Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · 1999 · 128 citations · 0 references
Social SciencesPsychologySocial PsychologyCognitive PsychologyExperimental PsychologySocial CognitionAttribution ProcessesCoping StrategiesPerformance AttributionAttributional StyleEntity TheoryInternal AttributionMastery CopingNegative FeedbackRemedial Action PlanningRemedial Action PlansSuccess Attribution
The study aimed to integrate Dweck and Leggett’s model with attribution theory and test whether incremental versus entity theories predict effort versus ability attributions that mediate mastery‑oriented coping. The authors conducted three studies that manipulated or measured implicit intelligence theories, assessed effort and ability attributions, and observed remedial coping actions. Results showed that incremental theorists were more likely to attribute performance to effort, take remedial action, and that this effect was mediated by effort attributions, indicating implicit theories shape attribution and motivation.
This research sought to integrate C. S. Dweck and E. L. Leggett's (1988) model with attribution theory. Three studies tested the hypothesis that theories of intelligence—the belief that intelligence is malleable (incremental theory) versus fixed (entity theory)—would predict (and create) effort versus ability attributions, which would then mediate mastery-oriented coping. Study 1 revealed that, when given negative feedback, incremental theorists were more likely than entity theorists to attribute to effort. Studies 2 and 3 showed that incremental theorists were more likely than entity theorists to take remedial action if performance was unsatisfactory. Study 3, in which an entity or incremental theory was induced, showed that incremental theorists' remedial action was mediated by their effort attributions. These results suggest that implicit theories create the meaning framework in which attributions occur and are important for understanding motivation.