Student reactions to grades can be unpredictable. Students may complain about grades, sometimes angrily, even when they receive a moderately high grade. This study looks at beliefs about the self as predictors of students’ reactions to an average grade received on a hypothetical assignment. It examines the effect of a student’s self-efficacy with regard to ability and performance on assignments, and the effect of a student’s implicit theory, whether the student holds a more fixed view or a more malleable view of academic ability and performance. Levels of self-efficacy (low to high) and implicit theories (more malleable view of abilities to more fixed views of abilities) are varied, with cumulative GPA included as well in regression analysis. Results show that a malleable view of abilities leads not only to lower levels of overall satisfaction with a grade but also less anger and likely influences students to strive to improve. Self-efficacy regarding the course has less of an impact than implicit theories about abilities, but students with higher overall GPAs liked the instructor less.
AckermanD. S.DeShieldsO. W. (2013). How ordering of assignments can influence beliefs about the self and how these beliefs can impact on student class performance. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 59, 553-568.
2.
AckermanD. S.GrossB. L. (2010). Instructor feedback: How much do students really want?Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 172-181.
3.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
4.
BanduraA. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
5.
BanduraA.DweckC. S. (1985). The relationship of conceptions of intelligence and achievement goals to achievement-related cognition, affect and behavior (Unpublished manuscript). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
6.
BurkeM. C.EdellJ. A. (1989). The impact of feelings on ad-based affect and cognition. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 69-83.
7.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
8.
DixonA. L.SpiroR. L.JamilM. (2001). Successful and unsuccessful sales calls: Measuring salesperson attributions and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 64-78.
9.
DweckC. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
10.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
11.
DweckC. S.LeggettE. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
12.
ElliottE. S.DweckC. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
13.
FinneyT. G.FinneyR. Z. (2010). Are students their universities’ customers? An exploratory study. Education and Training, 52, 276-291.
14.
FranzR. S. (1998). Whatever you do, don’t treat your students like customers!Journal of Management Education, 22, 63-69.
15.
GistM. E.MitchellT. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211.
16.
GistM. E.StevensC. K.BavettaA. G. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology, 44, 837-861.
17.
HalvorsonH. G. (2010). Succeed: How we can reach our goals. New York, NY: Plume.
18.
HasselH.LoureyJ. (2005). The dearth of student responsibility. College Teaching, 53, 2-12.
19.
JerniganC. G. (2004). What do students expect to learn? The role of learner expectancies, beliefs, and attributions for success and failure in student motivation. Current Issues in Education, 7(4), 1-38.
20.
KnightP.MichC. C.ManionM. T. (2014). The role of self-efficacy in sales education. Journal of Marketing Education, 36, 156-168.
21.
MuellerC. M.DweckC. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
22.
NovellC. A.ShepperdJ. A.WebsterG. D. (2014). Opting for ignorance: Theories of intelligence and the decision to avoid performance feedback (Unpublished manuscript). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
23.
NussbaumA. D.DweckC. S. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self-theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 599-612.
24.
PajaresF. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
25.
PajaresF. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.
26.
PollackB. L.LillyB. (2008). Gaining confidence and competence through experiential assignments: An exploration of student self-efficacy and spectrum of inquiry. Marketing Education Review, 18(2), 55-66.
27.
RichinsM. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 127-146.
28.
StajkovicA. D.SommerS. M. (2000). Self-efficacy and causal attributions: Direct and reciprocal links. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 707-737.
29.
TrzesniewskiK. H.DonnellanM. B.RobinsR. W. (2008). Do today’s young people really think they are so extraordinary? An examination of secular trends of narcissism and self-enhancement. Psychological Science, 19, 181-188.
30.
TwengeJ. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press.
