How a theory of intelligence can improve the way your child  learns

© 2008-2015 Gwen Dewar, Ph.D., all rights reserved

What is your theory of intelligence? In East Asian countries, people often take the view that intelligence can be enhanced through effort. In the West, another, more deterministic view is popular: We are born with abilities that remain fixed throughout our lives.

The deterministic view sounds more depressing, and as we'll see, believing it has important consequences for how you learn. But is it also wrong-headed?

I think it is. While it's undeniable that hereditary and prenatal factors influence our cognitive performance, that's far from the whole story.

Consider what research suggests about our ability to improve cognitive performance:

  • Regular, aerobic exercise may stimulate the growth of brain cells and enhance executive function, that master self-regulator that helps us pay attention, plan, and resist distractions
  • Adults and children can better retain newly learned information by scheduling study sessions shortly before they sleep (Gais et al 2006; Wagner et al 2004; Kurdziel et al 2013).
  • We can improve recall by learning mnemonic strategies.
  • Exploration -- beginning in infancy -- contributes to long-term academic achievement. Experiments on rats suggest that exploratory behavior boosts brain growth and memory (Huber et al 2007; Dong et al 2012), and recent research hints that exploration influences the cognitive performance of children, too. In one study, babies who explored more actively at 5 months achieved higher academic levels at 14 years, even after controlling for maternal intelligence, education, and other aspects of the home environment (Bornstein et al 2013).

And there is the most obvious point: People develop impressive levels of expertise through hard work and practice.

So there is good reason to think that we can get smarter. What are the practical consequences of embracing this theory of intelligence?

People who believe that intelligence is malleable are better learners

 Cognitive neuroscientist Jennifer Mangels and her colleagues tested Columbia undergraduates who subscribed to one of two beliefs about intelligence (Mangels et al 2006).

Undergraduates who held the “entity" theory of intelligence said they agreed strongly with statements like “you have a certain amount of intelligence and you can’t do much to change it."

Undergraduates who held the “incremental" theory of intelligence viewed intelligence as more malleable.

For the experiment, each student sat at a computer and was quizzed on a variety of academic subjects, ranging from history to science. Students were also asked to rate how confident they were about their answers.

After answering each question, students were told if their answer was right or wrong. They were also told what the correct answer was.

Then, once they’d answered all the questions, the students were tested again. But this time students were tested only on those questions which they had gotten wrong previously.

Throughout the experiment, researchers measured the students’ brain activity by recording event-related potentials (ERPs)—the electrical activity that accompanies our thoughts and perceptions.

The results were eye-opening.

Both groups did equally well on the first test session, and both groups were equally confident about their answers.

But students holding the more flexible, “growth" theory of intelligence responded differently to errors.

When “growth" students answered incorrectly and were told the right answer, they seemed to pay more attention. Their brains were more likely to show evidence of sustained, “deep" processing.

Moreover, the “growth" students were more likely to come up with the correct answers the second time around.

In other words, the students who believed that intelligence is malleable actually learned better than students who believed that intelligence is fixed and unchangeable.

These results have been replicated by another team of researchers working more recently (Moser et al 2011). People embracing an incremental, or growth-minded, theory of intelligence were better at monitoring and rectifying their mistakes.

What's going on? How do beliefs mindsets affect the way people learn? Very likely, the answer concerns failure. To people who believe in the malleability of intelligence, it's no big deal. They know they can improve their abilities with practice, and errors are part of the learning process. So they are eager to tackle challenges, and more likely to profit from their mistakes.

But if you believe that intelligence is fixed, failure poses a major threat. It's a sign that you lack ability, and aren't going to improve. Public failure is particularly devastating, so you avoid challenges. And when you make a mistake, you're more likely to feel helpless. There seems little point in trying to understand where you went wrong. You don't have what it takes.

And what about kids?

Children aren’t born believing that intelligence is fixed and unchangeable.

American kids tend to believe in the malleability of intelligence until they are midway through grade school (Kinlaw and Kurtz-Costes 2007; Nicholls and Miller 1984). And in East Asia, people embrace a growth mindset throughout their lives (Heine et al 2001; Chen and Stevenson 1995; Stevenson and Lee 1990).

But as American kids get older, they tend to change their views. They learn about the "entity" view of intelligence, and get the message that success or failure depends on factors beyond their control.

The way we praise children might help drive this message home. In a series of telling experiments, Claudia Mueller and Carol Dweck (2002) showed that praising kids for their intelligence can backfire.

Kids became more concerned about protecting their image than learning. They seemed to conclude that failure is a sign of low intelligence, so they played it safe and avoided difficult tasks that might have made them look incompetent. When they did fail, they tended to give up.

By contrast, kids praised for their effort became more eager to tackle challenges, and more resilient in the wake of failure.

It's a pattern that's also been observed outside the lab. Over the long term, tweens who are regularly praised for their intelligence ("You're so smart!") become ever-more likely to endorse the entity theory, and ever-more reluctant to tackle challenges (Pomerantz and Kempner 2013).

And even young children are vulnerable (Erdley et al 1997; Smiley and Dweck 1994). When Patricia Smiley and Carol Dweck presented 4- and 5-year-olds with several puzzles, the researchers noticed a pattern in children's preferences: The kids who were most susceptible to feelings of helplessness were more likely to prefer puzzles that were too easy for them (Smiley and Dweck 1994).

Change your mindset, improve performance

We've seen that people who believe in the malleability of intelligence have a learning advantage. But does this mean we can improve a student's ability to learn by teaching him or her to embrace a growth theory of intelligence?

Researchers behind the study of 7th graders and math achievement put this question to the test (Blackwell et al 2007). They enrolled students in one of two instructional programs. One program taught kids study skills. The other program combined study tips with information about the brain. The brain-based program encouraged kids to think of the brain as a muscle that becomes stronger with use.

The results? Kids enrolled in the brain-based program improved their math grades. Kids enrolled in the study skills program did not (Blackwell et al 2007).

Studies of young adults have reported similar findings. When college undergraduates were encouraged to believe in the power of practice, they showed immediate improvements in their attitude towards failure (Niiya et al 2004), and performed better on puzzle-solving tasks (Thompson and Muskat 2005). Merely reading about the growth mindset -- a few brief sentences -- was enough to change the way students tackled a high-speed, attention task. Compared to students who read an endorsement of the "entity" theory, students exposed to the "growth" mindset showed more focus and learned more from their mistakes (Schroder et al 2014).

What can parents do?

As noted above, there is real scientific evidence that we can sharpen are own our thinking. Read more about it in James Flynn's What Is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect and Richard Nisbett's book, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count.

Based on the research I’ve seen, parents can probably do a lot to help their kids acquire the right mindset for learning. Here are some suggestions.

1. Get on board yourself

Are you convinced that intelligence is unchangeable? If so, you’ll probably pass this belief along to your child. You might argue that intelligence really IS unchangeable—whether we like it our not. But rest assured--it’s not just wishful thinking.

2. Teach your child the good news

Carol Dweck and her colleagues have shown that the muscle metaphor has powerful traction with children. Tell kids about the importance of exercising their minds, and the encourage them to view mistakes as opportunities to learn (Dweck 2006).

3. Be careful with praise

Praise can be a great motivator for academic achievement. However, the wrong kinds of praise can backfire. As noted above, praising kids for their smarts may actually encourage kids to adopt the entity theory of intelligence.

On the other hand, praising kids for effort may encourage them to develop an incremental theory of intelligence. In a recent study tracking children from the age of 1 year, kids who received more praise for effort during the toddler years were more likely to endorse the incremental theory when they were in the 2nd and 3rd grades. They were also more likely to agree that persistence and hard work pays off (Gunderson et al 2013).

For more information about the effects of praise, see these articles on praise and intelligence and tips for effective praise.

In addition, check out Carol Dweck's best-selling book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success .


References: How a theory of intelligence can hamper learning

Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., and Dweck, C.S. 2007. Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention. Child Development 78 (1): 246-263.

Bornstein MH, Hahn CS, Suwalsky JT. 2013. Physically developed and exploratory young infants contribute to their own long-term academic achievement. Psychol Sci. 24(10):1906-17. doi: 10.1177/0956797613479974. Epub 2013 Aug 20

Caspi A, Williams B, Kim-Cohen J, Craig IW, Milne BJ, Poulton R, Schalkwyk LC, Taylor A, Werts H, and Moffitt TE. 2007. Moderation of breastfeeding effects on the IQ by genetic variation in fatty acid metabolism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104(47):18860-5.

Chen C and Stevenson HW. 1995. Motivation and mathematics achievement: a comparative study of Asian-American, Caucasian-American, and east Asian high school students. Child Development 66(4):1214-34.

Dong Z, Gong B, Li H, Bai Y, Wu X, Huang Y, He W, Li T, and Wang YT. 2012. Mechanisms of hippocampal long-term depression are required for memory enhancement by novelty exploration. J Neurosci. 2012 Aug 29;32(35):11980-90.

Dweck CS 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.

Erdley CA, Cain KM, Loomis CC, Dumas-Hines F, and Dweck CS. 1997. Relations among children's social goals, implicit personality theories, and responses to social failure. Developmental Psychology 33(2):263-72.

Gais S, Lucas B and Born J. 2006. Sleep and learning aids memory recall. Learning and Memory 13: 259-262.

Gunderson EA, Gripshover SJ, Romero C, Dweck CS, Goldin-Meadow S, and Levine SC. 2013. Parent praise to 1-3 year-olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child Development.

Heine SJ, Lehman DR, Ide E, Leung C, Kitayama S, Takata T, Matsumoto H. 2001. Divergent consequences of success and failure in japan and North America: an investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. J Pers Soc Psychol. 81(4):599-615.

Huber R, Tonini G, and Cirelli C. 2007. Exploratory behavior, cortical BDNF expression, and sleep homeostasis. Sleep 30(2):129-39.

Jaeggi SM, Buschkuehl M, Jonides J, and Perrig WJ. 2008. Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(19):6829-33.

Jones BD1, Rakes L, Landon K. 2013. Malawian secondary students' beliefs about intelligence. Int J Psychol. 48(5):785-96.

Kinlaw CR and Kurtz-Costes B. 2007. Children's theories of intelligence: beliefs, goals, and motivation in the elementary years. Journal of General Psychology 134(3):295-311.

Kurdziel L, Duclos K, and Spencer R. 2013. Sleep spindles in midday naps enhance learning in preschool children. PNAS (epub ahead of print) doi: 10.1073/pnas.1306418110.

Landry SH, Smith KE, and Swank PR. 2003. The importance of parenting during early childhood for school-age development. Dev Neuropsychol. 24(2-3):559-91.

Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR. 2006. Responsive parenting: establishing early foundations for social, communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Dev Psychol. 42(4):627-42.

Mangels JA, Butterfield B, Lamb J, Good C and Dweck CS. 2006. Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Soc Cogn Affect Neuroscience 1(2): 75–86.

Moser JS, Schroder HS, Heeter C, Moran TP, Lee YH. 2011. Mind your errors: evidence for a neural mechanism linking growth mind-set to adaptive posterror adjustments. Psychol Sci. 22(12):1484-9.

Neisser U, Boodoo G, Boucard TJ, Boykin AW et al 1996. Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist 51 (2): 77-101.

Niiya Y, Crocker J, and Bartmess EN. 2004. From vulnerability to resilience: learning orientations buffer contingent self-esteem from failure. Psychological Science 15(12): 801-80.

Paunesku D, Walton GM, Romero C, Smith EN, Yeager DS, Dweck CS. 2015. Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychol Sci. 26(6):784-93

Pomerantz EM and Kempner SG. 2013. Mothers' daily person and process praise: implications for children's theory of intelligence and motivation. Dev Psychol. 49(11):2040-6.

Rudebeck SR, Bor D, Ormond A, O'Reilly JX, and Lee AC. 2012.A potential spatial working memory training task to improve both episodic memory and fluid intelligence. PLoS One 7(11):e50431.

Schroder HS, Moran TP, Donnellan MB, and Moser JS. 2014. Mindset induction effects on cognitive control: a neurobehavioral investigation. Biol Psychol. 103:27-37.

Smiley PA and Dweck CS. 1994. Individual differences in achievement goals among young children. Child Development 65(6):1723-43.

Stevenson HW and Lee SY. 1990. Contexts of achievement: a study of American, Chinese, and Japanese children. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 55(1-2):1-123.

Thompson T and Musket S. 2005. Does priming for mastery goals improve the performance of students with an entity view of ability? Br J Educ Psychol. 75(Pt 3):391-409.

Wagner U, Gais S, Haider H., et al. Sleep inspires insight. Nature 427: 352-355.

For more information about the ways that our theory of intelligence can influence our intellectual performance, see this article about stereotype threat.

Image of girl in pond: Steve Hildebrand / US Fish and Wildlife

Image of kids painting: heyjude/photomorgue

Content of "How a theory of intelligence can improve the way your child  learns" last modified 6/15