The Female Handicap: The Challenges and Barriers for Women In Coaching

Aprille Deus 100115855

Professor Ann Dodge

KINE 3883 – X1

Friday, February 13, 2015.

1

Introduction

Females have experienced numerous barriers in the world of coaching (Buchanan,

2012). These barriers consist of tangible items, social barriers and stereotypes, and the

lack of support, opportunities and self-efficacy have put female coaches in the back seat

to their male counter parts. These obstacles have been seen to be put women at a

disadvantage in pursuing head coaching positions (Van der Meij, Buunk, van de Sande,

& Salvador, 2008; Bower & Hums, 2013). Gender has been an ancient issue (Holland &

Oglesby, 1979) and one’s childhood experiences has prevented females from growing

confident in themselves as individuals (Thapman, 2001; Cermele, Daniels, and Anderson,

2001). In this literature review, gender will be analyzed and defined, and leadership style

and behavioural theories will be explored in an attempt to explain barriers to females

coaching. Lastly the analyse of Title IX and the speculation of its effectiveness will also

be reviewed to further explain whether or not gender equity has improved in athletic

programs (particularly in elite level programs).

Gender

In order to understand what challenges women face in the realm of coaching, the

topic of gender must be understood and a definition must be addressed. What is gender?

Gender has been defined in many ways – the classification of animate beings and

inanimate things as masculine, feminine, or neuter. Gender can be the chromosomal

make up of a being or defined in terms of behaviour (Crews, 1988). Gender has typically

referred to behaviours, sociological and psychological characteristics of men and women.

In an article presented by Pryzgoda and Chrisler (2000), 137 participants were asked to

2

define the word ‘gender’. Participants were asked to write down the first thing you think

when you see the word ‘gender’. The general themes that came out of this exercise were

43.4% of the sample responded the thought of “male and female”, 11.7% thought about

sex, 9.6 thought about gender or sex roles, 5.8% thought about equality and women’s

rights, 5.8% thought of masculinity and femininity, and 4.4% thought about women.

The definitions that were given in this experiment also described what was

thought to be the origin of gender; 36.2% thought gender immerged from psychological

factors and behaviour, 34.5% thought that gender was derived from society and

socialization, and 18.9% argued that it was self-choice and self-perception that was the

root of gender, and 17.2% proposed that a combination of biology and culture explained

gender. There was a third area in which Pryzgoda and Chrisler (2000) analyzed the

functions of gender. Fifty percent of the definitions stated that gender plays an essential

role in personal identity and characteristics, 44.4% said that gender is used to classify

human beings, 20.4% said gender defines people, and 5.6% mention that gender breeds a

certain behaviour and creates a person’s identity.

Definitions of gender could be further broken down into ‘traits’- femininity and

masculinity. According to the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), masculinity traits have

been favoured more so than the femininity traits in society. In sociological terms, gender

has been a determinant of one’s place in society (Wolff & Watson, 1983). Bem and

Lenney (1976) created Masculinity and Femininity scales that have been used to classify

individuals as masculine, feminine, androgynous or undifferentiated (Wolff and Watson,

1983). Bem and Lenney say that “it is now the androgynous person… who is emerging as

a more appropriate sex role ideal for contemporary society,” as they challenge the

3

traditional feminine female and masculine male. Although Bem and Lenney have

proposed that the androgynous person (one who possesses both masculine and feminine

traits) is more appropriate in contemporary society, it has been the masculine traits – the

male construct – that have been favoured throughout history (Bem and Lenney; Reiners,

2001).

When looking from a sociological perspective, there has been debate about why

masculinity is valued more than femininity (Stewart and McDermott, 2004). Gender has

been recognized as a hierarchal factor in society. Stewart & McDermott analyzed gender

from a “sex differences approach” and compared men and women. This approach

assumes that, between men and women, there are biological differences that only women

and men possess (e.g. ejaculation, pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation). Group

differences have ranged from biological differences (e.g. behaviour-related hormones), to

socialization or differential treatment, to different social roles/ situations. In the past,

biological differences have placed men as the ruling gender (i.e. strength, aggression, sex

cells, sex organ) – men ruled as kings and dictators, presidents and prime ministers.

Males have been biologically favoured because of their natural strength, competitiveness,

and lack of sentimental emotion (Guttman, 1981). These characteristics have been

favoured in order to accomplish and complete tasks. Masculine traits consist of being

active, aggressive, controlling, and goal-oriented. Feminine traits consist of being

passive, submissive, private, and expressive (Holland and Oglesby, 1979). A big

biological difference that can account for male-dominance in society is testosterone

(Rowe, Maughan, Worthman, Costella, and Angold, 2004; van der Meij et al, 2008). Van

der Meij used female subjects and surrounded the male subjects, and found that the

4

aggressive dominance (which is naturally found in male personality) increased with the

presence of females. However, under certain conditions, there were no changes in

testosterone levels (i.e. age, housing condition, education level, last time of sex, number

of sex partners) testosterone (van der Meij, et al, 2008). Testosterone has been likened to

gaining, maintaining and losing social status, aggression and antisocial behaviour, peer

and family relationships, and gender similarities and differences, thus being a prime

factor in male dominance (Booth, Granger, Mazur, and Kivlighan, 2006).

Another area of gender is socialization and differential treatment. Stewart and

McDermott (2003) found that differential treatment has existed in society and that the

male gender has been much preferred versus their female counterparts. Males have been

treated with more benefits (e.g. jobs, pay wages) and have done most of the work outside

of the family home. Females have been regarded to as stay-at-home mothers and should

not work or participate in certain leisure activities/ sports. In different social situations

such as education, work, and home life, it has been noted that there are “gendered” roles

in which each gender will have higher average ability and higher performance (Stewart

and McDermott). Going all the way back into ancient civilization (Rome and Greece),

men were the only participants in sport spectacles and ruled kingdoms. Women were

cemented in the role of wife and mother and were rarely present at events and coliseum

spectacles (Holland & Oglesby, 1979; Reiners, 2001). Kulik (1998) had participants

answer a questionnaire about gender role perceptions. Culturally, feminine occupations

were commonly consisted of preschool teacher, hotel room cleaning, office clerk, social

worker, psychologist, accountant, registered nurse, waitress, and occupational therapist.

Masculine occupations were thought to be things like deck captain, physicist, judge,

5

operator of heavy mechanical equipment, aeronautics engineer, treasurer, bus driver,

machine technician, and jail warden. The findings in this experiment support the idea that

a social environment affects the ideas that youth create about feminine and masculine

occupations (Kulik, 1998).

Society has influenced individuals and their outlook on life. Dayioğlu and Türüt-

Aşik (2007) reported that women who expect interruptions in their work careers (e.g.

pregnancy) chose work fields such as engineering or teaching for the easy exit and re-

entry into the field.

Gneezy, Niederle, and Rustichini (2003) show that high profile jobs, at large, are

almost exclusively male occupied and are a key factor in why there is a gender gap in

yearly earnings. This experiment had a co-ed sample in which female and male

engineering students were told to complete several mazes for monetary reimbursement.

The purpose of the experiment was to test whether men and women differ in their ability

to perform in a competitive environment. The sample experienced different experimental

conditions (i.e. male versus female, same-sex competition, blind competition) and the

results showed that men performed a lot better in mixed competitions (Gneezy et al.,

2003) In same-sex competition, males still perform at a much more efficient level. This

proves Guttman’s (1981) finding that males perform better in a working area. Gneezy et

al. (2003) suggest that if women believe that men have more skill, those women will

believe that and it will hinder their performance. However, in same-sex competitions,

women perform better against each other in comparison to male-on-male competition.

This proves to be a stereotype threat and this threat serves as a source of anxiety.

Performing a task will lead to a greater chance in “choking under pressure”. As stated,

6

the idea of “if you say it, you believe it” is much present in these competitive situations

(Gneezy et al 2003).

Society has further influenced the way gender is viewed from home. In a study

done by Thapan (2001), a sample of young Indian women were interviewed about the

public roles of women and where they saw their futures (i.e. career choice, family life,

etc.) based on their family life. Women described their fathers as respected and admired

but were not around for building a close relationship with their daughters. The father

figure was seen as a perfectionist, distant, straightforward and frank, very punctual… and

not emotional, thus not making emotional connections with their children. A mother was

described as “the ideal” and was described as having “values, having an outlook on life,

was understanding, and provided a perfect relationship” with their daughters. These

women favoured careers that allowed them to balance home/ family life, as they wanted

to emulate and be like their mothers. Although these young women respected their

fathers, they related better to their mothers. This further supports that gender roles have

been solidified by society and the past, present, and will can change and be influence by

future events. The young women show that constructions of femininity and masculinity

exemplify the power that relationships have on identities (Thapan, 2001).

Leadership

The subject of leadership could shed some light as to how gender constructs have

been formed. In a study completed by Van Vugt and Spisak (2008), it was stated that

human are naturally inclined to take part in leader-follower relations, although there is a

high leadership failure rate. Leadership and followership play key roles within groups. It

7

was predicted that in this experiment that female leadership would be preferred in

intragroup competition settings and a male preference for intergroup competitions. Fifty

undergraduate students (co-ed) made up the sample of this experiment and were

randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions (i.e. intragroup competition,

intergroup competition, combined intragroup and intergroup competition, and neither

competition). The students completed investment tasks where they made decisions on

how much money to invest in a group fund versus a private fund. What the results

showed was that the preference for a particular gendered leader depends on the nature of

the task presented to the group (Van Vugt and Spisak, 2008). The indicated that female

leaders were more invested in creating and maintaining supportive social networks to

protect themselves and their children. In contrast, it was found that the male leader was

greatly attracted to investing their resources in forming intragroup alliances that spark

intragroup aggression thus creating competitiveness. In this sense, it was concluded that

men inherit a hierarchical leadership style versus women (who have a more democratic

leadership style) (Van Vugt and Spisak, 2008).

Hoyden’s (2010) study stated that societies have depended more on, or have

looked more to, male leadership. Leadership research has shown that general leadership

skills have often been related to ‘heroic’ masculine traits. Hoyden interviewed executive

board members from different Norwegian sports organizations and found several trends.

The first trend was that female leaders were thought to lack skill or behaviour that was

desirable to make a positive difference or as desirable by the “general norm”. In contrast,

‘male’ (as a gender category) is non-existent, and heroic forms of masculinity were built

into the dominant leadership construct. The second trend was that feminine difference is

8

related to women’s special understanding for caring and empathy, and women’s special

capacity for communication, team building, and co-operation, and building human

relations and confidence. The third trend that Hoyden discovered was that female

leadership can only make a positive difference as long as the feminine is seen as

subordinate to “masculine dominant”. The leadership ratio (of men versus women) varied

among the different sports organizations in Norway. For example, 40% of women make

up the membership of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and

Confederation of Sports (NOC). However, whatever has been analyzed until now, male

dominance in leadership indicates that men possess the power to influence how society

portrays females. Data showed that androcentric leadership has been much more

preferred amongst the Norwegian sports organizations (Hoyden, 2008).

In a sport specific context, an experiment done by Jambor and Zhang (1997), the

differences in leadership behaviors (between male and female coaches at different levels)

were analyzed. After interviewing 162 coaches (who coached at junior high school, high

school, and college levels) it was found that there were no significant differences in the

way male and female coaches interacted between genders and coaching level. What was

found in this study was that it was outdated to say that a male is a different leader than a

female. It was found that there was a difference in social support between males and

females. Female coaches were reported to have received a more rewarding experience

than male coaches, and they give more support in an athlete’s personal life; they made

sport more enjoyable. Females in the study coached mostly in recreational leagues; men

almost exclusively coached in levels of junior high school and lower levels. Jambor and

Zhang also found that in six behaviours of leadership, that women showed higher results

9

in the areas of ‘social support’, ‘democracy’, ‘positive feedback’, and ‘situation

consideration.’

Looking at different leadership styles, an Italian researcher said that effective

leaders are “especially capable of fostering group cohesiveness and promoting efficacy in

goal attainment” (Ruggieri, 2013, p. 1171). Ruggieri analyzed the relationship between

two different styles of leadership – transactional and transformational – and the effects

that these leadership styles had on team identification and leader self-sacrifice. Team

identification was defined as “the extent to which an individual team member identifies

with a specific organizational team rather than social groups in general,” (Ruggieri, 2013,

p. 1172). Self-sacrificial leadership was defined as “the total/partial abandonment, and/or

permanent/temporary postponement of personal interests, privileges, or welfare in the (a)

division of labor, (b) distribution of rewards, and/or (c) exercise of power,” (Ruggieri,

2013, p. 1173). Leaders who show practice and show “self-sacrifice” gave up their

rewards or did not use power for personal benefit. The transactional leadership model

explains that leaders are negotiators that compromise group performance in order to gain

more decision-making power within the group. The transformational leadership model

explains that leaders adapt to change and instability and “involves, motivates, and

supports followers in a manner consistent with the required transformations” (pg. 1172,

Ruggieri, 2013). After collecting interview forms from 186 call center employees

Ruggieri found that there was a strong, positive correlation between transformational

leadership and team identification, versus transactional leadership and team

identification. Transformational leadership increased team identification because

transformational leaders increased their personal bond with the team, whereas

10

transactional leaders showed a lesser concern for interrelation with their group members.

Ruggieri found that transformational leaders also demonstrated self-sacrifice.

Another leadership style known as ‘authentic leadership’ was found to positively

influence group performance (Xiong & Fang, 2014). This type of leadership was found to

influence followers’ attitude and behaviours and brought out three states that followers

experience (while lead by authentic leadership) – hope, trust, and positive emotions.

Thus, authentic leadership further influences followers to increase job performance, put

in extra effort, and created withdrawal behaviours (i.e. burnout, turnover, and lateness)

(Xiong & Fang, 2014).

Theories

In the area of behavioural theories, Xiong and Fang (2014) used questionnaires to

measure four areas: authentic leadership, collective efficacy, group performance, and

control variables. What was found in this study was that collective efficacy (the summed

belief of a group to obtain a certain result) had a significant, positive impact on group

performance. They also found that authentic leadership significantly impacted group

performance and was correlated to collective efficacy. Authentic leadership was defined

as “a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly

developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-

regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates” (Xiong & Fang, 2014,

pg. 922).

When delving further into the foundation of leadership, there are psychological

aspects to what makes one a good leader (Ruggieri, 2013). Theories such as Social

11

Cognitive Career Theory, Social Cognitive Theory (self-efficacy), and Theory of Planned

Behaviour influence a good leader. These theories have played a factor particularly in the

field of coaching as competition grows for coaching jobs between the female and male

genders (Sagas, Cunningham, & Pastore, 2006).

The Theory of Planned Behaviour links ‘belief’ and ‘behaviour’. Simply put the

theory states one’s own belief in the ability to enact a particular behaviour (Sagas et al.,

2006). A population of 480 college division coaches (from different sport, both female

and male in gender) filled out a questionnaire about their attitudes, perceived behavioural

control, intentions of coaching, and other biographical items. The purpose of this study

was to explain things such as lack of financial incentive, career-related burnout, work-

and career-related variables, and discriminatory hiring procedures. What the results

showed was that female assistant coaches make up one of the largest pools for head

coaching positions. However, in regards to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, it was

found that women did not apply for available head coaching jobs. The results showed that

aspiration to jump to higher levels in a career were needed in order to obtain such

positions, and the majority of the female coaches in this study did not have such

aspirations. As assistant coaches the female assistants perceived several coaching barriers

– discriminatory hiring, conflictions with family life, lack of coaching experience,

knowledge about coaching, strong social network, and being successful at coaching. The

results also indicated that the head coaches of these assistants were essential in shaping

the head coach intentions of the assistant coaches. In the case of a male coach having a

female assistant coach, the male head coach would not be as involved with the female

coaches. This lead to the female assistant coaches not creating aspirations for head

12

coaching jobs (i.e. if they saw themselves in that head coaching position, they could do it.

However, male head coaches did not invest as much time in developing these female

assistant coaches.) Thus the Theory of Planned Behaviour has helped to explain the rapid

decline in female head coaches (Sagas et al., 2006).

Similarly to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)

and Social Career Cognitive Theory (SCCT) were analyzed by Moran-Miller and Flores

(2011). In this study, female student-athletes completed a questionnaire that revolved

around the interest of female coaching careers. Moran-Miller and Flores stated that SCT

proposes that career interests and abilities are shaped by self-efficacy and outcome

expectations. (Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s abilities to complete a task.) The study

found no significant distinction between the athlete’s desires to coach based on the

gender of their coach. (i.e. having a female coaching role model was more important in

developing self-efficacy). However, the quality of female coaching role models was

important to the athletes. The SCCT (a theory of career development that states

“individuals who believe they possess the requisite skills to be successful in a given

occupation are more likely to develop interest in that occupation,” (p. 2) was presented in

this study as the sample of female athletes (who were coached by females) perceived less

barriers to becoming coaches and related more to their female head coaches. These

athletes had a greater belief in becoming female coaches. Those that had male coaches

did not relate as well to their coaches, hence there was a lack of self-efficacy in the

thought of becoming a female head coach. Those that were interested in becoming

coaches saw greater perceived barriers as women (Moran-Miller & Flores, 2011).

13

Title IX

Women have faced many barriers in the pursuit of coaching jobs (particularly

head coaching jobs) (Bower & Hums, 2013). The number of women in sport has

substantially increased after the passing of Title IX in 1972. Title IX, (a federal law that

prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs that received federal

money,) is a bill that was signed by United States President Richard Nixon. The bill has

worked as a repellent against many barriers that had prevented individuals (based on sex)

from participating in educational opportunities and careers they desired.

Bower and Hum’s (2013) study used the “three prong test” – a common way to

determine if universities and schools’ athletic programs complyed with Title IX. The

three prong test consists of the following criteria: 1) the educational institution is

providing athletic participation opportunities to members of each sex in numbers that are

substantially proportionate to their respective enrollment at that institution; 2) the

institution has demonstrated a history of accommodating the athletic interests of the

underrepresented sex; and 3) that the athletic interests and abilities of the

underrepresented sex has been effectively accommodated (Ferguson, 2014).

In 2013 Bower & Humus had participants complete an online survey that asked

for biographical information (i.e. age, ethnicity, degree) and details about their jobs (i.e.

income range, school division, education, and position within the athletics department.)

The results showed that there were more men working in “high profile” positions, such as

athletic director, associate and assistant athletic directors. The number of men was nearly

double the women’s numbers. In the highest division (NCAA Division I), men dominated

in every division and position within athletics’ program; men outnumbered the women.

14

With regards to income range, the experiment results showed that there were more

women who made less than $60 000 a year, whereas men made less than $80 000.

Already in these statistics it is evident that the number of women in power

positionsathletic programs is greatly overshadowed by the number of men in athletic

programs. As well, there is a great difference in income range, as men made $20 000

more than women. All of these have been classified as barriers that have prevented

women from pursuing “high profile” jobs in athletic administration as most opportunities

have been taken away through unfair hiring (Bower & Humus, 2013).

Ferguson (2014) found that women, especially minority women and other

economically disadvantaged student-athletes, are “a subset of the larger population.”

Resources in sports have been virtually non-existent and/or hard to come by for these

groups in the past. Additionally, Ferguson found that history and the community one

grew up in effected one’s participation sport. If one had grew up in a disadvantaged

community, generally speaking, the females in that community would fund female

recreational sports as most recreational funding when towards male sports. Title IX’s

purpose is to achieve “gender equity” but has struggled to show consistent signs of

effectiveness. In the lives of underprivileged females, individuals are unable to

experience sport and are not exposed to sport at all. This is another barrier that women

experience as they create desires to move into high profile positions – some simply do

not know how to get there and have no role models. In order to help with the emergence

of women’s sports, collegiate programs must continue to promote and achieve gender

equity to school programs (Ferguson, 2014).

15

Looking further into the realm of athletic opportunities, females face

disadvantages in the area of coaching. The lack of number of female coaches in sport has

drastically decreased since the establishment of Title IX in 1972. The lack of females

aspiring to occupy head coaching position and other high profile jobs has been due to the

lack of role models, gender discrimination in hiring, and the lack of opportunity (Brake,

2012). Although Title IX has been used to give more opportunity to females who may

have otherwise been overlooked, collegiate athletic programs have to only fulfill 2 out of

the 3 prongs: “1) substantial proportionality of sports opportunities, 2) a continuing

practice of expansion of the opportunities for the underrepresented sex, or 3) that the

interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex have been fully accommodated”

(Brake, 2012; Druckman, 2014).

Staurowsky, Murray, and Puzio (2013) discussed in the issue of Title IX and its

apparent affects in the sports world. She concluded that Title IX has no role in college

sport. After the passing of Title IX, the Division of Girls and Women in Sport (DGWS)

created the AIAW – the first and only national women’s collegiate athletic association,

which lasted only one decade before being overtaken by the NCAA. Staurowsky et al.

further explored barriers for women in sport as it was found that college athletes are not

paid the same amount in scholarship funding; men’s collegiate sports programs are

generally funded more than women’s programs. Head coaches thus have more income

and more funding to recruit athletes. Women’s programs, do not have as much funding

and head coaches on these teams are not given the same resources as the men’s collegiate

teams which translates into less sport participation opportunities for women and in turn,

16

fewer role models for female athletes aspiring to become coaches (Staurowsky et al.,

2013).

Two particular barriers that females have faced in the area of coaching are: 1)

income, and 2) consequences of coaching on family life (Bower & Hums, 2013). Income

has played such a big role in the decision of females applying for coaching positions as

women have always looked for financial security. Bower and Hums (2013) found that

funding for women’s programs was not attractive enough in relation to how much work is

required of the head coach of a team. Jambor and Zhang (1997) found that the

consequences that coaching had on family life also played a factor into the decision

making process for women who thought of applying to coaching positions. It was

concluded that as coaches advance through the levels of splay (i.e. recreational, junior

high school, high school, and college) less time was spent with their families as a result

of the increase in responsibilities of being an elite coach. Collegiate coaches in this

experiment also spent less and less time giving support to athletes, communicating less,

and caring less for athletes. This is due to the challenge of balancing family life and job

responsibilities (Jambor & Zhang, 1997).

Conclusion

In this paper, evidence is presented that proves female coaches have face

numerous barriers in pursuit of coaching positions. Historically, masculinity has

prevailed in society and has been a determinant of one’s place in society (Wolff and

Watson, 1973); thus, men have managed to stay on top in the working world. Women

will continue to have a challenging time competing for head coaching positions due to the

17

already established, and almost traditional, ideal coaching construct – that of a masculine

figure – naturally strong, aggressive, and not as easily succumbed by emotions.

In the realm of coaching, stereotypically men have been favoured as coaches, but

evidence presented from Van Vugt and Spisak (2008) suggest that a preferred style of

leadership depends on the task at hand. Men have traditionally been sought out to ‘get the

job done’, and women have been responsible for caring and nurturing individuals.

Hoyden (2010) found that as long as women were undermined in the work place, they

would not be able to thrive in an environment where they would have to compete against

men. These findings are another example that show women will continue to face barriers

in coaching; male dominance in today’s society has no signs of lessening. As long as the

majority of the high paid positions in sport are occupied by males, the world of athletic

will continue to be dominated by men; virtually leaving no room for women to compete

for these positions.

The lack of females in coaching is partly explained through behavioural theories

such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour. This theory is defined as the belief in one’s

own ability to enact particular behaviour. Unfortunately, in order to believe in one’s

ability, females need role models – individuals they can relate. To. Based on readings in

the field of coaching, there is a lack of female role models for aspiring female coaches

(Sagas et al., 2006).

From gender to the Title IX, women will continue to face obstacles in their

journey towards obtaining head coaching positions. The lack of financial and job

security, burnout, and conflicts with family life will stand to be hard obstacles to look

pass in order to pursue a coaching career. A woman has always been thought of a stay-at-

18

home mom, where nurturing the children and taking care of the home was the most

important. Seldom do men stay at home to raise children and women take care of the

financial side of things. In the field of coaching, women are also at a huge disadvantage

with a significantly lower pay grade than their male counter parts and experience

discriminatory hiring (Bower and Humus, 2013).

All of the information presented can be used to draw several conclusions. The

first is that women will continue to face barriers with coaching positions. The second

conclusion is that the lack of women applying for these positions means there will be few

female role models for those looking for belief in seeing females as good coaches. This

influences the number of females who will apply for coaching positions. The third

conclusion is that women hesitate to apply for head coaching positions because of the

lifestyle that comes with it (i.e. long hours, limited family time, virtually all-year training,

burnout, etc.) From these three conclusions an on-going cycle continues; women will

continue to stray from believing in taking the risk of applying for head coaching jobs

because of security, burnout, and low pay.

19

References

Bem, S. & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex Typing and the Avoidance of Cross-Sex Behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(1), 48-54.

Booth, A., Granger, D., Mazur, A., & Kivlighan, K. (2006). Testosterone and social behaviour. Social Forces, 85(1), 179-204.

Bower, G. & Hums, M. (2013). The Impact of Title IXon Career Opportunitiesin Intercollegiate Athletic Administration. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 6, 213-230.

Brake, D. (2012). Getting in the game: Title IX and the women’s sports revolution. Marguette sports law review, 22(2), 615-617.

Buchanan, M. (2012). Title IX turns 40: A brief history and look forward. Texas Rev of Entertain & Sports Law, 14(1), 91-93.

Cermele, J., Daniels, S., & Anderson, K. (2001). Defining normal: Constructions of race and gender in the DSM-IV casebook. Feminism & Psychology, 11(2), 229–247.

Crews, D. (1988). The problem with gender. Psychobiology, 16(4), 321-334.

Dayioğlu, M., & Türüt-Aşik, S. (2007). Gender differences in academic performance in a large public university in Turkey. Higher Education, 53(2), 255-277.

Druckman, J. (2014). Athlete support for Title IX. Sport Journal, 1-22.

Ferguson, K. (2014). Achieving gender equity under Title IX for girls from minority, urban, rural, and economically disadvantaged communities.

Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics-Cambridge Massachusetts-, 118(3), 1049-1074.

Guttmann, A. (2003). Sports spectators from antiquity to the renaissance. Journal of Sport History. 8(2), 5-27.

Holland, J. & Oglesby, C. (1979). Women in sport: The synthesis begins. Am Acad of Polit & Soc Sci, 445, 80-90.

Hovden, J. (2010). Female top leaders – prisoners of gender? The gendering of leadership discourses in Norwegian sports organizations. International Journal of Sport Policy & Politics, 2(2), 189-203.

Jambor, E., & Zhang, J. (1997). Investigating leadership, gender, and coaching level using the revised leadership for sport scale. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(3), 313-321.

20

Kulik, L. (1998). Study of gender role perceptions among Kibbutz and urban adolescents in Israel. Journal of Community Psychology. 26(6), 533-548.

Moran-Miller, K. & Flores, L. (2011). Where are the women in women's sports? Predictors of female athletes' interest in a coaching career. Res Q Exerc Sport, 82(1),109-17.

Pryzgoda, J. & Chrisler, J. (2000). Definitions of gender and sex: The subtleties of meaning. Sex Roles, 43(7-8): 553-569.

Reiners, D. (2001). Stuck in the Pleistocene: Rationality and Evolved Social Roles. Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, 20(2):139-54.

Rowe, R., Maughan, B., Worthman, C., Costella, E., and Angold, A. (2004). Testosterone, antisocial behavior, and social dominance in boys: Pubertal development and biosocial interaction. Biol Psychiatry, 55, 546–552.

Ruggieri, S. (2013). Leadership style, self-sacrifice, and team identification. Social Behaviour and Personality, 41(7), 1171-1178.

Sagas, M., Cunningham, G., & Pastore, D. (2006). Predicting head coaching intentions of male and female assistant coaches: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Sex Roles, 54, 695-705.

Staurowsky, E., Murray, K., Puzio, M., & Quagliariello, J. (2013). Revisiting James Madison University:A Case Analysis of Program Restructuring Following So Called Title IX' Cuts. Jour of Intercollegiate Sport, 6, 96-119.

Stewart, A. & McDermott, C. (2004). Gender in Psychology. Annu Rev Psychol. 55, 519-44.

Thapman, M. (2001). Adolescence, embodiment and gender identity in contemporary India: Elite women in a changing society. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24 (3-4), 359-371.

van der Meij, L., Buunk, A., van de Sande, J., and Salvador, A. (2008). The presence of a woman increases testosterone in aggressive dominant men. Hormones and Behaviour, 54(5), 640-644.

Van Vugt, M. & Spisak, B. (2008). Sex differences in the emergence of leadership during competitions within and between groups. Assoc for Psych Sci, 19(9), 854-858.

Wolff, S., & Watson, C. G. (1983). Personality adjustment differences in the Bem Masculinity and Femininity Scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 543 –550.

21

Xiong, H. & Fang, P. (2014). Authentic leadership, collective efficacy, and group performance: An empirical study in China. Social Behaviour and Personality, 42(6), 921-932.

22