Theoretical constructs under investigation

The theoretical framework of implicit theories of intelligence proposes several elements which constitute a growth or fixed mindset. These are:

learning/performance goal orientation, positive/negative effort beliefs, mastery/helpless responses to failure, and incremental/entity theory of

intelligence. Previous research suggests that the core of mindsets are implicit theories of intelligence. If an individual has an incremental theory of intelligence, they will orientate towards learning goals, have positive views of effort, and have a mastery response to failure; in other words, a growth mindset. In terms of learning goal orientation, an individual with a learning goal will seek to engage with learning opportunities which may present challenges but will provide the most opportunities for developing skills and knowledge. In contrast, an

individual with a performance goal aims to demonstrate their ability and avoid potential opportunities for failure (i.e. be challenge averse) (Grant & Dweck, 2003). Those with positive effort beliefs understand that applying effort to solve a problem indicates that they are learning and improving their intelligence.

Conversely, those who view effort negatively feel that trying hard indicates that they are not clever enough (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). With regards to response to failure, a mastery response is described as understanding that the individual has not ‘yet’ mastered the skills or knowledge required to complete the task at hand, but that they can in future. This leads to positive behaviours such as persistence and more positive affect following a failure. Those with a helpless response to failure believe that their failure indicates that they are not clever enough to complete the task and that their ability is unlikely to change. This results in

23 catastrophising behaviours following failure, such as negative perceptions of performance and avoidance strategies (Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017).

All of these elements are proposed to stem from an individual’s theory of intelligence (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2013). Individuals with an incremental theory of intelligence hold that intelligence is malleable, that they can develop it through effort and education. In contrast, those with an entity theory of intelligence understand intelligence as a fixed trait, that they will never develop the ‘amount’ of intelligence they were born with (Dweck, 2000). An incremental theory of intelligence allows the individual to seek out challenges (learning goal) because a more challenging task provides a greater learning opportunity which will

increase their intelligence. Whereas, an individual with an entity theory would seek to demonstrate their abilities by undertaking easier tasks (performance goal) as with only a set amount of intelligence they need to demonstrate its worth via successes (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Additionally, those with an incremental theory view the effort required to develop the necessary skills to succeed as part of the learning process and that it signifies that learning is taking place

(Tempelaar, Rienties, Giesbers, & Gijselaers, 2015). Yet, those with an entity theory would believe that if they need to work hard at something, they are not clever enough to do it. Finally, incremental theorists maintain positive affect following failure, because they see failure as simply signifying an area on which they need to develop, often persisting at the task until they have mastered it (Skipper & Douglas, 2012). But those with an entity theory often have lowered affect, assume their performance was worse than it was, and do not continue

24 following failure (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Collectively these cognitions and behaviours are described as a growth and fixed mindsets.

Most of the research exploring the impact of implicit theories in education assumes that theory of intelligence is a key predictor of academic achievement. The suggestion is typically that these implicit theories lead to changes in

learning goals, effort beliefs and response to failure and this in turn leads to changes in performance. However, research typically does not measure changes in these different variables or model the path from theory of intelligence through to achievement (e.g. Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016; Yeager et al., 2016). In adopting such a focus, the role of other elements of the self-theories framework as proposed by Dweck (2000) are often ignored. This is potentially problematic as what little evidence there is does not suggest a direct relationship between implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement. Arguably there is a dearth of research which has mobilised the full potential of the theoretical framework.

The most notable exception is a meta-analytic review by Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, and Finkel (2013) in which they proposed and tested their ‘setting/operating/monitoring/achievement model’ (SOMA model) – see Figure 1. This was a meta-analytic study and their literature search and inclusion criteria resulted in a large sample size (N = 28,217; k = 113). The SOMA model includes the ‘core’ components of mindsets, as laid out above. It also includes the approach and avoidance dimension of goal theory (see Grant & Dweck, 2003) and ego

25 seen from the path weights, whilst there is a statistically meaningful relationship between incremental beliefs and goal achievement, this is much smaller than other elements. Indeed, other tests of the framework do not support a direct relationship between implicit theory of intelligence and achievement, rather achievement was predicted by the other elements (e.g. Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). This highlights the need for the current research to incorporate all elements of the theoretical framework in the instrument. This will allow an exploration into the nature of the framework and additionally how a growth mindset is related to achievement within young children.

26 Burnette et al. (2013) state that they were the first to build a model which

integrates implicit theories research with self-control theory. The two additional elements beyond the usual components of mindsets were negative emotions and expectations, these originate from self-control theory (see Carver & Scheier, 1982). These two constructs are considered by Burnette et al. (2013) under the broad term of ‘goal monitoring’. Negative emotions refer to negative affect a Figure 1. SOMA model meta-analytic results. Effect size estimates for the direct effects (solid lines) are observed correlations (r); effect size estimates for the moderational effects (dashed lines) are regression coefficients (B). Reprinted from "Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self- regulation" by Burnette, J.L., O'Boyle, E.H., VanEpps, E.M., Pollack, J.M., Finkel, E.J. (2013)

27 learner would feel if their progress falls below their desired rate of change. It is arguably comparable to the affective response to failure typical in mindset research as it is the recognition of failure over the longer term (e.g. Heyman, Dweck, & Cain, 1992). The construct of expectations is described as an internal (or implicit) indicator the individual holds of their view of the likelihood of them achieving their desired rate of change.

Prior to Burnette et al. (2013) proposing the SOMA model, Blackwell et al. (2007) also tested a structural model of the relationship between the different

components of the theoretical framework and academic achievement. Their model proposed multiple-mediated pathways through which pupils increase their

academic achievement all of which stem from an incremental theory of

intelligence, see Figure 2. The first of these is positive strategies which Blackwell et al. (2007) conceptualised as positive, effort-based strategies, in which pupils would spend more time on subjects or engage more positively in class. This was mediated by learning goals. The model also suggests that incremental theories lead to positive effort beliefs, which directly mediate a relationship to positive strategies. Taken together these two models highlight the necessity of accounting for all elements of the theoretical framework in relation to academic

achievement. Both models were found to account for goal achievement, yet Burnette et al. (2013) supported a direct path between theory of intelligence and achievement. However, Blackwell et al. (2007) only suggest that positive

strategies influence achievement. Yet, both models place implicit theories at the core of the framework; all other behaviours are reliant upon and influenced by whether the individual has an incremental or entity theory of intelligence.

28