ACADEMIA Letters

Treatment of the American Female Athlete

Craig Stewart, Montana State University - Bozeman
Chris Tarabochia, Montana State University - Bozeman
Jasmine Casanovas, Montana State University - Bozeman

Forward
With all the publicity and exposure of the negative issues related to females in sport, the
number of abuses would diminish. But consider….

• March 2021,

– NCAA Madness: Significant differences existed in final tournaments of the col-

lege men’s and women’s basketball seasons.

• Later spring 2021,

– Having survived the ‘year of COVID’, a public high school female basketball team
witnessed their head coach loudly addressing two of their starters at half time:
“You two are fuckin’ disappointments.”
– (…one starter, who will be a senior, has opted NOT to continue sport)

• Summer 2021,

– Gymnast Simone Biles receives significant amount of social and media criticism
for her withdrawal from events at the Tokyo Olympics due to her mental and phys-
ical health.

• August 2021,

Academia Letters, September 2021 ©2021 by the authors — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Craig Stewart, cstewart@montana.edu

Citation: Stewart, C., Tarabochia, C., Casanovas, J. (2021). Treatment of the American Female Athlete.
Academia Letters, Article 3523. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3523.

1
 – A freshman female javelin thrower transferred from a major university because
of her coach’s pressure to lose weight and the team’s doctor recommendation to
return home. They created such stress she sought psychiatric help for the reoccur-
rence of an eating disorder.

Introduction
It is difficult to imagine in 2021, after a year of pandemic, anxiety, stress, and even political
unrest, young athletes are still subjected to stupid, unethical adult behavior. According to
some,[1,2,3] sport is at a crossroad where the fragility of its athletes should be understood.
Many are documenting the impact of the pandemic on sport development, participation, and
the future of youth sport. Teare and Taks (2021)[3] predicted a shift from organized to non-
organized sport, modified reasons for participation, and a reassessment of sports’ value.
Sport should provide positive development in physical, psychological, and emotional
well-being of all participants. Yet, the negative behaviors affecting female athletes at all ages
are well documented. It is incomprehensible the examples are not only occurring, but not
uncommon. This article is meant to continue the fight for the rights of female athletes by
illuminating adult actions that negatively affect their participation. It concludes with realistic
recommendations.
Historically, sport participation rates of females are lower than males. In 2012, the World
Health Organization[4] reported that, males ages 13-18 participated in organized sport four
times greater than their female counterparts. Unfortunately, that disparity of participation
rates continues.[5,6,7]
The motivational differences between males and females have also been studied in-depth.[8,9]
Basically, young females are more intrinsically motivated to play sport than males. For fe-
males, social engagement involving friends and/or family influences provide the initial drive
to play in most. Those strong internal drives have the greater influence in initiating sport, and
according to Deci and Ryan,[8,9] creating high intrinsic motivation in individuals requires
meeting three basic psychological needs:

• Autonomy: the level individuals perceive their behavior to be under their own control;

• Competence: the perception of their ability to perform a certain action/ behavior, and

• Relatedness: a sense of belonging created by forming relationships with others.

More recently, others[10] have studied adherence motives of young female athletes in compet-
itive sport. In two age groups, 9-11 and 12-13, intrinsic motivation dominated while external

Academia Letters, September 2021 ©2021 by the authors — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Craig Stewart, cstewart@montana.edu

Citation: Stewart, C., Tarabochia, C., Casanovas, J. (2021). Treatment of the American Female Athlete.
Academia Letters, Article 3523. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3523.

2
motivation had lower effects. The social interactions with coaches and teammates were greater
motivators in initiating and maintaining participation. Therefore, coaches should stress team
building, communication, and team cohesion, and teach skills such as organizing free time and
physical recovery from training and competition. In the 14-17 ages, only minor variations in
the motivational profile were recorded. Regardless of external motivators, coaches should
continue team building and cohesion to maintain adherence and reduce rates of attrition.
While negative coaching behaviors are not novel, it is incomprehensible that they are
not only evident, but readily ignored and often justified. At every level of sport, coaches
and administrators should be educated to the motivational factors that initiate and maintain
participation in sport. Unfortunately, even some parents appear to be blind to the inexcusable
behaviors of those who call themselves coaches if their child ‘wins’.
Methods: According to Anshel (2012),[11] athletes are often overlooked when determin-
ing the characteristics of successful coaches. Regardless of their age or experience, players’
input is cogent, and increases in validity with longer exposure to coaches’ behaviors. Unfor-
tunately, players rarely have an opportunity to provide input on those behaviors. Therefore,
players should be given non-threatening opportunities to provide their observations.
Based upon a study in revision,[12] what female athletes value in a coach has not changed
significantly. During the period of 2002 to 2021, over 600 current and former female athletes
were asked to rank ten common coaching characteristics.[13,14,15] Those female respon-
dents were considered experienced for they reported nearly 10 years of competition, with over
90% playing at the varsity high school level or higher. The methods used were justified by
numerous sources. The convenience/purposive sampling[16,17] intentionally used female
athletes whose findings could be generalized to that population. Subjects’ recall[18,19,20]
of coaches’ behaviors has been determined to be objective, reliable, and often more impor-
tant than the behavior itself. Finally, requiring forced rankings[21,22,23,24]establish clarity
by eliminating neutral or repetitive rankings thus reducing bias and social desirability. Non-
parametric statistical analysis was used to determine the separation of characteristics into three
significantly distinct groups.[12]

Results
How experienced, competitive female athletes ranked coaching behaviors were:
The three highest ranked coach characteristics were….

1. the ability to teach

2. being fair and honest with players and

Academia Letters, September 2021 ©2021 by the authors — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Craig Stewart, cstewart@montana.edu

Citation: Stewart, C., Tarabochia, C., Casanovas, J. (2021). Treatment of the American Female Athlete.
Academia Letters, Article 3523. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3523.

3
 3. teaching and stressing sportsmanship.

The middle rankings were…

4. knowledge of skills of the sport

5. commitment to having their players enjoy their sport
6. knowledge of rules of the sport and
7. providing an experience improving your chance of playing at a higher-level.

And the lowest ranked coaching characteristics were…

8. knowledge of prevention, care, and rehabilitation of injuries

9. experience as player of the sport coached and
10. commitment to winning.

The findings have maintained consistency across time and are widely reported.[25,26,27,28,29]

Conclusion
Gender differences in sport participation have been presented often. Stewart & Taylor (2000)[30]
surveyed over 200 female athletes finding the majority participated in sport for fun and en-
joyment. Injuries, time issues, conflicts with coaches and ‘not having fun’ were causes of
quitting. Favorite coaches were described as ‘fun’, nice, listened/understanding, and fair.
Least favorite coaches were mean/rude, unfair, not encouraging, yelled, and negative.
Later, Sirard[31] found males were motivated more by competition, whereas girls reported
social reasons for participation. However, the genders agreed having fun in sports kept them
playing. Lack of interest, coaching problems, and time constraints were reasons for cessation.
The authors[31] concluded coaches should be educated to understand the physical, emotional,
and social needs of their athletes and incorporate specific methods in practice.
Others[32] have agreed that coaches need better understanding of the female athlete be-
cause coaching problems or dislike of a coach were primary determinants of sport attrition.
Coaches should learn more about adolescent female development and the importance of the
coach/player relationship. That relationship depends on more intrinsic motivation and posi-
tive interaction than defining success as winning.Apparently, adherence to sport is more in-
trinsic with winning less a common reason.[33] Also, generational differences are important
factors in player/coach relationships.[34] Basically, young athletes are significantly different

Academia Letters, September 2021 ©2021 by the authors — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Craig Stewart, cstewart@montana.edu

Citation: Stewart, C., Tarabochia, C., Casanovas, J. (2021). Treatment of the American Female Athlete.
Academia Letters, Article 3523. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3523.

4
now having experienced greater changes in their lives than adults. Their characteristics are
affected by the expansion of social media, parental rearing changes, and a private sport society
catering to a different mentality. The pressure to succeed by winning is more a core element
in this modern culture[35] whereprivatization has initiated specialization and significant in-
creases in costs.
In conclusion,sport administrators and parents need to accept that sport participation by
young athletes is changing. However, the elements of player satisfaction thru intrinsic mo-
tivation are still founded on autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy is achieved
by coaches knowing athletes as individuals and their goals as players. Then, through sound
teaching skills, build players’ feelings of competence by incorporating self-monitoring of their
own progress. Both autonomy and confidence are bolstered by an athletic environment that
displays a commitment to close coach/player relationships and team cohesion.
All adults in youth sportsshould accept that sport participation is changing. Those share-
holders should reexamine and evaluate the goals of youth sport, especially for female athletes.
Female athletes are motivated by different elements, but still are highly competitive and, in
the right environment, have reached levels of extrinsic prowess equal to males. But females
are different from males and should be treated accordingly. Adults who control sport should
accept those differences and re-examine their goals and methods used to attain them. Those
elements should be clearly stated and monitored while establishing concrete repercussions for
any breech by coaches. Otherwise, young athletes will try different activities or, unfortunately,
cease sport participation entirely.

POSTSCRIPT
Though not the thesis of this article, a final comment related to coach education is needed.
Based upon a significant number of experiences by the authors, the requirements for becoming
a ‘coach’ in the USA is described best in a quote by Dr. Bart Crum[36]….

“Metaphorically speaking, never before have there been so many ships sailing
on the sea of sport pedagogy research. However, it is a serious problem that too
many of the helmsmen do not know the direction they are heading or the cargo
they are transporting. Consequently, they are not able to inform fellow sailors
about their compass courses or the practitioners on shore waiting for their cargo
about where and what they are going to unload. (pg. 185)”

&

Academia Letters, September 2021 ©2021 by the authors — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Craig Stewart, cstewart@montana.edu

Citation: Stewart, C., Tarabochia, C., Casanovas, J. (2021). Treatment of the American Female Athlete.
Academia Letters, Article 3523. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3523.

5
 the title of this article…. Still a fu@#’n disappointment

REFERENCES
1. Elliott, N., Martin, R., Heron, N., Grimstead, D. & Biswas, A. (2020). Infographic.
graduated return to play guidance following COVID-19 infection. British Journal of Sport
Medicine, 0:1–2. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-102637

2. Kelly, A., Erickson, K., & Turnnidge, J. (2020). Youth sport in the time of COVID-
19: Considerations for researchers and practitioners. Managing Sport and Leisure, 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2020.1788975

3. Teare, G. & Taks, M. (2021). Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on youth
sport and physical activity participation trends. Sustainability, 13, 1744. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13041744

4. Zach, S., Bar-Eli, M., Morris, T., & Moore, M. (2012). Measuring motivation for physical
activity: An exploratory study of PALMS-The Physical Activity and Leisure Motivation
Scale. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.
1037/t41588-000

5. Aspen Report (2020). State of Play: Pre-Pandemic ages 13-17. https://www.aspenprojectplay.

org/state-of-play-2020/ages-13-17

6. Bayyat, M. M. (2020). Identifying motives for sport participation from the perspective
of Self-Determination Theory: Gender differences. Dirasat: Educational Sciences, 47,
2020-2576.

7. Women’s Sport Foundation (2021). Keeping girls in the game: Factors that influence
sport participation. https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/
02/Keeping-Girls-in-the-Game-FINAL-web.pdf

8. Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. https://doi.org/10.
1006/ceps.1999.1020

9. Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrin-
sic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Academia Letters, September 2021 ©2021 by the authors — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Craig Stewart, cstewart@montana.edu

Citation: Stewart, C., Tarabochia, C., Casanovas, J. (2021). Treatment of the American Female Athlete.
Academia Letters, Article 3523. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3523.

6
10. Orbach, I., Gutin, H., Hoffman, N., & Blumenstein, B. (2021). Motivation in competitive
sport among female youth athletes. Psychology, 12, 943-958. https://doi.org/10.4236/
psych.2021.126057

11. Anshel, M. (2012). Sport Psychology: From Theory to Practice, 5th Ed. Pearson, Pub

12. Stewart, C., Tarabochia, C. & Casanovas. J (nd). Pre-service coach education students’
(PCES) rankings of coach characteristics: A longitudinal study. unpublished report under
revision for resubmission

13. Gilbert, W. (2017). Coaching Better Every Season. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Ill

14. Gould, D. (2016). Quality coaching counts. Phi Delta Kappan, 97, 8: 13-18..https://
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0031721716647012

15. Martens, R. (2012). Successful Coaching, Champaign Ill. Human Kinetics.

16. Jager, J., Putnick, D., & Bornstein, M. (2017). More than just convenience: The scientific
merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monograph of Society of Research in Child
Development. June ; 82(2): 13–30. doi:10.1111/mono.12296.

17. Spradley, J. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt-Rinehart & Winston.

18. Gregory, R. & Gombrich E. (1973). Illusion in Nature and Art. London/UK: Gerald
Duckworth and Company Ltd

19. Shaver, K.(1975). An Introduction to Attribution Processes. Winthrop, MN: Winthrop

Pub

20. Smith, R., Smoll, F. & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League baseball.
In F.L. Smoll & R.E. Smith (Eds) Psychological Perspectives in Youth Sports (pp. 173-
201). Washington, D.C. Hemisphere

21. Bardes, B. & Oldendick, R. (2012) Public Opinion: Measuring the American Mind;
Rowman & Little Pub., Inc. Lanham, Maryland

22. Brown, A. (2010). How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Barcelona, Spain. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/80006

23. Harzing, A., Barzantny, C., Barner-Rasmussen, W. & Davila, A. (2009). Rating versus
ranking: What is the best way to reduce response and language bias in cross-national
research? International Business Review, vol 18, no. 4, 1-31.

Academia Letters, September 2021 ©2021 by the authors — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Craig Stewart, cstewart@montana.edu

Citation: Stewart, C., Tarabochia, C., Casanovas, J. (2021). Treatment of the American Female Athlete.
Academia Letters, Article 3523. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3523.

7
24. Jennings, T. (2007). Addressing diversity in US teacher preparation programs: A survey
of elementary and secondary programs’ priorities and challenges from across the United
States of America. Teaching and Teacher Education 23, 1258–1271.

25. Boardley, I., Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C. (2008). Athletes’ perceptions of coaching effec-
tiveness athlete-related outcomes in rugby union: An investigation based on the coaching
efficacy model. The Sport Psychologist, 22: 269-287.

26. Côte, J. & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and
expertise. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,4/3, 307-323.

27. Lyle, J., (2002). Sports Coaching Concepts: A Framework for Coaches’ Behaviour,
Routledge, London.

28. Stewart , C. (2016). Female athletes’ rankings of coaching behavior: A longitudinal

study. The Physical Educator, Fall, 73,3. 417-431.

29. Trudel & Gilbert, W. (2006). Coaching and coach education. In: Kirk, D. & McDonald,
D. (ed) Handbook of Physical Education. London, Sage, 516-539.

30. Stewart, C. & Taylor, J.(2000). Why female athletes quit: Implications for coach educa-
tion. The Physical Educator, 170-177.

31. Sirard, J., Pfeiffer, K., & Pate, R. (2006). Motivational factors associated with sports
program participation in middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 696-
703.

32. Keathley, K., Himelein, M & Srigley, G.(2013). Youth soccer participation and with-
drawal: Gender similarities and differences. Journal of Sport Behavior, vol. 36, no. 2,
pp. 171-180.

33. Weinberg, R. & Gould, D. (2015). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology (6th
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

34. Gould, D., Nalepa, J. & Mignano, J. (2019). Coach generation Z athletes. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 32, 104-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2019.1581856

35. Schinke, R., Hanrahan, S. & Catina, P. (2009). Introduction to cultural sport psychol-
ogy. In R. J. Schinke, & S. J. Hanrahan (Eds.), Cultural Sport Psychology (pp. 3-12).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. http://doi.org/10.5040/9781492595366.ch-001

Academia Letters, September 2021 ©2021 by the authors — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Craig Stewart, cstewart@montana.edu

Citation: Stewart, C., Tarabochia, C., Casanovas, J. (2021). Treatment of the American Female Athlete.
Academia Letters, Article 3523. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3523.

8
36. Crum, B. (2001). The “Idola” of sport pedagogy researchers. Quest, 184-191.

Academia Letters, September 2021 ©2021 by the authors — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Craig Stewart, cstewart@montana.edu

Citation: Stewart, C., Tarabochia, C., Casanovas, J. (2021). Treatment of the American Female Athlete.
Academia Letters, Article 3523. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3523.