Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation 1
Running Head: IMPLICIT THEORIES AND SELF-REGULATION
Mindsets Matter: A Meta-Analytic Review of Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation
Jeni L. Burnette
University of Richmond
Ernest O‘Boyle
University of Iowa
Eric M. VanEpps
Carnegie Mellon University
Jeffrey M. Pollack
University of Richmond
Eli J. Finkel
Northwestern University
In Press, Psychological Bulletin
May 9, 2012
Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation 1
Mindsets Matter: A Meta-Analytic Review of Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation
Abstract
This review builds on self-control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1998) to develop a theoretical
framework for investigating associations of implicit theories with self-regulation. This framework
conceptualizes self-regulation in terms of three crucial processes: goal setting, goal operating and
goal monitoring. In this meta-analysis, we included articles that reported a quantifiable assessment
of implicit theories and at least one self-regulatory process or outcome. Using a random effects
approach, meta-analytic results (total unique N = 28,217; k = 113) across diverse achievement
domains (68% academic) and populations (age range = 5-42; 10 different nationalities; 58% from
United States; 44% female) demonstrated that implicit theories predict distinct self-regulatory
processes, which, in turn, predict goal achievement. Incremental theories, which, in contrast to
entity theories, are characterized by the belief that human attributes are malleable rather than
fixed, significantly predicted goal setting (performance goals, r
= -.151; learning goals, r
= .187),
goal operating (helpless-oriented strategies, r = -.238; mastery-oriented strategies, r
= .227), and
goal monitoring (negative emotions, r = -.233; expectations, r
= .157). The effects for goal setting
and goal operating were stronger in the presence (vs. absence) of ego threats such as failure
feedback. Discussion emphasizes how the present theoretical analysis merges an implicit theory
perspective with self-control theory to advance scholarship and unlock major new directions for
basic and applied research.
Abstract = 221; Overall Word Count = 32,266
KEY WORDS: implicit theories, self-regulation, self-control theory, achievement
Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation 2
Mindsets Matter: A Meta-Analytic Review of Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation
Why do some students seek to gain competency, whereas others seek to outperform their
peers? Why do some athletes redouble their efforts when facing setbacks, whereas others respond
with helplessness? Why do some dieters feel confident in their ability to face challenges to their
weight-loss goals, whereas others feel they lack the requisite skills? Research on implicit theories
has sought to answer these and similar questions for decades, examining how lay beliefs, namely
incremental theories (beliefs that human attributes can be improved or developed) and entity
theories (beliefs that human attributes are fixed or invariant), influence self-regulation (Dweck &
Leggett, 1988; Molden & Dweck, 2006).
Although research on implicit theories originated within an academic context, scholars
have extended the theory to additional achievement domains, such as athletics (e.g., Kasimatis,
Miller, & Marcussen, 1996; Ommundsen, 2003), weight management (Burnette, 2010), and
leadership (Burnette, Pollack, & Hoyt, 2010). Across these contexts, implicit theories have been
postulated to be linked to various self-regulatory processes, including goal setting (e.g., Robins &
Pals, 2002), social comparison (Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008), overcoming stereotype threat (e.g.,
Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002), selective information attention (Mangels, Butterfield, Lamb,
Good, & Dweck, 2006), and remedial action (e.g., Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999).
Although many studies have demonstrated support for the hypothesis that implicit theories
predict self-regulatory processes (e.g., Kray & Haselhuhn, 2007; Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008;
Thompson & Musket, 2005), other studies have shown either null effects (e.g., Biddle, Wang,
Chatzisarantis, & Spray, 2003; Doron, Stephan, Boiche, & Le Scanff, 2009; Ommundsen,
Haugen, & Lund, 2005) or even a reversal of theoretically expected effects (Bråten & Strømsø,
2005). Meta-analytic procedures are particularly well-suited to literatures characterized by
(apparently) contradictory empirical findings, especially when such procedures can bolster
Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation 3
theoretical and empirical coherence by incorporating relevant moderator variables. Thus, the
present review seeks to address empirical ambiguities and to highlight key moderators of links
between implicit theories and self-regulatory processes and outcomes.
Additionally, although the multidisciplinary research linking implicit theories to diverse
self-regulatory processes is clear on the independent variable side (i.e., implicit theories), it has
lacked theoretical structure on the dependent variable side (i.e., self-regulation). Thus, a primary
goal of the current meta-analysis is to impose theoretical coherence on the link between implicit
theories and self-regulation by employing a broad, integrative framework. Specifically, we
capitalize upon the richness and precision of Carver and Scheier‘s (1998) model of self-control,
which identifies three core processes underlying self-regulation: goal setting, goal operating, and
goal monitoring. We conceptualize these three processes in terms of two distinct constructs that
have appeared in the empirical implicit theories literature to date: performance goals and learning
goals for goal setting, helpless-oriented strategies and mastery-oriented strategies for goal
operating, and negative emotions and expectations for goal monitoring (see Table 1). In addition
to investigating the strength of associations between implicit theories and self-regulatory
processes (as well as relevant moderators of these links), we also examine which of these self-
regulatory processes promote the crucial self-regulatory outcome of goal achievement.
Finally, in addition to addressing empirical and theoretical ambiguities, we discuss how
conceptualizing the implicit theories literature from the perspective of self-control theory yields an
abundance of immediately accessible directions for future research. In pursuit of these three
goals—meta-analytically reviewing the literature, bolstering theoretical coherence, and identifying
directions for future research—we introduce the Setting/Operating/Monitoring/Achievement
(SOMA) Model, which synthesizes the implicit theories literature with Carver and Scheier‘s
(1982, 1998) self-control theory.
Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation 4
The SOMA Model, which is illustrated in Figure 1, distills our empirical and theoretical
approach. First, we integrate theorizing from the implicit theories and the self-control literatures
(a) to examine the associations of implicit theories with the self-regulatory processes of goal
setting (performance goals and learning goals), goal operating (helpless strategies and mastery
strategies), and goal monitoring (negative emotions and expectations); and (b) to identify
potentially important moderators of these associations (Figure 1, Paths a-n). Second, we examine
the associations of implicit theories and the self-regulatory processes with goal achievement, and
we examine an important theoretical moderator of these associations (Figure 1, Paths o-w). In
addition, we also explore in auxiliary analyses (not depicted in Figure 1) whether two study
characteristics moderate the implicit theory and self-regulatory process links: (a) domain of
implicit theory (non-academic vs. academic) and (b) type of implicit theory assessment
(experimentally induced vs. naturally occurring).
Results from 28,217 participants, who were drawn from 113 independent samples, reveal
which self-regulatory processes are most strongly predicted by implicit theories and which self-
regulatory processes most strongly predict achievement. These meta-analytic results also reveal
which theoretical and methodological moderators influence the magnitude of these main-effect
associations. Taken together, the present theoretical analysis and meta-analytic synthesis provide
an overview of the current state of the literature linking implicit theories and self-regulation and
build toward a novel agenda for future research. Before elaborating on the SOMA Model, we first
review the implicit theory perspective and synthesize it with self-control theory.
Implicit Theories
Just as scientists develop theories to explain the phenomena they investigate, laypersons
develop theories about human characteristics such as intelligence, personality, and athletic ability.
Unlike scientists‘ theories, these lay theories are frequently implicit; that is, they are not explicitly
