Perspectives on individuals’ mental states and behaviour are generally defined as theories of mind. They can range from judgments on what causes criminality, emotional trauma, or cognitive difficulties. Dominant theories can vary significantly between cultures1, but their conclusions can appear undeniable for laymen, particularly when they are believed to be grounded in physical reality (such as genetics).

Cultural understandings of intelligence and cognition are a common expression of these theories of mind. For example, the idea that intelligence is a static characteristic of individuals remains particularly popular in our culture. Individuals are frequently categorized as intelligent, average, or stupid, or graded on the ever-popular bell curve. Sometimes these judgments are made by figures which are in positions of authority, like parents, teachers, or employers, compounding their impact on their recipients.

Setting aside the psychosocial effects these ideas can have on those perceived to be less endowed, the literature on theories of mind has shown that holding these ideas also affects individuals. Research in developmental and social psychology has produced findings that suggest that a person’s mindset on intelligence affects what – and whether – they learn from different experiences and interactions.

The main dynamic through which these mindsets affect individuals’ ability to learn and progress is their reaction to challenges and setbacks. Those who follow a more fixed mindset tend to show decreased motivation when faced with setbacks, attributing difficulties to inherent aspects of individuals which simply cannot be overcome. There is little value to be found in investing energy into something that is impossible to change, after all. Those following a more growth-oriented mindset tend, instead, to focus on strategies to improve, protecting their motivation levels.

Dweck, Chiu et al. produced a significant paper on this topic in 19952, reporting the findings of six different validation studies on individuals’ implicit theories on intelligence and morality. The paper categorizes these dynamics using the terms “entity” versus “incremental” theories. The former is associated with the idea that individual characteristics are fixed, while the latter is associated with the perspective that growth and change is possible in individuals. The results of this study, incredibly well-cited, showed that these two theories of mind didn’t only have significant impacts on individuals’ attitudes towards failures and challenges. They also affected willingness to punish instead of rehabilitate those who had committed offenses. Subsequent research by different teams of scientists, sometimes using different nomenclature but referring to very similar patterns, have confirmed these findings34.

Individuals are not the only ones affected by these trends; further research has shown that organizations in which the different mindsets rule tend to present patterns comparable to individuals5. But in all of those cases, the idea that personal characteristics are immovable and static tends to be associated with less capacity to promote development in individuals.

These results do not represent an endorsement of the belief that the universe will automatically reward positive thinking, popularized by many spiritual and self-help books. Far from it. They do, however, serve as reminders that the matter of human intelligence is complex, and that our institutions’ understanding of it is ever-evolving. Exploring the cognitive capacities of individuals and populations should be done with a reasonable amount of openness, to avoid wasting vast human potential because of rigid – and obsolete – theories on human intelligence.

Related keywords

Implicit theories of mind

Theories of mind

Entity theory, Incremental theory

Fixed mindset, growth mindset

Significant papers

[1] Lillard, A. (1998). “Ethnopsychologies: Cultural Variations in Theories of Mind.” Psychological Bulletin 123(1): 3-32.

[2] Dweck, C. S., C. Y. Chiu, et al. (1995). “Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A World From Two Perspectives.” Psychological Inquiry 6(4): 267-285.

[3]  Chiu, C. Y., Y. Y. Hong, et al. (1997). “Lay Dispositionism and Implicit Theories of Personality.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(1): 19-30.

[4] Butler, R. (2000). “Making judgments about ability: The role of implicit theories of ability in moderating inferences from temporal and social comparison information.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(5): 965-978.

[5] Heslin, P. A., D. Vandewalle, et al. (2006). “Keen to help? managers’ implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching.” Personnel Psychology 59(4): 871-902.

Other references

Biddle, S. J. H., C. K. J. Wang, et al. (2003). “Motivation for physical activity in young people: Entity and incremental beliefs about athletic ability.” Journal of Sports Sciences 21(12): 973-989.

Chen, J. A. and F. Pajares (2010). “Implicit theories of ability of Grade 6 science students: Relation to epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 35(1): 75-87.

Chiu, C. Y., Y. Y. Hong, et al. (1997). “Lay Dispositionism and Implicit Theories of Personality.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(1): 19-30.

Dupeyrat, C. and C. Mariné (2005). “Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with returning to school adults.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 30(1): 43-59.

Flavell, J. H. (2000). “Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 24(1): 15-23.

Harackiewicz, J. M., K. E. Barron, et al. (1997). “Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(6): 1284-1295.

Hong, Y. Y., C. S. Dweck, et al. (1999). “Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(3): 588-599.

Kaplan, A. and M. L. Maehr (2007). “The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.” Educational Psychology Review 19(2): 141-184.

Levy, S. R. and C. S. Dweck (1999). “The impact of children’s static versus dynamic conceptions of people on stereotype formation.” Child development 70(5): 1163-1180.

Levy, S. R., S. J. Stroessner, et al. (1998). “Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6): 1421-1436.

Mueller, C. M. and C. S. Dweck (1998). “Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children’s Motivation and Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(1): 33-52.

Plaks, J. E., S. J. Stroessner, et al. (2001). “Person theories and attention allocation: Preferences for stereotypic versus counterstereotypic information.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(6): 876-893.

Tabernero, C. and R. E. Wood (1999). “Implicit Theories versus the Social Construal of Ability in Self-Regulation and Performance on a Complex Task.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 78(2): 104-127.

Vermetten, Y. J., H. G. Lodewijks, et al. (2001). “The Role of Personality Traits and Goal Orientations in Strategy Use.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 26(2): 149-170.

Yeager, D. S. and C. S. Dweck (2012). “Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe That Personal Characteristics Can Be Developed.” Educational Psychologist 47(4): 302-314.