Graduate Theses and Dissertations
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and
Dissertations
2020
Stereotyped perceptions of student-athletes’ career choices
Stereotyped perceptions of student-athletes’ career choices
Nathan Ryan Barker
Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Recommended Citation
Barker, Nathan Ryan, “Stereotyped perceptions of student-athletes’ career choices” (2020). Graduate
Theses and Dissertations. 18072.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/18072
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and
Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information,
please contact digirep@iastate.edu.
Stereotyped perceptions of student-athletes’ career choices
by
Nathan Ryan Barker
A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Major: Psychology
Program of Study Committee:
Patrick I. Armstrong, Major Professor
Lisa Larson
Rosemary Perez
The student author, whose presentation of the scholarship herein was approved by the
program of study committee, is solely responsible for the content of this thesis. The
Graduate College will ensure this thesis is globally accessible and will not permit
alterations after a degree is conferred.
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
2020
Copyright © Nathan Ryan Barker, 2020. All rights reserved.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
CHAPTER 3: METHODS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
36
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
44
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..64
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
80
APPENDIX A. JOB ZONES
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….99
APPENDIX B. IRB APPROVAL
………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 103
APPENDIX C. EXAMPLE OF QUALTRICS SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS AND QUESTIONS
……….. 104
APPENDIX D. JOB TITLE DESCRIPTIONS
…………………………………………………………………………………… 105
APPENDIX E. LIST OF 300 JOB TITLES ………………………………………………………………………………………. 112
APPENDIX F. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONAIRE ………………………………………………………………………… 125
APPENDIX G. CARD SORTING RESPONSE SHEET ……………………………………………………………………. 126
APPENDIX H. FREE-WRITING RESPONSE SHEET
……………………………………………………………………. 127
APPENDIX I. INFORMED CONSENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 128
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Job Titles by Holland Type and Job Zone ……………………………………………………………………….85
Table 2. List of 72 Job Titles with Holland Type, Job Zone, Prestige Score, and Proportion
Female …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….86
Table 3. Results of Chi Square Test for the Assignment of Occupations to Male and
Female Student-Athlete and Non-Athlete Student Categories
……………………………………..90
Table 4. Results of Chi Square Test for the Assignment of Occupations to Male and
Female Student-Athlete and Non-Athlete Student Categories After Accounting for
Gender Category Differences in Assignment Frequency
……………………………………………….93
Table 5. ANOVA Results for Gender Traditionality, Prestige, and Holland of Job Titles ………96
Table 6. Means by Student Category and Gender of Participants …………………………………………….97
Table 7. Standard Deviations by Student Category and Gender of Participants ……………………98
iv
ABSTRACT
In this study, definitions found in, and outside of research, for the term, “student-
athlete” were examined. Key themes within these definitions were identified and
synthesized into one definition. This synthesis was conducted due to there not being an
agreed upon definition for the term, “student-athlete” within the literature. This
synthesized definition could be used as the standard definition for research on student-
athletes, helping to reduce confusion due to varying methodology used within the field.
The intent of this study was also to examine peoples’ perceptions of student-athletes, and
how those perceptions impacted what jobs they felt were appropriate for student-athletes.
Participants completed a forced-choice card sorting task in which they evenly sorted job
titles into four categories: Male Student-Athlete, Female Student-Athlete, Male Non-Athlete
Student, and Female Non-Athlete Student. Participants also completed a brief written
exercise describing who comes to mind when presented with the term, “student-athlete”.
Chi-Square and repeated measures ANOVA analyses revealed that participants did make
meaningful distinctions between the groups when assigning job titles, with differences
found in: Gender Traditionality, Prestige Scores, and Holland Type Scores of job titles
assigned to each group. Written responses revealed that participants were largely viewing
male student-athletes as Black, and female student-athletes as White, with differences in
perceptions of intelligence, major choice, and character found between the groups. The
information from this study may be useful to examine the role race plays in peoples’
differing perceptions of student-athletes.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Student-athletes make up a relatively small subset of college students on U.S.
campuses; there are 492,000 student-athletes within the National Collegiate Athletic
Association’s (NCAA) three divisions (NCAA, 2018). In comparison, there are around 19.4
million non-athlete students. (Snyder, 2018). Even though they make up a small number of
students, they often receive significant attention and responsibility to represent their
respective universities/colleges. This can be seen with media attention (Adler & Adler
1985), special backpacks with name tags, personalized gear, etc. This heightened attention
towards student-athletes can also be seen in recent research trends.
Research on student-athletes has increased in recent years with studies on: career
planning attitudes (Tyrance, Harris, & Post, 2013), motivation and stress (Parker, Perry,
Chipperfield, Hamm, Hladkyi, & Leboe-McGowan, 2018), stigma and help seeking (Wahto,
Swift, & Whipple, 2016), and topics as specific as energy drink consumption and nutrition
knowledge (Hardy, Kliemann, Evansen, & Brand, 2017). Although each of these studies
offer interesting and logical hypotheses and compelling implications, they also all use the
term “student-athlete” differently. The similarities of these studies quickly dissipate into
ambiguity and confusion due to varying sophistication in methodology and clarity in
defining key terms.
To accomplish the goal of more coordinated research, there are a number of
significant issues in research conducted about student-athletes that need to be addressed.
The first issue with this research is the lack of an agreed-upon definition within the
literature for the term “student-athlete”. The second issue can be seen in the variability of
2
how researchers design their studies on student-athletes. In particular, researchers’ own
beliefs and biases toward student-athletes shape their understanding of who a student-
athlete is, resulting in a lack of consensus on basic definitions of the target population. This
lack of consensus for how the term student-athlete is being used among researchers makes
it difficult to build upon each other’s work. Just as in construction a solid foundation is
essential to a sound structure, so is a solid foundation essential to sound research. The
foundation in this case being the definition of the term student-athlete. The present
research will look to gain a better understanding of the term student-athlete by exploring
definitions and collecting quantitative data as well as written responses of participants’
beliefs about these groups.
There are two primary strategies for defining the concept of “student-athlete”
utilized by researchers when they are setting up their studies. The first way is to explicitly
define student-athlete by choosing from a variety of terms that best fit their study. The
other common method is to use the term student-athlete without any clarification of how
the researchers understand the term. The first method has little oversight into the reasons
why the researchers selected their definition. The second method assumes others
understand who their intended population is without any further insights beyond the use
of the term student-athlete. The limitations of each method will be described, as well as
methodological improvements that can be made moving forward.
When there is not a standard definition for a term, the likelihood of confirmation
bias goes up; researchers are free to choose any definition of the term. So, researchers may
intentionally or unintentionally choose the definition that would increase the likelihood of
3
them finding results they want. Although Nickerson (1998) writes of confirmation bias, “It
refers usually to unwitting selectivity in the acquisition and use of evidence,” this is likely
true of choosing a definition of student-athlete as well.
Other potential limitations can be seen in the conflicting results within research on
student-athletes. For instance, some argue in favor of the benefits of being a student-
athlete, while others argue that it is disadvantageous. For example, some researchers say
that student-athletes are not as prepared for future careers (Linnemeyer & Brown, 2010),
while others say they are actually more prepared than their student counterparts for
careers (McCann, 2012). These conflicting results may reflect the individual beliefs, biases,
and research agendas of the investigators regarding student-athletes. For instance,
scholarly research on student-athletes is primarily conducted by individuals who have
spent many years of their lives in the pursuit of advanced degrees, who likely place value
on higher education, and who question activities that may detract from time spent on
learning. Conversely, other researchers are former student-athletes who may have enjoyed
positive experiences in their joint academic and athletic pursuits. These individuals may
attempt research on the benefits of being a student-athlete.
The aim of the present research is to examine what beliefs, stereotypes, and
definitions exist. As such, the present study is not focused primarily on siding with either
those who believe student-athletes benefit from their dual role or those who believe being
a student-athlete is detrimental to the student identity. Instead, the focus will be to use
sound methodology to examine how stereotypes impact people’s perceptions of student-
athletes. This research is important because it has largely been overlooked in past
4
research on student-athletes. There needs to be more standardized usage of the term in
order to create sound research in this area.
It is important to gather this key information about participants’ views of who
student-athletes are. This will be accomplished by having them complete a free-writing
task. Participants will be tasked with describing who comes to mind when they are
presented with the term “student-athlete.” Participants will be provided little other
instruction, allowing them to freely describe, in writing, their mental image of a student-
athlete without being biased by the researcher. This written data will help us better
understand what beliefs people have, as well as how we should be using this term. These
results will also help us understand whether research that uses the term student-athlete
without additional information is appropriate or not.
Once these broad limitations have been addressed, specific areas of improvement in
stereotype research of student-athletes can be considered. Recently, Anderson (2015) has
called into question the sophistication of the methods used in research on stereotypes of
student-athletes. She posited that a reliable and valid taxonomy of stereotypes of student-
athletes needed to be created. Her study improved upon the shortcomings of previous
research in this area to create that taxonomy. This more sophisticated taxonomy will be
used to focus on the impact stereotypes of student-athletes have on people’s perceptions of
what jobs they feel are appropriate for student-athletes. This current study will be an
important step towards better understanding student-athletes by adding quality research
to the field.
5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The goal of the first part of this chapter will be to examine definitions for the term
“student-athlete.” Furthermore, this examination will identify important terms and key
elements common to the definitions. These definitions will then be synthesized into a
standard definition that balances simplicity and explanatory power. It is recommended
that this new definition be used in future research on student-athletes. Then, more specific
limitations concerning student-athlete research will be addressed, specifically stereotypes
of student-athletes. Finally, career theory will be discussed in relation to the potential
impact of stereotypes on student-athletes, followed by the present study and hypotheses.
Researchers’ Usage of “Student-Athlete”
As mentioned, there is a lack of clarity in defining student-athletes, which can be
seen using examples from three different sources. For instance, Stone, Harrison, and
Mottley (2012) write that the term ‘‘student-athlete’’ or ‘‘scholar-athlete’’ officially refers to
college athletes who receive a scholarship to play sports in college. Meanwhile, the NCAA
presents their own definition: “A student-athlete is a student whose enrollment was
solicited by a member of the athletics staff or other representative of athletics interests
with a view toward the student’s ultimate participation in the intercollegiate athletics
program. Any other student becomes a student-athlete only when the student reports for
an intercollegiate squad that is under the jurisdiction of the athletics department, as
specified in Constitution 3.2.4.5. A student is not deemed a student-athlete solely on the
basis of prior high school athletics participation” (NCAA, 2017). The first definition hinges
on the fact that the student-athlete receives a scholarship to play, while the second
6
definition makes no mention of any scholarship. This distinction could drastically change
the population that a researcher is intending to study based on the definition used.
Generalizability of results becomes an issue as well when subjects of the study are not
clearly identified.
Another definition by Shulman and Bowen (2001) includes those students who have
“lettered” in their sport during college. These three drastically different descriptions are a
glimpse into the variety of definitions used in the literature and show that more clarity is
needed moving forward when using the term “student-athlete” in research. This
researcher believes that, to approach an agreed-upon standard definition in the field, these
past definitions should not be disregarded, but instead examined for key elements that can
by synthesized into a useful definition. In particular, the lack of clear consensus on defining
the term “student-athlete” leads to additional limitations in the ways in which researchers
set up their studies.
Unstandardized definitions increase the likelihood that those student-athletes who
would fit criteria for one definition would be left out of another, missing valuable data
points and information that would be collected with more standardized methods. Take
Stone, Harrison, and Mottley’s (2012) definition that classifies student-athletes as those
who receive a scholarship to play sports in college. There are hundreds of thousands of
student-athletes who are playing sports without a scholarship. Excluding around half of a
population unintentionally is unacceptable in research. In this example, it would be
appropriate if the researchers clearly outlined that they were only considering student-
athletes as those who receive a scholarship. However, most researchers who study
7
student-athletes do not provide a definition for this group, and those who do, oftentimes do
not explain their process for selecting the definition, leading to confusion by those who are
trying to interpret the findings of the article.
The other way research is presented is by researchers jumping right into
introducing other variables without first discussing who they mean when they use the term
student-athlete. “Student-athlete” is essentially being used as an umbrella term for many
subgroups of student-athletes. This is inappropriate because student-athletes are not a
homogenous group. For example, a female tennis player would likely be perceived much
differently than a male football player. Other differences can be found in “revenue and
non-revenue sports”. For example, a men’s basketball player may receive much more
media attention than a gymnast.
Definitions of Student-Athlete
The first definition comes from uslegal.com. The term “student athlete” means “an
individual who engages in, is eligible to engage in, or may be eligible in the future to engage
in, any intercollegiate sport. An individual who is permanently ineligible to participate in a
particular intercollegiate sport is not a student athlete for purposes of that sport” (“Student
Athlete Law,” n.d.). This definition is unhelpfully broad. It classifies all people who may be
eligible in the future as student-athletes, even though they may not have competed in any
intercollegiate sport. Therefore, even an infant may be considered a student-athlete by this
definition because they may one day be eligible to engage in an intercollegiate sport. This
definition is so broad and all-encompassing that it offers little utility as an option for
defining “student-athlete” in research. However, it may give insight into elements to look
8
for in other definitions, such as “intercollegiate”. This term will be analyzed more in-depth
later to determine if it is important to include in the synthesized definition.
Additionally, a quick preliminary search for the definition of student-athlete would
inevitably lead to a Wikipedia page where “student-athlete” is defined as, “A participant in
an organized competitive sport sponsored by the educational institution in which he or she
is enrolled” (“Student athlete,” 2018, October 31). Although this description logically
makes more sense than the first, Wikipedia could not be considered a credible source of
information for research, but again can be used to identify important elements. Potential
key terms from this definition include: “enrolled,” “competitive,” and “educational
institution in which he or she is enrolled.” These two definitions are a starting point for the
variety of definitions used in and outside of research on student-athletes. Additional
definitions will now be examined.
MIT states on their athletics page, “A student-athlete is a student who is either
currently participating in the varsity athletics program or is being recruited to participate
in the future” (“Current Student-Athletes,” n.d.). This definition includes those who are
being recruited to participate in the future. This description seems to fit better with
“prospective student-athlete.” This is the case because a student who is being recruited
may decide to attend another educational institution, pursue vocational options outside of
attending a university/college, or not participate in intercollegiate sports at all. This
definition adds in a new component, specifically the term “varsity” to the definitions
already examined. To understand if this element should be incorporated into the new
9
definition, one must know what the term “varsity” is referring to. The NCAA’s bylaws for
what sports are considered varsity will now be examined in depth.
Varsity and Intramural Sports. Universities/colleges often have both varsity and
intramural sports. It is important to identify the distinctions between these two terms
when trying to understand the term student-athlete. According to the NCAA (2017) bylaw
17.02.18, “A varsity intercollegiate sport is a sport that has been accorded that status by
the institution’s president or chancellor or committee responsible for intercollegiate
athletics policy and that satisfies the following conditions: (a) It is a sport that is
administered by the department of intercollegiate athletics; (b) It is a sport for which the
eligibility of the student-athletes is reviewed and certified by a staff member designated by
the institution’s president or chancellor or committee responsible for intercollegiate
athletics policy; and (c) It is a sport in which qualified participants receive the institution’s
official varsity awards.” The NCAA bylaw for “varsity” sports will be broken down to its
components to gain a better understanding of the term.
Department of Intercollegiate Athletics. One requirement to be considered
varsity is that the sport is administered by the department of intercollegiate athletics. Each
university/college with sanctioned sports teams has a department of intercollegiate
athletics. For example, the University of Arizona describes the role of this department on
their website: “The University of Arizona Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (ICA)
considers athletics to be an integral part of the University community and thus follows the
University of Arizona’s overall institutional mission. A commitment to excellence in
athletics implies that ICA will provide exemplary leadership, appropriate facilities and
10
support services to allow its student-athletes to compete at the highest level of
intercollegiate competition, while providing assistance towards educational and academic
progress objectives” (“Intercollegiate Athletics,” 2016, February 08). This description, and
those found on other university/college websites suggest that this department serves as
the governing body over the varsity athletics programs at each university/college. The next
requirement to be a considered a varsity sport is that there must be a certified staff
member who ensures the eligibility of the student-athletes.
Eligibility by a Certified Member of the Staff. The member or members who were
designated by the university/college’s president are responsible for ensuring all eligibility
rules are met for each student-athlete. Student-athletes must meet certain criteria to be
eligible to play, such as being a full-time student and maintaining a certain GPA. This
member or committee oversees the enforcement of these requirements to ensure that all
student-athletes are eligible to compete. The next component of qualifying as a varsity
sport is that the athletes receive official varsity awards.
Official Varsity Awards. These awards vary by school. For instance, Stanford’s
varsity sports awards include a jacket, desk clock, blanket, and ring (“Compliance,” n.d.).
The University of Chicago awards a gold pin, letter jacket, watch, and blanket (“Varsity
Awards,” n.d.). Clemson’s varsity awards include a letter jacket, coaster set, watch, and ring
(“Student-Athlete Handbook 2018-2019,” 2018). These awards can be selected by the
university/college and represent completion of requirements to letter by the student-
athlete.
11
In order to receive a varsity award, a student-athlete must first “letter” in their
sport. It is important to examine what the requirements are for lettering because Shulman
and Bowen (2001) consider those students who have lettered in their sport during college
as student-athletes. The requirements to letter are largely subjective and determined by
the coaches of the sport. For example, Marietta College requires baseball pitchers to
appear in 25% of the games or pitch in 15% of the innings. By comparison, Stanford
University requires baseball pitchers to pitch in 50 innings or participate in 20% of total
games. Marietta men’s and women’s basketball players must participate in 65% of the
total halves of their games. Under that heading for men’s and women’s basketball, Stanford
University describes criteria for lettering as being “At the discretion of the coaching staff.”
Furthermore, the guidelines at Marietta stipulate, “A student-athlete who has been a loyal
and positive contributor to the team may be awarded a letter as a senior.” Cheerleaders
and managers are also eligible to receive letters from the coaches (“Student-Athlete
Handbook,” 2016; “Compliance,” n.d.). As such, lettering may not necessarily equate to
competing in a sport. Requirements to letter differ between schools as well as between
sports within a college or university. Because of the variety and subjectivity of what it
means to be a “letter winner,” definitions in which these terms are central should not be
used in literature without explaining more in-depth who is considered a “letter winner.”
Another definition of student-athlete used in past literature is that of Hansen (1993)
at Iowa State University. Hansen writes in his study, “A student athlete is an individual
enrolled as a full-time student at Iowa State University who indicated that he or she was
participating in a sport during registration for fall semester 1992.” This definition
necessitates that the student be “enrolled full-time,” an element that may be important to
12
consider for the synthesized definition. However, Hansen does not mention what level of
sport is being played. This ambiguity could include club sports instead of varsity sports.
The NCAA writes that “Participation on a collegiate institution’s club team is exempted
from the application of this legislation, provided the institution did not sponsor the sport
on the varsity intercollegiate level at the time of participation.” There is a distinction
between an NCAA-sanctioned varsity sport and a university club sport (NCAA, 2017).
Therefore, club sports should not be included to describe the desired population of
student-athlete.
Stone, Harrison, and Mottley (2012) write that the term ‘‘student-athlete’’ or
‘‘scholar-athlete’’ officially refers to college athletes who receive a scholarship to play
sports in college. However, this is an inappropriate definition to use because it eliminates a
large number of student-athletes. According to the NCAA, 59 percent of all Division 1
student-athletes receive some level of athletics aid (NCAA, 2018). This means that
approximately 41 percent of Division 1 student-athletes are considered “walk-ons.”
Walking-on can be seen in a number of ways. The first way is described as the coach
recruiting a prospect to the team, but the player not receiving a scholarship. This is
referred to as a “preferred walk-on.” The second description of being a walk-on is someone
who tries out for the team after they are enrolled at the university or college (Lancaster,
2012). Using a definition that only includes scholarship athletes leaves out a large
proportion of student-athletes.
The next definition examined will be that of the NCAA, the governing body over
athletics in higher education. The NCAA first created the term “student-athlete” back in
13
1964, making the NCAA definition an important starting point for examining key
definitional elements. According to the current official definition from the NCAA (2017), “A
student-athlete is a student whose enrollment was solicited by a member of the athletics
staff or other representative of athletics interests with a view toward the student’s ultimate
participation in the intercollegiate athletics program. Any other student becomes a
student-athlete only when the student reports for an intercollegiate squad that is under the
jurisdiction of the athletics department, as specified in Constitution 3.2.4.5. A student is not
deemed a student-athlete solely on the basis of prior high school athletics participation.”
This definition does a fair job of inclusion in terms of who is considered a student-athlete.
However, it is not concise and requires consulting the NCAA constitution in order to fully
understand it. Key elements will now be considered to create a synthesized definition.
Key Elements of Definitions of Student-Athletes
Each of the definitions presented provided potentially important elements needed
to define student-athletes. The variety and differences between these definitions was also
noteworthy, as no two definitions focused on all the same elements of a student-athlete.
This lends support to the idea that no one definition presented adequately encompasses
the key elements of what makes up a student-athlete. Therefore, a definition that considers
all key elements is needed to standardize the usage of the term “student-athlete” moving
forward. The following elements within student-athlete definitions were selected to be
considered for a synthesized definition of the term student-athlete:
14
• Full-time student- The term “full-time student” should be included in the definition
because it is a requirement of being considered a student-athlete according to the
NCAA (NCAA, 2017).
• Enrolled at the university where they are a member of the team- This concept should
be included in the definition because it clarifies that a student-athlete is not allowed
to compete in sports from a different university/college from which they are
enrolled.
• Intercollegiate- This term should be included in the definition because it clarifies the
nature of the student-athlete’s role. They are competing against other
universities/colleges in which they are not enrolled. This helps clarify that the sport
is not a club team, which may compete against other club teams within the
university/college.
• Varsity- The term varsity should be included in the definition because it makes it
clear that club sports teams are not considered in the description. Club sports
should not be included in the definition of the term student-athlete.
• With the intention of competing- The author included this addition as it provides an
important distinction within the definition. Including “intention of competing”
excludes other members of the team, such as trainers and managers, because they
do not have the intention of competing. This also includes student-athletes who
may be injured or unable to play currently. They still have the intention of
competing.
15
• Letter winner- This term should not be included on its own to classify who is
considered a student-athlete because of the highly subjective nature of who can win
a letter.
• Scholarship- This term should not be included in the definition because it excludes a
large proportion of those who meet all other criteria outlined above except the fact
that they are not receiving a scholarship to participate in their sport.
Synthesized Definition of the Student-Athlete
For use in the present study, the terms and concepts outlined above have been
synthesized into the following definition: Student-Athlete – “A student who is a member of an
intercollegiate varsity sports team, with the intention of competing, at a university/college in
which they are enrolled full-time.” This definition is potentially superior to any of the single
definitions presented in previous research due to the inclusion of essential key elements
across definitions, while distilling these elements down to a core set of simple criteria that
are easily understood.
Stereotypes and Student-Athletes
When referring to student-athletes throughout this paper, the researcher will have
in mind those who fit the synthesized definition outlined above. Now that there is a clear
definition to work from, more specific domains of research with student-athletes can be
examined. Specifically, stereotypes of student-athletes will be examined more closely.
Before examining stereotypes of student-athletes, it is first important to understand what
stereotypes are. This will be done by covering stereotype: definitions, details, use, and
impact.
16
Definitions of Stereotypes. The definition of what stereotypes are may be
influenced by the nature of the research being conducted. For example, Cox, Abramson,
Devine, and Hollon (2012) describe stereotypes as, “almost any thought that oversimplifies
a person or group,” while Sue and Sue (2013) define stereotypes as, “Rigid preconceptions
we hold about all people who are members of a particular group, whether it be defined
along racial, religious, sexual, or other lines.” McGarty, Yzerbyt, and Spears (2002) believe
that “Stereotypes are relatively enduring systems of interrelated concepts that inform
perceptions of members of certain groups.”
Details of Stereotypes. These definitions help to understand the larger concept of
stereotypes, while other research helps shed light on the details of stereotypes. Many
researchers agree that stereotypes can include positive, negative, or neutral valence
(Myers, 2012; McCabe & Bannon, 2004; Sue & Sue, 2013, as cited by Anderson, 2015).
Interestingly, Cox et al. (2012) write that even positive stereotypes (e.g., Asians are good at
math) can have undesirable negative effects because they set up unfair expectations of
those who identify with the group being stereotyped. It is important to note that one does
not need to endorse a stereotype to be aware of it. For example, an individual may be a
supporter of equal employment opportunities for women and men, but when presented
with stimuli associated with kindergarten teachers and construction workers may still
associate these careers with their stereotypical gender roles (Anderson, 2015). Further
evidence of this concept can be seen in the fact that Devine (1989) found that participants
with both high and low prejudice ratings endorsed similar stereotypes of specific ethnic
groups. So, regardless of personal beliefs, stereotypes were agreed upon by both groups of
participants.
17
Stereotype Structure and Use. McGarty et al. (2002) proposed three principles
that underlie the structural components of stereotypes: First, stereotypes are largely
automatic; second, stereotypes are efficient; third, stereotypes are shared group beliefs.
Even though stereotypes are largely automatic, Devine (1989) makes an important
distinction between stereotype activation and application. She writes that one’s knowledge
of a stereotype may not be congruent with the stereotype. So, although stereotype
activation is automatic, the use of the stereotype is a more effortful process. Cox et al.
(2012) posited that people use stereotypes as time-saving heuristics that help inform
individuals about groups of people without expending excessive time and energy.
Furthermore, even though most stereotypes are overgeneralizations, they may still serve as
cognitively efficient generalizations. For instance, assuming that a construction worker is a
male would be correct more than 95% of the time.
Stereotypes of Student-Athletes. Simons, Bosworth, Fujita, and Scott (2007)
found that from the 538 student-athletes in their study, 33% reported they were perceived
negatively by professors, and around 59% reported they were perceived negatively by
peers. The research went on to note that around 61% of participants reported that they
were given a hard time or were refused when requesting accommodations for athletic
competitions. Just as alarming was that around 62% of participants reported a faculty
member made a negative remark about student-athletes in class which reflected the dumb-
jock stereotype, low intelligence, little academic motivation, and receipt of undeserved
benefits and privileges.
18
Wininger and White (2015) surveyed 493 college students on their perceptions of
student-athletes. They found that students reported having lower academic expectations
of student-athletes and believed their professors had lower academic expectations for
athletes. Negative stereotypes were also found at the Division II level. Baucom and Lantz
(2001) conducted a study to examine faculty attitudes and stereotypes of student-athletes
at a Division II school. The researchers found that the faculty had prejudicial attitudes
toward student-athletes in areas such as: out of class achievement, admission to the
university, expanded tutoring services for athletes, and reception of full scholarships.
Paule and Gilson (2010) looked to expand the research on student-athletes by surveying
non-revenue athletes (which they described using examples of tennis, soccer, golf, and
track and field). These NCAA athletes listed a number of benefits of being a student-athlete,
while only listing three negatives: missing out on things in college, lack of free time, and
being stereotyped. This shows that even those who are not in the high-profile sports like
football and basketball feel they are being stereotyped. These stereotypes can lead to
negative impacts for student-athletes, seen in the form of stereotype threats.
Stereotype Threat. In their highly cited paper, Steele and Aronson (1995) write
that “Stereotype threat refers to being at risk of confirming, as a self-characteristic, a
negative stereotype about one’s social group.” Other researchers have built off this
description, such as Schamder and Johns (2003), who write, “Stereotype threat refers to
the phenomenon whereby individuals perform more poorly on a task when a relevant
stereotype or stigmatized social identity is made salient in a performance situation.” They
go on to say that activating negative stereotypes about one’s social identity can create an
additional situational burden that interferes with the ability to perform as well at a mental
19
task as they otherwise would be able to. However, as outlined earlier, even “positive”
stereotypes may create unfair expectations on an individual who is being stereotyped.
Stereotype Threat’s Impact on Academics. Yopyk and Prentice (2005) conducted
a study looking at how stereotype threat could impact student-athletes’ performance when
given a challenging math test. The researchers assigned the student-athletes to one of
three groups: those primed with their athlete identity, their student identity, or no identity.
They found that those who were primed with their athlete identity had lower self-regard
and performed worse than did those primed with their student identity.
In another test performance study, Dee (2014) randomly assigned student-athletes
to a treatment that primed their awareness of negative stereotypes. The social-identity
manipulation was found to reduce test scores of athletes by 12% compared to non-athletes.
Furthermore, male student-athletes seemed to be impacted the most by this manipulation.
Riciputi and Erdal (2017) expanded student-athlete stereotype threat research by
using Division III student-athletes. Half of the participants were primed with their athletic
identity, half were not. Results showed that those primed with their athlete identity
received lower mean math scores, and also attempted significantly fewer problems than
those who were not primed with their athlete identity.
Stereotype Threat’s Impact on Athletics. While the majority of stereotype threat
research focuses on intelligence of academic performance, other performance can be
impacted as well, such as athletic performance. Hively and El-Alayli (2014) examined
female and male tennis and basketball student-athletes by having them perform a difficult
concentration task and an easier speed task that was relevant to their sport. In one
20
condition, participants were told beforehand that there was a gender difference on the
tasks to induce stereotype threat. In the other condition there was no gender difference
given. They found that on the difficult concentration task, female student-athletes
performed worse than male student-athletes, but only when the stereotype threat was
present. This study shows that even a small comment can negatively impact performance.
This is important as many student-athletes report negative remarks about their identity by
peers and professors.
Limitations of Student-Athlete Stereotype Research. Now that stereotypes and
their potential impact have been outlined, recent concerns about student-athlete
stereotype research will be covered. Anderson (2015) called into questions the
psychometric sophistication of measures of stereotypes of student-athletes. She claimed
that many previous studies have relied on ad-hoc scales with questionable psychometric
properties. Anderson sought to create a valid and reliable taxonomy of stereotypes of
student-athletes.
Traits were grouped together based on how stereotypically they fit into the
categories: Male Student-Athlete, Female Student-Athlete, Male Non-Athlete Student,
Female Non-Athlete Student, masculine individuals, feminine individuals, athletes, and
non-athletes. The current study will utilize the information found from the Male Student-
Athlete, Female Student-Athlete, Male Non-Athlete Student, and Female Non-Athlete
Student categories. Anderson claims that studies on student-athlete stereotypes have
produced mixed results. Therefore, the current study is needed to help gain a better
understanding of why these inconsistencies may exist. Anderson did not focus on the
