Aim of this research is the detection of aggressive communication parameters and typology. A network sample of 62 students (male = 32, female = 30) and 4 instructors (male = 2, female = 2) at the physical education and sport sciences dept. at the University of Thessaly has been collected in 2016. A standardized questionnaire consisting of network and non-network part was used. Social network analysis (algebraic analysis) combined with conventional statistics has been used. Basic results are the following ones: Persons dedicated to sport appear to target others and be targeted. Dedication to study content is proved to play a role of a refuge against criticism. High grade and ambition seem to protect against negative comments. Physical qualification (tallness) seems also to discourage rudeness. Spatial-regional discrimination is also revealed. Mockery seems to be even a cause of absence from the courses. A superiority-induced aggressiveness (on economic basis) has been detected. Threat may be regarded as a behavioral extension of mockery (or inversely). In the course of study time, more aggressive persons emerge who even threat others. High grade students are unattractive for arguing. Internet seems to develop communication stimuli. The tendency for professional distinction is connected with arguing. Younger students show an integration deficit in terms of argumentation. Communicational types (three profiles of targets: “depreciated assaulted”, “attractive”, “repellent”, and two profiles of general involvement: “lively”, “controversial”) have emerged. A typology of targets is depicting a sharper fragmentation than a typology of general involvement (targeted and acting).
Aggressive intentions are prevalent in communicational interactions [
The structure of human society, both in public and private sphere, consists of the essential features of dispute and argument [
In general, the expected innovation of this research consists in quantifying results algebraically and statistically combined, depicting deeper and informal hierarchies of verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness. In this way, personal determinants of positioning in such hierarchies are detected. The overview on several determinants of aggressiveness and argumentativeness is supposed to constitute a practical added value of this paper while the exploration of argumentativeness and aggressiveness using algebraic indicators of network theory constitutes the academic added value of the research.
In 2016, a network sample of students class at the dept. of physical education and sport sciences of the University of Thessaly, Central Greece, has been collected. The sample consisted of a class at the 4th semester. The students were 62 (male = 32, female = 30) and 4 instructors (male = 2, female = 2). This was a judgment and not a random sample, as the purpose was the analytic and not the descriptive statistics. The researchers had guaranteed to the participants that their names will remain secret in order to increase the probability to obtain sincere answers. The network questionnaire was strongly based on previous concept [
In
densest (2.8%) while this of mockery relations is the less dense one (0.5%). This is understandable, as the avoiding argumentation is an easy solution in the everyday life in order to restrict misunderstanding and conflicts. On the other hand, mockery is normally practiced only among people familiar to each other and not from all to all. Thereby, it remains a quite rare relation within a group. Beyond density, the Katz, pagerank and authority have been depicted. Particularly, the authority of avoiding argumentation is a quite peculiar and unusual one, as it clearly obtains the structure of inverse pyramid. This is understandable as most nodes tend to posses the “distinct” position in avoidance.
In
In
Negative_comments_ 9_degree | Negative_comments_ 9_indegree | Negative_comments_ 9_status | Negative_comments_ 9_pagerank | Negative_comments_ 9_authority | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Student = 0, instructor = 1 | 0.403 (**) | −0.007 | −0.013 | −0.020 | 0.153 |
0.001 | 0.958 | 0.915 | 0.874 | 0.221 | |
Grade | 0.098 | −0.080 | −0.073 | −0.043 | −0.319 (*) |
0.535 | 0.616 | 0.647 | 0.789 | 0.039 | |
Inspiring interest in sports | 0.319 (*) | −0.149 | −0.143 | −0.155 | −0.168 |
0.031 | 0.325 | 0.342 | 0.303 | 0.264 | |
Desire for distinction as a professional | −0.124 | −0.268 | −0.252 | −0.257 | −0.382 (*) |
0.434 | 0.086 | 0.108 | 0.101 | 0.012 | |
Interested in the subject | 0.251 | 0.410 (**) | 0.408 (**) | 0.407 (**) | 0.184 |
0.092 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.222 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Rude_14_degree | Rude_14_indegree | Rude_14_outdegree | Rude_14_status | Rude_14_ page rank | Rude_14_ authority | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Student = 0, instructor = 1 | 0.230 | 0.000 | 0.348 (**) | −0.007 | 0.009 | −0.080 |
0.063 | 10.000 | 0.004 | 0.957 | 0.942 | 0.522 | |
Height | −0.375 (*) | −0.389 (**) | −0.220 | −0.391 (**) | −0.363 (*) | −0.286 |
0.010 | 0.008 | 0.141 | 0.007 | 0.013 | 0.054 | |
Rural residence | 0.405 (**) | 0.371 (*) | 0.283 | 0.388 (**) | 0.356 (*) | 0.245 |
0.005 | 0.011 | 0.057 | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.101 | |
Urban residence | −0.405 (**) | −0.371 (*) | −0.283 | −0.388 (**) | −0.356 (*) | −0.245 |
0.005 | 0.011 | 0.057 | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.101 | |
Childhood in rural area | 0.462 (**) | 0.412 (**) | 0.330 (*) | 0.436 (**) | 0.422 (**) | 0.156 |
0.001 | 0.004 | 0.025 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0.300 | |
Childhood in urban area | −0.462 (**) | −0.412 (**) | −0.330 (*) | −0.436 (**) | −0.422 (**) | −0.156 |
0.001 | 0.004 | 0.025 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0.300 | |
Using internet for entertainment | −0.223 | 0.205 | −0.363 (*) | 0.204 | 0.204 | 0.108 |
0.137 | 0.172 | 0.013 | 0.173 | 0.174 | 0.477 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
become a target of rudeness, as tallness is a respectful and possibly awful qualification in physical education. It is, however, remarkable that the tall students do not show any clear susceptibility to be rude to others. Thus, if this is not attributed to tallness complex, then tallness seems to be so well integrated in a harmonious value system in physical education that seems to be connected with self-control. Rudeness seems to be related to regional determinants. This reveals a spatial discrimination, as people staying tend to be targeted for rude behavior and, also they exchange rudeness mutually (positive correlation to degree). However, being rude (outdegree) is a characteristic of a student originating from rural area rather than of a student being actually a resident of rural area. Thus, from a regional point of view, rudeness seems rather to be an aftermath of childhood-related setting and influence than an effect of actual milieu. The use of internet for reasons of entertainment seems to restrict the practicing of verbal aggressiveness in reality, as internet provides many options for relaxing (e.g. by listening music) or abreacting (e.g. let off outbursts in games or in chats). In this way, internet users have the chance to calm down in front of the computer and show a more sociable behavior in the everyday life.
In
Mock_15_degree | Mock_15_indegree | Mock_15_outdegree | Mock_15_status | Mock_15_pagerank | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non-attendance of courses | 0.202 | 0.309 (*) | −0.080 | 0.305 (*) | 0.334 (*) |
0.200 | 0.046 | 0.615 | 0.050 | 0.030 | |
Family’s economic state | 0.461 (**) | 0.279 | 0.396 (**) | 0.277 | 0.305 (*) |
0.001 | 0.061 | 0.007 | 0.062 | 0.039 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
ery. This may be attributed to the fact that mockery is often perceived as an intellectual interplay, which is relatively acceptable from anyone. Thus, a similar reaction to mockery is also acceptable as an intellectual challenge.
The “threat” seems to be an instructors’ means. From the instructors’ viewpoint, however, this may be perceived as simple “warning” (“if you don’t learn this correctly, you will fail the exams”). The afore-mentioned findings about the relation of being instructor and the regionality (rural vs. urban) are supported once again in the case of threat (
In
In
Threat_17_degree | Threat_17_outdegree | Threat_17_authority | |
---|---|---|---|
Student = 00. instructor = 1 | 0.177 | 0.280 (*) | 0.147 |
0.155 | 0.023 | 0.239 | |
Rural residence | 0.210 | 0.367 (*) | 0.220 |
0.161 | 0.012 | 0.143 | |
Urban residence | −0.210 | −0.367 (*) | −0.220 |
0.161 | 0.012 | 0.143 | |
Childhood in rural area | 0.334 (*) | 0.450 (**) | 0.316 (*) |
0.023 | 0.002 | 0.032 | |
Childhood in urban area | −0.334 (*) | −0.450 (**) | −0.316 (*) |
0.023 | 0.002 | 0.032 | |
Semester | 0.186 | 0.318 (*) | −0.043 |
0.238 | 0.040 | 0.785 | |
Travelling for athletic reasons | 0.308 (*) | 0.281 | 0.215 |
0.037 | 0.058 | 0.151 | |
Never travelled | −0.192 | −0.324 (*) | −0.033 |
0.201 | 0.028 | 0.829 | |
Interested in team sports | 0.218 | 0.171 | 0.295 (*) |
0.146 | 0.257 | 0.046 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Avoid_argue_ 18_degree | Avoid_argue_ 18_indegree | Avoid_argue_ 18_outdegree | Avoid_argue_ 18_status | Avoid_argue_ 18_pagerank | Avoid_argue_ 18_authority | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Student = 0, instructor = 1 | 0.247 (*) | −0.013 | 0.372 (**) | 0.065 | 0.108 | −0.222 |
0.046 | 0.919 | 0.002 | 0.606 | 0.390 | 0.073 | |
Grade | 0.254 | 0.334 (*) | 0.108 | 0.294 | 0.320 (*) | 0.342 (*) |
0.105 | 0.031 | 0.494 | 0.059 | 0.039 | 0.027 | |
Spending time in the internet | −0.150 | −0.288 | −0.022 | −0.287 | −0.330 (*) | −0.285 |
0.319 | 0.052 | 0.884 | 0.053 | 0.025 | 0.055 | |
Desire for distinction as a professional | −0.323 (*) | −0.339 (*) | −0.123 | −0.372 (*) | −0.371 (*) | −0.135 |
0.037 | 0.028 | 0.437 | 0.015 | 0.016 | 0.396 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
others. This is an evidence of not instant integration of a young student in the climate or the mentality of the study milieu. Just as in the case of instructors, so the students with high grade show enthusiasm for arguing, as they desire to test their state of knowledge and intellectual capacity. However, these who desire to be distinct as students or professionals are rather not inspiring to others enthusiasm for arguing. This may be attributed to the fact that they either are immoderately ambitious and challengeable or vain and provocative.
In
In
Argue_ enthusiasm_ 19_degree | Argue_ enthusiasm_ 19_indegree | Argue_ enthusiasm_ 19_outdegree | Argue_ enthusiasm_ 19_status | Argue_ enthusiasm_ 19_pagerank | Argue_ enthusiasm_ 19_authority | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Student = 0, instructor = 1 | 0.355 (**) | 0.182 | 0.407 (**) | 0.176 | 0.178 | 0.255 (*) |
0.003 | 0.144 | 0.001 | 0.157 | 0.153 | 0.039 | |
Birth year | −0.447 (**) | −0.085 | −0.541 (**) | −0.088 | −0.122 | −0.067 |
0.002 | 0.578 | 0.000 | 0.566 | 0.424 | 0.664 | |
Grade | 0.216 | −0.118 | 0.366 (*) | −0.115 | −0.073 | −0.138 |
0.169 | 0.458 | 0.017 | 0.468 | 0.647 | 0.384 | |
Desire for distinction as a student | −0.183 | −0.435 (**) | 0.063 | −0.479 (**) | −0.452 (**) | −0.396 (**) |
0.247 | 0.004 | 0.692 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.009 | |
Desire for distinction as a professional | −0.215 | −0.358 (*) | 0.012 | −0.347 (*) | −0.296 | −0.419 (**) |
0.172 | 0.020 | 0.939 | 0.024 | 0.057 | 0.006 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Enjoy_argue_ 20_outdegree | Enjoy_argue_ 20_pagerank | Enjoy_argue_ 20_authority | |
---|---|---|---|
Student = 0, instructor = 1 | 0.317 (**) | 0.048 | −0.417 (**) |
0.009 | 0.703 | 0.000 | |
Birth year | −0.369 (*) | −0.034 | 0.247 |
0.013 | 0.825 | 0.101 | |
Desire for distinction as a professional | −0.004 | −0.320 (*) | 0.035 |
0.980 | 0.039 | 0.827 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
“Depreciated assaulted” | “Attractive” | “Repellent” | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Verbal aggressiveness | Negative_comments_9_sum | 0.846 | −0.093 | 0.092 |
Rude_14_sum | 0.581 | −0.059 | −0.618 | |
Mock_15_sum | 0.432 | 0.090 | 0.296 | |
Threat_17_sum | 0.856 | −0.169 | −0.238 | |
Argumentativeness | Avoid_argue_18_sum | 0.526 | −0.046 | 0.692 |
Argue_enthusiasm_19_sum | 0.146 | 0.958 | −0.013 | |
Enjoy_argue_20_sum | 0.105 | 0.970 | −0.052 |
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 3 components extracted.
they depreciate him as a discussant. This seems to be the profile of a strongly and adversely excluded student. This could be regarded as the antipode of integration. The “attractive” type is a person who is regarded by others as worth discussing with. They seem to enthusiastically expect to discuss with him and also to enjoy this discussion. At the same time, they do not tend to make him a target of verbal aggressiveness. Such a profile is obviously a quite ideal state in the communicational arena. Nevertheless, it proves to be realistic on the basis of these statistical results. Finally, the “repellent” is a type who just tends to discourage others from arguing with him. As this type does not appear to be targeted for aggression, such repellence is not an effect of depreciation. This repellence may be attributed to an inspiring or awesome impression. In general, the whole group seems to be fragmented in three quite different and clearly demarcated profiles of students which could be characterized as deplorable, adorable or even impressive. There is no profile combining common features. Thereby, the gap among these profiles seems to be unbridgeable. Such a group cannot be seen as a homogenous or united one.
In
The “lively” | The “controversial” | ||
---|---|---|---|
Verbal aggressiveness | Negative_comments_9_degree | 0.836 | 0.167 |
Rude_14_degree | 0.861 | −0.120 | |
Mock_15_degree | 0.703 | −0.196 | |
Threat_17_degree | 0.857 | −0.231 | |
Argumentativeness | Avoid_argue_18_degree | 0.019 | 0.313 |
Argue_enthusiasm_19_degree | 0.303 | 0.787 | |
Enjoy_argue_20_degree | 0.066 | 0.831 |
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 2 components extracted.
Such typology formulation has been made also in previous papers revealing profiles consisting of particular behaviors, attitudes or other characteristics [
The afore-mentioned academic and practical added value is expected to be fulfilled to certain extent by the findings discussed above. Concisely, results concerning particular forms of aggressiveness and argumentation have been revealed. Rudeness is ascribed to instructors, who hence could pay more attention to the communication style. Dedication to sport leads to target others and be targeted. Dedication to study content proved to play a role of a refuge. High grade and ambition seem to be protective. Thus, these two elements could be considered as an unwritten but structured value system (organizational culture) at the physical education department. This value system consists not only of mental and social but also of physical dimensions as it is enhanced with physical qualifications (tallness) which seem to discourage rudeness. Spatial-regional and economic discrimination (urban vs. rural origin and residence) is also revealed. This can be considered for paying more attention to the communication style and to public relation with certain students groups as well as to the support of such discriminated student groups. Internet entertainment leads to restriction of rudeness. Thus, such a digital means could be used at the department at more organized level (e.g. in the intervals between courses) in order to improve the climate at the department. Mockery should be paid attention more than rudeness as it may even be a cause of absence from the courses. Threat shows features similar to these of mockery while a certain evolutionism in verbal aggressiveness in the course of study has been proved. This tendency of evolutionism which is further enhanced by social challenging and the team sports competitiveness should draw the attention of the instructors. Instructors and high grade students discourage argumentation. An antidote to exclusion of arguing seems to be internet use. The instructors and high grade students are also related with enthusiasm for arguing, though their abstention from arguing. Therefore, a gap between real and expected argumentation is obvious. Younger students show an integration deficit in terms of argumentation.
Communicational types have also been detected. More precisely, three profiles of targets (“depreciated assaulted”, “attractive”, “repellent”) and two profiles of general involvement, namely being both targeted and acting (“lively”, “controversial”) have emerged. The three target types are so clearly demarcated that the whole network appears to be quite fragmented in fully different communicational milieus (from quite integrated to totally marginal). The two types of involvement seem to be not so clearly demarcated. They could be characterized as normal (everyday) behavioral patterns rather than as fully integrated or marginal. In general, a typology of targets is rather depicting a much sharper fragmentation than a typology of general involvement (targeted and acting). In other words, targeting induces gaps while acting seems to fix them up. This means more simply that mutuality of actions, even in case of verbal aggression, tends slightly to mitigate fragmentation more than passiveness (being targeted).
Bekiari, A., Deliligka, S. and Koustelios, A. (2017) Examining Relations of Aggressive Communication in Social Networks. Social Networking, 6, 38-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/sn.2017.61003