1. Relationship Between Sport Participation, Gender Norm Conformity, and Athlete Satisfaction Allison Hable and Lori Bica (faculty mentor) • Psychology Department
INTRODUCTION
RESULTS
Success in sports depends upon factors that are characteristic of both feminine and masculine gender norms. Feminine norms – focusing on relationships, practicing kindness – foster important team dynamics, and a positive team dynamic contributes to athletes’ overall satisfaction (Crawley, Foley, & Shehan, 2008). At the same time, athletes must also adhere to traditional masculine norms such as a willingness to take risks and a desire to win. These too contribute to athletes’ overall satisfaction.
The purpose of this study is to examine gender norm conformity and satisfaction with colligate athletics across three different types of sports teams: appearance-focused, endurance, and contact. Performance for appearance-centered sports centers on how an athlete’s body looks during competition, endurance sports focus on strength, and contact sports require a combination of strength, risk, and aggression (Varnes, Stellefson, Janelle, Dorman, Dodd, & Miller, 2013). Although other researchers have investigated gender norms and satisfaction among college athletes, they have not differentiated by sport type. For example, Steinfeldt, Carter, Zakrajsek, and Steinfeldt, (2011) found collegiate athletes as a whole to be more masculine than non-athletes.
Hypothesis 1: Participants from appearance-centered sports will report greater conformity to feminine norms than masculine; those participating in contact sports will report greater conformity to masculine norms than feminine; and participants from endurance sports will report similar levels of conformity to feminine and masculine norms.
Hypothesis 2: Participants reporting the highest level of satisfaction will have the greatest conformity to the feminine norm “relational” and the masculine norms “risk-taking” and “winning.”
Sample Characteristics
The sample consisted of 140 collegiate athletes (95 women, 45 men), including 47 freshmen, 37 sophomores, 32 juniors, and 24 seniors. The age range for participants was years (M = 19.84, SD = 1.40). Nine participants represented appearance-centered sports (gymnastics, golf, diving) 75 represented endurance sports (swimming, track and field, cross country, volleyball); and 56 represented contact sports (soccer, basketball, hockey, softball).
Sport Type and Gender Norms
Researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to investigate conformity to gender norms according to sport type (Hypothesis 1). Given the small number of athletes representing appearance-focused sports, these participants had to be excluded from this analysis.
A 2 (gender: women, men) x 2 (sport type: endurance, contact) ANOVA to investigate conformity to feminine gender norms yielded a significant main effect for gender: women (M = 1.86, SD = .23) scored significantly higher than men (M = 1.66, SD = .23), F(1, 114) = , p < There was no significant effect for sport type or the interaction.
A separate 2 (gender: women, men) x 2 (sport type: endurance, contact) ANOVA to investigate conformity to masculine gender norms revealed no significant main effects or interaction.
Sport Type and Athlete Satisfaction: The Role of Objectification
Researchers performed an additional exploratory analysis that differed from the planned comparisons in terms of sport type categorization. Specifically, all athletes in the sample were placed into two categories, those participating in sports that objectify athletes (gymnastics, swimming, golf, volleyball) vs. non-objectifying sports (track and field, cross country, soccer, basketball, hockey, softball).
A 2 (gender: women, men) x 2 (sport type: objectification, no objectification) ANOVA to investigate overall satisfaction with the athletics experience revealed a significant interaction between sport type and gender: women in sports that objectify (M = 4.96, SD = .76) scored significantly lower than men in sports that objectify (M = 5.54, SD = .68), and women and men in non-objectifying sports (M = 5.61, SD = .77 and M = 5.29, SD = 1.01, respectively), F(1, 123) = 5.346, p < .05. Main effects were not significant.
Gender Norms and Athlete Satisfaction
Researchers used the Pearson correlation to investigate relationships between conformity to gender norms and overall satisfaction with the athletics experience. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Relational Norm
.09
-.03
.20*
.18
.15
.11
2. Risk-Taking Norm
.10
-.04
-.01
.14
3. Winning Norm
.16
.04
.05
4. Team Task Contribution Norm
.50**
.60**
.49**
.56***
5. Team Social Contribution Norm
.40**
.45**
.41**
6. Team Integration Norm
.59**
.63**
7. Team Ethics Norm
8. Overall Satisfaction
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
METHOD
Participants
Researchers recruited athletes from all NCAA-sanctioned sports teams at UW-Eau Claire using an message from the first author that was forwarded by their coaches, and via posts on team Facebook pages.
Measures
Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory-45 (Parent & Moradi, 2010). The CFNI-45 contains 45 items measuring feminine norms, grouped into 9 subscales: thinness, domestic, investment in appearance, modesty, relational, involvement with children, sweet and nice, sexual fidelity, romantic relationship.
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46 (Parent & Moradi, 2004). The CMNI-46 contains 46 items measuring masculine norms, grouped into 9 subscales: primacy of work, winning, emotional control, risk-taking, violence, power over women, playboy, self-reliance, heterosexual self-presentation. Primacy of work subscale was not used in this study.
Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (Riemer & Chelladuri, 1998). The ASQ contains 58 items measuring satisfaction across 15 areas: individual performance, team performance, strategy, utilization of abilities, training and instruction, team task contribution, team social contribution, team integration, team ethics, budgeting, athletic training department, academic support services, external agents, personal dedication.
Demographic questions included gender, age, class rank, sport played at UW-Eau Claire, and prior participation in NCAA-sanctioned sports at another university.
Procedure
Researchers administered all survey questions via Qualtics. After giving consent for participation, athletes first responded to the demographic questions, then completed the CFNI-45 and CMNI-46 (randomized order for each participant), and finished with the ASQ. Participants received debriefing information upon submitting their responses.
DISCUSSION
Sport Type and Gender Norm 
Findings from this study suggest that when sports are categorized by level of contact vs. level of endurance, female athletes in both categories report comparable degrees of conformity to either feminine or masculine gender norms. That is, playing a more aggressive sport does not affect a woman athlete’s perception of her relative masculinity or femininity, nor does participation in a less strength-focused sport, or a lower-risk sport. 
Current social stereotypes often assume that certain sports are inappropriate for women participants – those involving strength or aggression, for example. To the extent that this stereotype presumes that female athletes might see themselves as more masculine because of their participation, this study’s findings offer no support whatever to the stereotype. This in turn allows opponents of such stereotypes to turn their focus to the real issues: social anxiety over female power, for example, or the related fear that women may eventually assume more and more traditionally male roles and prerogatives. By refocusing in these ways, supporters of women’s participation in athletics can also use these findings to stress the immense benefits of sports involvement for all genders in all categories of sport – benefits that include lower risk for body dissatisfaction, higher grades, increased self-esteem, and a feeling of control over one’s life (Krane, Choi, Baird, Aimar, & Kauer, 2004; Steinfeldt et al., 2011). 
Another fruitful and more immediate benefit of the current study arises when we categorize the sports in our sample according to those that involve objectification of the athlete and those that do not. Here we find that women participating in sports that objectify the athlete were less satisfied with their overall athletics experience than men participating in objectifying sports, and less than women and men participating in sports that do not objectify athletes. When objectified, the body alone is seen as if it were the entire person, and her value is measured only by her body’s use to others (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Female athletes should be recognized not for their physical appearance, but their ability, strength, and performance.
Gender Norms and Athlete Satisfaction
The current study finds no relationship between athletes’ overall satisfaction with their sports experience and conformity to the relational norm. Nor was any association shown between the relational norm and three of the four team-based subscales of the ASQ (social contribution, integration, ethics). Only with respect to team task contribution was any association to the relational norm revealed. We conclude that athletes who value maintaining friendships achieve greater success at providing and receiving guidance from teammates, even if this value has little to do with their social standing on the team, sense of fair play, or ability to work collaboratively to achieve team goals. 
Additionally, no relationship emerged between athletes’ overall satisfaction and the risk-taking and winning norms. While such findings might be expected at a Division III school like ours, even at the Division I level, high self-esteem, internal locus of control, mindfulness, and an overall love of the game are more likely predictors of athletes’ satisfaction than playing time, scholarships, and media attention (Denny & Steiner, 2009). Furthermore, excessive commitment to an athletic identity is related to depression, lower physical health, and isolation (Brewer, VanRaalte, & Linder, 1993). Taken as a whole, these findings are consistent with the notion that college athletes should play mostly because they love the game. This attitude is clearly reflected in Division III, where athletes are also expected to develop themselves beyond athletics, and are given time to dedicate to classes, friends, family, and other activities.
Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The current study’s findings on conformity to gender norms might not generalize to other collegiate-athlete studies due to sampling limitations. Specifically, future studies with this design (i.e., sports categorized as appearance-focused, endurance, and contact) should use larger samples that represent athletes from all three categories. Whether or not this three-category scheme proves to be useful remains to be seen; however, findings from this study indicate that categorizing sports as involving objectification of the athlete vs. no objectification is a fruitful direction to pursue.