Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
McGill (30,000)
PSYC (4,000)
PSYC 333 (100)
Lecture 4

PSYC 333 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Dispositional Attribution, Rogue Trader


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC 333
Professor
Jennifer Bartz
Lecture
4

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 4 pages of the document.
February 26, 15
Implicit Theories
Why do people do what they do?
Are traits fixed or malleable that change over time?
Implicit Theories (Dweck)
Why do some student persist in the face of failure whereas others give up? It has
to do with whether they think traits are fixed or malleable
Implicit beliefs about intelligence impact approach to challenging tasks. If they
believe that intelligence is unchangeable, then they avoid academic challenges. If
they believe that intelligence is malleable (increased through effort and
persistence), then they tend to seek out challenging tasks
Entity view of intelligence: traits/attributes are fixed (intelligence is something
you’re born with that doesn’t change), it’s ascribed. Lack persistence in face of
challenge
Incremental view of intelligence: attributes are malleable (can be acquired), we
have learning goals and we seek opportunities to learn more
Making Judgments about Ability (Butler 2000)
Do implicit theories influence the attributions people make about ability from ino
on improving vs. declining performance?
Entity view: if intelligence is fixed, weight should be given to the first few
performances of intelligence rather than the performance over time.
Incremental view: looks at intelligence over time, inferring higher ability if the
temporal trend goes up over time
To test this: took 215 students in grades 8 and 9. She situationaly manipulated
whether the students would take an entity view or incremental view. In the entity
condition, she told students that studies show that math ability doesn’t change
over life. In the incremental view, she said to the students that math abilities
improve through learning/practice. Then she had students rate someone based on
scores of 10 math problems over 10 successive days
They were shown math scores that either ascended or descended. She used a 2x2
design. Those primed with the entity condition rated the ascending student as less
smart than the descending student. The opposite was the case for those primed in
the incremental condition (they thought that the student who had started with low
grades but improved over time was smarter than the kid who started with high
grades but descended over time)
Then she asked them “who has greater ability?” Those primed with entity believe
dthat the kid with the descending score had greater math ability. Opposite for the
incremental view
Temporal vs. normative feedback (self)
Implicit theories moderate self appraisals depending on feedback type. People
who have entity or incremental view should attend to different types of feedback
Entity people are drawn to documenting their ability, so they should be more
concerned with normative feedback diagnostic, they think that’s what’s most
indicative of their abilities is how they stand in relation to their peers. For
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version