Psychology of Men & Masculinity

Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2011 American Psychological Association

2011, Vol. 12, No. 4, 401– 416 1524-9220/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0023634

Need answer to this question?

Order an original paper Now!

Order Now

We’re giving you a 15% discount on your first Order.

Discount Code: SKILNEW15

Use the above discount code during checkout

Conformity to Gender Norms Among Female Student-Athletes: Implications for Body Image

Jesse A. Steinfeldt

Indiana University-Bloomington

Rebecca Zakrajsek

Indiana State University

Hailee Carter

Indiana University-Bloomington

Matthew Clint Steinfeldt

Fort Lewis College

Sport exposes athletes to attributes that are typically associated with traditional mas- culine traits (e.g., individualism, competitiveness, aggressiveness, power). Female athletes often participate in sport using standards of traditional male athleticism, yet at the same time attempt to manage societal expectations of conforming to traditional femininity. By exploring conformity to gender norms in sport, we examined the relationship between gender norms, sport participation, and perceptions of body image among 143 female student-athletes and nonathletes. Results indicated that female student-athletes and nonathlete female college students did not differ in level of conformity to feminine norms; however, female student-athletes reported higher levels of conformity to masculine norms, particularly traditional masculine norms associated with sport participation (i.e., winning, risk taking). Additionally, participation in athletics did not significantly predict body esteem for women. Instead, conformity to three traditional gender norms–along with self-perceptions of being overweight– accounted for 53% of the variance in body esteem. Results are discussed in regard to past research and clinical applications.

Keywords: Conformity to Masculine Norms (CMNI), Conformity to Feminine Norms (CFNI), body esteem, female college student-athletes, gender socialization in sport

Participating in sport provides athletes with access to the dominant values, beliefs, and rituals of society (Birrell & Cole, 1994; Koi- vula, 2001). The beliefs and values conveyed to athletes emphasize qualities that are asso- ciated with traditional conceptualizations of masculinity (e.g., aggression, competition, toughness; Sabo, 1985; Wellard, 2002; Whan- nel, 2007; Whitson, 1994). Given the omni- presence of sport in society, participation in

athletics greatly contributes to the develop- ment of gender norms among young male athletes (Messner, 2002). Based on the cur- rent rise in athletic participation opportunities for women (Acosta & Carpenter, 2008), the experience of women within the masculinized context of sport (e.g., Richman & Shaffer, 2000) represents an interesting area to exam- ine masculinity through a contextual lens. However, in their review of a decade of schol- arship in Psychology of Men and Masculinity

(PMM), Wong, Steinfeldt, Speight, and Hick-

This article was published Online First May 30, 2011. Jesse A. Steinfeldt and Hailee Carter, Department of

Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana Universi- ty-Bloomington; Rebecca Zakrajsek, Department of Physi- cal Education, Indiana State University; and Matthew Clint Steinfeldt, Department of Athletics, Fort Lewis College.

Conformity to Gender Norms Among Female Student- Athletes: Implications for Body Image.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Jesse A. Steinfeldt, Department of Educational Psychology, Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47406. E-mail: jesstein@indiana.edu

man (2010) acknowledged the underrepresen- tation of female populations (only 18% of all reported samples) in masculinity research. According to Whorley and Addis (2006), ex- amining the role of masculinity norms among women can avoid an exclusively essentialist view of masculinity: “Thoroughly studying masculinity means understanding how it op- erates in the lives of both men and women” (p. 656).

401

Additional evaluations of masculinity research (e.g., Addis, Mansfield, & Syzdek, 2010) have called for explorations of masculinity that focus on “the contingent and contextual nature of gen- dered social learning” (p. 77). To this point, Wong et al. (2010) commented on the need to examine underrepresented contexts, such as sports (sports- related examinations represented only 1% of PMM manuscripts). Subsequently, in this study we intended to address these gaps in the literature (i.e., masculinity among women, masculinity in the sporting context) by empirically examining the experience of female student-athletes within the unique context of intercollegiate sport. Specifi- cally, we intended to assess conformity to both masculine and feminine norms among women in an effort to understand if participation in intercol- legiate athletics was related to conformity to gender norms and body image. To do so, we examined the experiences of female college stu- dent-athletes in comparison to their female class- mates who did not participate in intercollegiate athletics (hereafter referred to as “female college students”).

Conformity to Norms

Social norms can be conceptualized as un- written rules and standards that drive social behavior through mechanisms of social rein- forcement or punishment (Cialdini & Trost, 1999). Similarly, gender norms provide even more specific guidance (and constraint) to men and women in regard to how they are supposed to act, think, and feel (Mahalik et al., 2005a). The process of gender role socialization utilizes social norms, values, and ideologies to teach attitudes and behaviors about what it means to be a man or a woman in society (Addis & Mahalik, 2003). Past research has focused on how conformity to societal gender norms con- strains and influences men’s behavior. A higher emphasis placed on conforming to masculine norms has been linked to more health risk be- haviors and fewer health promotion behaviors (Mahalik, Levi-Minzi, & Walker, 2007); binge drinking (Liu & Iwamoto, 2007); and greater endorsement of rape myths and more sexually aggressive behavior, particularly when com- bined with problematic alcohol use (Locke & Mahalik, 2005). Just as men experience diffi- culty in attempting to conform to traditional gender norms, so too do women. Women expe-

rience societal pressure to conform to norms that dictate appropriate standards for femininity (Mahalik et al., 2005a). Emerging research in- dicates that higher conformity to feminine norms is related to disordered eating symptom- atology (Green, Davis, Skaggs, Riopel, & Hal- lengren, 2008) and pathology (Mahalik et al., 2005a). In sum, research suggests that confor- mity to gender norms can have deleterious ef- fects for both men and women.

Contextual Influences on Gender Norms in Sport

Despite this emerging body of research on conformity to gender norms, little empirical at- tention has been devoted to how these norms operate in sport, even though sport is considered a significant contextual influence on the con- struction of gender roles among athletes (Mess- ner, 1992; Messner, 2002). In fact, sport has been promoted in the United States as a re- sponse to cultural circumstances viewed as threatening concepts of masculinity and to en- sure that boys learned how to be traditionally masculine (Coakley, 2009). Athletes are often exposed to attributes that are typically associ- ated with traditional masculine traits, such as individualism, competitiveness, aggressiveness, power, strength, and toughness (Beal, 1996; Wellard, 2002). Thus, participation in sport may contribute to an athlete internalizing values and aspects of masculinity that are reinforced and rewarded within the athletic context.

While athletic participation provides male

athletes with distinct masculinity messages, fe- male athletes receive gender role messages within the athletic domain that are not always in line with societal norms of femininity. Beal (1996) reported that female athletes have “in- ternalized the dominant ideology of sport as a male social role” (p. 212). Thus, sport as a male dominated setting has influenced female ath- letes’ negotiation of their position in sport and continues to reflect traditional gendered hege- monic practices that promote conformity to gender role norms (Beal, 1996; Krane, Choi, Baird, Aimar, & Kauer 2004; Meaˆn & Kassing, 2008; Ross & Shinew, 2008). Female athletes are confronted with the dilemma that in order to be successful in athletics they have to develop characteristics associated with masculinity (e.g., strength, competitiveness, assertiveness, inde-

pendence; Krane, 2001). By participating in sport, women often develop their athletic identity using standards of traditional male athleticism, yet at the same time attempt to manage expectations of maintaining culturally desirable aspects of fem- ininity (e.g., attractiveness, heterosexuality, rela- tionships). Subsequently, female athletes often experience difficulty in conforming to culturally defined standards of traditional femininity that are often incompatible with notions of being athletic. Female athletes have reported that they perceive themselves as being different from their nonath- lete female peers and that they perceive them- selves to have characteristics that are similar to men (Krane et al., 2004; Meaˆn & Kassing, 2008; Miller & Levy, 1996; Ross & Shinew, 2008).

The desire to be successful in sport may con-

tribute to contemporary female athletes valuing traits that are associated with masculinity (e.g., strength, competition, power, muscularity), while also expressing pride in their athletic bodies, strength, and sense of empowerment (Ross & Shinew, 2008). However, the physical manifesta- tion (i.e., muscularity) of this paradox provides further challenges to female athletes because, “Ideally, sportswomen have toned bodies, yet they must also avoid excessive, masculine-perceived, muscular bodies” (Krane et al., 2004, p. 317). Thus, while women in general face body image pressures in society, women who play sports often face unique additional constraints concerning body image based on the pressures to conform to gender norms, both masculine and feminine.

Body Image

Body image has been conceptualized as a social construct that differs based on contexts and experiences with gender socialization (Cash, The´riault, & Annis, 2004). American society’s conception of femininity as body- based has important implications for body im- age attitudes and behaviors. Cultural standards of femininity–particularly the dominant images of thin bodies– have been found to impact fe- male college students’ body image attitudes and influenced their behaviors related to disordered eating (Leavy, Gnong, & Ross, 2009). Mahalik et al. (2005a) found similar results in which conforming to traditional feminine norms of the dominant culture, especially appearance-related norms, were related to body dissatisfaction and engagement in weight control behaviors among

female college students. Lastly, Green et al. (2008) found that female college students who endorsed traditional feminine norms that em- phasize thinness were most at risk for develop- ing disordered eating symptomology. The pres- sures to conform to cultural standards and achieve femininity seem to contribute to ap- pearance-driven attitudes and body shape is- sues.

When assessing risks for disordered eating, it is important to consider body dissatisfaction as it relates to perceived incompatibility between a sport body and the cultural ideal. Parsons and Betz (2001) reported that more extensive par- ticipation in athletics, especially in sports em- phasizing femininity and appearance, was re- lated to a stronger concern and potential for feeling shame if the female body did not meet cultural standards. Smolak, Murnen, and Ruble (2000) concluded from their meta-analysis of 34 studies that athletes were more at risk for disordered eating then nonathletes. Elite ath- letes, especially in sports emphasizing thinness, were found to be most at risk for developing eating problems. Additionally, body image and feelings of concern may become an even greater stress within sport when revealing uniforms ex- pose female athletes’ bodies in front of specta- tors. Athletes who recalled critical comments by significant others (e.g., coach, family) related to weight or body shape also reported greater dis- order eating patterns (Muscat & Long, 2008). Thus, the sport environment, especially aes- thetic sports and those that use more revealing uniforms, may pose a unique risk for body esteem issues and disordered eating due to fre- quent exposure and stress related to body shape, weight pressures, and diet (Hausenblas & Car- ron, 1999; Krane et al., 2004; Leung, Geller, & Katzman, 1996).

Current Study

In order to more closely examine female stu- dent-athletes’ experience with gender norms that operate within sport, we explored confor- mity to masculine and feminine norms and the role of this conformity in perceptions of body image. The first purpose of our study was to determine if female student-athletes differed from female college students in their confor- mity to gender norms. Our first hypothesis was that, when compared to female students, female

student-athletes would report lower levels of conformity to feminine norms. When compared to female nonathletes self-perceptions of mas- culinity, female athletes have reported that they perceive themselves to be more masculine (Miller & Levy, 1996). Additionally, in com- parison to the self-perceptions of femininity re- ported by female athletes, the female nonath- letes in this sample reported higher self- perceptions of being feminine. Thus, when combined with past research, our hypothesis was based on female student-athletes participat- ing in a context (i.e., sport) which exposes them to a socialization process that values tradition- ally masculine characteristics (e.g., aggression, competition, toughness; Sabo, 1985; Whannel, 2007; Whitson, 1994), thus decreasing the like- lihood that they will conform closely to femi- nine norms.

Our second hypothesis was that female stu-

dent-athletes would report higher levels of con- formity to masculine norms than their nonath- lete peers. In addition to the influence of sport’s traditionally masculine values mentioned above, the power structure of sport may also contribute to greater conformity to masculine norms among female student-athletes. Although there is greater representation of female athletes at most levels of sports since Title IX was enacted in 1972, there has also been a signifi- cant increase in male head coaches of women’s team (Acosta & Carpenter, 2008). The ability of men to maintain and control positions of lead- ership in sport (e.g., head coach, athletic direc- tor) can serve to reinforce a culture of hege- monic masculinity (e.g., Whisenant, 2008). Given the highly influential role that coaches have in the athletic environment (Gould, Col- lins, Lauer, & Chung, 2007; Steinfeldt et al., 2010), this dynamic may continue to reinforce sport as a male domain so that gender social- ization within sport for female athletes may have a more masculine perspective. As a result, we hypothesized that female student-athletes may conform to more traditional masculine norms than their nonathlete female peers.

The second purpose of our study was to ex-

amine the relationship between conformity to these gender norms, participation in intercolle- giate sport, and perceptions of body image. Sub- sequently, our third hypothesis was that athlete status, conformity to gender norms, and self- perceptions of body dissatisfaction would pre-

dict body esteem. Specifically, we predicted that being an athlete and having less body dis- satisfaction would result in greater body esteem. Research has demonstrated a relationship be- tween sport participation and feelings of bodily competence, empowerment, self-esteem, and control over one’s life (Blinde, Taub, & Han, 1993; Krane et al., 2004; Richman & Shaffer, 2000; Ross & Shinew, 2008). Additionally, and consistent with past research (e.g., Green et al., 2008; Mahalik et al., 2005a), we predicted that higher conformity to the feminine norms of Thinness and Invest in Appearance would pre- dict lower levels of body esteem.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were 143 female college students who attended a pri- vate college in the Midwestern United States. Seventy-eight of the participants played an intercollegiate sport at the National Colle- giate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division III level, while 65 participants did not play any intercollegiate sport. The student-athletes in this sample participated in the following sports: soccer (n = 23), field hockey (n = 15), volleyball (n = 15), cross country (n = 11), basketball (n = 7), tennis (n = 5), and rugby (n = 2). The sample consisted of 34 fresh- men, 33 sophomores, 34 juniors, and 42 se- niors, with an average age of 19.74 (SD = 1.31). Participants self-identified their race as White (75%), Black (11%), Multira- cial (6%), Asian American (4%), Hispanic (1%), and 3% of the sample reported Other or did not report a racial identification. In terms of self-perceptions of body satisfaction, 50% of participants reported that they were dissat- isfied with their body, 47% reported that they were satisfied with their body, and 3% did not respond. Of the respondents who reported body dissatisfaction, 44% of participants re- ported that they thought they were over- weight, and 6% reported that they were un- derweight. The average BMI of the sample was 23.73 (SD = 3.51) and the average over- all Grade Point Average (GPA) was 3.34 (SD = 0.46).

Measures

Demographic information. We collected demographic information on participants, in- cluding questions about age, year in school, racial self-identification, GPA, height, and weight. In an effort to ensure that we had a group of current intercollegiate student-athletes and a separate group of nonathlete college stu- dents, we also asked participants if they had participated in intercollegiate sport (and if so, in which sport they participated). Additionally, in order to assess self-perceptions of body satis- faction, participants were asked if they were satisfied with their body. Participants who re- sponded that they weren’t satisfied with their body were then prompted to respond if they considered themselves underweight or if they considered themselves to be overweight. All participants received the same survey packet which consisted of the following instruments: the demographic section was first, followed by the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory- 45, the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inven- tory-46, and the Body Esteem Scale.

Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory-

  1. The CFNI-45 (Parent & Moradi, 2010) is a 45-item self-report instrument that uses a 4-point Likert-type scale with possible re- sponses ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). The CFNI-45 is a psychomet- rically validated short form of the original 84- item CFNI (Mahalik et al., 2005a). The purpose of the CFNI-45 is to assess women’s conformity to various feminine norms that are widely en- dorsed in dominant American culture. The CFNI-45 has nine subscales: (a) Thinness (e.g., “I am terrified of gaining weight”); (b) Domes- tic (e.g., “I clean my home on a regular basis”);

(c) Invest in Appearance (e.g., “I spend more than 30 minutes a day doing my hair and make- up”); (d) Modesty (e.g., “I hate telling people about my accomplishments”); (e) Relational (e.g., “I believe that my friendships should be maintained at all costs”); (f) Involvement With Children (e.g., “Taking care of children is ex- tremely fulfilling”); (g) Sexual Fidelity (e.g., “I would feel guilty if I had a one-night stand”);

(h) Romantic Relationship (e.g., “Having a ro- mantic relationship is essential in life”); and (i) Sweet and Nice (e.g., “I would be ashamed if someone thought I was mean”). Some items are reverse-coded, and higher scores represent

higher levels of conformity to feminine norms. The nine subscales can be summed to create a composite score for overall conformity to fem- inine norms.

Parent and Moradi (2010) reported convergent validity evidence based on the CFNI-45 and its subscale factors being positively correlated with the theoretically corresponding scales of the orig- inal CFNI. Reliability for the CFNI-45 was dem- onstrated by the nine subscales producing internal consistency coefficients ranging from .68 (Sweet and Nice) to .89 (Involvement With Children), and .79 for the overall CFNI-45 scale (Parent & Moradi, 2010). The internal consistency coeffi- cients for the current study were as follows: Thin- ness = .83; Domestic = .86; Invest in Appear- ance = .78; Modesty = .73; Relational = .67; Involvement With Children = .90; Sexual Fidel- ity = .82; Romantic Relationship = .76; and Sweet and Nice = .70. The overall CFNI-45 scale reported a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .79.

Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-

  1. The CMNI-46 (Parent & Moradi, 2009) is a 46-item self-report instrument that uses a 4-point Likert-type scale with possible re- sponses ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). The CMNI-46 is a psychomet- rically validated short form of the original 94- item CMNI (Mahalik et al., 2003). The purpose of the CMNI-46 is to assess men’s conformity to various masculine norms that are widely en- dorsed in dominant American culture. The CMNI-46 has nine subscales: (a) Winning (e.g., “In general, I will do anything to win”); (b) Emotional Control (e.g., “I tend to keep my feelings to myself”); (c) Risk-Taking (e.g., “I enjoy taking risks”); (d) Violence (e.g., “Some- times violent action is necessary”); (e) Power Over Women (e.g., “In general, I control the women in my life”); (f) Playboy (e.g., “If I could, I would frequently change sexual part- ners”); (g) Self-Reliance (e.g., “It bothers me when I have to ask for help”); (h) Primacy of Work (e.g., “My work is the most important part of my life”); and (i) Heterosexual Self- Presentation (e.g., “I would be furious if some- one thought I was gay”). Some items are re- verse-coded, and higher scores represent higher levels of conformity to masculine norms. The nine subscales can be summed to create a com- posite score for overall conformity to masculine norms.

Parent and Moradi (2009) reported conver- gent validity evidence based on the CMNI-46 and its subscale factors being positively corre- lated with the theoretically corresponding scales of the original CMNI. Reliability for the CMNI-46 was demonstrated by the nine sub- scales producing Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .77 (Primacy of Work) to .91 (Heterosexual Self-Presentation), and .88 for the overall CMNI-46 scale (Parent & Moradi, 2009). The internal consistency coefficients for the current study were as follows: Winning = .89; Emotional Control = .91; Risk-Taking = .85; Violence = .86; Power Over Women = .49; Play- boy = .74; Self-Reliance = .84; Primacy of Work = .79; and Heterosexual Self-Presenta- tion = .92. The overall CMNI-46 scale reported an internal consistency coefficient of .85. The lower reliability of the Power Over Women sub- scale contributed to our decision to remove it from subsequent analyses.

Body Esteem Scale. The Body Esteem Scale (BES; Franzoi & Shields, 1984) is a 35- item self-report instrument that uses a 5-point Likert-type scale with possible responses rang- ing from 1 (have strong negative feelings) to 5 (have strong positive feelings). Respondents rate different parts of their body (e.g., chin, buttocks, hips, physical condition) to assess self-perceptions of their body parts and func- tions. Higher scores represent more positive at- titudes about their body parts and functions. The BES has three subscales for women (i.e., sexual attractiveness, weight concern, physical condi- tion), but past researchers (e.g., Ambwani & Strauss, 2007; McKinley, 1998; Silberstein, Striegel-Moore, Timko, & Rodin, 1988) have used the BES as a summed total scale score, as we have chosen to do. In past research, the scale has demonstrated sufficient levels of internal consistency (α = .91; Ambwani & Strauss, 2007), similar to the Cronbach’s alpha coeffi- cient for the current study (α= .90).

Procedures

Research was conducted in compliance with Institutional Review Board approval from the first author’s host institution and through the IRB review process for the participating insti- tution. After receiving IRB approval, university officials (e.g., athletic directors, faculty mem- bers, coaches) were contacted at the participat-

ing institution, and they agreed to make their players and students available to participate in the study. For data collection with student- athletes, the third author attended a team meet- ing outside of class time and provided partic- ipants with the opportunity for voluntary participation in exchange for an excused ab- sence from a team conditioning drill at the dis- cretion of the coach. For data collection with students, the third author contacted professors who offered the opportunity for voluntary par- ticipation in the research project to female stu- dents in their psychology classes in exchange for extra credit in the class, at the discretion of the professor. Students filled out the survey pack- ets at the beginning of class during a time desig- nated by the professor of the course. Participants in both data collection scenarios were provided with assent forms, instructions about completing the survey packet, and the rationale for the study (i.e., a study on gender role socialization and body image). In addition to assurances of anonymity, all participants were informed that all their data would be kept confidential and in a safe locked location. Participants took approximately 10 –15 minutes to complete the survey packet.

Results

Initial Analyses

Correlations between main study variables for the sample are reported in Table 1. Addi- tionally, the means and standard deviations of main study variables within each group (i.e., student-athletes, nonathletes) can be found in Table 2. An analysis of the Variation Inflation Factor (VIF) values indicted that colinearity among variables was not a concern in the data (Myers, 1990). Finally, missing values were addressed using a multiple imputation method. We determined the missing values to not be a large concern, considering the fact that only nine participants had surveys with missing data, and none of these participants omitted more than two items per scale or subscale.

Differences in Conformity to Gender Role Norms

Two Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to test the study’s first two hypotheses, that female student-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1

Correlations Between Main Study Variables (N = 143)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12131415 16 17 18 19 20 21
1. BES .54*** .15* .28*** —.53*** .12 —.18* —.11 .29*** .06 —.09 .11.15*.05—.14* .28*** —.03 .01 —.24** .13 —.12
  1. Over .23** —.24** .59*** —.11 .12 .06 —.14* —.01 —.05
  2. Und .06 —.17* —.12 .09 .08 .03 .13 .03
  3. Athl —.19* —.07 —.12 —.06 .13 —.04 .05 .02 .03 .45*** —.03 .22** .03 —.09 —.16* .11 .12
  4. Thin —.01 .28***
  5. Dom .10
  6. IIA

.13

.29***

.10

  1. Mod —.19* .11 .08 —.29*** .06 —.10 .34*** —.04 —.02 —.06 .25**  —.02 .03
  2. Rel .11 —.02 .23** .25** .14* —.20** .07 —.14* .02 —.14* .08 .02
  3. IC .04 .09 .21** —.02 —.05 .03 —.23** —.13 —.10 .05 —.06
  4. SF .15* .21** —.09 .12 —.20** —.03 —.74*** .04 .16* .36***
  5. RR .00 .10 —.28*** .04 —.13 —.13 —.25** —.09 .05
  6. SN —.07 —.13 —.06 —.23** —.28*** —.07 .07 —.03
  7. Win .12 .10 .14 .02 .04 .17* .36***
  8. EC .02 .18* —.02 .42*** —.09 .27**
  9. RT .13 .19* —.14 .06 .03

Note. BES = Body Esteem Scale; Over = Self-Perceptions of Being Overweight; Und = Self-Perceptions of Being Underweight; Athl = Athlete Status; Dom = Domestic; IIA = Investment in Appearance; Mod = Modesty; Rel = Relational; IC = Involvement With Children; SF = Sexual Fidelity; RR = Romantic Relationship; SN = Sweet and Nice; Win = Winning; EC = Emotional Control; RT = Risk Taking; Vio = Violence; PB = Playboy; SR = Self-Reliance; PW = Primacy of Work; HSP = Heterosexual Self-Preservation.

* p < .05.  ** p < .01.  *** p < .001.

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations of Main Study Variables Across Groups (N = 143)

Non-athlete students (n = 65) Student-athletes (n = 78)

ThinnessM = 9.22SD = 3.01M = 8.05SD = 3.19
DomesticM = 9.22SD = 2.81M = 9.58SD = 2.73
Invest in AppearanceM = 5.69SD = 2.80M = 5.01SD = 2.79
ModestyM = 6.67SD = 2.20M = 6.45SD = 1.66
RelationalM = 9.54SD = 2.46M = 10.10SD = 1.88
Involvement With ChildrenM = 10.37SD = 3.48M = 10.09SD = 3.13
Sexual FidelityM = 8.12SD = 3.72M = 8.49SD = 3.22
Romantic RelationshipM = 7.95SD = 3.03M = 8.06SD = 2.52
Sweet and NiceM = 10.88SD = 2.54M = 11.01SD = 2.04
CFNI-45M = 79.24SD = 11.79M = 78.89SD = 9.50
WinningM = 7.48SD = 2.57M = 10.64SD = 3.61
Emotional ControlM = 7.15SD = 3.71M = 6.96SD = 3.53
Risk-TakingM = 5.97SD = 2.57M = 7.12SD = 2.63
ViolenceM = 7.72SD = 3.48M = 7.95SD = 3.57
PlayboyM = 3.07SD = 2.47M = 2.69SD = 1.89
Self-RelianceM = 6.49SD = 2.87M = 5.67SD = 2.39
Primacy of WorkM = 4.88SD = 2.38M = 5.35SD = 2.09
Heterosexual Self-PresentationM = 5.95SD = 4.13M = 6.97SD = 4.24
CMNI-46M = 48.72SD = 10.59M = 53.35SD = 11.94
BESM = 98.12SD = 14.39M = 106.90SD = 16.10

Note. CFNI-45 = Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory-45; CMNI-46 = Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory- 46; BES = Body Esteem Scale.

athletes would report lower levels of conformity to feminine norms and higher level of confor- mity to masculine norms. In testing the first hypothesis, athlete status (i.e., athlete or non- athlete) was entered as a predictor variable to determine its relationship to the CFNI-45 and its nine subscales. A similar procedure was fol- lowed to test the second hypothesis that athlete status contributed to differences in CMNI-46 and eight of its nine subscales (excluding the Power Over Women subscale). With the signif- icance criterion level set at p < .05, the results of the first MANOVA revealed no statistically significant multivariate effects in the CFNI-45 analysis. With the Wilks’s lambda criteria, the overall main effect of athlete status, F(9, 133) = 1.06, p = .396,  2 = .07 was not

statistically significant in the CFNI-45 analysis. In testing the second hypothesis, results of the MANOVA indicated statistically significant multivariate effects in the CMNI-46 analysis. With the Wilks’s lambda criteria, the overall main effect of athlete status, F(9, 133) = 5.69, p < .001, 2 = .28 was statistically significant. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed signifi- cant athlete status differences on the following CMNI-46 subscales: Risk-Taking, F(1, 142) = 6.87, p = .010, 2 = .05; and Winning,

F(1, 142) = 35.00, p < .001,  2 = .20. To

address potential Type I errors in the post hoc analyses, significance tests at the p < .05 level were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Benjamini and Hochberg’s (1995) False Dis- covery Rate (FDR) procedure. The univariate effects for Risk-Taking and Winning remained statistically significant after applying the FDR procedure. In sum, the results provided mixed support for the study’s first two hypotheses.

Relationship Between Gender Role Norms, Sport Participation, and Body Esteem

The second purpose of the study was to ex- amine the relationship between body esteem, sport participation, and conformity to gender role norms. In order to test our third and final hypothesis, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was constructed with BES as the out- come variable. In Step 1 of the model, partici- pants’ perception of themselves as underweight (if applicable) and perception of themselves as overweight (if applicable) were each entered. Based on responses to demographic questions, these two single-item variables (i.e., self- perception of being underweight, self-percep- tion of being overweight) were created and

added to the model in this first step to assess self-perceptions of body satisfaction. In Step 2 of the model, athlete status (i.e., athlete, non- athlete) was entered. In Step 3, the nine CFNI-45 subscales were entered in stepwise fashion, and eight of the nine CMNI-46 sub- scales were entered in stepwise fashion in Step 4 (as noted earlier, the Power Over Women subscale was dropped). The overall model ac- counted for 53% of the variance in body esteem, yielding four statistically significant predictive variables (see Table 3): the CMNI-46 subscale

Risk Taking (β= .18, p = .011); the CFNI-45 subscale Relational (β = .17, p = .019); the CFNI-45 subscale Thinness (β = —.31, p <

.001); and considering oneself overweight (β= 

—.28, p = .001). Thus, the third hypothesis received mixed support. Self-perceptions of be- ing overweight predicted body esteem, but nei- ther self-perceptions of being underweight nor athlete status significantly predicted body es- teem above and beyond the other variables en- tered into the model. In sum, higher conformity to Risk Taking and Relational gender norms

Table 3

Multiple Regression Model Predicting Body Esteem (N = 143)

StepMeasureBSE Bβ
Step 1Self-Perception of Being Overweight—17.201.60—.54***
Self-Perception of Being Underweight1.504.76.02
Step 2Self-Perception of Being Overweight—16.032.36—.50***
Self-Perception of Being Underweight1.414.70.02
Athlete Status4.962.29.16*
Step 3Self-Perception of Being Overweight—9.502.71—.30**
Self-Perception of Being Underweight1.124.50.02
Athlete Status3.772.14.12
Thinness (CFNI-45)—1.54.43—.31***
Domestic (CFNI-45).42.39.07
Invest in Appearance (CFNI-45)—.29.39—.05
Modesty (CFNI-45)—.13.58—.02
Relational (CFNI-45)1.20.52.16*
Involvement With Children (CFNI-45).19.33.04
Sexual Fidelity (CFNI-45)—.57.32—.12
Romantic Relationship (CFNI-45).46.41.08
Sweet and Nice (CFNI-45).71.49.10
Step 4Self-Perception of Being Overweight—8.932.73—.28**
Self-Perception of Being Underweight.994.47.02
Athlete Status2.462.46.08
Thinness (CFNI-45)—1.57.44—.31***
Domestic (CFNI-45).37.43.06
Invest in Appearance (CFNI-45)—.22.39—.04
Modesty (CFNI-45)—.01.67.00
Relational (CFNI-45)1.22.51.17*
Involvement With Children (CFNI-45).05.33.01
Sexual Fidelity (CFNI-45)—.48.48—.10
Romantic Relationship (CFNI-45).43.43.08
Sweet and Nice (CFNI-45).63.49.09
Winning (CMNI-46)—.14.37—.16
Emotional Control (CMNI-46).22.36.05
Risk-Taking (CMNI-46)1.05.41.18*
Violence (CMNI-46).12.33.03
Playboy (CMNI-46)—.42.75—.06
Self-Reliance (CMNI-46)—.65.46—.11
Primacy of Work (CMNI-46).88.49.12
Heterosexual Self-Preservation (CMNI-46)—.39.31—.10

Note.  CFNI-45 = Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory-45; CMNI-46 = Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46.

* p < .05.  ** p < .01.  *** p < .001.

predicted higher levels of body esteem, whereas higher conformity to the Thinness gender norm and considering oneself overweight predicted lower body esteem.

Discussion

Differences in Conformity to Gender Role Norms

Taken together, these results suggest that when compared to female college students who do not play intercollegiate sports, female stu- dent-athletes conform to the same levels of fem- inine norms, but these student-athletes also con- form to certain traditional masculine norms that are associated with participation in sport. These results provide mixed support for our first two hypotheses. Contrary to our first hypothesis, results indicated that female student-athletes did not report lower levels of conformity to femi- nine norms than nonathlete female college stu- dents. Although female athletes may experience the paradoxical challenge of negotiating muscu- larity and femininity (e.g., Krane et al., 2004), the current findings suggest that women in sport do not perceive themselves as any less feminine than their peers, nor are they inherently forfeit- ing their femininity in some way by participat- ing in sport. In their efforts to maintain femininity within their athletic role, female athletes have dis- cussed engaging in compensatory behaviors (e.g., wearing makeup, ribbons, dresses)– both inside and outside of sporting contexts–to reinforce the notion that they are feminine (Krane et al., 2004; Ross & Shinew, 2008). However, although they may perceive themselves as being different from their female nonathlete peers (e.g., Miller & Levy, 1996), the results of this study suggest that female student-athletes report levels of conformity to norms of traditional femininity comparable to their nonathlete peers as they actively negotiate the dual roles of being a woman and being an athlete.

In support of our second hypothesis, female

student-athletes reported higher levels of con- formity to masculine norms. Specifically, fe- male student-athletes reported higher levels of the traditional masculine norms of Winning and Risk-Taking. These norms represent prominent values embedded within sport, values which are often associated with traditional masculine traits (e.g., strength, assertiveness, competition;

Beal, 1996; Sabo, 1985; Wellard, 2002; Whan- nel, 2007; Whitson, 1994). Research on men (e.g., Liu & Iwamoto, 2007; Locke & Mahalik, 2005) has indicated that greater conformity to the Risk Taking norm is linked to negative outcomes, such as higher levels of alcohol use (Liu & Iwamoto, 2007) and engagement in sex- ually aggressive behavior, particularly when combined with problematic alcohol use (Locke & Mahalik, 2005). However, as we will explain later, Risk Taking among women was linked to a positive outcome (i.e., higher levels of body esteem), and female athletes reported higher levels of conformity to this norm than female nonathletes. Thus, it is interesting that this par- ticular Risk Taking norm contributes to differ- ential outcomes for men and women. Future researchers interested in conformity to gender norms should examine differences in context in addition to gender differences. Within the con- text of sport, Daniels and Leaper (2006) re- ported sport participation to be an important avenue to peer acceptance and global self- esteem in adolescent boys and girls, and Melen- dez (2006) reported that athletic participation provides athletes with the opportunity to em- brace leadership roles, which in turn can have a positive effect on their development of self- confidence. Thus, participation in a context (i.e., intercollegiate sport) which rewards winning and requires athletes to push themselves to take risks may contribute to positive outcomes. Fu- ture researchers should examine gender differ- ences and similarities in conformity to gender norms within sport and across other contexts.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that female stu-

dent-athletes did not report higher levels of con- formity to masculine norms operating within sport (e.g., Violence) that are associated with the “dark side of masculinity” (e.g., Brooks & Silverstein, 1995; Mahalik, Talmadge, Locke, & Scott, 2005). Research has demonstrated nu- merous instances of men acting antisocially on the fields of play (see Shields & Bredemeier, 2007), but some women’s sports in recent times have become more aggressive and on occasions, even violent (e.g., Young & White, 1995). Over the past three decades, women’s participation in organized athletic activities has increased (e.g., Acosta & Carpenter, 2008), particularly in sports with higher levels of body contact that had previously been dominated by male partic- ipants (e.g., rugby, soccer, hockey, basketball).

High profile examples of female athletes acting violently in college sports have recently perme- ated our sporting consciousness. For example, a University of New Mexico women’s soccer player kicked and violently pulled a competitor to the ground by her ponytail (Leibowitz, 2009), and a Baylor University women’s basketball player was suspended for punching an opponent in a game (Barron, 2010). Thus, because sport unfortunately can provide a forum for such an- tisocial behavior–for both men and women– future researchers should explore gender norms that operate within the masculinized context of sport (e.g., Richman & Shaffer, 2000), particu- larly sports that involve bodily contact and in- strumental aggression. Doing so can shed light on aspects of this “dark side of masculinity” that may operate in sport. Additionally, such re- search can help us better understand the dy- namic of cross-gender (non)conformity to gen- der norms, particularly for those who navigate within traditionally gendered contexts (e.g., sports, military, nursing).

Relationship Between Gender Role Norms, Sport Participation, and Body Esteem

The results of the study provided mixed sup- port for the third hypothesis that athlete status, self-perceptions of body dissatisfaction, and conformity to traditional feminine norms (i.e., Thinness, Invest in Appearance) would predict body esteem. Participation in athletics did not significantly predict body esteem, once other variables were entered that explained more of the variance in body esteem. Despite reporting feelings of bodily competence and a sense of pride in their powerful athletic physique (e.g., Blinde, Taub, & Han, 1993), past research has indicated that female athletes reported feelings of body dissatisfaction stemming from their ef- forts to portray a traditionally feminine appear- ance, especially in social settings (Krane et al., 2004; Ross & Shinew, 2008). Richman and Shaffer (2000) also suggested that sport partic- ipation may have a negative influence on self worth if female athletes are concerned about their nontraditional behavior and/or others’ neg- ative reactions to this nonconformity to societal standards of traditional femininity. Thus, the results of this study are consistent with past findings that female student-athletes’ perceived incompatibility between their athletic physique

and the feminine ideal body may negatively influence their body image (Krane et al., 2004; Richman & Shaffer, 2000; Ross & Shinew, 2008).

The overall model predicted over half of the variance in body esteem, with three gender role socialization norms and self-perceptions of be- ing overweight emerging as significant predic- tors. Specifically, higher self-perceptions of be- ing overweight predicted lower levels of body esteem, while higher levels of conformity to the Risk Taking masculine norm predicted higher levels of body esteem. Additionally, conformity to this Risk Taking norm was found to be higher among female student-athletes in this sample. Based on past research (e.g., Daniels & Leaper, 2006; Melendez, 2006), the experience of par- ticipating in intercollegiate sport (presumably having also participated in youth and high school sport in order to be good enough to play in college) may contribute to the development of a more confident sense of self, especially related to one’s physical competence (Blinde et al., 1993; Krane et al., 2004; Richman & Shaf- fer, 2000). Thus, it is possible that this increased sense of self-confidence may be related to better body esteem, particularly among female ath- letes. Future researchers should more directly examine this dynamic in order to provide in- sight into this relationship between risk-taking and body esteem.

Results also indicated that higher levels of

conformity to the Relational feminine norm pre- dicted higher levels of body esteem. Conformity to this Relational norm involves valuing rela- tionships and collaborations with others, which according to our results, was related to higher levels of body esteem among women. In inter- preting this result, perhaps the social support that friends provide contributes to greater body esteem among women, in addition to other as- pects of self-confidence (e.g., Blinde et al., 1993; Krane et al., 2004; Richman & Shaffer, 2000). As it relates to athletic participation, components of the Relational norm may be manifest in team camaraderie, which may con- tribute to better body esteem among female athletes. It is also possible that the athletic en- vironment may provide female athletes with the opportunity to share body ideals (e.g., strength, muscularity) that are necessary for success in sport, which may also contribute to better body esteem. Future researchers should explore the

possibility of the link between traditional fem- inine values (e.g., sharing, relationship- orientation, cooperation, interdependence) and body esteem, particularly among female ath- letes.

While conformity to the Relational feminine norm was positively related to body esteem, higher conformity to the Thinness feminine norm was inversely related. Thus, the results suggested that the more a woman desires to be thin, the lower levels of body esteem she re- ports. This finding is consistent with literature that suggests that the societal pressure for women to be thin may be detrimental to the body esteem of women (Green et al., 2008; Mahalik et al., 2005a; Smolak et al., 2000). Pressure to conform to cultural standards of femininity and body esteem– combined with the prospect that aspects of the athletic environment may increase risks of disordered eating among some women (e.g., Thompson & Sherman, 2000, 2009)–are areas that need to continue to be revisited and addressed among student- athletes. Past research has reported the preva- lence of disordered eating as high as 62% of female college students (see Hawes, 1999; Thrash & Anderson, 2000; West, 1998). Thus, messages concerning gender norms and body image that are conveyed within sport need to be more closely examined so we can have a better understanding of this environment which may paradoxically provide the potential for greater body esteem, yet also contribute to increased levels of disordered eating among female par- ticipants.

Limitations

There are limitations in this current study that need to be acknowledged. First, the de- sign was cross-sectional, and the regression analysis contained a high number of predictor variables. Additionally, the experience of stu- dent-athletes at this particular NCAA Divi- sion III institution may not be representative of the experience of women elsewhere. There may be differences that a NCAA Division I female student-athlete may experience in re- gard to body image and gender norm social- ization. With the emerging prominence of women’s college sports (Acosta & Carpenter, 2008), issues such as TV coverage and media objectification may provide unique exposure

to body image expectations and gender norm socialization for these participants at higher levels of competition.

Another limitation is the decision to use the CMNI scale with female participants. This scale was normed on men, and it is intended primarily for use with men. To this point, the internal consistency coefficient for Power over Women subscale of the CMNI was .49 in this sample (whereas the other eight scales did demonstrate acceptable reliability levels), contributing to our decision to drop this sub- scale from the analyses. However, because sport has been characterized as a masculin- ized endeavor where “traditionally masculine ideologies such as competition, performance, strength, power, dominance, and winning are heralded” (Richman & Shaffer, 2000, p. 189), women’s intercollegiate sport was an interest- ing area to explore issues related to masculine gender role socialization among female par- ticipants in this domain. In a previous con- versation, the first author of the CMNI-46 and CFNI-45 scales indicated that using these two scales with athletes for a cross-gender exam- ination would be a valid area of inquiry (M. Parent, personal communication, April 30, 2009). In addition, Mahalik et al. (2003) com- pared the CMNI results of samples of both men and women in their initial validation of the scale. Regardless, results should be inter- preted with relative caution.

Another limitation is the nature of the finding

about differences in body esteem between stu- dent-athletes and students in this sample. While participating in sport was not a significant pre- dictor of body esteem, female student-athletes did report significantly higher levels of body esteem. Based on responses to demographic questions, 41% of the student-athletes in this sample reported that they were dissatisfied with their weight, as compared to 60% of female college students. Additionally, while 33% of student-athletes thought they were overweight, 57% of their student peers reported that they perceived themselves to be overweight, even though BMI scores for student-athletes (M = 23.47, SD = 3.42) and students (M = 24.05, SD = 3.62) were not significantly different, and both exist in the normal range. Perhaps the measurement of body esteem (i.e., BES) used in this current study was a potential limitation in fully understanding this dynamic.

Other studies might choose to use additional measures of body image in order to assess the effect that participation in sports (i.e., high school, college, recreational) might have on the body image of female student-athletes. In sum, results of this study should be viewed in relation to the reported limitations.

Clinical Implications

Taken together, the results of this study have implications for not only a better understanding of the role of traditional gender norms in sport, but also for future research into how conformity to gender norms can influence women’s percep- tions of body image. An understanding of gen- der norms and contextual pressures to conform to these norms–particularly norms that operate in specific contexts (i.e., sports)– can assist psy- chologists in helping female athletes navigate the paradoxical societal expectations that ac- company being a woman and being an athlete. Psychologists can facilitate discussions with fe- male student-athletes about the difficulties they might face in their attempts to be perceived as feminine and their attempts to be successful in sport. Addressing this dynamic of “living the paradox” (Krane et al., 2004) as an external societal process–as opposed to an internal flaw within the individual athlete– can empower fe- male student-athletes to develop strategies (e.g., utilize relational resources, reframe what is con- sidered attractive, increase self-confidence) to become more confident, assertive, and comfort- able in their own bodies.

Furthermore, female student-athletes’ unique

experiences with gender norms in sport– particularly conformity and nonconformity to traditional masculine and feminine norms– can lead to a variety of costs and benefits related to body image, and the results of this study have implications for clinical practice in this regard. When combined with previous literature (e.g., Hawes, 1999; Thompson & Sherman, 2000,

2009; Thrash & Anderson, 2000; West, 1998), the results of this current study can be used to address important clinical issues (e.g., body im- age, disordered eating, anorexia, bulimia) fac- ing female college students and student- athletes. These issues become especially salient because being thin (or underweight) is often considered the desired norm in society, and within some specific sporting contexts (e.g.,

cross country, gymnastics; Petrie, 1996). Thus, psychologists can use the results of this study to assist them in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of issues related to body image. Psy- chologists can help female athletes better un- derstand contributing dynamics (e.g., societal expectations of conformity to gender norms) accompanying their presenting concerns. A bet- ter understanding of the nature of their present- ing concerns can increase the likelihood of fe- male athletes identifying and using adaptive coping resources, such as cognitive restructur- ing of gender norm-related cognitive distortions (see Mahalik et al., 2005b), to address clinical concerns arising from societal pressure to con- form to gender norms, both masculine and fem- inine.

References

Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2008). Women in intercollegiate sport a longitudinal, national study thirty one year update: 1977–2008. Retrieved from http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/ Articles/Issues/Participation/W/Women-in- Intercollegiate-Sport-A-Longitudinal-National- Study-Thirty-One-Year-Update-19772008.aspx.

Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, mascu- linity, and the contexts of help-seeking. American Psychologist, 58, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0003-066X

.58.1.5PMid:12674814

Addis, M. E., Mansfield, A. K., & Syzdek, M. R. (2010). Is “masculinity” a problem?: Framing the effects of gendered social learning in men. Psy- chology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 77–90. doi: 10.1037/a0018602

Ambwani, S., & Strauss, J. (2007). Love thyself before loving others? A qualitative and quantita- tive analysis of gender differences in body image and romantic love. Sex Roles, 56, 13–21. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006 –9143-7

Barron, D. (2010). One punch means two games for Griner. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/disp/ story.mpl/sports/bk/bkc/women/6896132.html

Beal, B. (1996). Alternative masculinity and its ef- fects on gender relations in the subculture of skate- boarding. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19, 204 –220. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal

Statistical Society, 57, 289 –300.

Birrell, S., & Cole, C. L. (1994). Women, sport, and culture. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Blinde, E. M., Taub, D. E., & Han, L. (1993). Sport participation and women’s personal empower- ment: Experiences of the college athlete. Journal

of Sport & Social Issues, 17, 47– 60. doi:10.1177/

019372359301700107

Brooks, G. R., & Silverstein, L. B. (1995). Under- standing the dark side of masculinity: An interac- tive systems model. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), The new psychology of men (pp. 280 –336). New York: Basic Books.

Cash, T. F., The´riault, J., & Annis, N. M. (2004). Body image in an interpersonal context: Adult attachment, fear of intimacy, and social anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 89 –103. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.1.89.26987

Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1999). Social influ- ence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzy (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151– 192). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (10th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Daniels, E., & Leaper, C. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of sport participation, peer accep- tance, and self-esteem among adolescent girls and boys. Sex Roles, 55, 875– 880. doi:10.1007/

s11199-006 –9138-4

Franzoi, S. L., & Shields, S. A. (1984). The Body Esteem Scale: Multidimensional structure and sex differences in a college population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 173–178. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4802_12

Gould, D., Collins, K., Lauer, L., & Chung, Y. (2007). Coaching life skills through football: A study of award winning high school football coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 16 –37. doi:10.1080/10413200601113786

Green, M. A., Davids, C. M., Skaggs, A. K., Riopel,

C. M., & Hallengren, J. J. (2008). Femininity and eating disorders. Eating Disorders, 16, 283–293. doi:10.1080/10640260802115829

Hausenblas, H. A., & Carron, A. V. (1999). Eating disorder indices and athletes: An integration. Jour- nal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 230 –258. Hawes, K. (2000). Experts say eating disorders, diet and nutrition weigh heavy on scale of issues af- fecting college student-athletes. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/news/1999/19991122/active/

3624n01.html

Koivula, N. (2001). Perceived characteristics of sports categorized as gender-neutral, feminine, and masculine. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 377– 393.

Krane, V. (2001). “We can be athletic and feminine,” but do we want to? Challenges to femininity and heterosexuality in women’s sport. Quest, 53, 115– 133.

Krane, V., Choi, P. Y. L., Baird, S. M., Aimar, C. M., & Kauer, K. J. (2004). Living the paradox: Female athletes negotiate femininity and muscularity. Sex

Roles, 50, 315–329. doi:10.1023/B:SERS. 0000018888.48437.4f

Leavy, P., Gnong, A., & Ross, L. S. (2009). Femi- ninity, masculinity, and body image issues among college age women: An in-depth and written inter- view study of the mind-body dichotomy. The Qualitative Report, 14, 261–292.

Leibowitz, B. (2009). Elizabeth Lambert: College soccer player turns NCAA playoff game into hand- to-hand “combat.” Retrieved from http://www

.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5550113– 504083.html

Leung, F., Geller, J., & Katzman, M. (1996). Issues and concerns associated with different risk models for eating disorders. International Journal of Eat- ing Disorders, 19, 249 –256. doi:10.1002/(SICI) 1098-108X(199604)19:3<249::AID-EAT3>3.0

.CO;2-M

Liu, W. M., & Iwamoto, D. K. (2007). Conformity to masculine norms, Asian values, coping strategies, peer group influences, and substance use among Asian American men. Psychology of Men & Mas- culinity, 8, 25–39. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.8.1.25

Locke, B. D., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Examining masculinity norms, problem drinking, and athletic involvement as predictors of sexual aggression in college men. Journal of Counseling Psychol- ogy, 92, 279 –283. doi:10.1037/0022– 0167.52

.3.279

Mahalik, J. R., Levi-Minzi, M., & Walker, G. (2007). Masculinity and health behaviors in Australian men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 240 –

249. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.8.4.240

Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer,

M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Mas- culine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4,  3–25.  doi:10.1037/1524 –9220

.4.1.3

Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L. H., Slattery, S. M., & Smiler, A. (2005a). Development of the Conformity to Fem- inine Norms Inventory. Sex Roles, 52, 317–335. doi:10.1007/s11199-005–3709-7

Mahalik, J. R., Talmadge, W. T., Locke, B. D., & Scott, R. P. J. (2005b). Using the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory to work with men in a clinical setting. Journal of Clinical Psychol- ogy, 61, 661– 674. doi:10.1002/jclp. 20101

McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differences in un- dergraduates’ body esteem: The mediating effect of objectified body consciousness and actual/ideal weight discrepancy. Sex Roles, 39, 113–123. doi: 10.1023/A:1018834001203

Meaˆn, L. J., & Kassing, J. W. (2008). “I would just like to be known as an athlete”: Managing hege- mony, femininity, and heterosexuality in female

sport. Western Journal of Communication, 72,

126 –144. doi:10.1080/10570310802038564

Melendez, M. C. (2006). The influence of athletic participation on the college adjustment of fresh- men and sophomore student athletes. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8, 39 –55.

Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press. Messner, M. A. (2002). Taking the field: Women,

men and sports. Minneapolis, MN: UM Press.

Miller, J. L., & Levy, G. D. (1996). Gender role conflict, gender-typed characteristics, self con- cepts, and sport socialization in female athletes and non-athletes. Sex Roles, 35, 111–122. doi:10.1007/ BF01548178

Muscat, A. C., & Long, B. L. (2008). Critical com- ments about body shape and weight: Disordered eating of female athletes and sport participation. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 1–24. doi:10.1080/10413200701784833

Myers, R. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (2nd ed.). Boston: Duxbury.

Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory and development of the Confor- mity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychol- ogy of Men & Masculinity, 10, 175–189. doi: 10.1037/a0015481

Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2010). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory and Development of the Abbre- viated CFNI-45. Psychology of Women Quar- terly, 34, 97–109. doi:10.1111/j.1471– 6402.2009

.01545.x

Parsons, E. M., & Betz, N. (2001). The relationship of participation in sports and physical activity to body objectification, instrumentality, and locus of control among young women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 209 –222. doi:10.1111/

1471– 6402.00022

Petrie, T. A. (1996). Differences between male and female college lean sport athletes, nonlean sport athletes, and nonathletes on behavioral and psy- chological indices of eating disorders. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 218 –230. doi: 10.1080/10413209608406478

Richman, E. L., & Shaffer, D. R. (2000). If you let me play sports: How might sport participation in- fluence the self-esteem of adolescent females? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 189 –199. doi:10.1111/j.1471– 6402.2000.tb00200.x

Ross, S. R., & Shinew, K. J. (2008). Perspectives of women college athletes on sport and gender. Sex Roles, 58, 40 –57. doi:10.1007/s11199-007–9275-4

Sabo, D. (1985). Sport, patriarchy, and male identity: New questions about men and sport. Arena Re- view, 9, 1–30.

Shields, D. L., & Bredemeier, B. L. (2007). Advances in sport morality research. In G. Tenenbaum & R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 662– 684). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Silberstein, L., Streigel-Moore, R., Timko, C., & Rodin, J. (1988). Behavioral and psychological Implications of body dissatisfaction: Do men and women differ? Sex Roles, 19, 219 –232. doi: 10.1007/BF00290156

Smolak, L., Murnen, S. K., & Ruble, A. E. (2000). Female athletes and eating problems: A meta anal- ysis. Journal of Eating Disorders, 27, 371–380. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(200005)27:4< 371::AID-EAT1>3.0.CO;2-Y

Steinfeldt, J. A., Foltz, B. D., Mungro, J., Speight,

Q. L., Wong, Y. J., & Blumberg, J. (2010, Novem- ber 15). Masculinity socialization in sports: influ- ence of college football coaches. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0020170

Thompson, R. A., & Sherman, R. T. (2000). “Good” athlete or at-risk athletes? Heavy Weight Jour- nal, 14, 55–56.

Thompson, R. A., & Sherman, R. T. (2009). The last word on the 29th Olympiad: Redundant, revealing, remarkable, and redundant. Eating Disorders, 17, 97–102. doi:10.1080/10640260802570163

Thrash, L. E., & Anderson, J. J. B. (2000). The female athlete triad: Nutrition, menstrual disturbances, and low bone mass. Nutrition Today, 35, 168 –174. doi: 10.1097/00017285–200009000-00002

Wellard, I. (2002). Men, sport, body performance and the maintenance of ‘exclusive masculinity.’ Lei- sure  Studies,  21,  235–248.  doi:10.1080/

0261436022000030641

West, R. V. (1998). The female athlete: The triad of disordered eating, amenorrhea, and osteoporosis. Sports  Medicine,  26,  63–71.  doi:10.2165/

00007256 –199826020-00001

Whannel, G. (2007). Mediating masculinities: The production of media representations in sport. In C. Carmichael Atkinson (Ed.), Sport and gendered identities: Masculinities, femininities, and sexual- ities (pp. 7–21). London: Routledge.

Whisenant, W. A. (2008). Sustaining male domi- nance in interscholastic athletics: A case of homol- ogous reproduction. or not? Sex Roles, 58, 768 – 775. doi:10.1007/s11199-008 –9397-3

Whitson, D. (1994). The embodiment of gender: Dis- cipline, domination, and empowerment. In S. Birrell & C. Cole (Eds.), Women, sport and culture (pp. 353–372). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Whorley, M., & Addis, M. E. (2006). Ten years of research on the psychology of men and masculin- ity in the United States: Methodological trends and critique. Sex Roles, 55, 649 – 658. doi:10.1007/

s11199-006 –9120-1

Wong, Y. J., Steinfeldt, J. A., Speight, Q. L., & Hickman, S. J. (2010). Content analysis of the Psychology of Men & Masculinity (2000 –2008). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 170 –181. doi:10.1037/a0019133

Young, K., & White, P. (1995). Sport, physical dan- ger, and injury: The experiences of elite women

athletes. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19,

45– 61. doi:10.1177/019372395019001004

Received August 11, 2010

Revision received March 3, 2011

Accepted March 4, 2011 ■

Order Original Paper
Order Original Paper
Scroll to Top