Get documents about "Gender, Sport, and Aggressive Behavior Outside Sport
Shared by: lzg15357
Categories
Tags
aggressive behavior, athletic participation, adolescent violence, aggressive behaviour, sociology of sport, new york, athletic involvement, sports participation, journal of sport and social issues, gender differences, fear aggression, sociology of sport journal, sport fan, boys and girls, aggressive sport
-
Stats
- views:
- 224
- posted:
- 1/19/2010
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 8
Document Sample
Gender, Sport, and
Aggressive Behavior Outside Sport
Howard L. Nixon I1
This study focuses on how sports attitudes and campus were committed by male athletes or frater-
participation relate to physical aggression nity members. Members of football, lacrosse,
outside sport for college athletes. Data were hockey, and basketball teams have been among
derived from a survey of nearlv 200 male and- those college men most likely to be accused of par-
.&male athletes at a medium-size (11,500- ticipating in gang rape. According to one authori-
student) comprehensive university. Physical tative source (Bohmer & Parrot, 1993), the most
aggression was measured by an item concern- important characteristics of college men who en-
ing whether the respondents ever physically gage in acquaintance rape are exaggerated mascu-
harmed or injured other persons outside sport line or "macho" attitudes, a pattern of antisocial
in fightsor disagreements. Although explora- behavior, and regular or binge alcohol abuse (p. 23).
tory, this study suggests potentially valuable Criminaljustice professor Michael Clay Smith of the
insights about how gender, beliefs in the value University of Southern Mississippi argued that ath-
of toughness in sport, accidentally or inten- letes are more involved in violent behavior than are
tionally hurting other athletes in competition, their peers because they are physical people who
and participation in a team or contact sport are expected by others to be physically aggressive
relate to physical aggression outside sport. (cited in Lederman, 1990).
f =Whereas attitudes, having hurt other athletes,
and contact sport participation all
were related to physical aggression outside
Mary Koss did pioneering work on sexual assault
on campus in the 1980s. She and her colleagues ex-
plained the disproportionate representation of col-
sportjor male athletes,- participation in a lege athletes in cases of gang rape in terms of male
contact sport was related to physical aggres- bonding occurring on sports teams (Curry, 1991),
ion outside sport for female athletes. which have subcultures of sexism, insensitivity,and
aggression (Koss & Gaines, 1993; Koss et al., 1987;
Sexual assault on college campuses has received see also Messner, 1990). Curry (1991) found in his
increasing public and scholarly attention in recent study of the locker room talk of two male inter-
years. Among the factors thought to explain such collegiate sports teams that the competitive sports
assaultive behavior is membership on an athletic environment put male egos and self-esteem at risk.
team (Boeringer, 1994; Crosset, Benedict, & In this setting, peer group pressures and insecurities
McDonald, 1995; Ellin, 1995; Frintner & Rubinson, fostered antisocial talk and behavior as well as the
1993; Jackson, 1991; Koss & Gaines, 1993; Koss, affirmation of traditional masculinity. More specifi-
Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Malamuth, Sockloskie, cally, talk often focused on sex and aggression and
Koss, & Tanaka, 1991; Melnick, 1992; Neimark, expressed sexist attitudes toward women, who were
1991).Several surveys have found that a dispropor- viewed in depersonalized and insensitive terms as
tionate number of admitted acquaintance rapes on objects to be used for a man's pleasure. Although it
Reprinted from Nixon, 1997. b
w
is important not to make unfounded causal leaps, cality and aggression. Even though the women in
one could assume that where the main focus of male Theberge's research did not act in the antisocial or
locker room talk is sex and aggression, male ath- aggressive ways in which male athletes sometimes
letes may become more inclined to engage in sexual have been found to act, this research nevertheless
aggression against women. gives a reason to look at the connection between
Questions have been raised about whether such sport and aggression for females as well as males.
prevalence rates of sexual assault among male ath- The elements of aggression, pain, and injury in
letes have been exaggerated and whether higher sport suggest the need for athletes to be "tough" to
rates of gang rape among members of male gender- succeed or endure in athletic competition (Nixon,
segregated groups such as athletic teams necessar- 1993).Those who are tough are not supposed to be
ily imply that athletes are more likely to engage in afraid to face aggression or be aggressive toward
sexual assault as individuals (Crosset et al., 1995). others. Indeed, in sport and other environments
Studies of male college athletes and sexual assault where aggression is valued, being tough often in-
raise broader questions about the relationship be- volves being aggressive, which can be proof of one's
tween athletic participation and violent or aggres- manhood for male athletes. There is no clear stereo-
sive behavior of various types outside sport. Not type of what female athletes learn about toughness
long ago, Melnick (1992) proposed that "little is and aggression when they are socialized into sport.
known about whether there is a correlation between But logically, if male or female athletes frequently
on-the-field and off-the-field violence; yet one has engage in behavior that intentionally or uninten-
to wonder about the interpersonal consequences of tionally hurts their opponents, then we might ex-
sports which teach participants to use their bodies pect a pattern to develop that carries over to roles
as instruments of force and domination" (p. 33).The outside sport. That is, we would expect athletes who
current research is an exploratory effort to begin learn to express tough attitudes and engage in ag-
addressing this issue. gressive or violent behavior as part of their sports
A distinctive aspect of the research reported here role to be more physically aggressive or violent
is the focus on females as well as males. This article outside sport. These assumptions loosely follow
reports new evidence indicating how various as- findings in the sexual assault literature indicating
pects of college athletic participation are related to that campus sexual assault is associated with macho
male and female physical aggression outside sport. attitudes and patterns of antisocial behavior,
It looks at sports variables given little direct atten- The possibility that both males and females be-
tion in prior research, and it examines female ag- come generally more aggressive as a result of their
gressive behavior as well as male aggression. It also sports involvement suggests that sport socialization
focuses on a more broadly defined concept of physi- reinforces stereotypical gender role learning for
cal aggression than sexual assault. males and teaches females to act in nonstereotypical
Although physically aggressivebehavior is gen- ways. Thus, the patterns of physical aggression may
erally associatcd with sport, the traditional exclu- be stronger for males than for females, but a gen-
sion of females from sport has resulted in little at- eral socializing influence of sport is demonstrated
tention to the aggressiveness of female athletes. if both learn aggression in sport and carry it ovcr
Although we talk about the macho male locker into interactions and relationships outside sport.
room and the aggressive and antisocial attitudes it Among the aspects of sport thought to contrib-
might spawn, sport sociologists have had little to ute to male aggressive behavior outside sport are
say about the possibility of comparable attitudes involvement on a team and, especially, participa-
and subcultures in the female locker room. Wow- tion in a contact sport. Stereotypical male bonding
ever, no evidence exists that shows whether female and learning how to hit one's opponent are assumed
athletic participation is related to physical aggres- to reinforce aggression as a normal or valued part
sion outside sport. We may tend not to ask the ques- of role-playing for males, which may be difficult to
tion because we presume that aggression or violence restrain in roles outside sport. T this article, I ques-
n
and associated attitudes are unique products of the tion the implicit notion that the culture and social-
interaction, bonding, identity building, and beliefs ization of team and contact sports teach males alone
that characterize male socialization and involve- to be more aggressive by considering whether fe-
ment in sport, especially when they are members males act more aggressively outside sport when
of segregated all-male groups in sport. Evidence they participate in these types of sports.
from a recent study of members of an elite women's The arguments that have been presented suggest
ice hockey team in Canada (Theberge, 1993) indi- a number of hypotheses concerning gender, atti-
cates that there are female athletes who value physi- tudes about toughness, aspects of sports involve-
Gender, Sport, and Aggressive Behavior Outside Sport 389
ment, and physical aggression outside sport. The NCAA Division I level. Questionnaires were dis-
purpose of the remainder of this article is to present tributed by instructors to several introductory so-
evidence providing an initial test of hypothesized ciology classes, and students were asked to return
relationships among these factors. The results their completed questionnaires by mail within two
should point future research in this area in fruitful weeks. Questionnaires were distributed by student
directions. For the ensuing hypotheses, the pro- athletic trainers to the entire population of approxi-
posed relationship between variables is assumed to mately 425 varsity athletes and cheerleaders, and
exist for both males and females, but these hypoth- these questionnaires were returned to a box in the
eses also assume that the relationship will be athletic training room. Participation in this study
stronger for males. This gender assumption follows was voluntary fox both students and student-
stereotypical thinking about male and female ag- athletes. The convenience sample of introductory
gressiveness. The hypotheses tested by this explora- sociology students yielded 218 responses. A
tory research are as follows: response rate of 45.9% yielded a sample size of
B p o t h e s i s 1: Athletic participation and n_p_pression 195 student-athletes, who represented the full range
outside sport. Especially among males but also of 8 women's and 10 men's varsity sports teams and
among ternale;, athletes are more likely than non- the coed competitive cheerleading squad.
athletes to engage in physically aggressive acts in The total sample size of 413' was a broad cross
everydav life outside sport. section of the student population. For the student-
athlete population, females were overrepresented
Hypothesis 2: Gender, attitudes about tou~hliess
in (37.9%of the sample versus an estimated 25.4%of
.t
sport,- a Male athletes are the student-athlete population). However, females
more likely than female athletes (a) to express were underrepresented in the total sample (approxi-
stronger beliefs in the value of toughness in sport mately 46% of the total sample versus 52% of the
and (b) to engage in physically aggressive acts in overall student population of this university). It was
everyday life outside sport. not possible to calculate the composition of the
student-athlete population by race or class standing,
but non-whites and freshmen were overrepresented
athletes but also among female athletes, having in the overall student sample. The percentage of
stronger beliefs in the value of toughness in sport is non-white respondents was nearly 14%(versus ap-
associated with being more likely to engage in proximately 6% of the total student population), and
physically aggressive acts in everyday life outside the percentage of freshmen respondents was more
sport. than 41% (versus about 24%)of the total student
Hypothesis 4: Hurtinp people in sport and a,ygres- population). The overrepresentation of non-whites
s i 2 oufside suort. Esveciallv among: male athletes may be partially explained by the relatively high
"
but also amdng iemile athietes, hurting people in proportion of student-athlete respondents who
sport, either accidentally or intentionally, is associ- were non-wlute (16.4%). The overrepresentation of
ated with engaging in physically aggressive acts in freshmen is largely explained by the use of a con-
everyday life outside sport. venience sample of lower level sociology classes to
generate respondents from a cross section of stu-
Hypothesis 5: Team and contact sport participation dents not involved in varsity athletics.
al~>aggression outside sport. Especially among male The main dependent variable of engaging in
athletes but also among fekale athletes, (a) team physically aggressive acts in evervdav life outside
sport participants and (b)contact sport participants sport was measured by one item that asked, "Have
are more likely than their counterparts in individual you ever physically harmed or injured another per-
sports and noncontact sports, respectively, to en- son outside sport in a fight or disagreement of some
gage in physically aggressive acts in everyday life sort?" This item, admittedly, is a simple and gross
outside sport. measure of a potentially complex variable that could
incorporate a variety of types of physical aggres-
sion in different contexts of everyday life. It is use-
Methods, Measures, and Procedures ful, however, in providing a first general indication
of possible connections between sports participa-
This research concentrated on college students and tion and physical aggression outside sport fur both
student-athletes. In the spring of 1992, students were males and females.
surveyed at a medium-sized (11,500-student)south- The toughness variable, concerning strength
ern comprehensive university that competes at the of belief in the value of toughness in sport, was
measured by an attitudinal scale that was con- sus 10.8%) to have engaged in physically aggres-
structed for this research. The scale was derived sive acts in everyday life outside sport. Both results
from 11 items generally reflecting beliefs about agree with Hypothesis 2.
toughness in dealing with pain and injury in sport Hypothesis 3: Attitudes about touphnms i a i p r t and,
that were highly loaded (from .46 to .66) on a factor a re ' e sport. Especially among male ath-
These
a n a l y ~ i s . ~ items are in the appendix. The fac- -a
e
ml athletes, having stron-
tor analysis included 31 statements about risk, pain, ger beliefs in the value of toughness in sportis asso-
and injury in sport that were created on the basis of ciated with being more likely to engage in physically
the results of a content analysis of approximately aggressive acts in everyday life outside sport.
one decade of Sports Illustrated magazine articles
(Nixon, 1993). Respondents indicated their agree- _Results.A statistically significant relationship be-
ment or disagreement with these statements on a tween belief in toughness and being an aggressor was
4-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly found for male athletes.,Table 28.3 shows that 51.2%
disagree. Three categories of belief in toughness- of male athletes with the strongest belief in tough-
low, medium, and high-were created by revers- ness had been aggressors, 22.2% of male athletes with
ing and combining the values of responses to the 1 1 a moderately strong belief in toughness had been ag-
component items. The response values of this scale gressors, and 22.2% of male athletes with the weakest
were combined so that approximately one-third of belief in toughness had been aggressors. The distinc-
the responses were in each of the three ~ategories.~ tion, therefore, is between those with the strongest
Other measures used in this data analysis were belief in toughness and all others with weaker beliefs.
items indicating gender, whether or not the respon- ,Hypothesis 4: Hurtinq- res-
dent had participated or was participating in col- sion outside sport. Especially among male athletes
lege athletics, whether or not he or she had acci- but also among female athletes, hurting people in
dentally or intentionally hurt another athlete in sport, either accidentally or intentionally, is associ-
competition, and whether he or she had participated ated with engaging in physically aggressive acts in
in a team or individual sport or in a contact or everyday life outside sport.
noncontact sport.*
Table 28.1 Percentages of Female and Male Athletes
Who Expressed Differing Beliefs in the Value
of Toughness in Sport
Results
Female Male
a p o t h e s i s 1: Athletic particiz7-zression Toughness athletes athletes
.- Especially among males but also
among females, athletes are more likely than Low value of toughness 45.1 (32) 23.5 (27)
nonathletes to engage in physically aggressive acts Medium value of toughness 33.8 (24) 39.1 (45)
in everyday life outside sport. High value of toughness 21.1 (15) 37.4 (43)
R e s u k . Among both males and females, there
was no difference between college athletes and Note: ns are in parentheses. xZ= 10.51, d f = 2, p < .01;
nonathletes in their likelihood of being aggressors Pearson's R = .23, p < .01; N = 186.
outside sport (p > .05 for Pearson x2). Reprinted from Nixon, 1997.
<Hypothesis2: Gender.titudes about tou~hness in
. - S Male athletes are & & Percentages of Female and Male Athletes
J & L
more likely than female athletes (a) to express stron- Who Reported Being Aggressors Outside Sport
ger beliefs in the value of toughness in sport and
(b) to engage in physically aggressive acts in every- Aggressor Female athletes Male athletes
day life outside sport.
Results. Table 38 1reveals that a higher percent- Yes
age of male than female athletes held the strongest No
belief (37.4%versus 21.1 %) and a moderately strong
belief (39.1% versus 33.8%) in the value of tough- Note: ns are in parentheses. x2 = 11.52, d f = 1, p < .001;
ness in sport. T a b l e m n d i c a t e s that male athletes Pearso~l's = .24, p < ,001; N = 195.
R
I
were more likely than female athletes (32.2% ver- Reprinted from Nixon, 1997.
Gender, Sport, and Aggressive Behavior Outside Sport 391
- 'I'he relationships of accidentally hurting
R~sirlts.
someone In sport a n d trying to h u r t someonr in
sport to aggression outside sport were statistic'illy
significant only for male athletes. Table 28.4 s l ~ o w s
Hypothesis5: Tc-contact
ugyresslon outside sport. Especially among male athletes
but also among female athletes, (a) team sport .
.
pants and (b)cintact sport participants are more likely
and
syort pnrtic~pnfion
partici-
that male athletes w h o accidentally hurt other ath- than their counterparts in individual s p o r t s a n d
letes were much more likely than those w h o did noncontact sports, respectively to engage in physically
not (42.2% versus 3.2%) to have been aggressors out- aggressive acts in everyday life outside sport.
side sport, and_table 38 5 indicates that male ath- Results. A statistically significant relationship be-
letes who intentionally h u r t other athletes were tween team sport participation and aggression out-
much more likely than those who did not (55.6% side sport was found onlffor male athl&s.-~able 28.6 .
versus 25.5%) to have been aggressors outside sport. shows that male participants in team sports were sub-
stantially more likely than their counterparts in indi-
Table 28.3 Percentages of Male Athletes With vidual sports (43.4% versus 9.4%) to have engaged in
Differing Beliefs in the Value of Toughness in Sport physically aggressive acts in everyday life outside
Who Reported Being Aggressors Outside Sport sport.-ndaeveal that a relationship
between contact sport participation and aggression
Low value Medium value High value outside sport was found for both male a n d female
Aggressor of toughness of toughness of toughness athletes. Table 28.7 indicates that male contact sport
.
- athletes w z e much more likely than male participants
Yes 22.2 (6) 22.2 (10) 51.2 (22) in noncontact sports (49.0% versus 22.7O/0) to have
No 77.8 (21) 77.8 (35) 48.8 (21) engaged in physical aggression outside sport. A simi-
lar pattern was found among female athletes, as seen
Note: ns are in parentheses. xZ = 10.19, df= 2, p < .01; in table 28.8, with female contact sport participants
I'earson's R = .26, p < .01; N = 115. significantly more likely than females in noncontact
Reprinted from Nixan, 1997. sports (22.7% versus 6.0%) to have engaged i n physi-
cally aggressive acts in everyday life outside sport.
Table 28.4 Percentages of Male Athletes Who
Did Not and Did Accidentally Hurt Other Athletes
in Competition and Who Reported Being Aggressors Table 28.6 Percentages of Male Individual and
Team Sport +artkipants Who Reported Being
Outside Sport
Aggressors Outside Sport
-
- -- -
- --
Did not accidentalIy Accidentally hurt
Aggressor hurt another athlete another athlete Individual Team
Aggressor sport partlclpation sport participation
-
Yes 3.2 (1) 42.2 (38)
No 96.8 (30) 57.8 (52) Yes
No
Note: ns are in parentheses. x2 = 16.05, df = 1, F, < ,001;
Pearson's R = .36, p < ,001; N = 121. Note: ns are in parentheses. x2 = 11.91, df = 1, p < .001;
Reprinted from Nixon, 1997. Pearson's X = .32, p < .001; N = 115.
Reprinted from Nixon, 1997.
aL
m & Percentages of Male Athletes Who
Did Not and Did Intentionally Hurt Other Athletes -1e 28.7 Percentages of Male Noncontact and
in Competition and Who Reported Being Aggressors Contact Sport Participants Who Reported Being
Outside Sport Aggressors Outside Sport
Did not intentionally Intentionally hurt Noncontact Contact
Aggressor hurt another athlete another athlete Aggressor sport participation sport participation
---
Yes 25.5 (24) 55.6 (15) Yes 22.7 (15) 49 (24)
No 74.5 (70) 44.4 (12) No 77.3 (51) 51 (25)
-
. -- - - -
-
N f :1 s are in parentheses. x2 = 8.66, (if=1, p < .01;
oc 1 Note: ns are in parentheses. x 2 = 8.65, df= 1, p < .01;
Pearson's R = .27, p < .01; N = 121. Pearson's X = .27, p < .01; N = 115.
Reprinted from Nixon, 1997. Reprinted from Nixon, 1997.
b
&k 28.% Percentages of Female Noncontact and ticipation in a contact sport, but a higher propor-
Contact Sport Participants Who Reported Being tion of male athletes than female athletes tend to be
Aggressors Outside Sport affected by this factor. It may be that more aggres-
-pp ---- sive females are attracted to contact sports or that
Noncontact Contact recurrent contact in a sport leads to an internaliza-
Aggressor sport participation sport participat~on tion of aggressive patterns of behavior for females,
which carries over to roles and relationships out-
Yes side sport for a number of them. In view of the gen-
No eral pattern of findings in this study, we can reason-
ably speculate that contact sports have to reinforce
Nofe: ns are in parentheses. x2 = 4.33, df= 1, p < .05; or induce aggressive nonsports behaviors among fe-
Pearson's R = .25, p < .05; = 72.
N males that attitudes about toughness, accidentally
Reprinted from Nixon, 1997. and intentionally hurting opponents in sports com-
petition, and team sport participation do not pos-
sess. Among male athletes, all of these sports-related
Conclusion factors are related to a heightened tendency to en-
gage in aggressive acts in everyday life outside sport.
t.hp r e w a r e ba-on or tin^ bv It is important to move beyond speculation, cor-
students at a sinele campus, a d because the mea- relations, and an undifferentiated conception of
Lure of the U e w e n d e n t variable is a sinple item, physical aggression outside sport to evidence from
caution must be exercised in generalizing. Yet, in a variety of sports settings at different levels of sport
breaking new ground in research on athletic partici- showing the causal linkages between aspects of
pation and physical assault, these results bear seri- sports participation and different types and patterns
ous consideration. In addressing a number of im- of aggressive behavior outside sport. Although ex-
portant hypotheses about sport and male and female ploratory, this research clearly conveys the need to
physical aggression outside sport, this study points examine more extensively the factors that make fe-
the way for future research with potentially impor- male athletes more likely to engage in physical ag-
tant implications for college administrators and gression outside sport. Even though a number of
policymakers concerned about the occurrence of aspects of sports participation may increase or re-
physical assault of various types on their campuses. inforce the tendency among males but not among
Several relationships among gender, sport, and females to engage in physical aggression outside
physical aggression outside sport are suggested by sport, there are other aspects of sport, such as con-
this research. It appears that a belief in the value of tact, that seem related to physical aggression out-
toughness in sport is related to physically aggres- side sport for female athletes as well.
sive acts in everyday life for male athletes but not The competitiveness of women's intercollegiate
for female athletes. Similarly, accidentally or inten- athletics arguably has intensified over the past
tionally hurting other athletes in sport and partici- 15 years of governance by the NCAA. If female ath-
pating in a team sport are related to physical ag- letes seek to emulate male physical aggression and
gression outside sport for male but not for female male macho values in team and contact sports as
athletes. These results are consistent with the find- their sports become more competitive under male
ings that male athletes were more likely than female governance, we could see a closer approximation
athletes to have engaged in physical aggression out- of male and female results concerning the relation-
side sport and to hold highly or moderately strong s h p between aggression and related values in sport
beliefs in the value of toughness in sport. These find- and physical aggression outside sport. Trus research
ing also are consistent with stereotypical ideas in has produced evidence that contact sport partici-
society about gender differences. pation may induce, or at least reinforce, aggressive
The chain of reasoning suggested by this research behaviors outside sport among females as well
is that athletic participation by itself does not m,-lke as males in intercollegiate athletics. By contrast,
people more likely to be physically aggressive in Theberge's (1993, 1995) recent study of an elite
everyday life. The likelihood of such aggressive women's ice hockey team suggests that emphases
behavior seems to be increased for males by certain on physicality and aggressiveness in highly com-
aspects or types of sports participation. A promi- petitive contact sports do not necessarily translate
nent factor increasing the likelihood of aggression into the types of antisocial or aggressive behaviors
outside sport for females as well as males is par- in or out of sport that have been associated with
Outside Sport 393
Gender, Sport, and Aggressive Bel~lrior
male team and contact sports. 'Therefore, future rc- on sexual aggression. Unpublished manuscript,
search must address these apparent contradictions. Appalachian State University.
More generally, what we must understand better Boluner, C., & Parrot, A. (1993).Scx-uulassault or1 cam-
are how particular types of norms, roles, identities, pus: Tlir yrohlerrr and the sc~ll.ition.
New York: Lex-
attitudes, relationships, dnd social influence pro- ington.
cesses associated with physicality and aggression Crosset, T.W., Belledict, J.R., & McDonald, M.A.
in sport are linked to various types and contexts of (1995).Male student-athletes reported for sexual
aggressive acts in everyday lifc for both males and assault: A survey of campus police departments
females. These understandings will enable us to of
and judicial affairs offices. lo~lrnal Sport t Social
?
address more effectively, through interventions Issues, 19, 126-140.
ranging from education of coaches and athletes to Curry, T.J. (1991). Fraternal bonding in the locker
a restructuring of sport, the risk factors in sport that room: A profeminist analysis of talk about com-
make athletes more likely to engage in violence petition and women. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8,
outside the sports arena. 119-135.
Ellin, A. (1995, October-November). Out of bounds;
Is student-athlete crime out of control? Link: The
Notes College Mngazine, pp. 18-24.
Frintner, M.P., & Rubinson, L. (1993).Acquaintance
rape: The influence of alcohol, fraternity member-
1. The number of cases rarely added to 413 in
ship, and sports team membership. Journal of Sex
the statistical analyses due to system and user
Eduuztiorl and Therapy, 19, 272-284.
missing values.
Jackson, T.L. (1991). A university athletic depart-
2. The items in the toughness scale (with letters
ment's rape and assault experiences. Journal of
from the appendix) and their factor loadings
College Student Developmerlt, 32, 77-78.
are as follows: g (must play), .66; y (show char-
Koss, M.P, & Gaines, J.A. (1993). The prediction of
acter and courage), .62; j (tough it out), .62;
sexual aggression by alcohol use, athletic partici-
p (impress coach by playing hurt), .59;
pation, and fraternity affiliation. Iournal of Inter-
bb (must win), .54; 1 (expect injury), .51;
personal Violence, 8,94108.
k (coach wants healthy), .50; i (care about
Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A., & LVisniewski, N. (1987).
team), .50; b (no pain, no gain), .48; n (ignore
The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of
pain), .48; and c (playing hurt deserves re-
sexual aggression and victimization in a national
spect), .46. Items with negative loadings were
sample of higher education students. Journal of
recoded to facilitate interpretation of the
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.
results.
Lederman, D. (1990, November 7). In glare of pub-
3. The frequency distribution (N = 396) for this
lic spotlight, college officials struggle to deal with
scale is approximately 33% in the low category,
perceived lawlessness of their athletes. Chronicle
36% in the medium category, and 31% in the
of Higher Education, pp. A35-A36.
high category.
Malamuth, N.M., Sockloskie, R.J., Koss, M.P., &
4. Contact sports are men's and women's basket-
Tanaka, J.S. (1991).Characteristics of aggressors
ball, women's field hockey, football, men's
against women: Testing a model using a national
soccer, and wrestling. Noncontact sports are
sample of college students. Journal of Consulting
baseball, men's and women's cross country
and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670-681.
running, men's and women's indoor and out-
Melnick, M. (1992).Male athletes and sexual assault.
door track and field, men's and women's golf,
Jourrzal of l-'hysical Education, Recreatiorl and Dance,
men's and women's tennis, women's volley-
63(5), 32-35.
ball, and cheerleading. The team sports among
Messner, M.A. (1990). When bodies are weapons:
these are baseball, basketball, cheerleading,
Masculinity and violence in sport. International
field hockey, football, soccer, and volleyball.
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 25,203-220.
Neimark, 1. (1991, May). Out of bounds: The truth
about athletes and-rape.Mademoiselle, pp. 196-
References 199,244-246.
Nixon, H.L.11. (1993).Accepting the risks of pain and
Boeringer, S.B. (1994).Influences of fraternity mem- injury in sport: Mediated cultural influences on
bership, athletics, and male living arrangements playing hurt. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10,183-196.
394 Nixon
Theberge, N. (1993, November). Injury, pain rlnd Theberge, N. (1995). Gender, sport, and the con-
"playing rough" in women's hockey. Paper pre- struction of community: A case study from
sented at annual meeting of the North American women's ice hockey. Sociology of Sport lournal, 12,
Society for the Sociology of Sport, Ottawa, ON. 389-402.
Appendix: Risk, Pain, and Injury Items
In the press and on television and radio, we read and hear a lot of different types of things about sports
injuries and pain. Listed below are a number of statements about pain and injury. Please indicate how much
you agree or disagree with each of these statements by circling one of the numbers following each one. Use
the following key to interpret the numbers you can use for your answers:
1 = strongly agree
2 = agree with reservations
3 = disagree with reservations
4 = strongly disagree
b. No pain, no gain
c. Athletes who endure pain and play hurt deserve our respect
g. Serious athletes have to play with injuries and pain
i. Athletes who care about their team will try to play with injuries and pain
j. Athletes should "tough it out" with an injury or pain today and not worry
about the effects tomorrow
k. Coaches only care about their players who are healthy and able to play
1. Every athlete should expect to have to play with an injury or pain sometime
n. Athletes should ignore pain
p. Coaches are impressed with athletes who play with injuries and pain
y. Playing with injuries and pain demonstrates character and courage
bb. In sport, winning is everything and losing is nothing
Related docs
