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 student-athletes conform to the same levels of feminine norms, but these student-athletes also conform 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 feminine norms than nonathlete female college students. Although female athletes may experience the paradoxical challenge of negotiating muscularity 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 forfeiting their femininity in some way by participating in sport. In their efforts to maintain femininity within their athletic role, female athletes have discussed 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 conformity to masculine norms. Specifically, female 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; Whannel, 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 sexually 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 particular Risk Taking norm contributes to differential 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 context 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 Melendez (2006) reported that athletic participation provides athletes with the opportunity to embrace 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. Future researchers should examine gender differences and similarities in conformity to gender norms within sport and across other contexts.
Additionally, it is noteworthy that female student-athletes did not report higher levels of conformity 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 numerous 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 participants (e.g., rugby, soccer, hockey, basketball).

High profile examples of female athletes acting violently in college sports have recently permeated 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 antisocial 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), particularly sports that involve bodily contact and instrumental 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 dynamic of cross-gender (non)conformity to gen- der norms, particularly for those who navigate within traditionally gendered contexts (e.g., sports, military, nursing).