Sport-related identities and the "toxic jock".

Miller, Kathleen E.

Recognition is growing that engagement with sport is a multidimensional experience and should be measured as such (e.g., Lantz & Schroeder, 1999). Although several researchers (Barber, Eccles, & Stone, 2001; Miller, Melnick, Barnes, Farrell, & Sabo, 2005; Miller, Melnick, Barnes, Sabo, & Farrell, 2007) have disaggregated the effects of objective athletic activity (e.g., team membership or frequency of sports participation) from those of subjective identity (how we perceive ourselves, or are perceived by others), less attention has been devoted to the identification of contrasting sport-related identities. For example, "athlete" and "jock" are generally treated as equivalent constructs in common parlance. A few studies (Miller & Hoffman, in press; Miller, Sabo, Melnick, Farrell, & Barnes, 2006) have begun to identify these as separate and distinct identities with implications not only for the lived athletic experience but also for other, less-obviously related domains, including gender norms and health-risk behavior. This study is intended to examine differences between athletes and jocks and to advance understanding of the conditions--such as participation in a high-profile, high status sport marked by pervasive, hegemonically masculine imagery--under which a dangerously risk-oriented jock identity may develop. Applying basic principles of identity theory to the specific case of sport-related identities, these insights provide the underpinnings of a nascent "toxic jock" theory.

The present study employs a sample of 581 sport-involved undergraduate students at a large Northeastern U.S. public university to address two key questions. (1) To what degree do students identify themselves as "athletes" and/or as "jocks"? How much overlap is there in these identities? (2) How are sport-related identities related to three conditions hypothesized to promote a "toxic jock" outcome: ego-focused goal orientation, high primary sport ratings, and conformity to masculine norms?

Identity theory and sport. Identity theory (Stryker & Burke, 2000) conceptualizes identity as an accretion of the composite meanings individuals attach to the roles they typically play in interpersonal situations, meanings that to some degree frame our interpretations of social reality and guide our behavioral expectations. As encapsulated by Mead's classic observations about the recursive relationship between self and society (Mead, 1934), identity plays out in ways both internal (the individual's self-reflective evaluation) and social (others' evaluations of the individual); in fact, the dialectic between these two components fuels an ongoing renegotiation of the meanings of the identities we hold, even those associated with conventionally well-defined roles. Moreover, role identities may be organized hierarchically in terms of their relative salience. The more salient an identity is relative to other identities, the more likely that it will be invoked across a variety of contexts (Stryker, 1968; Stryker & Serpe, 1994). For example, a college student for whom "jock" is a highly salient identity might well bring this paradigmatic frame not only to the basketball court but also to the classroom, the workplace, or even the family dinner table. Identities may also be stratified by level of commitment, which strengthens the link between identity and role performance (Burke & Reitzes, 1991). In fact, the excessive predominance of one social self over others may lead to identity foreclosure, premature commitment to a career or lifestyle to the exclusion of other, unexplored alternatives; some college sports participants may be a particularly high risk for identity foreclosure (Adler & Adler, 1989; Murphy, Petitpas, & Brewer, 1996; Sparkes, 1998).

The relationship between behavior and identity is circular. An individual may construct an identity that reflects his or her activities, and subsequently seek out other activities congruent with that now-existing identity. Researchers have used a variety of strategies to elaborate a core identity associated with sports participation. For example, Donnelly and Young (1988) employed an ethnographic approach to examining the construction of identity in several sport subcultures, while Curry and Weaner (1987) asked college student-athletes to rank six social identities according to the salience of each category and their commitment to it. A number of researchers (e.g., Horton & Mack, 2000; Lantz & Schroeder, 1999; Webb, Nasco, Riley, & Headrick, 1998) have drawn on Brewer, Van Raalte, and Linder's (1993) Athletic Identity Measurement Scale, a psychological construct using statements such as "Sport is the most important part of my life" and "Most of my friends are athletes" to quantify the strength and exclusivity of identification with the athletic role. However, the AIMS scale did not successfully disaggregate separate dimensions of athletic identity, let alone distinct and unique sport-related identities (Hale, James, & Stambulova, 1999). Although a separate research literature on adolescent peer crowds (e.g., Brown, Eicher, & Petrie, 1986; Eckert, 1989; La Greca, Prinstein, & Fetter, 200 l) frequently invokes teen assessments of personal or peer affiliation with a "jock" crowd, the term has largely been treated as synonymous with "athlete," and until recently little effort has been made to distinguish between them.

Disaggregating sport-related identities. Both inductive logic and empirical findings suggest that there are multiple sport-related identities with different developmental trajectories and different implications for risky or health-compromising behaviors. The cumulative athletic experiences of a professional football quarterback and a retiree recreational golfer are likely to be so divergent as to involve little overlap, and may well inform drastically different perspectives and behavioral expectations even if the resultant sport-related identity is highly salient for both parties. Not only may distinct identities emerge; it is reasonable to speculate that their behavioral correlates may be in some ways inherently contradictory.

Because a preponderance of the research on athletic involvement and behavioral outcomes has examined only objective, easily quantifiable measures of sports participation rather than subjective identity, though, any such differences have remained unexplored. This omission warrants correction because closer attention to sport-related identities might help to resolve inconsistent or contradictory findings with respect to the effects of athletic participation on health risk behaviors. For example, some researchers have linked adolescent sports participation to elevated risk for problem drinking (Hoffman, 2006; Leichliter, Meilman, Presley, & Cashin, 1998; Martens, Dams-O'Connor, & Beck, 2006; Nelson & Wechsler, 2001; Rainey, McKeown, Sargent, & Valois, 1996), particularly for males (Carr, Kennedy, & Dimick, 1996), whereas others find no significant relationship (Higgs, McKelvie, & Standing, 2001; Overman & Terry, 1991; Pate, Trost, Levin, & Dowda, 2000). Similarly, young women who play sports report less sexual risk-taking than their nonathlete peers (Eitle & Eitle, 2002; Kokotailo, Koscik, Henry, Fleming, & Landry, 1998; Miller, Sabo, Farrell, Barnes, & Melnick, 1998, 1999; Rome, Rybicki, & Durant, 1998; Savage & Holcomb, 1999), whereas male sports participants report elevated risk (Miller et al., 1999; Zill, Nord, & Loomis, 1995). Some of these discrepancies may in fact be attributable to divergences in identity obscured by the measurement of athletic activity alone.

A series of studies directly contrasting the objective (behavioral) and subjective (identity) dimensions of sports involvement show two emergent trends: specifically, a salutary effect of athletic participation but exacerbating effect of jock identity with respect to such diverse outcomes as problem drinking (Miller et al., 2003), unsafe sex (Miller, Farrell, Barnes, Melnick, & Sabo, 2005), academic misconduct (Miller, Melnick et al., 2005), interpersonal violence (Miller, Melnick, Farreil, Sabo, & Barnes, 2006), and delinquency (Miller et al., 2007). However, the limited measures used in all of these studies could not distinguish whether the outcome differential reflected a dichotomy between sport-related activity and identity, or between different identities. Only one very recent study has directly compared sport-related identities. Controlling for the effects of past-year team sports participation, Miller and Hoffman in press, found that the strength of college students' self-reported athlete identity was inversely related to both levels of depression and odds of a past-year suicide attempt, whereas stronger jock identity was associated with elevated odds of a suicide attempt.

Theorizing the toxic jock. As a cultural archetype, the "toxic jock" has ample precedent in popular films (e.g., Revenge of the Nerds, Dodgeball, Varsity Blues) and recurrent media reports of the "bad behavior" of various professional athletes (e.g., Mike Tyson, Darryl Strawberry). As a theoretical construct, toxic jock identity--particularly when read as a dysfunctional or distorted variant of a more generally salutary athlete identity--is rooted in the basic principles of identity theory. Sport-related identities develop through the natural process of constructing, interpreting and negotiating the meanings associated with sport-based social interaction as a whole, including not only formal participation on an organized sports team but informal play, spectatorship, and even tangentially sport-related leisure activities. Given the valorization of sport in contemporary U.S. society, these identities may assume considerable salience for the individual.

As conceptualized in the present study, the circumstances surrounding the evolution of a jock identity are more narrowly defined than those leading to a broader athlete identity. In particular, jock identity grows out of the experience of participation in high-profile, high-status sports for which some degree of structured physical violence and intensive, hegemonically masculine imagery are hallmarks, with the "combat" sport of football as archetype (Miller, Sabo, et al., 2006). These conditions emphasize individual achievement over group teamwork and an externalized metric (such as fame, money, or social status) for measuring athletic success.

Jock and athlete identities may also reflect different achievement goal orientations. Duda (1989, 1995) has distinguished between task and ego orientations in sport participants. Task-oriented people define success in self-referential terms, emphasizing skills mastery through effort and persistence. In contrast, ego-oriented people define success in comparative terms, emphasizing out performance of other competitors--through natural talent if possible, cheating if necessary. Given this divergent focus, an ego orientation has been linked to lack of persistence as well as suboptimal athletic performance (Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Hall, Kerr, Kozub, & Finnie, 2007; Newton & Duda, 1993). Though some researchers have suggested that males are culturally conditioned to be more ego-oriented than females, findings of actual gender differences have been sporadic (Bergin & Habusta, 2004; Hanrahan & Biddle, 2002). This inconsistency might be resolved if in fact the relationship between gender and goal orientation is mediated by sport-related identity.

The long-standing masculine character of sport as an institution has been diffused, but not eliminated, by Title IX efforts to broaden its scope to welcome women's participation in recent decades. Thus Lantz and Schroeder (1999) found that sport-related identity, as operationalized by the AIMS scale (Brewer et al., 1993), was positively correlated with endorsement of a masculine gender role orientation. Drawing on interviews with 20 high school boys, Pascoe (2003) concluded that social categorization as a jock (as opposed to sports participation per se) was associated with dominance, overt heterosexuality, obedience to the precepts of an overarching paradigm of hegemonic masculinity, and participation in a specific subset of sports (i.e., football, basketball, wrestling, baseball, or soccer) that reinforced these principles. In contrast, in a study of sexual aggression by college men, Locke and Mahalik (2005) found no significant correlation between athletic involvement and endorsement of most conventional norms for masculine behavior. Again, this inconsistency might be in part attributable to Locke and Mahalik's use of a single objective measure of sports participation likely to conflate the normatively hypermasculine jock with the more gender-neutral athlete. The toxic jock model suggests that the link between sport-related identity and masculinity should be stronger for self-identified jocks than for athletes; moreover, it is likely that women who do participate in organized sports--even high-status sports--will tend to construct athlete identities, whereas male participants may develop either sport-related identity depending on the social context of their involvement. However, to the extent that women do adopt a jock identity, it is likely to have the same concomitants as for men: a strong ego goal orientation, a history of participation in high-status contact sports, and conformity to a range of behavioral and attitudinal norms commonly associated with conventional masculinity.

Methods

Participants

Five hundred eighty-one undergraduate students (n = 251 females and n = 330 males) enrolled at a large Northeastern U.S. public university participated in the present study. The overall response rate for the larger Athletic Involvement Study from which the present analysis was derived was 53% (N = 795 out of 1500 students invited to participate). However, approximately a quarter of all study participants were not sport-involved (i.e., reported no sports participation at the high school or college level and did not claim affiliation with any primary sport) and were thus instructed to skip the portion of the questionnaire dealing with sport-related measures. Seventy-three percent of the sample (n = 581) qualified for the present analysis by supplying valid responses to five key sport-related predictor and outcome variables of interest: namely, the scales measuring strength of jock identity, strength of athlete identity, goal orientation in sport, primary sport ratings, and conformity to masculine norms. Participants were disproportionately male (57% male, 43% female) and ranged in age from 18 to 40 years (M = 19.92; SD = 1.88).

Measures

Sport-related identities. Subjects were asked to respond to a series of self-evaluative statements, with 5-point response ranges from "strongly disagree" (= 1) to "strongly agree" (= 5). Jock identity was assessed with two statements: "I tend to see myself as a jock" and "Other people tend to see me as a jock." Responses for these two statements were averaged to create a continuous composite scale measure where a score of I indicated the lowest level of jock identity and a score of 5 indicated the highest level. Responses for a set of parallel statements, "I tend to see myself as an athlete" and "Other people tend to see me as an athlete," were averaged to create an corresponding athlete identity scale. Because these two scales were scored independently, strong jock identity and strong athlete identity were not mutually exclusive; in fact, as expected, there was considerable overlap between the two.

Continuous measures such as these provide inherently more information about strength of identity than dichotomous measures. All multivariate analyses in the present study (Tables 2-4) were conducted using continuous measures of the strength of each sport-related identity. However, it is also useful to contrast the typical characteristics of respondents scoring at or near each end of the continuum (i.e., strong vs. weak athlete identity; strong vs. weak jock identity), as shown in Table 1. For intuitive ease of descriptive comparison, therefore, the continuous sport-related identity scales were also dichotomized into discrete high/low categories distinguishing respondents scoring 3.5 or above (a mean response of agree or strongly agree) from those scoring 3.0 or lower (a mean response of neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree). (1) Respondents who scored high on the jock identity scale were designated "jocks" and those who scored high on the athlete identity scale were designated "athletes." Again, because the scales were scored independently, using this descriptive typology it was possible for a single respondent to be classified as either a jock, an athlete, both, or neither.

Goal orientation in sports. The Task and Ego Orientation in Sports Questionnaire (TEOSQ; Duda, 1989) was used to assess contrasting propensities in sport-related goal perspectives. A strong task orientation emphasizes personal excellence via mastery of athletic skills; a strong ego orientation emphasizes the demonstration of superior ability in comparison to the performance of others. Respondents indicated their degree of agreement with each of a series of 13 statements beginning, "I feel most successful in sport when ..." Sample items in the Task subscale include "... A skill I learn really feels right" and "... Something I learn makes me want to go and practice more." Sample items in the Ego subscale include "... I score the most points/goals/hits" and "... Others mess up and I don't." The reliability and validity of this instrument have been demonstrated elsewhere (Chi & Duda, 1995; Hanrahan & Biddle, 2002). In the present sample, both subscales demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's ct = .89 for Task and .89 for Ego) and the correlation between them was low (r = .31).

Primary sport ratings. Respondents with a history of any regular high school or college athletic participation (i.e., all participants in the present sample) were asked to identify their primary sport, the one most important to them personally. They were then asked to rate that sport compared to other sports in their school or community, during their high school years. Respondents rated their primary sport as "very low," "somewhat low," "somewhat high," or "very high" on three dimensions: popularity (operationalized as the extent to which people attend games or matches and keep up with how the team is doing), status (attention and respect team members receive from their schoolmates, neighbors, or coworkers), and institutional support (money or other material resources the school or community is likely to devote to the team). Because correlations among these measures were quite strong, ranging from .63 to .72, an overall primary sport rating was derived by averaging responses to the three questions.

Masculine norms. The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI; Mahalik et al., 2003; Smiler, 2006) consists of 94 items that collectively measure endorsement of eleven normative messages about masculinity. However, preliminary testing indicated that subject fatigue led to high rates of noncompletion when the full instrument was administered. In the final version of the questionnaire, therefore, subjects were asked to complete only five of the eleven CMNI subscales: Violence, Playboy, Winning, Risk, and Dominance. The 8-item Violence subscale ([alpha] = .81) included items such as "Sometimes violent action is necessary" and "I like fighting." The 12-item Playboy subscale ([alpha] = .88) included items such as "If I could, I would frequently change sexual partners" and "Emotional involvement should be avoided when having sex." The 10-item Winning subscale ( [alpha] = .80) included items such as "In general, I will do anything to win" and "The best feeling in the world comes from winning." The 10-item Risk Taking subscale ([alpha] = .83) included items such as "Taking dangerous risks helps me to prove myself" and "I frequently put myself in risky situations." Finally, the 4-item Dominance subscale ([alpha] = .68) included items such as "I make sure people do as I say" and "I should be in charge." A global Total Masculinity scale ([alpha] = .68) was constructed by calculating the mean across all five CMNI subscales.

Sociodemographic measures. Demographic data were collected on gender (male = 0; female = 1), age, race (white = 0; all other races = 1), and ethnicity (non-Hispanic = 0; Hispanic = 1). Three additional measures were employed to control for social background: religion, parental education and maternal employment. Religion was coded as "not religious" (= 0) "religious, not fundamentalist/evangelical" (= 1) or "religious, fundamentalist/evangelical" (= 2). As a proxy for social class, students reported each parent's highest level of educational achievement from among five options: did not finish high school (coded as 10 years); high school degree or GED (12 years); some college or technical certification (14 years); bachelor's degree (16 years); and post-graduate or professional degree, e.g., MA, MBA, PhD, or MD (18 years). Parental education was coded as the higher available response if mother's and father's education levels differed, or if the respondent provided data for only one parent. Maternal employment was coded as 0 if the respondent's mother was currently unemployed or retired and coded as 1 if she worked outside the home for pay on at least a part-time basis.

Procedures

Undergraduates enrolled in seven large-section, lower-level Sociology, Communications, and Economics courses at a large Northeastern U.S. university were invited to complete a 45-minute anonymous questionnaire. Each participant received $10.00 compensation. In the case of the Communications students, the study also counted for research credit that could be applied toward fulfillment of a course requirement.

Two mechanisms were employed for distribution and collection of questionnaires. Approximately half were administered in a classroom setting, with enrolled students informed in advance that they had the option of skipping the class if they chose not to take part in the study. The remaining participants were recruited with brief in-class announcements inviting them to e-mail the research team to indicate their interest, whereupon they were sent a copy of the questionnaire form via e-mail. Participants then completed the questionnaire independently and returned it to the research team in person at a predesignated date and location. Informed consent was secured from all participants and the study protocol was approved by the university's Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board.

Results

Table 1 provides a description of demographic characteristics as well as means and standard deviations for the sport-related predictor variables (goal orientations, primary sport ratings, and conformity to masculine norms) and outcomes variables (sport-related identities) for the sample as a whole. The data were then partitioned by gender, high/low jock identity, and high/low athlete identity, using F-tests to check for statistically significant mean differences. Findings from the gender comparisons were consistent with the traditionally masculine character of the sport institution in the United States; men reported significantly stronger sport-related identities and assigned higher perceived ratings to their primary sports. Men also scored higher on ego task orientation and conformity to masculine norms across all subscales.

Personal Affiliation with Sport-Related Identities

In general, respondents tended to report a stronger identification as athletes than as jocks. The mean jock identity score for the sample was 2.20 (SD = 1.12) on a scale of 1-5, indicating moderate rejection of the identity (data not shown). In comparison, the mean athlete identity score was 3.26 (SD = 1.21), indicating near neutrality. The substantial but incomplete overlap between the jock and athlete identities is encapsulated in the strong correlation (r = .61, p < .001) between these two scales. In general, most students identified more strongly as athletes than as jocks. In fact, respondents were twice as likely to report strong rejection of the latter; 32% indicated strong disagreement with both jock identity items, whereas 10% strongly disagreed with both athlete identity items.

When jock and athlete scale scores were dichotomized into discrete high and low categories, 18% of respondents identified themselves as "jocks" (high in jock identity), compared to 55% who identified themselves as "athletes" (high in athlete identity). A cross-tabulation of these two variables ([chi square] (1, N = 581)= 71.8, p < .001) confirmed that the overlap is marked but not absolute, with jocks constituting a rough subset of athletes: 93% of self-identified jocks and 47% of nonjocks considered themselves to be athletes, whereas 30% of athletes and 3% of nonathletes considered themselves to be jocks.

Both sport-related identities were significantly stronger among men than among women. The mean athlete identity score for men was 3.58 (SD = 1.08), compared to 2.83 (SD = 1.25) for women; the mean jock identity score for men was 2.47 (SD = 1.15), compared to 1.85 (SD = 0.97) for women. When the scales were dichotomized, 68% of men and 39% of women identified themselves as athletes; 25% of men and only 8% of women identified themselves as jocks. F-tests indicated that these gender differences were all statistically significant (p < .001).

Sport-Related Identities as Predictors

Hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to (1) assess relationships between sport-related identities and sport-related goal orientations, primary sport ratings of popularity, status, and institutional support, and conformity to masculine norms, and (2) test for gender interactions in each of these relationships.

Sport-related goal orientations. For those respondents who claimed affiliation with a primary sport, TEOSQ subscales were regressed on both strength of jock identity and strength of athlete identity, controlling for gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, parental education, and maternal employment (see Table 2 for highest-order results). Task orientation toward sports was positively predicted by gender ([beta] = .13, p < .01) and strength of athlete identity ([beta] = .30, p < .001), indicating that women and self-identified athletes inclined toward a task-based approach to athletic participation. A significant interaction between gender and athlete identity was probed by running gender-specific follow-up regressions which showed that the positive association between athlete identity and task orientation was significantly stronger for men ([beta] = .37, p < .001) than for women ([beta] = .18, p < .05).

In contrast, an ego orientation toward sports was negatively associated with being female, ([beta] = -. 12, p < .01) positively associated with religion ([beta] = .10, p < .05), and positively associated with strength of jock identity ([beta] = .18, p < .001). Probes of a significant interaction indicated that strength of jock identity was positively associated with ego orientation for men ([beta] = .27, p < .001) but not for women ([beta] = .01, ns).

Primary sport ratings. Respondents were asked to provide subjective ratings of their primary sport in terms of its relative standing compared to other sports when they were in high school (Table 3). As predicted by the toxic jock model, strength of jock identity was positively associated with perceived popularity ([beta] = .14, p < .01), status ([beta] = .14, p < .01, institutional support ([beta] = .17, p < .01 ), and overall sport rating ([beta] = .17, p < .01). Strength of athlete identity was also a positive predictor in three of the four models (status, [beta] = .11, p < .05; institutional support, [beta] = .11, p < .05; overall rating, [beta] = .12, p < .05), albeit a somewhat weaker one. Gender was not significantly associated with any primary sport rating, indicating no difference between women's and men's sports after controlling for sport-related identity. Nor did product terms reveal significant interactions between gender and identity in these equations. However, respondent religion was positively associated with higher primary sport ratings.

Conformity to masculine norms. Table 4 shows highest-order results for a series of analyses assessing relationships between sport-related identities and reported endorsement of a range of masculine norms, including a propensity for violence, a "playboy" attitude toward sexual relationships, an emphasis on winning, risk-taking, and interpersonal dominance, as well as an overall measure combining these norms into a single scale. Conventional masculine norms were strongly and positively predicted by strength of jock identity in the Total Masculinity model ([beta] =. 19, p < .001) and three of the five subscales: Playboy ([beta] = .19, p < .001), Winning ([beta] = .13, p < .01), and Risk ([beta] = .11, p < .05). For the remaining two subscales, jock identity approached but did not reach statistical significance (Violence, [beta] = .09, p <. 10; Dominance, [beta] =. 10, p <. 10). In contrast, strength of athlete identity positively predicted only one CMNI subscale (Winning, [beta] = .25, p < .001), and was in fact negatively associated with the Playboy subscale ([beta] = -. 13, p < .01).

Tests of product terms found no significant interactions of gender and jock identity for any of the CMNI subscales. However, the relationship between athlete identity and masculine norms conformity was significantly stronger for men than for women in two of the six models: Winning and Violence (data not shown). Although no significant gender interaction was found for the Playboy subscale, exploratory gender-specific analyses were nevertheless conducted in order to probe the contradictory findings for jock vs. athlete identity noted above. For both genders, conformity to Playboy norms was positively predicted by strength of jock identity (for men, [beta] = .19, p < .01; for women, [beta] = .24, p < .01). In contrast, strength of athlete identity was negatively associated with Playboy norms for women ([beta] = -.23, p < .01) but unrelated for men.

Discussion

As indicated by both continuous and dichotomous measures of sport-related identity, respondents were generally more likely to favor an athlete identity over a jock identity. In fact, while most self-reported jocks also scored high on athlete identity, the reverse was not true. This finding lends credence to the notion that jocks may well constitute a specialized subset of athletes. The circumstances that surround the evolution of a "toxic jock" identity have elsewhere been speculated to include participation in a high-profile, high-status sport that features both substantial physical contact (i.e., "combat" sports such as football or wrestling) and pervasive, hegemonically masculine imagery (Miller, 2008; Miller, Sabo, et al., 2006). Since that constellation of characteristics is most likely to be found in traditionally masculine sports, jock identity is also likely to be more explicitly gendered than athlete identity. Findings in the present study were consistent with that profile, with women more than half as likely as men to identify strongly as athletes but less than a third as likely as men to identify strongly as jocks.

The toxic jock model suggests that sport-related identities should also predict other sport-linked qualities. In particular, a strong jock identity should be associated with an ego-oriented approach to sports participation, a personal history of participation in high-status or high-profile sports, and reasonably consistent endorsement of hegemonically masculine norms.

College students' responses to Duda's 1989 Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire in this study provided a clear window into the differences between the athlete and jock perspectives. Definitions of sport success, like motivations for participation, tend to be multifaceted and complex. Still, where respondents strong in athlete identity primarily emphasized the mastery of athletic skills as a route to personal excellence, those stronger in jock identity reported greater concern for outperforming others. Moreover, the link between jock identity and an ego orientation proved to be an exclusively male phenomenon.

Athlete and jock identity differed less dramatically in their relationships to primary sport ratings. Because jock and athlete are not mutually exclusive identities, it is not surprising that both would be correlated with perceived primary-sport popularity, status, and institutional support by peers, school, and community. Here too, though, the link to jock identity was generally stronger and more consistent. The only unexpected aspect to these findings was the lack of a significant gender main effect or interaction. The history of high school sports, both pre-and post-Title IX, has been one in which boys' activities are overwhelmingly prioritized and rewarded over those of their female peers; yet male respondents in the present study did not consistently rate their primary sports as more popular, high-status, or well-supported than females did, after controlling for strength of sport-related identities. It is unclear whether this discrepancy is best attributed to gender disparities in rating assignments or by a genuine shift toward gender parity in high school sports.

Toxic jock theory heralds hegemonic masculinity as a bedrock component of jock identity, perhaps more important than an affinity for sport itself. Unsurprisingly, gender was a powerful predictor of normative masculinity. Strength of jock identity was positively associated with conformity to masculine norms on three of the five subscales as well as the global measure, whereas strength of athlete identity was associated only with Winning norms, and in fact was negatively associated with Playboy norms. These findings generally applied to both women and men, confirming that--while women are less inclined to develop a jock identity at all--they are subject to some of the same attitudinal concommitants when they do.

This study may help to resolve empirical puzzles outstanding from previous research. As a case in point, researchers have consistently linked sports participation with reduced sexual risk for females (Eitle & Eitle, 2002; Kokotailo et al., 1998; Miller, Barnes, Melnick, Sabo, & Farrell, 2002; Miller et al., 1998, 1999; Rome et al., 1998; Savage & Holcomb, 1999). Though some studies have found no association between male athletic participation and sexual outcomes (e.g., Page, Hammermeister, Scanlan, & Gilbert, 1998; Sabo, Miller, Farreil, Melnick, & Barnes, 1999), others have identified sports as a predictor of elevated male risk (Miller et al., 1999; Zill et al., 1995). Collectively, these findings point to clearly divergent patterns of risk-taking by female and male athletes. However, most studies failed to distinguish between objective and subjective athletic involvement. In a recent revisitation of this issue, athletic activity was associated with lower levels of sexual risk-taking, and jock identity with higher levels, for both genders (Miller, Farrell et al., 2005). The results of the present study help to explain this apparent discrepancy. Women who develop a strong athlete identity--surely the more likely consequence of female athletic participation--generally reject high-risk Playboy norms; but those who develop a stronger jock identity may actually embrace these norms.

The profile of the jock is in some ways reminiscent of Adler and Adler's "gloried self," the internalization of an objectified celebrity public persona developed by some high-profile college basketball players. As celebrity increasingly dominated their lives, these basketball players came to embrace a media-constructed image of themselves as stars, with a corresponding loss of attachment to old identities, priorities, and even social networks (Adler & Adler, 1989). While public celebrity is not a necessary condition for development of a jock identity, it does enhance it, along with an increasing constriction of--and inattention to--other concurrently held identities. Jocks may thus be more susceptible than athletes to what P. S. Miller and Kerr (2003) described as overidentification with the sport role, leading to limitation or at least deferral of experimentation with other roles. While some researchers (e.g., Kleiber & Brock, 1992; Sparkes, 1998) have found that elite sports participants encounter adjustment crises when faced with enforced retirement from their sport, others have not (Curtis & Ennis, 1988). Grove, Lavallee, and Gordon (1997) suggested that strength of sport-related identity may help to predict problems coping with retirement. Toxic jock theory further suggests that jock identity is more likely than athlete identity to precipitate such crises.

Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research

As with most research studies, caution is required when interpreting these results. For example, replication with alternate samples would be required before these findings could be be safely generalized beyond the specific demographic of sport-involved U.S. undergraduate students at a large public university. Moreover, the cross-sectional nature of the data prevents definitive conclusions regarding causality. It is possible, for example, that the salience of one's sport-related identity influences perceptions of the popularity, status, and/or institutional support accorded one's primary sport. In the future, longitudinal analyses may better specify the direction of relationships among sport-related identity and related measures such as goal orientation or normative masculinity. Moreover, because the Athletic Involvement Study questionnaire was self-referential only, it would also be beneficial to employ measures that allow for independent confirmation of respondent reports, such as peer ratings of athlete vs. jock social identity or community estimates of institutional support for different high school sports.

Despite these limitations, this study has added several necessary building blocks to an empirically supported toxic jock model by identifying some of the contours of the identity itself. The next logical step would be to examine the behavioral concomitants of athlete vs. jock identity. In past studies, my colleagues and I have explored links among sports activity, jock identity, and a range of adolescent problem behaviors, including problem drinking (Miller et al., 2003), sexual risk-taking (Miller, Farrell et al., 2005), academic misconduct (Miller, Melnick et al., 2005), interpersonal violence (Miller, Melnick et al., 2006), and delinquency (Miller et al., 2007). A few very recent studies (e.g., Miller & Hoffman, 2007) have begun to extend this analysis to include outright comparisons of distinct sport-related identities. The toxic jock model suggests that a strong athlete identity should buffer against health-risk or problem behaviors, whereas a strong jock identity may exacerbate risk of these same behaviors. Further studies examining the relationships between sport-related identities and a diverse range of health-compromising behavioral outcomes are needed in order to put this supposition to the test.

Endnotes

(1 )For the sake of brevity and linguistic convenience, the dichotomous categories indicating higher and lower scores on the jock or athlete identity scales are referred to as "jocks," "nonjocks," "athletes," and "nonathletes." These categorical constructs represent relative placement on a continuum, rather than the presence/absence of a concrete status.

References

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1989). The gloried self: The aggrandizement and the constriction of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 299-310.

Barber, B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Stone, M. R. (2001). Whatever happened to the jock, the brain, and the princess? Young adult pathways linked to adolescent activity involvement and social identity. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 429-455.

Bergin, D. A., & Habusta, S. F. (2004). Goal orientations of young male ice hockey players and their parents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165, 383-397.

Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L, & Linder, D. W. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules' muscles or Achilles heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 237-254.

Brown, B. B., Eicher, S. A., & Petrie, S. (1986). The importance of peer group ('crowd') affiliation in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 73-96.

Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An identity theory approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 239-251.

Carr, C. N., Kennedy, S. R., & Dimick, K. M. (1996). Alcohol use among high school athletes. Prevention Researcher, 3(2), 1-3.

Chi, L., & Duda, J. L. (1995). Multi-sample confirmatory factor analysis of the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 91-98.

Curry, T. J., & Weaner, J. S. (1987). Sport identity salience, commitment, and the involvement of self in role: Measurement issues. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, 280-288.

Curtis, J., & Ennis, R. (1988). Negative consequences of leaving competitive sport? Comparative findings for former elite-level hockey players. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 87-106.

Donnelly, P., & Young, K. (1988). The construction and confirmation of identity in sport subcultures. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 223-240.

Duda, J. L. (1989). Relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived purpose of sport among high school athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 318-335.

Duda, J. L. (1995). Motivation in sport settings: A goal perspective approach. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 57-91). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Eitle, T. M., & Eitle, D. J. (2002). Just don't do it: High school sports participation and young female adult sexual behavior. Sociology of Sport Journal, 19, 403-418.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Grove, J. R., Lavallee, D., & Gordon, S. (1997). Coping with retirement from sport: The influence of athletic identity. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 191-203.

Hale, B. D., James, B., & Stambulova, N. (1999). Determining the dimensionality of athletic identity: A 'Herculean' cross-cultural undertaking. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30, 83-100.

Hall, H. K., Kerr, A. W., Kozub, S. A., & Finnie, S. B. (2007). Motivational antecedents of obligatory exercise: The influence of achievement goals and multidimensional perfectionism. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 297-316.

Hanrahan, S. J., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). Measurement of achievement orientations: Psychometric measures, gender, and sport differences. European Journal of Sport Science, 2(5), 1-12.

Higgs, S. R., McKelvie, S. J., & Standing, L. G. (2001). Students' reports of athletic involvement as predictors of drinking: A pilot study. Psychological Reports, 89, 487-488.

Hoffman, J. P. (2006). Extracurricular activities, athletic participation, and adolescent alcohol use: Gender-differentiated and school-contextual effects. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47, 275-290.

Horton, R. S., & Mack, D. E. (2000). Athletic identity in marathon runners: Functional focus or dysfunctional commitment? Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 101-119.

Kleiber, D. A., & Brock, S. C. (1992). The effect of career-ending injuries on the subsequent well-being of elite college athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 70-75.

Kokotailo, P. K., Koscik, R. E., Henry, B. C., Fleming, M. F., & Landry, G L. (1998). Health risk taking and human immunodeficiency virus risk in collegiate female athletes. Journal of American College Health, 46, 263-268.

La Greca, A. M., Prinstein, M. J., & Fetter, M. D. (2001). Adolescent peer crowd affiliation: Linkages with health-risk behaviors and close friendships. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 26, 131-143.

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

Leichliter, J. S., Meilman, P. W., Presley, C. A., & Cashin, J. R. (1998). Alcohol use and related consequences among students with varying levels of involvement in college athletics. Journal of American College Health, 46, 257-262.

Locke, B. D., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Examining masculinity norms, problem drinking, and athletic involvement as predictors of sexual aggression in college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 279-283.

Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M.A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3-25.

Martens, M. P., Dams-O'Connor, K., & Beck, N. C. (2006). A systematic review of college student-athlete drinking: Prevalence rates, sport-related factors, and interventions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31,305-316.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miller, K. E. (2008). Wired: Energy drinks, jock identity, masculine norms, and risk-taking. Journal of American College Health, 56, 481-489.

Miller, K. E., Barnes, G. M., Melnick, M. J., Sabo, D. F., & Farrell, M. P. (2002). Gender and racial/ethnic differences in predicting adolescent sexual risk: Athletic participation versus exercise. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 436-450.

Miller, K. E., Farrell, M. P., Barnes, G. M., Melnick, M. J., & Sabo, D. F. (2005). Gender/racial differences in jock identity, dating, and adolescent sexual risk. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 123-136.

Miller, K. E., & Hoffman, J. H. (in press). Mental Well-being, and sport-related identities in college students Sociology of Sport Journal.

Miller, K. E., Hoffman, J. H., Barnes, G. M., Farreil, M. P., Sabo, D. F., & Melnick, M. J. (2003). Jocks, gender, race, and adolescent problem drinking. Journal of Drug Education, 33, 445-462.

Miller, K. E., Melnick, M. J., Barnes, G. M., Farrell, M. P., & Sabo, D. F. (2005). Untangling the links among athletic involvement, gender, race, and adolescent academic outcomes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 22, 178-193. Miller, K. E., Melnick, M. J., Barnes, G. M., Sabo, D. F., & Farreli, M. P. (2007). Athletic involvement and adolescent delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 711-723.

Miller, K. E., Meinick, M. J., Farrell, M. P., Sabo, D. F., & Barnes, G M. (2006). Jocks, gender, binge drinking, and adolescent violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 105-120.

Miller, K. E., Sabo, D. F., Farrell, M. P., Barnes, G. M., & Melnick, M. J. (1998). Athletic participation and sexual behavior in adolescents: The different worlds of boys and girls. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39, 108-123.

Miller, K. E., Sabo, D. F., Farrell, M. P., Barnes, G. M., & Melnick, M. J. (1999). Sports, sexual behavior, contraceptive use, and pregnancy among female and male high school students: Testing cultural resource theory. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16, 366-387.

Miller, K. E., Sabo, D. F., Melnick, M. J., Farrell, M. P., & Barnes, Ct M. (2006, August). Jocks and athletes: College students" reflections on identity, gender, and high school sports. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Miller, P. S., & Kerr, G. A. (2003). The role experimentation of intercollegiate student athletes. Sport Psychologist, 17, 196-219.

Murphy, G. M., Petitpas, A. J., & Brewer, B. W. (1996). Identity foreclosure, athletic identity, and career maturity in intercollegiate athletes. Sport Psychologist, 10, 239-246.

Nelson, T. F., & Wechsler, H. (2001). Alcohol and college athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33, 43-47.

Newton, M., & Duda, J. L. (1993). The relationship of task and ego orientation to performance--cognitive content, affect and attributions in bowling. Journal of Sport Behavior, 16, 209-220.

Overman, S. J., & Terry, T. (1991). Alcohol use and attitudes: A comparison of college athletes and nonathletes. Journal of Drug Education, 21, 107-117.

Page, R. M., Hammermeister, J., Scanlan, A., & Gilbert, L. (1998). Is school sports participation a protective factor against adolescent health risk behaviors? Journal of Health Education, 29, 186-192.

Pascoe, C. J. (2003). Multiple masculinities? Teenage boys talk about jocks and gender. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1423-1438.

Pate, R. R., Trost, S. G., Levin, S., & Dowda, M. (2000). Sports participation and health-related behaviors among U.S. youth. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 154, 904-911.

Rainey, C. J., McKeown, R. E., Sargent, R. G., & Valois, R. F. (1996). Patterns of tobacco and alcohol use among sedentary, exercising, nonathletic, and athletic youth. Journal of School Health, 66, 27-32.

Rome, E. S., Rybicki, L. A., & Durant, R. H. (1998). Pregnancy and other risk behaviors among adolescent girls in Ohio. Journal of Adolescent Health, 22, 50-55.

Sabo, D. F., Miller, K. E., Farrell, M. P., Melnick, M. J., & Barnes, G. M. (1999). High school athletic participation, sexual behavior and adolescent pregnancy: A regional study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25, 207-216.

Savage, M. P., & Holcomb, D. R. (1999). Adolescent female athletes' sexual risk-taking behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 595-602.

Smiler, A. P. (2007). Conforming to masculine norms: Evidence for validity among adult men and women. Sex Roles, 54, 767-775.

Sparkes, A. C. (1998). Athletic identity: An Achilles' heel to the survival of self. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 644-664.

Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 4, 558-564.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63,284-297.

Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 5 7, 16-35.

Webb, W. M., Nasco, S. A., Riley, S., & Headrick, B. (1998). Athlete identity and reactions to retirement from sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 338-362.

Zill, N., Nord, C. W., & Loomis, L. S. (1995). Adolescent time use, risky behavior, and outcomes: An analysis of national data. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Kathleen E. Miller

University at Buffalo

Address Correspondence To: Kathleen E. Miller, Research Institute on Addictions, University at Buffalo, 1021 Main Street, Buffalo, NY, 14203, Phone: (716) 887-2588, Fax: (716) 887-2215, E-mail: <kmiller@ria.buffalo.edu>.

Table 1. Unadjusted Mean Comparisons by Gender, Jock Identity,
and Athlete Identity (N = 581).

 Gender

 Male Female

Sex (1=female) -- --

Age 20.01 19.82
 (1.84) (1.93)
Race (1 = nonwhite) .31 .24
 (.46) (.43)
Ethnicity (1 = Hispanic) .06 .09
 (.23) (.29)
Religion (0 = no religion, .92 .97
 2=fundamentalist religion) (.50) (.56)
Mother employed (1 = yes) .81 .88 *
 (.39) (.33)
Years parental education 15.59 15.66
 (2.15) (2.14)
TEOSQ

 Task orientation 3.83 3.87
 (.75) (.77)
 Ego orientation 3.08 2.72 ***
 (1.00) (1.04)
Primary sport rating
 Total rating 2.75 2.57 *
 (.88) (.76)
 Popularity 2.77 2.62
 (.96) (.90)
 Status 2.88 2.68 **
 (.93) (.87)
 Institutional support 2.60 2.42 *
 (1.04) (.88)

CMNI
 Total masculine norms 2.54 2.22 ***
 (.29) (.27)
 Violence 2.68 2.29 ***
 (.47) (.46)
 Playboy 2.23 1.74 ***
 (.50) (.50)
 Winning 2.76 2.42 ***
 (.49) (.35)
 Risk 2.63 2.39 ***
 (.40) (.41)
 Dominance 2.43 2.28 ***
 (.49) (.48)
Strength of jock identity 2.47 1.85 ***
 (1.15) (.97)
Strength of athlete identity 3.58 2.83 ***
 (1.08) (1.25)

 Jock Identity

 Low High

Sex (1=female) .48 .21 ***
 (.50) (.41)
Age 19.92 19.95
 (1.90) (1.80)
Race (1 = nonwhite) .27 .29
 (.45) (.46)
Ethnicity (1 = Hispanic) .07 .07
 (.26) (.25)
Religion (0 = no religion, .92 1.05 *
 2=fundamentalist religion) (.53) (.50)
Mother employed (1 = yes) .84 .84
 (.37) (.37)
Years parental education 15.64 15.53
 (2.15) (2.13)
TEOSQ

 Task orientation 3.79 4.10 ***
 (.77) (.64)
 Ego orientation 2.84 3.29 ***
 (1.02) (1.00)
Primary sport rating
 Total rating 2.60 3.00 ***
 (.81) (.83)
 Popularity 2.63 3.05 ***
 (.94) (.86)
 Status 2.72 3.13 ***
 (.91) (.86)
 Institutional support 2.46 2.82 **
 (.96) (1.03)

CMNI
 Total masculine norms 2.37 2.58 ***
 (.31) (.33)
 Violence 2.48 2.67 ***
 (.49) (.53)
 Playboy 1.97 2.20 ***
 (.56) (.50)
 Winning 2.56 2.86 ***
 (.43) (.51)
 Risk 2.49 2.68 ***
 (.41) (.43)
 Dominance 2.34 2.50 **
 (.47) (.57)
Strength of jock identity -- --

Strength of athlete identity -- --

 Athlete Identity

 Low High

Sex (1=female) .59 .31 ***
 (.49) (.46)
Age 19.98 19.88
 (1.98) (1.79)
Race (1 = nonwhite) .31 .25
 (.46) (.44)
Ethnicity (1 = Hispanic) .07 .07
 (.26) (.26)
Religion (0 = no religion, .89 .98 *
 2=fundamentalist religion) (.54) (.51)
Mother employed (1 = yes) .82 .86
 (.39) (.35)
Years parental education 15.48 15.73
 (2.21) (2.09)
TEOSQ

 Task orientation 3.64 4.01 ***
 (.81) (.68)
 Ego orientation 2.73 3.07 ***
 (1.01) (1.02)
Primary sport rating
 Total rating 2.49 2.82 ***
 (.81) (.82)
 Popularity 2.54 2.83 ***
 (.92) (.93)
 Status 2.6 2.95 ***
 (.93) (.87)
 Institutional support 2.33 2.68 ***
 (.95) (.98)

CMNI
 Total masculine norms 2.34 2.46 ***
 (.30) (.33)
 Violence 2.46 2.56 *
 (.48) (.51)
 Playboy 1.97 2.05
 (.55) (.55)
 Winning 2.45 2.74 ***
 (.37) (.49)
 Risk 2.49 2.55
 (.42) (.42)
 Dominance 2.32 2.4
 (.47) (.50)
Strength of jock identity -- --

Strength of athlete identity -- --

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

Table 2. Linear Regressions Predicting Snort-Related Goal
Orientations, by Gender

 Whole sample
 (N = 567)
 Task Ego
 [beta] [beta]
Model 1: Main effects only

 Gender .13 ** -.12 **
 Age -.O1 -.06
 Race .03 .02
 Ethnicity -.00 -.02
 Religion .06 .10 *
 Mother employed .07 .04
 Parental education -.02 -.O1
 Strength of jock identity .02 .18 ***
 Strength of athlete identity .30 *** .04

[R.sup.2] .10 .09

Model 2: With interactions
 Gender * jock identity -.00 -.23 *
 Gender * athlete identity -.29 * -.15

[R.sup.2] .11 .11

 Women
 (n = 246)
 Task Ego
 [beta] [beta]
Model 1: Main effects only

 Gender
 Age .05 -.04
 Race -.02 .05
 Ethnicity -.05 -.04
 Religion .09 .17 **
 Mother employed .04 -.04
 Parental education .02 .08
 Strength of jock identity .01 .01
 Strength of athlete identity .18 * .01

[R.sup.2] .06 .04

Model 2: With interactions
 Gender * jock identity
 Gender * athlete identity

[R.sup.2]

 Men
 (n = 321)
 Task Ego
 [beta] [beta]
Model 1: Main effects only

 Gender
 Age -.04 -.04
 Race .06 -.01
 Ethnicity .04 -.02
 Religion .05 .04
 Mother employed .09 .08
 Parental education -.02 -.06
 Strength of jock identity .01 .27 ***
 Strength of athlete identity .37 *** .11

[R.sup.2] .16 .14

Model 2: With interactions
 Gender * jock identity
 Gender * athlete identity

[R.sup.2]

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

Note. Only highest-order results are shown for each equation.
Main effect coefficients for Model 2 equations including
product terms are not shown.

Table 3. Linear Regressions Predicting Primary Sport
Ratings (N = 567)

 Total Popularity
 rating

 [beta] [beta]

Model 1: Main effects only
 Gender -.O1 .00
 Age .04 .03
 Race .03 .05
 Ethnicity -.04 -.04
 Religion .11 ** .12 **
 Mother employed .00 -.03
 Parental education .04 .03
 Strength of jock identity .17 ** .14 *
 Strength of athlete identity .12 * .09

[R.sup.2] .09 .07

Model 2: With interactions
 Gender * jock identity -.O1 -.02
 Gender * athlete identity -.17 -.19

[R.sup.2] .10 .07

 Status Institutional
 support

 [beta] [beta]

Model 1: Main effects only
 Gender -.03 -.O1
 Age .02 .06
 Race .02 .02
 Ethnicity -.04 -.03
 Religion .08 .10 *
 Mother employed .00 .04
 Parental education .03 .04
 Strength of jock identity .14 ** .17 **
 Strength of athlete identity .11 * .11

[R.sup.2] .07 .08

Model 2: With interactions
 Gender * jock identity -.O1 -.O1
 Gender * athlete identity -.18 -.09

[R.sup.2] .07 .08

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

Note. Only highest-order results are shown for each equation.
Main effect coefficients for Model 2 equations including
product terms are not shown.

Table 4. Linear Regressions Predicting Conformity to
Masculine Norms (N = 567)

 Total Violence
 masculinity

 [beta] [beta]

Model 1: Main effects only
 Gender -.44 *** -.38 ***
 Age -.01 -.01
 Race -.05 -.07
 Ethnicity .02 -.02
 Religion -.06 -.04
 Mother employed -.O1 .03
 Parental education .00 -.04
 Strength of jock identity .19 *** .09
 Strength of athlete identity .O1 -.05

[R.sup.2] .28 .16

Model 2: With interactions
 Gender * jock identity .00 .02
 Gender * athlete identity -.25 -.28 *

[R.sup.2] .29 .17

 Playboy Winning

 [beta] [beta]

Model 1: Main effects only
 Gender -.42 *** -.26 ***
 Age .04 -.06
 Race .01 .02
 Ethnicity .03 .01
 Religion -.10 ** -.02
 Mother employed -.07 .04
 Parental education -.01 -.02
 Strength of jock identity .19 *** .13 **
 Strength of athlete identity -.13 ** .25 ***

[R.sup.2] .23 .24

Model 2: With interactions
 Gender * jock identity .08 -.01
 Gender * athlete identity -.18 -.26 *

[R.sup.2] .24 .24

 Risk Dominant

 [beta] [beta]

Model 1: Main effects only
 Gender -.26 *** -.13 **
 Age -.01 .00
 Race -.11 * -.03
 Ethnicity -.02 .06
 Religion -.13 ** .09 *
 Mother employed .02 -.04
 Parental education .05 .04
 Strength of jock identity .11 * .10
 Strength of athlete identity -.01 .O1

[R.sup.2] .12 .05

Model 2: With interactions
 Gender * jock identity .05 -.15
 Gender * athlete identity -.14 .01

[R.sup.2] .12 .05

*** p <.001 ** p <.0l * p <.05

Note. Only highest-order results are shown for each equation.
Main effect coefficients for Model 2 equations including
product terms are not shown.