PECULIARITIES OF AGGRESSIVENESS AND ITS CORRELATION WITH DECISION-MAKING PARAMETERS IN DISABLED AND ABLE-BODIED ATHLETES

Aim. The purpose of this research is to analyze the peculiarities of personal aggression and its correlation with the parameters of decision-making in disabled and able-bodied athletes. Materials and Methods. We studied 30 athletes from the sports school “Kaskad” aged 16–21 and 30 athletes from the sports rehabilitation center “Impulse” aged 20–25. During our study, we used the following methodic: “Personal aggression and tendency to conflict” by E.P. Il'in, P.A. Kovalev and “Personal factors of decision-making” by T.V. Kornilova. Results. We found out significant differences between disabled and able-bodied athletes. In relation to aggression parameters, the results show the higher level of Susceptibility (U = 334.5, p < 0.05), Intractability (U = 347, p < 0.05), Intolerance (U = 298, p < 0.05) and Negative Aggression (U = 300, p < 0.05) in able-bodied athletes, while the higher level of Refusal to compromise (U = 99, p < 0.01) is typical for disabled athletes. In the factor structure of disabled athletes’ aggressiveness, we revealed a specific factor that includes the opposition of such parameters as Refusal to compromise and Susceptibility. In able-bodied athletes, we discovered correlations between the decisionmaking and level of aggression: we found out inverse correlation between Rationality and Assertiveness (rs = –0.40, p < 0.05), direct correlation between Risk-taking and Temper (rs = 0.38, p < 0.05) and between Risk-taking and Tendency to conflict (rs = 0.37, p < 0.05). We found out different correlations between the decision-making and levels of aggression in disabled athletes in comparison with able-bodied athletes: we revealed direct correlations between Risk-taking and Intractability (rs = 0.39, p <0.05) and between Risk-taking and Positive aggression (rs = 0.41, p < 0.05). Conclusion. In a situation of uncertainty, able-bodied athletes choose defense strategies through conflict behavior, while disabled athletes prefer attack strategies regardless of the expected outcome and external evaluation.