Incremental Versus Entity Theories of Intelligence

Relative to the nature-nurture argument is the important distinction between incremental and entity theorists (see Unit 1 of these resources, pp. 8–9). Entity theorists tend to think that human characteristics are fixed. Incremental theorists are inclined to believe that characteristics are malleable. Handout 11–14, designed by Carol Dweck (1999), assesses the degree to which respondents believe that their own intelligence is changeable. To obtain a total score, students should first reverse the numbers they placed in front of statements 3, 5, 7, and 8 (change 1 to 6, 2 to 5, 3 to 4, 4 to 3, 5 to 2, and 6 to 1). Then they should add up the numbers in front of all eight statements. Scores range from 8 to 48. Scores below the midpoint of 28 reflect the belief that one’s intelligence is fixed (entity theorists); scores above 28 indicate the belief that one’s intelligence is malleable (incremental theorists).

These two theories profoundly affect motivation. “If my traits are fixed, then I can’t do much to change. I’m stuck with who I am. The best I can do is to validate what strengths I might already have and hope that they will help me win approval and avoid rejection. There is no sense in trying to promote growth in others either, as they will remain who they are despite my best efforts. On the other hand, if my traits are malleable, I have the potential to improve.” This mindset encourages us to look for ways to grow, to solve our problems, and to remedy our weaknesses. It also encourages us to look for potential in others and help them to grow.

Carol Dweck has specifically studied how these two different theories play out in the domain of intelligence.

To illustrate, you might pose the following problems in class: Imagine the following:

You see a puzzle in a science magazine and it’s labeled “Test Your IQ!” You work on it for a very long time, get confused, and start over. You make very slow progress but finally solve it. How do you feel? Do you feel sort of dumb because it required so much effort? Or do you feel smart because you worked hard and mastered it?

Or, consider this challenge:

Imagine a child you know who keeps getting lots and lots wrong on his or her schoolwork and asks you for help. What would you say or do?