Article

Implicit Self-Theories in the Academic Domain: Implications for Goal Orientation, Attributions, Affect, and Self-Esteem Change

Self and Identity (Impact Factor: 1.42). 09/2010; October 01:313-336. DOI: 10.1080/15298860290106805

ABSTRACT This study supported hypotheses derived from Dweck's model about the implications of two implicit self-theories: Entity theorists believe their intelligence is fixed, whereas Incremental theorists believe their intelligence can be increased. Findings showed no normative change in implicit self-theories from high school through college and relatively stable individual differences during college. Entity theorists tended to adopt performance goals, whereas Incremental theorists tended to adopt learning goals. In terms of attributions, affect, and behavioral response to challenge, Entity theorists displayed a helpless response pattern and Incremental theorists displayed a mastery-oriented response pattern. Finally, Entity theorists declined in self-esteem during college whereas Incremental theorists increased self-esteem, and path analyses showed that this effect was mediated by goal orientation and the helpless versus mastery response patterns.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
129 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Student adjustment in school remains a key concern of educators, parents, and students. Often students fail at school not because they lack the intelligence or motivation to succeed, but because they fail to adjust to the demands of school in adaptive and productive ways. Some of the most common adjustment concerns of students include: 1. school-related concerns (i.e., academic problems, adjustment to university life), 2. emotional distress (anxiety, depression, self-esteem, etc.), 3. interpersonal/relationship concerns (assertiveness, dating, making friends, etc.), 4. developmental issues (values, career, spiritual concerns, sexual identity/orientation, etc.), 5. behavioral problems (eating, procrastination, study habits, substance abuse, etc.), 6. environmental stressors (discrimination, sexual assault), and 7. physical health problems (illness, pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, sleep, weight). In the first of two sister papers, this paper explores the role of attribution theory in explaining student adjustment to school and to life in general. Moreover, the paper shows how an extension and expansion of attribution theory provides a powerful account of students' adjustment to school in terms of their personal constructions of causal entities and relationships at work in the world. The paper also develops the first part of a model that links attribution theory with attachment theory to provide a comprehensive model of intra-and inter-personal forces affecting student adjustment and students' subsequent schooling and life outcomes. Student Behaviour Understanding the causes of student behaviours, particularly aberrant, anti-social and/or self-destructive behaviours remains a critical concern of school educators, administrators, counsellors and parents (Hudley & Graham, 1993; Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001; Woodward & Fergusson, 2000). Schools are organisations characterised by extensive and intensive social interaction in which the behaviour of students has a significant impact upon the relationship between teachers and students and, consequently, upon teaching and learning outcomes (New South Wales Department of Education & Training, 1999; Pellegrini, 2004; Woodward & Fergusson, 2000). Moreover, a school's ability to develop and maintain a positive school culture is significantly dependent on the school's ability to encourage, manage and facilitate student behaviour consistent with that culture (Clayton, Ballif-Spanvill, & Hunsaker, 2001). For this reason, encouraging, managing and facilitating student behaviour is of critical concern to all school staff, especially teachers, and represents a significant on-going staff development issue as a teacher's best efforts at contributing to school culture can be easily frustrated by inappropriate student behaviour. Further, a school's ability or inability to deal with its 'problem' students has a significant impact on its 'non-problem' students, with the efforts of conscientious students often being frustrated by the inappropriate behaviour of other less-conscientious students, even if few in number (Juvonen & Graham, 2004; Olweus, 1993). The issue of difficult student behaviour is often exacerbated by the uneven distribution of these behaviours across the student body, and across the staff dealing with these behaviours. This uneven distribution creates pressure points which significantly impact on the school in a negative way. An example of this uneven distribution is shown in Figure 1, which records student misbehaviour data gathered from one high-school in Sydney, Australia. This data indicates that 70% of behavioural incidents amongst 400 students in Years 9 through 12 were attributable to only 30% of the students.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study examined how beliefs about intelligence, as mediated by ability-validation goals, predicted whether students lost or maintained levels of intrinsic motivation over the course of a single academic year. 978 third- through eighth-grade students were surveyed in the fall about their theories concerning the malleability of intelligence, need to validate their academic ability through schoolwork, and intrinsic motivation. At the end of the school year, they were surveyed again about their intrinsic motivation and subsequently characterized as either decliners (those who lost intrinsic motivation over the year) or maintainers (those who maintained or gained intrinsic motivation over the year). As predicted, decliners were more likely to endorse an entity theory of intelligence than maintainers and this relationship was fully mediated by the adoption of ability-validation goals. Implications for intervention efforts and future research are discussed.
    Learning and Individual Differences 01/2011; 21:747-752. · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of Consumer Research 12/2010; 37(December):655-669. · 3.10 Impact Factor