International Education Journal, 2006, 7(4), 547-.
ISSN 1443-1475 © 2006 Shannon Research Press.
http://iej.com.au
547
The implicit theories of intelligence: A review of Carol
Dweck’s motivation process model
Sabry M. Abd-El-Fattah
School of Education, University of South Australia sabry.abd-el-fattah@unisa.edu.au
This paper reviews the theoretical bases of Carol Dweck’s implicit theory of
intelligence within the framework of the motivation process model. The motivation
process model is intended to explain the full range of adaptive behaviours in
achievement contexts, ranging from a mastery behavioural pattern on one extreme to a
helpless behavioural pattern on the other. Specifically, the central explanatory
construct is of a cognitive nature, the implicit personality theory of intelligence, which
acts as a meaning system influencing the whole action process. The central construct
concerns the individuals’ beliefs about the malleability of human traits. The
motivation process model encompasses the entire behavioural process. That is the
implicit personality theory of intelligence determines goal development and
information processing, which in turn determine, in concert with confidence in one’s
intelligence, overt behaviour.
Implicit theories of intelligence, Carol Dweck, motivation process model
INTRODUCTION
Most motivation theorists assume that motivation is involved in the performance of all learned
responses; that is, a learned behaviour may not occur unless it is energized. This assumption is
supported by the notion that some people have an intense need to achieve; others, perhaps the
majority, do not seem to be as concerned about achievement. Ames (1992) and Atkinson and
Feather (1966) argued that achievement motivation seemed to be a sub-conscious process in
which a decision regarding how to act or not to act was made. Similarly, Atkinson (1974) and
Aschuler (1973) added that achievement motivation identified the sector of motivated behaviours
directed towards the attainment of results which could be assessed against a standard.
Furthermore, Dweck (1999) represented the implicit personality theory (IPT) as a meaning
system, which had important consequences for motivation and behaviour, particularly in
achievement motivation contexts. Dweck and her colleagues argued that the Motivation Process
Model (MPM) was basically a trait oriented personality theory, in which environmental variables
worked as boundary conditions (Dweck, 1989; Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Erdley & Dweck, 1993).
For example, Dweck and Elliott (1983) pointed out that a high-achieving person could pursue a
performance goal, which was focused on the attainment of favourable judgments of competence
through attaining normative competence. However, the focus in the MPM was not on those goals
being addressed by the action, but rather how specific personality characteristics might predispose
specific behaviours. In this sense, the MPM applied to achievement contexts was a theory about
intra-personal central effects of the IPT of intelligence (Dweck, 1996; Elliot & Harackiewicz,
1996).
Dweck’s theory, as a MPM, tackles the entire behavioural processes, starting with the IPT of
intelligence and its influences on motivational orientations and information processing through to
548
The implicit theories of intelligence: A review of Carol Dweck’s motivation process model
the evaluation of action outcomes. The components of the MPM are represented in Figure 1.
These components include:
1. Implicit theory of intelligence,
2. Seeking and evaluation of information,
3. Motivational orientation,
4. Overt behaviour,
5. Outcome evaluation.
Motivational
Orientation
Implicit Theory
of
Intelligence
Overt Behaviour
Outcome
Evaluation
Seek and Evaluate
Information
Figure1. Motivational Process Model
DWECK’S IMPLICIT THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE
Dweck (Dweck, 1996; Dweck & Bempechat, 1983; Dweck & Elliott, 1983) defined implicit
theory of intelligence as one’s perspective about his or her intelligence being a fixed
uncontrollable trait (entity theory) that could not be changed through effort, or a malleable
controllable quality that could be increased and improved through effort and investment
(incremental theory). The IPT of one’s own intelligence might not be an explicit knowledge, but
rather implicit. This means that persons might not be conscious of whether they were more likely
to rate human attributes as being stable or modifiable entities (Dweck & Elliott, 1983). In a key
study, Dweck and her colleagues reported that about equal numbers of persons (i.e., 45%) held
one of the two theories (entity vs. malleable). The remanning 10% could not be definitely
classified (Dweck, Hong, Chiu, 1993).
According to Dweck (1996), the IPT of intelligence acted as a belief system, which gave meaning
to achievement behaviour. Therefore, the IPT of intelligence could be measured by brief
instruments and the construct could be treated as a stable individual difference trait. Robins and
Pals (2002), for example, found that college students’ implicit theory of intelligence was stable (r
= 0.70), when they were traced over four years of college.
SEEKING AND EVALUATING INFORMATION
Dweck and her colleagues argued that the endorsement of specific theory of intelligence might
affect how information was processed (Dweck, 1989; Dweck & Bempechat, 1983; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988). Several researchers (Chiu, Dweck, Tong, & Fu, 1997; Erdley, Cain, Loomis,
Dumas-Hines, Dweck, 1997) have reported that entity theorists were inclined to develop beliefs
more quickly. When a belief was already being cultivated, entity theorists were less likely to
attend to new or contradictory information. Furthermore, entity theorists used ineffective problem
solving strategies compared to incremental theorists when faced with difficult tasks.
IPT of intelligence affects information processing
Abd-El-Fattah
549
Entity theorists may also question their intelligence regarding whether or not they can master a
task. Therefore, an assessment of their intelligence may be crucial for information processing and
problem solving strategies. For example, Dweck and her colleagues found that two-thirds of entity
theorists showed deterioration in their problem solving strategies in face of difficult problems. In
addition, entity theorists were more likely to prefer those tasks that could be easily accomplished
without exerting much effort or questioning their ability. This was also true for entity theorists
with a high level of confidence in their intelligence (Dweck, 1999; Dweck & Bempechat, 1983;
Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995).
However, a large body of research (Dweck, 1999; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973; Elliott & Dweck,
1988; Henderson & Dweck, 1990) have shown that incremental theorists believed that it was
possible to improve intellectual abilities with the appropriate effort and support. Information
processing for incremental theorists was therefore directed towards revealing aspects of their
learning and ability. In addition, incremental theorists were more likely to choose challenging
tasks, even when there was a possibility of failure. This was also valid for persons with a low
level of confidence in their intelligence (Dweck & Elliott, 1983).
MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION
Motivational orientation could also represent a critical psychological trait in Dweck’s MPM.
Elliott and Dweck (1988) suggested that achievement goals were a program of cognitive processes
with cognitive, affective, and behavioural consequences. That is, achievement goals were
conceptualized as the purpose (Maehr, 1989) or the cognitive-dynamic focus (Elliot & Church
1997) of a task engagement.
Most research within the achievement goal approach has attended to two types of goal
orientations: (a) performance goals (also labelled-ego involvement or ability goals), which were
focused on the demonstration of competence relative to others; and (b) mastery goals (also
labelled task-involvement or learning goals), which were focused on the development of
competence and task mastery (Ames & Archer, 1988; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001).
These goal dichotomies stand on line with Dweck’s constructs in that they all attempt to explain
why and with which goals a person tackles a task in an achievement context. The difference is
evident in the concrete contents of the populated goals and the causal direction between
motivational orientation and the criteria persons use in order to determine whether an action
outcome is successful or failed. Several researchers have suggested (Maehr & Midgley, 1991;
Turner, Thorpe & Meyer, 1998) that the contents of the goal orientations postulated by Dweck
were person focused. In a performance goal orientation, the focus of the acting person was on the
reaction of other persons, whereby a person either demonstrated competencies or conceals
incompetence. In a learning goal orientation, the focus was on the improvement of one’s own
competence (Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Turner, Thorpe & Meyer, 1998).
IPT of intelligence affects motivational orientations
According to Dweck’s model, an entity versus an incremental theory of intelligence might orient a
person to focus on different goals and on different explanations of his/her performance. Dweck
(1999) argued that when individuals held an entity theory of their intelligence, they tended to
orient more towards performance goals to show their capability and to avoid a demonstration of
deficiencies. Similarly, entity theorists might explain negative performance in terms of their lack
of ability, which would render them vulnerable to helpless responses in the face of failure.
In contrast, when individuals held an incremental theory of intelligence, they tended to orient
more towards learning goals. As such, people holding an incremental theory of intelligence might
focus on effort, which they could invest to increase their ability. When faced with failures,
550
The implicit theories of intelligence: A review of Carol Dweck’s motivation process model
incremental theorists were more likely to exert more efforts and engage in remedial actions
(Dweck & Bempechat, 1983; Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
THE LINKAGE BETWEEN MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION AND INFORMATION
PROCESSING
The belief that a person holds about his/her intelligence (entity vs. malleable) may also lead to
specific motivational orientations, and thereby has an influence on the manner in which
information is processed. In this vein, it is not remarkable that the goals pursued in an
achievement context and the manner in which information is processed complement each other.
Several researchers (Epstein, 1990; Henderson & Dweck, 1990) argued that motivational
orientations might have an influence on how information was sought and how information was
evaluated with respect to goal attainment. For example, a player with a learning goal to improve
his/her tennis backhand would seek out information that could help accomplish this goal, such as
specific training program, tips from a trainer, and observing tennis professionals. In contrast, a
player with a performance goal focused on the reactions of others in that he/she wanted to avoid
negative assessment and receive positive judgment.
BEHAVIOUR
Dweck and her colleagues differentiated between two types of behaviours in achievement
contexts: (1) a mastery oriented behaviour pattern, and (2) a helpless behaviour pattern. Mastery
oriented learners wanted to acquire new competencies and to be able to have command of new
situations. The information processing of mastery oriented learners was therefore focused on the
surveillance of learning process and the search for new strategies that were useful in attaining this
learning goal. When this learning process was confronted by an obstacle, this was seen as an
indication that the wrong strategy had been applied (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Heyman & Dweck,
1992).
However, a helpless pattern learner was plagued by various maladaptive behaviours. Helpless
learners did not attribute their successes to action taken, but rather explained them predominantly
through uncontrollable causes such as luck or task difficulty. When helpless-pattern learners were
encountered by failure, they reduced their aspiration, experienced negative emotions,
demonstrated lower levels of persistence, and gave up the task easily (Heyman & Dweck, 1998;
Kamins & Dweck, 1999).
According to Dweck (1999) entity theorists were subject to the risk that they had a limited
information processing capacity. Entity theorists might direct their attention to the behaviour
itself, as well as the perception and reactions of others. Therefore, entity theorists were more
likely to divide their attention. Consequently, one could expect that sub-optimal behavioural
regulations could result.
Motivational Orientation and information processing influence behaviour
Furthermore, Figure 1 shows that concrete actions cannot be directly influenced by the IPT of
intelligence, but rather through the interplay of motivational orientation and information
processing patterns. Dweck and her colleagues (Henderson & Dweck, 1990; Heyman & Dweck,
1998) argued that concrete actions were characterized by two factors: (1) the goals a person
pursued, and (2) the environment in which these goals could be attained. The IPT of intelligence
affected the goal to be pursued in the achievement contexts, as well as the manner in which
information would be processed. However, it was the result of the information processing which
first provided an indication of which goals, in what sort of perceived and specifically assessed
situation could be pursued.
OUTCOME EVALUATION
Abd-El-Fattah
551
Within the framework of the IPTs of intelligence, persons who subscribed to an incremental
theory should attribute the outcomes of their behaviour to more variables causes, in particular to
effort and the characteristics of the learning process. Such attributions were considered to be
motivationally positive. When encountering a failure, incremental theorists were more likely to
review the strategy used to ensure success in the future (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995; Pintrich &
DeGroot, 1990).
However, entity theorists might attribute the results of their
behaviours to stable causes. These attributions implied risk factors that might lead to a reduction
in effort applied to the learning process. A person, who viewed success or failure as stable, might
have no reason to exert effort to repeat the success enjoyed. It was therefore not remarkable that a
stable attribution of failure was a valid indicator of helpless maladaptive pattern of behaviour
(Dweck & Elliott, 1988).
REFERENCES
Alschuler, A. (1973). Developing achievement motivation in adolescents. New Jersey:
Educational Technology Publications.
Ames, C. and Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies
and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Atkinson, J. and Feather, N. (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley and
Sons.
Atkinson, J. (1974). Motivation and achievement. Washington, D. C: V. H. Winston and Sons.
Buchanan, G. M. and Seligman, M. E. P. (Eds.). (1995). Explanatory style. Hillsdale, NJ: L.
Erlbaum.
Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Tong, Y. Y. and Fu, J. H. (1997). Implicit theories and conceptions of
morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 923-940.
Dweck, C. S. and Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility
in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 109-116.
Dweck, C. S. and Elliott, S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of
Child Psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development (Vol. 4, pp. 643691). NY: Wiley.
Dweck, C. S. and Bempechat, J. (1983). Children’s theories of intelligence: Consequences for
learning. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson and H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and
motivation in the classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dweck, C. S. and Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold and R. Glaser (Ed.), Foundations for a
Psychology of Education (pp. 87-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dweck, C. S., Hong, Y. and Chiu, C. (1993). Implicit theories: Individual differences in the
likelihood and meaning of dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19, 644 - 656.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. and Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.
552
The implicit theories of intelligence: A review of Carol Dweck’s motivation process model
Dweck, C. S. (1996). Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behaviour. In P. M. G. J. A.
Bargh (Ed.), The Psychology of action. Linking cognition and motivation to behaviour (pp.
69-90). New York: Guildford Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self Theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press Taylor and Francis.
Elliot, A. J. and Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 416-475.
Elliot, E. S. and Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchal model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliott, E. S. and Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Epstein, J. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implications for
integrating sociologies of education and family. In D. Unger and M. Sussman (Eds.),
Families in community settings: Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Haworth Press.
Erdley, C. and Dweck, C. (1983). Children’s implicit theories as predictors of their social
judgments. Child Development, 64, 863-878.
Erdley, C. S., Cain, K., Loomis, C., Dumas-Hines., F. and Dweck, C. S. (1997). The relations
among children’s social goals, implicit personality theories and response to social failure.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 263-272.
Henderson, V. and Dweck, C. S. (1990). Achievement and motivation in adolescence. A new
model and data. In S. F. G. Elliot (Ed.), At the threshold: The developing adolescence.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heyman, G. D. and Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Their role
in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 231-247.
Heyman, G. D. and Dweck, C. S. (1998). Children’s thinking about traits: Implications for
judgments of the self and others. Child Development, 69, 392-403.
Kamins, M. L. and Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person vs. process praise and criticism: Implications for
contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35, 835-847.
Maehr, M. L. (1989). Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames and R. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education (Vol. 3 Goals and cognitions). Orlando: Academic Press.
Maehr, M. L. and Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A school wide approach.
Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-427.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A. and Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what,
for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 77-86.
Pintrich, P. R. and DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Robins, R. W. and Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories of intelligence: Implications for goal
orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1, 313-336.
Abd-El-Fattah
553
Turner, J. C., Thorpe, P. K. and Meyer, D. K. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation and negative
affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 758771.
IEJ