The Female Handicap:

The Challenges and Barriers for Women In Coaching

Aprille Deus 100115855

Professor Ann Dodge
KINE 3883 X1

Friday, February 13, 2015.

Introduction
Females have experienced numerous barriers in the world of coaching (Buchanan,
2012). These barriers consist of tangible items, social barriers and stereotypes, and the
lack of support, opportunities and self-efficacy have put female coaches in the back seat
to their male counter parts. These obstacles have been seen to be put women at a
disadvantage in pursuing head coaching positions (Van der Meij, Buunk, van de Sande, &
Salvador, 2008; Bower & Hums, 2013). Gender has been an ancient issue (Holland &
Oglesby, 1979) and ones childhood experiences has prevented females from growing
confident in themselves as individuals (Thapman, 2001; Cermele, Daniels, and Anderson,
2001). In this literature review, gender will be analyzed and defined, and leadership style
and behavioural theories will be explored in an attempt to explain barriers to females
coaching. Lastly the analyse of Title IX and the speculation of its effectiveness will also
be reviewed to further explain whether or not gender equity has improved in athletic
programs (particularly in elite level programs).

Gender
In order to understand what challenges women face in the realm of coaching, the
topic of gender must be understood and a definition must be addressed. What is gender?
Gender has been defined in many ways the classification of animate beings and
inanimate things as masculine, feminine, or neuter. Gender can be the chromosomal make
up of a being or defined in terms of behaviour (Crews, 1988). Gender has typically
referred to behaviours, sociological and psychological characteristics of men and women.
In an article presented by Pryzgoda and Chrisler (2000), 137 participants were asked to

define the word gender. Participants were asked to write down the first thing you think
when you see the word gender. The general themes that came out of this exercise were
43.4% of the sample responded the thought of male and female, 11.7% thought about
sex, 9.6 thought about gender or sex roles, 5.8% thought about equality and womens
rights, 5.8% thought of masculinity and femininity, and 4.4% thought about women.
The definitions that were given in this experiment also described what was
thought to be the origin of gender; 36.2% thought gender immerged from psychological
factors and behaviour, 34.5% thought that gender was derived from society and
socialization, and 18.9% argued that it was self-choice and self-perception that was the
root of gender, and 17.2% proposed that a combination of biology and culture explained
gender. There was a third area in which Pryzgoda and Chrisler (2000) analyzed the
functions of gender. Fifty percent of the definitions stated that gender plays an essential
role in personal identity and characteristics, 44.4% said that gender is used to classify
human beings, 20.4% said gender defines people, and 5.6% mention that gender breeds a
certain behaviour and creates a persons identity.
Definitions of gender could be further broken down into traits- femininity and
masculinity. According to the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), masculinity traits have
been favoured more so than the femininity traits in society. In sociological terms, gender
has been a determinant of ones place in society (Wolff & Watson, 1983). Bem and
Lenney (1976) created Masculinity and Femininity scales that have been used to classify
individuals as masculine, feminine, androgynous or undifferentiated (Wolff and Watson,
1983). Bem and Lenney say that it is now the androgynous person who is emerging as
a more appropriate sex role ideal for contemporary society, as they challenge the

traditional feminine female and masculine male. Although Bem and Lenney have
proposed that the androgynous person (one who possesses both masculine and feminine
traits) is more appropriate in contemporary society, it has been the masculine traits the
male construct that have been favoured throughout history (Bem and Lenney; Reiners,
2001).
When looking from a sociological perspective, there has been debate about why
masculinity is valued more than femininity (Stewart and McDermott, 2004). Gender has
been recognized as a hierarchal factor in society. Stewart & McDermott analyzed gender
from a sex differences approach and compared men and women. This approach
assumes that, between men and women, there are biological differences that only women
and men possess (e.g. ejaculation, pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation). Group
differences have ranged from biological differences (e.g. behaviour-related hormones), to
socialization or differential treatment, to different social roles/ situations. In the past,
biological differences have placed men as the ruling gender (i.e. strength, aggression, sex
cells, sex organ) men ruled as kings and dictators, presidents and prime ministers.
Males have been biologically favoured because of their natural strength, competitiveness,
and lack of sentimental emotion (Guttman, 1981). These characteristics have been
favoured in order to accomplish and complete tasks. Masculine traits consist of being
active, aggressive, controlling, and goal-oriented. Feminine traits consist of being
passive, submissive, private, and expressive (Holland and Oglesby, 1979). A big
biological difference that can account for male-dominance in society is testosterone
(Rowe, Maughan, Worthman, Costella, and Angold, 2004; van der Meij et al, 2008). Van
der Meij used female subjects and surrounded the male subjects, and found that the

aggressive dominance (which is naturally found in male personality) increased with the
presence of females. However, under certain conditions, there were no changes in
testosterone levels (i.e. age, housing condition, education level, last time of sex, number
of sex partners) testosterone (van der Meij, et al, 2008). Testosterone has been likened to
gaining, maintaining and losing social status, aggression and antisocial behaviour, peer
and family relationships, and gender similarities and differences, thus being a prime
factor in male dominance (Booth, Granger, Mazur, and Kivlighan, 2006).
Another area of gender is socialization and differential treatment. Stewart and
McDermott (2003) found that differential treatment has existed in society and that the
male gender has been much preferred versus their female counterparts. Males have been
treated with more benefits (e.g. jobs, pay wages) and have done most of the work outside
of the family home. Females have been regarded to as stay-at-home mothers and should
not work or participate in certain leisure activities/ sports. In different social situations
such as education, work, and home life, it has been noted that there are gendered roles
in which each gender will have higher average ability and higher performance (Stewart
and McDermott). Going all the way back into ancient civilization (Rome and Greece),
men were the only participants in sport spectacles and ruled kingdoms. Women were
cemented in the role of wife and mother and were rarely present at events and coliseum
spectacles (Holland & Oglesby, 1979; Reiners, 2001). Kulik (1998) had participants
answer a questionnaire about gender role perceptions. Culturally, feminine occupations
were commonly consisted of preschool teacher, hotel room cleaning, office clerk, social
worker, psychologist, accountant, registered nurse, waitress, and occupational therapist.
Masculine occupations were thought to be things like deck captain, physicist, judge,

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

machine technician, and jail warden. The findings in this experiment support the idea that
a social environment affects the ideas that youth create about feminine and masculine
occupations (Kulik, 1998).
Society has influenced individuals and their outlook on life. Dayiolu and TrtAik (2007) reported that women who expect interruptions in their work careers (e.g.
pregnancy) chose work fields such as engineering or teaching for the easy exit and reentry into the field.
Gneezy, Niederle, and Rustichini (2003) show that high profile jobs, at large, are
almost exclusively male occupied and are a key factor in why there is a gender gap in
yearly earnings. This experiment had a co-ed sample in which female and male
engineering students were told to complete several mazes for monetary reimbursement.
The purpose of the experiment was to test whether men and women differ in their ability
to perform in a competitive environment. The sample experienced different experimental
conditions (i.e. male versus female, same-sex competition, blind competition) and the
results showed that men performed a lot better in mixed competitions (Gneezy et al.,
2003) In same-sex competition, males still perform at a much more efficient level. This
proves Guttmans (1981) finding that males perform better in a working area. Gneezy et
al. (2003) suggest that if women believe that men have more skill, those women will
believe that and it will hinder their performance. However, in same-sex competitions,
women perform better against each other in comparison to male-on-male competition.
This proves to be a stereotype threat and this threat serves as a source of anxiety.
Performing a task will lead to a greater chance in choking under pressure. As stated, the

idea of if you say it, you believe it is much present in these competitive situations
(Gneezy et al 2003).
Society has further influenced the way gender is viewed from home. In a study
done by Thapan (2001), a sample of young Indian women were interviewed about the
public roles of women and where they saw their futures (i.e. career choice, family life,
etc.) based on their family life. Women described their fathers as respected and admired
but were not around for building a close relationship with their daughters. The father
figure was seen as a perfectionist, distant, straightforward and frank, very punctual and
not emotional, thus not making emotional connections with their children. A mother was
described as the ideal and was described as having values, having an outlook on life,
was understanding, and provided a perfect relationship with their daughters. These
women favoured careers that allowed them to balance home/ family life, as they wanted
to emulate and be like their mothers. Although these young women respected their
fathers, they related better to their mothers. This further supports that gender roles have
been solidified by society and the past, present, and will can change and be influence by
future events. The young women show that constructions of femininity and masculinity
exemplify the power that relationships have on identities (Thapan, 2001).

Leadership
The subject of leadership could shed some light as to how gender constructs have
been formed. In a study completed by Van Vugt and Spisak (2008), it was stated that
human are naturally inclined to take part in leader-follower relations, although there is a
high leadership failure rate. Leadership and followership play key roles within groups. It

was predicted that in this experiment that female leadership would be preferred in
intragroup competition settings and a male preference for intergroup competitions. Fifty
undergraduate students (co-ed) made up the sample of this experiment and were
randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions (i.e. intragroup competition,
intergroup competition, combined intragroup and intergroup competition, and neither
competition). The students completed investment tasks where they made decisions on
how much money to invest in a group fund versus a private fund. What the results
showed was that the preference for a particular gendered leader depends on the nature of
the task presented to the group (Van Vugt and Spisak, 2008). The indicated that female
leaders were more invested in creating and maintaining supportive social networks to
protect themselves and their children. In contrast, it was found that the male leader was
greatly attracted to investing their resources in forming intragroup alliances that spark
intragroup aggression thus creating competitiveness. In this sense, it was concluded that
men inherit a hierarchical leadership style versus women (who have a more democratic
leadership style) (Van Vugt and Spisak, 2008).
Hoydens (2010) study stated that societies have depended more on, or have
looked more to, male leadership. Leadership research has shown that general leadership
skills have often been related to heroic masculine traits. Hoyden interviewed executive
board members from different Norwegian sports organizations and found several trends.
The first trend was that female leaders were thought to lack skill or behaviour that was
desirable to make a positive difference or as desirable by the general norm. In contrast,
male (as a gender category) is non-existent, and heroic forms of masculinity were built
into the dominant leadership construct. The second trend was that feminine difference is

related to womens special understanding for caring and empathy, and womens special
capacity for communication, team building, and co-operation, and building human
relations and confidence. The third trend that Hoyden discovered was that female
leadership can only make a positive difference as long as the feminine is seen as
subordinate to masculine dominant. The leadership ratio (of men versus women) varied
among the different sports organizations in Norway. For example, 40% of women make
up the membership of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and
Confederation of Sports (NOC). However, whatever has been analyzed until now, male
dominance in leadership indicates that men possess the power to influence how society
portrays females. Data showed that androcentric leadership has been much more
preferred amongst the Norwegian sports organizations (Hoyden, 2008).
In a sport specific context, an experiment done by Jambor and Zhang (1997), the
differences in leadership behaviors (between male and female coaches at different levels)
were analyzed. After interviewing 162 coaches (who coached at junior high school, high
school, and college levels) it was found that there were no significant differences in the
way male and female coaches interacted between genders and coaching level. What was
found in this study was that it was outdated to say that a male is a different leader than a
female. It was found that there was a difference in social support between males and
females. Female coaches were reported to have received a more rewarding experience
than male coaches, and they give more support in an athletes personal life; they made
sport more enjoyable. Females in the study coached mostly in recreational leagues; men
almost exclusively coached in levels of junior high school and lower levels. Jambor and
Zhang also found that in six behaviours of leadership, that women showed higher results

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

consideration.
Looking at different leadership styles, an Italian researcher said that effective
leaders are especially capable of fostering group cohesiveness and promoting efficacy in
goal attainment (Ruggieri, 2013, p. 1171). Ruggieri analyzed the relationship between
two different styles of leadership transactional and transformational and the effects
that these leadership styles had on team identification and leader self-sacrifice. Team
identification was defined as the extent to which an individual team member identifies
with a specific organizational team rather than social groups in general, (Ruggieri, 2013,
p. 1172). Self-sacrificial leadership was defined as the total/partial abandonment, and/or
permanent/temporary postponement of personal interests, privileges, or welfare in the (a)
division of labor, (b) distribution of rewards, and/or (c) exercise of power, (Ruggieri,
2013, p. 1173). Leaders who show practice and show self-sacrifice gave up their
rewards or did not use power for personal benefit. The transactional leadership model
explains that leaders are negotiators that compromise group performance in order to gain
more decision-making power within the group. The transformational leadership model
explains that leaders adapt to change and instability and involves, motivates, and
supports followers in a manner consistent with the required transformations (pg. 1172,
Ruggieri, 2013). After collecting interview forms from 186 call center employees
Ruggieri found that there was a strong, positive correlation between transformational
leadership and team identification, versus transactional leadership and team
identification. Transformational leadership increased team identification because
transformational leaders increased their personal bond with the team, whereas

transactional leaders showed a lesser concern for interrelation with their group members.
Ruggieri found that transformational leaders also demonstrated self-sacrifice.
Another leadership style known as authentic leadership was found to positively
influence group performance (Xiong & Fang, 2014). This type of leadership was found to
influence followers attitude and behaviours and brought out three states that followers
experience (while lead by authentic leadership) hope, trust, and positive emotions.
Thus, authentic leadership further influences followers to increase job performance, put
in extra effort, and created withdrawal behaviours (i.e. burnout, turnover, and lateness)
(Xiong & Fang, 2014).

Theories
In the area of behavioural theories, Xiong and Fang (2014) used questionnaires to
measure four areas: authentic leadership, collective efficacy, group performance, and
control variables. What was found in this study was that collective efficacy (the summed
belief of a group to obtain a certain result) had a significant, positive impact on group
performance. They also found that authentic leadership significantly impacted group
performance and was correlated to collective efficacy. Authentic leadership was defined
as a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly
developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and selfregulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates (Xiong & Fang, 2014,
pg. 922).
When delving further into the foundation of leadership, there are psychological
aspects to what makes one a good leader (Ruggieri, 2013). Theories such as Social

Cognitive Career Theory, Social Cognitive Theory (self-efficacy), and Theory of Planned
Behaviour influence a good leader. These theories have played a factor particularly in the
field of coaching as competition grows for coaching jobs between the female and male
genders (Sagas, Cunningham, & Pastore, 2006).
The Theory of Planned Behaviour links belief and behaviour. Simply put the
theory states ones own belief in the ability to enact a particular behaviour (Sagas et al.,
2006). A population of 480 college division coaches (from different sport, both female
and male in gender) filled out a questionnaire about their attitudes, perceived behavioural
control, intentions of coaching, and other biographical items. The purpose of this study
was to explain things such as lack of financial incentive, career-related burnout, workand career-related variables, and discriminatory hiring procedures. What the results
showed was that female assistant coaches make up one of the largest pools for head
coaching positions. However, in regards to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, it was
found that women did not apply for available head coaching jobs. The results showed that
aspiration to jump to higher levels in a career were needed in order to obtain such
positions, and the majority of the female coaches in this study did not have such
aspirations. As assistant coaches the female assistants perceived several coaching barriers
discriminatory hiring, conflictions with family life, lack of coaching experience,
knowledge about coaching, strong social network, and being successful at coaching. The
results also indicated that the head coaches of these assistants were essential in shaping
the head coach intentions of the assistant coaches. In the case of a male coach having a
female assistant coach, the male head coach would not be as involved with the female
coaches. This lead to the female assistant coaches not creating aspirations for head

coaching jobs (i.e. if they saw themselves in that head coaching position, they could do it.
However, male head coaches did not invest as much time in developing these female
assistant coaches.) Thus the Theory of Planned Behaviour has helped to explain the rapid
decline in female head coaches (Sagas et al., 2006).
Similarly to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
and Social Career Cognitive Theory (SCCT) were analyzed by Moran-Miller and Flores
(2011). In this study, female student-athletes completed a questionnaire that revolved
around the interest of female coaching careers. Moran-Miller and Flores stated that SCT
proposes that career interests and abilities are shaped by self-efficacy and outcome
expectations. (Self-efficacy is the belief in ones abilities to complete a task.) The study
found no significant distinction between the athletes desires to coach based on the
gender of their coach. (i.e. having a female coaching role model was more important in
developing self-efficacy). However, the quality of female coaching role models was
important to the athletes. The SCCT (a theory of career development that states
individuals who believe they possess the requisite skills to be successful in a given
occupation are more likely to develop interest in that occupation, (p. 2) was presented in
this study as the sample of female athletes (who were coached by females) perceived less
barriers to becoming coaches and related more to their female head coaches. These
athletes had a greater belief in becoming female coaches. Those that had male coaches
did not relate as well to their coaches, hence there was a lack of self-efficacy in the
thought of becoming a female head coach. Those that were interested in becoming
coaches saw greater perceived barriers as women (Moran-Miller & Flores, 2011).

Title IX
Women have faced many barriers in the pursuit of coaching jobs (particularly
head coaching jobs) (Bower & Hums, 2013). The number of women in sport has
substantially increased after the passing of Title IX in 1972. Title IX, (a federal law that
prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs that received federal
money,) is a bill that was signed by United States President Richard Nixon. The bill has
worked as a repellent against many barriers that had prevented individuals (based on sex)
from participating in educational opportunities and careers they desired.
Bower and Hums (2013) study used the three prong test a common way to
determine if universities and schools athletic programs complyed with Title IX. The
three prong test consists of the following criteria: 1) the educational institution is
providing athletic participation opportunities to members of each sex in numbers that are
substantially proportionate to their respective enrollment at that institution; 2) the
institution has demonstrated a history of accommodating the athletic interests of the
underrepresented sex; and 3) that the athletic interests and abilities of the
underrepresented sex has been effectively accommodated (Ferguson, 2014).
In 2013 Bower & Humus had participants complete an online survey that asked
for biographical information (i.e. age, ethnicity, degree) and details about their jobs (i.e.
income range, school division, education, and position within the athletics department.)
The results showed that there were more men working in high profile positions, such as
athletic director, associate and assistant athletic directors. The number of men was nearly
double the womens numbers. In the highest division (NCAA Division I), men dominated
in every division and position within athletics program; men outnumbered the women.

With regards to income range, the experiment results showed that there were more
women who made less than $60 000 a year, whereas men made less than $80 000.
Already in these statistics it is evident that the number of women in power
positionsathletic programs is greatly overshadowed by the number of men in athletic
programs. As well, there is a great difference in income range, as men made $20 000
more than women. All of these have been classified as barriers that have prevented
women from pursuing high profile jobs in athletic administration as most opportunities
have been taken away through unfair hiring (Bower & Humus, 2013).
Ferguson (2014) found that women, especially minority women and other
economically disadvantaged student-athletes, are a subset of the larger population.
Resources in sports have been virtually non-existent and/or hard to come by for these
groups in the past. Additionally, Ferguson found that history and the community one grew
up in effected ones participation sport. If one had grew up in a disadvantaged
community, generally speaking, the females in that community would fund female
recreational sports as most recreational funding when towards male sports. Title IXs
purpose is to achieve gender equity but has struggled to show consistent signs of
effectiveness. In the lives of underprivileged females, individuals are unable to
experience sport and are not exposed to sport at all. This is another barrier that women
experience as they create desires to move into high profile positions some simply do
not know how to get there and have no role models. In order to help with the emergence
of womens sports, collegiate programs must continue to promote and achieve gender
equity to school programs (Ferguson, 2014).

Looking further into the realm of athletic opportunities, females face

disadvantages in the area of coaching. The lack of number of female coaches in sport has
drastically decreased since the establishment of Title IX in 1972. The lack of females
aspiring to occupy head coaching position and other high profile jobs has been due to the
lack of role models, gender discrimination in hiring, and the lack of opportunity (Brake,
2012). Although Title IX has been used to give more opportunity to females who may
have otherwise been overlooked, collegiate athletic programs have to only fulfill 2 out of
the 3 prongs: 1) substantial proportionality of sports opportunities, 2) a continuing
practice of expansion of the opportunities for the underrepresented sex, or 3) that the
interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex have been fully accommodated
(Brake, 2012; Druckman, 2014).
Staurowsky, Murray, and Puzio (2013) discussed in the issue of Title IX and its
apparent affects in the sports world. She concluded that Title IX has no role in college
sport. After the passing of Title IX, the Division of Girls and Women in Sport (DGWS)
created the AIAW the first and only national womens collegiate athletic association,
which lasted only one decade before being overtaken by the NCAA. Staurowsky et al.
further explored barriers for women in sport as it was found that college athletes are not
paid the same amount in scholarship funding; mens collegiate sports programs are
generally funded more than womens programs. Head coaches thus have more income
and more funding to recruit athletes. Womens programs, do not have as much funding
and head coaches on these teams are not given the same resources as the mens collegiate
teams which translates into less sport participation opportunities for women and in turn,

fewer role models for female athletes aspiring to become coaches (Staurowsky et al.,
2013).
Two particular barriers that females have faced in the area of coaching are: 1)
income, and 2) consequences of coaching on family life (Bower & Hums, 2013). Income
has played such a big role in the decision of females applying for coaching positions as
women have always looked for financial security. Bower and Hums (2013) found that
funding for womens programs was not attractive enough in relation to how much work is
required of the head coach of a team. Jambor and Zhang (1997) found that the
consequences that coaching had on family life also played a factor into the decision
making process for women who thought of applying to coaching positions. It was
concluded that as coaches advance through the levels of splay (i.e. recreational, junior
high school, high school, and college) less time was spent with their families as a result
of the increase in responsibilities of being an elite coach. Collegiate coaches in this
experiment also spent less and less time giving support to athletes, communicating less,
and caring less for athletes. This is due to the challenge of balancing family life and job
responsibilities (Jambor & Zhang, 1997).

Conclusion
In this paper, evidence is presented that proves female coaches have face
numerous barriers in pursuit of coaching positions. Historically, masculinity has prevailed
in society and has been a determinant of ones place in society (Wolff and Watson, 1973);
thus, men have managed to stay on top in the working world. Women will continue to
have a challenging time competing for head coaching positions due to the already

established, and almost traditional, ideal coaching construct that of a masculine figure
naturally strong, aggressive, and not as easily succumbed by emotions.
In the realm of coaching, stereotypically men have been favoured as coaches, but
evidence presented from Van Vugt and Spisak (2008) suggest that a preferred style of
leadership depends on the task at hand. Men have traditionally been sought out to get the
job done, and women have been responsible for caring and nurturing individuals.
Hoyden (2010) found that as long as women were undermined in the work place, they
would not be able to thrive in an environment where they would have to compete against
men. These findings are another example that show women will continue to face barriers
in coaching; male dominance in todays society has no signs of lessening. As long as the
majority of the high paid positions in sport are occupied by males, the world of athletic
will continue to be dominated by men; virtually leaving no room for women to compete
for these positions.
The lack of females in coaching is partly explained through behavioural theories
such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour. This theory is defined as the belief in ones
own ability to enact particular behaviour. Unfortunately, in order to believe in ones
ability, females need role models individuals they can relate. To. Based on readings in
the field of coaching, there is a lack of female role models for aspiring female coaches
(Sagas et al., 2006).
From gender to the Title IX, women will continue to face obstacles in their
journey towards obtaining head coaching positions. The lack of financial and job security,
burnout, and conflicts with family life will stand to be hard obstacles to look pass in order
to pursue a coaching career. A woman has always been thought of a stay-at-home mom,

where nurturing the children and taking care of the home was the most important. Seldom
do men stay at home to raise children and women take care of the financial side of things.
In the field of coaching, women are also at a huge disadvantage with a significantly lower
pay grade than their male counter parts and experience discriminatory hiring (Bower and
Humus, 2013).
All of the information presented can be used to draw several conclusions. The
first is that women will continue to face barriers with coaching positions. The second
conclusion is that the lack of women applying for these positions means there will be few
female role models for those looking for belief in seeing females as good coaches. This
influences the number of females who will apply for coaching positions. The third
conclusion is that women hesitate to apply for head coaching positions because of the
lifestyle that comes with it (i.e. long hours, limited family time, virtually all-year training,
burnout, etc.) From these three conclusions an on-going cycle continues; women will
continue to stray from believing in taking the risk of applying for head coaching jobs
because of security, burnout, and low pay.

References
Bem, S. & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex Typing and the Avoidance of Cross-Sex Behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(1), 48-54.
Booth, A., Granger, D., Mazur, A., & Kivlighan, K. (2006). Testosterone and social
behaviour. Social Forces, 85(1), 179-204.
Bower, G. & Hums, M. (2013). The Impact of Title IXon Career Opportunitiesin
Intercollegiate Athletic Administration. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 6, 213-230.
Brake, D. (2012). Getting in the game: Title IX and the womens sports revolution.
Marguette sports law review, 22(2), 615-617.
Buchanan, M. (2012). Title IX turns 40: A brief history and look forward. Texas Rev of
Entertain & Sports Law, 14(1), 91-93.
Cermele, J., Daniels, S., & Anderson, K. (2001). Defining normal: Constructions of race
and gender in the DSM-IV casebook. Feminism & Psychology, 11(2), 229247.
Crews, D. (1988). The problem with gender. Psychobiology, 16(4), 321-334.
Dayiolu, M., & Trt-Aik, S. (2007). Gender differences in academic performance in a
large public university in Turkey. Higher Education, 53(2), 255-277.
Druckman, J. (2014). Athlete support for Title IX. Sport Journal, 1-22.
Ferguson, K. (2014). Achieving gender equity under Title IX for girls from minority,
urban, rural, and economically disadvantaged communities.
Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive
environments: Gender differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics-Cambridge
Massachusetts-, 118(3), 1049-1074.
Guttmann, A. (2003). Sports spectators from antiquity to the renaissance. Journal of
Sport History. 8(2), 5-27.
Holland, J. & Oglesby, C. (1979). Women in sport: The synthesis begins. Am Acad of
Polit & Soc Sci, 445, 80-90.
Hovden, J. (2010). Female top leaders prisoners of gender? The gendering of leadership
discourses in Norwegian sports organizations. International Journal of Sport Policy &
Politics, 2(2), 189-203.
Jambor, E., & Zhang, J. (1997). Investigating leadership, gender, and coaching level
using the revised leadership for sport scale. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(3), 313-321.

Kulik, L. (1998). Study of gender role perceptions among Kibbutz and urban adolescents
in Israel. Journal of Community Psychology. 26(6), 533-548.
Moran-Miller, K. & Flores, L. (2011). Where are the women in women's sports?
Predictors of female athletes' interest in a coaching career. Res Q Exerc Sport, 82(1),10917.
Pryzgoda, J. & Chrisler, J. (2000). Definitions of gender and sex: The subtleties of
meaning. Sex Roles, 43(7-8): 553-569.
Reiners, D. (2001). Stuck in the Pleistocene: Rationality and Evolved Social Roles.
Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, 20(2):139-54.
Rowe, R., Maughan, B., Worthman, C., Costella, E., and Angold, A. (2004). Testosterone,
antisocial behavior, and social dominance in boys: Pubertal development and biosocial
interaction. Biol Psychiatry, 55, 546552.
Ruggieri, S. (2013). Leadership style, self-sacrifice, and team identification. Social
Behaviour and Personality, 41(7), 1171-1178.
Sagas, M., Cunningham, G., & Pastore, D. (2006). Predicting head coaching intentions of
male and female assistant coaches: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Sex
Roles, 54, 695-705.
Staurowsky, E., Murray, K., Puzio, M., & Quagliariello, J. (2013). Revisiting James
Madison University:A Case Analysis of Program Restructuring Following So Called Title
IX' Cuts. Jour of Intercollegiate Sport, 6, 96-119.
Stewart, A. & McDermott, C. (2004). Gender in Psychology. Annu Rev Psychol. 55, 51944.
Thapman, M. (2001). Adolescence, embodiment and gender identity in contemporary
India: Elite women in a changing society. Womens Studies International Forum, 24 (3-4),
359-371.
van der Meij, L., Buunk, A., van de Sande, J., and Salvador, A. (2008). Thepresenceofa
womanincreasestestosteroneinaggressivedominantmen.HormonesandBehaviour,
54(5),640644.
Van Vugt, M. & Spisak, B. (2008). Sex differences in the emergence of leadership during
competitions within and between groups. Assoc for Psych Sci, 19(9), 854-858.
Wolff, S., & Watson, C. G. (1983). Personality adjustment differences in the Bem
Masculinity and Femininity Scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 543 550.

Xiong, H. & Fang, P. (2014). Authentic leadership, collective efficacy, and group
performance: An empirical study in China. Social Behaviour and Personality, 42(6), 921932.