Journal of Gambling Studies

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-020-09956-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

The Effect of Gambling Motivation of Sport Spectators

on Propensity for Violence in Sport

Ercan Polat1   · Kadir Yıldız2 

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
The study aims to analyse the relationships between sport spectators’ gambling motiva-
tion and propensity for violence. Descriptive and relational screening model were used in
this study. Study group is composed of 539 volunteers determined via purposeful and con-
venient sampling. Personal Information Form was prepared by the researchers of the study;
and Gambling Motivations Scale and Sport Spectators Aggression and Violence Scale were
used to gather the data. For inferential statistics, Pearson Correlation Analysis was con-
ducted to reveal the relationships between some variables and sub-scales of measurement
tools. Furthermore, multi variable relations between sub-scales of Gambling Motivation
Scale and sub-scales of The Sport Spectator Aggression and Violence Scale were analysed
through Canonical Correlation Analysis. The results of correlation analysis show that there
is a weak significant positive correlation between both the frequency of sport gambling and
gambling motivation, and between the frequency of sport gambling and sport spectators’
aggression in all sub scales. In addition, weak significant and positive correlation between
both the level of fandom and gambling motivation, and the level of fandom and aggression
of spectators was found in all sub-scales. As for the correlation between consuming alcohol
before matches and gambling motivation and sport spectators aggression, not consuming
alcohol before matches was found significantly high correlated compared to consuming
alcohol before matches. In conclusion, it can be said there is a relation between gambling
motivation and aggression and propensity for violence. Moreover, it can be thought the fact
that the perceived fandom level of gambler sport spectators is high causes the increase in
aggression and propensity for violence.

Keywords  Sport spectators · Motivation · Gambling · Gambling motivation · Violence

* Ercan Polat
ercihanpolat@hotmail.com
1
School of Physical Education and Sport, University of Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen, 04100 Ağrı, Turkey
2
Department of Sport Management, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Manisa Celal Bayar University,
Manisa, Turkey

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Journal of Gambling Studies

Introduction

The concept of motivation shortly meaning “moving to act or to encourage” (Luthans

2010: 156; Ryan and Deci 2000; Deci and Ryan 2000) is among the most investigated sub-
jects in literature in terms of its definition and its importance. Also, according to Luthans
(2010: 157), it is defined as activating a missing psychological or physical need of human
beings’ behaviours. In addition to its significance in competitive sports, researchers assume
that motivation is one of the driving forces underlying athletes’ efforts for success and their
loyalty to sports (Martin 2013: 17; Vink et al. 2015; Zuber et al. 2015). To generalize moti-
vation is the key factor for so many issues in sports including sport gambling.
According to Ayandele et al. (2019), gambling is a form of behaviour that has poten-
tial risks and benefits to the health, wellbeing, and crimes related behaviour of individu-
als, families, and communities. Sport gambling is supposed as a concept creating effects
such as high income, entertainment, excitement, and dreams and fulfilling these dreams.
Recently, leisure time which is a rapidly developed phenomenon for some reasons has
transformed comprehensive sport activities into a commercial industry (Torkildsen 2005).
Considering the history of sport industry, it can be said gambling is one of the most profit-
able fields in this industry branch with the significant contribution of mass media in this
transformation process. Especially after the increased quality of international sport activi-
ties, a lot of branches are joined in gambling. On the other hand, Yaşar (2010) claimed
gambling for sport distracts people from the nature of the game motivating them with the
targets out of game. In fact, this distracting process places entertainment and occupation
into the centre of the sport (Lasch 2006). Therefore, sport sector improving with the indi-
vidual and social expectations adapts this change in accordance with economic conditions.
A lot of psychological, economic, and social factors affect gamblers’ game. To exem-
plify, their beliefs, their community, their social class, their culture and family have an
effect on the gamblers (Ulu 2011). Besides, motives such as willing to struggle, making
friends and proving themselves shape gamblers’ behaviours and they assist to activate
enjoyment, pleasure and joy markedly to satisfy the players (Şimşek 2012).
Lorenz (2002: 271) points out that sport fundamentally depends on competitiveness,
meanwhile he defines sport as a ritual way of struggle for getting rid of aggression in a
modern society by avoiding devastation. It is known that sport fans that are among the
subjects of sport produce negative behaviours such as aggression and racism (Konter 2006:
119–120). Sport spectators acting the vital role in the team sometimes discharge feeling
joy, hope and excitement or they sometimes experience emotional stress such as disap-
pointment, anger and rage (Yaşar 2010). These behaviours which are observed in a com-
petitive environment are expressed as externalizing potential aggression (Erdemli 2008:
112). Hence it is said that sport activities are substantial elements for preventing aggres-
sion motives.
It is seen that the concept of aggression is formed in the framework of psychoanalytic
theory, biological theory, social learning, frustration and aggression theory in the lit-
erature. Psychoanalytic theory argues that aggression is instinctively innate. According
to famous ethnologist Lorenz, aggression stems from the fighting instinct existing in all
organisms. The energy accumulated during aggression can emanate itself depending on the
existence of stimulus causing aggression and its power (Güner 2006). Biological theory
alleges aggression results from some structures and particles in the brain refering the infor-
mation which explains our behaviours are directed by the brain and neural system (Yıldız
2009). Social learning theory alleges that aggression is innate and it occurs as a result of a

13
Journal of Gambling Studies

motive. Furthermore, the power leading people towards aggression is external rather than
internal. Also it claims there is a mutual transaction between the individual and environ-
ment because environmental factors influence behaviours and also they are influenced by
the behaviours (Eroglu 2009). Frustration and aggression theory which is also known as
frustration and aggression hypothesis is assumed as one of the oldest and most important
theories (Breuer and Elson 2017; Gilbert and Bushman 2017). This theory spread after
Dollard and his friends argued detention result in aggression in 1939 at Yale University.
These researchers propose detention always triggers aggression.
The literature has a number of researches on aggression in sport, aggression in foot-
ball and violence (Campbell and Muncer 1998; Çakır 2014; Feshbach 1969; Kurtiç 2006;
Kırımoğlu et al. 2008; Knapton et al. 2018; Spaaij 2014; Şenyüzlü 2013; Wann et al. 2017;
Var 2008). It is also rich in, studies about sport gambling and sport gambling motivation
(Adebayo 1998; Cotte 1997; Claussen and Miller 2001; Çelik 2016; Giray and Girişken
2015; İlçin 2017; Karlı 2008; Lamont and Hing 2018; Martin et al. 2016). However, there
is a scarcity in the research investigating the relationship between gambling motivation and
aggression. Therefore, this study is expected to contribute literature by explaining the rela-
tionship between gambling motivation and aggression.
Sport gambling games which are consumption product and included in sport phenom-
enon have an important place nowadays. Therefore, when gamblers’ motivation and their
emotions of aggression are determined, it will help to preserve the current customers, to
find new customers and to make people adopt the understanding that sport is not only win-
ning but also socializing and having good time. This study’s purpose is to investigate the
gamblers’ motivation and their emotions for aggression in terms of some variables and also
present solutions for the problem taking the scientific results into consideration.

Materials and Method

Study Method

The study followed qualitative research method, and relational screening model was used.

Study Group

The study group consists of 539 volunteer sport spectators including gamblers from fan
associations, kiosks (called iddia, which means ‘betting’ in Turkish) where people gamble,
and university students who are interested in gambling in Niğde, Turkey. The study group
was chosen through criterion sampling which is one of the methods of purposeful sampling
and convenience sampling. “Gambling that year” is the criteria for selecting participants.

Data Collection Instruments

Personal information form prepared by researchers, Gambling Motivation Scale and Sport
Spectators Aggression and Violence Scale were used for collecting data.

13
 Journal of Gambling Studies

Personal Information Form

In the study some variables which are assumed to affect the result of the study are used;
and they follow as gender, age, education, occupation, average money spent on watch-
ing matches every month, sport gambling preference, experience of sport gambling,
the frequency of sport gambling, average money spent on sport gambling every month,
preference of doing sport actively, supporting teams of sport branches, drinking alcohol
before watching the matches, and membership of a fan association.

Gambling Motivation Scale

It was developed in 1994 by Chantal, Vallerand and Vallieres to find out the reasons for
sport gambling asking the question “why do subjects gamble?” It originally consists
of totally 28 items and 7 sub-scales with a 7-point Likert. It was adapted into Turk-
ish with a 5-point Likert by Karlı  (2008) by applying sport gamblers (1 = totally disa-
gree, 5 = totally agree). Considering the factor analysis results, the general structure of
the scale was kept with 7 subscales and 28 items. Subscales are composed of intrinsic
motivation of knowledge, intrinsic motivation of experience stimulation and intrinsic
motivation of accomplishment, extrinsic motivation of identified regulation, extrinsic
motivation of introjected regulation, extrinsic motivation of external regulation and
amotivation (Table 1).

Sport Spectator Aggression and Violence Scale

It was developed by Şanlı and Güçlü (2015) to find out the reasons for Sport Spec-
tator Aggression and violence by asking the question “Why do sport spectators
behave aggressively? It has 3 sub-scales and 21 items with a 5-point Likert (1 = never,
5 = always). Sub-scales of the scale are divided into three; cognitive aggression, affec-
tive aggression and behavioural aggression. In addition, researchers presented total
aggression score (the lowest = 1–35, medium = 36–70 and the highest = 71–105) empha-
sizing they can be used if wanted (Table 2).

Table 1  The reliability analysis Sub-scales Items α

of sub-scales of Gambling
Motivation Scale (Cronbach’s
Intrinsic motivation to know 5 items 0.81
Alpha)
Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation 4 items 0.71
Intrinsic motivation towards accomplishment 3 items 0.60
Extrinsic motivation—external regulation 4 items 0.83
Extrinsic motivation introjected 4 items 0.70
Extrinsic motivation identified 4 items 0.73
Amotivation 4 items 0.73

13
Journal of Gambling Studies

Table 2  The reliability analysis Sub categories Items α

of the sub-scales of the Sport
Spectator Aggression and
Cognitive aggression 8 items 0.88
Violence Scale (Cronbach’s
Alpha) Affective aggression 5 items 0.69
Behavioural aggression 8 items 0.91
Sport spectators aggression and vio- 21 items 0.93
lence (total score)

Collecting Data

While collecting data, survey distribution methods were taken into consideration. Surveys
were distributed interviewing the participants face to face by the researchers. 539 out of
600 survey forms were evaluated as the rest was not fully answered or defective.

Statistical Analysis

SPSS and NCSS pocket programs were utilized for analysing the data. For reliability analy-
sis of the items, their alpha coefficient was examined. Descriptive statistics and normality
distribution were applied on the data to be used. For inferential statistics, Pearson Correla-
tion Analysis was conducted to reveal the relationships between some variables and sub-
scales of measurement tools. Considering alcohol consumption before matches (groups of
yes and no), z scores were calculated in order to compare the (Pearson) correlation differ-
ences between betting motivation and spectators’ violence sub-scales. Furthermore, multi-
variable relations between sub-scales of Gambling Motivation Scale and sub-scales of The
Sport Spectator Aggression and Violence Scale were analysed through Canonical Correla-
tion Analysis.

Findings

Table 3 shows that 93.7 (f = 502) percent of the participants is comprised of males and their
average age is 22, 89. Most of the participants (% = 84.7; f = 455) are university students
(employment: % = 77.8; f = 418). As for the frequency of gambling, a month and every day
have peaks. Considering demographic information of the participants, it was seen that a
great number of them do sports actively (% = 73.20; f = 409), and the majority of them are
not a member of a fan association (% = 68.0; f = 366).
They declared they spend 102, 39 liras (approximately 20$) on average on watching
sport monthly, and they spend 168, 15 liras (approximately 35$) on sport gambling. Their
fandom point is 7, 28 in the scale ranging 1–10, and it proves that they have the power of
fandom more than average.
When the averages of the answers to the questionnaire are taken into consideration,
amotivation has the highest score ( x̄  = 3.43) whereas extrinsic introjected has the lowest
score ( x̄  = 2.36). As for the aggression scale, cognitive aggression has the highest average
( x̄  = 2.85) while behavioural aggression has the lowest average ( x̄  = 2.10).
Table  4 demonstrates the correlation relationships between the frequency of sport
gambling and gambling motivation, also the correlation between frequency of sport

13
 Journal of Gambling Studies

Table 3  Descriptive statistics (Measures of percentage, frequency, average and currency)

Groups f % Total x̄ S Min. Max.

Gender
Female 34 6.30 536
Male 502 93.70
Education
Primary school 13 2.40 537
High school 58 10.80
Bachelor 455 84.70
Postgraduate 11 2.00
Occupation
Employed 89 16.60 537
Unemployed 30 5.60
Student 418 77.80
Frequency of gambling
Once a year 23 4.40 520
A few times a year 41 7.90
Once a month 68 13.10
A few times a month 102 19.60
Once a week 102 19.60
A few times a week 109 21.00
Every day 75 14.40
Doing sport actively
Yes 409 73.20 537
No 128 23.80
Membership of a fan club
Yes 172 32.00 538
No 366 68.00
Drinking alcohol before matches
Yes 157 29.2 537
No 380 70.8
Age 537 22.89 4.06 18 50
Monthly expenditure of watching sport (TL) 476 102.39 174.26 0 2000
Monthly expenditure of gambling (TL) 511 168.15 317.37 2 4000
The level of fandom (from 1 to 10) 534 7.28 2.32 1 10
Gambling Motivation Scale
Intrinsic motivation to know 527 3.33 0.97 1.00 5.00
Intrinsic motivation experience stimulation 513 3.26 0.98 1.00 5.00
Intrinsic motivation accomplishment 528 3.10 0.99 1.00 5.00
Extrinsic motivation external regulation 518 3.42 1.15 1.00 5.00
Extrinsic motivation introjected 518 2.36 0.96 1.00 5.00
Extrinsic motivation identified 525 2.75 1.02 1.00 5.00
Amotivation 514 3.43 0.98 1.00 5.00
Sport Spectators Aggression and Violence (Total score) 468 56.14 18.67 21.00 105.00
Behavioural aggression 518 2.10 1.04 1.00 5.00
Cognitive aggression 505 2.85 1.04 1.00 5.00
Affective aggression 505 2.36 0.62 1.00 5.00

13
Journal of Gambling Studies

Table 4  The relationship between the frequency of gambling, gambling motivation and aggression of spec-
tators
Scales Subscales Frequency of
gambling
N r

Gambling Motivation Scale Intrinsic motivation to know 509 0.31**

Intrinsic motivation experience stimulation 495 0.32**
Intrinsic motivation accomplishment 510 0.22**
Extrinsic motivation external regulation 500 0.25**
Extrinsic motivation introjected 500 0.16**
Extrinsic motivation identified 507 0.25**
Amotivation 496 0.15**
Sport Spectator Aggression and Behavioural aggression 500 0.15**
Violence Scale
Cognitive aggression 487 0.16**
Affective aggression 487 0.15**

**p < 0.01

gambling and sport spectators’ aggression. Weak significant positive correlation was
found between all the groups (p < 0.01). According to these results in the table, as the
frequency of gambling of participants increases, both their motivation and aggression
level rise significantly.
Table  5 depicts not only the relationship between the level of fandom and gambling
motivation, but also the level of fandom and aggression of spectators. Weak significant and
positive correlation was found in all groups (p < 0.01). It reveals that as the level of fandom
rises, aggression level increases significantly.

Table 5  Relationships between fandom level, gambling motivation and sport spectators’ aggression
Scales Subscales Level of fandom
N r

Gambling Motivation Scale Intrinsic motivation to know 523 0.30**

Intrinsic motivation experience stimulation 509 0.28**
Intrinsic motivation accomplishment 524 0.24**
Extrinsic motivation external regulation 515 0.18**
Extrinsic motivation introjected 514 0.13**
Extrinsic motivation identified 521 0.23**
Amotivation 511 0.16**
Sport Spectators Aggression and Behavioural aggression 515 0.28**
Violence Scale
Cognitive aggression 502 0.30**
Affective aggression 502 0.28**

**p < 0.01

13
 Journal of Gambling Studies

In Table  6, the correlation between gambling motivation and spectators’ aggression

of the individuals consuming alcohol and the ones who do not consume alcohol before
matches were compared via z score calculation. When only the correlation values and z
scores of the two groups were examined, amotivation and extrinsic motivation exter-
nal regulation sub-scales have no statistically significant differences with the sub-scales
of spectators’ aggression. However, it is seen that correlations are significantly higher in
favour of the individuals who do not consume alcohol before matches especially in terms
of behavioural aggression and both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation subscales of gam-
bling motivation. Also, it is found that the correlation between cognitive aggression and
affective aggression subscales and intrinsic motivation to know and intrinsic motivation
experience stimulation subscales is significantly higher in favour of the individuals who do
not consume alcohol before matches. In short, the gambling motivations of the individu-
als who do not consume alcohol increases significantly as well as their violent behaviours
when compared to the ones consuming alcohol.

Table 6  The correlation differences between gambling motivation and spectators’ violence according to
alcohol consumption before matches
Drinking alcohol Sport Spectators Aggression and Violence Scale

Behavioural aggression Cognitive aggression Affective aggression

r Z r Z r Z

Gambling Motivation Scale

Intrinsic motivation to know
 Yes 0.01 − 2.18** 0.08 − 1.67* 0.05 − 2.33**
 No 0.23** 0.25** 0.27**
Intrinsic motivation experience stimulation
 Yes 0.03 − 2.72** 0.08 − 2.02* 0.01 − 2.10*
 No 0.29** 0.28** 0.22**
Intrinsic motivation accomplishment
 Yes 0.14 − 1.71* 0.16 − 0.63 0.09 − 0.73
 No 0.30** 0.22** 0.16**
Extrinsic motivation external regulation
 Yes 0.10 − 1.02 0.27** 0.46 0.22* − 0.16
 No 0.20** 0.22** 0.23**
Extrinsic motivation introjected
 Yes 0.15 − 2.77** 0.17* − 0.85 − 0.14 1.10
 No 0.40** 0.25** 0.03
Extrinsic motivation identified
 Yes 0.18* − 1.87* 0.16 − 1.11 0.04 0.44
 No 0.35** 0.27** 0.09
Amotivation
 Yes 0.02 − 0.59 0.19* 0.39 0.17* 0.28
 No 0.08 0.15** 0.19**

Bold z scores were used to indicate a significant difference

Bold r value was used to indicate which group favored the significant difference
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

13
Journal of Gambling Studies

Findings of Canonical Correlation Analysis

Canonical Correlation aiming to define and calculate the relationship between dependent
and independent variable sets is one of the substantial methods in multivariate statistics
(Eubank and Hsing 2008). This method is an analysis model, the purpose of which is to
determine the mutual relationships between multi-dependent and independent variables.
The first step of the analysis requires forming the dependent and independent variable sets.
While 7 sub-scales in Gambling Motivation Scale constitute the independent variables, 3
sub-scales in the Sport Spectator Aggression and Violence Scale represent the dependent
variables. Table 7 includes the results of Pearson Correlation of these sets.
Table  7 shows significant positive relationships nearly among all groups. The strong-
est relationship among the sub-scales of Gambling Motivation Scale is between intrinsic
to know (x1) and intrinsic-experience stimulation (x2), whereas the weakest relationship
is between extrinsic introjected (x5) and amotivation (x7). When the sub-scales of Sport
Spectators Aggression and Violence Scale were compared, it was found that the strongest
relationship is between behavioural aggression (y1) and cognitive aggression (y2) and the
weakest relationship is between behavioural aggression (y1) and affective aggression (y3).
When the sub-scales of Gambling Motivation Scale and Sport Spectators Aggression
and Violence Scale were compared to one another, it was seen that the strongest relation-
ship is between extrinsic introjected (x5) and behavioural aggression (y1), while the weak-
est relationship is between intrinsic accomplishment (x3) and affective aggression (y3). No
relationships among behavioural aggression (y1) and amotivation (x7), affective aggres-
sion, extrinsic introjected (x5) and extrinsic identified (x6) were found.
Table 8 demonstrates that a comparative analysis of canonical variable partners existed
between the sub-scales of Gambling Motivation Scale and the Sport Spectator Aggression
and Violence Scale. During the analysis as many canonical functions as the number of
sub-scales belonging to dependent and independent variables carrying the fewest variables
can be derived and canonical correlation is calculated depending on this. In this study, as
there are 7 independent and 3 dependent sub-categories, the number of canonical func-
tions and canonical correlation coefficient to be calculated is 3. As for canonical function,
it explains the relationship between dependent canonical variables and independent canoni-
cal variables. The power of canonical function is measured with coefficient of canonical
correlation.
As it is seen in Table  7, canonical correlation calculated between the first canonical
variable pairs, U­ 1 and V
­ 1 is 0.43; and it is 0.33 between the second variable pairs U­ 2 and
­V2, so both of them are considered significant (p < 0.01). On the other hand, the third vari-
able pairs are not found significant (p > 0.05). Since significant canonical coefficient scores
can be evaluated in canonical correlation, the analyses have been done on two variable
pairs. Considering ­U1 and ­V1 as the first variable pairs, independent variables of Gambling
Motivation Scale express 18% of the dependent variables of sub-scales of Sport Spectator
Aggression and Violence Scale. As for the second variable pairs it is 11%.
Standardized canonical coefficients for two significant canonical variable pairs are pre-
sented in Table 9.
Table  9 shows the extent which the original variables between U ­ 1 and V­ 1, the first
canonical variable pairs (1st function), contribute to the canonical variable. According to
this table, the original variables explaining most the first canonical variable of sub-scales
of Gambling Motivation Scale in X set are namely, extrinsic introjected (x5), extrinsic
identified (x6) and intrinsic to know. The variables explaining most the first canonical

13


13
Table 7  The correlation between the sub-scales of Gambling Motivation Scale and Sport Spectators Aggression and Violence Scale
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 y1 y2 y3

Independent variables
Intrinsic motivation to know (x1) 1
Intrinsic motivation experience stimulation (x2) 0.73** 1
Intrinsic motivation accomplishment (x3) 0.60** 0.54** 1
Extrinsic motivation external regulation (x4) 0.43** 0.38** 0.46** 1
Extrinsic motivation introjected (x5) 0.48** 0.47** 0.50** 0.41** 1
Extrinsic motivation identified (x6) 0.60** 0.69** 0.58** 0.36** 0.59** 1
Amotivation (x7) 0.41** 0.32** 0.49** 0.45** 0.26** 0.27** 1
Dependent variables
Behavioural aggression (y1) 0.16** 0.21** 0.26** 0.19** 0.30** 0.29** 0.06 1
Cognitive aggression (y2) 0.20** 0.23** 0.21** 0.25** 0.22** 0.24** 0.16** 0.73** 1
Affective aggression (y3) 0.22** 0.17** 0.15** 0.24** − 0.02 0.08 0.19** 0.29** 0.43** 1

**p < 0.01
Journal of Gambling Studies
Journal of Gambling Studies

Table 8  The analysis results of canonical variables

Canonical variables Canonical R2 F Num. DF Den. DF p Wilks’ lambda
correlation

U1–V1 0.43 0.18 6.42 21 1095 0.00 0.72

U2–V2 0.33 0.11 4.29 12 764 0.00 0.88
U3–V3 0.12 0.01 1.13 5 383 0.35 0.98

Bold is chosen to make the meaningful difference easier

Table 9  Standardized canonical coefficients for two significant canonical variable pairs

1st function** 2nd function**
Standardized canonical Standardized
coefficient canonical coef-
ficient

X set
Intrinsic motivation to know (x1) 0.42 − 0.19
Intrinsic motivation experience stimulation (x2) 0.08 − 0.42
Intrinsic motivation accomplishment (x3) − 0.22 − 0.04
Intrinsic motivation external regulation (x4) 0.21 − 0.63
Extrinsic motivation introjected (x5) − 0.83 0.17
Extrinsic motivation identified (x6) − 0.45 0.03
Amotivation (x7) 0.29 − 0.09
Y set
Behavioural aggression (y1) − 0.95 − 0.03
Cognitive aggression (y2) 0.06 − 0.65
Affective aggression (y3) 0.68 − 0.52

Bold is chosen for easier view of the dimensions that have the strongest effect
**p < 0.01

variable belonging to the Sport Spectator Aggression and Violence Scale in Y set are
namely behavioural aggression (y1) and affective aggression (y3).
For ­U2 and V
­ 2 variable pairs (2nd functional), the original variables explaining most the
second canonical variable belonging to Gambling Motivation Scale in X set are namely
extrinsic external regulation (x4) and intrinsic experience stimulation (x2). The variables
explaining the second canonical variable belonging to intrinsic watching motivation in Y
set most are namely cognitive aggression (y2) and affective aggression (y3). The simple
linear correlation occurring between original variable and its own canonical variable is
called “canonical loadings” (Lattin et al. 2003). The correlation belonging to the canonical
loadings shows how effective the contribution which the related variable makes to its own
canonical variable is. As for canonical cross loadings, it refers to simple linear correlation
between original dependent and independent canonical variables or vice versa (Hair et al.
1998). Therefore, the effect of the contribution of the correlation with the highest score on
canonical variable in cross set can be measured. Table 10 demonstrates canonical loadings
and cross loadings for dependent and independent canonical variables belonging to two
significant canonical variable pairs.

13


13
Table 10  Canonical loadings and cross loadings for dependent and independent canonical variables
1st function** 2nd function**
Canonical loadings Cross loadings Canonical loadings Cross loadings

X set
Intrinsic motivation to know (x1) − 0.12 − 0.05 − 0.75 − 0.25
Intrinsic motivation experience stimulation (x2) − 0.26 − 0.11 − 0.76 − 0.25
Intrinsic motivation accomplishment (x3) − 0.36 − 0.15 − 0.65 − 0.22
Intrinsic motivation external regulation (x4) − 0.04 − 0.02 − 0.86 − 0.28
Extrinsic motivation introjected (x5) − 0.82 − 0.35 − 0.40 − 0.13
Extrinsic motivation identified (x6) − 0.61 − 0.26 − 0.55 − 0.18
Amotivation (x7) 0.16 0.07 − 0.60 − 0.20
Y set
Behavioural aggression (y1) − 0.74 − 0.32 − 0.62 − 0.21
Cognitive aggression (y2) − 0.35 − 0.15 − 0.88 − 0.29
Affective aggression (y3) 0.47 0.20 − 0.79 − 0.26

Bold is chosen for easier view of the dimensions that have the strongest effect
**p < 0.01
Journal of Gambling Studies
Journal of Gambling Studies

According to Table 10, for the first function ­(U1 and ­V1), independent extrinsic-introjec-
tion (x5) has the highest simple linear correlation with dependent and independent canoni-
cal variable. To summarize this, sub-scale makes the highest contribution to dependent
and independent canonical variables. Furthermore, it was found that for the first function,
dependent variable group behavioural aggression (y1) has the highest simple linear cor-
relation coefficient with dependent and independent variable. On the other hand, for the
second function ­(U2 and ­V2), independent extrinsic-external regulation (x4) and depend-
ent cognitive aggression (y2) make the highest contribution to dependent and independent
canonical variables.

Discussion and Conclusion

There has been a relationship between sport and gambling for a long time (Mao et  al.
2015). Hence this study is designed not only to investigate the relationship between the
gambling motivation and aggression propensity of the spectators who are one of the most
important subjects of the sport but also it aims to contribute to the literature. Although
behavioural studies about sport gambling which has become a substantial element of the
sport industry are seen in literature, limited studies are found on its relationship between
aggression and sport gambling. Legal sport gambling which has started to spread since the
late twentieth century (Room et al. 1999) still continues to be popular thanks to the infor-
mation and communication technology through online platforms. Moreover, the increase
in online sport gambling is stated to make the adaption to this process easier (LaPlante
2019). The fact that sport gambling has become widespread is also significant with socio-
logical and psychological effects on society. In literature, some psychology-based studies
like gambling motivation of gamblers and wagers (Burger et al. 2006; Chantal et al. 1995),
risk taking approach of gamblers and non-gamblers (Cross et al. 1998) and personalities of
gamblers and non-gamblers (Zuckerman and Kuhlman 2000) can be found.
The result of this study showed that amotivation levels of individuals in Gambling
Motivation Scale and average of cognitive aggression in Sport Spectators Aggression and
Violence Scale are high. Amotivation is related to individuals’ motivation without real-
izing properly why they gamble. Although a lot of stimuli underlies on the basement of
aggression and violence tendency, the prominent stimuli among them is the expectation to
win, in other words, reaching personal satisfaction. When the spectators cannot meet this
expectation they may harm their environment (Yıldırım 2017). Another study in the lit-
erature states that aggressive behaviours result from intrinsic, psychological and sociologi-
cal factors (Bryant and McElroy 1997). Spectators participate into competitions by sport
gambling and they expect their teams, on which they gamble, to win. It is thought that the
success they have may affect their motivation positively, whereas the failure they have may
cause aggressive behaviours.
When bearing the correlation results between the frequency of gambling and the level
of gambling motivation in mind, it was revealed that the more frequently they gamble, the
higher motivation level they have. In addition, it was found that there is a positive relation
between the frequency of gambling and aggression of spectators. The findings of the study
demonstrate the frequency of gambling could have effect on both gambling motivation and
level of aggression. Chantal et  al. (1995) point out in their study that motivation is one
of the basic determinants of gambling. Researchers mention that a symbiotic relation lies
between motivation level of individuals and their gambling habits. High motivation can

13
 Journal of Gambling Studies

be said to encourage gamblers to spend more time and money on gambling. Özsoy et al.
(2014) state in their study that sport spectators who are university students gamble in order
to earn money. On the other hand, it is also mentioned that economic reasons may cause
propensity for aggressive behaviours in sport consumption (Wann et  al. 2008). It can be
thought individuals’ economic reasons for gambling outweigh entertaining ones. There-
fore, it is possible that if individuals’ gambling motivation is high, their potential of behav-
ing aggressively is high as well.
Chantal et  al. (1995) state that experience stimulation which is one of the sub-scales
of intrinsic motivation is a source of motivation for individuals who fancy gambling and
entertaining. Moreover, gamblers who enjoy exploring, researching and comprehending
engage in gambling for satisfying intrinsic motivation to know. Like other researchers,
Adachi and Willoughby (2013) emphasize that there is a positive promoting relationship
between sport gambling and aggression.
The result of another study depicts that the fandom level of gamblers may cause change
in the level of both gambling motivation and aggression of spectators. Similarly, Adachi
and Willoughby (2013) observed that the frequency of the behaviours of athletes such as
stimulation, disappointment, hostility and aggression rise since the gambler spectators have
a role in their competition.
When the correlation between gambling motivation and spectators’ aggression con-
sidering their preference of consuming alcohol before matches was examined, the results
revealed the aggression level of the spectators who do not consume alcohol before matches
increases significantly as their gambling motivation, in particular intrinsic motivation
of gambling increases compared to the aggression level of the spectators who consume
alcohol before matches. Gambling can be regarded as an income by the sports spectators
in Turkey and the individuals who gamble on matches analyse the matches in detail and
decide consciously. In this frame, the spectators who gamble become aggressive when
their conscious decision does not meet their expectations, in other words, when they meet
an obstacle. Obstacle aggression theory defines this situation exactly. Dollard et al. (1939)
stated that obstruction always results in aggression behaviour. In the literature, the stud-
ies associating alcohol consumption with aggressive behaviour among sports spectators
(Donahue and Wann 2009; Gutman 1986; Hodges 2016; Moore et al. 2007; Piquero et al.
2015) as well as the studies emphasizing that there is no correlation between alcohol con-
sumption and aggressiveness (Cottingham 2012; Kossakowski 2017; Pearson and Sale
2011; Rookwood and Pearson 2012) were found. On the contrary to the expectations of the
researchers, no correlation between gambling motivation and aggression levels of the indi-
viduals who consume alcohol before matches exists. It should be born in mind that alcohol
consumption has short-term relaxing, entertaining and ecstatic role as well as the effects
making individuals lose conscious (Ostrowsky 2014, 2016). In this sense, it is thought that
the individuals who both consume alcohol before matches and gamble may have difficul-
ties in comprehending the loss as a result of gambling for fun or the sedative effects of
alcohol consumption; and thus, they may not show gambling-related aggressive behav-
iours. Also, alcohol consumption is allowed in many countries especially in England and
the USA, so the level of aggressive behaviour among the individuals who consume alcohol
is very high (Pradhan et al. 2019) and it should be considered that it will continue increas-
ing in the frame of social learning theory (Bandura 1986). However, it is not allowed to
consume alcohol during matches in Turkey and some of the research conducted in Turkey
do not include consuming alcohol before matches as an individual factor leading to specta-
tors’ violence (Polat and Sönmezoğlu 2016). In the light of the aforementioned theories,
it is thought that social learning which associates alcohol consumption with aggression

13
Journal of Gambling Studies

among the individuals in the stadiums does not occur. However, no direct study on Turkish
population that could support these comments was found in the literature. Therefore, future
studies on this subject should be pursued.
As 7 independent and 3 dependent variables take part in this study, 3 canonical vari-
able pairs and 3 canonical correlation coefficients are obtained. The relationship between
gambling motivation and aggression scale is expressed with two significant canonical func-
tions. It can be expected to reach potential significant and insignificant results from these
3 functions. It is required to evaluate the significance of the relationship of each canonical
function with canonical models. To determine which one is significant among the canoni-
cal values, it is substantial to consider eigenvalue and make their related percentage cal-
culations. The shared variance of two significant variables is declared as 18% for the first
canonical variable and 11% for the second canonical variable function.
In the light of the current study, it can be said that gambling motivation has a substantial
role in increasing aggression and violence levels of sports fans. It is obvious that gam-
bling on football is completely (Argentina) or partially (gambling games supported only
by the government is allowed in Turkey) restricted on account of the fact that gambling
causes psychological and socio-economic problems (Owonikoko 2020). It is thought that
today, when the competitive structure of sports environments meets with gambling games,
the aggression and violence tendencies of the sports fans can be affected. When gambling
reaches the level of addiction, it can cause behaviour disorders (Nautiyal et al. 2017). Con-
sequently, these behavioural disorders may lead to psychiatric problems such as aggression
and violence in individuals.
In conclusion, it can be said that there is a relation between gambling motivation and
aggression and propensity for violence. On the other hand, since study group consists
of young people, the research may result in these results about aggression and violence.
Moreover, the fact that the perceived fandom level of gambler sport spectators is high
might be considered as a cause of the increase in aggression and propensity for violence.

Limitations

As canonical correlation analysis which is rarely preferred in the literature and difficult to
evaluate its results was conducted in the study, it can be possible to put arguments only
from the studies using similar analysis. Therefore, it can be said using the arguments of
such few studies is the greatest limitation of the study.

Author Contributions  EP conceived the study, conducted most of the statistical analyses, and drafted the
paper. KY collected the data and participated in the statistical analyses as well as the drafting of the paper.
All authors read and approved the final paper.

Funding  This research received no external funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards 

Conflict of interest  The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent  Informed consent of participants was obtained and they were at liberty to participate and
withdraw voluntarily. We also ensured that their responses were anonymous and confidential.

13
 Journal of Gambling Studies

References
Adachi, P. J., & Willoughby, T. (2013). Demolishing the competition: The longitudinal link between com-
petitive video games, competitive gambling, and aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7),
1090–1104.
Adebayo, B. (1998). Luck of the dice: Gambling attitudes of a sample of community college students. Col-
lege Student Journal, 32, 255–257.
Ayandele, O., Popoola, O., & Obosi, A. C. (2019). Influence of demographic and psychological factors on
attitudes toward sport betting among young adults in Southwest Nigeria. Journal of Gambling Studies,
36(3), 1–12. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1089​9-019-09882​-9.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Breuer, J., & Elson, M. (2017). Frustration–aggression theory. In P. Sturmey (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of
violence and aggression (pp. 1–12). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. https​://doi.org/10.1002/97811​19057​
574.whbva​040.
Bryant, J. E., & McElroy, M. (1997). Sociological dynamics of sport and exercise. Colorado: Morton Pub-
lishing Company.
Burger, T. D., Dahlgren, D., & MacDonald, C. D. (2006). College students and gambling: An examination
of gender differences in motivation for participation. College Student Journal, 40(3), 704–715.
Çakır, H. İ. (2014). Research of aggressive states of student athlete participating inter high school competi-
tions (The case of Rize City), Master Thesis, Dumlupinar University, Institution of Health Sciences,
Department of Physical Education, Kütahya.
Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (1998). Female criminal assault: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of
Research in Crime And Delinquency, 35(4), 413–428.
Çelik, A. (2016). The factors that effect to take part in betting. Sportive Sight: Journal of Sports and Educa-
tion, 3(2), 89–98.
Chantal, Y., Vallerand, R. J., & Vallieres, E. F. (1994). On the development and validation of the Gambling
Motivation Scale. Society and Leisure, 17(1), 189–212.
Chantal, Y., Vallerand, R. J., & Vallieres, E. F. (1995). Motivation and gambling involvement. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 135(6), 755–763. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00224​545.1995.97139​78.
Claussen, C. L., & Miller, L. K. (2001). The gambling industry and sports gambling: A stake in the game?
Journal of Sport Management, 15(4), 350–363.
Cotte, J. (1997). Chances, trances, and lots of slots: Gambling motives and consumption experiences. Jour-
nal of Leisure Research, 29(4), 380–406. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00222​216.1997.11949​805.
Cottingham, M. D. (2012). Interaction ritual theory and sports fans: Emotion, symbols, and solidarity. Soci-
ology of Sport Journal, 29(2), 168–185. https​://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.29.2.168.
Cross, M. E., Basten, J., Hendrick, E. M., Kristofic, B., & Schaffer, E. J. (1998). Student-athletes and gam-
bling: An analysis of attitudes towards risk-taking. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14(4), 431–439. https​
://doi.org/10.1023/A:10230​81228​054.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-deter-
mination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https​://doi.org/10.1207/S1532​7965P​
LI110​4_01.
Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https​://doi.org/10.1037/10022​-000.
Donahue, T., & Wann, D. L. (2009). Perceptions of the appropriateness of sport fan physical and verbal
aggression: Potential influences of team identification and fan dysfunction. North American Journal of
Psychology, 11(3), 419–428.
Erdemli, A. (2008). Spor yapan insan. İstanbul: E Yayınları. (in Turkish).
Eroglu, S. E. (2009). Sub-scales of aggression behavior and related demographic factors: A comparative
study on high school students and university students. Selçuk University the Journal of Institute of
Social Sciences, 21, 205–221.
Eubank, R. L., & Hsing, T. (2008). Canonical correlation for stochastic processes. Stochastic Processes and
their Applications, 118(9), 1634–1661.
Feshbach, N. D. (1969). Gender differences in children’s modes of aggressive responses toward outsid-
ers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 15, 249–258.
Gilbert, M. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2017). Frustration–aggression hypothesis. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T.
Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Cham: Springer. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099​-8_816-1.

13
Journal of Gambling Studies

Giray, C., & Girişken, Y. (2015). The effect of supporter motivation factors on behavioral loyalty: Fener-
bahce Sports Club example. The International Journal of Economic and Social Research, 11(2),
119–137.
Güner, B. Ç. (2006). Examination of the level of aggression of individuals participating team and indi-
vidual sports, Master Thesis, University of Ondokuz Mayis, Health Sciences Institute, Samsun.
Gutman, A. (1986). Sports spectators. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analy-
sis, vol 5, no 3 (Vol. 5, pp. 207–219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hodges, A. (2016). The hooligan as ‘internal’ other? Football fans, ultras culture and nesting intra-
orientalisms. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 51(4), 410–427. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/10126​90214​52640​1.
İlçin, M. M. (2017). Investigate the relationship between the motivation to watch sport and the motiva-
tion to bet in those who participate in sport betting, Master Thesis, Niğde Omer Halisdemir Uni-
versity, Social Sciences Institute, Nigde.
Karlı, Ü. (2008). The determination of motivational factors of sport gambling university students and
their personality and psychological differences from non-gamblers, Doctorate Thesis, Middle East
Technical University, Social Sciences Institute, Ankara.
Kırımoğlu, H., Parlak, N., Dereceli, Ç., & Kepoğlu, A. (2008). Determination of aggresiveness level of
high school students according to their sport participation level. Journal of Physical Education and
Sports Science, 2(2), 147–154.
Knapton, H., Espinosa, L., Meier, H. E., Bäck, E. A., & Bäck, H. (2018). Belonging for violence: Per-
sonality, football fandom, and spectator aggression. Nordic Psychology, 70(4), 278–289.
Konter, E. (2006). Handbook of sport psychology. Ankara: Nobel Publishing. (in Turkish).
Kossakowski, R. (2017). Where are the hooligans? Dimensions of football fandom in Poland. Inter-
national Review for the Sociology of Sport, 52(6), 693–711. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10126​90215​
61245​8.
Kurtiç, N. (2006). Psyccho-social factors leading to violence among football supporters (Sakarya city
example), Master Thesis, Sakarya University, Social Sciences Institute, Sakarya.
Lamont, M., & Hing, N. (2018). Sports betting motivations among young men: An adaptive theory anal-
ysis. Leisure Sciences, 42(2), 185–204.
LaPlante, D. A. (2019). Populations patterns of daily fantasy sports play. In Gambling and risk taking
conference. 30 May 2019. Nevada, USA.
Lasch, C. (2006). Narcissism Culture (S. Öztürk & Ü. H. Yolsal, Trans.) Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat Publishing.
Lattin, J., Carroll, J. D., & Green, P. E. (2003). Analyzing multivariate data. Toronto: Thomson Learning
Inc.
Lorenz, K. (2002). On aggression. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Luthans, F. (2010). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). NewYork: McGrawHill Inc.
Mao, L. L., Zhang, J. J., & Connaughton, D. P. (2015). Sports gambling as consumption: Evidence from
demand for sports lottery. Sport Management Review, 18(3), 436–447. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
smr.2014.11.006.
Martin, J. (2013). Identity and disability sport. In C. Mohiyeddini (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of
sports and exercise. New York: Nova Publishers.
Martin, R. J., Nelson, S. E., & Gallucci, A. R. (2016). Game on: Past year gambling, gambling-related
problems, and fantasy sports gambling among college athletes and non-athletes. Journal of Gam-
bling Studies, 32(2), 567–579.
Moore, S. C., Shepherd, J. P., Eden, S., & Sivarajasingam, V. (2007). The effect of rugby match outcome
on spectator aggression and intention to drink alcohol. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,
17(2), 118–127. https​://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.647.
Nautiyal, K. M., Okuda, M., Hen, R., & Blanco, C. (2017). Gambling disorder: An integrative review of
animal and human studies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1394(1), 106–127. https​://
doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13356​.
Ostrowsky, M. K. (2014). The social psychology of alcohol use and violent behavior among sports spec-
tators. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 303–310.
Ostrowsky, M. K. (2016). Sports fans, alcohol use, and violent behavior. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/15248​38016​66393​7.
Owonikoko, S. B. (2020). Game of hope; game of addiction: Rising football betting among Nigerian youths
and its implications for peace, security and stability. Soccer & Society. https​://doi.org/10.1080/14660​
970.2020.17537​10.

13
 Journal of Gambling Studies

Özsoy, S., Gelen, N. K., Kandaş, N. T., Tabuk, M. E., Görün, L., & Afat, A. (2014). Behavior of watching
sports media and playing betting games for high school and college students. Journal of Erciyes Com-
munication, 3(3), 120–130.
Pearson, G., & Sale, A. (2011). ‘On the Lash’–revisiting the effectiveness of alcohol controls at football
matches. Policing & Society, 21(2), 150–166. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10439​463.2010.54066​0.
Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). The life-course offending trajectories of football
hooligans. European Journal of Criminology, 12(1), 113–125. https​://doi.org/10.1177/14773​70813​
51415​4.
Polat, E., & Sönmezoğlu, U. (2016). Analysis of factors direct to violence football supporters. Bolu Abant
İzzet Baysal Universtiy, Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 16(1), 471–489. https​://doi.org/10.11616​
/basbe​d.vi.45587​5.
Pradhan, S., Lee, N. A., Snycerski, S., & Laraway, S. (2019). Alcoholics fanonymous: The relationships
between reasons for drinking, aggression, and team identification in sports fans. International Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology. https​://doi.org/10.1080/16121​97X.2019.16749​04.
Rookwood, J., & Pearson, G. (2012). The hoolifan: Positive fan attitudes to football ‘hooliganism’. Interna-
tional Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(2), 149–164. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10126​90210​38845​5.
Room, R., Turner, N. E., & Lalomiteanu, A. (1999). Community effects of the opening of the Niagara
casino. Addiction, 94(10), 1449–1466. https​://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.94101​4492.x.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Şanlı, S., & Güçlü, M. (2015). Reliability and validity studies of the sport spectator agression and violence
scale. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Science Culture and
Sport. Ohrid, Macedonia.
Şenyüzlü, E. (2013). Analysis of the effects of sports participation on aggressive behaviour among univer-
sity students, Master Thesis, Dumlupinar University, Health Sciences Institute, Kütahya.
Şimşek, Y. K. (2012). Sport consumption factors of Turkish extreme sportsmen. Ege Academic Review,
12(Special Issue), 71–84.
Spaaij, R. (2014). Sports crowd violence: An interdisciplinary synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
19(2), 146–155.
Torkildsen, G. (2005). Leisure and recreation management (5th ed.). New York: Taylor and FranchisePsy-
chology Press.
Ulu, E. (2011). The influence of sports sponsorship on customers’ attitudes in urban area (example of
Konya), Master Thesis, Selçuk University, Health Sciences Institute, Konya.
Var, L. (2008). At last times this is seen that the increase of fans and hooligan situations brings along
aggressive behaviours, Master Thesis, Gazi University, Education Sciences Institute, Ankara.
Vink, K., Raudsepp, L., & Kais, K. (2015). Intrinsic motivation and individual deliberate practice are recip-
rocally related: Evidence from a longitudinal study of adolescent team sport athletes. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 16(3), 1–6. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.psych​sport​.2014.08.012.
Wann, D. L., Grieve, F. G., Zapalac, R. K., & Pease, D. G. (2008). Motivational profiles of sport fans of dif-
ferent sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(1), 6–19.
Wann, D. L., Waddill, P. J., Bono, D., Scheuchner, H., & Ruga, K. (2017). Sport spectator verbal aggres-
sion: The impact of team identification and fan dysfunction on fans’ abuse of opponents and officials.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 40(4), 423–443.
Yaşar, M. R. (2010). Gambling and bets. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9(34), 138–171.
Yıldırım, M. (2017). Determination of the views of football spectator’s about aggressive attitudes. Journal
of International Social Research, 10(50), 1046–1057.
Yıldız, S. (2009). An examination of the levels of aggression of the secondary school students participating
and non-participating sports, Master Thesis, Selcuk University, Health Sciences Institute, Konya.
Zuber, C., Zibung, M., & Conzelmann, A. (2015). Motivational patterns as an instrument for predicting
success in promising young football players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(2), 160–168. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/02640​414.2014.92882​7.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common bisocial factors. Journal
of Personality, 68(6), 999–1029. https​://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00124​.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13