Lecture 9 - implicit theories Flashcards
What is incremental theory?
incremental Theory
Attributes such as intelligence , personality, moral character, will power, or body weight can be changed with effort
growth mindset (incremental theory) is a belief that human attributes such as intelligence or personality are malleable and can be changed substantially
- Growth mindset: passion for learning, growth and self improvement makes people capable of overcoming challenges and setbacks via endurance and effort investment.
Human capacities are not fixed, but can be developed over time
What is entity theory?
entity theory
Attributes, such as intelligence, personality, moral character, willpower or body weight cannot be changed willingly
fixed mindset (entity theory)
Is the belief that human attributes, such as intelligence or personality are fixed and cannot be changed
-Fixed mindset: belief that one’s competences and talents are unchangeable, making people more interested in proving and validating themselves (than improvement) and more vulnerable to get discouraged.
-Human capacities are fixed and cannot be developed much over time
What is measurement of implicit theories?
Self-report measures
Different skills depending on different personal attributes research focuses on
Examples : intelligence, personality, moral character, groups, driving, interests, emotions…
Induction of implicit theories
Generally done by providing people with “ scientific information” supporting that attribute that stake can (not) to be changed
-Can be changed by means of interventions (workshops) showing that with extensive training they are malleable
Stability and origin of implicit theory?
Relatively stable overtime in a longitudinal studies
Example : Robbins & Pals 2002 - college students assist 6 times over 4 years -correlations of entity scale scores
Origins of implicit theories
Develop early in life -found in fourth graders
Construed from experiences people make
Raising children for abilities, rather than for effort - entity theory
-Praise for intelligence (person praise) VS praise for effort (process praise) or for outcome, most likely to induce a fixed mindset
Person criticism VS process criticism most likely to lead in belief in stable traits - greater helplessness
Parents believing failure is enhancing (rather than debilitating) - Incremental Theory
- so it’s not that parents transmit their mindset, but rather shape their children’s mindset through reaction to failures that focus on the person vs the process.*
Mechanism: implicit theories work in meaning systems (Hong et al., 1999; Molden & Dweck, 2006)
Goal orientation
Implicit theories determine goals people set in achievement situations
Goals shape cognitions, affects, and behaviors -leads to a different learning outcomes
learning goal (incremental theory) -developing one’s ability/increase competence
-Directed at development of abilities; deeper and more effective learning strategies, especially when facing difficulties in challenging tasks
performance goal - (entity theory) - proving, validating ones ability/demonstrate competence
-Validating ability level; less interested in learning about the correct answer after ability feedback
effort beliefs
Implicit theories change meaning of effort
incremental theory - effort necessary and worthwhile for change
-Embrace situation, challenging abilities
entity theory -effort implies lack of/ insufficient ability, thus seen as negative
-Avoid challenging situations
Attribution of adversity
Implicit theories affect making sense of challenges (setbacks/failure)
incremental theory - attribution of failure to malleable entities (effort, motivation, situation)
-More likely to take remedial action (because change seems possible)
-Attributions of others behavior more likely to situation (sadness/ remedial actions)
entity theory - attribution of failure to stable characteristics (low ability/ traits)
-less likely to take remedial actions (because change doesn’t seem possible)
-Attribution of others behavior to their personality (anger, hatred/ revenge, seeking)
strategies in the face of adversity
Implicit theories affect how people response to challenges
mastery oriented response (incremental theory)-persistent investment of effort
-Setback= Opportunity to learn/information; resilient, prosocial response when victimized by peers
-“When something I am studying is difficult I try harder”
helpless/defensive response (entity theory) -easily discouraged
-Setback = lack of ability; drop in self-esteem when setback; desire for vengeance and aggression, if victimized by peers
-“When I fail to understand something I become discouraged to the point of wanting to give up” I wanted to give up
Beyond achievement: social judgment of traits and stereotypes
Mindsets shapes how people judge other individuals and groups
Domain general mindset (fixed or growth)
example: fixed person VS changeable person
fixed mindset
-More readily infer traits from behavior, and see traits to have more predicted power: more strongly show fundamental attribution error
-Stronger stereotypical judgments of ethnic and occupational groups; form more extreme treat judgments of new groups
-Heightened attention to info, consistent with and supportive of existing stereotypes= more strongly show confirmation bias
-Independent from own level of prejudice
More worried rediscovering prejudice in themselves, or looking prejudiced to others;
Lower interest in interracial interactions and diversity related activities
Heightened anxiety
Example: Rydell et al. 2007
Implicit theories about groups measured (8 items, Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2)
Perception of a group entitativity (lawyers, mechanics) measured (16 items, study 1) how invested members are in group, to what extent they shared goals
Stereotypes about groups (lawyers-insincere not muscular; mechanics-muscular no insincere) measured (16 treats; study 1)
Implicit theories of personality intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion (Yeager et al., 2013)
Context: high school victimization and aggression
Previous work (Yeager et al., 2011)
-fixed mindset-bully VS victim stable trait, bully thus fundamentally bad, self thus fundamentally a loser - greater shame and greater desire for revenge
growth mindset- both victims and bullies can change- more pro social resilient reactions (educating perpetrators)
-Intervention- 6x45 sessions
Incremental theory , coping skill control
Behavioral measure of aggression : hot sauce paradigm after experiencing social exclusion in “cyberball”
Hot sauce paradigm : “taste testing” as other experiment; assign “spiced” drink to other player in “cyberball”
Prosocial behavioral Measure: note handed to player drink is prepared for (apologizing for hot sauce)
Teacher ratings
Teacher mindsets help explain where a growth mindset intervention does and doesn’t work (Yeager et al., 2022)
Research question :: can students independently implement their growth mindset virtually in any classroom culture, or must their growth mindset be supported by their teachers own growth mindsets?
according to the mindset-plus-supportive-context hypothesis, teachers with a growth, mindset me, convey how, in their class, mistakes are learning opportunities, not signs of low ability and back this up with assignments and evaluation that reward continual improvement
N= 9167 students
Making of condition assignment (students, teachers, researchers)
Random assignment : growth, mindset VS control
Measurements of mindset (manipulation check)
Teacher mindset
Teacher confounds (fluid intelligence, pedagogical knowledge)
Main DV: GPA
growth mindset (VS control) lifted math grades, but more students profit from intervention in supportive classrooms
No gains in math grades over the year with fixed mindset teacher
meaningful gains only with growth, mindset teachers
-Largest gains for students with previous fixed mindset in intervention group with growth mindset teacher
A cautious note: Dweck and Yeager 2019
- Motivation intervention in education-including new curricula, teacher training, etc.-do not find effects on students outcomes; largest effect size (randomized controlled experiment) = .20; typical increase in GPA= .10 points/increase from 4% to 8% for low, achieving students on track for graduation - nonetheless realistic and meaningful
- Effects generally only found on lower achieving students
- Interventions are highly dependent on subtle feature of materials and procedures and matching to target population.
- Recent work on mindset environment highlights contextual features
