Mindsets and Motivation

italiansaucySoftware and s/w Development

Dec 13, 2013 (3 years and 11 months ago)

61 views


Mindsets and Motivation



Claudia Mueller, PhD, MD

Division of Pediatric Surgery


Framework


Based on work by psychologist Carol Dweck,
PhD



Dweck et al have identified a set of “implicit
theories” or “mindsets” that individuals use to
analyze and interpret the world



These theories are based on two different
assumptions that people make about the
malleability of personal attributes




Implicit
theories


“Entity”
theory


The belief that a personal attribute is fixed and
nonmalleable


“Incremental” theory


The belief that an attribute is a malleable quality that is
subject to change and development



Beliefs can be applied in various domains: intelligence,
morality, athletics

Implicit theories

2


Entity/incremental category determined by responses to
statements



Implicit theories


Intelligence


You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your
basic intelligence.


Morality


A person’s moral character is something very basic about
them and it can’t be changed very much.


Mindset statements


Your intelligence is something very basic about you that you can’t
change very much.



You can learn new things, but you can’t really change how
intelligent you are.



No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change
it quite a bit.



You can always substantially change how intelligent you are.

Implicit theories

3


Entity vs.
Incremental theories influence


Judgments


Entity see failures as indicative of stable, low ability


Goals


Performance (look good, avoid failure) vs. mastery

(learn material, may have to fail to do so)


Response to setbacks


Entity give up in face of challenge


Theories create “mindsets” which influence behavior


Independent of actual intelligence, morality, athletic ability


Intelligence theory


Entity view of intelligence as fixed stable
trait


Intelligence is reflected by individual outcomes


Performance goals: challenge is threatening


Failure is devastating (I’m dumb)



Incremental
view of intelligence as able to be
developed


Individual outcomes not representative of whole


Learning goals: challenge is
informative


Failure is motivating (I need to work harder
)

Theory development


Likely related to
feedback received
throughout
life


Parents, teachers, peers


Some studies
have
looked at feedback after
failure



My

work has focused
on
feedback after
success


Feedback studies


Does feedback change how children respond to
challenge?




Can different types of praise lead children to develop
different goals and
theories (mindsets)?



Conventional
wisdom


Praise in any form is
good


Praise after success


builds self
esteem


protects against disappointment after
failure

Type of praise


Praise for:


Fixed ability = “smartness”


Malleable effort = “hard work”



Would children respond differently based on the type
of praise given?


Conventional wisdom: no


Hypothesis: yes


Dissertation


Series of 6 studies with fifth
-
graders assessed for their work on
geometric puzzles (Mueller &
Dweck
)



>500 participants


public and private schools


Midwest, Northeast



Dweck

lab, Psychology Dept, Columbia University



Experimental Design

Puzzle 1

(Success)

Praise

manipulation

Puzzle 2

(Failure)

Measures

Puzzle Enjoyment

Task Persistence

Failure Attributions

Puzzle 3

(Test)

Puzzles


Raven’s Progressive
Matrices


John C. Raven,
Oxford Psychologists
Press

Praise


Wow, you did very well on these problems. You got


right.
That’s a really high score.



Ability


You must be smart at these problems.



Effort


You must have worked hard at these problems.






Failure


Children told they scored “a lot worse” on second set of puzzles



Post
-
failure assessments


How well they did


Enjoyment


Persistence


Attributions


I didn’t work hard enough


I’m not good enough at the problems


I’m not smart enough


I didn’t have enough time

Psychological impact of praise


Children praised for effort


Attributed failure to lack of trying


Enjoyed puzzles more


More likely to persist


Children praised for ability


Attributed failure to lack of ability


Enjoyed the puzzles less



Gave up sooner


Content of praise
matters


Puzzle Performance

Additional findings


Ability praise


Performance goals


Entity belief of intelligence


Sought information on performance not mastery


Misrepresented score to other kids


Effort
praise: learning,
incremental theory

Conclusions


Praise delivers message


Praise for ability after success


Poor performance = low ability


Avoid challenge


Praise for effort after success


Poor performance = work harder


Embrace challenge as opportunity for growth



Feedback leads to “mindset” that determines behavior

My research paradigm


Propose psychological framework of children’s illness that uses
their theories of health to predict adherence and outcomes



Develop scale to identify these health theories



Test scale in healthy children



Study theories and behaviors in chronically ill adolescents



Develop feedback messages to improve both adherence and
outcomes in pediatric populations


Response to disease


Little is known about the psychological dimensions of
children’s
disease


Children
respond very differently to stressful hospital
settings


Some crumble and regress; others thrive and
adapt


“Mindset” of illness


Independent of illness
severity


“Mindset” can be created by theory which may
determine adherence and, ultimately, response to disease


Translation to clinical setting


Illness is a
challenge


Hospitalized children behave similarly to children in
schools


Do children perceive health as they do intelligence: fixed
vs. malleable?


If fixed, less incentive to develop strategies for health
promotion


If malleable, more likely to be active in their health
care



Studies designed to examine how children think about
health and how this affects their
behaviors

Scale development



Potential statements tested with 500 healthy high school students


Goal to identify cohesive set of items to categorize beliefs


Entity theorists=health is fixed, unchangeable


Incremental theorists=health is malleable, subject to change



Key items


Your body has a certain amount of health, and you really can’t do much to
change it.


Your health is something about you that you can’t change very much.


You can try to make yourself feel better, but you can’t really change your
basic health.


Study
1: Test scale with healthy kids


100 high school students


Exclude any with chronic medical conditions


Asked to respond to scenarios of kids with specific
illnesses



Broken leg


Asthma


Appendicitis


Results 1


Definition of health


Entity attribute to genes


Incremental attribute to behavior


Assessment of health in others


Entity

exaggerate illness severity


Entity

exaggerate illness duration


Assessment of own health


Incremental theorists
believe

they are healthier


Entity

have higher BMI



Minimal overlap with

previous scale of health causation
(Locus of control)

Study
2


250 high school students


Asked
to assess

health of others (replicate first study)


Also asked

to self
-
report safety behaviors


Hypothesis: Entity theorists might be less mindful of
safety



Results confirmed Study 1


No significant difference in safety precautions

Current study: Assessment of beliefs in patients


Chronically ill

adolescents: Type 1 Diabetes


Age 12
-
18 yrs


Implicit theories of health


Dependent measures


Self
-
report of adherence attitudes


Health outcomes


Meter results


Blood sugar levels

Current study 2


Participants approached at regularly
-
scheduled clinic visit


Consent from parents


Assent from patients


Participation rate 95%


Questionnaire administered in waiting area


Implicit theory of health scale


Adherence attitudes




Results
-
adherence attitudes


Entity theorists
vs

incremental theorists


Less likely to believe that
adherence matters (p<.05)


Taking the right amount
of medication on
schedule will help me
control my illness.


If I do exactly what my
doctor tells me, I can
control my illness.




Results
-
actual health


Meter results (previous 3 weeks)



Entity vs. incremental


Highest glucose
(p<.05)


Mean glucose
(p<.05)


Percent above target
(p<.02)



Hgb A1c not significant



Overall results


By measuring adolescents’ implicit theories of health, we
were able to predict


Reactions to illness in others


Attitudes toward adherence


Actual health outcomes in diabetic patients



Advantages of implicit theory scale
(Mueller, Williams, Dweck)


Simple


Easy to administer


Long history of use in various contexts



Future
investigations


Apply theory framework to other disease populations


Post
-
transplant, Cystic fibrosis, IBD


Post
-
op recovery cardiac surgery



Design experimental manipulations in which theories are
changed (eg, fixed to malleable) to measure effect on
outcomes



Deliver feedback messages targeted at theory change


Via web
-
based designs, technologies


Other

ongoing research projects


Implicit
theories of body
weight (Burnette)


Plan
to implement interventions (on
-
line reading
activities that present body weight as malleable)


Measure motivation as well as weight loss over test
period



Theories of trauma


Teenagers hospitalized for trauma asked about cause
of injury


Use attributions to develop prevention strategies



Children’s perceptions of their surgical scars


Summary


Perceptions can change
behaviors



In academic setting, children’s beliefs about intelligence
influence their
performance


In

healthcare setting,
children’s beliefs about health and
illness may affect their responses to
disease


My work is an attempt to

create a psychological model
that explains children’s health behaviors



Encouraging results using implicit theory framework to
predict adherence and outcomes in medical setting

Thank you


Carol Dweck, PhD


Robert Wright, MA


Ryan Williams, MD


Bruce Buckingham, MD


Marily Oppezzo, MA


David Yeager, PhD


Jeni Burnette, PhD


Lindsey Eliopulos, MA


Mette

Hoybye
, PhD

References


Berg et al. (1993). Medication compliance: A health care problem. Annals of Pharmacotherapy,
27, 2
-
21.


Burnette
, J. (2009). Implicit theories of body weight: Fostering beliefs for healthy behavior.

NIH
grant
proposal
.


Cimpian,A, Arce, HC, Markman, EM & Dweck, CS. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect
children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314
-
316
.


Diener, CI & Dweck, CS. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in
performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 451
-
462.


Dweck, CS, Chiu, CY & Hong, YY. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A
world
from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267
-
285
.


Festa et al. (1992). Therapeutic adherence to oral medication regimens by adolescents with
cancer. J of Pediatrics, 120, 807
-
811.


Heyman,

GD,

Dweck,

CS

&

Cain,

K
.

(
1992
)
.

Young

children’s

vulnerability

to

self
-
blame

and

helplessness
.

Child

Development,

63
,

401
-
415
.


Mueller
,

CM

&

Dweck,

CS
.

(
1998
)
.

Intelligence

praise

can

undermine

motivation

and

performance
.

Journal

of

Personality

and

Social

Psychology,

75
,

33
-
52
.


Shagena,

MM,

Sandler,

HK

&

Perrin,

EC
.

(
1988
)
.

Concepts

of

illness

and

perception

of

control

in

healthy

children

and

in

children

with

chronic

illness
.

Developmental

and

Behavioral

Pediatrics,

9
,

252
-
256
.


Tebbi

et

al
.

(
1986
)
.

Compliance

of

pediatric

and

adolescent

cancer

patients
.

Cancer,

58
,

1179
-
1184
.


Zora

et

al
.

(
1989
)
.

Assessment

of

compliance

in

children

using

inhaled

beta

adrenergic

agonists
.

Annals

of

Allergy,

62
,

406
-
409
.