• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Do Male Athletes Have Body-Image Problems?

February 23, 2011, 6:59 pm

Justine Chatterton was a graduate student in sport psychology when she got stuck on a question. Why are eating disorders, she wondered, regarded as a distinctly “female” problem?

“I saw that as perpetuating a stereotype,” she says. By continuing to study only female athletes, researchers could be ignoring red flags among male athletes, she says.

Now a doctoral student in psychology at the University of North Texas, Ms. Chatterton is intent on learning more about the ways that societal expectations—as well as pressures unique to sports—shape how male college athletes view their bodies. By studying male athletes’ responses to these influences in an NCAA-financed survey of current athletes, she hopes to expand what she thinks is limited scientific knowledge on the topic.

It could well be that eating disorders, and other unhealthy behaviors tied to body image, aren’t at all a problem among male athletes. But without the research, there’s no way to tell for sure, she says.

After all, there are major differences in the messages women and men—athletes or not—take in from popular culture about how they’re supposed to look, says Ms. Chatterton, who played several sports in high school but did not compete during her undergraduate days at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.  Women are supposed to be slim and feminine, an image that often conflicts with the athletic physiques that result from playing certain sports. Men, by contrast, are supposed to be strong and masculine—an ideal that, in many cases, is perfectly in line with their athleticism.

So wouldn’t it follow, then, that men and women would alter their behavior in different ways to conform to different standards?

That’s the question driving much of Ms. Chatterton’s current research, which she is conducting with her adviser, Trent Petrie, a professor and director of North Texas’s Center for Sport Psychology. (The two received a grant for more than $16,000 from the NCAA to pursue the research.) But it’s only the starting point: In an ongoing survey of what she hopes will eventually be more than a thousand athletes across all three NCAA divisions and a variety of sports, Ms. Chatterton and her colleagues are exploring a range of topics.

In the 11-part survey, athletes are asked about the messages they receive regarding body weight, as well as specific behaviors they might engage in—binge eating, for instance, or the use of laxatives—to control that weight. There are questions about their perception of their bodies. Do they feel bad about their appearance? Do they feel that they look different from other athletes? Other questions tap into missed playing time due to injuries, and whether that time on the sidelines led to unhealthy behaviors.

Because men and women face different expectations for their appearence, their behavior might also be different, says Ms. Chatterton, who holds a master’s degree in kinesiology from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, where she did work at the Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport. Women, for instance, might restrict their diet to stay slim. Men might over-exercise to bulk up.

The point, she says, is to figure out which athletes are internalizing those messages and then altering their behavior in an unhealthy way because of it.

“We need to know how many people out there are actually putting themselves at risk,” Ms. Chatterton says.

So far, about 600 male college athletes have completed the survey. Ms. Chatterton and her colleagues plan to collect data through May, and will analyze the results over the summer. They hope to have a report by the fall.

The ultimate goal (in addition to getting the study published in a journal, she says) is to help athletic departments come up with “interventions” for male athletes who might be at risk for eating disorders or other dangerous behaviors.

There have been moments of levity, though. When Ms. Chatterton and her colleagues were crafting the survey, they occasionally had to make adjustments to tailor the questions—many of which had been used only for female respondents—to a male audience. In the section about athletes’ dissatisfaction with certain body parts, for instance, a word change was clearly necessary.

Unlike some women, “men usually aren’t as dissatisfied with their thighs and butt,” she says. “So we changed it to abdomen.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • sand6432

    There is certainly variation among sports regarding eating regimens, e.g., with wrestlers needing to make weight or swimmers doing carbohydrate loading before a meet. And training tables for athletes are a staple of many sports programs, which often have professional nutritionists on their staffs. None of this necessarily has anything to do with “body image,” however. It is true that there are stereotypical body types for sports, wrestlers and gymnasts usually being shorter and stockier whereas basketball and volleyballs players are much taller while swimmers can be either tall or short but generally have lean rather than bulked up physiques. It seems possible that athletes in these sports that do not conform to the “typical” body shape, size, and musculature might have problems with their body image. I hope the study addresses this kind of question.—Sandy Thatcher

  • jffoster

    Normally I don’t comment on this blog but since I had two similar such experiences, I will. When I was on the job market way back in the Good Old Days of 1968- ’69– a period known to Anthropology as the Paleoterrific, I was invited for interviews to two colleges where I stayed in faculty homes. One was a small college in a somewhat remote area and staying in faculty home seemed reasonable — and I was invited to dinner in two other faculty homes—was there 3 days. I was treated quite graciously and didn’t feel at all ill at ease.

    The other case was a large university in a city, so hotel accommodations would have been easily available. But the department head offerred his house, and after having taken me to dinner at an outstanding Austro-Hungarian restaurant (I told you all it was the Good OLD Days!), I spent the night and breakfast in the department head’s home — again treated quite graciously and put at ease.

    So it can work. BTW I took the job offer at the latter place, the university, but both were equally kind, effective, efficient, and gracious hosts. (And no, the urban location wasn’t the reason — indeed, that was actually a consideration favoring the job I didn;t take.)

  • queeracademic

    A potluck (i.e., ONE – not for every meal) could be a nice time to socialize in a more casual setting than the nicest restaurant in town. Presumably, there would be a lot of people there and you could have different conversations with different people, instead of a dinner with only 2-3 people from the dept. But I would absolutely not feel comfortable staying in someone’s home. I agree that there is a need for private down time.

  • totoro

    I’d pay for the hotel myself rather than stay at a faculty member house I think. Potluck dinner is fine though. I remember at one interview they sent a grad student to pick me up in her small car that contained a giant dog (great dane or something). I’m scared of dogs. I said sorry, no thanks, and took a taxi….

  • dbcarr

    Faculty guest rooms? No. The on-campus interview is a horribly stressful experience as it is. In theory, it should reproduce some of the conditions a candidate would face on the job: talking with administrators; working with senior colleagues and graduate students; interacting with undergraduates. On the real job, you get to go home and unwind in the privacy of your abode as you think about the day and prepare for the next. You don’t go to a colleague’s house and sleep over, as a rule.

    The same is true for a job search. The candidate needs to have some down time to process what has occurred. Without that down time, a candidate who is highly sought after may be disinclined to accept. It sends a signal about the way the job will be: no down time; relentless colleagues; no chance to be both an excellent teacher-scholar and *human*.

    Pot lucks are acceptable. The only risk is that a candidate may very well find herself disliking a potential colleague’s cooking. That could be awkward. That’s a risk worth taking if there is simply no money for an expensive meal or catering.

  • hgoerdel

    Completely unprofessional. Forced intimacy is tacky no matter the situation.

  • http://whytheology.wordpress.com/ Trey Medley

    Regarding sending a grad student to pick up a job candidate. When I was a Masters student I was (more or less) volunteered to drop off the job candidates. Yes that’s plural. Although they had been picked up seperately, the university was interviewing the top two candidates simultaneously on campus. In fact, aside from their individual interviews with the search committee and associate dean, they were always together (though they did have seperate hotel rooms). Anyway, as they were both interviewing for a single job, needless to say the drive to the airport was more than a little awkward. Especially because one candidate was a little too opinionated (i.e. in an attempt to fill the awkward silence, as they weren’t really chatting, I turned on the radio, which was set on NPR (I thought who could object to NPR). Candidate A (who was in the front seat) announced, “I don’t listen to that garbage” and turned my radio off. What a great way to make an awkward drive even more awkward.)

  • chguk

    Interesting remark about “coming off as too absorbed in the digital world”. It’s the same problem that faces people with multiple disciplinary interests: you could be the best brain surgeon and Chaucer specialist in the world and some (not all) hiring panel members would immediately place you under suspicion. “How can she be brilliant at both? Let’s take the guy who says he spends all his time in the library stacks.”

    But I think you’re right – you have to be careful not to intimidate the Luddites. In fact, downplaying technical expertise works to your advantage down the road. Colleagues will be wowed by your efficiency as you save a bundle of time by /actually being able to edit documents other people have sent you/.