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
- 4k Downloads
The belief that intelligence is malleable has important consequences for achievement and motivation (Blackwell et al. Child Development, 78, 246-263. 2007; Dweck, 1999; Robins & Pals, Self and Identity, 1,313-336, 2002). However, believing that it is possible to improve intelligence does not necessarily mean students are always confident they can improve their own. The current study presents a revised “self-theory” measure of the implicit theories of intelligence scale, which assess students’ beliefs about their ability to mold their own intelligence in contrast to their beliefs about the malleability of intelligence in general. In testing with 643 Australian high school students (62 % female) ranging from 15 to 19 years of age (M = 16.6, standard deviation (SD) = 1.01), the belief that intelligence is “fixed” was predictive of lower endorsement of achievement goals, greater helplessness attributions, and poorer self-reported academic grades. Fixed “entity” beliefs were also predictive of academic self-handicapping, truancy, and disengagement. On all of these measures, the new self-theory scale uniquely explained greater outcome variance. These results indicate that students’ implicit beliefs—particularly about their own intelligence—may have important implications for their motivation, engagement, and performance in school.
KeywordsImplicit theories Intelligence Entity Incremental Achievement Motivation Self-handicapping
We would like to thank Carol S. Dweck for her assistance and guidance in the preparation of this manuscript.
- Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user's guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.Google Scholar
- Atkinson, J. W. (1978). Motivational determinants of intellective performance and cumulative achievement. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Personality, motivation & achievement. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 5, 307–337.Google Scholar
- Bempechat, J., London, P., & Dweck, C. S. (1991). Children’s conceptions of ability in major domains: an interview and experimental study. Child Study Journal, 21, 11–35.Google Scholar
- Bergen, R. (1992). Beliefs about intelligence and achievement-related behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.Google Scholar
- Blackwell, L. S. (2002). Psychological mediators of student achievement during the transition to junior high school: the role of implicit theories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
- Brainology (2010). Accessed October 10, 2011. The Mindset Works Website: http://www.brainology.us/
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Cassady, J. C. (2001) Self-reported GPA and SAT: a methodological note. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation 7. Retrieved Online May 17th, 2011: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=12
- Chen, L. H., Chen, M. Y., Lin, M. S., Kee, Y. H., Kuo, C. F., & Shui, S. H. (2008). Implicit theory of athletic ability and self-handicapping in college students. Psychological Reports, 103, 476–484.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). LawrenceGoogle Scholar
- Cury, F., Da Fonseca, D., Zahn, I., & Elliot, A. (2008). Implicit theories and IQ test performance: a sequential meditational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 783–791.Google Scholar
- Deppe, R. K., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Self-handicapping and intrinsic motivation: buffering intrinsic motivation from the threat of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 868–876. doi: 10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1688.
- Dickey, D. (1996). Testing the fit of our models of psychological dynamics using confirmatory methods: An introductory primer. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science methodology (pp. 219–227). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C. S., & Wortman, C. B. (1982). Learned helplessness, anxiety and achievement motivation: neglected parallels in cognitive, affective and coping responses. In H. W. Krohne & L. Laux (Eds.), Achievement stress and anxiety (pp. 93–125). New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
- Martin, A. J. (2001). The student motivation scale: a tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 11, 1–20.Google Scholar
- Maxey, E. J., & Ormsby, V. J. (1971). The accuracy of self-report information collected on the ACT Test Battery: high school grades and items of nonacademic achievement (ACT Research Rep. No. 45). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.Google Scholar
- Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., Kaplan, A., Arun- kumar, R., & Middleton, M. (1998). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan.Google Scholar
- Ommundsen, Y., Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (2005). Academic self-concept, implicit theories of ability, and self-regulation strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 461–474.Google Scholar
- Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd E.d.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Strube, M. J. (1986). An analysis of the self-handicapping scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 211–224. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp0703_4.
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education. They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81, 267–301.Google Scholar