Psychological Explanations of Football Hooliganism; Subcultural Explanations of Football Hooliganism and Social Theories of Football Hooliganism.

Psychological Explanations of Football Hooliganism

This article is a report on psychological explanations of football hooliganism. Use it to develop excellent essays on the psychology of football hooliganism.

Executive Summary

  • The goal of this research is to look into the various theories that have been proposed to explain football hooliganism.
  • This includes subcultural ideas that claim that members in a subculture’s social learning cause hooliganism.
  • The social identity theory (SIT) proposes an alternate explanation in which the individual’s tendency to create violence is influenced by the footballing culture.
  • The data reveals that while social identity is a more compelling explanation, an individual’s proclivity for violence is a significant determinant of hooliganism.
  • The lack of current study into football hooliganism is a key problem, and this report’s advice is to see if the methodologies studied here are still applicable in modern circumstances.

Football Hooliganism

What is football hooliganism?

Football hooliganism is characterized by antisocial behavior on the part of football fans (Dunning et al., 2014). It can refer to a variety of crimes, but it is most commonly associated with some form of violent behavior (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005). As a result, football hooliganism is a type of group behavior that may be described using psychology (Dunning et al. 1982). Some critics have stated that some of the flaws in how football hooliganism is investigated stem from a lack of clarity in analyzing what fans do: football supporters’ behavior can sometimes appear menacing even when there is no evidence of violence.

Psychological Explanations of Football Hooliganism

Subcultural Explanations of Football Hooliganism

Is football hooliganism a subculture?

Attempts have been made to understand football hooliganism via the lens of distinct civilizations. This was primarily accomplished in the 1970s, with just a little amount of recent research. Clarke (1978) developed a subcultural theory, arguing that football hooliganism was a growth of skinhead culture, which exploited football circumstances to propagate its anti-mainstream attitudes. This was bolstered by Buford’s (1991) theory, which claimed that the adrenaline released during instances in which opposing fans battled was a crucial reinforcing factor in football hooliganism. As a result, there is a long tradition of claiming that football violence stems from a distinct subculture with a penchant for violence.

Football as a specific subculture

Football as a sport has the potential to encourage violence. It has been said that one of the reasons football is prone to violence is that the game’s conventions foster aggression (Dunning et al. 2014). In many circumstances, it is said that football players are more prone to engage in violence on the field and that this is noticed by fans who emulate it, according to social learning theory, which states that people learn from others’ examples (Bandura & Walters, 1977). Hard tackles and other instances in which a football match may be interpreted as including physical conflicts between players are then exploited to convince the audience that violence is simply a part of the game (Stott & Pearson, 2007).

It may be notable that, from this perspective, the amount of violence among football hooligans has decreased at the same time as the level of violence in the game (Dunning et al., 2014). Supporters participate to the game by showing up and cheering, and this is followed by hostility and violence that mimics what they see on the field (Spaaij, 2007). The goal is to terrify the other team and their fans by acting aggressively.

Assessment of Subcultural Approaches to Football Hooliganism

What are the limitations of the existing subcultural theories of football hooliganism?

The problem with current approaches to football hooliganism is that they explain it in specific cultural settings, such as 1970s working-class society (Clarke, 1978; Dunning et al., 2014). They don’t explain how football hooliganism may become a part of hooliganism in other situations where there isn’t an obvious subculture, such as skinheads, and when football serves as a significant role in bringing disparate groups together (Stott & Pearson, 2007).

The focus on men’s proclivity for violence, which is exacerbated by the adrenaline rush associated with football hooliganism, fails to explain why fans would prefer to engage in socially sanctioned forms of violence rather than hooliganism. The concentration of such studies in the 1970s on the causes of hooliganism may restrict its application to modern situations. Furthermore, even when they are clearly susceptible to the same forces, these theories can not explain why some followers love participating in violence while others do not.

Social Theories of Football Hooliganism

What is the significance of identity in football?

According to Worpole (1992), football support represents fans’ strong feeling of local identity, and hence aggressiveness expressed toward rival teams reflects this strong sense of local identity. When supporters identify with their own team, they identify with the group as a whole (Worpole, 1992). By opposing and attacking other followers, the idea of group identification is emphasized (Tsoukala, 2009).

However, aggression toward supporters of opposing teams is only one aspect of how this occurs: it has been proven that supporters of one football team are likely to be negatively predisposed to anyone who identifies as a supporter of opposing football teams, even in small everyday situations like giving directions in the street (Dunning et al., 2014). Aggression and violence are just the extreme manifestations of a strong affiliation with a certain group, which also entails a strong association with other teams (Hornsey, 2008).

Social Identity Theory (SIT) in Explaining Football Hooliganism

What is social identity theory (SIT) in simple terms?

Football hooliganism has been linked to Social Identity Theory (SIT) as a possible explanation (Frosdick & Marsh, 2013). SIT examines how group behavior is shaped by the belief that one group is superior to another, and so focuses on the concept of discrimination (Dunning et al., 2014). Group behavior can intensify this, leading to acts of violence towards out-groups. SIT was used by Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982) to understand football hooliganism and suggest a variety of possible mechanisms.

First, the person loses self-consciousness as a result of the stimulation caused by group cohesion. They lose their capacity to maintain personal standards and values, as well as their ability to self-regulate. Second, because the individual feels nameless and so lacks personal accountability, public self-consciousness is lost (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982). As a result, the individual supporter will not be bound by his or her personal moral code, nor will he or she be restricted by the consequences of any acts of violence (Dunning et al., 2014).

Elaborated Social Model (ESIM) in Explaining Football Hooliganism

What is the elaborated social model?
 Psychological Explanations of Football Hooliganism
Elaborated Social Identity Model

The Elaborated Social Model, or ESIM, is proposed by Dimmock and Grove (2005) as an alternative model based on SIT. This shows that the individual’s loss of self-awareness is an inextricable aspect of collective identity. It differs from Prentice-Dunn and Rogers’ (1982) interpretation of football hooliganism in that it implies that the individual does not feel anonymous and is more deeply tied to the group standards. When people are removed from their in-group, they are less likely to adhere to group norms. Rather than people losing their ability to respond to group identities, individual norms are increasingly being overtaken by group norms.

Assessment of Social Approaches to Football Hooliganism

A lot of studies have looked at how well these ideas can explain real-life examples of football hooliganism. Stott et al. (2001) investigate how violence occurred during the 1998 World Cup, arguing that deindividuation had a significant role. The violence was not triggered by a few individuals who influenced the rest of the group, but rather by the ESIM model, which stated that ordinarily non-violent followers turned aggressive.

The police’s tactics, which lured ordinarily peaceful supporters into violent conduct, aggravated the situation. Violence intensified when police did not act, and where they did intervene indiscriminately, as supporters thought they were being handled unfairly. When paired with a real-life football example, this appears to corroborate the deindividuation thesis. This is confirmed by a study by Dimmock and Grove (2005), which found that fans had less self-control when watching a game.

Individual differences as causes for violence are investigated by Van Hiel et al. (2007). This study examines the extent to which people are more likely to commit acts of violence because they are predisposed to do so. Normal supporters do not automatically become football hooligans; rather, certain followers are more prone to become supporters than others. According to Van Hiel et al. (2007), violence is more likely to occur in a group environment when group members’ attributes reflect current ideas about the appropriateness of violence. For diverse football followers, it’s probable that both deindividuation and individual characteristics have a role.

Conclusion

Football, without a doubt, provides a situation in which violence may occur. Although subcultural explanations pinpoint several significant ways in which this might occur, they do not explain how violence can include a diverse group of people from many walks of life, and they may be constrained to the unique setting of the 1970s when such ideas were established.

Social Identity Theories show how aggression may grow even in previously non-violent persons, although the model proposed by these theories has not been completely validated by facts. Individuals who are inclined to violence are more likely to experience violence than those who lose their sense of self-consciousness, feel nameless, or experience deindividuation. This isn’t to say that social context isn’t important; it just means that it has a stronger impact on those who are already prone to violence.

The disadvantage of these techniques is that the main ideas may be out of date when applied to today’s situation, and there has been little recent study. The possibility of a multicausal picture of hooliganism has to be explored further. This study suggests that the applicability of these ideas to the present setting of hooliganism be investigated.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is meant by football hooliganism?

 Psychological Explanations of Football Hooliganism
Football Hooligans

Football hooliganism is characterized by antisocial behavior on the part of football fans (Dunning et al., 2014). It can refer to a variety of crimes, but it is most commonly associated with some form of violent behavior (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005).

2. How does football cause violence?

Football as a sport has the potential to encourage violence. It has been said that one of the reasons football is prone to violence is that the game’s conventions foster aggression (Dunning et al. 2014). In many circumstances, it is said that football players are more prone to engage in violence on the field and that this is noticed by fans who emulate it, according to social learning theory, which states that people learn from others’ examples (Bandura & Walters, 1977). Hard tackles and other instances in which a football match may be interpreted as including physical conflicts between players are then exploited to convince the audience that violence is simply a part of the game (Stott & Pearson, 2007).

3. Are Football Hooligans a subculture?

Attempts have been made to understand football hooliganism via the lens of distinct civilizations. This was primarily accomplished in the 1970s, with just a little amount of recent research. Clarke (1978) developed a subcultural theory, arguing that football hooliganism was a growth of skinhead culture, which exploited football circumstances to propagate its anti-mainstream attitudes. This was bolstered by Buford’s (1991) theory, which claimed that the adrenaline released during instances in which opposing fans battled was a crucial reinforcing factor in football hooliganism. As a result, there is a long tradition of claiming that football violence stems from a distinct subculture with a penchant for violence.

4. What approach is social identity theory?

Social Identity Theory (SIT) examines how group behavior is shaped by the belief that one group is superior to another, and so focuses on the concept of discrimination (Dunning et al., 2014).

References

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall

Buford, B. (1991). Among the Thugs: Face to Face with English Football Violence. London: Vintage.

Clarke, J., (1978). Football and working-class fans: Tradition and change. In: R. Ingham (ed.), Football Hooliganism: The Wider Context, London: Interaction Imprint, pp. 37–60

Dimmock, J. A., & Grove, R. (2005). Relationships of fan identification to determinants of aggression. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, pp.37–47.

Dunning, E. G., Maguire, J. A., Murphy, P. J., & Williams, J. M. (1982). The social roots of football hooligan violence. Leisure studies, 1(2), pp.139-156.

Dunning, E.G., Murphy, P. J., & Williams, J. (2014). The roots of football hooliganism: An historical and sociological study, London: Routledge.

Frosdick, S., & Marsh, P. (2013). Football hooliganism. Cullompton: Willan.

Hogg, M. A. & Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social Psychology (4th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.

Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self‐categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204-222.

Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), pp.503-513.

Spaaij, R. (2008). Men like us, boys like them: Violence, masculinity, and collective identity in football hooliganism. Journal of Sport and Social Issues32(4), 369-392.

Stott, C., Hutchison, P., & Drury, J. (2001). ‘Hooligans’ abroad? Inter‐group dynamics, social identity and participation in collective ‘disorder’at the 1998 World Cup Finals. British journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), pp.359-384.

Stott, C., & Pearson, G. (2007). Football ‘hooliganism’: policing and the war on the English disease. London: Pennant Books.

Tsoukala, A. (2009). Football hooliganism in Europe: Security and civil liberties in the balance. London: Springer.

Worpole, K. (1992). Towns for people: transforming urban life. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Van Hiel, A., Hautman, L., Cornelis, I., & De Clercq, B. (2007). Football hooliganism: Comparing self‐awareness and social identity theory explanations. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), pp.169-186.

 

Psychological Explanations of Football Hooliganism

 

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get a Discount!

Place New Order
It's Free, Fast & Safe

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get a Discount!

Want Someone to Write Your Paper For You
Order Now & Get 15% off your first purchase

X
Scroll to Top