Mindsets and Motivation
Claudia Mueller, PhD, MDDivision of Pediatric Surgery
Framework Based on work by psychologist Carol
Dweck, PhD
Dweck et al have identified a set of “implicit theories” or “mindsets” that individuals use to analyze and interpret the world
These theories are based on two different assumptions that people make about the malleability of personal attributes
Implicit theories “Entity” theory
The belief that a personal attribute is fixed and nonmalleable
“Incremental” theory The belief that an attribute is a malleable
quality that is subject to change and development
Beliefs can be applied in various domains: intelligence, morality, athletics
Implicit theories 2 Entity/incremental category determined by
responses to statements
Implicit theories Intelligence
• You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic intelligence.
Morality• A person’s moral character is something very
basic about them and it can’t be changed very much.
Mindset statements Your intelligence is something very basic about you
that you can’t change very much.
You can learn new things, but you can’t really change how intelligent you are.
No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite a bit.
You can always substantially change how intelligent you are.
Implicit theories 3 Entity vs. Incremental theories influence
Judgments• Entity see failures as indicative of stable, low
ability Goals
• Performance (look good, avoid failure) vs. mastery(learn material, may have to fail to do so)
Response to setbacks• Entity give up in face of challenge
Theories create “mindsets” which influence behavior
Independent of actual intelligence, morality, athletic ability
Intelligence theory Entity view of intelligence as fixed stable trait
Intelligence is reflected by individual outcomes Performance goals: challenge is threatening Failure is devastating (I’m dumb)
Incremental view of intelligence as able to be developed Individual outcomes not representative of whole Learning goals: challenge is informative Failure is motivating (I need to work harder)
Theory development
Likely related to feedback received throughout life Parents, teachers,
peers Some studies have
looked at feedback after failure
My work has focused on feedback after success
Feedback studies Does feedback change how children respond
to challenge?
Can different types of praise lead children to develop different goals and theories (mindsets)?
Conventional wisdom Praise in any form is good Praise after success
• builds self esteem• protects against disappointment after failure
Type of praise Praise for:
Fixed ability = “smartness” Malleable effort = “hard work”
Would children respond differently based on the type of praise given? Conventional wisdom: no Hypothesis: yes
Dissertation Series of 6 studies with fifth-graders assessed for
their work on geometric puzzles (Mueller & Dweck)
>500 participants public and private schools Midwest, Northeast
Dweck lab, Psychology Dept, Columbia University
Experimental Design
Puzzle 1(Success)
Praisemanipulation
Puzzle 2(Failure)
MeasuresPuzzle EnjoymentTask Persistence
Failure Attributions
Puzzle 3 (Test)
Puzzles
Raven’s Progressive Matrices
John C. Raven, Oxford Psychologists Press
Praise Wow, you did very well on these problems. You got –
right. That’s a really high score.
Ability You must be smart at these problems.
Effort You must have worked hard at these problems.
Failure Children told they scored “a lot worse” on second set
of puzzles
Post-failure assessments How well they did Enjoyment Persistence Attributions
• I didn’t work hard enough• I’m not good enough at the problems• I’m not smart enough• I didn’t have enough time
Psychological impact of praise Children praised for effort
Attributed failure to lack of trying Enjoyed puzzles more More likely to persist
Children praised for ability Attributed failure to lack of ability Enjoyed the puzzles less Gave up sooner
Content of praise matters
Puzzle Performance
Additional findings Ability praise
Performance goals Entity belief of intelligence Sought information on performance not mastery Misrepresented score to other kids
Effort praise: learning, incremental theory
Conclusions Praise delivers message
Praise for ability after success• Poor performance = low ability• Avoid challenge
Praise for effort after success• Poor performance = work harder• Embrace challenge as opportunity for growth
Feedback leads to “mindset” that determines behavior
My research paradigm Propose psychological framework of children’s illness
that uses their theories of health to predict adherence and outcomes
Develop scale to identify these health theories
Test scale in healthy children
Study theories and behaviors in chronically ill adolescents
Develop feedback messages to improve both adherence and outcomes in pediatric populations
Response to disease Little is known about the psychological
dimensions of children’s disease Children respond very differently to stressful
hospital settings Some crumble and regress; others thrive and
adapt “Mindset” of illness Independent of illness severity
“Mindset” can be created by theory which may determine adherence and, ultimately, response to disease
Translation to clinical setting Illness is a challenge Hospitalized children behave similarly to
children in schools Do children perceive health as they do
intelligence: fixed vs. malleable? If fixed, less incentive to develop strategies for
health promotion If malleable, more likely to be active in their health
care
Studies designed to examine how children think about health and how this affects their behaviors
Scale development
Potential statements tested with 500 healthy high school students
Goal to identify cohesive set of items to categorize beliefs Entity theorists=health is fixed, unchangeable Incremental theorists=health is malleable, subject to change
Key items Your body has a certain amount of health, and you really
can’t do much to change it. Your health is something about you that you can’t change
very much. You can try to make yourself feel better, but you can’t really
change your basic health.
Study 1: Test scale with healthy kids 100 high school students Exclude any with chronic medical conditions Asked to respond to scenarios of kids with specific
illnesses
Broken leg Asthma Appendicitis
Results 1 Definition of health
Entity attribute to genes Incremental attribute to behavior
Assessment of health in others Entity exaggerate illness severity Entity exaggerate illness duration
Assessment of own health Incremental theorists believe they are healthier Entity have higher BMI
Minimal overlap with previous scale of health causation (Locus of control)
Study 2 250 high school students Asked to assess health of others (replicate
first study) Also asked to self-report safety behaviors
Hypothesis: Entity theorists might be less mindful of safety
Results confirmed Study 1 No significant difference in safety precautions
Current study: Assessment of beliefs in patients
Chronically ill adolescents: Type 1 Diabetes Age 12-18 yrs Implicit theories of health Dependent measures
Self-report of adherence attitudes Health outcomes
• Meter results• Blood sugar levels
Current study 2 Participants approached at regularly-
scheduled clinic visit Consent from parents Assent from patients
Participation rate 95% Questionnaire administered in waiting area
Implicit theory of health scale Adherence attitudes
Results-adherence attitudes Entity theorists vs
incremental theorists Less likely to believe
that adherence matters (p<.05)
• Taking the right amount of medication on schedule will help me control my illness.
• If I do exactly what my doctor tells me, I can control my illness.
Results-actual health Meter results (previous 3 weeks)
Entity vs. incremental Highest glucose (p<.05) Mean glucose (p<.05) Percent above target (p<.02)
Hgb A1c not significant
Overall results By measuring adolescents’ implicit theories of
health, we were able to predict Reactions to illness in others Attitudes toward adherence Actual health outcomes in diabetic patients
Advantages of implicit theory scale (Mueller, Williams, Dweck) Simple Easy to administer Long history of use in various contexts
Future investigations Apply theory framework to other disease
populations Post-transplant, Cystic fibrosis, IBD Post-op recovery cardiac surgery
Design experimental manipulations in which theories are changed (eg, fixed to malleable) to measure effect on outcomes
Deliver feedback messages targeted at theory change Via web-based designs, technologies
Other ongoing research projects Implicit theories of body weight (Burnette)
Plan to implement interventions (on-line reading activities that present body weight as malleable)
Measure motivation as well as weight loss over test period
Theories of trauma Teenagers hospitalized for trauma asked
about cause of injury Use attributions to develop prevention
strategies
Children’s perceptions of their surgical scars
Summary Perceptions can change behaviors
In academic setting, children’s beliefs about intelligence influence their performance
In healthcare setting, children’s beliefs about health and illness may affect their responses to disease
My work is an attempt to create a psychological model that explains children’s health behaviors
Encouraging results using implicit theory framework to predict adherence and outcomes in medical setting
Thank you Carol Dweck, PhD Robert Wright, MA Ryan Williams, MD Bruce Buckingham, MD Marily Oppezzo, MA David Yeager, PhD Jeni Burnette, PhD Lindsey Eliopulos, MA Mette Hoybye, PhD
References Berg et al. (1993). Medication compliance: A health care problem. Annals of Pharmacotherapy,
27, 2-21. Burnette, J. (2009). Implicit theories of body weight: Fostering beliefs for healthy behavior.
NIH grant proposal. Cimpian,A, Arce, HC, Markman, EM & Dweck, CS. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect
children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314-316. Diener, CI & Dweck, CS. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in
performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.
Dweck, CS, Chiu, CY & Hong, YY. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.
Festa et al. (1992). Therapeutic adherence to oral medication regimens by adolescents with cancer. J of Pediatrics, 120, 807-811.
Heyman, GD, Dweck, CS & Cain, K. (1992). Young children’s vulnerability to self-blame and helplessness. Child Development, 63, 401-415.
Mueller, CM & Dweck, CS. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
Shagena, MM, Sandler, HK & Perrin, EC. (1988). Concepts of illness and perception of control in healthy children and in children with chronic illness. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 9, 252-256.
Tebbi et al. (1986). Compliance of pediatric and adolescent cancer patients. Cancer, 58, 1179-1184.
Zora et al. (1989). Assessment of compliance in children using inhaled beta adrenergic agonists. Annals of Allergy, 62, 406-409.