I will post this study but without METHOD and RESULTS parts because it is a bit too long. Anyway what you have here is: introduction, discussion and conclusion.
False Start?
U.K. Sprint Coaches and
Black/White Stereotypes
David Turner
University of Hertfordshire
Ian Jones
University of Luton
U.K. sprint coaches’ employment of common racial stereotypes in explaining
the success of Black and White sprinters was studied. It was hypothesized that
Black success would be attributed to innate genetic factors, whereas White success
would be attributed to socioeconomic advantages, intelligence, and hard
work. Thirty-one sprint coaches participated in success attribution exercises.
Quantitative results revealed that Black and White photograph conditions were
generally scored similarly in relation to stereotypical factors. However, qualitative
results indicated some stereotype replication and susceptibility to natural
ability stereotypes due to an overemphasis on biological determinism, and
modest recognition of less immediately apparent developmental factors.
Although reassuring evidence was gained that U.K. sprint coaches do not
widely employ stereotypes in attributing differently the success of Black and
White athletes, there was sufficient evidence to necessitate continued vigilance.
A theoretical model of stereotype influences in sprinting and recommendations
for both coaching and coach education are presented.
Keywords: racial stereotypes; sports coaching; sprinting; success attribution
Racial stereotypes in sport remain firmly established as a kind of folklore,
with a commonly assumed notion that Blacks are more naturally
athletic than Whites (Hoberman, 2000). This has been reinforced via both
disproportionate success and overrepresentation in some sports and positional
roles, and media representation emphasizing inherent physicality
(Coakley, 2003). As a consequence, there is a view that Blacks and Whites
are biologically different in meaningful ways (Halinan, 1994) and that
Blacks dominate certain sports due to perceived genetic advantages (Davis,
1990), even in the absence of convincing scientific proof (St. Louis, 2004). Such racial stereotypes, however, fail to recognize wide within-group variations
(Bamshad & Olson, 2003) and falsely assume fixed and unambiguous
biological divisions (Birrell, 1989). Nevertheless, although the habitual
assignment of individuals to monolithic Black/White groupings may be problematic,
it remains a social reality (McCarthy, Jones, & Potrac, 2003) and one
that can have negative as well as positive connotations. The tendency to
explain Black sporting success solely in terms of inherited factors, and thus
devalue Black achievements, may be indicative of subtle racism (Davis, 1990).
Whereas White athletic success is often equated with qualities of character,
dedication, work ethic, dependability, and intelligence, Black success is often
equated with instinctive physical qualities and a lack of cognitive endeavor
(Hoberman, 2000). These assumptions attain apparent commonsense legitimacy,
and sporting mythology is reinforced (St. Louis, 2004).
For sports coaches, these apparently plausible explanations appear influential.
For example, in some team sports, positional roles are allocated in
accordance with racial stereotypes (e.g., Norris & Jones, 1998). Actual evidence
for Black genetic athletic superiority, however, is scant and often
flawed (Hoberman, 1997), and the supposed superiority of Black sprinters
appears geographically isolated and inconsistent over time (Samson &
Yerles, 1988). Clear genetic explanations for Black athleticism and the relative
contribution of sociological factors are unknown. Nonetheless, various
physiological characteristics that might explain Black sprinting success
have been postulated (Entine, 2000). If such factors are emphasized in
explaining population group variation, differences are deemed relatively
stable and unchangeable. If, on the other hand, environmental factors, such
as opportunity and access, are emphasized, such differences are considered
modifiable (Martin & Parker, 1995). Thus, coaches adhering to the former
may overestimate group differences and athletic potentials. In reality, excellence
is developed through adaptive qualities resulting from cultural values
and strenuous training. Hence, a more integrative approach is needed that
recognizes that both nature and nurture inextricably interact (Singer &
Janelle, 1999), with certain genes responding to environmental stimuli
(Shermer, 2000). Athletic performance can only be explained by a complex
combination of factors, including opportunities, motivation, and economics.
Speculated average physiological differences between races are only
part of the puzzle and have little bearing on individual achievements.
Nonetheless, simplistic assessments based on stereotypes could lead some
coaches to jump to false conclusions (Coakley, 2003).
Schema theory proposes a mental framework for the categorisation of
individuals resulting from our accrued beliefs, and knowledge, and shaped by our experiences (Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith, & Bem, 1993). Thus,
stereotyping represents a habitual cognitive process of substituting absent
information concerning unfamiliar persons, by organizing knowledge based
on distinctive features and applying supposed qualities to perceived social
groupings, thus enabling information processing efficiency (Levy, 2000).
Schematic processing models posit that stereotype schemas are stored subconsciously,
are activated automatically, and are likely to affect interactions
with stereotyped group members (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996). Several
schemata may be linked in semantic networks, and the closer two schemata
are, the more likely simultaneous activation is (Hewstone, Stroebe, &
Stephenson, 1996). For example, Blacks are instinctive athletes and Blacks
are poor decision makers. Although schemas reflect accumulated attitudes
toward other social groups, they may arise less from overt discrimination than
from attempts to simplify complexity (Myers, 2001). Paradoxically, the
price of cognitive economy is often distortion and overgeneralization
(Atkinson et al., 1993), for example, attributions constructed on the basis of
media portrayals of Black athletes. Although personal characteristics are
most powerful in person perception, where scant pertinent information
about an individual is available, we tend to rely on stereotypes (Kunda &
Thagard, 1996).
When one possesses stereotypical views, information processing is
biased by a premature cognitive commitment (Hamilton, Sherman, &
Ruvolo, 1990), with a tendency to seek stereotype-consistent evidence that
confirms preconceptions, whereas contrary information is more critically
analyzed, attributed differently, or ignored (Myers, 2001). Individuals may
attribute positive descriptions of behaviors in relation to their group, but the
same behavior is viewed as negative in another (e.g., White sprinting success
attributed to hard work, Black sprinting success to natural abilities), or
a stereotyped group member’s negative behavior may be attributed to his or
her disposition, but positive behavior is qualified by situational factors or as
a special case (Ostrom, Carpenter, Sedikides, & Li, 1993). For example, the
last White 100m Olympic champion is often explained as a consequence of
the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Games. Such stereotype-associated explanations
become extremely credible, with little motivation to recognize flawed
reasoning (Harrison, 2001).
The media tend to reproduce racial sporting stereotypes (Denham, Billings,
& Halone, 2002), and overexposure of exceptional Black athletes can distort
judgment of the group’s general athleticism, predisposing audiences to stereotype
schema (Myers, 2001). This includes Black self-stereotyping via powerful
role models (Hoberman, 2000). But although the gifted natural ability premise may seem attractive and confidence boosting, it could also invite
associations with intellectual inferiority and primitivism (Harrison, 2001).
Self-schemata may not only define past but also predict future possible
identities, enhancing processing of self-identity-consistent information and
predisposing individuals against incompatible choices (Markus & Nuris,
1986). Thus, effort may be focused toward developing abilities deemed suitable
for particular social groups, for example, guiding Blacks toward keener
practice and persistence in specific sports, with elevated expectations of success
(Harrison, Lee, & Belcher, 1999). Because athletic superiority represents
a rare positive Black stereotype, associated with fame and status, it is perhaps
unsurprising that self-stereotypes are perpetuated. Harrison, Harrison, and
Moore (2002) argued that Nigrescence theory (Cross, 1995) offers a useful
framework for understanding the relationship between Black racial identity
development and that of athletic identity. The potent influence of race-based
self-schemas may pressure Black youths to seek group acceptability by
developing abilities in particular sports and may also influence educational
and occupational patterns.
Stereotype threat theory (Steele & Aronson, 1995) holds that athletic performance
may be depressed by negative stereotypes, through heightened anxiety
and endangered self-esteem. Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, and Darley (1999)
found that Blacks performed worse than controls when a golf task was
described as a test of sports intelligence; Whites performed worse when it
was described as a test of natural athletic ability. Baker and Horton (2003)
argue that stereotype threat may perpetuate East African distance-running
dominance, by attributing racial differences to stable external factors and disempowering
White runners by strengthening perceptions of inferiority.
Ultimately, these internalized stereotypes can lead to disidentification and
affect participation patterns (Coakley, 2003). Evidence also suggests that a
similar mechanism may operate in reverse, with positive self-stereotyping
promoting a stereotype lift effect (Walton & Cohen, 2003).
Coakley (2003) contends that societal emphasis on Black physicality
and encouragement to excel in selected sports, along with limited socioeconomic
opportunities elsewhere, causes belief in a biocultural destiny and
thus the motivation to develop abilities. Similarly, Smith (1995) speculates
that Blacks may spend longer practicing, due to having narrower opportunities,
whereas Jones (2002) found that Black footballers felt they had to be
much better than Whites to succeed, and trying harder was the best
response to racial taunting. Black athletes might be more driven to succeed,
due to cultural norms and fewer ways out of oppression (George, 1994).
However, it seems likely that various other factors discussed above may also affect racial participation and achievement. Although Blackness may
be a commonly recognized societal fact (Fanon, 1992) with strongly
defined identities, Whiteness is often considered as normal, raceless, and
less obvious (Bonnett, 1998). Because of related privileges, Whites are
more able than Blacks to adopt possible identities and are thus less
restricted by symbolic boundaries (Hall, 1996) with regard to sporting
options (Long & Hylton, 2002).
Today’s few elite White sprinters can run no faster than their predecessors
from the 1970s, despite improved equipment, support, and facilities
(George, 1994). Proposed racial physiological differences would not adequately
explain White sprinting stagnation over a quarter of a century.
Proponents of biological determinism might stress that although racial athletic
differences are small, split seconds can separate champions and alsorans
(Entine, 2000). However, the influence of stereotypes could also
account for performance differentials, with Whites effectively defeated at
the starting line by inflated impressions of Black rivals. For White sprinters,
fear of failure and overarousal could be triggered by negative stereotypes,
whereas Black sprinters may be more relaxed and confident, due to
positive stereotypes. It certainly seems that contemporary sprinting is more
important in Black subculture (George, 1994), and few Whites choose to
participate, perhaps because of perceptions of inferiority. Coaches may be
significant agents in shaping attitudes and channeling Black or White athletes
into or away from sprinting due to stereotypical assumptions.
The self-fulfilling prophecy effect is well established in education and
also appears to exist in elite sport settings (Horn, Lox, & Labrador, 2001).
It upholds that coaches’ expectations become prophetic of athletes’ subsequent
behavior (Sinclair & Vealey, 1989). For example, in basketball, it has
been shown that high- and low-expectancy athletes receive differing
amounts of feedback from coaches (Solomon, DiMarco, Ohlson, & Reece,
1998; Solomon, Striegal, Eliot, & Heon, 1996; Solomon, Wiegardt, et al.,
1996). Coaches adhering to racial stereotypes may also communicate
expectation disparity. For instance, Black sprinters may elicit higher performance
expectations and be assessed against elevated standards.
Similarly, coaches might tend to push White athletes toward longer distances,
because of perceptions of Black ascendancy in sprinting. Because
individuals with stereotypical expectancies are usually oblivious of the
process, it is difficult to persuade them that they contributed to fulfilled
expectations or that original viewpoints were erroneous (Harrison, 2001).
Although self-fulfilling prophecy effects might be pertinent with regard to
coaching and race (Smith, 1995), little empirical evidence exists. Solomon, Wiegardt, et al. (1996) did find that Black basketball players received
more instruction, whereas White players received more praise, which
might conform to natural ability and hard-working stereotypes, respectively.
However, the sample was small and results were not statistically significant.
Nevertheless, coaches adhering to stereotypical views about racial
athletic aptitudes will probably treat athletes differently, such that progress
will be inhibited or facilitated. Horn et al. (2001) highlighted the need for
further research examining the interaction between coaches’ expectations
and athletes’ race.
Coaching is complex and demanding and often requires evaluative decisions
without sufficient objective information. Thus, coaches might succumb
to faulty cognition based on stereotypes (Harrison, 2001). Literature
on the coach’s use of stereotypical assumptions is sparse. But their likely
employment and effect on athlete performance is strongly implicated in
areas reviewed above. For instance, athletes have expressed the opinion that
coaches adhere to popular racial athletic stereotypes (Jones, 2002).
Although stereotypical comments by coaches are rare, assumptions might
not be articulated due to concerns with political correctness (Entine, 2000).
Nonetheless, little should be assumed about an athlete based on perceived
race, because racial categorization could be inaccurate, the extrapolation of
perceived group differences to an individual invariably leads to flawed
judgments, and the principle of individualization (Rushall, 1985) indicates
that every athlete is a unique mixture of experience, qualities, and therefore
potential. Although coaching cannot be free of societal context (Potrac,
Jones, & Armour, 2002), nor of personal values, coaches have the ethical
duty to evaluate assumptions underlying their professional practice. The
aim of this study was therefore to assess the extent to which U.K. sprint
coaches employ common racial stereotypes in attributing the success of
Black and White sprinters. Based on previous results with American college
students (Johnson, Hallinan, & Westerfield, 1999), and U.K. novice
coaches in a higher education setting (Rasmussen, Esgate, & Turner, 2005),
it was hypothesized that Black success would be attributed to innate genetic
factors, whereas White success would be attributed to socioeconomic
advantages, intelligence, and hard work.
Discussion
Generally, the hypotheses are not supported quantitatively. Although
sprint coaches did attribute the supposed success of a pictured Black
sprinter more to genetic factors than to that of a pictured White sprinter, the
difference was very small. Furthermore, sprint coaches did not attribute the
supposed success of a pictured White sprinter more to intelligence, hard
work, and socioeconomic factors than that of a pictured Black sprinter. In
fact, the success of the Black sprinter was attributed slightly more to these
White stereotypical factors than it was for the White sprinter. There was no
significant difference in the global scoring of the stereotypes, the individual
factors were highly correlated with regard to their relative scoring, the
rank orders were almost identical, and there was only one significant difference
between the scoring of the individual stereotypical factors across
the two conditions.
It is speculated that the highly similar pattern of success attribution by
coaches across the two photograph conditions may be due to reference to
the personal characteristics of successful sprinters whom they have experienced
coaching over extended one-to-one relationships. They might effectively
have become race blind and stereotype blind in the success
attribution exercise for the Black and White conditions, because they had a
personalized reference point rather than group one. Kunda and Thagard
(1996) indicated that stereotypes are far less powerful than personal characteristics
with regard to person perception. Thus, rather than measuring
stereotype scores, it is possible that the survey forms ended up measuring
the amalgamated characteristics of successful sprinters, regardless of race.
However, specific aspects do partly provide support, and there is a tendency
to score the Black athlete more highly across all stereotypes, possibly
indicating that coaches believe Black athletes to be more generally
suited to sprinting than White athletes, perhaps as a result of Black overrepresentation
in contemporary sprinting (Entine, 2000). This was evidenced
by the higher Black total stereotype score, the line of best fit in the correlation
between the relative scoring of the individual factors revealing that average
Black scores for the stereotypical factors were generally slightly higher
than White scores, and the fact that five out of eight factors were scored more
highly for the Black athlete. However, these differences were not of a great
magnitude. Nonetheless, there were some differences in the way that the
Black and White conditions were scored by coaches, and some of these were
consistent with the hypotheses, such as the White athlete being scored more
highly in relation to White stereotypes than Black stereotypes. Qualitative results indicate that sprint coaches may be susceptible to the
employment of natural ability stereotypes because of an overemphasis on
biological determinism and a lack of recognition for less immediately
apparent developmental factors. For example, more than two thirds of
coaches were of the opinion that sprinters were born, or mostly born, as
opposed to made, or a mixture of the two. Only three coaches felt that
sprinters were made through development. Similarly, more than two thirds
were willing to express that the likely balance between born and made was
in favor of the former, with the average stated percentage being 75/25. Only
four coaches were willing to express a balance in favor of made, whereas a
further four indicated a mixture of the two. More than two thirds of coaches
perceived a lack of equality of opportunity, whereas only three coaches
expressed the opinion that there was a level playing field in relation to
sprinting success. Presumably, this is at least partly a result of the perceived
importance of innate qualities detailed above.
The importance of genetic factors also accounted for the most meaning
units of all responses to open questions, again indicating a strong trend
toward biological determinism in success attribution in sprinting. However,
social support and psychological factors scored almost as high, such that
potentially developmental attributions were also well represented.
Nonetheless, meaning units directly related to the interaction of nature and
nurture and the importance of made factors combined represented less than
a fifth of all responses to open questions.
Direct generic racial comments made up only 4.5% of meaning units. But
this is perhaps not surprising, as the subject was not overtly broached with
coaches. Nonetheless, these comments are very revealing and do provide
considerable support for the hypotheses. Common stereotypes are shown to
persist in this sports-specific setting—relating to Black suitability for sprinting,
Black propensity for fast twitch muscle, Black laziness, and White hard
work (despite lack of natural ability). There were also comments pertaining
to the socioeconomic background of sprinters, which indicated that a rough
urban developmental background might be perceived as a potential advantage
for Black sprinters. This reflects socioeconomic advantages that were
included as White stereotypes in the survey form, that is, possible disadvantages
in relation to sprinting in light of the previous comments. There were
also some doubts expressed concerning the accuracy of common stereotypes
(which nonetheless indicate that they exist in this domain).
It was proposed earlier that stereotypes are rooted in schema theory
(Atkinson et al., 1993). Schemas allow us to cope with cognitive complexity,
which is certainly a demand in the coaching role. However, that benefit is tempered against issues arising from categorization, and information
processing bias, which operate to maintain the simplicity of the coping
mechanism (Levy, 2000). Thus, although schemas are conducive to
making simple associations and linking semantic networks with regard to
stereotypes (because this reduces complexity), they are not conducive
to recognizing multifaceted contributions to performance and dealing with
naturalistic paradoxes (because this increases complexity). As a consequence,
coaches may be subconsciously drawn to appealingly simplistic,
but not necessarily accurate, explanations for racial athletic performance.
Furthermore, as Harrison (2001) indicates, there is little motivation to challenge
such apparently straightforward reasoning, because stereotypical
beliefs can gain considerable credibility in success attribution. To combat
this effect, coaches need to recognize the complexity of their role and regularly
employ critical self-reflection, to review the appropriateness of
their opinions, beliefs, and values. This will require a greater consideration
of the “why” of coaching practice, as opposed to the “what.” Furthermore,
coaches need to ensure that they develop and refine their
knowledge base through continuing professional development and therefore
promote evidence-based practice.
Effectively, it is proposed that the cumulative effect of various influences
is profound in relation to the relative importance of sprinting in Black
and White contemporary subcultures, regardless of whether meaningful
physiological differences actually exist or not. Thus, it is important that all
coaches recognize the potential power of the stereotyping dynamic on athlete
development (see Figures 3 and 4).
Recommendations arising for coaches are as follows:
• Provide consistent feedback and equal practice opportunities to all athletes.
• Continually supplement subjective athlete evaluations with objective data.
• Develop strategies to reinforce athlete self-efficacy.
• Avoid triggering stereotypes.
• Value intuition, but critically reflect on knowledge and assumptions.
• Implement individualization, but recognize the influence of racial identity.
Recommendations arising for coach education are as follows:
• Develop socially adaptable and critically self-reflective practitioners.
• Address and challenge the stereotyping issue.
• Encourage ongoing knowledge development and evaluation of assumptions.
• Recruit more Black coaches.
• Help coaches address White stagnation in sprinting.
Conclusion
Reassuring evidence has been gained that U.K. sprint coaches do not
widely employ stereotypes in attributing differently the success of Black and
White athletes. However, there is sufficient evidence of susceptibility and
replication, via a prevailing emphasis on biologically determinist explanations
of sprinting success, to necessitate continued vigilance. Socioeconomic,
cultural, and developmental influences do not seem to be recognized so readily
by these coaches, perhaps because they are not so immediately apparent
as supposedly natural talent.
Further research might replicate this study in other sports-specific contexts
or could evaluate the experience of underrepresented athletes/coaches.
The interdisciplinary nature of this study and the use of both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies are deemed to have provided a broad and deep view of the problem, representing a contribution to a neglected area of
study. It is hoped that the resulting holistic view has provided a valuable
contribution to the literature in this area, particularly with regard to the
U.K. context, theoretical models of stereotype influence on sprint performance,
and recommendations for coaching practice and coach education.