This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 22 November 2014, At: 05:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication ReportsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrs20

Communication differences between male and femaleteam sport athletesPhilip Sullivan aa Associate Professor in the Department of Physical Education and Kinesiology , BrockUniversityPublished online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: Philip Sullivan (2004) Communication differences between male and female team sport athletes,Communication Reports, 17:2, 121-128, DOI: 10.1080/08934210409389381

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934210409389381

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COMMUNICATION REPORTS, Volume 17, No. 2, Summer 2004

Communication Differences Between Maleand Female Team Sport Athletes

PHILIP SULLIVAN

Research has been equivocal with respect to sex differences in communication. Although thebulk of the literature suggests that any differences are small to moderate, several characteristicsof sport teams suggest that male and female athletes may communicate differently. A sample of299 athletes (150 female and 148 male) completed the Scale for Effective Communication inTeam Sports. Multivariate Analyses of Variance revealed no significant differences betweenmale and female athletes. The researcher concluded that there are no differences between maleand female athletes with respect to the frequency of communication of these sports-specificresources. Considering that the sample and operational definition were selected to maximizethe probability of sex differences in communication, this study further supports that males andfemales communicate similarly.

• The traditional approach to sex dif-ferences in communication has been to determine whether or not males andfemales are from "linguistically distinct groups" (Freed, 1996; p. 54). In anextensive review published in 1976, Baird stated that males tend to be moreactive, aggressive, and task-oriented in their discussions, whereas femalestend to self-disclose more frequently, be more expressive and more respon-sive to nonverbal cues. The decades of research since this statement suggestthat this conceptualization is overly simple and inaccurate. Specifically, itassumes relatively complete homogeneity within sex (or gender), and acomplete dichotomy between the sexes (or genders). These and other issueshave led scholars to speculate that sex differences in communication maynot be as salient as was once believed, and may not be an issue at all (e.g.,Bergvall, Bing, & Freed, 1996).

More recent reviews in communication research have supported theview that any sex differences in communicative behavior are probably smallto moderate and highly influenced by a variety of mediating factors. Forinstance, Canary and Hause (1993) summarized the results of ten meta-analyses on sex differences in communication. Focusing on such interactionsas expressions of anger, self-disclosure, and leadership, they reported thatany sex differences were small, accounting for as little as 1% of the variancein communication behavior. In refuting the stereotypical view of male-female interactions, Canary and Hause noted that previous research sufferedfrom conceptual as well as operational flaws.

Philip Sullivan (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 2000) is an Associate Professor in theDepartment of Physical Education and Kinesiology at Brock University.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:13

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

122 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

The question of whether males or females communicate differently maynot be as extreme as Freed (1996) has stated, or as straightforward as Canaryand Hause (1993) suggested. Some styles of communication have beenrepeatedly shown to be related to sex, notably self-disclosure, anger, andnonverbal communication. A variety of contextual factors appear to besignificant.

Although stereotypes can be a bane to any type of sex research, thereappears to be support for the seemingly trite notion that females are moreself-disclosing and express more support and acceptance than do males(Duck & Wright, 1993)- Self-disclosure refers to those messages throughwhich the person sends information about himself or herself. These mes-sages are believed to be instrumental in the development of more intimaterelationships between individuals (Derlega, Windstead,Wong, & Greenspan,1987). Females' greater propensity to disclose about themselves appears tobe a relatively robust phenomenon, in both laboratory and natural groups(Dindia & Allen, 1992).

Some factors further appear to exacerbate this difference between men'sand women's communication styles, specifically the nature of the group inwhich the disclosure occurs. For instance, Aries (1996) found women'stendency to self-disclose is even greater in all-female groups than in groupscontaining men as well as women. Dindia and Allen (1992) also found thatwomen are consistently more open and accepting in groups in which theother members are known.

Similarly, it appears that males argue and communicate anger more thanfemales (Fehrs, Baldwin, Colins, Patterson, & Benedict, 1999; Kinney, Smith,& Donzella, 2001; Timmers, Fischer, & Manstead, 1998). Whereas overtexpressions of aggression and anger (e.g., physical contact, paralinguisticexpressions) are not typical for females, males view them as acceptable,even appropriate (Campbell & Muncer, 1987). Eagly and Steffen's (1986)meta-analysis of sex differences in adult aggressive behavior revealed amoderate sex difference; men engaged in more aggressive interactions thanwomen. However, these sex-related differences were also subject to specificcontextual factors, such as whether the setting was artificial (i.e., laboratory),natural (i.e., field setting), private, or public. Specifically, the sex differenceswere more pronounced when it occurred in a semi-private setting.

Another aspect of communication that is often overlooked is nonverbalcommunication. Hall (1998) reviewed research on sex differences in non-verbal communication (e.g., facial expression recognition, expansive move-ments, gestural expressiveness, gazing) and found that such communicationwas rich in sex differences. She concluded differences between men andwomen for nonverbal sensitivity specifically, and other nonverbal variableswere "relatively large" (p. 169). From other research, it appears that whereasmales tend to be non-responsive to same sex nonverbal communication,females respond positively to it (Crawford, 1994), particularly in same sexgroups (Hall & Vecchia, 1990).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:13

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SUMMER 2004 123

Overall, demonstrable sex differences in communication appear to berelatively few and far between, however, there are several particularly salientfactors that reveal rather explicit differences between men and women,including the focus of conversation (e.g., anger, self-disclosure), the medium(e.g., nonverbal communication), and the social context (e.g., same-sexgroups of well known members). Thus, an appropriate setting to examinegender differences in communication would be one that included natural,same-sex groups of established membership, and a social context thatvalued nonverbal messages. Sport teams are one such setting and there is alimited amount of literature on communication and gender within sportsteams.

Sport has been lauded as an exceptional setting for the study of com-munication behavior. For example Kneidinger, Maple, and Tross (2001) notethat because of the emotional involvement of participants, and the lesseningof cultural display rules for behavior within sport, the sporting context canbe quite appropriate for the study of such matters as expressiveness, as wellas the communication of anger.

Kneidinger et al. (2001) observed and rated the touching behaviors ofthree female softball teams and four male baseball teams. They found thatfemales exchanged more nonverbal messages than male athletes, particu-larly after negative game events. Not only did females engage in morenonverbal messages overall, but they also displayed quite different nonver-bal behaviors than males. Team activities (i.e., team hugs, hand piles) wereoverwhelmingly displayed by female athletes. As would be predicted fromthe literature on sex differences in communication, females in a natural, allfemale group whose members knew each other engaged in significantlygreater exchanges of nonverbal messages.

In a series of studies to describe the frequency of certain types ofcommunication within sports teams, Sullivan and his colleagues foundfurther sex differences. Specifically, they found that male athletes were morelikely than females to communicate anger and become confrontational(Sullivan & Feltz, 2003), whereas when in-group disagreements arise, fe-males discuss things more rationally and constructively than males (Sullivan& Short, 2001).

Considering that sports teams present an appropriate setting to examinepossible sex differences in style of communication, please consider thefollowing research question.

RQl: Do male and female athletes communicate differently?

METHOD

Participants

The participants were 298 team sport athletes (150 female, and 148 male).The athletes represented a wide variety of gender neutral team sports,including basketball (n = 55), volleyball (n = 110), track and field (n =

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:13

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

124 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

52), soccer (n = 22), softball (n = 13), and curling (n = 43). The sampleincluded relatively equal numbers of recreational (n = 158) and varsity(n = 141) athletes. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 72 years, with anaverage age of 25.83 years (SD — 11.49). They had played their respectivesport from 1 to 35 seasons, with an average of 9-24 seasons (SD = 5.44). Inrespect to length of time spent with their current team, the athletes rangedfrom being in their first to their eighth season, with an average of 1.69seasons with their team (SD = 1.22).

Procedure

The researcher recruited varsity athletes through contacts with theirrespective athletic departments and coaches. Recreational athletes werecontacted through their leagues. Solicitation was on a team-by-team basis,while the teams were actively in season. Participants completed the surveysin a quiet room with their teammates present. The athletes were instructednot to communicate with one another while they completed the task.

Instrument

The Scale for Effective Communication in Team Sports (SECTS) is a15-item questionnaire designed to measure four aspects of effective teamcommunication. Communication is operationally denned within the frame-work of social exchange theories, and each of the factors of communicationcan be seen as either an interpersonal reward (i.e., Acceptance, Distinctive-ness, and Positive Conflict) or cost (i.e., Negative Conflict) exchangedbetween teammates. Preliminary scale development has demonstrated thatthese aspects of communication are commonly exchanged within sportsteams, and that these styles of communication are effective in that they arerelated to team cohesion (Sullivan & Short, 2001) and performance (Sullivan,2002). The four-factor structure of the scale has been supported throughexploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (Sullivan & Feltz, 2003; Sullivan& Short, 2001).

Acceptance is measured by three items and refers to messages ofinterpersonal support or consideration (e.g., we trust each other). Distinc-tiveness is measured by three items, and includes those messages of ashared, inclusive team identity (e.g., we use nicknames). Positive Conflictrefers to constructive, emotionally controlled discussion of interpersonaldifferences (e.g., compromise with each other when we disagree), whereasNegative Conflict refers to disagreements that are expressed in a confronta-tional or destructive manner (e.g., we get in each other's faces when wedisagree). Both are represented by four items each. All responses are basedon a close-ended frequency scale ranging from 1 (hardly ever) to 7 (veryfrequently). The scale showed acceptable internal consistency for thepresent sample, with Cronbach's (1951) alphas above Nunnaly's (1970)criteria of .70 for all factors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:13

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SUMMER 2004 125

RESULTS

With respect to the scores on the SECTS, athletes reported relatively highfrequency of Acceptance (M = 5-48, SD — 0.90), whereas Distinctiveness(M = 3.86, SD = 1.81), Positive Conflict (M = 4.81, SD = 1.06), andNegative Conflict (M = 3.00, SD = 1.30) showed moderate scores. Allvariables were normally distributed. Examination of multivariate normalitythrough Mahalanobis' distance revealed no significant outliers atp < .001.Correlations between the four communication factors ranged from .02 to .76,but none reached a level indicative of multicollinearity (i.e., r > .80;Pedhazur, 1981). The lone remaining assumption to check for multivariateanalysis was equality of error variances and covariances (Tabachnick &Fidell, 2001). This was examined through both Box's M and Levene's Tests.These both revealed that Distinctiveness did not uphold these assumptions.With this variable removed, all assumptions were upheld.

Because of the size of the sample, and the fact that the athletic contextmay differ between varsity and recreational athletes, a MANOVA was run toexamine differences in communication (i.e., Acceptance, Positive Conflict,and Negative Conflict) by sex as well as any interaction between sex andlevel of sport participation. There was no significant main effect for sex, F(B,291) = 1.75,/> > .05. Although there was a significant main effect for level,F{4, 291) = 33-83, p < .05, T]2 = .317, there was no significant interactionbetween level and sex, F{A, 291) = .90, p > .05.

Because Distinctiveness could not be rightly included in a MANOVA ora univariate ANOVA, an independent samples t-test was conducted to see ifit included a sex difference. The t-test did not reveal a significant differencebetween males and females with respect to this factor of communication, t(1, 296) = 1.04, p > .05.

DISCUSSION

This study was conducted to examine any differences in communicationbetween male and female athletes. No sex differences were found withrespect to the frequency of exchange of any of the communication resources(i.e., Acceptance, Positive Conflict, Negative Conflict, and Distinctiveness).While there was a significant effect for level of participation that athleteplayed at (e.g., varsity or recreational), this was not of concern for thepresent study. There was no significant interaction between sex of theathlete and level of play.

Therefore, within the present sample, male and female athletes did notcommunicate in different ways. The poignancy of this finding should not beminimized. The primary rationale for asking this research question was thatalthough the research on sex differences in communication was equivocal(at best), certain aspects of the sport context appeared likely to maximizeany difference. This was not found, despite the choices of a context (i.e.,team sports) and operational definition (i.e., verbal and nonverbal commu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:13

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

126 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

nication) that were likely to maximize the possibility of any sex differences.The fact that no differences were found despite this is important.

There are several specific aspects of the present design that •warrantfurther discussion with respect to this conclusion. Specifically, these includethe operational definition of team communication, and the sample of sportsutilized. With respect to the measurement, the SECTS measures communi-cation in terms of four resources that have been supported as valued in sport(e.g., they are linked to performance, or cohesion). All items are measuredin terms of frequency. The particulars of this operational definition mean thatconclusions should be stated precisely. Specifically, it means that male andfemale athletes did not differ in the frequency of exchange of four aspects ofteam communication (i.e., Acceptance, Distinctiveness, Positive Conflict,and Negative Conflict). However, this is not meant to temper the presentconclusions. The SECTS was designed to be a valid sports-specific measureof communication. Its factors are the result of several stages of data-basedinvestigation with heterogeneous samples of athletes. Further, it has provenconstruct and predictive validity within sports. In short, although it is aprecise and specific operational definition of communication, it is probablythe best one to use with an athletic sample.

With respect to sample, the sports represented in the current samplewere all gender-neutral sports. By gender-neutral, it is meant that both malesand females normally play these sports. This sample was chosen to controlfor other possible extraneous factors (e.g., a masculine sporting context).However, it may be that the results reflect a gender-neutral athletic culture,one that does not promote certain gender differences, particularly in com-munication patterns. In this vein, there is much research on gender andsocialization into sport with which these current results are compatible.Scholars have argued that sport participation appears to nurture certainmasculine attributes, as well as gender roles (Miller & Levy, 1996), andpersonality traits (Andre & Holland, 1995). One proposed reason for thesegender similarities is that sport is a masculine domain, and that individualsocialized within this domain (i.e., athletes) appear to be a more homoge-neous population than would be expected by explanations of genderdifferences (Gill, 2000). If future researchers are interested in investigatingthe further possibility of gender differences in communication within sports,it may be that more typically masculine sports (e.g., football, hockey) andtypically feminine sports (e.g., figure skating, gymnastics) would comprise amore appropriate sample.

Despite these two caveats, the conclusion that male and female athletesin this sample did not communicate differently is consistent with the bulk ofresearch on communication in general, as well as other psychological factorsin sport, such as achievement orientation and personality (Gill, 2000). Still,the results within sport are equivocal. Specifically, the current findings areinconsistent with Sullivan and Feltz's (2003) results on expression of anger,and Kneidinger et al.'s (2001) results on nonverbal messages of intra-team

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:13

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SUMMER 2004 127

inclusion. This may be due to the sample or measurement specifics notedabove, although considering the bulk of literature both within and outside ofsport, the most parsimonious conclusion appears to be that males andfemales do not communicate differently in sports teams.

REFERENCES

Andre, T., & Holland, A. (1995). Relationship of sport participation to sex role orientation andattitudes toward women among high school males and females. Journal of SportBehavior, 18, 241-253.

Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York:Oxford University Press.

Baird, J. E. (1976). Sex differences in group communication: A review of relevant research.Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 179-192.

Bergvall, V. L., Bing, J. M., & Freed, A. F. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking Language and genderresearch: Theory and practice. New York: Longman.

Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (1993). Is there any reason to research sex differences incommunication? Communication Quarterly, 41, 129-144.

Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (1987). Models of anger and aggression in the social talk of men andwomen. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 17, 489-511.

Crawford, C. B. (1994). Effects of sex and sex role on same-sex touch. Perceptual and MotorSkills, 78, 391-394.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,297-334.

Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. PsychologicalBulletin, 112, 106-124.

Derlaga, V. J., Windstead, B. A., Wong, P. T. P., & Greenspan, M. (1987). Self- disclosure andrelational development: An attributional analysis. In M. E. Roloff and G.R. Miller (Eds.),Interpersonal processes (pp. 172-187). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Duck, S., & Wright, P. H. (1993). Reexamining gender differences in friendship: A close look attwo kinds of data. Sex Roles, 28, 709-727.

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review ofthe social psychology literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330.

Fehrs, B., Baldwin, M., Collins, L., Patterson, S., & Benedict, R. (1999). Anger in closerelationship: An interpersonal script analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 299-312.

Freed, A. F. (1996). Language and gender research in an experimental setting. In V. L. Bergvall,J. M. Bing, & A. F. Freed (Eds.), Rethinking language and gender research: Theory andpractice (pp. 54-76). New York: Longman.

Gill, D.L. (2000). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise (2nd Ed.). Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics.

Hall. J. A. (1998). How big are nonverbal sex differences? The case of smiling and sensitivity tononverbal cues. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities incommunication (pp. 155-178). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hall, J. A., & Vecchia, E. M. (1990). More "touching" observations: New insights on men,women, and interpersonal touch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,1155-1162.

Kinney, T. A., Smith, B. A., & Donzella, B. (2001). The influence of sex, gender, self-discrepancies, and self-awareness on anger and verbal aggressiveness among U.S.college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 245-276.

Kneidinger, L. M., Maple, T. L., & Tross, S. A. (2001). Touching behavior in sport: Functionalcomponents, analysis of sex differences, and ethological considerations. Journal ofNonverbal Behavior, 25, 43-62.

Miller, J. L., & Levy, G. D. (1996). Gender role conflict, gender-typed characteristics, self-concepts, and sport socialization in female athletes and nonathletes. Sex Roles, 35,111-122.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:13

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

128 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

Nunnaly, J. C. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. New York: McGraw Hill.Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research (2nd ed ) . New York: Holt.Sullivan, P. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The preliminary development of the Scale for Effective

Communication in Team Sports (SECTS). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33,1693-1715.

Sullivan, P. J., & Short, S. E. (2001). Furthering the construct of effective communication: Asecond version of the Scale for Effective Communication in Team Sports. Paper presentedat the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity(NASPSPA), St Louis, MO.

Sullivan, P. J. (2002). The relationship between team communication and performance. Paperpresented at the Canadian Society for Sport Psychology and Psychomotor Behavior(SCAPPS), Montreal, PQ.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics(4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Timmers, M., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. (1998). Gender differences in motives forregulating emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 974-985.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:13

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14