Citation for published version:Shapcott, S & Carr, S 2019, 'Golf Coaches’ Mindsets About Recreational Golfers: Gendered Golf ExperiencesStart on the Practice Tee.', Motivation Science.
General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.
Motivation ScienceGolf Coaches’ Mindsets About Recreational Golfers:Gendered Golf Experiences Start on the Practice TeeSusan Shapcott and Sam CarrOnline First Publication, July 18, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000154
CITATIONShapcott, S., & Carr, S. (2019, July 18). Golf Coaches’ Mindsets About Recreational Golfers:Gendered Golf Experiences Start on the Practice Tee. Motivation Science. Advance onlinepublication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000154
Golf Coaches’ Mindsets About Recreational Golfers: Gendered GolfExperiences Start on the Practice Tee
Susan Shapcott and Sam CarrUniversity of Bath
Gender gaps in golf participation persist. Women make up less than 20% of golf’spopulation in the United Kingdom and United States. Their underrepresentation detri-mentally impacts the golf industry, society, and women who are excluded from golf’swell-documented benefits. This article connects theoretical constructs from motiva-tional psychology with issues of gender discrimination in golf. In this article weexamine the relationship between golf coaches’ perceptions of recreational womengolfers (their mindsets) and women golfers’ coaching experience. Specifically, twostudies identified that (a) golf coaches reported more of a growth mindset about mengolfers compared to women golfers, (b) that these mindsets were significantly relatedto the adaptiveness of coaches’ feedback, and (c) that growth mindsets about womengolfers’ ability can potentially be fostered through experimental manipulation. Resultsare discussed in the relation to their significance for addressing gender gaps in adultrecreational golf participation.
Donald Trump told USA Today (DiMeglio,2015), “I’ve done deals on the golf course thatI would have never made at a lunch or a seriesof lunches.” The relationship between golf,power, and business is recognized so broadlythat it is becoming customary practice for busi-ness schools to offer golf classes in the curric-ulum alongside accounting, entrepreneurship,and marketing (Michigan State University,2015; Purdue University, 2016). It is unsurpris-ing, therefore, that while only 7.8% of theAmerican general population plays golf (Na-tional Golf Foundation, 2017), an estimated90% of American Fortune 500 CEO’s do (Pro-
fessional Golfers’ Association of America,2014).
Unfortunately, golf has a persistently largegender differential in relation to its participationrates that minimizes women’s access to golf-associated power networks (Reis & Correia,2013). In golf’s core markets, women make uponly 15–20% of the golfing population (Na-tional Golf Foundation, 2014; Sport England,2014). Arguably, how women fare in golf pro-vides insight into a powerful subculture of in-fluence that has, until recently, been a spherereserved almost exclusively for men (Stempel,2006). The underrepresentation of women golf-ers parallels women’s underrepresentation inother male-dominated industries, professionalorganizations, and corporate boardrooms (Bron-stein & Fitzpatrick, 2015; Hideg & Ferris, 2016;Myers & Fealing, 2012; Tsang, Wijeysundera,Alter, Zhang, & Ko, 2011). Therefore, given thestatus and symbolism of playing golf, reducingthe underrepresentation of women playersserves an economic, social, and political pur-pose (Pomfret & Wilson, 2011).
In addition to its economic advantages, golfalso offers lifelong health and social benefits(Farahmand, Broman, de Faire, Vågerö, & Ahl-
X Susan Shapcott and Sam Carr, Department of Educa-tion, University of Bath.
Information about obtaining data and materials underly-ing this article can be found at Shapcott, S. (2019, May 8).Golf coaches’ mindsets about recreational golfers: Gen-dered golf experiences start on the prractice tee. Retrievedfrom osf.io/zegt9.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressedto Susan Shapcott, who is now at Department of Kinesiology,University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. E-mail:[email protected]
bom, 2009; Gao, Hui-Chan, & Tsang, 2011;Kyle & Chick, 2004; Murray et al., 2017; Park-kari et al., 2000; Siegenthaler & O’Dell, 2003;Stenner, Mosewich, & Buckley, 2016; Zunzer,von Duvillard, Tschakert, Mangus, & Hofmann,2013) and has relatively few physical barriersthat prevent participation (McGinnis, McQuil-lan, & Chapple, 2005). Therefore, it is unsur-prising that golf is in high latent demand formany women who want to participate in a sportthat can advance their careers, promote physicalactivity, and facilitate social networks (NationalGolf Foundation, 2014; Sport England, 2014;Syngenta, 2014).
The Gendered Nature of Golf
When women take up golf, 54% of recre-ational players (who play for enjoyment, notcompetition) give up the game within five years(Beditz, 2006). This high attrition rate suggeststhat the golf experience reduces women’s mo-tivation to play. A male-dominated culture(Morgan & Martin, 2006) is also reflected in thecontemporary golf experience (McGinnis, Gen-try, & McQuillan, 2008; Shapcott, 2011). Al-though clubs with overtly discriminating play-ing policies are now a small minority, thegame’s history manifests itself in the contem-porary golf experience for women (BBC Sport,2014, 2014a, 2016, 2016a; Hundley, 2004;Nickerson, 1987). For example, the golf cultureis full of negative stereotypes about women(McGinnis et al., 2008), and women are fre-quently targets of jokes and discriminatorytreatment at golf facilities (McGinnis et al.,2005). The cumulative effect of golf’s history,policies and experiences diminishes women’ssense of belonging in golf, and subsequentlytheir retention in relation to participation (seeGood, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012).
How the Golf Industry Is AddressingWomen’s Low Participation
Many factors may contribute to recreationalwomen golfers’ low participation rates (seeJowett & Felton, 2013). Therefore, there is nopanacea to resolve the underrepresentation ofwomen in golf. However, one strategy identi-fied by the golf industry to increase women’sgolf participation is through instructional pro-
grams (International Golf Federation, 2013,2017; North, 2007; Pennington, 2011). The suc-cess of this strategy, however, depends on theeffectiveness of the golf coaches deliveringsuch programs to women. One concern is thecoaching culture. Golf coaches in the UnitedStates and United Kingdom are over 95% men(N. Henderson, personal communication, Octo-ber 7, 2014; Z. Kendall, personal communica-tion, January 8, 2015; see Walker & Bopp,2010; Wallace & Kay, 2012) and embedded ina culture rife with negative stereotypes aboutwomen golfers (McGinnis et al., 2008; Reis &Correia, 2013). The present study critically ex-amines this coaching workforce by exploringcoaches’ theories of others’ golf ability (theirmindset about others’ ability) and how theymanifest in coaching practice.
Mindsets
In this study we use Dweck’s mindset theoryto frame the experiences of women in golf. In1988, Dweck and Leggett published a seminalpaper that continues to guide researchers inves-tigating how mindsets about intelligence, orability, influence behavior and motivation. Inearly studies, Dweck and Leggett (1988) foundthat children endorsing a fixed mindset towardintelligence—those who perceived intelligenceas a fixed, innate trait, demonstrated maladap-tive learning behavior (Dweck, 2007; Li &Xiang, 2007).
In contrast, children with a growth mindset—who perceived intelligence as a malleable com-modity—were more likely to engage in adap-tive learning behavior. For these children, theirlevel of intelligence was dependent on whatthey did to increase it. Endorsing a growthmindset, regardless of domain, appears to bebeneficial to one’s motivation, learning strate-gies, and performance (Heslin & Vandewalle,2011; Hui, Bond, & Molden, 2012; Job, Wal-ton, Bernecker, & Dweck, 2015; Knee, Patrick,& Lonsbary, 2003; Limpo & Alves, 2014;Miller et al., 2012; Nicholls, 1984; Novell,Machleit, & Sojka, 2016; Schroder, Dawood,Yalch, Donnellan, & Moser, 2015).
Mindsets About Sports Ability
In a sports environment, athletes with a fixedmindset believe that athletic ability is some-
2 SHAPCOTT AND CARR
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
thing one has or does not have. It cannot beacquired. Conversely, athletes with a growthmindset believe that athletic ability is some-thing learned with practice, guidance and effort.As with academic mindsets, athletes with agrowth mindset engage in more adaptive learn-ing strategies than athletes with a fixed mindset(Chen et al., 2008; Khalkhali, 2012; Ommund-sen, 2001; Stenling, Hassmén, & Holmström,2014; Wang, Liu, Lochbaum, & Stevenson,2009; Warburton & Spray, 2013).
Coaches’ Mindsets About Others’ Ability
The extension of Dweck’s mindset theory tobeliefs about others’ ability is a framework thatwe use to examine coaches’ perception ofwomen golfers. In addition to holding a mindsetabout one’s own ability, a self-theory, individ-uals can also hold a mindset about others’ abil-ity. In the case of golf, mindsets about others arebeliefs about whether their golfing ability canchange (see Yeager et al., 2014).
Coaches with a growth mindset about othersbelieve that players’ golfing ability is somethingthat can be developed and improved. In con-trast, coaches with a fixed mindset about othersbelieve that players’ golfing ability is innate,static, and unable to change. Importantly whenconsidering the role coaches play in womengolfers’ motivation, coaches’ mindsets aboutplayers’ ability is likely to be associated withthe adaptiveness of their coaching—includingthe amount and type of feedback they give (seeHeslin et al., 2008; Rattan, Good, & Dweck,2012).
Mindsets About Others’ Ability andCoaching Culture
When considering the low participation ofwomen in golf, it is necessary to examine theenvironment during instructional classes(Satina, Solmon, Cothran, Loftus, & Stockin-Davidson, 1998). Most importantly for thisstudy, coaches’ mindset about others’ golf abil-ity is likely to influence the coaching culturethey create. It is plausible that players can “de-tect” coaches’ mindset about their ability (Rat-tan et al., 2012; Reich & Arkin, 2006). As Reichand Arkin (2006) have demonstrated, athletesperceive the coaches’ mindset about their abil-ity, and this perception relates to their attribu-
tions for their athletic performance (Reich &Arkin, 2006). It is reasonable to assume thatwomen golfers can also detect coaches’ mindsetabout their golfing ability. Previous researchwith recreational golfers has shown that menand women players make different attributionsfor their performance (Shapcott, 2010). If, asexpected, golf coaches hold more of a growthmindset about men’s, compared to women’sgolfing ability, this disparity may explain theless controllable attributions made by recre-ational women golfers (Shapcott, 2010). Be-cause attributions are intrinsically linked to mo-tivation (Coffee & Rees, 2009; Shields,Brawley, & Lindover, 2006; Schunk, 1983;Stoeber & Becker, 2008), this insight is criticalfor coaches who aim to increase the motivationof recreational golfers to play.
Coaches’ Mindsets and Feedback
It is expected that coaches’ mindsets aboutothers’ ability will predict their feedback duringgolf lessons (Lee, 1996; Maitland, 2001). Feed-back from coaches with a growth mindset isexpected to be more adaptive. For example,growth-minded coaches may motivate playersby explaining how they can improve. In con-trast, when coaches’ growth-mindset weakens,their feedback is likely to be comforting but notconducive to learning or motivation (see Heslin,Vandewalle, & Latham, 2006; Lee, 1996; Rat-tan et al., 2012). Coaches’ feedback can havethe power to influence recreational golfers’ mo-tivation to persist with the game (Le Foll,Rascle, & Higgins, 2006, 2008).
Studies and Hypotheses
In this article we report on two studies thatsought to examine (a) whether golf coaches’mindsets about men and women golfers’ abilitywere different, and whether these differencescorrelated with the type of feedback coachesoffered men versus women golfers, and (b)whether golf coaches’ mindsets about men’sand women’s ability were malleable and open tochange. We hypothesized that golf coacheswould hold more of a growth mindset aboutmen’s golf ability compared to women’s golfability. As golf coaches are exposed to culturalbiases and negative stereotypes about womenplayers (McGinnis et al., 2008; Reis & Correia,
3GOLF COACHES’ MINDSETS
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
2013), it was expected that this immersionwould manifest itself in how coaches perceivedmen and women golfers’ ability. We were alsointerested in whether the coaches’ gender af-fected how he or she perceived the ability ofwomen golfers. We hypothesized that womencoaches would hold more of a growth mindsetabout their ability than men coaches.
We also hypothesized that coaches’ mindsetabout recreational golfers’ ability would corre-late with and predict the type of feedback theywould reportedly give when teaching. Similarfindings have been made in educational (Lee,1996; Maitland, 2001) and business settings(Heslin et al., 2006), and we saw no reason whygolf should be an exception to this trend. Spe-cifically, as coaches became more growth-minded about others’ golf ability, we hypothe-sized that their feedback would be moreadaptive (controllable), and less maladaptive(comforting).
Considering the expected cultural effects ongolf coaches’ mindsets about men’s and women’sgolf ability, we saw value in testing the potentialmalleability of coaches’ mindsets. We hypothe-sized that growth mindsets about women’s golfability could be fostered through an interventionsimilar to other successful methods employed inmindset research (Heslin et al., 2006; Steele &Aronson, 1995; Thompson & Musket, 2005). Byexperimentally manipulating mindsets aboutwomen golfers’ ability coaches’ feedback wouldcontinue to correlate with the feedback they re-portedly gave to golfers during lessons.
Study 1
Method
In study one we sought to examine golfcoaches’ mindsets about men and women’s golfability. We also explored the relationship be-tween coaches’ mindsets about recreationalgolfers and the feedback they would reportedlygive during instruction. The goal of study onewas essentially to investigate if coaches had agender bias in their mindset about golfers’ abil-ity and how that bias may relate to their instruc-tional feedback.
Participants
One-hundred and ninety-seven golf coacheswere recruited (Men � 103, Women � 94,)
from professional golf networks in the UnitedKingdom and the United States. An oversam-pling of women coaches was achieved by dis-tributing the survey link to members of theLadies’ Professional Golfers’ Association. Par-ticipants’ ages ranged from 21 to 71 years oldand they had coached golf from 1 to 51 years.All participants identified as golf coaches and88% were members of a professional golfcoaching association.
Procedure
University ethical approval was granted be-fore data collection and the approved protocolwas followed throughout the study. Coacheswere initially contacted through golf profes-sional e-mail and distribution lists, and commu-nication included a link via which participantscould take part in the survey. Data were anon-ymous and participant recruitment was not lim-ited in number during the recruitment period.
Participants first completed a self-report mea-sure designed to assess their mindsets aboutmen and women golfers’ ability. Subsequently,they watched a video of either a man or womangolfer “swinging” and hitting a ball (the order inwhich men or women golfers appeared wascounterbalanced). Trackman (2013) data wasdisplayed so that coaches could see the players’ball flight characteristics. An expert golf coachverified that the men and women golfers werematched for age, golf skill level, swing charac-teristics and ball flight characteristics. Partici-pants were then asked to think about the golferin the video and complete a feedback measure.
Measures
Mindsets. Mindset about athletic ability isfrequently measured with the CNAAQ andCNAAQ-2 scales (Biddle, Wang, Chatzisaran-tis, & Spray, 2003; Sarrazin et al., 1996). How-ever, as Warburton and Spray (2017) have ob-served, the measurement instrument used forathletic ability is an outlier in theories of abilityresearch. The CNAAQ scales are based onDweck’s conceptual framework of growth andfixed mindsets (Warburton & Spray, 2017). TheCNAAQ scale was developed due to the weakcorrelation between the fixed items of Dweck’sscale and a goal orientation variable. Therefore,the CNAAQ scales were developed as alterna-tive measures to Dweck’s traditional scale due
4 SHAPCOTT AND CARR
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
to perceived invalidity of the items measuringfixed mindsets (Li & Xiang, 2007). Despite theimprovements and prolific use of the CNAAQscales in athletic research, the validity of thefixed mindset factor within the scale remainsproblematic (Warburton & Spray, 2017). There-fore, this study was conducted with adapteditems from Dweck’s Theories of Ability Scale(Dweck, 1999). The problematic fixed-mindsetsubscale in an athletic context could be ad-dressed by using only the growth-minded items.The secondary argument for using Dweck’sscale to measure mindset about others’ golfability is theoretical. Dweck’s research focuseson the perception of a characteristic; be it intel-ligence, or athletic ability. The growth-mindeditems of Dweck’s scale will measure such per-ceptions. This measurement decision is sup-ported by Li and Xiang (2007) who recom-mended that whichever scale is used to measuremindset, a scale’s validity and reliability can beincreased by measuring ability of a specificsport, in this case golf, rather than general ath-letic ability.
The mindset scale consisted of four growth-minded items that suggested golf ability canimprove (e.g., ‘No matter how much golf abilitywomen have, they can always change it quite abit’). Participants responded to each of the itemson a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 � stronglydisagree, 6 � strongly agree). A high scorerepresented a stronger growth mindset and amean score was calculated for coaches’ mindsetabout both men’s and women’s golf ability.Reliability for coaches’ mindset about malegolfers’ ability was � � .86, and � � .74 forfemale golfers’ ability.
Feedback. Coaches’ feedback to golferswas measured with an adapted version of Rattanet al.’s (2012) feedback scale in ways that wereappropriate for giving golf, rather than aca-demic feedback. The feedback scale consistedof adaptive and maladaptive feedback items andcoaches indicated their level of endorsementwith items on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 �strongly disagree, 6 � strongly agree). Adap-tive items indicated that golfers had control overtheir improvement, and maladaptive items fo-cused on comforting, not empowering playersto improve their game. Respective controllableand comforting items included, “Inform her thatshe can improve her golf game with the rightplan,” and “Not to worry, not everyone can be
good at golf.” A mean was calculated for eachof the respective feedback subscales. The Cron-bach’s alpha (1951) for the comforting feedbackscale was � � 71 and � � .62 for female andmale golfers respectively. For the controllablefeedback scale, reliability was � � .78 for fe-male golfers and � � .66 for male golfers.Participants also reported their age, years ofcoaching experience and gender.
Results
A dependent sample t test found that golfcoaches held a significantly stronger growthmindset about men golfers’ ability than womengolfers’ ability, t(196) � 2.13, p � .03, d � .11.Nonsignificant mean differences by golfers’gender were found for controllable feedback,t(196) � .11, p � .91, d � .00 and comfortingfeedback, t(196) � �.24, p � .81, d � .02. SeeTable 1 for descriptive statistics.
To test the interactions between coaches’mindset and feedback, we conducted a 2 � 2repeated measure ANOVA for both comfortingand controllable feedback measures. Coaches’mindset about men and women golfers’ abilitywas one repeated measure variable, and feed-back to men and women golfers was the other.We found a nonsignificant interaction betweencoaches’ mindset and comforting feedback,F(1, 196) � 2.45, p � .12, �2 � .01, and anonsignificant interaction between coaches’mindset and controllable feedback, F(1, 196) �2.22, p � .14, �2 � .01.
A bivariate Pearson correlation analysis iden-tified significant correlations between coaches’growth mindset about men and women’s golfability and the type of feedback they wouldreportedly give during instruction. As coaches’growth mindsets about women’s golf ability
Table 1Study 1: Means and Standard Deviations ofDependent Variables
increased, the controllable feedback measurealso increased, r � .18, p � .01 and the com-forting feedback decreased, r � �.22, p � .01.A similar pattern was seen when consideringmen golfers. As coaches’ growth mindset aboutmen golfers’ ability increased, the controllablefeedback measure increased, r � .26, p � .01and the comforting feedback measure de-creased, r � �.27, p � .01. See Table 2 forcorrelations between study variables.
Regression analyses were conducted to test ifvariables, other than mindset, predictedcoaches’ feedback. In all analyses, the depen-dent variable was coaches’ feedback. The inde-pendent variables entered in the regression werecoaches’ mindset, coaches’ years of teaching,and coaches’ gender.
In the analysis for controllable-type feed-back to women golfers, the regression modelpredicted 3% of variance F(3, 193) � 3.26,p � .02, R2 � .05, Adjusted R2 � .03. Onlycoaches’ mindset was a significant predictorof controllable feedback (� � .18, p � .01,R2 � .03, Adjusted R2 � .03). For comfortingfeedback to women golfers, the regressionmodel explained 4% of variance F(3, 193) �3.43, p � .02, R2 � .07, Adjusted R2 � .04.Coaches’ mindset was again the only signif-icant predictor of comforting feedback towomen golfers (� � �.22, p � .01, R2 � .05,Adjusted R2 � .04).
For controllable feedback to men golfers, theregression model variables explained 7% ofvariance F(3, 193) � 5.70, p � .01, R2 � .08,Adjusted R2 � .07. Coaches’ mindset (� � .26,p � .01, R2 � .06, Adjusted R2 � .06) was theonly significant predictor. For comforting feed-back to men golfers, the regression model indi-
cated that the predicting variables explained11% of variance F(3, 193) � 8.90, p � .01,R2 � .12, Adjusted R2 � .11. Significant pre-dicting variables were coaches’ mindset (� ��.26, p � .01, R2 � .07, Adjusted R2 � .07),years of coaching experience (� � �.16, p �.04, R2 � .10, Adjusted R2 � .09), and coaches’gender (� � �.15, p � .03, R2 � .12, AdjustedR2 � .10).
A one-way ANOVA examined how coaches’gender influenced their perceptions of womengolfers. We found nonsignificant mean differ-ences by coaches’ gender for mindset aboutwomen golfers’ ability, F(1, 195) � 0.18, p �.90, �2 � .00, controllable feedback to womengolfers, F(1, 195) � 0.00, p � .96, �2 � .00,and comforting feedback, F(1, 195) � .32, p �.57, �2 � .01. See Table 3 for descriptive sta-tistics.
Lastly, we conducted a two-by-two mixedANOVA for coaches’ mindset and both com-forting and controllable feedback measures.Coaches’ gender was the between-subjects vari-able, and golfers’ gender was used as the with-in-subjects variable. Mindset and feedback-typewere the dependent variables. We found a non-significant interaction between coaches’ genderand the mindset measure for men and womengolfers, F(1, 195) � .09, p � .76, �2 � .00.Similarly, there was a nonsignificant interactionbetween coaches’ gender and comforting feed-back for men and women golfers, F(1, 195) �2.23, p � .14, �2 � .01, and there was anonsignificant interaction between coaches’gender and controllable feedback for men andwomen golfers, F(1, 195) � 1.96, p � .16, �2 �.01.
Table 2Study One: Bivariate Correlation Analysis of Variables
Note. N � 197.� indicates significant difference p � .05. �� indicates significant difference p � .01.
6 SHAPCOTT AND CARR
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Discussion
Study 1 identified a gender difference incoaches’ mindsets about players’ golf abilitythat has not yet been reported in other sportsdomains. However, these findings do align withother researchers who have reported that whenintelligence is considered a male trait, girls’intelligence is perceived as less malleable thanboys’ intelligence (Verniers & Martinot, 2015).This suggests that golf coaches’ gender biasreflects cultural stereotypes in the environment(See Plaks, Stroessner, Dweck, & Sherman,2001; Verniers & Martinot, 2015). Still,coaches’ personal beliefs about women golfers’ability and cultural stereotypes might only alignwith each other with conscious awareness(Devine & Elliot, 1995) suggesting that coachesare in some way motivated to perpetuate a gen-der bias in golf (See Neel, Kenrick, White, &Neuberg, 2016).
Coaches’ mindset about players’ golf abilityis important because it predicts behavior (seeHeslin et al., 2006; Lee, 1996; Maitland, 2001;Rattan et al., 2012). A strength of study one wasthat the relationship identified between coaches’mindset about players’ golf ability and theirfeedback replicates findings in other domains(Rattan et al., 2012). This suggests that mind-sets of coaches or teachers may be critical fac-tors for influencing students’ self-efficacy, attri-butions, performance, and motivation (Chase,2010; Le Foll et al., 2008).
Considering the influence of coaching feed-back on player motivation (García et al., 2019),and persistence (Moles, Auerbach, & Petrie,2017), study one questioned if other coach-related variables, other than mindset, predictedfeedback. For both men and women golfers,
mindset was a significant predictor of both con-trollable and comforting feedback. Mindset wasthe only significant predictor of both types offeedback to women players. Although coaches’mindset was the only significant predictor ofcontrollable feedback to men golfers, other vari-ables—years of coaching experience and gen-der—also explained a significant amount ofvariance of comforting feedback to men play-ers. Arguably, this suggests that mindset is lesscritical for adaptive feedback to men golfers asit is to women golfers.
An oversampling of women golf coaches instudy one allowed for an examination of womencoaches’ mindsets about golf ability. Coaches’gender was not a main effect for their mindset,or the type of feedback coaches give to men andwomen golfers.
Study 2
Method
Study 1 indicated that coaches’ have a genderbias in their mindsets about others’ golf ability,and that coaches’ mindsets predicted the type offeedback they gave during instruction. Accord-ingly, the aim of study two was to apply aquasi-experimental approach to manipulatingcoaches’ mindsets about women golfers’ abil-ity. Furthermore, in addition to testing the mal-leability of coaches’ mindsets about womengolfers’ ability, study two had two other aims:First, after manipulating coaches’ mindsetsabout women golfers’ ability did the correlationwith feedback to women golfers remain. Sec-ond, even if coaches’ mindset about womengolfers’ ability could be manipulated in theshort-term, we sought to understand the longer-term effects of a simple intervention.
Participants. Participants in study twowere recruited from professional golfers’ net-works over a month-long period. Study 2 par-ticipants had not participated in study one andall were over 18 years old. The study consistedof two stages. One-hundred and 25 coachesparticipated in stage one (Men � 85, Women �39, unknown � 1). Their ages ranged from 20to 70 years old (M � 45.22, SD � 12.94) andthey had coached golf from between 1 to 52years. Fifty-six percent of participants belongedto a professional golfers’ association. Seventy-four coaches participated in stage two of the
Table 3Study 1: Means and Standard Deviations forMindset About Women Golfers’ Ability andFeedback by Coaches’ Gender
study (Men � 53, Women � 21). Their agesranged from 20 to 70 years old (M � 46.76,SD � 13.59) and 58% belonged to a profes-sional golfers’ association.
An a priori power analysis indicated that weneeded 45 subjects in each condition to have80% power for detecting a medium sized effectfor a .05 criterion of statistical significance(Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996). This anal-ysis suggests that although the sample size forstage one of study two was enough, the attritionof participants meant stage two was slightlyunderpowered.
Measures. As in Study 1, an adapted ver-sion of Dweck’s Theories of Others’ AbilityScale (Dweck, 1999) was used to measurecoaches’ mindset about women golfers’ ability.Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951)for stage one data was � � .86, and for stagetwo it was � � .90. Coaches’ feedback to golf-ers was again measured with an adapted versionof Rattan et al.’s feedback scale (2012). The‘Controllable’ items reported � � .71, and‘Comforting’ items reported � � .61.
Procedure. University ethical approvalwas again granted before collecting data, andthe approved protocol was followed throughout.All communication with participants was con-ducted electronically. Qualtrics software (Qual-trics, 2009) was used to distribute the surveylink to golf coaches and assign participants ran-domly to either a control condition or a mindsetmanipulation condition.
Coaches in the control condition read a ge-neric passage about ball flight analysis. For ex-ample, “The ball flight of all players, regardlessof their ability level, can be analyzed with im-pact factors. In Wiren’s coaching model (Wiren,1990), there are five impact factors. If coachesunderstand impact factors, they can analyze allplayers’ ball flights.” Coaches then read threemisconceptions in analyzing ball flight such as,“To make the ball go up, you need to hit down.”The material used in the control condition wasconsistent with industry training material (Pro-fessional Golfers’ Association of GB&I, 2013).The technical information was followed by acase study of a teaching professional’s under-standing of ball flight analysis.
Coaches in the mindset manipulation condi-tion read a passage about how golf ability canimprove. For example, “Even golfers who even-tually become great, do not start that way. Ben
Hogan was famously called ‘graceless’ and ‘un-coordinated’ as a child. Yet with a strong workethic and an understanding of his golf swing, hisgolf ability improved, and he became one ofgolf’s greatest champions.” This text was fol-lowed by three misconceptions about golf abil-ity. One example used was, “Some people justaren’t cut out for golf.” The case study in thiscondition featured a nongendered golfer whodiscussed improvement made over a year.
After reading the respective texts, all coachesviewed a photograph of the recreational womangolfer used in study one’s video and were askedto imagine she was their student. They thencompleted the feedback scale and the mindsetabout women golfers’ ability measure. Aftercompleting the surveys, coaches were asked tovolunteer for stage two of the study.
Stage two participants were contacted 14days after they completed stage one. In thesecond stage, coaches completed Dweck’s(1999) adapted scale to measure their mindsetabout women golfers’ ability. A chi-squaregoodness-of-fit test was conducted to evaluate ifcoaches assigned to the manipulation conditionin stage one were more likely to participate instage two than coaches assigned to the controlcondition. The likelihood of participating in thesecond stage of the study was not significantlyassociated with the condition assignment instage one, 2 � 2.36, p � .13.
Manipulation check. After reading the re-spective texts in stage one of study two, coacheswere asked to write a sentence describing anoverview of the information. Three participantsassigned to the golf ability condition were elim-inated from the analysis.
Results. The results of the 2 � 2 mixedANOVA showed that there was a significantmain effect by condition F(1, 72) � 5.56, p �.02, �2 � .07 on coaches’ mindset about womengolfers’ ability. Coaches in the mindset manip-ulation condition reported a significantly moregrowth mindset about women golfers’ abilitythan coaches in the control condition. There wasno significant main effect by time on coaches’mindset about women golfers’ ability, F(1,72) � 2.29, p � .13, �2 � .03. See Table 4 fordescriptive statistics. This suggests that coachesreported statistically similar mindsets aboutwomen golfers’ ability immediately followingthe intervention as 14-days after the interven-tion. In addition, there was no significant inter-
8 SHAPCOTT AND CARR
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
action found between time and condition F(1,72) � .12, p � .73, �2 � .00. See Table 4 fordescriptive statistics of coaches’ mindset aboutwomen golfers’ ability.
A one-way ANOVA to test mean differencesin feedback given to women golfers by condi-tion found a significant difference between con-dition for controllable feedback, F(1, 122) �7.90, p � .01, �2 � .06, but not for comfortingfeedback, F(1, 122) � .82, p � .36, �2 � .00.See Table 5 for descriptive statistics.
At stage one, a partial correlation analysistested the relationship between coaches’ mind-set about women golfers’ ability and feedback.We controlled for years’ coaching experienceand coaches’ gender. As coaches’ mindsetabout women golf ability increased, controlla-ble feedback increased, r � .43, p � .01 andcomforting feedback decreased (r � �.19, p �.04.
Discussion
Study two demonstrated that through onlinetraining methods, coaches’ mindset aboutwomen golfers’ ability can be manipulated. Inthis quasi-experimental study, coaches ran-domly assigned to a mindset condition reportedsignificantly more growth mindsets aboutwomen golfers’ ability than coaches assigned tothe control condition. Furthermore, the effectsendured after a 2-week period. In addition,study two further establishes the relationship
between coaches’ mindset about golfers’ abilityand their feedback.
General Discussion
If golf participation is to achieve paritythrough instructional initiatives, the golf indus-try may benefit from addressing coaches’ biasesin relation to men and women golfers’ ability.The gender differences in mindset reported bycoaches may be influenced by stereotypes andcultural biases that are inherent in the golf in-dustry (see Verniers & Martinot, 2015). AsTodd, Simpson, Thiem, and Neel (2016) sug-gest, automatic general stereotyping occurswhen ‘traits’ are associated with stereotypes—and as seen in this study, they may influenceperformance expectations. Gender stereotypingand biases demonstrated by golf coaches mayalso be described as a social motive (Neel et al.,2016) that coaches employ to conform to themale-dominated structure of golf.
Although we provide theoretical explanationsof coaches’ biased mindsets, further explorationis required. However, it is likely the bias haseffects on women’s golf experience. As in otherdomains, it is plausible golfers can detectwhether coaches perceive their ability as some-thing that can be developed or not (Rattan et al.,2012; Reich & Arkin, 2006).
This study contributes two important findingsto the field of mindset research. First, we reinforceresearch by Rattan et al. (2012) who suggest thata gender-neutral intervention can manipulatecoaches’ mindsets about a specific group. Wesuggest that interventions designed to promotegrowth mindsets about specific people do not needto focus on the ability of a stereotyped group.Instead, a general growth mindset interventionmay effectively reduce bias. Second, this studyreplicates research establishing a relationship be-tween mindsets of others and feedback (Rattan etal., 2012). In addition, it presents a different ap-
Table 4Study 2: Descriptive Statistics of Mindsets AboutWomen Golfers’ Ability by Condition and Time
proach to data analysis by using within-subjectsrepeated measures ANOVA’s to capture interac-tions between coaches’ mindset about men andwomen golfers, and respective feedback.
It should be noted that although study two sug-gests that coaches’ mindset about women golfers’ability can be manipulated, it is unrealistic to ex-pect that a single, brief intervention could have anenduring effect much beyond the immediate time-frame. As described in other studies, “. . . thehighest point of effectiveness of training is usuallyachieved immediately after the intervention; muchlike the half-life of medicine that has immediateeffect, then a tapering, longer-lasting but less val-ued impact” (Rands, 2007, p. 40). Similar dimin-ishing effects have been reported in mindset inter-ventions (Orosz, Péter-Szarka, Bothe, Toth-Király, & Berger, 2017), including Brainology(Mindset Works Inc., 2008).
One surprising finding in this study is thatcoaches’ gender did not affect their mindsetsabout women golfers. This finding is of rele-vance to the golf industry who recommend, aspart of a larger strategy to increase women’sparticipation, an increase in the number ofwomen coaches (Professional Golfers’ Associ-ation of America, 2019). Although this is, nodoubt, a positive initiative (see Mutter & Paw-lowski, 2014), our findings suggest that allcoaches—men and women—could benefit fromtraining that cultivates a growth mindset aboutthe players they teach.
In a broader sense, this study also connects torecent calls to explore the utility of motivationaltheory in relation to social justice (see Carr, 2015).The study highlighted how theories, such asgrowth mindset, can be used as a languagethrough which discriminatory gender practicesmight be understood and expressed in psycholog-ical terms. Critical psychologists (see Carr, 2015)have begun to explore the ways in which ideasfrom motivational theory might help us to under-stand how certain groups of people can be moti-vationally oppressed by disproportionately inter-nalizing certain disadvantageous motivationalcharacteristics. Furthermore, it may be that thesocial and contextual environment plays a role inconstructing these motivational disadvantages. Inthis article, the possibility exists that golf coachingpractices may be discriminatory in a motivationalsense. However, it remains to be seen whether thiswould directly translate into women golfers’ mo-
tivational characteristics. Further research isneeded to explore this possibility.
Limitations should also be noted when inter-preting our results. For example, althoughcoaches’ mindsets related to their feedback, a gen-der difference was not seen in the feedback mea-sure. Furthermore, we have assumed that coaches’mindsets about women golfers’ ability and theirfeedback will influence women players’ long-termmotivation to play golf (Le Foll et al., 2008). Tovalidate this, it would be useful to analyze golfcoaches’ feedback when instructing women golf-ers, and to track the longer-term motivation of thewomen golfers they teach (see Heslin et al., 2006).In addition, this study focuses specifically on howgolf coaches perceive adult recreational womengolfers’ ability and the findings cannot be extrap-olated to elite women, or girl golfers’ ability.
Future research should examine how golfcoaches’ mindsets about golfers’ ability impactgolfers’ sense of belonging. As seen in other do-mains (Good et al., 2012; Schmidt, Shumow, &Kackar-Cam, 2017), when the culture is perceivedas growth-minded, women have an increasedsense of belonging and retention in that activity.Should this relationship be established in golf,developing coaches’ growth mindsets about oth-ers’ ability may be a critical key for increasingwomen golfer participation and their access togolf’s powerful benefits.
References
Beditz, J. (2006, October). Retention rate in golf.Presented at Golf 2020 Convention, St. Augustine,FL.
Biddle, S. J., Wang, C. K., Chatzisarantis, N. L., &Spray, C. M. (2003). Motivation for physical ac-tivity in young people: Entity and incremental be-liefs about athletic ability. Journal of Sports Sci-ences, 21, 973–989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410310001641377
Bronstein, C., & Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2015). Preparingtomorrow’s leaders. Journalism & Mass Commu-nication Educator, 70, 75–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077695814566199
Carr, S. (2015). Motivation, Educational Policy, andAchievement: A Critical Perspective. Abingdon,Oxon: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315777245
Chase, M. A. (2010). Should coaches believe ininnate ability? The importance of leadership im-plicit theories. Quest, 62, 296–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2010.10483650
Chen, L. H., Chen, M. Y., Lin, M. S., Kee, Y. H.,Kuo, C. F., & Shui, S. H. (2008). Implicit theory ofathletic ability and self-handicapping in collegestudents. Psychological Reports, 103, 476–484.http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.103.6.476-484
Coffee, P., & Rees, T. (2009). The main and inter-active effects of immediate and reflective attribu-tions upon subsequent self-efficacy. EuropeanJournal of Sport Science, 9, 41–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461390802594227
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alphas and theinternal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racialstereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogyrevisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-letin, 21, 1139–1150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672952111002
DiMeglio, S. (2015, March 3). Donald Trump bringsnew life to the world of golf. USA Today. Retrievedfrom http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2015/03/03/donald-trump-national-doral-miami-wgc/24322605/
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self Theories: Their role inmotivation, personality, and development. Hove,England: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2007). Self-theories:The implicit the-ories of a champion. In T. Morris, P. Terry, & S.Gordon (Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology: In-ternational perspectives (pp. 15–20). Morgan-town, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A socialcognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996).GPOWER: A general power analysis program.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments &Computers, 28, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630
Farahmand, B., Broman, G., de Faire, U., Vågerö, D.,& Ahlbom, A. (2009). Golf: A game of life anddeath—Reduced mortality in Swedish golf play-ers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Sciencein Sports, 19, 419–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2008.00814.x
Gao, K. L., Hui-Chan, C. W. Y., & Tsang, W. W. N.(2011). Golfers have better balance control andconfidence than healthy controls. European Jour-nal of Applied Physiology, 111, 2805–2812. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-1910-7
García, J. A., Carcedo, R. J., & Castaño, J. L. (2019).The influence of feedback on competence, motiva-tion, vitality, and performance in a throwing task.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 90,172–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2019.1571677
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Whydo women opt out? Sense of belonging and wom-en’s representation in mathematics. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 102, 700–717.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026659
Heslin, P. A., & Vandewalle, D. (2008). Managers’implicit assumptions about personnel. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 17, 219–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00578.x
Heslin, P. A., & Vandewalle, D. (2011). Performanceappraisal procedural justice: The role of manager’simplicit person theory. Journal of Management,37, 1694–1718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309342895
Heslin, P. A., Vandewalle, D., & Latham, G. P.(2006). Keen to Help? Managers’ implicit persontheories and their subsequent employee coaching.Personnel Psychology, 59, 871–902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00057.x
Hideg, I., & Ferris, D. L. (2016). The compassionatesexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and un-dermines gender equality in the workplace. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111,706–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000072
Hui, C. M., Bond, M. H., & Molden, D. C. (2012).Why do(n’t) your partner’s efforts at self-improvement make you happy? An implicit theo-ries perspective. Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Bulletin, 38, 101–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211420734
Hundley, H. L. (2004). Keeping the score: The he-gemonic everyday practices in golf. Communica-tion Reports, 17, 39–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934210409389372
International Golf Federation. (2013). InternationalGolf Coaching Framework. International Councilfor Coaching Excellence, the Association of Sum-mer Olympic International Federations, and LeedsMetropolitan University. Retrieved from http://igfederation.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/International-Golf-Coaching-Framework.pdf
International Golf Federation. (2017). Developmentand sport for all. Retrieved from https://www.igfgolf.org/about-igf/sport-for-all-development/
Job, V., Walton, G. M., Bernecker, K., & Dweck, C. S.(2015). Implicit theories about willpower predictself-regulation and grades in everyday life. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 108, 637–647.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000014
Jowett, S., & Felton, L. (2013). The role of psycho-logical factors in recreational sport participation.Report for Sports Coach UK. Retrieved from http://www.sportscoachuk.org/sites/default/files/The%20Role%20of%20Psychological%20Factors%20in%20Recreational%20Sport%20Participation.pdf
Khalkhali, V. (2012). Task difficulty, self-handicap-ping and performance: A study of implicit theories
of ability. International Online Journal of Educa-tional Sciences, 4, 592–601.
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003).Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations to-ward evaluation and cultivation. Personality andSocial Psychology Review, 7, 41–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0701_3
Kyle, G., & Chick, G. (2004). Enduring leisure in-volvement: The importance of personal relation-ships. Leisure Studies, 23, 243–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0261436042000251996
Lee, K. (1996). A study of teacher responses basedon their conceptions of intelligence. Journal ofClassroom Interaction, 31, 1–12.
Le Foll, N., Rascle, D., & Higgins, O. C. (2008).Attributional feedback-induced changes in func-tional and dysfunctional attributions, expectationsof success, hopefulness, and short-term persistencein a novel sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,9, 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.01.004
Le Foll, N., Rascle, D., & Higgins, N. C. (2006).Persistence in a putting task during perceived fail-ure: Influence of state attribution and attributionstyle. Applied Psychology, 55, 586–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00249.x
Li, W., & Xiang, P. (2007). Ability conceptions inphysical education: Some measurement consider-ations. Quest, 59, 358–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2007.10483558
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2014). Implicit theories ofwriting and their impact on students’ response to aSRSD intervention. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 84, 571–590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12042
Maitland, L. (2001). The relationship between con-cept of intelligence and teacher goals. In J. Higginset al. (Eds.), 2001: A developmental odyssey (pp.87–103). Boone, NC: National Association of De-velopmental Education. Retrieved from http://www.nade.net/site/documents/publications/monograph/Mono%2001/monograph01.pdf
McGinnis, L., Gentry, J. W., & McQuillan, J. (2008).Ritual-based behavior that reinforces hegemonicmasculinity in golf: Variations in women golfers’responses. Leisure Sciences, 31, 19–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400802557915
McGinnis, L., McQuillan, J., & Chapple, C. (2005).I just want to play golf: Women, sexism and per-sistence in golf. Journal of Sport & Social Issues,29, 313–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193723504272659
Michigan State University. (2015). Merging golf andbusiness. Retrieved from https://uas.broad.msu.edu/2015/03/31/merging-golf-business/
Miller, E. M., Walton, G. M., Dweck, C. S., Job, V.,Trzesniewski, K. H., & McClure, S. M. (2012).Theories of willpower affect sustained learning.
Mindset Works Inc. (2008). Brainology. Retrieved No-vember 11, 2017 from https://www.mindsetworks.com/default
Moles, T. A., Auerbach, A. D., & Petrie, T. A.(2017). Grit happens: Moderating effects on moti-vational feedback and sport performance. Journalof Applied Sport Psychology, 29, 418–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2017.1306729
Morgan, L. A., & Martin, K. A. (2006). Takingwomen professionals out of the office: The case ofwomen in sales. Gender & Society, 20, 108–128.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243205283107
Murray, A. D., Daines, L., Archibald, D., Hawkes,R. A., Schiphorst, C., Kelly, P., . . . Mutrie, N.(2017). The relationships between golf and health:A scoping review. British Journal of Sports Med-icine, 51, 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096625
Mutter, F., & Pawlowski, T. (2014). Role models insports—Can success in professional sports in-crease the demand for amateur sport participation?Sport Management Review, 17, 324–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.07.003
Myers, S. L., Jr., & Fealing, K. H. (2012). Changes inthe representation of women and minorities in bio-medical careers. Academic Medicine, 87, 1525–1529.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31826d7189
National Golf Foundation. (2014). Golf industryoverview 2014. Jupiter, FL: National Golf Foun-dation Member Resources.
National Golf Foundation. (2017). Golf participationin the United States. Jupiter, FL: National GolfFoundation Member Resources.
Neel, R., Kenrick, D. T., White, A. E., & Neuberg,S. L. (2016). Individual differences in fundamentalsocial motives. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 110, 887–907. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000068
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation:Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, taskchoice, and performance. Psychological Review,91, 328–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
Nickerson, E. (1987). Golf: A women’s history. Jef-ferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
North, J. (2007). Increasing participation in sport: Therole of the coach. Report Briefing for Sports CoachU.K. Retrieved from https://www.sportscoachuk.org/sites/default/files/Coaching%20and%20participation.pdf
Novell, C. A., Machleit, K. A., & Sojka, J. Z. (2016).Are good salespeople born or made? A new per-spective on an age-old question: Implicit theoriesof selling ability. Journal of Personal Selling &Sales Management, 36, 309–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2016.1214594
Ommundsen, Y. (2001). Self-handicapping strategiesin physical education classes: The influence ofimplicit theories or the nature of ability andachievement goal orientations. Psychology ofSport and Exercise, 2, 139–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(00)00019-4
Orosz, G., Péter-Szarka, S., Bothe, B., Toth-Király,I., & Berger, R. (2017). How not to do a mindsetintervention: Learning from a mindset interventionamong students with good grades. Frontiers inPsychology, 8, 311. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00311
Parkkari, J., Natri, A., Kannus, P., Mänttäri, A.,Laukkanen, R., Haapasalo, H., . . . Vuori, I. (2000).A controlled trial of the health benefits of regularwalking on a golf course. The American Journal ofMedicine, 109, 102–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(00)00455-1
Pennington, B. (2011, August 22). ON PAR; How totake lessons in the winter (or in secret). New YorkTimes. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res�9404EFDE1638F931A1575BC0A9679D8B63
Plaks, J. E., Stroessner, S. J., Dweck, C. S., & Sher-man, J. W. (2001). Person theories and attentionallocation: Preferences for stereotypic versuscounterstereotypic information. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 80, 876–893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.876
Pomfret, R., & Wilson, J. K. (2011). The peculiareconomics of government policy towards sport.Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform,18, 85–98.
Professional Golfers’ Association of America.(2014). 6 reasons why golf is good for business.Retrieved from http://www.pga.com/play-golf-america/new-golfer/golf-good-business
Professional Golfers’ Association of America. (2019).PGA of America’s commitment to diversity and in-clusion. Retrieved from https://www.pga.org/articles/pga-americas-commitment-diversity-inclusion
Professional Golfers’ Association of GB&I. (2013).Foundation degree in professional golf studyguides, 1, 2. Birmingham, England: Author.
Purdue University. (2016). Kannert BusinessSchool. Retrieved from http://www.krannert.purdue.edu/undergraduate/current-students/gen/Free_electives.pdf
Rands, A. (2007). Extending the half-life of training.Training Journal, 40–43.
Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’sOK—Not everyone can be good at math”: Instruc-tors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate)students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, 48, 731–737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012
Reich, D. A., & Arkin, R. M. (2006). Self-doubt,attributions, and the perceived implicit theories ofothers. Self and Identity, 5, 89–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860500441965
Reis, H., & Correia, A. (2013). Gender asymmetriesin golf participation. Journal of Hospitality Mar-keting & Management, 22, 67–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2012.686149
Sarrazin, P., Biddle, S., Famose, J. P., Cury, F., Fox,K., & Durand, M. (1996). Goal orientations andconceptions of the nature of sport ability in chil-dren: A social cognitive approach. British Journalof Social Psychology, 35, 399–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01104.x
Satina, B., Solmon, M. A., Cothran, D. J., Loftus,S. J., & Stockin-Davidson, K. (1998). Patriarchalconsciousness: Middle school students’ and teach-ers’ perspectives of motivational practices, sport.Education and Society, 3, 181–200.
Schmidt, J. A., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. Z.(2017). Does mindset intervention predict stu-dents’ daily experience in classrooms? A compar-ison of seventh and ninth graders’ trajectories.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 582–602.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0489-z
Schroder, H. S., Dawood, S., Yalch, M., Donnellan,M. B., & Moser, J. S. (2015). The role of implicittheories in mental health symptoms, emotion reg-ulation, and hypothetical treatment choices in col-lege students. Cognitive Therapy and Research,39, 120–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9652-6
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attribu-tional feedback: Differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 75, 848– 856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.6.848
Shapcott, S. (2010). Sub-par attributions: Whywomen quit golf. Unpublished manuscript. Depart-ment of Education, Arizona State University,Tempe, AZ.
Shapcott, S. (2011, July 13). British Open: ‘No dogs,no women’ sign gone at Royal St George’s, butdiscrimination still in play. New York Daily News.
Shields, A., Brawley, L. R., & Lindover, T. I. (2006).Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship be-tween causal attributions and exercise behavior.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2785–2802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00128.x
Siegenthaler, K. L., & O’Dell, I. (2003). Older golf-ers: Serious leisure and successful aging. WorldLeisure Journal, 45, 45–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/04419057.2003.9674304
Sport, B. B. C. (2014, October 25). Former PGA bossTed Bishop apologies for Ian Poulter tweet. BBCNews. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/29771575
Sport, B. B. C. (2014a, September 19). Royal andAncient Golf Club votes to accept women mem-bers. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/29246741
Sport, B. B. C. (2016, July 2). Royal Troon: OpenChampionship venue votes to allow women mem-bers. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/36691479
Sport, B. B. C. (2016a, May 19). Muirfield to lose rightto host Open after vote against allowing womenmembers. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/36331270
Sport England. (2014). Active People Survey 7. Re-trieved from https://activepeople.sportengland.org/
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threatand the intellectual test performance of AfricanAmericans. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 69, 797–811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
Stempel, C. (2006). Gender, social class, and thesporting capital-economic capital nexus. Sociologyof Sport Journal, 23, 273–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ssj.23.3.273
Stenling, A., Hassmén, P., & Holmström, S. (2014).Implicit beliefs of ability, approach-avoidancegoals and cognitive anxiety among team sport ath-letes. European Journal of Sport Science, 14, 720–729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.901419
Stenner, B. J., Mosewich, A. D., & Buckley, J. D.(2016). An exploratory investigation into the reasonswhy older people play golf. Qualitative Research inSport, Exercise and Health, 8, 257–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2016.1148773
Stoeber, J., & Becker, C. (2008). Perfectionism,achievement motives, and attribution of successand failure in female soccer players. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 43, 980–987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590701403850
Syngenta. (2014). Growing golf in the U.K. Cam-bridge, England. Retrieved from https://www.greencast.co.uk/female-participation-opportunity-grow-golf
Thompson, T., & Musket, S. (2005). Does primingfor mastery goals improve the performance of stu-dents with an entity view of ability? British Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 75, 391– 409.http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709904X22700
Todd, A. R., Simpson, A. J., Thiem, K. C., & Neel,R. (2016). The generalization of implicit racialbias to young black boys: Automatic stereotypingor automatic prejudice? Social Cognition, 34, 306–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2016.34.4.306
Tsang, W., Wijeysundera, H. C., Alter, D. A., Zhang,T., & Ko, D. T. (2011). Underrepresentation of
women in landmark randomized cardiovasculartrials: An epiphenomenon of enrolment age? Jour-nal of the American College of Cardiology, 57,1164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(11)61164-9
Verniers, C., & Martinot, D. (2015). Perception ofstudents’ intelligence malleability and potential forfuture success: Unfavourable beliefs towards girls.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,289–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12073
Walker, N. A., & Bopp, T. (2010). The Underrepre-sentation of women in the male-dominated sportworkplace: Perspectives of female coaches. Jour-nal of Workplace Rights, 15, 47–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/WR.15.1.d
Wallace, J. E., & Kay, F. M. (2012). Tokenism,organizational segregation, and coworker relationsin law firms. Social Problems, 59, 389–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.2012.59.3.389
Wang, C. K., Liu, W. C., Lochbaum, M. R., &Stevenson, S. J. (2009). Sport ability beliefs, 2 �2 achievement goals, and intrinsic motivation: Themoderating role of perceived competence in sportand exercise. Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport, 80, 303–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2009.10599565
Warburton, V., & Spray, C. (2013). Antecedents ofapproach-avoidance achievement goal adoption: Ananalysis of two physical education activities. Euro-pean Physical Education Review, 19, 215–231.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356336X13486055
Warburton, V., & Spray, C. (2017). Implicit theoriesof ability in physical education: Current issues andfuture directions. Human Kinetics Journal, 36,252–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0043
Wiren, G. (1990). PGA (of America) teaching man-ual: The art and science of golf instruction. Jupi-ter, FL: PGA of America.
Yeager, D. S., Johnson, R., Spitzer, B. J., Trzesni-ewski, K. H., Powers, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2014).The far-reaching effects of believing people canchange: Implicit theories of personality shapestress, health, and achievement during adoles-cence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 106, 867– 884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036335
Zunzer, S. C., von Duvillard, S. P., Tschakert, G.,Mangus, B., & Hofmann, P. (2013). Energy ex-penditure and sex differences of golf playing.Journal of Sports Sciences, 31, 1045–1053. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.764465
Received February 26, 2019Revision received May 12, 2019
