Perception or Reality: The Relationship Between Stereotypes,Discrimination,and the Academic Outcomes of African American Male College Athletes

Abstract

The current study examined the degree to which stereotypes and racial discrimination affected the academic outcomes of African American male college athletes. Furthermore, the ability of athletic identity and racial identity to moderate this relationship was examined. Participants (N = 168) were recruited from 13 predominately White institutions across the United States. Results indicated a “tipping point” by which negative stereotypes and discrimination moved from having a positive effect to a negative effect on the academic achievement. In addition, certain dimensions of athletic and racial discrimination were found to moderate the relationship between stereotypes and discrimination and academic outcomes. Findings are discussed in relation to theoretical and practical significance.

Keywords

college athletics stereotype threat stereotypes discrimination academic achievement

Black students do so poorly in school decade after decade not because of racism . . . but because of a virus of Anti-intellectualism that infects the Black community. This Anti-intellectualism strain . . . cannot help but cast school and books as suspicious and alien, not to be embraced by the authentically “Black” person.

—McWhorter (2000, p. 82)

A substantial amount of research has been devoted to discussing the experiences of African American male college athletes at institutions of higher education in the United States (Beamon, 2014; Martin, Harrison, Stone, & Lawrence, 2010; Singer, 2005).¹ Among other things, such research has found that these individuals face undue challenges including racial discrimination, academic inequities, and social isolation. Consequently, African American male college athletes have historically had lower graduation rates than their peers (Smith, 2009). Although the discourse surrounding this demographic group is shifting toward highlighting their accomplishments rather than shortcomings (e.g., Harrison, Martin, & Fuller, 2015), an academic achievement gap continues to persist along racial lines in intercollegiate athletics (Lapchick, Baker, Quirarte, Sanchez, & Toppin-Herbert, 2015).

A number of reasons have been provided to explain this so-called achievement gap with respect to African American students and athletes, with one prominent position pointing to a culture of anti-intellectualism within the African American community (McWhorter, 2000). Its proponents argue that academic success is devalued within the African American culture due to its (i.e., academic success) association with an oppressive White culture (McWhorter, 2000). However, by attributing the root cause of academic underachievement to a devaluing of scholastic pursuits, other mitigating factors, such as the educational environment in which students are situated, are inevitably excluded from consideration (Cole, 2010). Yet, research has consistently found that perceptions of the educational environment, whether positive or negative, can significantly affect the academic outcomes of African American college students and athletes (e.g., Hyatt, 2003). Accordingly, the issue might not be one of devaluing education, as put forward by the anti-intellectual perspective, but instead a disidentification with education due to a hostile and unwelcoming environment (Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998).

Stereotype threat research argues that such disidentification is produced when students are faced with the possibility of confirming negative stereotypes about their academic abilities (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995). However, this line of reasoning is being challenged by an emerging concept called stereotype management, which suggests that stereotypes and discrimination can have a positive effect on the academic outcomes of African American students and athletes (McGee & Martin, 2011). To further confound the potential relationship between negative stigma and academic outcomes, some scholars have suggested that the salience of an African American male athlete’s multiple identities (e.g., racial identity and athletic identity) might influence the degree to which he processes stereotypes and discrimination (Brown et al., 2003; Fuller, Harrison, & Bukstein, 2016; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). Consequently, this relationship might moderate the effect of stereotypes and discrimination on academic achievement. Clearly, there is little consensus on the relationship between negative stigma and academic achievement, and little is known about the relationships between identity variables, perceptions of negative stigma, and academic outcomes.

Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of the college environment on the academic functioning and performance of African American male college athletes. Using stereotype threat as the guiding theoretical framework, I examined the effect of negative stereotypes and racial discrimination on the academic self-concept and academic achievement of African American male college athletes attending predominately White institutions (PWIs) of higher education in the United States. Moreover, I analyzed the moderating potential of relevant identity variables (i.e., athletic and racial identity) on the relationships between racial discrimination and the academic outcomes of African American male college athletes. In doing so, this study serves to advance the conversation surrounding African American male college athletes by empirically delineating a “tipping point” by which negative stereotypes and discrimination move from having a positive effect to a negative effect on the academic achievement of this vital demographic group. Furthermore, the moderating function of racial and athletic identity on the relationship between stereotypes and discrimination holds great significance for scholars and practitioners who are invested in the livelihood and well-being of African American male college athletes.

Discrimination and Stereotypes

Despite its use in everyday language, scholars have long attempted to operationalize the concept of perceived racial discrimination (Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999). In accordance with the National Research Council Panel on Methods for Assessing Discrimination (Blank, Dabady, Citro, & National Research Council [U.S.] Panel on Methods for Assessing Discrimination, 2004), the current study defines racial discrimination as “differential treatment on the basis of race” or “differential treatment on the basis of inadequately justified factors other than race that disadvantages a racial group” (p. 39). In contrast, stereotypes are beliefs about the attributes of an individual based on his or her membership in a specific group. Although individuals’ intentions may be well-meaning, their racially biased stereotypes can shape their actions, potentially resulting in discrimination (Blank et al., 2004).

Studies on the experiences of African American male student-athletes have found they frequently experience both negative stereotypes and racial discrimination while attending institutions of higher education (Beamon, 2014; Hyatt, 2003; Simons, Bosworth, Fujita, & Jensen, 2007; Singer, 2005). For example, these individuals are often labeled as “dumb jocks,” while also being unfairly judged and misunderstood by their professors, classmates, teammates, and coaches (Beamon, 2014; Hyatt, 2003; Simons et al., 2007; Singer, 2005). These findings have resulted in researchers concluding that being an African American “plays a role in the athletes’ reports of negative treatment . . . over and above that of being an athlete alone” (Simons et al., 2007, p. 259). Given this propensity, attention is given to understanding the impact of negative stereotypes and racial discrimination on African American male students and athletes.

Negative perceptions and racial discrimination communicate to individuals that they are not respected or valued in a given context (e.g., educational setting; Simons et al., 2007; Wong et al., 2003). When individuals feel a sense of devaluation, there is an increased likelihood for disidentification with the domain in which the individuals are being devalued (e.g., academics; Aronson et al., 1998; Wong et al., 2003). As a consequence, disidentification can have a negative impact on the academic achievement of students. In particular, one theory that further speaks to the impact of disidentification, particularly for African Americans in an academic setting, is stereotype threat (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995).

Stereotype Threat

One line of research that has extensively examined the effect of stereotypes and discriminatory beliefs on the educational attainments of students is stereotype threat. As a theory, stereotype threat refers to the psychosocial “threat” that occurs when an individual engages in a task or activity that a group he or she belongs to is stereotyped in (Steele, 1997). For example, as African Americans are (negatively) stereotyped in the academic domain, stereotype threat would occur when an African American engages in an academic-related task or activity (Steele, 1997). According to stereotype threat, the threat occurs when people develop apprehension from the possibility of confirming stereotypes about themselves or the group (e.g., race) they belong to (Aronson et al., 1998). Consequently, stereotype threat posits that if an individual perceives a “threat” as valid, it will interfere with his or her performance in the task or activity (Aronson et al., 1998). While the “threat” of low performance can produce apprehension in anyone, stereotype threat contends that stereotyped groups (e.g., African Americans) face an added anxiety due to presumed shortcomings of the groups’ abilities in a given task or activity (Aronson et al., 1998).

In the seminal works on stereotype threat, Steele and Aronson (1995) and Steele (1997) argued that as there are negative stereotypes about African Americans with respect to their academic abilities, the “threat” of confirming these perceptions could hinder their academic achievement. Accordingly, studies have been undertaken to examine the extent to which such perceptions affect the performance of African Americans on academic- or cognitive-related task and activities (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995). In general, these studies have found that when the stereotypes about the intellectual ability of African Americans are made salient, (academic) performance from this demographic group significantly decreases.

Given the negative stereotypes about the intellectual ability of athletes (e.g., “dumb jocks”; Simons et al., 2007), stereotype threat researchers have also examined the impact of such perceptions on college athletes. In general, these studies have found that athletes’ performances on tests of intellectual ability are hindered when stereotypes of athletes are made salient (Stone, Harrison, & Mottley, 2012). Thus, stereotype threat research is quite insightful when attempting to understand the achievement gap between African American male college athletes and their peers. However, though stereotype threat presents an empirically driven argument for explaining academic underperformance in African American male college athletes, emerging research on stereotype management is challenging its longstanding conclusions.

Stereotype Management

As a construct, stereotype management is a form of academic resiliency by which students seek to disconfirm negative perceptions about themselves. In doing so, they utilize “ubiquitous forms of racism and racialized experiences across school and non-school contexts” as motivation to disprove those perceptions (McGee & Martin, 2011, p. 1347). Although studies using the stereotype management framework are few, its suppositions are garnering empirical support. For example, McGee (2013) found that a mathematically gifted Black student used the stereotype that she was a product of affirmative action as motivation to succeed academically. Likewise, McGee and Martin (2011) reported that Black mathematics and engineering college students used the “intense and perpetual state of awareness that their racial identities . . . are undervalued” as the impetus to succeed (p. 1347). Thus, they concluded that stereotype threat was not deterministic in that students were able to achieve despite the presence of such threat. These findings appear to affirm the tenets of stereotype management, namely, that African American students can become academically motivated, rather than withdrawn, when confronted with stereotypes and discrimination. However, stereotype management research has yet to identify the circumstances in which the presence of stereotypes leads to motivation, rather than disidentification. Therefore, my first research question was as follows:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What is the effect of stereotypes and perceived racial discrimination on the academic outcomes of African American male college athletes at PWIs?

Moderating Potential of Identity

Given its potential negative consequence, researchers have questioned how to mitigate the effect of stereotypes and discrimination on the academic outcomes of African American students. Relevant to the current study, two variables that have shown considerable promise in moderating the relationship between stereotypes and discrimination and academic outcomes are racial identity and athletic identity. Racial identity is the qualitative meaning that an individual ascribes to being a member in his or her racial group (Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998). Athletic identity is the degree to which an individual identifies as an athlete (Brewer & Cornelius, 2001).

The literature is replete with studies examining the intersection between racial identity, perceptions of discrimination, and academic achievement, with the consensus being that racial identity serves as a buffer against the deleterious effects of discrimination on academic achievement (Chavous et al., 2003; Fuller, Harrison, & Bukstein, 2016; Thomas, Caldwell, Faison, & Jackson, 2009; Wong et al., 2003). In contrast, some studies have suggested that athletic identity, not racial identity, plays a bigger role in how an individual perceives instances of stereotypes and racial discrimination. The line of reasoning behind this argument is that college athletes who are highly identified with the athlete role (i.e., athletic identity) will be less likely to identify with their racial identity (Brown et al., 2003). As a result, these individuals will be less likely to perceive race within a situation as it is not as central to their identities as athletes (Brown et al., 2003). However, Fuller (2013) also investigated perceptions of African American male college athletes and reported that racial identity, not athletic identity, was a strong predictor of perceptions of racial discrimination.

Based on the findings of relevant research, there appears to be an intricate relationship between identity, perceptions of stereotypes and discrimination, and academic outcomes. Specifically, identity might moderate the effect of stereotypes and discrimination on academic outcomes. However, the exact nature of that relationship is not clear as evident. Thus, my second research question was as follows:

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What is the effect of identity on the relationship between perceived stereotypes and racial discrimination and academic outcomes for African American male college athletes at PWIs?

Method

Participants

The present investigation was part of a larger study that examined the influence of psychosocial variables and racial discrimination on the academic outcomes of African American male college athletes at PWIs. In total, 168 self-identified African American male college athletes participated in the current study. Participants were recruited from 13 PWIs throughout all geographic regions of the United States. These schools ranged from 10,000 undergraduate students to 50,000 or greater undergraduate students and had between five and 14 varsity men’s sports programs. In terms of participants, 25 (14.9%) were freshman, 26 (15.5%) were sophomores, 36 (21.4%) were juniors, 50 (29.8%) were seniors, and 31 were either fifth-year seniors or graduate students. With respect to sport participation, 129 (76.8%) participants were football players, 18 (10.7%) were track and field athletes, 12 (7.1%) played basketball, six (3.6%) were soccer players, and three (1.8%) played baseball.

Procedures

Data for the study were collected from African American male college athletes at Division PWIs through online surveys. Division I PWIs were examined because they often prove to be some of the most difficult higher education environments for African American college athletes (Beamon, 2014; Singer, 2005; Smith, 2009). To recruit participants, I communicated with athletic administrators at select Division I PWIs to invite their universities to participate. Universities that indicated a willingness to participate were chosen as study sites, with athletic academic advisors serving as site coordinator. The site coordinators were responsible for recruiting African American male college athletes into the study. Also, they were responsible for providing participants with the link to the online survey. Participants were selected into the study based on their informed consent and completion of the online survey. As I did not directly provide the athletes with a link to the online survey, response rates could not be calculated.

Variables and Instrumentation

Dependent variables

Academic self-concept

Academic self-concept is the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs that students hold about their academic ability, skill set, and performance (Reynolds, 1988). A truncated and revised version of the Academic Self-Concept Scale (ASCS; α = .912, 27 items; Reynolds, 1988) was used to measure academic self-concept along five dimensions: Evaluation of Academic Ability (eight items), Grade and Effort (eight items), Self-Doubt Regarding Ability (eight items), and Self-Confidence in Academics (three items). Items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale and ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Sample items included, “I often get discouraged about school” and “If I try hard enough, I will be able to get good grades.”

Academic achievement

Academic achievement was measured by participants’ self-reported grade point averages (GPAs) as they are normally accurate with respect to actual grades (Cassady, 2001).

Independent variables

Perceived stereotypes and discrimination

To operationalize these constructs, a perceived racial discrimination instrument was created by adapting items from the Perceived Racism Scale (PRS; McNeilly et al., 1996) and the Saliency of Race in Sport Questionnaire (SORIS-Q; Forster Scott, 2005). As items were taken from different instruments, exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted to find the best factor structure for the items. A three-factor solution was found to have the best fit (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003). The first factor, athletic discrimination (α = .780, three items), measured exposure to racial discrimination in a sport setting. A sample item from this scale included, “I have personally experienced racism in college athletics.” The second factor, academic stereotypes (α = .808, four items), occurred when students were perceived negatively in an academic setting based on their race. A sample item from this scale included, “When I excel academically, I am looked upon as an exception to my race.” In contrast, the final factor, academic discrimination (α = .744, three items), occurred when students perceived identifiable negative outcomes on their academics because of their race. A sample item from the scale was, “My graded assignments are judged more critically because I am Black.”

The decision to measure perceived academic stereotypes and academic discrimination with two distinct variables was made for statistical and theoretical reasons. From a statistical perspective, the EFA with two academic variables accounted for the most variance, making it a best fit to the data (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Moreover, the bivariate correlation between academic stereotypes and academic discrimination (r = .61) indicated the variables were not measuring the same construct (Netemeyer et al., 2003). From a theoretical perspective, the National Research Council Panel on Methods for Assessing Discrimination’s definition of racial discrimination distinguishes between differential treatment and differential effects/outcomes based on one’s race (Blank et al., 2004).

Athletic and racial identity

Athletic identity and racial identity were included as potential moderating variables. This was done because research suggests that an experience is deemed as racially discriminatory based on the individual’s evaluation of the event (Clark et al., 1999). Furthermore, the evaluation of the event is moderated by an individual’s multiple identities. Accordingly, racial identity and athletic identity are believed to influence the degree to which an African American athlete perceives a situation as racially discriminatory (Brown et al., 2003; Fuller, 2013).

Athletic identity, the degree to which an individual identifies with the athlete role, was measured by the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS; Brewer & Cornelius, 2001). The AIMS is a seven-item multidimensional scale used to measure an individual’s social identity (α = .70, three items), negative affectivity (α = .70, two items), and exclusivity (α = .72, two items) with respect to the athlete role. Social identity refers to the degree to which the respondent socially perceived himself as an athlete. Negative affectivity measured the extent to which the respondent experienced negative emotional reactions as a result of poor athletic performances. Finally, exclusivity is the degree to which the participant’s self-worth was determined exclusively by athletic performances (Brewer & Cornelius, 2001). Responses were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale and ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items include, “Sport is the most important part of my life” and “I spend more time thinking about sport than anything else.”

Racial identity is the significant and qualitative meaning that individuals place on being a member of their racial group (Sellers et al., 1998). Racial identity was measured with a modified version of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI; Sellers et al., 1998). As a multidimensional construct, racial identity was measured on two dimensions: centrality and regard. Centrality (α = .71; seven items) refers to the extent to which an individual defines himself or herself in terms of race (Sellers et al., 1998). Regard refers to an individual’s affective and evaluative judgment of his or her race (Sellers et al., 1998) and is further divided into two subdimensions: private regard and public regard. Public regard (α = .81; seven items) is what an individual believes others think about their racial group (Sellers et al., 1998). Private regard (α = .70; five items) is individuals’ affective and evaluative judgments about their own racial group (Sellers et al., 1998). MIBI items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale and ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items from the instrument include “Being African American is an important reflection of who I am” (centrality scale) and “In general, other groups view African Americans in a positive manner” (public regard scale).

Data Analysis

Research questions were tested through two three-step moderated hierarchical multiple regression analyses. Demographic variables (i.e., size of school, year in school, and sport played) were included as control variables in the first step of the regression analyses. Athletic identity, racial identity, and racial discrimination variables were entered into the second step. Finally, the third step tested the moderating effects of athletic and racial identity. This was done by following the guidelines of Aiken, West, and Reno (1991). Athletic identity and racial identity variables were centered and multiplied with the discrimination variables to create interaction terms. The interaction terms were then entered in the hierarchical regression analyses, with significant p values supporting moderating effects for athletic identity and/or racial identity.

Results

RQ1: Effect of Stereotypes and Discrimination on Academic Outcomes

Academic self-concept

The first analysis included academic self-concept as the dependent variable in the three-step moderated hierarchical regression analysis. Means, standard deviations, and correlations are reported in Table 1. Model 1 (see Table 2), which contained only the demographic control variables, was not significant, F(2, 165) = 0.160, p = .852. Model 2 (see Table 2) regressed the racial identity, athletic identity, and perceived racial discrimination variables on academic self-concept. Model 2 was significant, F(11, 156) = 3.534, p < .001 and accounted for a unique 20% of the variance (ΔR² = .198). Tests of Model 2 subsets indicated that racial identity variables, F(3, 156) = 8.670, p < .001, and athletic identity variables, F(3, 156) = 3.005, p < .05, made significant contributions. Approximately 13% of the variance was explained by the racial identity variables (ΔR² = .133) and 5% by the athletic identity variables (ΔR² = .046).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Academic self-concept
2. GPA	.294***
3. Year	.027	−.009
4. Sport	.030	−.026	−.170*
5. Athletic discrimination	−.035	.210**	.079	.003
6. Academic stereotypes	−.012	.179*	.042	.139	.472***
7. Academic discrimination	−.086	−.022	.078	.081	.464***	.613***
8. Private regard	.345***	.046	−.064	087	−.070	−.051	−.055
9. Public regard	.228**	−.046	−.046	.048	−.244**	−.428***	−.288***	.308***
10. Centrality	−.016	.060	−.046	.022	.216**	.378***	.289***	.141	−.182*
11. Social identity	.136	−.046	−.148	−.061	−.136	−.036	−.080	.226**	.013	−.030	−.030
12. Negative affectivity	−.138	−.096	−.104	.081	.074	.102	.106	.157*	−.003	.142	.142	.211**
13. Exclusivity	−.066	−.099	.075	−.104	.056	−.011	.042	−.044	.034	.031	.031	.424***	.396***
M	140.101	2.87	3.27	0.339	9.63	17.27	8.50	31.82	29.53	31.97	18.49	11.11	8.93
SD	20.22	0.43	1.41	0.37	4.69	5.79	3.93	2.85	6.22	6.72	2.61	2.39	2.95

Note. GPA = grade point average.

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

Table 2.

Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis—Academic Self-Concept.

Variable	B	SE	β	R ²	ΔR²
Model 1				.002	.002
Year	0.474	1.130	.033
Sport	1.930	4.333	.035
Model 2				.200	.198***
Athletic discrimination	0.164	0.369	.038
Academic stereotypes	0.519	0.362	.149
Academic discrimination	−0.465	0.486	−.090
Private regard	2.138	0.586	.301***
Public regard	0.579	0.277	.178*
Centrality	−0.085	0.241	−.028
Social identity	1.040	0.671	134
Negative affectivity	−1.677	0.689	−.198*
Exclusivity	−0.250	0.615	−.036
Model 3				.371	.167*
Private × Academic Disc.	0.815	0.212	.448***
Centrality × Athletic Disc.	−0.129	0.054	−.354*
Exclusivity × Academic Stereo.	−0.341	0.1523	−.279*

Note. Only significant interactions in Model 3 are reported.

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

Private regard was a significant predictor of academic self-concept (p < .001). African American male student-athletes who had high opinions of their racial group were significantly more likely to have higher levels of academic self-concept. Negative affectivity was also a significant predictor of academic self-concept (p < .05, β = −.198). African American male student-athletes who reported being likely to have a negative emotional reaction to a poor athletic performance were more likely to have lower levels of academic self-concept.

Academic achievement

The second analysis included academic achievement as the dependent variable. Model 1 was not a significant predictor of GPA, F(2, 165) = .072, p = .930. Model 2 (see Table 3) added the identity and perceived racial discrimination variables into the regression analysis. Overall, Model 2 was a significant predictor of GPA, F(11, 156) = 1.932, p < .05. The identity and racial discrimination variables explained a unique 12% of the variance in GPA (ΔR² = .119). Tests of the grouped variables in Model 2 indicated that racial discrimination variables were significant, F(3, 156) = 5.601, p < .001, and accounted for approximately 10% of unique variance (ΔR² = .095).

Table 3.

Results From Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis—GPA.

Variable	B	SE	β	R ²	ΔR²
Model 1				.001	.001
Year	−0.004	0.025	−.013
Sport	−0.034	0.093	−.029
Model 2				.120	.119*
Athletic discrimination	0.021	0.008	.231*
Academic stereotypes	0.020	0.008	.264*
Academic discrimination	−0.029	0.011	−.258**
Private regard	0.011	0.013	.069
Public regard	0.002	0.006	.030
Centrality	0.000	0.005	−.004
Social identity	0.000	0.015	−.003
Negative affectivity	−0.018	0.016	−.097
Exclusivity	−0.009	0.014	−.060
Model 3				.249	.129
Private × Academic Stereo.	−0.008	0.003	−.350*
Private × Academic Disc.	0.015	0.005	.393**

Note. Only significant interactions in Model 3 are reported. GPA = grade point average.

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

All three perceived racial discrimination variables were significant predictors of GPA. First, athletic racial discrimination was a significant predictor of GPA (p < .01) such that greater amounts of racial discrimination in an athletic setting predicted higher GPAs. This pattern remained the same for academic stereotypes (p < .01). Higher amounts of academic stereotypes in an academic setting were predictive of higher GPAs. Finally, academic discrimination was predictive of GPAs (p < .01) such that higher amounts of perceived academic discrimination predicted lower GPAs.

RQ2: Effect of Identity on Relationship Between Stereotypes and Discrimination and Academic Outcomes

Academic self-concept

The final step in the first hierarchical regression, Model 3, tested the moderating potential of athletic identity and racial identity on the relationship between perceived racial discrimination and academic self-concept. Overall, Model 3 was significant, F(29, 138) = 2.675, p < .001 (see Table 2). The interaction terms explained a unique 16% of the variance in academic self-concept (ΔR² = .160). Three interaction terms were significant: the interaction between private regard and academic discrimination (p < .001), the interaction between centrality and athletic discrimination (p < .05), and the interaction between exclusivity and academic stereotypes (p < .05).

Figures 1, 2, and 3 are graphs of the interactions. As Figure 1 indicates, the impact of athletic racial discrimination on academic self-concept was stronger for individuals with higher levels of centrality. The nature of the interaction suggests that lower levels of centrality helps to buffer the impact of athletic racial discrimination on academic self-concept. With respect to private regard, the impact of academic discrimination on academic self-concept was weaker for individuals who held positive attitudes toward their racial groups (see Figure 2). Finally, Figure 3 presents the interaction between exclusivity and academic stereotypes. With respect to exclusivity, the impact of academic stereotypes on academic self-concept was weaker for individuals who held low levels of exclusivity (see Figure 3).

Figure 1.

Interaction between centrality and athletic discrimination on academic self-concept.

Figure 2.

Interaction between private regard and academic discrimination on academic self-concept.

Figure 3.

Interaction between exclusivity and academic stereotypes on academic self-concept.

Academic achievement

Finally, the moderating potential of racial and athletic identity on the relationship between racial discrimination and academic achievement was analyzed. Overall, Model 3 was significant, F(29, 138) = 1.579, p < .05. The interaction terms explained a unique 13% of the variance in GPA (ΔR² = .129). In total, there were two significant interactions: private regard and academic stereotypes (p < .05), and private regard and academic discrimination (p < .01) (see Table 3). Figures 4 and 5 display the interactions. As Figure 4 indicates, when academic stereotypes was high, its impact on GPA was lessened when the participants had low private regard. The other interaction occurred between academic discrimination and private regard. When academic discrimination was high, its impact on GPA was mitigated by high levels of private regard (see Figure 5).

Figure 4.

Interaction between private regard and academic stereotypes on GPA.

Figure 5.

Interaction between private regard and academic discrimination on GPA.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of the college environment on the academic functioning and performance of African American male college athletes. Specifically, the goal of this study was to examine how the presence (or lack thereof) of negative stereotypes and racial discrimination within the college environment affected the academic self-concept and academic achievement of African American male college athletes. Moreover, the moderating relationships of athletic and racial identity on racial discrimination and the academic outcomes of African American male college athletes were also analyzed.

Fundamentally, the results point to the direct and indirect effects of perceived stereotypes and discrimination on the academic outcomes of this demographic group. First, the study found that greater amounts of perceived athletic discrimination and academic stereotypes were predictive of higher GPAs. In contrast, higher amounts of perceived academic discrimination were predictive of lower GPAs for participants in this study. These divergent findings highlight one of the important theoretical contributions of the current work, namely, that the tenets of stereotype threat and stereotype management both appear to be supported. Potential reasons for this finding, as well as its theoretical and practical implications, are discussed later.

Second, the study found instances of identity variables (i.e., racial and athletic identity) moderating the relationships between perceived racial discrimination and academic self-concept and academic achievement. This is another important theoretical contribution of the current work given differing conclusions regarding how identity potential mitigates the impact of stereotypes and discrimination (Brown et al., 2003; Fuller, 2013). Thus, this study builds on the respective theories of racial and athletic identity by demonstrating certain dimensions’ ability to buffer against the deleterious effects of negative stigma for African American male college athletes.

Effect of Racial Discrimination on Academic Outcomes

With respect to the first research questions, the current study revealed instances where negative experiences appeared to foster academic outcomes. In particular, athletic racial discrimination and academic stereotypes were significant predictors of academic achievement such that participants’ GPAs increased as their perceptions of these forms of stigma increased. This finding appears to subvert stereotype threat as the theory would suggest an inverse relationship between the presence of academic stereotypes (and athletic discrimination) and academic achievement. However, recall stereotype management proposes that encounters with stereotypes can create a form of motivation and academic resilience in individuals (McGee & Martin, 2011). This appeared to be the case in the current study as participants’ GPAs increased as perceptions of academic stereotypes increased as well. Thus, these findings appear to substantiate the tenets of stereotype management.

In accordance with stereotype management, the literature on mental health in African Americans also corroborates the conclusion of academic resiliency in the study’s participants when met with academic stereotypes. Mental health researchers have found that African Americans utilize a variety of psychological coping responses during encounters with negative stigma, with empowerment being one of the more prominent responses (Clark et al., 1999). As was the case in this study, the results appeared to indicate participants were empowered to achieve academically when met with academic stereotypes. In synthesizing the literature on stereotype management and psychological coping responses with the findings of this study, there appears evidence of a psychological resiliency within some African American male college athlete participants such that they respond to certain negative experiences with academic vigor and fervor.

Rather than disengaging from or disidentifying with academics, as stereotype threat research suggests (Aronson et al., 1998), these individuals used their experiences as motivating factors to achieve academically. Findings from qualitative studies examining the lived experiences of African American male college athletes support this supposition. These studies have found that African American male college athletes are aware of others’ low expectations of their academic abilities, and in turn approach school with a “relentless determination to succeed” (Martin et al., 2010, p. 139). The following quotes typify the aforementioned academic resiliency of some African American male college athletes:

I’m doing everything that society doesn’t want me to do. I’m a Black man working on a degree from one of the top universities in the world. I feel that I’m a double threat, because I’m an athlete. So I feel that I have two chances to prove to show [them] that I can do something with my life. (Martin et al., 2010, p. 138)

All I needed was confidence. Once I found out that the older guys like [name] and [name] were majoring in Pre Med, I knew that I could get it done. (Fuller, Harrison, Bukstein, Martin, et al., 2016, p. 13)

Interestingly, and seemingly paradoxical in nature, the current study also found instances in which negative experiences appeared to harm academic achievement. Specifically, results indicated that academic discrimination was a significant predictor of academic achievement such that participants’ GPAs decreased as their perceptions of this form of discrimination (e.g., academic work being judged more critically because of race) increased. These divergent findings—GPAs increasing and decreasing in response to certain forms of stigma—appear to delineate a tipping point between stereotype management and stereotype threat. Prior to being able to identify clear effects of discrimination on their education, African American students might be motivated to achieve by perceptions of stigma. However, once they are able to identify clear and definite effects of discrimination (e.g., being graded with more scrutiny), it appears a tipping point was reached and their academic achievement was hindered.

Although there are possibly other factors at play such as fear and anxiety, the tipping point seems to be the perceptible effects of racial discrimination on academic achievement. This assertion is further substantiated by qualitative research on the experiences of African American male college athletes. For example, after perceiving differential treatment (i.e., discrimination) in the classroom, participants have reported examples of academic disengagement including not going to class, “leaving in the middle of a class session,” and “sleeping in class” (Benson, 2000, pp. 230, 231; Harrison et al., 2015).

Consistent with Beamon’s (2014) examination of racism and stereotypes of African American male college athletes, this study primarily considered bias on the individual level. However, systematic and institutionalized bias cannot be overlooked. Differential treatment such as major clustering and tracking are also realities for African American male college athletes, as evident by the following quotes:

I don’t know if [academic counselors] don’t think that Black people are just as smart as the White people are, because you know, when it comes to the Black people, they want to, they just want to get us by, by giving us any old class . . . (Singer, 2005, p. 378)

When they are recruiting you, they tell you that you can major in anything that you want, but when you get to campus, it’s all about eligibility. No coach is going to pat you on the back because you are majoring in Business. Remember it’s not about you, it’s about them. (Harrison et al., 2015, p. 88)

Accordingly, scholars should continue to move the discourse beyond the individual level to include a multilevel analysis of macro-, meso-, and individual-level factors. Specifically, macro-level factors such as institutionalized practices within higher education and political climate and meso-level factors such as campus climate and institutional culture should be considered (Cunningham, 2016).

Moderating Effects of Racial and Athletic Identity

With regard to RQ2, the results demonstrated that certain racial identity (i.e., private regard and centrality) and athletic identity (i.e., negative affectivity) dimensions moderated the relationship between perceived racial discrimination and academic self-concept and academic achievement. In particular, the nature of the interaction between centrality and perceived athletic discrimination seems to indicate that when athletic racial discrimination is high, its effect on academic self-concept is lessened when individuals have low racial centrality. This finding appears inconsistent with research suggesting that high racial centrality moderates the negative effects of high racial discrimination (Sellers & Shelton, 2003; Thomas et al., 2009; Wong et al., 2003). A potential explanation for why the findings of the current study appear to contradict prior research is found in the various ways African American use stigma management (Cross & Strauss, 1998). One available “function” of stigma management for African Americans is code switching. This occurs when an individual ceases engaging in behaviors and attitudes that are commonly thought of as “Black behavior” (Cross & Strauss, 1998). For African American college students, code switching can become a natural part of life as it allows for a person not to be “seen as Black,” but rather just another college student (Cross & Strauss, 1998, p. 273).

Consistent with code switching, low racial centrality moderated the effects of racial discrimination only when athletic racial discrimination was high. In other words, low centrality proved to be effective when stigma management was needed (i.e., high racial discrimination) but not when it was not needed (i.e., low racial discrimination). In contrast, Brown et al. (2003) suggested that African American college athletes become racially disconnected (“racelessness”) in response to their dislocation from the racially homogeneous situations (e.g., neighborhoods or peer groups) to which many are accustomed. While some participants in this study demonstrated that race was not central to their identity, it might have been more a result of stigma management in another racially homogeneous situation (i.e., a predominately White institution) than the result of the homogeneous situation itself. As such, the findings might indicate that code switching is an identity function used by African American male college athletes in response to racial discrimination and not simply as a result of attending a certain type of school.

The current study also found that high levels of private regard mitigated the effects of racial discrimination on both academic self-concept and GPA. This finding stands in contrast to research that has found public regard, rather than private regard, moderates the effects of racial discrimination (Sellers & Shelton, 2003; Thomas et al., 2009). The significance of private regard in moderating the negative effects of racial discrimination might indicate the presence of “bonding” (Cross & Strauss, 1998). Bonding is a stigma management function through which an individual garners meaning immersion in “African American culture” (Cross & Strauss, 1998). Bonding can mitigate the negative effects of discrimination because when confronted with perceived discrimination, individuals with strong connections to their racial group can shift their focus to the positive aspects of the group (Sellers & Shelton, 2003). Thus, bonding was potentially demonstrated in the current study by high levels of private regard lessening the impact of racial discrimination on academic self-concept and academic achievement.

Although bonding appears to have benefits, it does have potential drawbacks. Bonding results in African Americans drawing closer to one another in group formations (e.g., Black Student organizations on college campuses; Cross & Strauss, 1998). In doing so, a form of self-segregation can take place as African Americans become increasingly isolated from members of other racial and ethnic groups. This would not be advantageous for African American college students as many already express frustrations over social isolation at PWIs (Harrison et al., 2015). Rather than serving to bridge socially isolated racial groups, the identity function of bonding can increase higher amounts of racial segregation on college campuses. Bonding might serve a valuable function in response to racial discrimination for African American students, but it can perhaps also lead to negative perceptions of the college environment as African American students are segregated from students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. This potential catch-22 is one that should be explored by future researchers to fully ascertain the potential fine line between bonding and social isolation.

Although not within the scope of the current study, gender identity most likely interfaces with the moderating effects of racial and athletic identity (Fuller, Harrison, Bukstein, Martin, et al., 2016; Martin & Harris, 2007). For example, academically successful African American male college athletes have expressed that masculinity means “doing what’s right” and possessing “character” and “integrity” (Fuller, Harrison, Bukstein, Martin, et al., 2016, p. 8; Martin & Harris, 2007, p. 368). Consequently, they avoid bonding with “bad associations” because “eagles don’t fly with sparrows” (Harrison et al., 2015, p. 87). Likewise, the intersection of racial, athletic, and gender identity also affects the lived experiences of African American female college athletes (Bernhard, 2014; Bruening, Armstrong, & Pastore, 2005). Therefore, future research should build upon this study by examining the moderating potential of gender identity for male and female athletes.

Implications

Theoretical implications

As previously stated, this study has a number of theoretical implications. First, this study demonstrates the moderating potential of athletic and racial identity with respect to stereotypes, discrimination, and academic achievement. Previously, this moderating potential was hypothesized (e.g., Fuller et al., 2016) but the current study quantitatively demonstrates these relationships. Also, the current study builds on the nascent research of stereotype management by identifying a potential example in college athletes who appeared to be academically motivated by certain stereotypes (McGee & Martin, 2011). As the current study did not occur in an experimental or manufactured situation, which is often the case with stereotype threat research, these findings help to bolster the relevancy of stereotype management (McGee & Martin, 2011). More importantly, these findings potentially provide the theoretical link between stereotype threat and stereotype management by delineating a potential “tipping point” such that academic achievement decreased once there were perceptible effects (e.g., being graded with more scrutiny) of academic discrimination. Consequently, these findings warrant a potential revisiting of stereotype management and stereotype threat to examine whether perceptible effects are indeed the tipping point that moves an individual from motivation (i.e., stereotype management) to poorer performance and disidentification (i.e., stereotype threat).

Practical implications

Beyond theoretical implications, the findings of the current study provide a number of practical implications. First, though the study found that high levels of private regard mitigated the effects of racial discrimination on both academic self-concept and GPA, higher educational professionals who work with African American students and athletes should discuss with them the benefits and drawbacks of “bonding” exclusively with other African American students. As previously stated, exclusive bonding can potentially lead to further social isolation and increased perceptions of a negative college environment. Instead, higher education professionals can discuss the meaning of group identification and its effects on academic self-concept and academic achievement with students and athletes. Likewise, higher education professionals should seek to obtain a deeper understanding of what motivates individual African American male students and athletes. In doing so, students should be encouraged to reframe difficult situations as challenges or opportunities, as this has been shown to assist in academic achievement (Alter, Aronson, Darley, Rodriguez, & Ruble, 2010; Martin et al., 2010). Moreover, students should be encouraged to emphasize positive stereotypes as another way to mitigate negative stigma. Finally, to reduce any perceptions of discrimination in the classroom, educators should be proactive in engaging African American students and athletes in class discussions, thereby communicating that their thoughts and experiences are valued. Also, mentor–mentee relationships between faculty and students might reduce any potential disidentification (Harrison et al., 2015). The outcome of such efforts should serve to improve relationships between students and athletes and faculty and athletes.

Conclusion

Based on the findings, the current study proved to be significant in a variety of ways. Racial and athletic identity dimensions were found to moderate the relationships between discrimination and the academic outcomes of these individuals. In addition, African American male college athletes were found to potentially respond to certain types of stigma (e.g., academic stereotypes) with a psychological resiliency to achieve academically. In contrast, their academic achievement was hindered when effects of discrimination were made tangible. Rather than it being an “either/or” scenario, this study demonstrates how the tenets of stereotype threat and stereotype management can be “both/and” with respect to the academic outcomes of African American male college athletes. Clearly, the academic functioning of African American students is a complex interplay between psychosocial variables (among others) and the college environment, rather than merely a byproduct of an anti-intellectual orientation.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Rhema D. Fuller, PhD, is an assistant professor of Sport and Leisure Management in the Kemmons Wilson School of Hospitality and Resort Management at the University of Memphis. His research interests include the experiences of minorities as participants and spectators in sport.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Alter

Aronson

Darley

Rodriguez

Ruble

(2010). Rising to the threat: Reducing stereotype threat by reframing the threat as a challenge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 166-171.

Aronson

Quinn

D. M.

Spencer

S. J.

(1998). Stereotype threat and the academic underperformance of minorities and women. In Swim

J. K.

Stangor

Swim

J. K.

Stangor

(Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 83-103). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Beamon

(2014). Racism and stereotyping on campus: Experiences of African American male student-athletes. Journal of Negro Education, 83, 121-134.

Benson

K. F.

(2000). Constructing academic inadequacy: African American athletes’ stories of schooling. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 223-246.

Bernhard

L. M.

(2014). “Nowhere for me to go”: Black female student-athlete experiences on a predominantly White campus. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 8, 67-76.

Blank

R. M.

Dabady

Citro

C. F.

, & National Research Council (U.S.) Panel on Methods for Assessing Discrimination. (2004). Measuring racial discrimination. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Brewer

B. W.

Cornelius

A. E.

(2001). Norms and factorial invariance of the athletic identity measurement scale (AIMS). Academic Athletic Journal, 16, 103-113.

Brown

T. N.

Jackson

J. S.

Brown

K. T.

Sellers

R. M.

Keiper

Manuel

W. J.

(2003). “There’s no race on the playing field”: Perceptions of racial discrimination among White and Black athletes. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 27, 162-183.

10.

Bruening

J. E.

Armstrong

K. L.

Pastore

D. L.

(2005). Listening to the voices: The experiences of African American female student athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 82-100.

11.

Cassady

J. C.

(2001). Self-reported GPA and SAT: A methodological note. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(12), 1-6.

12.

Chavous

T. M.

Bernat

D. H.

Schmeelk-Cone

Caldwell

C. H.

Kohn-Wood

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2003). Racial identity and academic attainment among African American adolescents. Child Development, 74, 1076-1090.

13.

Clark

Anderson

N. B.

Clark

V. R.

Williams

D. R.

(1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54, 805-816.

14.

Cole

(2010). Debunking anti-intellectualism: An examination of African American college students’ intellectual self-concepts. The Review of Higher Education, 34, 259-282.

15.

Cross

W. E.

Strauss

Jr. (1998). The everyday functions of African American identity. In Stangor

(Ed.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 267-279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

16.

Cunningham

(2016). Diversity and inclusion in sport organizations (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.

17.

Forster Scott

L. F.

(2005). The creation of the Saliency of Race in Sport Questionnaire: Exploring issues of Black racial identity development in sport (Doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

18.

Fuller

R. D.

(2013). Race in pads and race in class? An examination of perceptions of stereotypes and racial discrimination among African American male college athletes. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 7, 190-209.

19.

Fuller

R. D.

Harrison

C. K.

Bukstein

(2016). A study of the significance of racial and athletic identification on educational perceptions among African American male college athletes. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1-12.

20.

Fuller

R. D.

Harrison

C. K.

Bukstein

S. J.

Martin

B. E.

Lawrence

S. M.

Gadsby

(2016). That smart dude: A qualitative investigation of the African American scholar-baller identity. Urban Education. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916668955

21.

Harrison

C. K.

Martin

B. E.

Fuller

R. D.

(2015). “Eagles don’t fly with sparrows” Self- determination theory (SDT), African American male scholar-athletes and peer group influences on motivation. Journal of Negro Education, 84, 80-93.

22.

Hyatt

(2003). Barriers to persistence among African American intercollegiate athletes: A literature review of non-cognitive variables. College Student Journal, 37, 260-276.

23.

Lapchick

Baker

Quirarte

Sanchez

Toppin-Herbert

(2015). Keeping score when it counts: Assessing the academic records of the 2015-2016 bowl-bound college football teams. Retrieved from http://nebula.wsimg.com/f644dbcde02eeb785f7dc4a848fb5749?AccessKeyId=DAC3A56D8FB782449D2A&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

24.

Martin

B. E.

Harris

(2007). Examining productive conceptions of masculinities: Lessons learned from academically driven African American male student-athletes. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 14, 359-378.

25.

Martin

B. E.

Harrison

C. K.

Stone

Lawrence

S. M.

(2010). Athletic voices and academic victories: African American male student-athlete experiences in the Pac-Ten. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 34, 131-153.

26.

McGee

E. O.

(2013). Young, Black, mathematically gifted, and stereotyped. The High School Journal, 96, 253-263.

27.

McGee

E. O.

Martin

D. B.

(2011). “You would not believe what I have to go through to prove my intellectual value!” Stereotype management among academically successful black mathematics and engineering students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1347-1389.

28.

McNeilly

M. D.

Anderson

N. B.

Armstead

C. A.

Clark

Corbett

M. O.

Robinson

E. L.

. . . Lipisto

(1996). The Perceived Racism Scale: A multidimensional assessment of the perception of White racism among African Americans. Health, Ethnicity and Disease, 6, 154-166.

29.

McWhorter

J. H.

(2000). Losing the race: Self-sabotage in Black America. New York, NY: Free Press.

30.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Bearden

W. O.

Sharma

(2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

31.

Reynolds

W. M.

(1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 223-240.

32.

Sellers

R. M.

Shelton

J. N.

(2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079-1092.

33.

Sellers

R. M.

Smith

M. A.

Shelton

J. N.

Rowley

S. A.

Chavous

T. M.

(1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 18-39.

34.

Simons

H. D.

Bosworth

Fujita

Jensen

(2007). The athlete stigma in higher education. College Student Journal, 41, 251-273.

35.

Singer

J. N.

(2005). Understanding racism through the eyes of African American male student-athletes. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8, 365-386.

36.

Smith

(2009). Race, sport, and the American dream. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

37.

Steele

C. M.

(1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

38.

Steele

C. M.

Aronson

(1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.

39.

Stone

Harrison

C. K.

Mottley

(2012). “Don’t call me a student-athlete”: The effect of identity priming on stereotype threat for academically engaged African American college athletes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 99-106.

40.

Thomas

O. N.

Caldwell

C. H.

Faison

Jackson

J. S.

(2009). Promoting academic achievement: The role of racial identity in buffering perceptions of teacher discrimination on academic achievement among African American and Caribbean Black adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 420-431.

41.

Wong

C. A.

Eccles

J. S.

Sameroff

(2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197-1232.