Implicit theories of intelligence and academic locus of control as

predictors of studying behaviour

Kate Bodill, Lynne D. Roberts
Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Australia
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 24 September 2011
Received in revised form 2 July 2012
Accepted 28 August 2013
Keywords:
Dweck
Locus of control
Implicit theories of intelligence
Academic effort
University students
Dweck's social-cognitive approach to implicit theories of intelligence posits that entity beliefs and incremental
beliefs are associated with, and precede the development of, external and internal locus of control respectively.
To date, this proposition underlying the theory has not beenadequately tested. An online questionnaire including
measures of implicit intelligence beliefs, academic locus of control and hours studying per week was completed
by 94 Australian university students. Multiple regression analysis supported the posited relationship between
entity beliefs and external locus of control, but not that between incremental beliefs and internal locus of control.
While providing partial support for Dweck's proposition, further longitudinal testing is required to determine
causal ordering. A second multiple regression indicated that academic locus of control was a signicant predictor
of hours studying per week, but implicit theories of intelligence were not, suggesting that locus of control beliefs
are the more appropriate target of efforts at improving academic effort.
2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Individuals have their own lay or implicit theories about psycholog-
ical concepts such as intelligence that inuence the way people view
themselves and others (Heider, 1958), providing a framework when
attempting to explain human actions (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995).
However, because theories are often hidden or poorly articulated, it is
sometimes difcult to identify the effect they have on different life do-
mains (Dweck et al., 1995).
A dominant social-cognitive approach to the study of implicit theo-
ries of intelligence is that developed by Dweck and colleagues (Dweck,
1986, 1999; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck et al., 1995). This approach
identied two types of implicit beliefs about intelligence: entity beliefs
and incremental beliefs. People who endorse an entity theory of intelli-
gence believe that intelligence is a xedability and tendto adopt perfor-
mance goals with the aim of gaining approval from outsiders. They
believe that if effort is required to achieve a goal, that this is indicative
of limited ability and therefore seek challenges that are fairly easy and
require less effort to ensure they can perform well in light of others
(Dweck, 1999). Conversely, people who endorse an incremental theory
of intelligence believe that intelligence is malleable and can be im-
proved. They set mastery goals which require the learning of newskills
inorder to increase competence and seek challenging tasks basedonthe
belief in effort (Dweck, 1999).
Originally, Dweck and Leggett (1988) proposed that people believe
in either an incremental theory of intelligence or an entity theory of in-
telligence and conceptualised the two sets of beliefs as belonging on op-
posite ends of a continuum. More recent research by Hong, Chui, Dweck,
Lin, and Wan (1999) suggests that people can hold both entity and in-
cremental beliefs simultaneously. Entity and incremental beliefs are
moderately negatively correlated (r = .35 to .55; Abd-El-Fattah &
Yates, 2006; Dupeyrat & Marin, 2005) suggesting that they are sepa-
rate, yet correlated constructs, rather than two ends of a continuum.
In theorising about implicit theories of intelligence Dweck et al.
(1995) posited that implicit beliefs about intelligence are associated
with locus of control. Locus of control refers to whether anindividual at-
tributes events and outcomes to external or internal inuences (Cooper,
Burger, & Good, 1981). People with an internal locus of control believe
that outcomes arise fromeffort andtherefore viewtheir actions to be in-
uential over life outcomes (Cooper et al., 1981). Conversely, individ-
uals with an external locus of control believe that the environment
and situational factors are responsible for life outcomes and are likely
to attribute success or failure to chance or unfavourable circumstances,
rather than to lack of effort (Cooper et al., 1981).
Locus of control can be measured across domains, or within specic
domains to predict different social behaviours and psychological states,
including academic task persistence (Trice, Ogden, Stevens, & Booth,
1987). Academic locus of control refers to anindividual's perceived con-
trol over academic achievement, with internal academic locus of control
indicating that the individual believes effort is a requirement for aca-
demic success (Trice et al., 1987). Dweck and Leggett (1988) posited
that entity beliefs about intelligence are associated withexternal and in-
cremental beliefs with internal locus of control.
Learning and Individual Differences 27 (2013) 163166
Corresponding author at: School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin Health
Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845,
Australia. Tel.: +61 8 9266 7183; fax: +61 8 9266 2464.
E-mail address: Lynne.Roberts@curtin.edu.au (L.D. Roberts).
1041-6080/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.08.001
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ l i ndi f
Dweck et al. (1995) further posited that implicit beliefs about intel-
ligence precede the development of locus of control. While both relate to
perceptions of control over important life domains (Dweck & Leggett,
1988) implicit beliefs relate to perceptions of control over intelligence,
whereas locus of control relates to perceptions of control over events
and outcomes. Dweck and Leggett (1988) posited that people who
hold entity beliefs are likely to have trouble perceiving control over in-
telligence and therefore negative outcomes in associated areas (such as
academic failure) are viewed to be out of their control, representing an
external locus of control. Conversely, individuals who hold incremental
beliefs about intelligence will viewoutcomes as under their control and
interpret outcomes from an internal locus of control perspective. Con-
trary to this Graham (1995) suggested that the evidence is unclear as
to whether control attributions are guided by implicit theories of intel-
ligence, or if past experiences of academic failures promote the endorse-
ment of an entity view.
There is a dearth of published empirical research regarding the rela-
tionship between implicit theories of intelligence and locus of control.
Only one published study could be located that has directly assessed
the relationship between the two constructs, reporting a signicant
positive relationship between incremental beliefs and internal locus of
control, but with neither correlation coefcient nor effect size reported
(Dweck et al., 1995). The implicit theory measure used in this study
consisted of three items reecting entity statements only and as such
does not provide an adequate test of the proposition that implicit theo-
ries of intelligence are associated with locus of control.
Academic task persistence (effort) is a core domain of relevance to
intelligence. According to Dweck and Leggett (1988) individuals who
hold entity beliefs exert less effort to produce academic success and
where they believe their intellectual ability is low, become helpless
when faced with academic failures and consequently withdraw effort
to save face. Conversely, individuals who endorse anincremental theory
are concerned with the processes involved in mastering challenging
tasks and may attribute unfavourable outcomes to poor strategy or
lack of effort, rather than ability (Grant & Dweck, 2003). They are there-
fore more likely to persevere when faced with negative feedback
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988). One study to date has reported that entity be-
liefs were signicantly negatively correlated with effort (r = .23),
operationalised as the number of homework activities completed in
the academic year (Dupeyrat & Marin, 2005).
Locus of control has also been associated with effort, with internal
locus of control associated with greater effort. Based on a meta-
analysis of 75 studies (Findley & Cooper, 1983) the effect size is small,
suggesting that academic performance is multiply determined, with
other variables also playing an important role. No study to date has
attempted to examine whether Dweck's implicit theories of intelligence
or academic locus of control can better predict effort within a university
setting.
1.1. Current study
The current study has two main aims. The rst aim is to test Dweck
and Leggett's (1988) theoretical proposition that implicit theories of in-
telligence and ALC are related, a proposition that has not been fully test-
ed to date. Gender will be controlled for in this analysis as previous
research suggests that females are more likely than males to hold entity
beliefs of intelligence (Pepi, Faria, & Alesi, 2006) and internal locus of
control (Cooper et al., 1981). It is hypothesised that incremental beliefs
will be correlated with internal locus of control and entity beliefs with
external locus of control.
The second aim is to determine whether implicit theories of intelli-
gence or academic locus of control are better predictors of academic ef-
fort, operationalised as the number of hours spent studying per week.
The mode of study (full time or part time) will be controlled for as
this is likely to affect the number of hours an individual would spend
studying per week. If, as proposed by Dweck and Leggett (1988),
implicit theories of intelligence precede locus of control, then implicit
theories of intelligence should be a distal predictor and locus of control
a proximal predictor of study behaviour, with locus of control the stron-
ger predictor of study behaviour.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
A snowball sampling method through Facebook and inviting stu-
dents on campus to participate in the research was utilised to recruit a
convenience sample of 102 university students enrolled across a range
of faculties at a Western Australian university. Eight cases were re-
moved from the initial sample due to incomplete data (missing more
than 10%), leaving 94 participants remaining in the sample for analysis.
Participants were predominantly female (69.1%), full-time (87.2%)
students with a mean age of 20.8 years (SD = 2.3 years). Prior to
conducting the research, an a-priori power analysis was conducted. In
order to detect a mediumsize effect, witha power of .80at a signicance
level of .05, 91 participants were required. The nal sample size of 94
participants meets this requirement.
2.2. Measures
An online questionnaire was developed consisting of measures of
implicit theories of intelligence, academic locus of control and single
item measures of age, gender, faculty, study status (part-time or full-
time) and effort (hours spent studying per week).
2.2.1. Implicit Theory of Intelligence Scale (ITIS)
The ITIS is a self-report measure comprising seven entity and seven
incremental items representing beliefs about intelligence (Abd-El-
Fattah & Yates, 2006). Example items are You are born with a xed
amount of intelligence (entity subscale) and Good preparation before
performing a task is a way to develop your intelligence (incremental
scale). Participants were required to respond to the items according to
a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly
agree). Previous research has suggested that the measure consists of
two factors representing entity and incremental beliefs, both with ac-
ceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha above .75) anddemonstrating dis-
criminant validity (r = .35; Abd-El-Fattah & Yates, 2006). In the
current sample, the internal reliability was adequate (Cronbach's
alpha = .70 incremental and .65 entity). Scores on the entity and incre-
mental subscales of the ITIS have a possible range from 7 to 28 with
higher scores reecting a stronger agreement with the statements on
each of the subscales.
2.2.2. Academic Locus of Control Scale (ALCS)
The ALCS is a 28 itemtruefalse scale measuring perceptions of con-
trol over academic outcomes (Trice, 1985). Items were writtento reect
Rotter's IE scale within the specic domain of academic effort within
college. Individual scores are calculated by summing the number of ex-
ternally answered items and can range from 0 through to 28. Higher
scores are indicative of a more external locus of control over academic
outcomes. Example items are What I learn is more determined by col-
lege and course requirement than by what I want to learn and Study-
ing every day is important (reverse coded). Higher scores convey
external perceptions of control over academic outcomes, with lower
scores conveying internal perceptions that academic success requires
personal effort.
Previous research suggests the ALCS has acceptable internal consis-
tency (Cronbach's alpha = .70), good testretest reliability over a ve
week interval (r = .92; Trice, 1985), is not associated with socially de-
sirable responding, and has adequate construct validity with Rotter's
IE scale (r = .50, Trice, 1985). In the current sample the scale had ac-
ceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .72).
164 K. Bodill, L.D. Roberts / Learning and Individual Differences 27 (2013) 163166
2.3. Procedure
Prior to commencing data collection, ethics approval was
obtained. The online questionnaire was developed and hosted on
SurveyMonkey.com. Two versions of the questionnaire were created,
with the ITIS and ALCS counter-balanced to remove the inuence of
order effects. As an incentive for participation, entry into a prize draw
for a $50 AUD iTunes gift voucher was offered. The questionnaire
remained available for 50 days. After this time the survey was removed.
A preliminary inspection of the data using Missing Values Analysis was
conducted to determine the extent of missing data. Four missing data
points were replaced using mean substitution.
3. Results and discussion
Descriptive statistics and correlations between key variables are
presented in Table 1. The proposed control variables for the analysis
were gender and study mode. As gender was not signicantly associat-
ed with the other variables it was dropped fromfurther analyses. Mode
of study was retained for the second regression analysis. The assump-
tions underlying multiple regression analysis were tested. Hours of
study was transformed with a logarithm transformation due to its sub-
stantial positive skewness. Two univariate outliers were brought inclos-
er to the distribution.
Amultiple regression analysis was utilised to test Dweck and Leggett's
(1988) theoretical proposition that implicit theories of intelligence and
academic locus of control are related. Total scores on the entity and in-
cremental scales from the ITI scale were entered simultaneously into
the multiple regression model as predictors with ALCS scores as the crite-
rion variable. In combination, entity and incremental scores accounted
for a signicant 11.2% of the variance in ALCS scores, R
2
= .112, adjusted
R
2
= .092, F (2, 91) = 5.72, p = .005 (small to mediumeffect size). The
unstandardised (B) and standardised () regression coefcients, and
squared semipartial correlations (sr
2
) for each predictor are presented
in Table 2. Entity scores accounted for a signicant 8.1% of unique vari-
ance in ALCS scores with incremental scores not accounting for any sig-
nicant variance.
Ahierarchical multiple regression analysis with hours of study as the
criterion variable was conducted to test whether implicit theories of in-
telligence or academic locus of control were better predictors of aca-
demic effort. The control variable, study mode, was entered in step 1
and accounted for a signicant 7.8% of the variance in hours of study
R
2
= .078, F (1, 92) = 7.76, p = .006. Entity, incremental and ALCS
scores were entered as predictors in step 2 and accounted for an addi-
tional 22.3% of variance in hours of study, R
2
= .223, F (3, 89) =
9.47, p b .001. In combination the predictors were able to account for
30.1% of the variance in hours of study, R
2
= .301, adjusted R
2
= .269,
F (4, 89) = 9.477, p b .001 (medium to large effect size). The
unstandardised (B) and standardised () regression coefcients and
squared semipartial correlations (sr
2
) for each predictor on each step
of the hierarchical MRA are presented in Table 3. In the nal model,
study mode accounted for a signicant 3.5% of the variance in hours
spent studying per week with academic locus of control scores account-
ing for a further signicant 18.2%. Entity and incremental scores did not
account for signicant variance in hours studying per week.
The results from the rst multiple regression analysis partially sup-
ported Dweck and Leggett's (1988) proposition that implicit theories
of intelligence and locus of control are associated. Entity scores were
signicantly positively associated with academic locus of control scores,
demonstrating the association between entity beliefs and an external
academic locus of control. However, there was no support for the pre-
dicted association between incremental beliefs and an internal locus
of control. As the current research utilised a cross sectional research de-
sign, the causal direction between the constructs was unable to be test-
ed. Future longitudinal research is required to determine whether the
development of implicit theories do in fact precede locus of control.
The results of the second hierarchical multiple regression analysis
suggest that while neither incremental nor entity beliefs are directly as-
sociated withacademic effort, entity beliefs are associated with external
academic locus of control, which in turn was found to be a signicant
predictor of hours studied per week. One possible reason for these nd-
ings is that academic locus of control measures are specically designed
to predict studying behaviour within the academic domain (Trice et al.,
1987), whereas implicit theories of intelligence measures are based on
the broader domain of intelligence.
Another possible reasonfor the lack of associationfoundbetweenim-
plicit theories of intelligence and hours spent studying is the use of a uni-
versity student sample. University students have an average IQ above
that of the general population and are generally highly motivated to per-
form well in order to produce academic success (Siegle, Rubenstein,
Pollard, &Romey, 2010). Dweck and Leggett (1988) posited that individ-
uals who endorse an entity theory of intelligence will only exert less ef-
fort if low intellectual ability is perceived. If university students believe
that they are highly competent, holding an entity view of intelligence
may neither facilitate nor hinder the amount of effort exertedinacadem-
ic studies. It is possible that implicit beliefs act as moderators, rather than
direct predictors, of studying behaviour. Further disentanglement of ef-
fort and ability when examining relationships between implicit theories,
locus of control and academic outcomes is desirable.
Overall, the results obtained suggest that academic locus of control is
directly associated with studying behaviour in university students,
Table 1
Correlation matrix of key variables.
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Entity 16.51 3.20
2. Incremental 21.94 2.91 .30

3. ALCS 13.68 4.10 .33

.17
4. Hours study
a
1.01 0.34 .08 .16 .49

5. Study mode
b
.06 .12 .20 .24

6. Gender
c
.11 .11 .07 .13 .02
Notes: N = 94.
a
Transformed variable.
b
Part-time coded as 0 and full-time coded as 1.
c
Male coded as 1 and female as = 0.
Correlation signicant at p b .01 (2-tailed).
Correlation signicant at p b .05 (2-tailed).
Table 2
Unstandardised (B) and standardised () regression coefcients and squared semipartial
(or part) correlations (sr
2
) for each predictor in a multiple regression model predicting
academic locus of control.
Variable B [95% CI] sr
2
Entity .400 [.126, .674]

.300 .081
Incremental .122 [.423, .497] .083 .007
Note. N = 94. CI = condence interval.
p b .01.
Table 3
Unstandardised (B) and standardised () regression coefcients, and squared semipartial
(or part) correlations (sr
2
) for each predictor on each step of the hierarchical MRA
predicting hours of study.
Variable B [95% CI] sr
2
Step 1
Study mode .279 [.080, .478]

.279 .078
Step 2
Study mode .195 [.012, .378]

.195 .035
Entity .006 [.014, .027] .061 .003
Incremental .013 [.009, .034] .112 .011
ALCS .037 [.052, .022]

.467 .182
Note. N = 94. CI = condence interval.
p b .01.
p b .05.
165 K. Bodill, L.D. Roberts / Learning and Individual Differences 27 (2013) 163166
while entity beliefs are associated with academic locus of control but
not directly related to studying behaviour. This requires further testing
in longitudinal research. Given the restricted range of IQ within univer-
sity students (Siegle et al., 2010) the results fromthe current study can-
not be generalised to the wider population. Future research should be
conducted on a wider population in order to determine whether the
same ndings emerge when the sample consists of a more diverse IQ
range.
The negative association found between external academic locus
of control and academic effort is consistent with previous research
(e.g., Onwuegbuzie & Daley, 1998; Trice, 1985; Trice et al., 1987) and
has important implications within the academic domain. Previous re-
search (e.g., Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Blackwell & Trzesniewski,
2007) has indicated that it is possible to successfully induce people to
believe in incremental beliefs, resulting in behaviour that is more driven
and mastery oriented. However, our research suggests that in terms of
changing study behaviour in university students, challenging implicit
beliefs about intelligence may be important only to the extent that it re-
sults in increasing internal academic locus of control. If the aim is to in-
crease academic effort, academic locus of control beliefs may be the
more appropriate target. This provides support for the concept termed
attributional retraining which refers to the process of educating indi-
viduals to endorse an internal locus of control and to make unstable at-
tributions, in order to improve motivation and enhance achievement
striving (Perry, Hechter, Menec, & Weinberg, 1993).
A limitation of the current study is that the criterion variable study-
ing behaviour was measured using a single item, self-report measure-
ment of the approximate number of hours spent studying per week.
Research indicates that time spent studying is a poor predictor of aca-
demic achievement (Plant, Ericsson, Hill, & Asberg, 2005) and is only a
signicant predictor of academic achievement when the study is under-
taken under quiet conditions and previously attained performance and
quality of study are taken into consideration. A more nuanced measure
of effective studying behaviour conceptualising studying as a multidi-
mensional construct (Plant et al., 2005) is required for future research
in this area.
In conclusion, the ndings from the present study partially support
Dweck and Leggett's (1988) proposition that implicit theories are asso-
ciated withlocus of control. Entity beliefs about intelligence were signif-
icantly positively associated with an external academic locus of control,
while incremental beliefs were not signicantly related to academic
locus of control. However, only academic locus of control was a signi-
cant predictor of studying behaviour in university students.
References
Abd-El-Fattah, S. M., & Yates, G. C. R. (2006). Implicit Theory of Intelligence Scale: Testing
for factorial invariance and mean structure. Paper presented at the Australian Associa-
tion for Research in Education Conference, Adelaide, South Australia.
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on
African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113125.
Blackwell, L. S., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict
achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an interven-
tion. Child Development, 78, 246263.
Cooper, H. M., Burger, J. M., & Good, T. L. (1981). Gender differences in the academic locus
of control beliefs of young children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,
562572.
Dupeyrat, C., & Marin, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cogni-
tive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck's model with returning to school
adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 4359.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
10401048.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and per-
sonality. Psychological Review, 95, 256273.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgements
and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267285.
Findley, M. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement: A lit-
erature review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 419427.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541553.
Graham, S. (1995). Implicit theories as conceptualized by an attribution researcher.
Psychological Inquiry, 6, 294297.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Hong, Y., Chui, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D.M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attribu-
tions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 588599.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (1998). Study skills of undergraduates as a function of
academic locus of control, self-perception, and social independence. Psychological
Reports, 83, 595598.
Pepi, A., Faria, L., & Alesi, M. (2006). Personal conceptions of intelligence, self esteem, and
school achievement in Italian and Portuguese students. Adolescence, 41(164),
616631.
Perry, R., Hechter, F. J., Menec, V. H., & Weinberg, L. E. (1993). Enhancing achievement
motivation and performance in college students: An attributional retraining perspec-
tive. Research in Higher Education, 34(6), 687723.
Plant, A. E., Ericsson, K. A., Hill, L., & Asberg, K. (2005). Why study time does not predict
grade point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for ac-
ademic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 96116.
Siegle, D., Rubenstein, L. D., Pollard, E., & Romey, E. (2010). Exploring the relationship of
college freshman honours students' effort and ability attribution, interest and implicit
theory of intelligence with perceived ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 92101.
Trice, A.D., Ogden, E. P., Stevens, W., & Booth, J. (1987). Concurrent validity of the
Academic Locus of Control Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
47, 483486.
Trice, A.D. (1985). An academic locus of control scale for college students. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 61, 10431046.
166 K. Bodill, L.D. Roberts / Learning and Individual Differences 27 (2013) 163166