How beliefs shape effort and learning

If it was easy to learn, it will be easy to remember. Psychological scientists have maintained that nearly everyone uses this simple rule to assess their own learning.

Now a study published in an upcoming issue , a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, suggests otherwise: "Individuals with different theories about the nature of tend to evaluate their in different ways," says David B. Miele of Columbia University, who conducted the study with Bridgid Finn of Washington University in St. Louis and Daniel C. Molden of Northwestern University.

It has long been known that these theories have important effects on people's to learn. So-called "entity theorists" believe each person possesses a fixed level of intelligence, and no amount of effort can change it. "As a result, entity theorists tend to disengage when something is challenging. They decide that they're not really capable of learning it," says Miele. Meanwhile, "incremental theorists" believe that intelligence is malleable. "They keep forging ahead when faced with a challenge, believing that more time and effort will yield better results."

To test whether these theories also affect the way people assess their own learning, the researchers conducted two experiments. In the first, 75 English-speaking students studied 54 pairs of Indonesian to English translations that varied in terms of how effortful they were to learn. The easy pairs consisted of English words that were nearly identical to their Indonesian counterpart (e.g, Polisi-Police) and required little effort to learn; many of the medium pairs were still connected in some way (e.g, Bagasi-Luggage) but required more effort to learn than the easy pairs; and the difficult pairs were entirely dissimilar (e.g., Pembalut-Bandage) and required the most effort to learn. After studying each pair for as long as they liked, the participants reported how confident they were about being able to recall the English word when supplied the Indonesian word on an upcoming test. Once they had finished studying and reporting their "judgments of learning" for all of the pairs, they then took the recall test. Finally, at the end of the experiment, they completed a questionnaire which assessed the extent to which they believed that intelligence is fixed or changeable.

The results of the experiment showed that, although all of the students did better at recalling the easy pairs compared to the difficult pairs, only entity theorists (who expressed more confidence the less time they spent studying) accurately predicted the magnitude of this effect. Incremental theorists (who expressed more confidence the more time they spent studying) tended to be overconfident about how likely they were to remember the difficult pairs and under confident about how likely they were to remember the easy pairs. This finding was also supported by the results of the second experiment. Thus, simply holding different beliefs about the nature of intelligence can lead people to form very different impressions of their own learning.

And which theory of intelligence is correct? "The truth lies somewhere in between," he says. "We have to be sensitive to personal limitations"—say, a learning disability—"and at the same time not feel those limitations are the end all–be all. Effort can always lead to some amount of improvement, but you also need to be aware of the law of diminishing returns."

Explore further

Practice tests improve memory, researchers say

Citation: How beliefs shape effort and learning (2011, April 15) retrieved 16 September 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 15, 2011
What we need is a better determination for what is genius or being intelligent really means. Could be one of your failing students in language learning could dismantle a motor blindfolded, is the physicist who understands black holes more intelligent than the mechanic who fixes his car? Read "Of Genious" by Aaron Hill avail on Project Gutenberg for more insights.

Apr 16, 2011
The conclusion seems to have been bent to fit the researchers' preconceptions. Clearly those who see intelligence as fixed make more accurate predictions about their own learning. The article says nothing about some interesting questions that should have been answered by their data: were "entity theorists" better at the learning task? (and if so, since their predictions of their own learning were more accurate, they must have been more confident in their predictions, which would negate the commentary about them being more likely to give up when faced with hard material) Did the malleable theorists study more? The commentary about "the truth lies somewhere in between" seems facile. Clearly the truth is much closer to the entity theorists position; extensive previous research shows that additional study past an optimum amount yields asymptotically reducing returns; thousands of studies show that IQ tests are valid (lower than true ability scores are far more likely than higher, however.)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more