with an entity theory. Indeed, the SPN in students with an entity theory did
not differ from baseline, suggesting that they were not motivated to attend to
this information. Perhaps once their performance goals had been met by
processing the ability-relevant feedback, they felt no need to attend to the
learning-relevant feedback. Interestingly, an SPN to the learning-relevant
feedback was lacking in these individuals even when they had just been pre-
sented with negative feedback, and therefore, could have used the learning-
relevant feedback to correct their error. In contrast, for incremental theorists,
an SPN to the learning-relevant feedback was present even when they had
gotten the answer correct in the first place, suggesting an intrinsic interest in
feedback that provided learning relevant information whether that informa-
tion was new or simply provided a verification of what they knew.
In addition, although this electrophysiological evidence suggests that stu-
dents with an entity theory and students with an incremental theory were sim-
ilarly motivated to attend to the ability-relevant feedback prior to its presen-
tation, they appeared to evaluate the valence of that feedback differently
once it was presented. Specifically, students with an entity theory appeared
quicker than students with an incremental theory to orient toward informa-
tion indicating a lack of ability (i.e., feedback that their response was incor-
rect). This was indicated by the significantly shorter peak latency of an ante-
rior (frontal-maximal) P3 waveform, an ERP component that has been
associated with the involuntary orienting of attention to information that
does not match expectations (Butterfield & Mangels, in press; Comerchero &
Polich, 2000; Friedman, et al., 2001; Knight, 1984; Knight & Scabini, 1998).
In contrast, entity and incremental theorists did not appear to differ in their
latency to orient to feedback indicating a correct response; the latency of the
anterior P3 to correct responses was the same in both groups.
Differences in latency of the anterior P3 as a function of feedback valence
underscore the dynamic relationship between executive control and atten-
tional allocation. Control processes are not only important for selecting a
goal-relevant channel of information but also for monitoring that channel for
information which conflicts with the goals it is trying to maintain. Further-
more, when conflict is detected, the executive control network may attempt
to modify the allocation of attention and strategic processes in a way that at-
tempts to realign them with the goals (Fernandez-Duque, Baird, & Posner,
2000; Nelson & Narens, 1994). For students with an entity theory, ability-
relevant feedback (goal-consistent information) informing them that they
have made an error is not good news about their success in achieving their
goal of high performance. Thus, the shorter latency of the anterior P3 to neg-
ative performance feedback in entity theorists may index the enhanced sa-
liency of this type of feedback, arising because it conflicts with, and perhaps
even threatens, their goal of proving their ability. Students with an incremen-
- MOTIVATION AND COGNITION 47