Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Essays in Social Psychology)
Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Essays in Social Psychology)
- ISBN13: 9781841690247
- Condition: New
- Notes: BRAND NEW FROM PUBLISHER! BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
This innovative text sheds light on how people work – why they sometimes function well and, at other times, behave in ways that are self-defeating or destructive. Dweck presents her groundbreaking research on adaptive and maladaptive cognitive-motivational patterns and shows:
*How these patterns originate in people’s self-theories
*Their consequences for the person – for achievement, social relationships, and emotional well-being
*Their consequences for society, from issues of human potential to stereotyping and intergroup relations
*The experiences that create them.
This outstanding text is a must-read for researchers in social psychology, child development, and education, and is appropriate for both graduate and senior undergraduate students in these areas.
List Price: $ 37.50
Price: $ 27.39
Pam Tee "Busy Mom" said,
Wrote on April 14, 2011 @ 11:26 am
Absolutely a Fascinating Read – a review of “Self-theories”,
This is a fascinating book. And while I’m just a mom with no particular background in psychological research, I found I had no difficulty either understanding the procedures of the research, or finding `everyday’ applications for the profound information that Carol Dweck and associates provide.
In fact I wish I had read this book earlier because it has a great deal to teach about how children devise concepts of themselves (self image) and how we might avoid the pitfalls of rearing a child who `gives up’ too easily.
Five Stars. Very interesting. The other reviewers are right. This is a fast paced, good read that explains Carol Dweck’s research into personality, motivation and development. As a mom of a 3 and 5 year old, I wish that I had come across this book earlier.
As Amazon’s `Search inside this book’ feature only lists page one of the Table of Contents, I’ve typed out the second page for your info.
Chapter 14 — How Does It All Begin? Young Children’s Theories About Goodness and Badness
Chapter 15 — Kinds Of Praise And Criticism: The Origins Of Vulnerability
Chapter 16 — Praising Intelligence: More Praise That Backfires
Chapter 17 — Misconceptions About Self-Esteem and About How To Foster It
Chapter 18 — Personality, Motivation, Development, and The Self: Theoretical Reflections
Chapter 19 — Final Thoughts On Controversial Issues
References
Appendix: Measures Of Implicit Theories, Confidence, and Goals
Index
Was this review helpful to you?
|Michael Fletcher said,
Wrote on April 14, 2011 @ 12:26 pm
Scary title, great book!,
I was intimidated by the title of this book, and was afraid it was going to be highly academic. However, the book is completely accessible and fascinating. Dr. Dweck describes her remarkable studies on motivation and achievement, and shows that a fixed view of intelligence (meaning: either you’re born smart or you’re not) sells us short. Her work has enormous implications for both childrearing and teaching. This book should be required reading for all parents and teachers.
Was this review helpful to you?
|Anonymous said,
Wrote on April 14, 2011 @ 12:34 pm
Carol Dweck’s 3 Key Distinctions,
Carol Dweck’s work Self-Theories. She has written another book, written for a more general, less academic readership called Mindsets, in which she applies the entity/incremental construct to a broad range of domains: business, interpersonal relationships, etc. I’ve read both. In Self-Theories Dweck’s target are academic or educational contexts in which she argues that the difference in academic performance can plausibly be explained by distinguishing between two conceptions of ability, the entity theory and the incremental theory. According to the incremental spin, the abilities you possess are of a certain quantity which is FIXED (for all time) and therefore unalterable; which is to say your abilities cannot really be altered or changed; they are not really responsive to EFFORT. On the incremental view, abilities you possess are not FIXED and ARE RESPONSIVE TO EFFORT over time. One huge payoff, which Dweck points out frequently, is that in voluntarily adopting an incremental view of ability, you put yourself in a position to be FAR less vulnerable to self-blame, helplessness patterns, and self-despair in the event of failure, which can futher undermine your ability to execute your abilities. People of a more perfectionistic turn of mind have MUCH to gain by adopting a incremental spin on ability for the reasons just mentioned. “An ability is only as good as its execution”–Bandura.
Dwecke’s an exceptionally lucid writer, and even her more academic work, “Self-Theories” is not written in academese but in language so clear and informal, you almost begin to wonder whether this is a professor in psychology at Columbia University. She’s that good, at least I think so. (Bandura’s prose is also clear, and conceptually rigorous, but his prose bears an elegant conciseness or compactness of insight, which would not incline me to describe as informal. But I digress. Long story short, the answer to your question is, I think, ‘yes’, Dweck’s work is closely related to Bandura’s.
I’m not sure if Dweck’s work should be seen as “derived” from Bandura’s, however. Dweck draws three key distinctions:
a) between learning goals and performance goals,
b) between helplessness pattern and task-orientedness
c) between incremental and entity theory of ability
Dweck’s claim is this: People who hold an entity view of their abilities TEND to also to be people who adopt performance goals over learning goals. A performance goals is one which is more concerned about “looking or appearing smart” than in taking steps to insure greater informedness at the cost of looking stupid or uninformed. Thus, adopting a performance goal is AT CROSS PURPOSES with a learning goal. Second, entitiy theorists, when persuaded of their own failure, have MUCH REASON TO DESPAIR over their failed performances because performance failure (for them) JUST IS a demonstration of the fact that they do not possess (and what’s more NEVER can possess) the capacities required to succeed; for they believe that their abilities are FIXED structures inhering in them which are not alterable by effort. Knowing this, you’d expect that, prior to performance, entity theorists SHOULD FEEL GREAT anxiety about their future performances and ABOUT THE THREAT OF FAILURE AND WHAT IT IS DIAGNOSTIC OF. Failure is a PERMANENT DIAGNOSIS for which NATURE HOLDS NO APPELLATE COURT. If you fail at math once, twice. You’re a math idiot. If you fail at a relationship; you’re no good at love and romance. Period. The awareness of these prospects can’t help intrude on one’s performances, and keep on from doing anything which could be contrued (in your eyes) as failure, even if that means that, in the short term, you have to admit incompetence or admit nonknowledge in a subject matter, or nonunderstanding. And this is self-defeating. The situation is according to Dweck much different for those people who hold an incremental theory about ability. For these people, failure is not diagnostic of something – a wanted capability to produce desired effects in a cared-about domain of human life – which they can’t EVER possess; no, failure doesn’t MEAN (for them) that whatever it is in people taht allows them to produce exceptional EFFECTS in the world, in any cared-about domain of performance–that thing, call it an “ability”–is something whose possess and “size” or quantiy or magnitude is something over which you can exercise some control over and the way you can do this is through EFFORT. The entity theorist does not see personal exertion as diagnostic of LOW ability; she sees it as the MEANS to ACQUIRE greater capabilities, a means to enhance her personal causation. By contrast, the entity theorist views exertion as diagnistic of Low ability; like a doctor who sees a patient and says “Those spots mean measles,” the entity theorist views exceptional effort to mean “low ability.”
Bandura’s view (in SE) is, similar to…
Read more
Was this review helpful to you?
|