Mapping Risk Judgment and Risk Taking in Mountain Hiking: An Information Integration Approach.

Risk analysis is essential for promoting hiking-based tourism. Our objective in the present study was to map 395 mountain hikers' positions on risk judgment and risk taking, according to how they integrated three antecedent factors of confidence (environment, team, and self). For integrating information, people can develop an additive rule whereby they apply the same weight to all information or use interaction rules (i.e., conjunctive or disjunctive), to give different weights to information. In the questionnaire our participants completed, there were eight scenarios that combined the three confidence antecedent factors as information cues. We applied cluster analysis, repeated-measures analyses of variance, chi-square tests, and bivariate correlation analyses to the questionnaire results to identify three participant risk positions. In the first risk position (cluster 1), participants used a disjunctive integration rule for both risk judgment and risk taking. In the second risk position (Clusters 2 and 4), they used an additive integration rule for risk judgment while they used a disjunctive integration rule for risk taking. In the third risk position (cluster 3), they used an additive integration rule for both risk judgment and risk taking. In each risk position, confidence in the three antecedent factors (environment, team, and self) negatively affected risk judgment and positively affected risk taking. We found the compositions of the clusters to be related to the participants' sex, and we discuss various advantages of applying information integration for mountain hiking practitioners and promoters.

Mapping Positions on Forgiving an Aggressor in Sport.

The objective of the present study was to map amateur athletes' positions on forgiving an aggressor in sport under various circumstances. One hundred and twenty-eight participants judged forgiveness in 32 scenarios built from combinations of five factors (moral disengagement, intention, consequence, apology, and incentive). Following a cluster analysis, ANOVAs, and chi-squared tests, a three-cluster solution was found: "Mainly Forgive, with Non-Additive Integration," "Seldom Forgive, with Additive Integration," and "Moderately Forgive, with Additive Integration." The clusters' composition was related to the members' sex and type of sport. Cluster 1 contained 19% of the women and 32% of the athletes from collision sports. Cluster 2 contained 72% of the men, 53% of the athletes from non-contact sports, and 43% of the athletes from contact sports. Cluster 3 contained 54% of the women, and 58% of the athletes from collision sports.

Mapping handball players' reactions to aggression during a sporting event / Mapeando las reacciones de agresión de los jugadores de balonmano durante un evento deportivo

During sporting events, players' reactions to opponents' aggression vary in widely different ways. Some players are able to exert strong self-control. Other players immediately react to the first aggressive act. Still other players adopt middle-ground behaviors. We examined whether it was possible to find empirical support for these qualitatively different ways to react to aggression. Handball playing was chosen because it involves a lot of physical/social interactions. Fifty amateur players were presented with a set of scenarios containing information about: the number and kind of previous aggressive acts that have affected the player; the current team's score; the coach's attitude to aggressive behavior among players; and the risk of being sanctioned in case of retaliation. They were asked to rate, separately, the level of anger they would experience in each case and the probability that they retaliate. Through cluster analysis, three qualitatively different ways to react to aggressive behavior during sport events were found; they were called Self-Control (44%), Depending on Circumstances (30%), and High Reactivity (14%). Implications for coaches and referees are discussed.

Durante los eventos deportivos, las reacciones de los jugadores a la agresión de los oponentes varían ampliamente y en diferentes maneras. Algunos jugadores son capaces de ejercer un fuerte auto-control. Otros jugadores reaccionan inmediatamente al primer acto agresivo. Otros jugadores adoptan comportamientos moderados. Este estudio examinó si era posible encontrar apoyo empírico para estas maneras cualitativamente diferentes de reaccionar a la agresión. El balonmano fue el deporte elegido porque implica una gran cantidad de interacciones físicas y sociales. A cincuenta jugadores aficionados se les presentó un conjunto de escenarios que contenían información sobre: el número y los tipos de agresiones previas que habían afectado al jugador, los marcadores actuales del equipo, la actitud del entrenador frente al comportamiento agresivo entre los jugadores, y el riesgo de ser sancionado en caso de tomar represalias. Se les pidió que respondieran, por separado, el nivel de ira que experimentarían en cada caso y la probabilidad de que tomaran venganza. Se realizó un análisis de conglomerados, y se observaron tres formas cualitativamente diferentes de reaccionar ante el comportamiento agresivo durante los eventos deportivos; estas formas fueron denominadas Auto-control (44%), dependiendo de las circunstancias (30%) y alta reactividad (14%). La discusión muestra las implicaciones para los entrenadores y los árbitros.

Condoning aggressive behaviour in sport: a comparison between professional handball players, amateur players, and lay people

The present study examined the cognitive processes by which persons who are differently involved in the practice of sport judge the extent to which an aggressive act performed by a player during a match in handball could be condoned. Thirty professional handball players, 35 amateur handball players, and 48 non-sporting individuals indicated this "condonability" in 48 scenarios. The scenarios were all combinations of 5 factors: (a) the consequences of the aggression (the victim is injured and must leave the game or the victim is not injured), (b) the current score (the team is winning or the team is losing), (c) the time left to play (very little time or quite some time), (d) the context of the aggression (the aggressor has been the victim of a previous act of aggression or not), (e) the relative importance of the game (friendly match or competitive match or European match). For 62% of the participants, violently pushing an opponent was considered as practically never condonable. For 38% of the participants, this behaviour was sometimes condonable. Professional handball players (60%), more frequently than lay people (27%) or amateurs (34%), supported the view that pushing an opponent can sometimes be condonable. Different positions on moral judgment were observed according to the involvement in the practice of sport (AU)

No disponible

Players' quality of play and overall interest of the game in dyadic competition.

These experiments examined the cognitive processes involved in judging the quality of play of a player competing against another player and the overall interest of a competitive game as a function of the players' respective ability and motivation levels. For the quality of play of one player, a very simple information integration rule was found. Quality of play was judged almost exclusively as an additive function of the ability and motivation levels of the player. For the interest of the game, an apparently complex but fundamentally simple integration rule was found. For a game to be very interesting, players had to be both highly able and highly motivated; for a game to be somewhat interesting, each player had to be at least either highly able or highly motivated; and all other configurations corresponded to lower expected levels of interest.

Performance schemata in dyadic competition and cooperation.

We examined performance schemata in dyadic competitive and cooperative situations, that is, the ways people perceive the relationship between performance level, capacity level, and degree of motivation in situations in which two people confront or collaborate with one another. In Experiment 1, 104 participants judged the possible performance of Person A, whose ability and motivation levels were communicated, competing against Person B, whose ability and motivation levels were also communicated. When judging A's performance, participants seemed first to assess the difficulty of the task facing A and second to integrate information relative to A according to a rule with changing parameters already proposed by Surber (1981a, 1981b). In Experiment 2, 140 participants judged either the possible performance of Person A in a cooperative situation or the possible performance of the A-B team using the same material. Results showed that people judge A's performance or the team's performance using a very simple additive rule.