Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mediation models of implicit theories and achievement goals predict planning and withdrawal after failure

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dweck posits that implicit theories of intelligence provide a meaning system that organizes goal-based patterns of response in achievement situations. Goals of increasing competence or demonstrating competence provide purposes for engaging in achievement tasks and frameworks for interpreting and responding to outcomes. Despite suggestions that within an implicit theory framework, attributions and emotions should mediate associations between goals and post-failure responses, such models have rarely been explicitly tested. We obtained questionnaire data from college students (N = 261) on implicit theories, goals, and attributions, as well as emotions and behavior after a hypothetical failure. Path analysis showed that learning goal and effort attribution mediated the association between incremental theory and post-failure intention to plan remedial action. Theory-consistent indirect effects that predicted intention to withdraw were also identified. Findings provide support for Dweck’s theory and extend our understanding of the roles of goals, attributions, and emotions in explaining responses to achievement setbacks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some researchers (Cury et al. 2006; Tempelaar et al. 2015) assess incremental and entity theories of intelligence on separate unipolar scales, rather than on a bipolar scale that combines incremental and entity theory items, with higher scores reflecting either an incremental or an entity focus. Tempelaar et al. (2015) argued that because scores on entity and incremental scales were not fully aligned (r = − .74 in their study; r = − .78 in ours) and because the scales predicted other constructs with varying levels of strength [e.g., r’s for positive effort attributions were .27 with incremental theory, −.15 with entity theory, and .22 with implicit theory (combined, bipolar scale)], there was sufficient evidence to measure the constructs on separate, unipolar scales. However, note that the correlation between incremental and entity scales was very strong, but correlations between theory and related constructs were weak, and the differential magnitude of correlations between theory and related constructs was not tested statistically. In addition, Hong et al. (1999) argued that because the entity and incremental subscales are highly correlated and it is easier to agree with incremental items, from a measurement standpoint, it makes sense to combine the items to form one (bipolar) scale of implicit theory, with either incremental or entity items reverse-scored. Indeed, as Dweck and Elliott (1983) pointed out, perhaps the most appropriate view of intelligence integrates both entity and incremental theories; that is, the scale should recognize present differences in relative ability with an emphasis on individual growth in ability (see also Nicholls 1984). In this study we use a bipolar scale of implicit theory.

  2. In a more recent exploration of goal types, Elliot et al. (2015) have differentiated past- and potential-focused goals in order to distinguish, with respect to mastery-approach goals, for example, working to do better than one had done in the past from working to fulfill one’s potential. Drawing on this dimension, Dweck’s learning goal most nearly captures potential-focused competence development, whereas the ability goal captures the past-focused demonstration of competence.

  3. This may be because Grant and Dweck (2003) identified as a separate goal a component that is embedded in other goal constructs. That is, Grant and Dweck’s outcome goal may be a component of both mastery and performance-approach goals; this shared component (i.e., focus on outcome), rather than the combination of those two goals, may contribute to high performance.

  4. We estimate that our sample size of N = 261 is adequate to test the proposed model because the variables are all manifest indicators, the model fit statistics indicate good fit between the estimated path model and the data, and our sample size to parameter ratio is between the 5:1 and 10:1 rule of thumb ratios for observations to parameters proposed by Bentler and Chou (1987). In addition, the mediation analyses in Mplus use bias-corrected bootstrap estimates, which is a more powerful method for estimating mediation than other techniques (Fritz and MacKinnon 2007).

  5. Because both emotions—loss of interest/excitement and shame—were correlated with participant gender, we tested the mediation model separately for males and females. As others have reported (e.g., Burnette et al., 2013; Tempelaar et al., 2015), we did not find gender differences.

References

  • Ames, C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 478–487. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.3.478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C., & Archer, S. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, G., & Harlow, L. (2012). Implicit theories of intelligence motivation model of achievement. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Boston, MA.

  • Barrett, K. C., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Cole, P. M. (1993). Avoiders vs. amenders: Implications for the investigation of guilt and shame during toddlerhood? Cognition and Emotion, 7(6), 481–505. doi:10.1080/02699939308409201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, K., & Harackiewicz, J. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706–722. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bempechat, J., London, P., & Dweck, C. (1991). Children’s conceptions of ability in major domains: An interview and experimental study. Child Study Journal, 21(1), 11–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods Research, 16, 78–117. doi:10.1177/0049124187016001004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. (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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation of self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317–329. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1995.tb01152.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 655–701. doi:10.1037/a0029531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Church, M., Elliot, A., & Gable, S. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43–54. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 666–679. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, L., Stupnisky, R., Pekrun, R., Haynes, T., Perry, R., & Newall, N. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals: From affective antecedents to emotional effects and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 948–963. doi:10.1037/a0016096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Castella, K., & Byrne, D. (2015). My intelligence may be more malleable than yours: The revised implicit theories of intelligence (self-theory) scale is a better predictor of achievement, motivation, and student disengagement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30, 245–267. doi:10.1007/s10212-015-0244-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, C., & Dweck, C. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451–462. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinger, F. C., & Dickhäuser, O. (2013). Does implicit theory of intelligence cause achievement goals? Evidence from an experimental study. International Journal of Educational Research, 61, 38–47. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinger, F. C., Dickhäuser, O., Spinath, B., & Steinmayr, R. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of students’ achievement goals: A mediation analysis. Learning and Individual Differences,. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupeyrat, C., & Mariné, C. (2001). Implicit theories of intelligence, achievement goals, and learning strategy use. Psychologische Beitrage, 43, 34–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C., & Elliott, E. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 643–692). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C., & Grant, J. (2008). Self-theories, goals, and meaning. In J. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 405–416). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C., & Molden, D. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122–140). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 243–279). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A meditational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, E., & Dweck, C. (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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A., Murayama, K., Kobeisy, A., & Lichtenfeld, S. (2015). Potential-based achievement goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 192–206. doi:10.1111/bjep.12051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, H., & Dweck, C. (2001). Cross-cultural response to failure: Considering outcome attributions with different goals. In F. Salili, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 203–219). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, H., & Dweck, C. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541–553. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Tauer, J., Carter, S., & Elliot, A. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316–330. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C., & Sacks, R. (1997). Implicit theories and evaluative processes in person cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 296–323. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.1324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C. (2011). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 359–388. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9155-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joireman, J. (2004). Empathy and the self-absorption paradox II: Self-rumination and self-reflection as mediators between shame, guilt, and empathy. Self and Identity, 3, 225–238. doi:10.1080/13576500444000038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 330–358. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.0993.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linnenbrink, E. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: the use of multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 197–213. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molden, D., & Dweck, C. (2006). Finding ‘meaning’ in psychology. A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61, 192–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, C., & Dweck, C. (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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K., Ranellucci, J., Franco, G., & Crippen, K. (2013). The interactive effects of personal achievement goals and performance feedback in an undergraduate science class. Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 556–578. doi:10.1080/00220973.2012.738257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., Cusack, A., Murayama, K., Elliot, A., & Thomas, K. (2014). The power of anticipated feedback: Effects on students’ achievement goals and achievement emotions. Learning and Instruction, 29, 115–124. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., Elliot, A., & Maier, M. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 583–597. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., Elliot, A., & Maier, M. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions:testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 115–135. doi:10.1037/a0013383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.3.544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1(4), 313–336. doi:10.1080/15298860290106805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusk, N., Tamir, M., & Rothbaum, F. (2011). Performance and learning goals for emotion regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 444–460. doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9229-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children’s beliefs about intelligence and school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 397–407. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stipek, D., & Kowalski, P. (1989). Learned helplessness in task-orienting versus performance-orienting testing conditions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 384–391. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2015). The pivotal role of effort beliefs in mediating implicit theories of intelligence and achievement goals and academic motivations. Social Psychology of Education, 18(1), 101–120. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9281-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J., Thorpe, P., & Meyer, D. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation and negative affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 758–771. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, D., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Hill, N. (2009). Regulating debilitating emotions in the context of performance: Achievement goal orientations, achievement-elicited emotions, and socialization context. Human Development, 52, 329–356. doi:10.1159/000242348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C., Fan, W., & Daugherty, S. (2013). Examining achievement goals and causal attributions together as predictors of academic functioning. Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 295–321. doi:10.1080/00220973.2012.700498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Cortina, K. S. (2005). Motives, goals, and adaptive patterns of performance in Asian American and Anglo American students. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 141–158. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2004.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Claremont Graduate University student Margaret Burkhart for her assistance with data analysis, and to Pomona College students Anna Blanken, Mina Han, Megan Holman, Sue Hyun Kwon, and Christopher Reeves for project assistance. This research was supported with faculty research grants from Pomona College to the first author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Pomona College, 647 N. College Way, Claremont, CA, 91711, USA

    Patricia A. Smiley & Samuel Y. Chung

  2. Division of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA

    Katherine V. Buttitta, Valeska X. Dubon & Lillian K. Chang

Authors
  1. Patricia A. Smiley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine V. Buttitta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samuel Y. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valeska X. Dubon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lillian K. Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia A. Smiley.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire items

Appendix 1: Questionnaire items

Theory of intelligence (E = entity; I = incremental)

  1. 1.

    You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can’t really do much to change it (E).

  2. 2.

    Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much (E).

  3. 3.

    No matter who you are, you can significantly change your intelligence level (I).

  4. 4.

    To be honest, you can’t really change how intelligent you are (E).

  5. 5.

    You can always substantially change how intelligent you are (I).

  6. 6.

    You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic intelligence (E).

  7. 7.

    No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite a bit (I).

  8. 8.

    You can change even your basic intelligence level considerably (I).

Learning goal

  1. 1.

    I strive to constantly learn and improve in my classes.

  2. 2.

    In school I am always seeking opportunities to develop new skills.

  3. 3.

    In my classes, I focus on developing my abilities.

  4. 4.

    I want to learn as much as I can from my classes.

  5. 5.

    In school, my aim is to increase my knowledge.

  6. 6.

    In my classes, my main goal is to develop my intelligence.

Ability goal

  1. 1.

    In school I am focused on demonstrating my intellectual ability.

  2. 2.

    It is important to me to confirm my intelligence through my schoolwork.

  3. 3.

    One of my most important goals is to validate my intelligence through my schoolwork.

  4. 4.

    My grades signify to others how smart I am.

  5. 5.

    In my schoolwork, I want to demonstrate that I am smart.

  6. 6.

    How I perform in school shows how intelligent I am.

Effort attribution

  1. 1.

    When I get a good test score, it’s mostly because I put a lot of time into studying for it.

  2. 2.

    When I score poorly on a test, it’s probably because I didn’t study hard enough for it.

  3. 3.

    When I don’t do well on an assignment, I know I could have worked harder.

  4. 4.

    If I put forth the effort I can do well in any class, even if the subject is difficult.

  5. 5.

    I only do poorly in a class if I didn’t spend enough time with the material.

  6. 6.

    I can learn any subject if I try hard enough.

Ability attribution

  1. 1.

    If I get a bad grade on a presentation, it shows that I’m not a very good student.

  2. 2.

    If I am naturally good at a subject, I will do well in the class no matter how little I try.

  3. 3.

    If I get a good grade in a class, it’s mostly because I’m good at that subject.

  4. 4.

    When I score low on a test, it’s probably because I’m not good at the subject.

  5. 5.

    I do poorly on tests because I’m not smart enough.

  6. 6.

    If I’m bad at a subject, I can’t improve no matter how much I try.

Planning

  1. 1.

    I would plan on how to do better on the next presentation.

  2. 2.

    I would spend more time on the next presentation.

  3. 3.

    I would give this class more attention.

  4. 4.

    I would use a different strategy to prepare for the next assignment.

Withdrawal

  1. 1.

    I would focus less time on preparing for class.

  2. 2.

    I would not work as hard in the class.

  3. 3.

    I would devote less time and energy to the class.

  4. 4.

    I would drop the class.

Loss of interest

  1. 1.

    I wouldn’t be excited about the course anymore.

  2. 2.

    I would feel less interested in the subject.

  3. 3.

    I wouldn’t enjoy the class as much as before.

  4. 4.

    I would not like this class as much as before.

Shame

  1. 1.

    I feel bad about myself and want to hide in my room.

  2. 2.

    I feel so bad I can’t even imagine going back to that class.

  3. 3.

    I feel like I can’t face my professor again.

  4. 4.

    I want to put my presentation in a folder and never look at it again.

  5. 5.

    I don’t want anyone to know how poorly I did.

  6. 6.

    I feel terrible that everyone in the class saw the professor pull me aside to talk to me.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smiley, P.A., Buttitta, K.V., Chung, S.Y. et al. Mediation models of implicit theories and achievement goals predict planning and withdrawal after failure. Motiv Emot 40, 878–894 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9575-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9575-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation