Examination of the Aggression Levels of Physical Education and Sport School Students

Mehmet YILDIRIM1; Oktay ÇOBAN2

1,2University of Yozgat Bozok, School of Physical Education and Sports, Yozgat, Turkey

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine the level of aggression of students in different departments of physical education and sports school and to compare the aggression levels according to some demographic characteristics. The universe of your research is to constitute students who study in different departments of Bozok University Physical Education and Sports School in 2017-2018 academic years. The sample of the research consists of a total of 300 students who are identified by random sampling technique among the students studying in different departments at Bozok University Physical Education and Sports School in 2017-2018 academic year. Survey method was used in the research. Information on the demographic characteristics of the students was obtained through the "personal information form". Information on how to determine the level of aggression of the students was obtained with the "Buss Perry Aggression Scale". The obtained data were transferred to the SPSS 18 software program for statistical analysis. Frequency analysis, percentage analysis, arithmetic mean, t test, Anova analysis and post hoc tests were used in analyzing the data. As a result of the analyzes; statistically significant differences were found between aggression levels of students according to age, education department and monthly expenditure variables (p <0.05). There were no statistically significant differences according to gender, shelter status, maternal employment status, mother education level, father education level and sibling number (p> 0.05).

Keywords:Aggression, Sport, Student.

1. Introduction

Aggression can be generally defined as an individual’s or group’s behaviors that aims to harm others (Doğan and Moralı, 1999). According to Baron and Byrne (1994) aggression involve deliberate behaviors that result in physically and psychologically harmful effects. Aggression was also interpreted as an external sign of anger which tries to destroy an object or an individual (Cliford, 1986). It is possible to mention aggression or aggressive behaviors when an individual displays behaviors that aim to directly or indirectly damage a living organism (Peter and Beyer, 1997) which may also be related to instrumental and emotional reasons (Krishnaveni and Shahin, 2014).

According to Bryant and Mcelroy (1997) causes of aggressive behaviors can be categorized into three groups. The first group is instinctual (biological cause) aggression, which suggests that all people have aggressive traits and their oppressed energy can be relieved via different activities. The second group consists of disappointment and aggression (psychological cause), which argues that an individual may display aggressive behaviors because of disappointment and frustration. Finally, the last group is learned behavior (sociological cause), which maintains that a person is not innately aggressive and aggression emerges as a result of socialization (Bandura et al., 1963).

Buss (1961) divided aggression into three dimensions as a) physical or verbal aggression b) active or passive aggression and c) direct or indirect aggression. While pushing and pulling, oppressing, hitting, biting are given as examples of physical aggression, hurting someone’s feelings and psychological state through verbal communication is considered as verbal aggression. Active aggression is a goal-oriented behavior, and the aggressor aims to hurt victim’s feelings or cause suffering. On the other hand, passive aggression, which is the opposite of active aggression, aims to prevent somebody from achieving their goals rather than giving them active damage. Direct aggression is observed when an individual tries to directly send harmful stimuli that would provoke or irritate others, while indirect aggression results from sending harmful stimuli through hints (Walker and Richardson, 1998). Buss and Perry concluded that physical, verbal and indirect aggression involved behaviors that “hurt or damage an individual” and stated that these aggression types represented the behavioral component of aggression. Anger involved “physiological stimulation and preparation for aggression” and represented emotional component of aggression. Finally, hostile aggression involved “mercilessness and unfairness” and represented cognitive component of aggression (Felsten and Hill, 1999).

A systematic approach at a psychological and social level may be adopted to minimize aggression, irrespective of its degree (Krishnaveni and Shahin, 2014). Aggressive emotions and behaviors can be reduced thanks to anger management and role model applications.
Aggressive and angry behaviors have become an important social problem, which definitely require early intervention for an effective solution. In this respect, it is of vital importance to develop programs addressing children, adolescents and young adults. Programs aiming the prevention of aggression may contribute to students’ healthy development and help them easily cope with various problems, particularly prior to or during early adolescence. Such programs will also provide them with a more successful character, which will pave the way for a highly qualified and peaceful society.

The present study aims to determine levels of aggression among students at different departments at School of Physical Education and Sports and compare their levels of aggression based on some demographic features to offer solutions. Within this framework, the following research questions will be answered:

- What are the levels of aggression among students at different departments at School of Physical Education and Sports?

2. Material and Methods

     The population, sample, data collection tools and data analysis of the present study are given in this section.

2.1. The Population and Sample of the Study

The population of the present study is comprised of students at different departments at School of Physical Education and Sports at University of Yozgat Bozok during 2017-2018 academic year. The sample is comprised of 300 students who were selected using convenience sampling method among students at different departments at School of Physical Education and Sports at University of Yozgat Bozok during 2017-2018 academic year.

2.2. Data Collection Tools

Questionnaire, which is a primary source research, was used as a data collection tool to conduct the present study due to its cost-effectiveness, feasibility and suitability for collecting information from dispersed and large masses within a short time. A personal information form was used to identify students’ demographic features. Finally, “Buss-Perry Aggression Scale” was used to determine students’ views on aggressive behaviors.

2.2.1. Buss Perry Aggression Scale

Buss Perry aggression scale (Buss and Perry, 1992) is a five-point Likert type scale (1- Absolutely Inappropriate, 2- Slightly Inappropriate, 3- Slightly Appropriate, 4- Appropriate 5- Absolutely Appropriate) consisting of four sub-dimensions (physical aggression, anger, hostility and verbal aggression) and 29 items. The scale was adapted to Turkish context and tested for its reliability and validity by Madran (2012). It measures four different sub-dimensions of aggression listed as physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger and hostility.
In this questionnaire, 9 questions (13, 8, 2, 11, 25, 16, 29, 22, 5) are asked in the sub-dimension of physical aggression to measure the tendency to give physical damage to others, 5 questions are asked (27, 6, 21, 14, 4) in the sub-dimension of verbal aggression to measure the tendency to hurt others verbally, 7 questions (19, 28, 1, 18, 9, 23, 12) are asked in the sub-dimension of anger to measure emotional aspect of aggression, and, finally, 8 questions (20, 24, 3, 7, 26, 10, 15, 17) are asked  in the sub-dimension of hostility to measure cognitive aspect of aggression. 9th and 16th items in this scale are reverse coded. In Turkish version of Buss Perry aggression scale, Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as 0.85 for the whole scale, while it was calculated as 0.78, 0.48, 0.76 and 0.71 for physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger and hostility sub-dimensions, respectively (Madran, 2012). 

On the other hand, in the present study, Cronbach Alpha value was calculated as 0.90 for the whole scale. In addition, it was calculated as 0.79, 0.60, 0.76 and 0.75 for physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger and hostility sub-dimensions, respectively. A reliability coefficient ranging between .70 and .90 indicates a high level of reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Therefore, it is evident that the scale is acceptable in terms of internal reliability coefficients.

2.3. Data Analysis

The data obtained from the present study was analyzed using SPSS 18 statistics program. First, a normality test was performed to test the suitability of the dataset. Frequency, percentage and arithmetic means analysis were used to identify students’ demographic features in order to analyze data. In addition, Cronbach alpha was used to test scale reliability, t test and ANOVA analysis were used to determine differences between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of demographic variables, and, finally, post hoc (Tukey, Tamhane 2) tests were used depending on the variance homogeneity.

Table-1. Buss Perry Aggression Scale Reliability Coefficient

Buss Perry Aggression Scale Cronbach Alpha
Physical Aggression 0.79
Verbal Aggression 0.6
Anger 0.76
Hostility 0.75
Total Reliability  0.9

2.3.1. Normality Test

Prior to statistical analysis of the data obtained from study group, they must be prepared for analysis. To this aim, researchers must pay attention to kurtosis and skewness coefficients (Simşek, 2007). Skewness coefficient is 0 in the normal distribution. A negative skewness coefficient indicates a right-skewed distribution while a positive skewness coefficient indicates a left-skewed distribution. Similarly, kurtosis coefficient is 0 in the normal distribution. A positive kurtosis coefficient indicates a leptokurtic distribution, while a negative kurtosis coefficient indicates a platykurtic distribution (http 1). Because kurtosis and skewness coefficients vary between (+-2 and +-7), it can be stated that the data display a normal distribution (West et al., 1995; Sencan, 2005; Simşek, 2007) .
It was found out in the present study that skewness and kurtosis coefficient values related to the data of the present study vary between -0.011/1.103 and 0.121 / -1.355, respectively. These results demonstrate that the data display a normal distribution, and parametric tests were used in the statistical analysis.

3. Findings

Demographic features of students participating in the study are given in Table 2.

Table 2 demonstrates that 169 male (56.3%) and 131 female (43.7%) students participated in the study. While 265 students (88.3%) are aged between 18 and 22, 28 of them (9.3%) are between 23 and 27, and 7 of them (2.3%) are 28 and over. In terms of residence types, 37 students (13.3%) live with their families, 14 students (4.7%) lives with their relatives, 179 students (59.7%) live at dormitory, 22 students (7.3%) live with a flat mate, and 48 students (16.0%) live alone. While 100 students (33.3%) study physical education and sports teaching, 150 (50.0%) students study coaching education and 50 students (16.7%) study sports management. When employment status of students’ mothers is analyzed, it can be observed that 31 mothers (10.3%) are employed, whereas 269 mothers (89.7%) are non-employed. As for mother’s education level, 37 students’ mothers (12.3%) were illiterate, 141 students’ mothers (47.0%) graduated from primary school, 69 students’ mothers (23.0%) graduated from secondary school, 43 students’ mothers (14.3%) graduated from high school, and 10 students’ mothers (3.3%) graduated from university. As for father’s education level, 13 students’ fathers (4.3%) were illiterate, 96 students’ fathers (32.0%) graduated from primary school, 81 students’ fathers (27.0%) graduated from secondary school, 84 students’ fathers (28.0%) graduated from high school, and 26 students’ fathers (8.7%) graduated from university. In terms of monthly expenses, 22 students (7.3%) spend 250 and less, 85 students (28.3%) spend between 251 and 500 TL, 77 students (25.7%) spend between 501 and 750 TL, 49 students (16.3%) spend between 751 and 1000 TL, and 67 students (22.3%) students spend over 1000 TL. While 221 students (73.7%) have 1 to 3 sibling(s), 58 students (19.3%) have 4 to 6 siblings, and 11 students (3.7%) have 7 to 10 siblings.

Table-2. Demographic features of students

    N %
Gender Male 169 56.3
Female 131 43.7
  18-22 265 88.3
Age 23-27 28 9.3
  28 and over 7 2.3
  With Family  37 12.3
  With Relatives  14 4.7
Type of Residence At Dormitory 179 59.7
  With (a) flat mate(s) 22 7.3
  Alone  48 16
  Physical Education and Sports Teaching 100 33.3
Academic Department Coaching Education 150 50
  Sports Management 50 16.7
Mother’s Employment Status Employed 31 10.3
Non-employed 269 89.7
  Illiterate 37 12.3
  Primary School 141 47
Mother’s Education Level Secondary School 69 23
  High School 43 14.3
  University 10 3.3
  Illiterate 13 4.3
  Primary School 96 32
Father’s Education Level Secondary School 81 27
  High School 84 28
  University 26 8.7
  250 TL and less 22 7.3
  251 TL – 500 TL 85 28.3
Monthly Expenses 501 TL – 750 TL 77 25.7
  751 TL – 1000 TL 49 16.3
  1001 TL and more 67 22.3
  No siblings 10 3.3
Number of Siblings 1-3 sibling(s) 221 73.7
  4-6 siblings 58 19.3
  7-10 siblings 11 3.7

Mean total aggression scale scores based on the answers given in the questionnaire are given in Table 3.

Table-3. Mean Total Aggression Scale Scores

Aggression Scale N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation
  300 33 131 78.22 20.03

When Table 3 is analyzed, it can be noted that the minimum and maximum aggression scale scores were 33 and 131, respectively, and mean score was 78.22.

Mean aggression scale scores based on different sub-dimensions of the scale are given in Table 4.

Table-4. Mean total aggression scale scores based on different sub-dimensions

Sub-dimensions of Buss Perry Aggression Scale  N Mean Score Standart Deviation
Physical Aggression 300 2.56 0.832
Verbal Aggression 300 2.78 0.752
Anger 300 2.74 0.845
Hostility 300 2.75 0.822

It can be observed in Table 4 indicates the highest aggression sub-dimension is verbal aggression (=2.78).

t test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of gender are given in Table 5.

Table-5. t test findings related to mean total aggression and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of gender

  Gender N Mean Score sd t p
Physical Aggression Male 169 2.63 0.79 1.65 0.1
Female 131 2.47 0.88
Verbal Aggression Male 169 2.82 0.754 1.28 0.202
Female 131 2.71 0.749
Anger Male 169 2.67 0.832 -1.698 0.091
Female 131 2.83 0.855
Hostility Male 169 2.71 0.835 -0.855 0.393
Female 131 2.79 0.805
Mean Total Aggression  Male 169 78.3 19.79 0.077 0.939
Scores Female 131 78.12 20.42

It can be understood from Table 5 that no statistically significant differences were observed between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of gender (p>.05).

ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of age are given in Table 6.

Table-6. ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of age

  df F p
Physical Aggression Between groups 2 3.168 .044*
Within groups 297
Total 299
Verbal Aggression Between groups 2 1.76 0.174
Within groups 297
Total 299
Anger Between groups 2 6.493 .002**
Within groups 297
Total 299
Hostility Between groups 2 3.446 .033*
Within groups 297
Total 299
Mean Total Aggression  Scores Between groups 2 4.791 .009**
Within groups 297
Total 299

*p<.05, **p<.01

It can be understood from Table 6 that significant differences were observed among mean total aggression scores and in the sub-dimensions of physical aggression, anger and hostility in terms of age (p<.05).

Multiple comparison test results for the significant difference related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of age are given in Table 7.

Table-7. Multiple comparison test results for the significant difference related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of age

  Age   Mean Difference Standard Error p
Physical Aggression 28 and over 18-22 -0.78 0.31 0.036
23-27 -0.82 0.34 0.048
Anger 28 and over 18-22 -1.09 0.31 0.002
23-27 -0.89 0.35 0.035
Hostility 28 and over 18-22 -0.74 0.31 0.048
MeanTotal Aggression  Scores 28 and over 18-22 -23.25 7.57 0.007
23-27 -21.07 8.36 0.033

According to Table 7, a statistically significant difference was found between students aged 28 and over and those aged between 18-22 and 23-27 when it comes to the sub-dimensions of physical aggression and anger as well as mean total aggression scores (p<.05). This difference is in favor of those aged between 18-22 and 23-27. In the sub-dimension of hostility, statistically significant differences were found between students aged between 28 and over and those aged between 18 and 22 (p<.05). This difference is in favor of those aged between 18 and 22. Aggression level of students aged 28 and over is lower.

ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of residence type are given in Table 8.

Table-8. ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of residence type

  df F p
Physical Aggression Between groups 4 0.755 0.555
Within groups 295
Total 299
Verbal Aggression Between groups 4 0.794 0.53
Within groups 295
Total 299
Anger Between groups 4 1.453 0.217
Within groups 295
Total 299
Hostility Between groups 4 0.752 0.558
Within groups 295
Total 299
Mean Total Aggression  Between groups 4 1.055 0.379
Scores Within groups 295
  Total 299

*p<.05, **p<.01

It can be understood from Table 8 that no statistically significant differences were observed between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of residence type (p>.05).

ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of academic department are given in Table 9.

Table-9. ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of academic department

  df F p
Physical Aggression Between groups 2 3.698 .026*
Within groups 297
Total 299
Verbal Aggression Between groups 2 0.226 0.798
Within groups 297
Total 299
Anger Between groups 2 4.451 .012*
Within groups 297
Total 299
Hostility Between groups 2 2.171 0.116
Within groups 297
Total 299
Mean Total Aggression Scores Between groups 2 3.24 .041*
Within groups 297
Total 299

*p<.05, **p<.01

Table 9 demonstrates that significant differences were observed among mean total aggression scores and in the sub-dimensions of physical aggression and anger in terms of academic department (p<.05).

Multiple comparison test results for the significant difference related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of academic department are given in Table 10.

Table-10. Multiple comparison test results for the significant difference related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of academic department

  Academic Department Mean Difference Standard Error p
Physical Aggression Coaching Education Sports Management 0.31 0.13 0.05
Anger Coaching Education Sports Management 0.4 0.13 0.013
Mean Total Aggression Score Coaching Education Sports Management 8.21 3.24 0.032

According to Table 10, statistically significant differences were found between students studying coaching education and sports management when it comes to the sub-dimensions of physical aggression and anger as well as mean total aggression scores (p<.05). This difference is in favor of students studying coaching education, whose level of aggression is higher.

t test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of mother’s employment status are given in Table 11.

Table-11. t test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of mother’s employment status

  Employment Status N Mean Score sd t p
Physical Aggression Employed 31 2.72 0.77 1.08 0.281
Non-employed 269 2.54 0.839
Verbal Aggression Employed 31 2.76 0.779 -0.101 0.92
Non-employed 269 2.78 0.751
Anger Employed 31 3.02 0.853 1.944 0.053
Non-employed 269 2.71 0.84
Hostility  Employed 31 2.79 0.773 0.315 0.753
Non-employed 269 2.74 0.828
MeanTotal Aggression  Employed 31 81.83 19.9 93 1.061 0.29
Scores Non-employed 269 77.8 20.038

It can be understood from Table 11 that no statistically significant differences were observed between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of mother’s employment status (p>.05).

ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of mother’s education level are given in Table 12. 

Table-12. ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of mother’s education level

  df F p
Physical Aggression Between groups 4 1.751 0.139
Within groups 295
Total 299
Verbal Aggression Between groups 4 0.827 0.509
Within groups 295
Total 299
Anger Between groups 4 1.16 0.329
Within groups 295
Total 299
Hostility Between groups 4 0.734 0.57
Within groups 295
Total 299
Mean Total Aggression Scores Between groups 4 1.183 0.318
Within groups 295
Total 299

*p<.05, **p<.01

It can be understood from Table 12 that no statistically significant differences were observed between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of mother’s education level (p>.05).

ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of father’s education level are given in Table 13. 

Table-13. ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of father’s education level

  df F p
Physical Aggression Between groups 4 1.798 0.129
Within groups 295
Total 299
Verbal Aggression Between groups 4 0.945 0.438
Within groups 295
Total 299
Anger Between groups 4 1.043 0.385
Within groups 295
Total 299
Hostility Between groups 4 0.235 0.918
Within groups 295
Total 299
Mean Total  Between groups 4 1.049 0.382
Aggression Scores Within groups 295
  Total 299

*p<.05, **p<.01

It can be understood from Table 13 that no statistically significant differences were observed between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of father’s education level (p>.05).

ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of monthly expenses are given in Table 14. 

Table-14. ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of monthly expenses

  df F p
Physical Aggression Between groups 4 2.839 .025*
Within groups 295
Total 299
Verbal Aggression Between groups 4 3.337 .011*
Within groups 295
Total 299
Anger Between groups 4 1.062 0.376
Within groups 295
Total 299
Hostility Between groups 4 1.561 0.185
Within groups 295
Total 299
Mean Total Aggression Scores Between groups 4 2.008 0.093
Within groups 295
Total 299

*p<.05, **p<.01

It can be understood from Table 14 that statistically significant differences were observed in the sub-dimensions of physical and verbal aggression in terms of monthly expenses (p>.05).

Multiple comparison test results for the significant difference related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of monthly expenses are given in Table 15.

Table-15. Multiple comparison test results for the significant difference related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of monthly expenses

  Monthly Expenses Mean Differences Standard Error p
Physical Aggression  1001 TL and more 250 TL and more 0.57 0.2 0.037
Verbal Aggression 1001 TL and more 250TL–500 TL 0.4 0.12 0.008

According to Table 15, a statistically significant difference was found between students spending 1001 TL and more and those spending 250 and less when it comes to the sub-dimension of physical aggression (p<.05). This difference is in favor of those spending 1001 TL and more. In the sub-dimension of verbal aggression, a statistically significant difference was found between those spending 1001 TL and more and those spending 250 TL and less (p<.05). This difference is in favor of those spending 1001 TL and more. Both physical and verbal aggression of those spending 1001 TL and more are higher.

ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of number of siblings are given in Table 16.

Table-16. ANOVA test findings related to mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of number of siblings

  sd F p
Physical Aggression Between groups 3 0.389 0.761
Within groups 296
Total 299
Verbal Aggression Between groups 3 0.57 0.635
Within groups 296
Total 299
Anger Between groups 3 0.812 0.488
Within groups 296
Total 299
Hostility Between groups 3 2.712 0.051
Within groups 296
Total 299
Mean Total Aggression Scores Between groups 3 1.246 0.293
Within groups 296
Total 299

*p<.05, **p<.01

It can be understood from Table 16 that no significant differences were observed between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of number of siblings (p>.05).

4. Discussion

The present study aims to determine levels of aggression among students at different departments at School of Physical Education and Sports and compare their levels of aggression based on some demographic features to offer solutions. The sample of the study is comprised of 300 students studying at different departments at School of Physical Education and Sports at University of Yozgat Bozok.

The study demonstrated that the minimum and maximum aggression scale scores were 33 and 131, respectively, and the mean score was 78.22. These findings suggest that students do not display highly aggressive behaviors. In terms of sub-dimensions, it can be stated that they mostly display verbal aggression (=2.78). It can be argued that individuals who are actively involved in sports can manage their self-control and, as a result, they are able to avoid aggressive behaviors. In a study on students at a school of physical education and sports, Sam (2014) observed no significant differences between active involvement in sports and aggression. Alp et al. (2014) too, found a similar result in a study on university students. In addition, Dervent et al. (2010) and Kırımoğlu et al. (2008) obtained similar findings in their respective studies. Therefore, the findings in the present study overlap previous studies in the literature. 

In the present study, no statistically significant differences were observed between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of gender (p>.05). It is often considered that boys are observed to particularly display more aggressive behaviors compared to girls in traditionally patriarchal families in Turkish society and that boys are likely to reinforce their aggressive behaviors while girls mostly tend to oppress similar behaviors. In a study on the aggression level of students at school of physical education and sports from a socio-demographic perspective, Erşan et al. (2009) found no significant differences between male and female students in terms of aggressive behaviors. Studies by Allen et al. (1996); Werner and Crick (1999); Björkqvist et al. (1992); Yalçın (2007); Ağlamaz (2006) and Karataş (2005) did not find any significant correlation between gender and aggression, which comply with the findings of the present study. Numerous studies focusing on different socio-cultural structures and conducted in Turkey and abroad obtain varying levels of aggression and report that males tend to display more aggressive behaviors compared to females. Similarly, Amedahe and Owusu-Banahene (2007); Berkowitz (1993); Conner et al. (2003); Goldstein and Tisak (2004); Scharf (2000); Aral et al. (2004); Eroğlu (2009); Günaydın (2008); Oztürk (2008); Uğur (2013); Cansever (2017); Bostancı et al. (2017) and Celik (2006) observed that males had a higher level of aggression compared to females. Therefore, the findings of the present study do not overlap these studies.
The present study indicated statistically significant differences between mean total aggression scores and the sub-dimensions of physical aggression, anger and hostility in terms of age (p<.05). It was observed that students aged 28 and over had a lower level of aggression compared to those aged between 18 and 22 as well as 23 and 27. In this respect, it can be argued that maturity improves an individual’s communication skills, and increases their empathy and life experience, which positively influences aggressive behaviors. Tazegül et al. (2011) and Aksoy (2017) also reported that ageing influenced level of aggression. Bahadır and Erdoğan (2016) however, demonstrated that aggressive behaviors increased in direct proportion to ageing. Thus, the findings of the present study overlap. Erşan et al. (2009) divided participants into two age groups as over 21 and under 21 and observed no significant differences between these groups. Kafalı et al. (2017) obtained a similar result in their study on athletes performing individual and team sports. Erdogdu and Oto (2004) on the other hand, stated that ageing was directly proportional to aggressive behaviors. Therefore, the findings of the present study differ from these studies.

The present study found no statistically significant differences between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of residence type (p>.05). No significant differences were observed between students who live with their families and who left their families to live with a flat mate or alone in terms of level of aggression. Variables such as economic status, residence type, residence location and socio-economic status of the family are indicators of life quality. Additionally, poor residence and study facilities as well as inadequate family conditions and environment heavily influence a student’s success. Social circle, too, occupies an important position in the characterization of an individual’s life during adolescence and youth. In this respect, it is evident that residence problems may cause students to display aggressive behaviors. However, no related results have been so far obtained in the literature.

The present study observed statistically significant differences between mean total aggression scores and the sub-dimensions of physical aggression and anger in terms of academic department (p<.05). It was found out that students studying coaching education had a higher level of aggression compared to those studying sports management. Despite various acceptance methods, students who wish to study sports management usually take a university exam to enroll in this department. On the other hand, students who wish to study coaching education need to take sportive talent exams for enrollment. Therefore, it is safe to argue that these students tend to display more physically and verbally aggressive behaviors due to their continuous active involvement in sports throughout the years and competitive nature of their department as well as their constant ambition to win. Given that the main reasons underlying aggressive behaviors in sports activities are anger and hostility, such a finding is not surprising. Kula (2008) found a statistically significant difference among students’ level of aggression in terms of their academic departments, which overlaps the present study. On the other hand, Erden (2007) found no significant differences among students’ level of aggression in terms of their academic departments, which differ from the present study.

In the present study, no statistically significant differences were observed between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of mother’s employment status (p>.05). Therefore, it can be suggested that whether a mother has a job or not does not influence a student’s level of aggression. Similarly, a study on the analysis of emphatic tendencies and levels of aggression among different high school students (a case study in Kartal, Turkey) by Filiz (2009) a study on the relationship between levels of desperation and aggression among students at industrial vocational high schools by Kula (2008) a study on students’ levels of aggression in terms of their self-esteem and other variables during late childhood by Yavuz (2007) and a study on the multidimensional analysis of levels of aggression among students at industrial vocational high schools by (Yılmaz, 2008) did not find any significant differences between levels of aggression and mother’s employment status.

In the present study, no statistically significant differences were observed between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of mother’s and father’s education level (p>.05). Parents’ education level is an important factor that affects their communication and relationship with children and shapes the way in which they raise their children. Yıldırım (2017) reported that parents’ attitudes towards their children influence their level of aggression. It is quite likely that children who are exposed to domestic violence and physical assault in their family environment will display more aggressive behaviors in the future. Parents’ child rearing techniques, attitudes towards their children, and problem-solving skills bear utmost importance. The reason why the present study found no significant differences between students’ level of aggression and mother’s and father’s education level stem from the fact that these parents adopted traditional child rearing methods. This is because parents’ love, attention and affection towards their children will be more effective compared to their education level, and children consider their parents’ as role models. While various studies reported no significant correlation between parents’ education level and their children’s level of aggression (Gürsoy, 2002; Ayan, 2007; Oz, 2007; Omay, 2008; Cengiz, 2010) some researchers found out a correlation between parents’ education level and level of aggression (Güner, 1995; Dizman, 2003; Aral et al., 2004) .  

The findings of the present study indicated statistically significant differences in the sub-dimensions of physical and verbal aggression in terms of monthly expenses (p<.05). It was observed that students spending 1001 TL and more had a higher level of aggression. This can be related to the fact that students with a higher economic status can easily fulfill their wishes and display physical and verbal aggression when they are not able to get what they wish to have. Güner (1995) and Gündoğdu (2010) too, report findings similar to those the present study. 

In the present study, no statistically significant differences were observed between mean total aggression scores and mean sub-dimension scores in terms of number of siblings (p>.05). In a similar vein, Yıldız (2009); Kılıçaslan (2009) and Bostancı et al. (2017) did not find any significant correlation between number of siblings and level of aggression. The findings of the present study also overlap those in the literature. However, when mean total aggression scores are analyzed, a directly proportional correlation can be found between number of siblings and level of aggression. A high number of siblings mean that children will need to share their objects, money and facilities with others. In addition, elderly siblings usually take more responsibilities within the family, which may lead to some aggressive behaviors in these individuals. As a result, aggressive and violent behaviors result from some socio-psychological conditions.

Based on the findings of the present study, the following recommendations can be made:

References

Ağlamaz, T., 2006. Analysis of high school students’ aggression scores in terms of self-disclosure, school type, gender, grade, parents’ education level and monthly income. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Ondokuzmayıs University Institute of Social Sciences, Samsun.

Aksoy, K., 2017. The relationship between employees’ levels of physical activity and aggression: A case study in Afyonkarahisar. Turkish Journal of Sports Sciences, 1(1): 21-30.

Allen, T.J., D.M. Dougherty, H.M.C. Rhoades and R. Don, 1996. A study of male and female aggressive responding under conditions providing an escape response. Psychological Record, 46(4): 651-664. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03395190.

Alp, M., M. Eraslan and İ. Ozmutlu, 2014. Analysis of level of aggression among children who do and do not do sports regularly based on their socio-demographic features. Caucasian Journal of Educational Research, 1(1): 32-36.

Amedahe, F.K. and N.O. Owusu-Banahene, 2007. Sex differences in the forms of aggression among adolescent students in Ghana. Research in Education, 78(1): 54-64. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7227/rie.78.5.

Aral, N., A. Bütün, B. Türkmenler and A. Akbıyık, 2004. Analysis of aggression tendency among children attending eight grade. Journal of Contemporary Education, 29(315): 17-25.

Ayan, S., 2007. Aggression tendency among children exposed to domestic violence. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 8(3): 206-214.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Y. Yi, 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1): 76-94.

Bahadır, Z. and H.Ç. Erdoğan, 2016. Analysis of level of aggression among students at school of physical education and sports. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(7): 33-48.

Bandura, A., D. Ross and S.A. Ross, 1963. Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1): 3-11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048687.

Baron, R. and D. Byrne, 1994. Social psychology. 7th Edn., Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Berkowitz, L., 1993. Agression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Björkqvist, K., K.M.J. Lagerspetz and A. Kaukiainen, 1992. Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18(2): 117-127. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1992)18:2<117::aid-ab2480180205>3.0.co;2-3.

Bostancı, Ö., B. Oda, K. Sebin and S. Erail, 2017. Analysis of levels of aggression and optimism among students aged between 11 and 13 in terms of their involvement in sports. Atatürk University Journal of Physical Education and Sports, 19(4): 205-217.

Bryant, J.E. and M. Mcelroy, 1997. Sociological dynamics of sport and exercise. Colorado: Morton Publishing Company.

Buss, A.H., 1961. The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.

Buss, A.H. and M. Perry, 1992. The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3): 452-459.

Cansever, D., 2017. Analysis of the relationship between perceived conflict of parents and aggression in adolescents. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Akdeniz University Institute of Educational Sciences, Antalya.

Celik, H., 2006. Analysis of aggression reactions, commitment and interpersonal schemes among university freshman students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences, İstanbul.

Cengiz, S., 2010. Aggression and problem-solving in adolescents. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.

Cliford, T., M., 1986. Introduction to psychology a textbook. Ankara: Çev: H. Arıcı, G. Acar, G. Urar.

Conner, D.F., R.J. Steingard, J.J. Anderson and J.R.H. Melloni, 2003. Gender differences in reactive and pro-active aggression. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 33(4): 279-294.

Dervent, F., E. Arslanoğlu and O. Senel, 2010. Level of aggression among high school students and its relationship with involvement in sports activities. Journal of Humanities, 7(1): 523-525.

Dizman, H., 2003. Analysis of level of aggression among children living with their parents and without their mothers. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Ankara Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara.

Doğan, B. and S. Moralı, 1999. The aggression of the audience in football and the underlying psycho-social reasons. Journal of Football, Science and Technology, 6(2): 16-20.

Erden, N.K., 2007. Aggression types of senior students at different departments of teaching at Abant Izzet Baysal University. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Abant Izzet Baysal University Institute of Social Sciences, Bolu.

Erdogdu, M.Y. and R. Oto, 2004. Comparison of assertiveness and aggression behaviours of children, working or idle in the streets. Crisis Journal, 12(3): 11-23.

Eroğlu, S.E., 2009. Dimensions of aggressive behaviors and related factors: A comparative study on high school and university students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Selçuk University, Konya.

Erşan, E.E., O. Dogan and S. Dogan, 2009. Evaluation of aggression levels of physical education and sports school students from the sociodemographic perspective. Cumhuriyet Journal of Medicine, 31(1): 321-238.

Felsten, G. and V. Hill, 1999. Aggression questionnaire hostility scale predicts anger in response to mistreatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37(1): 87-97. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00104-1.

Filiz, A., 2009. Analysis of emphatic tendencies and levels of aggression among different high school students (A case study in Kartal, Turkey). Master’s Thesis, Yeditepe University Institute of Educational Sciences, İstanbul.

Goldstein, S.E. and M.S. Tisak, 2004. Adolescents’ outcome expectancies about relational aggression within acquaintanceships, friendships, and dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 27(3): 283-302. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.007.

Günaydın, S., 2008. The relationship between level of aggression and family environment and individuality among high school students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University Institute of Social Sciences, Trabzon.

Gündoğdu, R., 2010. Analysis of levels of dispute settlement, anger and aggression among 9th grade students in terms of some variables, Ç.Ü. Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 19(3): 257-276.

Güner, N., 1995. The impact of various music types on adolescents’ level of depression and aggression. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Hacettepe University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.

Gürsoy, F., 2002. Analysis of aggression tendency among students whose mother work and does not work. Journal of Child Development and Education, 1(6): 7-15.

Kafalı, S., İ. Hünkar, O. Keçeci and E. Demiray, 2017. Analysis of level of aggression among athletes active in team and individual sports. International Journal of Social Sciences, 10(50): 386-390.

Karataş, Z.B., 2005. Analysis of the relationship between parents’ aggression and high school students’ level of aggression. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, Adana.

Kılıçaslan, S., 2009. The relationship between unreasonable beliefs and level of aggression among 7th and 8th grade students. Adana: Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences.

Kırımoğlu, H., N. Parlak, Ç. Dereceli and A. Kepoğlu, 2008. Analysis of high school students’ level of aggression in terms of their involvement in sports. Niğde University Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, 2(2): 147-154.

Krishnaveni, K. and A. Shahin, 2014. Aggression and its influence on sports performance. International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health, 1(2): 29-32.

Kula, E., 2008. A study on the relationship between levels of desperation and aggression among students at industrial vocational high schools. Master’s Thesis, Yeditepe University, İstanbul.

Madran, H.A.D., 2012. Reliability and validity test of buss-perry aggression scale in Turkish context. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 24(2): 1-6.

Nunnally, J.C. and I.H. Bernstein, 1994. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Omay, H., 2008. Analysis of the relationship between primary school students’ perception of school environment and level of aggression. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Yeditepe University Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul.

Oz, E.S., 2007. Analysis of level of aggression among 4th and 5th grade primary school students in terms of some variables. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Ege University Institute of Social Sciences, İzmir.

Oztürk, N., 2008. Analysis of 9th grade students’ level of aggression in terms of some variables. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, İnönü University Institute of Social Sciences, Malatya.

Peter, G. and E. Beyer, 1997. Aggression. (Translated by Z. Kılıç). Sport Ekin Journal, 1(2): 36-37.

Sam, T.C., 2014. Analysis of level of aggression and emphatic tendency among students at school of physical education and sports in terms of some variables (A case study on Erzurum Atatürk University). Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, 16(3): 39-51.

Scharf, C.S., 2000. Gender differences in adolescent aggression: An analysis of instrumentally us. Doctoral Dissertation, Central Michigan University.

Sencan, H., 2005. Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measurements. Ankara: Publications of Seçkin.

Simşek, O.F., 2007. Introduction to structural equation modelling: Basic principles and lisrel approaches. Ankara: Publications of Ekinoks.

Tazegül, Ü., A. Ersoy and H. Sancakli, 2011. Analysis of football spectators’ level of aggression from a socio-demographic perspective. International Journal of Sports Research, 3(2): 23-43.

Uğur, E., 2013. Analysis of the relationship between cognitive distortion and aggressive reactions in terms of interpersonal relationships among high school students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Gaziantep University Institute of Educational Sciences, Gaziantep.

Walker, S. and D.R. Richardson, 1998. Aggression strategies among older adults: Delivered but not seen. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3(3): 287-294. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1359-1789(96)00029-8.

Werner, N. and N. Crick, 1999. Relational aggression and social-psychological adjustment in a college sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108(4): 615-623. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843x.108.4.615.

West, S.G., J.F. Finch and P.J. Curran, 1995. Structural equation models with non-normal variables and remedies. cited by: Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.) (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. Sage: London.

Yalçın, G., 2007. High school students’ level of aggression based on their perceived parental support. Educational Research, 7(26): 209-220.

Yavuz, S., 2007. A study on students’ level of aggression in terms of their self-esteem and other variables during late childhood. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Selçuk University Institute of Social Sciences, Konya.

Yıldırım, M., 2017. The determination of views on football spectators’ level of aggression. Journal of International Social Research, 10(50): 1046-1057.

Yıldız, S., 2009. Analysis of level of aggression high school students in terms of their involvement in sports. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Selçuk University Institute of Health Sciences, Konya.

Yılmaz, İ., 2008. A multidimensional analysis of levels of aggression among students at industrial vocational high schools. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Yeditepe University Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul.