Limitations in Case Study

There are limitations in this current study that need to be acknowledged. First, the design was cross-sectional, and the regression analysis contained a high number of predictor variables. Additionally, the experience of student-athletes at this particular NCAA Division 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 regard to body image and gender norm socialization. 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 subscale from the analyses. However, because sport has been characterized as a masculinized 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 interesting area to explore issues related to masculine gender role socialization among female participants in this domain. In a previous conversation, the first author of the CMNI-46 and CFNI-45 scales indicated that using these two scales with athletes for a cross-gender examination 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 interpreted with relative caution.
Another limitation is the nature of the finding about differences in body esteem between student-athletes and students in this sample. While participating in sport was not a significant predictor 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.