Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Essays in Social Psychology) [Paperback]

This is a fascinating book. And while I'm just a mom with no particular background in psychological research, I found I had no difficulty either understanding the procedures of the research, or finding `everyday' applications for the profound information that Carol Dweck and associates provide.

In fact I wish I had read this book earlier because it has a great deal to teach about how children devise concepts of themselves (self image) and how we might avoid the pitfalls of rearing a child who `gives up' too easily.

Five Stars. Very interesting. The other reviewers are right. This is a fast paced, good read that explains Carol Dweck's research into personality, motivation and development. As a mom of a 3 and 5 year old, I wish that I had come across this book earlier.

As Amazon's `Search inside this book' feature only lists page one of the Table of Contents, I've typed out the second page for your info.

Chapter 14 -- How Does It All Begin? Young Children's Theories About Goodness and Badness

Chapter 15 -- Kinds Of Praise And Criticism: The Origins Of Vulnerability

Chapter 16 -- Praising Intelligence: More Praise That Backfires

Chapter 17 -- Misconceptions About Self-Esteem and About How To Foster It

Chapter 18 -- Personality, Motivation, Development, and The Self: Theoretical Reflections

Chapter 19 -- Final Thoughts On Controversial Issues

References

Appendix: Measures Of Implicit Theories, Confidence, and Goals

Index

Carol Dweck's work Self-Theories. She has written another book, written for a more general, less academic readership called Mindsets, in which she applies the entity/incremental construct to a broad range of domains: business, interpersonal relationships, etc. I've read both. In Self-Theories Dweck's target are academic or educational contexts in which she argues that the difference in academic performance can plausibly be explained by distinguishing between two conceptions of ability, the entity theory and the incremental theory. According to the **entity theory**, the abilities you possess are of a fixed quantity (for all time) and therefore unalterable; which is to say your abilities cannot really be altered or changed; they are not really responsive to EFFORT. On the **incremental view**, abilities you possess are not FIXED and ARE RESPONSIVE TO EFFORT over time.

One huge payoff, which Dweck points out frequently, is that in voluntarily adopting an incremental view of ability, you put yourself in a position to be FAR less vulnerable to self-blame, helplessness patterns, and self-despair in the event of failure, which can futher undermine your ability to execute your abilities. People of a more perfectionistic turn of mind have MUCH to gain by adopting a incremental spin on ability for the reasons just mentioned. "An ability is only as good as its execution"--Bandura.

Dwecke's an exceptionally lucid writer, and even her more academic work, "Self-Theories" is not written in academese but in language so clear and informal, you almost begin to wonder whether this is a professor in psychology at Columbia University. She's that good, at least I think so. (Bandura's prose is also clear, and conceptually rigorous, but his prose bears an elegant conciseness or compactness of insight, which would not incline me to describe as informal. But I digress. Long story short, the answer to your question is, I think, 'yes', Dweck's work is closely related to Bandura's.

I'm not sure if Dweck's work should be seen as "derived" from Bandura's, however. Dweck draws three key distinctions:

a) between learning goals and performance goals,
b) between helplessness pattern and task-orientedness
c) between incremental and entity theory of ability

Dweck's claim is this: People who hold an entity view of their abilities TEND to also to be people who adopt performance goals over learning goals. A performance goals is one which is more concerned about "looking or appearing smart" than in taking steps to insure greater informedness at the cost of looking stupid or uninformed. Thus, adopting a performance goal is AT CROSS PURPOSES with a learning goal. Second, entitiy theorists, when persuaded of their own failure, have MUCH REASON TO DESPAIR over their failed performances because performance failure (for them) JUST IS a demonstration of the fact that they do not possess (and what's more NEVER can possess) the capacities required to succeed; for they believe that their abilities are FIXED structures inhering in them which are not alterable by effort.

Knowing this, you'd expect that, prior to performance, entity theorists SHOULD FEEL GREAT anxiety about their future performances and ABOUT THE THREAT OF FAILURE AND WHAT IT IS DIAGNOSTIC OF. Failure is a PERMANENT DIAGNOSIS for which NATURE HOLDS NO APPELLATE COURT. If you fail at math once, twice. You're a math idiot. If you fail at a relationship; you're no good at love and romance. Period. The awareness of these prospects can't help intrude on one's performances. Consequently, this mindset steers you away from any activities that pose a risk to the sure-thing, even those activities that could improve your game. Instead of risking open failure and being (in your own eyes and those of others) PERMANENTLY DIAGNOSED AS SUCH, you confine yourself to a "narrow stable" (to lift a term from Adler) and de-select any environments that might challenge you.

Here's a personal example. When I was a community college student, I was terribly intimidated by logic and by critical thinking. Growing up as a young person who was lauded for his talents as a visual artist, I internalized this self-theory that artist or humanities types are NOT mathematical or particularly "logical." (Nevermind how some of the greatest visual artists were also geniuses in other fields such as engineering or inventing, which required a mathematical mind.) Anyway, I avoided logic like the plague. I didn't take the introductory courses at the community college level, so that by the time I was taking upper-division philosophy courses at UCLA, I was handicapped relative to my peers, most of whom had taken logic.

Just as you can't perform well academically in literature papers without a strong working understanding of English grammar, so also one cannot perform well in philosophy courses without a strong grasp of argument structures (validity/invalidity; soundness, etc.). Avoiding the logic course was a direct consequence of my being an **entity theorist** -- although I did not have the benefit of Prof. Dweck's work at this formative time in my life. [Beware, many of your Professors, parents, coaches may be, however well-meaning, operating under the FIXED MINDSET!] Had I understood how my fixed mindset was actually self-undermining, I would not have been ruled by the mistaken belief that an initial substandard performance in symbolic logic (or in any activity worth getting good at) diagnosed me, or my cerebrum, permanently without a "logic" gene. (In the parlance of Bill and Ted--Whoa.) Since I knew (at the get-go) that I wanted to be a Philosophy Professor (which I succeeded in becoming), that conclusion would have been personally devastating to me. But -- and this is key -- the conclusion that a substandard performance diagnoses you with low ability is an inference that ONLY those in the FIXED mindset draw. It is not a conclusion that one MUST draw from one's substandard performances. That 'must' has a life only **in** the fixed mindset.

According to Prof. Dweck, the situation is very much otherwise for those people who hold an incremental theory about ability. It really is, phenomenologically speaking, like being in another world, one in which what counts as **you** (in your own eyes, which is what matters) is that you no longer have this invisible ceiling of ability, one that affects how you compare yourself with other performers and what life-prospects you think are open to you. You are enlarged. The issue of the SIZE of your ability doesn't get REFUTED; it just ceases to have any functional relevance. The anxiety over not having 'the right stuff' gets REPLACED by ANTICIPATION. Of what? In a word, success. And this frees you up to start thinking like this:

***THE GROWTH MINDSET--FROM THE INSIDE**
"Okay, since I'm not inherently an idiot and since I can grow my abilities with guided effort (with training of other experts, taking the relevant preparatory courses, etc.), then the ONLY thing I need to think about is how, in terms of the logistics of an action plan, how am I going to 'get 'er done'."

Notice that the concern isn't 'whether' but HOW I am going to succeed, and this key shift in your psychology comes with territory when you shift from the FIXED to the GROWTH mindset. You aren't given tool to fight anxiety over failure; no, that anxeity is replaced by a totally different attitude, namely, real anticipation of success. And it is within this context that failure is re-conceptualized, assigned at TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANING. That failure is NOT YOUR ENEMY. IT can help you determine where you need to improve your game. THink of an instrument panel of a DC-10, or your Honda Hatchback's oil light. Failure merely provides you with data for making the necessary adjustments in effort by designating where to direct it!

More about Dweck's research. For incremental theorists, failure is not diagnostic of something - a wanted capability to produce desired effects in a cared-about domain of human life - which they can't EVER possess; no, failure doesn't MEAN (for them) that whatever it is in people taht allows them to produce exceptional EFFECTS in the world, in any cared-about domain of performance--that thing, call it an "ability"--is something whose possess and "size" or quantiy or magnitude is something over which you can exercise some control over and the way you can do this is through EFFORT. The entity theorist does not see personal exertion as diagnostic of LOW ability; she sees it as the MEANS to ACQUIRE greater capabilities, a means to enhance her personal causation. By contrast, the entity theorist views exertion as diagnistic of Low ability; like a doctor who sees a patient and says "Those spots mean measles," the entity theorist views exceptional effort to mean "low ability."

Bandura's view (in SE) is, similar to Dwecks, in that he thinks that it is functionally optimal to view abilities as developmentally responsive to effort. Abilities ARE things one possesses - powers one can personally exericise to produce desired effects in the environment - but for learners it is self-limiting to think of abilities as innate or in-born capabilities rather than as things which can be obtained though "acquireable means" and guided mastery. [For those interested in a CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF POWER, you see Peter Moriss's **Power: A Philosophical Analysis.**] Bandura's general approach to learning seems to be that complex or difficult performances can be decomposed into simpler tasks; learners can learn and gain competence at the simpler tasks (increasing perceived self-efficacy incrementally as they go), then, once actually in possesion of those simpler skills, move on to tackle more difficult tasks, and so on until they actually possess the skills to perform the complex performances. This is what goes on in med schools, trade schools, most all graduate schools.

On B's view, abilities are entities you possess, but the trick is to incrementalize your ACQUISITION OF THEM, using your skills acquired at lower and medium levels to boot youself up to higher levels. But of course, this means your conception of your ability has to be adequate to get you to the highest level of performance, or you have to locate the means and strategies which will elevate your performances to higher levels, and once these are identified you have to acquire them. And acquiring competency in the simpler tasks, lower skills, are, so far as I can tell from SE, the means to acquiring the skills to perform at higher levels; which is as much to say they are the means to acquiring greater abilities.

I was intimidated by the title of this book, and was afraid it was going to be highly academic. However, the book is completely accessible and fascinating. Dr. Dweck describes her remarkable studies on motivation and achievement, and shows that a fixed view of intelligence (meaning: either you're born smart or you're not) sells us short. Her work has enormous implications for both childrearing and teaching. This book should be required reading for all parents and teachers.