Previous research has shown that when confronted with failure, individuals with a fixed view of intelligence (entity theorists) perform worse on subsequent tasks than those with a malleable view of intelligence (incremental theorists). This study finds that entity theorists perform worse than incremental theorists only when they believe that a subsequent task measures the same ability as the task they previously failed. However, when individuals believe that the subsequent task measures an ability unrelated to the ability needed for the initial failed task, incremental theorists perform worse than entity theorists. Across five studies, we show that entity theorists are more likely to choose a different-ability task as a second task and perform better than incremental theorists on that task. We also examine the role of thoughts about previous failure in the performance differences.
AronsonJ.FriedC.GoodC. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113-125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
2.
AshcraftM. H.KirkE. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 224-237. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224
3.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
4.
BeilockS. L. (2008). Math performance in stressful situations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 339-343. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00602.x
5.
BeilockS. L.CarrT. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101-105. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x
6.
BlackwellL. S. (2002). Psychological mediators of student achievement during the transition to junior high school: The role of implicit theories (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York.
7.
BlackwellL. S.TrzesniewskiK.DweckC. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
8.
BrunsteinJ. C.GollwitzerP. M. (1996). Effects of failure on subsequent performance: The importance of self-defining goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 395-407. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.395
9.
ButlerR. (2000). Making judgments about ability: The role of implicit theories of ability in moderating inferences from temporal and social comparison information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 965-978. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.965
10.
CuryF.Da FonsecaD.ZahnI.ElliotA. (2008). Implicit theories and IQ test performance: A sequential mediational analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 783-791. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.003
11.
DweckC. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
12.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
13.
DweckC. S.LeggettE. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
14.
ElliottE. S.DweckC. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
15.
EngleR. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19-23. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00160
16.
EpstudeK.RoeseN. J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 168-192. doi:10.1177/1088868308316091
17.
GrayJ. R. (2001). Emotional modulation of cognitive control: Approach–withdrawal states double-dissociate spatial from verbal two-back task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 436-452. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.436
18.
GrayJ. R.BraverT. S.RaichleM. E. (2002). Integration of emotion and cognition in the lateral prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 4115-4120. doi:10.1073/pnas.062381899
19.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
HeineS. J.KitayamaS.LehmanD. R.TakataT.IdeE.LeungC.MatsumotoH. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599-615. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.599
21.
HongY. Y.ChiuC. Y.DweckC. S.LinD. M. S.WanW. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588-599. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588
22.
JohnsM.InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (2008). Stereotype threat and executive resource depletion: Examining the influence of emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 691-705. doi:10.1037/a0013834
23.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
24.
LichtB. G.DweckC. S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interaction of children’s achievement orientations with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20, 628-636. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.628
25.
MangelsJ. A.ButterfieldB.LambJ.GoodC.DweckC. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 75-86. doi:10.1093/scan/nsl013
26.
MarkmanK. D.GavanskiI.ShermanS. J.McMullenM. N. (1993). The mental simulation of better and worse possible worlds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 87-109. doi:10.1006/jesp.1993.1005
27.
MednickS. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232. doi:10.1037/h0048850
28.
MoggK.MathewsA.BirdC.Macgregor-MorrisR. (1990). Effects of stress and anxiety on the processing of threat stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1230-1237. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1230
29.
MuellerC. M.DweckC. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33
30.
PlaksJ. E.StecherK. (2007). Unexpected improvement, decline, and stasis: A prediction confidence perspective on achievement success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 667-684. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.667
31.
RattanA.GoodC.DweckC. S. (2012). “It’s ok—Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 731-737. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012
32.
RoeseN. J. (1994). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 805-818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.805
33.
RoeseN. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133-148. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.133
34.
RoeseN. J.OlsonJ. M. (1995). Outcome controllability and counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 620-628. doi:10.1177/0146167295216008
35.
ShermanS. J.McConnellA. R. (1995). Dysfunctional implications of counterfactual thinking: When alternatives to reality fail us. In RoeseN. J.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking (pp. 199-231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
SnyderK. E.MalinJ. L.DentA. L.Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (2014). The message matters: The role of implicit beliefs about giftedness and failure experiences in academic self-handicapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 230-241. doi:10.1037/a0034553
37.
TestaM.MajorB. (1990). The impact of social comparisons after failure: The moderating effects of perceived control. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 205-218. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1102_7
38.
TurnerM. L.EngleR. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127-154. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5
39.
UnsworthN.HeitzR. P.SchrockJ. C.EngleR. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498-505. doi:10.3758/BF03192720
40.
WroschC.ScheierM. F.CarverC. S.SchulzR. (2003). The importance of goal disengagement in adaptive self-regulation: When giving up is beneficial. Self and Identity, 2, 1-20. doi:10.1080/15298860309021
41.
WroschC.ScheierM. F.MillerG. E.SchulzR.CarverC. S. (2003). Adaptive self-regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1494-1508. doi:10.1177/0146167203256921
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
