TRASH-TALKING IN COLLEGE BASKETBALL:
ITS EFFECTS, SIGNIFICANCE, AND REASONS

by
Raymond Torrance Rollins II

A Thesis submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Arts Degree
in Communication Studies
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
8/01/94

(L

ifi. JL,

A. Smith, Ph.D., Director

Thesis Sp. Com. 1994
R754t c.2
Rollins, Raymond
Torrance II
Trash-talking in college
basketball: its
1994.

a

.. M. Golden, Ph.D.

A u

T. L. Warburton, Ph.D.

A8D -

a.z*

I

DEDICATIONS
. . 7hl?,o?r^'s ded|cated in loving memory of Barbara "Auntie Barbara" Pearson
ana Jonn JP , Snoop" Preston. Auntie Barbara was the first person really close to me
Passed away- JP was my second roommate in college and also a member of the
Edmboro basketball team. When JP died, I felt cheated and alone, like a part of me had
d|ed. i nese expenences have made me realize that one's call can come at anytime. I
know both are in a better place now and we will be reunited someday.
e
™S
dedicated to Robert "Rob G" Grider, one of my best friends, and
bam bam-Dunk Dickerson who, through God, fought off death's call. Through Rob G
f n.am-Dunk, I have learned to be strong and to trust in God to help fight off adversity.
Nothing can compare to the adversity they went through and overcame. Thanks for
being strong. All four of these inspirational people have taught me never to take life for
granted. I thank you all and may God Bless.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was not conceived and completed alone. I had a substantial amount of
help from various people in various ways and I would like to thank them for all their love,
support, care, guidance, prayers, and beliefs.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my family, the best support group a
person can have. I would especially like to thank my immediate family who gave me
life, love, and support, in that order. "Charlie," you were always there for me, good or
bad, exemplifying a strong Black female who truly loves her children. Thanks mom; I
know you are always there for me. Thanks to my favorite Aunt, Auntie Pat, who treats
me like a little brother, I love you!
Special thanks goes to Coach Kennedy for giving me the opportunity to express
myself through basketball. You helped me become a better basketball player and a
better person as well. Thanks to Mr. Bowman for keeping me out of trouble and forcing
me to get serious about college; your contributions will be sorely missed at Bedford High
School. Thanks to all my teachers at B-High.
I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Ron Beckett, a former Fightin' Scot, who
made it possible for me to attend Edinboro. Special thanks to Coach Smiley for taking
an interest in my abilities and giving me great advice about basketball and life in
general Thanks coach. Thanks goes to Coach Walcavich, who told me what I needed
to do in order to play Division II basketball at Edinboro. From this, I was able to
experience the trash-talk phenomenon in college basketball. An extended thanks goes
out to Coach Walcavich for his contributions to this study.

n
I would like to acknowledge the faculty members in the Business/Accounting
department, accounting is still my first love. A special thanks to; Prof. L. Smith, Prof. P.
Lisowski, and Prof. G. Barbour. Thanks to the secretary in the department for all her
—" candy. Thanks to Ms. Karl and Mrs. Viveralli in the financial aid office.
"wake-up
Thanks to the academic support and intercultural relations offices for their support.
Extended thanks goes out to Ms. M. Burnett, Mr. L. Meredith and Mrs. B. McAndrew for
their opinions and constructive criticisms, and Ms. L. Brown for her contributions to this
study.
I would like to thank the faculty in the Speech and Communication Studies
department for the opportunities and experiences. Special thanks to my committee
members: Dr. A. Smith for having arv interest in and directing my study, Dr. K. Golden
for giving me the idea for this study, and Dr. T. Warburton for treating me like an
associate with whom you could discuss any topic of conversation, especially sports.
Also, I would like to thank Mrs. K. Mumford, Prof. T. Peyronel, and Dr. M. A. Dye for
their guidance.
Thanks to my family away from home, Toyia Giles and family, Elizabeth, Melissa,
and Patricia Burnett and family, my high school and college teammates, and the
brothers of the Nu Zeta Chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc., and my brothers
world-wide. Thanks for helping me "achieve" through Phi Nu Pi. Thanks to the players
and coaches of the PSAC (West) Conference, thanks for being one of the best
conferences in Division II basketball.
May God bless Selina "Ween" White, Darrin "Shabba", "Wear & Tear" Rankin,
Sean "Gib", "Mean-Man" Gibson, Ron "C-Man" Santiago, and David "2 To None" Mason
for putting up with all my emotions, moods, and stubbornness.
Thanks to my role-models who taught me how to survive and succeed. First and
foremost Raymond "Da" Rollins. Anybody can be a father, it takes a very special man
to be a Dad, thanks Da. Thanks to David "Uncle Dave" Pearson for his success, and
Marzell "Boba" Cain for his influence. Peace to my cuz, Rodney "Groove P" Pearson for
getting me off the streets and letting a youngster stomp with the "big dawgs." Rod, the
old-times are coming back! Thanks to Major "Duke" Smith for showing me how to "flick
the wrist and follow through."
I would like to acknowledge my godmothers and their respective families; Mrs.
Lois "Hamma-Head" Hamlin & family, and Ms. Constance "Beanski" Bean & family.
Hamma how you do it? Taurus (21 & 24) in the house, cause "Jordache has the fit
that's right... Corduroy," so "Get the burgers Wimpy!"
Thanks to my godfather, Marzell "Boba" Cain for influencing my mother to
nickname me "Torry." I want to acknowledge my adopted godfather, Roland Queen, I
still got love for you!
Thanks to my best-friends, special-friends, friends, and associates. Through
laughter, happiness, and humor, I especially tried not to create enemies.

m
Very special thanks to my Grandparents; Beola "Grandma" Reid and Dorothy
"Grannie" Rollins for teaching me the importance of religion. God bless you bothl
Last but definitely not least, I would like to thank God for answering my prayers
and overseeing this study, May your light continue to shine upon me and the rest of
human-kind.
In closing, I would like to express my thoughts to my younger relatives; Tyson
"Ty-C" Rollins, Kandice "Kandi-Lamb" Rollins, Edward "El-Rockin’" Rollins, Monica
"Funky-Divas" Wallace, Greg "Gucci-LiP Greg" Wallace, friends; Sean "Heav" Ferguson,
Kevin "Phone-Bone" Everette, and peers; Anything I can do, you can do better! Believe
thatl

Raymond Torrance Rollins II
July 1994

IV
ABSTRACT
As college sports become more intense and physical, a great deal of attention
and scholarly research has begun to focus on the type of communication used during
competition. For example, basketball has become vastly more intense and more
aggressive and individual communication style has become part of the game. In this
study, I am concerned with a type of communication called "trash-talking."
Trash-talking is defined as "the act of a person, usually an athlete, who talks to
an opponent in an excessively boastful or scornful manner." Most of the talk is a form of
insults or "put-downs" that are communicated towards another person. Trash-talking
has become a controversial issue for the media, fans, teams, owners and players, and
was very evident in the 1992-93 National Basketball Association (NBA) season,
especially during the playoffs. Recently trash-talking has appeared in the 1993-94
playoffs as well. Trash-talking was so pervasive that the NBA reconstructed its rules in
an attempt to minimize it, and when it apparently began to incite physical aggression',
the NBA took immediate action. Action against this style of communication on the court
is not limited to the NBA, however. Most all professional and collegiate sports took
steps to limit forms of trash-talking and thus reduce the possibility of talk escalating into .
physical aggression.
From my experience as a collegiate basketball player and as one who watches
collegiate sports, it appears that trash-talking is common in college basketball. In my
study I examine how the players feel about trash-talking, the reasons for its use, and
actions that trigger the escalation of trash-talking into physical violence. The research
data came from the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference (West) (PSAC). Players
participated in the study by filling out a short questionnaire, watching three short clips of
trash-talking, and discussing these clips in a focus group.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction to Trash-talk.
Literature Review...................................

1
.7

CHAPTER TWO: Methodology.......................

17

Quantitative Method..............................

,20

Qualitative Method................................

,22

Critical Interpretation.............................

,25

CHAPTER THREE: Trash-talking Results.......

,27

Two types of Trash-talk.........................

30

Reasons for using Trash-talk..................

34

Boundary Settings : Physical Aggression

,38

CHAPTER FOUR: Critical Interpretation.........

.46

REFERENCES..................................................

.59

APPENDICES.

62

A (Questionnaires)...................

62

B (Description of scenes).........

66

C (Figures)...............................

,67

D (Tables)................................

.77

E (Focus Group Transcriptions)

82

CHAPTER 1
Introduction to Trash-Talk

As college sports become more intense and physical, a great deal of attention
and scholarly research have begun to focus on the type of communication used during
competition. For example, basketball has become increasingly aggressive and
individual communication style has become part of the game. This study is concerned
with a type of communication employed in basketball (and other sports) called "trashtalking."
According to Starr (1992), trash-talking is "the act of a person, usually an athlete,
who talks to an opponent in an excessively boastful or scornful manner" (p. 60). In
basketball, trash-talking is used as a psychological weapon to disrupt a person's
concentration. A player tries to get the opponent so frustrated about the significance of
what he is saying that it detracts from his1 performance. The trash-talker can use this
as an advantage over his opponent to excel to victory. Much of the time this strategy
works, but since all persons are not the same, not every athlete is affected in the same
way by the trash-talk.
Trash-talking has become a controversial issue for the media, fans, teams,
owners and players, and was very evident in the 1992-93 National Basketball
Association (NBA) season, especially during the playoffs. Trash-talking was so
pervasive that the NBA restructured the rules in an attempt to minimize it, and when it
apparently began to incite physical aggression, the NBA took immediate action. Action
against this style of communication on the court was not limited to the NBA, however.
Most professional and collegiate sports took steps to limit forms of trash-talking and thus
reduce the possibility of talk escalating into physical aggression.

^is study is concerned with male college athletes, therefore all pronominal references to players will be genderspecific.

2
This study is primarily concerned with examining the ways in which trash-talk
might lead to physical aggression from a player's perspective. As an interpretive study,
it draws upon quantitative, qualitative, and existential data. My experience as a
collegiate basketball player plays several roles in this study. It has, of course, created
the context for my interest in trash-talking, since I have both been the recipient of trashtalk on the basketball court and talked trash to others during games. My experience has
guided me in developing the initial questions for research as well as the questions used
to survey selected players and those used in a focus group discussion. Although the
analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data require, from a human scientific point of
view, that I suspend my biases about the phenomenon, at the end of this study my
personal experiences of trash-talk become one of three sources of data used for critical
interpretation.
Thus, prior to analysis, my experience has taught me that trash-talking occurs in
three stages, which I will define as moderate, aggressive, and physical confrontation. I
do not believe that one stage necessarily leads to the next, but they do have that
potential under certain conditions. This study hopes to reveal these conditions. The
three stages are presented in the following narratives, which are accounts of trashtalking in College, Division II, basketball. Players' names and their respective teams
have been changed to protect the actual participants and their universities.
Scene One. In December, 1991, the first place show-down between Shining Star
and Looking Glass University took place. As the crowd began to settle down, the two
marquee2 players took the floor with their respective teams. The previous match-up
between these two teams had ended in an overtime victory by Looking Glass.
The game began and, even though the primary battle was between the two
teams on the court, a minor skirmish developed between the two key players. This was
a battle for bragging rights that actually started back in high school for these marquee
2See Table 1, "Trash-talking Keywords & Phrases" for definition.

3
players. The first half went pretty well; the referees called the game close. The two
teams battled evenly for the first twenty minutes as Shining Star took the lead 47-45.
Midway through the second half, Johnson, Shining Star's marquee player, began to
taunt, boast and ridicule Looking Glass's team and their marquee player, Peterson. He
said, "It's time to take the game to another level. I'm going to treat you like a low-priced
hooker!" Peterson replied, "Yeah, just like you did in high school. Right! When I busted
your ass for twenty-fivel"
Johnson replied, after hitting a three-point basket, "That was then this is now, and
take that three' in your mouthl" That bucket put Shining Star up by one with five
minutes left to play. Johnson talked to Peterson all the way down the court. He
continuously repeated, "You can't hold me... you cant hold me!" Peterson got the ball
for Looking Glass, Johnson checked him tightly. Peterson received a pick from one of
his players and drove to the basket and made a lay-up. Peterson retaliated with some
taunting, boasting, and ridicule of his own; as he ran past the Shining Star bench, he
said, "Coach, your player cant check me. You better put somebody else on me if you
want to win!"
This flow of conversation between Johnson and Peterson went on the entire
second half. Shining Star was down by three points with just seconds left to play.
Shining Star called a time-out and drew up a play for Johnson to win the game. The two
teams returned to the court and Peterson said (to Johnson), "Don't get nervous, you
never could hit the big shot though, you soft pussy!" Johnson did not reply. Instead, he
received the inbound-pass, drove to the three-point line and pulled up for a three-point
shot; the ball swished through the basket and Shining Star won the game.
Afterwards, the two marquee players met at the center of the court and hugged
and congratulated each other on the game. As they walked away, Johnson said, "How
is that for nerves." Peterson replied with a grin, "See you next year!"

4
Scene Two. The annual match-up between Branching River (BRU) and
Pinewood Forest (PFU) receives huge amounts of press and television coverage. The
rivalry is big because the winning team can claim bragging rights for the city. One of
Branching River's top performers, Lennon, has been on the news talking about the
game and the intense match-up between the two schools. In the interview, he talked
about Branching River's dominance over Pinewood Forest. Lennon noted to the media
that his team has won the last five meetings at Branching River's gymnasium and seven
out of the last ten. That night, Lennon guaranteed a victory over Pinewood Forest.
The statement Lennon made about Branching River's dominance reached the
Pinewood Forest's team, and they became very upset. Game time was near, and PFU's
captain delivered a motivational speech. He said, "Let's remember what Lennon said
about their dominance and go out there and kick some ass!" Barchum, PFU's best
defensive player, was assigned to guard Lennon and, from the opening tip, he started
taunting Lennon. As the two ran down the court after a basket by PFU, Barchum said,
"Lennon I heard all that shit you were talking about us, you are in for a long night Bro!"
For several series, Lennon caused PFU some trouble, scoring half of Branching
River's 30 points. Lennon shouted at Barchum, "PFU must want to lose, if you are
going to guard me!... I'm going to have a field day if you keep letting me score; when
are you going to stop me?" Before the two walked to their respective benches during a
time-out, Barchum mumbled to Lennon, "You ain't shit, but I don't blame you; I blame
your mother for having you!" Lennon did not reply to Barchum's statement.
Throughout the first half, the two teams exchanged the lead. At halftime,
Branching River was ahead 56-49. The second half began, and the two players
continued taunting and ridiculing each other. Lennon said, "You ain't shit; your defense
sucks!" The other teammates on the floor started to talk also. One of Lennon's
teammates said, "Bust his ass 'Len'; he can't check you." Lennon hit a couple of threepointers then passed to a teammate for a easy lay-up.

5
PFU called time-out when they were down by ten points, 67-77. PFU's coach
shouted at Barchum for his lack of concentration on defense. PFU cut the lead down to
two points with two minutes left when Lennon drove the lane and made a basket. The
referee blew the whistle and pointed to Barchum for a foul. Lennon boasted to a
teammate who was helping him off the floor, "And one, I'm busting his ass, just like last
night when I busted his sister's assl"
After that comment by Lennon, Barchum rushed over to Lennon and got nose to
nose with him. It appeared as though they were about to fight. Just before they began
shouting at each other and apparently coming to blows, the referee broke them up.
Barchum continued his verbal insults to Lennon, "I'm going to bust some ass all right,"
... "Next time I'm going to foul you a little harder, you bitch! You're just like a little girl
crying about fouls, you ain't all that!" The referee tried to calm him down. Lennon said,
"You ain't shit, your defense sucksl" The infraction caused both teams to receive a
technical foul, but no punches were thrown. Verbal punches were all that were thrown.
Scene Three. On a Saturday night on the campus of HatTrick University, a
basketball game was taking place between the Duds of HatTrick and the Goals of
Slapshot. The second half had begun, and the coach from HatTrick just berated his
players because no one could stop the top gun from Slapshot, Newman.
The announcer says, "Newman is having the game of his life against the Duds.
He is going for his career high in points tonight. He already has 27 points at the start of
the second half." If somebody can stop Newman, HatTrick has a chance to win.
Midway through the second quarter, Newman shook his head in disgust and said
boastfully, "Can't none of ya'II hold me!" He looked at his defender and said, "Had
enough yet?... I've torn a new asshole in you." Uppshaw, his defender said, "Shut the
fuck up, before I close your mouth for you!" He continued, "You know what? You talk a
lot of shit!" Newman replied, "But it's evident that I can back it all the fuck up!"

6
The next few times down the court, Newman's defender gave him a couple slaps
on the wrist, an elbow to the head, and, the final time, he just took Newman to the
ground. After the last hard foul Uppshaw said, "You may get your career high, but you
are going to earn every point, bitchl" and stared (angrily) at him while he was lying on
the ground. As his teammates came and helped Newman up, he replied to Uppshaw,
"Oh, now since you cant stop me you're going to foul me ... One of ya’II foul me again,
you're going to get a flipper (elbow) in the mouth." The next offensive series for Slap
Shot, Newman got fouled again on a lay-up, but the referees did not call it. Newman
said, "And one! the ref (referee) saved your life!" As Newman ran down the court, he
hit Uppshaw in the back of the head with an elbow. Uppshaw turned around and
pushed Newman back, and he started running towards Newman, swinging. At this
point, the benches cleared and a big brawl started in the middle of the court.
After the fight had been broken-up, the game resumed, and the retaliator
(Uppshaw) got thrown out of the game. Newman remained in the game, ultimately
reaching his career high in points scored and helping Slapshot to a big conference win.
These scenes depict some examples of how trash-talking is used in collegiate
basketball. Note that the scenes are different in the intensity of the conversations,
physical results and overtones. As presented, scene one is moderate and innocent,
resulting in little or no physical reaction, while scene two is aggressive and results in a
confrontation but no fight; scene three is the most aggressive, resulting in an actual
fight. As mentioned previously, these scenes are based on my own experience of trashtalk, and they can serve-however tentatively--as models for the interrogation of trashtalk. The scenes are qualitatively different; in Bateson's terms they exist as different
logical types (Bateson, 1987, p. 179). And yet the NBA and the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) see them as intrinsically related, i.e., if scene one is
allowed to exist, then scene three remains a possibility. This study examines that
possibility, first with a brief review of the literature on trash-talk and related concepts.

7
I iterature Review

In the early 1980s, there were isolated instances of trash-talk in college and
professional basketball where a person could single out the users. But now, many
players indulge in some form of trash-talk. No matter where a person goes to see a
basketball game--the neighborhood playground, the high school gymnasium, the college
arena, or Madison Square Garden-some form of trash-talking will be encountered.
Basketball stands above all other sports in terms of "trash-talking," which has become a
bigger part of the game than ever before. Some athletes actually practice it and work at
being good at it and, because of this, there are some definite trash-talking experts in
athletic competition (Taylor, 1992). According to George Thompson, a former
basketball star, "Talking trash is definitely an art form" (Taylor, 1992, p. 83). The
primary purpose is to undermine a player's performance, but trash-talking does not
always have a deleterious effect. In some cases, the receiver can reverse the effect the
communication has on him and turn it into a motivational tool and start to perform at a
higher level of competence. Some players absorb the trash-talk and take on an "I'll
show him" attitude that motivates the player to take his game (abilities) to a higher level
and dominate his opponent (the one who is talking the trash).
Trash-talking could be conceived as a form of verbal aggressiveness. According
to Infante and Wigley (1986), verbal aggressiveness is "a personality trait that
predisposes persons to attack the self-concept of other people instead of, or in addition
to, their positions on topics of communication" (p. 61). These verbally aggressive
messages attack an individual's self-concept in order to make the person feel less
favorable about himself. This behavior can be found in all three scenes just described;
for example, in scene one Johnson says, "I'm going to treat you like a low-priced
hooker!" This statement attacks a person's (Peterson's) feelings about himself.
Relating how a low-priced hooker is treated in relationship to a person's treatment on

8
the basketball court for example, getting scored on frequently, can affect a person's
feelings about his own abilities.
More often than not, verbal aggression is treated as a destructive form of
communication. The psychological pain produced by verbal aggression includes a
range of negative effects upon the receiver, such as embarrassment, feeling of
inadequacy, humiliation, hopelessness, despair, and depression. As the scenes
described reveal, it can also produce anger, a sense of revenge, rage, and a positive
effect of making one play better, harder, or more physically. These results can be
formed from multiple verbally aggressive messages such as character attacks,
competence attacks, background attacks, physical appearance attacks, melancholy,
teasing, ridicule, threats, swearing, and nonverbal expressions. Although damaging
self-concept is the most common effect, the most severe effect is that verbal aggression
has a tendency to escalate into physical aggression, as in scene three. Infante and
Wigley (1986) have concluded that verbal aggressiveness is worthy of study and should
be distinguished from other types of aggression, such as assertiveness,
agrumentativeness and hostility (pp. 120-128).
In the case of basketball, as depicted in the scenes, people who use verbal
aggressive tactics often single out distinct persons upon whom they can inflict this
verbal behavior. In scene one, it was an old high school friendship, a rivalry that re­
surfaced in college. In scene two, it was a college rivalry that resulted in bragging rights
for the city. In scene three, it was a case of a superior athlete displaying verbally and
nonverbally that he was superior. Often, the reason for indulging in trash-talk is to
distract the opponent and cause him to act out of context. It is also meant to underline
one's superiority over another. In any case, the sender of such messages wants to
create an advantageous situation.
Verbal play is usually the type of trash-talk that exists in basketball games, but it
is not the only type, as is evident in scenes two and three. Verbal play is displayed in

9
scene one and a part of scene two, which presents a humorous nonserious atmosphere.
According to Kochman (1981), "Combined research has pointed out that the concept of
play implies an ability to differentiate play from the 'real' and the 'serious'" (p. 52).
Paradoxically, for this verbal play to occur, there must be a sense of threat. For
example, in scene two when Barchum says, "You ain't shit but I don't blame you, I
blame your mother for having you!" Barchum is blaming Lennon's mother for his lack of
success in basketball, and this can be interpreted as an insult to Lennon and his family.
This sense of insult hinges on how Lennon perceives the statements, playfully or
seriously. If Lennon takes the statements as play, he may interpret it as a part of the
game, and can potentially use it to his advantage. If Lennon chooses to take the
statements as serious insults, then the playful actions can turn into physical actions.
This difference between playful and serious interpretation is examined by Bateson
(1987).
Bateson (1987) relates the playful and serious interactions as a "nip" and "bite"
situation that is common in animal play. Animals nip each other as a form of playful
interaction between the participants. The sense of play is established, but there is also
a sense of threat established with the play. Bateson (1987) says, "The nip denotes a
clinched fist which establishes a sense of threat, but it is different than the punch. But,
the clinched fist resembles a possible future (but at present non-existent) punch" (p.
181). Threatening actions are forced when the boundaries of play have been violated
by one participant, and playful actions can thus turn into serious ones. In animal
behavior, the "nip" turns into a "bite"; the two animals start seriously biting each other,
instead of playfully nipping (pp. 179-181).
Trash-talking appears to exhibit a similar relation between the "nip" and the "bite."
The "nip" is playfully depicted in scene one; the boundary between verbal and physical
aggressiveness is crossed in scene two; and the "bite" is depicted in scene three. Most
of the insults, verbal play, and denotative messages start as play, until a participant

10 ■

steps over the boundaries of play and turns the playful actions into serious ones.
Obviously, this violation can cause physical reaction to take place during the basketball
game. The question is: Should the playful "nip" be sacrificed in order to abate the
serious "bite"?
Most verbal play is developed when the two athletes involved put on fronts (the
act of fronting). Goffman (1959) defines fronts as "part of the individual’s performance
which regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for those
who observe the performance" (p. 22). When the trash-talk is in a form of verbal play,
communication is often fixed so that it is clear that the playfulness is intended not to be
serious, whether or not the statements are true. The fronts are verbal and nonverbal
exaggerations that are outlandish in nature and anyone witnessing this type of
communication can see that they are not serious. These fronts are related to
Kochman's (1981) definition of boasting. Kochman (1981) defines boasting as "vocal
self-praise or claims to superiority over others" (p. 63). This type of verbal behavior is a
type of front that is not intended to be serious and usually is a source of humor since it is
exaggerated.
Boasting can resemble a front because it is an act intentionally or unwittingly
employed by the individual during his or her performance (Goffman, 1959). Boasting
usually consists of talking about one's ability and possessions or iack thereof. These
general statements do not have to be proven for the boasting to exist. This is
exemplified in scene two, when Lennon boasts that, "PFU must want to lose, if you are
going to guard me!" In this situation Lennon boasts or fronts about his talents but may
not prove these talents. Most boastful behavior is included in verbal play, as in scene
one.
One can find similarities in boasting (fronting) and bragging, but Kochman (1981)
notes that these two terms are viewed as two different types of vocal self-praisec.
According to Kochman (1981), "Unlike boasting, bragging is a serious form of self-

11
aggrandizement" (p. 63). When one brags; claims must be justified and proven. The
verbal confrontation that Newman and Uppshaw go through in scene three is an
episode of bragging. Newman justifies his bragging statements by gaining a new career
high in points scored in one game.
Bragging behavior may exist when verbal play escalates, as in scenes two and
three. When the boasts turn into brags, persons are actually doing the things they said
they would do. While accomplishing their tasks, they must remind their opponents that
they are doing so at the opponent's expense. This bragging behavior stimulates
situations for verbal play to escalate into physical confrontations as in scenes two and
three. This is especially evident in scene three where Newman boasts that no one can
guard him. Newman had the game of his life against Uppshaw and the whole Slapshot
team. When Newman said, "Can't none of ya'II hold (guard) me!," he was boasting, but
later in the game when Uppshaw responded to Newman's boasts by saying he talked a
lot of shit, the boast turned into a brag. Newman proved that no one could guard him by
reaching his all-time high in points and continued to talk throughout the game because
of his accomplishment. Eventually, Newman's bragging led to a physical confrontation.
For Uppshaw and his team, the truth was hard to swallow. They did everything they
could to stop him, but it did not work. Newman's ability was not the problem, but the
constant reminder verbally was a major part in the end result (the physical
confrontation). Instead of Uppshaw doing other things to counteract Newman's ability,
he allowed himself to get involved with his boasting and bragging.
Physical aggression is the result of one person crossing the boundaries of verbal
play where playful situations turn into serious ones. Goffman (1974) terms this
boundary of verbal play as an "involvement" with its seriousness. Uppshaw got involved
with the seriousness of Newman's verbal behavior by allowing himself to get involved in
the "seriousness" of the play and began to take what Newman said literally. According
to Goffman (1974), "Involvement necessarily removes participants from what they

12
themselves should be involved in" (p. 346). Their center of concentration is destroyed
and they are distracted by, in this case, a person talking trash. When one cannot
manage this involvement effectively, destructive effects may occur (i.e., threatening
behavior and physical aggression).
Much verbal play, e.g., sarcasm and verbal insults, retains the potential for being
interpreted seriously rather than playfully. If interpreted seriously, the comment can
result in a person (the receiver of the trash-talk) feeling insulted or hurt. When a person
feels insulted by another's playful comment, he may try to respond with a comment that
is equally insulting, or more so. His comment may, in fact, be a more "biting" sarcasm
or insult. Thus verbal aggressiveness may escalate. If a person becomes emotionally
involved with these verbal assaults, and reaches a point where he can think of nothing
more or sufficient to say, he may become physically aggressive. Goffman (1974)
compares this shift from verbal play to verbal aggression to eventual physical
aggression with the biting-like behavior in animals' aggressive play. When a specific
animal bites in certain ways violating the "playful norms," this violation develops a sense
of threat. As a result, the two animals seriously lock-up; playing turns into fighting.
When biting-like behavior occurs there exists a threat that the domain of aggressive
verbal play will be destroyed (pp. 63-65). But, as Bateson (1987) points out, this threat
is exactly what makes the play possible (p. 181).
The paradox of the "nip" and the "bite," or playful talk and serious talk, can be
seen in the speech event known in the African-American community as "playing the
dozens" (Bruhn & Murray, 1985, p. 483). Playing the Dozens (referred to as the
"dozens" from here on) is a verbal game, usually but not always limited to two people,
often played before an audience of related peers. The dozens relates these verbally
aggressive behaviors into a game-type situation. Trash-talking originated from this
verbal game which is now found mostly in Black, urban communities.

13
The participants insult and provoke each other with "put-downs" (verbally
aggressive messages) of the other participant's family members, team, living situations,
or limitations. Traditionally, female family members were the main source for insults.
When females were stereotyped as the lesser of the two sexes, most of the insults were
directed toward the female family members because of preconceived notions that
women were inferior based upon individual prejudices, rather than reality. The sarcasm
and verbal insults that were placed on the female member of the family were often
related to the notion that women are barefoot and pregnant, a woman's place is in the
kitchen, or women are not allowed to work. As playing the dozens became more
frequent and more useful in other situations, anything that was negatively related to the
participant became the source for the insults (e.g., parent's unemployment, dress,
ugliness, etc.).
The purpose of this game is to get the other participant (or participants) so angry
that he quits, cries, or fights. The dozens is usually initiated within a circle of friends that
rally around the participants. One of the essentials of the game is to know personal
information about the other person’s family. In the inner-city neighborhoods, where the
dozen's game is more frequent, families are very close and confined. Therefore, to
know information about a person's family is not difficult.
Playing the dozens is classified in two types, clean and dirty. Profanity usually
accompanies the "dirty dozens." According to Bruhn and Murray (1985) the actual
origin for the dozens relates back to Africa during the 17th century. As they explain,
"These contemporary verbal games used today were derived from West African tone
riddles, curses and stereo-typed sarcasm" (p. 484).
In contrast to verbal aggressive behavior, playing the game in the inner-city
neighborhoods can produce positive reinforcements. These reinforcements prove that
people who possess good verbal skills are achievers and are admired in business
environments, sports affiliations, as well as the dozens game. This game creates a

14
situation that helps to strengthen Black youth of today for survival in a tough
environment. Playing the dozens is part of the oral tradition of Black culture and is
spreading to different cultures, such as suburban city neighborhoods and rural White
dominated communities (Bruhn & Murray, 1985).
In today's usage, the game’s settings range from neighborhood streets and
parks, to sporting events, and to classrooms. According to Bruhn and Murray (1985),
"Verbal skills are an important part of a person's adaptive repertoire to protect his
integrity, pride and security"(p. 483). Learning to define oneself verbally or to gain
control of a situation through insults or put-downs of others is found to be effective. The
dozens and similar verbal games are strategies for living to some people, and are
mechanisms for regulating the frustrations, ambivalence, and inequalities of life for
others. The positive reinforcement results from the verbal games being useful,
meaningful and satisfying (Bruhn and Murray, 1985, p. 492). When playing the dozens
the addressee is expected to become the addressor and vice versa.
Urn's (1990) research on how the influences of an addressee's resistance to an
addresser's verbal aggressiveness is relevant to a discussion of trash-talking. The
sender uses strategies to attack the self-concept only if the receiver is willing to listen to
these strategies and let them affect him. Concluding results showed that unfriendly
receivers (none responding) made senders more verbally aggressive. Outright rejection
of senders' strategies of attack made them verbally aggressive more rapidly and with
more use of the attacks. As in trash-talking, if the addressee is willing to listen to the
addresser's strategies and let them affect him, then the addressor (trash-talker) feels he
has an advantage over the addressee (the opponent). According to Lim (1990),
"Senders base their strategy not only on situations and their personal preferences, but
also on the responses issued by receivers" (p. 176).
In Urn’s study, senders varied the level of verbal aggressiveness in their
strategies to attack the self-concept as a result of acquaintance with others and the

15
intensity of resistance. The acquaintance situation yields a type of teasing, ridicule,
taunting, and boasting to the receiver. Therefore, these situations may employ humor
and may not be serious when attacking another's self-concept. Infante and colleagues
(1992) say, "Perhaps by teasing through humor, high verbal aggressors attempt to keep
the receiver guessing as to what they mean" (p. 122). Research concludes that these
tactics explained earlier have an effect on others. Verbal aggressiveness in this
situation may increase when the person who uses these tactics wants to appear tough
and wants to be mean to a disdained other (i.e., an opponent).
There are many reasons why people use verbal aggression, and one may be the
influence of competitive sports. But according to Bredemeier and Shields (1986),
"Sports is a world set apart from the world of everyday life. We contend that entering a
sport involves a moral transformation in which egocentricity is redefined as appropriate"
(p. 257). Many basketball players, by habit or by choice, simply do not think about the
rights or welfare of an opponent and the psychological pain inflicted through verbal
abuse: "Athletic aggression is something a player does not consider, just does"
(Bredemeier & Shields, 1986, p. 264).
Those who participate in basketball, collegiate or professional, may or may not
indulge in verbal abuse (trash-talking) of opponents, but know it is a big part of the
game. Jalen Rose, the play-making guard of the Michigan basketball team and
according to Taylor (1992) one of the biggest trash-talkers in the NCAA, says, "Some of
it's (trash-talking) just meant to be funny. The guys who get a little upset at you during
the game are laughing about it and shaking your hand afterwards" (Taylor, 1992, p. 85).
According to USC's coach, George Raveling, "It's (trash-talking) all in the spirit of the
game, and it's a test of your mental toughness," (Taylor, 1992, p. 85). Many players feel
that most of the talk is irrelevant to off-the-court life. Louisville forward Greg Minor adds,
"They'll talk about your mama, your girlfriend, your haircut, your 'hood (neighborhood)"

16
(Taylor, 1992, p. 83). One of the unwritten rules of talking trash is that what is said on
the court usually stays within the fraternity of players.
According to the literature, significant associations/disassociations can be
identified with the trash-talk phenomenon and its relationship to verbal aggressiveness
and playing the dozens. Verbal aggressiveness involves attacks on a person's selfconcept instead of their positions on topics of communication. Playing the dozens
attacks a person's self-concept with insults and "put-downs." Trash-talking attacks a
person's self-concept with statements questioning an opponent's ability and self-worth.
Verbal aggressiveness has been labeled a negative trait by Infante and colleagues
(1992). Playing the dozens has been labeled a positive trait in the urban/AfricanAmerican communities where the dozens frequently occurs (Bruhn & Murray, 1985).
Trash-talking has created concerns about its assumed effects, significance, and
reasons.
In this study, interests have been placed on the actual players involved and their
experiences with the trash-talking phenomenon. Thus the review of literature has left
two significant research questions that will be the focus of the study. The two research
questions developed are:
RQ1: How do players perceive the intention and perception of trash-talk?
RQ2: How does the trash-talk escalate into physical aggression (player's
perspective); are there identifiable factors, contents, themes, or
expressions that denote the shift to physical aggression?
These questions will disclose players' perceptions and understandings of the trashtalking techniques used in college basketball, as well as its effects, significance, and
reasons. Therefore, player involvement and experience with trash-talking will be a
significant factor for answering the research questions.

CHAPTER 2
Methodology

Quantitative, qualitative, and interpretive methodologies were used to address
the research questions. Data were collected by a two-part Likert-scale instrument and
through focus group discussions with five Division II basketball teams. The Likert-scale
instrument was constructed from the scenes presented at the beginning of chapter one.
The instrument first established each player's perception of his trash-talking usage (i.e.,
always, frequently, occasionally, rarely, and never). The second part of the Likert-scale
was constructed as a self-report instrument consisting of twenty-two questions, nine
pertaining to intentions of trash-talking and the other thirteen pertaining to the reception
of trash-talking. These questions help develop the amount of time a person indulges in
this verbal behavior as well as how, and the extent to which, a player is affected by it.
The actual modified Likert-scale instrument was taken from Urn's (1990) and Infante's
(1986) research. The questions were constructed in such a way as to gain important
information on the intention, reception, and reasons for trash-talk.
Responses from male basketball players in the Pennsylvania State Athletic
Conference (PSAC) constituted the data for research. The diverse population of the
PSAC seemed promising for generating interesting results. Out of the thirteen schools
contacted, ten responded positively--six teams from the Western side of the conference
and four teams from the Eastern side. Six schools from the Western side of the
conference were selected to generate data for this study. There were also financial and
logistical constraints which compelled the selection of schools closer to Edinboro
University of PA. Thus the group of participating schools included: California University
of PA (Cal), Clarion University (CU), Indiana University of PA (IUP), Lock Haven
University (LHU), Shippensburg University (SU), and Slippery Rock University (SRU).
Difficulties arose when scheduling Shippensburg University. Many arrangements were

17

18
proposed, but none satisfied both of our needs. After several attempts to
accommodate, Shippensburg University was finally dropped from the schedule. The
other four Eastern teams were used as back up schools if any of the first five declined to
participate at the last minute.
The actual data collection took place on the campuses of the respective teams.
Arrangements were made to meet with coaches and players during the Christmas
break-January, 1994, which was considered the most suitable time for the coaches and
players. Other students were on break and the players had no other obligations besides
practice and games, which increased the availability of the players and coaches. A
one-hour period was established as enough time to complete the surveys and conduct
the focus group discussions.
There were many factors that affected the collection of the data, with traveling
time a major factor. Traveling time extended the time for the completion of the research
and became expensive. Traveling was the biggest reason Shippensburg was unable to
be interviewed. Besides the scheduling difficulties, the geographical location of SU and
the time permitted for the actual data collection did not coincide.
Another factor was the use of questionnaires. Filling out the questionnaires can
limit the accuracy of correct responses. For example, participants might fill out a
questionnaire just to be kind and withhold their true feelings when answering the
questions. The focus group was established to address this problem of reliability. This
type of qualitative discussion is geared toward bringing out true feelings among a
related group of peers, (i.e., the player's teammates). Some focus group statements
corroborated the quantitative data, and other statements contradicted the data. This is
when interpretation plays a critical roie in the analysis.
The problem of reliability was addressed in another way as well. Since the data
are based on self-reports, some exaggeration may also occur when players report on
their communicative beliefs and behaviors. To address this problem the questionnaire

19
was distributed to a pilot study group, the Edinboro University men's basketball team.
They were the first to take the questionnaire and participate in the focus group. Their
feedback helped reconstruct items, and helped to make the data more accurate and
truthful. Questions were improved, reworded, added and deleted. The original number
of questions related to intentions of trash-talk remained the same, but the number
related to reception was changed from nine to thirteen.
Another limitation, or concern, of this study is how much the media, fans, and
officials have influenced players' self-perceptions with regard to trash-talk. Many people
believe that trash-talk is a negative form of communication behavior and should be
eliminated. Since it has been branded as bad-as is evident in the movie "White Men
Can’t Jump" (1992) to be discussed in the following section-some players may be
reluctant to admit that they use trash-talking. The players may not choose to label
themselves as trash-talkers to the extent that they have internalized the prevailing view
of the social world beyond college and professional basketball.
The triangulation of this study is an attempt to deal with this and previously
discussed limitations. As defined by Bateson in Polkinghorne's (1992) work,
triangulation is the combination of information from various systems of inquiry (p. 254).
. The combination produces a kind of knowledge that differs from the simple
accumulation or addition of information (Polkinghorne, 1992, p. 254). According to
Bateson, Polkinghorne (1992) and other researchers, limitations and biases can be
useful and manageable if they are triangulated through different approaches to a
phenomenon. Triangulation in this study consists of: (1) gathering data quantitatively
by distributing the questionnaire, (2) gathering data qualitatively by analyzing the focus
groups' discussions, and (3) using interpretations of the questionnaire and the focus
group discussions to develop a critical analysis. These three individual procedures to
the "problem" of trash-talk will now be discussed in more detail.

20
Quantitative Method

First, the players' respective coaches filled out a questionnaire asking about
players' use of trash-talking (see appendix A, #1 ).3 This was done to compare how the
players rated themselves with how the coach rated his players. The original plan was to
select the top twelve players, established by the coach, to be the ones who would
receive the questionnaire. However, all players who were present after practice
participated in the study because: (1) red-shirt players (players declared unable to
participate in games) participated in the practice sessions, (2) one team had a top
player missing from practice for personal reasons, and (3) two teams had less than
twelve players participate in the practice sessions. Thus the coach rated his players on
his separate trash-talking scale, the team then filled out their questionnaire (see
appendix A, #2).
The first part of the questionnaire is a self-report measurement on how players
classify themselves as trash-talkers. The second part of the questionnaire focuses on
the conditions that cause trash-talk to escalate into physical aggression. The questions
are separated into four groups pertaining to self, ability, the actual game, and players'
respective family members. The two ratings—self-rating and the coach-rating--were
combined to provide a more balanced assessment of the extent to which a player
indulges in trash-talk. The results were analyzed for the reported use of trash-talk, by
how frequently players are involved in it, and their thoughts on what significance it plays
in college basketball.
The quantitative data were much easier to understand than the qualitative data.
Neither were in competition with the other; both served an equally important purpose in
this study. Research has constantly compared both qualitative and quantitative data to
see which is better, but Williams (1992) explains that the more quantitative analysis that

3 All related questionnaires are found in appendix A and labled as (# 1, #2, etc.).

21
is being done the more recognition that qualitative aspects are imbedded in it. Williams
(1992) says:
Quantitative research involves getting data and as a general rule,
quantitative methods are usually appropriate when (1) measurements can
offer a useful description of whatever you are studying, (2) you may wish
to make certain descriptive generalizations about the measures, and (3)
you wish to calculate probabilities that certain generalizations are beyond
<

simple, chance occurrences (p. 3).
For this study, numbers one and two are appropriate. Some simple statistics were
constructed from the survey questions to analyze certain overall characteristics of the
data and to analyze characteristics that varied from team to team and player to player.
Simple statistics were efficient means of making generalizations about the observed
data. These simple statistics included means, relative percentages, frequencies, and
correlations from player to player and from team to team. A composite rating based on
self-report and coach-report was used to assess how much a player trash-talked, the
composite rating was the self-rating and the coach-rating of a player.
The quantitative data followed one of the two research plans developed by
Williams (1992), descriptive methods and experimental methods. The descriptive
method was incorporated in this study for analyzing the quantitative data. The method
defines the characteristics or relationships, or both, among variables based on
observations and results. In descriptive methods, variables remain constant. Specific
questionnaire data used straightforward mean, average, and percentage without
changing the variables.

22
Qualitative Method

After the survey was completed, the participants watched three scenes of the
movie "White Men Can't Jump" (1992). The three scenes were selected for viewing
due to their similarity to the scenes described in the introduction to this study
(see appendix B).4 The scenes were then discussed in a focus group. The purpose for
the focus group discussion was to describe and understand the central themes related
to the player's "lived-experiences" of trash-talk as addressors, addressees, and
observers. Players on respective teams talked together about trash-talking themes that
emerged during the discussion (see Kvale, 1983, p. 174). Throughout the focus group
discussions, individual reactions pertaining to when the trash-talk escalated into physical
aggression were noted. The discussions developed from the following questions: (1)
During a college basketball game, how frequently does scene one take place?, (2) How
could scene one escalate into physical aggression?, (3) What do you think the reason is
that Marques Johnson (Raymond) wants to kill everybody? Do his reasons have
anything to do with Wesley Snipes (Sidney) talking trash to the defeated opponent
(Raymond)?, (4) How does Woody Harrelson's conduct in scene three depict usage and
reasons for trash-talking? (see appendix A, #3).
The discussion was not limited to these questions as "openness of expression"
was highly encouraged . These focus group discussions were tape recorded,
transcribed, analyzed, and compared to the questionnaire data gathered from the
coaches and individual players (see Focus Group Transcriptions appendix E).5 The
results were analyzed thematically to find similarities and differences among participants
of the same team, and from one team to another.
In this study, qualitative research included interviews with the participating
players and discussion on topics of concern in a focus group type setting. Bogdan and
4 A brief description of each scene is provided in appendix B. The scenes were shown by video tape to the planus
participating in the focus group.
* All Focus Group Transcripts are provided in appendix E.

23
Biklen (1982) state that the setting plays an important part on how accurate the data
are. Research findings and data can best be understood and interpreted when a
phenomenon is observed in the setting in which it occurs. As Bogdan and Biklen (1982)
explain, "Qualitative researchers assume that human behavior is significantly influenced
by the setting in which it occurs, and whenever possible, go there" (p. 67). The setting
for the focus groups was usually in areas where players frequently communicate with
each other (i.e., locker rooms, film/meeting rooms, and coaches’ offices).
The data included interviews with the players, group discussion, and personal
evaluations. The focus group questions (refer to appendix A, #3) were developed to
further reflect on trash-talk and its general concerns; "What is your experience with this
phenomenon?," "What are the reasons for this phenomenon?," and "How can this
phenomenon escalate into physical aggression?" The interview process also helped
players learn about other players and their concerns. The entire focus group process
was meant to build a relationship that will ultimately produce a trusting, committed and
winning attitude amongst the players (see Weber, 1986).
An audio tape-recorder was used to capture the free-flow of experiences of trashtalk from the players. Afterwards, these recordings were transcribed into written text.
The text then was compared and contrasted to the quantitative data. With qualitative
data, one can create many types of analytical forms and correlations. This is in contrast
to quantitative data, which is basically "cut and dry." Quantitative data eventually comes
to an end. When the data are exhausted, analysis on the data is completed. On the
other hand, qualitative data can be analyzed from several different aspects and in
different phases as discussed below.
After the transcription of the focus group discussions (refer to appendix E),
interpretation was accomplished in three phases following Kvale's (1983) levels of
interpretation in interview analysis. The first phase is that the interviewee (or group)
describes his/their experiences of the theme or question. As Kvale (1983) explains,

24
"[Players] describe what they do, feel, and think about the theme" (p. 180). The players
described spontaneously what they felt about trash-talk, without any special emphasis
on interpreting those descriptions. In the first phase, the interviewer attempts to
formulate what the interviewee himself understands as the meaning of what he
describes. The meaning that one brings from the discussion groups is based on that
person's perception. This perception is made up of their own experiences and
awareness.
The second phase suggests going beyond what the participant describes about
the theme or question. The interviewer tries to extend the meaning by reading between
the lines of what the participant said and creating broader contexts of the themes or
questions. In this phase, the interviewer tries to condense and interpret the meaning of
what the participant described. The interviewer must then take this meaning and
understand what is being said and conceptualize and signify the meaning which has
been the object (trash-talking) of the themes, questions or inquiries (see Kvale, 1983, p.
181). This phase involves a hermeneutic understanding, or a knowledge which reveals
the meaning of human expression.
The third phase of qualitative analysis, for this study, involves a personal
observation. This phase draws out specific features of the setting that may enhance the
two previous phases. These observations generally come from facial expressions, other
gestures that appear to express an attitude, and actual arrangements in the setting
environment. Polkinghorne (1992) describes this form of interpretation as actions,
which include linguistic and non-linguistic expressions as well as bodily movements
(p. 216).
In the thematic interpretation of the transcripts, the actual discussions reveal the
three phases described by Kvale (1983), as they arise with each team. The "U" stands
for what the participant understands as the meaning of his perception. The "I" stands
for the interviewer's interpretation of the interviewees' statements; The "O" stands for

25
the interviewer’s observations and notes during the focus group discussion. The
observations were noted as the participants gave feedback and expressed their own
actions.
Critical Interpretation

When data collection from the questionnaires and the focus groups of each team
were completed and thematized, a more critical interpjetative view was developed which
compared and contrasted the results, interpreting developed themes that depict
relationships between trash-talking and the players, and what caused the trash-talking
to shift into physical aggression. This critical interpretative view can be very positive
when combined with the quantitative and qualitative results (see Smith, 1994, p. 148149).
Critical analysis attempts to gain access to the lived experience of trash-talking,
then interprets that experience narratively (see Smith & Martinez, 1992; Van Manen,
1990). Critical analysis is concerned with describing and interpreting existential
accounts of lived experiences. Before I can interpret the player's accounts, I must first
come to terms with my own lived experiences of trash-talking. By confronting my own
experiences with the data obtained, I have a more critical sense of what is possible from
the analysis. The critical interpretation is the final step in the methodology, and it brings
me back to the questions that motivated my original interest in the trash-talk
phenomenon (see Van Manen, 1990, p. 64).
Certain aspects of the trash-talking phenomenon have caused some concerns
with the players, coaches, officials, fans, and media, as previously discussed in this
study. Critical Interpretation can address these concerns. Two types of concerns are
addressed in this study. First, the mental capability (tolerance) a player has to
withstand an opponent's trash-talk and possibly retaliate with some of his own. For
example, some (weak-minded) players blame biased language (trash-talking) on their
so-called violent behavior and actions. Second, the lack of understanding of the

26
phenomenon, and its perception as a problem that should be alleviated, can be
culturally biased; that is, trash-talking is developed out of inner-city youths (mainly
Blacks) playing basketball. These factors give trash-talking its negative perception.
As a former basketball player in the PSAC Western conference, I was often
exposed to trash-talk. Being a receiver and sender of trash-talk, I developed personal
observations of its effects, significance, and reasons. This critical interpretation
enhances the results of the qualitative and quantitative data research. In short, the
critical interpretation takes into account my own lived-experiences, the experiences of
the players interviewed, and the literature reviewed on trash-talking in chapter one.
Although critical interpretation relies heavily on the participants' experiences and
how they relate to the observer. As Van Manen (1990) states, "We gather other
people's experiences because they allow us to become more experienced ourselves" (p.
62). Thus, in many respects, this study reports not only on the experiences of selected
Division II basketball players, but also adds to my own depth of understanding of that
which I participated in for five years in college. This existential dimension is an
important part of the critical interpretation.

CHAPTER 3
Trash-talking Results

In general, everything went well during both the quantitative and qualitative data
collection. The players and coaches involved showed their support and willingness to
help. Some were interested in seeing how others in the conference felt. The project
gave many of them a chance to talk about how they felt about trash-talking. The teams
met in the comfort of their own environments, for example, in locker rooms, meeting/film
rooms, and coaches' offices. All the players involved seemed relaxed and willing to
discuss their positive and negative experiences of trash-talking, even though all players
did not speak.
Meetings with the individual teams were scheduled within similar time frames.
Three of the five schools met after basketball practice. One school met between
practices and the last school met on an off day established by the coach. Unfortunately
all six teams could not be interviewed. One team was excluded (SU) because of
scheduling difficulty. After each session, the players were quick to inquire about when
the thesis would be completed so they could read it and see how their fellow studentathletes' responses compared to their own.
Demographic factors were taken into consideration when gathering the data,
since as discussed previously, these factors appear to have an influence on how much
a person trash-talks. There were an equal number of Black participants as there were
White. Actually,- 50 percent of the participants were Black and 48.4 percent were White
(see Figure 1, appendix C).6 The other 1.6 percent were classified as "Other." Along
with this statistic, 66.1 percent of the participants were raised in a city/suburban type
area, as opposed to 33.9 percent having grown up in a country/small town area (see
Figure 2). Of the Black participants, 83.9 percent were from the city/suburban area. Of
6 All Figures are listed in appendix C.

27

28
this 83.9 percent 64.5 percent were from the city (urban) area alone (see Figure 3).
Overall, players from the city (urban) area were the highest representation of all areas,
ranking at 37.1 percent (see Figure 2a).
Similar communication patterns persisted throughout the focus group discussions
among the five teams. Each team had a common number of players willing to provide
feedback to the focus group discussions. A range of three to five players frequently
offered feedback in each group. Of the five teams, only two had a White participant
constantly providing feedback to the focus group.
Throughout each focus group discussion, these few participants eagerly gave
responses, laughed, offered solutions and insight in every situation. The three to five
participants most frequently responding seemed to take turns answering questions and
offering insight. These participants would interact freely with each other when
expressing how they felt about trash-talking and arguing with one another. Since Black
players dominated the discussion, questions were directed specifically to White players
to get them involved with the discussion, and to encourage them to express their points
of view. Most White players would not elaborate on their answers, so the questions
would be extended in hopes that they would extend their answers. A reason for the
limited responses from the White participants may have been a result of the ethnicity
associated with the researcher; White players may have been inhibited. The attempts to
get the White participants involved came at, or close to, the end of the discussions. The
direct question appeared as, "What about you, do you trash-talk?" Some White
participants elaborated on their answers, but as one White player from Cal commented,
"I don't say much."
Both individual players rated themselves and each coach rated his players on a
five-point scale of how frequently a player talked trash. These two ratings were
combined to yield the composite rating of trash-talk for each player. The overall mean
rate was 2.39. For this study, high and low trash-talkers were identified according to a

29
mean split. If a player's composite rate was greater than 2.39, he was labeled as a high
trash-talker and if a player's composite rate was lower than 2.39, he was labeled as a
low trash-talker. The response to the self-rate questions was not 100 percent, only 88.7
percent of the participants answered the self-rate question. Thus if each player would
have self-rated himself the total number of "high" trash-talkers would have been
affected.
The quantitative data are presented in Figures 1-7, in Appendix C, and analyzed
with the qualitative data in subsequent sections. First, I wish to present briefly some of
the more salient results taken from the quantitative measures.
Overall, the quantitative data showed no significant signs of escalating a trashtalking situation into physical aggression; seven out of the twenty-two questions ranked
higher than 30 percent. The highest response of always/frequentiy (46.8 %) was from
talk centering around a person's parents. The lowest response of always/frequentiy
(1.6%) came from talk centering around a person's neighborhood. After reviewing the
data the "occasionally" response was eliminated because it showed no significant
direction of "high" or "low." Thus, always/frequently and never/rarely were combined to
create the data for analyzing.
The survey was divided into four different categories, the intent being to examine
what motivated players to escalate trash-talking into physical aggression. These
categories are labeled "Self" when the trash-talk centers around self, "Ability", when the
trash-talk centers around a person's ability, "Game", when the trash-talk is
contextualized within the game, and "Family Members" when the trash-talk is centered
around a person's family members. The questions that indicate players may
always/frequently respond with physical aggression came from the "Family Members"
(25.8%) category and the "Game" (20.9%) category, respectively (see Figure 7 for the
presentation of this quantitative data. The actual questions for each category appear in
Table 3). The only other question that appeared in a different category that had

30
significance was the race-related question, which appeared in the "Self" (12.1%)
category. The race-related question (30.9%) was the only question, greater than thirty
percent, that appeared in a different category. These responses are contextualized,
along with other individual item responses, in the following sections.
Two types of Trash-Talk

While in the focus groups, the participants watched three clips of "White Men
Cant Jump" (1992). The first clip shown was an example of trash-talking techniques
used after an outstanding play and is similar to "scene one" presented in the
introduction. All teams agreed that the scene was exaggerated, the stoppage in play
was exaggerated, and such exaggerated talking only appears in and around the
playground. One player said, "That is just ridiculous." Another player responded, "[No],
not that much, especially not in college." Similar responses surfaced from team to team.
Another player said, "That type of trash-talk doesn't go on in college basketball." Even
though the scene was exaggerated, all teams agreed that trash-talking existed in
college basketball. (Trash-talking terms and phrases are listed in Table 1, appendix D).7
As a result of the focus group discussions, the players described two types of talk
for trash-talking: "free-talk" and "sneaky-talk." These two terms were developed and
defined by the players. In free talk, the talk is more free-flowing, anything goes, players
are more exposed, more willing to talk, and the talk is more acceptable socially to
escalate into physical aggression. Sneaky-talk is more what a player called, "on the
down-low," which means that the talk is sneakier, more heard and less seen, more
hidden. A player mentioned, with sneaky-talk,"... They (opposing players) will get in
your face and say things to you or get in your ear and say [things]." Another player
mentioned, "It is not as much free-talk." As players mentioned, in sneaky-talk, players
are not as quick to escalate the trash-talk into physical aggression.

7 All Tables are listed in appendix D.

31
Most players were quick to note that free-talk tends to be more exaggerated than
sneaky-talk and more related to (the literature discussed earlier as) playing the dozens
(The differences are shown in Table 2). The players suggest, the main difference
between the two situations is that in sneaky-talk there is more "at stake", "or on the line."
That is, the consequences are much higher and more profound in situations of sneakytalk. There is more on the line besides hurt pride, hurt feelings, and attacks on a
person's self-esteem and self-concept than in free-talk. A player from SRU said, "In
[the] playground [if] a dude trash-talks, you might get into it physically but in a
(organized) game you have a lot on the line, you are not going to get into a dude's
face... like you would on the playground." These types of situations are quick to
escalate into physical aggression in free-talk because the consequences are minimal,
i.e., they are restricted to the individual and do not reflect on the team. At most, a fight
will occur from the free-talk used on the playground.
Before escalating sneaky-talk into physical aggression, a player must take
several different scenarios into consideration. These scenarios may result in playing
time decreasing as established by the player's coach, receiving a technical foul or
getting ejected from the present game and maybe the following game. Ultimately,
retaliating with physical aggression in these trash-talking scenarios can cause significant
damage to a person's performance and participation, as well as affecting the team.
Retaliation can cause teammates to bicker with each other, frustrating each other
because of the related trash-talk. A player mentioned, "It hurts when you have your own
teammates cuss you out. It will cause some problems." One has to acknowledge what
the consequences are for "free" trash-talking and how they will affect one's teammates.
The importance of the game may be another reason a player withdraws from or
attempts to control the use of free-talk in organized basketball. As one player
mentioned, in sneaky-talk, "It depends [on] what is on the line for [using] it (physical

32
aggression)." Then a question was raised about the PSAC championship being on the
line. The player replied, "You have to keep your composure, I would say."
The referees play an important part in the structure and expression of sneakytalk. Obviously, there are no referees in free-talk to control the trash-talking. In freetalk, a player does not have to limit what he says or how loud he says it. One player
said, "When the refs (referees) are not around you can say anything you want!" The
NCAA also took measures to stop the frequent occurrence of trash-talking in hopes of
eliminating the severe retaliation with physical aggression. In 1991, the NCAA
developed penalties for fighting and taunting another player during a basketball game.
Under the referees' discretion, a player who is caught taunting or fighting with an
opposing player is charged with a technical foul and warned to control his actions. If the
player persists with the same conduct often being sanctioned, he would be ejected from
the game and would not be allowed to play in the following game. At the start of the
1992-93 season, the NCAA expanded the rule incorporating the use of profanity,
abusive and obscene language. This expansion was done in an effort to curtail verbal
misconduct by players (Nichols & Weston, 1993).
During the focus groups, the NCAA's concerns were raised with the teams. They
were asked how it affects the use of trash-talk. The teams were aware of the ruling, but
they said that it did not control the trash-talk. One player said," I think it (the rules)
controls the fighting, but I don't think it controls trash-talking." A teammate also added,
"When the refs actually tell you to shut-up, you just talk shit (talk trash) quietly." Many
players agreed that the trash-talk before the new rule was more open and conspicuous,
more like ’free-talk" on the playground. The new rule just enhanced the use of "sneakytalk." Generally, players agreed that the new rule influences the sneaky-talk by saying,
"Yeah, with the new taunting rule, it is kinda (kind of) low-key. You will hear it but it will
not be as vocal as it was." One player openly expressed his unfamiliarity with the rule.

33
He said, "I [have] never seen anything go ... that far, not around here anyway, maybe
on TV." Thus sneaky-talk has become more sophisticated.
Another difference between free- and sneaky-talk is the frequency with which it
appears. In free-talk regardless if the opposing player is affected by it, the "high trashtalker" (as established by his previously calculated composite rate) may continue to use
trash-talk throughout the duration of the game. In sneaky-talk a person tests an
opposing player at the beginning of the game to see if the trash-talk affects him. When
<

the question was raised about when the sneaky-talk appears, one player answered, "At
the beginning (of the game), when you try to take someone's heart."
Even though the rule is incorporated in today’s college basketball and most
sneaky-talk is done at the beginning of the game, there are always exceptions to the
rule. These exceptions were expressed by four players, each of whom represented a
different team. These four players deviated from the stated norms of sneaky-talk.
These four players were also among those who gave frequent responses and feedback
to the focus group discussion. The four players openly said they use trash-talking
techniques no matter what is on the line, and no matter what the situation. Furthermore,
one player participates on the lowest mean rated, trash-talking team (see Figure 4).
Overall, these atypical participants responses were, "That's just the type of player I am."
Two of the four exceptions said they would continue to talk-trash even if their
team was losing. These players reinforced their views on using trash-talking techniques
in any situation. One of the players said; "I think, well for me, I've been talking-shit
since I've been on the playground ... that is my game, talking-shit. I even talk-shit
when I lose. People say that is wrong [but] I talk-shit when I lose too! I think it [builds] a
lot of confidence." The other player did not seem to think trash-talking was a problem
because to him, "everybody does it." He said that he also would talk-trash even if his
team was losing. He explained, "I talk-trash no matter what,... everybody was doing it,
everybody [does] it." This atypical player put the trash-talking phenomenon in

34
perspective during the focus group discussion. He stated that no matter if a person
trash-talks all the time or some of the time, it is still trash-taik.
The individual composite rate for each of these players was significantly higher
than the overall team, mean-rate. If their mean-rate score was combined, these atypical
players would have a mean-rate of 3.97, which is 1.58 points higher than the overall
mean-rate (see Figure 5). A mean-rate of 3.97 is placed on a scale ranging from one to
five. Scores around four and five represent players who always/frequently use trashtalk. Also, the individual mean-rate was significantly higher than the overall team,
mean-rate (see Figure 5a). Therefore, these players' composite scores would classify
them as the highest trash-talkers of the study. Also, the coach-rating of these atypical
players was similar in the level of trash-talk to their respective player's self-rating.
Reasons for using Trash-Talk
One reason why a person would use trash-talking techniques is to get the other
person or opponent mad so he will not be able to perform up to his capability. One of
the high trash-talking players said, "if I see somebody [is] scared or weak, if you talk to
them they will get out of their game quick (be affected by the trash-talk)... Especially
when people do not talk back. That is when you know you got them." He continued, "I
think they are scared, if they do not say nothing back." The players who constantly
participated in the focus group discussion spoke about the idea of getting into a "player’s
mind," "playing with their heads," or "playing a psyche game." These types of phrases
were constantly used when talking about the reasons for using trash-talking techniques.
"Playing a psyche game" and related phrases is defined as making the opponent lose
focus on the tasks at hand, and start focusing on what the trash-talker is doing and
saying. One player from CU mentioned, "One of the reasons that motivates a player to
talk trash is to play a psyche game with somebody else, to take them out of their game."
Playing a psyche game can get an opponent so worried about the trash-talker that he
pays more attention to what the trash-talker is doing rather than concentrating on

35
helping his team win. As a result, the receiver of the trash-talk will try to do more things
because he is so frustrated by the trash-talk. The player may start forcing shots, not
involving his teammates, or stop playing defense. A player mentioned, "If [my
teammate]... trash-talks to his man saying, 'you cant do this,' 'you can't do that,' his
man just might try to play outside [of] his (own) game ... Start doing stuff he doesn't
normally do."
Several players touched on tapping in on the opponents "inner-self (selfconcept). A person's self-esteem, self-concept and tolerance is tested when playing a
psyche game. As mentioned earlier, a person can test an opponent at the beginning of
the game. If the receiver of the trash-talk fails the test, he is labeled as "scared" by the
trash-talker. Furthermore, the receiver of the talk may escalate the trash-talking into
physical aggression that he receives at the beginning of the game.
Besides the dominate reason presented, the participants also mentioned that
trash-talking can build self-confidence as a sender or receiver. Several players agreed
that trash-talking was a source for building confidence. One player mentioned, "For
some people, it helps their game, it hypes them up to play better." Most players stated
that trash-talking would make them play better if it were addressed to them during a
game. They would not escalate this into physical aggression, but would use it as a
confidence builder. In each team's case, at least one player said trash-talk builds
confidence. An IUP player said, "I know [when] somebody [is] talking-trash against me,
I just commence to busting their ass!" He added, it motivates you to play better. This
apparent contradiction to the earlier discussion about motive to trash-talk, i.e., to get an
opponent mad by breaking down his tolerance, reflects a player's self-image. A player's
ideal self-image may include tolerance to combat receiving trash-talk, and may also
include a capability to break down another's tolerance.
Another player said he actually builds confidence by talking trash himself. He
does not need an opponent to talk trash to him. He expressed that he is self-motivated

36
by his own personal trash-talk. He noted, "If I’m talking, I stay hyped throughout the
game." The talk is perceived as being or having a value in itself for most players. Most
players, especially the atypical ones, feel that both reasons for sending and receiving
trash-talk should be incorporated in a person's perceived self-image. Thus, the
contradictive motives for trash-talking, i.e., building tolerance and trying to break down
another's tolerance, is viewed as a compliment to a person's self-image. Another
person said, "If you're having a good game you are going to talk trash, but if you are out
there bricking, going zero for twenty you are not going to talk shit."
Two players mentioned another reason for using trash-talking techniques. One
of the players said specifically that others talk trash in order, "to compensate for skill
they don't have." A person may talk trash because he does not have the physical ability
to compete with his opponent; in this situation, he may resort to using trash-talking
techniques. The other player, representing a different team, related positively to this
reason and said, "If [a person] can't beat somebody physically, you (that person) can try
to beat them mentally." The participants seemed to think that this occurred more
frequently in free-talk than in sneaky-talk.
Even though these reasons for trash-talking frequently fueled the focus group
conversations, every team agreed that the situation will and can be reversed to affect
the trash-talker as well. If you are talking trash to a person and he is turning the talk into
a confidence builder for himself, then it creates a different situation. For example, if a
person starts to talk to his opposing player and his opposing player starts to score points
for his team, then the trash-talk would have an adverse effect. One player mentioned,
"If they are scoring on me it is a different case, I better shut-up because I'm getting
scored on." Another player said, "You have to know who you can trash-talk to and who
you can't." One teammate agreed, "Sometimes it is who you trash-talk to. You can't
trash-talk to everybody because it don't work." When the trash-talker receives the
adverse affect, a player said, "Eventually [he will] shut-up. If you are talking a lot of

37 '
trash to this guy and he is just taking you to the hole and scoring on you and looking into
your face with a silly smile; you would be like shit, I might as well just shut-up."
The Black participants agreed that more often than not, if a person does not
retaliate with some trash-talk of his own, then he.is labeled "scared," but in limited
cases, a person may not respond and start doing positive things on the basketball court
as a result of the trash-talk. In this case, the trash-talker received the inverse effect.
Unique situations can occur when an individual reacts to the trash-talk. A player
mentioned that if a person quietly responds to the trash-talk, it does not mean he does
not use it or is negatively affected by it. The player said, in some instances, "The quiet
person [can] talk mad (a lot of) shit."
Some of the White players who participated in the focus group discussions said
they thought trash-talking was a detriment to a player who used it. Most of them
pictured a player being affected adversely when using trash-talking techniques. A
player from LHU said, "People [who] talk-trash draw attention to themselves and make
idiots of themselves and get beat (by their opponent)." The Black players on the team
quickly spoke up and agreed that could happen, but once they saw it was not affecting a
player, they said they would cease the talk.
Other reasons for trash-talking revealed in the focus group discussions were (1)
to motivate their own teammates and, (2) to have fun and release stress. All five teams
agreed, especially when trash-talking is used in practice, that it creates a fun type of
atmosphere. White players who have not previously experienced this type of verbal
communication before coming to college can be exposed to frequent amounts of trashtalk in practice to prepare them for the games. Witnessing trash-talk on a frequent basis
will allow a person to have a better understanding of how it works, and the different
situations in which it works best. One player said, "Some of it is like your whole team
atmosphere. If ya’ll talk a lot of trash in practice... you are going to be inclined to talk
in the game." He added, "As a team, in practice we do it for fun, in a game it is

38
serious-----" Several teammates agreed, and said that trash-talk develops from being
competitive.
Boundary Settings : Physical Annressinn

As already noted, trash-talk in a "sneaky-talk" atmosphere starts at the beginning
of the game. A person tries to find that sensitive spot of an opposing player in the hope
that the person will be affected by the talk. If he succeeds, the trash-talker perceives
himself to have gained some psychological advantage. Some players will test specific
opposing players with several statements to see what will affect him/them. The specific
signs that he has been affected, prior to physical aggression, are the boundaries that
the receiver of the trash-talk has set for himself. These hidden personal boundaries
vary from one player to another. Every player has a different threshold, and if a trashtalker crosses this boundary, then physical aggression may result. Thus, certain players
"test" these boundaries with selected opponents.
The quantitative data in conjunction with the qualitative data established some
boundaries that are common to most players of this study. These boundaries are: (1)
trash-talk centering around a person's parents, (2) competing against a rival school, (3)
continuing the talk when the receiver is defeated and the game is out of reach, and (4)
fouling a person intentionally after sending or receiving trash-talk. These boundaries
represent the highest probability of inciting physical aggression. However, crossing any
single boundary very seldom causes situations to escalate into physical aggression.
When the boundaries are combined the probability of inciting physical aggression may
increase. For example, competing with a rival school would not in itself be a factor
because most players said that every school in the conference is a rival school. If,
however, one is competing against a rival school, and an opponent continues to talk
trash when the game is out of reach for the receiver of the talk, incentive to respond with
physical aggression may exist or increase.

39
Thus, assuming that most games are against rival schools when the trash-talk is
centered around a person's parents, 46.6 percent said this would cross their established
boundary and physical aggression would always/frequently occur (see Figure 6). The
focus group discussion positively related to what the quantitative data revealed. One
player said, "If they say something about your mother it is time to throw (fight)." He
continued to say that it does not stop at the mother; any reference to a person in the
family will potentially cross the boundary and cause physical aggression to occur. A
significant number of participants said they may retaliate with physical aggression when
the talk centered around their brother(s) and/or sister(s) (see Figure 6a).
Several players in the focus groups agreed that trash-talking when the game was
out of reach and they were defeated was the quickest way for a situation to escalate into
physical aggression. Even though not expressed this way on the surveys, this fact was
constantly and openly expressed in the focus groups. Players generally agreed that this
was unsportsman-like and unethical. A player from CU really despised the fact that a
person would stoop so low to humiliate an opponent. He said that he would retaliate
with physical aggression if someone continued to talk trash to him and the game was •
clearly out of reach for his team. He also said, "I wouldn't think you would try to annoy
somebody. Once it gets to that point, that is where you draw the line." One player put
his team in the winning position and said, "Like I said, if the team is alright and they
aren’t talking anything, and we are blowing them out, we (the team) say nothing. Be a
sportsman!" One player mentioned, "That is when it is time to fight... I hate to lose so I
[would] be ready to fight when I lose."
Overall, 38.7 percent said that they would always/frequently respond with
physical aggression more readily when playing their rival school (refer to Figure 6).
When asked this question in the focus group, all the teams said that every team in the
PSAC West conference was a rival school. Thus most game situations present the
possibility for physical aggression to occur. This was expressed both in the focus group

40
discussions and on the questionnaires. The quantitative data showed that players
would always/frequently retaliate with physical aggression when an opponent
intentionally fouled them as a result of the opponents trash-talk (36.6 percent of the
time) and when the opponent intentionally fouled them as a result of his trash-talk (30.7
percent of the time) (refer to Figure 6-6a).
One player was very disgusted when talking about the intentional fouls. He said
intentional fouls are more intimidating than the trash-talk that triggered the fouls. He
stated, "I'm going to tell you what is intimidating, when you know you are going to the
hole and they cant block your dunk, and they jump with you or grab you out of the air."
As a result of this comment, he posed a question to one of his teammates. He asked,
"Now, which one would you rather be involved with?... Of course the one when
somebody is talking." He continued to express his concerns by saying, "The ones that
make me mad is the ones that you trash-talk to and you are going for a lay-up and they
run into you and knock you down." Another person was quick to show his disgust with
the intentional fouls. He said, "If somebody fouls me hard, I'm going to get them
back... I'm going to foul them hard back! It may not be the next play down court, but
I'm going to get them in the game." Of the high trash-talking participants, all four stated
that physical aggression may occur when competing against a rival school and all the
participants said they would retaliate with physical aggression when the receiver
intentionally fouled them as a result of trash-talk.
The Black participants talked about expanding trash-talk and incorporating it from
the playground. A player made a general comment, "People from the city tend to talk
more than people from small-towns ... Because life is more aggressive in the city."
Another teammate added, "I learned [to talk trash] from the playground ... I learned
from people trash-talking to me." Thus players from these types of settings are more
exposed to it and have incorporated "free-talk" into "sneaky-talk" to fit the college game.

41
A player from Cal said, "Well, it is handed down, you hear older people talking and you
just pick it up.”
In the focus group, White players mentioned that they were first introduced to
trash-talking when they arrived at college. Most Whites acknowledge the differences in
the environments where they grew up and these players said that trash-talk was not
used in that environment. One player said, "That is the thing [too], you guys (his Black
teammates) come from the city." Another player related his experiences to the previous
one. He said, "No one from my school did that." He continued to say, "[If] my highschool coach sees you trash-talking you will sit down ... The minute I open my mouth, it
is like time to come out (of the game)." A Black teammate replied, "See, at my school
nobody would have been playing at all, everybody would have been sitting down."
Trash-talk would not escalate to physical aggression simply from "bragging."
Participants agreed that if a player brags about his skills and abilities and proceeds to
successfully display these skills and abilities he has established a form of respect from
his opposing players. The trash-talker thus establishes himself as a good player with
his peers. Players agreed that physical aggression will not be the result of the brag and
the quantitative data supported these findings. Another person mentioned, "Nine times
out of ten, on the [playground], the person who is talking the most trash usually is the
best player." Several of his teammates quickly agreed to his statement.
Only 9.7 percent said they would always/frequently respond with physical
aggression when an opponent trash-talks and brags to them (refer to Figure 6a). One
player from SRU said, "Before you could play basketball you [knew] people out there
(on the playground) that [were] good and they talked-trash." Another player said he
would give his opposing player respect and he mentioned that he would say, "Damn, he
[is] telling me he is going to do this to me, and he [is] doing it!"
As a result from the focus group discussions and the quantitative data, similar
boundaries were established from team to team. As presented earlier, these are the

42
boundaries that are tested at the beginning of the game in sneaky-talk environments
and throughout the game in free-talk environments. It is when these trash-talking
boundaries are crossed that physical aggression may occur. When the trash-talker can
get his opponent to respond to his trash-talk with physical aggression, he feels that he
has then gained a psychological advantage. These boundaries are related to the
"animal-play" reviewed in the literature. In "animal-play" when the boundary is crossed
the "nip" turns into a "bite."
These boundaries are also established by the difference between sneakyorganized) talk and free- (playground) talk (refer to Table 2). When free-talk
consciously or unconsciously invades sneaky-talk, physical aggression may be the
result. For example, the mental aspect of the sneaky-talk may be established between
the two opposing players, but when one player decides to incorporate or interject more
physical treatment, then physical aggression may be a form of retaliation. When the talk
becomes more personal and not related to the context of the game, the free-talk is
intervening with the sneaky-talk. An example of this is when the trash-talk is centered
around a person's parents. This crosses a person's boundaries and is not in the context
of the game itself.
Some players mentioned that they were frequently exposed to free-talk, thus their
tolerance of talk may be high. It may take several tries before a person is affected by
this talk because of his high tolerance. Several players related this tolerance of trashtalk to mental toughness. A player from SRU said, "Some people just ain't (are not)
mentally tough ... Some people think [in] the game of basketball you have to [be]
physically strong and everything, but I mean you have to [be] mentally tough too, to play
the game." Therefore, those people who are not mentally tough are the ones who are
frequently affected by the trash-talk and as a result, use physical aggression.
Another player said it depends on how strong the individual is if physical
aggression will be the result of an opponent’s trash-talk. He added, "If he's (the receiver

43
of the trash-talk) one of those weak minded people then of course it is going to turn into
violence. But if he is strong (mentally tough), he will play over it." Several players said
they built up tolerance to combat the effects of trash-talking. They said they were able
to build it up from being exposed to it in "free-talk" on the playground. Players
mentioned having high self-esteem could enhance tolerance. If self-esteem is high, and
one has confidence in his ability, he will not have any trouble handling trash-talking. As
one player stated, "I know I can play the game (basketball). I know I can play, so why
should I get mad." Another player spoke about his confidence, he said, "Just let your
game speak for itself."
The frequent form of retaliation or escalating a situation to physical aggression is
throwing an elbow at the opposing player. This type of physical aggression was
continually referred to in the focus group discussion. However, this type of physical
aggression is not as blatant. The players relate this type of physical aggression to
"sneaky-retaliation." The severity of this sneaky type of retaliation ranged from team to
team. Sneaky-retaliation appears in a form like sneaky-talk, unseen, inconspicuous,
and hidden from the referees. One team mentioned that they would throw an elbow but
not with the intention of hurting an opposing player. They said, "Yeah, I'd give you a
little bow (elbow)... Not really to hurt the person ... Just [to] let him know what is up."
Tripping an opponent while running down the court was another physically aggressive
tactic that players may use when the trash-talk escalates. A player from LHU said
physical aggression was his whole game. He also said, "You (to a teammate) played in
an area with all athletes, I played in an area with dudes like me. [I] just ran into people."
At least one player from each of the five teams said that nonverbal gestures are
also a form of trash-talk. One of the high trash-talking players expressed his comments
on the nonverbal elements of trash-talking by saying, "That's still trash-talking to an
amount. No matter what you do, if you smile, clap your hands or whatever." He added
that the threshold is different from person to person. Another player agreed that

44
nonverbal elements were a factor in talking-trash and he said, "A lot of times you don't
have to say anything just look at them." His teammate added, "If I dunk and get an and
one (a foul plus the basket, refer to Table 1), I just start laughing at them that makes
them real mad." Players realized that non-verbal elements are also classified as trashtalk. Several players agreed that these non-verbal gestures may cause more damage
than their actual verbal counterparts.
Even though there are specific reasons and situations that a person would trashtalk and boundaries are occasionally crossed in a game, all players said that trashtalking is part of the game. One player said, "So I trash-talk, and if somebody is going
to beat me up or knock me down [because of this], then I have to accept that penalty."
Not only did the players say it was a part of the game, it is also an important and integral
part of the game. A player added, "It is an integral part of the game. Like I said,
everybody does it-----" Two players from CU discussed how important trash-talk was.
They said; "If you take that (trash-talking) away (one player shaking his head in disgust).
You take away the mind. You cant play the game quiet!" A player is compelled to say
something to himself, his teammates, and/or his opponents. If trash-talking is taken
away, the "mind" used to play the game will also be taken away.
Several players said that no matter what an outside (NCAA rules, media, critics)
or inside (Referees/Coaches) force does, nobody will be able to destroy trash-talking.
Two IUP players took turns adding statements about the efforts to destroy trash-talking.
They said, "[There] is nothing you can do about it. I don't think the referees should try to
put... a hold on it unless, it gets crazy. Even though coaches try to calm it down, they
cannot really control it. It ain't nothing you can do about it. Because it is going to
happen anyway."
Not only is it a part of the game, but a Black participant said, "For some it is like a
way of life." One player said, "[Trash-talk] is definitely from the city. A teammate
replied, "It is different from a little town." Most Black players said trash-talk appears

45
everywhere just in different ways. A player from IUP said, "I mean it is competitive, you
will see it everywhere. If you are in the business world, they are competitors; you are
trying to get an edge on someone else." The participants mentioned that trash-talk
appears in other sporting events, for example, football. It also appears in other social
activities, for example, card games, video games, and in classrooms. One player
summed it up by saying, "It is all a part of being competitive."

CHAPTER 4
Critical Interpretation
As earlier researchers have stated, verbal aggression is treated as a destructive
form of communication because of the psychological pain produced by it. As examined
in its trash-talking form, verbal aggressiveness can be seen as a powerful technique that
can be used to take advantage of an opponent. On the other hand, trash-talking can
also have the inverse effect on the receiver and sender alike, with the sender just as
likely to receive negative effects.
Even though trash-talking is related to verbal aggressiveness in structure, the
phenomenon is also related to communication competence. If one is confident about
his own abilities and behaviors, verbally aggressive messages will have less likelihood
of leading to physical aggression. Relating trash-talking to competence will limit most of
the ties it has to verbal aggressiveness, allowing more people to understand its effects,
significance, and reasons.
Communication competence is defined by Onyekwere, Rubin and Infante (1991)
as "skill that is context-free, an attribute of the individual" (p. 36). If players do not have
the competence to combat the trash-talk, sneaky-retaliation may occur and incite
physical aggression. As with trash-talking, communication competence is better
conceptualized as a situation-specific occurrence unless, of course, a person is an
atypical8 player like those four discussed in this study. Thus, better understanding of
the trash-talk will help us understand the observed behaviors of the senders and
receivers. The association trash-talk has with verbal aggressiveness already
preconditions an unfamiliar person to view trash-talk as being a negative part of
basketball. With this precondition, (negative) sanctions may be placed on trash-talk with
the intent of limiting its occurrence in collegiate and professional basketball.
8 The highest trash-talkers of this study. The labels given to these players result from the focus group discussion, the
survey questions, and their respective composite rate.

46

47
I agree with research cited previously (see Taylor, 1992, p. 83) that labels trashtalking as an "art" form. This art form now involves specific skill and strategy to gain the
best results from its use. Like playing the dozens, the art of trash-talking is seen as a
verbal game. However, Percelay, Ivey, and Dweck (1994) say that trash-talking is a
form all its own and the trash-talk used in college and professional basketball is not
related to playing the dozens. They state:
Trash-talking and basketball are becoming as synonymous as fighting and
hockey. It is important to note that "trash-talk" is not a version of the dozensrather, just a prelude to the game. On the streets (playground), if a ball player
insults an opponent's shooting, a war of words may escalate into a battle of the
dozens. Unlike the dozens, trash-talk has no rules, defined sentence structure,
audience inter-play, or rhythm. Nevertheless, this form of verbal sparring offers
insights into the power of words (p. 164).
Although this may be true, I believe that "playing the dozens" gave birth to trashtalking, and from its inception trash-talking began establishing its own independence.
Although trash-talking has the centrality of oral expressiveness of the Black culture as
the dozens, its significant differences can be seen in what Percelay, Ivey and Dweck
(1994) have noted. These noted differences are very distinct. Trash-talking has no
rules, especially in free-talk where there are "no holds barred"; anything goes in freetalk. The players said that they have been involved in trash-talking battles with the fans
and some say they enjoy it; but the fans are not a major factor for using trash-talking
techniques. On the other hand, audience inter-play and participation in the dozens is an
essential part of its overall effectiveness. Without a crowd to witness what is being said,
the effects of the statements are weakened.
Nevertheless, these different verbal games come from a much larger common
root. Playing the dozens exemplifies the expressive life-style, especially for young Black
males, which relates to why trash-talk is so common to the Black participants in the

48
focus groups. Majors and Billson (1992) explain the verbal style that relates to the
trash-talking techniques discovered in the researched data: "African-American culture
has often been referred to as an oral culture, one rich with storytelling and verbal
repartee." They also say, "The power of words to comfort, elevate status, defend,
sexually arouse, and convince is well-respected" (p. 91; emphasis added). This
emphasis also denotes the role and power of speaking as it relates to basketball and the
trash-talking phenomenon.
Bruhn and Murray (1985) state that, "Oral communication is a major vehicle for
the continuation of Black culture" (p. 487). Trash-talking and the dozens are two
aspects of a larger folk-narrative tradition, which creates differences in Black and White
perceptions of their specific use (Bruhn & Murray, 1985). To form a specific oral pattern,
striving to be colorful and stylish is a key to communicating effectively in Black culture.
Becoming a colorful oralist has roots in the African heritage, in this heritage, Africans
would concentrate on colorfully articulating certain words and phrases when talking
about historical successes and struggles. This was then passed on to the slavery era,
where slaves would put emphasis on certain words as they spoke so the meaning could
be comprehended only by other slaves. Now, this type of speaking has passed to
modern African-American times, where the significance is not necessarily on what you
say, but on how you say it—a style of communication that has been adopted from the
African heritage, where African-Americans strive to be articulate, subtle and colorful with
their communication (Kochman, 1981, p. 152).
This specific style gives overwhelming power to words and phrases. For
example, Martin Luther King's style of expression gave power to his non-violent protests
of retaliation over White supremacy. Malcolm X's style of expression gave power to his
"by any means necessary" statements of retaliation over racial over-tones. Even though
the means of retaliation are contrasting, their expressive stylo of communicating gave
power to their statements and led to positive sociological change. This oratorical culture

49
is also exemplified in preachers of Black churches. Their emotional and excited style of
expression gives a powerful message that can be understood from generation to
generation.
This powerful style also exists in trash-talking. In my opinion, one of the premier
trash-talkers in the NBA is Reggie Miller. His style of expressiveness is also powerful,
because if a player allows himself to get involved with Miller's expressiveness, Miller
may have the power to change the outcome of a basketball game. Trash-talking is just
another dimension of this oratorical Black culture that puts emphasis on how colorfully a
person can say and express the talk (Majors & Billson, 1992). This emphasis goes
beyond the word's actual denotative meaning, and this extension may enable trash-talk
to cross the boundary of another player and have a negative effect on him, even if the
meaning "content" is innocuous; the significance of the expression itself affects the
opposing player's tolerance.
From my basketball experience, many Blacks have a significant advantage over
their White counterparts because of their exposure to trash-talk at an early age.
Furthermore, White players who have the same exposure to trash-talk are better
adjusted to it, even if they say they do not engage in its use. In this study, there was a
substantial amount of difference between the Black and White relationships to trashtalking. The Black participants believed in the positive effects of trash-talking and
acknowledged the adverse effects. The White participants believed the adverse effects
of trash-talking outweigh the positive effects. The major difference was based on the
environment and living conditions of each participant. Many Whites expressed their
limited experience with trash-talk because they did not engage in it where they grew up.
Black participants, on the other hand, frequently experienced trash-talk, not only on the
playground, but in everyday activities. One Black player said, "I did not know anything
was wrong with trash-talk until I came to school (college)." For many Blacks, it is just a
way of life.

50
Racial differences of the phenomenon have created political problems for those
involved in controlling or eliminating trash-talk in college and professional basketball.
Trying to rid trash-talk from the game of basketball is just another way for White society
to suppress Black society. When Blacks deviate from the norm, i.e., using trash-talking
techniques, their White counterparts automatically assume that this is wrong. As
Kochman (1981) states, "If dimensional differences between Blacks and Whites are not
taken into account and only White standards for normal growth and development are
used as reference, problems arise when assessments of Black individuals are made" (p.
10). The most profound racial statement about trash-talk is that it has a negative effect
and takes away from the game. I am in agreement with most Black players who say
that trash-talking is the exact opposite. These racial statements are made because the
owners of these statements do not understand the trash-talking phenomenon. People
base their feelings and beliefs on prejudged and preconceived statements that relate
trash-talking to verbal aggressiveness.
When Whites feel that "majority" standards are the best, a racial-mentality re­
surfaces. The word "majority" plays an important part in basketball. If "majority"
standards are best, why is trash-talking in college and professional basketball negative?
The "majority" of the college and professional basketball players are Black. However, in
this case, the Black players are still labeled as the "minority." Understanding the trashtalking and the difference between White and Black oralistic culture can better satisfy
those who want to control it as well as those who see no problem with it. The
understanding process will make the adversaries see that trash-talking alone does not
incite physical aggression. Furthermore, fostering the psychological and playful
dimensions of trash-talking may alleviate physical aggression by battling with ability and
words instead of with fists and cheap shots. Black athletes, especially basketball
players, have introduced their oral expressiveness to competitive sports. As in
basketball, this expressiveness has transcended the game. This transcending attribute

51
has added another dimension to the "basketball culture" that invites battles of the mind
along with existing battles on the court or playground. The basketball culture is widely
accepted by Black and White players alike.
White players incorporate their background to the basketball culture also.
However, White players understand that trash-talking is part of the game and part of the
culture of basketball, going beyond the notion of a racially grounded culture. Even if
these players do not engage in its use or if they think the outcomes have an adverse
effect they recognize and to a large extent legitimize the existence of trash-talking in
college and professional basketball. Indeed, some of the better White players
incorporate trash-talking techniques into their style of play. For example, Larry Bird
became enculturated to Black styles of speaking and began using trash-talking
techniques in his days as a NBA player. As a result, he is a member of Reggie Miller's
AII-Trash-talking team.9
Critics of trash-talking also have problems when celebration goes beyond
applauding an outstanding play. Critics in college may range from the Athletic Director
to the President of any particular school. Many coaches do not criticize trash-talking
because they go beyond looking at a player as strictly an athlete. Coaches tend not to
overreact when a player indulges in trash-talk, and try to understand their players and
why particular incidents happen. Thus, coaches are more likely to understand the
cultural influences of this phenomenon than do Athletic Directors and Presidents. For
example, Coach Walcavich, head coach of the Edinboro basketball team, has stated in
personal communication that he understands where trash-talk is coming from with his
players, and tries not to overreact when the situation presents itself.
Many critics assume that people from different cultures are the same and they
should act accordingly to White norms of conduct. Often, those people in power (i.e.,
Athletic Directors and Presidents) have a difficult time admitting they do not fully
9 Reggie Miller discussed his "All-Trash-talking team" in an exclusive interview with Roy Firestone on ESPN's Up
Close.

52
understand something that is, from their perspective, unfamiliar. To legitimize their lack
of knowledge and understanding, the people who possess institutional power simply
want to eliminate the use of trash-talking. Trash-talking for Black athletes, however,
is a way to express their own power and exercise influence over others. For Blacks, to
influence others mentally on the basketball court is an adopted mechanism to exert
power without hurting themselves socially and physically because talk is less likely than
overt aggression (physical or verbal) to be perceived as a transgression of social norms.
The other political concern mentioned previously deals with "weak-minded"
players not being able to cope with the trash-talking. Many Blacks know how critics feel
about trash-talking, so these Black players use this knowledge as a "crutch" to blame
the trash-talk they receive for their physically aggressive behavior. When these "weakminded" players do not have enough tolerance built up to combat the trash-talk, the end
result is blaming the trash-talk for their physical aggressive retaliation. A good example
of this was the incident in the fourth game of the 1994 NBA series playoffs between
Chicago and New York, involving Jo-Jo English of Chicago and Derek Harper of New
York. Harper's retaliation to English's trash-talk exemplified the perfect situation where
a player blames the trash-talk for his behavior. Instead of blaming the trash-talk he
received, Harper should have placed the blame on his low tolerance level to combat the
talk. Chicago probably planned this action against Harper. English was not a integral
part of Chicago's game plan and was placed in the game to affect Harper's play
because Harper was central to New York's plan. English's trash-talk affected Harper
which made Harper react negatively with physical aggression. Ultimately Harper was
ejected from that game and suspended for the following two games. Chicago won
game four, and it seemed that they gained a slight advantage because of this incident.
However, New York eventually prevailed by winning the series 4-3.
In light of this widely publicized incident, Harper's placing of blame on trash-talk
not only causes the critics to become more hardened in their position, it also exposes a

53
player's weakness. When Harper stated that "somebody has to do something about the
talk,"10 opponents noticed that he has a low tolerance and can be affected by trash-talk.
Players will specifically try to talk trash to Harper because of his exposed weakness.
Now, Harper has to prove to himself that he can build and establish his tolerance, in
order to avoid another incident like the one that got him ejected and suspended.
Tolerance may be created or built up from frequently being exposed to the talk on
the playground or in practice. A player may be immune to what an opponent is saying
and play right through the trash-talk. The mental toughness is created because of the
constant interaction with the trash-talk from the playground and in practice. The
tolerance is also built up because of the confidence a person has in his perceived
abilities. Tolerance is an important part for limiting escalation to physical aggression.
Glenn "Doc" Rivers, guard for the New York Knicks, agrees with this point. Rivers
argues, "Trash-talking has not changed much; it's just that the level of tolerance has
fallen" (Stravinsky, 1994, p. D3). As with verbal aggression in playing the dozens, a
trash-talker will test another's ability to tolerate an apparent attack on his self-concept.
As such, trash-talking involves a risk factor.
A high trash-talker tries to get away with as much talk as possible before
suffering the consequences of verbal retaliation. From my involvement with trash-talk in
college basketball, I have experienced the range of positive and negative effects. I can
remember my tolerance being tested in free-talk where actual pushing and shoving
resulted. In college, this seldom happened because players knew that teammates,
referees, and their own perception of consequences would not allow physical
aggression to result. Thus I learned, for example, that trash-talk could build my
confidence and be a great adrenaline booster. Receiving trash-talk created a great
feeling. In my college game, I was receiving a substantial amount of trash-talk, the
tolerance I had built enabled me to ward off the negative effects and I began playing
10 Quoted from an interview with Derek Harper after the incident with Jo-Jo English on ESPN’s Sports Center.

54
better defense. As a result, I ultimately made the critical steal my team desperately
needed to win the game.
Many forces contribute to the destruction of the tolerance one builds up and
incorporate into one's self-concept. Even though "game" factors play an important part
in how much tolerance a person builds up, from my experience, other outside forces can
break down the tolerance, causing potential escalation to physical aggression. In
college, these outside factors include a person having a bad day, a person’s health
situations, and the stress he has built up before the game. As a result, the tolerance
established by an individual can be weakened by these outside forces, making it easier
for one to feel insulted. Thus, the involvement in verbal play retains the potential for
becoming serious even if the trash-talk is minimal, just as a nip can become a bite.
However, the potential for the bite does not mean we should create sanctions for the
nip.
Kochman states that "bragging" is a serious form of self-aggrandizement that
stimulates situations in which verbal play escalates into physical confrontations.
Kochman (1981) distinguishes "bragging behavior" from "boasting behavior" when he
states that boasting is making claims about one's self but not proving them. The
participants in this study related their experiences with Kochman's terminology of
"boasting." They stated that boasting behavior creates a lack of respect for a player and
may stimulate physical aggression while bragging behavior does not stimulate physical
aggression but earns respect for a player. A person gains respect as a player when he
can actually "brag" about his ability. This type of trash-talk establishes the two extremes
of the talk. Either a person will earn respect or he will "die" trying. A person can earn
the respect by saying what he is going to do, or talk about his ability and actually
proceed to do these things or display the ability. For example, a player may say to his
opponent, "I'm going to shoot this three' in your face," and he shoots the ball and scores
the basket. He may run down the court and say, "See, I told you. Now show me what

55
you got!" On the other hand, if a perspn "brags" on himself and does not succeed, it will
be hard to regain the respect from his related peers. As in the above example, if the
player missed the shot, he would only be boasting; and he will continue trying to gain
the respect he lost. On the playground, one tries to gain respect early, because if a
person has this respect from his peers, he is not "tested" as much as a person who
does not have the respect. However, in many instances, if a person continues to brag
and the game is clearly out of reach, physical aggression may occur. To the players of
this study, this bragging behavior is unsportsman-like and unethical.
Based on the data in this study, the tendency for trash-talk to escalate to physical
aggression is not frequent. Even though physical contact may occur, its overall
stimulation is not from trash-talk alone. In the PSAC Western conference the escalation
of trash-talk into physical aggression is not overwhelmingly significant. The highest
percentage of escalating a scene of trash-talk into physical aggression was related to
talking about one's parents. This is contextualized as bringing in an outside force that
creates a crossing of a person's established boundaries, turning the "nip" into the "bite."
This talk originates outside the frame established by the reasons the players come
together, to play a game of basketball. If critics wish to control trash-talk and the
potential for physical aggression, then, they should not impose silence, but talk to
players about certain trash-talk that forms outside the frame of the game itself.
I do not believe that players actually work at their trash-talking technique. I
agreed with a player when he said, "It just comes. It is not planned." Basically, when a
person hears a new and unique phrase he may incorporate it into his repertoire of trashtalk phrases (refer to Table 1). For example, "Get the burgers, Wimpy" and "Nut and
Honey" was incorporated in my repertoire of phrases two years ago. I believe that the
more a person is exposed to trash-talk, the more he indulges in it, the more one builds
up tolerance to control it, and the more one learns and hears new phrases. Most White
players incorporate trash-talk into their style of play from being exposed to it in practice.

56
The more they are exposed to the talk, the better they understand the reasons for it, and
the faster they build up the tolerance to combat it.
In my opinion, another reason for using trash-talk is, in contrast to other sports
(i.e., hockey and football), players cannot legally come into extensive physical contact
with each other. As a result, trash-talk-may be a safety outlet paralleling the physical
aggression in hockey or football. Trash-talking resembles physical contact, which
creates verbal confrontations that supplement the intensity level and the competitive
nature in a person. The level of intensity and competitiveness often results in situations
in which physical nips nearly become bites. In basketball, trash-talking is the verbal and
nonverbal communication phenomenon used to suppress, or at least modify, these
physically aggressive tendencies. In hockey and football, physical aggression is the
norm and there are no complaints about its use because it is understood as part of the
game. In basketball, trash-talking is the perceived norm, but there are complaints about
its use, even though it is part of the game.
I feel if the understanding of physical contact in hockey and football can be
transformed to the understanding of trash-talking in basketball, trash-talking will become
as acceptable as physical aggression in hockey and football. Most people who feel that
trash-talking is a negative aspect of basketball have not been in a competitive collegiate
or professional game that develops intensity, confidence, and excellence. Bredemeier
and Shields (1986) explain, "The understanding of competitive sports as an amoral
context in which behaviors are guided strictly by consideration of convention and
strategy" is the base for understanding the trash-talk phenomenon (p. 264). "Trashtalking is a way of finding out what persons are made of-whether they could keep their
decorum around peers—or a way of putting persons to the ultimate test to see how
equipped they will be in the future in coping with negative comments or situations"
(Bruhn & Murray, 1985, p. 489). A trash-talker views an opponent as one to be
influenced strategically while striving for game advantage.

57
Many excellent basketball players are "high" trash-talkers, even the recentlyretired Michael Jordan; he talked trash too. It is an integral part of the game, and for
most Blacks an integral part of life. Those who do not understand trash-talking have
prejudiced and preconceived perceptions about its effects, significance, and reasons.
This study has been an attempt to explicate trash-talking as a normative mode of
speaking in the everyday world of basketball players. Studying this communication
phenomenon also calls for future research.
This study, particularly the critical interpretative views, may cause controversy as
well as open eyes and avenues for future research. I wish to emphasize that the trashtalking phenomenon is one of many communication patterns related to African-American
culture. The better one understands the characteristics of this culture, the better the
race-relations on and off the basketball court may become. Trash-talking can be a
source for many types of research but its underlying significance lies in the different
perceptions between Black and White reality. Trash-talking reveals not only the
problem of perceived and actual physical aggression in sports, but also the problem of
racism. Even though African-American society has made enormous strides to
overcome racism, forms of it still exist and equal rights are still limited. Trash-talking is
not only a sports concern but a cultural phenomenon, with its own lexicon, norms, and
frames.
Bredemeier and Shields (1986) conducted a study on behaviors in game and
sport competition which calls for research to examine the difference between physical
aggression, intentional harm (foul) and cheap shots. In a similar vein I believe research
that investigates sneaky-aggression (retaliation) is also warranted. When officials do
not control aggressive physical contact on the basketball court, players often retaliate
with sneaky-aggression (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986, p. 264). Most fighting seems to
occur from what players describe as a cheap shot, which is physical contact made for
no reason related to the game or resulting from no (related) previous action. John

58
Starks, guard for the New York Knicks, spoke about cheap shots when he was
interviewed before his match-up with Reggie Miller, in the 1994 NBA semi-finals, and
Miller's team, the Indiana Pacers. This confrontation started in the 1993 playoffs when
the "head-butting" incident took place. Starks explained, "It was not so much of the talk
as it was the cheap shots he was trying to give off." Trash-talking is not the problem,
but a way of dealing competitively with the complexities of the game.
The recent popularity of the trash-talk topic makes future research very desirable.
I hope this study has developed a sense of understanding for those who choose not to
support trash-talking's use. If critics of trash-talking can justify physical aggression in
hockey and football, they should be able to justify trash-talking in basketball. Removing
trash-talk from college and professional basketball would be asking a Black player to
remove part of his oralistic African-American culture. As several players in this study,
said, "No matter what an outside (NCAA rules, NBA rules, media, critics) or inside
(Referees/Coaches) force does, nobody will be able to destroy trash-talking." As for the
PSAC West conference, trash-talking alone does not incite physical aggression; it is a
part of the game. I believe future research with different collegiate basketball players in
other conferences will reveal similar statements and themes to those found in this study.
In closing, I would like to note that I learned a great deal from this research. I
discovered specifics I did not know existed about trash-talking which helped my
understanding of the phenomenon. I hope, with my efforts presented here, trash-talking
will be researched further to create a general understanding of its acceptable use.
There is a significant amount of related literature that can be associated with this
phenomenon in sports and everyday life. However, for those present and future critics, I
would like to simply say: "Get the burgers, Wimpy." Trash-talking is part of the game
and the less the critics know about its use, the more likely they are going to overreact to
its effects, significance, and reasons.

59
REFERENCES
Abrahams, R. D. & Troika, R. C. (1972). Language and cultural diversity in
American education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bateson, G. (1987). Steps to an ecology of mind (2nd ed.). Northvale, NJ:
Jason Aronson.
Berkow, I. (1994, May 24). Miller and mouth vs. Starks. The New York Times, p. B9.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education:
An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bredemeier, B. J. & Shields, D. L. (1986). Game reasoning and interactional
morality. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 147 (2), 257-275.
Bruhn, J. G. & Murray, J. L. (1985). "Playing the Dozens": Its history
and psychological significance. Psychological Reports. 56. 483-494.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of
experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Verbal strategies in multilingual communication.
In Abrahams & Troike (Eds.), Language and cultural diversity in
American education fpp. 184-197L Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hale-Benson, J. E. (1986). Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles.
(2nd ed.L Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Infante, D. A., Riddle, B. L., Horvath, C. L. & Tumlin, S. A. (1992). Verbal
aggressiveness: Messages and reasons. Communication Quarterly. 4Q (2),
116-126.

60
Infante, D. A. & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model
and measure. Communication Monographs. 55 (3), 294-305.
Knicks saw Miller in their dreams, if they could sleep. (1994, June 3). Erie Morning
News, p. B6.
Kochman, T. (1981). Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago, III: University of
Chicago Press.
Kvale, S. (1983). The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological
and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological
Psychology. 14 (2), 171-195.
Lim, T. S. (1990). The influences of receivers' resistance on persuaders' verbal
aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly. 38 19). 170-188.
Majors, R. & Billson, J. M. (1992, Chap. 8). Cool pose: The dilemmas of black
manhood in America. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Miller, D., Lester, D. & Shelton, R. (1992). (Videotape). White men cant jump. Beverly
Hills, CA: Twentieth Century Fox.
Nichols, H. O. & Waston, M. (1993). 1994 NCAA basketball men's & women's
mles & interpretations.
Onyekwere, E. O., Rubin, R. B. & Infante, D. A. (1991). Interpersonal perception and
communication satisfaction as a function of argumentativeness and egoinvolvement. Communication Quarterly. 39. 35-48.
Percelay, J., Ivey, M. & Dweck, S. (1994). Snaps. New York, NY: 2 Bros. & A White
Guy, Inc.
Polkinghorne, D. (1992). Methodology for the Human Sciences. Albany, NY:
New York Press.
Smith, A. R. (1994). Phrasing, linking, judging: Communication and critical
phenomenology. Human Studies. 17.139-161.

"61
Smith, A. R. & Martinez, J. M. (in press). Signifying harassment: Communication,
abiguity, and power. Human Studies
Starr, M. (1992, December). Yakety-Yak: Do talk back. Newsweek, p. 60.
Stravinsky, J. (1994, May 22). He shoots! He scores! He insults! The New York
Times, p. D3.
Taylor, P. (1992, November). Crackin', jackin', woofin' and smackin'. Sports Illustrated.
pp. 82-85.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. Ontario, Canada:
Althouse Press.
Weber, S. J. (1986). The nature of interviewing. Phenomenology and Pedagogy. ± (2),
pp. 65-72.
Williams, F. (1992). Reasoning with statistics. (4th ed.l. Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Wilson, A. N. (1978). The developmental psychology of the black child (6th ed.).
New York, NY: Africana Research Publications.

APPENDIX A
(QUESTIONNAIRES)

62
#1
Please list your players and note the amount (you think) they use trash-talking.
A general definition of trash-talking (for this study) is:
A player who talks to an opponent and/or the opposing team, and/or to his
teammates about the opponent and/or opposing team in an excessively boastful or scornful
manner. The talk usually involves some type of verbal insult
*Use the numbers to represent the level of usage.
ALWAYS
5
PI .AYER
i..
2..
3,
4..
5..

6..
7..
8..

9..
10,
11,
12,

FREQUENTLY
4

OCCASIONALLY
3

L

RARELY NEVER
1
2

63
#2

Please circle the amount (you think) you use trash-talking.
Definition of trash-talking (for this study):
A player who talks to an opponent and/or the opposing team, and/or to his
teammates about the opponent and/or opposing team in an excessively boastful or
scornful manner. The talk usually involves some type of verbal insult
•Please circle the correct response.
ALWAYS
5

FREQUENTLY
4

OCCASIONALLY
3

RARELY NEVER
2
I

QUESTION:
When will you, as a recipient of trash-talk, most likely respond with physical
aggression?
Definition of physical aggression (for this study):
Physical contact such as pushing, elbowing, chest bumping, or any physical
contact made towards the trash-talker.
•Using the scale above, please answer the questions with the
corresponding number under the correct response.
1. When they talk about my physical features, for example ugliness, skinny, fat, or the
haircut._____
2. When they talk about my neighborhood._______
3. When they talk about my race.__
4. When they talk about my education_____
5. When they talk about my inability to play defensive.___
6. When I'm not shooting well and they talk trash.__
7. When I miss an easy shot and they start talking trash, for example, a slam-dunk or a
wide open lay-up.___
8. When I turn the ball over frequently and they talk-trash about my turnovers.____
9. When I get beat badly by an opposing player and he talks-trash to me, for example, he
slam-dunks on me, he goes around me with the dribble, he fakes me out with a
pass._______
10. When the crowd gets negatively involved, for example, when the crowd boos
at my name.___
11. When the crowd jets positively involved, for example, when the crowd cheers at my
name________ _

(OVER)

64
#2 (cont'd)

ALWAYS
5

FREQUENTLY
4

OCCASIONALLY
3

RARELY NEVER
1
2

12. When the team is a rival school.______
13. When the score is out of reach and we are winning and the opponent is still talkingtrash.________
14. When the score is out of reach and we are losing and the opponent is still talkingtrash.________
15. When the opponent actually succeeds at doing what he said he would do and then
brags about it ______
16. When I receive a hard foul resulting from my, earlier trash-talk._____
17. When I receive a hard foul resulting from the opponents, earlier trash-talk.___
18. When they talk about my teammates.__
19. When they talk about my coach.______
20. When they talk about my mother and/or father._______
21. When they talk about my brothers) and/or sister(s)___
22. When the talk is sexual in nature relating to my family.________
General information:
(Please Circle)
1. What is your racial background?
Black

White

Hispanic

Other

Small-town

Country/Rural

2. What area did you grow up in?
Suburban

Urban/City

3. What is your approximate grade point average?
Under 2.0

2.0 - 2.5

2.6 - 3.0

3.1 - 3.5

3.6 - 4.0

4. How many brothers and sisters lived with you as you were growing up?
Brothers:__________
Sisters:.

65
#3

FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
(As it relates to the movie)
1. Is scene one evident in your involvement with college basketball? How
frequent?
2. How could scene one escalate into physical aggression?
3. What do you think the reason is that Marques Johnson wants to kill
everybody? Does his reasons have anything to do with Wesley Snipes
talking trash to the defeated opponent.
4. Is what Woody Harrelson is doing in scene three a important part of the
usage and reasons for trash-talking?
5. In a college game, does the result of trash-talking have the same effect
on the players within the team, as in scene three?
6. Do you think that trash-talking is part of the game?

>

APPENDIX B
(DESCRIPTION OF SCENES)
N

66

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENES
The three scenes are taken from the movie "White Men Can't Jump" (1992),
starring Wesley Snipes and Woody Harrelson. The three scenes are described as
follows:
Scene one
This scene is at the beginning of the movie and Wesley Snipes is playing a twoon-two game with some friends. Snipes starts to "brag" about his abilities and tests his
opponent with some trash-talk. The opponent tries to go up for a shot and Snipes
blocks it, clean. After blocking the shot, he starts to direct his trash-talk at the opponent
and to others watching; not intense trash-talk but very exaggerated. I asked two
questions based on this scene; (1) is this evident in college basketball?, and (2) how
could the scene escalate into physical aggression.
Scene two
This scene appears in the middle of the movie. Snipes teams up with Harrelson
to play some guys for money. Marquees Johnson is one of the opponents and he is
defending Snipes. Snipes is driving to the basket and Johnson cannot stop him. Snipes
perceives this and starts talking-trash. Obviously, Snipes and Harrelson win the game.
During the winning basket, Snipes began to talk even more, he knew that Johnson and
his teammate were defeated and started talking more. One question was asked after
this scene: Are you quick to talk-trash when you see your opponent is defeated?
Scene three
Scene three appeared at the end and it involved two parts. The first part
Harrelson is talking a huge amount of trash to his future opponents. Snipes sees this
and tries to calm Harrelson down. It does not work so Snipes is frustrated and he pulls
Harrelson to the side to talk to him. Harrelson says he is doing two things, making the
opponents they have to play mad and also making Snipes mad. The question that
arrived from this scene was: Is that one reason to use trash-talk, to make an opponent
mad?
The second part was the competition scene where Snipes and Harrelson finally
play the opponents that Harrelson was talking trash to earlier. From more trash-talking
during the game the players start pushing and shoving each other. The big point made
from this scene is the opponents start to argue with each other because they are losing
the game. The question that was asked in the discussion group was: Does the team
start bickering at each other as a result of an opponents trash-talk?

APPENDIX C
(FIGURES)

67

Participant Profile
Ethnic Grouping

/ !
■ ;MmM
..•s'.

as

,

\ii-k

i

.

Ss S-teS

K:>-

60%
50%

• >v

1

ViE

■SI!

r-'v-.......................
•life ; /,

-

ft

i

m
m

I4

is
;!lf

;■!'

>

■

30%
20%

m»

V

..... ................................

a

MMijm

i
^

'js

U

a

^ '

Figure 1

i

...

if Bfev BBw,'PfSlSS*
BBfe B^-'-B:/
i B-:^K«BBS®BI;B
•SI9
»

a?

■

,:'■■■■■■;;

Si;

Black

ft'

mmm
fell

«•

10%

.
Sftil

. ft

5$?;

ft

pf

M.

M

ti

B'jB

0%

§M

'

i
40%

8wsp«
mamsWW

i

White

Other

■

'w
■B.-y

•>. • V ';

68

Participant Profile
Geographic Origin
' .. v-

70% sf|S|
v^v iH&ilHi

Wi

r

I

60% I

I......
—;

50%
40%

m

<*;

m

■iity

:§S

rtf
«Ssffi

iHi

SSBpI

1i m

MS

a

v9
i
■

.'■

(■*>1

20%

10%
0%

Figure 2

r'

ss ■•

It

i?C

. •••;'

i

#J ;

P
m
m fete
vsmmm

J S’4i"

30%

-8?

m

jS?*

&

5

.4

:-y

ppp
shi®®™
S5H;

City/Suburb

#

m

w fc
- •: S ' '■•

Country/Small

B

m
81

•;

mmm

■•>
■

;
/

69

Participant Profile
Geographic Origin

/ "

'*
':

■

..:

40% P&*
• ' * * * * * * * ’•'*

P
30%
p :•■
;
& •,

i
m

:> ?•

10%

ptifc

ii
■
si
&i

I.

i:

s&

x
0%

a;

:'-

s
3
■y

-

i;

B
|j
asII
Hi

p

I&
H

City

Figure 2a

$

:fv

mm

'

m

:

m
:,X

"*r/

r

JKBR'•
mfeU

• 4m¥im

.

20%

* " - ’

,0 ?

8 ISf
'r£'l

SB

.

it

•mW
X

vt?:

:f

^S

ii! ®tH

Si m

jsf

•/ **

*

r

#!a
Suburb Country

Small

pt*
m. ✓

70

Black Participant Profile
Geographic Origin
u
80%

■

■ 'jam

*r

■1
I

m

60%

jss

.

m

iv-vii-

if........... ■.............................

wsmmMft
:M'4-

S||"

|@§K|

s1■

. fti-l

; s mmmmi

r<

•:m . . .

l*

Ml

■

-

-

sat
*1

f.£*S

mm
$

i
■
-•

. *

••

i

*

.V.

*

•' $\ ' -

.*-'2V;

•

;

■...■<'■■.

■

■':•

a;. >/.<•
V ’

.

.

'

.■

•'

’

-

■■

.

*?<: ->.;-?•
>k‘
!.vr: vt'4t

... . . . ; .

1
» 1sM&

.

.

i 1

mm
ife
W:mm
util ti
Hi
.V

ViW

i.

«M:vh-v

M
PT--’

/

Figure 3

-

*2;

§9

:s. --V •'■ s

City

-

: .

l!:

0%

Ii■

■■

iw

20%

-

1 i git ! ,

ffigi

;V

V>::-

■ <\ • f '

'.'! *
r

;■

40%

/

¥,

is

mm

v>^ Xt\J‘3*^T7Y. ■TyV.'-Lit. .'.r

■

•:- T

Suburb Country

Small

■ty

71

Team Rating
Mean Composite Score

/Aj**
3

llilii
■V

2.5
2

— M

n':X
mmmamm- i
I mp9S|i#
i».

v*
!• 7!-S

MHa
1.5

X':

mmm
mm
""
•v

5

HHH

IHM
1

11111

0.5
0

Figure 4

Team 1Team 2Team 3Team 4Team 5

72

Individual/Team Rating
High Composite Scores

mmmrnm
■

7 , ;

itff HI
6

,K*\

&?*

................................................................. ......................
'.'■7

\i;’ ' • 4*?^ ' ■''VV'-v

*.

!
M
->

5

: ':;'

V

■V?i

:

;

-

4

^HK||
«
'V ;

-■

s»

:>

. .

■

•V,- •

1

r
•v|

fit

y

3

I
M

IS
KBS

HI
Hi

2

m
«

1

1

IS

m
B
....
m

■•1 •>

Vi;

Overall
.... -fy/ban
2i39
1

K
iw ill
es if
I IP Si1
e
is ;n?V:>7 v

?>;

*

■.

I'
i.
•

V

/

0

iff

i

i

2

ISp till III
Si
I®

pi
Jill

M

II 1

jfc
/

Plyr/Tm 1 Plyr/Tm 2Plyr/Tm 3Plyr/Tm 4

Figure 5

c

73

Individual/Coach Rating
High Composite Scores

m
:■

6

chrt
‘■s;:

m

5

W
;e:

mC verall Mean

4

!§

3

£3$

2
:v« -vl.

1
0

y

•:

Plyr/C 1

Figure 5a

/ '

Plyr/C 2 Plyr/C 3 Plyr/C 4

/

2.39

74

Physical Aggression
High Response Items

Mmmmm
gegSF...................
m

'$<:1bbb sra

50%

flB ...

i

SiS

m

i

40%
I

30%

.i

■KsSS

®fe:
iSS M
mi

UX

mm

. •

SBasBI

10%
!

jsjwga

m

ip
mm 1!
m
m
fill
®H
Mpll il

8

20%

SSSKfe

MM §M

•I-'

i

m

H

*

m

a

II m If
Hi m;«?

m &w _c_

1W 0i~7

HI
Hi

■i

0%

Parents

Rival School Int. Foul
(TT by Others)

Figure 6

%

. 75.

Physical Aggression
Other Related Items

*mm;

m

yyst'*

40%

............

S'

1
JMf
Mil

;

a

;
•’vS

®p

as

n

&s

m

a

20%

i
I i
:• * %

sv

:

a;
I ®
I
;SV£
8

#:

I mm

m

■MS m:;vt
I
I
Ak
Sf;
m

N'”' ;••

:

1

1

0%

• •

(TT by Self)

Figure 6a

. :

■

■.

S'

m

•

m
m
ivV

..........
.

18

V::j
^Bnnw

m
ggsTt

Bro/Sis

SL
II
:!i> Sffl!

m

HH
Biiiia

in

Int. Foul

X-.?-V’:• • ■ -s ? *y * • -v .*?*x'.'Sf' S'

811.
<•^1

?*«

■

n*

. ; £

m

J'-’v/,; -

10%

\

&

V

:

s
■at

m

.....

i

30%

ss

;•

II!

p

£5-

yk’

Brag

76

Responses by Category
Always/Frequently
'

: ■'

■ Ml ■ :

%

MM

30%

■■■

25%
20%

■rx

m. asfi III
< i|.E!

;,

15%

:

IliE,

" <1'S:V,i ''P

smz&S

.

■w
SMB
mm**
>

■Hi HP Wm
£
iiii
11
mm iPpii wm

S3M

|
%
AH

i&i

■V

10%
5%
0%

Figure 7

m
lltSfiSI

a..............■■■•••

.si

.

...»•.:-

i:

• i
• --X

a*

mm ■HR

:.p

iM

• - - - - - - -

SSlll mwm

|»| Splifil

liSllli

II
»

1%
I

ft

*
■*

s
I
SP

'

■m

M

Ability

ill
wM

Sill
>/

Game Family Mbr

m
MM
. ...
' '«£

m
m
manr

•^aa;a:a ...
Self

■W1-

X'$

a
a
■ y

APPENDIX D
(TABLES)

77

TRASH-TALKING
KEY-WORDS & PHRASES
Terms/Phrases

Meaning/Significance

"Ref(s)."

Short for referee(s). Constant term used by the
participants.

"Bow"

Short for Elbow. Frequent retaliation when using
physical aggression.

"Yo!"

Used as a slang word for getting a person's
attention. Also used to address a person before
speaking.

"Psyche-game"

Technique used to play with a person's mind, try to
manipulate a player so he can be affected by the
trash-talk. Psyche stands for Psychology.

"Pumped-up"

Emotionally charged feelings. Adrenaline is
flowing.

"Get that shit out of here"

Frequent trash-talking phrase used when an
opposing player gets his attempted shot blocked.

"You can't stop me"

A phrase used when talking trash, said to an
opponent after a player scores on offense.

"Fool!"

Something a person may call his opponent after
making a great play at his expense.

"You are too small"

Usually said when a shorter person is guarding a
player underneath the basket, in the low-post

"Hyped"

Same as pumped-up. Getting emotionally charged.

"Big mouth"

A person who talks frequently.

"You better check me"

A trash-talking phrase said after a person scores on
his opponent or beats them badly and passes to
another teammate.

"Laughing"

A sign of trash-talk used in combination with other
phrases.

"Bitch"

Frequent word used to describe a person's opponent
when trash-talking.

TABLE 1

78
Table 1 (cont'd)
"Rip"
("Strip")

Another word for steal. When a person steals the
ball from an opponent they may say, I ripped him.

"Streets"

Another word for an urban/city area.

'"D'-up"

Term used to tell an opponent or teammate to play
better defense. It can be used as a trash-talking
phrase.

"Shook "

Common word used when an opponent gets beat
bad and gets scored on in the process.

"Dis"

Stands for disrespect. Used to describe a certain
play.

"Drugged"

Getting beat bad. If you can relate to the actual
word "drug" you can understand what
it means.

"Salty "

Means getting mad. Instead of mad, you may say,
"I was salty with my friend today."

"Rumble"

Is another word for fight.

"Fly pigeon"

When an opponent goes for a pump fake, a player
may say this.

"Toss up the guards"

A phrase meaning, get ready to fight.

"111"

Not nice, may be disrespectful. For example, I said
something III to get him out of his game. Another
word for sick.

"Pussy"

Common word used during trash-talk. Used to
describe an opposing player.

"Dick", "dicked", "clicking"

Actually showing great moves on the basketball
court, making great plays at the expense of the
opponent. For example, I just dicked you, you
better "D-up" next time.

"Sorry"

No good, no ability to gain respect from other
players.

"Bust on them"

Talk about a person.

"Scoop"

Getting picked up, used usually when somebody
body slams another person.

79
Table 1 (cont'd)
"Get somebody else to guard me"

Phrase used in trash-talking. Usually said to the
coach about one of his players that is not playing
good defense on his opponent

"Screaming"

Is a form of trash-talk. A nonverbal emblem that
may have the same or greater affect on a person
than verbal emblems.

"Dunk and grill"

When a person slam dunks on his defender. Grill is
a slang term meaning face.

"Warmed"

Another word for beat We warmed them
yesterday.

"Stay down"

Another frequent term used when talkingtrash. This phrase is used when somebody tries
to block your shot unsuccessfully.

"Marquee (player)"

Related to having a person's name in lights. May be
the best player on the team. Outstanding abilities.
For example, Michael Jordan was the marquee
player of the Chicago Bulls.

"Get the burgers Wimpy"

Usually said after a person makes a good play.
Means an opponent can not compete with the trashtalker. Concept is taken from the Popeye cartoon
and his friend Wimpy who always wanted a
hamburger.

"Nut & Honey"

Related to the commercial about Kellogg's cereal
Nut & Honey. This phrase is usually said by a
defender after his opponent shoots the ball. The.
phrase actually means "Nothing Honey." If one can
remember the commercials that ran, one can
understand the phrase.

"Break somebody off'

Means making an outstanding play at the expensive
of a player's opponent. For example, "I broke him
off as I drove to the hole and dunked on him."

hjii

Abbreviation for jumper or jump shot.

"Off the Wall”

Related to "111" as defined earlier, saying things that
really do not make sense or have no place. For
example, "After I dunked on him, I talked some off
the wall trash."

80

ATTRIBUTES OF THE TWO TYPES OF TRASH-TALK
"FREE-TAIK"

" SNEAKY-TALK"

Playground rules

Organized rules

No holds barred

Structured and systematic

In the face

In the ear

Throughout the game

At the beginning of the game

Threaten with body

Threaten with mind

Physical; punishment

Mental; "psyche game"

May consciously overstep boundaries

May unconsciously overstep

Frequent physical aggression

Limited physical aggression

More "playing the dozens"

Less "dozens" oriented

Loud

Soft/quiet

Unethical/degrading

Ethical/respectful

Talk may not equal talent

Usually talk equal talent

No referee

Referee

Blown-out/animated

Low-key/restrained

More personal

More general

TABLE 2

81

RESPONSES BY CATEGORY
ACTUAL BREAK-DOWN OF QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS:
ABILITY

(9-17)
GAME

Physfeat

Def

Beatbad

Team

Hood

Shoot

Crwdneg

Coach

Race

Miss

Crwdpos

Parents

Educ

Tmovr

Rivlschl

BroSis

Scrwin

Sex

(1-4)

(5-8)

(18-22)

SELF

Scrlose
Brag
Flmytlk
Flopptlk

TABLE 3

FAMILY MEMBERS

APPENDIX E
(FOCUS GROUP)
(TRANSCRIPTIONS)

82

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

LOCK HAVEN
(LHU)
DISCUSSION
Q: Even though that's a little exaggerated,
the TT11 that Snipes was doing, is that
evident in college b-ball.

THEMES
O: Named by oilier teams as the ones ihe team that
trash-talks the most.
U (10-14): Players understand that it exists.

A: Definitely

1(10-14): Players quickly recognize its existence.

B:, E:, C: Yeah

U (18): (A) Establishes when it occurs for his team.

B: Yes. (Proper)

1(18): Trying to see within the game but player
tells me game by game.

Q: How frequent does it occur?
A: Every game for us.
B: Every game! (proper, making a joke)
Q: I just want you to know, I heard a lot
about lock haven, you are suppose to be the
best one on the subject (laughter). How
could that scene escalate to physical
aggression?

I (28): Retaliating after blocking a shot. Getting
your shot blocked is embarrassing.
U (30-52): Establishing other things that could that
may escalate into physical aggression.

H: After he blocked my shot, I'd punch him.

1 (30-52): Playground is a different atmosphere
quick to escalate to physical aggression if you are
getting embarrassed.

C: My man Walter, may have been salty
that he got thrown to the ground too!

U (40-46): Bragging on you get embarrassed
especially if people point at you.

E: If he would have gotten stepped on.

I (40-46): Girls influence what happens on
playground. A player usually try to impress the
girls and peers.

H: We'd have to rumble, I don't know.
B: Then he got bragged on in front of the
girls (laughter).
A: Yeah, it was girls around. It is even
worse getting embarrassed.
H: It would have been really embarrassing
if he got beat-up afterwards.
A: If girls are around I am embarrassed.
E: If he would have stepped on him or
something after he fell.

11 "TTH is the abbreviation for trash-talk or trash-talking
throughout the transcriptions.

0 (43-44): White person expressing himself.
1 (43-44): I he first one to openly express himself
and add to the discussions.

83
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
181
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107

C: Especially when he said get that shit out
of here, (laughter).

I (54-55): ''Get that shit out of there" is a frequent
phrase in trash-talk, agreed on by C, A & H.

A: I say that now!
H: I get that said to me allot.
G: I look at you allot!
(while video is playing) H: White dude, give it to him.
C: Fly pigeon-----See if he would have
slammed the ball, he would have got some!
Q: Right there obviously Raymond was
defeated, and he was defeated by the TT
Snipes was doing him and Woody, do you
think you are quick to TT when you feel
your opponent is defeated?

1 (70-74): I do not think (A) understood the
question. Started to understand after (C)
interrupted.

A: Naw,
C: Yeah ... If I lose somebody cheated,
I'm a sore loser.
A: If I'm winning, I'm talking as much shit
as possible! As possible.

1 (78-82): Everybody does not like to lose, but he
admits that he is a sore loser.
U (85-93): Regardless of score or circumstances
(A) will talk trash.

Q: How about when it is reversed? If they
defeated you and start TT does it escalate to
physical aggression?
C: Yeah,
A: Yeah, definitely
E: Yeap.

U (85-93): When it is reversed the players can dish
it out but can not take it.
I (85-93): they speak quickly about using physical
aggression but (104-107) (C) brings them to reality.

H: Slammin' someone on there backs

H: you slam them!

U (104-107): (C) realizes that they maybe over­
reacting a little to the escalation and he brings them
back to reality.

A: Go through pick and give them a elbow
in the chest.

1 (104-107): (C) understands that it is overstated
and different from playground.

C: You try to but rarely ever do you get into
a fight in a college game. You might punch
somebody going down the court or
something or trip them in the open-court.

U (104-107): It usually does not escalate but
players do it sneaky.

E: You trip them and stomp on there feet.

84

108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126
127

128

129

130
131

132

133

134

135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147

B: Or smack them in the back of the head.
A: My mug them1 when the refs are not
lookin', that always works.
E: Spit in their eye.
C: Spit in their face.
B: Trip them
Q: Spit in their eye?
E: Yeah,

C: I got M (IUP) like that, last year.
B: (C) just heck-spit (sound effect),
C: It happen at slippery rock too!
H: Man, that kid is the nicest kid! I can't
believe you spit on him.
E: If you spit on somebody, they will get
mad and start playing aggressive.

1 (138-139): "May be that is what you want a player
to do, play aggressive. This may cause them to get
out of their game and try to do too much and be a
detriment to his team.

A: We would have rumbled all through the
game.

U (1141-142): (A) agrees that spitting causes fights.

G: That's nasty

U (146-147): (A) again shows is views about
spitting.

A: If somebody spit on me, they might as
well toss up their guards.
B: If you get spit on, that is disrespectful.

151

During the video:

153
154
155
156

H: Woody is crazy.
C: Forget about b-ball, he is about to get
cracked.

157
158
159
160

161

I (124-129): Personally when players go as low as
to spit then escalation is the end result.

E: Say you are getting trapped in the corner,
just spit in their eye.

150
152

U (124-129): ( B) & (C) agree that this has
happened before.

B: Somebody did it before!

148
149

0(114-116): lam surprised to hear this.

Q: Right there when Woody says he is
getting the other team mad. Is that one of
the reasons why a person TT?

O (153-156): Talking through the video.

85
62
63
64
;65
166
167
[68
169
[70
[71
[72
[73
[74
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
211
212
213
214
215

A: Sure.
C:,H:, B: Yeah (all at once)
C: Yeah, get in their heads.
A: If I see somebody scared or weak, if you
talk to them they will get out of their game
quick. If you see somebody is a punk, you
can mess with them all game. And they
usually don't get into their game. Especially
when people don’t talk back. That is when
you know you got them.

U (162-174): Most players agreed that this is one of
the reasons why a person would trash-talk.
U (166): (C) uses it to play mind games and to get
in an opponents head.
U .072-177): Finding a weakness in a person, then
you are able to use trash-talking effectively.

U (176-177): (C) realizing that it can backfire and it
will make the opponent play better.

C: Sometimes it backfires though, you too
busy TT and you mess-up.
I (179-183): Players give some examples.
A: You get beat.
B:, E: Yeah!

IJ (179-183): Getting beat by the opponent hurts
too.

C: That's when you are really hot! (laughter).
A: That's when you start to fight.
Q: So when they don't say anything back to
you, do you take it like you got them.
C: Yeah
Q: Or do you take it like it is going to be
reversed?

I (195-209): If Black players see a person not
responding to the talk, they assume that the
opponent is scared.
U (195): (C) relates to labeling the players as
scared. Players have to take the situation as such if
they want to gain an advantage by using trash-talk.

C: You take it like you are in their head.

U (197-209): (A) cuts (H) off and interrupts, really
showing how he feels about the trash-talking.

H; I don't know, if someone doesn't say
anything back. It is like .. .

O (200-201): (A) seems to get frustrated because
somebody is challenging his stand.

A: Man, your crazy! I think they are scared,
if they don't say nothing back!
E: If they don't say nothing back you think
you all right then they dunk on your head!
A: If I'm saying something ill, if I'm saying
something like "pussy" or something and I'm
in their face, then they are a punk! Then I'm
going to be messing with them all game.
H: What if they are scoring on you at will?
A: If they are scoring on nio it is a different
case. I better shut-up because I'm getting
scored on.

U (206-209): (A) says you try to see how far you
can go with the trash-talk.
1 (206-209): Pushing an opponent to the limit or
boundary. A person will try different tricks to see if
his opponent is effected. Trying to get in a person's
head.
O (211): White player jumping in again adding his
comments
1 (213-215): (A) realizes that this is a different
situation and he better shut-up.

86
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233|

234
235

236
237
238

239
240

241

242

243

C: Yeah!
B: For instance, if he is in the point guard
position, he could be talking shit going down
the court, then after he dicks him, then he is
just hot after that.
Q: Is there any other reasons why you
would TT?
A: I think, well for me, I've been talking shit
since I've been on the playground. You
know what I mean, that is my game.
Talking shit, I even talk shit when I lose.
People say that is wrong. I talk shit when I
lose too! I think it is a lot of confidence.

1 (224-225): Trying to draw other reasons besides
to get other players mad.

U (227-243): Trash-talking builds confidence.
I (227-243): Usually the other dominating reason
behind getting an opponent mad.

C: It gets you hyped.
A: If I’m talking I'll stay hyped, throughout
thegame.
Q‘ You use it as a confidence builder?
A: Yeap,

U (245): (H) disagrees with what teammates are
saying. Trash-talking to him is a bad point.
1 (247-248): (C) brings up a good point, that
BlacksZWhites use/say it differently. Use trash-talk
for different reasons.

C: Adrenaline booster!

244

245
246

247
248
249
250
251
252
253

H: People that talk, leavethemselves out.
C: That is the white-boy method, homes,
that's why you get mad at RW homes!
H: Yeah, because he won’t shut his mouth..
. People that TT draw attention to
themselves and make idiots of themselves
and gets beat-up.

254

255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264

265
266
267
268
269

A: Shit, I never got beat-up.
H: You sit there trying to set a pick and you
would be lying on the ground.
A: Know what, you know how I'm going to
use it, like when we played Edinboro last
year, I was talking allot of shit and I made Z
mad.
C: Yeah, he got hot and was ready to tear
his head off.
A: I started it and he wanted to fight me.

U (255): (A) speaking up, supporting (C)'s points.

U (260-263): (A) summarizes how he used trashtalk to his advantage.
1 (260-263): Teammates agreed that this happened
and justified each others points.

87
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279

B: He didl?’t score for lhe rest of the game
after that either.
A: Yeah, after I made him real mad, and he
was having a good game. And 1 started it
and he tried to talk back and the ref jumped
in. And he told us both to shut-up, he said
something else and he got a technical. So it
worked perfectly.

280

C: That was perfect.

281
282
283

A: And he didn’t score for the rest of the
game.

284

285
286

287

288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310iBI
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320

321
322
323

U (273-278): (A) showing that he stepped over the
boundaries and got his opponent to get mad and get
out of his game.
I (273-278): (A) Knows that the refs were going to
step in so he would use sneaky-talk, so his opponent
could get caught retaliating. (A) had a
psychological advantage.

H: If you don't do what you say, you just
look like an asshole.
A: You crazy.
E: How are you going to get beat-up in a
game anyway?

U (285-286): (H) jumps in and tells how he feels
about trash-talking.

H: In the game you can get beat-up,
someone will get you in a game.

U (290-291): Players do not usually get into a real
fist fight, maybe pushing and shoving.

E: I mean rumble.

I (290-300): Players can get a little crazy and a
fight may break out but very seldom from the trashtalk and very seldom period.

C: You see that West Chester/Cheyney
fight, wew a couple of years ago? both team
benches.
Q: All right in that scene right there you
saw some of the TT, pushing/shoving and as
a result of the TT, the other team got besides
themselves and start talking back and forth
to each other, do you think that has an effect
in college b-ball? When somebody starts
talking trash to the team and the team gets
out of its game plan?

I (311-314): Usually effects the team when two
teammates bicker back and forth like in the
example.

E:, A: Yeah,
C: If you get the team arguing they will self
-destruct after that.

U (319-320): If a player wants to get the team
frustrated this usually works. This destroys team
concept.

H: You get some person mad and he wants
to try and score a bucket to kinda show them
C: If you can get them arguing then you got
them.
Q: If I’m taking one of your players to the
hole and TT and one of you guys say "D" up

I (319-327): If a player can get the team arguing he
can cause problems and gain advantage. I think that
is what they agree on.

88
324
325
326
327

man, does it start an argument throughout
the team like that?
Most everybody: Yeah!

328

329
330
331
332
333

B: If might take a couple times for that to
happen. If it just happen once, like "D" up
then all right, if it is happening
consecutively.

I

334
335

336
337
338
339
340

341

342
343

344
345

346
347

348

349

350

351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362

C: No deeps taken.
Q: With new rules that was put in a couple
years ago, do you think that controls the TT?

U (339-349): New rules do not stop the trashtalking.

A: Like what?

I (339-349): Players were quick to note that.

E: No
C: Hell no
G: A little bit
Q: No fighting rule.
B: Sitting outa game?
Q: Yeah, if you do it again.
C: Yeah, you don't see as much
A: I think, it controls the fighting, I don’t
think it controls TT, people arguing!
B: When we played Mansfield I was talking
to somebody, and the ref chased me all the
way down the court and said don't do that no
more there is a new rule called bating or
something.

363
364

Q: Taunting

365
366

367

368
369

B:, E: Yeah!
A: When the refs usually tell you to shut-up
you. just talk shit quietly.

370
371

C: Yeah.

372
373
374

375

U (355-356): (A) giving some examples.

Q: Like what kinda way? You would
quietly talk shit?

U (368-369): (A) says now, with the new rules it is
more sneaky.
I (368-369): Exists but in a mono-tone.

89
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383

384
385
386
387
388

389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402

A: Like get in their ear and say pussy you
still ain't scoring or wait until after the play
and say you ain't getting-shit
E: Squeeze their back until skin get red*
B: What are you talking about?

B: Come on man!
Q: We talked about allot of stuff, what
things stuff motivates you to TT?

424
425

426
427

I (392-400): Usually players talk trash when others
talk to them. Even though players agree that they
talk, they say they usually wait until the opponent
starts.

A: When they TT to me! 1 like to TT but
when somebody starts it, it really makes me
mad makes me want to play better
C: Yeah.
A: Because I hate when people start TT to
me even though, I talk trash if somebody
starts TT you know what that means.
B: Especially somebody sorry.
A: If somebody sorry TT that's fighting
words.
Q: What also motivates you. Crowd have
any effect, people you play?

U (402-405): Players explain about a person being
"sorry" with talents.
I (402-405): If a person is labeled "sorry", there
should be no justified reasons to trash-talk because
the sorry player will not be able to back up what he
said.
U (410): (H) adds it depends on who a person is
playing.

H: Who you are playing
C: Quite a few times I got into an argument
with people in the crowd.

U (412-418): Not only is it the school, the crowd of
the school motivates a person to trash-talk, as in
what Cal mentioned.

A: I always argue with the crowd. I buss on
them
C: It is kinda fun.
Q: Does it motivate you to TT to your rival
school?

422

423

O (380): (E) says outlandish things like this
throughout the discussion.

E: I’m for real grab them right her and pinch
them.

403

404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421

U (376-378): (A) giving examples of how they
would talk shit quietly.

C: Yeah, like Cal, right behind the bench
gees.
B: They were throwing money at coach!

U (420-424): Rival school is a big part, because it
is a sense of competition.

90
428
429
430
431

C: He bends over and picks it up. When I
wasn't getting no time, I told them I don't
play anyway I will off the bench and whip
your ass. (laughter)

1(433-436): Players agreed that usually it is just
pushing and shoving.

432

433
434

Q: Did anybody get into a fight as a result
of the IT? pushing or shoving?

435

436

A:, B:, C: yeah.

437

438
439

A: They tried to scoop me at IUP, after the
game they circled me.

440

441

B: Yeah, C: Yeah.

442

443

A: Their coach tried to save me!

444

445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452

C: Slippery Rock's DR almost got beat up
by JN. (B) Kept scoring on him and (B)
kept TT kept exactly telling him don't let me
get the ball, got the ball scored on him and
Joe tried to take DR's head off. tried to
decapitate him.
H: I love that kid!

453

454

Q: What types of stuff do you say when you

455

TT?

456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471

B: If you dick somebody you call them
sucker! Call them bitch
A: Yeah, bitch is a common word.
C: Exactly.
A: You a bitch!
C: When you score you say, you better get
somebody else to stick me, or something like
that.
A: Yeah, you better put somebody else on
me.

472

473

C: Coach take him out.

474

475
476
477

478
479
480
481

U (457-458): Players establish that bitch is a
common word when trash-talking.

B: I was saying that to K (lUP's coach) he
got hot!
A: Our coach gets mad to when we talk to
the other coaches but once in a while
will

do it.

U (478-480): Usually the coach gets mad when his
players use trash-talking techniques. Especially
when the players talk trash to the opposing coaches.

91
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505

C: You better get somebody else on me
coach... I had the coach at Cal ready to
fight me. Because I fucked G up.

I (488-492): (C) explains forms of sneaky
retaliation.

Q: Did you?

O (494-496): Trying to get others involved in the
discussion.

i

C: Yeah, he came off a pick and I had to get
him. I was tired of him running off of picks
(laughter).
C: right in is stomach.
Q: What about yall in the back, yall not
saying anything yall don't TT. Everybody
does it some time some place you think?
I: Yeah.
A: Yeah, pretty much!
B: Not for yourself, some people do it for
players. I know if there is a point guard who
can't watch him, I would say you can't watch
him.

506
507

A: I also do that to him.

508
509

U (502-505): (B) explains that a player can get his
teammates motivated with his trash-talk.
I (502-505): Other reasons for using trash-talk is to
get a player's teammates hyped and build their
confidence.
U (507): (A) agrees it is shared, hype me, I hype
you.

I (513-514): (A) states positive/negative ways to
get into a players' heads while motivating
self/teammates.

C: Yeah, yeah, or you can't watch him.

510
511

Q: That motivates the players to play better?

512
513
514

A: Yeah, I think it gets into a lot of peoples
heads.

515
516
517

C: Yeah

518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535

A: If he is scoring allot, I would go up to
him and say, you man, you can't watch him,
why don't you just quit. A: It usually gets
them mad.

U (531-541): Players agree that trash-talking is part
of the game.

H: They foul them or something.
C: All yeah.
E: It's going to be a long night.
Q: So you think TT is part of the game?
A: Definitely, definitely.
C: Yeap
B: Yeah.

U (531-544): Players believe it appears in everyday
life too and in other activities.

92
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555

F: It is part of being competitive.
C: Yeah.
F: In any sport rather it is b-ball f-ball.
H: (White) Say you let a fat boy score on
you. look at me just look at me!
Q: Does TT exist anywhere else?
Classrooms, card games.

I (563-564): A person can also get into a fight if an
opponent steps over boundaries with other activities
too.

C: I bet I get higher than you on this test
H: Parties.
I (569-570): (A) is actually trash-talking.
A: Definitely card games, spades
C: Spades.

556

i

557

I (543-544): Starts to realize that it exists but thinks
it is negative when used in basketball.

A: Pussy get out of here.

I (572-573): (C) makes a good point again,
aggressive personalities tend to exists in Black
communities were survival is the key.

558
559

C: Video games homes.

560"i
561
562
563
564
565
566
567

568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589

A: Yeah, definitely.
H: Sega games too! .. I almost fought both
of them the other night I was so mad.
C: We was whipping that ass! He took 58
l's.
A: I was talking crazy shit to him the other
night.
C: People with aggressive personalities tend
to TT!
C: I'm a psyche major I just got it like that.
Q: How much of TT has to do from where
you come from?
A: Allot
C: People from urban areas tend to talk a lot
B: People from city tend to talk more than
people from small-towns... Because life is
more aggressive in the city.
C: Where you first ieam.

U (584-586): (B) agrees with (C) Urban/city
usually displays the most trash-talkers. Life is
aggressive in the city.

93
590
^

E: Yeah, definitely on playground.

592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610I
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642

G: You got to talk shit on the playground.

U (588-598): Originates from city, aggressive life,
On the playground.

B: Do they talk in your area (to other
teammate)?
A: I learn from the playground... I learn
from people TT to me, I was a nice guy
H: I learned it from my dad. Coach limits
how much trash you talk too! My highschool, area coach see you TT you will sit
down. These guys played at different
schools, even coach has a different opinion.
When I open my mouth it is like time to
come out.

U (600-606): In (H)'s situation the coach can limit
the trash-talk. Justifies that it is different from area
to area.

I (611): He continued, where he grew up if he
" wanted to play he could not trash-talk.

Q: Do you think it can be controlled like
that?
H: If you are not going to play you can.
A: Yeah,
C: Yeah
E: You are sitting on the bench.
C: See, at my school nobody would have
been playing in at all everybody would have
seen sitting down.
H: You played in a area with ail athletes, I
played in an area with dudes like me. Just
ran into people. It was like three 6 feet
white guy on the perimeter and two guys
both of us fighting in the middle.

i

U (619-621): (C) views the difference again.
Nobody would play if his coach sat players down
for trash-talking.
1 (623-627): (H) acknowledges the differences of
where a person grows up.

I (629-630): Established that running into people,
intimidation is also a part of trash-talking.
U (632): Agrees if that is the case, he indulges in
trash-talking. Agrees that he uses physical
aggression.
1 (636): Maybe he uses cheap shots too.

Q: What about when you said you run into
people, is that part of TT?
H: That is my whole game.
Q: Physical aggression huh?
H: Yeah.
Q: What about if you dunk and just start
screaming, is that TT?
H: I don't know, I haven't dunk in so long.

O (638-639): Trying to establish the non-verbal as a
trash-talking technique.

94
643 B: If you dunk and grill somebody, that can
644 hurt their feelings.
645
646 H: If another person dunks on you, they will
647 tell you.
648
649 C: F does not talk when he dunks on
650 someone.
651
652 Q: You can look at them also.
653
654 A: Yeah, F will look at him
655
656 C: I guess you don’t have to huh.
657
658 F: Allot of times you don't have to say
659 anything just look at them.
660n
661 Q: nonverbal?
662
1 663 - C: Yeah, they know what's up.
' 664
665 A: I'm the type of guy, if I get an and one, I
666 jump in their face!
667
668 C: Yeah, he starts jumping up and down,
669 and screaming
670
671
B: If I dunk and get an and one I just start
672 laughing at them that makes then real mad!
673 (laughter).
674
675 Q: Anything else
676
677 F: 3-point shot in your face.
678
679 H: That's the worst.
680
681
F: Then get smack in your ass.
682

683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695

C: If I keep missing and they say keep
shooting I get hot.
A: Yeah, that makes me real mad... You
know what makes me mad, when they back
off and say shoot it and I'm missing.

i

A: That’s when I start fighting.
H: It is really bad when the other team
smacks you on your ass and says good work
kid. Good work.

1 (643-663): Non-verbal can also be classified as
trash-talking, intimidating/embarrassing players and
getting into their heads.

U (643-663): Most players agree that was the case
with non-verbal emblems.

1 (671-673): A look can be more effective than
talking trash. Laughter just trying to gain some type
of psychological advantage.

U (683-684): (C) establishing a boundary for
himself. (A) agrees with (C)
1 (683-684): Agreed on in the focus group but not
supported by the survey questions.

95
696
697
698
699
700

701
702

Q: When you are winning the game, up by
20 points do you TT?
E: Yes
B: That gets to the point were we start
laughing at them.

703
704

C: We usually TT.

I (696-697): Trying to get a reaction when the game
is out of reach and the opponent continues to talk.
U (699): When it is reversed and they are losing
escalation to physical aggression may occur.

705

i

706

707
708
709

Q: What if it is reversed and down by 20

TT?

B: That is when you try to take people out.
710
A: That is when it is time to fight.
711
712
713
C: I don't understand, we get our ass
714
whipped and I start TT about what 1 don't
715
know, I don't know what I'm talking about
716
how could I be talking and they just warmed
717
us? But I find myself talking. Because I'm a
718
sore loser.
719
720
A: I hate to lose so I be ready to fight when
721
I lose.
722
723
C: Exactly.
724
725
Q: Open discussion anyone have any
726
statements or comments while the tape still
727
rolling, on TT?
728
729
E: If you foul them they will be hurt.
730
731
C: Shut-up!
732 -

U (720-721): (A) stresses the competitive aspect of
basketball.
1 (720-721): Competition causes trash-talk to start
also.

96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

SLIPPERY ROCK UNIVERSITY
(SRU)
DISCUSSION

THEMES

Q: That first scene right there, I know it is a
little exaggerated but do you find that sort of
TT in college b-ball, today?
B: A little bit.
A: I think playground b-ball is different
than playing in a game, ya know. In
playground a dude TT, you might get into it
physically but in a game you have allot on
the line, you are not going to get into a
dude's face like that, like you would on the
playground.

U (12-18): (A) establishes the difference between
playground and organized basketball.
1(12-18): More at stake in college. For example,
winning, ejections, records.

Q: How could that scene right there escalate
into physical aggression?
C: You know when the person is scared of
you.
D: I think it can happen during your
practice. When somebody says something to
you like that and you think you are going to
lose respect in front of your teammates, and
you just want to say hey, this is where I draw
the line and you just may hit him to show
everybody hey, you don't mess with me like
that.

U (26-33): (D) Says he would draw the line in
practice for respect but not in the game.
I (26-33): (D) more worried about the trash-talk in
practice than in the game.

Q: Is there anytime In the game where you
would draw the line?
D: Hummm, (Thinking), not really. Maybe
hitting the guy, but not punching in the face
or something like that. Maybe just like
elbowing them.
E: You probably do it in a way so, he can
feel it but not really notices it.
Q: So it would be like a...
E: Cheap shot. (C) you could write a thesis
on cheap shot. (Laughter)
Q: Obviously right there Raymond was
defeated, and Snipes was TT to him, are you
quick to TT to the opponent when he is
defeated? Like you won the game, taking

U (43-44): (E) goes back to the original question
and says that the person can retaliate by using
sneaky physical aggressive tactics.

97
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107

him to the hole doing an outstanding play
are you quick to TT? (People thinking).
E: Depends on, as for me, if he was TT to
me I would respond ;by talking back to him.
If he was playing a quiet game not saying
shit, and I just dunk on him, I could laugh at
him or you know, I will say something. But
I don't usually like to TT, the whole time. If
I block his shot the first thing I would say is
"Get that shit out of here!" That is a given.
But not in all situations.

U (58-66): Again, depending on situation and
circumstance how people would respond to the
trash-talk.
I (58-66): In general, if a person talks trash to you,
you would be inclined to talk trash back.

Q: Anybody else quick to TT when they
feel that their opponent is defeated?
C: Yeah, I TT no matter what, but um it is
just, everybody was doing it, everybody did
it. I did not no nothing was wrong with TT
until I came to school. Because everybody
did it, and the ones who didn't TT was the
ones who couldn't play. It was simply that!,
you know you couldn’t play.
D: I think there is a difference when you
have a crowd behind you, and their watching
you. There is a difference when you are
one-on-one.
C: No, it comes into play, when a person
feels embarrassed, he can't hold is own. If
you got two people TT, the ones that get
mad is the ones that feel they can't hold their
own. You can TT and loose, and walk off
and say "I still know I can play ball!" But
the one who knows he can't play ball at all,
or you just totally annihilate him when you
know, there it go. Know you scared to TT
because you scared of what is going to
happen afterwards then that is your fault.
You know what I mean?
E: yeah, that's true.
C: That is just like walking down the street
and somebody see your gold chain, and they
take it from you, if you ain't going to fight
for it there it is, it's the same thing. So 1 TT,
and if somebody's going to beat me up or
knock me down, then I have to accept that
penalty. But I got a 20-inch link (chain) I
can't wear that because I'm scared somebody
is going to take it from me? They are doing

I (71-77): (C) establishes himself as someone who
talks trash no matter what the situation or
circumstance.

U (84-95): A person is getting embarrassed and he
is weak, then the person may not be able to handle
the trash-talk. Those who take it personal do not
have trust in their ability to prove something or not
letting the trash-talk bother them.

U (99-109): (C) relates the above situation to a real
life experience.
I (99-109): In general, a person may be scared to
walk down the street because he is afraid someone
is going to bother him. A person is scared to play
basketball because of what someone is saying.

98
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140

it every day, what's the difference, you
know?
D: Yeah, that is a good point, there are
some people who would like to TT but are
scared of possible fights or something.
C: (Cutting D off) they scared! Yeah, you
know, and 9 times out of 10, the ones that
gets into the fights is the ones that you see
they are scared of you, so you mess with
them anyway. Because they are scared of
you. Now, if you aren't scared of nobody
then it goes both ways. Now, you play for
Edinboro (Talking to Q), now you know
how I was. And what you tell them, I had
them ready to fight me at the game. But you
know it is like that all the time. But see they
mad at me because I got them! You know
I'm beating them, I'm saying what I'm about
to do, I'm about to go left and score, and
they don’t like that. But, I mean why fight.
Now if you're going to put your hands on
me, see that is different.

1(115-131): A person has to pick the right
opponent to trash-talk to. A person trash-talks to
everybody initially until he finds the person it
affects the most.

F: You sound like Jordan! (Laughter) I’m
about to go left! Sound like Jordan.
C: But I mean if you put your hands on me
that is different.
F: (Being silly) 1951. (like he was about to
tell a story that happen in 1951).

U (136-137 & 142-145): Intentional fouls upsets

(C).

141
142
143
144
145

U (115-131): A person address the trash-talk to the
ones that he thinks are scared and do not think they
can handle the talk.

C: The ones that make me mad is the ones
that you TT to and you are going for a layup and they run into you and knock you
down. You know what I mean.

146
147

Q: Try and foul you, on purpose.

148
149

C: Yeah, you know what I mean.

150
151

A: That is not cool.

152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161

C: See I can't you know snatch you out the
air see that's not right. Then, when you
cheap shot them, then they (Maybe:
Coaches, Refs, Players) say well (C), you
shouldn't do that. You have somebody, you
are in position, or run through a screen, now
I'm setting a screen and they are going to run
into me with their bow (elbow). I don't say
nothing, but when I get them back then,

U (153-165): When a person retaliates they get
blamed or labeled the bad guy. Persons usually do
not see the initiator just the retaliator.

99
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179ijlH
180
181
182
183
184
185
186»
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198

okay I'm in the wrong, I'm in the wrong,
because I got caught or the one that TT all
the time. I mean what is the threshold? You
TT sometime or all the time, it is TT.
Q: Regardless.
C: Regardless, either you don't or you do. It
is just like drugs, the ones that don't___
Who don't want to make easy money in this
room? The ones that don't sell drugs is the
ones that are scared. That is it, the ones that
do; make the money, that is all to it.
B: That's true.

U (169-174): Again, (C) relates trash-talking to
real-life experiences and situations. Either a person
trash-talks or does not, there is no middle with (C).
I (169-174): (C) seems to be upset that people are
questioning his trash-talking techniques. For (C)
and a lot of others, trash-talking is a way of life.
This is how (C) grew up and people are trying to tell
him this is wrong (ex. media, non-supporters).

F: All right, All right, be cool with that.
C: Everybody wants free money.
Everybody wish they could get a check
every month for 4 or 5,000 a month.
D: (F) sweetheart you don't get that much
do you?
E: That's pretty steep right there.
Q: Right there when Woody said what he
was doing, you think that is one of the
reasons people TT? To get the other team
mad, so they can take advantage of them?
D: I don't think it is more mad, but more
uncomfortable.
B: Yeah.

199
200
201
202
203
204

D: You get that feeling of I don't know, you
know what I am saying? Like when I First
came to college basketball, because 1 am
from Europe, we don't TT in Europe it made
me a little uncomfortable.

205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214

C: I didn't know that.
D: Seriously it made me feel uncomfortable
because you don't know what you are doing.
Allot of people come from different areas
and backgrounds, somebody starts TT then
they don't know (how) to respond to it and
they start loosing sight of the game and they
don't know what to do.

I (194-203): (D) states one of the reasons why
people indulge in trash-talking and its use to get
other people focusing on something else.

100
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229

E: I think like if you TT to another person..

U (218-229): (B) establishes another reason to
build confidence.

B: It builds your confidence. The prime
example would be to try to get them out of
the game. Get them to think about
something else, like somebody just talking
about your shit, you now loose focus. You
get them to loose focus and stuff like that. I
mean 9 times out of 10 on the ball park
(playground) the person who is talking the
most trash usually is the best player, you
know. Because like, if you can't play then
you don't have nothing to say, you keep your
mouth shut.

1 (218-229): (B) makes a good statement; the one
who trash-talks the most usually is the best player.
The one that gains the most respect. If you talk the
talk, a person must walk the walk.

231
232

Q: What are other reasons you think a
person TT?

230|
233

234
235
236
237
238
239

A: Boost your confidence. You (are) doing
good and the team is doing good you sit
there and TT then you just keep the
momentum going I guess.

U (234-237): If the team and/or the individual
player is doing good, they will usually indulge in
trash-talk.

C: Confidence.

240

241

Q: Any other reasons you think?

242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249

B: It is like you are taking them out of their
game mentally, because people feel though
basketball, it is not just physical it is more
mental to it too! I could sit there, if I can't
beat somebody physically you can try to beat
them mentally. Or it can be vice-versa.

250
251

G: How do you know if you are mentally
beating them though?

U (243-248): (B) takes trash-talking to another
level. Says basketball is not just physical it is also a
mental game.
I (243-248): Mental game meaning playing with
their heads. If a person can not beat his opponent
physically he may try beating him mentally.

252

253

B: Because you be running up in him!.

254

255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268

Q: It works in reverse too.
A: It motivates me.
D: Yeah, me too.
B: Some people just ain't mentally tough,
you know some people think the game of
basketball you have to (be) physically strong
and everything, but I mean you have to (be)
mentally tough too, to play the game.
A: If (B) just sits there and TT to his man,
you can’t do this you can't do that, his man

U (253): A trash-talker knows when it is affecting a
opponent because of what they are doing to them on
the court. If a trash-talker is getting the best of his
opponent on the court then what he is saying is
mentally affected his opponent.
U (257-259): Other players agreed that it motivates
them to play better.

U (267-271): (A) gives the frequent situation.

101
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278

just might try to play outside his game you
know, start doing stuff he doesn't normally
do.

279
280
281

Q: So you have to pick and choose?

282

283

284
285

286

287
288

289

290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300

B: He might just roll off some numbers or
something like that.
C: Sometimes it is who you TT to. You
can't TT to everybody because it don't work.

C: Yeah, sometimes you can almost, just by
lookin' you can say naw he can't... I mean
cause we all know sometimes we be on the
playground and you (can) about look and see
who can play ball. Naw, he don't look like
he can ball, you can be wrong, but you can
almost pick and choose. Like I don't think
he can ball, and will not pick him (on my
team). Then he gets on you, (oop) here goes
six points for me and we are going to twelve.
You know what I mean. It's that way all the
time. Like I said, everybody does it. So I
didn't know it was a problem. You know,
everybody do it.

U (281-294): (C) says a trash-talker can almost tell
who he can talk trash to and who he can not just by
looking at an opponent.
I (281-294): If a person can play may be he will not
be affected by the trash-talk.

U (296-297): Trash-talking can appear in a form of
threats too.

D: It can be a form of threats too. You don't
have to say oh you ugly.
C: If you take it as a threat then you are
scared.

301
302
303
304

U (273-274): (B) recognizes the reverse.

D: You can say like, the next time you go
(to) the hole I'm gong to break your arm, I'm
going to hit you so hard.

I (302-304): Players understand the differences
between exaggeration and threats. But there are
people that will try to hurt a person because the
person is getting the best of them.

305
306
307

C: See that is different, now I'm talking
about... I never heard anybody say that.

308
309
310

E: If they do... Telling them to shut the
fuck up.

311
312
313

C: If you throw it I'm just going to you
know, break my hand blocking it.

314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322

D: It doesn't mean he is going to do it, it just
means that he is gong to try to intimidate
you, so that you will not take him to the
hole.
C: I'm going to tell you what is intimidating,
when you know you are going to the hole
and they can't block your dunk, and they

U (320-336): (C) gives an example of what is
intimidating. (C) says there is a differences in
threats: verbal and actually fouling a person.

102
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376

jump with you or grab you out the air. That
is a more physical threat than what you are
saying. You know that if you get passed
them all he is going to do is grab you and
slam you down. Now, which one would you
rather be involved with? Of course the one
when somebody is talking. But when you
know he is going to push you... I mean BL.
You go to the hole I mean, he is coming, he
is going to knock you down what can you
do? You almost don't want to go to the hole,
but see you can actually hurt somebody like
that. But just saying I'm going to score
thirty tonight, that is up to you!

I (324-336): Bill Laimbeer would be an example of
a good cheap shot artists and not a trash-talker.
I (324-336): If a person says he is going to score on
you at will, it is up to you to try and stop him.

Q: (The) TT that Snipes and Woody were
doing got the opponent mad and start
arguing amongst themselves is that some of
the results of TT? Like scoring on you
defensive player and TT to him, and you
guys start bickering and saying why don't
you play some better defense? (The group
starts thinking).
A: I think so.
Q: (Told a story about one of the guys on
the Slippery Rock team," We started
arguing at each other. He wasn't TT, but
what he was doing caused us to loose focus.
C: So when he checked in the game, like I
said before, He didn't look like he could play
ball.

U (347): Players agreed, that it can cause the team
to lose focus and start arguing with each other.

Q: Right!
C: That is what I'm saying, sometimes you
find a person and you TT to them cause you
know that he ain’t use to it. Some people say
they didn't know I TT until they get in the
game.
Q: We tried to talk him out of his game but
he still kept shooting 3's. It just mess are
team up. You think the reverse can happen
when you start TT?
A: Yes.

U (373-376): (C) speaks o where a person grows
up. If he has the ability, he has the ability.

C: If somebody can play, they can just play.
Allot of people just not from an environment
were they be like I didn't know they talked
this much trash.

1 (373-376): Players may be use to the trash-talk
because they are exposed to it everyday.

103
377
378
379
380

381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388

389
390
391
392

393
394
395

396
397

D: I think when you TT to somebody and
you see that it doesn’t effect them, it comes
back to you.
B: Then you don’t kept TT to them.

U (382 & 387-392): Answers (D) and says that a
person does not keep trash-talking if it is not
affecting his opponent.

D: Right. When you realize it is hurting
you more than them.
B: Eventually you shut-up. If you are
talking allot of trash to this guy and he is just
taking you to the hole and scoring on you
and just looking into your face with a silly
smile. You would be like shit, I might as
well just shut-up.
C: It depends on what you say too.
Q: Is it nonverbal, If you don't say anything
does that have an effect?

U (387-392 & 394): Depends on what you say to
get that mental edge.
I (394): It depends on to who and what you say, and
how you say it too!

398
399
400

401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430

C: (Interrupting) That’s still TT to an
amount. No matter what you do, if you
smile, clap you hands or whatever. Like I
said what is the threshold. What is the
threshold of TT? If you TT and you go pass
15; if it is 16 you talk too much trash, but
what about 15? He is in between so when is
the threshold getting over board?
Q: As anybody ever got into a fight because
of the results of TT? Like pushing and
shoving.
A: I don't think in organized basketball, on
the playground!

U (399-406): Realizing that non-verbal emblems
are a form of trash-talking also.
I (399-406): (C) asks what is the threshold? Who is
the most talkative who is the least?

U (412-413): fights i.e., pushing and shoving will
happen, but an all out rumble usually exist on the
playground

Q: What were some of the things that were
said?
A: Just like your mama and stuff like that.
B: If they say something about your mother
it is time to throw. Like you know family or
something.
Q: That is when it will turn into physical
aggression?
B: Yeah.
Q: What about when the game is out of
reach. You lost the game you are down by

U (418): Some "yo mama" type gestures are still
used in trash-talk.
1 (420-422): This may be overstepping a boundary,
when talking about a persons mother. (B) is
actually setting a boundary for himself.

104
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483

20 with 2 minutes to go and they are still
TT7 Do you turn that into physical
aggression?
E: Lock Haven, Yeah.
C: I mean yesterday we got beat, and they
were TT.
Q: Did you want to escalate that into
physical aggression?
C: Yeah, there it is, you know, I know I can
play the game. I know I can play, so why
should I get mad. I'm going to see them
again. That can be the only problem with
TT, cause if you meet them again, then they
are gong to remember and they are gong to
be on top of their game. It can hurt you and
it can help you. But you ain't worried about
the future you are talking about the present.
It is not like fighting. I'm saying the ones
that don't talk are scared, or just not from
that environment. Who's fault is that? You
know, should I not TT because some people
were playing basketball since this high
(gesturing), and that is all you heard. Before
you even could play basketball you see
people out there that is good and they did it.
Like he said the ones that be TT be the better
players. Especially in the playground. That
is how it was. Loud music, TT, Fighting.

U (443-446): (C) puts trash-talking into
prospective. If a player has confidence in his ability
then the trash-talk may not effect him.
U (454-462): Growing up trash-talk is all (C) heard
and he picked it up from this environment.
I (454-462): For most Blacks this is true.

O: (D) is originally from Europe, so officially there
are no Whites speaking yet.
O: Seems that (C) speaks for the group, he is trying
to relate to the subject at hand.

Q: So with that new rule in college
basketball when you get kicked out of the
game for fighting.
C: (Interrupting) Oh yeah, that is going to
change that shit now.
Q: Does that control the TT?
C: No, you just do it another way.
Q: Like how?
C: I mean, you don't have to be loud with it
and still be saying what you have to say.
A: You don't even have to talk, if a dude
messes up or travels or something, just
patting him on the buti ran get him flustered.
You don't even have to open your mouth.

U (473 & 477-478): Players agreed with (C) and
labeled the talk as sneaky-talk.
I (480-485): If someone is messing up, they are
already flustered because of this, and trash-talking
adds salt to the wound.

105
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506

Like he was saying you don’t even have to
say nothing.
Q: What are some of the things that are
said? Phrases.
B: What you say (H).
H: Somebody say you are 0 for a life time,
or something. (Laughter).

U (492-493): (H) expressing a common phrase that
he says or is said to him.

C: I be laughing and I would say now what
did the scouting report say, I can’t shoot the
three now I'm shooting the three. Now you <
better tell your coach to rewrite the scouting
report. Just say anything off the wall, then
(when) you got them, you are ahead of them.
Like you said, 9 times out of 10 you are
talking about (L) because (L) kicked yall's
ass.

O: A lot of non-verbal agreement like nodding
heads.

Q: How many of yall think it is just part of
the game?

507
508

509.JBs

A: I think it is part of the game.

510

Q: Is it part of life too, do you TT anywhere

511
512
513
514

else?

515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
>31
>32
>33
>34
>35
>36
>37

C: Playing cards and all that.

D: Yes.

B: I talk playing cards.
E: Sega.
F: Spades.
C: In the city cards is major.
B: Especially if there I money on the line.
Q: How about in the classrooms or
something?
D: For example if I say something to (C) off
the court and we came on the court he is
going to carry that with him it is going to
effect him. When we are in a group
together, like in a hotel or bus... Somebody
says something in a card game and carry that
on to practice.

1 (513-525): Players stating that it is part of life
also.
1 (515): Cards symbolizes trash-talking as fun.
Usually play it with friends or acquaintances, so you
know the person. In conference basketball it is the
same type of atmosphere. When the emotion are
high boundaries may be crossed.
U (530-536): (D) gives a good example of how you
can carry trash-talking on in different directions.

106
538
539

E: A good example (cards) this ain't a 200
baby.

540
541
542

C: See you (talking to D) you were TT then
though.

543

i

544
545
546

D: That wasn't basketball that was 200,
when you come on the court you think about
that.

547
548
549

U (538-539): (D) agrees with (E) about the trashtalk used in card games.
U (541 -542): (C) makes (D) realize that is a form of
trash-talking also.
I (541 -542): (D) stated earlier that he did not use
trash-talking, but (C) makes him realize that talking
in card games is a form of talking trash.

C: But see that is TT still. You said yall
don't do that in Europe.

550
551

D: I learned my ways (laughter).

552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559i«
560

C: I mean everybody does it.
Q’ So the ones who aren't saying anything
in this room yall don't use TT?

U (551): (D) finally agrees that he trash-talks and
said that he learned from being frequently exposed
to it by teammates and other opponents.

C: Naw, they just do it another way!
A: (J) talk allot of smack.

U (560): A teammate recognizes (J) as a trashtalker.

561

562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591

J: I don't say anything until someone starts
saying something to me. When someone
starts TT to me, I feel like I play better. It
gets me more fired up.

I (562-565): (J) is the first White player to speak up
and get involved with the discussion.
U (562-565): (J) believes it makes him play better
when opponents talk to him.

B: Just let your game speak for itself.
J: But if I'm playing bad and someone
doesn't say anything.
A: I talk trash when yall be schooling them.

U (572): (A) states when the team is doing good he
will talk trash.

D: When somebody tells you I don't even
want to say anything to you, you are too
sorry. I don't even want to guard you, here
lay-up. And you start thinking.
C: I don't do it the way 1 use to do it. I use
to be real bad, but I don't do it as much. I
guess I kinda grown out of it.
Q: What's up my man in the back (talking to
F), ain't you from the Burgh? I know you
TT?
F: I'm hungry man, I can't say anything.
Q: I know you be talking mess in those
summer leagues.

U (579-581): (C) says he has matured and he does
not do it like it did when he first came. He said he
toned himself down.

107
592
593
594

F: Kinard?
Q: Yeah, on e way in and one way out.

596

B: What’s up (F).

598

F: I’m hungry man!

597

599

600
601

602
603

604

605
606

607

608

U (596): Teammates recognize that (F) talks trash
but (F) tries not to say anything.

Q: Anyone want to add anything about TT
on the tape?
E: The major thing about TT is when you
can go to the opponents coach and tell him,
man look here, you better put somebody on
me to guard me or some shit. Now that is
some serious shit.

609
A: You done that before?
610
611
E: Naw, I ain’t that good.
612
613
Q: Who (amongst) yall, think talks the most
614
trash, the guards or the big men?
615
616
C: On this team?
617
618
A: I don't know it is just an individual thing.
619
620
E: (Big Man) In general I would say the
621
guards.
622
623
B: (Big Man) Inside it is different, it is
624
down in the trenches.
625
626
J: On our team it is the guards.
627
628 ' B: Yeah, it is the guards because inside it is
629
more physical.
630
631
Q: Does the rivalry and the crowd motivate
632
you to TT?
633
634 A:, B:, C: Yeah! (simultaneously).
635
636 Q: Who is yall rival?
637
638 A: Everybody.
639
640 C: Edinboro (laughter).
641
642
A: Everybody is our rival, Clarion, Cal,
643
Edinboro.
644
645
D: Anybody we can beat!

U (613-618): No one positions talks more, it is
from an individual standpoint.
1 (620-624): Big men think it is the guards talking
to them. They think it is more physical contact
between them (Banging bodies in the low post).

U (634-645): Other reasons a person may be
motivated to talk-trash when you play a rival school
and the crowd of the rival school. It is all part of
competition.
I (634-645): Again, players establishing
competition in conference play, everybody is a rival
school.

108
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658

659
660

C: I be too tired to talk.

U (649-651): (B) says physical conditioning limits
how often a person indulges in trash-talking.

B: Sometimes you do be too tired to talk, it
be enough just getting up and down the
court, man.

1 (649-656): May be that is why players do it at the
beginning of the game.

C: See my first year, we were not running
so I had enough energy you know, now we
are running, I don't have nothing to say,
man!
B: I use to do it allot in high school, until
my coach made me wear a mouth piece.

661

C: Yeah, at Cleveland St., too.

664

A: Did you have to do that here, I remember
that coach gave us a mouth piece.

662
663

U (658-659 & 663-664): Coach used tactics like
giving players mouthpieces to limit the trash-talk.

665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695

D: (C) you had one didn’t you?
C: Yeah.
Q: Is it just part of where you are from?
B: I mean if you are playing against great
players day in and day out, and they keep
pounding on you and beating on you, you
are going to have to respond. Are you gong
to let them just keep beating on you? No,
you are going to TT and they are going to
TT.
A: You can always take it out.
C: My freshman year is where I really
experience it. What we came 7 deep?
B: What's that?
C: When we first came to Cleveland St.
B: Yeah.
C: It was wild then. That is when M and
them was there an it was just crazy!

U (672-678): Being exposed to it from great
players, a person tends to respond and incorporate it
into their game. It is established as a style of play
(trash-talking).
1 (672-678): So if people see great players trashtalking they are inclined to use it themselves to try
to make their games better.

109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PA.
(IUP)
DISCUSSION

THEMES

Q: The first scene is kinda exaggerated, but
is that evident in college basketball that TT
what Snipes was doing?

U (10-18): Usually agree but to an extent.

A: 1 would think sor Because it goes on it is
part of your style really, in the streets you
TT , were you're from you TT, but I think it
actually helps you play better. It helps me.

1(10-18): (A) understands that, when he talks about
free-talk.

B: That type of TT doesn't go on in college
basketball.

1(10-18): Talking trash may motivate you, help
you play better.

C: Naw not that kind.
Q: What type do you think, goes on? Is it
evident?
B: It is not as much free talk.

U (23): (B) Understands the differences.

C: It is like somebody telling you, you can't
guard him or something.

I (23): (B) notes that it is more sneaky in college
than on the playground.

B: If he ever have the ball that long.
(laughter).
Q: How could that one scene escalate into
physical aggression?

O (28-29): Relates to the exaggeration of the scene
in the video. One player had the ball entirely too
long.

C: After that block shot.
A: Of course he embarrassed dude by
punching his shoot like that. The guy could
have easily got up and got mad and started a
fight or something you know.

U (34-39): After a block-shot, escalation may occur
because the person is embarrassed.
U (41-42): (C) recognizes the team aspect.

C: The other could have knock him out for
notpassing.
Q: Obviously right there ray was defeated,
are you quick to TT when the opponent is
defeated?
B: Oh yeah!, oh yeah!
A: Definitely.
B: And get the and one too!

I (44-52): Teammates can get mad when they are
not involved. When players take trash-talking
personally they want to do extra, in turn, leaving
their teammates out.
U (48-52): Players quick to talk trash when they see
the opponents are defeated.
I (45-53): This is when you are getting the best of
the opponents.
0(52): (B) Talks about "and one": Meaning
getting the basket to go in and the foul on top of it.

no
54
55
56

A: Specially when they are talking all game.
We run up the score on them and beat them
bad, that is a chance to put them down.

58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89

Q: How about when it is reversed? When
you are defeated and he takes you to the hole
and starts TT? Are you quick to escalate
into physical aggression?

90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107

1 (63): (C) says it depends on how well a person is
playing as to how much trash-talking he does.

C: Depends on how many points you got.
A: As far as on the streets probably so, in
the city, it depends what is on the line for it,
like money!
D: Yeah.
Q: What about the PS AC championship?
C: You have to keep your composure I
would say.

U (65-74): Depends on what is on the line, on how
much a person would trash-talk.
1 (65-74): The consequences come into play with
sneaky-talk. Keeping composure means letting
tilings go that you normally would not on the
playground.

A: I be ready to fight if I loose anything,
that is just being competitive.

I (79-82): In free-talk money changes everything.

B: The big thing is money. You put money
on the game, anybody can see it. some
people see it and that brings out the worse in
them, no matter what the situation is.

U (91-95): Most all agree that making an opponent
mad is the main purpose for using trash-talk.

A: Hell yeah, foul like a m-f. Play for
money what? (smack) foul. Give them a
hard foul.

U (97-99): For others it works in reverse, hurting
the person who is trash-talking.

Q: What Woody said right there, is that
reasons for TT?

B: Yeah,
C: Yeah,
D: Yeah.
A: Well for some guys it works.
C: Against them.
A: Yeah, cause I know somebody is TT
against me I just start commence to busting
their ass, (laughter) seriously. It can
motivate you, you know what I am saying.
Q: Is there any other reasons why a person
would TT?

U (101-104): (A) explains how it works for him, if
they are trash-talking to him, he uses it as a
motivational tool to play better.

■

Ill
108
109
110
112

C: For fun sometimes.

1 (109): A new reason. Using trash-talking
techniques for fun.

®: ^° comPensate for skills they don't have.

113

A: It makes the game a little more exciting.

115

D: Yeah. It gets you in the game.

117
118
119
120

Q: (to B) Say that again.

122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161

C: Like Shaquille.

B: TT for certain people compensate for
skills, physical skills that they don't have.

Q: As an opponents TT, do you think that
has an effect on the team? If I’m taking one
of your players to the hole and scoring on
him and TT, does that effect the team?

1(111): (B) establishes another reason for using
trash-talking to compensate for lack of skills on the
court.
1(113-115): Yes, it actually brings excitement and
interest to the game; trying to build competitiveness.

I (124-129): Effects the team when someone is
trash-talking to a teammate and he is not stepping
up and trying to play better.

C: Yeah.
Q: And you guys say to your teammate
why don't you "D" up. And he gets
frustrated and come back and yall start
bickering back and forth?

U (136-140): Everyone agrees, bickering is formed
as a result.
I (136-140): This affect may be the biggest
detriment of them all, because it gets the whole
team arguing with each other.

A: Yeah.
B: Yeah.
C: Yeah, I seen that happen.
A: Sometimes if you bicker back and forth
to your teammates that makes you play
better. Your teammate tells you something,
sometimes it makes you mad enough to do it
better.

U (142-146): (A) talks about another type of
bickering, that can be classified as constructive
criticism.
U (148-154): Trash-talking can be to everyone and
anything depending on the situation.

Q: Is most of the TT towards an individual
or is it just talk to your teammates to hype
them up or is it more one-on-one
conversation.

U (156-160): (A) enhances the fact that it does
depend on the situation and circumstances.

B: I think it is everybody it's in crowd,
team everybody.

I: Reasons for talking trash are starting to develop:
1. Get opponent mad.
2. Get opposing team mad and arguing
with each other.
3. To build confidence (self)
4. To motivate teammates.

A: I think it depends on the circumstances,
because say like if someone is guarding (B)
over there and I hear them TT, I might use
that as, (uh) to get me going. It can make
(B) go, cause he see me, he TT lets go.

112
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181

Q: So you would try to hype him up?
A: Exactly.
C: Ego tripping it is about ego tripping.
B: When you dis somebody, I think that
effects, I mean everybody start TT.
A: Just like when somebody get dunked on.
That pumps the whole team up, and you start
TT.
B: I know are team, when somebody gets
dunked on, the whole team, we all talk shit.
everybody is talking shit.

I

Q: You are saying when somebody gets
dunked on, what other factors motivates a
person to TT?

182
183

U (166): "Ego tripping" testing someone’s ego.
Crossing that boundary.

B: Like when you get shook or something.

1 (168-192): Forms can result from many factors
including: 1. non-verbal emblems and 2.
Spectacular plays (i.e., dunks, creative moves).
I (168-192): Receivers of the talk tend not to
escalate the talk into physical aggression, at least
not from the survey standpoint.
U (194-202): Places (rival schools) motivate a
person to trash-talk.

184
185

A: When somebody gets shook.

186
187
188

1 (194-202): Develops competition and rival school
atmosphere.

D: When somebody gets shook, pick or
dunked on either of the three.

189
190

A: Somebody just gets broken down bad.

191
192

B: Make you fall.

193
194

Q: Does any places motivate you, players.

195
196
197

A: Cal.

198
199
200
201
202

B: Lock Haven.
A: Lock Haven.
A:, C:, D: Edinboro! (laughter).

203
204

C: I don't get motivated at home.

205
206

Q: You don't.

207
208

C: No, I don’t know why.

209
210

Q: Any teams you get motivated?

211
212

A: Cal, Edinboro

213
214

215

B: Just about anybody in the conference.

U (212-214): (B) realizes for himself and the whole
team that conference play, regardless of the
opponent can motivate a player to trash-talk and to
play better or worse.
I (214): (B) comes out plain and simple;
competition is the driving force for use of trash-talk.

113
216
217
218
219

220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
_

B: Competition, shit be crazy.
Q: Any of the players ever get in a fight as a
result of the TT? Not a fight but like

pushing and shoving.
C: (B).

i

Q: What happen?
B: My man had the ball on the wing, and I
stripped him, and he lost it, and he caught
me with a bow. So 1 hit him with one and 1
hit him with another one. Then he hit me in
the back of the head. And he got a foul.
Then everybody start TT to him. I think it
helped us out because we got motivated.
A: And we went on a 10-0 spurt.

C: Elbows to the head.
A: Like moving screens, that pisses me off
bad because somebody can get hurt on that.
Knee in the thigh or whatever.

269

I (254-256): Do bigger players get trash-talked to
less?

B: Elbow in the jaw.
A: Like when (D) and (E) down low and
they jump in to you.
Q: Does physical appearance have
something to do with it the TT, if you see a
big guy are you hesitant to TT to him?
B: Naw.
C: I think it comes from the heart.
C: It depends on how big they are.

263
264
265
266
267
268

U (243-247): Players establish that physical
aggression may be sneaky also. Retaliate with
things that refs can not see and catch their
opponents off guard.

B: I use a head-lock.

261
262

1 (224-234) (A) and (B) speaking for the whole team
on this point. Saying that no matter what happens
on the court, teammates have each other's back.

Q: What type of physical contact is usually
a result?

259
260

U (224-234): Again (B) expressing how teammate
jumped in and help their player.

B: That was it, the game was over.

257
258

U (224-230): Usually, (bow) elbow is frequent
retaliation.

B: Your game may be all that, so your game
will speak for itself. Some people just like
to talk the talk. It depends on the individual
too, if you are quiet it doesn't mean you TT,
but then the quiet person talks mad shit.

U (258-262): Players do not agree, comes from the
heart. A person's ability will be the deciding factor
of how much or how little trash-talking a player
does.
U (264-268): the quietest person may be the biggest
trash-talker.

114
270i
o*,
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323

ya loosing Ihz game by twenty with
2:00 to go and they are still TT do yall take
that and escalate that into physical
aggression?
C: Man you should not have nothing to say,
A: Especially if you play them for a second
time.
B: Yeah.

U (275-286): Players and Coaches will remember
who were the biggest trash-talkers especially if you
play the team again.

U (282-284): The physical aggression does not
surface just some retaliated trash-talk.

A: You say, well we see you the next time.
I don't think it would turn into a physical
confrontation or nothing like that.
B: Naw.

U (291-294): (A) speaks personally if player trashtalk at the beginning and they start to lose the game

Q: What if it was reversed and yall were up
by twenty with 2 minutes?
A: For me personally speaking, sometimes
it depends if the person is TT to me. if he is
and we are up by thirty I would just rub it in
his face.

U (298-300): (D) says usually, when the team is up,
players usually do not say anything unless their
opponents are still trash-talking to them.

B: Laughing at him.

U (302-304): Some players (atypical ones) will talk
trash win or lose.

D: (White) That is the thing if you are up
allot of points you usually will not talk
unless somebody says something to you!

I (302-304): Similar to what Lock Haven's team
said, talking trash no matter what.

C: Some people will be getting drugged by
forty and they still talking shit. That is the
team we want.

U (306-309): (A) and other players agreed that a
player should not say something when their
opponents are losing, it is unethical.

A: Like I said, if the team is all right and
they aren't talking anything, and we are
blowing them out, we don't say nothing. Be
a sportsman.

U (316-319): It is mostly where a player comes
from and it can be incorporated into the team aspect.

Q: For a personal measure that people use
TT, does it come from where you grew up?
Or does it come from where you play your
playground ball?

I (316-319): If some players trash-talk frequently,
the team will be exposed to it and use it themselves.
(B) says what you do in practice is what you are
inclined to do in the game.

B: I think that is part of it, but some of it is
like your whole team atmosphere. If yall
talk allot of trash in practice and stuff, you
are going to be inclined to talk in the game.

U (321 -328): The city is where a player most likely
will hear it first.

A: For some it is like a way of life, you
know what I'm saying?

I (321-328): This positively related to the survey
data.

115
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
Kg
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377

B: Yeah, for some people.
A: As they are growing up, like you said in
the city, mostly you here it in the city. Allot
of guys do that.
E: Just say it for the tape (A) is from
Philadelphia, (making a joke).
A: It counts, it helps too ya know. I see it a
lot and I hear it a lot.

U (333-334): If you see and hear it a lot, a player
tends to pick it up and do it themselves.
(336-339): Trying to get the White players
involved with the conversation. Most Blacks are
saying things getting involved. And when 1 say this
to get them involved it is usually one person
speaking for the group.

Q: You think people that see it and hear it
allot tend to do it?
A: Exactly, exactly.
Q: These people over here, yall not saying
anything, so yall must don't TT or nothing
like that.
A:, B:, C:, E:, simultaneously (D)!
(laughter).
C: (D) TT to refs!

U (353-355): (D) says he is from a small town so
le disagrees that it is not where you come from.
I (353-355): (D) picked it up from the other players
on his team. So where you come from does have an
affect.

B: He is going to talk to everybody. When
(D) heats up on they ass!
D: I am from a small too, so it is not really
where you are from. I mean no-one from
my school did that.
A: I think it is...
C: Attitude!
A: Exactly.
D: But usually I get into Fights when I do it.
Q: You say you are not from a small town
so what motivates you to TT?
C: Hyper bullet.
D: Yeah I am just live! (laughter).
Q: You get hyper over the games?
D: Yeah, just playing, I am not like crazy or
anything.
.
,
B: You’re just emotional.

U (363): Fights are pushing and shoving.

116
378
379

380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388

C: Adrenaline, adrenaline.
Q: Is TT just part of the game?
B:, C: simultaneously Yeah.
E: It is nothing you can do about it.

389
390

A: It is an integral part of the game. Like I
said, everybody does it, you will see it every
where you go. Like in the pros now, guys
do that allot.

393

B: I don't think the referees should try to put
like a hold on it unless it gets crazy.

391
392

394
395
396
397
398

1 (377-390): Adrenaline, emotions, and motivation
may result from trash-talk and that is all part of the
game, unless a player oversteps the boundaries.

U (387-390): It is nothing a person can do about it.
It is a part of the game, if you take that away at anylevel, you kill part of the game. The game would
not be the same, exciting action.

A: Even though coaches try to calm it
down, they cannot really control it.
B: It ain't nothing you can do about it.

399i
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430

I (377-390): Motivation and competition can get so
intense, especially against rival schools and
sometimes you may lose your cool.

A: Because it is going to happen anyway.

I (387-390): Every player indulges in it, in some
way.

B: A lot of coaches like, don't talk just play
the game, and you are more quiet that is all.

U (392-393): Players agreed that referees and
coaches should not try to control it unless it gets out
of hand

Q: With the new rules and the coach trying
to calm it down, how does it appear now
with the new rules? Like if you fight you
will get kick out of the next game. How
does it appear now?
B: It is more on the down low (quiet, sly)
you can talk allot of trash, you know if
somebody step to you easy (get mad easily).
Bang, bang and don't throw any punches or
whatever.
A: Yeah, with the new taunting rule it is
kinda low-key. You will hear it but it will
not be as vocal as it was.

I (392-393): The coaches and referees view of "out
of hand" and the players' views are very different.

U (411-415): Player usually wants to defend
himself and his skills by talking a good game.
U (411-419): Players agree that it is more sneakytalk with the new rules.

A: And it won’t be that out-spoken neither,
it will be like something under your breathe.
C: Girl's rule.
D: I never seen anything go really that far.
Not around here anyway, maybe on TV.
B: You got people understanding it better.

U (429): (B) talks about understanding its effects,
reasons, and significance better for the nonsupporters.

117
431
432
433
434

Q: What are some of the things you would
say when you are TT?
B: Whistles.

435
436
437
438

Q: We have allot of tape!

440

A: Your ass is butt!

439

441
442
443

444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484

I (434-444): What every comes to mind they
expressed.

C: Your faggot ass.

C: Your sad ass.
A: You shoot a curve ball.
Q: What are some types of things you
would say (to {D}).
C: (Answering for him), You can't stick me,
you can’t stick me. get that shit out of here.
Take my scholarship! (big laughter!).
Q: Are they right?
D: Yeah! I don't do it as much as I use too!
I use to be worse.
C: Yeah, as you get older it tones itself
down.

U (455-459): Talks about maturing and not doing it
so much as players get older.
1 (455-459): May calm down when their maturity
level rises, but the competition causes the trash-talk
to erupt again.

D: No, actually I'm taking pills (laughter!,
joking).
B: It is like a conversation, when you are
talking about something, whatever comes
up, comes out!
Q: Does TT appear in everyday life? Like
classrooms.

U (471-484): It appears in everyday life also.
U (475-478): (A) speaks on the competitive aspect.
Competition can rise from everywhere.

C: Oh, yes!
B: This locker room boy, right here.
A: I mean it is competitive, you will see it
everywhere. If you are in the business
world, they are competitors you are trying to
get an edge on someone else.
D: When you play video games you hear
that shit. When you play football.
B: I think we talk more trash between
ourselves than we do on the court.

U (483-484): (B) says he thinks they trash-talk
among themselves more. Helps build tolerance and
competitiveness within the team, so players can be
ready for other teams.

118 *
485
486
487
488
489
490
491

Q: Why is that?
E: Like if somebody gets dunked on we
always come down here and draw it on the
board.

492
493
494
495
496
497

A:, B:, C:, hang-man! B: They getting
dunked on.

498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517

B: Yeah, you know it is a competitive type
thing.

518
519
520
521

game?

522

C: Yeah, to boost their confidence.

D: It is all fun though, it is different in the
games.

A: As a team in practice we do it for fun, in
a game it is serious ya know!

C: Yeah, that is when it is fun.
A: That's when it is fun. When you play
somebody living around the same place you
come from it is like you know there game
and you are going to TT.
B: I think as a team frustration can come
from the TT.
Q: Would you TT to your teammates in a

B: Yeah.

Q: Do yall want to add anything else while
the tape is running?

526
527

A: Yeah, I would like to say hi to my mom.

528
529

Q: Anything on TT?

530
531
532
533
534
535

C: Philly is in the house! (imitating A).
A: Yeah I want to tell the boys down at the
Boro, ah-uh. We coming down there, and..
. Mason knows who I'm talking about.

536
537

538

I (509-512): In conference usually you know most
of the players so you may trash-talk in a competitive
nature, but have a friendship with them off the
court.

Q: Is it always serious or is it for fun, like
you playing somebody you know?

523
524
525

U (495-502): Fun type of situations arise between
teammates. Serious aspects evolve when you are in
a game and something is on the line like winning.

Q: Thanks for your time fellas.

U ( 514-515): Team can get'frustrated from
opposing teams trash-talk. Establishing the point
that others trash-talk can effect the team.
U (520-525): You would trash-talk to your
teammates to build confidence and help them
emotionally.
I: But a player can not trash-talk to everybody, you
know the ones you can trash-talk to and the ones
you can not

119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29i
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

CALIFORNIA
(CAL)
discussion

THEMES

Q: Okay, even though that was a
exaggerated point, do you think the trashtalking Wesley Snipes is doing is evident in
college basketball

U (11-18): Players understands the
exaggerated points. They know it exists but
not that much.

A: Yeah,
B: Not that much.
C: Naw, not that much especially not in
college.
A: Yeah

1 (24): (B) Points to the person he thinks
does the most trash-talking. Throughout the
focus group (A) takes on that role and
speaks more frequently.

Q: But you do think it is there?
A: Yeah
B: Right here (pointing at A).
Q: How frequent does that trash-talking
occur, in a game? Does it happen at
different times in the game?
A: At the beginning when you try to take
someone's heart.

U (30-31): (A) understands at what point
the trash-talking appears in the game.
I (30-31): Saying at the beginning you test
your opponent trying to establish
boundaries. If he does not respond may be
you do not have his heart.
I (33-34): Even though (C) is a captain, he
does not frequently speak-out unless things
pertain to him personally.

B: Say something, he is our captain (talking
about C).
Q: How could that scene escalate into
physical aggression? How could to dude
who got his shot block escalate the scene
into physical aggression?

I (44): Players understand that in general,
throwing an elbow is a type of physical
aggressive tactic.

A: Get made because he got his shot
blocked.
B: Throw an elbow.
Q: With the new rule you think the TT is
controlled or is it still out there.
C: It is still out there.
D: It is still out there. I think they made it
allot harder on the players because if they
get a technical for that they cannot play in
the next game. So that kinda controls it a

U (51-54): Players know that the new rule
exists but still believe trash-talking still
exists despite the new rule.

120
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108

little bit. Every fight you have to think
about playing in the next one.
Q: In the last scene obviously Ray was
defeated, Snipes was taking him to the hole
andTT. as a player are you quick to TT
when you see the players defeated? The
opposing team is defeated? (explaining
because I see confused looks), up by twenty
or you are taking your defender to the
whole?

O (55-66): Relating back to questions
#14,15, and 9. Survey does not reflect
answers.

U (67-74): Different scenarios happen
throughout the game.

A: Yeah, because you got the upper hand.
Or you feel you got the upper hand, you up
by twenty.
B: Say you up by five, you still going to
talk?
A: Depends on the situation kid! (laughter).
Q: Give me a situation where you would
talk-trash and you up by five.
A: We up by five and he take me to the hole
and say check up or something, I'm going to
say that's all right that wasn't nothing.
A: I probably wouldn't say "nothing",
(insinuating that he may cuss at this point)
but I'm just saying this for the tape.
Q: Say what you feel, don’t say it for the
tape.
A: Naw, I'll TT back that is the type of
player I am.
Q: That is what I want to hear. How about
if the situation was reversed, and they
defeated you and they start TT would you
retaliate with physical aggression, like
throwing an elbow? Especially if they were
up by twenty.
C: You should not have nothing to say.
A: I try to avoid TT when they up twenty.
(laughter).
Q: What woody just said right there is that
one of the reasons why people use TT to get
the other player out of their game or
whatever?

I (79-80): Might say something because
they still have a chance to win.
U (83-85): A vulgar, cussing, responds is
usually what fits.

U (90-91): Regardless, if someone trash-talk
to (A) he will trash-talk back.
I (90-91): Resulting from the competitive
stand-point brought out in Clarion's focus
group.
O (90-91): Brings out competitiveness in
the game itself.

U (100): Seems to understand when you are
getting beat you say nothing. No physical
aggression will occur.
1 (102-103): Try to avoid the situation but
still indulges in it, especially when the
opponent initiates it.
U (105-108): Using trash-talk to get people
frustrated and not concentrating on the
game.

121
109
110
Ill
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131

B: Yeah.
A: Yeah. - For some people, it helps their
game, it hypes them up to play better.
Q: Is it safe to assume that the ones who are
not saying anything don’t use TT, don’t TT.
-E: I do not know_what yall looking at I don’t
TT.

O: Noting a trend. Mostly Black players are
participating in the focus group discussion.
U (112-113): Trash-talking also helps a
player get motivated and pumped to play his
best.
1 (112-113): Sometimes trash-talk just
benefits the person initiating it, regardless if
it affects the opponent personally.

Q: People TT to you?
E: Yeah.
Q: How does it effect you.

I (127-128): (E) States that you have to do
something outstanding to trash-talk.

E: I just play the game, after you score then
you can TT.
Q: Does it escalate you game to another
level?

O (133-141): Some players are trash-talking
within the group.

132
133

E: Yeah.

134
135

A: When they call her a bitch.

136
137

B: E what up.

138
139

A: He called ??? a bitch, did you get that.

140
141

B: Is that on tape?

142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162

Q: At one point Woody and Snipes were
TT, taking them to the hole scoring points on
them, the other teammate was yelling at,
they were yelling at each other. Does that
happen in college basketball, that a team
gets so frustrated that they start yelling at
each other from another person or opponents
TT? For example, I go to the hole and TT
and you start bickering to your teammates
talking about come on play better defense?
A: Yeah
C: It happens.
Q: Is that a cause of the TT or is it cause of
the persons ability?
D: I think it is because of the persons
ability. Try to make him play is best.

U (154-156): Most players know that it can
destroy team concepts and team goals.
O (154-156): Most players shake their heads
in agreement.
U (161-162): Ability helps, makes a person
play his best.
1(161-162): Trash-talking maybe used
because a person lacks certain abilities.
U (161-167): In some situations there is
nothing a player can do to stop a person
from performing well.

122
163
1 (164-167): But, if the team is not helping
164
A: You cannot do anything if a guy is
the player, this really causes problems. This
165
setting up is cut (pick) and being hard and
is when the frustration starts within the team.
166
sharp, (laughter). I know I have nothing to
167
do with that. Or to try and stop him.
I
168
169
Q: So if he is setting up his cut and rolling
170 off the cut and hitting J's and starts TT, then
171 what is your reaction and what is the team
172
reaction?
173
174 A: I would tell (C) to jump to the ball
175 . (laughter), play some better defense and talk.
176
I (174-184): Tones of expression may be
177
B: Switch into the lane.
different depending on the situation and may
178
have an effect on the bickering within the
179
A: Switch into the passing lane, (making a
team.
180 joke), sometimes we don't do it.
181
182 Q: That is when yall start bickering?
183
184 A: Yeah.
O (186-190): Trying to see what motivates a
185
person to talk trash.
186
Q: At least you are being honest, that is
187
cool. You might have answered this
188
question already, but I am going to throw it
189
back out there to get some more responses,
190
what motivates you to TT?
U (192): (C) strongly states that it is part of
191
the game. He is not the only one indulging
192
C: It is part of the game.
in it.
193
194
Q: It is part of the game?
I (192): (C) Strongly expressing his
195
feelings. No one can control it, hide it, or
196
C: Yeah, TT is part of the game.
eliminate it.
197
198
Q: The crowd does that get you hyped and
O (192): (C) Looks at me with an
199
ready to TT, the place like Gannon
expression of, why am I making a fuse over
200
(laughter).
this situation.
201
202
C: I don't know I was happy just to get out
203
of there___ The players were.
U (202-209): Places also motivate people to
204
talk trash.
205
B: Sure!
206
207
C: Central Oklahoma was.
208
209
A: Central Oklahoma!
210
1 (214-216): Derogatory words like "bitch"
211
Q: What are some of the things you say
are
common when talking trash.
212
when you TT?
213
214
A: Well one guy rip me when we were
215
playing Cen. Oklahoma, and dunked and
216
called me a bitch! That could be one word.

123
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229i
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270

That is frequently used, I know I used it a
few times too!

I (220): "Get that shit out of here" is also a
common phrase said when talking trash.

B: Tell them to get that shit out of here.
Q: Like when you block a shot or
something? You tell them? Q: Usually
when a person TT does he talk it directly
toward the opponent, or to himself just to get
his team pumped up?

U (228): Usually gets the team pump when
an individual gets pumped.

A: Yeah.
Q: You think that is a form of TT too?
A: Yeah.
Q: Clarion said part of the TT was from
where they grew up, that is where it started
from and they learned it from there.
D: Well, it is handed down, you see older
people talking and you just pick it up.
Q: You mentioned that it is part of the game
(to C) does it happen anywhere else?

U (238-239): Believes a person learns to
trash-talk from were he grows up. It is
handed down from older people and a
younger player just picks it up.

I (246-248): The talk may develop from
practice but a person is reminded anywhere
and constantly until the situation dies down.

A: It could be anywhere.
C: Yeah
Cause like here, if someone
gets dunked on in practice they are going to
remind you of it. All day anytime they see
you.
E: That is true.

O (257-258): Directed a question to a White
person to get him involved with the focus
group discussion.

A: Sometimes
B: You get your shot thrown.
Q: What about you my man, when you are
busting them threes (F)?
F: I don’t say much, (laughter).

U (262): If teammates do not say much,
others will talk for him.
I (262): So if a teammate does not indulge
in trash-talking, somebody else will talk for
him. Especially if the teammate is having a
good game.

C: Naw, we speak for them.
Q: What are some of the things yall would
say?
A: Another three in your mouth.
C: When we were playing some team, they
said all he ain't going to score, you ain't

O (262): This situation is constant. It does
not escalate into physical aggression, at least
not from the survey's stand-point.
U (267-270): The trash-talk is used to build
confidence with the other teammates.

124
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291

going to do this. I told him not to worry
about it and that they weren't no good and all
this.
Q: As anybody got into a fight as a result of
the TT?
C: A couple of pushes, yeah.

i

A: Yeah.

I (278): This situation happens seldom.
Players know escalation may occur because
they except it as being part of trash-talking
which is part of the game.

C: Can't say no names but.
Q: What were some of the things that were
exchanged with the verbal confrontation?
A (talking about B): A guy had pushed my
roommate, this is my roommate, and I had
pushed him back. I said that is my
roommate I can't let you fuck with my
roommate.

292
293
294
295
296

U (278): Actual escalation into physical
aggression.

Q: (talking to B) What was the verbal
confrontation that yall had?
B: He fouled me.

1 (287-291): Again, teammates step in and
help fellow teammates.

I (296): The escalation was not from trashtalk alone, it resulted from a foul, as in
survey questions #11 and 18.
O (298-302): Some trash-talking
confrontations within the team again.

297
298

C: You fouled him, he tried to dunk on you.

299
300
301
302

B: He fouled me, then he pushed me and I
pushed him back, and he said bitch I'll kick
your ass, I said shit'd.'

303
304

Q: Was you scoring on him?

305
306

B: Naw, he just fouled me hard.

307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316.
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324

Q: After you TT or something and the guy
fouls you hard, do you retaliate with
physical aggression. Say you just killing
him (scoring points) and he foul you hard?
C: If somebody foul me hard I'm going to
get them back, especially in the game, I'm
going to foul them hard back! It might not
be the next play down the court, but I'm
going to get them in that game, (laughter).

U (313-317): (C) Usually retaliates when
somebody intentionally fouls him as a result
of a person's trash-talk. (C) established a
theme of when the trash-talking turns into or
escalates to physical aggression.
I (313-317): Retaliation can also be sneaky.

Q: Do you ever catch yourself in situations
where you put your foot in your mouth for
TT too much?

U (323): (A) Agreed that trash-talking can
be reversed and have an adverse effect on
the sender.

A: Yeah. They just stare at you.

O (323): Other players agreed by shaking
their heads.

125
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345

Q: Anybody like to add anything.
A: Sometimes you have some crazy people
in basketball like this past, when we played
up at Gannon, it was this one dude from
Central Oklahoma, a big guy and he got
fouled and he went to the line and he said
yall guys can't check me yall got to keep
subbing in cause he was scoring allot. And I
was like ah man you ain't doing shit, you
ain't nothing, shut your big, bald-head ass
up. And the guy across the line said you
don't know me, and he wasn't even baldheaded, (laughter). You don’t know me I'll
beat your ass. And I wasn't even talking to
him. So I said man you know it ain't even
like that, I was talking to my man. He
looked at me and rolled his eyes. So when
you TT other people might suspect that you
are talking to them, so you know you might
not even be talking to them.

346

i

347
348

Q: Does it motivate you to TT when you are
playing your rival school? (laughter)

349
350
351

A: Yeah. Because you have people like YT
(IUP) who likes to TT.

352
353

Q: Who is your rival school?

354
355
356

A: I would say IUP.

357

D: To me it has to be Edinboro.

358
359

C: Edinboro.

360
361
362

A: Millersville. They have an ass whipping
coming, they talk too much trash up there.

363
364

C: Piled on. Definitely.

365
366
367

B: We walked into the gym and the crowd
booed us.

368
369

A: Cal ain't shit.

370
371

B: Cal ain't shit. A: Basically.

372
373

C: The whole crowd.

374
375

Q: Did they beat yall?

376
377
378

C: Yeap.

I (327-345): (A) giving an lived-experience
example of how the trash-talk can have an
adverse effect on the sender.

I (350-351): Rival school creates another
theme.
1 (355-373): Like to trash-talk to the rival
school because a player is familiar with
them, and they indulge in trash-talk because
of the competition and rivalry that has been
created.

126
379

380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392

Q: And they say Cal ain't shit?
C: Yeap.
Q: Was the lost compounded by the TT?
C: That made it hurt worse.
Q: Revenge.
C: They got an ass whipping coming.
D: It is just that atmosphere up there. It is
just like Gannon.

393
394

Q: Is that something they try to do on

395
396
397
398

purpose?

399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421

D: The crowd at Gannon does the same
thing.

A: Yeah.

Q: Any other opponents in the conference?
A: Lock Haven.
Q: A Lock Haven player
A: Yeah.
C: And their little point guard (Another Lock
Haven player) talks trash. He can't play but
heTT.
Q: He up there in steal though!
C: Yeah, right behind me!
Q: A little TT going on. That is it for me, I
appreciate yall time and all the good info
yall gave me.

U (381,385 & 389): (C) remembers what
was said. He wants to beat them so he and
his teammates can talk trash back.

127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

CLARION UNIVERSITY
(CU)

THEMES

DISCUSSION

O: Team interviewed after practice.

First I told them that we were going to watch
the film. Technical difficulty with the
equipment so just some talk about other
things.

U (16-22): Player thinks that it is
more street talk, playground talk.

Q: The trash-talking that Wesley Snipes is
doing is very exaggerated and over-stated
but, is this involvement evident in college
basketball?
A: No
B: I don't think so.

U (26-30): Exists in a certain way.
Quickly noted that trash-talk exists.

C: Nah.
B: That is just ridiculous!

i

I (26-30): Agreed, most are Black
and bring
it from the playground aspect.

Q: Does any type of trash-talk exist?
A: Yeah
B: Yeah

D: Yeah simultaneously.

U (34-36): (B) went deeper and
reflected on how it differs from
playground ball.

B: That's what I think, but refs will give you
technical fouls for-----what do they call
• that?

1 (34-53): Two types or forms
1. Organized
2. Playground

C: Yeah

A & C: Taunting
D: Unsportsman-like conduct.
Q: So with the new rules, do you think
trash-talk is being controlled now?

1= More sneaky.
2= All-out, no-holds barred.
1 (45-53): Even though players are
aware of the rules, they think it still
isn’t controlled by them.

A: No
B: No
D: No.

U (51-53): People do it on the sly,
where refs can’t see them.

A: It is more sneaky trash-talk.
B: Yeah it is sneaky.

1 (51 -53): If you don’t get caught
you can do it.

128
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84

E: Yeah, they will get in your face and say
things to you. ex. - I'm about to rip you this
time!.
A: When the refs..are not around you can
say anything you want!
Q: How could that scene we just watched
escalate into physical aggression?
C: Go to the hole and give his ass a bow!.
(laughter).
B: That's what I would do to tell you the
truth. If he talked to me like that I would
just go straight up to him and hit him on
purpose and knock him down. He should
not run his mouth like that.
Q: Lets watch the next excerpt, (a little talk
throughout the film. That is Marquees
Johnson right there! some laughter.)
Q: Obviously Marquees Johnson was
defeated. They defeated him and Wesley
Snipes started talking a little trash. Is that
trash-talking exists when a person is
defeated? Like when your team is defeated.
When the team is defeated on defense, are
you quick to talk-trash then?

85
86
87
88
89

B: It turns to physical aggression then, when
you are defeated. I wouldn't think you
would try to annoy somebody. Once it gets
to that point that is where you draw the line.

U (65-66): Bow, meaning elbow is
common retaliation, but it is also a
form of sneaky physical aggression.
I (68-72): (B) says this but assuming
lie means on the playground were
there is no rules.

U (86-89): (B) Talks about
understanding defeat when dealing
with a TT. For himself, that is what
really gets him. When his team is
defeated and they TT to him.

B: You can't handle physical aggression and
it shows.

U (86-89): (B) is exposing is
weakness unconsciously.

B: Yeah___ Basketball cry

95
96

U (65-72): Most thought of
retaliation tactics of the humiliation
that the player suffered.

F: You guys act like girls man.

Q: That is when it turns into physical
aggression?

93
94

U (59-60): They know it is there,
refs have other things to concentrate
on besides what is being said.

I (86-89): (B) Goes beyond that,
defeat is a tough thing to swallow.
Personally he notes this, but this is
exactly what TT is all about.
Annoying people on purpose!
Maybe not when a person is clearly
defeated, but in the mist of
competition.

90
91
92

I (53-60): Many people agreed that it
was sneaky, (A) & (B) speaking for
the whole team.

97
98
99

100
101

Q: Let's watch this last part right here,

102
103

A: Yo!, speak up!

104
105
106

Q: What woody said right there is that part
of the usage and reasons for using trash-talk?

107
108

D: Yeah

129
109
110
Ill
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120

B: Yeah
A: Yeah (one after another), definitely,
definitely.
B: It is just a psyche game, you know.
A: Definitely
C: I don't know, personally, when I get mad
I play better.

121
122
123
124

B: No, I think you try and do more things,
because you so pumped up. You know what
I mean? Tend to get more adrenaline.

125
126

A: You start forcing the ball.

127
128
129

B to C: Yeah, yeah you do. you start going
crazy.

130I'fig
131

C: I don't force that many shoots.

133

B: Yeah you do, offensive fouls.

135
136
137

C: Don't even try it.

132
134

B: Turnovers.

138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162

C: Lets bring the tapes down.
Q: Lets continue with the video. (Laughter
throughout the video, especially when they
start playing for the money, championship).
Q: Right there, in that scenes of trashtalking Wesley Snipes and Woody were
doing something that was getting the other
team all rattled up, talking trash to one
another and talking trash to the other people.
Do you think that has the same effect on the
team?... Getting the team out of their
game? Like if I'm beating him so bad and
start talking trash and the other team mates
look at him and say: come on man why
don't you start playing defense! then he jaws
back at you, and gets the team all riled up.
do you think that sort of thing takes place in
college basketball?
B: Yes,
A: I think so.

U (108-120): Just what was said
earlier, you TT to get the other team
mad. Get the team frustrated so they
aren't focused. Everyone understood.
1 (108-120): One theme taking
place: Mostly Black members are
expressing their thoughts, I think I
have an influence on their open
communication.
U (115): (B) talks about a psyche
game. Means playing with a persons
head. TT to get a reaction good/bad.
Testing them to see if they crack
under pressure.
U (119-120): (C) Understands it as
getting him to play better when he is
mad. Wants to show the other
person up. Not with TT but with his
play.
1 (119-129): (C) may think he plays
better but (B): thinks differently.
0(119-139): They argue because
two different sides.
U (122-137): (B) Thinks it maybe a
detriment if you get mad or react to
the TT. You get too pumped,
adrenaline flowing and it makes you
get crazy, forcing things. He
believes this is true of himself, too.
1 (122-139): Basically (B) & (C) are
going through some TT themselves.
About how one reacts to it. It shows
that it occurs beyond the court.

U (145-158): The question is how is
the team effected by the TT of
opponents. When opponent is
having a good game.
I (160): (B) Agrees because it is tied
into what he said to (C) earlier.

130
163
164
165
166
167
168
169

B: (Continues on his point) It takes place
with gold team (second string) we just do it
to them everyday! (laughter).... Not really,
it doesn’t take place. It hurts when you have
your own teammates cuss you out. It will
cause some problems.

170
171

Q: What motivates a player to talk trash?

173
174

B: To play a psyche game with somebody
else, to take them out of their game.

172
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184

A: When you know you can take a person.
especially when you know you can take a
person, and you know you can take them
every time. That is when you talk crazy shit,
and you do it! A: you know what I'm
saying?
Q: You are taking him, then you are scoring
on him and then you are talking trash.

185
186
187

A: Then you see it affecting the whole team,
you know what I'm saying?

188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210

211
212
213
214
215
216

C: You're going hard.
B: I think it does something to their
confidence level, because they like damn, he
telling me he is going to do this to me, and
he still doing it!
C: And he's doing it (laughter!). Now they
got a point to prove.
Q: So you think that will escalate into
physical aggression, by the other person?
D: It depends on how strong that person is.

U (164-169): (B) says it takes place
in practice. He says the 1st team just
hurts the 2nd team, but says it in a
joking manner.
I (164-169): Beyond that, there is
truth. In practice TT occurs and
when a similar situation arises on the
court, teammates are scolded. It
definitely destroys the team.
U (173-181): Motivation comes
from all situations. Main thing
expressed is that it is to get the
opponents out of their games.
U (176-181): Self-satisfaction also,
that you know you can take
advantage of your opponent.
1 (186-187): Ties in with previous
statements about the team. If the
team is effected then the TT is a
positive for you! If one is effected
you can make adjustments and make
it an individual accomplishment.

U (191-194): (B) Motivation to
destroy the confidence that was built
up.
U (196-197): (C) jumps in and tries
to defend his-position. Now the
other person with lowered
confidence has a point to prove and
he will most likely retaliate.

C: Yeah.
D: If he's one of those weak minded people
then of course it is going to turn into
violence. But if he is strong, he will play
over it.
Q: What are some of the phrases you say
when you are talking trash?(laughter) Q: Or
is it something that comes....
D: It just depends on what you are doing.

U (202): (D) Says a very important
statement. TT is only effective if the
person is weak and has low self­
esteem and self-confidence.
I (202-209): Relates with the mind
game "psyche". Goes beyond
physical talents on the court, but if
you can't handle destructive
criticisms from an opponent, then
your game, no matter how talented,
is shot!

•

131
217
C: It just conies.
218
E: It is not planned.
219
220
221
A: Probably things like a block shot, you
222
would say: "get that shit out of here."
223
224
D: At the same time as (A) "Get that shit
225
out of here."
226
227
B: You can't stop me.
228
229
C: You can't hold me!
230 •
231
A: Fool!
232
233
B: Down fool!
234
235
Q: How much do you think it is part of the
236
game?
237
238
A: It is an important part of the game.

239
240

D: Yeah that is a big pan.

241
242
243

A: If you take that away (clicking his
teeth!)..

244
245

D: You take away the mind.

246_i
247

A: You can't play the game quiet.

248
249
250|;
251
252
253
254
255
256

D: You, know!

257

court?

258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270

C: And that was an excerpt from Mr. (D)
(laughter)
Q: How much is trash-talking a part of life?
Do you use trash-talking in the class room?
or any place else, besides the basketball

C: You do to a certain extent, say like you
doing a paper, you didn’t get huh bro!, look
what I got!
A: It is just in a different way.
C: Yeah, it is in a different way.
B:* Cards.
D: Yeah, in cards you talk.

0 (217-233): (Q) Trying to get a feel
of what players may say to escalate a
scene to physical aggression.
1 (217-219): Mostly things they have
heard. Things are not thought of on
the court, just flows with the
situation. Comes out, thinking takes
place later. Off the court you think
of things to say in different
situations.
U (221-233): Common things said
they feel are things that will cause
humiliation & embarrassment. "Get
that shit out of here!" Generally
agreed on. Everybody has got their
shot blocked before.
U (235-236): Q: Trying to get at an
quantitative amount.
I (238): (A) May not have
understood, but went beyond that to
say it is a very important part!
U (242 & 247): (A) talked about
control. If you take TT the fun, the
mind games, the excitement may not
be there.
U (247): (A) You always have
something to say.
1 (240 & 245): (D) thinking more
intellectually beyond surface
meanings. Really concentrating on
how he feels. Takes away the mental
state of the game.
U (260-283): Players got a feel, or
thought of how they view it, in every
day life. Most throughout process of
whole interview.
U (264-266): It is a different
situation results are constant.
1 (260-283): An integral part of life.
Especially for underprivileged kids,
moaily inner-city Black youths it is a
part of survival.

132
271
272
273

274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294

B: Yeah, when we go ten for two. talkback
and forth.
D: Once you get into his head, you open
that door to his head.
B: If he only gets one book, you know he is
no-good! And I'm going to tell you about it.

B: You don't know how to play spades!
Q: Is trash-talking universal, or does blacks
have a different way to trash-talk different
from whites?
A: That is funny because before we came
where most black guys are from the city and
when you come here they (Whites) don't
really say nothing.
D: They not use to it.
A: We do it in a joking way and they don't
really say nothing back.

298
299
300
301

Q: So how do you interpret that?
A: I take it as they scared, I got their heart.

302
303

U (275-276): (D) talks again, about
triggering things that can play with
someone's mind.

C: What?

295
296
297

I (272-283): Something has
developed behind the scene. Based
on the differences between B/C. (B)
is the star maybe (C) has tried to
compete with that with little success.

Q: How yall (the white players) feel?

U (289-292): (A) Doesn't
understand what whites think about
TT. They don't respond to it the way
he does. They are not use to it
because basically it is not a sense of
survival for them. If it means
survival with physical aggression,
then you do what you have to do, in
(A's) case.
U (296-297): A bad response is
better than no response to (A). No
response means a person is scared.
I (301): Unless they are really
showing their talents, no response is
bad.

304
305
306

Z: We do-it in a different way, I mean they
come out, I don't know, when I first got here.

307
308
309

A: They who? You guys (the black
players), well especially (A), he'd say stuff.

310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322

C: He was just messing with you, you
know. He was just checking you out.

323

hear.

324

I (305-306): White players ay they
do it a different way, meaning they
don't do it?

Z: And when we play two-on-two here is
(B) when I go in, you too small get out of
here. C'mon switch up, and all that stuff.
A: Well we know what we do, we talking
about what yall do, you know what I'm
saying?
B: Do yall talk trash, that is all I want to

U (311-312): (C) Tires to keep the
white players understanding. Just
checking you out seeing how they
respond to TT.
U (314-316): (Z) Just mentions
within the team. He has a hard time
excepting it from his teammates,
rather than his opponents.
0(314-316): (Z) is white.
1314-316): Maybe (Z) doesn't play
that often.

133
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341

A: Thanks (X) A: Do you talk trash?
X: If you're having a good game you are
going to talk-trash, but if you are out there
bricking going 0 for 20 you are not going to
talk shit!

U (327-330): (X) Understands and
generally agrees, if things are
working positively than you would
express it.
O (327-330): (X) is also white.

A: I think they think it is more of a mental
thing like yo! we got mental toughness. We
think we just talk.
E: Because where I'm from everybody used
to talking trash.

1 (327-330): Depending on the
situation, many (White) players are
dragged into the TT atmosphere.
Maybe because of their experience
with their teammates.

X: That is the thing too, you guys come
from the city where I come from.

U (336-337): Reasons why, (E)
making a good point.

343

A: (imitating Whites) Come on Jimmy we
don't do that Jimmy.

1 (332-337): TT is mental toughness.
It is part of being mentally tough.

345

C: Yup, that's the wrong move.

347

A: We don't do that here!, (laughter).

I (332-334): (A) Realizing what
mentally tough meant, afterwards,
changing that to say he was mentally
tough too!

342
344
346
348
349

350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365

Q: After the game, you had a good game
and you were talking trash. Is there any love
lost, or do you
C: We just reminisce, like damn did you see
the way (B) broke that dude off, or did you
see the way (D) dunked on him. Hey, that is
it ya know!
B: Except when you are at home, back at
home I remember I use to have little rivalries
going on with certain guys.

(A mixture of talking happened everybody
started talking at once.)
D: After school you really don't have any
love lost.

369
370
371
372

B: So you mean you had 30 points scored
on you, 30 points 20 boards and 12 assist
and get dunked on.

373
374

C: Till this day we won't admit it

375
376

Q: Do yall have any rival school

377
378

U (358-360): (B) Still expressing the
difference between street &
organized ball.

C: Yeah that is true!

366
367
368

U (339-340): (X) Realizes that they
comes from a different areas
simplifying the fact that
environments play an important part
of who TT.

B:, C:, D: Edinboro!!!

U (362-368): No love lost in college,
because you usually develop a
relationship with other players. Just
a feel of competition, being better.
U (370-372): Players won't admit
other players getting the better of
them. Establishing self-confidence
and self-worth.
1 (370-374): Players respect others
play, but when it comes to TT that is
a whole different ball game.

134
379
380

381
382
383
384
385
386
387

388
389
390
391

392
393

394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432

Q: Some of yall get hyped and start talking
trash to Edinboro?
B: Yeah, especially that kid PW, he got a
big mouth, (laughter!)
Q: He ain't going to hear it. Say you
defeated your opponent, yall up by 20 and
you are constantly talking trash, with 5
minutes to go. yall up by 10 with a couple
minutes to go then you get up by twenty
again. If I was talking trash to you and you
were losing would that make it escalate into
physical aggression?

U (395-405): Everyone was in
agreement when you are getting
blown-out that TT is very sensitive to
the blow-out team. Just plain
disrespect.

B: I think so.
A: Yeah, I'd give you a little bow.
C: Yeah, a little elbow.
D: Might trip you.

I (395-411): Not really hurting a
player, but their pride would be hurt.
I think it relates to what (B) said.
Should not TT if they see the game is
clearly won. That is just ethics in
basketball.

A: Not really to hurt the person.
D: Just let him know what is up.
B: I don't think you should talk if you are
winning, ya know. I would say something at
the beginning of the game, but once the
game gets serious, I just shut-up and play
ball.
Q: Is majority of the trash-talk to other
players, or in general. Like a one-on-one
kinda thing?
C: I think it is to the whole team.
B: I think it is one-on-one.... To me it is
one-on-one.
A: It is kinda general, cause when (C) shoot
he would be like fool!

1(417-420): Again B/C disagreeing.
U (417-420): They both understand
that one-on-one/team TT exist. It is
passed by one person talking about
the whole team.
U (425-430): Teammates will come
to rescue. (C) know starts to agree
with (B). (C) says things that would
motivate (B). (C) Would rally
behind (B).
I (425-430): Team is quick to stick
up for player. If he is receiving TT.

C: Or if he or he break somebody off you
would be like, oh you better check him next
time.

U (429-430): Team will motivate an
individual player.

A: It is like your teammate will help you
talk shit to another guy.

O: Players got a sense of relaxation
with me about TT.

Q: So your teammates get you pumped up?

135
433
434
435

A:, B:, C:, D: Yeah, (laughter).

436

A: Talk a little shit to them.

437

438
439
440

B: Being funny, I don't appreciate this trashtalking just play the game. Just play the
damn game! That is what he would say

442
443
444
445
446
447

Q: What do you want to say?

448
449
450
^

C: Look at (K) he turning red, blushing.

452

B: He is their representative.

453

454
455
456
457

458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483

C: Free your mind!
B: Look at (K).

D: Turning red, blushing.

C: When he turn the mic off we will be
talking shit, (big laughter).
(Manager (M) walks in.)
A: What do you think about trash-talking

M?
C: What you got to say about trash-talking.
B: What you think about trash-talking?
M: Trash-talking is good at times and other
times there is a place for it and...
Q: You wanted to say something?
I (469): Generally
S: Sometimes trash-talking can come back
an haunt you, I let my actions speak for
themselves. When I dunk on someone that
is it. Come back and play defense. If you
start getting in their face.
Q: Say if you dunk on somebody, it can also
be non-verbal, (laughter) Do you think that
has an effect when you dunk and make a
face or make noise?
C: Yeah

U (477-482): Non-verbal TT maybe
worse.

136
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514

Q: Do you think people practice on their
TT skills? ‘
A: Nay, it is just a habit.
C: It is a habit.
D: Definitely from the city.
B: Different from a little town.
A: You know when to talk trash and when
to shut the hell up.
C:, B: Yeah.
A: So it improves over time.
B: I remember when I almost got jumped
before. I use to talk allot. You think I talk
now. this one kid pulled-out a razor on me
man. Word up! (laughter and
astonishment). It was like a little razor, a
box cutter, remember everybody use to
carry them.
C: (jokingly) I'm sick of you talking.
Q: Thanks allot for your cooperation and
time.

U (484-489): Practice skills where
do they get different thins to say7
No practice, really a habit. Voice of
pride and self-worth.
U (491-500): Everyone agrees that
the time and place is important to
how a person IT.