Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model.

By Jennifer A. Mangels, Brady Butterfield, J. Lamb, C. Good, Carol S. Dweck. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2006

605 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Students' beliefs and goals can powerfully influence their learning success. Those who believe intelligence is a fixed entity (entity theorists) tend to emphasize 'performance goals,' leaving them vulnerable to negative feedback and likely to disengage from challenging learning opportunities. In contrast, students who believe intelligence is malleable (incremental theorists) tend to emphasize 'learning goals' and rebound better from occasional failures. Guided by cognitive neuroscience models of top-down, goal-directed behavior, we use event-related potentials (ERPs) to understand how these beliefs influence attention to information associated with successful error correction. Focusing on waveforms associated with conflict detection and error correction in a test of general knowledge, we found evidence indicating that entity theorists oriented differently toward negative performance feedback, as indicated by an enhanced anterior frontal P3 that was also positively correlated with concerns about proving ability relative to others. Yet, following negative feedback, entity theorists demonstrated less sustained memory-related activity (left temporal negativity) to corrective information, suggesting reduced effortful conceptual encoding of this material-a strategic approach that may have contributed to their reduced error correction on a subsequent surprise retest. These results suggest that beliefs can influence learning success through top-down biasing of attention and conceptual processing toward goal-congruent information.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4e681e984f3134b74e90c5c12dfe1cb9745bec4f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Understanding overconfidence: Theories of intelligence, preferential attention, and distorted self-assessment (2016, background): “An entity theory of intelligence also promotes lessened attention to explicit corrective feedback or errors, compared to an incremental theory (e.g., Mangels et al., 2006).”
Mind-sets matter: a meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. (2013, methodology): “From an implicit theory perspective, incremental theorists are hypothesized to engage in more active coping, focusing their energy on correction and avoiding feelings of anxiety, and thus often are thought to outperform entity theorists (e.g., Dweck, 2000; Mangels et al., 2006).”
In search of a growth mindset pedagogy: A case study of one teacher's classroom practices in a Finnish elementary school (2019, background): “This leads to the children becoming more focused on performance goals than on learning goals, putting their efforts into appearing smart, and avoiding challenges (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Mangels et al., 2006).”
Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation (2017, background): “These implicit theories of intelligence have been found to in ﬂ uence motivation as well as various learning processes and outcomes, including students ’ reactions to feedback (De Castella & Byrne, 2015; Dweck & Sorich, 1999; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Farrell, 1985; Grant & Dweck, 2003; Henderson & Dwe”
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 (2015, positive): “For this reason, incremental theorists are also less defensive about their shortcomings; show greater engagement, persistence and resilience in the face of setbacks with a focus on learning from their mistakes (Mangels et al, 2006; Hong et al., 1999).”
Attributional gender bias: teachers’ ability and effort explanations for students’ math performance (2014, background): “…others’ learning, are less likely to select challenging tasks, and are more interested in making comparisons between individuals than within-person changes (Butler 2000; Hong et al. 1999; Levy et al. 1998; Mangels et al. 2006; Niiya et al. 2004; Plaks et al. 2001; Pomerantz and Dong 2006).”