Beliefs About Intelligence Adapted from Carol Dweck’s work at Stanford University and How do people’s beliefs influence

Beliefs About Intelligence

Adapted from Carol Dweck’s work at Stanford University and www.schoolnet.com

How do people’s beliefsinfluence their motivation andsubsequent achievement in

academic contexts?

Dweck’s research indicates that people tend to develop two different concepts of ability/intelligence — an entity view or an incremental view.

Static or “Fixed” Mindset View

Intelligence/ability is a fixed or stable trait, and unevenly distributed among individuals

You-either-have-it-or-you-don’t and “it” can be accurately judged by others and “it” can’t be improved or increased much

Fixed Mindset Implications

Student’s goal: to perform well and look smart, even if sacrificing learning (since negative evaluations are signs that I am not smart enough to succeed and there’s only a fixed amount of smartness).


If confident in abilities, student will seek opportunities to demonstrate it (although won’t always risk a lot).

If not confident in abilities, student will avoid situations with potential negative feedback, thus tending to avoid challenges and minimize intellectual risks.


So the less confident will choose either very easy or very difficult tasks so that failure is not necessarily attributable to low ability (i.e., “I’m stupid and there’s nothing I can do about it”).

In addition, high effort or need to study often thought of as reflective of low intelligence

Fixed Mindsest Implications

Dealing with difficulty produces less effort, act bored, procrastinate

If I hardly study and still do well, then I’m really smart

If I don’t do well, then, after all, I didn’t really try (self-handicapping)


Failure often results in “Why bother? I’m just not smart enough to do any better.”

“Only a few students can get top marks” “I just can’t get this.” Or externalize—poor teacher, unfair or

limiting conditions


When academics becomes difficult, effort is withdrawn to preserve sense of ability (high effort leading to failure means I’m dumb, which I can’t change—the entity view)

Actual achievement sacrificed in order to hold onto the belief that they could do well

Growth Mindset Implications

Belief is that intelligence/ability consists of an ever expanding repertoire of skills and knowledge that can be increased through effort and figuring out successful strategies


Student goal: not to look smart but to be smart by increasing their skill/knowledge levels.

Ability is more task specific and is developed through study and practice—effort is all


• Failure usually encourages more practice and study, increasing chances of future success

• Failure: work harder, don’t give up• Seek out challenges, moderately hard (not too

easy but not overwhelmingly difficult)• “Making mistakes is part of learning”• “The harder you work at something, the better

you will be at it”• Dealing with difficulty produces more effort,

strategy seeking

Research with College Students

Hong et al (1998) in Dweck (2000) Part I: College students given two versions

of convincing scientifically-based Psychology Today-type articles as part of a reading comprehension test

One version espoused entity theory, one the incremental theory

Divided into two groups; each read one Students answered questions about passage


Part II: participants worked on a series of problems and received feedback: some did relatively well (better than 65% of peers), others did relatively poorly (worse than 65% of peers)

Before moving to the next set of problems, students were offered a tutorial “that was found to be effective in improving performance on the test for most people.”

All of the students had room for improvement


Who would take advantage of tutorial (students were assessed a priori on incremental/entity view)?

Better incremental and better entity both elected to take tutorial (>70% in each)

Poor incremental: about 70% took tutorial Poor entity: 13% elected to take tutorial When students have a fixed view of

intelligence, those who most need remedial work are the ones who clearly avoid it

Research with 6th & 7th Graders

Henderson and Dweck (1990) Measured their theories of intelligence

and confidence in their intelligence at beginning

Examined 6th grade grades and related achievement

Compared to similar 7th grade markers


Entity view kids: marked decline in class standing: if 6th grade was poor, mostly led to 7th grade poor but many 6th grade entity high achievers became low achievers

Most of high achiever entity declines were students who had high confidence in their intelligence


Incremental kids: clear improvement in class standing for majority; most dramatic gains were many incremental kids who had low confidence in their intelligence; they believed ability could be developed


Students’ level of confidence was not nearly as important as their theory of intelligence in helping them meet and conquer the difficult transition

Entering a challenging scholastic setting with a belief in fixed intelligence seems to set students up for self-doubt and drops in achievement—confidence fragile in face of difficulties

Implications

Fixed Mindsets put a premium on immediate demonstrations of intellectual ability rather than mastery over time

Implications

A belief in fixed intelligence raises students’ concerns about how smart they are, it creates anxiety about challenges, and it makes failures into a measure of their fixed intelligence

It can therefore create defensive and helpless behavior

Implications

A belief in malleable intelligence (growth mindset) helps create a desire for challenge and learning.

Setbacks in this framework become an expected part of long-term learning and mastery and are therefore not really failures.

Implications

It is when we look at difficult transitions or situations fraught with failure that we find that confidence loses its power to predict.

It is then that those with fixed mindsets with high confidence lose ground and that those with growth mindsets with low confidence gain ground

Documents

Beliefs About Intelligence Adapted from Carol Dweck’s work at Stanford University and How do people’s beliefs influence