Sex and sport: Attractions and boundary crossings between sport psychology consultants and their client-athletes.

Abstract

Sexual attractions as well as sexual and nonsexual boundary crossings (SBCs & NSBCs, respectively) have been examined within counseling and clinical psychology (Pope, 1988), though little research has addressed these issues within sport psychology. Thus, we examined the incidence of sexual attraction and the SBCs and NSBCs of male (n ϭ 170) and female (n ϭ 105) sport psychology consultants (SPCs) with their client-athletes. The SPCs had earned their degrees in exercise or sport science (n ϭ 201) or psychology (n ϭ 65); 9 did not provide their degree area. Of the 112 SPCs who reported being sexually attracted to least 1 of their client-athletes, 13.6% SPCs crossed sexual boundaries, primarily by discussing sexual matters unrelated to their work; no SPC reported kissing, dating, or having sexual intercourse with a client-athlete. Regarding actual boundary crossings, the SPCs attended client-athletes' sporting events (89.4%), initiated nonsexual touching (58.1%), attended social gatherings (43.5%), traveled with clientathletes (34.9%), and remained at parties with client-athletes (31.9%). There was no gender (male vs. female) by degree area (psychology vs. exercise or sport science) differences in frequency of these behaviors. SPCs trained in psychology viewed the following behaviors as more professionally acceptable than did those trained in exercise or sport science: (a) travel with client, (b) disclose personal stressors, (c) become social friends, (d) exchange a gift, (e) send holiday greeting card, (f) client is employed where SPC works, (g) client stay at SPC's house, and (h) form a business relationship with client.

Sexual Violence and the Coach–Athlete Relationship—a Scoping Review From Sport Sociological and Sport Psychological Perspectives

“…Within the context of counseling in the sport psychology field, interpersonal boundaries define the roles of the persons in a relationship (e.g., between coaches and athletes; Moles et al, 2016 ). In more detail, interpersonal boundaries determine appropriate and inappropriate behaviors or activities for certain roles in this relationship (Little and Harwood, 2010 ).…”

“…In more detail, interpersonal boundaries determine appropriate and inappropriate behaviors or activities for certain roles in this relationship (Little and Harwood, 2010 ). This determination of interpersonal boundaries prevents role ambiguity (e.g., crossing role-specific boundaries) and thus boundary violations (e.g., sexual boundary violations, such as kissing, sexual touching, and dating; see Moles et al, 2016 ).…”