Meta-Cognition, Motivation, and Affect PSY504 Spring term, 2011 March 14, 2010

Meta-Cognition, Motivation, and Affect

PSY504Spring term, 2011March 14, 2010

Theories of Intelligence(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, 2000)

• Theory of Fixed Intelligence– “Entity Theory”

• Theory of Malleable Intelligence– “Incremental Theory”

Theories of Intelligence(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, 2000)

• Theory of Fixed Intelligence– “Entity Theory”– Intelligence is not changeable– Some people are smart and some people are dumb

• Theory of Malleable Intelligence– “Incremental Theory”– Intelligence can be increased through one’s efforts– Everyone can become smarter

Effects of different theories of intelligence(Mueller & Dweck, 1988 Study 1)

• 5th-grade students given easy logic problems in lab setting

• Student performance praised based either on– Intelligence

• “Wow, you did very well on these problems. You got [number of problems] right. That's a really high score. You must be smart at these problems.”

– Effort• “Wow, you did very well on these problems. You got [number of

problems] right. That's a really high score. You must have worked hard at these problems.”

Effects of different theories of intelligence

• Intelligence praise– Associated with subsequent self-report of

performance goals

• Effort praise– Associated with subsequent self-report of mastery

goals

Effects of different theories of intelligence

• Next, students given very difficult problems and told they performed poorly

Effects of different theories of intelligence

• Intelligence praise– Associated with subsequent attribution that poor

performance was due to lack of intelligence

• Effort praise– Associated with subsequent attribution that poor

performance was due to lack of effort

Effects of different theories of intelligence

• Next, students once again given very easy problems

Effects of different theories of intelligence

• Intelligence praise– Associated with completing fewer problems in this

phase– Associated with lower self-reported enjoyment of

problems in this phase

• Effort praise– Associated with completing more problems in this phase– Associated with higher self-reported enjoyment of

problems in this phase

(Mueller & Dweck, 1988 Study 4)

• Same Design– Except every set of problems was easy

• No differences between conditions in terms of persistence or self-reported enjoyment in third set of problems

• Suggesting model– Entity Theory of Intelligence + Failure = Less Persistence and

Enjoyment– Whereas students with Incremental Theory of Intelligence are

more resilient in face of failure

(Mueller & Dweck, 1988 Study 6)

• Same Design– Except problems in phase 3 were a different kind of

problem (math instead of logic, different appearance)

• Same result as study 1

• Suggesting that effects of entity theory of intelligence transfer– At least to a new task in the same lab setting where the

theory was induced…

Effects of different theories of intelligence(Cury, Da Fonseca, Zahn, & Elliot, 2008)

• 13-15 year old students given IQ test problems in lab setting

• Students given two tests, with opportunity to practice items in between (or could sit doing nothing)

• Students asked about their theory of intelligence through questionnaire measure– Entity example: “In this session, I think that even if I put in a lot of

effort, it’s difficult for me to change my performance on the intelligence task”

– Incremental example: “In this session, I think I can change my performance on the intelligence task easily”

Effects of different theories of intelligence

• (Blackwell et al., 2007 Study 1)

• 373 genuine junior high school students– public school in New York City– Ethnically diverse population

Effects of different theories of intelligence

• Theory of intelligence measured through questionnaire– Entity example: ‘‘You have a certain amount of

intelligence, and you really can’t do much to change it”

– Incremental example: “You can always greatly change how intelligent you are”

Effects of different theories of intelligence

Measured using PALS

Effects of different theories of intelligence

Students’ belief that effort leads to positive outcomes

Effects of different theories of intelligence

Students’ belief that failure due to personal (lack of) ability

Positive Strategy Scale

• “Positive” strategies– “I would work harder in this class from now on”– “I would spend more time studying for tests”

• “Negative” strategies– “I would try not to take this subject ever again”– “I would spend less time on this subject from now

on”– “I would try to cheat on the next test”

Effects of different theories of intelligence

Results: Grades

Note: Use of model may obscure irregularities in pattern!

Questions? Comments?

Impacting Theories of Intelligence in the Real World

Impacting Theories of Intelligence in the Real World

• (Blackwell et al., 2007 Study 2)

• 99 students in 7th grade in a public school in New York City

Questions? Comments?

Stereotype Threat

• A person belongs to a group for which society at large has a negative stereotype

• “Standardized and simplified conception of groups based on some prior assumptions” – Wikipedia

• Stereotype Threat: “The existence of such a stereotype means that anything one does or any of one's features that conform to it make the stereotype more plausible as a self-characterization in the eyes of others, and perhaps even in one's own eyes.” (Steele & Aronson, 1995)

Stereotype Threat

• Every group is vulnerable to stereotype threat, to at least some degree

• Although stereotype threat can be rather comical for privileged/powerful groups

For instance…

For instance…

• My dream of being an NBA star may have been crushed by stereotype threat

For instance…

• My dream of being an NBA star may have been crushed by stereotype threat

For instance…

• My dream of being an NBA star may have been crushed by stereotype threat

• Or alternatively by the fact that I’m 5’9”

Groups Most Affected

• This problem is of specific salience to – African-Americans in the USA (Steele & Aronson, 1995)– Latinos in the USA (Aronson & Salinas, 1999)

• Other groups which are discriminated against often have stereotypes that differ in key ways from the stereotypes applied to these groups today– In the past, Irish-Americans suffered from the exact

same stereotype

Groups Most Affected

• These groups face negative stereotypes about their group’s intelligence

• In the light of these stereotypes, many African-American and Latino students experience anxiety – About whether they will be judged and treated stereotypically– And even about their own intelligence in the light of these

stereotypes (Steele, 1990)

• Person affected does not need to believe the stereotype, just that other people believe it

Evidence for Stereotype Threat

• African-Americans perform better on IQ sub-tests if the test is presented as a test of eye-hand coordination (Katz et al., 1965)

• African-Americans perform better on IQ tests if told they will only be compared to other African-Americans (Katz et al., 1964)

• African-Americans perform worse on GRE items if told these items measure intelligence, than if told these items are given purely to study psychological factors (Steele & Aronson, 1995)

Evidence for Stereotype Threat

• Results for Latinos contained in an “unpublished manuscript” (Aronson & Salinas, 1999)

Questions? Comments?

Obama Effect

• Will highly publicized success of African-American reduce stereotype threat?– By concretely challenging stereotypes

(Marx, Ko, & Friedman, 2009)

• At four points in time– Early in presidential campaign– Right after Obama accepted presidential

nomination with speech at Democratic National Convention

– Middle of campaign– Right after Obama won presidency

Procedure

• Adults nationwide recruited over internet– European-American and African-American

• Given “test of verbal problem-solving ability”

• Then asked about concerns about performance and stereotypes

• Example: ‘‘I worry that if I perform poorly on this test, others will attribute my poor performance to my race”

Questions? Comments?

Impacting Stereotype Threatin the Real World

Reducing Stereotype Threat(Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003)

• Junior high school students in rural Texas– 63% Latino, 15% African-American, 22% European-

American

• Taking computer skills class

Four conditions

• Incremental – Students taught incremental theory of intelligence

• Attribution – Students taught that 7th grade difficult, but everyone learns to adjust and improves

• Combination – Both• Control – Students taught to not use drugs

Mentors

• Every student mentored by undergraduate at the University of Texas

• Mentors supported students in class project and implemented conditions– Through two face-to-face meetings, and support over

internet• Class project was to create web page teaching

other students message of condition (e.g. incremental theory of intelligence, anti-drug message, etc.)

Dependent measure

• Performance on state standardized exam for reading and mathematics– Actual exam scores used (e.g. not administered by

researchers but by state of Texas)

Results

Results

Results

• No effect for race – Results not reported

Question

• Is there any evidence that this study impacted stereotype threat in specific?

Attempt at Experimental Manipulation: The Obama Effect

• (Aronson et al., 2009)

• Conducted with undergraduates at 3 universities participating in pre-med school program

• Conducted during late phase of 2008 presidential election

• Students asked to read a set of speeches attributed to either Barack Obama, John McCain, or “an american politician”– Actually was none of them

• Students also shown pictures of candidates in moment of success, and asked to list two positive things about candidate’s speeches

• Also control condition with no text

Attempt at Experimental Manipulation: The Obama Effect

• Then students given test of verbal ability

Attempt at Experimental Manipulation: The Obama Effect

Results

• African-American students performed worse than European-American students in all conditions

Questions? Comments?

Next Class (MARCH 15)• Affect Models

• Readings• Ekman, P. (1992) An Argument for Basic Emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6

(3/4), 169-200.• Clore, G.L., Ortony, A. (2000) Cognition in Emotion: Always, Sometimes, or

Never? In Lane, R.D., Nadel, L. (Eds.) Cognitive Neuroscience of Emotion, ch.3, 24-61.

• Russell, J., 2003. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review 110, 145-172.

• Baker, R.S.J.d., D'Mello, S.K., Rodrigo, M.M.T., Graesser, A.C. (2010) Better to Be Frustrated than Bored: The Incidence, Persistence, and Impact of Learners' Cognitive-Affective States during Interactions with Three Different Computer-Based Learning Environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68 (4), 223-241.