Spectators' attitudes toward basketball: an application of multifactorial gender identity.
The sports psychology and consumption literature abounds with evidence suggesting that although gender significations may be less limiting in some ways than they were in the past, gender is still relevant (McGinnis, Chun, & McQuillan, 2003; Wann & Waddill, 2003; Wann, Waddill, & Dunham 2004). The most frequently used means for exploring gender within the sports context has been to treat gender as a dichotomous variable synonymous with biological sex (e.g., Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; James, 2002). While these studies provide evidence of general similarities and differences between the sexes, they do not reflect our increasingly sophisticated understanding of gender theory, which recognizes the contributions of additional gender-related variables such as psychological gender traits and gender-role attitudes.
In order to capture the relationships associated with gender and spectators' attitudes toward men's and women's basketball, this study is grounded in multifactorial gender identity theory (Spence, 1993). While a complete discussion on the theoretical history and background of gender identity goes beyond the scope of this paper, a brief summary of issues relevant to this study is provided. Gender schema theory and multifactorial gender identity theory posit that regardless of one's biological sex, individuals possess varying degrees of instrumental and expressive traits (Bem, 1981; Spence, 1993). Beyond this tenet, the two competing gender identity theories propose different theoretical implications with respect to the conceptualization of gender identity (Palan, 2001).
Bem's (1981) gender schema theory maintains that the measurement of masculine and feminine personality traits is all that is needed to predict additional gender-related concepts, attitudes and behaviors. On the other hand, Spence's (1993) gender identity theory proposes that gender phenomena are multifactorial and deeply embedded in social contexts. In addition to one's biological sex, instrumental and expressive psychological traits, and other gender-related factors, are relevant to gendered contexts such as competitive sports (Edwards & Spence, 1987; Spence, 1993; Spence & Helmreich, 1978).
The main purpose of this study is to apply multifactorial gender identity theory in order to determine the effects of biological sex, psychological gender, and gender-role attitudes on spectators' attitudes toward men's and women's basketball.
Sports: a gendered context. Throughout the world competitive sports have been sanctioned as a masculine domain and are considered one of the most important arenas for the production and expression of gender (Theberge, 1997; Wiley, Shaw, & Havitz, 2000). Even with the increased participation of girls and women in competitive sports as athletes and spectators, the view that the world of competitive sports is defined and socialized by the male experience remains strong (Basow, 2004; Wann & Waddill, 2003). In addition, although women are recognized as important consumers within an increasingly expanding sports marketplace (McDonald, 2000), sports marketers consistently examine the attitudes of women in a crude, often simplistic manner (Andrews, 1998).
The gendered nature of sports has been shown to influence participant and spectator attitudes and behaviors for both sexes (Engel, 1994; Klomsten, Marsh, & Skaalvik, 2005; Koivula, 1999; Matteo, 1988; Sherry et al., 2004). Because this association with either a masculine or feminine image, or in other words, a gendered image, is the result of psychological and social influences rather than an innate affiliation between one's sex and the relationship with products (Deaux & Major, 1987; Fisher & Arnold, 1994; Spence, 1993) the current study explores the psychological and social aspects of gender within the context of men's and women's basketball. In addition to being a gendered performance, two factors suggest basketball as an appropriate sports context for empirically investigating the key relationships proposed in this study. First, basketball has a rich tradition of being a valued spectator sport in the United States for both men and women at the high school, college and professional levels (Sage, 1990). Second, as a competitive team spectator sport, basketball evokes a baseline level of psychological involvement within spectators which can be manifested as overall positive or negative feelings (i.e., attitudes) (Deighton, 1994).
Sports and sex differences. Most sports studies that reference gender are actually investigations limited to sex differences. This stream of research has resulted in contradictory findings. For example, some studies indicate that men are more likely to be interested in and involved with sports than women (e.g., James, 2002; Wiley, et al., 2000), whereas Zhang, Smith, Pease and Lam (1998) did not find any sex differences between sports spectators. In addition, a number of studies focusing on motivational differences found biological sex had a significant impact on sport spectators. Female spectators were motivated by social or family issues and attended and watched sporting events with friends and family (Dietz-Uhler, Harrick, End, & Jacqemotte, 2000; Gantz & Wenner, 1991; Kahle, Kambara, & Rose, 1996) and men reported being fans because they played sports and wanted to acquire sports information (Galen, Anderson, & Fink, 2002). Yet, Wann, Tucker, and Schrader (1996) found that biological sex did not have any impact on attendance behaviors.
Contradictory findings also exist for the studies focusing on how spectators of women's sports differ from spectators of men's sports (Galen, et al., 2002; Lopiano, 2000). Wann (1996) and Armstrong (1999) found women attended women's basketball games to see specific players while men attended women's games for the entertainment value and to share the experience with family. Fink et al., (2002) found that motivations for attending professional women's basketball games differed from spectators' motivations for attending men's sports. In contrast, James (2002), found no significant sex differences among the motives for attending women's basketball versus men's basketball. Both sexes reported they enjoyed the action of the games.
Sports and psychological gender traits. Why do mixed findings exist when gender is treated as a dichotomous variable and how can they be explained? Deaux and Major (1987) state:
Those who predict stable sex differences have had trouble accounting for the often limited ability of sex to predict behavior and for a variability that sometimes appears random. Those who argue that there are no stable sex differences, on the other hand have had difficulty explaining widespread male-female differences in the culture. (p. 369)
An answer to this question may be found in the growing body of literature that challenges the assumption that sex is synonymous with gender (e.g., Kroger, 1997; Russo, 1997; Skitka & Maslach, 1990; Spence, 1993; Twenge, 1999). In addition, multifactorial gender identity theory indicates that gender-differentiating qualities are not interrelated in such a way that one gender factor can predict another. Therefore, in addition to biological sex, the measurement of additional gender-related factors, such as spectators' psychological gender traits, may provide some insight into explaining some of the sex-based mixed results found within the literature.
Psychological gender traits refer to the instrumental and expressive traits associated with males and females. Traits are defined as "internally located response predispositions or capacities that have considerable transituational significance for behavior but are neither conceptually equivalent to behavior nor its sole determinant" (Spence & Helmreich, 1979, p. 1037). Examples of instrumental traits include competitiveness, independence, ability to make decisions easily, and self-confidence, while examples of expressive traits are understanding, ability to deal with others' emotions, kindness, helpfulness, and nurturing.
Little is known about the instrumental and expressive traits of sport spectators, yet there is a considerable number of studies addressing the relationship between psychological gender traits and athletes (e.g., Harrison & Lynch, 2005; Kane & Parks, 1992; Klomsten, et al., 2005). These studies suggest that regardless of biological sex, team athletes have psychological gender traits that are more similar to one another than to the psychological gender traits of individual sport athletes. In addition, team athletes of both sexes exhibited high levels of instrumental traits. Women high in instrumental traits were particularly attracted to sports that emphasized aggressiveness, assertiveness and bodily contact, whereas femininity was negatively correlated with the role of athlete (Lantz & Schroeder, 1999).
By expanding upon the connections found between psychological gender traits and athletes, a few studies have measured sports' fans instrumental and expressive traits. Similar to the predisposition of team athletes, instrumental traits were found to have a significant positive influence on sports fans, while expressive traits did not meaningfully or consistently contribute to sports fandom (Wann & Waddill, 2003; Wann et al., 2004). Although these studies do consider more than biological gender differences, it is worth noting that the psychological gender traits are interpreted to reflect broad gender-related behaviors. Multifactorial gender identity theory proposes that psychological gender traits measure only one component of gender identity and predicting broad gender-related behaviors may be problematic. Therefore, gender-role attitudes are also considered in this study.
Sports and gender-role attitudes. Eccles and Harold (1991) discovered that gender differences in children's attitudes toward sports are quite strong, emerge at a very young age, and that these differences are a consequence of gender-role socialization more than "natural" attitudinal differences. In addition, Wiley et al., (2000) posits that the historic lopsidedness of male participation in sports is often explained by gendered socialization. A powerful outcome of the gender socialization process is the predominant view that competitive sports convey strong messages about masculinity and femininity.
This perspective encourages men and boys to pursue masculine gender-role identities (Klomsten et. al., 2005; Miller & Levy, 1996) and defines the roles of female and athlete as incompatible (Krane, Choi, Baird, Aimar, & Kauer, 2004). For example, men and boys who choose not to participate in sports are often perceived as deviant and labeled in negative terms (i.e., wimp, sissy, homosexual) (Messner & Sabo, 1994). Conversely, women and girls who participate in competitive sports are labeled as "dyke" and "husky," which serve to emphasize the masculinizing effects of participation in sports (Brady, Trafimow, Eisler, & Southard, 1996). Consequently, women who engage in competitive sports and men who do not participate in competitive sports are often viewed as behaving outside their prescribed gender roles (Krane et al., 2004; Messner & Sabo, 1994). The results of these and other studies (e.g., Fischer & Arnold, 1994; Gainer, 1993), coupled with the tenets of multifactorial gender identity theory, indicate the relevance for considering gender-role attitudes when exploring spectators' attitudes toward team sports such as basketball.
Gender-role attitudes refer to individuals' beliefs about which roles are appropriate for women and men. These attitudinal differences regarding roles, rights, and responsibilities range from egalitarian to traditional. Individuals with egalitarian gender-role attitudes believe that the appropriateness of gender roles is not dictated by one's biological sex. For example, individuals with egalitarian gender-role attitudes would believe that participating in aggressive, strength-based sports would be appropriate activities for both men and women. More traditional gender-role attitudes suggest that different, mutually exclusive roles are appropriate and socially acceptable for men and women (Skitka & Maslach, 1990).
Hypotheses. While the link between gender and spectators' attitudes have not been previously examined within the context of team sports, the multifaceted ways in which psychological gender and gender-role attitudes influence consumer attitudes in other consumption contexts has been demonstrated (e.g., Bristor & Fischer, 1993; Fischer & Arnold, 1994; Gainer, 1993). Also, although the current study is the first to apply multifactorial gender identity theory to spectators' attitudes toward men's and women's basketball, previous research does offer some insights into the possible relationships among the variables.
Based on the previous discussion, it is hypothesized that biological sex, psychological gender and gender-role attitudes will contribute to the prediction of spectators' attitudes toward men's and women's college basketball. The following hypotheses test the main effects of gender on attitudes toward men's and women's college basketball.
H[1.sub.a]: Men will have a more positive attitude towards men's college basketball than women.
H[1.sub.b]: Women will have a more positive attitude towards women's college basketball than men.
H[2.sub.a]: Spectators high in instrumental traits will have a more positive attitude towards men's and women's college basketball than individuals with low levels of instrumental traits.
H[2.sub.b]: Expressive traits will not have a significant relationship with attitudes toward men's or women's college basketball.
H[3.sub.a]: Spectators with more traditional gender-role attitudes will have a more positive attitude toward men's college basketball than women's college basketball.
H[3.sub.b]: Spectators with more egalitarian gender-role attitudes will have a more positive attitude toward women's college basketball than men's college basketball.
Multifactorial gender identity theory proposes that the effects of gender on gender-relevant outcomes, such as spectators' attitudes, are dependent on multiple factors and the ways in which these factors interact. Thus, in addition to testing the main effects of gender on attitudes toward men's and women's college basketball, the following is hypothesized:
H4: Biological sex will moderate the relationships between psychological gender, gender-role attitudes and spectators' attitudes toward men's and women's college basketball.
A self-administered questionnaire was given to undergraduate business students at six different U.S. colleges and universities. The sample consisted of 529 undergraduate students (281 men and 248 women) who completed the survey either for extra credit or as part of course requirements. The average age for the sample is 20 years (SD = .77, range 19 to 21). All surveys were disseminated and collected under the author's supervision to guarantee consistency.
Sex. Sex or biological gender is a category to which the infant is assigned at birth, or pre-birth, based on appearance of genitalia (Lorber, 1994). Sex was measured as a nominal variable with two categories, male and female. Men were coded with a "1," and women were coded with a "2."
Psychological gender. The instrument used to assess instrumental and expressive traits is the short form of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence & Helmreich, 1978; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974). The PAQ is a self-report measure consisting of two orthogonal scales. Each scale is composed of 8 bipolar Likert-type items. The Instrumental (I) scale is exclusively composed of self-assertive, instrumental traits that have been judged to be more characteristic of men than of women but socially desirable to some degree for both sexes. The Expressive (E) scale is composed exclusively of desirable, socially oriented, expressive traits that have been judged to be more characteristic of women than men. Each item is scored from 1 to 5, a high score on items assigned to the (I) scale indicates an extreme Instrumental score and a high score on the (E) scale items indicate an extreme Expressive response. Scores are obtained for each scale by averaging the individual's scores on the eight items. The Cronbach alphas for the current sample are .75 for the (I) scale and .77 for the (E) scale. These reliability figures meet the guidelines for exploratory research (.70) established by Peterson (1994).
Gender-role attitudes. Gender-role attitudes refer to beliefs about the roles appropriate for women and men that range from egalitarian to traditional. This construct is measured with the Male-Female Relations Questionnaire (MFRQ) (Spence, Helmreich, & Sawin, 1980). The scores obtained for men and women are interpreted as the degree to which their own behaviors and preferences correspond to conventional sex-role expectations. The MFRQ Social Interactions sub-scale consists of 16 Likert-type items accompanied by a five-point rating scale in an agree-disagree format. This scale has two versions, one for men and one for women. A high score suggests traditional gender-role attitudes and a low score suggests egalitarian gender-role attitudes. The Cronbach alphas for the current sample are .81 for men and .80 for women.
Attitudes toward sports consumption (affect). For this study, attitudes are measured via the Affect Scale (Bruner, James & Hensel, 2001). The Affect Scale consists of eight bipolar items accompanied by a five-point Likert scale and represents a generally recognized method for measuring an overall and general attitude toward a product or brand (Pritchard, Havitz, & Howard, 1999). Higher scores indicate a more positive affect or attitude. The Cronbach alphas for affect for men's basketball are .95 for men and .92 for women, and the Cronbach alphas for affect for women's basketball are .94 for men and .90 for women.
Prior to conducting statistical multivariate analyses, the normality of the data was checked by computing skewness and kurtosis. The results indicated that no independent and dependent variables broke the assumption of univariate normality (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). In addition, when conducting multiple regression analysis, it is important to recognize that problems may arise when two or more predictor variables are correlated. As Mason and Perreault (1991, p. 269) state, "Though some collinearity is almost always present, the real issue is to determine the point at which the degree of collinearity becomes harmful." Thus, a combination of tests was conducted to assess the degree of collinearity among the independent variables. While the Pearson's bivariate correlation coefficients (see Table 1) indicate that there are significant correlations among certain independent variables, no one correlation coefficient exceeds .30. This meets the .35 cutoff, which is considered a conservative coefficient when considering harmful effects of collinearity (cf. Tull & Hawkings, 1990). Finally, as recommended by Fox (1991), Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values were calculated in order to determine the extent to which collinearity affected the results of the regression procedure (see Table 2). No VIF value exceeded 1.2 and the tolerance values show that in no case does collinearity explain more than 10 percent of any predictor variable's variance (Hair et al., 1995). Thus, both pairwise and multiple variable collinearity were examined and determined inconsequential according to tolerance/VIF values.
For hypotheses 1a-3b, multiple regression analyses were performed on the two dependent variables (affect for men's college basketball and affect for women's college basketball) with biological sex, instrumental traits, expressive traits, and gender-role attitudes as predictor variables. Hypothesis 4 posits the presence of biological sex as a moderator and was tested using moderated multiple regression (Baron & Kenny, 1986). These analyses were conducted using the ENTER selection method in SPSS version 14.0 for Windows (2005). In SPSS the ENTER procedure enters all the independent variables as a block in a single step. The ENTER method is appropriate because the set of predictor variables (i.e., gender-related variables) to be tested is known. In other words, if the theory is clear (i.e., multifactorial gender identity theory) and the goal is to test a model using variables derived from theory, then the Enter method is appropriate. Tables 2 and 3 include the unstandardized and standardized regression coefficients, the R, [R.sup.2] and adjusted [R.sup.2] values for the multiple regression equations and for the moderated regression equations.
Hypotheses 1a and 1b predict that men will have a more positive attitude toward men's college basketball than women and women will have a more positive attitude towards women's college basketball than men. Sex is negatively correlated with affect for men's college basketball, indicating that men have a more positive affect for men's college basketball than do women ([beta] = -.18, p = .01). Sex is positively correlated with affect for women's college basketball ([beta] = .25, p = .01) indicating that women have a more positive affect than do men. Hypotheses 1a and 1b are supported by the data.
Hypothesis 2a proposes that individuals high in instrumental traits will have a more positive attitude towards men's and women's college basketball than individuals with low levels of instrumental traits. Instrumental traits are positively related to attitudes toward men's college basketball ([beta] = .16, p = .01), but not related to women's college basketball ([beta] = -.02, ns). Hypothesis 2a is partially supported. Hypothesis 2b suggests that expressive traits will not have an influence on attitudes toward men's or women's college basketball. The results support hypothesis 2b (men's basketball: [beta] = .09, p = ns; women's basketball: [beta] = -.02, p = ns).
Hypothesis 3a predicts that spectators with traditional gender-role attitudes will have a more positive attitude toward men's college basketball and a more negative attitude towards women's college basketball. Hypothesis 3b indicates that individuals with more egalitarian gender-role attitudes will have a more positive attitude toward women's college basketball and a more negative attitude toward men's college basketball. Both hypotheses are supported by the data (men's basketball: [beta] = .16, p = .00; women's basketball: [beta] = -.19, p = .00).
The regression model suggests that 10 percent of the variability in affect for men's college basketball is predicted by spectators' gender-role attitudes, sex, and instrumental traits [[R.sup.2] = .10 F(4, 406) = 14.35, MSE = 8.61, p = .01]. Traditional gender-role attitudes and higher levels of instrumental traits are associated with positive feelings about men's college basketball.
Unlike men's college basketball, neither expressive nor instrumental traits contribute to the prediction of spectators' affect for women's basketball. The relationship between gender-role attitudes and affect indicate that individuals with more egalitarian views about the roles, rights and responsibilities for men and women have more positive feelings toward women's college basketball than those with traditional gender-role attitudes. Multiple regression analysis indicates affect for women's college basketball is predicted by sex and gender-role attitudes [R2 = .10, F(4, 507) = 14.62, MSE = 8.92, p = .001].
While the main effects provide an overall representation of how the different gender constructs influence spectators' attitudes toward men's and women's college basketball, the moderated regression analyses support the tenets of multifactorial gender identity theory which state that the effects of gender are dependent on multiple factors and the ways in which these factors interact.
Hypothesis 4 predicts that biological sex will moderate the effects of psychological gender and gender-role attitudes on attitudes toward men's and women's basketball. The results indicate there is an interaction effect between sex and instrumental traits when predicting attitudes toward men's college basketball (sex x instrumental traits: [beta] = -.63, p = .05). For men, an increase in their levels of instrumental traits suggests more positive feelings toward men's basketball. For women, lower levels of instrumental traits are associated with more positive attitudes toward men's basketball.
For women's basketball, an interaction effect is also indicated for sex and gender-role attitudes (sex x gender-role attitudes: [beta] = .64, p = .01). In other words, men with egalitarian gender-role attitudes and women with traditional gender-role attitudes are more likely to have a positive attitude toward women's basketball.
The results of this study demonstrate that a multifactorial perspective of gender deepens our understanding of spectators' attitudes toward men's and women's college basketball. Multiple regression analysis results indicate that while biological sex contributes to the variance found within affect for both men's and women's college basketball, gender identity traits and gender-role attitudes also contribute to the prediction of attitudes toward men's and women's college basketball.
Instrumental traits contribute to spectators' affect towards men's college basketball, but not affect towards women's basketball. The interaction effect between sex and instrumental traits indicate that a positive affect for men's basketball is linked with high levels of instrumental traits for men but low levels of instrumental traits for women. In contrast to previous studies that suggest targeting individuals with instrumental traits such as assertiveness, competitiveness, and self-confidence as an effective marketing strategy for competitive sports (e.g., Wann et al.), the current study indicates that this strategy may be relevant for men's college sports only and for men only.
Gender-role attitudes offer additional insight into the relationship between gender and affect for men's and women's college basketball. While there is a main effect suggesting that gender-role attitudes contribute to spectators' affect for men's and women's basketball, it is the interaction effect between sex and gender-role attitudes for women's basketball that is most interesting. Men with egalitarian gender-role attitudes and women with traditional gender-role attitudes are more likely to have a positive attitude toward women's basketball. At first glance, this may seem counterintuitive. Why would women with a more traditional perspective on gender roles have positive feelings for women's basketball? And why is egalitarianism linked with a positive attitude toward women's basketball for men? A plausible explanation is that it is generally more acceptable for women to cross over into traditional masculine domains than it is for men to participate in traditional feminine activities (Palan, 2001). Because women's college basketball has gained significant media exposure and has seen an increase in girls' and women's participation levels over the past twenty years, this activity may not be perceived as violating acceptable social norms for women. These findings are consistent with the notion that gender-role socialization has a significant influence on sports' attitudes and that the gender socialization process may be different for men and women, resulting in different manifestations of each gender variable (Eccles & Harold, 1991; Spence, 1993).
The current study suggests it is important for social psychology scholars, as well as sport practitioners, to consider the benefits of treating gender as a multifactorial construct. By measuring sex, gender identity traits, and gender-role attitudes, we have a more powerful predictor of spectators' attitudes towards men's and women's college basketball. The insights gained from this study indicate some theoretical and practical recommendations.
It may prove more effective for marketers to identify subgroups within each consumer segment based on their psychological gender traits and gender-role attitudes, as opposed to just their biological sex. Sports marketers may want to create a multi-level marketing communications strategy that integrates complementary messages for each of the consumer sub-segments.
Although the generalizability of the results should be considered carefully, this study demonstrates the significance of considering more than biological sex when examining gender and spectators' attitudes toward team sports. In addition, if gender factors, including biological sex, are used as segmenting variables, it is important to ground the study in an appropriate gender theory, thus influencing the development of hypotheses, the operationalization of gender constructs, and the interpretation of the results.
To date, the current study is the first scholarly inquiry to apply the tenets of multifactorial gender identity theory to attitudes towards team sports. Although psychological gender traits as well as gender-role attitudes were found to be relevant, future studies may benefit from including additional gender-related factors (see Twenge, 1999). In addition, potential mediating variables should be considered. For example, Park (1996) has argued that affect is highly intercorrelated with involvement. Empirically testing whether or not involvement mediates or moderates the relationship between gender and attitudes toward sports may prove beneficial.
A potential limitation inherent in this research concerns the nature of the measures used. Because this was a first attempt at measuring multiple gender factors and their relationship with attitudes toward men's and women's basketball, all constructs included in this research were assessed with self-report measures. Future studies would benefit from including and linking long-term observations of spectators' actual attendance and viewing behaviors with self-report measures.
Finally, because the current study includes samples from college students caution may be warranted when making generalizations to other sport contexts. Additional studies are needed to determine how gender variables interact with spectators' consumption attitudes and behaviors for men's and women's professional team sports, as well as individual sports.
Andrews, D. L. (1998). Feminizing the Olympic Reality: Preliminary Dispatches from Baudrillard's Atlanta. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 13(2), 125-158.
Armstrong, K. L. (1999). A quest for market: A profile of the consumers of a professional basketball team and the marketing implications. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 8(2), 103-127.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(96), 1173-1182.
Basow, S. A. (2004). Developing a Theory of Physical Liberation. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 28(3), 245-265.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354-364.
Brady, K., Trafimow, D., Eisler, R., & Southard, D. (1996). The role of causal attributions in competitive situations. Sex Roles, 35, 639-649.
Bristor, J. & Fischer, E (1993). Feminist Thought: Implications for Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(March), 518-536.
Bruner, G. D., James, C., & Hensel, P. J. (2001). Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures V. III, Chicago: AMA.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting Gender Into Context: An Interactive Model of Gender-Related Behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369-389.
Deighton, J. (1994). Managing Services when the Service is Performance. In R. T. Rust & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service Quality. New Directions in Theory and Practice. Sage Publications.
Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E. A., End, C., & Jacqemotte, L. (2000). Sex Differences in Sport Fan Behavior and Reasons for Being a Sport Fan. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32(3), 219-231.
Eccles, J. S. & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender Differences in Sport Involvement: Applying the Eccles' Expectancy-Value Model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7-35.
Edwards, V. J. & Spence, J. T. (1987). Gender-Related Traits, Stereotypes, and Schemata. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 95-108.
Engel, A. (1994). Sex roles and gender stereotyping in young women's participation in sport. Special Features: Doing it by degrees: Feminist undergraduate dissertations," Feminism and Psychology, 4, 439-448.
Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002). Environmental Factors Associated with Spectator Attendance and Sport Consumption Behavior: Gender and Team Differences. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(1), 8-19.
Fischer, E. & Arnold, S. J. (1994). Sex, Gender Identity, Gender Role Attitudes and Consumer Behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 11(2), 163-182.
Fox, J. (1991). Regression Diagnostics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Gainer, B. (1993). An Empirical Investigation of the Role of Involvement with a Gendered Product. Psychology and Marketing, 10(4), 265-283.
Galen, T., Anderson, D. F. & Fink, J. S. (2002). Examination of Gender Differences in Importance of and Satisfaction with Venue Factors at Intercollegiate Basketball Games. International Sports Journal, Winter, 51-64.
Gantz, W. & Wenner, L. A. (1991). Men, Women, and Sports: Audience Experiences and Effects. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 35, 233-243.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis (Fourth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Harrison, L. A. & Lynch, A. B. (2005). Social Role Theory and the Perceived Gender Role Orientation of Athletes. Sex Roles, 52(3/4), 227-236.
James, J. D. (2002). Women's and men's basketball: a comparison of sport consumption motivations. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 11(2), 141-170.
Kahle, L. R., Kambara, K. M., & Rose, G. M. (1996). A functional model of fan attendance motivation for college football. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5(4), 51-60.
Kane, M. & Parks, J. B. (1992). The social construction of gender difference and hierarchy in sport journalism--a few new twists on very old themes. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 1(1), 49-83.
Klomsten, A. T., Marsh, H. W. & Skaalvik, E. M. (2005). Adolescents' Perceptions of Masculine and Feminine Values in Sport and Physical Education: A Study of Gender Differences. Sex Roles, 52(9/10), 625-636.
Koivula, N. (1999). Sport participation: differences in motivation and actual participation due to gender typing. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(3), 360-372.
Krane, V., Choi, P. Y. L., Baird, S. M., Aimar, C. M. & Kauer, K. J. (2004). Living the Paradox: Female Athletes Negotiate Femininity and Muscularity. Sex Roles, 50(5/6), 315-329.
Kroger, J. (1997). Gender and Identity: The Intersection of Structure, Content, and Context. Sex Roles, 36(11/12), 747-770.
Lantz, C. D. & Schroeder, P. J. (1999). Endorsement of masculine and feminine gender roles: Difference between participation in and identification with the athletic role. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 545-557.
Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lopiano, N. (2000). Success requires teamwork from everyone in sports. Sports Business Journal, 2(38).
Mason, C. H. & Perreault, W. D. (1991). Collinearity, Power, and Interpretation of Multiple Regression Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, August, 268-280.
Matteo, S. (1988). The Effect of Gender-Schematic Processing on decisions about Sex-Inappropriate Sport Behavior. Sex Roles, 18(1/2), 41-58.
McDonald, M. G. (2000). The Marketing of the Women's National Basketball Association and the Making of Postfeminism. International Journal for the Sociology of Sport, 35(1), 35-47.
McGinnis, L., Chun, S. & McQuillan, J. (2003). A Review of Gendered Consumption in Sport and Leisure. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 5. Retrieved March, 2006, from http://www.amsreview.org/articles/mcginnis05-2003.pdf.
Messner, M. & Sabo, D. (1994). Sex, violence, and power in sports: Rethinking masculinity. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.
Miller, J. & Levy, G. (1996). Gender role conflict, gender-typed characteristics, self-concepts, and sport socialization in female athletes and nonathletes. Sex Roles, 35, 111-121.
Palan, K. M. (2001). Gender Identity in Consumer Behavior Research: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Marketing Science Review. 10. Retrieved January, 2006, from http://www.amsreview.org/articles/palan10-20001.pdf.
Park, S. (1996). Relationships Between Involvement and Attitudinal Loyalty Constructs in Adult Fitness Programs. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4), 233-250.
Peterson, R. A. (1994). A Meta-Analysis of Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 381-391.
Pritchard, M. P., Havitz, M. E. & Howard, D. R. (1999). Analyzing the Commitment-Loyalty Link in Service Organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3), 333-348.
Russo, N. F. (1997). Forging New Directions in Gender Role Measurement, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, i-ii.
Sage, G. H. (1990). Power and ideology in American Sport: a critical perspective. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.
Sherry, J. F., Kozinets, R. V., Duhachek, A., DeBerry-Spence, B., Nuttavuthisit, K., & Storm, D. (2004). Gendered Behavior in a Male Preserve: Role Playing at ESPN ZONE Chicago. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 151-158.
Skitka, L. J. & Maslach, C. (1990). Gender Roles and the Categorization of Gender-Relevant Behavior. Sex Roles, 22(3-4), 133-149.
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-Related Traits and Gender Ideology: Evidence for a Multifactorial Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 624-635.
Spence, J. T. & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates and Antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Spence, J. T. & Helmreich, R. L. (1979). The many faces of androgyny: A reply to Locksley and Colten. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1032-1046.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L. & Sawin, L. L. (1980). The Male-Female Relations Questionnaire: A self-report measure of sex role behaviors and preferences and their relationships to masculine and feminine personality traits, sex role attitudes, and other measures. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 87.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L. & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A Measure of Sex-Role Stereotypes and Masculinity and Femininity. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43.
SPSS 14.0 for Windows (2005), SPSS Base 14.0 Applications Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Theberge, N. (1997). It's part of the game. Physicality and the production of gender in women's hockey. Gender and Society, 11(1), 69-80.
Tull, D. S. & Hawkings, D. I. (1990). Marketing Research (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Twenge, J. M. (1999). Mapping Gender: The Multifactorial Approach and the Organization of Gender-Related Attributes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 485-502.
Wann, D. L. (1996). Seasonal changes in spectators' identification and involvement with and evaluations of college basketball and football teams. The Psychological Record, 46(1), 201-216.
Wann, D. L. & Waddill, P. J. (2003). Predicting Sport Fan Motivation Using Anatomical Sex and Gender Role Orientation. North American Journal of Psychology, 5(3), 485-498.
Wann, D. L., Waddill, P. J., & Dunham, M. D. (2004). Using Sex and Gender Role Orientation to Predict Level of Sport Fandom. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27(4), 367-377.
Wann, D. L., Tucker, K. B., & Schrader, M. P. (1996). An exploratory examination of the factors influencing the origination, continuation, and cessation of identification with sports teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 995-1001.
Wiley, C. G., Shaw, S. M., & Havitz, M. E. (2000). Men's and Women's Involvement in Sports: An Examination of the Gendered Aspects of Leisure Involvement. Leisure Sciences, 22, 19-31.
Zhang, J. J., Smith, D. W., Pease, D. G., & Lam, E. T. (1998). Dimensions of spectator satisfaction toward support programs of professional hockey games. International Sports Journal, 2(Summer), 1-17.
Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Catherine McCabe, Sawyer School of Business, Marketing Department, 8 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-2770 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
TABLE 1 Pearson Zero-Order Correlations Affect for Men's and Women's Basketball 1 2 3 4 5 1. Affect for Men's -- -.23 ** .01 .21 ** .17 ** Basketball 2. Sex -- .22 ** -.29 ** -.11 ** 3. Expressive Traits -- .01 -.13 ** 4. Instrumental Traits -- .01 5. Gender Role Attitudes -- 1. Affect for Women's -- .26 ** .06 -.06 -.21 ** Basketball 2. Sex .21 ** -.30 ** -.10 * 3. Expressive Traits -- .01 -.13 ** 4. Instrumental Traits -- .02 5. Gender Role Attitudes -- * [rho] = .05, ** [rho] = .01 TABLE 2 Multiple Regression Results Collinearity Statistics Variables B [beta] Tolerance VIF Affect for Men's Basketball Sex -.30 -.18 ** .86 1.16 Instrumental Traits .25 .16 ** .91 1.10 Expressive Traits .14 .09 .94 1.07 Gender-Role Attitudes .27 .16 ** .98 1.03 [R.sup.2] .10 Adjusted [R.sup.2] .10 R .32 ** Affect for Women's Basketball Sex .42 .25 ** .86 1.16 Instrumental Traits -.03 -.02 .90 1.11 Expressive Traits -.03 -.02 .94 1.07 Gender-Role Attitudes -.32 -.19 ** .98 1.02 [R.sup.2] .10 Adjusted [R.sup.2] .10 R .32 ** * [rho] = .05, ** [rho] = 0.01 TABLE 3 Moderated Multiple Regression Results Variables B [beta] Affect for Men's Basketball Sex .17 .10 Instrumental traits .65 .40 ** Expressive traits -.07 -.03 Gender-role attitudes .86 .11 Sex X instrumental traits -.28 -.63 * Sex X expressive traits .13 .31 Sex X gender-role attitudes .06 .10 [R.sup.2] .11 Adjusted [R.sup.2] .10 R .33 ** Affect for Women's Basketball Sex -.35 -.21 Instrumental traits .12 .07 Expressive traits -.05 -.03 Gender-role attitudes -.84 -.48 ** Sex X instrumental traits -.06 -.14 Sex X expressive traits .01 .02 Sex X gender-role attitudes .36 .64 ** [R.sup.2] .11 Adjusted [R.sup.2] .10 R .34 ** * [rho] = .05, ** [rho] = .01
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||North American Journal of Psychology|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2007|
|Previous Article:||Cross-cultural differences in the academic motivation of university students in Malaysia and the United States.|
|Next Article:||Assessing goal-directed attention as an indicator of self-regulation: a comparison of two approaches.|