Sex-role orientation and the failure atttributions of male and female athletes

The purpose of this study was to determine whether a) the external failure attributions of females having a traditional sex-role orientation were different from those of females with a non-traditional orientation; and b) whether the external failure attributions of either group of females were different from those of a traditional group of male athletes. One hundred and eighty-seven male and female track and field athletes and swimmers competing at the NCAA Division I level were administered two questionnaires. The Modified Trent Attribution Profile (MTAP) (modified from Wong, Watters & Sproule, 1978) was administered to assess the factors to which athletes attribute the outcomes (success or failure) of their sports competitions. The Hem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) was used to classify the subjects into one of four sex-role categories: masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated. Males with masculine BSRI scores (N=36) were classified as traditional males (TM); females with feminine BSRI scores (N=38) were classified as traditional females (TF); females with androgynous or masculine BSRI scores were classified as non-traditional females (NTF). External failure attribution scores were calculated for each athlete classified as TM, TF, or NTF. An ANOVA was calculated to determine whether significant differences existed among the three groups for external failure attributions. No significant differences were found. A two-dimensional (sex-role orientation x stability) chi-square analysis was conducted to determine the relative frequencies of high ratings for external stable and unstable elements among the three groups. Again, no significant differences were found. It was concluded that the likelihood of external failure attributions for male and female athletes is not dependent on sex-role orientation (i.e. traditional vs. non-traditional).