs. team). Results are described below.
Teammate/student-athlete victim.
Participants were asked to choose from four types of personnel who was most
likely to receive the report of physical aggression when the victim was a
teammate/student-athlete: Athletic Personnel (Coach, trainer, athletic academic
counselor, teammate), University Personnel (Professor, academic advisor, campus
law enforcement agency, student), Community Personnel (family, church leader, law
enforcement agency), and Friend, roommate, and teammate. The researcher
conducted a Repeated Measures MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the
four choices of personnel receiving the report of physical aggression. Results
indicated that significant differences existed in the likelihood of each type of
personnel to receive a report of physical aggression (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .55, F (3,
301) = 81.43, p < .001, η2 = .448). More specifically, when the act of physical
aggression by a teammate/student-athlete was against another teammate/student-
athlete, the bystander student-athletes was most likely to report the incident to
personnel in the following order: 1) a friend, roommate, or teammate, 2) Athletic
Personnel, 3) Community Personnel, and 4) University Personnel.
66

To examine if differences existed in the student-athlete’s choices of reporting
when the aggression was against a teammate/student-athlete based on their age,
gender, race, types of sport they played (individual vs. team sport; contact vs. non-
contact sport), repeated measures MANOVA were conducted with each of the
variable. Results for each variable were discussed in separate sections.
The repeated measure MANOVA statistic, follow up repeated measure
MANOVA or univariate statistics were described in Table 7. Table 8 summarized
the group means and standard deviations of the likelihood to report and the choice of
person to report when the aggression was against a teammate/student-athlete by
participants’ age, gender, race, and type of sport the athletes played (individual vs.
team sport; contact vs. non-contact sport).
Table 7
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Likelihood to Report When Aggression is
Against a Teammate with Significant Follow up and Post Hoc Tests
Source Λ F df p Significant post hoc test
Overall*** .55 81.42 3 .000 Friends > Athletic > Comm > Univ.
Age .97 .63 16 .862 No interaction or main effects
Gender .90 8.45 4 .000 No interaction effect. Gender main effect

Athletic*** 22.43 1 .000 Female >Male

University** 8.01 1 .005 Female >Male

Community*** 14.07 1 .000 Female >Male

Friends**** 24.64 1 .000 Female >Male
Race .90 2.63 12 .002 No interaction effect. Race main effect

Athletic*** 6.80 3 .000 API, White >Black

University 2.59 3 .053

Community 1.73 3 .161

Friends*** 9.01 3 .000 API, White >Black
Individual/Team* .97 3.21 3 .024 Interaction effects

Individual*** .47 44.17 3 .000 Friends > Athletic > Comm, Univ.

Team*** .60 39.01 3 .000 Friends > Athletic > Comm > Univ.
Contact/Non-Contact* .96 3.84 3 .010 Interaction effects

Contact*** .63 17.30 3 .000 Friends > Athletic > Comm, Univ.

Non-Contact*** .51 65.78 3 .000 Friends > Athletic > Comm > Univ.
Note. Comm = Community Personnel; Univ. = University Personnel
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

67

Table 8
Means and Standard Deviations of Likelihood to Report When Aggression is Against a Teammate
Likelihood to
Report to
Athletic University Community Friends
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Overall 3.62 1.26 2.90 1.22 3.06 1.32 4.16 1.16
Age
18 3.62 1.21 2.75 1.02 3.03 1.19 4.25 1.07
19 3.65 1.28 2.89 1.30 3.09 1.36 4.24 1.12
20 3.64 1.17 3.00 1.10 3.16 1.26 4.11 1.07
21 3.49 1.34 2.89 1.22 3.08 1.29 4.17 1.24
22 3.79 1.29 3.06 1.48 2.85 1.52 4.12 1.32
Sex
Male 3.29 1.38 2.71 1.28 2.78 1.35 3.85 1.30
Female 2.95 1.02 3.10 1.12 3.34 1.21 4.48 .89
Race
Asian American 3.89 .88 3.21 1.32 3.21 1.36 4.42 1.07
Hispanic 3.67 1.19 2.94 1.00 3.06 1.06 4.17 1.04
African American 2.93 1.36 2.50 1.29 2.69 1.43 3.44 1.53
White 3.75 1.22 2.96 1.19 3.13 1.29 4.32 1.00
Type of Sport I
Individual 3.98 1.11 3.07 1.14 3.16 1.26 4.41 .97
Team 3.39 1.31 2.80 1.27 3.01 1.37 4.01 1.26
Type of Sport II
Contact 3.11 1.41 2.69 1.26 2.76 1.41 3.86 1.40
Non-Contact 3.86 1.12 3.00 1.20 3.21 1.26 4.31 1.02
Note. All scores were scaled scores.

Age.
The researcher conducted a 4 (choices) x 5 (age groups) Repeated Measures
MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four types of personnel receiving
the report of physical aggression against a teammate/student-athlete based on
bystander student-athletes’ age. Results indicated that no significant interactions
existed between the type of personnel who received a report of physical aggression
and the age of bystander student-athletes (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .97, F (12, 754.33) =
.83, p = .616, η
2
= .012). More specifically, the likelihood of different personnel
receiving a report of physical aggression was the same for all ages analyzed in the
study. In addition, results also indicated no age group differences existed within
68

each type of personnel receiving the report of physical aggression (F (4, 287) = .07, p
= .992, η
2
= .001).
69

Gender.
The researcher conducted a 4 (choices) x 2 (gender) Repeated Measures
MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four types of personnel receiving
the report of physical aggression against a teammate/student-athlete based on
bystander student-athletes’ gender. Results indicated that no significant interactions
existed in the likelihood of each type of personnel to receive a report of physical
aggression against a teammate/student-athlete based on bystander student-athletes’
gender (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .99, F (3, 297) = 1.54, p = .204, η
2
= .015). More
specifically, the likelihood of who received bystander student-athletes’ report of
physical aggression was the same for both males and females analyzed in the study.
However, results also indicated main effects existed based on gender, which
suggested that males and females had different likelihoods of reporting when
examining each type of personnel individually (F (1, 299) = 27.84, p < .001, η
2
=
.085).
The researcher conducted a follow-up 4 (choices) x 2 (gender) MANOVA to
examine if differences existed in the four types of personnel receiving the report of
physical aggression based on bystander student-athletes’ gender. Results indicated
that significant differences existed in the likelihood of each type of personnel to
receive a report of physical aggression against a teammate/student-athlete based on
bystander student-athletes’ gender (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .90, F (4, 296) = 8.45, p <
.001, η
2
= .103). Post Hoc univariate tests revealed that significant gender
differences existed within all four types of personnel receiving the report of physical
aggression against a teammate/student-athlete. More specifically, females were
70

more likely to report acts of physical aggression against a teammate/student-athlete
to all four types of personnel: Athletic Personnel (F (1, 299) = 22.43, p < .001, η
2
=
.070), University Personnel (F (1, 299) = 11.51, p = .005, η
2
= .026), Community
Personnel (F (1, 299) = 14.07, p < .001, η
2
= .045), and Friend, Roommate, and
Teammate (F (1, 299) = 24.64, p < .001, η
2
= .076).
Race.
The researcher conducted a 4 (choices) x 4 (race groups) Repeated Measures
MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four types of personnel receiving
the report of physical aggression against a teammate/student-athlete based on
bystander student-athletes’ race. Results indicated that no significant interactions
existed in the likelihood of each type of personnel to receive a report of physical
aggression against a teammate/student-athlete based on bystander student-athletes’
race (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .98, F (9, 703.501) = .70, p = .713, η
2
= .007). More
specifically, the likelihood of who received bystander student-athletes report of
physical aggression was the same across different race groups in the study.
However, results also indicated main effects existed based on race, which suggested
that bystander student-athletes of different race groups had different likelihoods of
reporting when examining each type of personnel individually, F (3, 291) = 7.26, p <
.001, η
2
= .070.
The researcher conducted a follow-up 4 (choices) X 4 (race) MANOVA to
examine if differences existed in the four types of personnel receiving the report of
physical aggression based on bystander student-athletes’ race (Asian
American/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, African American, and Caucasian). Results
71

indicated that significant differences existed in the likelihood of each type of
personnel to receive a report of physical aggression based on bystander student-
athletes’ race (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .90, F (12, 762.27) = 2.63, p = .002, η
2
= .035).
Post Hoc univariate tests revealed significant race group differences existed within
only two of the types of personnel receiving the report of physical aggression against
a teammate/student-athlete: Athletic Personnel (F (3, 291) = 6.80, p < .001, η
2
=
.065), and Friend, Roommate, and Teammate (F(3, 291) = 9.01, p < .001, η
2
= .085).
More specifically, both Asian American/Pacific Islander and Caucasian student-
athletes were more likely than African American student-athletes to report acts of
physical aggression against a teammate/student-athlete to Athletic Personnel and a
Friend, Roommate, and Teammate. No differences existed among the four race
groups in the likelihood of bystander student-athletes’ likelihood to report acts of
physical aggression to University or Community Personnel.
Individual vs. team sport.
The researcher conducted a 4 (choices) x 2 (individual vs. team sport)
Repeated Measures MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four types of
personnel receiving the report of physical aggression against a teammate/student-
athlete based on the type of sport (individual vs. team) bystander student-athletes
played. Results indicated that significant interactions existed among the likelihood
of each type of personnel to receive a report of physical aggression based on whether
bystander student-athletes played individual or team sports (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .97,
F (3, 293) = 3.21, p = .024, η
2
= .032). More specifically, the likelihood of who
72

received bystander student-athletes’ report of physical aggression differed between
bystander student-athletes who played individual and team sports.
Post Hoc Repeated Measures MANOVA revealed that significant differences
existed in the likelihood of who received the report of physical aggression among
bystander student-athletes who played individual sports (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .47, F
(3, 115) = 44.17, p < .001, η
2
= .535). More specifically, bystander student-athletes
who played individual sports were most likely to report to personnel in the following
order: 1) Friend, Roommate, and Teammate, 2) Athletic Personnel, and 3)
Community and University Personnel (no differences between the two types of
personnel). Post Hoc Repeated Measures MANOVA revealed that significant
differences existed in the likelihood of who received the report of physical
aggression among bystander student-athletes who played team sports (Wilks’
Lambda Λ = .60, F (3, 176) = 39.01, p < .001, η
2
= .399). More specifically,
bystander student-athletes who played team sports were most likely to report to
personnel in the following order: 1) Friend, Roommate, and Teammate, 2) Athletic
Personnel, 3) Community Personnel, and 4) University Personnel.
Contact vs. non-contact sport.
The researcher conducted a 4 (choices) x 2 (contact vs. non-contact sport)
Repeated Measures MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four types of
personnel receiving the report of physical aggression against a teammate/student-
athlete based on the type of sport (contact vs. non-contact) bystander student-
athletes played. Results indicated that significant interactions existed among the
likelihood of each type of personnel to receive a report of physical aggression based
73

on whether bystander student-athletes played contact or non-contact sports (Wilks’
Lambda Λ = .96, F (3, 293) = 3.84, p = .010, η
2
= .038). More specifically, the
likelihood of who received bystander student-athletes’ report of physical aggression
differed between bystander student-athletes who played contact and non-contact
sports.
Post Hoc Repeated Measure MANOVA revealed that significant differences
existed in the likelihood of who received the report of physical aggression among
bystander student-athletes who played contact sports (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .63, F (3,
90) = 17.30, p < .001, η
2
= .366). More specifically, bystander student-athletes who
played contact sports were most likely to report to personnel in the following order:
1) Friend, Roommate, and Teammate, 2) Athletic Personnel, and 3) Community and
University Personnel (no differences between the two types of personnel). Post Hoc
Repeated Measures MANOVA revealed that significant differences existed in the
likelihood of who received the report of physical aggression among bystander
student-athletes who played non-contact sports (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .51, F (3, 201) =
65.78, p < .001, η
2
= .495). More specifically, bystander student-athletes who played
non-contact sports were most likely to report to personnel in the following order: 1)
Friend, Roommate, and Teammate, 2) Athletic Personnel, 3) Community Personnel
and 4) University Personnel.
Stranger victim.
Participants were asked to choose from four types of personnel who was most
likely to receive the report of physical aggression against a stranger – Athletic
Personnel (Coach, trainer, athletic academic counselor, teammate), University
74

Personnel (Professor, academic advisor, campus law enforcement agency, student),
Community Personnel (family, church leader, law enforcement agency), and Friend,
roommate, and teammate. The researcher conducted a Repeated Measures
MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four choices of personnel
receiving the report of physical aggression against a stranger. Results indicated that
significant differences existed in the likelihood of each type of personnel to receive a
report of physical aggression against a stranger (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .59, F (3, 300)
=69.41, p < .001, η
2
= .410). More specifically, when the act of physical aggression
by a teammate/student-athlete was against a stranger, the bystander student-athletes
was most likely to report the incident to personnel in the following order: 1) a
friend, roommate, or teammate, 2) Athletic Personnel, 3) Community Personnel, and
4) University Personnel.
To examine if differences existed in the student-athlete’s choices of reporting
when the aggression was against a stranger based on their age, gender, race, types of
sport they played (individual vs. team sport; contact vs. non-contact sport), repeated
measures MANOVA were conducted with each of the variable. Results for each
variable were discussed in separate sections.
The repeated measure MANOVA statistic, follow up repeated measure
MANOVA or univariate statistics were described in Table 9. Table 10 summarized
the group means and standard deviations of the likelihood to report and the choice of
person to receive the report when the aggression was against a stranger by
participants’ age, gender, race, and type of sport the athletes played (individual vs.
team sport; contact vs. non-contact sport).
75

Table 9
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Likelihood to Report When Aggression is
Against a Stranger with Significant Follow up and Post Hoc Tests
Source Λ F df p Significant post hoc test
Overall*** .59 69.41 3 .000 Friends > Athletic > Comm > Univ.
Age .96 .89 12 .561 No interaction or main effects
Gender .92 6.86 4 .000 No interaction effect. Gender main effect

Athletic** 9.93 1 .002 Female >Male

University** 9.45 1 .002 Female >Male

Community** 7.96 1 .005 Female >Male

Friends*** 24.48 1 .000 Female >Male
Race .92 2.12 12 .014 No interaction effect. Race main effect

Athletic** 4.68 3 .003 White >Black

University 2.02 3 .111

Community 1.10 3 .351

Friends** 5.62 3 .001 API, White >Black
Individual/Team** .95 5.23 3 .002 Interaction effects

Individual*** .52 34.61 3 .000 Friends > Athletic > Comm, Univ.

Team*** .62 35.62 3 .000 Friends > Athletic, Comm > Univ.
Contact/Non-Contact .93 5.86 4 .000 No interaction effects. Sport main effect.

Athletic*** 19.02 1 .000 Non-Contact >Contact

University** 8.47 1 .004 Non-Contact >Contact

Community*** 14.27 1 .000 Non-Contact >Contact

Friends** 10.33 1 .001 Non-Contact >Contact
Note. Comm = Community Personnel; Univ. = University Personnel
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Table 10
Means and Standard Deviations of Likelihood to Report When Aggression is Against a Stranger
Likelihood to
Report to
Athletic University Community Friends
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Overall 3.34 1.24 2.9 1.23 3.01 1.29 4.01 1.14
Age
18 3.33 1.22 2.83 1.04 2.98 1.19 4.07 1.09
19 3.40 1.22 2.91 1.30 3.09 1.35 4.18 1.08
20 3.41 1.13 3.09 1.08 3.23 1.19 3.95 1.07
21 3.08 1.35 2.74 1.28 2.79 1.27 3.90 1.24
22 3.67 1.27 2.97 1.40 2.97 1.40 3.97 1.24
Sex
Male 3.12 1.34 2.68 1.29 2.81 1.32 3.70 1.24
Female 3.56 1.10 3.11 1.11 3.22 1.21 4.32 .91
Race
Asian American 3.58 .96 3.05 1.27 2.95 1.22 4.21 .86
Hispanic 3.72 1.23 3.33 1.09 3.11 1.08 4.06 1.00
African American 2.80 1.41 2.59 1.34 2.72 1.46 3.44 1.46
White 3.42 1.19 2.90 1.17 3.07 1.25 4.12 1.02
Type of Sport I
Individual 3.76 1.16 3.10 1.17 3.14 1.22 4.21 1.01
Team 3.08 1.24 2.78 1.25 2.95 1.33 3.88 1.21
Type of Sport II
Contact 2.89 1.32 2.60 1.24 2.61 1.30 3.70 1.37
Non-Contact 3.56 1.17 3.04 1.20 3.21 1.24 4.15 1.00
Note. All scores were scaled scores.

76

Age.
The researcher conducted a 4 (choices) x 5 (age groups) Repeated Measures
MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four types of personnel receiving
the report of physical aggression against a stranger based on bystander student-
athletes’ age. Results indicated that no significant interactions existed between the
type of personnel who received a report of physical aggression and the age of
bystander student-athletes (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .96, F (12, 751.67) = .89, p = .561,
η
2
= .012). More specifically, the likelihood of different personnel receiving a report
of physical aggression against a stranger was the same for all ages analyzed in the
study. In addition, results also indicated no age group differences existed within
each type of personnel receiving the report of physical aggression against a stranger
(F (4, 286) = .91, p = .459, η
2
= .013).
Gender.
The researcher conducted a 4 (choices) x 2 (gender) Repeated Measures
MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four types of personnel receiving
the report of physical aggression against a stranger based on bystander student-
athletes’ gender. Results indicated that no significant interactions existed in the
likelihood of each type of personnel to receive a report of physical aggression based
on bystander student-athletes’ gender (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .99, F (3, 296) = .74, p =
.531, η
2
= .007). More specifically, the likelihood of who received bystander
student-athletes’ report of physical aggression was the same for both males and
77

females analyzed in the study. However, results also indicated main effects existed
based on gender, which suggested that males and females had different likelihoods of
reporting when examining each type of personnel individually (F (1, 298) = 18.92, p
< .001, η
2
= .060).
The researcher conducted a follow-up 4 (choices) x 2 (gender) MANOVA to
examine if differences existed in the four types of personnel receiving the report of
physical aggression against a stranger based on bystander student-athletes’ gender.
Results indicated that significant differences existed in the likelihood of each type of
personnel to receive a report of physical aggression based on bystander student-
athletes’ gender (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .92, F (4, 295) = 6.86, p < .001, η
2
= .085).
Post Hoc univariate tests revealed that significant gender differences existed within
all four types of personnel receiving the report of physical aggression against a
stranger. More specifically, females were more likely to report acts of physical
aggression against a stranger to all four types of personnel: Athletic Personnel (F (1,
298) = 9.93, p = .002, η
2
= .032), University Personnel (F (1, 298) = 13.65, p = .002,
η
2
= .031), Community Personnel (F (1, 298) = 7.96, p = .005, η
2
= .026), and
Friend, Roommate, and Teammate (F (1, 298) = 24.46, p < .001, η
2
= .076).
Race.
The researcher conducted a 4 (choices) x 4 (race groups) Repeated Measures
MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four types of personnel receiving
the report of physical aggression against a stranger based on bystander student-
78

athletes’ race. Results indicated that no significant interactions existed in the
likelihood of each type of personnel to receive a report of physical aggression based
on bystander student-athletes’ race (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .97, F (9, 701.07) = 1.13, p
= .338, η
2
= .012). More specifically, the likelihood of who received bystander
student-athletes report of physical aggression was the same across different race
groups in the study. However, results also indicated main effects existed based on
race, which suggested that bystander student-athletes of different race groups had
different likelihoods of reporting when examining each type of personnel
individually (F (3, 290) = 4.29, p = .006, η
2
= .042).
The researcher conducted a follow-up 4 (choices) X 4 (race) MANOVA to
examine if differences existed in the four types of personnel receiving the report of
physical aggression based on bystander student-athletes’ race (Asian
American/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, African American, and Caucasian). Results
indicated that significant differences existed in the likelihood of each type of
personnel to receive a report of physical aggression based on bystander student-
athletes’ race (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .92, F (12, 759.622) = 2.12, p = .014, η
2
= .029).
Post Hoc univariate tests revealed significant race group differences existed within
only two of the types of personnel receiving the report of physical aggression against
a stranger: Athletic Personnel (F (3, 290) = 4.68, p = .003, η
2
= .046), and Friend,
Roommate, and Teammate (F (3, 290) = 6.89, p = .001, η
2
= .055). More
specifically, Caucasian student-athletes were more likely than African American
79

student-athletes to report acts of physical aggression against a stranger to Athletic
Personnel. Moreover, Caucasian and Asian American/Pacific Islander student-
athletes were more likely than African American student-athletes to report acts of
physical aggression against a stranger to a Friend, Roommate, and Teammate. No
differences existed among the four race groups in the likelihood of bystander
student-athletes’ likelihood to report acts of physical aggression to University or
Community Personnel.
More specifically, White student-athletes were more likely to report acts of
physical aggression against a stranger to Athletic Personnel than African American
students, while both White and API students were more likely to report to Friend,
Roommate, and Teammate than African American students. There were no
differences in reporting to University or Community Personnel amongst the 4 race
groups of participants.
Individual vs. team sport.
The researcher conducted a 4 (choices) x 2 (individual vs. team sport)
Repeated Measures MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four types of
personnel receiving the report of physical aggression against a stranger based on the
type of sport (individual vs. team) bystander student-athletes played. Results
indicated that significant interactions existed among the likelihood of each type of
personnel to receive a report of physical aggression based on whether bystander
student-athletes played individual or team sports (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .95, F (3, 292)
80

= 5.23, p = .002, η
2
= .051). More specifically, the likelihood of who received
bystander student-athletes’ report of physical aggression against a stranger differed
between bystander student-athletes who played individual and team sports.
Post Hoc Repeated Measures MANOVA revealed that significant differences
existed in the likelihood of who received the report of physical aggression among
bystander student-athletes who played individual sports (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .52, F
(3, 114) = 34.61, p < .001, η
2
= .477). More specifically, bystander student-athletes
who played individual sports were most likely to report to personnel in the following
order: 1) Friend, Roommate, and Teammate, 2) Athletic Personnel, and 3)
Community and University Personnel (no differences between the two types of
personnel). Post Hoc Repeated Measures MANOVA revealed that significant
differences existed in the likelihood of who received the report of physical
aggression among bystander student-athletes who played team sports (Wilks’
Lambda Λ = .62, F (3, 176) = 35.62, p < .001). More specifically, bystander student-
athletes who played team sports were most likely to report to personnel in the
following order: 1) Friend, Roommate, and Teammate, 2) Athletic Personnel, 3)
Community Personnel, and 4) University Personnel.
Contact vs. non-contact sport.
The researcher conducted a 4 (choices) x 2 (contact vs. non-contact sport)
Repeated Measures MANOVA to examine if differences existed in the four types of
personnel receiving the report of physical aggression against a stranger based on the
81

type of sport (contact vs. non-contact) bystander student-athletes played. Results
indicated that no significant interactions existed among the likelihood of each type of
personnel to receive a report of physical aggression based on whether bystander
student-athletes played contact or non-contact sports (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .98, F (3,
292) = 1.90, p = .130, η
2
= .019). More specifically, the likelihood of who received
bystander student-athletes’ report of physical aggression were the same between
bystander student-athletes who played contact and non-contact sports.
The researcher conducted a follow-up 4 (choices) X 2 (contact vs. non-
contact) MANOVA to examine the differences in the four types of personnel
receiving the report of physical aggression based on whether bystander student-
athletes played contact or non-contact sports. Results indicated that significant
differences existed in the likelihood of each type of personnel to receive a report of
physical aggression based on whether bystander student-athletes played contact or
non-contact sports, (Wilks’ Lambda Λ = .93, F (4, 291) = 5.86, p < .001, η
2
= .074).
More specifically, non-contact sport student-athletes were more likely to report the
act of physical aggression against a stranger to all types of personnel: Athletic
Personnel, (F (1, 294) = 19.02, p < .001, η
2
= .061); University Personnel, (F (1, 294)
= 8.47, p = .004, η
2
= .028); Community Personnel, (F (1, 294) = 14.37, p < .001, η
2

= .047); and Friend, Roommate, and Teammate, (F (1, 294) = 10.33, p = .001, η
2
=
.034).
82

CHAPTER V
Discussion
Introduction
Researchers (Koss & Gaines, 1993; Chandler et al., 1999; Young, 1990) find
that student-athletes account for a higher number of reported cases, charges, and
convictions of violence than their college classmates in general and other subgroups
in particular. However, there is limited research on student-athletes aggressive
behavior outside of the playing field, and no research on their perceptions of and
reporting behaviors regarding physical aggression. The purpose of this study was to
fill a gap in the current literature by expanding the understanding of physical
aggression and reporting behaviors among student-athletes. Three research
questions guided this study. First, this study sought to examine whether differences
existed in student-athletes’ likelihood to report an act of physical aggression based
on the following factors: age, gender, race, type of sport the athlete plays, and level
of aggression? Second, this study sought to examine the likelihood of student-
athletes to report a serious act of physical aggression based on the following: number
of bystanders, gender of the bystanders, relationships between the perpetrator and
victim, victim and bystander, and bystander and perpetrator? Lastly, this study
sought to determine who student-athletes most likely reported a serious act of
physical aggression to and the extent the choice of person varied by the age, gender,
race, and type of sport the athlete played?
83

Results of this study suggested that certain internal (personal) and external
(situational) factors significantly impacted a student-athlete’s decision to report.
Internal factors examined included age, gender and race. External factors included
the type of sport an athlete participates in, types of relationships among people
involved (perpetrators, victims and bystanders) and the size of the bystander group.
The results of this study both supported and refuted previous research findings, but
most importantly, the current study was the first to analyze reporting behaviors
among bystander student-athletes. Although student-athletes have the highest rates
of violence among undergraduates (Koss & Gaines, 1993), they have not been
studied specifically in the context of reporting violent behaviors. The following
chapter provides a summary and discussion of the results, as well as theoretical and
applied implications for practitioners. Recommendations and limitations of this
study are also discussed.
Impact of Internal Factors
The results of this study indicated certain internal factors impacted bystander
student-athletes’ reporting behaviors of physical aggression. Age was not a
significant factor, however gender and race emerged as contributors. These findings
supported most of the previous research (Allen et al., 1996; Gartner & Macmillan,
1995; Nattiv & Puffer, 1991; Overman & Terry, 1991; Richardson et al. 1986;
Taylor & Epstein, 1967; Wechsler et al., 1997) on the topic studying perpetrators and
victims in the general population.
84

No previous research existed addressing the impact of bystanders’ age on
reporting behaviors. Therefore, the findings from this study provided information
about the topic. Age did not significantly impact reporting behaviors of physical
aggression because student-athletes ranging in age from 18- to 22-years-old did not
display significant differences in their likelihood to report. Although student-athletes
23-years-old and above completed the survey, their data was not analyzed because of
their low representation (n=12).
All of the previous research about the impact of athletes’ gender on reporting
behaviors focused on the perpetrator and victim’s gender. No previous research
existed specifically addressing the bystander’s gender. Therefore, the findings from
this study expanded the available information about the topic. Social and
developmental researchers have shown that gender differences in physical aggression
arose in early childhood and remained throughout adolescence (Carlo, et al., 2002).
Moreover, men tended to be more aggressive than women, and this gender difference
was most often expressed in physical rather than psychological aggression (Eagly &
Steffen, 1986). In particular, male athletes had the highest occurrence of physical
aggression. Harper (2004) attributed this finding to males’ conforming to the
traditional standards of masculinity to ensure they were accepted or respected by
their peers, especially in sports. Although this study only addressed the impact of
bystander gender on reporting behaviors of physical aggression, the results from this
study corroborated the findings of previous research. Regardless of the level of
85

physical aggression (low, medium and high), a female bystander or student-athlete
among a group of predominately females was more likely than a male bystander or
student-athlete among a group of predominately males to report an act of physical
aggression. Therefore, the gender of individual bystanders and the predominant
gender in the group of bystanders impacted the likelihood of student-athletes to
report acts of physical aggression.
Most of the previous research found that race did not affect reporting
behaviors of physical aggression (Graham, et al., 1992; Harris, 1992). However, one
study found that African American men were more physically aggressive than men
from other racial groups (Oliver, 1989) and the few studies analyzing race studied
only Caucasians, African Americans and Latinos. Asians, Asian Americans, Native
Americans and Pacific Islanders have not generally been studied in this field. While
the work of these researchers served as a starting point, this was the first study to
analyze the reporting behaviors of bystanders and student-athletes as well as consider
race as a possible contributing factor. The findings from this study refuted most of
the previous research, supported one previous study , ( Hosch, et al., 1991) and
expanded the information available about the topic. This study showed African
American student-athletes were significantly less likely to report all levels of
physical aggression (low, medium and high) than student-athletes of any other race
(Caucasians, Hispanics and Asian Pacific Islanders). Asian, Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders were grouped together due to low response rates individually.
86

Native Americans were not analyzed due to low overall response rates. No
significant differences in the likelihood to report all levels of physical aggression
existed among the other racial groups. Therefore, the race of student-athletes
impacted the likelihood of them choosing to report an act of physical aggression,
however, only the African American population emerged as significantly less likely
to report violence.
The results of the study were in line with existing research (Allen, et al.,
1996; Richardson et al., 1986; Taylor & Epstein, 1967) about the impact of gender
on violence which indicates that males are in general more aggressive than females.
Due to this, they may have a higher tolerance and therefore may be less likely to
report it. The significant differences between the races when it came to the
likelihood to report violence with the African Americans being less likely to report is
in alignment with very limited existing research (Carlo, et al., 2002; Eagley &
Steffen, 1986; Oliver, 1989). Since there is limited research on the topic,
interpretations are unwarranted at this time and more research should be conducted
about which factors may inhibit reporting behaviors for some races more than others.
The implications for practitioners and researchers will be discussed in a later section
of this chapter. Compared to previous research of the general population (Allen et
al., 1996; Gartner & Macmillan, 1995; Nattiv & Puffer, 1991; Overman & Terry,
1991; Richardson et al., 1986; Taylor & Epstein, 1967; Wechsler et al., 1997), this
study investigated a very specific age range (18-22-years old) as opposed to a greater
87

age range. However, the findings were similar regardless of age because gender and
racial differences become ingrained at a young age and persist throughout a lifetime
(Carlo et al., 2002).
Impact of External Factors
The results of this study indicated certain external factors impacted bystander
student-athletes’ reporting behaviors of physical aggression. The type of sport
(contact/non-contact) was not a significant factor, however the type of sport
(individual/team), type of relationship of people involved (perpetrators, victims and
bystanders) and size of bystander group emerged as contributors. These findings
supported some of the previous research (Allen et al., 1996; Gartner & Macmillan,
1995; Nattiv & Puffer, 1991; Overman & Terry, 1991; Richardson et al., 1986;
Taylor & Epstein, 1967; Wechsler et al., 1997) on the topic studying the general
population.
Previous research regarding the impact of sport type on reporting behaviors
of physical aggression was inconclusive. Earlier research (Silva, 1983; Tucker &
Parks, 2001) indicated athletes participating in contact and non-contact sports
differed in reporting behaviors. These studies found contact sports were positively
associated with the amount of physical aggressiveness displayed by their participants
and therefore those athletes were less likely to report these types of behaviors outside
of the athletic realm (Silva, 1983; Tucker & Parks, 2001). However, more recent
research refuted these earlier findings by indicating that physically aggressive
88

behavior was not significantly related to the amount of contact associated with a
sport and therefore not associated with reporting behaviors (Keller, 2007; Gardner &
Janelle, 2002). The data from this study refuted earlier research and supported more
recent research because the type of sport student-athletes played (contact or non-
contact) had no significant impact on the likelihood of them to report an act of
physical aggression. No context exists to interpret these findings, therefore future
studies should be conducted in order to examine the contributing factors.
Until now, no research existed regarding the differences in reporting
behaviors between student-athletes participating in individual and team sports. The
data from this study indicated the type of sport (individual/team) student-athletes
play significantly impacted reporting behaviors related to their decision to report
dependent on the level of physical aggression. The type of sport student-athletes
played (individual or team) had no significant impact on the likelihood of them to
report an act of low level physical aggression, however, the factor impacted their
decision to report a medium and high level act of physical aggression. Student-
athletes participating in individual sports were significantly more likely to report a
medium and high level act of physical aggression compared to their counterpart
playing team sports.
These results confirmed existing research and were intuitively sound because
previous research (Dobash & Dobash, 1992) found student-athletes who participate
in team sports were more likely to encounter peer pressure to not report acts of
89

physical aggression in order to avoid the social consequences of reporting from
teammates (ostracizing, physical abuse and mental abuse) in comparison to their
counterparts playing individual sports. No context exists to interpret why reporting
behaviors between student-athletes participating in individual and team sports are
dependent upon the level of physical aggression. Therefore, future studies should be
conducted in order to examine contributing factors to these differences.
The limited previous research found people’s relationships (perpetrators and
victims) significantly impacted reporting behaviors of physical aggression. Victims
were significantly more likely to report acts of physical aggression when they were
not friends with the perpetrator (Black, 1976; Black 1979; Black; 1984; Horwitz,
1990; MacKinnon, 1983). Similarly, the data from this study indicated bystander
relationships with victims and perpetrators significantly impacted their decision to
report acts of physical aggression. Bystanders were significantly more likely to
report acts of physical aggression when they were friends with the victim and not
friends with the perpetrator. Bystanders were significantly more likely to report acts
of physical aggression when the perpetrator and victim were not friends. Therefore,
the data from this study supported previous research, but expanded knowledge of the
topic by investigating bystander relationships with perpetrators and victims.
These results were intuitively sound because of the effect of social influence,
which is the concept of other people defining the situation and appropriate responses
(Latane & Nida, 1981). The likelihood of reporting acts of physical aggression
90

increased when victim and bystander were friends because bystanders wanted others
to perceive them as good friends who were loyal protectors. The likelihood of
reporting acts of physical aggression decreased when the perpetrator was friends
with the victim or bystander because victims and bystanders did not want others to
perceive them as bad friends who were disloyal “snitchers.” Social influence
explained how relationships between people affect the likelihood of them reporting
acts of physical aggression.
All of the previous research (Latane & Nida, 1981; Latane & Dabbs Jr., 1975,
Petty et al., 1977) found bystander group size affected reporting behaviors of
physical aggression. However, the research indicated the effects of bystander group
size varied based upon the severity of the situation. When the severity of the
situation was not considered, an individual was more likely to help when alone as
opposed to in a group situation (Latane & Nida, 1981; Latane & Dabbs Jr., 1975;
Petty et al., 1977). All of these studies found that the likelihood for a bystander
helping a victim decreased as the number of bystanders increased. However, when
the severity of the situation was considered, previous research indicated bystander
group size impacted reporting behaviors. In non-violent and non-emergency
situations, the findings were consistent that individuals were more likely to help
when alone as opposed to in a group situation. However, in violent, emergency
situations, a few studies indicated an individual was less likely to help when alone as
opposed to in a group situation. Although the data from this study investigated
91

bystander student-athletes witnessing severe acts of physical aggression, the results
indicated an individual was significantly more likely to report when alone as
opposed to in a group situation and the likelihood of reporting decreased as the
number of bystanders increased. Therefore, the findings from this study refuted
research regarding bystanders in violent, emergency situations but supported
research regarding bystanders witnessing non-specific, non-violent and non-
emergency situations.
These results were intuitively sound due to the effects of social influence,
audience inhibition and diffusion of responsibility. Social influence is the concept of
individuals looking to others to define the situation and the appropriate responses
(Latane & Nida, 1981). Therefore, the presence of others may have inhibited
reporting. A student-athlete could have observed the inaction of others and
interpreted the situation as less critical than it actually was or decided inaction was
the expected pattern of behavior. Audience inhibition was the concept of individuals
fearing embarrassment of misinterpreting the severity of the situation or
experiencing retaliation for breaking loyalty bonds. Therefore the more people
present observing the act of physical aggression, the greater the risk of
embarrassment and retaliation. Diffusion of responsibility was the concept of
individuals sharing the responsibility of helping among the group. Therefore, the
more people present observing the act of physical aggression, the less amount of
responsibility each bystander perceived to possess. As a result, bystanders in large
92

groups were less likely to report acts of physical aggression than bystanders in small
groups or those who witnessed incidents alone.
Personnel Receiving Reports of Physical Aggression
Since previous research did not analyze who received reports of physical
aggression and the information would be helpful for practitioners in creating
strategies to increase reporting behaviors, this study addressed the topic. The data
from this study indicated internal factors and type of relationship did not impact who
was most likely to receive student-athletes’ report of physical aggression.
Regardless of age, gender, race and the type of relationship among the people
involved, all student-athletes were most likely to report a serious act of physical
aggression to first friends/teammates, then athletic personnel, then community
personnel and lastly, university personnel. Therefore, the findings indicated the
relationship between the individual reporting the incident and the person receiving
the report were more important factors. In this study, student-athletes were most
likely to report incidents to personnel with the highest level of relationship
familiarity. The factor could have been associated with higher frequencies of
interactions, predictabilities of reactions or levels of trust. Specifically, student-
athletes sharing a closer relationship with the person receiving the report would be
more likely able to predict reactions (i.e., disgust or sympathy) and subsequent
behaviors (i.e., report to authorities). Student-athletes sharing a close relationship
with the person receiving the report were also more likely to have more opportunities
93

for reporting as well as trust the person receiving the report could and would do
something with the information or would keep it a secret not discussed with others.
Student-athletes possess the highest level of relationship familiarity with
friends and teammates. They interact on a daily basis both by requirement as well as
personal choice. They can predict reactions due to their sharing of similar
experiences. They can also trust friends and or teammates will honor their wishes of
how to handle the information. Student-athletes possess the second highest level of
relationship familiarity with athletic personnel. Although student-athletes interact
with some type of athletic personnel on a daily basis, the individuals vary each day
and the interactions are usually mandatory (not by personal choice). Moreover,
student-athletes understand athletic personnel would not keep the information a
secret because of their obligation to report serious acts of physical aggression that are
brought to their attention to other athletic personnel as well as law enforcement
agencies. Therefore, it is possible that student-athletes were not as likely to report to
athletic personnel because even though they can predict the reactions, they cannot
trust them to keep the information a secret not discussed with others. Student-
athletes possess the third highest level of relationship familiarity with community
personnel (family, church leader, law enforcement agency). Although student-
athletes have many opportunities to interact with university personnel, their
interactions do not occur on a daily basis. Therefore, student-athletes indicated that
they would be more likely to report acts of physical aggression to community
94

personnel than university personnel because of their strong pre-established
relationship that allowed them to better predict reactions and possess higher levels of
trust.
Implications
Since the age of bystanders and the type of sport (contact/non-contact) they
played did not significantly impact their decision to report an act of physical
aggression, practitioners and researchers should not focus their efforts on specific
student-athlete populations based on these two factors. However, the findings of this
study indicated practitioners and researchers should focus their efforts on specific
student-athlete populations based on gender, race and type of sport they play
(individual/team) since these factors all significantly predicted reporting behaviors.
They should also consider the number of bystanders in a group and the type of
relationship among the people involved (perpetrators, victims and bystanders) when
creating future intervention strategies and research areas.
Practitioners
Future intervention strategies should dedicate more attention and resources to
student-athlete populations who are less likely to report acts of physical aggression.
Practitioners should also take different approaches to educating and promoting
reporting behaviors among student-athlete populations varying by gender, race and
type of sport they play (individual or team). The content should be presented to
95

student-athletes and personnel likely to receive reports of physical aggression
through orientations, ongoing life skills programs and training sessions.
In regards to gender, male student-athletes were less likely than their female
counterparts to report acts of physical aggression. Therefore, practitioners should
design programming specifically for males that educates them about the concept of
masculinity, discredits the societal acceptability of physically aggressive behaviors
associated with their gender and encourages reporting behaviors among them by
providing male role models and confidants. Programming specifically for females
should educate them about their gender being more likely to report and be victims of
physical aggression. Emphasizing these two facts as well as providing female role
models and confidants should increase female student-athletes desire to report acts of
physical aggression and make their gender less likely to be victimized.
In regards to sport type (individual/team), student-athletes participating in
team sports were less likely than their counterparts participating in individual sports
to report acts of physical aggression. Therefore, practitioners should design
programming for student-athletes participating in team sports that discusses the
concept of loyalty and discredits the societal acceptability of physically aggressive
behaviors among teammates.
The number of bystanders in a group and the type of relationship among the
people involved (perpetrators, victims and bystanders) significantly impacted
student-athletes’ decisions to report acts of physical aggression, but practitioners
96

cannot control these factors. Practitioners cannot predict who will be involved in the
violent situations, however they can make student-athletes aware of what are the
likely factors that will inhibit their reporting behaviors. As a result, student-athletes
can become aware of them and avoid these tendencies. Most importantly, what
needs to be communicated is the importance of reporting so that the recognition of
this importance can override the human tendency to not report under certain
circumstances, such as when they are friends with the perpetrator and when there are
many people involved as bystanders. Therefore, they should include this information
during the educational process and be more proactive in recognizing the types of
physical aggression that are most likely to go unreported. Educating student-athletes
about the effect of group sizes should help them act appropriately instead of
following the expected norm.
The aforementioned content should be presented to student-athletes and
personnel likely to receive reports of physical aggression through orientations,
ongoing life skills programs and training sessions. All new student-athlete
orientations could include an hour-long discussion facilitated by athletic and student
affairs professionals (senior associate athletic directors, athletic academic counselors
and student judicial officers) defining physical aggression, the appropriate reporting
process and reporting behavior trends based on gender, race and sport type. The
session could begin with students completing a quiz surveying their knowledge about
the topic before the discussion. During the session, the quiz can serve as a guide for
97

the topic addressed, a worksheet to record notes and a method of retaining the
information after the session. A follow up assessment assessing retention of
information over time could be administered through ongoing life skills programs.
Mandatory life skills programs can include a formal one hour weekly class or
occasional educational seminars that address common issues student-athletes
encounter such as gambling, nutrition, substance abuse, fiscal management and
inappropriate physical aggression. The formal class or educational seminar
regarding inappropriate physical aggression could empower student-athletes to make
a difference as well as address the benefits and consequences of reporting or not
reporting incidents by having students role play typical situations (hazing, sexual
assault and physical altercations) and then listen to guest speakers (perpetrators,
victims and bystanders) talk about their experiences. Suggested length for
educational seminars is approximately two hours, occur at least once during the
student-athletes’ collegiate career, have a maximum of 300 student-athletes in
attendance and have a budget considering the cost of facility rental, audio-visual
equipment, guest speakers and light refreshments.
The results of this study guide interventions for educating student-athletes as
well as athletic personnel (directors, counselors, coaches, trainers and conditioning
staff) likely to receive reports of physical aggression. It is recommended that the
athletic department should provide a manual, administer an assessment of knowledge
about the topic and require the aforementioned athletic personnel to attend a two
98

hour long training session at least once every three years defining physical
aggression, explaining protocol for dealing with incident reports, identifying factors
that affect reporting behaviors and offering counseling advice. Counseling advice
includes creating an environment that encourages student-athletes to report acts of
physical aggression. Athletic personnel can emphasize their role as a confidant to
student-athletes at the beginning of the year, as well as be more mindful of
approachability (such as keeping office door open), availability (providing contact
information and convenient office hours) and the type of personnel they hire in their
office (gender, race and sport type representative of the student-athlete population).
The estimated budget for training athletic personnel most likely to receive reports of
physical aggression could be approximately $5,000. Training the entire athletics
department is important so that everyone agrees reporting acts of physical aggression
is as important, if not more, than winning games.
The results of this study have implications for an athletic department as well
as the whole university (faculty, staff, academic advisors, resident advisors, campus
law enforcement officers and the general student population). Since providing a
training session for all faculty, staff and academic advisors to attend at the same time
is logistically difficult, a more practical solution is to provide an online training
session and assessment for them to complete at their own convenience at least once
every three years. Providing a training session for resident advisors and campus law
enforcement officers to attend at the same time is logistically easier since they are a
99

smaller and more targeted group. Therefore, the athletic department could contact
the appropriate offices to coordinate an hour long presentation once a year. Student-
athletes are also friends with non-student-athletes. Moreover, although physical
aggression occurs more frequently among student-athletes, incidents also occur
among the general student population. Therefore, the athletic department should also
encourage student affairs personnel to include an educational session about physical
aggression during the new student orientation program.
Researchers
Future research should expand the scope of this study (geographical
locations, non-Division I institutions as well as more diverse representations of
different sport types and student-athlete ethnicities) to increase the reliability and
validity of it. Since this study provided quantitative data identifying trends among
student-athletes’ reporting behaviors, future research should also use qualitative
studies to investigate the reasons certain populations were less likely to report acts of
physical aggression, the reasons certain personnel were less likely to receive reports
of physical aggression and the factors that would increase student-athletes likelihood
to report to each type of personnel.
Male, African American and team sport student-athletes were all less likely
than their counterparts to report acts of physical aggression in this study. Previous
research found males were more aggressive than females (Allen et al., 1996; Eagly &
Steffen, 1986; Richardson et al., 1986; Taylor & Epstein, 1967), African American
100

men were physically more aggressive than men of other ethnic groups (Oliver, 1989)
and a great deal of pressure existed within peer groups to not report acts of physical
aggression especially if the perpetrator was a fellow student-athlete (Dobash &
Dobash, 1992). However, no research existed associating aggressiveness levels,
expressions of masculinity and student-athletes’ strength of loyalty with reporting
behaviors.
Bystander student-athletes in large groups and those who were not friends
with the perpetrator were less likely to report acts of physical aggression in this
study. Previous research (Banyard et al., 2004; Berkowitz, 2002; Latane & Nida,
1981) found five possible factors (social norms, social influence, audience inhibition,
diffusion of responsibility and fear of retaliation) decreasing the likelihood of
bystanders in groups reporting, however, no research existed investigating the degree
that each of these factors impacted reporting behaviors. Although this study did not
investigate the level of relationship familiarity and trust in the personnel receiving
the report, future studies should investigate these two factors. Relationship
familiarity referred to the length of relationship time and the reporter’s ability to
predict the reactions (i.e., disgust or sympathy) and subsequent behaviors (i.e., report
to authorities) of the person receiving the report. Trust in the personnel receiving the
report referred to the belief that the person receiving the report can and will do
something about it, or that the person receiving the report will keep it a secret that
they will not discuss with others.
101

Student-athletes were less likely to report to university personnel than any
other personnel. Therefore, future research should investigate the reasons this result
occurred. Possible factors include differences in student-athletes’ gender, race and
sport type as well as the pre-established relationship between the student-athlete and
personnel receiving the report. Student-athletes could have lower levels of trust and
familiarity with university personnel due to less frequent contact, which is fostered
by a perceived lack of approachability, availability and staff that is not representative
of the student-athlete population. The barriers that need to be studied specifically are
between student-athletes and their lack of reporting acts of physical aggression to an
agency on campus such as student judicial affairs that is designed for all students on
campus to report. These barriers need to be established, addressed and removed.
Since no previous research addressed the factors encouraging the reporting of
physically aggressive acts among student-athletes, future research should investigate
these factors. The findings from this study indicated bystander student-athletes were
most likely to report acts of physical aggression to friends/teammates and athletic
personnel. Therefore, bystander student-athletes could feel more comfortable
reporting to someone who shared similar personal characteristics. The findings from
this study indicated internal factors (age, gender and race) of bystander student-
athletes did not impact who received the report. However, no research existed
investigating if internal factors (age, gender and race) of the person receiving the
102

report of physical aggression impacted reporting behaviors or were associated with
the bystanders’ internal factors.
Limitations
Limitations of this study could compromise the results and could lead to
incorrect or limited conclusions. Therefore, the researcher acknowledges the
limitations of this study stemming from its design and sample.
This study used a non-experimental design of a self-report survey. Non-
experimental designs allowed statistical analyses to only provide correlations, but not
causal relationships. In other words, this study only indicated independent and
dependent variables were related, but could not conclude that the changes in
dependent variables were a direct result of the independent variables. Self-report
surveys were subject to consistency and social desirability biases. Consistency bias
occurred when participants’ words did not match their actions. Student-athletes’
reported behaviors in hypothetical situations could differ from their behaviors in
actual situations involving physical aggression. Moreover, participants could also
misinterpret questions, answer them inaccurately or have someone else complete the
survey. This study only measured student-athletes’ reported behaviors in
hypothetical situations and assumed student-athletes accurately interpreted the
questions and answers the survey themselves. Social desirability bias occurred when
participants only reported answers they believe were socially acceptable. Student-
athletes could have been uncomfortable providing an open and honest response to
103

the survey for fear of negative consequences from peers (ostracization) and
authorities (pressure to divulge details). Therefore, although the survey was
anonymous and confidential, results could reflect answers that student-athletes
perceived as socially desirable but were not necessarily the truth. As a result of the
study’s design, findings could not indicate a causal relationship between variables or
ensure that student-athletes accurately completed the survey.
The goal of this study was to investigate a sample that was reliable and
representative of the overall student-athlete population. Although the measurements
of this study were statistically reliable and included student-athletes from four
different Division I institutions across the United States, the sample was limited in its
representation of the entire student-athlete population. An overwhelming 90% of
respondents were from one institution (University of Southern California) and a
significant amount (65%) of respondents identified as White (Caucasian). Moreover,
the sample did not include a significant amount of respondents from all sports. The
sample did not include student-athletes from cheerleading, ice hockey, synchronized
swimming or wrestling. The sample has only 1-3% of respondents from each of the
sports cross country, field hockey, fencing, gymnastics, pistol, rifle, softball and
tennis. Therefore, the findings could not be generalized to the entire student-athlete
population.
104

Conclusion
Although student-athletes possess the highest rate of violence among all
campus sub-populations (Koss & Gaines, 1993), limited research existed on them.
The purpose of this study was to fill a gap in the current literature by expanding the
understanding of physical aggression and reporting behaviors among student-
athletes. Specifically, this study empirically examined six factors that previous
research found significantly impacted the likelihood of a person to report an act of
physical aggression and who received that report. Results of this study revealed
gender, race, the type of sport (individual/team), the type of relationship of people
involved (perpetrators, victims, and bystanders) and size of the bystander group
impacted reporting behaviors but not who received the report. Regardless of all
factors studied, student-athletes were most likely to report a serious act of physical
aggression to first friends/teammates, then athletic personnel, then community
personnel and lastly university personnel.
While some studies investigated these factors influencing reporting behaviors
of physical aggression this study provided a specific focus on the student-athlete
population and bystander relationship to victim and perpetrator. This study also
provided supporting evidence of previous findings, which confirmed the importance
of studying the topic and enhanced the credibility of previous research regarding the
impact bystander group size and in/out-groups have on reporting behaviors.
Practitioners could use these findings of who is less likely to report acts of physical
105

aggression (bystanders who are male, African American, team sport student-athletes,
in large bystander groups or friends with the perpetrator) to increase reporting
behaviors and guide future intervention strategies among student-athletes, athletic
personnel and the overall university.
Although complete elimination of physically aggressive behaviors is an
unrealistic goal, the findings of this study could ultimately contribute to decreasing
the occurrence and severity of physical aggression in society by increasing the
likelihood that violent acts are reported and perpetrators are appropriately
sanctioned. If student-athletes learn physical aggression is an acceptable behavior at
a young age, they are more likely to continue their behavior in all aspects of their life
through adulthood and will be less likely to report it. Moreover, people who view
them as role models will emulate this behavior. Therefore, athletic administrators
should develop strategies to encourage reporting behaviors of physical aggression
and educate student-athletes, athletic personnel and the overall university about the
importance of reporting. These strategies will ultimately benefit the individual
institution, athletic culture and overall society by developing the character of
student-athletes, which would help and be analogous to winning a national
championship.
106

REFERENCES
Abbey, A., Ross, L.T., McDuffie, D., & McAuslan, P. (1996). Alcohol,
misperception, and sexual assault: How and why are they linked? In D.M.
Buss & N. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist
perspectives (pp. 138-161). New York: Oxford University Press.
Allen, T. J., Doughtery, D. M., Rhoades, H. M., & Cherek, D. R. (1996). A study of
male and female aggressive responding under conditions providing an escape
response. The Psychological Record, 46(4), 651-659.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Banyard, V. L. (2008, Fall-Winter). Tools for bystander action: Engaging campus
communities in sexual violence prevention. The Resource: NSVRC
Newsletter, 1-15.
Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander education:
Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention.
Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 61-79.
Banyard, V.L., Plante, E., Ward, S., Cohn, E.S., Moorhead, C., & Walsh, W. (2005).
Revisiting unwanted sexual experiences on campus: A 12 year follow-up.
Violence Against Women, 11, 426–446.
Benedict, J. (1997). Public heroes, private felons: Athletes and crimes against
women. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Benedict, J. (1998). Athletes and acquaintance rape. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Berkowitz, A. D. (2002). Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual
assault. In P. A. Schewe (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships:
Interventions across the lifespan, (pp. 163-196). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
107

Bjorkqvist, K. L., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukalainen, A. (1992). Do girls
manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and
indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127.
Black, D. (1976). The behavior of law. New York: Academic Press.
Black, D. (1979). Common sense in the sociology of law. American Sociological
Review, 44, 18-27.
Black, D. (1984). Social control as a dependent variable. In D. Black (Ed.), Toward
a general theory of social control. New York: Academic Press.
Boeringer, S. B. (1996). Influences of fraternity membership, athletics, and male
living arrangements on sexual aggression. Violence Against Women, 2, 134-
147.
Bosmans, G., Braiet, C., Van Leeuwan, K., & Beyers, W. (2006). Do parenting
behaviors predict externalizing behavior in adolescence, or is attachment the
neglected 3
rd
factor? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3), 373-386.
Butt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.
Carlo, G., Raffaelli, M., Laible, D. J., Meyer, K. A. (1999). Why are girls less
physically aggressive than boys? Personality and parenting mediators of
physical aggression. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 711-720.
Caron, S. L., Halteman, W. A., & Stacy, C. (1997). Athletes and rape: Is there a
connection? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1379-1393.
Carroll, P. Keynote speech. Third World Congress on Mental Training, Salt Lake
City, Utah. 1 May 1999.
Chandler, S. B., Johnson, D. J., & Carroll, P. S. (1999). Abusive behaviors of
college athletes. College Student Journal, 33(4), 638-642.
Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method
approaches. Sage Publications.
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of relational aggression, overt aggression, and
prosocial behavior in the prediction of children's future social adjustment.
Child Development, 67, 2317-2327.
108

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-
psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.
Crosset, T. (2000). Athletic affiliation and violence against women: Toward a
structural prevention project. In J. McKay, M. A. Messner, & D. F. Sabo
(Eds.), Masculinities, gender relations and sport (pp. 147-161). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crosset, T. W., Benedict, J.R., & McDonald, M. M. (1995). Male student-athletes
reported for sexual assault: A survey of campus. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 19, 126-140.
Crosset, T. W., Ptacek, J., McDonald, M. A., & Benedict, J. R. (1996). Male student-
athletes and violence against women: A survey of campus judicial affairs
offices. Violence Against Women, 2(2), 163-179.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1992). Women, violence, and social change.
London: Routledge.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-
analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin,
100, 303-330.
Eskenazi, G. (1990, June 3). Athletic aggression and sexual assault. The New York
Times, p. A27.
Feather, N. T. (1982). Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in
psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1998). Uniform Crime Report. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Felson, R. B. (1996). Mass media effects on violent behavior. Annual Review of
Sociology, 22, 103-128.
Felson, R. B., Messner, S. F. & Hoskin, A. (1999). The victim-offender relationship
and calling the police in assaults. Criminology, 37(4), 931-948.
Fisher, B., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2000). The sexual victimization of college
women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, National Institute of Justice.
109

Frintner, M. P., & Rubinson, L. (1993). Acquaintance rape: The influence of
alcohol, fraternity and sports team membership. Journal of Sex Education
and Therapy, 19, 272-284.
Gartner, R., & Macmillan, R. (1995). The effect of victim-offender relationship on
reporting crimes of violence against women. Canadian Journal of
Criminology, 37(3), 393-429.
Gilbert, R., & Gilbert, P. (1998). Masculinity goes to school. New York: Routledge.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Godenzi, A., Schwartz, M. D., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (2001). Toward a gendered
social bond/male peer support theory of university woman abuse. Critical
Criminology, 10, 1-16.
Graham, S., Hudley, C., & Williams, E. (1992). Attributional and emotional
determinants of aggression among African-American and Latino young
adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 28, 731-740.
Grotpeter, J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and
friendship. Child Development, 67, 2328-2338.
Hanmer, J., Radford, J., & Stanko, E. A. (1989). Women, policing, and male
violence. London: Routledge.
Harned, M. S. (2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the
context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16, 269-285.
Harper, S. R. (2004). The measure of a man: Conceptualizations of masculinity
among high-achieving African American male college students. Berkeley
Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 48-69.
Harre, R., & Lamb, R. (1983). The encyclopedic dictionary of psychology. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Harris, M. B. (1995). Ethnicity, gender, and evaluations of aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 21, 354-357.
Harris, S. M. (1995). Psychosocial development and black male masculinity:
Implications for counseling economically disadvantaged African American
male adolescents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 279-287.
110

Hertzog, J.L., Wright, D. & Beat, D. (2008). There’s a policy for that: A comparison
of the organizational culture of workplaces of reporting incidents of sexual
harassment. Behavior and Social Issues, 17, 169-181.
Himelein, M. J. (1995). Risk factors for sexual victimization in dating: A
longitudinal study of college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19,
3148.
Hoffman, R. (1986, March 17). Rape and the college athlete: Part one. Philadelphia
Daily News. p. 104.
Holcomb, D., Holcomb, L., Williams, N., & Sondag, A. (1991). Gender differences
in date rape attitudes among university students. College Student Journal,
25(4), 434-440.
Horwitz, A. V. (1990). The logic of social control. New York: Plenum.
Hosch, H. M., Chanez, G. J., Bothwell, R. K., & Munoz, H. (1991). A comparison
of Anglo-American and Mexican-American jurors’ judgments of mothers
who fail to protect their children from abuse. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 21, 1681-1698.
Katz, J. (1994). Mentors in violence prevention (MVP) trainer’s guide.
Northeastern university’s center for the study of sport in society. Boston,
MA.
Keller, L. (2007). The differences in sport aggression, life aggression and life
assertion among adult male and female collision, contact and non-contact
sport athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30(1), 57.
Koss, M.P. (1988). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national
sample of students in higher education. In A.W. Burgess. (Ed.), Rape and
Sexual Assault II, (pp. 3-25), New York: Garland.
Koss, M. P., & Gaines, J. (1993). The prediction of sexual aggression by alcohol
use, athletic participation, and fraternity affiliation. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 8, 94-108.
Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence
and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of
higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
55, 162-170.
111

Lance, L. M., & Ross, C. E. (2000). Views of violence in American sports: A study
of college students. College Student Journal, 34(2), 191-198.
Latane, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping.
Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308-324.
Lauzen, M., & Dozier, D. (2002). Equal time in prime time? Scheduling favoritism
and gender on the broadcast networks. Journal of Broadcast and Electronic
Media, 46(1), 137.
Lemieux, P., McKelvie, S. J. & Stout, D. (2002). Self-reported hostile aggression in
contact athletes, no contact athletes and non-athletes. The Online Journal of
Sports Psychology, 4(3).
Luthra, R., & Gidycz, C. A. (2006). Dating violence among college men and
women: Evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 21, 717-731.
MacKinnon, C. (1983). Feminism, Marxism, method, and the state: Toward a
feminist jurisprudence. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8, 635-658.
Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Factors associated with rape as predictors of laboratory
aggression against women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
432-442.
Malamuth, N. M., Addison, T., & Koss, M. (2000). Pornography and sexual
aggression: Are there reliable effects and can we understand them? Annual
Review of Sex Research, 11, 4-17.
Martin, B.E., & Harris, F. (2006). Examining productive conceptions of
masculinities: Lessons learned from academically driven African American
male student-athletes. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 14(3), 359-378.
Maxwell, J.P. (2004). Anger rumination: An antecedent of athlete aggression.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 279-289.
McManus, J., & Dorfman, L. (2002). Youth violence stories focus on events, not
causes. Newspaper Research Journal, 23(4), 6-11.
McMillan, J. (2003). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (4
th

ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
112

Melnick, M. (1992). Male athletes and sexual assault. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance, 63, 32-35.
Messner, M., & Sabo, D. (1994). Sex violence and power in sports. Freedom, CA:
The Crossing Press.
Mintah, J. K., Huddleston, S., & Doody, S. G. (1999). Justifications of aggressive
behavior in contact and semicontact sports. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 29, 597-605.
Morrison, P., & Eardley, T. (1985). About men. Philadelphia, PA: Open University
Press.
Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation.
Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 150-163.
Muelenhard, C. L., & Cook, S. W. (1988). Men's self-reports of unwanted sexual
activity. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 58-72.
Muelenhard, C. L., & Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape & sexual aggression in dating
situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34,
186-196.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2003). Costs of intimate partner
violence against women in the United States. Atlanta: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
National Coalition Against Violent Athletes. (n.d.). Prevention programs.
Retrieved February 9, 2009, from the NCAVA website:
http://www.ncava.org/prevention.html
Nattiv, A. & Puffer, J. C. (1991). Lifestyles and health risks of college athletes.
Journal of Family Practice 33, 585-590.
Nixon, H. L. (1997). Gender, sport, and aggressive behavior outside sport. Journal
of Sport and Social Issues, 21, 379-391.
O’Brien, R., & Wolff, A. (1996, August 19). The wethead is dead. Sports
Illustrated, 32.
Oliver, M. (1989). Black males and social problems: Prevention through Afrocentric
socialization. Journal of Black Studies, 20(1), 15-39.
113

Overman, S. J., & Terry, T. (1991). Alcohol use and attitudes: A comparison of
college athletes and non-athletes. Journal of Drug Education, 21(2), 107-117.
Pappas, N., McHenry, P., & Catlett, B., (2004). Athlete aggression on the rink and
off the ice. Men and Masculinities, 6(3), 291-312.
Pilz, G. A. (1996). Social factors influencing sport and violence: On the “problem”
of football hooliganism in Germany. International Review for Sociology of
Sport, 31(1), 49-68.
Pooley, J. C., & Golding, S. (1987). Junior and senior high school students’
perceptions of sports violence: A preliminary investigation (Empirical study,
Dalhousie University, 1987).
Reilly, R. (1995, November 13). Order on the court. Sports Illustrated, 83(21), 136.
Richardson, D. R., Vandenberg, R. J., & Humphries, S. A. (1986). Effect of power
to harm on retaliative aggression among males and females. Journal of
Research in Personality, 20, 402-419.
Riedel, M., & Welsh,W. (2008). Criminal violence: Patterns, causes, and prevention
(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rowe, C. J. (1998). Aggression and violence in sports. Psychiatric Annuals, 28,
265-269.
Scher, J. (1993). Mr. dirty. Sports Illustrated, 78(8), 40-42.
Silva, J.M.(1983). The perceived legitimacy of rule violating behavior in sport.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 438-448.
Smith, D., & Stewart, S. (2003). Sexual aggression and sports participation. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 26, 384-396.
Smith, M. D. (1977). Hockey violence: Interring some myths. In W. Straub (Ed.),
Sport psychology: An analysis of athlete behavior. Ithaca, N.Y.: Mouvement.
Staffo, D. (2001). Strategies for reducing criminal violence among athletes. The
Journal of Physical Education, Recreational & Dance, 72(6), 38-44.
Taylor, S. P., & Epstein, S. (1967). Aggression as a function of the interaction of the
sex of the aggressor and the sex of the victim. Journal of Personality, 35,
474-486.
114

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.
Tucker, L.W., & Parks, J.B. (2001). Effects of gender and sport type on
intercollegiate athlete's perceptions of the legitimacy of aggressive behaviors
in sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18(4), 403-413.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1995). Violence against women: Estimates from the
redesigned survey. Family and Intimate Violence Prevention Team, Division
of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (NCJ-154348).
Valente, S.M. (2000). Evaluating and managing intimate partner violence. Nurse
Practitioner, 25(5), 18-19.
Vaz, E. W. (1979). Institutionalized rule violation and control in organized minor
league hockey. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 4(1), 83-90.
Very Major Penalty (2000). CNN Sports Illustrated. Retrieved April 4, 2009,
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/news/2000/10/06/mcsorley
Walker, E. E. (2003). Understanding male athlete sexual aggression: Masculinity,
sexual aggression, and athletic participation. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 64(1556), 3B.
Wann, D. L. (1997). Sport psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A.E., Dowdall, G.W., Grossman, S.J., & Zanakos, S.L
(1997). Binge drinking, tobacco, and illicit drug use and involvement in
college athletics: A survey of students at 140 American colleges. Journal of
American College Health, 45(5), 195-200.
Weinstein, M. D., Smith, M. D., & Wisenthal, D. L. (1995). Masculinity and hockey
violence. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 33(11), 831-847.
Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Relational aggression and social-psychological
adjustment in a college sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 615-
623.

115

Young, T. J. (1990). Sensation seeking and self-reported criminality among student-
athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 959-962.
Youngstrom, E., Weist, M. D., & Albus, K. E. (2003). Exploring violence exposure,
stress protective factors and behavioral problems among inner-city youth.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(1-2), 115-133.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined internal (personal) and external (situational) factors that previous research found affected perceptions of physical aggression and associated reporting behaviors among student-athletes. Results of this study suggested certain factors significantly impacted a student-athlete's decision to report and who received that report. Internal factors included age, gender and race. External factors included the type of sport an athlete participates in, bystander group characteristics and relationship strength of people involved (perpetrators, victims and bystanders). This study found all factors affected reporting behaviors except for age. However, only sport type and existing relationships affected who received the report of physical aggression. Although completely eliminating physically aggressive behaviors among student-athletes is an unrealistic goal, the findings of this study contribute to decreasing its occurrence by increasing the levels of violence reporting. This study also provided guidance for future intervention strategies.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Student willingness to report violence in secondary schools

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

Who do we tell? School violence and reporting behavior among native Hawaiian high school students

PDF

Sexual misconduct against K-12 students: teachers' perceptions of incidents by school

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of student behavior and relationship quality: an exploration of racial congruence and self-identity development

PDF

A study of student affairs administration professional preparation in Chinese higher education

PDF

Male student-athlete perceptions of university academic staff expectations: a qualitative analysis of perceptions, value and academic motivation

PDF

A study of Pacific Islander scholarship football players and their institutional experience in higher education

PDF

Huddle-up: a phenomenological approach to understanding the impact of intercollegiate athletic participation on the academic socialization of male revenue-generating student-athletes

PDF

Cyber-harassment in higher education: online learning environments

PDF

How successful high school students cope with bullying: a qualitative study

PDF

Factors affecting native Hawaiian student persistence in higher education

PDF

The perceptions of faculty and administrators of remedial mathematics education in two higher education institutions

PDF

Do the perceptions of the usefulness of academic support services influence ethnically diverse students' help-seeking attitudes and behaviors?

PDF

Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations

PDF

Student-athletes and leadership: a case study of the impact of collegiate athletics on social change behavior and leadership development

PDF

A comparative case study analysis of academically at risk African American male student athletes

PDF

Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree

PDF

An investigation of students' perceptions and fears before and after transitioning to middle school

PDF

A qualitative analysis of student-athletes' engagement in synchronous, virtual learning environments at the secondary level

Asset Metadata

Creator Pappas, Jason Christopher (author)

Core Title Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 04/27/2010

Defense Date 03/17/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,physical aggression,reporting behaviors,student-athletes

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Martin, Brandon E. (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email cpappas@surgery.usc.edu,jpappas@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2959

Unique identifier UC1190425

Identifier etd-Pappas-3585 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-314365 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2959 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Pappas-3585.pdf

Dmrecord 314365

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Pappas, Jason Christopher

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu