Reflecting on “The Power of Belief: Mindset and Success”

36 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND December 2007/Januar y 2008

www.Sc iAmMind.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND 37

brilliant student, Jonathan sailed through grade school. He completed his assign- ments easily and routinely earned As. Jon- athan puzzled over why some of his classmates struggled, and his parents

told him he had a special gift. In the seventh grade, however, Jonathan suddenly lost inter- est in school, refusing to do homework or study for tests. As a consequence, his grades plummeted. His parents tried to boost their son’s confi dence by assuring him that he was very smart. But their attempts failed to moti- vate Jonathan (who is a composite drawn from several children). Schoolwork, their son maintained, was boring and pointless.

Our society worships talent, and many people assume that possessing superior intel-

The Secret to Raising Smart Kids

Hint: Don’t tell your kids that they are. More than three decades of research shows that a focus on effort—not on intelligence

or ability—is key to success in school and in life

By Carol S. Dweck

A

38 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND December 2007/Januar y 2008

ligence or ability—along with confi dence in that ability—is a recipe for success. In fact, however, more than 30 years of scientifi c investigation suggests that an overemphasis on intellect or talent leaves people vulnerable to failure, fearful of challenges and unwilling to remedy their shortcomings.

The result plays out in children like Jonathan, who coast through the early grades under the dangerous notion that no-effort academic achievement defi nes them as smart or gifted. Such

children hold an implicit belief that intelligence is innate and fi xed, making striving to learn seem far less important than being (or looking) smart. This belief also makes them see challenges, mistakes and even the need to exert effort as threats to their ego rather than as opportunities to improve. And it causes them to lose confi dence and motivation when the work is no longer easy for them.

Praising children’s innate abilities, as Jona- than’s parents did, reinforces this mind-set, which can also prevent young athletes or people in the workforce and even marriages from living up to their potential. On the other hand, our studies show that teaching people to have a “growth mind-set,” which encourages a focus on effort rather than on intelligence or talent, helps make them into high achievers in school and in life.

The Opportunity of Defeat I fi rst began to investigate the underpinnings

of human motivation—and how people persevere after setbacks—as a psychology graduate student at Yale University in the 1960s. Animal experi- ments by psychologists Martin Seligman, Steven Maier and Richard Solomon of the University of Pennsylvania had shown that after repeated fail- ures, most animals conclude that a situation is hopeless and beyond their control. After such an experience, the researchers found, an animal often remains passive even when it can affect change—a state they called learned helplessness.

People can learn to be helpless, too, but not everyone reacts to setbacks this way. I wondered: JI

M C

U M

M IN

S G

e tt

y Im

a g

e s

(p re

c e

d in

g p

a g

e s

); G

E T

T Y

I M

A G

E S

( a

b o

ve )

FAST FACTS Growing Pains

1>> Many people assume that superior intelligence or abil- ity is a key to success. But more than three decades of

research shows that an overemphasis on intellect or talent— and the implication that such traits are innate and fi xed—leaves people vulnerable to failure, fearful of challenges and unmoti- vated to learn.

2>> Teaching people to have a “growth mind-set,” which encourages a focus on effort rather than on intelli-

gence or talent, produces high achievers in school and in life.

3>> Parents and teachers can engender a growth mind-set in children by praising them for their effort or persis-

tence (rather than for their intelligence), by telling success sto- ries that emphasize hard work and love of learning, and by teaching them about the brain as a learning machine.

Young people who believe that their

intelligence alone will enable them

to succeed in school are often

discouraged when the going

gets tough.

www.Sc iAmMind.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND 39

Why do some students give up when they en- counter diffi culty, whereas others who are no more skilled continue to strive and learn? One answer, I soon discovered, lay in people’s beliefs about why they had failed.

In particular, attributing poor performance to a lack of ability depresses motivation more than does the belief that lack of effort is to blame. In 1972, when I taught a group of elementary and middle school children who displayed help- less behavior in school that a lack of effort (rath- er than lack of ability) led to their mistakes on math problems, the kids learned to keep trying when the problems got tough. They also solved many of the problems even in the face of diffi - culty. Another group of helpless children who were simply rewarded for their success on easy problems did not improve their ability to solve hard math problems. These experiments were an early indication that a focus on effort can help resolve helplessness and engender success.

Subsequent studies revealed that the most persistent students do not ruminate about their own failure much at all but instead think of mis- takes as problems to be solved. At the University of Illinois in the 1970s I, along with my then graduate student Carol Diener, asked 60 fi fth graders to think out loud while they solved very diffi cult pattern-recognition problems. Some stu- dents reacted defensively to mistakes, denigrat- ing their skills with comments such as “I never did have a good rememory,” and their problem- solving strategies deteriorated.

Others, meanwhile, focused on fi xing errors and honing their skills. One advised himself: “I should slow down and try to fi gure this out.” Two schoolchildren were particularly inspiring. One, in the wake of diffi culty, pulled up his chair, rubbed his hands together, smacked his lips and said, “I love a challenge!” The other, also con- fronting the hard problems, looked up at the ex- perimenter and approvingly declared, “I was hoping this would be informative!” Predictably, the students with this attitude outperformed their cohorts in these studies.

Two Views of Intelligence Several years later I developed a broader the-

ory of what separates the two general classes of learners—helpless versus mastery-oriented. I re-

alized that these different types of students not only explain their failures differently, but they also hold different “theories” of intelligence. The helpless ones believe that intelligence is a fi xed trait: you have only a certain amount, and that’s that. I call this a “fi xed mind-set.” Mistakes crack their self-confi dence because they attribute errors to a lack of ability, which they feel power- less to change. They avoid challenges because challenges make mistakes more likely and look- ing smart less so. Like Jonathan, such children shun effort in the belief that having to work hard means they are dumb.

The mastery-oriented children, on the other hand, think intelligence is malleable and can be developed through education and hard work. They want to learn above all else. After all, if you believe that you can expand your intellectual skills, you want to do just that. Because slipups stem from a lack of effort, not ability, they can be remedied by more effort. Challenges are energiz- ing rather than intimidating; they offer opportu- nities to learn. Students with such a growth

F R

O M

“ IM

P L

IC IT

T H

E O

R IE

S O

F I

N T

E L

L IG

E N

C E

P R

E D

IC T A

C H

IE V

E M

E N

T A

C R

O S

S A

N A

D O

L E

S C

E N

T T

R A

N S

IT IO

N :

A L

O N

G IT

U D

IN A

L S

T U

D Y

A N

D A

N I

N T

E R

V E

N T

IO N

,”

B Y

L .

S .

B L

A C

K W

E L

L ,

K .

H .

T R

Z E

S N

IE W

S K

I A

N D

C .

S .

D W

E C

K ,

IN C

H IL

D D

E V

E L

O P

M E

N T,

V O

L .

7 8

, N

O .

1 ;

JA N

U A

R Y

/ F

E B

R U

A R

Y 2

0 0

7

Students who believed that intelligence is malleable (growth mind-set line) earned higher math grades in the fall of seventh grade than those who believed in static intelligence (fi xed

mind-set line), even though the two groups had equivalent math achievement test scores in the sixth grade. The grades of the growth mind-set group then improved over the next two years, whereas the grades of the fi xed mind-set students declined.

Mind-set and Math Grades

M at

h G

ra de

( ou

t of

1 0

0 )

78 —

77 —

76 —

75 —

74 —

73 —

72 —

71 —

70 —

69 —

68 —

Growth mind-set

Fixed mind-set

l l l l Fall Spring Fall Spring 7th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade

The most persistent students do not ruminate about their own failure but think of mistakes as problems to be solved.( )

40 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND December 2007/Januar y 2008

mind-set, we predicted, were destined for greater academic success and were quite likely to outper- form their counterparts.

We validated these expectations in a study published in early 2007. Psychologists Lisa Black- well of Columbia University and Kali H. Trzes- niewski of Stanford University and I monitored 373 students for two years during the transition to junior high school, when the work gets more diffi cult and the grading more stringent, to deter- mine how their mind-sets might affect their math grades. At the beginning of seventh grade, we as- sessed the students’ mind-sets by asking them to agree or disagree with statements such as “Your intelligence is something very basic about you that you can’t really change.” We then assessed their beliefs about other aspects of learning and looked to see what happened to their grades.

As we had predicted, the students with a growth mind-set felt that learning was a more im-

portant goal in school than getting good grades. In addition, they held hard work in high regard, be- lieving that the more you labored at something, the better you would become at it. They understood that even geniuses have to work hard for their great accomplishments. Confronted by a setback such as a disappointing test grade, students with a growth mind-set said they would study harder or try a different strategy for mastering the material.

The students who held a fi xed mind-set, how- ever, were concerned about looking smart with little regard for learning. They had negative views of effort, believing that having to work hard at something was a sign of low ability. They thought that a person with talent or intelligence did not need to work hard to do well. Attributing a bad grade to their own lack of ability, those with a fi xed mind-set said that they would study less in the future, try never to take that subject again and consider cheating on future tests. A

G E

F O

T O

S T

O C

K

According to a survey we conducted in the mid- 1990s, 85 percent of parents believed that prais- ing children’s ability or intelligence when they per-

form well is important for making them feel smart. But our work shows that praising a child’s intelligence makes a child fragile and defensive. So, too, does generic praise that suggests a stable trait, such as “You are a good art- ist.” Praise is very valuable, however, if it is carefully worded. Praise for the specifi c process a child used to accomplish something fosters motivation and confi dence by focusing children on the actions that lead to success. Such process praise may involve commending effort, strategies, focus, persistence in the face of diffi culty, and willingness to take on challenges. Here are some examples:

■ You did a good job drawing. I like the detail you added to the people’s faces.

■ You really studied for your social studies test. You read the material over several times, outlined it and tested yourself on it. It really worked!

■ I like the way you tried a lot of different strategies on that math problem until you fi nally got it.

■ That was a hard English assignment, but you stuck with it until you got it done. You stayed at your desk and kept your concentration. That’s great!

■ I like that you took on that challenging project for your science class. It will take a lot of work—doing the re- search, designing the apparatus, making the parts and building it. You are going to learn a lot of great things.

Parents and teachers can also teach children to enjoy the process of learning by expressing positive views of challenges, effort and mistakes. Here are examples of such communications:

■ Boy, this is hard—this is fun. ■ Oh, sorry, that was too easy—no fun. Let’s do some-

thing more challenging that you can learn from. ■ Let’s all talk about what we struggled with today and

learned from. I’ll go fi rst. ■ Mistakes are so interesting. Here’s a wonderful mis-

take. Let’s see what we can learn from it. —C.S.D.

A for Effort

www.Sc iAmMind.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND 41

Such divergent outlooks had a dramatic im- pact on performance. At the start of junior high, the math achievement test scores of the students with a growth mind-set were comparable to those of students who displayed a fi xed mind-set. But as the work became more diffi cult, the stu- dents with a growth mind-set showed greater persistence. As a result, their math grades over- took those of the other students by the end of the first semester—and the gap between the two groups continued to widen during the two years we followed them [see box on page 39].

Along with Columbia psychologist Heidi Grant, I found a similar relation between mind- set and achievement in a 2003 study of 128 Co- lumbia freshman premed students who were en- rolled in a challenging general chemistry course. Although all the students cared about grades, the ones who earned the best grades were those who placed a high premium on learning rather than on showing that they were smart in chemistry. The focus on learning strategies, effort and per- sistence paid off for these students.

Confronting Defi ciencies A belief in fi xed intelligence also makes peo-

ple less willing to admit to errors or to confront and remedy their defi ciencies in school, at work and in their social relationships. In a study pub- lished in 1999 of 168 freshmen entering the Uni- versity of Hong Kong, where all instruction and coursework are in English, three Hong Kong col- leagues and I found that students with a growth mind-set who scored poorly on their English pro- fi ciency exam were far more inclined to take a remedial English course than were low-scoring students with a fi xed mind-set. The students with a stagnant view of intelligence were presumably unwilling to admit to their defi cit and thus passed up the opportunity to correct it.

A fi xed mind-set can similarly hamper com- munication and progress in the workplace by leading managers and employees to discourage or ignore constructive criticism and advice. Re- search by psychologists Peter Heslin and Don VandeWalle of Southern Methodist University and Gary Latham of the University of Toronto shows that managers who have a fi xed mind-set are less likely to seek or welcome feedback from their employees than are managers with a growth mind-set. Presumably, managers with a growth mind-set see themselves as works-in-progress and understand that they need feedback to improve, whereas bosses with a fi xed mind-set are more likely to see criticism as refl ecting their underlying

level of competence. Assuming that other people are not capable of changing either, executives with a fi xed mind-set are also less likely to mentor their underlings. But after Heslin, VandeWalle and Latham gave managers a tutorial on the value and principles of the growth mind-set, supervi- sors became more willing to coach their employ- ees and gave more useful advice.

Mind-set can affect the quality and longevity of personal relationships as well, through peo- ple’s willingness—or unwillingness—to deal with diffi culties. Those with a fi xed mind-set are

less likely than those with a growth mind-set to broach problems in their relationships and to try to solve them, according to a 2006 study I con- ducted with psychologist Lara Kammrath of Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario. After all, if you think that human personality traits are more or less fixed, relationship repair seems largely futile. Individuals who believe people can change and grow, however, are more confi dent that confronting concerns in their relationships will lead to resolutions.

Proper Praise How do we transmit a growth mind-set to

our children? One way is by telling stories about achievements that result from hard work. For in-

M E

H A

U K

U LY

K S

P L

/P h

o to

R e

s e

a rc

h e

rs ,

In c

.

(The Author)

CAROL S. DWECK is Lewis and Virginia Eaton Professor of Psychology at Stanford University. She has held professorships at Columbia University, the University of Illinois and Harvard University and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Her most recent book is Mindset, published by Random House in 2006.

In tutorials that advance a growth mind-set, stu- dents discover that learning promotes the formation of new connections be- tween neurons in the brain.

42 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND December 2007/Januar y 2008

stance, talking about math geniuses who were more or less born that way puts students in a fi xed mind-set, but descriptions of great mathe- maticians who fell in love with math and devel- oped amazing skills engenders a growth mind- set, our studies have shown. People also commu- nicate mind-sets through praise [see box on page 40]. Although many, if not most, parents believe that they should build up a child by telling him or her how brilliant and talented he or she is, our research suggests that this is misguided.

In studies involving several hundred fifth graders published in 1998, for example, Colum- bia psychologist Claudia M. Mueller and I gave children questions from a nonverbal IQ test. Af- ter the fi rst 10 problems, on which most children did fairly well, we praised them. We praised some of them for their intelligence: “Wow … that’s a really good score. You must be smart at this.” We commended others for their effort: “Wow … that’s a really good score. You must have worked really hard.”

We found that intelligence praise encouraged a fi xed mind-set more often than did pats on the back for effort. Those congratulated for their in- telligence, for example, shied away from a chal- lenging assignment—they wanted an easy one instead—far more often than the kids applauded for their effort. (Most of those lauded for their hard work wanted the diffi cult problem set from which they would learn.) When we gave everyone hard problems anyway, those praised for being smart became discouraged, doubting their abil- ity. And their scores, even on an easier problem

set we gave them afterward, declined as com- pared with their previous results on equivalent problems. In contrast, students praised for their effort did not lose confi dence when faced with the harder questions, and their performance im- proved markedly on the easier problems that fol- lowed [see box on opposite page].

Making Up Your Mind-set In addition to encouraging a growth mind-set

through praise for effort, parents and teachers can help children by providing explicit instruc- tion regarding the mind as a learning machine. Blackwell, Trzesniewski and I recently designed an eight-session workshop for 91 students whose math grades were declining in their fi rst year of junior high. Forty-eight of the students received instruction in study skills only, whereas the others attended a combination of study skills sessions and classes in which they learned about the growth mind-set and how to apply it to schoolwork.

In the growth mind-set classes, students read and discussed an article entitled “You Can Grow Your Brain.” They were taught that the brain is like a muscle that gets stronger with use and that learning prompts neurons in the brain to grow new connections. From such instruction, many students began to see themselves as agents of their own brain development. Students who had been disrup- tive or bored sat still and took note. One particu- larly unruly boy looked up during the discussion and said, “You mean I don’t have to be dumb?”

As the semester progressed, the math grades of the kids who learned only study skills continued to

B E

T T

M A

N N

/ C

O R

B IS

( C

u ri

e a

n d

E d

is o

n )

Chemist Marie Curie (left) and in- ventor Thomas A.

Edison (right) devel- oped their genius

through passion and tremendous effort.

www.Sc iAmMind.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND 43

decline, whereas those of the students given the growth-mind-set training stopped falling and be- gan to bounce back to their former levels. Despite being unaware that there were two types of in- struction, teachers reported noticing signifi cant motivational changes in 27 percent of the children in the growth mind-set workshop as compared with only 9 percent of students in the control group. One teacher wrote: “Your workshop has already had an effect. L [our unruly male student], who never puts in any extra effort and often doesn’t turn in homework on time, actually stayed up late to fi nish an assignment early so I could review it and give him a chance to revise it. He earned a B+. (He had been getting Cs and lower.)”

Other researchers have replicated our results. Psychologists Catherine Good, then at Colum- bia, and Joshua Aronson and Michael Inzlicht of New York University reported in 2003 that a growth mind-set workshop raised the math and English achievement test scores of seventh grad- ers. In a 2002 study Aronson, Good (then a grad- uate student at the University of Texas at Austin) and their colleagues found that college students began to enjoy their schoolwork more, value it more highly and get better grades as a result of training that fostered a growth mind-set.

We have now encapsulated such instruc- tion in an interactive computer program called “Brain ology,” which should be more widely available by mid-2008. Its six modules teach stu- dents about the brain—what it does and how to make it work better. In a virtual brain lab, users can click on brain regions to determine their func tions or on nerve endings to see how con- nections form when people learn. Users can also advise virtual students with problems as a way of practicing how to handle schoolwork diffi cul- ties; additionally, users keep an online journal of their study practices.

New York City seventh graders who tested a pilot version of Brainology told us that the pro- gram had changed their view of learning and how to promote it. One wrote: “My favorite thing from Brainology is the neurons part where when u [sic] learn something there are connec- tions and they keep growing. I always picture them when I’m in school.” A teacher said of the students who used the program: “They offer to practice, study, take notes, or pay attention to ensure that connections will be made.”

Teaching children such information is not just a ploy to get them to study. People do differ in in- telligence, talent and ability. And yet research is converging on the conclusion that great accom-

plishment, and even what we call genius, is typi- cally the result of years of passion and dedication and not something that fl ows naturally from a gift. Mozart, Edison, Curie, Darwin and Cézanne were not simply born with talent; they cultivated it through tremendous and sustained effort. Simi- larly, hard work and discipline contribute much more to school achievement than IQ does.

Such lessons apply to almost every human en- deavor. For instance, many young athletes value talent more than hard work and have consequent- ly become unteachable. Similarly, many people accomplish little in their jobs without constant praise and encouragement to maintain their mo- tivation. If we foster a growth mind-set in our homes and schools, however, we will give our children the tools to succeed in their pursuits and to become responsible employees and citizens. M

F R

O M

“ P

R A

IS E

F O

R I

N T

E L

L IG

E N

C E

C A

N U

N D

E R

M IN

E C

H IL

D R

E N

’S M

O T

IV A

T IO

N A

N D

P E

R F

O R

M A

N C

E ,”

B Y

C .

M .

M U

E L

L E

R

A N

D C

. S

. D

W E

C K

, IN

J O

U R

N A

L O

F P

E R

S O

N A

L IT

Y A

N D

S O

C IA

L P

S Y

C H

O L

O G

Y ,

V O

L .

7 5

, N

O .

1 ;

JU LY

1 9

9 8

Children praised for their intelligence solved sig- nifi cantly fewer problems after a failure than they had before encountering difficulty. In contrast, children praised for their effort solved more prob- lems after their brush with adversity than they had before it.

The Effects of Praise

N um

be r of

P ro

bl em

s S

ol ve

d

6.5 —

6.0 —

5.5 —

5.0 —

4.5 —

Praise for intelligence

Praise for effort

(Further Reading) ◆ Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children’s Motivation and Perfor-

mance. Claudia M. Mueller and Carol S. Dweck in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 1, pages 33–52; November 1998.

◆ Self-Discipline Outdoes IQ in Predicting Academic Performance of Ado- lescents. A. Duckworth and M. Seligman in Psychological Science, Vol. 16, pages 939–944; 2005.

◆ Why Do Beliefs about Intelligence Infl uence Learning Success? A So- cial Cognitive Neuroscience Model. J. A. Mangels, B. Butterfi eld, J. Lamb, C. Good and C. S. Dweck in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Vol. 1, No. 2, pages 75–86; September 2006.

◆ The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Edited by K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich and R. R. Hoffman. Cam- bridge University Press, 2006.

◆ Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement across an Adoles- cent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention. Lisa S. Black- well, Kali H. Trzesniewski and Carol S. Dweck in Child Development, Vol. 78, No. 1, pages 246–263; January/February 2007.

◆ Subtle Linguistic Cues Affect Children’s Motivation. A. Cimpian, H.-M. C. Arce, E. M. Markman and C. S. Dweck in Psychological Science, Vol. 18, No. 4, pages 314–316; April 2007.

l l Before Failure After Failure