A few weeks ago Golf Digest ran a cover story entitled "Why Women Putt Worse Than Men."

I was actually afraid to read the article given that it sounded like I was about to delve into a golf-themed version of then Harvard President Larry Summers's 2005 speech in which he asserted that one of the main reasons men outnumber women in science and math fields is because there is a "different availability of aptitude at the high end" among the sexes. In a nutshell, Summers argued in his infamous speech that there are simply more men than women at the top end of the math and science talent pool. Thus, men are more likely to be tapped to fill big-time math and science jobs.

As I dug into the Golf Digest article, I braced myself for the Summers type logic, but I was pleasantly surprised that it was nowhere to be found. Yes, the argument was clear that men are better putters than women - at both the professional and amateur level - but a majority of the reasons used to explain this difference were not grounded in innate ability. Rather, the factors that separate men from women on the putting green seem to be surprisingly similar to the situational factors that explain a good deal of the gap in the math and science world.

One factor brought up in the Golf Digest article was practice. Just as focused practice is needed to reach the elite levels in music or chess (think Gladwell and his description of psychologist Anders Ericsson's 10,000 hour rule), practice on the green is needed to make a great putter. Simply put, for a variety of reasons, boys tend to practice their putting more, and more so from an earlier age, than girls.

The idea that practice explains some of the gender difference in putting seems quite close to the role of practice in math and science. As it happens, activities like playing with Legos, putting puzzles together, exploring one's surroundings, and even playing video games can help kids develop math and spatial skills, but there are differences between the sexes in who engages in this type of play. A majority of the Legos sold in the U.S. each year are intended for boys. And, young boys are also usually allowed to navigate farther from home than girls, giving them more freedom to explore their surroundings and develop spatial skills relative to girls.

A second factor brought up in the Golf Digest article was instruction. It seems that access to quality short-game instruction is not only limited for junior girls, but LPGA players as well. While the average PGA Tour player can have his choice of teachers, most LPGA players don't have the funds to support this luxury.

This notion of gender inequality in instruction is seen in the math and science world too. Take the math talent identification programs started several decades ago. In the 1980's, researchers found that for those students scoring 700 or above on the SAT-M (the 95 percentile for 12-grade college bound males), boys outnumbered girls 13 to 1. Fast forward to 2005, in which this difference had shrunk to 2.8 boys to every 1 girl. Interestingly, the period of this drop coincides quite closely with the enforcement of Title IX legislation (The Equal Opportunity in Act) which, broadly speaking, is designed to ensure that both sexes have the same access, instruction, and support for education-related activities. One likely reason why boys don't outnumber girls by the same magnitude in terms of SAT-M top scores as they did 30 years ago is that girls now have access to better quality math instruction.

Admittedly, the third factor the Golf Digest article brought up, , was not described in situational terms. Perhaps women are just not as motivated for or not wired to take the types of risks on the green needed to win as men are. Does this dovetail with work in math and science too? It's true that there are many studies documenting gender differences in, for instance, financial (which involves a heavy dose of math), and these differences are often attribute to innate factors, such as differences between men and women. But, in a study published this month in Psychological Science, researchers found that difference in men and women's motivation to take risks was only seen when they were reminded of stereotypes about gender and ability before a risky decision making situation. Similar effects are seen in the math world too. Women who are reminded of stereotypes about gender and math (e. ., "girls can't do math") perform more poorly on math tests than their ability dictates.

Just bringing to light negative expectations about how women will do relative to men can harm performance when girls are wielding a pencil in their hand. It seems likely that this is true in terms of girls' short-game too. Fortunately, there are ways to reverse these stereotyping effects. For instance, when women are reminded of stereotypes about their ability in math, but are also shown that the stereotypes are not necessarily indicative of all females' true skill (e.g., by seeing women who have been able to overcome these stereotypes), poor performance is curtailed. Yes, practice and instruction are important for success in the classroom and on the green, but expectations matter too.

For more on how stereotypes impact performance and tools for performing at your best, check out my book CHOKE. In stores now!

Follow me on Twitter.

__

Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2010). Stereotype Threat Affects Financial Decision Making. Psychological Science.