Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A Word From Two Perspectives

TLDR

The model posits that people’s implicit theories about human attributes shape how they interpret and respond to actions and outcomes. The article presents evidence for a new model of individual differences in judgments and reactions. Research reviewed shows that an entity theory leads to trait‑based explanations and helpless or retributive responses, whereas an incremental theory encourages mediator‑based explanations and mastery‑oriented or rehabilitative responses. These findings are discussed for their implications for personality, motivation, and social perception.

Abstract

In this target article, we present evidence for a new model of individual differences in judgments and reactions. The model holds that people's implicit theories about human attributes structure the way they understand and react to human actions and outcomes. We review research showing that when people believe that attributes (such as intelligence or moral character) are fixed, trait-like entities (an entity theory), they tend to understand outcomes and actions in terms of these fixed traits ("I failed the test because I am dumb" or "He stole the bread because he is dishonest"). In contrast, when people believe that attributes are more dynamic, malleable, and developable (an incremental theory), they tend to focus less on broad traits and, instead, tend to understand outcomes and actions in terms of more specific behavioral or psychological mediators ("I failed the test because of my effort or strategy" or "He stole the bread because he was desperate"). The two frameworks also appear to foster different reactions: helpless versus mastery-oriented responses to personal setbacks and an emphasis on retribution versus education or rehabilitation for transgressions. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for personality, motivation, and social perception.