1. Perceived Sexual Orientation of Women in Sport and Non-Sport Contexts
Ronald G. Morrow Scholarship Award Recipient
Nichole Kaysing 1, Erin Leonard 2, Adam Keath,3 Justin Menickelli 2 and Chris Cooper 2
1 University of South Carolina │2 Western Carolina University │ West Virginia University 3

2. Perceived Lesbianism
Gender stereotypes of female athletes are often manifested in the form of sexual orientation (Schmalz and Kerstetter, 2006).
There is an image problem in women’s sports: Athleticism creates a perception of homosexuality, regardless of the athletes’ true sexual orientation (Harrison and Secarea, 2010)

3. The sport a woman participates in can greatly influence this perception of homosexuality.
Women who participate in sports such as basketball are seen as having masculine characteristics (Hoiness, Weathington, and Cotrell, 2008).
Women who participate in traditionally “masculine” sports are stigmatized as lesbians because they may posses stereotypical masculine characteristics (Schmalz and Kerstetter, 2006)

4. Stereotyping athletic women as lesbians is not only inaccurate and misguiding but can be harmful to all women in sports. This stereotype discredits women’s athletic ability and detracts from their athletic accomplishments (Baird, 2002).
According the Blinde and Taub (1992) this lesbian label may be applied to female athletes in a vindictive manner. Women athletes may be seen as a threat because of their athletic prowess and success.

5. Purpose
This study examined the perceived sexual orientation of women in sport and non-sport contexts.
The investigators were interested in perceptions of women athletes; not the actual sexual orientations of the women in the study.

6. Method
Three women were randomly selected from the U.S. National basketball, softball, soccer and volleyball teams for a total of 12 women.
For each woman selected, two publicly available images were used in the study:
(1) a sport context (e.g., playing softball)
(2) a headshot with no identifying clothing (i.e., a softball uniform).

7. Men (n= 148) and women (n= 181) participants (M age= 28
Men (n= 148) and women (n= 181) participants (M age= 28.7 years, SD= 13.04) were shown 12 images of women in either a sport context or a headshot. This design was used so participants were not as likely to realize the purpose of the study.
Images were randomized before each survey and were identified only by letter.
Survey data was collected on a college campus and a city street in the southern U.S. (population 85,712) and only individuals who identified themselves and 18 years of age or older were selected for participation.

8. An investigator asked each participant a scripted query: “As I show you each photo, tell me on a scale of one to five your gut feeling about the person’s sexual orientation.”
Each participant was then shown a Likert-type scale.
Each person was asked, “Can you identify any of those women by name?” If the answer was “yes,” the participant’s data was omitted from the study

9. Perceived Sexual Orientation Scale
5 very certain the person is gay 4 somewhat certain the person is gay 3 not certain if the person is straight or gay 2 somewhat certain the person is straight 1 very certain the person in straight

10. Analysis and Results
An ordinal logistic regression was used because the dependent variable is ordinal. The expected value was 3 (not certain if the person is straight or gay).
An OLR indicated there were no significant differences in perceived sexual orientation between sport context and headshot images (p= .977).
However, separate ordinal logistical regressions indicated a significant difference between sport context and headshot images of basketball (p< .001) and softball players (p< .001).
There were no significant gender effects.

11. Conclusions
The results lend support to previous findings which suggested that perceived sexual orientation may be both context and sport dependent.
Only women basketball and softball players were perceived as being significantly “more gay” when viewed in a sport context.
Only 6 people (4 women and 2 men) could identify any of the women by name.

12. Images Used in the Study
Although we did not use means in the analysis, we present them here for visual comparison.

13. M= 2.33 ±1.08
M= 2.80 ± 1.08

14. M= 2.19 ± 1.04
M= 2.12 ± 1.05

15. M= 2.48 ± 1.17
M= 2.79 ± 1.13

16. M= 2.88 ± 1.13
M= 2.42 ± 1.08

17. M= 2.55 ± 1.08
M= 2.58 ± 1.03

18. M= 2.45 ± 1.13
M= 2.17 ± 0.97

19. M= 2.76 ± 1.04
M= 2.56 ± 1.05

20. M= 2.39 ± 1.02
M= 2.63 ± 1.04

21. M= 2.43 ± 1.09
M= 2.89 ± 1.06

22. M= 2.69 ± 1.16
M= 2.72 ± 1.19

23. M= 2.33 ± 1.05
M= 2.27 ± 1.13

24. M= 2.17 ± 0.98
M= 2.93 ± 1.15

25. Special thanks to Ron Morrow for his tremendous support of this project.