Citation for published version: Shapcott, S & Carr, S 2020, 'Golf Coaches’ Mindsets About Recreational Golfers: Gendered Golf Experiences Start on the Practice Tee.', Motivation Science, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 275-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000154

DOI: 10.1037/mot0000154

Publication date: 2020

Document Version Peer reviewed version

Link to publication

Publisher Rights Unspecified ©American Psychological Association, 2019. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/mot0000154

University of Bath

Alternative formats If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact: [email protected]

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 29. Sep. 2021 Motivation Science Golf Coaches’ Mindsets About Recreational Golfers: Gendered Golf Experiences Start on the Practice Tee Susan Shapcott and Sam Carr Online First Publication, July 18, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000154

CITATION Shapcott, S., & Carr, S. (2019, July 18). Golf Coaches’ Mindsets About Recreational Golfers: Gendered Golf Experiences Start on the Practice Tee. Motivation Science. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000154 Motivation Science

© 2019 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000 2333-8113/19/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000154

Golf Coaches’ Mindsets About Recreational Golfers: Gendered Golf Experiences Start on the Practice Tee

Susan Shapcott and Sam Carr University of Bath

Gender gaps in golf participation persist. Women make up less than 20% of golf’s population in the United Kingdom and United States. Their underrepresentation detri- mentally impacts the golf industry, society, and women who are excluded from golf’s well-documented benefits. This article connects theoretical constructs from motiva- tional psychology with issues of gender discrimination in golf. In this article we examine the relationship between golf coaches’ perceptions of recreational women golfers (their mindsets) and women golfers’ coaching experience. Specifically, two studies identified that (a) golf coaches reported more of a growth mindset about men golfers compared to women golfers, (b) that these mindsets were significantly related to the adaptiveness of coaches’ feedback, and (c) that growth mindsets about women golfers’ ability can potentially be fostered through experimental manipulation. Results are discussed in the relation to their significance for addressing gender gaps in adult recreational golf participation.

Keywords: coaches’ mindset, gender, recreational sports participation

Donald Trump told USA Today (DiMeglio, fessional Golfers’ Association of America, 2015), “I’ve done deals on the golf course that 2014). I would have never made at a lunch or a series Unfortunately, golf has a persistently large of lunches.” The relationship between golf, gender differential in relation to its participation power, and business is recognized so broadly rates that minimizes women’s access to golf- that it is becoming customary practice for busi- associated power networks (Reis & Correia, ness schools to offer golf classes in the curric- 2013). In golf’s core markets, women make up ulum alongside accounting, entrepreneurship, only 15–20% of the golfing population (Na- and marketing (Michigan State University, tional Golf Foundation, 2014; Sport England, 2015; Purdue University, 2016). It is unsurpris- 2014). Arguably, how women fare in golf pro- ing, therefore, that while only 7.8% of the vides insight into a powerful subculture of in- American general population plays golf (Na- fluence that has, until recently, been a sphere tional Golf Foundation, 2017), an estimated reserved almost exclusively for men (Stempel, 90% of American Fortune 500 CEO’s do (Pro- 2006). The underrepresentation of women golf- ers parallels women’s underrepresentation in other male-dominated industries, professional This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. organizations, and corporate boardrooms (Bron- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. stein & Fitzpatrick, 2015; Hideg & Ferris, 2016; X Susan Shapcott and Sam Carr, Department of Educa- Myers & Fealing, 2012; Tsang, Wijeysundera, tion, University of Bath. Alter, Zhang, & Ko, 2011). Therefore, given the Information about obtaining data and materials underly- ing this article can be found at Shapcott, S. (2019, May 8). status and symbolism of playing golf, reducing Golf coaches’ mindsets about recreational golfers: Gen- the underrepresentation of women players dered golf experiences start on the prractice tee. Retrieved serves an economic, social, and political pur- from osf.io/zegt9. pose (Pomfret & Wilson, 2011). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susan Shapcott, who is now at Department of Kinesiology, In addition to its economic advantages, golf University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. E-mail: also offers lifelong health and social benefits [email protected] (Farahmand, Broman, de Faire, Vågerö, & Ahl-

1 2 SHAPCOTT AND CARR

bom, 2009; Gao, Hui-Chan, & Tsang, 2011; grams (International Golf Federation, 2013, Kyle & Chick, 2004; Murray et al., 2017; Park- 2017; North, 2007; Pennington, 2011). The suc- kari et al., 2000; Siegenthaler & O’Dell, 2003; cess of this strategy, however, depends on the Stenner, Mosewich, & Buckley, 2016; Zunzer, effectiveness of the golf coaches delivering von Duvillard, Tschakert, Mangus, & Hofmann, such programs to women. One concern is the 2013) and has relatively few physical barriers coaching culture. Golf coaches in the United that prevent participation (McGinnis, McQuil- States and United Kingdom are over 95% men lan, & Chapple, 2005). Therefore, it is unsur- (N. Henderson, personal communication, Octo- prising that golf is in high latent demand for ber 7, 2014; Z. Kendall, personal communica- many women who want to participate in a sport tion, January 8, 2015; see Walker & Bopp, that can advance their careers, promote physical 2010; Wallace & Kay, 2012) and embedded in activity, and facilitate social networks (National a culture rife with negative stereotypes about Golf Foundation, 2014; Sport England, 2014; women golfers (McGinnis et al., 2008; Reis & Syngenta, 2014). Correia, 2013). The present study critically ex- amines this coaching workforce by exploring coaches’ theories of others’ golf ability (their The Gendered Nature of Golf mindset about others’ ability) and how they When women take up golf, 54% of recre- manifest in coaching practice. ational players (who play for enjoyment, not competition) give up the game within five years Mindsets (Beditz, 2006). This high attrition rate suggests that the golf experience reduces women’s mo- In this study we use Dweck’s mindset theory tivation to play. A male-dominated culture to frame the experiences of women in golf. In (Morgan & Martin, 2006) is also reflected in the 1988, Dweck and Leggett published a seminal contemporary golf experience (McGinnis, Gen- paper that continues to guide researchers inves- try, & McQuillan, 2008; Shapcott, 2011). Al- tigating how mindsets about intelligence, or though clubs with overtly discriminating play- ability, influence behavior and motivation. In ing policies are now a small minority, the early studies, Dweck and Leggett (1988) found game’s history manifests itself in the contem- that children endorsing a fixed mindset toward porary golf experience for women (BBC Sport, intelligence—those who perceived intelligence 2014, 2014a, 2016, 2016a; Hundley, 2004; as a fixed, innate trait, demonstrated maladap- Nickerson, 1987). For example, the golf culture tive learning behavior (Dweck, 2007; Li & is full of negative stereotypes about women Xiang, 2007). (McGinnis et al., 2008), and women are fre- In contrast, children with a growth mindset— quently targets of jokes and discriminatory who perceived intelligence as a malleable com- treatment at golf facilities (McGinnis et al., modity—were more likely to engage in adap- 2005). The cumulative effect of golf’s history, tive learning behavior. For these children, their policies and experiences diminishes women’s level of intelligence was dependent on what sense of belonging in golf, and subsequently they did to increase it. Endorsing a growth their retention in relation to participation (see mindset, regardless of domain, appears to be Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012). beneficial to one’s motivation, learning strate-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. gies, and performance (Heslin & Vandewalle,

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 2011; Hui, Bond, & Molden, 2012; Job, Wal- How the Golf Industry Is Addressing ton, Bernecker, & Dweck, 2015; Knee, Patrick, Women’s Low Participation & Lonsbary, 2003; Limpo & Alves, 2014; Miller et al., 2012; Nicholls, 1984; Novell, Many factors may contribute to recreational Machleit, & Sojka, 2016; Schroder, Dawood, women golfers’ low participation rates (see Yalch, Donnellan, & Moser, 2015). Jowett & Felton, 2013). Therefore, there is no panacea to resolve the underrepresentation of Mindsets About Sports Ability women in golf. However, one strategy identi- fied by the golf industry to increase women’s In a sports environment, athletes with a fixed golf participation is through instructional pro- mindset believe that athletic ability is some- GOLF COACHES’ MINDSETS 3

thing one has or does not have. It cannot be tions for their athletic performance (Reich & acquired. Conversely, athletes with a growth Arkin, 2006). It is reasonable to assume that mindset believe that athletic ability is some- women golfers can also detect coaches’ mindset thing learned with practice, guidance and effort. about their golfing ability. Previous research As with academic mindsets, athletes with a with recreational golfers has shown that men growth mindset engage in more adaptive learn- and women players make different attributions ing strategies than athletes with a fixed mindset for their performance (Shapcott, 2010). If, as (Chen et al., 2008; Khalkhali, 2012; Ommund- expected, golf coaches hold more of a growth sen, 2001; Stenling, Hassmén, & Holmström, mindset about men’s, compared to women’s 2014; Wang, Liu, Lochbaum, & Stevenson, golfing ability, this disparity may explain the 2009; Warburton & Spray, 2013). less controllable attributions made by recre- ational women golfers (Shapcott, 2010). Be- Coaches’ Mindsets About Others’ Ability cause attributions are intrinsically linked to mo- tivation (Coffee & Rees, 2009; Shields, The extension of Dweck’s mindset theory to Brawley, & Lindover, 2006; Schunk, 1983; beliefs about others’ ability is a framework that Stoeber & Becker, 2008), this insight is critical we use to examine coaches’ perception of for coaches who aim to increase the motivation women golfers. In addition to holding a mindset of recreational golfers to play. about one’s own ability, a self-theory, individ- uals can also hold a mindset about others’ abil- Coaches’ Mindsets and Feedback ity. In the case of golf, mindsets about others are beliefs about whether their golfing ability can It is expected that coaches’ mindsets about change (see Yeager et al., 2014). others’ ability will predict their feedback during Coaches with a growth mindset about others golf lessons (Lee, 1996; Maitland, 2001). Feed- believe that players’ golfing ability is something back from coaches with a growth mindset is that can be developed and improved. In con- expected to be more adaptive. For example, trast, coaches with a fixed mindset about others growth-minded coaches may motivate players believe that players’ golfing ability is innate, by explaining how they can improve. In con- static, and unable to change. Importantly when trast, when coaches’ growth-mindset weakens, considering the role coaches play in women their feedback is likely to be comforting but not golfers’ motivation, coaches’ mindsets about conducive to learning or motivation (see Heslin, players’ ability is likely to be associated with Vandewalle, & Latham, 2006; Lee, 1996; Rat- the adaptiveness of their coaching—including tan et al., 2012). Coaches’ feedback can have the amount and type of feedback they give (see the power to influence recreational golfers’ mo- Heslin et al., 2008; Rattan, Good, & Dweck, tivation to persist with the game (Le Foll, 2012). Rascle, & Higgins, 2006, 2008).

Mindsets About Others’ Ability and Studies and Hypotheses Coaching Culture In this article we report on two studies that When considering the low participation of sought to examine (a) whether golf coaches’ women in golf, it is necessary to examine the mindsets about men and women golfers’ ability This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. environment during instructional classes were different, and whether these differences This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. (Satina, Solmon, Cothran, Loftus, & Stockin- correlated with the type of feedback coaches Davidson, 1998). Most importantly for this offered men versus women golfers, and (b) study, coaches’ mindset about others’ golf abil- whether golf coaches’ mindsets about men’s ity is likely to influence the coaching culture and women’s ability were malleable and open to they create. It is plausible that players can “de- change. We hypothesized that golf coaches tect” coaches’ mindset about their ability (Rat- would hold more of a growth mindset about tan et al., 2012; Reich & Arkin, 2006). As Reich men’s golf ability compared to women’s golf and Arkin (2006) have demonstrated, athletes ability. As golf coaches are exposed to cultural perceive the coaches’ mindset about their abil- biases and negative stereotypes about women ity, and this perception relates to their attribu- players (McGinnis et al., 2008; Reis & Correia, 4 SHAPCOTT AND CARR

2013), it was expected that this immersion from professional golf networks in the United would manifest itself in how coaches perceived Kingdom and the United States. An oversam- men and women golfers’ ability. We were also pling of women coaches was achieved by dis- interested in whether the coaches’ gender af- tributing the survey link to members of the fected how he or she perceived the ability of Ladies’ Professional Golfers’ Association. Par- women golfers. We hypothesized that women ticipants’ ages ranged from 21 to 71 years old coaches would hold more of a growth mindset and they had coached golf from 1 to 51 years. about their ability than men coaches. All participants identified as golf coaches and We also hypothesized that coaches’ mindset 88% were members of a professional golf about recreational golfers’ ability would corre- coaching association. late with and predict the type of feedback they would reportedly give when teaching. Similar Procedure findings have been made in educational (Lee, 1996; Maitland, 2001) and business settings University ethical approval was granted be- (Heslin et al., 2006), and we saw no reason why fore data collection and the approved protocol golf should be an exception to this trend. Spe- was followed throughout the study. Coaches cifically, as coaches became more growth- were initially contacted through golf profes- minded about others’ golf ability, we hypothe- sional e-mail and distribution lists, and commu- sized that their feedback would be more nication included a link via which participants adaptive (controllable), and less maladaptive could take part in the survey. Data were anon- (comforting). ymous and participant recruitment was not lim- Considering the expected cultural effects on ited in number during the recruitment period. golf coaches’ mindsets about men’s and women’s Participants first completed a self-report mea- golf ability, we saw value in testing the potential sure designed to assess their mindsets about malleability of coaches’ mindsets. We hypothe- men and women golfers’ ability. Subsequently, sized that growth mindsets about women’s golf they watched a video of either a man or woman ability could be fostered through an intervention golfer “swinging” and hitting a ball (the order in similar to other successful methods employed in which men or women golfers appeared was mindset research (Heslin et al., 2006; Steele & counterbalanced). Trackman (2013) data was Aronson, 1995; Thompson & Musket, 2005). By displayed so that coaches could see the players’ experimentally manipulating mindsets about ball flight characteristics. An expert golf coach women golfers’ ability coaches’ feedback would verified that the men and women golfers were continue to correlate with the feedback they re- matched for age, golf skill level, swing charac- portedly gave to golfers during lessons. teristics and ball flight characteristics. Partici- pants were then asked to think about the golfer Study 1 in the video and complete a feedback measure. Method Measures Mindsets. Mindset about athletic ability is In study one we sought to examine golf frequently measured with the CNAAQ and coaches’ mindsets about men and women’s golf CNAAQ-2 scales (Biddle, Wang, Chatzisaran- ability. We also explored the relationship be- tis, & Spray, 2003; Sarrazin et al., 1996). How- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. tween coaches’ mindsets about recreational ever, as Warburton and Spray (2017) have ob- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualgolfers user and is not to be disseminated broadly. and the feedback they would reportedly served, the measurement instrument used for give during instruction. The goal of study one athletic ability is an outlier in theories of ability was essentially to investigate if coaches had a research. The CNAAQ scales are based on gender bias in their mindset about golfers’ abil- Dweck’s conceptual framework of growth and ity and how that bias may relate to their instruc- fixed mindsets (Warburton & Spray, 2017). The tional feedback. CNAAQ scale was developed due to the weak Participants correlation between the fixed items of Dweck’s scale and a goal orientation variable. Therefore, One-hundred and ninety-seven golf coaches the CNAAQ scales were developed as alterna- were recruited (Men ϭ 103, Women ϭ 94,) tive measures to Dweck’s traditional scale due GOLF COACHES’ MINDSETS 5

to perceived invalidity of the items measuring good at golf.” A mean was calculated for each fixed mindsets (Li & Xiang, 2007). Despite the of the respective feedback subscales. The Cron- improvements and prolific use of the CNAAQ bach’s alpha (1951) for the comforting feedback scales in athletic research, the validity of the scale was ␣ϭ71 and ␣ϭ.62 for female and fixed mindset factor within the scale remains male golfers respectively. For the controllable problematic (Warburton & Spray, 2017). There- feedback scale, reliability was ␣ϭ.78 for fe- fore, this study was conducted with adapted male golfers and ␣ϭ.66 for male golfers. items from Dweck’s Theories of Ability Scale Participants also reported their age, years of (Dweck, 1999). The problematic fixed-mindset coaching experience and gender. subscale in an athletic context could be ad- dressed by using only the growth-minded items. Results The secondary argument for using Dweck’s scale to measure mindset about others’ golf A dependent sample t test found that golf ability is theoretical. Dweck’s research focuses coaches held a significantly stronger growth mindset about men golfers’ ability than women on the perception of a characteristic; be it intel- ϭ ϭ ϭ ligence, or athletic ability. The growth-minded golfers’ ability, t(196) 2.13, p .03, d .11. items of Dweck’s scale will measure such per- Nonsignificant mean differences by golfers’ ceptions. This measurement decision is sup- gender were found for controllable feedback, t(196) ϭ .11, p ϭ .91, d ϭ .00 and comforting ported by Li and Xiang (2007) who recom- ϭϪ ϭ ϭ mended that whichever scale is used to measure feedback, t(196) .24, p .81, d .02. See mindset, a scale’s validity and reliability can be Table 1 for descriptive statistics. To test the interactions between coaches’ increased by measuring ability of a specific ϫ sport, in this case golf, rather than general ath- mindset and feedback, we conducted a 2 2 letic ability. repeated measure ANOVA for both comforting The mindset scale consisted of four growth- and controllable feedback measures. Coaches’ minded items that suggested golf ability can mindset about men and women golfers’ ability improve (e.g., ‘No matter how much golf ability was one repeated measure variable, and feed- women have, they can always change it quite a back to men and women golfers was the other. bit’). Participants responded to each of the items We found a nonsignificant interaction between ϭ coaches’ mindset and comforting feedback, on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 strongly ϭ ϭ ␩2 ϭ disagree, 6 ϭ strongly agree). A high score F(1, 196) 2.45, p .12, .01, and a represented a stronger growth mindset and a nonsignificant interaction between coaches’ mindset and controllable feedback, F(1, 196) ϭ mean score was calculated for coaches’ mindset ϭ ␩2 ϭ about both men’s and women’s golf ability. 2.22, p .14, .01. Reliability for coaches’ mindset about male A bivariate Pearson correlation analysis iden- golfers’ ability was ␣ϭ.86, and ␣ϭ.74 for tified significant correlations between coaches’ female golfers’ ability. growth mindset about men and women’s golf Feedback. Coaches’ feedback to golfers ability and the type of feedback they would was measured with an adapted version of Rattan reportedly give during instruction. As coaches’ et al.’s (2012) feedback scale in ways that were growth mindsets about women’s golf ability appropriate for giving golf, rather than aca- demic feedback. The feedback scale consisted This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. of adaptive and maladaptive feedback items and Table 1 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. coaches indicated their level of endorsement Study 1: Means and Standard Deviations of with items on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 ϭ Dependent Variables strongly disagree, 6 ϭ strongly agree). Adap- Measure MSD tive items indicated that golfers had control over Mindset (M) 5.04 .90 their improvement, and maladaptive items fo- Mindset (W) 4.94 .93 cused on comforting, not empowering players Controllable (M) 5.60 .71 to improve their game. Respective controllable Controllable (W) 5.59 .71 and comforting items included, “Inform her that Comforting (M) 1.41 .57 she can improve her golf game with the right Comforting (W) 1.42 .69 plan,” and “Not to worry, not everyone can be Note. N ϭ 197. 6 SHAPCOTT AND CARR

increased, the controllable feedback measure cated that the predicting variables explained also increased, r ϭ .18, p Ͻ .01 and the com- 11% of variance F(3, 193) ϭ 8.90, p Ͻ .01, forting feedback decreased, r ϭϪ.22, p Ͻ .01. R2 ϭ .12, Adjusted R2 ϭ .11. Significant pre- A similar pattern was seen when considering dicting variables were coaches’ mindset (␤ϭ men golfers. As coaches’ growth mindset about Ϫ.26, p Ͻ .01, R2 ϭ .07, Adjusted R2 ϭ .07), men golfers’ ability increased, the controllable years of coaching experience (␤ϭϪ.16, p ϭ feedback measure increased, r ϭ .26, p Ͻ .01 .04, R2 ϭ .10, Adjusted R2 ϭ .09), and coaches’ and the comforting feedback measure de- gender (␤ϭϪ.15, p Ͻ .03, R2 ϭ .12, Adjusted creased, r ϭϪ.27, p Ͻ .01. See Table 2 for R2 ϭ .10). correlations between study variables. A one-way ANOVA examined how coaches’ Regression analyses were conducted to test if gender influenced their perceptions of women variables, other than mindset, predicted golfers. We found nonsignificant mean differ- coaches’ feedback. In all analyses, the depen- ences by coaches’ gender for mindset about dent variable was coaches’ feedback. The inde- women golfers’ ability, F(1, 195) ϭ 0.18, p ϭ pendent variables entered in the regression were .90, ␩2 ϭ .00, controllable feedback to women coaches’ mindset, coaches’ years of teaching, golfers, F(1, 195) ϭ 0.00, p ϭ .96, ␩2 ϭ .00, and coaches’ gender. and comforting feedback, F(1, 195) ϭ .32, p ϭ In the analysis for controllable-type feed- .57, ␩2 Ͻ .01. See Table 3 for descriptive sta- back to women golfers, the regression model tistics. predicted 3% of variance F(3, 193) ϭ 3.26, Lastly, we conducted a two-by-two mixed p ϭ .02, R2 ϭ .05, Adjusted R2 ϭ .03. Only coaches’ mindset was a significant predictor ANOVA for coaches’ mindset and both com- of controllable feedback (␤ϭ.18, p Ͻ .01, forting and controllable feedback measures. R2 ϭ .03, Adjusted R2 ϭ .03). For comforting Coaches’ gender was the between-subjects vari- feedback to women golfers, the regression able, and golfers’ gender was used as the with- model explained 4% of variance F(3, 193) ϭ in-subjects variable. Mindset and feedback-type 3.43, p ϭ .02, R2 ϭ .07, Adjusted R2 ϭ .04. were the dependent variables. We found a non- Coaches’ mindset was again the only signif- significant interaction between coaches’ gender icant predictor of comforting feedback to and the mindset measure for men and women 2 women golfers (␤ϭϪ.22, p Ͻ .01, R2 ϭ .05, golfers, F(1, 195) ϭ .09, p ϭ .76, ␩ ϭ .00. Adjusted R2 ϭ .04). Similarly, there was a nonsignificant interaction For controllable feedback to men golfers, the between coaches’ gender and comforting feed- regression model variables explained 7% of back for men and women golfers, F(1, 195) ϭ variance F(3, 193) ϭ 5.70, p Ͻ .01, R2 ϭ .08, 2.23, p ϭ .14, ␩2 ϭ .01, and there was a Adjusted R2 ϭ .07. Coaches’ mindset (␤ϭ.26, nonsignificant interaction between coaches’ p Ͻ .01, R2 ϭ .06, Adjusted R2 ϭ .06) was the gender and controllable feedback for men and only significant predictor. For comforting feed- women golfers, F(1, 195) ϭ 1.96, p ϭ .16, ␩2 ϭ back to men golfers, the regression model indi- .01.

Table 2 Study One: Bivariate Correlation Analysis of Variables This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not toMeasure be disseminated broadly. 1 2345678 1. Mindset (M) — — ءءMindset (F) .75 .2 — ءء23. ءءControl (M) .26 .3 — ءء55. ء18. ءControl (W) .18 .4 — ءءϪ.27 ءءϪ.30 ءϪ.18 ءءComfort (M) Ϫ.27 .5 — ءء51. ءءϪ.01 Ϫ.47 ءءComfort (W) Ϫ.05 Ϫ.22 .6 — Ϫ.02 ءYrs. coaching .05 Ϫ.12 .01 .10 Ϫ.18 .7 — ءϪ.04 .16 ءCoach gender Ϫ.03 .11 .11 .00 Ϫ.17 .8 Note. N ϭ 197. .indicates significant difference p Ͻ .01 ءء .indicates significant difference p Ͻ .05 ء GOLF COACHES’ MINDSETS 7

Table 3 mindset was a significant predictor of both con- Study 1: Means and Standard Deviations for trollable and comforting feedback. Mindset was Mindset About Women Golfers’ Ability and the only significant predictor of both types of Feedback by Coaches’ Gender feedback to women players. Although coaches’ Female mindset was the only significant predictor of Male coaches coaches controllable feedback to men golfers, other vari- ables—years of coaching experience and gen- Measure MSDMSD der—also explained a significant amount of Mindset (W) 4.94 .93 4.93 .94 variance of comforting feedback to men play- Controllable (W) 5.60 .66 5.60 .75 ers. Arguably, this suggests that mindset is less Comforting (W) 1.45 .63 1.39 .75 critical for adaptive feedback to men golfers as Note. N ϭ 197. it is to women golfers. An oversampling of women golf coaches in study one allowed for an examination of women Discussion coaches’ mindsets about golf ability. Coaches’ gender was not a main effect for their mindset, Study 1 identified a gender difference in or the type of feedback coaches give to men and coaches’ mindsets about players’ golf ability women golfers. that has not yet been reported in other sports domains. However, these findings do align with Study 2 other researchers who have reported that when intelligence is considered a male trait, girls’ Method intelligence is perceived as less malleable than boys’ intelligence (Verniers & Martinot, 2015). Study 1 indicated that coaches’ have a gender This suggests that golf coaches’ gender bias bias in their mindsets about others’ golf ability, reflects cultural stereotypes in the environment and that coaches’ mindsets predicted the type of (See Plaks, Stroessner, Dweck, & Sherman, feedback they gave during instruction. Accord- 2001; Verniers & Martinot, 2015). Still, ingly, the aim of study two was to apply a coaches’ personal beliefs about women golfers’ quasi-experimental approach to manipulating ability and cultural stereotypes might only align coaches’ mindsets about women golfers’ abil- with each other with conscious awareness ity. Furthermore, in addition to testing the mal- (Devine & Elliot, 1995) suggesting that coaches leability of coaches’ mindsets about women are in some way motivated to perpetuate a gen- golfers’ ability, study two had two other aims: der bias in golf (See Neel, Kenrick, White, & First, after manipulating coaches’ mindsets Neuberg, 2016). about women golfers’ ability did the correlation Coaches’ mindset about players’ golf ability with feedback to women golfers remain. Sec- is important because it predicts behavior (see ond, even if coaches’ mindset about women Heslin et al., 2006; Lee, 1996; Maitland, 2001; golfers’ ability could be manipulated in the Rattan et al., 2012). A strength of study one was short-term, we sought to understand the longer- that the relationship identified between coaches’ term effects of a simple intervention. mindset about players’ golf ability and their Participants. Participants in study two feedback replicates findings in other domains were recruited from professional golfers’ net- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. (Rattan et al., 2012). This suggests that mind- works over a month-long period. Study 2 par- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. sets of coaches or teachers may be critical fac- ticipants had not participated in study one and tors for influencing students’ self-efficacy, attri- all were over 18 years old. The study consisted butions, performance, and motivation (Chase, of two stages. One-hundred and 25 coaches 2010; Le Foll et al., 2008). participated in stage one (Men ϭ 85, Women ϭ Considering the influence of coaching feed- 39, unknown ϭ 1). Their ages ranged from 20 back on player motivation (García et al., 2019), to 70 years old (M ϭ 45.22, SD ϭ 12.94) and and persistence (Moles, Auerbach, & Petrie, they had coached golf from between 1 to 52 2017), study one questioned if other coach- years. Fifty-six percent of participants belonged related variables, other than mindset, predicted to a professional golfers’ association. Seventy- feedback. For both men and women golfers, four coaches participated in stage two of the 8 SHAPCOTT AND CARR

study (Men ϭ 53, Women ϭ 21). Their ages Hogan was famously called ‘graceless’ and ‘un- ranged from 20 to 70 years old (M ϭ 46.76, coordinated’ as a child. Yet with a strong work SD ϭ 13.59) and 58% belonged to a profes- ethic and an understanding of his golf swing, his sional golfers’ association. golf ability improved, and he became one of An a priori power analysis indicated that we golf’s greatest champions.” This text was fol- needed 45 subjects in each condition to have lowed by three misconceptions about golf abil- 80% power for detecting a medium sized effect ity. One example used was, “Some people just for a .05 criterion of statistical significance aren’t cut out for golf.” The case study in this (Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996). This anal- condition featured a nongendered golfer who ysis suggests that although the sample size for discussed improvement made over a year. stage one of study two was enough, the attrition After reading the respective texts, all coaches of participants meant stage two was slightly viewed a photograph of the recreational woman underpowered. golfer used in study one’s video and were asked Measures. As in Study 1, an adapted ver- to imagine she was their student. They then sion of Dweck’s Theories of Others’ Ability completed the feedback scale and the mindset Scale (Dweck, 1999) was used to measure about women golfers’ ability measure. After coaches’ mindset about women golfers’ ability. completing the surveys, coaches were asked to Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) volunteer for stage two of the study. for stage one data was ␣ϭ.86, and for stage Stage two participants were contacted 14 two it was ␣ϭ.90. Coaches’ feedback to golf- days after they completed stage one. In the ers was again measured with an adapted version second stage, coaches completed Dweck’s of Rattan et al.’s feedback scale (2012). The (1999) adapted scale to measure their mindset ‘Controllable’ items reported ␣ϭ.71, and about women golfers’ ability. A chi-square ‘Comforting’ items reported ␣ϭ.61. goodness-of-fit test was conducted to evaluate if Procedure. University ethical approval coaches assigned to the manipulation condition was again granted before collecting data, and in stage one were more likely to participate in the approved protocol was followed throughout. stage two than coaches assigned to the control All communication with participants was con- condition. The likelihood of participating in the ducted electronically. Qualtrics software (Qual- second stage of the study was not significantly trics, 2009) was used to distribute the survey associated with the condition assignment in link to golf coaches and assign participants ran- stage one, ␹2 ϭ 2.36, p ϭ .13. domly to either a control condition or a mindset Manipulation check. After reading the re- manipulation condition. spective texts in stage one of study two, coaches Coaches in the control condition read a ge- were asked to write a sentence describing an neric passage about ball flight analysis. For ex- overview of the information. Three participants ample, “The ball flight of all players, regardless assigned to the golf ability condition were elim- of their ability level, can be analyzed with im- inated from the analysis. pact factors. In Wiren’s coaching model (Wiren, Results. The results of the 2 ϫ 2 mixed 1990), there are five impact factors. If coaches ANOVA showed that there was a significant understand impact factors, they can analyze all main effect by condition F(1, 72) ϭ 5.56, p ϭ players’ ball flights.” Coaches then read three .02, ␩2 ϭ .07 on coaches’ mindset about women misconceptions in analyzing ball flight such as, golfers’ ability. Coaches in the mindset manip- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. “To make the ball go up, you need to hit down.” ulation condition reported a significantly more This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. The material used in the control condition was growth mindset about women golfers’ ability consistent with industry training material (Pro- than coaches in the control condition. There was fessional Golfers’ Association of GB&I, 2013). no significant main effect by time on coaches’ The technical information was followed by a mindset about women golfers’ ability, F(1, case study of a teaching professional’s under- 72) ϭ 2.29, p ϭ .13, ␩2 Ͻ .03. See Table 4 for standing of ball flight analysis. descriptive statistics. This suggests that coaches Coaches in the mindset manipulation condi- reported statistically similar mindsets about tion read a passage about how golf ability can women golfers’ ability immediately following improve. For example, “Even golfers who even- the intervention as 14-days after the interven- tually become great, do not start that way. Ben tion. In addition, there was no significant inter- GOLF COACHES’ MINDSETS 9

Table 4 between coaches’ mindset about golfers’ ability Study 2: Descriptive Statistics of Mindsets About and their feedback. Women Golfers’ Ability by Condition and Time

Time 1 Time 2 General Discussion Condition N M SD N M SD If golf participation is to achieve parity Control 57 5.12 .67 39 5.05 .67 through instructional initiatives, the golf indus- Manipulation 66 5.37 .66 35 5.34 .73 try may benefit from addressing coaches’ biases in relation to men and women golfers’ ability. The gender differences in mindset reported by action found between time and condition F(1, coaches may be influenced by stereotypes and 72) ϭ .12, p ϭ .73, ␩2 ϭ .00. See Table 4 for cultural biases that are inherent in the golf in- descriptive statistics of coaches’ mindset about dustry (see Verniers & Martinot, 2015). As women golfers’ ability. Todd, Simpson, Thiem, and Neel (2016) sug- A one-way ANOVA to test mean differences gest, automatic general stereotyping occurs in feedback given to women golfers by condi- when ‘traits’ are associated with stereotypes— tion found a significant difference between con- and as seen in this study, they may influence dition for controllable feedback, F(1, 122) ϭ performance expectations. Gender stereotyping 7.90, p Ͻ .01, ␩2 ϭ .06, but not for comforting and biases demonstrated by golf coaches may feedback, F(1, 122) ϭ .82, p ϭ .36, ␩2 ϭ .00. also be described as a social motive (Neel et al., See Table 5 for descriptive statistics. 2016) that coaches employ to conform to the At stage one, a partial correlation analysis male-dominated structure of golf. tested the relationship between coaches’ mind- Although we provide theoretical explanations set about women golfers’ ability and feedback. of coaches’ biased mindsets, further exploration We controlled for years’ coaching experience is required. However, it is likely the bias has and coaches’ gender. As coaches’ mindset effects on women’s golf experience. As in other about women golf ability increased, controlla- domains, it is plausible golfers can detect ble feedback increased, r ϭ .43, p Ͻ .01 and whether coaches perceive their ability as some- comforting feedback decreased (r ϭϪ.19, p ϭ thing that can be developed or not (Rattan et al., .04. 2012; Reich & Arkin, 2006). This study contributes two important findings Discussion to the field of mindset research. First, we reinforce research by Rattan et al. (2012) who suggest that Study two demonstrated that through online a gender-neutral intervention can manipulate training methods, coaches’ mindset about coaches’ mindsets about a specific group. We women golfers’ ability can be manipulated. In suggest that interventions designed to promote this quasi-experimental study, coaches ran- growth mindsets about specific people do not need domly assigned to a mindset condition reported to focus on the ability of a stereotyped group. significantly more growth mindsets about Instead, a general growth mindset intervention women golfers’ ability than coaches assigned to may effectively reduce bias. Second, this study the control condition. Furthermore, the effects replicates research establishing a relationship be- endured after a 2-week period. In addition, tween mindsets of others and feedback (Rattan et This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. study two further establishes the relationship al., 2012). In addition, it presents a different ap- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 5 Study 2: Descriptive Statistics of Mean Scores for Coaches’ Feedback by Condition

Controllable feedback Comforting feedback Condition N M SD N M SD Control 57 4.83 .51 57 2.08 .69 Manipulation 66 5.08 .50 66 1.97 .64 10 SHAPCOTT AND CARR

proach to data analysis by using within-subjects tivational characteristics. Further research is repeated measures ANOVA’s to capture interac- needed to explore this possibility. tions between coaches’ mindset about men and Limitations should also be noted when inter- women golfers, and respective feedback. preting our results. For example, although It should be noted that although study two sug- coaches’ mindsets related to their feedback, a gen- gests that coaches’ mindset about women golfers’ der difference was not seen in the feedback mea- ability can be manipulated, it is unrealistic to ex- sure. Furthermore, we have assumed that coaches’ pect that a single, brief intervention could have an mindsets about women golfers’ ability and their enduring effect much beyond the immediate time- feedback will influence women players’ long-term frame. As described in other studies, “...the motivation to play golf (Le Foll et al., 2008). To highest point of effectiveness of training is usually validate this, it would be useful to analyze golf achieved immediately after the intervention; much coaches’ feedback when instructing women golf- like the half-life of medicine that has immediate ers, and to track the longer-term motivation of the effect, then a tapering, longer-lasting but less val- women golfers they teach (see Heslin et al., 2006). ued impact” (Rands, 2007, p. 40). Similar dimin- In addition, this study focuses specifically on how ishing effects have been reported in mindset inter- golf coaches perceive adult recreational women ventions (Orosz, Péter-Szarka, BЉothe, Toˇth- golfers’ ability and the findings cannot be extrap- Király, & Berger, 2017), including Brainology olated to elite women, or girl golfers’ ability. (Mindset Works Inc., 2008). Future research should examine how golf One surprising finding in this study is that coaches’ mindsets about golfers’ ability impact coaches’ gender did not affect their mindsets golfers’ sense of belonging. As seen in other do- about women golfers. This finding is of rele- mains (Good et al., 2012; Schmidt, Shumow, & vance to the golf industry who recommend, as Kackar-Cam, 2017), when the culture is perceived part of a larger strategy to increase women’s as growth-minded, women have an increased participation, an increase in the number of sense of belonging and retention in that activity. women coaches (Professional Golfers’ Associ- Should this relationship be established in golf, developing coaches’ growth mindsets about oth- ation of America, 2019). Although this is, no ers’ ability may be a critical key for increasing doubt, a positive initiative (see Mutter & Paw- women golfer participation and their access to lowski, 2014), our findings suggest that all golf’s powerful benefits. coaches—men and women—could benefit from training that cultivates a growth mindset about the players they teach. In a broader sense, this study also connects to References recent calls to explore the utility of motivational Beditz, J. (2006, October). Retention rate in golf. theory in relation to social justice (see Carr, 2015). Presented at Golf 2020 Convention, St. Augustine, The study highlighted how theories, such as FL. growth mindset, can be used as a language Biddle, S. J., Wang, C. K., Chatzisarantis, N. L., & through which discriminatory gender practices Spray, C. M. (2003). Motivation for physical ac- might be understood and expressed in psycholog- tivity in young people: Entity and incremental be- liefs about athletic ability. Journal of Sports Sci- ical terms. Critical psychologists (see Carr, 2015) ences, 21, 973–989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ have begun to explore the ways in which ideas 02640410310001641377 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. from motivational theory might help us to under- Bronstein, C., & Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2015). Preparing This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualstand user and is not to be disseminated broadly. how certain groups of people can be moti- tomorrow’s leaders. Journalism & Mass Commu- vationally oppressed by disproportionately inter- nication Educator, 70, 75–88. http://dx.doi.org/10 nalizing certain disadvantageous motivational .1177/1077695814566199 characteristics. Furthermore, it may be that the Carr, S. (2015). Motivation, Educational Policy, and social and contextual environment plays a role in Achievement: A Critical Perspective. Abingdon, constructing these motivational disadvantages. In Oxon: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315777245 this article, the possibility exists that golf coaching Chase, M. A. (2010). Should coaches believe in practices may be discriminatory in a motivational innate ability? The importance of leadership im- sense. However, it remains to be seen whether this plicit theories. Quest, 62, 296–307. http://dx.doi would directly translate into women golfers’ mo- .org/10.1080/00336297.2010.10483650 GOLF COACHES’ MINDSETS 11

Chen, L. H., Chen, M. Y., Lin, M. S., Kee, Y. H., Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why Kuo, C. F., & Shui, S. H. (2008). Implicit theory of do women opt out? Sense of belonging and wom- athletic ability and self-handicapping in college en’s representation in mathematics. Journal of students. Psychological Reports, 103, 476–484. Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 700–717. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.103.6.476-484 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026659 Coffee, P., & Rees, T. (2009). The main and inter- Heslin, P. A., & Vandewalle, D. (2008). Managers’ active effects of immediate and reflective attribu- implicit assumptions about personnel. Current tions upon subsequent self-efficacy. European Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 219– Journal of Sport Science, 9, 41–52. http://dx.doi 223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008 .org/10.1080/17461390802594227 .00578.x Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alphas and the Heslin, P. A., & Vandewalle, D. (2011). Performance internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297– appraisal procedural justice: The role of manager’s 334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 implicit person theory. Journal of Management, Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial 37, 1694–1718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920 stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy 6309342895 revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- Heslin, P. A., Vandewalle, D., & Latham, G. P. letin, 21, 1139–1150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ (2006). Keen to Help? Managers’ implicit person 01461672952111002 theories and their subsequent employee coaching. DiMeglio, S. (2015, March 3). Donald Trump brings Personnel Psychology, 59, 871–902. http://dx.doi new life to the world of golf. USA Today. Retrieved .org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00057.x from http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2015/ Hideg, I., & Ferris, D. L. (2016). The compassionate 03/03/donald-trump-national-doral-miami-wgc/24 sexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and un- 322605/ dermines gender equality in the workplace. Jour- Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self Theories: Their role in nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, motivation, personality, and development. Hove, 706–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000072 Hui, C. M., Bond, M. H., & Molden, D. C. (2012). England: Psychology Press. Why do(n’t) your partner’s efforts at self- Dweck, C. S. (2007). Self-theories:The implicit the- improvement make you happy? An implicit theo- ories of a champion. In T. Morris, P. Terry, & S. ries perspective. Personality and Social Psychol- Gordon (Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology: In- ogy Bulletin, 38, 101–113. http://dx.doi.org/10 ternational perspectives (pp. 15–20). Morgan- .1177/0146167211420734 town, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Hundley, H. L. (2004). Keeping the score: The he- Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social gemonic everyday practices in golf. Communica- cognitive approach to motivation and personality. tion Reports, 17, 39–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. http://dx.doi 08934210409389372 .org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 International Golf Federation. (2013). International Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). Golf Coaching Framework. International Council GPOWER: A general power analysis program. for Coaching Excellence, the Association of Sum- Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & mer Olympic International Federations, and Leeds Computers, 28, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/ Metropolitan University. Retrieved from http:// BF03203630 igfederation.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/ Farahmand, B., Broman, G., de Faire, U., Vågerö, D., 2016/06/International-Golf-Coaching-Framework.pdf & Ahlbom, A. (2009). Golf: A game of life and International Golf Federation. (2017). Development death—Reduced mortality in Swedish golf play- and sport for all. Retrieved from https://www ers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science .igfgolf.org/about-igf/sport-for-all-development/ in Sports, 19, 419–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ Job, V., Walton, G. M., Bernecker, K., & Dweck, C. S. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. j.1600-0838.2008.00814.x (2015). Implicit theories about willpower predict This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualGao, user and is not to be disseminated broadly. K. L., Hui-Chan, C. W. Y., & Tsang, W. W. N. self-regulation and grades in everyday life. Journal of (2011). Golfers have better balance control and Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 637–647. confidence than healthy controls. European Jour- http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000014 nal of Applied Physiology, 111, 2805–2812. http:// Jowett, S., & Felton, L. (2013). The role of psycho- dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-1910-7 logical factors in recreational sport participation. García, J. A., Carcedo, R. J., & Castaño, J. L. (2019). Report for Sports Coach UK. Retrieved from http:// The influence of feedback on competence, motiva- www.sportscoachuk.org/sites/default/files/The%20 tion, vitality, and performance in a throwing task. Role%20of%20Psychological%20Factors%20in% Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 90, 20Recreational%20Sport%20Participation.pdf 172–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367 Khalkhali, V. (2012). Task difficulty, self-handicap- .2019.1571677 ping and performance: A study of implicit theories 12 SHAPCOTT AND CARR

of ability. International Online Journal of Educa- PLoS ONE, 7(6), e38680. http://dx.doi.org/10 tional Sciences, 4, 592–601. .1371/journal.pone.0038680 Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Mindset Works Inc. (2008). Brainology. Retrieved No- Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations to- vember 11, 2017 from https://www.mindsetworks ward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and .com/default Social Psychology Review, 7, 41–55. http://dx.doi Moles, T. A., Auerbach, A. D., & Petrie, T. A. .org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0701_3 (2017). Grit happens: Moderating effects on moti- Kyle, G., & Chick, G. (2004). Enduring leisure in- vational feedback and sport performance. Journal volvement: The importance of personal relation- of Applied Sport Psychology, 29, 418–433. http:// ships. Leisure Studies, 23, 243–266. http://dx.doi dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2017.1306729 .org/10.1080/0261436042000251996 Morgan, L. A., & Martin, K. A. (2006). Taking Lee, K. (1996). A study of teacher responses based women professionals out of the office: The case of on their conceptions of intelligence. Journal of women in sales. Gender & Society, 20, 108–128. Classroom Interaction, 31, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243205283107 Le Foll, N., Rascle, D., & Higgins, O. C. (2008). Murray, A. D., Daines, L., Archibald, D., Hawkes, Attributional feedback-induced changes in func- R. A., Schiphorst, C., Kelly, P.,...Mutrie, N. tional and dysfunctional attributions, expectations (2017). The relationships between golf and health: of success, hopefulness, and short-term persistence A scoping review. British Journal of Sports Med- in a novel sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, icine, 51, 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ 9, 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport bjsports-2016-096625 .2007.01.004 Mutter, F., & Pawlowski, T. (2014). Role models in Le Foll, N., Rascle, D., & Higgins, N. C. (2006). sports—Can success in professional sports in- Persistence in a putting task during perceived fail- crease the demand for amateur sport participation? ure: Influence of state attribution and attribution Sport Management Review, 17, 324–336. http://dx style. Applied Psychology, 55, 586–605. http://dx .doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.07.003 .doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00249.x Myers, S. L., Jr., & Fealing, K. H. (2012). Changes in Li, W., & Xiang, P. (2007). Ability conceptions in the representation of women and minorities in bio- physical education: Some measurement consider- medical careers. Academic Medicine, 87, 1525–1529. ations. Quest, 59, 358–372. http://dx.doi.org/10 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31826d7189 .1080/00336297.2007.10483558 National Golf Foundation. (2014). Golf industry Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2014). Implicit theories of overview 2014. Jupiter, FL: National Golf Foun- writing and their impact on students’ response to a dation Member Resources. SRSD intervention. British Journal of Educational National Golf Foundation. (2017). Golf participation Psychology, 84, 571–590. http://dx.doi.org/10 in the United States. Jupiter, FL: National Golf .1111/bjep.12042 Foundation Member Resources. Maitland, L. (2001). The relationship between con- Neel, R., Kenrick, D. T., White, A. E., & Neuberg, cept of intelligence and teacher goals. In J. Higgins S. L. (2016). Individual differences in fundamental et al. (Eds.), 2001: A developmental odyssey (pp. social motives. Journal of Personality and Social 87–103). Boone, NC: National Association of De- Psychology, 110, 887–907. http://dx.doi.org/10 velopmental Education. Retrieved from http:// .1037/pspp0000068 www.nade.net/site/documents/publications/monograph/ Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Mono%2001/monograph01.pdf Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task McGinnis, L., Gentry, J. W., & McQuillan, J. (2008). choice, and performance. Psychological Review, Ritual-based behavior that reinforces hegemonic 91, 328–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X masculinity in golf: Variations in women golfers’ .91.3.328 responses. Leisure Sciences, 31, 19–36. http://dx Nickerson, E. (1987). Golf: A women’s history. Jef- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. .doi.org/10.1080/01490400802557915 ferson, NC: McFarland & Company. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualMcGinnis, user and is not to be disseminated broadly. L., McQuillan, J., & Chapple, C. (2005). North, J. (2007). Increasing participation in sport: The I just want to play golf: Women, sexism and per- role of the coach. Report Briefing for Sports Coach sistence in golf. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, U.K. Retrieved from https://www.sportscoachuk.org/ 29, 313–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019372350 sites/default/files/Coaching%20and%20participation 4272659 .pdf Michigan State University. (2015). Merging golf and Novell, C. A., Machleit, K. A., & Sojka, J. Z. (2016). business. Retrieved from https://uas.broad.msu.edu/ Are good salespeople born or made? A new per- 2015/03/31/merging-golf-business/ spective on an age-old question: Implicit theories Miller, E. M., Walton, G. M., Dweck, C. S., Job, V., of selling ability. Journal of Personal Selling & Trzesniewski, K. H., & McClure, S. M. (2012). Sales Management, 36, 309–320. http://dx.doi.org/ Theories of willpower affect sustained learning. 10.1080/08853134.2016.1214594 GOLF COACHES’ MINDSETS 13

Ommundsen, Y. (2001). Self-handicapping strategies Reich, D. A., & Arkin, R. M. (2006). Self-doubt, in physical education classes: The influence of attributions, and the perceived implicit theories of implicit theories or the nature of ability and others. Self and Identity, 5, 89–109. http://dx.doi achievement goal orientations. Psychology of .org/10.1080/15298860500441965 Sport and Exercise, 2, 139–156. http://dx.doi.org/ Reis, H., & Correia, A. (2013). Gender asymmetries 10.1016/S1469-0292(00)00019-4 in golf participation. Journal of Hospitality Mar- Orosz, G., Péter-Szarka, S., B˝othe, B., Toˇth-Király, keting & Management, 22, 67–91. http://dx.doi I., & Berger, R. (2017). How not to do a mindset .org/10.1080/19368623.2012.686149 intervention: Learning from a mindset intervention Sarrazin, P., Biddle, S., Famose, J. P., Cury, F., Fox, among students with good grades. Frontiers in K., & Durand, M. (1996). Goal orientations and Psychology, 8, 311. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ conceptions of the nature of sport ability in chil- fpsyg.2017.00311 dren: A social cognitive approach. British Journal Parkkari, J., Natri, A., Kannus, P., Mänttäri, A., of Social Psychology, 35, 399–414. http://dx.doi Laukkanen, R., Haapasalo, H.,...Vuori, I. (2000). .org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01104.x A controlled trial of the health benefits of regular Satina, B., Solmon, M. A., Cothran, D. J., Loftus, walking on a golf course. The American Journal of S. J., & Stockin-Davidson, K. (1998). Patriarchal Medicine, 109, 102–108. http://dx.doi.org/10 consciousness: Middle school students’ and teach- .1016/S0002-9343(00)00455-1 ers’ perspectives of motivational practices, sport. Pennington, B. (2011, August 22). ON PAR; How to Education and Society, 3, 181–200. take lessons in the winter (or in secret). New York Schmidt, J. A., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. Z. Times. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/ (2017). Does mindset intervention predict stu- gst/fullpage.html?resϭ9404EFDE1638F931A157 dents’ daily experience in classrooms? A compar- 5BC0A9679D8B63 ison of seventh and ninth graders’ trajectories. Plaks, J. E., Stroessner, S. J., Dweck, C. S., & Sher- Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 582–602. man, J. W. (2001). Person theories and attention http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0489-z allocation: Preferences for stereotypic versus Schroder, H. S., Dawood, S., Yalch, M., Donnellan, counterstereotypic information. Journal of Person- M. B., & Moser, J. S. (2015). The role of implicit ality and Social Psychology, 80, 876–893. http:// theories in mental health symptoms, emotion reg- dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.876 ulation, and hypothetical treatment choices in col- Pomfret, R., & Wilson, J. K. (2011). The peculiar lege students. Cognitive Therapy and Research, economics of government policy towards sport. 39, 120–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608- Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 014-9652-6 18, 85–98. Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attribu- Professional Golfers’ Association of America. tional feedback: Differential effects on self- (2014). 6 reasons why golf is good for business. efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Retrieved from http://www.pga.com/play-golf- Psychology, 75, 848–856. http://dx.doi.org/10 america/new-golfer/golf-good-business .1037/0022-0663.75.6.848 Professional Golfers’ Association of America. (2019). Shapcott, S. (2010). Sub-par attributions: Why PGA of America’s commitment to diversity and in- women quit golf. Unpublished manuscript. Depart- clusion. Retrieved from https://www.pga.org/articles/ ment of Education, Arizona State University, pga-americas-commitment-diversity-inclusion Tempe, AZ. Professional Golfers’ Association of GB&I. (2013). Shapcott, S. (2011, July 13). British Open: ‘No dogs, Foundation degree in professional golf study no women’ sign gone at Royal St George’s, but guides, 1, 2. Birmingham, England: Author. discrimination still in play. New York Daily News. Purdue University. (2016). Kannert Business Shields, A., Brawley, L. R., & Lindover, T. I. (2006). School. Retrieved from http://www.krannert Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship be- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. .purdue.edu/undergraduate/current-students/gen/ tween causal attributions and exercise behavior. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notFree_electives.pdf to be disseminated broadly. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2785– Qualtrics. (2009). Qualtrics (version 12,018). Provo, 2802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006 UT: Author. .00128.x Rands, A. (2007). Extending the half-life of training. Siegenthaler, K. L., & O’Dell, I. (2003). Older golf- Training Journal, 40–43. ers: Serious leisure and successful aging. World Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’s Leisure Journal, 45, 45–52. http://dx.doi.org/10 OK—Not everyone can be good at math”: Instruc- .1080/04419057.2003.9674304 tors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) Sport, B. B. C. (2014, October 25). Former PGA boss students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- Ted Bishop apologies for Ian Poulter tweet. BBC ogy, 48, 731–737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/sport/ .2011.12.012 golf/29771575 14 SHAPCOTT AND CARR

Sport, B. B. C. (2014a, September 19). Royal and women in landmark randomized cardiovascular Ancient Golf Club votes to accept women mem- trials: An epiphenomenon of enrolment age? Jour- bers. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc nal of the American College of Cardiology, 57, .com/sport/golf/29246741 1164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(11) Sport, B. B. C. (2016, July 2). Royal Troon: Open 61164-9 Championship venue votes to allow women mem- Verniers, C., & Martinot, D. (2015). Perception of bers. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc students’ intelligence malleability and potential for .com/sport/golf/36691479 future success: Unfavourable beliefs towards girls. Sport, B. B. C. (2016a, May 19). Muirfield to lose right British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, to host Open after vote against allowing women 289–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12073 members. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www Walker, N. A., & Bopp, T. (2010). The Underrepre- .bbc.com/sport/golf/36331270 sentation of women in the male-dominated sport Sport England. (2014). Active People Survey 7. Re- workplace: Perspectives of female coaches. Jour- trieved from https://activepeople.sportengland.org/ nal of Workplace Rights, 15, 47–64. http://dx.doi Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat .org/10.2190/WR.15.1.d and the intellectual test performance of African Wallace, J. E., & Kay, F. M. (2012). Tokenism, Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- organizational segregation, and coworker relations chology, 69, 797–811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ in law firms. Social Problems, 59, 389–410. http:// 0022-3514.69.5.797 dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.2012.59.3.389 Stempel, C. (2006). Gender, social class, and the Wang, C. K., Liu, W. C., Lochbaum, M. R., & sporting capital-economic capital nexus. Sociology Stevenson, S. J. (2009). Sport ability beliefs, 2 ϫ of Sport Journal, 23, 273–292. http://dx.doi.org/10 2 achievement goals, and intrinsic motivation: The .1123/ssj.23.3.273 moderating role of perceived competence in sport Stenling, A., Hassmén, P., & Holmström, S. (2014). and exercise. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Implicit beliefs of ability, approach-avoidance Sport, 80, 303–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ goals and cognitive anxiety among team sport ath- 02701367.2009.10599565 letes. European Journal of Sport Science, 14, 720– Warburton, V., & Spray, C. (2013). Antecedents of 729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014 approach-avoidance achievement goal adoption: An .901419 analysis of two physical education activities. Euro- Stenner, B. J., Mosewich, A. D., & Buckley, J. D. pean Physical Education Review, 19, 215–231. (2016). An exploratory investigation into the reasons http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356336X13486055 why older people play golf. Qualitative Research in Warburton, V., & Spray, C. (2017). Implicit theories Sport, Exercise and Health, 8, 257–272. http://dx.doi of ability in physical education: Current issues and .org/10.1080/2159676X.2016.1148773 future directions. Human Kinetics Journal, 36, Stoeber, J., & Becker, C. (2008). Perfectionism, 252–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017- achievement motives, and attribution of success 0043 and failure in female soccer players. International Wiren, G. (1990). PGA (of America) teaching man- Journal of Psychology, 43, 980–987. http://dx.doi ual: The art and science of golf instruction. Jupi- .org/10.1080/00207590701403850 ter, FL: PGA of America. Syngenta. (2014). Growing golf in the U.K. Cam- Yeager, D. S., Johnson, R., Spitzer, B. J., Trzesni- bridge, England. Retrieved from https://www ewski, K. H., Powers, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2014). .greencast.co.uk/female-participation-opportunity- The far-reaching effects of believing people can grow-golf change: Implicit theories of personality shape Thompson, T., & Musket, S. (2005). Does priming stress, health, and achievement during adoles- for mastery goals improve the performance of stu- cence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- dents with an entity view of ability? British Jour- ogy, 106,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 867–884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ nal of Educational Psychology, 75, 391–409. a0036335 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709904X22700 Zunzer, S. C., von Duvillard, S. P., Tschakert, G., Todd, A. R., Simpson, A. J., Thiem, K. C., & Neel, Mangus, B., & Hofmann, P. (2013). Energy ex- R. (2016). The generalization of implicit racial penditure and sex differences of golf playing. bias to young black boys: Automatic stereotyping Journal of Sports Sciences, 31, 1045–1053. http:// or automatic prejudice? Social Cognition, 34, 306– dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.764465 323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2016.34.4.306 Trackman. (2013). Trackman golf. Vedbæk, Den- mark: Author. Received February 26, 2019 Tsang, W., Wijeysundera, H. C., Alter, D. A., Zhang, Revision received May 12, 2019 T., & Ko, D. T. (2011). Underrepresentation of Accepted June 16, 2019 Ⅲ