Skip to main content

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Our sample of schools included Radford, Merici, Melba Copland, Canberra College, and Lake Ginninderra. Rankings for these schools based on the ATAR can be found at: www.bettereducation.com.au/results/ACT/2010/ACT.aspx.

  2. 2.

    In the Australian Capital Territory, grades in both public and private schools are distributed independent of the student’s relative performance in their class. Grade inflation (by school) is controlled for using the ACT Scaling Test, which is administered to students in all schools and is used to rank schools for calculating students’ ATAR. Unfortunately, students’ grades and scores on national scaling exams are not available for research purposes hence the need for self-report measures in most educational research of this kind within Australia.

  3. 3.

    To examine construct validity of this four-item measure, we conducted a principal component factor analysis on achievement items. Results yielded a strong single-factor solution (eigenvalue = 3.11) accounting for 78 % of the overall variance. The second, third, and fourth factors had eigenvalues <.47. All item loadings for the single factor solution were >.86, and communalities for all items were >.75. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was also .79 (above the commonly recommended value of .6), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ 2 (6) = .1753.73, p < .001).

  4. 4.

    Further evidence that the general and self-theory measures are two distinct constructs comes from a second CFA conducted using all implicit theory scale items. We correlated error terms between matching general and self-theory scale items while comparing a single factor model (with all 16 items loading on a single factor) with a two-factor solution in which scale items loaded on their corresponding general and self-theory factors. The two-factor solution (χ 2 = 1860.7**, GFI = .69, AGFI = .55, CFI = .78, RMSEA = 17, PGFI = .48) fits the data better than the single-factor model (χ 2 = 2,279.7**, GFI = .64, AGFI = .49, CFI = .73, RMSEA = 19, PGFI = .45), further indicating that the general and self-theory measures are assessing independent (yet related) constructs.

  5. 5.

    Because implicit theory scales have been used in different ways in the research literature, we replicated our analyses using the two distinct subscales for incremental and entity beliefs separately.

  6. 6.

    In our supplementary analysis with the separate subscales, entity beliefs were negatively associated with performance approach; performance avoidance and mastery goals and incremental beliefs were positively associated with all three goals constructs.

  7. 7.

    In a second set of analyses, we repeated the hierarchical regression in the reverse order entering the self-theory scale in the first step and the general theory scale in the second. The general scale failed to explain unique variance on any of the dependent variables when controlling for “self-theories.” The only exception was performance approach goals, where the general scale contributed 1 % of unique variance (β = .17, R 2 = .02, R 2change = .01).

  8. 8.

    While the general entity theory of intelligence scale was on its own, not a significant predictor of performance-approach goals, it became so when the self-theory scale was entered into the equation. This may indicate the existence of suppression of the former by shared variance with the latter.

References

  1. Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: when a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1621–1630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alicke, M., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: what they are and what they do. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ames, C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 478–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user's guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.

  7. Aronson, J., Fried, C., & Good, C. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. Atkinson, J. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1960). Achievement motive and test anxiety conceived as motive to approach success and motive to avoid failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 5, 307–337.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Beer, J. S. (2002). Implicit self-theories of shyness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1009–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Bergen, R. (1992). Beliefs about intelligence and achievement-related behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.

  17. 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.

  18. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brainology (2010). Accessed October 10, 2011. The Mindset Works Website: http://www.brainology.us/

  20. 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.

  21. Burkley, M., Parker, J., Stermer, S. P., & Burkley, E. (2010). Trait beliefs that make women vulnerable to math disengagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 234–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

  23. Chen, J. A., & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of grade 6 science students: relation to epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

  25. Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Lawrence

  28. Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 666–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 

  30. De Castella, K., Byrne, D., & Covington, M. (2013). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 861–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.868.

  32. 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.

  33. Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: continuous changes in performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36, 451–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: the process of success. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39, 940–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Donnellan, M. B. (2008). A psychometric evaluation of two achievement goal inventories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 643–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Doron, J., Yannick, S., Boiche, J., & Le Scanff, C. (2009). Coping with examinations: exploring relationships between students’ coping strategies, implicit theories of ability and perceived control. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 515–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dunning, D., Leuenberger, A., & Sherman, D. A. (1995). A new look at motivated inference: are self-serving theories of success a product of motivational forces? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 58–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dupeyrat, C., & Marine, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement and achievement: a test of Dweck’s model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dweck, C. S. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 391–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995a). Implicit theories and their role in judgements and reactions: a world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995b). Implicit theories: elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 322–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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 

  46. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Erdley, C. A., Cain, K. M., Loomis, C. C., Dumans-Hines, F., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Relations among children’s social goals, implicit personality theories and responses to social failure. Developmental Psychology, 33, 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Eronen, S., Nurmi, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (1998). Optimistic, defensive-pessimistic, impulsive and self-handicapping strategies in university environments. Learning and Instruction, 8, 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fisher, R. J., & Katz, J. E. (2000). Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Fryer, J. W., & Elliot, A. J. (2007). Stability and change in achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 700–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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, 645–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gramzow, R. H., Elliot, A. J., Asher, E., & McGregor, H. A. (2003). Self-evaluation bias and academic performance: some ways and some reasons why. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gramzow, R. H., & Willard, G. (2006). Exaggerating current and past performance: motivated self-enhancement versus reconstructive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1114–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English, mathematics and science high school subjects: towards an understanding of multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 269–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Harris, R. N., Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Schrag, J. L. (1986). Enhancing the prediction of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1191–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Haynes, T. L., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., Perry, R. P., & Hladkyj, S. (2008). The effect of attributional retraining on mastery and performance motivation among first-year college students. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 198–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hepper, E. G., Gramzow, R. H., & Sedikides, C. (2010). Individual differences in self-enhancement and self-protection strategies: an integrative analysis. Journal of Personality, 78, 781–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions and coping: a meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Howell, A. J., & Buro, K. (2009). Implicit beliefs, achievement goals and procrastination: a meditational analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 151–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: the appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kamins, M., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person vs. process praise and criticism: implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35, 835–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Kärkkäinen, R., Räty, H., & Kasanen, K. (2008). Children’s notions of the malleability of their academic competencies. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 445–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: orientation toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Levy, S., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Trait-focused and process-focused social judgment. Social Cognition, 16, 151–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Maltby, J., Day, L., Giles, D., Gillett, R., Quick, M., Langcaster-James, H., & Linley, P. A. (2008). Implicit theories of a desire for fame. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience, 1, 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Marsh, H. M. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: the Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 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 

  73. Martin, A. J. (2003). The student motivation scale: further testing of an instrument that measures school students’ motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Martin, K. A., & Brawley, L. R. (2002). Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: the contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 1, 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: a model of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 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 

  78. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  79. McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-related processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 381–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). “If I don’t do well tomorrow, there’s a reason”: predictors of adolescents’ use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 423–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middelton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 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 

  83. Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: a further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Niiya, Y., Crocker, J., & Bartmess, E. N. (2004). From vulnerability to resilience: learning orientations buffer contingent self-esteem from failure. Psychological Science, 15, 801–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Nurmi, J., Aunola, K., Salmela-Aro, K., & Lindroos, M. (2003). The role of success expectation and task-avoidance in academic performance and satisfaction: three studies on antecedents, consequences and correlates. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 59–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Nurmi, J., Onatsu, T., & Haavisto, T. (1995). Underachievers’ cognitive and behavioral strategies—self-handicapping at school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 188–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 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.

  89. Peterson, C. (1995). Entity and incremental world views: some lessons from learned helplessness theory and research. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 307–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 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, 313–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual differences in self-handicapping behavior: on the application of implicit theories. Journal of Personality, 62, 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Sharot, T., Riccardi, A. M., Raio, C. M., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Neural mechanisms mediating optimism bias. Nature, 450, 102–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Schmalt, H. D. (1999). Assessing the achievement motive using the grid technique. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd E.d.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  97. Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children’s beliefs about intelligence and school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 397–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Story, A. L., & Dunning, D. (2002). The more rational side of self-serving prototypes: the effect of success and failure performance feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 513–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Strube, M. J. (1986). An analysis of the self-handicapping scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 211–224. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0703_4.

  100. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Tamir, M., John, O. P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Implicit theories of emotion: affective and social outcomes across a major life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 731–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Taylor, S. E., & Armor, D. A. (1996). Positive illusions and coping with adversity. Journal of Personality, 64, 873–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Werth, L., & Forster, J. (2002). Implicit person theories influence memory judgments: the circumstances under which metacognitive knowledge is used. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 353–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1985). Improving the performance of college freshmen with attributional techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 287–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 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 

  107. Young-Hoon, K., & Chiu, C. (2011). Emotional costs of inaccurate self-assessments: both self-effacement and self-enhancement can lead to dejection. Emotion, 11, 1096–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Carol S. Dweck for her assistance and guidance in the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krista De Castella.

Additional information

Kri sta De Castella. The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia; Stanford University, Stanford, USA. E-mail: krista1@gmail.com

Current themes of research:

Social Psychology. Clinical Psychology. Affective Science. Implicit theories of intelligence and emotion. Self-fulfilling prophecies and maladaptive beliefs. Fear of failure and self-handicapping. Social anxiety. Mindfulness based interventions.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

De Castella, K., Goldin, P., Jazaieri, H., Ziv, M., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. (2014). Emotion beliefs and cognitive behavioural therapy for social anxiety disorder. Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 1–14. doi:10.1080/16506073.2014.974665.

De Castella, K., Goldin, P., Jazaieri, H., Ziv, M., & Gross, J. (2014). Emotion beliefs in social anxiety disorder: Associations with stress, anxiety, and well-being. Australian Journal of Psychology 66, 139–148.

De Castella, K., Goldin, P., Jazaieri, H., Ziv, M., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. (2013). Beliefs about emotion: Links to emotion regulation, well-being, and psychological distress. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6(35), 497–505.

De Castella, K., Byrne, D. & Covington, M. (2013). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure and student disengagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 861–880.

Donald Byrne. The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

Current themes of research:

Health, Clinical and Counseling Psychology. Social and Community Psychology. Biological Psychology (Neuropsychology, Psychopharmacology, Physiological Psychology). Psychological Methodology (Design and Analysis). Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Telford, R., Bass, S., Budge, M., et al. (2009). The lifestyle of our kids (LOOK) project: Outline of methods. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(1), 156–163.

Deans, C., & Byrne, D. (2009). A scale to measure non-traumatic military operational stress. Stress and Health, 25(2009), 53–62.

Byrne, D., & Espnes, G. (2008). Occupational stress and cardiovascular disease. Stress and Health, 24, 231–238.

Mazanov, J., & Byrne, D. (2008). Modelling change in adolescent smoking behaviour: Stability of predictors across analytic models. British Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 361–379.

Espnes, G., & Byrne, D. (2008). Gender differences in psychological risk factors for development of heart disease. Stress and Health, 24, 188–195.

Lipnicki, D., & Byrne, D. (2008). An Effect of Posture on Anticipatory Anxiety. International Journal of Neuroscience, 118, 227–237.

Byrne, D., & Mazanov, J. (2008). Personality, Stress and the Determination of Smoking Behaviour in Adolescents. In G. J. Boyle, M. Gerald, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Vol 1 Personality Theories and Models (pp. 698–719). London: Sage Publications Inc.

Caltabiano, M., Sarafino, E., & Byrne, D. (2008). Health Psychology biopsychosocial interactions. Australia: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Byrne, D., Davenport, S., & Mazanov, J. (2007). Profiles of adolescent stress: The development of the adolescent stress questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Adolescence, 30, 393–416.

Mazanov, J., & Byrne, D. (2007a). Changes in adolescent smoking behaviour and knowledge of health consequences of smoking. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59(3), 176–180.

Mazanov, J., & Byrne, D. (2007b). "Do you intend to smoke?": A test of the assumed psychological equivalence in adolescent smoker and nonsmoker intention to change smoking behaviour. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59(1), 34–42.

Byrne, D., Davenport, S., & Stuart-Harris, R. (2006). Coping with chemotherapy: The experience of toxicity in women undergoing treatment for early breast cancer. In K. Mary (Ed.), Joint Conference of the Australian Psychological Society and NZPsS 2006 (p. 4). Melbourne Australia: Australian Psychological Society.

Mazanov, J., & Byrne, D. (2006a). An evaluation of the stability of perceptions and frequency of adolescent risk-taking over time and across samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 725–735.

Mazanov, J., & Byrne, D. (2006b). 'A cusp catastrophe model analysis of changes in adolescent substance use: Assessment of behavioural intention as a bifurcation variable', Nonlinear Dynamics. Psychology and Life Sciences, 10(4), 445–470.

Byrne, D., & Davenport, S. (2005). Contemporary profiles of clinical and health psychologists in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 40(3), 190–201.

Lipnicki, D., & Byrne, D. (2005). Thinking on your back: Solving anagrams faster when supine than when standing. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 719–722.

Byrne, D., & Mazanov, J. (2005). Prevention of adolescent smoking: A prospective test of three models of intervention. Journal of Substance Use, 10(6), 363–374.

Byrne, D., & Mazanov, J. (2003). Adolescent stress and future smoking behaviour A prospective investigation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 54(3), 313–321.

Barresi, M., Shadbolt, B., Byrne, D., et al. (2003). The development of the Canberra symptom scorecard: a tool to monitor the physical symptoms of patients with advanced tumours. BMC Cancer, 3(32), 1–9.

Mazanov, J., & Byrne, D. (2002). A comparision of predictors of the adolescent intention to smoke with adolescent current smoking using discriminant function analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7(2), 185–201.

Byrne, D., & Mazanov, J. (2002). Sources of stress in Australian adolescents: factor structure and stability over time. Stress and Health, 18, 185–192.

Byrne, D., Sivik., T, Lipsitt, D. et al. eds (2002). Psycho-Neuro-Endocrino-Immunology (PNEI) A common language for the whole human body, Elsevier, The Netherlands.

Byrne, D. (2002). Occupational stress, occupational structure and occupational morbidity. In T. Sivik, D. Byrne, D. R. Lipsitt, G. N. Christodolou, & H. Dienstfrey (Eds.), Psycho-neuro-endocrino-immunology (PNEI): a common language for the whole human body (pp. 151–54). Netherlands: Elsevier.

Byrne, D., & Mazanov, J. (2001). Self-esteem, stress and cigarette smoking in adolescents. Stress and Health, 17(2), 105–110.

Byrne, D., Mazanov, J., & Gregson, R. (2001). 'A cusp catastrophe analysis of changes to adolescent smoking behaviour in response to smoking prevention programs', Nonlinear Dynamics. Psychology and Life Sciences, 5(2), 115–137.

Byrne, D. (2000a). The frustration of success: Type A behaviour, occupational stress and cardiovascular disease. In D. T. Kenny, J. G. Carlson, F. J. McGuigan, & Sheppa (Eds.), Stress and Health: Research and Clinical Applications (pp. 411–436). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Brooks, S., Byrne, D., & Hodson, S. (2000). Non-Combat Occupational Stress and Fatigue: A Review of Factors and Measurement Issues for the Australian Defence Force. Australian Defence Force Journal, 145, 35–50.

Byrne, D. (2000b). Cigarette Smoking, Psycholoigal Stress, and Cardiovascular Arousal. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52(1), 1–8.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4

Table 4 Scale Items and Reliabilities

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Castella, K., Byrne, D. 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. Eur J Psychol Educ 30, 245–267 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0244-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Implicit theories
  • Intelligence
  • Entity
  • Incremental
  • Achievement
  • Motivation
  • Self-handicapping