Q.Compare and contrast hostile and instrumental aggression.
You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.
Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →Hostile aggression is anger-driven, with harming the opponent as the goal in itself, whereas instrumental aggression is calm and uses harm only as a tool to win or gain an advantage; both carry the intent to harm and both are non-legitimate in sport.
When a player lashes out during a game, we tend to assume they have simply lost their temper. In reality, sport psychologists divide aggression into two distinct kinds - hostile and instrumental. Both share the deliberate intent to cause harm, yet they differ sharply in the purpose that harm serves and in the emotion behind it.
| Basis of comparison | Hostile aggression | Instrumental aggression |
|---|---|---|
| Intent | Deliberate intent to cause harm or suffering | Deliberate intent to cause harm or suffering |
| Primary goal | To harm or injure the opponent - harm is the end in itself | To win or gain an advantage - harm is a means, not the end |
| Emotional state | Fuelled by anger | No anger; cool, focused and calculated |
| Reaction afterwards | Self-justification, rarely an apology | May apologise, since the harm was never personal |
| Legitimacy | A non-legitimate act in sport | A non-legitimate act in sport |
A couple of examples make the contrast clear. A fast bowler who, after being hit for a boundary, deliberately aims a bouncer at the batsman's head purely out of fury is showing hostile aggression - the harm is what he wants. Compare that with a hockey player who puts in a hard, legal tackle to win the ball near goal: the tackle may hurt, but his aim is to gain possession, so the harm is only a by-product. That is instrumental aggression. …
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.