Adolescent and Sport

7/23/2019 Adolescent and Sport

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/adolescent-and-sport 1/12

Sex Roles, Vol. 52, Nos. 9/10, May 2005 ( C 2005)

DOI: 10.1007/s11199-005-3730-x

Adolescents’ Perceptions of Masculine and Feminine

Values in Sport and Physical Education: A Studyof Gender Differences

Anne Torhild Klomsten,1,4 Herb W. Marsh,2 and Einar M. Skaalvik3

In present study we investigated possible gender differences in how 357 secondary-schoolstudents valued the importance of masculine and feminine characteristics within sport andphysical education and how their ratings of values were related to their participation in gen-

dered sport. The results indicated that boys rated appearance strength, sports competence,endurance strength, and masculinity as significantly more important than did girls. Girls ratedappearance good looking face, appearance slender, and femininity as significantly more im-portant than did boys. Further, more boys participated in traditionally masculine sports,whereas girls to a greater extent participated in traditionally feminine sports. A discrimi-nant function analysis separated the masculine sport group from the feminine sport group,which suggests that higher scores on the masculine function were indicative of lower value onappearance slender and flexibility, accompanied by higher value on appearance strength andmasculinity. For the feminine sport group, this pattern was the opposite.

KEY WORDS: adolescence; gender; masculine and feminine values; sports.

Women’s sport has made great progress in re-

cent decades. We observe, for example, that womenare increasingly being admitted to types of sportsthat have traditionally been perceived as masculinesports (Pfister, 2000). Thus the argument that sportsand physical activity in general have been consid-ered a male domain (Matteo, 1986; Messner, 1988,1990; Pedersen & Kono, 1990; Snyder & Spreitzer,1983) and that the participation of women in sports as“ . . . a woman in man’s territory” (Birrell, 1983, p. 49)might seem to be rather outdated today. However,a closer look at sport and physical activities revealsseveral gender differences regarding participation,physical self-concept, and values.

1Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.2University of Western Sydney, Australia.3Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.4To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department

of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Sci-

ence and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway; e-mail: [email protected]

Across many countries in the Western world

(e.g., Norway, Spain, Germany, Great Britain, USA,France) several studies have suggested that girls andwomen are less likely to participate in physical activ-ities and sport than boys and men are (e.g., Eccles &Harold, 1991; Fredricks & Eccles, 2002; Hartmann-Tews & Pfister, 2003; Pfister, 1993). In cases wherethere are as many girls and boys participating insport, boys seem to exercise more often than girls(Hartmann-Tews & Pfister, 2003). This does not nec-essarily mean that girls are less likely to do regu-larly physical activity in their leisure time. Many girls,for example, take dance lessons, or do cheerleading,yoga, or aerobics. However, many of these activitiesare not affiliated members of a sport federation; thusthese girls are neither considered by sport organiza-tions nor by researchers as active in sport.

Although, on a general basis, the gender gapin sport participation seems to be decreasing, thereis evidence that boys and girls still seem to partic-ipate in different sport activities (Eccles & Harold,1991; Fasting, 2003; Pfister, 1993). Despite cultural

625 0360-0025/05/0500-0625/0 C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.



626 Klomsten, Marsh, and Skaalvik

differences, more boys than girls participate in sportssuch as boxing, ice hockey, martial arts, bandy, andfootball, whereas more girls participate in sportssuch as ballet, dance, horse riding, figure skating,and aerobics (Fasting, 2003; Klomsten, Skaalvik, &Espnes, 2004). These sports may, based on their char-acteristics, be defined as masculine and feminine,respectively.

Certain characteristics and activities in thesport domain have traditionally been assigned toboys and others to girls; in essence some sportshave been defined as either having masculine orfeminine characteristics and activities. We regardthese distinctions between masculine and femininecharacteristics and activities in sport to be social-constructions based upon how people think boysand girls differ, and not upon how they actuallydiffer. More specifically, these gender differences

are the result of generally held images or stereotypesof boys and girls (Connell, 1987; Eccles & Harold,1991; Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990; Gill, 2002;Hargreaves, 1994; Koivula, 1995; Pfister, 1993).

Sports regarded as masculine often consist of one or more of the following characteristics: danger,risk, violence, speed, strength, endurance, challenge,and team spirit (Koivula, 2001). In addition courageand aggression are traits associated exclusively withmasculine sport (Metheny, 1965). Examples of sportstraditionally classified as “typically masculine” are:bandy, baseball, bobsled, boxing, martial arts, foot-ball, handball, soccer, ice hockey, motor sport, rugby,

weight lifting, and wrestling.Feminine sports, on the other hand, are found to

score high on aesthetic features such as gracefulness(Metheny, 1965), and sports such as aerobics, dance,figure skating, gymnastics, tennis, riding, and syn-chronized swimming are regarded as feminine sports(Klomsten et al., 2004; Koivula, 1995; Matteo, 1986;Metheny, 1965; Pfister, 1993). In addition, ballet,which is an art form, is also considered a feminine ac-tivity. Being graceful, non-aggressive, and conform-ing to the stereotyped expectations of femininity,such as beauty, seem to be traits that have survived

over the years and are still closely tied to women’ssport. The component of beauty as an element of thesport seems to be an important aspect of the per-ceived femininity of a sport. This is probably becauseit is an important aspect in the general concept of femininity. The female body continues to be identi-fied as an object; girls and women are also socializedto use their bodies to please others and to comparetheir appearance to that of the dominant feminine

ideal. Sports that seek to provide beauty and visualpleasure are thereby not only acceptable for girls butwell in line with stereotyped expectations of feminin-ity (Duncan, 1994; Metheny, 1965; Young, 1995).

Metheny (1965) was one of the first scholars toidentify gender stereotypes in sport. In her classicanalysis of sporting activities she also emphasizedthat the aesthetic qualities often recognized inwomen’s sport are frequently individual activities incontrast to direct competition and team sports. Al-though Metheny offered her analysis almost 40 yearsago, gender stereotypes have remained strong. Forexample, Kane and Snyder (1989) 24 years laterconfirmed the gender stereotyping in sports sug-gested by Metheny. Other researchers, for exampleMatteo (1986, 1988), Ostrow (1981), Ostrow, Jones,and Spiker (1981) and Csizma, Wittig, and Schurr(1988), have also confirmed that sports are indeed

gender-typed (most often as masculine).Many studies have demonstrated that girls score

lower than their male counterparts on physical self-concept (Crain, 1996; Hattie, 1992; Hayes, Crocker,& Kowalski, 1999; Klomsten et al., 2004; Marsh,1989). Klomsten et al. demonstrated in a recentstudy that not only did girls score lower on generalphysical self-concept than boys did, they also scoredsignificantly lower than boys on 8 of 9 sub-domainsof physical self-concept: appearance, body fat, sportscompetence, physical activity, endurance, strength,coordination, and health. No gender difference wasfound on the flexibility dimension.

Research from sport science has shown that boysbelieve that doing well in sports is much more im-portant than do girls (Eccles & Harold, 1991; Eccles,Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Fredricks& Eccles, 2002; Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, &Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 1994; Wigfieldet al., 1997), and both boys and girls think that it ismore important for boys than for girls to have abil-ities in sports (Eccles et al., 1993; Eccles & Harold,1991; Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984). The featuresof these studies, however, have been general innature. For example Eccles and Harold (1991) asked

adolescents “how important is it to you to be good atsports?” It might be fruitful to look at feminine andmasculine values in sport more specifically. Fromprevious research we know that sport is thought tobe a male domain, but we also know that the numberof girls participating in sport has been increasing.It might well be that boys and girls rate variousvalues within sport differently; for example it couldbe reasonable to believe that strength and visible



Masculine and Feminine Values in Sport and Physical Education 627

muscles are more important to boys, whereas girlsare more concerned about being slender and thin.

Previous research has shown gender differencesin general sport values that favor boys (i.e., boys’value being good in sport as more important thangirls). Few researchers, however, have investigatedgender differences in sport values more specifically,for example masculine and feminine sport values.Thus, the first aim of the present study was to exam-ine boys’ and girls’ perceptions of feminine and mas-culine characteristics within sport and physical edu-cation. The second aim of the present study was toexamine whether ratings of the importance of femi-nine and masculine values were related to their par-ticipation in gendered sport.

METHOD

Participants

Data were collected from 357 secondary schoolstudents, 190 girls (Mean age = 14.34; SD = .71) and167 boys (Mean age = 14.50; SD = .74). The partic-ipants were students in eight to tenth grade in fourdifferent public schools in Trondheim, Norway. Allof the students participated in the organized physicaleducation (PE) during school time, and 277 (130 =77.8% of boys; 147 = 77.4% of girls) of the studentsparticipated some sort of organized sport in theirleisure time. Boys and girls participated in different

kinds of sports and also in a variety of combinationsof sports. Some sports were more common amongboys (i.e., soccer, ice-hockey, boxing, martial arts),whereas other sports were more common among girls(i.e., dance, handball, gymnastics, horse riding, andaerobics).

Procedure

Students from four secondary schools partici-pated in the study. After the schools granted permis-

sion to perform the study, information letters weresent to parents by way of the class teachers. The let-ters briefly explained the purpose of the study. Onlythose students who agreed to participate in the studycompleted questionnaires. The questionnaires werefilled out during class hours, and information aboutthe study and questionnaire was read aloud beforewe handed out the questionnaires. Participants wereinformed that they were to answer the questionnaires

anonymously, and they were assured that their an-swers would be kept confidential. Students were in-formed that the questionnaire was not a test, thatthere were no right and wrong answers, and thatthey could stop participation in the study at any time.They were asked not to talk with anyone during thequestionnaire session, except to ask for help fromthe researcher if something in the questionnaire wasunclear. Because of differences in reading and writ-ing skills, participants were allowed to complete thequestionnaire at their own pace, and usually they fin-ished within 35–40 min.

Measure

To measure the importance of feminine andmasculine characteristics in sport and physical edu-

cation, a questionnaire titled Gender Values Scale(GVS) was developed for the purpose of the presentstudy. Earlier instruments such as the well knownBem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bem, 1974) werefound to be too general in nature for our purpose.The GVS is based upon questions from the PhysicalSelf-Description Questionnaire (PSDQ) (Marsh &Redmayne, 1994; Marsh, Richards, Johnson, Roche,& Tremayne, 1994), which has shown good reliabil-ity and validity (Marsh, 1996a,b, 1997; Marsh et al.,1994). Characteristics investigated in the presentstudy were: Appearance good looking body (e.g., tohave a great body, to have a nice body); Appear-

ance good looking face (e.g., to be good looking, tohave a nice face); Appearance slender (e.g., to havea slender body, to have a thin body); Appearancestrength (e.g., to have a powerful body with well-defined muscles, to have big muscles); Strength (e.g.,to be good at lifting heavy objects, to do well in atest of strength); Endurance (e.g., to be able to runa long way without stopping, to be able to run along way without getting tired); Flexibility (e.g., tohave a flexible body, to be good at bending, twist-ing, and turning the body); Sports Competence (e.g.,to be good at sports, to do well at sports competi-

tions); Masculine traits in general (e.g., to be com-petition oriented, to be tough/hard); and Femininetraits in general (e.g., to be caring, to be good withchildren). Based on previous research (Eccles, 1987;Koivula, 1995; Metheny, 1965) the following char-acteristics were regarded as masculine: Appearancestrength, Endurance, Strength, Sports Competence,and Masculinity. Appearance good looking face, Ap-pearance slender, Appearance good looking body,




Flexibility, and Femininity were regarded as femi-nine characteristics.

All scales contained three items. Each item wasa simple declarative statement (e.g., How importantis it for you that you: have big muscles, are strong,have a slender body), and participants responded us-ing a 5-point scale (“not important at all to me” to“very important to me”). The initial step in devel-oping the questionnaire was a pilot study in which20 students responded to different trait questions.They were also interviewed about the wording in thequestions and how they interpreted the meaning of the words in the questions.

The questionnaire also contained six open-ended questions. The participants were asked to give(i.e., to write in own words) their opinion about: anideal female and male body (What do you think anideal male body is like?, What do you think an ideal

female body is like?), whether any sports are moreappropriate for boys than for girls (Do you think anysports suit boys better than girls? And why is that?),and whether any sports are more appropriate for girlsthan boys (Do you think any sports suit girls bet-ter than boys? And why is that?). These written re-sponses were longer and more detailed than thosein the scales, and allowed a better understanding of the sports world as seen by the respondents. The re-sponses were coded and rearranged into categories.

Participation in sport activities were measuredby the main sport and based upon how much timeeach week students spend participating in the actual

activity.

Preliminary Psychometric Support for the Instrument

Based on responses of 357 students the ques-tionnaire demonstrated a good internal consistency(coefficient alpha) on all dimensions except for thefemininity dimension. The internal consistency co-efficients for the 10 factors were: Appearance goodlooking face = 91; Appearance good looking body =.86; Endurance = .88; Flexibility = .71; Sports com-

petence = .79; Appearance strength = .89; Appear-ance slender = .86; Strength = .86; Femininity = .60;and Masculinity = 74. A confirmatory factor anal-ysis (CFA) was conducted to test the factor struc-ture in the questionnaire using LISREL, version 8.54(J ¨ oreskog & S ¨ orbom, 1993, 1999). Following the rec-ommendations of Hu and Bentler (1995), several fitindices were used to test the factor structure: thechi-square (χ2) statistic, degrees of freedom (df),

Root Mean Square of Error Approximation (RM-SEA), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the rela-tive noncentrality index (RNI). For RMSEAs, val-ues less than .05 and .08 were taken to reflect aclose fit and a reasonable fit, respectively (Browne& Cudeck, 1993). The TLI and RNI vary along a0–1 continuum in which values greater than .90 and.95 are typically taken to reflect acceptable and ex-cellent fits to the data (Bentler, 1992; Bentler &Bonett, 1980). The results showed a reasonable fit,with RMSEA= 0.071, df = 360, χ2 = 1126.05, TLI=0.95, and RFI = 0.96. The TLI and RFI indexes fur-ther support our assumption that the data fitted themodel.

RESULTS

The first aim in the present study was to ex-amine how the adolescent boys and girls valuedthe importance of the following characteristics: Ap-pearance good looking face; Appearance good look-ing body; Appearance strength; Appearance slender;Strength; Endurance; Sports competence; Flexibility;Masculinity; Femininity. All variables were found tobe approximately normally distributed and within ±1in both kurtosis and skewness. Means and standarddeviations for each characteristic as well as resultsof the t -tests are reported in Table I. Gender differ-ences were evident in 8 of the 10 characteristics. Boyshad significantly higher means than girls did in Ap-

pearance strength, Sports competence, Endurance,Strength, and Masculinity, whereas means for girlswere significantly higher than those of boys in Ap-pearance good looking face, Appearance slender,and Femininity.

The boys and girls did not only differ in how theyvalued feminine and masculine characteristics, butalso in their involvement in sport activities. Table IIreveals that more boys than girls participated in mas-culine sports such as soccer, ice hockey, boxing, mar-tial arts, and motor cross, whereas girls to a greaterextent participated in feminine sports such as dance,

gymnastics, horse riding, figure skating and aero-bics. The classification of different sports as mas-culine, feminine or neutral was based upon previ-ous research (Koivula, 1995; Matteo, 1986; Metheny,1965).

One way to categorize sports as masculine, fem-inine, or neutral is by traits or characteristics, assuggested by previous researchers (Koivula, 1995;Matteo, 1986; Metheny, 1965), but another method




Table I. Differences Between Girls’ and Boys’ Scores on the Importance of the InvestigatedCharacteristics

Girls (n = 190) Boys (n = 167)

Mean SD Mean SD t

Appearance (good looking face) 11.09 2.89 10.27 2.75 2.73∗∗

Appearance (good looking body) 10.46 2.71 10.25 2.86 0.74Appearance (slender) 10.38 3.09 9.01 2.85 4.32∗∗

Appearance (strength) 5.79 2.25 9.84 3.02 −14.22∗∗

Sports competence 10.18 2.79 11.24 2.77 −3.60∗∗

Endurance 9.31 2.82 10.92 2.89 −5.34∗∗

Strength 8.31 2.36 10.81 2.68 −9.38∗∗

Flexibility 9.75 2.46 9.74 2.54 0.04Femininity (general) 11.04 1.87 10.36 2.43 2.97∗∗

Masculinity (general) 8.78 1.87 10.28 2.54 −5.71∗∗

Note. Boys are scored one whereas girls are scored two.∗∗ p < .001.

Table II. Main Sports among Gender in Study Sample and National Sample

Participants in different sports Participants in different sports,in the present studya nationally (Norway)b

Sport sorted by category Boys Girls Men Women

MasculineSoccer 81 40 265,538 85,680

Ice hockey 8 0 10,325 881Boxing 4 0 3,675 1,237

Motor cross 1 0 16,076 2,724Martial Artsc 13 2 19,927 8,430

Handballd 0 20 30,421 64,637

Feminine

Dance 1 42 7,685 24,811Gymnastics 0 5 16,101 56,130Horse riding 0 16 4,137 21,929

Figure skatinge 0 2 4,861 4,177Aerobics f 0 8 — —

NeutralTennis 3 4 13,587 8,021

Swimming 3 2 18,583 20,004Skiing 6 5 75,174 45,896

Athletics 4 0 30,056 21,852Bike riding 2 0 10,985 2,362

Basketball 3 0 8,269 3,910

Archery 0 1 2,883 886Golf 1 0 79,651 29,731

Total 130 147 617,934 403,298

aThis analysis is based upon the students who participated in organized sport in the present study.bMemberships collected from Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports

(NOCCS), December 31, 2002.cMartial arts is a collective term for sports such as karate, judo, akaido, etc.dIn Norway, handball is considered to be a typical women’s sport, based upon participation num-

bers from NOCCS.eFigure skating and speed skating are affiliated with the same federation, thus there are no separatestatistic for the figure skating only.

f Aerobics is not affiliated with a federation.




is to classify sport based upon the number of maleand female participants. The national participationnumbers from a number of sports in Norway (seeTable II) clearly differentiate between sports thatare dominated by men and women respectively. Mendominate in most sports. More men than womenplay soccer, ice hockey, tennis, basketball, and golf.Men are also involved in boxing, motor cross, mar-tial arts, skiing, skating, athletics, bike riding, andarchery to a greater extent than women are. Women,alternatively, dominate in handball, dance, gymnas-tics, horse riding, and swimming. Participation num-bers in the present study supported the same pattern,even though there were few participants in some of those sports.

To categorize sport as masculine, feminine, orneutral, a ratio was calculated for the genderedsport variable (i.e., masculine, feminine, and neu-

tral sport variable), in both the national sample aswell as in the present study sample. The ratio foreach sport was calculated by the use of the follow-ing formula: male participants/(male participants +female participants). Using soccer as an example, theratio was computed as follows 265.538/(265.538 +85.680) = 0.76. The ratio varied along a 0–1 contin-uum in which lower values (0.0 −<0.4) indicate fem-inine sports, a value of 0.5 indicates neutral sports,and higher values (>0.6–1.0) indicate masculinesports.

Categorizing sports based upon participationnumbers from Norway, both national and in the cur-

rent sample, suggested that most sports focused uponin the present study were masculine. Quite a fewsports were feminine, and few were categorized asneutral sports.

According to Eccles and her colleagues (Eccleset al., 1983), activity choice is linked to the impor-tance or the value individuals attach to the avail-able options. If this theory (Eccles et al., 1983) canbe used to explain whether activity choice is linkedto the importance of feminine and masculine values,then differences in the adolescents’ perceptions of masculine and feminine values (see Table I) should

lead individuals to participate in feminine, masculine,and neutral sport activities at different rates. Theresults revealed that the majority of boys (80.8%)were involved in masculine activities, and quite a few(17.7%) participated in neutral activities, whereasa very small percentage (1.5%) reported that theirmain sport was feminine. Most girls (60.5%), on theother hand, reported that their main sport was fem-inine, 11.6% participated in sports that were catego-

Table III. Test of Equality of Group Means in Three Groups of Gendered Sport

Wilks’

Variables Lambda F p

Appearance strength .87 20.41 <.0001Appearance slender .91 12.99 <.0001

Strength .94 9.37 <.0001Masculinity .93 9.82 <.0001

Appearance good looking face .96 5.61 .004Endurance .97 4.25 .015

Appearance good looking body .98 2.08 .127Sports Competence .98 2.97 .053

Flexibility .98 2.76 .65Feminity .99 .36 .699

rized as neutral, and quite a few (27.9%) were in-volved in masculine activities.

However, a real test of the Eccles et al. (1983)model requires a demonstration of the role these per-

ceived values play in shaping the gender differencesin participation in gendered sport. Discriminantfunction analysis and path analysis are two tech-niques that can be used to demonstrate such aneffect. A multiple discriminant function analysis wasperformed using 10 variables as predictors for mem-bership in three groups. Predictor variables includedperceived importance of Appearance good lookingface, Appearance good looking body, Appearanceslender, Appearance strength, Endurance, Strength,Sports Competence, Flexibility, Femininity, andMasculinity. Membership in the three groups wasbased on participation in feminine, masculine, or

neutral sports. There were 277 cases in the analyses(91 in the feminine sport group, 146 in the masculinesport group, and 40 in the neutral sport group).Prior to the discriminant function analysis a test of equality of group means in three groups of genderedsport was run. Table III show that the three groupsdifferentiated significantly in mean scores on thefollowing variables: Strength, Appearance strength,Appearance slender, Endurance, Masculinity, andAppearance good looking face ( p < .05). Stepwiseanalyses (Criterion-Probability of F to enter: 0.5)was then used to ensure that only those variables

that contributed substantially to discriminationentered the analysis. The analysis shows that 4 of 10 feminine/masculine characteristics were able todiscriminate significantly among the three sportinggroups. Two discriminant functions were calculated,with a combined χ2(8) = 94.15, Eigenvalue = .37,Canonical correlation = .52, df = 3, p < .0001. Afterremoval of the first function, there was still an asso-ciation between groups and predictors, χ2(3) = 8.26,




Eigenvalue = .03, Canonical correlation = .17, df =

8, p = .04. Even though function 2 is significant at.05 level, this function is regarded as weak, becauseof a low χ2, very low Eigenvalue, and low canon-ical correlation. The two discriminant functionsaccounted for 92.3% and 7.7% respectively, of thebetween-group variability. The group centroids in-dicate that the first discriminant function maximallyseparated the masculine sport group (.53) from thefeminine sport group (−.81), whereas the neutralsport group (−.09) showed a score close to zero. Forthis function a higher score is indicative of a lowervalue on Appearance slender, and a lower value onflexibility, accompanied by a higher value on Ap-pearance strength, and a high value on Masculinity.The second function mainly discriminated betweenthe masculine sport group (−.09) and the femininesport group (−.06), on the one hand, and the neutral

sport group (.42), on the other hand. For the secondfunction a higher score was indicative of a lowerscore on Flexibility, accompanied by higher scoreson Appearance slender, Appearance strength, andMasculinity. The standardized canonical discrimi-nant function coefficients suggest that Appearancestrength (.63), Masculinity (.43), Appearance slender(−.45), and Flexibility (−.23) were the most impor-tant predictors in function 1, whereas Appearanceslender (.80), Flexibility (−.20), Appearance strength(.31), and Masculinity (.31) were the most importantpredictors in function 2. The classification procedurerevealed that 65.3% of the original grouped cases

were correctly classified.The relations between gendered sport and four

latent variables (Appearance strength, Appearanceslender, Masculinity, and Flexibility) were then ex-amined by the means of path analysis using Lisrel(J ¨ oreskog & S ¨ orbom, 1993). The model is presentedin Fig. 1. Circles represent the feminine and mas-culine scales, the rectangle represents the measuredvariable (a ratio was calculated for national sportparticipation numbers; values from 0.0 − <0.4 in-dicate feminine sports, value of 0.5 indicates neu-tral sports, and values from >0.6–1.0 indicate mas-

culine sports). Figure 1 summarizes the path modelwith non-significant paths deleted from the model.Inspection of the standardized path coefficients (betaweights) in Fig. 1 indicates that Appearance Slenderand Flexibility had a significant direct negative effecton gendered sport, whereas Appearance strengthand Masculinity had a direct positive effect ongendered sport. Together these characteristics ac-counted for 26% of the variance in gendered sport.

Fig. 1. Path analysis that illustrates that gendered sport is medi-ated by feminine and masculine characteristics, p < .01.

In addition to the quantitative scales, the open-ended questions revealed adolescents’ thoughtsabout an ideal male body and an ideal female body,as well as about gender appropriate sports. Studentscould include as many characteristics about an idealmale body and an ideal female body, as they liked.Also, they could include as many gender appropri-ate sports as they liked. Characteristics are catego-rized with the most frequent feature mentioned first.An ideal male body is described by adjectives such asfit and strong, with well-defined muscles, especiallyon the shoulders, upper arms, chest and belly (“six-pack”). Among girls, 66% (n = 126) included one or

more of these adjectives in their description of anideal male body, compared to 49% (n = 81) of theboys. The majority of boys and girls emphasized thatan ideal female body was associated with the char-acteristics thin, slender but fit, nice “boobs,” “tightbutt,” sexy, and pretty face. Whereas 67% (n = 127)of the girls included one or more of these characteris-tics in their description of an ideal female body, 79%(n = 132) of the boys shared their point of view. Par-ticipants had certain opinions of what would be ap-propriate sports for girls and boys, respectively. Moregirls (98%, n = 186) than boys (45%, n = 75) re-

ported that some sports (e.g., dance, ballet, aerobic,gymnastics, and handball) are more appropriate togirls than to boys. The reasons for this were that thegirls . . . “are graceful,” . . . “are flexible,” . . . “havegood rhythm,” and they are . . . “caring.” Many stu-dents reported that there were typically boys’ sportsas well (e.g., soccer, boxing, ice hockey, motor cross,football, and rugby). The reasons were that boys are. . . “tough,” . . . “big and strong,” . . . “boys like to




fight,” . . . “boys have muscles,” . . . “one could getinjured,” and . . . “it is nothing for weak females ac-tually.” More girls (55%, n = 105) had this point of view than did boys (45%, n = 76).

DISCUSSION

In the present study girls were involved in sportat the same rate as were boys, which is contrary toprevious findings. However, the national participa-tion numbers were well in accordance with those of earlier studies (Eccles & Harold, 1991; Fredricks &Eccles, 2002; Hartmann-Tews & Pfister, 2003; Pfister,1993). One explanation for the high percentage of sporting girls in the present study was the large num-ber of girls involved in dance activities. Most of thegirls who dance in Norway attend dance classes inprivate dance studios, which are not affiliated with

the Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confedera-tion of Sports (NOCCS), and thus they might not beregarded by NOCCS as active dancers. However, inthe present study they are regarded as sporting indi-viduals at the same level as those who participate inother sporting activities.

In the present study boys and girls were in-volved in gendered sport at different rates, thusprevious findings (Eccles & Harold, 1991; Fasting,2003; Klomsten et al., 2004; Pfister, 1993) weresupported. Girls in the student sample, and womennationally, dominated in traditional feminine sportssuch as dance, gymnastics, horse riding, and aerobics,

whereas boys dominated in traditional masculinesports such as soccer, ice hockey, boxing, and motorcross. Responses from the open-ended questionsshowed that boys and especially girls do have tradi-tional opinions about feminine and masculine sportactivities. The responses were well in accordancewith gender stereotyping, and indicated that bothboys and girls, not surprisingly, considered boystougher, more aggressive, and able to handle morepain than girls. Girls were regarded as more graceful,coordinated, flexible, and caring. It must be empha-sized that more girls than boys seemed to perpetuate

stereotyped opinions about appropriate sports forboys and girls. Images of men and women in themedia are documented to be quite different, andthey may provide an explanation as to why boys andgirls have stereotyped opinions. Male athletes aregenerally presented in terms of strength and physicalabilities, whereas female athletes more often arepresented according to attractiveness and even totheir sexualized bodies (Messner, Duncan, & Jensen,

1993; von der Lippe, 2002a). However, boys might beless concerned about what are appropriate sports forboys and girls, at least the present study showed that55% of the boys do not believe that certain sportsare more appropriate for a certain gender. It is alsointeresting to find that almost all girls believe thatcertain sports are more appropriate for girls than forboys. It might be that girls do not like the idea of con-necting the picture of strong and masculine boys tofeminine sports such as dance, ballet and gymnastics.

Gendered participation in sport is also a ques-tion of availability. In Norway there has been, forexample a debate regarding whether girls should beallowed to participate in ski jumping competitions.Also, boys, both nationally and internationally, donot participate in rhythmic gymnastics.

The high percentage of girls in the present studywho participate in masculine sports is in line with ob-

servations that there has been a trend in Norway to-ward an increasing number of girls getting involvedin soccer, which previously has been stereotyped asa masculine sport (Koivula, 1995; Matteo, 1986). Al-though this trend of girls entering into the “men’sterritory” has lasted for some years now, it is alsointeresting to observe that boys do not seem tohave taken up any traditional girls’ sports. Thus thereare few boys in feminine activities such as gymnastics,dance, or aerobics.

In Norway, more girls than boys participate inhandball, which is viewed as a masculine sport whencategorized by traits (Koivula, 1995; Matteo, 1986).

Handball has, since it was implemented in Norwayin the 1930s, attracted women, and it also has beenthought to be a typical women’s sport in this country(Pfister & von der Lippe, 1994). Reasons for the fem-inization of handball may be found in the fact that inNorway women started to play the sport when it wasnew, and handball was in no way tied to a masculineidentity, which supports the idea that the genderifica-tion of sport is socially constructed. Handball is stillperceptuated as a typical women’s sport in Norway,and adolescents in the open-ended questions of thepresent study expressed the idea that handball is

more appropriate for women than for men.Boys and girls differ on a number of feminineand masculine characteristics in sports. The boys notonly valued being good in sport more than girls did,as shown in previous research (Eccles & Harold,1991; Eccles et al., 1993; Fredricks & Eccles, 2002;Jacobs et al., 2002; Wigfield et al., 1997), but they alsovalued Appearance strength, Endurance, Strength,and Masculinity significantly more than did girls.




Girls, on the other hand, valued Appearance goodlooking face, Appearance slender, and Femininitysignificantly more than did boys. These results arenot surprising, and they are consistent with genderstereotyping. It is interesting that no difference wasfound between girls and boys on the Flexibility char-acteristic, which in previous research has been re-garded as a feminine feature of sport. Also there wasno gender difference on the Appearance good look-ing body characteristic, which may be due to an in-creasing emphasis on good looking men in adver-tising and other media (Ward, 2003). Appearancestrength seems to be the dimension that differenti-ates boys and girls most significantly, as girls placeless value on this dimension. This finding is sup-ported by the written responses in the questionnaire.Whereas an ideal male body was strong and withwell defined muscles, especially on the shoulders, up-

per arms, chest, and on the belly (“six-pack”), anideal female body, in contrast, should not have bigbulky muscles. Instead an ideal female body shouldbe slender with an hourglass figure, “tight butt,” nice“boobs,” and a pretty face. Many boys, in addition,emphasized that girls should have a sexy look. Thesefindings demonstrate that the well known stereotypicpicture of a masculine, strong man and a slender,pretty woman (in Western societies) is still strong.However, girls seem to perpetuate these stereotypeseven more than boys do. This could mean that girlsare more influenced by advertising, television, andmagazines when it comes to messages about ideal

bodies. Even though there has been an increasing fo-cus on muscle exercise for women in the past 20 years(Tucker, 1990), girls do not consider Appearancestrength as important. What we see in magazines,however, is that although a good female body is amuscular body, extreme muscularity is discouraged,so the magazines thus encourage women to “tone”their muscles, not to “build” them. It seems that themessage for girls and women is to get strong, but notbulky, and that girls internalize this message.

The reason why strength has become a substan-tial stereotype for men can be explained by an anal-

ysis of medical texts written by authorities in sportand health in the period from 1890–1950 (von derLippe, 2000). In general, doctors and other author-ities argued that strength training and vigorous sportactivities were to be avoided for women becausethe women’s physiological functions were inconsis-tent with hard muscular work. Women were meantto bear children, and exercises such as strength train-ing were not only useless, but they would cause de-

formations and influence the beauty of the body andwomen’s health in an unfavorable manner (von derLippe, 2000, 2000b). Because strength for so manyyears has been strongly tied to masculinity, it has al-most become a “truth” that men are the strong in-dividuals with well-defined muscles, whereas womendo not need to be strong nor to have visible muscles.

The finding that girls value Appearance slender,Appearance good looking face, and Femininity morethan do boys falls well within the stereotyped expec-tations of femininity and beauty, and it can be un-derstood from a historical perspective. It may be ar-gued that 40–50 years ago women worked at hometaking care of children, cooking, and cleaning, andthis meant that they used to be economically depen-dent on men to a much greater extent than is truetoday. Attractiveness was an important characteristicto be chosen by the other sex for marriage and sup-

port, thus appearance meant more to women than tomen. If this argument is correct, beliefs seem to sur-vive, even though the actual situation for women andmen has changed.

Previous authors (Duncan, 1994; Metheny, 1965;von der Lippe, 2002a; Young, 1995) have suggestedthat women are socialized to use their bodies toplease others instead of for their more active quali-ties. As can be seen in the present study, girls con-tinue to place more importance on passive values,which can lead other people to regard them as ob-

jects instead of as active individuals. In this regard,it is interesting to observe that in some sports (e.g.,

beach volleyball, gymnastics, and figure skating) menand women wear different uniforms when they com-pete. In these sports women’s uniforms allow moreof their bodies to be seen than is true for men. Forexample, within the trendy sport of beach volleyballthe official uniform rules in tournaments are gen-dered. Whereas most men wear a singlet and shortswhen playing, women’s uniforms usually consist of two piece bathing suits, which, of course, allow fortheir body shapes to be seen. To play beach volley-ball in a sparse amount of clothing, such as a twopiece bathing suit, or a bikini, is not believed to im-

prove their volleyball skills to a great extent, thusthere have to be other reasons, such as those men-tioned above, which force the women to wear thesekinds of uniforms.

The results further supported the idea thatmasculine and feminine characteristics, especiallyAppearance slender, Flexibility, Masculinity, andAppearance strength, are linked to gendered sport.Individuals who value Appearance slender and




Flexibility tend to be involved in feminine sports to agreater extent, whereas those individuals who valuethe importance of Masculinity and Appearancestrength were more likely to be involved in mas-culine sports. This is reasonable, especially whengender stereotyping in sport is taken into account.Even though a high percentage of boys and girls (inWestern societies) participate in sport and physicalactivity, there seem to be unconscious “truths” outthere that influence the link between individuals’values and their sport activities. The results however,suggest that only 65% of the individuals can becorrectly classified based on these values. Althoughthis is not a very high percentage, it highlights thatthe gender inquiry is complex. Individuals can, forexample, value feminine characteristics and still par-ticipate in masculine sports, which were evidenced inthe present study. Many girls participated in soccer,

which is stereotyped as a masculine sport, but stillthey rated feminine values higher than masculinevalues. Future researchers should examine whethergirls who participate in stereotypical feminine sportsdemonstrate different values than those who partic-ipate in stereotypical masculine sports, and whetherboys who participate in stereotypical masculinesports demonstrate different values than those whoparticipate in stereotypical feminine sports.

In addition to categorizing sports as masculine,feminine, or neutral by traits (Koivula, 1995; Matteo,1986), the results of the present study have shownthat categorization into gendered sport also can be

based upon participation numbers. Categorizing of sports based upon participation numbers, however,leads to more sports being labeled as masculine. Thisis especially true for gender-neutral sports. It is inter-esting that the same sports fall within the femininecategory no matter whether they are categorized bytraits or participation numbers.

The present study has shown that boys and girlsappear to be stereotyped in sport participation, inmasculine and feminine values, and also in how theyexpress sports appropriateness for boys and girls.In conclusion, several questions have been raised in

the present study. What is the reason for boys andgirls to have stereotyped pictures about appropriategirls’ and boys’ sports and to have stereotypedvalues within sport and physical education? Arethe male and female physiques so different thatboys are not able to do graceful and coordinatedactivities, and girls cannot be tough, hard, and beable to handle pain? Or do other mechanisms causethese stereotypic pictures? From the perspective

of the present authors, although biological factorsmay well predispose boys and girls to differentbehaviors in sport, the elaborate human cognitivesystem, with its attunements to learning, socialexpectations, and role models, heavily influencesbiological predispositions and frequently overridesthem (Diamond, 1988). Neither gender differ-entiated beliefs and self-perceptions, nor genderrole beliefs develop in a vacuum. Ample evidencedocuments the fact that peers, friends, parents,television, coaches, and teachers all contribute to theshaping of these beliefs and self-perceptions overtime (see Eccles & Hoffmann, 1984; Greendorfer,1983; Horn, 1987; Houston, 1983). The fact thatparents encourage their sons more than daughterstoward sport and physical activity (Brustad, 1993,1996; Eccles et al., 1990) could very well influence theadolescents’ ratings of feminine and masculine values

in sport. Thus, in future studies, adolescents’ percep-tions of significant others’ masculine and femininebelief systems also should be investigated to explorethe ways significant others impact the socializationprocess regarding sport and physical activities.

REFERENCES

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances andmethodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400–404.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance test and

goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psy-chological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Birrell, S. (1983). The psychological dimensions of female ath-letic participation. In M. Boutilier & L. SanGiovanni (Eds.),The sporting woman (pp. 49–91). Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of as-sessing model fit. In K. A, Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Test-ing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Brustad, R. J. (1993). Who will go out and play? Parental and psy-chological influences on children’s attraction to physical activ-ity. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 210–223.

Brustad, R. J. (1996). Attraction to physical activity in urbanschoolchildren: Parental socialization and gender influences.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 67, 316–323.

Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Crain, R. M. (1996). The influence of age, race, and gender onchild and adolescent multidimensional self-concept. In B. A.Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept; developmental, social, and clinical considerations (pp. 395–420). New York:Wiley.

Csizma, K. A., Wittig, A. F., & Schurr, K. T. (1988). Sport stereo-types and gender. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,10, 62–74.

Diamond, M. C. (1988). Enriching heredity: The impact of theenvironment on the anatomy of the brain. New York: FreePress.




Duncan, M. C. (1994). The politics of women’s body images andpractices: Foucault, the panopticon, and Shape magazine. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 18, 48–65.

Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11,135–172.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport

involvement: Applying the Eccles’ Expectancy-Value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7–35.Eccles, J. S., & Hoffmann, L. W. (1984). Sex roles, socialization,

and occupational behaviours. In H. W. Stevenson & A. E.Siegel (Eds.), Child development research and social policy(pp. 367–420). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender rolestereotypes, expectancy effects, and parent’s socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46(2), 183–201.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-relatedchanges in the school-environment: Effects on achievementmotivation. In J. Nichols (Ed.), The development of achieve-ment motivation (Vol. 3, pp. 283–331). Greenwhich, CT: JAI.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993).Ontogeny of children’s self-perceptions and subjective taskvalues across activity domains during the elementary schoolyears. Child Development , 64, 830–847.

Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala,C. M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, valuesand academic behaviours. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achive-ment and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Fransisco:Freeman.

Fasting, K. (2003). Women and sport in Norway, In I. Hartmann-Tews, & G. Pfister (Eds.), Sport and women: Social issues ininternational perspective (pp. 15–34). London: Routledge.

Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence andvalue beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growthtrajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519–533.

Gill, D. L. (2002). Gender and sport behavior. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 355–375). Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.

Greendorfer, S. (1983). Shaping the female athlete: The impactof the family. In M. Boutilier & L. San Giovanni (Eds.),

The sporting woman (pp. 135–155). Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics.

Hargreaves, J. (1994). Sporting females: Critical issues in thehistory and sociology of women’s sports. London: Routledge.

Hartmann-Tews, I., & Pfister, G. (2003). Women’s inclu-sion in sport: International and comparative findings. InI. Hartmann-Tews & G. Pfister (Eds.), Sport and women: So-cial issues in international perspective (pp. 266–280). London:Routledge.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Hayes, S. D., Crocker, P. R. E., & Kowalski, K. C. (1999).

Gender differences in physical self-perceptions, global self-esteem, and physical activity: Evaluation of the physicalself-perception profile model. Journal of Sport Behaviour , 22,1–14.

Horn, T. S. (1987). The influence of teacher-coach behavior onthe psychological development of children. In D. Gould & M.

R. Weiss (Eds.), Advances in pedriatric sport sciences. Vol. 2:Behavioral issues (pp. 121–142). Champaign. IL: HumanKinetics.

Houston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In P. Mussen & E. M.Heteringhton (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. IV,pp. 387–467). New York: Wiley.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H.Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues,and applications (pp. 76–99). London: Sage.

Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield,A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values:

Gender and domain differences across grades 1 through 12.Child Development , 73, 509–527.

J ¨ oreskog, K. G., & S¨ orbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language.Chicago: Scientific Software International.

J ¨ oreskog, K. H., & S ¨ orbom, D. (1999). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language.

Chicago: Scientific Software International.Kane, M. J., & Snyder, E. (1989). Sport typing: The social“containment” of women. Arena Review, 13, 77–96.

Klomsten, A. T., Skaalvik, E. M., & Espnes, G. A. (2004). Physicalself-concept and sports: Do gender differences still exist? SexRoles, 50, 119–127.

Koivula, N. (1995). Ratings of gender appropriateness of sportsparticipation: Effects of gender-based schematic processing.Sex Roles, 33, 543–557.

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

Marsh, H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensionsof self-concept: Preadolescence to early-childhood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 417–430.

Marsh, H. W. (1996a). Construct validity of Physical Self-Description Questionnaire responses. Relations to external

criteria. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(2),111–131.Marsh, H. W. (1996b). Physical self description questionnaire:

Stability and discriminant validity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 67, 249–264.

Marsh, H. W. (1997). The measurement of physical self-concept:A construct validation approach. In K, Fox (Ed.), The phys-ical self-concept: From motivation to well-being (pp. 27–58).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Marsh, H. W., & Redmayne, R. S. (1994). A multidimensionalphysical self-concept and its relation to multiple componentsof physical fitness. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,16, 45–55.

Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., Johnson, S., Roche, L., &Tremayne, P. (1994). Physical Self Description Question-naire: Psychometric properties and a multitrait-multimethodanalysis of relations to existing instruments. Journal of Sport

& Exercise Psychology, 16, 270–305.Matteo, S. (1986). The effects of sex and gender-schematic

processing on sport participation. Sex Roles, 15, 417–432.Matteo, S. (1988). The effect of gender-schematic processing on

decisions about sex inappropriate sport behaviour. Sex Roles,18, 41–58.

Messner, M. A. (1988). Sports and male domination: The femaleathlete as contested ideological terrain. Sociology of Sport Journal , 5, 197–211.

Messner, M. A. (1990). Men studying masculinity: Some epis-temological issues in sport sociology. Sociology and Sport Journal , 7, 136–153.

Messner, M. A., Duncan, M. C., & Jensen, K. (1993). Separatingthe men from the girls: The gendered language of televisedsports. Gender & Society, 7, 121–137.

Metheny, E. (1965). Symbolic forms of movement: The feminineimage in sports. In E. Metheny (Ed.), Connotations of move-

ment in sport and dance (pp. 43–56). Dubuque, IA: Brown.Ostrow, A. C. (1981). Age grading: Implications for physical

activity participation among older adults. Quest , 33, 112–123.

Ostrow, A. C., Jones, D. C., & Spiker, D. A. (1981). Age roleexpectations and sex role expectations for selected sportactivities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 52, 216–227.

Pedersen, D. M., & Kono, D. M. (1990). Perceived effects onfemininity of the participation of women in sport. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 783–792.




Pfister, G. (1993). Appropriation of the environment, motorexperiences and sporting activities of girls and women. International Review for the Sociology of Sport , 28, 159–171.

Pfister, G. (2000). Women and the Olympic Games. In B. L.Drinkwater (Ed.), Women in sport (pp. 3–19). Oxford:Blackwell Science.

Pfister, G., & von der Lippe, G. (1994). Women’s participation

in sports and the olympic games in Germany and Norway:A sociohistorical analysis. Journal of Comparative Physical Education and Sport , 16, 30–41.

Snyder, E. E., & Spreitzer, E. (1983). Change and variation insocial acceptance of female participation. Journal of Sport Behavior , 6, 3–8.

Tucker, S. (1990, July). What is the ideal body. Shape, pp. 94–112.von der Lippe, G. (2000). Hysterization of womens’ bodies:

Legitimation of the gendered body in a sport and a healthcontext in Norway from 1890 to 1950. In J. Hansen &N. K. Nielsen (Eds.), Sports, body, and health (pp. 105–121).Odense: Odense University Press.

von der Lippe, G. (2002a). Media image: Sport, gender, andnational identities in five European countries. International Review for the Sociology of Sport , 37, 371–395.

von der Lippe, G. (2002b). Medical texts on gender, sexuality,and sport in Norway, 1890–1950: Changing metaphors onfemininities and masculinities. Journal of Sport History, 27,481–495.

Ward, L. M. (2003). Understanding the role of entertainmentmedia in the sexual socialization of American youth: Areview of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23, 347–

388.Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). Children’s competence beliefs,achievement values, and general self-esteem: Change acrosselementary and middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence,14, 107–138.

Wigield, A., Eccles, J., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton,A. J., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children’scompetence beliefs and subjective task values across the ele-mentary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469.

Young, I . M. (1995). The exclusion of women fromsport: Conceptual and existential dimensions. InW. J. Morgan & K. V. Meier (Eds.), Philosophic in-quiry in sport (pp. 262–266). Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics.

Adolescent and Sport

Documents

Transcript of Adolescent and Sport