The Impact of Aggression on Athletic Performance: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Introduction: Aggression in sports, whether as an emotional response or a strategic behavior, can impact athletic performance positively or negatively depending on context and the athlete’s capacity for emotion regulation. Uncontrolled emotional aggression may disrupt concentration, impair teamwork, and elevate anxiety levels. Understanding aggression types, underlying mechanisms, and their performance effects is crucial for developing effective interventions.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA 2009 guidelines. Peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2024 were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria comprised empirical studies (quantitative or qualitative) examining the relationship between aggression and athletic performance in amateur or professional athletes, published in English or Indonesian. Five eligible studies were analyzed using narrative synthesis. The review protocol was not registered in PROSPERO.

Results: Findings indicate that aggression’s impact on performance is context-dependent. Instrumental aggression, defined as goal-directed and regulated, may enhance performance in contact sports such as boxing or team-based competitions, where strategic aggression is functional. Conversely, unregulated emotional aggression is associated with performance decrements, particularly in non-contact sports requiring precision, focus, and emotional control. Intrinsic motivation demonstrated a more consistent and stronger association with performance outcomes than aggression.

Conclusion: Controlled aggression can be performance-enhancing in contact sports, while unregulated emotional aggression typically hinders performance, especially in precision-demanding sports. Integrating emotion regulation training and fostering intrinsic motivation into athlete development programs may optimize adaptive aggression. Limitations include the small number of studies and lack of formal methodological quality assessment.