Everyday Research Methods

In U.S. football, Whiter-looking men more likely to be head coaches

Football coaching seems to have a stereotype problem
Photo credit: dotshock/Shutterstock

Here's a story from the website Psypost. The headline reads, "Study of U.S. football coaches finds the more White you look, the more likely you are to be head coach".

This report is a study based on a well-known disparity in U.S. football (both college and pro): Even though 57% of college players are Black, Whites are more likely to be in football coach positions. Among college teams, for example, position coaches are around 31% Black; only 9% of head coaches are Black. The higher you look in the coaching leadership hierarchy, the more likely you are to see White men (no women are head coaches of college teams). 

A research team got together to document this disparity and also to study whether men who looked especially "White" were even more likely to be head coaches. In their study, the research team obtained coaches' photos and titles from team publicity programs; all coaches were in the college Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). Over 100 Black and White coaches were in the sample. In addition to recording the coaches' roles (such as position coach, defensive or offensive coordinator, or head coach) the team also coded how "stereotypically White" or "stereotypically Black" each coach appeared. "Stereotypicality" was coded by showing the photographs to a new sample of Americans, who were asked to rate each coach on a 5-point scale according to how stereotypically White (or, if they were Black, how stereotypically Black) they looked. 

Here's one of the researchers, Melissa J. Williams, explaining to the Psypost journalist some of the background for the study:

“Race and ethnicity have both internal aspects (such as the importance a person places on their cultural heritage) and external aspects (such as how other people perceive a person’s physical appearance). Each of these aspects has a different effect on the role that race plays in a person’s life.  In terms of the specific setting we explored in this paper, football leadership represents an interesting collision of historical stereotypes about Black and White individuals. Black individuals, especially Black men, are stereotyped as good at sports and as physically imposing – characteristics that go with being good at football. Whereas White individuals, especially White men, are stereotyped as confident and charismatic – characteristics that go with being good at leadership. That combination of stereotypes got us interested in looking at who makes it to the top in football coaching, and how their appearance plays into their success.”

Here's how the journalist summarized the study's results:

The findings revealed that White coaches were more likely than Black coaches to occupy leadership roles. Moreover, among White coaches, the more stereotypically White their appearance, the greater the likelihood they occupied a leadership role. When it came to specific roles, appearing stereotypically White increased the likelihood of being a head coach among White coaches. By contrast, appearing stereotypically Black decreased the likelihood of being a head coach among Black coaches.

a) This was a correlational study. What were the measured variables? (There are three variables mentioned in the paragraph above).

b) This result presents a moderator. One way to draw it is to create two matching scatterplots: One for White coaches and one for Black coaches. What would go on the x and y axes of the two scatterplots? What would the slope of each scatterplot be?

c) Write a moderator sentence of this form: _________ moderates the relationship between ________ and __________, such that ________________.

After documenting the correlation between appearing White and being a head coach, the team conducted a second study, an experiment: 

In a second study, Williams and team had a sample of 375 football fans view photos of real college football players. Through a series of trials, participants were shown side-by-side images of two football coaches [both White or both Black], with one being high and the other low in racial stereotypicality. Participants were asked to select which coach they felt would be promoted to head coach in the future.

The results revealed that when the two players were White, participants chose the more stereotypical photo as more likely to become head coach in 70% of trials. But when the two players were Black, participants chose the more stereotypical photo only 52% of the time.Thus, stereotypicality had a stronger effect on being perceived as a leader for White compared to Black football players.

c) What are the independent variables in this experiment? What is the dependent variable?

d) To study the "stereotypicality" variable, this second study used a concurrent measures design. Can you explain why?

e) The first study was correlational and the second was experimental. Why is it helpful to have one of each study type in this investigation? 

At the end of the Psypost article, the researchers were quoted about their study: 

Overall, the researchers said their findings, “provide insight into the insidious nature of racial stereotypes, the role of physical appearance in perpetuating them, and how leadership attainment may be constrained for those who do not look the part.”

Here's a link to the empirical journal article, which includes photos of coaches who were coded as higher or lower on the stereotypicality scale: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smartphone checking predicts daily cognitive failures

 

Can the study rule out stress as a third variable? 
Photo credit; GaudiLab/Depost Photos

I have a new favorite website for journalistic coverage of psychology research: Psypost.org. You can read a few articles per month for free. Unlike my other "favorite" site (StudyFinds), Psypost strives to report the research without adding unwarranted causal claims or undue hype. In this post, we'll talk about their article, Smartphone checking predicts daily cognitive failures, study says.

This is a good example for practicing Chapter 9 concepts.  Here's why the authors hypothesized there might be a link between these variables: 

Research has suggested that frequent smartphone use can lead to cognitive overload and decrease attentional control, which may contribute to cognitive failures such as forgetfulness, distraction, and mind wandering. Additionally, smartphone use can be highly distracting and interruptive, which may interfere with the ability to focus and complete tasks.

The study's participants were 181 college students who used iPhones. Psypost summarized the method as follows:

The participants first completed a baseline survey that collected baseline data such as age, sex, monthly household income, and subjective socioeconomic status. The participants then completed a daily diary study for seven days. Screen time and smartphone checking for seven days were objectively tracked using the inbuilt iOS Screen Time Application Programming Interface.

The incidence of daily cognitive failures was assessed by the 13-item Cognitive Failures in Everyday Life Scale, in which the participants indicated whether they had experienced cognitive failures such as leaving tasks unfinished due to distraction, failing to remember the right word to use, or unintentionally allowing their mind to wander.Participants also reported each day whether they had experienced any of seven types of stressors. 

a) Based on the reading so far, you can identify several of the variables in the study. Fill them out on this table:

Variable name	How was this variable operationalized?	What are the variable's possible levels?	Is this manipulated or measured?
			(add rows as needed)

Ready for the results? Here's what the Psypost journalist wrote:

The researchers found that daily smartphone checking predicted higher levels of daily cognitive failures even after controlling for age, sex, monthly household income, subjective socioeconomic status, daily stressor exposure, daily positive affect, and daily negative affect.

b) In the results above, what is the criterion variable? What are the predictor variables?

c) Imagine that a person argues, "perhaps the main reason smartphone checking is associated with cognitive failures is stress....people experiencing a stressful event may need to check their phones more often, and stressed out people may also make more cognitive errors."

Is this a mediator, moderator, or third variable argument? 

Draw a little sketch of this argument using one of the models in Figure 9.14. 

Can the regression analysis rule this argument out, or not? 

e) What do you think of the construct validity of the "phone checking" variable? What about the "cognitive failures" variable? 

f) How would you ask about the external validity of this study? 

g) What information do you need in order to consider the statistical validity of this result? 

Here's a link to the original research/empirical article, which appeared in the British Journal of Psychology.