Diane L Gill. Berkshire Encyclopedia of World Sport. Editor: Karen Christensen & David Levinson, Volume 3, Berkshire Publishing, 2005.
In a television advertisement a few years ago young women argued that they would be better physically (have less risk of cancer and heart disease, for example), mentally (experience less depression), and socially (enjoy better grades, less teenage pregnancy, and greater career success) “if you let me play sports.” That ad indicates the corporate world sees females as athletes and athletic consumers. Moreover, a growing research base documents these claims and supports the many benefits of sport participation for women. Women’s sport participation has exploded in the last generation. Still, the numbers of female and male participants are not equal, and, more important, women athletes are not the same as men athletes. Gender does make a difference. To fully understand the psychology of gender in sport one must look beyond numbers, biological sex, simple sex differences, and individual differences between women and men to the powerful, gendered social context of sport.
Gender in Women’s Sport
The Olympic motto, “Citius, Altius, Fortius” (“swifter, higher, stronger”), calls attention to the physical and biological nature of sports. That motto also defines sport as competitive and hierarchical. So defined, sport emphasizes sex differences, but most scholars who take a feminist or social dynamics approach to gender and sport argue that sport does not have to be higher, faster, stronger—on the contrary, sport might call for fun, flair, and friendship.
Gender is a key feature of social context and social processes in sport. Gender varies with culture, and in fact, culture defines gender. Although biological sex is innate, all the meanings, social roles, expectations, standards of appropriate behavior, and ideas of beauty, power, and status are created by culture. Women are not born to wear high heels or high-top sneakers. And gender also varies with other cultural categories. For example, in the United States, field hockey is almost entirely a women’s sport whereas in India field hockey is largely a men’s sport, and in Australia and New Zealand both women and men play.
To illustrate the influence of gender on social context, consider how gender affects interpretations, responses, and the possible approaches to the following athletes:
- A soccer player who lacks control and is prone to angry outbursts,
- A basketball player who is tentative and lacks confidence, and
- A sixteen-year-old figure skater with signs of an eating disorder.
Would a coach, sport psychologist, trainer, or parent behave the same with a female as with a male athlete? Trying to be nonsexist and treat everyone the same ignores the powerful influence of gender. Gender is so pervasive in society that it is impossible to pinpoint that influence. Sport is no exception, and anyone seeking to understand the psychology of women in sport must consider gender influences in the larger society and within the sport world.
Sport Psychology Research
Research on gender in sport psychology largely follows gender research within psychology. Generally, that research has progressed—from sex differences, to an emphasis on gender role as personality, to the more current social psychology model that emphasizes social context and processes.
Sex Differences
The early sex-difference work, summarized in Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin’s classic 1974 review, assumed dichotomous biology-based psychological differences—male and female are opposites, and in practice we should treat males one way and females the other way. Today, however, most experts hold that psychological characteristics associated with females and males are neither dichotomous nor biology-based, and that even most biological factors are not dichotomously divided either. For example, while the average male basketball center is taller than the average female center, the average female center is taller than most men.
For psychological characteristics such as aggressiveness and confidence, even average differences are elusive, and the evidence does not support biological dichotomous sex-linked connections. Serious criticisms of the sex-differences approach were made, and the failure of this approach to shed light on gender-related behavior led psychologists in the 1970s to turn to the study of personality.
Personality and Gender-Role Orientation
Psychologists focused on gender-role orientation as the relevant personality construct, with Sandra Bem’s 1978 research leading the way. The basic proposition was that gendered personality is not a function of biology. Instead, both males and females can have masculine, feminine, or androgynous (both) personalities. Advocates of androgyny argued that “masculine” and “feminine” personalities should be encouraged in all people. However, the masculine and feminine categories and measures were widely criticized as imprecise, and in a 1993 book Bem herself moved to a more encompassing gender perspective. However, most sport psychology gender research is still based on her early work.
Overall, this research suggests that women athletes possess more masculine personality characteristics than do women nonathletes. This conclusion has been criticized as not particularly enlightening. Sport, especially competitive athletics, demands goal-directed assertive behaviors, and the higher masculine scores of female athletes probably reflect an overlap with competitiveness. Today most psychologists recognize the limits of earlier sex-differences and gender-role approaches, and look beyond the male-female and masculine-feminine dichotomies to social processes for explanations.
For example, gender issues emerged in 1993 research by the author that used a multidimensional measure (competitiveness, win, and goal orientations) to examine competitive orientations. As might be expected, males were more competitive than females in almost all the samples tested. Male college and high school students were more competitive, and especially higher on win orientation, than females, but females were just as high, and sometimes higher, on goal orientation.
Research on high school students who participated in competitive sports, noncompetitive sport activities, or nonsport activities showed similar results. Boys were more likely than girls to participate and have experience in competitive sports, but girls were just as likely or more likely to participate in noncompetitive sports and nonsport activities, and scored as high or higher on general achievement orientation. Overall then, the gender differences in competitiveness did not seem to reflect either achievement orientation or an interest in sport and physical activity per se, but a specific emphasis on competitive, win-oriented sport competition.
Extension of the research to intercollegiate men’s and women’s athletic teams, elite athletes in Taiwan, and ultramarathoners found the same trend. Athletes were much higher than nonathletes on all scores, and overall men were higher than women on competitiveness and win orientation. But those gender differences were minimal with the athletes. The women athletes were higher on competitiveness than male nonathletes and similar to men athletes. Gender differences were greater for nonathletes. Similarly, in Taiwan, intercollegiate athletes were higher than nonathlete students, and international caliber athletes were even higher. Moreover, gender differences were minimal in Taiwan.
The ultramarathoners, a unique sample in many ways, were competitive, extremely high on goal orientation, but quite low on win orientation in comparison to other samples. And there were not the same gender differences as in the other groups. In fact, the women ultramarathoners were slightly higher than the men on competitiveness and win scores.
Overall, the gender message from the competitive orientation work is that experience and opportunity have a much greater influence on competitive orientation than does gender. When women and men have similar sport experiences, the competitive orientation is similar. But the catch is that women and men rarely have similar sport experiences, even when it appears that they do.
Gender and Social Processes
In the 1980s gender research moved away from the sex-differences and personality approaches to a more social approach that emphasized gender beliefs and stereotypes. The basic proposition was that how people think males and females differ is more important than how they actually differ. Although actual differences between females and males on such characteristics as independence and competitiveness are small and inconsistent, people maintain their stereotypes. People often exaggerate minimal differences into larger perceived differences through social processes. These perceptions exert a strong influence that may lead to further gender differences. This cycle reflects the feminist position that gender is socially constructed.
These persistent gender beliefs and stereotypes are found everywhere. Socialization pressures are pervasive and strong and begin early. Parents, teachers, peers, and societal institutions treat girls and boys differently from birth. Overall, differential treatment is consistent with producing independence and efficacy in boys, and emotional sensitivity, nurturance, and helplessness in girls.
Sport confidence provides a good illustration of the role of social context. Considerable research suggests that females typically display less confidence than males across varied situations (and sport is certainly one of those situations). Ellen Lenney, in the 1970s, concluded that the social situation was the primary source of gender differences—specifically, that gender differences emerged with masculine tasks in competitive settings when clear, unambiguous feedback was missing. Several studies with motor tasks, and some of the author’s own research, confirm Lenney’s propositions. But all this research involved experimental studies with novel motor tasks in controlled lab settings that purposely stripped away social context. In the real world sport is typically seen as masculine, competition is the norm, and males and females develop their confidence along with their sport skills and behavior patterns through radically different experiences and opportunities—in different worlds.
If experience and opportunity are the keys to competitive orientation and, in turn, participation and behavior in physical activity, then we might expect few gender differences after more than thirty years of mandated nondiscrimination. The number of girl’s and women’s sport teams in public schools has exploded since 1972, and we see athletic shoe ads promoting the benefits of sport and exercise activities for girls and women. But the real world with its pervasive gendered social context continues to exert strong influence on both women and men in sport. The real world, and particularly the real world of sport, is not gender-neutral. According to noted sociologist Jessie Bernard in her 1981 book, women and men live in different worlds, even when the situation seems to be the same. For example, the world is different for starting centers on the men’s and women’s basketball teams, for the boy and girl pitching the Little League games, and for the woman and man jogging in the park. The real worlds of sport are gendered.
Although the number of females in high school and university athletics has increased about six-fold since 1972, to about one-third of the total number of participants, the numbers are not equal. More telling, the numbers of females in other sport roles has not increased so dramatically, and in several ways women and girls have lost ground. Most dramatically, the number of women coaches and athletic administrators has decreased since Title IX. Competitive sport retains a gendered, hierarchical power structure. And it maintains the emphasis on and channels resources to competitive, elite sports, reducing the options and alternatives for both females and males.
Even a casual review of media reports on sport reveals gender influence, and research evidence confirms the bias. Females received less than 10 percent of the media coverage in terms of column space, photographs, and television time. Moreover, coverage is different; athletic ability and accomplishments are emphasized for men athletes, but femininity and attractiveness are emphasized for women athletes. For example, a USA Today report on figure skating (20 March 1997) opened with the line, “Tiny Tara Lipinski, figure skating’s high-jumping sweetheart, can become the youngest world champion in history Saturday.” The emphasis on young and petite contrasts with an accompanying photo insert caption reporting that Elvis Stojko (the male skater) hits quad, triple jump, and wins his third world title.
Observations of recent Olympic and NCAA tournaments suggest less stereotyping and trivialization of female athletes, but institutional change is slow and overall, gendered beliefs seem alive and well in the sport world. Sport activities are gender-stereotyped, and the sex-typing of sport activities seems linked with other gender beliefs (for example, physicality). Stereotypes are of concern because people act on them and thereby exaggerate minimal gender differences and restrict opportunities for both females and males. Overt discrimination is unlikely, and participants may not recognize the influence of gendered beliefs in themselves or others. Both girls and boys can participate in youth gymnastics or baseball, and at early ages physical capabilities are similar. Yet children see female gymnasts and male baseball players as role models, peers gravitate to sex-segregated activities, and most parents, teachers, and coaches support “gender-appropriate” activities for children. Similarly, many sport administrators and participants fail to recognize gender beliefs operating when athletic programs developed by and for men, stressing male-linked values and characteristics, are opened to girls and women.
So the research does not support dichotomous sex differences; males and females are not opposites. But women and men are not the same and gender cannot by ignored. Gender is part of a complex, dynamic social network, and a particularly salient, powerful force within sport. Clearly, recognition of gender and diversity is critical to effective sport-psychology practice.
Sport-Psychology Practice
Applied or practical sports psychology involves using psychological principles and methods to enhance sport performance or make it more meaningful. The gender social process approach to gender differences in sport has encouraged what can be called a feminist approach to applied sport psychology. Feminist practice incorporates gender research, emphasizes often ignored women’s experiences (for example, sexual harassment), and takes a more nonhierarchical, empowering, process-oriented approach that shifts the emphasis from personal change to social change.
The feminist approach suggests going beyond gender awareness in the scenarios presented earlier. An aggressive soccer player could be male or female, but a male soccer player is more likely to grow up in a world that reinforces aggressive behavior, and a male athlete is more likely to continue to have such behaviors reinforced. The less aggressive, more tentative approach is more typical of women. Even talented, competitive female athletes are socialized to keep quiet, be good, and let others take the lead. Moreover, most women athletes have a male coach, trainer, athletic director, and male professors, and deal with males in most other power positions.
Overly aggressive, uncontrolled behavior is not exclusively male, nor are tentative styles exclusively female. Still, gender-sensitive sport psychology will work more effectively if gender influences in the athlete’s background and situation are recognized. Anger control or confidence building has a different context, and probably requires different strategies for women and men. Behavior is not just within the athlete, but within a particular sport context, and within a larger social context, and both the immediate situation and the larger context are gender-related.
Consider a scenario with clear gender implications—a figure skater with a potential eating disorder. Information on psychological disorders and diagnoses indicates that females are nine times as likely as males to exhibit anorexia or bulimia. Moreover, the incidence is increasing, the disorders are more prominent in adolescence and early adulthood, and participants in certain activities, including dance and sport, may be at higher risk. The figure skater is much more likely to be female than male (as well as white, middle-to-upper-middle class, and adolescent). But personality and gender are not the only considerations; eating disorders are social phenomena and body image plays a major role. Those who take a more active feminist approach suggest that professionals might move to social action—by educating others and trying to change the social system that leads athletes to pursue an unhealthy body image.
The Future
Gender makes a difference. Gender is a pervasive social force in society, and the sport world reflects society’s gender hierarchy. Gender is so ingrained in sport structure and practice that we cannot simply treat everyone the same. But neither can we assume that women and men are dichotomous opposites and treat all males one way and all females another way. Gender is a dynamic influence that varies with the individual, situation, and time, as well as with sociocultural characteristics.