Gender Role Beliefs and Parents’ Support for Athletic Participation

Abstract

Pay-to-play fees in public schools place more support for sport participation in the hands of parents; this may disproportionately affect the ability of girls to garner the benefits of sports. Using an online survey of a national sample of parents (N = 814), we examined the relationship between parents’ gender role beliefs, parents’ beliefs about the benefits and monetary value of sports, and the types of sports their daughters play. The results indicate that parents placed somewhat greater value on sport for sons, than for daughters, both ideologically and financially. Gender role beliefs played a small, but significant role, in shaping parents’ beliefs about their daughters’ involvement in sport, and the types of sports their daughters play.

Keywords

gender role beliefs sport gender schema theory

Traditionally, U.S. public schools have offered sports, along with other extracurricular activities, at no cost to students. Increasingly, however, there is a fee for participating in sports activities for public school students. “Pay-to-play,” as this phenomenon is often called, puts more responsibility for supporting sports in the hands of parents. Parents’ beliefs may affect how they respond to these financial demands, with important implications for children’s participation in sports. In particular, parents’ views about the benefits and appropriateness of sports for sons, compared with daughters, could lead to varying support, and thus disparities in opportunities. Despite increases in female sport participation and the blurring of gender boundaries in sport (Hardin & Greer, 2009), parents may still view sports or certain types of sports, as “masculine activities” that are more appropriate for their sons as opposed to daughters (Koivula, 2001; Solmon, Lee, Belcher, Harrison, & Wells, 2003). Such views could, in turn, be related to parents’ beliefs about the value of sports for their daughters versus sons and how much parents are willing to pay.

Gender schema theory (Bem, 1981; McVee, Dunsmore, & Gavelek, 2005) suggests that individuals attribute certain role expectations and behavioral norms to each sex. These gender role beliefs can vary from traditional to progressive. Parents with traditional gender role beliefs may be more likely to view sports as masculine activities than parents with more progressive beliefs. To explore the effect of these beliefs further, the present research examines whether parents’ gender role beliefs are related to (a) their beliefs about the social, educational, and emotional benefits of participating in sports for girls versus boys; (b) the monetary value they assign to sports for their daughters compared with sons; and (c) whether their daughters participate in gender-typed sports. The answers have implications for public policy at the community, state, and national levels, and for the future health and wellness of girls and women throughout their lives.

Gender Role Beliefs and Gender Schema Theory

Gender role beliefs represent prevailing role expectations and behavioral norms for men and women in a given society (Whitley, 2001). According to the gender schema theory (Bem, 1981; McVee et al., 2005), gender roles are created and sustained because individuals process information based on associations that are linked to preconceived mental organizations of sex-consistent attitudes and behavior. These schemas impose structure and meaning to the world and allow for implicit categorizations of sex-relevant information (e.g., boys play with trucks; girls play with dolls). Over time, individuals learn the contents of society’s gender schema and develop associated gender role beliefs. This socialization process occurs, in part, through normative pressure at home (Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2002), in school (Hopf & Hatzichristou, 1999), and in society (e.g., media; Jones & Greer, 2011).

The notion that sex-typing is learned, and not innate, is supported by other social theories, including social learning theory (Mischel, 1970) and social role theory (L. A. Harrison & Lynch, 2005). Across these perspectives, there are social punishments for violating traditional gender norms. These violations can be seen as threatening to individuals who desire a clear distinction between masculine and feminine roles (Whitley, 2001). The perceived threat may lead individuals to consciously or unconsciously perpetuate existing social norms through their attitudes and behavior (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004). Thus, gender role beliefs can have significant implications for individuals who do not follow or ascribe to traditional gender role expectations or ideology. Research on attitudes toward gender roles demonstrates the effect of role beliefs in a variety of contexts, including academic competency, athletics, and social relationships (Hardin & Greer, 2009; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Simpkins, Fredricks, & Eccles, 2012; Tiedemann, 2000).

Gender Role Beliefs and Sport Participation

Gender roles are particularly salient in the sport context. Both male and female athletes tend to exhibit more masculine roles compared with nonathletes (Krane, Choi, Baird, Aimar, & Kauer, 2004), yet traditional gender expectations around sport participation still exist (Bowker, Gadbois, & Cornock, 2003). Thus, males’ sport involvement is supported by gender norms and females’ is not, despite increases in female participation with the passage of Title IX. This is likely because masculine roles have traditionally been defined in part by sports (Lantz & Schroeder, 1999; Rosenthal, 2008). From early ages, boys achieve status through athletic ability, though research indicates the same is not true for girls (Kimmel, 1996; Royce, Gebelt, & Duff, 2003). Despite relatively greater flexibility for females’ adherence to gender roles (Schope & Eliason, 2004), female participation in sports can be related to negative or even discriminatory attitudes (L. A. Harrison & Lynch, 2005; Lantz & Schroeder, 1999). These negative views are perhaps more likely when girls or women play what scholars have defined as stereotypically masculine sports (e.g., hockey), compared with feminine (e.g., cheerleading) or gender-neutral sports (e.g., swimming). Masculine and feminine sports are each linked to sex-consistent attributes (e.g., strength/power/competitiveness vs. grace, respectively; Clément-Guillotin & Fontayne, 2011; Klomsten, Marsh, & Skaalvik, 2005; Koivula, 2001). In general, female athletic participation does not seem to be related to the endorsement of feminine roles (Bowker et al., 2003); and, in the case of masculine-typed sports, can even serve to reject femininity (Kimmel, 1996).

Parent Gender Role Beliefs

Evidence from previous research implies that, overall, traditional gender role beliefs are not in accordance with girls’ participation in masculine, or potentially even gender-neutral, sports; however, less is known about parental beliefs regarding gender roles and how these beliefs are related to support for children’s athletics. Researchers have identified links between parental attitudes and child behavior in sport and physical activity domains. Kahn et al. (2008), for example, found that children were more likely to engage in vigorous physical activity when they had parents who thought physical activity was important. In addition, Fredricks and Eccles (2005) found that parent beliefs about their children’s ability and the value parents placed on sport were both associated with children’s competitive sport participation. In both cases, scholars argued parents influence child behavior through direct and indirect expressions of the value of sport (e.g., family levels of physical activity, taking children to sporting events, provision of sports equipment at home).

Although earlier work looked at the effect of parents’ gender role beliefs on children’s self-perceptions regarding choice of activities, including sports (Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990; Jacobs & Eccles, 1992), understanding how parents’ gender views affect their own more specific beliefs about the benefits and monetary value of sports for daughters versus sons could identify potential disparities. These sport-specific beliefs have implications for parents’ actual support behavior, including their willingness to pay for children’s sports and the type of sports their children play.

Parent Gender Role Beliefs and the Benefits of Sport

Even if sport, in general, is not related to feminine identification, participation in athletics has clear benefits for young women. Female athletic participation is associated with increased physical activity, college attendance and labor force participation, and lower obesity and body mass index (BMI; Kaestner & Xu, 2007; Stevenson, 2010). Yet, given the traditional importance that sports have played in the development of male, but not necessarily female, identities (Bowker et al., 2003; Kimmel, 1996), parents may categorize many sports as “male activities,” and consequently assign greater benefits to male sport participation compared with female participation. In particular, a sex-linked schema might identify males as “needing to move” or “get their energy out,” which is readily relatable to benefits of sport activities (e.g., exercise). In contrast, parents may have a more difficult time reconciling female-linked traits to the benefits of sport activity and thus see fewer (or different) benefits.

Although evidence linking children’s sport participation to parental beliefs about the benefits of sport is mixed (Fredricks & Eccles, 2005; Kimiecik & Horn, 1998), research suggests that parents’ expectations about the benefits of sport to their child—in terms of enjoyment, self-concept, and ability to meet goals—can influence child sport participation (Frederick & Eccles, 2002). Parent expectations about sport-related benefits may be shaped, in part, by gender expectations around athletic participation for boys and girls.

Parent Gender Role Beliefs and the Monetary Value of Sports

Schema-based processing may also influence the monetary value parents place on sports, and their willingness to pay. In one national sample, the average cost to play a school sport was US$93 per child (Clark, Singer, Butchart, Kauffman, & Davis, 2012), and 21% of children paid US$150 or more. Although there is variation with respect to pay-to-play fees and structures, fees do not typically vary by the type of sport a child plays. By associating sport with the male prototype, and not the female, parents may be more tolerant of financial costs associated with their sons’ participation compared with their daughters’. Prior work suggests parents’ cognitive schemas are associated with their financial support of their children (Crandall, 1995; Jost, Pelham, & Carvallo, 2002). In particular, Crandall (1995) found that parents with conservative mental models were less likely to financially support overweight daughters, who do not conform to expectations for female appearance, compared with other daughters and sons. Conversely, in nontraditional families, Jost and colleagues suggest there is less behavior aimed at emphasizing or maintaining normative expectations (Jost et al., 2002). Thus, parents’ mental representations of sex-appropriate behavior may influence the monetary value they assign for their sons’ sports compared with their daughters’. In particular, the less traditional (or more progressive) parents’ gender role beliefs, the less likely parents are to view sports as a masculine domain; consequently, they may be less likely to value sons’ sports more than daughters’.

Parent Gender Role Beliefs and Types of Sport Participation

Parents’ views about gender, and their specific beliefs about the benefits and monetary value of sports based on gender, may, in turn, be connected to their children’s sport participation. In particular, parents’ gender role beliefs may affect the type of sports that parents implicitly or explicitly support, and thus their children’s choice of sports. Children learn what attributes link to their own sex, in schematic processing, through adults noticing and commenting on sex-appropriate activities (“Wouldn’t you rather be a cheerleader?”; Bem, 1981). Consequently, children regulate their behavior so it conforms to “maleness” or “femaleness.” Previous work finds that parents’ gender role beliefs can, and do, influence their children’s engagement in gender stereotypic activities (Simpkins et al., 2012; Steele & Barling, 1996; Tiedemann, 2000). Simpkins and colleagues, in particular, acknowledge child agency in sport participation, but suggest that children are still influenced by parent beliefs and behaviors around sport. Other researchers have noted the indirect influence of parent attitudes and beliefs on sport participation through child agency and interest by shaping their children’s value beliefs (Denault & Poulin, 2009; Fredricks & Eccles, 2005; Mageau et al., 2009).

Parents who hold more traditional gender-related beliefs may pressure their daughters (unintentionally or overtly) to participate in gender-appropriate, or feminine, sports. Sports categorized as masculine and feminine are perceived, by men and women, as different along several dimensions: The former are associated with competition, danger, risk, speed, and masculinity; the latter are characterized by aesthetics and femininity (Clément-Guillotin & Fontayne, 2011; Klomsten et al., 2005; Koivula, 2001). These perceptions align with expectations of femininity and masculinity that are supported by traditional gender role beliefs. Thus, parents who hold traditional gender role beliefs may inadvertently hinder girls’ opportunities to participate in sport, not only due to possible beliefs that they are of less benefit or value, but also because some types may be considered inappropriate.

The Current Study

We build on previous studies of sport-related attitudes and beliefs and the gender-typing of sport by shedding more light on factors that shape parents’ beliefs about their daughters’ sport participation. In particular, our study looks at whether and how parents’ gender role expectations influence more specific beliefs about the social, educational, and emotional benefits of sport; the monetary value they place on sport for sons compared with daughters; and their daughters’ participation in gender-typed sports. By examining all three facets of how parents’ views could lead to varying support for daughters’ participation, this study has implications for gender equity, as well as girls’ health and well-being.

Because cultural expectations around gender and sport likely favor male participation, we suspect parents believe sports have less benefit for girls (relative to boys), think fees associated with participation are more appropriate for boys, and socialize their daughters to choose more feminine sports. Parental gender role beliefs, however, may modulate this effect, such that parents who are more progressive in their beliefs will be more likely to financially, emotionally, and socially support their daughters’ participation in more stereotypically masculine sports, making daughters more likely to play these sports.

Specifically, we offer the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: Parents view sport participation as more beneficial for boys than for girls.

Hypothesis 1b: The more progressive parents’ gender role beliefs, the more likely they are to view sports as beneficial for girls.

Hypothesis 2a: Parents place greater monetary value on sports for sons than for daughters.

Hypothesis 2b: The more progressive parents’ gender role beliefs, the greater the monetary value they place on sport for daughters.

Hypothesis 3: The more progressive parents’ gender role beliefs, the more likely they are to have daughters who play stereotypically “masculine” sports.

Method

Data Collection

Data were collected in conjunction with the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health (NPCH), a recurring online survey. Three times per year, the NPCH measures the opinions and perceptions of a nationally representative sample of U.S. households, using an established, web-based survey technology provided by GfK Custom Research, LLC (GfK) Group. GfK maintains the KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Potential participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. For the NPCH Web-based polls, adults are the respondents and one adult is selected per household. The NPCH design oversamples households with parents so that more precise estimates can be made of parental opinions. A separate sample of 100 parents is drawn for pretesting survey questions. Thus, the NPCH/KnowledgePanel® provides a large, representative sample of parents and uses independence of data collection. The NPCH/KnowledgePanel® is the data source for over 20 published peer-reviewed studies about children’s health (Division of General Pediatrics, 2014).

Participants

Participants were respondents to the NPCH survey who self-identified as the parent, step-parent, foster parent, or legal guardian of a child 12 to 17 years of age in the same household (N = 814). Of the 814 parents responding to this survey, 404 were women (49.6%) and 410 were men. Age ranges for parents included 18 to 29 (11; 1.3%), 30 to 44 (386; 47.4%), 45 to 59 (408; 50.1%), and 60 and above (9; 1.1%). The sample was 74% White/non-Hispanic, 10% Hispanic, 8% Black, and 6% reporting as other. Fifteen percent of parents reported a household income of US$30,000 or less; 24% had incomes between US$30,000 and US$60,000; 28% had incomes between US$60,000 and US$100,000; and 33% had incomes more than US$100,000. Of the 814 parents responding, 350 indicated one or more of their children age 12 to 17 participate in school sports, with 464 not having a participating child. Overall, respondents had 1,074 children between the ages of 12 to 17 (Female = 513, Male = 543), 415 of whom participated in school sports.

Procedure

The survey was fielded in January 2012. Parents of at least one child age 12 to 17 years answered a set of questions about their child’s participation in school sports, how much they pay for school sports, and whether their child’s participation has decreased due to cost. Additional results were reported in a publicly released NPCH Report in May, 2012 (Clark et al., 2012). Other questions included parental beliefs regarding the benefits of sports for girls and boys (e.g., in terms of teamwork, work ethic, and popularity), parental beliefs about whether a hypothetical participation fee is too high, and parental gender role beliefs (i.e., beliefs about what activities are appropriate for men and women). All of these questions were part of a module created by the authors and added to the basic survey instrument. Standard demographic information on parents was collected by GfK, including age, gender, education, race/ethnicity, and household income. The NPCH survey collected data on child age and gender, as well as separate modules on child poisoning, human papillomavirus(HPV) vaccination, drug safety, and “sexting.”

Measures

Gender role beliefs

To measure parents’ gender role beliefs, we adapted five items from the Gender Role Beliefs Scale (Kerr & Holden, 1996). Items from the scale contain statements that connect activities or behaviors with men or women: “Some jobs are more appropriate for men than women”; “A pushy woman bothers me more than a pushy man”; “If families can afford it, women should stay home with their children instead of working”; “A woman should be as free as a man to propose marriage”; “For the most part, men should pick up the check.” Participants were asked the extent to which they agreed with the statements using 5-point Likert-type answer choices, from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Two items were reverse coded so that higher values were indicative of more progressive gender attitudes. All five items were then averaged to create a continuous gender role beliefs variable. The scale had moderate reliability with α = .60. To ensure that the items were measuring a single latent construct, we performed a confirmatory principal factor analysis with varimax rotation. Given that the results of the factor analysis yielded one latent factor with an eigenvalue more than one (eigenvalue = 1.10; explaining 52% of the cumulative variance), and because dropping any individual item led to a decrease in alpha, all items were retained in the scale.

Benefits of participating in sport

To assess parental attitudes toward the benefits of participating in sport, we included six items pertaining to outcomes that previous research had identified as correlates of participating in athletics (P. A. Harrison & Narayan, 2003; Spreitzer, 1994). Parents rated the benefits of participating in school sports in terms of a higher grade point average, better teamwork skills, stronger work ethic, higher self-esteem, greater popularity, and more scholarship/financial aid opportunities. Parents responded to the six items separately for boys and for girls, regardless of the gender of their child(ren). The order of presentation was counterbalanced so that half the sample answered for boys first, whereas the other half answered for girls first. Answer choices included “Of no benefit,” “Of little benefit,” “Of some benefit,” and “Of great benefit.” The six items were averaged across all parents to create a continuous overall benefit variable for both boys and girls. The benefits of sport scales were highly reliable with alphas of α = .84 and α = .85 for boys and girls, respectively.

Benefit difference between males and females

Examining parent benefit ratings of girls and boys separately does not enable us to identify factors that explain differences in those beliefs. To predict whether parents saw greater benefits associated with sport participation for boys as compared with girls, we created a benefit-difference measure. Across all participants, we subtracted each girl item rating from the corresponding boy item rating. We then combined all six benefit-difference items into a continuous average benefit-difference variable. Positive values for this variable signal a parent’s belief that sport participation is more beneficial for boys, whereas negative values indicate a parent’s belief that sport participation is more beneficial for girls.

Monetary value of sport

To measure parents’ views about the monetary value they place on sport for their daughter or son, all parents with children between the ages of 12 and 17 were presented with the statement, “A common amount for a high school athletic participation (‘Pay-to-Play’) fee is $100 per student per school year.” We then asked, “Thinking about your [son/daughter], how would you describe this fee” for each child, to differentiate parents’ views by the gender of the child. Responses were 5-point Likert-type style, ranging from “Much too low” to “Much too high.” We reverse-coded responses so that the higher the rating, the greater the monetary value placed on sport. The fee value was based on Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA; 2013) research that found a US$100 sport participation fee correlated with a 10% drop in athletic participation.

Masculine and feminine sports

To identify whether respondents’ children play masculine, feminine, and/or gender-neutral sports, we asked each parent with a participating child to identify the sport(s) their child(ren) play. We then created three dichotomous variables corresponding to masculine sports, feminine sports, and gender-neutral sports. Based on previous literature (e.g., Klomsten et al., 2005; Koivula, 2001; Schmalz & Davison, 2006), we categorized sports as follows: Masculine sports included football, ice hockey, lacrosse, rugby, wrestling; feminine sports included cheerleading and dance; and gender-neutral sports included basketball, cross country, golf, tennis, soccer, swimming, and volleyball. Baseball/softball were excluded as girls and boys may have been ineligible for baseball and softball, respectively, if the other sport was offered. Additional sports in the survey that have not been previously categorized as feminine, masculine, or gender neutral were excluded from analysis.

Participant Demographics

To control for parental differences in demographics, we included parent gender, age, race/ethnicity, and household income as covariates in all analyses unless otherwise specified. Household income was measured with four income bracket categories: less than US$30,000; US$30,000 to US$60,000; US$60,000 to US$100,000; greater than US$100,000. We also controlled for the participant’s number of children who are within the age range for participating in school sports, that is, those ages 12 to 17; and the gender of the participant’s children: whether they have only males, only females, or both.

Data Analysis

To examine our hypotheses of interest, we used mean comparisons, linear regression, ordered logit regression, and logistic regression analyses. To test Hypothesis 1a, we used a t test to compare parents’ average ratings of the benefits associated with sport for boys versus girls. We then tested Hypothesis 1b using linear regression to examine whether parent gender role beliefs predicted perceived benefits for girls, followed by an additional analysis of whether parents believed sports are more beneficial for boys versus girls (benefit difference). Stratifying by parent gender, we regressed benefit difference on parents’ gender role beliefs and demographic predictors.

To measure the relationship between the monetary value of sport and gender role beliefs (Hypotheses 2a and 2b), we ran an ordered logit regression: regressing the monetary value of sport on the child’s gender, the parent’s gender role beliefs, and an interaction term between child gender and gender role beliefs. Parents were asked the question pertaining to monetary value in regard to each of their children, thus the sample size for these analyses included all 1,074 children.

To measure the relationship between parents’ gender role beliefs and the type of sports their daughters play (Hypothesis 3), we regressed whether daughters play masculine sports, feminine sports, and neutral sports on parents’ gender role beliefs, using separate logistic regressions. The sample for this analysis was necessarily limited to only those parents who had a daughter participating in one or more high school sports.

Results

Parents Gender Role Beliefs

Parent gender role beliefs were hypothesized to influence both perceived educational, social, and emotional benefits of sport participation and their willingness to support that participation, both monetarily and through their children’s choice of sport activity. Despite considerable variability in parent gender role beliefs, mean ratings were above the neutral value (M = 3.07, SD = .64; Range = 1-5) indicating, on average, slightly more progressive views of gender roles, t(755) = 2.90, p < .01.

Benefits of Participating in Sport

We predicted that parents would view sport participation as more beneficial for boys than for girls. Ratings of the benefits associated with sport, independent of gender, were generally high. In particular, the average parental rating of the benefits of sport was between “of some benefit” and “of great benefit” for every dimension, except “greater popularity.” Examination of the p–p plots of perceived benefits revealed no major departures from normality. The average extent of perceived benefits, however, varied based on the gender of the child. Overall, there was a small, but significant, difference in parents’ beliefs about the benefits of participating in sports, rating the benefits somewhat greater for boys (M = 3.31) than for girls (M = 3.30), t(755) = 1.96, p = .05; Cohen’s d = .13; thus, we found some support for Hypothesis 1a.

Gender role beliefs and benefits of sport

Hypothesis 1b predicted that gender role beliefs would influence parents’ views regarding the benefits of sport participation, such that parents with more progressive gender beliefs would be more likely to view girls’ sport participation as beneficial. Examination of model residuals versus predicted values indicated that the errors were normally distributed. The results of the linear regression of beliefs about the benefits of sport on gender role beliefs indicate that parent gender role beliefs were not related to perceived benefits for girls (Table 1). Both income and race were significant predictors of perceived benefits with wealthier and non-White households reporting greater benefit.

Table 1.

Results of the Linear Regression of Beliefs About the Benefits of Sport for Girls on Parents’ Gender Role Beliefs.

Predictor	Beta
Parent gender^a	.05
Household income	.12**
Parent age	−.06
Race/ethnic identity^b	−.08*
Number of children	.03
Family composition^c
Only boys	−.02
Only girls	−.04
Gender role beliefs	.03
Model F	2.19*
df	8, 769
Model R²	.02

Note. Each cell contains standardized regression coefficient. Dependent variable is mean benefit rating for girls.

Reference category is males.

Reference category is non-Whites.

Reference category is “both girls and boys.”

p < .05, **p < .01.

Despite no overall relationship between gender role beliefs and perceived benefits, we conducted additional tests looking at mothers and fathers separately to determine whether parent gender could moderate the relationship between gender role beliefs and perceived benefit of sports for girls versus boys (benefit difference). Examination of the p–p plot showed that the distribution of benefit-difference scores was roughly symmetric, but also leptokurtic. A plot of the residuals against the fitted values, however, showed the errors to be normally distributed. The results of the linear regressions of fathers’ and mothers’ beliefs about the benefits of sport on fathers’ gender role beliefs are presented in Table 2. The bivariate correlation between gender role beliefs and benefit difference for fathers was significant and negative (r = −.13, p < .01), indicating that the more progressive fathers’ gender role beliefs, the less likely they are to view sports as more beneficial for boys compared with girls. This effect holds even after controlling for other predictors; however, the overall regression model was only marginally significant. Mothers did not differ in their belief about the benefits of sport, regardless of their particular gender role beliefs. No other variables were predictive of the disparity in beliefs around benefits of sport.

Table 2.

Linear Regression of Beliefs About the Benefits of Sport for Girls Compared With Boys on Gender Role Beliefs by Parent Gender.

	Parent gender
	Fathers	Mothers
Household income	.02	−.03
Parent age	−.05	.00
Race/ethnic identity^a	−.07	.05
Number of children	−.09	.01
Family composition^b
Only boys	−.02	−.01
Only girls	−.04	.03
Gender role beliefs	−.15**	.04
Model F	1.81^†	0.29
df	7, 378	7, 362
Model R²	.03	.01

Note. Each cell contains standardized regression coefficients. Dependent variable is mean difference in benefit rating for boys minus benefit rating for girls.

Reference category is non-Whites.

Reference category is “both girls and boys.”

†

p = .08. *p = .05. **p < .01.

Monetary Value of Sport

We hypothesized that parents would place a higher monetary value on sports for sons, compared with daughters, as measured by the extent to which parents thought a US$100 fee for sports was too high or too low for their son or daughter. We also expected, however, that parents’ gender role beliefs would be related to the monetary value they place on sports for their daughters versus sons. In particular, we predicted that the more progressive parents’ gender role beliefs, the greater monetary value they would place on sport for their daughters. Diagnostics showed that the model met the parallel regression assumption (i.e., no difference in the coefficients between “models”; χ²(30) = 41.54, p > .05). The results of the ordered logit regression of the monetary value of sport on the interaction between child gender and parent gender role beliefs indicate that the hypothesized interaction is a significant predictor of the monetary value of sport (β = .37, SE = .18; Table 3). That is, for daughters, the more progressive parents’ gender role beliefs, the greater the monetary value parents place on sports; that is, the lower the likelihood parents view US$100 for their daughter’s sport participation is too high or much too high. Both income and race/ethnicity were also significant predictors of parents’ ratings, with wealthier and non-White parents more likely to say that US$100 was slightly or much too low.

Table 3.

Results of the Ordered Logit Regression of Parents’ Beliefs About the Monetary Value of Sport on Child Gender and Gender Role Beliefs (N = 1,050).

	Change in predicted probabilities^a
	Ordered logit estimates (SE)	Odds ratio (SE)	Much too high	Slightly too high	About right	Slightly too low	Much too low
Child gender^b	−1.20 (.56)*	0.30 (.17)	.22	.07	−.22	−.04	−.03
Parent gender	−0.01 (.12)	0.99 (.12)	.001	.001	−.001	−.000	−.000
Household income	0.49 (.06)***	1.63 (.10)	−.29	−.06	.27	.04	.04
Parent age	0.20 (.11)	1.22 (.14)	−.11	−.04	.11	.02	.02
Race/ethnic identity^b	−0.28 (.14)*	0.75 (.10)	.05	.02	−.05	−.009	−.008
No. of children (12-17)	−0.06 (.09)	0.94 (.08)	.04	.01	−.04	−.006	−.005
Family composition^b
Only boys	0.08 (.17)	1.09 (.19)	−.02	−.01	.02	.00	.00
Only girls	0.09 (.17)	1.09 (.19)	−.02	−.01	.02	.002	.002
Gender role beliefs	−0.08 (.12)	0.92 (.12)	.06	.02	−.06	−.01	−.01
Child gender × Gender role beliefs	0.37 (.18)*	1.44 (.26)	−.28	−.14	.26	.08	.08

Note. χ²(df = 10) = 92.26; pseudo R² = .03. Dependent variable = “How would you describe this [US$100] fee for your [son/daughter]?”

Change in predicted probabilities of holding each attitude for an increase from the minimum to the maximum value of each independent variable, while holding all other independent variables constant.

Males, Non-White, and Both Boys and Girls were coded as referent categories.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Participation in Masculine Versus Feminine Sports

We believed that the more progressive parents’ gender role beliefs, the more likely they would be to have daughters playing stereotypically “masculine” sports. The percentages of athlete participation by gender and type of sport are reported in Table 4. Results of the logistic regression analyses were significant for daughters, χ²(5) = 27.47, p < .001; R² = .38 (Table 5). Consistent with our hypothesis, the more progressive the parents’ gender role beliefs, the more likely their daughters were to play masculine sports. The association between parent gender role beliefs and their daughters’ participation in masculine sports held after controlling for demographic characteristics. The associations between gender role beliefs and daughters playing feminine, χ²(5) = 6.97, p = .22; R² = .04, and neutral sports, χ²(5) = 10.77, p = .06; R² = .05, respectively, were not significant.

Table 4.

Children’s Participation in Type of Sport by Gender.

	Sport categorization
Child gender	Masculine^a	Neutral^b	Feminine^c
Boys	80.1%	48.3%	4.8%
Girls	19.9%	51.7%	95.2%

Baseball, football, ice hockey, lacrosse, rugby, wrestling, soccer.

Basketball, cross country, golf, tennis, softball, swimming, volleyball.

Cheerleading, dance.

Table 5.

Parent Gender Role Beliefs Predicting Daughters’ Participation in Masculine Sports.

	Masculine	Feminine	Neutral
Gender role beliefs	7.71* [1.65, 35.92]	1.53 [0.91, 2.56]	0.98 [0.63, 1.53]
Parent gender	0.06* [0.01, 0.63]	1.17 [0.56, 2.46]	0.52 [0.27, 1.01]
Household income	12.49* [1.40, 111.46]	0.70* [0.49, 0.99]	1.42* [1.04, 1.94]
Parent age	0.40 [0.09, 1.84]	1.28 [0.69, 2.39]	1.12 [0.64, 1.96]
Race/ethnic identity	0.37 [0.07, 2.11]	1.02 [0.42, 2.48]	1.14 [0.51, 2.52]
Constant	0.00 [0.00, 0.08]	0.08 [0.01, 1.16]	1.60 [0.16, 16.16]
Model χ²	27.47	6.97	10.77
df	5	5	5
Prob > χ²	.000	.22	.06
Model R²	.38	.04	.05

Note. Values represent odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals in brackets. Parent gender coded as 0 for male, 1 for female. Race/ethnic identity coded as 0 for non-White, 1 for White non-Hispanic.

p < .05.

Discussion

Previous research points to the long-term social, emotional, educational, and employment benefits of sport participation. Increasingly, support for sport participation is being placed in the hands of parents—in schools, through pay-to-play policies, and outside of schools with the rise of club sports. In our national sample, we found that parents, especially fathers, placed a small, but significantly greater value on sport for boys than girls, both ideologically and financially. Gender role beliefs, however, played a moderating role in parents’ beliefs about their daughters’ involvement in sport. The results hint at a trend toward gender equity in the context of sport, but this may be truer along some dimensions (i.e., parent beliefs about the value of girls’ participation) than others (i.e., perceptions of how much sport should cost; girls playing masculine sports).

Building on previous research, this study identifies another domain in which gender role beliefs can influence perceptions and even behavior. Our results suggest that parents who hold traditional gender role beliefs regarding masculinity and femininity may view sports as more of a masculine domain, and thus may be less willing to support daughters’ participation compared with sons’. These findings, though notably small in magnitude, are consistent with previous research that highlights the importance of sport activities to the development of masculinity (Kimmel, 1996; Lantz & Schroeder, 1999; Rosenthal, 2008; Royce et al., 2003), along with other studies professing the opposite effect of sport on the development of feminine characteristics (Hardin & Greer, 2009; Kimmel, 1996). More progressive gender role beliefs may, however, attenuate these stereotypes; parents who reported more progressive gender role beliefs tended to view girls’ sport participation more favorably than those with traditional gender role beliefs.

A strength of this study is our consideration of how parent gender role beliefs have the potential to influence current beliefs pertaining to children’s sport participation, future financial support of participation, and how their values might manifest in observable behavior of their children. Previous research (Kahn et al., 2008; Sallis, Prochaska, Taylor, Hill & Geraci, 1999; Simpkins et al., 2012) has documented strong associations between parent sport-related attitudes and behavior, and their children’s attitudes and sport behavior. Our focus on how gender role beliefs shape parents’ attitudes and beliefs, rather than value-transmission to their children, provides new understanding of how parent gender role beliefs can influence children’s development. Parents’ tendencies to adhere to or reject traditional gender schemas may help explain some disparity in parental support for sons’ versus daughters’ sport activities. For example, girls generally engage in more organized activities than boys, with the exception of sports (Denault & Poulin, 2009). Research has shown parents’ ability to shape their children’s expectations, values, and participation in activities (Eccles et al., 1990; Jacobs & Eccles, 1992; Simpkins et al., 2012). The results of this study point to “upstream” values that may shape parents’ beliefs around sport, which are then in turn transferred to children. In other words, the cultural understanding of parents has an indirect influence on their children’s sport participation (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). The cross-sectional nature of the current study, however, limits our ability to attribute causal associations between parent gender role beliefs and beliefs about their children’s sport participation. It could be the case that parents’ prior experiences with their children in sport contexts influence their gender role beliefs. That said, longitudinal studies do provide some evidence that parent beliefs precede child beliefs and behavior in the context of sport (Denault & Poulin, 2009; Kahn et al., 2008). A cross-lagged design examining the covariation of parent gender role beliefs and their children’s sport participation over time could provide additional insight into that relationship.

Even in the absence of the internalization of parents’ views and values around gender and sport, the results suggest female athletes could still be affected by their parents’ perceptions. Parents’ attitudes about the value of sports will potentially affect their behavior regarding their child’s sports participation, including willingness to pay for sports. Parents may discourage or outright refuse to pay for their daughters’ participation if costs become too high and parents feel there is little value in playing sports. Parents may also inadvertently signal their preferences through family activities or other provisions. As the results provide some evidence, this may be especially true for parents who endorse traditional role values. That said, the small effect sizes suggest other factors likely also influence sport participation. In particular, girls who are intrinsically passionate about their sport activity or who demonstrate high ability in the sport domain may more easily garner parent enthusiasm and support (Frederick & Eccles, 2002; Simpkins et al., 2012). Prior research, however, notes the important role of parents in the development of activity engagement and specialization (Mageau et al., 2009).

If parents’ preexisting gender beliefs have the potential to influence girls’ high school athletic participation, there are important policy and health implications to consider. The post–Title IX era has seen an increasing number of girls and women benefit from sports participation. Examining shifts since this landmark legislation, Stevenson (2010) found that a state-level increase in female sports participation generates an increase in female college attendance and female labor force participation. Furthermore, greater opportunities to play sports leads to greater female participation in previously male-dominated occupations, particularly in high-skill occupations (Stevenson, 2010). Thus, female sports participation can help reduce gender divides and disparities in the labor force. Studies also suggest that sports participation also benefits girls and women physically. Kaestner and Xu (2006) found that increases in girls’ participation in high-school sports were associated with an increase in physical activity and an improvement in weight and body mass among girls. These benefits also carried into adulthood, with women who participated in sports as girls having lower BMI, lower rates of obesity, and being more physically active (Kaestner & Xu, 2010). Given the benefits of sports for girls and women, the unintended consequences of increases in pay-to-play and other fees, and the barriers to participation they potentially raise, suggest new issues for policy makers and public health experts.

Limitations and Future Directions

In general, the effect sizes resulting from the analyses were small and thus should be interpreted with caution as other factors may explain more variability in parents’ beliefs and their girls’ sport participation. That said, our research is consistent with previous literature linking sport to gender-typing and the disadvantages faced by female athletes. Moreover, the use of a nationally representative sample of parents with variability in their demographic characteristics is an important contribution. It may be that gender role beliefs do, in fact, influence parents’ attitudes about sport and their children’s participation, but that influence is smaller than other mitigating factors (e.g., income). Notably, because our data were only collected from parents, we could not account for child agency in children’s choice of sport. Future designs could test our findings against other known barriers to female sport participation, ideally including responses from both children and parents. Moreover, because the current research is cross-sectional, longitudinal measurements focused on the development of sport-related attitudes and participation would provide stronger evidence of causal links between parents’ beliefs and child participation.

In addition, a more robust measure of gender role beliefs (i.e., with higher internal consistency) may have led to additional insights into parental beliefs around child gender and sport. Space limitations in the survey instrument prohibited full inclusion of the original gender role beliefs scale. Cronbach’s alpha, importantly, is sensitive to the number of items in the scale. For example, including just four more items with a similar average interitem correlation (.24) would have resulted in an alpha value of .71 (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Despite this limitation, the scale still had moderate consistency, loaded on a single factor and the relationships identified tended in the direction predicted based on a prior hypotheses developed from previous literature focused on gender beliefs and attitudes about sport.

Finally, the monetary value measure utilized in this study tied parent beliefs to a specific pay-to-play fee which, although prior had shown to be associated with decreased participation, is not as discriminating as a free-report item. Furthermore, the analysis did not account for other costs associated with sport participation. A US$100 fee, for example, may seem more reasonable to a parent of a soccer player (with lower equipment costs) relative to a football or hockey player (likely higher equipment costs). That said, descriptive results from this data set indicate that “feminine” sports such as cheerleading and dance require comparable fees with more expensive masculine sports, whereas fees for girls versus boys neutral sports were statistically equivalent.

Conclusion

The present research offers an important update to previous research linking gender role beliefs to female participation in sport using a nationally representative sample of parents. To our knowledge, this study is the first to consider these effects in the context of a pay-to-play system that places more responsibility in the hands of parents. Despite increasing opportunities for women since the passage of Title IX, our findings suggest that gender norms may still pose significant, yet subtle, barriers to equal participation. As pay-to-play and other costs associated with sport continue to shift to individual households, understanding how parent beliefs can affect participation contributes to the health and wellness of young women in communities across the country.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by a grant from the SHARP Center for Women and Girls. Funding for the National Poll on Children’s Health is provided by the University of Michigan Health System and the Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases.

Author Biographies

Justin E. Heinze, PhD, is currently a research assistant professor in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education in the School of Public Health. His research interests include developmental transitions, social exclusion/ostracism, issues of gender and sexuality and longitudinal data methodology. Current projects examine the social determinants of health and risk behavior in adolescence and emerging adulthood, including substance use, anxiety, and youth violence.

Kathryn L. Heinze, PhD, is an assistant professor of Sport Management at the University of Michigan. She earned her PhD in Management and Organizations from Northwestern University and her BA in Organizational Studies from the University of Michigan. Her research examines the processes and motivations of institutional and social change.

Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP, is professor of Pediatrics and professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan Health System and Professor of Public Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. He also serves as the Chief Medical Executive for the State of Michigan, in the Department of Community Health. His current work research focuses on 3 major areas of child and family health policy, including vaccines and vaccine financing, government health programs and regulation, and characterization of public attitudes and opinions about child health and health policy.

Amy T. Butchart, is a senior research associate at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. Her work has focused on using survey data and administrative and other secondary data from government and private sector sources to address research questions concerning health, health care, and health behavior. She has a Master’s in Public Health from the University of Michigan.

Dianne C. Singer, MPH, is a Research Area Specialist Senior in the Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School. Dianne’s current research work with Dr. Matthew Davis focuses on children’s health and health policy affecting children and families. Dianne is the project manager for the National Voices Project (NVP - www.NationalVoicesProject.org) and the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health ().

Sarah J. Clark is associate research scientist in the Child Health Evaluation and Research (CHEAR) Unit, and associate director of the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health. She has researched health-related behaviors and attitudes among patients and providers for more than 20 years.

References

Bem

S. L.

(1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.

Bowker

Gadbois

Cornock

(2003). Sports participation and self-esteem: Variations as a function of gender and gender role orientation. Sex Roles, 49, 47-58.

Bronfenbrenner

Ceci

S. J.

(1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized: A bio-ecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568-586.

Carmines

Zeller

(1979). Reliability and validity assessment. London, England: Sage.

Clark

Singer

Butchart

Kauffman

Davis

M. M.

(2012, May). Pay-to-play sports keeping low-income kids out of the game (C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health). University of Michigan Health System, 15. Retrieved from http://www.mottnpch.org/sites/default/files/documents/051412paytoplayreport.pdf

Clément-Guillotin

Fontayne

(2011). Situational malleability of gender schema: The case of the competitive sport context. Sex Roles, 64, 426-439.

Crandall

(1995). Do parents discriminate against their heavyweight daughters? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 724-735.

Denault

A. S.

Poulin

(2009). Predictors of adolescent participation in organized activities: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 287-311.

Division of General Pediatrics. (2014). Peer-reviewed journal articles. Retrieved from http://mottnpch.org/news/peer-reviewed-journal-articles

10.

Eccles

Jacobs

Harold

(1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183-201.

11.

Fredricks

J. A.

Eccles

J. S.

(2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 519-533.

12.

Fredricks

J. A.

Eccles

J. S.

(2005). Family socialization, gender, and sport motivation and involvement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27, 3-31.

13.

Hardin

Greer

J. D.

(2009). The influence of gender-role socialization, media use and sports participation on perception of gender-appropriate stereotypes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32, 207-226.

14.

Harrison

L. A.

Lynch

A. B.

(2005). Social role theory and the perceived gender role orientation of athletes. Sex Roles, 52, 227-236.

15.

Harrison

P. A.

Narayan

(2003). Differences in behavior, psychological factors, and environmental factors associated with participation in school sports and other activities in adolescence. Journal of School Health, 73, 113-120.

16.

Hopf

Hatzichristou

(1999). Teacher gender related influences in Greek schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 1-18.

17.

Jacobs

Eccles

(1992). The impact of mothers’ gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 932-944.

18.

Jones

Greer

(2011). You don’t look like an athlete: The effects of feminine appearance on audience perceptions of female athletes and women’s sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34, 358-377.

19.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

Nosek

B. A.

(2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919.

20.

Jost

J. T.

Pelham

B. W.

Carvallo

(2002). Non-conscious forms of system justification: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 586-602.

21.

Kaestner

(2007). Effects of Title IX and sports participation on girls’ physical activity and weight (Vol. 17, pp. 79-111). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

22.

Kaestner

(2010). IX, girls’ sports participation, and adult female physical activity and weight. Evaluation Review, 34, 52-78.

23.

Kahn

J. A.

Huang

Gillman

M. W.

Field

A. E.

Austin

S. B.

Colditz

G. A.

Frazier

A. L.

(2008). Patterns and determinants of physical activity in US adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 369-377.

24.

Kerr

Holden

(1996). Development of the Gender Role Beliefs Scale (GRBS). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 3-16.

25.

Kimiecik

J. C.

Horn

T. S.

(1998). Parental beliefs and children’s moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 163-175.

26.

Kimmel

(1996). Manhood in America. New York, NY: Free Press.

27.

Klomsten

Marsh

Skaalvik

(2005). Adolescents’ perceptions of masculine and feminine values in sport and physical education: A study of gender differences. Sex Roles, 52, 625-636.

28.

Koivula

(2001). Perceived characteristics of sports categorized as gender-neutral, feminine, and masculine. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 377-393.

29.

Krane

Choi

P. Y.

Baird

S. M.

Aimar

C. M.

Kauer

K. J.

(2004). Living the paradox: Female athletes negotiate femininity and muscularity. Sex roles, 50, 315-329.

30.

Lantz

Schroeder

P. J.

(1999). Endorsement of masculine and feminine gender roles: Differences between participation in and identification with the athletic role. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 545-557.

31.

Lichter

E. L.

McCloskey

L. A.

(2004). The effects of childhood exposure to marital violence on adolescent gender-role beliefs and dating violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 344-357.

32.

Mageau

G. A.

Vallerand

R. J.

Charest

Salvy

S. J.

Lacaille

Bouffard

Koestner

(2009). On the development of harmonious and obsessive passion: The role of autonomy support, activity specialization, and identification with the activity. Journal of Personality, 77, 601-646.

33.

McVee

M. B.

Dunsmore

Gavelek

J. R.

(2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75, 531-566.

34.

Michigan High School Athletic Association. (2013). Pay-to-play resources. Retrieved from http://www.mhsaa.com/schools/administrators/paytoplayresources.aspx

35.

Mischel

(1970). Sex-typing and socialization. Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology, 2, 3-72.

36.

Rosenthal

(2008). Sports talk: How gender shapes discursive framing of Title IX. Politics & Gender, 4, 65-92.

37.

Royce

Gebelt

Duff

(2003). Female athletes: Being both athletic and feminine. Athletic Insight, 5, 47-61.

38.

Sallis

J. F.

Prochaska

J. J.

Taylor

W. C.

Hill

J. O.

Geraci

J. C.

(1999). Correlates of physical activity in a national sample of girls and boys in grades 4 through 12. Health Psychology, 18, 410-415.

39.

Schmalz

D. L.

Davison

K. K.

(2006). Differences in physical self-concept among pre-adolescents who participate in gender-typed and cross-gendered sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 335-352.

40.

Schope

R. D.

Eliason

M. J.

(2004). Sissies and tomboys: Gender role behaviors and homophobia. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 2, 73-97.

41.

Simpkins

S. D.

Fredricks

J. A.

Eccles

J. S.

(2012). Charting the Eccles’ expectancy-value model from mothers’ beliefs in childhood to youths’ activities in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1019-1032.

42.

Solmon

Lee

Belcher

Harrison

Wells

(2003). Beliefs about gender appropriateness, ability, and competence in physical activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 261-279.

43.

Spreitzer

(1994). Does participation in interscholastic athletics affect adult development? A longitudinal analysis of an 18-24 age cohort. Youth & Society, 25, 368-387.

44.

Steele

Barling

(1996). Influence of maternal gender-role beliefs and role satisfaction on daughters’ vocational interests. Sex Roles, 34, 637-648.

45.

Stevenson

(2010). Beyond the classroom: Using Title IX to measure the return to high school sports. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 284-301.

46.

Tenenbaum

H. R.

Leaper

(2002). Are parents’ gender schemas related to their children’s gender-related cognitions? A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 38, 615-630.

47.

Tiedemann

(2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs as predictors of children’s concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 144-151.

48.

Whitley

B. E.

(2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45, 691-721.