Systematic review compares martial arts styles for aggression reduction in youth, highlighting non-competitive types.
This study systematically compared and ranked the effects of different martial arts styles on youth aggression using a network meta-analysis. Data were retrieved from Web of Science, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to July 2025. A random-effects model was applied to account for study variability, and study quality was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool. Results showed that in experimental studies, traditional non-combat martial arts (TNC-MA) significantly reduced aggression compared with inactive controls (standardized mean differences [SMD] = -0.41 [-0.73, -0.10]), with non-contact sports (NC-S) being the second most effective (SMD = -0.41 [-0.73, 0.10]). Multi-style martial arts (MS-MA) and combat-oriented martial arts (CO-MA) showed generally weak or non-significant effects, and contact sports (C-S) had the smallest effect, with occasional slight increases in aggressive tendencies. Similar patterns were observed in observational studies, where participation in TNC-MA (SMD = -0.63 [-0.88, -0.39]) and NC-S (SMD = -0.60 [-0.91, -0.29]) was associated with lower aggression levels. MS-MA and CO-MA showed weaker or non-significant associations, and C-S had the smallest association. Subgroup analyses suggested that individuals older than 12 years exhibited lower aggression levels. In conclusion, TNC-MA and NC-S showed the most consistent evidence for reducing aggression in experimental studies and for being associated with lower aggression in observational studies, whereas CO-MA, MS-MA, and C-S showed weaker or non-significant effects across both study designs. These findings highlight the value of non-competitive programs that foster mental discipline to mitigate aggression and support positive psychosocial development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: