Meta-Cognition, Motivation,
and Affect
PSY504
Spring term, 2011
March 14, 2010
Theories of Intelligence
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, 2000)
• Theory of Fixed Intelligence
– “Entity Theory”
• Theory of Malleable Intelligence
– “Incremental Theory”
Theories of Intelligence
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, 2000)
• Theory of Fixed Intelligence
– “Entity Theory”
– Intelligence is not changeable
– Some people are smart and some people are dumb
• Theory of Malleable Intelligence
– “Incremental Theory”
– Intelligence can be increased through one’s efforts
– Everyone can become smarter
Effects of different theories of intelligence
(Mueller & Dweck, 1988 Study 1)
• 5th-grade students given easy logic problems in
lab setting
• Student performance praised based either on
– Intelligence
• “Wow, you did very well on these problems. You got
[number of problems] right. That's a really high score. You
must be smart at these problems.”
– Effort
• “Wow, you did very well on these problems. You got
[number of problems] right. That's a really high score. You
must have worked hard at these problems.”
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
• Intelligence praise
– Associated with subsequent self-report of
performance goals
• Effort praise
– Associated with subsequent self-report of mastery
goals
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
• Next, students given very difficult problems
and told they performed poorly
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
• Intelligence praise
– Associated with subsequent attribution that poor
performance was due to lack of intelligence
• Effort praise
– Associated with subsequent attribution that poor
performance was due to lack of effort
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
• Next, students once again given very easy
problems
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
• Intelligence praise
– Associated with completing fewer problems in this
phase
– Associated with lower self-reported enjoyment of
problems in this phase
• Effort praise
– Associated with completing more problems in this
phase
– Associated with higher self-reported enjoyment of
problems in this phase
(Mueller & Dweck, 1988 Study 4)
• Same Design
– Except every set of problems was easy
• No differences between conditions in terms of
persistence or self-reported enjoyment in third set of
problems
• Suggesting model
– Entity Theory of Intelligence + Failure = Less Persistence
and Enjoyment
– Whereas students with Incremental Theory of Intelligence
are more resilient in face of failure
(Mueller & Dweck, 1988 Study 6)
• Same Design
– Except problems in phase 3 were a different kind of
problem (math instead of logic, different appearance)
• Same result as study 1
• Suggesting that effects of entity theory of
intelligence transfer
– At least to a new task in the same lab setting where
the theory was induced…
Effects of different theories of intelligence
(Cury, Da Fonseca, Zahn, & Elliot, 2008)
• 13-15 year old students given IQ test problems in lab
setting
• Students given two tests, with opportunity to practice
items in between (or could sit doing nothing)
• Students asked about their theory of intelligence through
questionnaire measure
– Entity example: “In this session, I think that even if I put in a lot
of effort, it’s difficult for me to change my performance on the
intelligence task”
– Incremental example: “In this session, I think I can change my
performance on the intelligence task easily”
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
• (Blackwell et al., 2007 Study 1)
• 373 genuine junior high school students
– public school in New York City
– Ethnically diverse population
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
• Theory of intelligence measured through
questionnaire
– Entity example: ‘‘You have a certain amount of
intelligence, and you really can’t do much to
change it”
– Incremental example: “You can always greatly
change how intelligent you are”
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
Measured
using PALS
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
Students’
belief that
effort leads to
positive
outcomes
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
Students’
belief that
failure due to
personal (lack
of) ability
Positive Strategy Scale
• “Positive” strategies
– “I would work harder in this class from now on”
– “I would spend more time studying for tests”
• “Negative” strategies
– “I would try not to take this subject ever again”
– “I would spend less time on this subject from now
on”
– “I would try to cheat on the next test”
Effects of different theories of
intelligence
Results: Grades
Note: Use of model may obscure
irregularities in pattern!
Questions? Comments?
Impacting Theories of Intelligence
in the Real World
Impacting Theories of Intelligence
in the Real World
• (Blackwell et al., 2007 Study 2)
• 99 students in 7th grade in a public school in
New York City
Questions? Comments?
Stereotype Threat
• A person belongs to a group for which society at
large has a negative stereotype
• “Standardized and simplified conception of groups based on
some prior assumptions” – Wikipedia
• Stereotype Threat: “The existence of such a
stereotype means that anything one does or any
of one's features that conform to it make the
stereotype more plausible as a selfcharacterization in the eyes of others, and
perhaps even in one's own eyes.” (Steele &
Aronson, 1995)
Stereotype Threat
• Every group is vulnerable to stereotype threat,
to at least some degree
• Although stereotype threat can be rather
comical for privileged/powerful groups
For instance…
For instance…
• My dream of being an NBA star may have
been crushed by stereotype threat
For instance…
• My dream of being an NBA star may have
been crushed by stereotype threat
For instance…
• My dream of being an NBA star may have
been crushed by stereotype threat
• Or alternatively by the fact that I’m 5’9”
Groups Most Affected
• This problem is of specific salience to
– African-Americans in the USA (Steele & Aronson,
1995)
– Latinos in the USA (Aronson & Salinas, 1999)
• Other groups which are discriminated against
often have stereotypes that differ in key ways
from the stereotypes applied to these groups
today
– In the past, Irish-Americans suffered from the exact
same stereotype
Groups Most Affected
• These groups face negative stereotypes about their
group’s intelligence
• In the light of these stereotypes, many AfricanAmerican and Latino students experience anxiety
– About whether they will be judged and treated
stereotypically
– And even about their own intelligence in the light of these
stereotypes (Steele, 1990)
• Person affected does not need to believe the
stereotype, just that other people believe it
Evidence for Stereotype Threat
• African-Americans perform better on IQ sub-tests if the
test is presented as a test of eye-hand coordination
(Katz et al., 1965)
• African-Americans perform better on IQ tests if told
they will only be compared to other African-Americans
(Katz et al., 1964)
• African-Americans perform worse on GRE items if told
these items measure intelligence, than if told these
items are given purely to study psychological factors
(Steele & Aronson, 1995)
Evidence for Stereotype Threat
• Results for Latinos contained in an
“unpublished manuscript” (Aronson & Salinas,
1999)
Questions? Comments?
Obama Effect
• Will highly publicized success of AfricanAmerican reduce stereotype threat?
– By concretely challenging stereotypes
(Marx, Ko, & Friedman, 2009)
• At four points in time
– Early in presidential campaign
– Right after Obama accepted presidential
nomination with speech at Democratic National
Convention
– Middle of campaign
– Right after Obama won presidency
Procedure
• Adults nationwide recruited over internet
– European-American and African-American
• Given “test of verbal problem-solving ability”
• Then asked about concerns about performance
and stereotypes
• Example: ‘‘I worry that if I perform poorly on this
test, others will attribute my poor performance to
my race”
Questions? Comments?
Impacting Stereotype Threat
in the Real World
Reducing Stereotype Threat
(Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003)
• Junior high school students in rural Texas
– 63% Latino, 15% African-American, 22%
European-American
• Taking computer skills class
Four conditions
• Incremental – Students taught incremental
theory of intelligence
• Attribution – Students taught that 7th grade
difficult, but everyone learns to adjust and
improves
• Combination – Both
• Control – Students taught to not use drugs
Mentors
• Every student mentored by undergraduate at the
University of Texas
• Mentors supported students in class project and
implemented conditions
– Through two face-to-face meetings, and support over
internet
• Class project was to create web page teaching
other students message of condition (e.g.
incremental theory of intelligence, anti-drug
message, etc.)
Dependent measure
• Performance on state standardized exam for
reading and mathematics
– Actual exam scores used (e.g. not administered by
researchers but by state of Texas)
Results
Results
Results
• No effect for race
– Results not reported
Question
• Is there any evidence that this study impacted
stereotype threat in specific?
Attempt at Experimental Manipulation:
The Obama Effect
• (Aronson et al., 2009)
• Conducted with undergraduates at 3
universities participating in pre-med school
program
• Conducted during late phase of 2008
presidential election
Attempt at Experimental Manipulation:
The Obama Effect
• Students asked to read a set of speeches
attributed to either Barack Obama, John McCain,
or “an american politician”
– Actually was none of them
• Students also shown pictures of candidates in
moment of success, and asked to list two positive
things about candidate’s speeches
• Also control condition with no text
Attempt at Experimental Manipulation:
The Obama Effect
• Then students given test of verbal ability
Results
• African-American students performed worse
than European-American students in all
conditions
Questions? Comments?
Next Class (MARCH 15)
• Affect Models
• Readings
• Ekman, P. (1992) An Argument for Basic Emotions. Cognition and
Emotion, 6 (3/4), 169-200.
• Clore, G.L., Ortony, A. (2000) Cognition in Emotion: Always,
Sometimes, or Never? In Lane, R.D., Nadel, L. (Eds.) Cognitive
Neuroscience of Emotion, ch.3, 24-61.
• Russell, J., 2003. Core affect and the psychological construction of
emotion. Psychological Review 110, 145-172.
• Baker, R.S.J.d., D'Mello, S.K., Rodrigo, M.M.T., Graesser, A.C. (2010)
Better to Be Frustrated than Bored: The Incidence, Persistence, and
Impact of Learners' Cognitive-Affective States during Interactions
with Three Different Computer-Based Learning Environments.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68 (4), 223-241.