ARTICLE IN PRESS

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193

www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

The development of a short scale measuring aggressiveness and

anger in competitive athletes
J.P. Maxwella,, E. Mooresb
a
Institute of Human Performance, University of Hong Kong, 111-113 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, SAR
b
Department of Psychology, Neuroscience Research Institute, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birming, B4 7ET, UK
Received 31 May 2005; received in revised form 9 March 2006; accepted 9 March 2006
Available online 2 May 2006

Abstract

Objectives: The study of aggression and anger in competitive sport relies on accurate and economical
measurement via observation, interview and questionnaire. Unfortunately, extant questionnaires have been
criticised for having poor validity, are not sport specific, or reflect mood states rather than trait qualities.
Therefore, a measure of trait anger and aggressiveness in competitive athletes was developed.
Method: A list of statements representing aggressiveness and anger was generated and distributed to
competitive athletes from diverse sports. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses were used to verify the
theoretically predicted factor structure. Correlations with an extant measure of aggression and anger were
used to ascertain concurrent validity. Discriminant validity was tested by comparing males with females,
and aggressive with non-aggressive footballers.
Results: A 12-item scale (Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger Scale, CAAS) consisting of two subscales
was derived using principal component factor analysis with oblimin rotation. Confirmatory factor analysis
using structural equation modelling confirmed the overall structure. Test–retest correlation, construct and
discriminant validities were good, supporting the utility of the scale as a measure of athlete trait
aggressiveness and anger.
Conclusions: The CAAS appears to be a useful measure of athletic anger and aggressiveness. Its brevity
and ability to discriminate aggressive from non-aggressive athletes should prove useful for future research
concerning aggressive behaviour in competitive athletes.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +856 2589 0583; fax: +852 2855 1712.
E-mail addresses: maxwellj@hku.hk (J.P. Maxwell), e.j.moores@aston.ac.uk (E. Moores).

1469-0292/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.03.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

180 J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193

Introduction

A number of authors have noted that aggression and violence are serious problems in sport (e.g.
Conroy, Silva, Newcomer, Walker, & Johnson, 2001; Stephens, 1998), particularly contact sports
such as ice hockey (Worrell & Harris, 1986). Despite growing concern and much debate, the study
of aggression in sport has suffered from problems associated with formulating an acceptable
definition of aggression (Kerr, 1999, 2002) and the development of sound measurement techniques
(Husman & Silva, 1984; Maxwell, 2004; Stephens, 1998). A more practical course for
psychometric research may be to focus on the measurement of the psychological antecedents of
aggression (Maxwell, 2004). Anger and aggressiveness have been identified as strong predictors of
aggressive behaviour (Berkowitz, 1983, 1989, 1993); therefore, it would seem prudent to be
capable of identifying athletes who are particularly prone to angry or aggressive feelings. The
research presented here attempts to develop a self-report measure of aggressiveness and anger
with the aim of furthering our understanding of the antecedents of aggression in competitive
sport.

Defining aggression in sport

Baron and Richardson (1994) define human aggression as ‘yany form of behaviour directed
toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such
treatment (p. 7)’. The use of this definition in sport is problematic because behaviours that are
integral to competitive success would be described as harmful or injurious (e.g. rendering an
opponent unconscious in boxing). An alternative definition was adopted by Maxwell (2004) who
operationally defined aggression in sport as ‘yany [intentional] behaviour, not recognised as legal
within the official rules of conduct, directed towards an opponent, official, team-mate or spectator
who is motivated to avoid such behaviour’ (p. 280). This definition concurs with the International
Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP) position stand and acknowledges the role of legitimacy
(Tenenbaum, Stewart, Singer, & Duda, 1997).
The ISSP’s definition has come under severe criticism in recent years that would seem to
undermine its plausibility (see Kerr (1999) for a rejoinder of the ISSP position, Tenenbaum,
Sacks, Miller, Golden, and Doolin (2000) for a response to Kerr’s rejoinder, and Kerr (2002) for a
revisit of the ISSP position stand). The argument put forward by Kerr (and others) states that
aggression is an accepted part of many sports (e.g. American football and boxing) and should be
acknowledged as such. Merely redefining these acts as non-aggressive simply because they are
accepted (or sanctioned in Kerr’s terms) does nothing to change their nature and the harmful
intentions of the perpetrator. This observation poses significant problems for the measurement of
aggression by indirect means; it implies that only the athlete knows whether harm was intentional
(Russell, 1993; Smith, 1983).

Measuring aggression in sport

To date, three main techniques have been used to measure aggression in sport—interview,
observation and questionnaires. Observation is perhaps the preferred method for measuring
aggression because the circumstances that lead up to an incident and the severity of the aggression
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193 181

can be assessed by trained raters. Observation can also be followed by in-depth post-match
interviews with the protagonists so that their emotions, motives, and cognitions can be
ascertained. However, observation is a costly and time-consuming process because aggressive acts
are infrequent in most sports.
Five questionnaires have been popularly adopted by sport psychologists to study aggression: (i)
the Buss–Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957); (ii) Buss–Perry Aggression
Questionnaire (BPAQ, an updated version of the Buss–Durkee Hostility Inventory, Buss & Perry,
1992); (iii) the Bredemeier Athlete Aggression Inventory (BAAGI; Bredemeier, 1975, 1978); (iv)
the Continuum of Injurious Acts and its variants (CIA, Bredemeier, 1985; Duda & Huston, 1995;
Duda, Olson, & Templin, 1991; Ryan, Williams, & Wimer, 1990) and (v) the Sports Behaviour
Inventory (Conroy, et al., 2001). Whereas the first three questionnaires examine aggression
tendencies and associated concepts such as anger and hostility, the last two measure an
individual’s perception of the legitimacy of certain aggressive behaviours. For brevity and focus,
only the measures of aggression tendency are discussed further as they are more pertinent to the
development of the scale reported here (for an extended discussion of the CIA, SBI, and other
self-report measures of aggression in sport, see Stephens, 1998).
The Buss–Durkee and Buss–Perry scales have been extensively used by social psychologists
studying the general nature of aggression, but have been under-used in a sporting context.
Perhaps the most extensive use of these scales in sport has been in the examination of martial arts
training on aggression (Nosanchuk & MacNeil, 1989; Skelton, Glynn, & Berta, 1991; Trulson,
1986). The application of the Buss–Durkee and Buss–Perry scales is problematic in sport because
some of the items refer to acts that are integral to performance in some sports and other items are
not applicable.
The BAAGI was developed as a sport specific measure of reactive (hostile) and instrumental
aggression tendencies in athletes (Bredemeier, 1975, 1978). The scale was reduced to a short form
comprising 14 items from each sub-scale (BAAGI-S, Wall & Gruber, 1986). Since its
development, the BAAGI has been used extensively for the measurement of athletic aggression
(Chantal, Robin, Vernat, & Bernache-Assollant, 2005; Isberg, 2000); however, results have often
proved unreliable. Inconsistencies between findings appear to be related primarily to the
construction of the instrumental aggression subscale of the BAAGI. Internal reliabilities are good
for the hostile subscale, but poor for the instrumental subscale (Wall & Gruber, 1986). Also, some
authors have questioned the construct and face validity of items in the BAAGI (Stephens, 1998).
Some questions seem to tap constructs such as anxiety (‘I am usually calm and poised before
participating in an athletic event’) or emotion control (‘I generally perform better when I keep my
emotions under control and concentrate on my performance’) that may be related to, but are not,
aggression as defined above. Items also fail to account for differences across sports.
The BAAGI and other measures of athlete aggression also lack consideration of the relative
severity of items, a practise that is common in other areas of aggression research (DePasquale,
Geller, Clarke, & Littleton, 2001; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001; Maxwell, Grant, & Lipkin,
2005). For example, items often reflect physical aggression such as punching or pushing. High
scores on both are equated equally rather than punching receiving a higher aggression rating.
Another problem with measuring aggression in sport has been the lack of a sport specific
measure of anger arising during competition; though, Terry and colleagues (e.g. Terry, Lane,
Lane, & Keohane, 1999) have popularised use of the Profile of Mood States (McNair, Lorr, &
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

182 J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193

Droppelman, 1971, 1992) as a state measure of anger. Anger is defined as the subjective evaluation
that increased physiological arousal is a result of threat to one’s physical or psychological well-
being (Averill, 1983). Anger has been linked to aggression by several theorists (e.g. Berkowitz,
1993), but has received sparse attention regarding its role in sporting aggression.
Despite problems with measuring aggression, it is still desirable, both theoretically and
practically, to develop an efficient method of identifying individuals who are more inclined to use
aggression in sport (sanctioned or unsanctioned). To overcome problems with measuring
aggression directly in a broad range of sports, it may be more prudent to isolate factors that are
thought to precede aggression. Berkowitz (1993) identified anger and aggressiveness as important
antecedents of aggression. Aggressiveness is defined as the disposition to become aggressive or
acceptance of and willingness to use aggression. Acceptance of aggression has previously been
linked to increased athlete aggression (e.g. Conroy et al., 2001). Both anger and aggressiveness are
liable to be relatively stable personality characteristics (i.e. trait like) and not sport specific,
although individuals with high levels of aggressiveness may be attracted to combat type sports.
High levels of both anger and aggressiveness are likely associated with greater propensity for
aggression (Farrington, 1978). Currently, no sport specific scales exclusively measure these two
factors; therefore, a short scale was designed to measure aggressiveness and anger in competitive
athletes.

Method

Participants and procedure

All participants provided informed consent and were assured confidentiality.

There were five phases to the data collection:

Phase I: item development

A pool of 15 items was developed to represent anger, acceptance of aggressive behaviour, and
aggressiveness. Existing scales were examined to find items that reflected these concepts and
presented greatest face validity in the opinion of the authors. Wording was modified to reflect
competitive situations and various possible provocateurs (e.g. opponent, coach, officials). The
criterion that items could be applicable to almost all sports was adopted to ensure generality and
the possibility of cross sport comparisons. Items addressing hostile and instrumental aggression
(n ¼ 11) were also included; however, several problems were identified with these items that
precluded inclusion in the final scale. For example, it was not always possible to distinguish
legitimate from illegitimate use of force (e.g. ‘If I was hit by an opponent I would hit back’’) or
intent to injure from accidental contact (‘‘I have been known to strike an opponent’’). Also, these
items are more acceptable in some sports than others; thus, they cannot be applied as general
measures of aggressiveness or anger. Therefore, these items were not included in further analysis.
Remaining items were clearly worded to either indicate frustration or acceptance/use of excessive
or illegal force. This process was adopted to maximise content and face validities.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193 183

Phase II: item severity

Sport Science lecturers and MSc students (49 male and 32 female; mean age ¼ 32.45,
SD ¼ 3.20), who all participated or had previously participated in competitive sport, rated
the 15 items according to the perceived level of severity that they represented. Ratings were made
on a five-point scale with higher scores representing greater severity (anchored at 1 ¼ not at all
severe and 5 ¼ extremely severe). Mean scores were used to represent the severity of each item
(Table 1).

Phase III: exploratory factor analysis

The preliminary items for the Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger Scale (CAAS) and
demographic questions (Gender, Sport, and Level of Performance: novice, intermediate or
advanced) were completed by 309 athletes from various sports, such as football, hockey, rugby,
tennis and squash. Mean age was 25.10 (SD ¼ 7.63); 192 were male. Responses to the CAAS
items were made on a five-point scale (1 ¼ almost never; 2 ¼ occasionally; 3 ¼ sometimes;
4 ¼ quite often; 5 ¼ almost always). The five item response scale was used to minimise the impact
of assumptions associated with categorical response scales and normality of data distribution
(Byrne, 2001). Athletes’ responses were multiplied by item severity then summed to produce
CAAS total and subscale scores. Principal component analysis followed by oblimin rotation with
Kaiser Normalisation was utilised to identify factors with initial eigenvalues above one. All items
were assessed for skewness and kurtosis to ensure the validity of this analysis.

Table 1
Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger Scale items, exploratory factor loadings, mean intensity of aggression and mean
ratinga from all athletes

Factor Items Factor loading Mean intensity Mean rating

Anger
I become irritable if I am disadvantaged during a match .73 1.45 2.71
I feel bitter towards my opponent if I lose .42 1.58 2.23
I get mad when I lose points .74 1.63 3.39
I show my irritation when frustrated during a game .73 1.55 2.54
I find it difficult to control my temper during a match .66 2.01 1.88
Official’s mistakes make me angry .70 1.65 3.12
Aggressiveness
Violent behaviour, directed towards an opponent, is acceptable .73 2.61 1.49
It is acceptable to use illegal physical force to gain an advantage .86 2.67 1.66
I taunt my opponents to make them lose concentration .62 1.87 1.98
I use excessive force to gain an advantage .79 2.52 1.78
I verbally insult opponents to distract them .77 2.02 1.77
Opponents accept a certain degree of abuse .74 1.78 2.37
a
Mean rating calculated using combined data from EFA and CFA.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

184 J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193

Phase IV: confirmatory factor analysis

The CAAS was completed by a new sample of 230 athletes (age: M ¼ 21.83, SD ¼ 6.59; 158
males). Confirmatory analysis (CFA) was performed using AMOS 5.0 software (Arbuckle, 2003)
for structural equation modelling. The covariance matrix was analysed using the maximum
likelihood method. Several statistics were calculated to assess relative and absolute fit. Absolute fit
was gauged using relative chi-square (w2/df; Hoelter, 1983), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI;
Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996), and root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger,
1990). No absolute interpretation of these measures is currently stipulated by all researchers;
however, general agreement suggests that relative w2 below three (Carmines & McIver, 1983;
Munro, 1997), but preferably approaching or below two (Hoelter, 1983; Bryant & Smith, 2001),
indicates acceptable fit. The GFI ranges from 0 to 1 with higher values representing better fit.
Values above .90 are acceptable (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980). RMSEA represents the size of model
residuals (Bryant & Smith, 2001); values below .05 represent good fit, below .08 reasonable fit,
below .10 poor fit, and above .10 unacceptable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). RMSEA is
considered one of the most useful indicators of model fit (Byrne, 2001). Relative fit was estimated
using the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990). The CFI is evaluated in much the same way
as the GFI, with values above .90 representing acceptable fit (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980). More
stringent cut-off points for fit indices have been proposed recently that are based on coupling
individual fit indices with the standardised root mean-square residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler,
1999; Beauducel & Wittmann, 2005). Hu and Bentler recommend a SRMR close to .08 and CFI
above .95 or RMSEA below or equal to .06 as indicators of good fit. Hu and Bentler’s criteria are
adopted in this paper to interpret model fit; however, other indices are reported to allow
comprehensive judgement of the model’s validity. For each latent variable in the model (i.e. two
CAAS subscales), lambda was fixed to 1 for the first observed indicator as were all error weights;
all other parameters were freely estimated. Again, all items were checked for excessive skewness
and kurtosis to ensure the validity of this analysis method; no significant problems were found.

Phase V: test–retest correlation and concurrent validity

Athletes (n ¼ 133) from the previous data collection (Phase IV) repeated the CAAS, to provide
test–retest correlation, and also completed the BPAQ (Buss & Perry, 1992). Concurrent validity
was assessed by correlating CAAS subscale scores with subscales of the BPAQ.

Phase VI: discriminant validity

Data were collected from three football teams who participated in regular competition and
training sessions. Mean age was 31.24 years (SD ¼ 6.71). Players (n ¼ 44) rated team-mates on a
peer behaviour questionnaire (PBQ) and also completed the CAAS. The PBQ consisted of ten
questions that described behaviours such as overt aggression, arguing, and remaining calm in the face
of provocation. Players were requested to complete each question with at least one team-mate’s
name. Players were then assigned to three groups dependant upon the pattern of nominations they
received. Group one, Neutral, received no nominations from any of their team-mates. Group two,
the Calm group, consisted of players who were described by team-mates as calm, least aggressive or
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193 185

peacemakers. Players in the third group were described by team-mates as aggressive or ‘fighters’, in
the sense that they had physical altercations and arguments with opponents and officials.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis

Principal component analysis followed by oblimin rotation with Kaiser Normalisation revealed
two identifiable factors accounting for 53.49% of total variance (Table 1). Items were selected if
they loaded .4 or greater on a single factor and below .3 on any other, ensuring minimal ambiguity
between factors.
The first factor (initial eigenvalue ¼ 5.01) represented the construct of Aggressiveness and
consisted of six items that accounted for 41.75% of variance. Items on this factor described
acceptance of and willingness to use abuse, both physical and verbal, to gain a competitive
advantage. The second factor (initial eigenvalue ¼ 1.41), Anger, accounted for 11.74% of
variance and was represented by items that described incidences of irritation associated with
losing and negative emotions directed at opponents or officials. Table 2 shows the internal
consistency of each subscale and overall scale, and inter-scale correlations.

Confirmatory factor analysis

The analysis, assuming independence of errors, proved satisfactory based on currently accepted
criteria (Hu & Bentler, 1999) with all values indicating a good fit between the observed data and
theoretical model (w2 ¼ 105.62, df ¼ 53, po.001, Relative w2 ¼ 1.99, CFI ¼ .95, GFI ¼ .93,
RMSEA ¼ .07, and SRMR ¼ .05). The model and standardised estimates are represented in
Fig. 1. The internal consistency of each subscale and total scale score, and inter-scale correlations
are reported in Table 2.

Test–retest correlation and concurrent validity

Test–retest statistics were good for both subscales and total scale score (Table 3). Concurrent
validity was demonstrated by the expected pattern of correlations, with moderate correlations

Table 2
Inter-scale correlations for the Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger Scale (correlations for exploratory analysis
(EFA) are shown above the diagonal, below the diagonal for the confirmatory analysis, CFA)

Anger (a ¼ .78) Aggressiveness (a ¼ .84) Total (a ¼ .87)

Anger (a ¼ .83) .60 .87

Aggressiveness (a ¼ .83) .59 .91
Total (a ¼ .88) .86 .92

All correlations are significant at po.001.

Internal reliability coefficients are shown on the horizontal for EFA and vertical for CFA.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

186 J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193

e1 ang1

0.69
e2 ang2
0.71

e3 ang3 0.72

Anger
0.61
e4 ang4
0.71

e5 ang5 0.60

e6 ang6

0.70

e7 agg1

0.74

e8 agg2
0.57

e9 agg3 0.62

Aggressive
0.76
e10 agg4
0.72

e11 agg5 0.59

e12 agg6

Fig. 1. Theoretical structure of the Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger Scale. Standardised solution estimates,
derived from structural equation modelling, are shown for significant paths. (Aggressive ¼ Aggressiveness subscale;
Anger ¼ Anger subscale).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193 187

between CAAS and BPAQ subscales (Table 3). The pattern of correlations was somewhat
unsurprising given the nature of the items comprising the Aggressiveness subscale and the well-
reported relationship between anger and aggression.

Discriminant validity

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with CAAS subscale scores as the dependent
variables and peer rated groups (Neutral, Calm and Fighters) as the independent variable
demonstrated a significant effect of Group (F (2, 40) ¼ 5.97, po.001, Z2 ¼ .23). Tukey’s post hoc
test revealed that the Fighter group scored significantly higher than the other two groups, which
did not differ from each other (po.01). Means are presented in Table 4.

Norms

Means and standard deviations for the severity of each item are presented in Table 1 together
with mean ratings. Analysis failed to show a difference between data collected for the exploratory
and confirmatory analyses; therefore, norms were generated by combining both sets of data
(n ¼ 539) and are represented in Table 5. A Gender  Type of Sport (contact versus non-contact)
MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for Gender (F (2, 530) ¼ 34.96, po.001, Z2 ¼ .12)
and Type of Sport (F (2, 530) ¼ 3.27, p ¼ .04, Z2 ¼ .01), but no interaction. Univariate analysis
showed gender differences for Anger (F (1, 531) ¼ 13.00, po.001, Z2 ¼ .02) and Aggressiveness (F
(1, 531) ¼ 68.39, po.001, Z2 ¼ .11); males scored higher than females on both measures (Table 5).

Table 3
One month test–retest correlations for the Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger Scale and concurrent validity with
subscales of the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ).

Anger Aggressiveness Total

Test–retest .86 .84 .88

BPAQ Physical .45 .53 .56
BPAQ Verbal .30 .29 .34
BPAQ Anger .48 .22 .45
BPAQ Hostility .20* .18* .23
BPAQ Total .49 .43 .54

* po.05; po.01 for all other values.

Table 4
Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for the Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger Scale, grouped
according to peer assessments of players’ aggressiveness

Calm (n ¼ 17) Neutral (n ¼ 15) Fighters (n ¼ 12)

Anger 20.53 (5.84) 21.02 (7.67) 30.28 (7.44)

Aggressiveness 24.48 (7.15) 25.48 (8.09) 39.23 (8.09)
Total 45.01 (10.43) 46.50 (12.31) 69.51 (17.32)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

188 J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193

Table 5
Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for the Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger Scale

Contact sport Non-contact sport

Male Female Male Female

Anger 24.14 (8.05) 22.23 (9.29) 23.03 (6.56) 21.03 (6.43)

Aggressiveness 28.17 (10.19) 16.31 (2.21) 23.05 (8.20) 17.71 (4.80)
Total 52.31 (16.45) 38.55 (9.92) 46.08 (16.44) 38.74 (9.90)

Analysis of type of sport revealed significant effects for Aggressiveness (F (1, 531) ¼ 6.51, p ¼ .01,
Z2 ¼ .01) with contact sport players reporting higher scores (Table 5).

Discussion

The items composing the CAAS were clustered into two subscales, Aggressiveness and Anger.
Aggressiveness represented acceptance of aggression and willingness to aggress. The Anger
subscale reflected frustration provoked by losing points or games, official’s mistakes, and anger
reactivity in general. The intensity of Anger items was relatively low, compared with the
Aggressiveness subscale, but endorsement by individual athletes was higher.
The CAAS demonstrated good internal consistency for both subscales and total scale score.
Test–retest correlations were also adequate. Anger and Aggressiveness were moderately
correlated, suggesting that they may be inter-related. For example, aggressiveness may heighten
feelings of anger or increase the probability of becoming angry. The relationship between anger
and aggression is well established (Berkowitz, 1965; Buss & Perry, 1992; Deffenbacher, Oetting,
Lynch, & Morris, 1996; Maxwell et al., 2005) as is the link with aggressiveness (Farrington, 1978).
Concurrent validity was established by comparing subscale and total scores on the BPAQ with
subscales and total scores on the CAAS. BPAQ Physical was positively correlated with both
CAAS subscales, but the association was strongest with Aggressiveness. Correlations with BPAQ
Verbal were also positive, but tended to be weaker. BPAQ Anger correlated strongest with the
Anger subscale of CAAS, supporting the latter’s validity. BPAQ Hostility was weakly or
uncorrelated with the CAAS, suggesting that suspicion and hostility towards other players are less
important issues in sport. All correlations between the BPAQ and CAAS were in the moderate
range suggesting little redundancy between the two.
Discriminant validity was established based on peer’s perceptions; footballers were classified
into three groups representing non-aggressive (Calm), aggressive (Fighters) and neutral
orientations. High scorers on the CAAS tended to be involved in more aggressive alterca-
tions than their low-scoring peers. It is also possible that high scorers on the CAAS
would demonstrate a higher frequency of rule-breaking behaviours, rather than just aggres-
sive behaviours, in an attempt to overcome frustrations associated with losing. Future work
should attempt to measure aggressive and rule-breaking behaviours during competitive games to
further evaluate the discriminant and predictive validities of the CAAS (Kirker, Tenenbaum, &
Mattson, 2000).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193 189

A number of authors have reported that the tendency of males to aggress in sport is greater
than that of females (Bredemeier, 1978; Maxwell, 2004). This general observation was supported
by the current data. CAAS scores were higher in males than females. Differences between contact
and non-contact sports were also found, with contact sports players reporting higher scores. This
finding is unsurprising given the greater opportunity for conflict in contact sports. It is also likely
that aggressive individuals are drawn to contact, rather than non-contact, sports.

Limitations and future research

The research reported here suffers from a number of shortcomings. First, the severity rating is
general and may vary across sports. Concurrent and discriminant validities require further
support. Correlating the CAAS with other measures of aggression in sport (e.g. Continuum of
Injurious Acts, Bredemeier, 1985; Sports Behaviour Inventory, Conroy et al. 2001) would help to
reinforce its construct validity. Predictive validity is perhaps the most stringent test of an
instrument’s utility. The CAAS was designed to reflect an athlete’s propensity for aggression
during competition; therefore, correlations between CAAS score and frequency of observed
aggressive behaviour should be positive. No measure of social desirability was taken, which may
affect the reliability of the CAAS; however, respondents were encouraged to answer truthfully or
miss questions they did not feel inclined to answer. Also, peer behaviour assessments correlated
well with self-assessments suggesting that responses were representative, at least in the sub-sample
of footballers.
The CAAS was developed using participants from a number of individual and team sports, but
no attempt was made to distinguish possible construct differences between sports. This decision
was taken because a general measure of aggressiveness and anger was sought that could be used
for virtually any type of sport. It may be useful to validate this assumption by comparing factor
structure in selected sports. The last criticism is also true of sport level; athletes in the current
sample were certainly not elite and may not be truly representative of this group.
The CAAS is intended as a trait measure, but it is likely that aggressiveness and anger fluctuate;
for example, during a ‘grudge’ match they may increase. A modified version of the CAAS,
reflecting state aggressiveness and anger, may be a useful addition to the current suite of
measurement tools. The brevity of the scale would presumably allow its use during different stages
of a competition, particularly in sports that have frequent breaks.
Some research has suggested that aggression may facilitate performance (McCarty & Kelly,
1978a, b; Sheldon & Aimar, 2001; Widmeyer & Birch, 1984; Worrell & Harris, 1986). It follows
that individuals who score high on the CAAS aggressiveness subscale may enjoy an advantage
over less aggressive opponents, particularly in contact sports. It is possible that anger may have
either beneficial or negative effects on performance much in the same way as increased arousal
which is facilitatory at moderate levels, but debilitating at high levels. Individuals with high levels
of trait anger may be more likely to react to provocation by aggressing. This action may result in a
penalty or points awarded to the opposition; thus, the action is negative. Individuals with lower
levels of trait anger are less likely to aggress, but may be unable to channel angry feelings
positively when they do occur. Comparison of CAAS scores with rule violations, incidents of
aggression, coping, and motivation are likely to indicate possible answers to these possibilities.
However, it must be taken into account that conceding aggressive penalties early in a game might
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

190 J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193

function to intimidate an opponent with the intent of regaining competitive dominance at a later
stage. The tactical use of aggression (or planned instrumental aggression) would seem an
important area for future research and is likely to have strong links to perceptions of legitimacy.
Cognitive and cultural aspects of anger and aggression in sport also warrant attention, yet
research in these areas is relatively sparse. Maxwell (2004) provided evidence that the tendency to
have ruminative thoughts of revenge was associated with provocation and self-reported
propensity to aggress. Maxwell, Moores, & Chow (In press) found similar relationships in Hong
Kong Chinese athletes despite their tendency to demonstrate lower levels of both aggression and
rumination than their British counterparts (particularly athletes participating in contact sports).
The precise reasons for differences in aggression and rumination between British and Chinese
athletes remains to be established, but may be due to the negative appraisal of excessive emotional
expression amongst Chinese people. If this were the case, anger would not be expected to differ
across the two cultures, but aggressiveness should be higher in British athletes.

Conclusion

Athlete aggression is an important topic of research because aggression that is condoned in

sport may not be acceptable outside sport. In this respect, sport can be seen as a working
laboratory for the study of aggression. Insights into the motivation of competitors and the role of
behavioural inhibition may give us a better understanding of human aggression in general.
Analysis of human behaviour requires accurate measurement that can be time consuming and
costly if only observed behaviour is considered. The development of accurate psychometric
measures provides a partial solution to this problem. The scale produced here is potentially useful
in the study of sport aggression, but requires further testing in various sports and populations of
athletes.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by University of Hong Kong Seed Funding for Basic Research and
Hong Kong Government Research Grants Council Competitive Earmarked Research Grant
(HKU7447/05 H) awarded to the first author. We would also like to thank John Law, University
of Birmingham, for his assistance with data collection, and two anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments.

References

Arbuckle, J. (2003). Amos 5 [Computer Software]. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation.

Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38,
1145–1160.
Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human Aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press.
Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based data with slightly distorted
simple structures. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 41–75.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193 191

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Berkowitz, L. (1965). The concept of aggressive drive: Some additional considerations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 301–329). New York: Academic Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1983). The experience of anger as a parallel process in the display of impulsive ‘angry’ aggression. In R.
G. Geen, & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews, Vol. 1 (pp. 103–133). New York:
Academic Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106,
59–73.
Berkowitz, L. B. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bredemeier, B. (1975). The assessment of reactive and instrumental aggression. In I. D. M. Landers (Ed.), Psychology of
sport and motor behaviour II (pp. 71–84). State College, PA: Penn State HPER Series.
Bredemeier, B. (1978). The assessment of reactive and instrumental aggression. In: Proceedings of the international
symposium of psychological assessment in sport (pp. 136–145). Netanya, Israel: Wingate Institute for Physical
Education and Sport.
Bredemeier, B. J. (1985). Moral reasoning and the perceived legitimacy of intentionally injurious sport acts. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 7, 110–124.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Single-sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455.
Bryant, F. B., & Smith, B. D. (2001). Refining the architecture of aggression: A measurement model of the Buss–Perry
Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 138–167.
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
452–459.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1983). An introduction to the analysis of models with unobserved variables. Political
Methodology, 9, 51–102.
Chantal, Y., Robin, P., Vernat, J-P., & Bernache-Assollant, I. (2005). Motivation, sportspersonship, and athletic
aggression: A mediational analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 233–249.
Conroy, D. E., Silva, J. M., Newcomer, R. R., Walker, B. W., & Johnson, M. S. (2001). Personal and parti-
cipatory socializers of the perceived legitimacy of aggressive behavior in sport. Aggressive Behavior, 27,
405–418.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Lynch, R. S., & Morris, C. D. (1996). The expression of anger and its consequences.
Behavioural Research and Therapy, 34, 575–590.
DePasquale, J. P., Geller, E. S., Clarke, S. W., & Littleton, L. C. (2001). Measuring road rage: Development of the
Propensity for Angry Driving Scale. Journal of Safety Research, 32, 1–16.
Duda, J., & Huston, L. (1995). The relationship of goal orientation and degree of competitive sport participation to the
endorsement of aggressive acts in American football. In R. Vanfraechem-Raway, & Y. VandenAudweele (Eds.),
Proceedings of the IXth European congress on sport psychology (pp. 655–662). Belgium: Brussels.
Duda, J., Olson, L., & Templin, T. (1991). The relationship of task and ego orientation to sportmanshipp attitudes and
perceived legitimacy of injurious acts. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 79–87.
Farrington, D. P. (1978). The family backgrounds of aggressive youths. In L. Hersov, M. Berger, &
D. Shaffer (Eds.), Aggression and antisocial behaviour in childhood and adolescence (pp. 73–93). Oxford, England:
Pergamon.
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2001). Gender, driver aggression and driver violence: An applied evaluation. Sex
Roles, 44, 661–676.
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods and
Research, 11, 325–344.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

192 J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Husman, B. F., & Silva, J. M. (1984). Aggression in sport: Definitional and theoretical considerations. In J. M. Silva, &
R. S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 246–260). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Isberg, L. (2000). Anger, aggressive behaviour, and athletic performance. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in sport
(pp. 113–133). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. G. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.
Kerr, J. H. (1999). The role of aggression and violence in sport: A rejoinder to the ISSP position stand. The Sport
Psychologist, 13, 83–88.
Kerr, J. H. (2002). Issues in aggression and violence in sport: The ISSP position stand revisited. The Sport Psychologist,
16, 68–78.
Kirker, B., Tenenbaum, G., & Mattson, J. (2000). An investigation of the dynamics of aggression: Direct observation in
ice hockey and basketball. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 373–386.
Maxwell, J. P. (2004). Anger rumination: An antecedent of athlete aggression? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5,
279–289.
Maxwell, J. P., Grant, S., & Lipkin, S. (2005). Further validation of the propensity for angry driving scale in British
drivers. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 213–224.
Maxwell, J.P., Moores, E., & Chow, C.C.F. (In press). Anger rumination and aggression amongst British and Chinese
athletes: A cross cultural comparison. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
McCarty, J. F., & Kelly, B. R. (1978a). Aggression, performance variables, and anger self-report in ice hockey players.
Journal of Psychology, 99, 97–101.
McCarty, J. F., & Kelly, B. R. (1978b). Aggressive behaviour and its effect on performance over time in ice hockey
athletes: An archival study. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 90–96.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppelman, L. F. (1971). Manual for the profile of mood states. San Diego, CA:
Educational and Industrial Testing Services.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppelman, L. F. (1992). Revised manual for the profile of mood states. San Diego, CA:
Educational and Industrial Testing Services.
Munro, B. H. (1997). Statistical methods for health care research (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven
Publishers.
Nosanchuk, T. A., & MacNeil, M. L. C. (1989). Examination of the effects of traditional and modern martial arts
training on aggressiveness. Aggressive Behaviour, 15, 153–159.
Russell, G. W. (1993). The social psychology of sport. New York: Springer.
Ryan, K., Williams, J., & Wimer, B. (1990). Athletic aggression: perceived legitimacy and behavioral intentions in girl’s
high school basketball. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 12, 48–55.
Sheldon, J. P., & Aimar, C. M. (2001). The role aggression plays in successful and unsuccessful ice hockey behaviors.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 304–309.
Skelton, D. L., Glynn, M. A., & Berta, S. M. (1991). Aggressive behaviour as a function of taekwondo ranking.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 179–182.
Smith, M.D. (1983) Violence and sport. Toronto: Butterworths.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.
Stephens, D. E. (1998). Aggression. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp.
277–292). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Ltd.
Tenenbaum, G., Sacks, D. N., Miller, J. W., Golden, A. S., & Doolin, N. (2000). Aggression and violence in sport: A
reply to Kerr’s rejoinder. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 315–326.
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.
Terry, P. C., Lane, A. M., Lane, H. J., & Keohane, L. (1999). Development and validation of a mood measure for
adolescents. Journal of Sport Sciences, 17, 861–872.
Trulson, M. E. (1986). Martial arts training: A novel ‘cure’ for juvenile delinquency. Human Relations, 39,
1131–1140.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.P. Maxwell, E. Moores / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 179–193 193

Wall, B. R., & Gruber, J. J. (1986). Relevancy of athletic aggression inventory for use in women’s intercollegiate
basketball: A pilot investigation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 17, 23–33.
Widmeyer, W. N., & Birch, J. S. (1984). Aggression in professional ice hockey: A strategy for success or a reaction to
failure? Journal of Psychology, 117, 77–84.
Worrell, G. L., & Harris, D. V. (1986). The relationship of perceived and observed aggression of ice hockey players.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 17, 34–40.