- 人間環境学研究 (ISSN:13485253)
- vol.16, no.2, pp.83-88, 2018 (Released:2018-12-21)
Previous research of implicit theories has revealed that when a person needs to evaluate others ability, incremental theorists (who believe ability is malleable) tend to value effort, whereas entity theorists (who believe ability is fixed) tend to value results. However, recent research shows that entity theorists tend to search and find the most appropriate task for themselves on task performance, suggesting that it would be more important among entity theorists than incremental theorists to make precise evaluation of ability. Based on this assumption, we hypothesised that, when entity theorists need to evaluate other's ability, they would use the information of whether he/she made enough effort or not. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a paper and pencil experiment by using a vignette of a figure who is preparing for exam, in which we manipulated (1) the amount of effort the figure made and (2) whether the figure's grades improved or not. We measured to what extent participants would attribute the outcome to the figure's ability and effort, and how much effort they would request to the figure for his future performance. As a result, entity theorists attributed the outcome to the figure's ability when his grades improved with little effort or did not improve despite his effort. Also, entity theorists requested the figure to make further effort when he did not work hard and his grades did not improve. These results suggest that entity theorists evaluate other's ability not just by outcome but by paying attention to the information of his/her effort.