WOMEN IN MALE-DOMINATED MOTORSPORTS:

PERCEPTIONS AND WILLINGNESS

TO COMPETE

A Doctoral Dissertation Research

W
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Campus
IE
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
EV
Doctor of Education
PR

by

Cecilia Ann Brantley

Argosy University – Chicago

July 2013
 UMI Number: 3578622

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
UMI 3578622
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
EV
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
PR

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 ii

WOMEN IN MALE-DOMINATED MOTORSPORTS:

PERCEPTIONS AND WILLINGNESS

TO COMPETE

W
IE
EV
PR

Copyright ©2013

Cecilia Ann Brantley

All rights reserved

 iii

WOMEN IN MALE-DOMINATED MOTORSPORTS:

PERCEPTIONS AND WILLINGNESS

TO COMPETE

A Doctoral Dissertation Research

Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Campus
College of Education

W
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
IE
Doctor of Education
EV

by

Cecilia Ann Brantley

PR

Argosy University – Chicago

July 2013

Dissertation Committee Approval:

Dr. Ayman Talib, DBA Date

Dr. Bob Castaneda, CPA, CGMA

Dr. Alan T. Burns, PhD, JD

 iv

WOMEN IN MALE-DOMINATED MOTORSPORTS:

PERCEPTIONS AND WILLINGNESS

TO COMPETE

Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation Research

Submitted to the

W
Faculty of Argosy University, Campus
College of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of
IE
the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education
EV

by
PR

Cecilia Ann Brantley

Argosy University – Chicago

July 2013

Dr. Ayman Talib, DBA

Dr. Bob Castaneda, CPA, CGMA

Dr. Alan T. Burns, PhD, JD

Department: College of Education

 v

ABSTRACT

Quantitative study added knowledge to sociology of sport. Assessed only women

in real-life extreme motorsports (n = 162), age 18 to 75 and older, who were

change agents labeled as risk-takers. Subjects completed survey questionnaire

(SMS, RLSS, ROSA, and PI’s Likert Scales); in additions, open-ended questions.

Descriptive analysis and One-Sample T-Test evaluated and reported significant

results. Alternative hypotheses accepted. Implications and applications are

W
discussed. Future research is suggested.

IE
Keywords: socialization agents, women risk-taking, male-dominated extreme sports,

hegemonic environments, flexible gender traits, intergenerational risk, decision-making,

EV

female, and youth leadership style.

PR
 vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to express sincere gratitude to Dr. Alan T. Burns, PhD, JD,

program chair, Dr. Ayman Talib, DBA, dissertation chair, and Dr. Bob Castaneda, CPA,

CGMA, committee member for their invaluable support, as well as their guidance in the

planning and implementation of this extensive research project. The deepest appreciation

is further offered to those participants in the motorsports industry (e.g.,): Midwestern

Council of Sports Car Clubs-President, Chuck Cassaro/Lynn Serra (which this author is a

W
member of the club), Drifting Pretty, Girls Go Racing, Conventions-NCOM presenters
IE
(Pepper Massey and Nancy Nemecek) and IMIS host/presenter (Dr. Terry R. Trammell),

AARWBA (Dusty Brandel), SEMA (Bryan Harrison), and Dennis Michelsen (Co-
EV
Owner/Broadcaster at RaceTalkRadio); including legendary icons Janet Guthrie/Lyn St.

James, my sample population of various women in motorsports, and other affiliate

organizations. In addition, a genuine thanks to participants in the fitness industry who

PR

completed the pilot survey questionnaire: University of Chicago-Community Fitness

patrons and TRC Senior Village-Exercise Wellness residents. Importantly, also

acknowledging Argosy Colleagues/Administrative Staff and the Certified Instructors,

employed at our humble family owned business—BodyParts Fitness Ltd., who continued

the delivery of our excellent programming services during the author’s teaching

respites. Indeed, their help allotted the necessary arduous hours for completing this

research. Last, recognition to the scholars: Dr. James J. Zhang, Dr. Luc G. Pelletier, and

Dr. Bernd Rohrmann, who gave permission to use their instruments. Without all of their

contributions, time, and resources, this study would not have been possible.
 vii

DEDICATION

Sincere appreciation to my husband—Robert Brantley for his unconditional love,

motivation, advice, and value-added support; starting with the pursuit of the author’s

Master’s Degree from Spertus College and continuing throughout my Doctoral journey at

Argosy University. My soul-mate has worked as a Metallurgical and Quality Engineering

Professional, serving the Aerospace, Automotive, Nuclear, and Construction Industries

for the past 40 Years. In addition, during the past seven years, my husband has

W
maintained a Stellar Performance Record—(never late) taking me to/picking me-up from

school during this educational experience. He is looking forward to retiring soon from
IE
John Gillen Company. This author and wife of 21 years will now carry the financial torch
EV
as he take on his new role (don’t call him “Mr. Mom”); raising our two adopted smart-

handsome boys—Elijah (age 8) and Robert Jr. (age 7). Last, appreciation is

acknowledged to my parents (dad-Jones and mom-Pittman), other family members

PR

(brothers, aunts, sister-n-law, etc.), and special friends who all helped turn this once

lifelong dream into a shared reality—God Bless (3John2) and thank you very much.
 viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xi

TABLE OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................. xii
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM ................................................................................... 1
History of Women in Motorsports .................................................................................. 4
Women and Leadership ............................................................................................... 9
Women and Risk-Taking ........................................................................................... 10
Background ................................................................................................................... 12
Prong 1: Lack of Women Risk-Takers Research ...................................................... 12
Prong 2: Lack of Published Evidence........................................................................ 14
Prong 3: Lack of Acceptance—The Glass Cliff ........................................................ 15
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 21
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 23

W
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................... 23
Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 24
Importance of the Study ................................................................................................ 27
Female Diversity ........................................................................................................... 32
IE
Safety Concerns ......................................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................... 34

EV
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 35
Framework for the Study............................................................................................... 36
Variable 1: Motivation .................................................................................................. 40
Variable 2: Behavior ..................................................................................................... 45
Risk ‘Edgework’ Activity Model of Behavior .......................................................... 48
PR

Variable 3: Attitude ....................................................................................................... 52

Expectancy-Value Theory-Model of Attitude ........................................................... 53
Attitude-Behavior (AB) Congruence......................................................................... 57
Attitude-Motivation (AM) Congruence..................................................................... 61
Women in Motorsports.................................................................................................. 64
Imparting MBA Skills to Youth ................................................................................ 64
Influencing Youth in Sports…. ..................................................................................... 70
Leadership Style ............................................................................................................ 77
Leadership Barriers ....................................................................................................... 82
Identity Change Agents ................................................................................................. 87
Risk-Taking Adaptation Benefits .................................................................................. 99
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 103

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 105

Research Design .......................................................................................................... 106
Population and Sampling: Selection of Subjects......................................................... 108
Instrumentation............................................................................................................ 109
Measures...................................................................................................................... 109
 ix

Procedures ................................................................................................................... 110

Support for Procedure: Pretesting Literature .............................................................. 113
Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations................................... 113
Assumptions ............................................................................................................ 114
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 114
Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 115
Data Processing and Analysis ..................................................................................... 116

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 119

Restatement of the Purpose ......................................................................................... 119
Hypothesis One........................................................................................................ 121
Hypothesis Two ....................................................................................................... 121
Hypothesis Three ..................................................................................................... 122
Variable One: Motivation............................................................................................ 122

W
Results: Psychometric Properties of SMS Instrument Scale ...................................... 123
Types of Motivation Tested ........................................................................................ 123
A-motivation ............................................................................................................ 123
Extrinsic ................................................................................................................... 124
IE
1) External Regulation: Practice sport to win prizes ............................................... 124
2) Introjected Regulation: Practice sport to avoid criticism ................................... 124
3) Identified Regulation: Practice sport to attain personal goals ............................ 125
EV
4) Integrated Regulation: Practice sport because it is a part of you ....................... 126
Intrinsic .................................................................................................................... 126
Overall Results on Motivation .................................................................................... 127
Variable Two: Behavior .............................................................................................. 128
Overall Results on Behavior ....................................................................................... 130
PR

Results: Psychometric Properties of RLSS Instrument Scale .................................... 131

Democratic Behavior (DB) ...................................................................................... 131
Positive Feedback Behavior (PF) ............................................................................ 132
Training and Instruction Behavior (TI) ................................................................... 132
Situational Consideration Behaviors (SC) ............................................................... 133
Social Support Behavior (SS) .................................................................................. 134
Autocratic Behavior (AB) ....................................................................................... 135
Variable Three: Attitude.............................................................................................. 136
Overall Results on Attitude ......................................................................................... 139
Results: Psychometric Properties of ROSA Instrument Scale .................................... 142
Caution Propensity ................................................................................................. 142
Risk Propensity ....................................................................................................... 142
Sub-Set Inquiry (A) Attributes ................................................................................ 142
Overall Results on Motorsports (A) Attributes ........................................................... 144
Sub-Set Inquiry (B) Characteristics ......................................................................... 144
Overall Results on Motorsports (B) Characteristics ................................................... 145
T-Test Results: (A) Attributes and (B) Characteristics ............................................... 145
T-Tested Results: Sub-Set Inquiry (A) and (B) .......................................................... 146
 x

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONSLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... 147

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 147
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 147
Major Question Related to Purpose A ..................................................................... 147
Major Question Related to Purpose B ..................................................................... 153
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................. 158
Implications for Research............................................................................................ 161
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 165

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 168

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 202

A. Pilot Questionairre .................................................................................................. 203

W
B. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women’s Ages .............................................. 223
C. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women Response to Motivation (Q7)........... 225
D. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women Response to Behavior (Q8) ............. 227
E. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women Response to Attitude (Q9) ............... 229
IE
F. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women Response to Motorsports Attributes
(Q10) ........................................................................................................................... 231
G. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women Response to Motorsports
EV
Characteristics (Q11) ................................................................................................... 233
PR
 xi

TABLE OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Statistics (Central Tendency: Age and Q7–Q11) ……………………….118

2. t-Test Ratings on Variable 1 (Motivation – Q7)…………………………127

3. t-Test Ratings on Variable 2 (Behavior – Q8)………………………..….131

4. t-Test Ratings on Variable 3 (Attitude – Q9) .………………….……….139

W
5. t-Test Ratings on Sub-Set Inquiry Variables (A) and (B)

(A) Attributes and (B) Characteristics: (Q10-11)……………………146

IE
EV
PR
 xii

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. Pilot Questionnaire ………………………………….………………………203

B. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women’s Ages …………….………….223

C. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women Response -Motivation ………..225

D. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women Response -Behavior …..……..227

E. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women Response -Attitude …………. 229

W
F. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women Response –

a. Motorsports Attributes (Q10) ……………………………………….231

IE
G. Frequency Histogram Graph of All Women Response –

a. Motorsports Characteristics (Q11).…....…….………………………233

EV
PR
 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM

Doubts exist about women’s roles and abilities to perform and lead successfully in

hegemonic environments—whether in sports or other fields. This study focuses on these

doubts as they surface in the world of women’s sports, specifically motorsports. Women

participate in motorsports for a number of reasons. One possible reason is that they desire

to release aggression. Also, they may enjoy the thrill of controlling a vehicle, satisfy a

need to seek adventure, or gain knowledge from competing against men. They may wish

W
to fulfill the personal desire to drive high performance “muscle” cars or simply engage in

motorsports because it was their passion. Under certain circumstances, women could be
IE
introduced to motorsports because the family may be willing to support the daughter’s

acquired interest from her father in the same sport (Miller & Byrnes, 1997; Goma-i-
EV

Freixanet, 2004). Layder’s (1997, 2006) contextual resource domain explaining power,

domination, and discourse could possibly explain how these women came to envision a
PR

career in high competitive risky sports as a viable option. Regardless of the reason why

women become motorsports drivers, doubts about female performance and leadership are

illustrated when society uses gender socialization to differentiate gender expectation

norms (Butler, 1990) in the sport.

Male “gender” does not mean better gender. Emphasizing male gender over

female gender creates a polarity problem (Butler, 1990), which research suggests is

unwarranted in the world of sports. According to the American Council on Exercise

(ACE), the physiological differences between men and women point to equal areas for

improvement. Unlike men, women commonly have a lower center of gravity. As a result,
 2

the female physique may demonstrate better balance. On the other hand, men innately

have more upper body strength and this advantage typically allows for more control

against resistance (Sands & Moore, 2010). Considering these conditions, both genders

could improve physiologically—women by lifting weights to increase upper body

strength, and men by stretching to improve balance.

However, to assume that the solution is for male motorsports racers to view

female racers as equal negates the diversity that women bring to this sport (Theberge,

W
1985). Thus, while the argument exists that women and men should receive equal

recognition for their contribution to team sports, the fact that there are innate differences
IE
in male and female physiology should remain in close perspective. Positive regard for

these differences will aid in framing physiological difference as an asset. In motorsports,

EV

specifically, this affirmation may help to change distorted thinking that women are

inferior to men in their ability to succeed in motorsports, a historically male-dominated

PR

arena. Accordingly, the “feminist theory perspective” on this issue is absolutely crucial to

this study’s framework (Birrell & Richter, 1994; Sprague, 2005). Butler (1990) says:

“There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; identity is performativity

constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results.” Butler posits the

following:

A theorist of power, gender, sexuality and identity, prefers ‘those historical and
anthropological positions that understand gender as a relation among socially
constituted subjects in specifiable contexts.’ In other words, rather than being a
fixed attribute in a person and gender, desire should be seen as a fluid, free-
floating variable which shifts and changes in different contexts and at different
times and not ‘caused’ by other stable factors. (Gender Trouble, p. 25)
 3

Women’s “identity” for normal social behavior raises important gender and class

differences that define stratification. People and groups that are ranked according to a

type of status, such as education, income, and power, would be considered as high

echelon status (Davis-Kean, 2005); conversely, women could be viewed as having a

lesser status than males. As a result, women could be subjected to experiences that are

taken advantage of in certain circumstances. Consequently, it is important to examine and

assess the impact of decision makers and the influence generated, when it involves

W
exemplary leadership and building appropriate and secure relationships between men and

women (Hallinan, Snyder, Drowatzky & Ashby, 1990). In other words, more
IE
interdependence conveys relying on both genders to perceive the concept, whereby they

are in it—society together and will derive benefit from helping one another to succeed,
EV

especially when the opposite gender is at a disadvantage.

The environment surrounding sports has become a beacon for economic, political,
PR

and social issues that rise above winning and losing statistically (Smoll & Smith, 2003;

Coakley & Donnelly, 2004). Although typically celebrated as an arena to teach

competitive success, sports teach important values, such as learning to become a team

player. Males in sports learn how to respond triumphantly when winning, which bolsters

self-esteem (Delancy & Madigan, 2009). Moreover, sports encourage male maturation

from their interactions and influential relationships to further personal success (Delancy

& Madigan, 2009). Alternatively, females learn how to customarily favor relationships

that stimulate personal fulfillment above striving for competitive success (Delancy &

Madigan, 2009). Yet, women’s exposure in high risk sports is rarely discussed. For this
 4

reason, this study introduces awareness about how women in motorsports racing

competition began believing in themselves as risk-takers-agents of change for youth.

Following a discussion of the history of women in motorsports, this chapter will

outline a three-pronged problem identified by the researcher as key to why the research

problem exists. At the end of the chapter, readers will have a clear sense of the

problematic perceptions commonly upheld about women who participate in motorsports.

Furthermore, the outline of the researcher’s three-pronged problem will include a

W
discussion of problematic factors that may influence women’s willingness to compete in

motorsports. IE
History of Women in Motorsports

Racecar driving is a popular extreme activity unit rooted in American culture

EV

(Kusz, 2004; Hassan, 2011). This topic can be viewed through the perspective lens

pertaining to sociology of sport. The event is centered on the uniform gear, technical
PR

mechanics, and driving fast (Kay & Laberge, 2004). Since the inception of automobile

racing, it has been considered a male sport (Knapp, 2008). Comparable to American

football, it is stigmatized as a masculine-typed activity (Knapp, 2008). The iconic image

of a woman engaging in a male-dominated sport subliminally depicts a competitive man

who embodies power and aggression (Berkowitz, 1962; Hargreaves, 1994, p. 42 – 43;

Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006). In the U.S., this image is in sharp contrast to the

expectations for women who inherently are presumed to display emotions, be

cooperative, and act passive (Hargreaves, 1994). Typically for women to participate in

cross-gender competition, modifications are viewed as necessary in most cases. On the

 5

contrary, modifications are not required for women participating in male-dominated

motorsports.

Women habitually were excluded from participating on the same playing field as

men, due to sub-domains of certain characteristic such as physical body contact and

biological difference (Metheny, 1965). However, these problematic concerns were not

prime factors impacting women who engaged in motorsports. As a result, in this

particular sport, women do not have to encounter a daunting image of male motorsport

W
drivers because of their size, strength, and genetic difference. Accordingly, these

attributes caused the marginalization of women from participating in the majority of

IE
sports with counterparts. Consequently, now that these differences are not significantly

relevant in motorsports, such as auto racing, new attention can shift on other qualifying
EV

evaluative and subjective dimensions.

One pertinent focus area was the desire and confidence factor of men and women
PR

drivers competing together. Another area of focus was based on their knowledge,

experience, and performance skill level to win motorsports races (Johnsgard, 1969).

Women are assuming more leadership roles in the sports industry (Leberman & Palmer,

2009). The phrase “Mr. Goodwrench” is slowly becoming “Ms. Goodwrench” as more

women penetrate positions typically held by men in the NASCAR garage (Levine, 2004).

For example, Alba Colon is the head program manager of General Motors Racing’s

Chevrolet racing stock car racing program for NASCAR’s Sprint Cup Series; Danielle

Riggs is the General Inspector for Craftsman Truck Series races; Natasha Robbins is the

Chassis specialist with the Busch Series; Jamie DiPietro is the Safety Inspection
 6

Supervisor for Nextel Cup Series; and Angie Mesimer is the only woman working the

pits in the Nextel Cup Series as a team Ken Schrader crew member.

In fact, auto racing popularity among women is on the rise as evident in a growing

female fan base. According to Spann (2002), “Women are becoming a part of the sport’s

inner circle…NASCAR’s audience is half female” (p. 352). Additionally, based on an

ESPN Sports poll Nielsen Media Research (2003) discovered, that 42 percent of racing

fans were now female and that more women watch professional auto racing more than

W
professional baseball or football. Another fact was women 18 to 34, many of whom

attended the races with children in tow, were the fastest-growing segment of NASCAR’s
IE
television-viewing fans (Kirby, 2005).

Auto racing is not a new sport to women. For instance, women in motorsports
EV

history dated back as far as to 1958, an Italian, named Maria-Teresa de Filippis. She was

the first woman to race in a Formula One car race event and competed in a modern
PR

European Grand Prix auto race. Another woman professionally well-known as “First

Lady of Drag Racing,” was the legendary Shirley Muldowney (Brownlee, 1992). She was

the first woman to be licensed by the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) and in 1977

was NHRA's first female world champ (Corinne, 2010). Shirley Muldowney competed in

motorsports form 1969 – 2003. Muldowney won many races against men, which

transcends gender differences at the highest levels of the sport in the fastest category,

which is Top Fuel (Burgess, 2012). She received several awards. For example, in 1992

she earned the United States Sports Academy’s Mildred “Babe” Didrikson Zaharias

Courage Award for overcoming life-threatening crashes and the gender barriers in a
 7

male-dominated sport (NHRA, 2011). Notably, today the woman who is most recognized

and the highest paid in the sport of auto racing is Danica Patrick. She was the first woman

to win an Indy car race in 2008 (Arrington, 2008).

One of Patrick’s immediate predecessors is Janet Guthrie. In 1977, Guthrie

became the first female to qualify for and compete in the Indianapolis 500 and the first

female Top Rookie at the Daytona 500. Then, she finished ninth in the Indianapolis 500

in 1978. Her helmet and driver’s suit are in the Smithsonian Institution and she was one

W
of the first athletes named to the Women’s Sports Hall of Fame. Moreover, her

autobiography, “Janet Guthrie: A Life at Full Throttle” (Sport Classic Books), was
IE
published in 2005. In 2006, she was inducted into the International Motorsports Hall of

Fame (Indianapolis Star, 2006).

EV

Before Guthrie, Lyn St. James debuted in auto racing in 1973 as a member of the

Amateur Sports Car Club of America and her professional racing career spanned from
PR

1997 – 2000. Also, she became the second female to compete in the Indy 500 (a seven-

time starter and 1992 rookie of the year), earning her the Bank One Indianapolis oldest

Rookie of the Year Award in 1992 at age 45.

Presently, as noted, a few women have come close to winning an Indy race. Yet,

only Patrick has demonstrated her abilities by winning a major-league Indy-car event

(Motegi’s, Indy Japan 300 on April 22, 2008 at the age of 26 years old). As a result, her

winning performance has officially placed her among the elite category with other male

winners as a legitimate world-class racecar driver and competitor. Next, Danica will

transition to NASCAR racing competition during the 2012 schedule. According to Robin
 8

Miller, an American motorsports journalist for SeedTV.com and analyst reporting on

motorsports for over 40 years, he provides clear distinction between Indy 500 and

NASCAR (USA TODAY, October 18, 2011). For example, from its inception in the

1900’s, Indy is considered the premiere event in auto racing: Indy cars are capable of

reaching top racing speed—approximately 225mph; 26 cars take the track; and the cars

have no power steering, which requires the driver to possess upper body strength.

Conversely, NASCAR is the second major auto racing venue, where more cars take the

W
track—approximately 43. Unlike Indy cars, these cars have power steering and require

grip strength, which makes for an easier drive. Regarding auto racing safety aspects,
IE
during the year span of 1982 – 2011, there have been a total of 30 racecar driving deaths;

close to one death per year during this period (Taubman-Ben-ri

EV

& Findler, 2003). Nevertheless, motorsports journalist, Robin Miller, retorted, “Auto

racing is safer than football” (USA TODAY, October 18, 2011). If the context is based
PR

on the total number of injuries, football far exceeds auto racing (Weir, 2011). However, if

the context is based on the severity of a collision and on the subsequent body injury, auto

racing is more deadly (Scott, 2011).

A dissertation study on the perceived risks and benefits of climbing Mt. Whitney

provides an example of inherent risk in the context of an extreme sport activity (Ward,

2009):

Risk homeostasis was developed for use with traffic accident analysis and Wilde
(2001) posits that individuals participating in any activity will accept a certain
level of subjectively estimated risk (to their health or safety) in exchange for
benefits they hope to receive from participation in the activity. However, risk is
often associated with the potential to cause harm and the outcome is more often
something negative (Nichols, 2000). Risk homeostasis theory (RHT) identifies
 9

risk as an essential aspect necessary to fully experience the greatest benefits

(Wilde, 1988). Individuals differ not only in the risks they are willing to take, but
also in their ability to perceive risk. The unit of the level of acceptable risk in
outdoor extreme adventure sports is further reduced as an individual gains
experience in pursuing activities (Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1989). An individual’s
ability to perceive risk is influenced by subjectivity and originated from three
sources: past experience, current assessment of the immediate situation, and
degree of confidence. (p. 114-116)

This author’s research has synthesized the literature pertaining to women risk-

taking perceptions relating to their motivations, behaviors, and attitudes (MBA) within

the context of motorsports. There is paucity research that has been conducted on this

W
issue. For this reason, the intent was to research and reveal the gap in the literature, which

omits women participating on the same playing field with men and competing against
IE
each other in traditional male-dominated sports. Although research has been conducted
EV
on only women in other traditionally male-dominated sports (e.g., basketball/hockey) and

a few studies have examined the sport of auto racing (Johnsgard, 1968; Krikler, 1965) –

however, the latter subjects were all male and the former (basketball/hockey research) did
PR

not examine heterogeneous group.

Women and Leadership

Appropriately, in this present study, the women in motorsports are presumed to be

willing and able to transfer leadership skills to youth. In turn, the motivation, behavior,

and attitude skills youth learned from women who participate in motorsports, will be part

of influencing their decision to participate in the same sport, impart leadership style, and

sportsmanship development on and off the playing field (James, 2010; Cummings, Smoll,

Smith & Grossbard, 2007). Notwithstanding, women leadership is challenged and

considered as “weak” when they perform in preserved male-dominated environments

 10

(Ryan & Haslam, 2005, 2007). For example, women participating in sports, who occupy

the position as a coach, are faced with overcoming barriers for success (Allen & Shaw,

2009). Despite these circumstances, as women continue achieving success in hegemonic

masculine positions, perhaps their leadership and skill capabilities will no longer be

underrepresented (Eagly & Karau, 2002). The change agent of women embracing risky

decisions and performing exceptionally well in male homogametic cultures provides

insights for departing from ideological social bonds (Duehr & Bono, 2006). Therefore,

W
more women are benefiting by taking advantage of opportunities that exist for them

across several occupational fields, even where the gender ratio favors men who possess
IE
certain attributes and characteristics (Marshall, Demers & Sharp, 2010). For example,

aggression, tough-minded concentration, bravery, composure, and technical skills are

EV

important leadership traits to possess when performing in high-pressured environments

(Arguelles, 2008).
PR

Women and Risk-Taking

In this new era of women handling risk-taking, the strategic skills developed

within risk sports are in demand within various organizations fields, such as medical,

constructions, manufacturing industries, and coaching in male-dominated sports, or

entrepreneurial ventures (Lyng, 2005; Donohue, 2007; Cunningham & Sagas, 2008;

Broadbridge, 2008; Bourne & Ozbilgin, 2008; Slanger & Rudestam, 1997). Moreover,

today women are given the opportunity to extend their success in the military. The United

States Department of Defense is lifting its ban on women in combat, thus opening up

hundreds of thousands of additional front line jobs (Bumiller & Shanker, 2013). The 21st
 11

century military operations expose the increasing number of risk-taking roles, female

service members partake in while securing our country. Although, women in the military

are in compliance with satisfying required performance standards, both physical and

mental, their new military combat roles chafe others who reflect a much larger discursive

field, while expressing opposition as a mass culture (Boyce & Herd, 2003). The discourse

surrounding male-dominated military culture resonates with motorsport culture. Both

masculine environments includes rhetorical tropes that emphasize women’s bodies as

W
different, inferior (requiring special needs to function at the same level as their

counterparts), and of course, there exist trust issues of whether they can perform under
IE
pressure (Sloop, 2005). Women inclusion within a high portion hegemonic arena is

discussed in the next section. The problem surroundings centers on discursive

EV

assumptions about female performance and leadership ability, which plays a significant

role in highlighting gender-dominance based barriers to succeed and compete.

PR