Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Sports conceptualization is dominated by ideas of masculine supremacy

and sex duality. Sports systems are built on sex segregation to fit these

presumptions and ensure level playing grounds. As a result, those who do not fit

into or reject fitting to sex classifications find it difficult to engage in sports,

especially organized sports.

There is no doubt that sports have a significant impact on schools and

students' lives, whether or not they participate in them. Indeed, Stuart Biegel,

author of The Right to Be Out: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in

America's Public Schools (2010), believes that athletic culture and school culture

are "the same in many schools." As evidenced by notable reactions to John

Amaechi's coming out in 2007, as well as the scarcity of our gay male athletes,

support for LGBTQ athletes in professional team sports teammates, coaches, and

fans may be difficult to obtain.

Sport can be used to empower and teach Pride people skills that will allow

them to give back to the community while also increasing their social capital and

social inclusion in the larger community. Sport benefits both physical and mental

health, whereas education promotes cognitive development, social behavior, and

social cohesion.
 2

When wanting to engage and participate in sports, individuals with

disabilities still encounter obstacles. At all levels of sport, from amateur and

recreational to professional and elite, they experience harassment and prejudice.

We must seek to alter sport culture so that it is more accepting of gender and

sexual minorities if sports are to be used as a tool for growth and inclusion.

One way to bring athletes together, regardless of their backgrounds,

physical appearances, sexual orientations, or degree of talent, is via sports. Ball

Games provide a common experience that fosters camaraderie and ties.

In general, violations of gender and sexuality standards are punished in

sports, particularly team sports. Women are discouraged from participating in

sports by being referred to as lesbians, humiliated, sexually attacked, and told

they couldn't. Furthermore, the women’s teams discovered that they had to

come in second to men's teams in terms of funding and support. Men's gender

and heterosexuality were called into doubt when they performed poorly or to

motivate them to improve. Guys who play poorly cannot, by definition, be

heterosexual men - they must be sissies, girls, or homosexuals. The impact of

being positioned in this manner created feelings of guilt and hurt in the men, and

many abandoned the sport as a result (Caroline Symons et al., 2010).

Unlawful attacks on sexuality perpetuated by binary sex intolerance

endanger the honor and reputation of a transgender person as an 'individual,'

making the minority vulnerable to poor physical and mental health. Streets

taking up 'pride parade' movements confronting governments demanding

 3

progressive laws against discrimination, harassment, and degrading treatment,

as well as recognition of their constitutional fundamental human rights, are still a

long way off. However, regardless of differences in customs, culture, or societal

norms, countries are obligated to ensure LGBTQ freedom of expression for an

inclusive society. Homosexuality in sports has resulted in apologetic and

depressing incidents of voyeurism, trauma, and humiliation.

Professional sports have contributed to understanding, acceptance, and

equality throughout the nation's history. Athletes are evaluated on their abilities,

talents, and contributions rather than on their identities on the playing field, thus

when done well, athletics can highlight the finest of America. There are notable

instances of professional sports franchises and college athletic departments

taking public positions in support of equality for women, people of color, and—

more recently—lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, people, in

addition to serving as role models for the importance of non-discrimination.

Sports give benefits to everybody. It develops people's overall well-being.

It is also a way to boost friendships, and build relationships with peers or with

adults. Another, some participants or athletes became excluded because of their

gender orientation. They experienced traumatic and social exclusion in sports,

especially with the people or athletes who are not in the PRIDE community.

For everybody's safe and free field in sports, people should always

consider and understand that in the field of sports, it’s for everyone, and
 4

everyone is welcome. Therefore, sports are for everybody, with no exclusions, no

exemptions.

Historically, compared to their non-LGBTQ colleagues, those who identify

as LGBTQIA+ have faced higher rates of stigmatization, discrimination, and

harassment. There is mounting evidence on a worldwide scale that people who

identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and/or sexually/gender

diverse (LGBTQ+) frequently face discrimination in sports. This is especially

evident in the world of sports, where rising levels of competition, stress, and

conformity can leave queer players feeling worthless, and separated from their

teammates, coaches, and training staff. Organized sports and varsity athletics

can help people develop personally, make friends, and give them a physical

release from the stress of their academic and professional ambitions, but they

may not always be such a friendly environment for all athletes, especially those

who are LGBTQIA+.

Generally, elite-level, collegiate (Anderson et al., 2016), and professional

contexts are where research on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and

Queer/Questioning +sports experiences emerge (Billings et al., 2015). Less study

has, however, been conducted (individually or collectively), particularly in

community settings (Drummond et al., 2018). Indeed, according to Baiocco et al.

(2019), there may be a particular form of homophobia that expresses itself in

circumstances associated with sports.

 5

Sport has historically been construed and reconstrued as a realm that

caters to men and a setting where hegemonic masculinity has predominated as

the prevailing ideology, especially in institutionalized sports (Piedra et al., 2017).

Although sports continue to be closely associated with hegemonic

masculinity (English, 2017), there is a cultural shift taking place toward the

acceptance of LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and

queer) people in society and sport is a major form of participation for the

LGBTIQ+ community (Piedra et al., 2017). This unwillingness to join teams,

participate in sporting events and establish regular physical activity routines

drives a certain difficulty to overcome avoidance. In addition, LGBTQ athletes

encounter direct verbal and physical abuse, are more likely than their peers to

suffer from depression and anxiety, and occasionally lack nurturing familial

circumstances that can serve as a savior (Murtagh et.al 2017).

Whether or not athletes claim to have supportive attitudes about LGBTQ+

persons, they use many homophobic languages (e.g., "faggot," "dyke," etc).

(Atteberry-Ash et al. 2018). Denison and Kitchen (2015) also discovered that

eighty-two percent of their participants had either witnessed or personally

experienced homophobic behavior in sports, such as verbal abuse, bullying,

physical violence, and violent threats. In their study, the majority of homosexual

and bisexual men seventy-one percent, and half of the gay and bisexual women

fifty percent said homophobia was more prevalent in team athletic settings than
 6

in general society, and only one percent of participants thought LGBTQIA+

individuals are fully welcomed in sporting settings.

The experience of homo- and trans negativity in society and sports is

sometimes used to explain (self-)exclusion mechanisms, such as the lower rates

of LGBTQ+ individuals participating in sports (Cleland, 2018; Greenspan et al.,

2019; Scandurra et al. 2019). According to several studies, people who identify

as a particular gender or sexual orientation feel excluded from participating in

sports and physical activity.

According to Anderson et al. (2016), homophobia and homohysteria can

become less prevalent in society over time. But to achieve this, social, cultural,

and legal processes must take the lead (Piedra et al., 2017), especially because

homophobia can be ingrained in institutional or organizational cultures, such as

those of sports (Ansportsn and Bullingham, 2015). Indeed, findings from several

international studies on lesbian, gay, and bisexual athletes demonstrate that

there are ongoing problems with homophobia, homohysteria, discrimination,

abuse, bullying, othering, stigmatizing, and silencing of LGBTIQ+ athletes,

parents, coaches, and members of the larger LGBTIQ+ community in sporting

environments (Piedra, 2018).

Seventy percent of LGBT individuals say that team sports are unsafe for

gay people, and they express significant fear of discrimination from players and

authorities, making youth sports an area of vulnerability (Denison and Kitchen,

 7

2015). Nearly fifty percent of poll participants said that LGBTIQ+ individuals are

"accepted a bit" or "not accepted at all," vs one percent who said that LGBTIQ+

people are "fully accepted" in sporting culture (Denison and Kitchen, 2015). To

have a comprehensive overview of the athletic context for LGBTIQ+ people, it

was important to collect the experiences of sporting players and essential

stakeholders. Even though linkages between sexuality and sports experiences

have changed and still appear to depend on gender, current research does

nevertheless reveal that sexual stigma and prejudice still exist in sports.

Researchers largely started to investigate the connections between

sexuality and athletics (Cavalier, 2019; Lenskyj, 2003). Homophobia is described

as prejudice, discrimination, and harassment, including violent acts, that are

motivated by fear, suspicion, dislike, or hatred of people who identify as, or who

are considered to be, a sexual minority. Early studies reported widespread and

overt homophobia (Griffin, 1998; Hekma, 1998). Because sexual identities were

frequently hidden, it was challenging to accurately characterize the experiences

and social settings linked to sexuality and sports (Anderson, 2005; Griffin, 1998).

In a survey conducted in 2011, 27.08% of LGBTQ athletes said they had

ever experienced harassment or assault due to their sexual orientation while

participating in school sports. Additionally, more than 50% of LGBTQ children

who participated in physical education (PE) classes claimed to have experienced

bullying or harassment because of their sexual orientation (Kosciw et al., 2012).

Additionally, eleven percent of LGBTQ kids who were more recently polled
 8

claimed that they had experienced stigma by being stopped or discouraged from

participating in school sports due to their sexual orientation or gender identity

(Kosciw et al., 2018).

Lesbian and bisexual women are frequently encouraged to seek out and

participate in sports by more progressive women's sports cultures (Birrell &

Richter et al., 2000). These gender inequalities were observed in reported sports

activity across sexual identities in Elling and Janssens' 2009 study of Dutch

adults. Sports may be avoided or abandoned by people who identify as members

of a sexual minority as a result of unfavorable incidents, such as interactions with

racism, prejudice, and discrimination (Petty & Trussell, 2018).

Evaluation of the accessibility, inclusivity, and climates of leisure venues is

a key component of leisure studies, to encourage emotions of community, pride,

and social connection (Mock et al., 2019). By studying the connections between

sexuality, sports-related abuse, and adults' interest in sports, this study aimed to

further this goal. Sports-related activities, such as participating, watching, and

talking about them, are a common kind of leisure. Additionally, sports structures,

cultures, and social interaction patterns have the potential to provide both

favorable and unfavorable sports-related experiences and to encourage or

dissuade individuals from participating in sports, which has implications for social

justice as well as for people's health and well-being (Allison & Knoester, 2020).
 9

Therefore, the main aim of this study is to determine the Features

Sensitivity in Ball Games as perceived by pride athletes to non-pride athletes at

Urdaneta City University.

 10

Theoretical Framework

This research is theoretically based on the study of Gender Development

Theory (2016), Anderson's Inclusive Masculinity Theory (2012), and Gender

Schema Theory (2011). This study is also Theoretically anchored in

Cunningham's (2012) multilevel model for understanding the experiences of

LGBT+ individuals.

Based on the gender development theory study of (Miller et al. 2016)

given the ubiquitous influence of gender in a person's life, several theories have

been developed to explain gender sensitivity. These theories can be usually

distributed into three families: biological, socialization, and cognitive. According

to biological theories, psychological and behavioral gender differences are due to

the biological differences between males and females. Within this family of

approaches, researchers have focused on historical explanations (such as

evolutionary processes) and proximal explanations (such as genes and sex

hormones).

Socialization theories of gender development view gender differences as a

byproduct of the differential treatment girls and boys receive from the people in

their lives and the pervasive gender-stereotyped messages that children are

exposed to in their environment. Cognitive theories of gender development view

children as active constructors of knowledge who seek, interpret, and act on

information to match their behavior to their understanding of gender.

 11

This Theory of Miller divided into three: biological, socialization, and

cognitive show connectedness to this study Biological Theory emphasizes that

behavioral gender differences are due to the biological difference which is one of

the bases of this paper that there's an existing difference. After all, the gender

evolutionary process that males and females proximal explanation will be

questionable. Socialization Theory is one of the highlights of this study because it

emphasizes how feature sensitivity will be the problem because to know the

perception of the respondents will be needed socialization. Lastly the Cognitive

Theory this theory will emphasize the level of sensitivity of an athlete toward

features that affect competition and training. In addition, this theory promotes

the active construction of knowledge that seeks, interprets, and acts on

information to match the behavior to their awareness, because athletes and

coaches need to become sensitive inside the sports and integrate the importance

of Sports Ethics.

According to Gender Schema Theory, “children actively search for cues”

from their social world (Martin & Ruble, 2004). These cues turn into schemas,

which influence their behavior as gender roles develop. Girls are encouraged to

act feminine, whereas boys are encouraged to be tough and masculine.

However, children do not always conform to gender-consistent behaviors.

Individuals who behave outside the norm are often stigmatized (Schmalz &

Kerstetter, 2006).
 12

This theory helps this study to understand the existing role of gender in

the world, this theory is the reason why the feature sensitivity of athletes

becomes questionable because according to this concept emphasizes that men

should be masculine and women should be feminine, Individuals who behave

outside the norm will be stigmatized.

Anderson's Inclusive Masculinity Theory (2012) 'Homohysteria' is defined

as men's fear of being socially viewed as gay. Anderson contends that during

periods of high homohysteria, boys and men are forced to: (a) express

homophobic and sexist attitudes; (b) increase their masculine capital through

sport and muscularity; (c) increase their heterosexual capital by sexually

objectifying women; and (d) avoid emotional intimacy or homosocial tactility. All

of this is done to avoid the stigma of being gay.

This theory highlights the word "homo hysteria" because men fear being

socially viewed as gay. This is also the proven reason that's why having a feature

sensitivity of non-pride athletes has a problem along with pride athletes. This

theory emphasizes the reason why men and women don't want to be interacting

with pride athletes they are scared to be one of them.

A multilevel model for understanding the experiences of lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) sports participants. The author argues that

macro (i.e., cultural norms, institutionalized practices), meso (i.e., leader

behaviors, organizational culture, group support), and micro (i.e., sexual identity,
 13

salient identities, sex) level factors influence the attitudes toward and

experiences and behaviors of sexual minorities within the sport context.

Research and policy implications are discussed.

For understanding discrimination based on gender identity, Cunningham's

(2012) multilevel model appears to be a useful framework. It is embedded in

sports and considers societal, organizational, and individual factors on the macro,

meso, and micro levels for explaining “the attitudes toward and experiences and

behaviors of sexual minorities”.

This model will serve as a compass of pride for athletes because this

model highlights the experiences of prideful athletes in sports. The author argues

about macro, meso, and micro as the factors that influence the attitude toward

the experience and behavior of sexual minorities within the sport context. This

theory helps this study to prove that there is an occurring problem between pride

and non-pride athletes in sports.

 14

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework served as a guide to the researchers on how

to go about the present study, “Pride Athletes: A Feature Sensitivity in Ball

Games at Urdaneta City University.”

This framework divides the study into three parts, the Input Process

Output. The Input is composed of variables that affect the feature sensitivity of

pride athletes as perceived by non-pride athletes at Urdaneta City University.

The Process is the method by which variables are collected and synthesized on

the feature sensitivity of pride athletes as perceived by non-pride athletes in Ball

Games at Urdaneta City University. The Output is the outcome of the variables

that will eliminate the inequality of pride to non-pride athletes at Urdaneta City

University.
 15

Research Paradigm

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Sensitivity features  Administration of

of pride and non- survey

pride athletes questionnaire.

 Tabulation and Intervention
along with:
analysis of data. Material in the
a.) attitudes;  Interpretation and form of a
b.) verbal corroboration of Pamphlet:
communication
results.
;
 Test of significant
c.) skills; and difference.

d.) attire?

FEEDBACK

Figure 1 Research Paradigm of the Study

 16

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the Feature Sensitivity of Pride and Non-

pride Athletes in Volleyball at Urdaneta City University.

1.) What are the features of the pride and the non-pride athletes along with;

a.) attitude;

b.) verbal communication;

c.) skills; and

d.) attire?

2.) What is the significant difference between pride athletes’ to non-pride

athletes’ sensitivity in ball games?

3.) What intervention material guide can be designed to eliminate inequality to

pride and non-pride athletes at Urdaneta City University?

Null Hypothesis

This study was tested at 0.05 level of significance and stated in the null

hypothesis as follows.

There are no significant difference between the Pride Athletes and Non-

pride Athletes sensitivity in ball games at Urdaneta City University.

 17

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The primary goal of this study was to determine the feature sensitivity of

student-athletes. This study was undertaken to find out the difference between

the pride athletes’ and non-pride athletes’ feature sensitivity in volleyball at

Urdaneta City University. The respondents of this research were the varsity

volleyball players from different course programs at the university and the

researchers will conduct a checklist and survey-style research-made

questionnaire that will serve as the primary data-gathering tool for the study. All

information and conclusions drawn from the study were obtained only from a

particular. The research will be conducted during the academic year 2022-2023.

Significance of the Study

The importance of this study was to determine the Feature Sensitivity of

Pride Athletes and Non-Pride Athletes in Volleyball varsity players at Urdaneta

City University.

The result of this study will benefit the following:

School Administration. The study could serve as a guide for school

administrators in developing policies or guidelines regarding pride and non-pride

athletes’ feature sensitivity.

Sports Coordinator. This study supplied will enable sports coordinators

to know whether participants will participate in competitive sports or leisurely

 18

activities, the sports coordinator will help to construct policies for all gender to

promote feature sensitivity.

Faculty Coaches. Coaches can also boost autonomy in their athletes by

encouraging self-monitoring, performance reflection, and honest evaluation of

feature sensitivity.

Teachers. The teachers will benefit from this study, especially those new

to this profession. Teachers will gain a deeper understanding of this study and

identify the feature sensitivity of pride and non-pride athletes.

Student-Athletes. The student-athletes are the primary recipients of

this research study. Regarding the feature sensitivity of pride and non-pride

athletes, this study will benefit the student-athlete who identify as Pride

members.

Future Researchers. This study will be a valuable resource for future

researchers who wish to conduct similar research on pride and non-pride

athletes’ feature sensitivity.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined operationally for a better understanding

of concepts:

Ball Games. A type of sport played by a team such as baseball,

basketball, or volleyball. This will be used as the primary focus of our research,

particularly the volleyball game.

 19

Features. It refers to a distinctive attribute or aspect of something and to

knowing their sensitivity in terms of attitudes, verbal, communication, skills, and

attire.

Gender Stereotype. Pertains to a generalized view or preconception

about attributes or characteristics that are or ought to be possessed by women

and men or the roles that are or should be performed by men and women. It

refers to how non-pride athletes and pride athletes perceive each other in terms

of attitudes, verbal communication, skills, and attire.

Gender. It refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls, and boys

that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviors, and roles

associated with being a woman, man, girl, or boy, as well as relationships with

each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can

change over time. It is the fundamental topic or premise of our study.

Intervention Material. It refers to the use of class remediation to focus

on developing the learners' least mastered skills as identified. It can find in the

output of our study.

Non-Pride Athletes. These athletes are not part of the LGBTQIA+

community. These non-pride athletes are the primary beneficiaries of the study

and will be one of the respondents.

Pride. It refers to an integral cultural concept within the Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex (LGBTQI) community, representing

 20

solidarity, collectivity, and identity as well as resistance to discrimination and

violence.

Pride Athletes. Also known as LGBTQIA+ to renew and improve

understanding of terminology around LGBTQIA+ identity. These non-pride

athletes are the primary beneficiaries of the study and will be one of the

respondents.

Sensitivity. The quality or condition of being sensitive. The trait of being

easily offended by what others say or do in terms of attitudes, verbal,

communication, ability, and attire. It refers to the pride and non-pride athlete's

feelings which might be easily offended or hurt.

 21

Chapter 2

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the method of research that will be used by the

researchers to gather the necessary data. It includes the research design,

respondents of the study and sampling scheme, data gathering instrument, data

collection instrument, tools for data analysis, and ethical consideration,

composed of a discussion on the research design that will be used.

Research Design

The researcher used the descriptive survey method of research with the

use of purposive sampling in the process of collecting and analyzing numerical

data. This was used to determine the feature sensitivity of Pride Athletes and

Non-pride Athletes in playing volleyball.

The focus of this study was to determine the Feature Sensitivity of

Athletes along with attitude, verbal communication, skills, and attire. The

descriptive survey method uses questionnaires to generate data prepared by the

researchers. Quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and the

statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls,

questionnaires, surveys, or manipulating pre-existing statistical data using

computational techniques (Babbie, Earl R. 2010).

The descriptive sampling method was used to find patterns and averages,

make projections, causal test relationships, and generalize results to populations.

According to McCombes (2020), descriptive research is usually described as

 22

quantitative research, though qualitative research can also be used for

descriptive purposes.

Subjects of the Study and Sampling Scheme

The gathering of data was conducted at Urdaneta City University,

Pangasinan. The source of data were the volleyball varsity athletes of Urdaneta

City University during this S.Y 2022-2023. For instance, the population was

categorized into pride and non-pride to identify. Determining the feature

sensitivity of pride athletes and non-pride athletes in terms of; attitude, verbal

communication, skills, and attire to identify a significant difference between the

pride to non-pride athletes’ sensitivity in ball games at Urdaneta City University.

This study used purposive sampling also known as judgmental, selective,

or subjective sampling, which is a form of non-probability sampling in which

researchers rely on their decision when choosing members of the population to

participate in their surveys. According to Creswell (2012), focused sampling

means that to learn and understand the essential phenomenon, a researcher

selects individuals and sites intentionally. In addition, purposive sampling is a

technique in which the researchers select the person or the group as the sample

based on their purposes and opinions.

 23

Data Gathering Instrument

In gathering the data, the researchers used a survey questionnaire. The

survey questionnaire determined the feature sensitivity of pride athletes and

non-pride athletes in ball games at Urdaneta City University. The description of

survey research is "the gathering of information from a sample of individuals

through their responses to questions" (Check & Schutt, 2012). This form of

research allows for a range of approaches for recruiting individuals, collecting

data, and obtaining appropriate instrumentation methods.

The questionnaire is composed of two parts in order to gather the data of

feature sensitivity of pride athletes and non-pride athletes in Ball Games. The

first part includes the profile of the respondents in terms of their; name, age,

and gender. Moreover, part two was about the feature sensitivity of student-

athletes in attitude, verbal communication, skills, and attire. A request letter to

conduct the study was signed and approved by the Dean of the College of

Education and the Adviser. Furthermore, the researchers made the

questionnaire, especially for this study.

To determine the validity of the instrument it went under expert

validation. There were three validator experts; these were the PE Instructor,

Coordinator, and a Teacher from the Urdaneta City National High School. To

establish the reliability, it was tried out on the pride and non-pride athletes who

are the actual respondents of the study.

 24

Data Gathering Procedure

Below is the flow chart to illustrate the conduct of the data gathering.

Approval of College of Teacher Education Dean for the conduct of the study.

Construction and validation of the test instrument with the help of panel of
experts.

Testing the reliability of the test questionnaire.

Gathering of the data from the target respondents through checklist survey
questionnaire.

Analysis and interpretation of the data gathered.

Crafting of the intervention material in the form of pamphlet used to

eliminate the inequality between pride and non-pride athletes.

Figure 2. Flow Charts of Data Gathering and Research Process

 25

Before the conduct of the research, the approval of Urdaneta City

University will be sought from the College dean. Upon the receipt of the approval

of the expert validators at Urdaneta City National High School, the research

instrument underwent validation and reliability testing. Three (3) experts were

requested to review and validate the research tool. Inputs from the experts were

considered for necessary modifications.

For reliability, the pilot testing was held at Urdaneta City National High

School. Permission from the school coaches and the administration was solicited

before the pilot testing.

Once the instrument had been validated and tested for reliability, the

researcher sought the approval of the school coaches and the administration of

Urdaneta City National High School to proceed with the collection of data. This

was done through a formal letter. The research instrument will be administered

through face-to-face interaction. After the respondents accomplished the

questionnaire, it was retrieved for data analysis and interpretation.

 26

Statistical Treatment of Data

The researchers will use a checklist questionnaire in gathering data from

university athletes. Afterward, the researcher will tabulate the scores and results

of the functional movement of the university athletes.

The following statistical tools will be used to answer the problems stated

in Chapter 1:

To answer the problem number one (1) on the features sensitivity of

pride athletes as perceived by non-pride athletes in terms of attitude, verbal

communication, ability, and attire, average weighted mean will be used. The

formula is shown below:

∑ fixi
AWM=
n
where: f = number of cases

x = weight of each case

n = total number of respondents

To answer the problem number two (2) on the significant difference

between pride athletes to non-pride athletes, paired t-test will be used. An open-

source program will be used.

 27

Ethical Considerations

The following ethical principles will be observed throughout the study.

Informed Consent. To show respect, researchers asked permission from

the Dean of the College of Teacher Education and the Head of the MAPEH

Department of Urdaneta City University to gather data needed for the study.

Confidentiality. The researchers will consider the privacy of the

respondents by giving high respect to their dignity and morality. They will be

careful in taking personal information by keeping the data gathered.

Beneficence. The researchers will be observant to the extent of the

respondent’s privacy to protect themselves to avoid any misconduct issues that

can lead to emotional trauma/stress of the person.

Autonomy. The researcher allows the respondents to make choices and

voluntarily decide to participate in the research conducted.

 28

CHAPTER 3
Results and Discussion

This chapter presents the results and interpretation of the data gathered

throughout the study. Data are carefully analyzed to come up with an accurate

presentation, analysis, and interpretation. In addition, data are presented using

tables to facilitate an easier understanding of the discussion given problems.

Furthermore, the data are presented and organized according to the

arrangement of the problems investigated in the present study, namely the

feature sensitivity of pride and non-pride athletes along with; attitude, verbal

communication, skills, and attire; and lastly, the significant difference between

pride and non-pride athletes’ sensitivity in ball games.

 29

Table 1
Pride Athletes Feature Sensitivity in terms of Attitude
Attitude. As shown below in table 1, there are five questions to determine their
sensitivity.
Table 1
Feature sensitivity of university athletes according to attitude
N=20

ATTITUDE WEIGHTED MEAN DESCRIPTIVE

EQUIVALENT
1. The non-pride 2.55 HIGH SENSITIVITY
athletes did not care if
we messed up in the
game.
2. Our volleyball 3.6 HIGH SENSITIVITY
teammates respect the
decisions we make.
3. They always smile 3 HIGH SENSITIVITY
when they see us.
4. They have faith in our 3.5 HIGH SENSITIVITY
ability to play the game
successfully.
5. They respect our 3.5 HIGH SENSITIVITY
tactics and strategy in
the game.

AVERAGE WEIGHTED 3.23 HIGH SENSITIVITY

MEAN
Legend Mean scale Descriptive Equivalent

4 3.26-4.00 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY

3 2.51-3.25 HIGH SENSITIVITY

2 1.76-2.50 LOW SENSITIVITY

1 1.00-1.75 VERY LOW SENSTITIVITY

Based on the table 1 presented above in terms of attitude, question number 2

which indicates, “Our volleyball teammates respect the decisions we make” got
 30

the weighted mean of 3.6 and with the descriptive equivalent of high sensitivity.
On the other hand, question number 1 which indicates, “The non-pride athletes
did not care if we messed up in the game” got the weighted mean of 2.55 with
the descriptive equivalent of low sensitivity.
Adolescents may need to weigh the decision to stick with their pre-existing
attitudes (i.e., resist) against the potentially beneficial effects of shifting their
attitudes toward group norms (i.e., conform) when there are potential conflicts
between their own and others' opinions (Deutsch and Gerard, 2015).
 31

Pride Athletes Feature Sensitivity in terms of Verbal Communication

Verbal Communication. As shown below in table 2.1, there are five questions
to determine their sensitivity.
Table 2.1
Feature sensitivity of university athletes according to verbal communication
N=20

VERBAL WEIGHTED MEAN DESCRIPTIVE

COMMUNCIATION EQUIVALENT
1. Non-Pride athletes is 2.3 LOW SENSITIVITY
not okay the way we
speak inside the court.
2. They get angry with 2.05 LOW SENSITIVITY
the way we
communicate.
3. They feel irritated by 2 LOW SENSITIVITY
the way we discuss.
4. They do not care about 2.4 LOW SENSITIVITY
the way we
communicate.
5. They do not listen to 2.15 LOW SENSITIVITY
the way we talk.
AVERAGE WEIGHTED 2.18 LOW SENSITIVITY
MEAN

Legend Mean scale Descriptive Equivalent

4 3.25-4.00 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY

3 2.51-3.25 HIGH SENSITIVITY

2 1.76-2.50 LOW SENSITIVITY

1 1.00-1.75 VERY LOW SENSTITIVITY

Based on the table 2.1 presented above in terms of verbal communication,

question number 5 which indicates, “They do not listen to the way we talk” got
the weighted mean of 2.15 and with the descriptive equivalent of low sensitivity.
On the other hand, question number 3 which indicates, “They feel irritated by
 32

the way we discuss” got the weighted mean of 2 with the descriptive equivalent
of low sensitivity.
A healthy team is built on verbal communication. Conversation is an essential
ingredient for team chemistry and fine-tuning team plans on the rink, field, and
court. Verbal communication within a team boosts its competitiveness by
enabling greater productivity and thus higher performance (Hanson, 2016).
 33

Pride Athletes Feature Sensitivity in terms of Skills

Skills. As shown below in table 2.2, there are five questions to determine their
sensitivity.
Table 2.2
Feature sensitivity of university athletes according to skills
N=20

SKILLS WEIGHTED MEAN DESCRIPTIVE

EQUIVALENT

1. The Non-Pride 3.1 HIGH SENSITIVITY

athletes thinks that we
are strong hitters in
playing volleyball.
2. They think we are 3.1 HIGH SENSITIVITY
swift in saving the ball.
3. They think that we 3.55 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY
have a good
coordination.
4. They think that we 2.7 LOW SENSITIVITY
are ahead when we run.
5. They think that we do 2.6 LOW SENSITIVITY
not get tired
immediately when
playing.
AVERAGE WEIGHTED 3.01 HIGH SENSITIVITY
MEAN

Legend Mean scale Descriptive Equivalent

4 3.25-4.00 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY

3 2.51-3.25 HIGH SENSITIVITY

2 1.76-2.50 LOW SENSITIVITY

1 1.00-1.75 VERY LOW SENSTITIVITY

Based on the table 2.2 presented above in terms of skills, question number 3
which indicates, “They think that we have a good coordination” got the weighted
 34

mean of 3.55 and with the descriptive equivalent of very high sensitivity. On the
other hand, question number 5 which indicates, “They think that we do not get
tired immediately when playing” got the weighted mean of 2.6 with the
descriptive equivalent of low sensitivity.
Scholar Sun (2022) argues that agile quality may effectively evaluate an athlete's
ability to respond to and cope with changes in complex and variable conditions,
such as fast learning new actions or action combinations to deal with deliberate
opponent targeting.
 35

Pride Athletes Feature Sensitivity in terms of Attire

Attire. As shown below in table 2.3, there are indicators to determine their
sensitivity.
Table 2.3
Feature sensitivity of university athletes according to attire
N=20

ATTIRE WEIGHTED MEAN DESCRIPTIVE

EQUIVALENT

1. Non-Pride athletes 2.45 LOW SENSITIVITY

feel irritated about what
I wear inside the game.
2. They cannot 1.7 VERY LOW SENSITIVITY
concentrate on the
game because of the
shorts I wear.
3. They do not care 2.45 LOW SENSITIVITY
about the way I wear
my jersey.
4. They feel ashamed 2.1 LOW SENSITIVITY
about the way I wear.
5. They are making 2.2 LOW SENSITIVITY
jokes about the way I
wear.
AVERAGE WEIGHTED 2.18 LOW SENSITIVITY
MEAN

Legend Mean scale Descriptive Equivalent

4 3.25-4.00 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY

3 2.51-3.25 HIGH SENSITIVITY

2 1.76-2.50 LOW SENSITIVITY

1 1.00-1.75 VERY LOW SENSTITIVITY

Based on the table 2.3 presented above in terms of skills, question number 1 and
3 which indicates, “Non-Pride athletes feel irritated about what I wear inside the
 36

game” and “They do not care about the way I wear my jersey” got the weighted
mean of 2.45 and with the descriptive equivalent of low sensitivity. On the other
hand, question number 2 which indicates, “They cannot concentrate on the
game because of the shorts I wear” got the weighted mean of 1.7 with the
descriptive equivalent of very low sensitivity.
According to Slepian et al. (2015), formal dress commands respect by conveying
ethical features such as professionalism and norm conformity.

Non-Pride Athletes Feature Sensitivity in terms of Attitude

 37

Attitude. As shown below in table 3, there are five questions to determine their
sensitivity.
Table 3
Feature sensitivity of university athletes according to attitude
N=20

ATTITUDE WEIGHTED MEAN DESCRIPTIVE

EQUIVALENT

1. I do not mind if the 2.85 HIGH SENSITIVITY

Pride athletes made a
mistake in the game.
2. I respect their 3.6 HIGH SENSITIVITY
decisions when it comes
to playing volleyball.
3. I smile every time I 3.7 HIGH SENSITIVITY
see them.
4. I trust them in playing 3.55 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY
the game to win.
5. I respect their 3.65 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY
strategies and
techniques inside the
game.

AVERAGE WEIGHTED 3.47 VERY HIGH

MEAN SENSITIVITY

Legend Mean scale Descriptive Equivalent

4 3.25-4.00 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY

3 2.51-3.25 HIGH SENSITIVITY

2 1.76-2.50 LOW SENSITIVITY

1 1.00-1.75 VERY LOW SENSTITIVITY

Based on the table 3 presented

above in terms of attitude, question number 5 which indicates, “I respect their
strategies and techniques inside the game” got the weighted mean of 3.65 and
with the descriptive equivalent of very high sensitivity. On the other hand,
question number 1 which indicates, “I do not mind if the Pride athletes made a
 38

mistake in the game” got the weighted mean of 2.85 with the descriptive
equivalent of high sensitivity.
Adolescents may need to weigh the decision to stick with their pre-existing
attitudes (i.e., resist) against the potentially beneficial effects of shifting their
attitudes toward group norms (i.e., conform) when there are potential conflicts
between their own and others' opinions (Deutsch and Gerard, 2015).
 39

Non-Pride Athletes Feature Sensitivity in terms of Verbal

Communication
Verbal Communication. As shown below in table 3.1, there are five questions
to determine their sensitivity.
Table 3.1
Feature sensitivity of university athletes according to verbal communication
N=20

VERBAL WEIGHTED MEAN DESCRIPTIVE

COMMUNCIATION EQUIVALENT

1. The way pride athletes 1.9 VERY LOW SENSITIVITY

speak inside the court is
not okay for me.
2. They make me angry 1.85 LOW SENSITIVITY
with the way they speak.
3. They make me irritated 1.95 LOW SENSITIVITY
by the way they discuss.
4. I don't care about the 2 LOW SENSITIVITY
way they communicate.
5. I don't listen to the 1.85 LOW SENSITIVITY
way they talk.

AVERAGE WEIGHTED 1.91 LOW SENSITIVITY

MEAN
Legend Mean scale Descriptive Equivalent

4 3.25-4.00 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY

3 2.51-3.25 HIGH SENSITIVITY

2 1.76-2.50 LOW SENSITIVITY

1 1.00-1.75 VERY LOW SENSTITIVITY

Based on the table 3.1 presented
above in terms of verbal communication, question number 4 which indicates, “I
don't care about the way they communicate” got the weighted mean of 2 and
with the descriptive equivalent of low sensitivity. On the other hand, question
number 1 which indicates, “The way pride athletes speak inside the court is not
okay for me” got the weighted mean of 1.9 with the descriptive equivalent of
very low sensitivity.
 40

A healthy team is built on verbal communication. Conversation is an essential

ingredient for team chemistry and fine-tuning team plans on the rink, field, and
court. Verbal communication within a team boosts its competitiveness by
enabling greater productivity and thus higher performance (Hanson, 2016).

Non-Pride Athletes Feature Sensitivity in terms of Skills

Skills. As shown below in table 3.2, there are five questions to determine their
sensitivity.
Table 3.2
Feature sensitivity of university athletes according to skills
N=20

SKILLS WEIGHTED MEAN DESCRIPTIVE

EQUIVALENT

1. The Pride athletes are 3.4 HIGH SENSITIVITY

strong hitters in playing
volleyball.
2. They are quick when 3.2 HIGH SENSITIVITY
saving the ball.
3. They have a better 3.35 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY
coordination.
4. They are fast when 3.1 HIGH SENSITIVITY
running.
5. They do not get tired 3.1 HIGH SENSITIVITY
immediately when
playing.

AVERAGE WEIGHTED 3.23 HIGH SENSITIVITY

MEAN
Legend Mean scale Descriptive Equivalent

4 3.25-4.00 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY

3 2.51-3.25 HIGH SENSITIVITY

2 1.76-2.50 LOW SENSITIVITY

1 1.00-1.75 VERY LOW SENSTITIVITY

 41

Based on the table 3.2 presented above in terms of skills, question number 3
which indicates “I don't care about the way they communicate” got the weighted
mean of 3.35 and with the descriptive equivalent of very high sensitivity. On the
other hand, question number 4 and 5 which indicates, “They are fast when
running” and “They do not get tired immediately when playing” got the weighted
mean of 3.1 with the descriptive equivalent of high sensitivity.
Scholar Sun (2022) argues that agile quality may effectively evaluate an athlete's
ability to respond to and cope with changes in complex and variable conditions,
such as fast learning new actions or action combinations to deal with deliberate
opponent targeting.
 42

Non-Pride Athletes Feature Sensitivity in terms of Attire

Attire. As shown below in table 3, there are five questions to determine their
sensitivity.
Table 3.3
Feature sensitivity of university athletes according to Attire
N=20

ATTIRE WEIGHTED MEAN DESCRIPTIVE

EQUIVALENT

1. I feel irritated about 2.2 LOW SENSITIVITY

what Pride athletes wear
inside the game.
2. I can't concentrate on 1.95 LOW SENSITIVITY
the game because of the
shorts they wear.
3. I don't care about the 2.5 LOW SENSITIVITY
way they wear their
jersey.
4. I feel irritated about 2 LOW SENSITIVITY
the way they wear.
5. We are making jokes 2.1 LOW SENSITIVITY
about the way they
wear.

AVERAGE WEIGHTED 2.15 LOW SENSITIVITY

MEAN

Legend Mean scale Descriptive Equivalent

4 3.25-4.00 VERY HIGH SENSITIVITY

3 2.51-3.25 HIH SENSITIVITY

2 1.76-2.50 LOW SENSITIVITY

1 1.00-1.75 VERY LOW SENSTITIVITY

 43

Based on the table 3.3 presented above in terms of attire, question number 3
which indicates, “I don't care about the way they wear their jersey” got the
weighted mean of 2.5 and with the descriptive equivalent of low sensitivity. On
the other hand, question number 2 which indicates, “I can't concentrate on the
game because of the shorts they wear” got the weighted mean of 1.95 with the
descriptive equivalent of low sensitivity.
According to Slepian et al. (2015), formal dress commands respect by conveying
ethical features such as professionalism and norm conformity.

TABLE 4
Significant Difference between Pride and Non-Pride Athletes

Mean Difference
Mean e t-value Sig. (2-
tailed)

Pair 1 A1-nonpride 3.3300 -.140 -.989 .335

a-1 pride 3.4700
Pair 2 VC-nonpride 2.1800 .270 1.24 .229
VC-pride 1.9100
Pair 3 S-nonpride 3.0100 -.220 -1.01 .326
S-pride 3.2300
Pair 4 A2-nonpride 2.1800 .030 .150 .882
A2-pride 2.1500
Pair 5 Over-nonpride 2.6750 -.015 -.148 .884
Overpride 2.6900

It can be seen in the table 4 that there is no significant difference

between feature sensitivity in terms of attitude that has t-value of .989 and
significant difference of .335.
A positive sports attitude is vital to an athlete's performance both on and
off the field, yet it is easier said than done. During competition, it is simple to
become enraged by a terrible play or a bad call, and it is also tempting to point
 44

fingers and assign blame. If that irritated attitude and emotional state are
allowed to prevail with one athlete, that attitude will quickly become the
accepted norm for the team (Quinn, 2021).
It can be seen in the table 4 that there is no significant difference
between feature sensitivity in terms of verbal communication that has t-value of
1.24 and significant difference of .225.
Verbal communication allows coaches to strengthen their bonds with their
athletes while also improving teamwork in the sport environment, increasing skill
learning and enhancing performance. It allows coaches to interact with their
athletes even when they are having negative thoughts and feelings without
causing conflict or breaking trust (Chin et al., 2017).
It can be seen in the table 4 that there is no significant difference
between feature sensitivity in terms of skill that has t-value of 1.50 and
significant difference of .882.
Skill is defined as the physical, cognitive, and behavioral competencies
required in all aspects of life, and it can be learnt, developed, and corrected as
an individual or as part of a group (Cronin and Allen, 2015).
It can be seen in the table 4 that there is no significant difference
between feature sensitivity in terms of attire that has t-value of 1.50 and
significant difference of .882.
According to research, clothing has an important role in first impressions
and initial judgments of an individual (Lower et al., 2018).
It can be seen in the table 4 that there is no significant difference
between feature sensitivity of pride athletes and non-pride athletes with an
overall t-value of 1.48 and significant difference of .884.
Therefore, the null hypothesis, which states that there is no significant
difference between the feature sensitivity of Pride Athletes and Non-Pride
Athletes is accepted.
 45

Chapter 4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings and conclusions derived

from the conducted study, Pride Athletes: A Feature Sensitivity in Ball Games at

Urdaneta City University. It also provides recommendations that can be pursued

by university varsity athletes.

This study was conducted at Urdaneta City University. The respondents

were the men's and women's volleyball varsity players. They were selected using

purposive sampling. It employed quantitative research and utilized descriptive

methods. Pertinent data were obtained through a checklist survey. The statistical

tools used were the mean percentage and the t-test.

 46

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The following were the salient findings of the study according to the

statement of the problem stated in Chapter 1.

1. What are the features of the pride athletes along with;

a. Attitude. According to the data gathered, the pride athletes are

feature sensitive particularly in attitude, with the average weighted

mean of 3.23 and high sensitivity as its descriptive equivalent.

b. Verbal Communication. According to the data gathered, the

pride athletes are feature sensitive particularly in verbal

communication, with the average weighted mean of 2.18 and low

sensitivity as its descriptive equivalent.

c. Skills. According to the data gathered, the pride athletes are

feature sensitive particularly in skills, with the average weighted

mean of 3.01 and high sensitivity as its descriptive equivalent.

d. Attire. According to the data gathered, the pride athletes are

feature sensitive particularly in attire, with the average weighted

mean of 2.18 and low sensitivity as its descriptive equivalent.

2. What are the features of the non-pride athletes along with;

a. Attitude. According to the data gathered, the pride athletes

are feature sensitive particularly in attitude, with the average

weighted mean of 3.47 and very high sensitivity as its

descriptive equivalent.
 47

b. Verbal Communication. According to the data gathered, the

pride athletes are feature sensitive particularly in verbal

communication, with the average weighted mean of 1.91 and

low sensitivity as its descriptive equivalent.

c. Skills. According to the data gathered, the pride athletes are

feature sensitive particularly in skills, with the average weighted

mean of 3.23 and high sensitivity as its descriptive equivalent.

d. Attire. According to the data gathered, the pride athletes are

feature sensitive particularly in attire, with the weighted mean

of 2.15 and low sensitivity as its descriptive equivalent.

Significant Difference between the Feature Sensitivity of

Pride and Non-Pride Athletes

There is no significant difference between the feature

sensitivity of pride and non-pride athletes, with a significant level of

0.884. This means that the research concluded, by all counts and

with a proven result, that the Pride and Non-Pride Athletes have

the same feature sensitivity in terms of attitude, verbal

communication, skills, and attire.

 48

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the researchers conclude the following:

1. The research shows that in terms of attitude the pride athletes had a high

sensitivity while non-pride had a very high sensitivity in playing ball games.

2. The research shows that in terms of verbal communication both pride and

non-pride had a low sensitivity in playing ball games.

3. The research shows that in terms of skills both pride and non-pride had a low

sensitivity in playing ball games.

4. The research shows that in terms of attire both pride and non-pride had a low

sensitivity in playing ball games.

5. There is no significant difference between the feature sensitivity of pride and

non-pride athletes, with a significant level of 0.884. This means that the research

concluded, by all counts and with a proven result, that the Pride and Non-Pride

Athletes have the same feature sensitivity in terms of attitude, verbal

communication, skills, and attire.

6. The researchers concluded that the intervention material will be extremely

useful in collaborating with the university and dealing with each athlete's

sensitivity.

1. 2
 49

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results and conclusions of the study, the research proposed the

following recommendations:

1. Teachers should conduct seminars within the school to help

athletes be open-minded to gender sensitivity when playing sports

among pride and non-pride athletes.

2. The administration may help the athletes to improve their feature

sensitivity in playing sports through rigorous training program.

3. The coaches should give guidelines indicating how to treat all kinds

of athletes with respect and sensitivity.

4. Future research is recommended to determine whether there is a

significant difference between the features of pride and non-pride

athletes.
 50

REFERENCES

Allan W. Partin MD, PhD., Functional Disorders of the Lower Urinary Tract in
Children, Gender and Age-Related Demographics, 2021,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/gender-relation?
fbclid=IwAR1iHzIvyzAe2fs5lvPpcLJnPv3qhM58LsBsaaPfGJUIa521k9iAm1N
E4r8
Anna Vilanova, Susanna Soler, and Eric Anderson Examining the Experiences of
the first openly Gay Male Team Sports Athlete in Spain, 2018
http://bitly.ws/zTjy
Birgit Braumuller, Tobias Menzel, and Ilse Hartmann-Tews, Gender Identities in
Organized Sports – Athletes’ Experiences and Organizational Strategies of
Inclusion, (Volume 5, 2020) http://bitly.ws/zTjE
Braumüller, B., Menzel, T., & Hartmann-Tews, I. (2020). Gender Identities in
Organized Sports—Athletes’ Experiences and Organizational Strategies of
Inclusion. Frontiers in Sociology, 5. https://rb.gy/t9cq0d
Bynum, G. (2020). Aspirations to gender equality in philosophy, political activism,
and education. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
https://tinyurl.com/yt5uwke9
Capranica, L., Piacentini, M. F., Halson, S., Myburgh, K. H., Ogasawara, E., &
Millard-Stafford, M. (2013). The Gender Gap in Sports Performance:
Equity Influences Equality. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance, 8(1), 99–103. https://tinyurl.com/mr2bckwy
Chaplin, T. M. (2014). Gender and emotion expression: A developmental
contextual perspective. Emotion Review, 7(1), 14-21.
https://tinyurl.com/yc2n8efz
Cindy Faith M, The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender, and Sexuality
Studies, 2016 https://tinyurl.com/2vkv3v7s
Das, A., & Mishra, A. (2020). International humanitarian approach on ‘identity
Crisis’ of LGBTQ: A global perspective. Medico-Legal Update, 20(1), 72–
76. https://tinyurl.com/mrype5a5
David T., LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Sports, Sports and Dev Org, 2020
https://www.sportanddev.org/en/article/news/lgbtq-inclusion-sports?
fbclid=IwAR3N_Pm3YZKXyFfgwlr0eO1VI3C1-
ycGsCZNwtaKgJNxlbp6pWIVwvSOg4c
 51

Denison, E., Bevan, N., & Jeanes, R. (2020). Reviewing evidence of LGBTQ+
discrimination and exclusion in sport. Sport Management Review, 24(3),
389-409. https://tinyurl.com/yw4vm74f
Drummond, M., Elliott, S., Drummond, C., Prichard, I., Lewis, L., & Bevan, N.
(2021). Sport and the LGBTIQ+ community: A south Australian study.
Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://tinyurl.com/536762xt
Fisher, L. A., Knust, S. K., & Johnson, A. J. (2013). Theories of gender and sport.
Gender Relations in Sport, 21-38. https://tinyurl.com/5257hryn
Gender equality: The social and political issue of our time. (2021, November 26).
Plan International. https://tinyurl.com/3zzy3kea
Gender Schema Theory, Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 2011.
https://tinyurl.com/4kn4jh38
Hartmann-Tews, I., & Csonka, B. (2022). Experiences of LGBTQ people in sports
and sports inclusion policies in Germany. Sport, Identity, and Inclusion in
Europe, 80-92. https://tinyurl.com/yc6p7u6v
J Athl Train, Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Athletic Trainers:
Collegiate Student-Athletes’ Perceptions, 2019.
https://tinyurl.com/4a9hdwxr
Jennifer Birch Jones, Leading the Way: Working with LGBT Athletes and
Coaches, 2022. https://tinyurl.com/ycxmmu4j
Kendra, C., Gender Schema Theory and Roles in Culture, 2020.
https://tinyurl.com/4bnuaxrh
K.M Zosuls & D.N. Ruble in Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood
Development, 2008 https://tinyurl.com/mtbsjv4u
Leonard, J. (n.d.). What are the psychological effects of gender inequality?
Medical and health information. https://tinyurl.com/fmm4x5sh
Pride in Sports, Welcome to Pride in Sport, 2020. https://tinyurl.com/mrxuemm3
Elizabeth Quinn, MS, (2021), Why Positive Attitude is Important in Sports
https://www.verywellfit.com/attitude-and-sports-performance-3974677

Ngien-Siong Chin, Garry Kuan, Meisam Savardelavar (2017), Making effective

communication with athletes

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316715576_Making_effective_commu
nication_with_athletes
 52

Asian Journal of Education and Training, The Effect of Sport on Life Skills in High
School Students, Vol. 6, No. 2, 161-168, (2020)
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1249010.pdf

Neil Howlett, Karen Pine, Ismail Orakcioglu, Ben C Fletcher, (2013), The
influence of clothing on first impressions: Rapid and positive responses to minor
changes in male attire
://www.researchgate.net/publication/
256846903_The_influence_of_clothing_on_first_impressions_Rapid_and_positive
_responses_to_minor_changes_in_male_attire

Kristin Lee Sotak, Andra Serban, Barry A. Friedman & Michael Palanski, Journal
of Business Ethics (2023), Perceptions of Ethicality: The Role of Attire Style,
Attire Appropriateness, and Context
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-023-05347-7?
fbclid=IwAR1vVf4BQJLgobCbNcdaX1gHRquf6BevUvt1aHBDe_hHGFuxgHLJhoZFI7
k

Peng Song, Xu Wu, Xiao Gang Lian, and Yi Jia, Volume 2022, The Important
Function and Training of Sensitive Quality in Basketball Method Research
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2022/4636372/