{"id":6993,"date":"2020-04-24T06:30:00","date_gmt":"2020-04-24T11:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=6993"},"modified":"2020-10-13T08:53:21","modified_gmt":"2020-10-13T13:53:21","slug":"how-the-perceived-effectiveness-of-a-female-coach-is-influenced-by-their-apparent-masculinity-femininity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/how-the-perceived-effectiveness-of-a-female-coach-is-influenced-by-their-apparent-masculinity-femininity\/","title":{"rendered":"How the Perceived Effectiveness of a Female Coach is influenced by their Apparent Masculinity \/ Femininity"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Authors<\/strong>: Paula Murraya<\/sup>, Rhiannon Lordb<\/sup>, & Ross Lorimerb<\/sup> (a<\/sup>Loughborough College, UK, b<\/sup>Abertay University, UK)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corresponding Author: <\/strong>
Dr Ross Lorimer
Abertay University
Dundee, UK, DD1 1RG
Ross.Lorimer@Abertay.ac.uk<\/a>
+44 (0)1382 308426<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How the Perceived Effectiveness of a Female Coach is Influenced by their Apparent Masculinity \/ Femininity<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The aim of this study was to investigate how the apparent\nmasculinity\/femininity of a coach influenced others\u2019 perceptions of their ability\nto interact successfully with their athletes. \nSeventy-three participants (44 males, 29 females, Mage=23.8\nSD= \u00b1 8.41) watched four videos depicting a\ncoach working with a group of athletes.  Each video was the same but featured the four\ncombinations of masculinised\/feminised coach and male\/female athletes.  Participants rated\nthe coach on perceived relationship quality, empathy, and competency.  There\nwas a main effect in relationship quality (closeness) and three of four\nsubscales of coaching competency, with\nthe masculinised coach rated higher than the feminised coach.  There was also a non-significant trend for\nthe feminised coach to score higher in relationship quality and competency when\nworking with male athletes compared to female athletes, and the masculinised coach\nto score higher with females.  For\naffective empathy, there was a main effect for athlete sex, with both coaches\nrated higher working with male athletes. \nThere was also a non-significant trend for both coaches\u2019 cognitive\nempathy to be rated higher when working with male athletes.  The perception\nof the masculinity\/femininity of a coach influences how others understand their\ninteractions even when the behaviors of that coach are similar across\nsituations. Coaches need to be aware that gender-based stereotypes may\ninfluence how others perceive their competency. This could potentially affect\ncoach effectiveness and career progression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Key words<\/strong>: Coaching, Perceptions, Relationship quality; Masculinity, Femininity<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research exploring\ncoach effectiveness has often focused on identifying efficacious coaching behavioral\npatterns that enable an athlete to develop higher levels of\nperformance that they may not otherwise be able to achieve (20). However, it has been\nshown that identical coaching behaviours or similar leadership styles do not\nalways elicit the same response from individual athletes or across different\nathlete groups (14).  This is likely due\nto differences in how athletes both perceive and recall those coaching\nbehaviours (19).  A range of environmental factors (e.g., sport\ntype) and individual characteristics of both the coach and the athlete can\ninfluence this process (e.g., age, experience). \nPotentially, one of the major factors is the gender of the coach (14).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gender can\ninfluence the perception of leadership roles such as sports coaching. It\nhas been demonstrated that women in leadership positions, such as sports\ncoaching, tend to be rated as less effective in comparison to men in the same\nposition (4).  Additionally, based only\non initial impressions, athletes normally perceive female coaches as less\ncapable than male coaches (13), while when shown a description of male and\nfemale strength and conditioning coaches, male athletes are more comfortable\nwith a male coach and exhibit negative attitudes towards female coaches\n(12).  However, it has been suggested that females possess a greater insight\nand sensitivity into the feelings of others than men (8), and that female\ncoaches are consistently rated higher than male coaches for relationship\nquality and empathy with their athletes (14).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When interpreting the behaviours of\ncoaches, athletes draw upon mental schema on which to base their perceptions (14).  These schemas potentially contain a range of\nbiases and stereotypes based upon specific\nsocial groupings such as gender, race, and nationality (22).  Therefore, the influence of coach sex on how athletes both\nperceive and recall specific coaching behaviour and therefore assess coach\neffectiveness, is likely based somewhat on the stereotypes associated with\nmales or females  (18)\nand\nthe characteristics associated with masculinity (e.g. independence, leadership, and assertiveness) and femininity (e.g.,\ncooperation, empathy, and sensitivity). Sport\ntends to be associated more with the ideal form of masculinity that emphasises\npower and competitiveness (2) and sport coaching aligns itself more naturally\nwith society\u2019s ideas of masculine behaviours such as authority and dominance (7).  However, Epitropaki and Martin (2004)\nidentified four key leadership qualities; sensitivity, intelligence, dedication,\nand dynamism and while these are predominantly masculine traits, sensitivity\nhas a greater association with femininity than masculinity (5).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Femininity in sport could be\ninterpreted as both a positive or negative attribute.  While females\nin sports are associated with masculinity (10)\nthey are still typically expected to display feminine qualities (1).  Female coaches have been associated with\nimproved relationship quality and empathy (14),\nand feminine females in sport tend to be viewed more positively than masculine\nfemales (9).  Yet, women in positions of\nleadership who demonstrate agentic traits, more in line with the traditional\nrole of a coach, are often viewed as less likable (17) and female coaches are\noften seen as less effective (13).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While research has shown being\ncoached by a male or female coach can influence how identical coaching\nbehaviours are perceived (14), the stereotypes surrounding masculinity and\nfemininity may potentially be just as influential on how coaching behaviours are\nperceived and recalled, and therefore how effective a coach is believed to be (9).  The purpose of the current study was to\nexplore how the perceived masculinity or femininity of a female coach affected\nhow others interpreted the effectiveness of their observed behaviours. It was\nhypothesised that a more masculinised coach would be perceived to be more\ncompetent (13) while a more feminised coach would be perceived to have a better\nquality relationship with the athletes while also displaying greater levels of\nempathy (14).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHODS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seventy-three participants (44 males, 29 females, Mage=23.8\nSD= \u00b1 8.41) were recruited from a range of team and individual sports.  Participants had been involved in their sport\nfor an average of 13 years (SD= \u00b1 8.13) and covered a range of performance\nlevels (recreational = 36%, regional = 38%, national = 20%, and international =\n6%).  Participants\nwere approached using a variety of means including telephone, letter and email,\nand were invited to take\npart in an investigation examining how coaches and athletes interact.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Procedure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The institution\u2019s Research Ethics Committee granted\nfull approval before the study commenced.   All participants were fully briefed and\ncompleted an informed consent before progressing.   Data was collected in a range of private\nlocations with the participants being shown the videos on a laptop with\nheadphones.  Each participant was shown\nfour videos in a random order, each depicting a similar coaching session but\nwith either male or female athletes and a masculinised or feminised coach.  At the conclusion of each individual video\nthe participants were asked to rate the coach using the three psychometric\ninstruments to assess perceived relationship quality, empathy, and\ncompetence.  After watching all four\nvideos, participants were fully debriefed. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Creation of Videotape Stimulus<\/strong>  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nine actors were recruited to depict a female coach\nworking with either a group of four male or four female athletes. Footage was\nused to edit create \u2018identical\u2019 3-minute long videos which depict\na coach leading a conditioning sprint training session.  In\ntwo of the videos, the coach worked with a group of male athletes and in the\nother two videos, they worked with a group of female athletes.  The actor playing the female coach was filmed\ntwice with clothing and body language manipulated to display more masculine\n(e.g., baggy tracksuit, hair tied back, wide stance) or feminine\ncharacteristics (e.g., leggings, hair down, narrow stance).  This gave four possible combinations of the\nmasculine\/feminine appearance of the coach working with either male or female\nathletes. Prior to the\nstudy commencing the four videos were piloted with five individuals who rated\nthe consistency of the videos and the perceived masculinity\/femininity of the\ndepicted coach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measures<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perceived\nrelationship-quality<\/em>.  Participants\u2019 perceptions of the quality of\nthe relationship between the coach and the athletes depicted in each video was\nmeasured using an adapted version of the Coach-Athlete Relationship\nQuestionnaire (6, 14). The modified questionnaire reflected an inference about\nthe depicted coach\u2019s beliefs about the athletes.  The questionnaire is made up of eleven\nstatements scored between 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) that\nassess three subscales:  closeness<\/em>, liking, trust and respect for\nthe athlete; commitment<\/em>, the intent\nto continue working with the athletes; complementarity<\/em>,\nthe responsiveness and cooperation with the athletes.  For this sample, the Cronbach\u2019s alpha for\ncloseness, commitment, and complementarity was 0.92, 0.88, and 0.91\nrespectively, with an acceptable threshold set at 0.70 (21).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perceived empathy<\/em>.\nParticipants\u2019 perceptions of the empathy of the coach towards the athlete\ndepicted in each video were measured using an adapted version of Questionnaire\nof Cognitive and Affective Empathy (16).  The\nmodified questionnaire reflected an inference about the depicted coach\u2019s\nempathy ability.   The questionnaire is\nmade up of eleven statements scored between 1 (strongly disagree) to 7\n(strongly agree) that assessed two subscales: p<\/em>erspective taking<\/em>, a measure of cognitive empathy (how well an\nindividual understands what others are thinking and feeling); proximal responsivity<\/em>, a measure of\naffective empathy (how an individual\u2019s emotions mirror those they interact\nwith).  For\nthis sample, Cronbach\u2019s alpha was 0.93, and 0.89 respectively. <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perceived\ncoaching competency.  <\/em>Participants\u2019 perceptions\nof the competency of the coach was measured using the Coaching Competency Scale\n(15).  The questionnaire is made up of 24\nstatements scored between 0 (complete incompetence) to 4 (complete competence)\nthat assess four subscales: motivation<\/em>,\nthe ability of the coach to influence the athletes; game strategy<\/em>, the ability to be a leader during competition; technique<\/em>, the ability to give\ninstructions on technique; character building<\/em>,\nthe ability to develop an athlete personally. \nFor this sample, the inter-item reliability was 0.94, 0.91, 0.88, and\n0.79 respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RESULTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each\ndependent variable was analysed using a 2×2 between-subjects ANOVA with the\nfactors Coach Gender Bias (feminised\/masculinised coach) and Athlete Sex\n(male\/female athletes).  The\nmean and standard deviation for each subscale are shown in Table 1 while Table\n2 shows the effect sizes (d<\/em>) between\neach pairing of videos across all variables.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1:<\/strong> Descriptive statistics<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
 <\/td>\n Closeness<\/strong><\/td>\n Commitment<\/strong><\/td>\n Complementarity<\/strong><\/td>\n Affective Emp.<\/strong><\/td>\n Cognitive Emp.<\/strong><\/td>\n Motivation<\/strong><\/td>\n Game Strategy<\/strong><\/td>\n Technique<\/strong><\/td>\n Character Building<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Feminine Coach<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Female Athlete<\/em>
\n Mean
\n SD<\/td>\n
\n 3.92
\n 1.55 <\/td>\n
\n 3.82
\n 1.53 <\/td>\n
\n 3.97
\n 1.65 <\/td>\n
\n 2.90
\n 0.97<\/td>\n
\n 2.14
\n 0.58 <\/td>\n
\n 1.92
\n 1.00 <\/td>\n
\n 1.89
\n 0.83 <\/td>\n
\n 2.12
\n 0.92 <\/td>\n
\n 2.06
\n 1.04<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Male Athlete<\/em>
\n Mean
\n SD<\/td>\n
\n 4.21
\n 1.20<\/td>\n
\n 4.15
\n 1.28<\/td>\n
\n 4.31
\n 1.37<\/td>\n
\n 3.33
\n 0.82<\/td>\n
\n 2.26
\n 0.55<\/td>\n
\n 2.25
\n 0.83<\/td>\n
\n 2.15
\n 0.81<\/td>\n
\n 2.49
\n 0.72<\/td>\n
\n 2.59
\n 1.13<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Masculine Coach<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Female Athlete <\/em>
\n Mean
\n SD<\/td>\n
\n 4.69
\n 1.32<\/td>\n
\n 4.41
\n 1.32<\/td>\n
\n 4.38
\n 1.50 <\/td>\n
\n 3.22
\n 0.82<\/td>\n
\n 2.33
\n 0.69 <\/td>\n
\n 2.39
\n 0.90<\/td>\n
\n 2.34
\n 0.78<\/td>\n
\n 2.64
\n 0.88<\/td>\n
\n 2.64
\n 0.77 <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Male Athlete<\/em>
\n Mean
\n SD<\/td>\n
\n 4.39
\n 1.46<\/td>\n
\n 4.11
\n 1.46<\/td>\n
\n 4.50
\n 1.51<\/td>\n
\n 3.89
\n 0.94<\/td>\n
\n 2.40
\n 0.87<\/td>\n
\n 2.16
\n 1.06<\/td>\n
\n 2.27
\n 0.95<\/td>\n
\n 2.56
\n 1.01<\/td>\n
\n 2.55
\n 1.00<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Table 2:<\/strong> Effect sizes (d<\/em>) of comparisons between videos <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
 <\/td>\n Closeness<\/strong><\/td>\n Commitment<\/strong><\/td>\n Complementarity<\/strong><\/td>\n Affective Emp.<\/strong><\/td>\n Cognitive Emp.<\/strong><\/td>\n Motivation<\/strong><\/td>\n Game Strategy<\/strong><\/td>\n Technique<\/strong><\/td>\n Character Building<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
MC\/MA to MC\/FA<\/td>\n 0.22<\/td>\n 0.22<\/td>\n 0.08<\/td>\n 0.76<\/td>\n 0.01<\/td>\n 0.23<\/td>\n 0.08<\/td>\n 0.08<\/td>\n 0.10<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
MC\/MA to FC\/MA<\/td>\n 0.05<\/td>\n 0.03<\/td>\n 0.13<\/td>\n 0.63<\/td>\n 0.20<\/td>\n 0.09<\/td>\n 0.14<\/td>\n 0.08<\/td>\n 0.04<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
MC\/MA to FC\/FA<\/td>\n 0.31<\/td>\n 0.19<\/td>\n 0.34<\/td>\n 0.76<\/td>\n 0.36<\/td>\n 0.23<\/td>\n 0.43<\/td>\n 0.46<\/td>\n 0.48<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
MC\/FA to FC\/MA<\/td>\n 0.29<\/td>\n 0.20<\/td>\n 0.05<\/td>\n 0.13<\/td>\n 0.11<\/td>\n 0.16<\/td>\n 0.24<\/td>\n 0.19<\/td>\n 0.05<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
MC\/FA to FC\/FA<\/td>\n 0.53<\/td>\n 0.41<\/td>\n 0.26<\/td>\n 0.36<\/td>\n 0.30<\/td>\n 0.49<\/td>\n 0.56<\/td>\n 0.58<\/td>\n 0.63<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
FC\/MA to FC\/FA<\/td>\n 0.29<\/td>\n 0.23<\/td>\n 0.22<\/td>\n 0.48<\/td>\n 0.11<\/td>\n 0.36<\/td>\n 0.32<\/td>\n 0.45<\/td>\n 0.49<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

MC = Masculine Coach, FC = Feminine Coach Athlete, MA = Male Athlete, FA = Female Athlete<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relationship Quality \n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the variable closeness, the analysis\nrevealed there was no significant main effect for Athlete Gender, F(1, 71) =\n0.12, p=0.73, a significant main effect for Coach Gender Bias with the\nmasculinised coach being rated higher, F(1, 71) =4.81, p=0.03, and no\nsignificant interaction effect between these two variables F(1, 71) =2.16,\np=0.15.  For the variable commitment, the\nanalysis revealed there was no significant main effect for Athlete Sex, F(1,\n71) =0.01, p=0.93, no significant main effect for Coach Gender Bias, F(1,71)\n=3.10, p=0.09, and no significant interaction effect between these two\nvariables F(1, 71) =1.00, p=0.32.  For\nthe variable complementarity, the analysis revealed there was no significant main\neffect for Athlete Sex F(1, 71) =2.15, p=0.15, no significant main effect for\nCoach Gender Bias, F(1, 71) =0.49, p=0.49, and no significant interaction effect\nbetween these two variables F(1, 71) =0.90, p=0.48. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Empathy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the variable affective empathy, the analysis revealed there was a significant main\neffect for Athlete Sex with the coaches working with male athletes being rated\nhigher, F(1, 71) =9.53, p=0.00, no significant main effect for Coach Gender\nBias, F(1, 71) =2.99, p=0.08, and no significant interaction effect between\nthese two variables F(1, 71) =0.72, p=0.40.  For the variable cognitive empathy, the\nanalysis revealed there was no significant main effect for Athlete Sex, F(1,\n71) =1.61, p=0.21, no significant main effect for Coach Gender Bias, F(1, 71)\n=0.11, p=0.74, no significant interaction effect between these two variables\nF(1,71) =1.39, p=0.24. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coaching Competency<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/em>For the variable motivation, the analysis\nrevealed there was no significant main effect for Athlete Sex F(1, 71) =0.20,\np=0.66, a significant main effect for Coach Gender Bias with the masculinised\ncoach rated higher F(1, 71) =6.37, p=0.01, and no significant interaction\neffect between these two variables F(1, 71) =9.6, p=0.33.  For the variable game strategy, the analysis\nrevealed there was no significant main effect for Athlete Sex F(1, 71) =1.54,\np=0.22, a significant main effect for Coach Gender Bias with the masculinised\ncoach rated higher F(1, 71) =4.17, p=0.05, and no significant main effect between\nthese two variables F(1, 71) =2.51, p=0.19.  For the variable technique, the analysis\nrevealed there was no significant main effect for Athlete Sex F(1, 71) =2.57,\np=0.11, no significant main effect for Coach Gender Bias F(1, 71) =6.35,\np=0.14, and no significant interaction effect between these two variables F(1,\n71) =2.43, p=0.12.  For the variable\ncharacter building, the analysis revealed there was no significant main effect\nfor Athlete Sex F(1, 71) =2.90, p=0.09, a significant main effect for Coach\nGender Bias with the masculinised coach rated higher F(1, 71) =5.60, p=0.02, and\nno significant interaction effect between these two variables F(1, 71) =1.93,\np=0.17. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The purpose of this study was to explore how the perceived masculinity or femininity of a female coach would affect how others interpreted the effectiveness of their observed behaviours. It was hypothesised that a more a feminised coach would be perceived to have a better quality relationship with their athletes while also displaying greater levels of empathy, while a masculinised coach would be perceived as more competent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was\nexpected that the feminised coach would be rated higher across all three subscales of relationship\nquality.  Female coaches have previously\nscored higher than male coaches using the same methods and measures of relationship\nquality (14), and feminine females in sport tend to be\nviewed more positively than masculine females (9).  Additionally, women in positions of\nleadership who demonstrate more masculine traits are viewed as less likable (17).  However, the\nresults only showed a significant main effect for Coach Gender Bias in the\nsubscale closeness, with the masculinised coach being rated\nhigher than the feminised coach.  The\nresults previous from male\/female studies are not directly equitable to the\nmasculisation\/feminisation of a single female coach.  It may be that as the same actor was used in\nthis study for the masculine\/feminine coach, that participants in this study\nfocused on invariant information such as the content of the coach\u2019s\ncommunication and coaching session structure\/tasks.  This would explain the lack of difference in\nthe commitment and complementarity subscales. \nIt may also be that in this the masculinised coach aligned more the stereotypical views of sport coaching being more about masculine\nbehaviours such as authority and dominance (7) although this differs from\nprevious findings (17). Further investigation is needed to separate out the\ninterrelated influences of sex and gender on perceptions of sports\ncoaches.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was also a\ntrend in Athlete Sex, with the masculinised coach being rated higher when working with\nfemale athletes, and the feminised coach being rated higher when working with\nmale athletes, across all three relationship quality subscales.  Previous research has shown that male coaches are rated higher when working with\nfemale athletes, a relationship that reinforces both traditional coach and\ngender roles (4) and this may have been partially the\ncase here for the masculinsed coach working with female athletes.  It has previously shown that male athletes tend\nto be more comfortable with a male coach (12) and so it was unexpected that the\nfeminised coach was rated higher with male athletes.  However, the trend observed in this study was\nnot significant and needs further investigation to establish if this is an\nactual pattern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was expected that the feminised coach would\nbe rated higher than the masculinised coach in both affective and cognitive\nempathy.  This was based on the findings\nthat previous research has shown that women\nas a group as perceived possess some inherent ability\/skill that makes them\nmore empathic than men (8).  However, no main effect was observed.  This again may be due to participants being focused on invariant information\nsuch as the content of the coach\u2019s communication and coaching session\nstructure\/tasks.  There was also a main effect for Athlete Sex in\naffective empathy, with both coaches being rated higher when working with males\ncompared to females, there was also a non-significant trend in cognitive\nempathy for the same pattern.  Previous\nresearch has shown that female coaches are rated higher when working with male\nathletes (14).  In\nmixed-gender situations, individuals have been perceived to adjust their\nbehaviour to be more accommodating (3).  It is possible that\nparticipants were influenced by stereotypes of gender interaction and therefore\nperceived the coach to be more accommodating when working with a male athlete\ngroup regardless of the genderisation of the coach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was hypothesised that a more masculinised coach would be perceived as more competent than a feminised coach.\u00a0 It has been demonstrated that women in leadership positions, such as sports coaching, tend to be rated as less effective in comparison to men (4), while athletes normally perceive female coaches as less capable than male coaches (13).\u00a0 While these previous studies were based on comparisons of male and female coaches, it was expected that this would also be seen when comparing a masculinised and a feminised coach.\u00a0 There is a significant main effect for Coach Gender Bias, with the masculinised coach being rated higher in three of the four coaching competency subscales (motivation, game strategy, and character building), and while not significant, the masculinised coach was also rated higher in the fourth subscale, technique.\u00a0 This is in line with previous findings, however the measure of coaching competency only covers a limited amount of the varied roles a coach may have to fulfil when working with athletes of different ages and abilities.\u00a0 For future studies, it would be worthwhile to be more specific about specific coaching roles that are being evaluated and potentially including qualitative elements to help understand how these perceptions are formed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nresults of this study offer a greater understanding of how the perceived\nmasculinity\/femininity of a sports coach and the athletes they are working with\nmay influence how others perceive the effectiveness of those coaches. However,\nthe scenario depicted in these videos (a sprint conditioning session) was\nfairly sport neutral, which means the influence of sport-type, while controlled\nfor, was not explored.  Each sport has a\nlevel of perceived inherent masculinity or femininity (11).  It may be where the perceived\nmasculinity\/femininity of a sports coach aligns or conflicts with this, that\nthe coach may be seen more positively or more negatively.  For example, in an artistic sport such as\ngymnastics, traditionally perceived as more feminine, it may be that a coach is\nperceived more positively when they are seen as demonstrating qualities that\nare more feminine.  It would be useful\nfor future research to investigate how sport-type, particularly highly\nmasculine and feminine sports, influence how coaches are perceived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The findings of the present study highlight that the\nperceived masculinity or femininity of a coach plays a key role in how the behaviors\nof that coach is interpreted by others. The main findings demonstrate that a\nmore masculine female coach is perceived more favorably than a feminine coach\nis, when the quality of their relationship with an athlete and their coaching\ncompetency is assessed.  The findings\nalso show that the results of previous research examining male\/female coaches\nare not directly equitable to the masculisation\/feminisation of a single female\ncoach.   Additionally, the discussion\nhighlights the probable influence of the setting of the coach-athlete\ninteraction and other contextual factors (e.g. sport-type).  It is therefore likely that the sex of a\ncoach, how they are genderised, the sex of their athletes, and any\ngender-stereotypes of their sport form have complex interdependence that\ninfluences how the behaviors of that coach, and therefore their effectiveness,\nare perceived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study has\nimplications for coaching practice and coach effectiveness, as the perceived\nmasculinity\/femininity of a coach has an effect on how their behaviors are\nperceived by others.  In particular a\nmore masculine female coach may be perceived as more competent than a more\nfeminine coach.  The results also\ndemonstrate that coaches are perceived more favorably when their perceived\nmasculinity\/femininity is in contrast to the sex of their athletes.  Coaches need to be\naware of how their perceived\nmasculinity\/femininity may potentially affect\nathletes\u2019 perceptions of them or how others view their effectiveness (e.g.,\nparents).  Additionally, those in\nofficial roles that involved interpreting the value of a coach\u2019s behaviours,\nsuch as coach educators and managers, need to be aware of their potential\nbiases in making judgements about the effectiveness of coaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

None<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Coakley, J. (2016).  Sports in society. <\/em>New York: McGraw-Hill.<\/li>
  2. Coakley, J. & Donnelly, P. (2005). Inside sports.<\/em> London: Routledge.<\/li>
  3. Deaux, K. & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology<\/em> (pp. 788-827). New York: Random House.<\/li>
  4. Eagly. A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109,<\/em> 573-598.<\/li>
  5. Epitropaki, O. & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure generalizability and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology<\/em>, 89<\/em>, 293-310.<\/li>
  6. Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART \u2013 Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 14<\/em>, 245\u2013257.<\/li>
  7. Hardin, M. & Greer, J. D.  (2009). The influence of gender-role socialization, media use and sports participation on perceptions of gender appropriate sports. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 32<\/em> (2): pp. 207-226. <\/li>
  8. Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R., & Graham, T. (2000). Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships<\/em>, 7<\/em>, 95-109.<\/li>
  9. Gaylon, C. & Wann, D. L. (2012). Males’ impressions of masculine and feminine female sport fans vs. non-fans. North American Journal of Psychology<\/em>, 14<\/em>(3), 585-596. <\/li>
  10. Krauer, K. J. & Krane, V. (2006). \u201cScary Dykes” and “Feminine Queens”: Stereotypes and female collegiate athletes. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 15<\/em>(1), 42-55.<\/li>
  11. Koivula, N. (2001). Perceives characteristics of sports categorized as gender-neutral, feminine and masculine. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24<\/em>(4).<\/li>
  12. Magnusen M. J. & Rhea D. J. (2009). Division I athletes attitudes toward and preferences for male and female strength and condition coaches. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23<\/em>(4): 1084-1090.<\/li>
  13. Manley, A. J., Greenlees, I., Graydon, J., Thelwell, R., Filby, W.C.D., & Smith, M.J. (2010). Athletes\u2019 perceptions of the sources of information used when forming initial impressions and expectancies of a coach. The Sport Psychologis<\/em>t, 22, 73-89.<\/li>
  14. Murray, P., Lord, R., & Lorimer, R. (2018). The influence of gender on perceptions of coaches\u2019 relationships with their athletes: A novel video-based methodology. The Sports Journal<\/em><\/li>
  15. Myers, N. D., Wolfe, E. W., Maier, K. S., Feltz, D. L., & Reckase, M. D. (2006). Extending validity evidence for multidimensional measures of coaching competency. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77<\/em>, 451-463 <\/li>
  16. Reniers R. L, Corcoran R, Drake R, Shryane N. M., & V\u00f6llm B. A. (2011). The QCAE: A Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93<\/em>, 84\u201395.<\/li>
  17. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan,  J. E., & Nauts, S. (2011). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48<\/em>, 165-179.<\/li>
  18. Schlesinger, T., & Weigelt-Schlesinger, Y. (2012). \u2018Poor thing\u2019or \u2018Wow, she knows how to do it\u2019\u2013gender stereotypes as barriers to women\u2019s qualification in the education of soccer coaches. Soccer & Society, 13<\/em>(1), 56-72.<\/li>
  19. Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (2007). Social-Cognitive Approach to Coaching Behaviors. In Social Psychology in Sport<\/em>. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.<\/li>
  20. Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (2017). Coaching behavior and effectiveness in sport and exercise psychology. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology<\/em>.<\/li>
  21. Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. 2011. Making sense of Cronbach\u2019s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2<\/em>, 53-55. <\/li>
  22. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology<\/em>. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.<\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Authors: Paula Murraya, Rhiannon Lordb, & Ross Lorimerb (aLoughborough College, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[994,295],"tags":[101,1584,411,1583],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-1ON","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6002,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/influence-of-gender-on-perceptions-of-coaches-relationships-with-their-athletes\/","url_meta":{"origin":6993,"position":0},"title":"The influence of gender on perceptions of coaches’ relationships with their athletes: A novel video-based methodology","date":"August 30, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Paula Murray(a), Rhiannon Lord(b), & Ross Lorimer(b) (a) Loughborough College, UK (b) Abertay University, UK Corresponding Author: Dr. Ross Lorimer Abertay University Dundee, UK, DD1 1RG Ross.Lorimer@Abertay.ac.uk +44 (0)1382 308426 The influence of gender on perceptions of coaches\u2019 relationships with their athletes: A novel video-based methodology ABSTRACT The aim\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"Figure 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Figure-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":3487,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/examination-of-gender-equity-and-female-participation-in-sport\/","url_meta":{"origin":6993,"position":1},"title":"Examination of Gender Equity and Female Participation in Sport","date":"February 26, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Author: Joshua A. Senne*(1) (1) Joshua A. Senne is a doctoral student at the United States Sports Academy located in Daphne, Alabama. His doctoral emphasis is sports fitness and health, with a specialization in sport marketing. He currently holds a master of science in recreation and sport management from Indiana\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":148,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/student-athletes-perceptions-about-abuse-by-ncaa-division-ii-tennis-coaches\/","url_meta":{"origin":6993,"position":2},"title":"Student-Athletes’ Perceptions About Abuse by NCAA Division II Tennis Coaches","date":"February 21, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Vicky-Lynn Martin, D.S.M. Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine whether a significant difference existed between the perception of the National Collegiate Athletic Association male and female athletes regarding various types of abusive behaviors by their coaches. This research examined whether or not athletic departments in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":449,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/coach-effectiveness-and-personality-assessments-an-exploratory-analysis-of-thin-slice-interpersonal-perceptions\/","url_meta":{"origin":6993,"position":3},"title":"Coach Effectiveness and Personality Assessments: An Exploratory Analysis of Thin Slice Interpersonal Perceptions","date":"January 4, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Jennifer L. Knight, Daniel R. Czech, Barry Joyner, Tyler McDaniel, Alan D. Zwald, Trevor Egli, Larry D. Bryant and Trey Burdette; Georgia Southern University ### Abstract Gordon Allport (3) suggested that people are able to form accurate perceptions of others from mere glimpses of their behavior. The concept of interpersonal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3834,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/leadership-athletes-and-coaches-in-sport\/","url_meta":{"origin":6993,"position":4},"title":"Leadership: Athletes and Coaches in Sport","date":"July 1, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Dr. Sharon P. Misasi*, Dr. Gary Morin and Lauren Kwasnowski Dr. Sharon P. Misasi is a Professor of Exercise Science at Southern Connecticut State University. Dr. Gary Morin is a Professor of Exercise Science, Assistant Athletic Trainer and Program Director of the Athletic Training Education Program. Lauren Kwasnowski is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Univariate comparison of training questions by coaches for gender","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/Table-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":6503,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-association-between-high-school-coachs-leadership-behaviors-and-athletes-self-efficacy-and-grit\/","url_meta":{"origin":6993,"position":5},"title":"The Association Between High School Coach\u2019s Leadership Behaviors and Athletes\u2019 Self-Efficacy and Grit","date":"July 19, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Dr. Katarii U. Donald, Dr. Stephen R. Marvin, Dr. Aarek W. Farmer and Dr. Karen Cypress Corresponding Author:Katarii U. Donald, Ed. D3144 Knight lane 101Memphis, TN, 38115donaldk@scsk12.org901-281-9010 Dr. Katarii Donald is the Athletic Director at a T-Stem High School in Memphis and is also a Head Football Coach. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6993"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6993"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6993\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7672,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6993\/revisions\/7672"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6993"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6993"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6993"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}