Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

Rjopes

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology & Educational Studies 1(3) 174-184

Rjopes

Emerging Academy Resources (2012) (ISSN: 2276-8475)


www.emergingresource.org

CAROL DWECKS VIEWS ON ACHIEVEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE:


IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION
Tammy-Lynne M.B. Moore and Michael F. Shaughnessy
Eastern New Mexico University,
Portales, New Mexico
Corresponding Author: Michael F. Shaughnessy
___________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to review the development of Carol Dwecks views on achievement and
intelligence. Dweck has spent 30 years researching various aspects of learned helplessness, academic
achievement, goal setting, and how these ideas relate to achievement and intelligence. Specifically, this paper
will review these concepts, how they have contributed to Dwecks entity and incremental theories and the
implications of Dwecks research in education. This review is beneficial for educators, parents, and caregivers;
the material covered here shows the significance of students perceptions of their abilities, and the impact of
feedback they receive from teachers and other adults working with students on increasing their academic and
social achievement. The key concepts include promoting students achievement through identifying and
changing the students mindset by identifying helplessness, implementing pedagogy to decrease helplessness,
increasing students views of their abilities and intelligence, as well as increasing students success in problemsolving and risk-taking, especially when facing challenging situations. When students see themselves as having
a fixed intelligence or ability level (entity theory), they perform less well than those who see themselves as
being able to change their intelligence and/or ability level (malleable theory).
Emerging Academy Resources
KEYWORDS: Intelligence, Helplessness, Mindset, Malleability Theory, Educational Achievement
_________________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
stereotypes and were much more rigid in their
Since 1977, Carol S. Dweck has published 39 book
judgments concerning changes of stereotyped
chapters, 47 journal articles, and four books on a
behavior. The purpose of this paper is to chart the
variety of topics including learned helplessness,
development of Carol S. Dwecks views on
theories of intelligence, motivation, and self-concept
achievement and intelligence, based on her published
and the effects of these factors on children. Dweck
works between 1977 and 2007. In order to define
has specifically asked questions such as What role do
intelligence, Dweck first defined certain types of
sex differences play in learned helplessness? How do
behaviors, followed by types of goals. Dweck (1986)
beliefs about ability affect achievement? What
defined mastery-oriented behavior as an adaptive
implications might the way students perceive their
behavior, characterized by challenge-seeking and
own intelligence have on their achievement? How
high, effective persistence in the face of obstacles
might intelligence be defined? What affect might
(p.1040).
ones views on intelligence have on motivation and
achievement?
How could self-concept effect
Dweck defined the second type of behavior, which is
intelligence, motivation, and achievement? It is
maladaptive and termed helpless, as characterized
important to note that Dweck did not limit her
by challenge avoidance and low persistence in the
research to areas of academic achievement. Rather,
face of difficulty. Children displaying this pattern
she examined social situations and failure in these
tend to evidence negative affect (such as anxiety) and
situations.
She then applied hypotheses about
negative self-cognitions when they confront
students perceptions of themselves to the outcomes.
obstacles (p. 1040-1041). Dweck (1986) goes on to
Her results from her social-cognitive studies mirror
describe that the pattern emerging from research
those in achievement and motivation, in that students
shows that childrens beliefs on intelligence steer
who see their abilities as fixed (entity theorists), will
them towards two types of goals. First, there are
not achieve as much success as those who see their
performance goals, where children believe that
abilities as malleable and changeable (incremental
intelligence is fixed and thus, achieve to receive
theorists). Dweck has also applied these concepts to
favorable judgments for that fixed trait. As a result,
stereotype formations in children and adults and
these children will choose personally easy tasks on
again, found that entity theorists believed more
which success is ensured or excessively difficult ones
174

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies (ISSN: 2276-8475) 1(3):174-184
Carol Dwecks Views on Achievement and Intelligence: Implications for Education

on which failure does not signify low ability (p.


1041-1042). The second type of goals are learning
goals, where children see their intelligence as
malleable and thus, achieve to improve the quality of
their intelligence. These children tend to choose
tasks that are challenging and that foster learning.
The definition of intelligence has fluctuated over the
years from an intelligence quotient (IQ) score, based
on general knowledge and ability to perform certain
tasks, to Gardners (1993) Theory of Multiple
Intelligences. Mueller and Dweck (1997, as cited in
Dweck, 1999) found that entity theorists and
incremental theorists even hold different definitions
of intelligence. Entity theorists see intelligence as a
persons skills and knowledge, while incremental
theorists view intelligence as a persons potential.

state (p. 7). These reports must reflect students


performance both as a whole and as members of
subgroups such as race, ethnicity, gender,
socioeconomic status, English language proficiency,
and special needs (DOE). Thus, by reviewing
Dwecks work, educators and parents alike can gain
valuable knowledge about increasing their students
achievement, and therefore, the likelihood of meeting
national educational goals. Educators especially will
benefit from this review of Dwecks research, as they
will learn about research-based strategies that
enhance students academic achievement and
motivation, as well as the significance of students
self-concepts to their motivation and achievement.
Since parents and caregivers play a substantial role in
shaping their students views of themselves and their
intelligence, these individuals will also benefit from
the information presented in this review.

Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007) define


intelligence as either an unchangeable, fixed entity
(an entity theory) or as a malleable quality that can
be developed (an incremental theory) (p. 247). The
definition that Dweck and her colleagues use is
significant, particularly when looking at how children
define intelligence because Dwecks research
repeatedly shows that peoples perception of
intelligence directly affects their achievement in both
academic and social realms.

LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review will be broken into three
subsections. The first section will focus on Dwecks
research involving learned helplessness and students
beliefs about abilities in the academic realm. The
second section will cover research in the social realm
concerning students beliefs about abilities. The last
section will deal with implicit theories, including
stereotypes, which have emerged from the research in
the first two sections.

According to Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck


(2007), [r]esearch has shown that, even when
students on both ends of the continuum show equal
intellectual ability, their theories of intelligence shape
their responses to academic challenge (p. 247). This
means that regardless of ability, students who believe
their intelligence is something that is fixed, constant,
and unchanging, respond quite differently to
academic challenges than those who perceive their
intelligence as something that they can improve upon.
The result is that those students who believe their
intelligence is malleable have higher levels of
achievement than those who believe it is fixed.
Mueller and Dweck (1997, as cited in Dweck, 1999),
for example, found that students who defined their
intelligences under the incremental theory took on
more challenging assignments, whereas those who
viewed their intelligences as unchangeable, took on
less challenging assignments.

Studies Involving Academic Situations


Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, and Enna (1978)
completed two studies examining sex differences in
learned helplessness. The focus of these studies
involved what role gender played in teacher-tostudent feedback that might contribute to learned
helplessness. The first studys main purpose was to
determine whether formal research should be
conducted on how feedback affects students beliefs
in their abilities. Specifically, Study 1 examined
whether teachers (adult agents) gave different types
of feedback to girls than they did to boys. The
subjects included 52 fourth graders (26 boys and 26
girls), and 27 fifth graders (17 boys and 10 girls). A
convenience sample was used and data was gathered
through classroom observations.
After five weeks, with observations taking place two
full days a week of academic-only classroom
activities, the researchers found that 45% of the
negative evaluation that boys received for their work
was unrelated to its intellectual quality and was based
instead on failure to comply with the rules of form
(Dweck et al, p. 274). Girls, in contrast, received
large amounts of positive assessments from their
teachers. However, girls received negative feedback
in a very specific manner towards their intellectual
failures from their teachers.
While teachers
emphasized effort and motivation as reasons for
boys failures, teachers did not emphasize motivation

Dweck has been investigating intelligence and selfconcepts for over 30 years.
Her research is
significant because she investigates how self-concept
affects student achievement, motivation, goal-setting
and sense of intelligence. Because of the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act passed in 2001, the zeitgeist
of public schooling is one of teacher-accountability
and the quest to help all students succeed all of the
time. The Department of Educations (DOE) No
Child Left Behind: A Parents Guide (2003) reports
that all states must produce annual report cards that
provide information on student achievement in the
175

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies (ISSN: 2276-8475) 1(3):174-184
Carol Dwecks Views on Achievement and Intelligence: Implications for Education

or effort with girls. The results of this preliminary


study indicated that boys and girls do, in fact, receive
different types of feedback; thus, Dweck et al. went
ahead with a second, more formal study.

study of boys and girls expectancies for successes


and failures.
Dweck, Goetz, and Strauss (1980 were interested in
how boys expectancies for failure or success differed
from girls expectancies and whether or not these
attributions transferred to new situations. First, the
researchers conducted a pilot study involving 12 girls
and 12 boys, all from the fifth grade. These students
gave a rating of how well they expected to perform
on two different tasks. The students performed the
two different tasks, rated how they would do in the
future, and then made attributions about their
performance at these tasks. Only 2 boys attributed
failure to ability, while 5 chose effort, and 5 blamed
the evaluator. Of the 12 girls, 8 blamed their ability,
4 chose effort, and none blamed the evaluator (p.
444). It should be noted that Dweck, Goetz, and
Strauss (1980) chose not to use the attribution
statements from the pilot study when conducting
Studies 1 and 2 (to follow) because the researchers
felt the attributions would be too obtrusive and might
cause hypothesized transfer effects.

For the next study, Dweck et. al (1978) hypothesized


that:
Children who received failure feedback that
was based only on the correctness of their
answers (like girls in the classroom) would
be more likely to see failure as indicative of
ability. It was expected that children who
received a mixture of solution-relevant and
solution-irrelevant feedback (like boys in the
classroom) would be more likely to view
failure as a reflection of their effort or of the
evaluator (p.272).
The subjects included 60 fifth grade children (30
boys and 30 girls) taken from three elementary
schools. This time, students were randomly assigned
to the experimental conditions so that there were 10
boys and 10 girls per condition. The first condition
was the teacher-boy condition (Dweck et al, 1978,
p. 273). In the teacher-boy condition, subjects
received five solution-relevant criticisms and five
solution-irrelevant criticisms. The second condition
was referred to as teacher-girl A, where subjects
received only five criticisms, but all five were
solution-relevant. The third condition was teachergirl B, where the subjects received 10 criticisms that
were solution-relevant. The teacher-girl condition
was split into these two groups as a means of
controlling for two variables that are confounded in
the comparison of teacher-boy and teacher girl: the
amount of failure feedback and the specificity of the
contingency (Dweck et al., 1978). It is important to
note that Dweck et al. do not explain how teacher-girl
B groups receiving twice as many solution-relevant
criticisms is an effective control for the specificity of
the contingency. Thus, whether or not this group
truly controls for such a confounding variable is
questionable. All children in all conditions were
asked to answer a question attributing the source of
their failure by checking off the answer that was most
fitting to their feelings following failure feedback.
This attribution question was the measure used to
determine the effects of the type of feedback given.

Study 1 was conducted in a laboratory setting and


involved testing whether or not boys expectancies
for success would be higher than girls when the
evaluator was changed. The researchers also
hypothesized that girls expectancies of success
would increase when the evaluator stayed the same
but the task changed.
Dweck et al. (1980) found that the boys expectancies
rose, while the girls expectancies continued to
decline when the evaluator was changed. However,
when the task changed, the boys expectancies rose
just as much as the girls did, which was contrary to
the hypothesis that the boys expectancies would
remain the same. When both the task and the
evaluator changed, essentially creating a new
situation altogether, both boys and girls
expectancies rose, but boys expectancies rose
proportionately more than girls. The fact that the
boys expectancies always rose well above those of
the girls suggests that girls ascribe failure not to a
specific lack of ability but to a more general lack of
ability and that this general attribution mediated
expectations of failure to the new task (p. 447).

Dweck et al. (1978) reported that regardless of sex,


children who receive failure feedback that is solution
specific are far more likely to view subsequent
feedback from that agent as indicative of ability than
are children who receive feedback that is often
solution irrelevant (p.274). From the data gathered
from the attribution questions, students who received
solution-relevant negative criticism, most often
attributed failure to lack of ability, rather than to
effort or to flaws in the adult agent. Dweck, Goetz,
and Strauss (1980) expanded these ideas in their

Furthermore, the fact that boys expectancies rose


when the evaluator changed can be analogous to the
change of one school year to the next. Since boys
can blame their previous teacher for failures they may
have experienced in the year before and do not see
failures as indicative of their ability, they should
enter a new grade level with high expectancies for
success (p. 448). Girls, on the other hand, who
attribute their failures to their overall ability, would
then start off the school year with lower expectancies
than boys. Thus, the researchers predicted that boys
176

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies (ISSN: 2276-8475) 1(3):174-184
Carol Dwecks Views on Achievement and Intelligence: Implications for Education

expectancies would decrease over the school year,


while girls expectancies would increase. These
predictions led to Dweck et al. (1980) completing
Study 2, which took place in a field setting.

tasks to complete in the experiment. How the


subjects tried to solve the problems (as well as how
many attempts were made) were recorded, as well as
their responses to a question regarding attribution for
their struggle with the tasks. Study 2 varied in that
the subjects were asked to think out loud while
completing the tasks.
All verbalizations were
recorded verbatim.

The participants of this second study were randomly


selected and included 171 girls and 143 boys in
grades four through six.
However, only 83%
received parental permission and 3% were dropped
due to absence or careless omission of information.
Thus, 80% actually participated in the study. The
researchers had students complete a questionnaire
about each subject area and the students
expectancies of success. Students also completed a
rating scale indicating how they would perform
compared to their classmates. Finally, students were
asked to complete a blank report card using the
grades they expected in each course, and another
report card was filled out with the students minimal
standards for acceptable grades.

Diener and Dweck (1978) reported that the masteryoriented children divided their explanations for their
failures among lack of effort, bad luck, the fairness of
the experimenter, and the increased difficulty of the
task (p.456). Helpless children, on the other hand,
attributed their failures primarily to ability and
increased difficulty in the task. Thus, masteryoriented children did not see their ability as an issue,
whereas helpless children did. Diener and Dweck
(1978) also found that helpless children used
ineffectual hypotheses significantly more than
mastery-oriented children. Upon further analysis, the
researchers discovered that helpless childrens
strategies deteriorated quite a bit more than masteryoriented childrens strategies following failure.
Mastery-oriented childrens strategies, on the other
hand, stayed the same, and in some cases, increased
in sophistication following failure feedback.

Dweck et al. (1980) found that even though the girls


performance was superior to the boys in the previous
school year and again during the current year, girls
expectancies started lower than boys and did not
surpass them by midyear (p.449).
Girls
expectancies did rise from the beginning of the year
to the middle of the year, which closed the gap
between girls and boys expectancies, but the boys
expectancies started out higher. Minimal standards
of girls were essentially equivalent to those of boys at
the beginning of the school year By midyear, girls
adopted more stringent standards, while the boys
simply maintained earlier ones (p. 449). In other
words, boys stated higher expectancies overall and
specific to courses, even though girls performed
better. Girls expectancies were lower, even when
they predicted their performance relative to
classmates, further supporting the notion that their
lower expectances were linked to self-cognitions (p.
450).

In Diener and Dwecks (1978) second study, all


factors in the experiment remained the same as in
Study 1, except that children were asked to verbalize
while completing the tasks. Helpless children started
making ineffectual task-strategy statements and
attributions for their failure as early as the second
problem, which reflected a perceived lack or loss of
ability, such as Im getting confused and I never
did have a good memory (p.458). The data collected
in this study showed that not one mastery-oriented
child, on the other hand, made these kind of
responses. Instead, the mastery-oriented subjects
seemed to seek out a remedy for the failure by selfinstructing and self monitoring. Examples of their
statements included, I should slow down and try to
figure this out and, The harder it gets[,] the harder I
need to try (p. 459). Likewise, there was a
significant difference in the attitudes of helpless
versus mastery-oriented children.

Diener and Dweck (1978) conducted two studies to


explore the differences in performances of helpless
children and mastery-oriented children following
failure, as well as the cognitive-motivational
differences occurring at the same time. Unlike with
the above-mentioned studies, Diener and Dwecks
focus shifted from gender as a factor to students
overall perception of what causes failure.

Diener and Dweck (1978) measured the subjects


attitudes
towards
failure
by
categorizing
verbalizations as positive or negative. Masteryoriented subjects made 10 statements of positive
affect, whereas helpless subjects made none at all.
Likewise, mastery-oriented students only made one
statement of negative affect, whereas helpless
students made 20 such statements. In 1980, the two
researchers extended their work in the area of failure
effects on mastery-oriented versus helpless children.
Diener and Dweck (1980) focused on refining their
definition of how mastery-oriented and helpless

The researchers began by categorizing students as


either helpless or mastery-oriented. The researchers
did analyze the data for differences among males and
females, but found none (Diener & Dweck, 1978).
Studies 1 and 2 both involved fifth grade students,
who completed the Intellectual Achievement
Responsibility (IAR) Scale, to determine whether
they were helpless or mastery-oriented (Diener &
Dweck, 1978). All children were given the same
177

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies (ISSN: 2276-8475) 1(3):174-184
Carol Dwecks Views on Achievement and Intelligence: Implications for Education

children processed successes and how they might, in


light of failure, reevaluate their successes. The
researchers used the same task from the 1978 study,
and found that mastery-oriented children expected to
get more tasks correct and to do better in the future
than helpless children.
Specifically, masteryoriented children expected to get about 90% of the
problems correct if they were given more of the same
type, whereas the helpless children expected to solve
only 50% of the problems (p. 947). Moreover,
helpless
children
rated
their
performance
significantly lower after failure, but the masteryoriented children did not. Likewise, helpless children
showed more pessimism about their future
performance, while mastery-oriented children
continued to have equally high expectations. These
results were replicated in a 1988 study.

Dweck proposed that learning subjects, like


mathematics, that often deal with new concepts could
be confusing for students. They further proposed that
helpless students would be debilitated by the new,
confusing concepts, whereas mastery-oriented
students would perform best. Likewise, they
predicted that helpless children would perform at
their best when learning new material would not
require the children to deal with difficult or confusing
concept. Ninety-four fifth grade students were
randomly selected and participated in this study,
which took place in a classroom setting (Licht &
Dweck, 1984). Children were first classified as
helpless or mastery-oriented. Next, half of the
children from each category were assigned to
confusing materials, while the other half were
assigned to straightforward materials.
The
researchers included questions at the end of the
materials, which all students had to complete. When
they completed the questions with 100% accuracy,
the students were considered to have mastered the
material. The data was analyzed based on two
measures: students who mastered the material the
first time, and those who mastered it by the last try.

Elliott and Dweck (1988) pursued the idea of


mastery-oriented thinking bringing about higher
success than helpless thinking. The researchers
achieved this through their study of how different
goals set up the observed helpless and masteryoriented patterns. Specifically, Elliott and Dweck
hypothesized that performance goals would render
subjects susceptible to the helpless response in the
face of failure, while the learning goals would
promote the mastery-oriented response to obstacles:
strategy formulation, positive affect, and sustained
performance (p. 5).

Licht and Dweck (1984) found a trend when


analyzing the results. Helpless students were largely
debilitated by confusion in both the first attempt and
the final attempt at mastery. The percentage of
helpless students who mastered the material in the
no-confusion setting is comparable with the
percentage of the mastery-oriented students.
According to Table 1, (see Licht and Dweck, 1984),
29.51% helpless and 34.16% mastery-oriented
succeeded in mastering the materials on the first
attempt. Similar results occurred in the final attempt,
with 76.57% of helpless and 68.36% of masteryoriented students mastering the concepts. Ability in
the subject area as a concern for confusion being so
debilitating for helpless, but not mastery-oriented
students is eliminated because the numbers are
comparable.

Elliott and Dwecks (1988) study included 101 fifth


grade children, who were randomly assigned to the
low and high ability feedback conditions. The
researchers found that under the performance
conditions, there were differences between high and
low ability groups.
However, there were no
significant differences between high and low ability
groups under the learning conditions. Furthermore,
the children in the performance goal-low perceived
ability group showed a significant tendency to
deteriorate in the use of problem-solving strategies
These results replicated the results of the Diener and
Dweck (1978, 1980) findings for children with
learned helplessness (p. 9).

Licht and Dweck (1984) show that only 5.04% of the


helpless children mastered the concepts presented in
the confusion condition, compared with 24.43% of
the mastery-oriented children. Likewise, 71.88% of
the mastery-oriented children mastered the concepts
in the confusion condition on the final try, which is
more than double the helpless children (34.65%) who
mastered the concepts in the confusion condition.

Dweck and Leggett (1988) suggested several reasons


that ability goals have negative effects.
One
possibility is that the person sees him/herself beyond
help. Another possibility is the persons withdrawal
from making any attempt at all, perhaps as a defense
mechanism. Dweck and Leggett suggested a third
possibility, whereby the student chooses to cut his/her
losses with the subject he/she is doing poorly at, and
reinvest effort in the subjects he/she is excelling at.

Licht and Dwecks (1984) findings suggest that


helpless children have a much more difficult time
coping with situations involving difficulties in
intellectual-achievement situations. Interestingly, the
researchers also assessed students perceptions of
their intelligence compared with their peers, through
a rating scale ranging from 1-25, with 25 being top of
the class. The researchers compared the students

Licht and Dweck (1984) further investigated how


helpless children differ from mastery-oriented
children by testing their reactions to learning
confusing versus straightforward material. Licht and
178

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies (ISSN: 2276-8475) 1(3):174-184
Carol Dwecks Views on Achievement and Intelligence: Implications for Education

answers with IQ scores that were available and found


the students estimates to be relatively accurate: for
males, r = .510, n = 58, p = .002; for females, r =
.452, n = 40, p = .004 (p. 634). Boys, who viewed
themselves as intelligent, when presented with the
confusing material, excelled. Girls, on the other
hand, demonstrated a negative correlation, whereby
the ones who viewed themselves as bright, seemed
most likely to be debilitated from the confusion (p.
634).
Therefore, Licht and Dwecks research
suggests that students who see their abilities as fixed,
limit themselves in their ability to take on challenges
and to succeed where their confidence may be
lacking. These findings were supported by later
studies performed by Smiley and Dweck in 1994.

out a friendship inventory and a peer roster-andrating inventory (also known as a liking inventory).
The friendship inventory and liking inventory helped
control for popularity and liking as factors that might
influence subjects post rejection decisions or
withdrawal and perseverance. The subjects were told
they were being considered for a pen pal club. The
subjects had to record a first message to a pen pal that
would be used by the program committee to decide
whether or not the subject should be accepted into the
club. The experimenters provided a mild rejection
feedback to the subjects, and offered them the
opportunity to send another message to reverse the
decision. The researchers found that 64% of the
children who either perseverated or withdrew,
following the rejection experience, emphasized
incompetence attributions. The remaining children
were distributed evenly over the other categories
incompatibility, chance mood, misunderstanding, and
rejector), but all had rated incompetence as the
second most likely reason. The subjects who
emphasized incompetence (e.g., Its hard for you to
keep friends) produced less message change than
any other attribution group. Those who emphasized
incompatibility attributions (e.g., He/she didnt like
the kind of person you are) produced the greatest
information increase (p. 251). Thus, percent of
increase of information was systematically related to
attribution category (p. 254).

Smiley and Dweck (1994) applied the findings of


Elliott and Dweck (1988) to their study on
achievement goals in young children. Smiley and
Dweck found that performance goal children exhibit
an attenuated mastery pattern if they have high task
confidence but a more helpless pattern if they have
low task confidence. Learning goal children, in
contrast, exhibit mastery-oriented patterns of
behavior regardless of their level of confidence (p.
1736). These results fall in line with previous studies
conducted by Elliot and Dweck (1988).
Levy and Dweck (1998) report on several other
studies conducted concerning academic achievement
and entity versus incremental theorists. For example,
Henderson and Dweck (1990, as cited in Levy and
Dweck, 1998) studied academic performance of
seventh graders and their attributions for this
performance. Henderson and Dweck accomplished
this by tracking the students grades, as well as
achievement test scores. The researchers presented
the students with a list of poor grade attributions and
asked them to rank the attributions in the order that
the participants would most likely invoke them.
Entity theorists ranked lack of ability significantly
higher, whereas incremental theorists ranked poor
strategies and poor effort significantly higher. All of
the research reviewed so far, has pertained to
academic achievement. However, Dweck has applied
her theories to the social realm as well.

Goetz and Dweck concluded that when students


attribute rejection to a lack of competence or ability,
those students will be the most disrupted, regardless
of their popularity with their peers (p. 254).
Therefore, this study further supports the theory that
how children perceive their ability affects how they
react to failure; and in this case, their ability and
reaction to failure occurred in a social situation.
Erdley and Dweck (1993) expanded the idea of fixed
and malleable ideas of personality in their study on
students perceptions of others personalities.
Erdley and Dweck (1993) hypothesized that children
who believed that personality was a fixed quality
(entity theorists) would be more inflexible in their
social judgments and to carry those judgments on a
long-term basis compared to incremental theorists
(those who believe that personality is malleable). To
test this hypothesis, Erdley and Dweck (1993)
conducted two studies.

Studies Involving Social Situations


In 1980, Goetz and Dweck tested the hypothesis that
rejection attributions would determine the types of
strategies subjects would use to elicit acceptance;
those who attribute personal social competence to the
cause of rejection would show the most disruption as
shown through withdrawal or perseveration. Sixtyseven girls and 63 boys from the fourth and fifth
grades served as subjects for this research. In
addition, reliability data was collected through the
use of an additional 25 fifth grade subjects, all from
the same schools. To test their hypothesis, Goetz and
Dweck (1980) interviewed the subjects, had them fill

The first study (Study1) involved 139 fourth and fifth


grade students from two schools and was designed to
measure how entity and incremental theorists differed
in their attributions of a boys negative behavior.
Students were identified as entity or incremental
theorists based on their mean score on the Implicit
Personality Theory Questionnaire. However, Erdley
and Dweck discarded the middle one-third of the
sample to create two distinct groups of entity and
179

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies (ISSN: 2276-8475) 1(3):174-184
Carol Dwecks Views on Achievement and Intelligence: Implications for Education

incremental theorists. As a result, there were a total


of 53 entity theorists and 40 incremental theorists.
All students viewed a slideshow depicting a boy
coming to school for the first time after moving into a
new area. The boys behavior in Study 1 was mildly
negative shyness, clumsiness, and nervousness.
Half of the students were randomly assigned to view
a consistent ending, which meant that the boys
behavior continued to be mildly negative. The other
half of the students were assigned to see the
inconsistent ending, whereby the boys behavior was
more positive, and presented counter-information.
The researchers used these different endings as a
means of determining how rigid or malleable the
subjects social judgments would be.

of the negative related traits than were the


incremental theorists (p. 872).
However, the
incremental theorists did show significant differences
in their ratings of negative traits when counter
information was presented, whereas the entity
theorists did not. These results parallel those of
Study 1. In addition, Erdley and Dweck (1993)
required subjects to answer questions about
punishment and empathy for the boy in the
slideshow. Again, entity theorists responses were
far more negative than incremental theorists
responses. When analyzing responses to unrelated
negative and positive traits, the researchers found that
entity theorists were more negative. Interestingly,
when analyzing the empathy scale responses, entity
theorists displayed more empathy for the boy than the
incremental theorists.

Following the slideshow, subjects completed a 15item rating scale (1 8) describing the traits of the
boy. Subjects completed an additional eight point
scale question indicating whether the subjects
believed the boy would be very much the same or
very different if they observed him again in a few
weeks (p. 867). Erdley and Dweck (1993) found
that entity theorists rating of negative traits of the
boy stayed the same, as did the amount of change
they predicted would occur in the boys personality in
the future. Furthermore, incremental theorists did
vary in their evaluations as a function of condition.
No evidence was obtained for negative
generalization (p. 868).
These results largely
supported Erdley and Dwecks original hypotheses,
that entity theorists would predict less change in the
boy than incremental theorists, and that entity
theorists would not acknowledge changes in the
boys traits to the same extent as incremental
theorists. These findings spurred Erdley and Dweck
to complete a second study (Study 2).

However, entity theorists still recommended harsher


punishments than the incremental theorists. Overall,
the results support the researchers conclusion that
entity theorists tend to globalize their judgments on
negative behavior, whereas incremental theorists tend
to see negative behaviors as temporary traits, subject
to improvement and change. Levy, Storessner, and
Dweck (1998) furthered their implicit theories
research by studying the entity versus incremental
theorists and their stereotype beliefs.
Stereotypes
Levy, et al. (1998), conducted a series of five
experiments in order to explore beliefs, knowledge,
and agreement with and for stereotypes, as well as
causal relation between implicit person theories and
level of stereotyping, and finally, the unique
contributions of implicit person theories in predicting
levels of stereotyping. In all five studies, the
participants were college undergraduates. The first
study (Study 1) examined both the knowledge and
beliefs of stereotypes entity and incremental theorists
held, and whether or not entity theorists would
express a greater belief in stereotypes than
incremental theorists (Levy, et al., 1998). The data
from this first study indicated that incremental and
entity theorists had equivalent knowledge of various
stereotypes for each of the ethnic groups (African
Americans, Asians, Caucasians, Hispanics-Latinos,
and Jews). Stereotypes were categorized as positive,
negative, or other, and both incremental and entity
theorists categorized these exactly the same.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that entity
theorists more strongly endorsed both positive and
negative ethnic stereotypes than did incremental
theorists (p. 1425).

The purpose of Study 2 was to find out whether or


not entity and incremental theorists [would] show
even more distinct patterns in their social judgments
(p. 869-870) when observing negative behaviors that
were seriously more negative and were potentially
indicting of [the boys] moral character (p. 870).
These serious negative behaviors included lying,
cheating, and stealing.
As with Study 1, subjects were fourth and fifth grade
students.
Twelve classrooms were randomly
assigned to the consistent and inconsistent conditions,
and students were identified as entity or incremental
theorists based on their mean score on the Implicit
Personality Theory Questionnaire. Again, to ensure
an equal distribution of entity and incremental
theorists, the researchers discarded the middle onethird from the analyses, which resulted in 75
incremental theorists and 83 entity theorists.

In the second study (Study 2), Levy, et al. (1998)


focused in on African American stereotypes as a
means of replicating the results of Study 1 using a
more thorough measure of stereotype endorsement,
and to explore how people account for the

Erdley and Dweck (1993) found that entity theorists


were not significantly more negative in their ratings
180

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies (ISSN: 2276-8475) 1(3):174-184
Carol Dwecks Views on Achievement and Intelligence: Implications for Education

perpetuation / existence of stereotypes. Study 2


replicated the results of Study 1, in that entity
theorists agreed more with the stereotypes. On
ratings of the innate-inherent factors explanation
entity theorists ratings (M=2.8) were significantly
higher than incremental theorists ratings (M=15)
(p.1426). However, in the environmental factors
explanations, incremental theorists ratings were
higher than entity theorists. These results support
the idea that entity theorists tend to hold stronger
judgments of attributes (both positive and negative)
than incremental theorists.

variance in endorsement of stereotypes of ethnic and


occupational groups after controlling for the
contribution of other variables (p.1433).
Levy and Dweck (1999) followed up the application
of implicit theories on stereotypes and applied these
to school children. The researchers conducted two
studies into stereotype formation and group
differentiation. In Study 1, Levy and Dweck had 78
sixth graders report their impressions of an unfamiliar
group of students based on nine behaviors they
observed the students perform in the form of pictures
within a booklet. The sixth graders filled out a series
of questionnaires concerning the traits of these
students, their willingness to interact with these
students, and attributions for the students behaviors
(Levy & Dweck, 1999). The results indicated that
entity theorists made a greater number of none
and all responses than did incremental theorists (p.
1169). Moreover, when entity theorists label[ed] a
group as possessing a trait, they also believ[ed] the
group acted that way because of the trait (p. 1170).

Levy et al.s (1998) third experiment was designed to


examine whether or not entity theorists would make
more extreme and rapid judgments of a groups
attributes from sparse behavioral information (Ford &
Stangor, 1992: Judd & Park, 1988), would find the
information more sufficient for rendering these
judgments, would regard group members as more
similar with respect to those attributes (Park &
Hastie, 1987; Sedikides & Ostrom, 1993), and would
make more extreme evaluative judgments of the
groups (Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993; Stangor et
al., 1991) (p. 1427). Participants had to respond to an
open-ended description of African Americans,
followed by responses to several rating-scale
questions regarding behaviors and attributes of
African Americans. These were done on a computer
so that timing could be tracked accurately. Levy et
al. (1998) found that entity theorists tended to rate
both positive and negative traits more extremely than
incremental theorists. Moreover, entity theorists
judged traits more extremely based on limited
information, but not when the information is absent.
Entity theorists formed or accessed those judgments
more quickly (p. 1428). Thus, entity theorists tend
to globalize their judgments and apply those
judgments quicker than entity theorists.

In Study 2, Levy and Dweck (1999) expanded their


experiment to include descriptions of unfamiliar
students from two different schools (Study 1 only had
students from a single school).
One set of
hypothetical students exhibited negative behaviors
and the other set exhibited positive behaviors (Levy
& Dweck, 1999). Again, Levy and Dwecks results
showed that entity theorists tended to rate the
students traits as extremes. Furthermore, entity
theorists tended to make larger distinctions between
the two groups of kids, which suggests that once they
saw the groups as differing on character traits, they
[began] to think of them as different in other
important ways as people who share less of the
same basic likes and goals (p. 1174).
Theories of Intelligence Effects on Achievement
Henderson and Dweck (1990, as cited in Dweck,
1999) tested how theories of intelligence predict and
create differences in achievement. The researchers
studied students entering seventh grade.
The
students theories of intelligence and their confidence
in their intelligence were measured at the beginning
of the year. Henderson and Dweck examined the
students report card grades and found that entity
theorists declined significantly in their class standing.
Moreover, these students mostly reported high
confidence in their intelligence. Incremental theorists,
on the other hand, improved their class standing, but
reported a low confidence in their intelligence.
Students were asked to make attributions about
receiving poor grades in school. The entity theorists
indicated they would doubt their intelligence,
whereas incremental theorists felt that their strategies
and/or effort needed improvement (Dweck, 1999).

The fourth study conducted by Levy, et al. (1998)


took the results of the first three studies and applied
them to the causal relation between implicit person
theories and levels of stereotyping. Seventy-seven
males and 78 females were given fictitious scientific
articles. Half of the participants received articles
arguing the entity theory and the others received
articles arguing the incremental theory. After reading
the articles, the participants were asked to indicate
their beliefs of a set of 15 traits that described African
Americans, Latinos, and Asians. Levy et al. (1998)
found that those who read the entity theory article
agreed more strongly with stereotypes than those who
read the incremental theory article.
The fifth and final study examined how this
knowledge of entity and incremental theories might
predict future stereotype endorsement. Once again,
Levy et al.s hypothesis was confirmed, as the data
showed that implicit theories predicted unique
181

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies (ISSN: 2276-8475) 1(3):174-184
Carol Dwecks Views on Achievement and Intelligence: Implications for Education

Sorich and Dweck (1999, as cited in Dweck, 1999)


also completed a study of students entering junior
high, using the same methods as Henderson and
Dweck. However, Sorich and Dweck (1999) added a
measure of achievement goals (learning versus
performance). Again, entity theorists class standing
dropped, although their confidence in their
intelligence was high. When examining students
responses to questions about their goals, the
researchers found that incremental theorists were
much more interested in learning goals, whereas
entity theorists were more concerned with
performance goals. Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and
Dweck (2007) took this idea even further.

theories of intelligence were reassessed. Blackwell et


al. (2007) found that participants in the experimental
control group changed their theories of intelligence:
4.36 were incremental theorists at the beginning of
the study, and by the end, 4.95 were incremental
theorists. Using growth curves to track grade
trajectories, the researchers discovered that those
students in the experimental group, who switched
from entity theory to incremental theory because of
the intervention, had the most mathematical grade
gain. The grades of students in the control group,
who endorsed more of an entity theory continued to
decline (p. 258). Therefore, students who use the
entity theory can become incremental theorists, and
when they do this, their achievement improves.

Blackwell et al. (2007) performed a longitudinal


study and an intervention to determine if implicit
theories of intelligence predict achievement across an
adolescent transition. The researchers performed two
studies. The first study followed four waves of
students through two years of junior high school.
The students math abilities were tracked and a
baseline was formed using the Citywide Achievement
Test (CAT) given in the students spring semester in
the sixth grade. Students also completed scales rating
their theories of intelligence, learning goals,
attributions of effort towards positive and negative
outcomes, and helpless responses to failure.

Implications for Education


Dwecks work has major implications for education,
and pedagogical practice. Teachers need to be aware
of the mindset of their students and take into
consideration past educational experiences and
endeavors. Further, teachers are often confronted
with a mindset that has been established perhaps by
parents, as well as non-verbal messages sent by
teachers, as well as by other students. If students are
continually given messages that effort and
motivation reflect on their ability, this may hamper
future endeavors. If students discern that other
students in their class seem to master material quite
easily, with little effort, they may become perplexed
and exasperated. As such, computer assisted
instruction may become more and more important as
it allows students to proceed at their own leisurely
pace.

Blackwell et al. (2007) found that students with an


incremental theory of intelligence were positively
associated with positive effort beliefs learning
goals low helpless attributions and positive
strategies In addition, these variables were all
significantly positively correlated with one another
(rs ranged from .34 to .72, p<.01) (p. 250). These
variables were not significantly correlated prior to
seventh grade, which means that high prior ability or
achievement cannot be the cause of the results (cf.
Pomerantz & Saxon, 2001, as cited in Blackwell et
al., 2007). At the end of the two years, the data
showed that all students who had prescribed to a
strong incremental theory were outperforming those
who had an entity theory in the subject of math.

However, intelligent students often perceive


differences among classmates. They discern that
certain students are taller, more athletic, and learn
and master certain concepts more rapidly than others.
Dwecks work may need to delve into specific realms
of educational endeavor such as mathematics, music,
art, and obviously physical education. While some of
these domains are secondary, the perceptions and
messages received are certainly salient and relevant.
Parental involvement in terms of effort and energy
messages should be sent as well as messages that
encompass the domains of continual on-going
improvement. Dwecks later work as reviewed by
Veronikas and Shaughnessy (2004) has provided
some beginning insights into intervention, attention
and learning, and the roots of self-theories. Teaching
students to value hard work, learning and challenges
remains problematic.

Blackwell et al.s (2007) second study involved


intervening in the spring semester for the seventh
graders. Students were identified as entity or
incremental theorists and then randomly assigned to
participate in one of two workshops (control or
experimental). Students were presented with eight,
25-minute workshops. Both the control group and
the experimental group received workshops that were
structured similarly, that covered information on the
physiology of the brain, study skills, and antistereotypic thinking. Students in the experimental
group were taught that intelligence is changeable and
can be developed, while the control group received
lessons on memory and participated in academic
discussions. At the end of the eight weeks, students

Teaching teachers about intelligence, and its


malleability, and the vast amount of information that
can be culled from the results of a properly
administered intelligence or cognitive measure can
also be important and should be investigated. Since
teachers spend extensive time with students, in
182

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies (ISSN: 2276-8475) 1(3):174-184
Carol Dwecks Views on Achievement and Intelligence: Implications for Education

educational endeavors, they are the individuals most


in need of understanding Dwecks work and
intervention ideas, and her ideas as to what to praise,
when to praise it, and how to differentially praise
boys and girls.
Dwecks ideas should be
incorporated into early childhood programs and
pedagogy, and parenting classes, so that children can
maximize the use of their skills and abilities and
approach tasks with a positive attitude.

REFERENCES
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C.
S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict
achievement across an adolescent transition: A
longitudinal study and an intervention. Child
Development, 78, 246-263. Retrieved September 15,
2007, from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of
learned helplessness: Continuous changes in
performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions
following failure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36(5), pp. 451-462.

CONCLUSION
Dweck has devoted over 30 years to researching how
peoples perceptions of their intelligence, abilities,
and performance affect their achievement. Her
extensive research shows that when people believe
their intelligence or their ability to perform a certain
task, either academic or social, is a fixed entity, their
achievement will be lower than those who believe
that their intelligence or abilities are changeable or
incremental.

Diener, C.I., & Dweck, C.S. (1980). An analysis of


learned helplessness: II. The processing of success.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5),
940-952.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting
learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.

Likewise, people who believe in a certain concept,


such as a stereotype, and who prescribe to the entity
theory will hold a stronger belief in that concept, will
judge harsher when that concept has negative
connotations, and will be less likely to revise these
beliefs and judgments. Incremental theorists, on the
other hand, have a much more flexible view of
concepts, whereby they see concepts and behaviors as
changeable and do not tend to judge towards the
extremes. Educators can improve their teaching
strategies and increase their students achievement
based on Dwecks research. Teachers need to
examine how they view intelligence and how this
view is transferred into their classrooms. They also
need to find out how their students view themselves
and their intelligence. By promoting the idea that
effort and strategies are key to achievement, students
achievement and self-concept will rise. Is it realistic
to expect everyone to have an incremental theorists
position on all aspects of life tasks? Absolutely not.
People are complicated and inevitably, all of us have
areas where our beliefs are firmly planted and are not
likely to change (moral values and ethics are some
general examples). However, by applying Dwecks
research in the classroom and, for that matter, as
parents outside the classroom, we have the potential
to further eliminate stereotypes, learned helplessness,
and poor self-concept. One of the most significant
trends observed while reviewing Dwecks research,
was the negative view entity theorists often had of
themselves, despite the fact that they were very
capable, intelligent, people. Individuals who feel
badly about themselves tend to perform less well than
those who feel positively about themselves. Thus,
Dwecks research lends educators and parents an
opportunity to further promote their students selfesteem and self-concept, and as a result, significantly
increase their students achievement.

Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: their role in


motivation,
personality,
and
development.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B.
(1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness: The
contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom
and an experimental analysis. Developmental
Psychology, 14(3), 268-276.
Dweck, C. S., Goetz, T. E., & Strauss, N. L. (1980).
Sex differences in learned helplessness: An
experimental and naturalistic study of failure
generalization and its mediators. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 38(3), 441-452.
Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A socialcognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.
Elliott, E.S., & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An
approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12.
Erdley, C.A., & Dweck, C.S. (1993). Childrens
implicit theories as predictors of their social
judgments. Child Development, 64(3), 863-876.
Retrieved November 7, 2007, from the Academic
Search Premier Publications Database.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of
multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Goetz, T., & Dweck, C.S. (1980). Learned
helplessness in social situations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 246-255.

183

Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies (ISSN: 2276-8475) 1(3):174-184
Carol Dwecks Views on Achievement and Intelligence: Implications for Education

Grant. H, & Dweck, C.S. (2003). Clarifying


achievement goals and their impact. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541-553.
Levy, S.R., & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Trait-versus
process-focused social judgment. Social Cognition,
16(1), 151-172.
Levy, S.R., & Dweck, C.S. (1999). The impact of
childrens static versus dynamic conceptions of
people on stereotype formation. Child Development,
70(5), 1163-1180. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from
the Academic Search Premier Publications Database.
Levy, S.R., Storessner, S.J., & Dweck, C.S. (1998).
Sterotype formation and endorsement: The role of
implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(6), 1421-1436.
Licht, B. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants of
academic achievement: The interaction of children's
achievement
orientations
with
skill
area.
Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 628-636.
Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994). Individual
differences in achievement goals among young
children. Child Development, 65(6), 1723-1743.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). No child left
behind: A parents guide. (Washington, D.C.:
Department of Education). Retrieved September 18,
2007, from http://www.ed.gov/parents/academic
/involve/nclbguide/parentsguide.pdf
Veronikas, S. & Shaughnessy, M.F. (2004) A
reflective conversation with Carol Dweck. Gifted
Education International. 19, 1, pp. 27-33

184

Potrebbero piacerti anche