tal theory, on the other hand, may value both negative and positive ability-
relevant feedback equally for their function of informing them about the sta-
tus of current knowledge.
In summary, entity and incremental theorists allocated their attentional re-
sources differently and in accord with their different goals. Students with an
entity theory entered a state of vigilance for ability-relevant information and
oriented particularly quickly to negative ability-relevant information. They did
not, however, generate a state of vigilance for the learning-relevant informa-
tion that followed. In contrast, students with an incremental theory entered a
state of vigilance for both the ability-relevant and the learning-relevant infor-
mation, which could inform them of the state of their current knowledge and
lead to increases in knowledge. Moreover, they vigilantly awaited the learning-
relevant information, even when their answer had been correct.
These initial results demonstrate how electrophysiological measures can
complement self-report and behavioral measures of attention and strategic
processing by providing an observable window into the moment-to-moment
changes in internal neurocognitive processes that students engage during aca-
demic tasks. We have found EEG–ERP to be particularly useful because of
its ability to monitor the fast, dynamic neural changes that occur when proc-
essing different types of stimuli in rapid succession. In addition, given that
both attention and depth of processing are positively related to successful
encoding into long-term episodic memory (e.g., Craik, 2002; Craik, Go-
voni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996), we are now carefully evaluating
whether these ERP measures of attention are correlated with students’ success
at correcting (improving) performance when those items initially answered in-
correctly are presented on a subsequent retest. Thus, we hope to determine
whether effects of different goals on attention and conceptual processing ac-
count, in part, for overall differences in learning success over time.
EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS
What are the implications of the motivational findings for educational inter-
vention? For example, by changing students’ beliefs, can one change their ac-
ademic performance? Three recent studies have addressed this question di-
rectly (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Aronson & Good, 2002; Blackwell,
Dweck, & Trzesniewski, 2003). The first study (Aronson et al., 2002) was
conducted with students from an elite university (Stanford), and was con-
cerned with: (a) the issue of why African-American students with strong aca-
demic skills nonetheless underperform in such settings (see Steele & Aronson,
1995), and (b) whether providing these students with an incremental theory
about their intelligence would prove beneficial.
48 DWECK, MANGELS, GOOD