Abusive Behaviors of College Athletes.

Frequent media reports of athletes involved in domestic unrest suggest the need to determine if college athletes are more often involved in abusive behaviors than nonathletes. A questionnaire concerning abusive behaviors was administered to 126 college athletes and 216 nonathletes. Frequency and chi-square analyses indicated that athletes were involved in physical abuse of someone of the same sex and sexual abuse of someone of the opposite sex more often than nonathletes. Athletes reported a history of prior abuse that was associated with later displaying abusive behavior and with being a victim of sexual abuse. The results of this study support the contention that athletes play a greater role in some abusive behaviors than nonathletes and that modeling may be an important determinant of these behaviors. Introduction The role of athletes as perpetrators of domestic unrest has increasingly come into question with each new media report of an athlete involved in a legal infraction. Athletes engaged in alcohol and drug abuse, sexual abuse of coeds, partners, and prostitutes, and the physical abuse of strangers, partners, and coaches appear with regularity in the popular media (Benedict, 1998). Recent empirical studies of college athletes (Leichleter, Meilman, Presley, & Cashin 1998; Nattiv & Puffer, 1991; Overman & Terry, 1991; Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, & Castillo, 1997) have suggested that athletes are not merely involved in campus violence, but play a more significant role in its genesis than other students. Frintner and Rubinson (1993) found that athletes were more likely to be involved in sexual violence than nonathletes. At an institution where athletes comprised only 2% of the campus population, athletes were implicated in 20% of reported cases of sexual assaults or attempted sexual assaults, 14% of cases of sexual abuse, and 11% of battery cases including coercion and intimidation. Further, Koss and Gaines (1993) indicated athletes were inordinately involved in cases of gang rape, more often than either fraternity members or nonathletes. Benedict (1997, 1998) further elaborated the social and legal consequences of amateur and professional athletes involvement in sexual abuse. Several studies (Nattiv & Puffer, 1991; Overman & Terry, 1991; and Wechsler, et al., 1997) have demonstrated that athletes were more often involved than nonathletes in incidents associated with other forms of abusive behavior. Alcohol abuse, unsafe motor vehicle operation, high-risk recreational activities, having more sex partners, and contracting greater numbers of sexually transmitted diseases were among the behaviors cited. In data collected between 1994 and 1996 on 51,483 students from 125 institutions, Leichleter et al. (1998) reported that athletes consumed more alcohol per week, engaged in binge-drinking more often, and suffered more adverse consequences from alcohol abuse than nonathletes. These researchers also found that male team leaders abused alcohol significantly more often than female team leaders and other team members. In subsequent analysis of this same data, Meilman, Leichliter, and Presley (1999) indicated that athletes that also belonged to fraternities were the heaviest abusers of alcohol in the sample. Collegiate athletes play a unique role as representatives of their institutions. Their social status, public appearances, and discipline are all predicated on their involvement in athletics. Civil litigation against athletes and the universities they represent, along with recent federal reporting requirements for criminal incidents occurring on campuses are making campus violence a more significant issue in college marketing, fund raising, and risk management efforts. Effective ameliorative actions aimed at curbing traditionally perceived sources of campus violence, such as crime by outside intruders and rowdiness by Greek organizations, are in evidence on many campuses (Lively, 1998). …