Caregiver gender bias in youth sport: The effects of implicit and explicit gender associations on support and pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implicit and explicit gender associations influence perceptions and behaviors in meaningful ways, including caregivers' youth sport decisions. Caregiver support and pressure play key roles in shaping youth sport experiences. This study examined the extent to which Canadian youth sport caregivers held implicit and explicit gender associations related to sport and whether associations were related to support or pressure placed on their children. A secondary aim was to examine whether these relationships differed based on child's gender. Two-hundred forty Canadian caregivers (49.6 % women) of cisgender boys and cisgender girls involved in youth sport completed an online survey that included demographic questions, measures of support and pressure in sport, one explicit gender-sport association question, and a Single-Category Implicit Association Test (SC-IAT) to assess implicit gender-sport associations. Caregivers reported significant explicit gender bias, with scores above the midpoint, indicating a stronger association between sport and men. Conversely, no significant implicit gender bias was observed. Regression analyses indicated that implicit gender bias interacted with child's gender and was associated with caregiver behaviors. Caregivers who implicitly associated sport with boys reported less support for their daughters (b = -0.216, p = .048) and less pressure for their sons (b = -0.490, p = .038). Explicit bias was not significantly associated with support or pressure. Findings suggest caregivers' unconscious associations with sport may shape their behaviors toward their children in gendered ways. There is a need for continued efforts to promote girls' sport participation as valued, helping shift broader cultural narratives around gender and sport.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".