Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 255–272 | Cite as

The relations between implicit intelligence beliefs, autonomous academic motivation, and school persistence intentions: a mediation model

  • Andréanne Renaud-Dubé
  • Frédéric Guay
  • Denis Talbot
  • Geneviève Taylor
  • Richard Koestner


This study attempts to test a model in which the relation between implicit theories of intelligence and students’ school persistence intentions are mediated by intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external regulations. Six hundred and fifty students from a high school were surveyed. Contrary to expectations, results from ESEM analyses indicated that the four types of regulations do not mediate the relation between implicit theories of intelligence and students’ intentions to persist in school. Rather, results show two direct effects, where an incremental theory of intelligence is associated with greater school persistence intentions, as well as being motivated in an intrinsic manner. In addition, results reveal that academic achievement is related to persistence intentions. No gender differences were observed. This research highlights the importance of promoting students’ incremental intelligence beliefs and intrinsic motivation in order to foster school persistence intentions. Theoretical and practical implications for parents and teachers are discussed.


Implicit theories of intelligence Motivation School persistence intentions 


  1. Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic achievement of African-American students: The role of conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school drop-out: A test of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 568–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 521–540.Google Scholar
  5. Beauducel, A., & Yorck Herzberg, P. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 186–203.Google Scholar
  6. Biddle, S. J., & Wang, C. K. J. (2003). Motivation and self-perception profiles and links with physical activity in adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across and adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Self-Determination. Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1–2.Google Scholar
  10. Dweck, C. S., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children’s theories of intelligence. In S. Paris, G. Olsen, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 239–256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgements and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dweck, C. S., & Master, A. (2009). Self-theories and motivation: Students’ beliefs about intelligence. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171–195). New York, NY: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
  14. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. G. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Sructural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  16. Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 245–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary and sufficient conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19, 149–161.Google Scholar
  20. Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henderson, V. L., Dweck, C. S., & Chiu, C. (1992). A measure of implicit theories of intelligence. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
  23. Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of educational research, 75, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lubke, G. H., & Muth’en, B. O. (2004). Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 514–534.Google Scholar
  25. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 391–410. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391.
  26. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K-T. (2007). Applications of latent-variable models in educational psychology: The need for methodological-substantive synergies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 151–171.Google Scholar
  27. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesistesting approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.
  29. Marsh, H.W., Muth’en, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439–476.Google Scholar
  30. Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Hamilton, L. R. (2011). Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and victimization: An application of exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 701–732.Google Scholar
  31. MELS. (2005). Academic success and the gender gap: The influence of the socioeconomic environment. Retrieved from
  32. MELS. (2010). Indices de défavorisation 2009–2010. Retrieved from
  33. Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  34. Morris, S., Pawlovich, W., & McCall, D. (1991). Evaluating the effectiveness of school dropout prevention strategies: Some suggestions for future research. Ottawa: Canadian Education Association.Google Scholar
  35. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2009). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  36. Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. OECD. (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/eag-2013-en
  38. Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Sénécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 734–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implication for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1, 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Royer, E., Moisan, S., St-Laurent, L., & Giasson, J. (1993). School dropout and its prevention. Bulletin de Psychologie Scolaire et d’Orientation, 42, 131–151.Google Scholar
  41. Rumberger, R. W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57, 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation, learning, and well-being. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171–195). New York, NY: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
  46. Standage, M., Duda, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strom, R. E., & Boster, F. J. (2007). Dropping out of high school: A meta-analysis assessing the effect of messages in the home and in school. Communication Education, 56, 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tidwell, R. (1988). Dropouts speak out: Qualitative data on early school departures. Adolescence, 23, 939–954.Google Scholar
  49. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (1989). Construction et validation de l’Echelle de Motivation en Education (EME) [Construction and validation of the Academic Motivation Scale]. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21, 323–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school drop out. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vansteenkiste, M., Mouratidis, A., & Lens, W. (2010). Detaching reasons from aims: Fair play and well-being in soccer as a function of pursuing performance-approach goals for autonomous or controlling reasons. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 217–242.Google Scholar
  54. Wang, C. K. J., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Spray, C. M., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). Achievement goal profiles in school physical education: Differences in self-determination, sport ability beliefs, and physical activity. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 433–445.Google Scholar
  55. Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andréanne Renaud-Dubé
    • 1
  • Frédéric Guay
    • 1
  • Denis Talbot
    • 1
  • Geneviève Taylor
    • 2
  • Richard Koestner
    • 3
  1. 1.Pavillon des sciences de l’éducationUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.University of Quebec at MontrealMontrealCanada
  3. 3.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations