Is effort praise motivational? The role of beliefs in the effort–ability relationship

Abstract

In two studies, we investigated how beliefs in the effort–ability relationship moderated the effects of effort praise on student motivation. Study 1 showed that the more the participants believed that effort and ability were related positively (the positive rule) versus related negatively (the inverse rule), the more they would have positive self-evaluation and intrinsic motivation after effort praise. Study 2, with participants’ beliefs manipulated by a priming procedure, showed that the participants in the positive rule condition had better self-evaluation and more intrinsic motivation after effort praise than their counterparts did in the inverse rule condition. The results of the two studies converged to indicate that the motivational effects of effort praise depend on beliefs in the effort–ability relationship.

Introduction

Praise is commonly used to motivate children in learning (Brophy, 1981, Emmer, 1987, Hitz and Driscoll, 1988). Among various types of praise, effort praise has been found to best foster adaptive achievement responses. Children receiving effort praise were found to show higher levels of interest and challenge seeking than children receiving other forms of praise. For example, in a series of studies, Mueller and Dweck (1998) found that praise for effort (i.e., “You must have worked hard at these problems.”) had more positive consequences for children’s task enjoyment, persistence, and performance than praise for intelligence (i.e., “You must be smart at these problems.”). Similarly, Kamins and Dweck (1999) found that, in the face of setbacks, children displayed less helpless responses on self-assessment, affects, and persistence after effort praise than ability praise. The positive effects of effort praise are most likely due to the mechanism of effort attribution (Weiner, 1985). Effort praise encourages children to attribute their learning outcomes to effort, an internal and controllable factor. This conveys a message to children that they can remedy a failure situation and are in control of their learning outcomes.

Despite the evidence for the positive effects of effort praise, there are also studies showing otherwise. Miller, Brickman, and Bolen (1975) found that children who were praised for working hard did not improve their performances as much as children who were told that they had “excellent ability”. Similarly, Schunk, 1982, Schunk, 1983 also found that children who were praised for their efforts showed less skill acquisition and self-efficacy than children praised for their abilities. These results were replicated in samples of college students (Koestner, Zuckerman, & Koestner, 1987) and Chinese children (Hau & Salili, 1996). Schunk (1983) explains the superiority of ability praise over effort praise on the basis of self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). He reasons that ability praise should produce higher expectations for future performance than effort praise because of the stronger competence information.

In view of these inconsistent findings, the positive effects of effort praise are equivocal. Is effort praise motivational or not? This is a bewildering question that has significant implications for educational practices. A constructive approach to this question is to sort out the conditions in which effort praise has or does not have positive effects. In the past, researchers have identified two conditions that account for inconsistent findings about the effects of effort praise; namely the type of involvement and the presence of subsequent setbacks.