Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement
“I WANT TO TRY AND TRY”: INCREASING ACHIEVEMENT …
Transcript of “I WANT TO TRY AND TRY”: INCREASING ACHIEVEMENT …
“I WANT TO TRY AND TRY”:
INCREASING ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION IN YOUNG CHILDREN
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Allison Master
May 2011
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/hx314zv7838
© 2011 by Allison Leigh Master. All Rights Reserved.
Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
ii
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Carol Dweck, Primary Adviser
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Ellen Markman
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Gregory Walton
Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies.
Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education
This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file inUniversity Archives.
iii
iv
ABSTRACT
Motivation to learn plays a critical role in students’ academic success. This
dissertation reports five experiments (N = 250) that increase children’s motivation
(specifically, challenge seeking and persistence) through storybooks. The first two
studies examined how manipulating the similarity between the main character of a story
and the participating child affected preschoolers’ (Study 1) and kindergarteners’ (Study
2) motivation as assessed by the choice of and persistence on challenging puzzles.
Study 2 also compared effects for struggling versus non-struggling students. Study 3
examined whether persuasion would increase challenge seeking, when children
convince someone else of the value of taking on challenges and persisting. Study 4
examined effects over time, and found that children showed a robust boost in challenge
seeking two weeks later, especially those who were reminded of the original book.
Study 5 examined whether the effects could be due to a particular aspect of the books,
process praise, which sends a message that effort and persistence are effective and
valued. Increasing children’s motivation at a young age may set the stage for future
academic achievement, creating a cycle of positive motivation and academic success.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work would not have been possible without the support and encouragement
of a number of people. First, I would like to thank Carol Dweck for her tremendous
support, wisdom, and mentoring over the past few years. Her work and ideas have
forever changed my life. I also consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to
collaborate with and learn from Ellen Markman, Greg Walton, Geoff Cohen, Mark
Lepper, and James Gross. They have all had a profound effect on the way I think about
the world and the psychological processes that shape motivation and well-being.
I would also like to thank the members of the Dweck/Walton and Markman
Labs, and all the other DevoStuds, for all of their friendship, advice, and game nights
through the years, especially Quin Yow, Carissa Romero, and Luke Butler.
The majority of this research was conducted at the Bing Nursery School, so I
would like to thank the children who participated and the teachers who encouraged
them to participate. I am particularly grateful to Chia-wa Yeh, Jennifer Winters, and
Beth Wise for all of their help and valuable feedback. Bing is an amazing place, and I
have had far more fun there over the past few years as “Teacher Game Room” than a
respectable doctoral candidate should. Thanks as well to the staff and students of the
Palo Alto Unified School District.
Many outstanding research assistants helped me collect data for this and other
projects. Special thanks to Emily Campbell, Lauren Hay, Amy Ho, Armando Lopez,
Charishma Chotalia, Isa Dillingham, Carly Janiga, Jessica Snyder, Whitney Worthen,
Cole Murphy-Hockett, Kristine Baluyot, Sadie Zapata, Jacky Mendoza, Charissa
Tansomboon, and Hannah Jaycox for all their hard work.
I would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by a Regina Casper
Stanford Graduate Fellowship, a National Science Foundation Graduate Research
Fellowship, and an Elizabeth Munsterberg Koppitz Child Psychology Graduate
Fellowship from the American Psychological Foundation.
Finally, I would like to thank my family. My parents and my sister Karen have
always supported me, believed in me, and let me be as intrinsically motivated as I
wanted to be. They are wonderful. And speaking of wonderful (and tylerrific), I am
vi
grateful to Tyler for his love and support. Together we have climbed mountains and
had amazing adventures, and I can’t wait for the next. I love you.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... 1
The Importance of Motivation…………………………………….…………………1
The Importance of Motivation in Early Childhood……………………………...…..3
Factors that Increase Motivation in Children……………………………………..…5
Factors that May Help Children Internalize Motivation………………………….…7
Motivational Factors to be Examined………………………….………………...…11
Study 1: Motivation in Preschoolers…………………………………………………...14
Method…………………………………………………………………….……16
Results……………………………………………………………………….…18
Discussion…………………………………………………………………..…..24
Study 2: Motivation in Older Children……………………………………………...….26
Method……………………………………………………………………..…...26
Results…………………………………………………………………….……27
Discussion…………………………………………………………………...….32
Study 3: Persuasion and Challenge Seeking………………………………………...…34
Method……………………………………………………………………..…...35
Results……………………………………………………………………….....37
Discussion………………………………………………………………………39
Study 4: Longitudinal Effects on Challenge Seeking………………………………......41
Method…………………………………………………………………….…....42
Results……………………………………………………………………….....43
Discussion…………………………………………………………………...….46
Study 5: Effects of Praise on Motivation…………………………………………...….49
Method……………………………………………………………………….....51
Results……………………………………………………………………...…..53
Discussion………………………………………………………………………57
General Discussion………………………………………………………………..…....59
References
Appendices……………………………………………………………………..71
viii
List of References………………………………………………………………78
Tables…………………………………………………………………………………..91
Figures………………………………………………………………………………….97
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Challenge seeking scale, Studies 1 and 2…………………………........91
Table 2 Summary of results……………………………………………………..92
Table 3 Helmert style contrasts for condition, Studies 1 and 2…………………93
Table 4 Effects of condition on puzzle and activity choices, and pre-challenge
and post-challenge choices………………………….…………….....…94
Table 5 Effects on children’s open-ended explanations for their choices………95
Table 6 Effects of condition on length of time persisted and number of puzzle
pieces correctly placed…………………………………………………96
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Challenge seeking, Study 1..……………………………...................…97
Figure 2 Children’s global badness beliefs and challenge seeking, Study 1….....98
Figure 3 Persistence, Study 1..……………………………...............................…99
Figure 4 Motivation composite, Study 1………………………………………..100
Figure 5 Children’s global badness beliefs and challenge seeking, Study 2...…101
Figure 6 Persistence, Study 2..…………………………….............................…102
Figure 7 Motivation composite, Study 2…………………………………….….103
Figure 8 Challenge seeking, Study 3..…………………………….................…104
Figure 9 Challenge seeking by age, Study 3..…………………………..........…105
Figure 10 Challenge seeking, Study 4, Time 1..…………………………........…106
Figure 11 Challenge seeking, Study 4, Time 3…………………………………..107
Figure 12 Interaction between booster and age on challenge seeking for children
in the treatment condition, Study 4..……………………………......…108
Figure 13 Self-evaluation composite, Study 5..…………………….……........…109
Figure 14 Challenge seeking, Study 5..…………………………........………….110
Figure 15 Motivation composite, Study 5..………………………………........…111
Figure 16 Mastery-orientation composite (self-evaluations, challenge seeking,
and persistence), Study 5..…………………………...................…..…112
1
INTRODUCTION
Mastery and learning can be challenging and time-consuming processes.
Many practical and scientific discoveries, from the invention of sliced bread to the
discovery of radium, are the result of years of constant struggle and effort, and history
is filled with examples of people who took on enormous challenges and never gave up
despite frustration (Curie, 1921; Van Dulken, 2000). For example, Thomas Edison
persisted in efforts to improve the design of the light bulb despite thousands of failures
to get the results he wanted before he finally succeeded. Instead of giving up, he
viewed each “failure” as a learning experience (Edison, 1948). Many individuals seek
out challenge and keep right on going, even when the going gets tough. Yet many
others give up at the first sign of trouble and consistently take the easy way out. What
motivates those individuals who persevere in school and beyond? And how can that
information be used to increase the motivation of young students who seem to lack
that inner drive?
This dissertation describes the results of several studies that explore the effects
of an intervention that uses motivationally themed storybooks to increase young
children’s motivation. The remainder of this Introduction defines the relevant aspects
of motivation, outlines their importance for learning, and discusses why examining
motivation in early childhood is particularly critical. The final sections of the
Introduction discuss more specific aspects of the intervention: motivational factors
that were incorporated into the intervention (praise for effort, strategies for
persistence, and role models who cope with failure), other factors that increase the
likelihood that children internalize motivation (the use of concrete examples to
increase generalization, and storybooks as a method of delivering the intervention),
and two other factors that were manipulated in the following studies (the use of
personal identity, and persuading another person).
The Importance of Motivation
Challenge seeking and persistence are important behavioral components of
motivation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Feather, 1962). Challenge seeking is the choice
of a harder task over an easier task. It overlaps with the distinction between learning
2
goals (e.g., the choice of a difficult task which a person expects to learn from) vs.
performance goals (e.g., the choice of a typically easy task on which a person expects
to perform well). Persistence is the continuation of work on a task. It may be
operationalized as the choice to continue a challenging or difficult task rather than
switch to an easy task, or time spent on a difficult task (Thomas & Pashley, 1982).
Both involve confronting difficulty—one is opting to take on difficulty, while the
other is opting to continue when faced with difficulty.
Seeking challenge and persisting in the face of difficulty are optimal for
learning. Children benefit most when slightly challenged in terms of their current
cognitive level (Danner & Lonky, 1981; Deci, 1975; Kohlberg, 1994; Piaget, 1952,
1977). Students who actively seek out challenges, and who persist until they master
them, are more productive and successful in school (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews,
& Kelly, 2007; Helmreich, Beane, Lucker, & Spence, 1978; Lepper, Yow, & Master,
2011; Nicholls, 1979; Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985; Stipek, 2002).
Persistence is also a key part of motivation. It is generally more likely to lead to
success and certainly tends to be a more successful strategy than quitting (Jennings,
Connors, & Stegman, 1988; Jennings & Dietz, 2003). Lack of persistence can be a
symptom of helplessness, which is a constellation of negative responses (such as
negative cognitions about the self, negative emotions, and lack of persistence) that
occur when some individuals encounter difficult situations (Hebert & Dweck, 1985,
described in Dweck, 1991; Kistner, Ziegert, Castro, & Robertson, 2001; Lütkenhaus,
1984). However, note that students should not choose impossibly difficult tasks or
mindlessly persist. It is also important for students to distinguish between useful
persistence and useless, repetitive perseveration (Carver & Scheier, 2001; Dweck,
1999; Janoff-Bulman & Brickman, 1982; Morgan, Harmon, & Maslin-Cole, 1990).
Challenge seeking can be examined in young children, who demonstrate a
coherent understanding of what types of tasks are challenging for them. Three-year-
olds can accurately use the words “easy” and “hard” to describe tasks, and match them
with tasks that they “can” and “can’t” do (Bird & Thompson, 1986). However, young
children may not yet understand the value of tasks from which they can learn. Five-
3
and six-year-olds often show a preference for easy tasks because they do not yet
perceive that a hard task has the most value, for example, when asked, “What would
your teacher be most pleased you could do?” (Nicholls,1978). Although older
students and adults understand that hard tasks yield more value than easier ones, they
too may show preferences for easy tasks. For example, some students hold
“performance avoidance” goals in which they wish to avoid all risk of failure (Elliot &
Harackiewicz, 1996) or work-avoidant goals, in which they are concerned with
minimizing their effort (Archer, 1994; Meece, Blumenfield, & Hoyle, 1988).
The Importance of Motivation in Early Childhood
Examining motivation in early childhood (including how to increase
motivation in young children) may be particularly critical, for three primary reasons.
First, early motivation can set students on a more positive trajectory to further
academic success and increased subsequent motivation (Stipek, 2001). For example,
motivation in early childhood predicts later cognitive abilities and achievement
(Luster & McAdoo, 1996; Sigman, Cohen, Beckwith, & Topinka, 1987). Although
those studies are correlational, this raises the possibility that an increase in motivation
in early childhood could improve later achievement and create a recursive causal
relationship, in which small changes in motivation lead to higher achievement and
competence, which then in turn increase motivation over time (Bronson, 2000; Cohen,
Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, Apfel, & Brzustoski, 2009; Heckman, 2006; Lepper &
Greene, 1978; Stipek & Greene, 2001). This type of increase in motivation could be
used to set students on a learning track before they have experienced real academic
failure.
Second, achievement gaps between groups appear early in education, and
could be reduced through early intervention. The academic achievement gap between
Black and White children is already substantial by the time they enter elementary
school, and further differences emerge even among children who enter elementary
school with the same skills (Phillips, Crouse, & Ralph, 1998). Interventions that
encourage preschool children to engage in cognitively challenging tasks (e.g., the
Tools of the Mind program) have been remarkably successful among low-income and
4
minority populations, suggesting that encouraging young children to take on
challenges could help to narrow or close this achievement gap (Barnett, Jung, Yarosz,
Thomas, Hornbeck, Stechuk, & Burns, 2008; Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro,
2007).
Third, motivation typically exhibits a decline as students get older. Young
children are highly intrinsically motivated to explore and learn, but they show a
decline in intrinsic motivation in school by early adolescence (Cordova & Lepper,
1996; Dweck, 1986; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; Pintrich, 2003; Wigfield &
Eccles, 2002). However, preschool through early elementary age is a developmental
stage in which children are not yet concerned that the use of effort will lead to
negative assessments of their ability (Kun, 1977). Thus, they may be particularly
responsive to an intervention that teaches them to embrace challenge and put forth
effort, and may more easily see the subsequent rewards of persistence and hard work.
Thus, challenge seeking and persistence are critical components of motivation,
and understanding the factors that affect motivation in young children is extremely
important. Many factors have been examined as determinants of challenge seeking
and persistence, but most of this research and almost all motivational interventions
have been conducted with older children. Little is known about the foundations of
motivation in early childhood. Indeed, until relatively recently, many researchers
believed that young children were universally highly resilient and unlikely to show
helpless reactions to failure, compared to older children (see Burhans & Dweck,
1995), and thus young children were not perceived to be in need of motivational
interventions.
Considering the motivational literature, what factors might be most influential
for young children and create lasting motivational change? The goal of this research
was to create a basic motivational intervention for young children and systematically
examine what factors might make it more effective. The next three sections discuss
motivational factors incorporated into the intervention (praise for effort, strategies for
persisting, and role models who cope with failure), other non-motivational factors
incorporated into the intervention to help children internalize the intervention message
5
(the use of concrete examples, and storybooks as a method of delivering the
intervention), and factors that were manipulated in different versions of the
intervention (personal identity, and persuading another person).
Factors that Increase Motivation in Children
Three factors that have been found to increase children’s motivation were
incorporated into the basic intervention: praise for effort, strategies for persisting, and
role models who cope with failure.
Praise for Effort
First, praise for effort can increase children’s motivation. Whether children are
praised for their fixed traits (such as ability) or their behavior (such as effort or use of
strategies) can affect whether they want to continue at that task. Praise for effort may
help children focus on the learning process and the development of skills, and to value
learning opportunities instead of worrying about how well they will perform (Mueller
& Dweck, 1998). Indeed, praise for effort has been shown to increase children’s
challenge seeking and persistence (Keister, 1943; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). In
contrast, other types of praise may decrease motivation if they cause children to feel
evaluated or judged on the basis of their ability. For example, when 5th graders
encountered challenging problems, those who had previously been praised for effort
(“You must have worked hard at these problems”) were more likely to want to persist
and chose more challenging problems to work on than students who had been praised
for their ability (“You must be smart at these problems,” Mueller & Dweck, 1998).
The effects of different types of praise can be seen even in young children. In
one study, five-year-olds role-played a story (Kamins & Dweck, 1999). They were
given either process praise (similar to effort praise, e.g., “You must have tried really
hard”) or person praise (similar to ability praise, e.g., “You’re really good at this”).
Afterwards, they role-played their reactions to an unsuccessful activity. Those who
had been praised for effort/process were less likely to choose to give up and do
something else rather than continue compared to children who had been given
ability/person praise. They were also more likely to persist by constructing a helpful
solution to the role-played problem (e.g., “I can do it again better if I take my time,”
6
Kamins & Dweck, 1999, p. 840). Person praise conveys that traits (such as ability)
can be judged from performance and are deep-seated. When children struggle with a
task, they may feel helpless and choose to give up rather than persist. In contrast,
effort or process-based praise shows children that their effort is what is valued, and
leads to greater persistence. This type of praise helps children focus on the learning
process and welcome challenges.
Strategies for Persisting
A second factor incorporated into the intervention was to give children self-
instruction strategies for how to persist (that is, phrases to say to themselves to keep
themselves from giving up), which can help children persist longer and avoid the
temptation to quit. Previous studies found that preschool children were better able to
keep working on a task and resist a tempting interactive toy when given a plan for
resisting, such as telling themselves, “No I can’t, I’m working,” or “I’m going to keep
working” (Mischel & Patterson, 1976; Patterson & Mischel, 1975, 1976). This verbal
strategy helped children remember that their goal was to continue working and gave
them a salient alternative response other than quitting. Thus, when adults give
children a clear verbal strategy for persistence, children are better able to resist
temptation and continue to persist. In a more academic situation, effective strategies
might include teaching children to tell themselves such things as, “Just keep trying,”
or “I’m not going to give up.”
Role Models who Cope with Failure
The third factor incorporated into the intervention was increasing children’s
self-efficacy by giving them a role model who copes with failure. Self-efficacy is an
individual’s belief that he or she can successfully perform the behavior required to
produce a given outcome (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977), and it predicts greater
persistence in children (Schunk, 1981). One factor that has been shown to enhance
self-efficacy is the use of role models who cope with failure (Bandura & Schunk,
1981). Children may observe the success of role models who either succeed right
away (“mastery” models) or experience initial difficulty followed by gradual success
(“coping” models). Coping models demonstrate to students that persistent effort can
7
overcome difficulties, and thus have a more positive effect on students’ attitudes and
behavior. In one study, 9- to 12-year old children who had been struggling in
mathematics watched a videotape of a mastery-model or coping-model peer working
on a series of fraction problems (Schunk, Hanson, & Cox, 1987). Children who saw
the coping model showed significantly more self-efficacy and completed significantly
more problems in a series of tutoring sessions on fractions. While this has not been
tested with preschool children, seeing a role model who copes with failure may help
send a message to children that persistence pays off in the end, and thus they should
stay confident and persist through their own experience of difficulty.
Factors that May Help Children Internalize Motivation
The previous section discussed several motivational factors known to increase
challenge seeking and persistence. However, simply exposing children to these
motivational factors may not be enough to ensure they internalize greater motivation
and carry it into new situations. That is, developmental differences can affect how
well children are able to generalize information that they have learned in one situation
to a new situation. The goal of this research is to maximize the chances that children
internalize factors that increase achievement motivation and generalize them to new
learning situations, promoting long-lasting behavioral change.
In attempting to apply the research on generalization to a motivational context,
we make the assumption that the generalization of motivational factors follows rules
similar to the generalization of skills and principles. Children should learn these
motivational factors as general principles (e.g., “challenging tasks are better than easy
tasks”), rather than as specific to a particular situation. However, the current research
goes a step further: what might help children generalize, not just a problem-solving
strategy from one story to another, but from a story to the self (e.g., “I should choose
more challenging tasks”)? Moreover, children must then generalize that strategy to
new tasks. In this way, the research in this dissertation provides a novel addition to
the motivation literature and a new application for the cognitive development literature
on generalization. While the effect of motivation on generalization has been
examined, with mastery goals leading to better generalization and performance-
8
approach goals leading to worse generalization (Bereby-Meyer & Kaplan, 2005; Ford,
Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998), no one has yet looked at the effects of using
generalization principles to increase motivation (Pugh & Bergin, 2006). The next
sections examine factors that should increase the effectiveness of the intervention from
areas of research other than motivation: concrete examples to help children transfer
what they have learned to new situations, and storybooks as a method of transmitting
cultural values.
Concrete Examples Improve Generalization
Many studies suggest that young children in particular struggle to generalize
what they have learned to a new situation. Older children are better able than younger
children to apply what they have learned (Bereby-Meyer & Kaplan, 2005; Brown,
1989; Brown & Kane, 1988; Chen, 1999; Chen & Klahr, 1999). For example, 5th and
6th grade students were more able than preschoolers to transfer an analogy from a
storybook to a real-life situation (Holyoak, Junn, & Billman, 1984). However, one
factor that may improve young children’s generalization is the use of concrete
examples to help them recognize when new situations are relevant to what they have
previously learned.
Concrete examples can be very helpful for children (Brown & Kane, 1988;
Chen, Yanowitz, & Daehler, 1995). For instance, in one study, 8-year-old children
were asked to solve seemingly unbelievable riddles and were given hints that were
either concrete or abstract examples that illustrated the solution (Chen et al., 1995).
Children who heard concrete examples were the most likely to see the connection and
solve the riddle. This suggests that an intervention that gives children concrete
examples of increased motivation and its benefits may help them recognize and
appreciate similar opportunities in their own lives. For example, children who observe
a concrete example of how persisting leads to success (e.g., on a challenge puzzle)
may more easily see the benefits of persistence in new situations they encounter,
compared to children who are told about the benefits of persistence in a more abstract
sense. While it may seem counter-intuitive that a concrete example can lead to greater
generalization to other situations, the concrete example can help children gain a better
9
understanding of the general principle. That is, showing children how persisting on a
puzzle can help them get better at puzzles may be more convincing and effective than
simply telling them that they should persist in general.
In conclusion, while young children may not be as effective at generalizing
their knowledge as older children and adults, several factors can help them with this
task. First, as in all learning tasks, active involvement and engagement are crucial
(Crisafi & Brown, 1986). Second, it is important that children understand the learning
situation. When children are given concrete examples, they are more likely to transfer
what they have learned to a new, similar situation (Brown & Kane, 1988; Chen et al.,
1995).
Storybooks as Pedagogy
Many of these studies that have investigated how well children generalize
knowledge used stories to teach children a principle or strategy (Brown & Kane, 1988;
Gentner & Toupin, 1986; Holyoak et al., 1984). But how well do children learn from
storybooks compared to other sources of information?
Preschool children are very familiar with storybooks. Reading storybooks is a
very common joint activity between adults and children (Ganea, Pickard, &
DeLoache, 2008). By the time they enter school, middle-class preschoolers have
heard about 1000 hours of storybooks (Adams, 1990). Most children greatly enjoy
hearing stories, and young children often request to hear the same stories over and
over. Stories for children also frequently involve achievement as themes, with the
main character exhibiting effort, persistence, and the acquisition of skills and
knowledge (Child, Potter, & Levine, 1946; McArthur & Eisen, 1976).
Storybooks also provide an effective way of communicating particular values.
Indeed, storybooks are among the most frequent situations for explicit maternal
teaching (Brown, 1992; Marum, 1996; McClelland, 1961). Young children are eager
cultural learners, and storybooks provide a natural context for them to develop cultural
beliefs (Applebee, 1978; Bettelheim, 1976). Storybooks involve collaborative
engagement between child and adult, with joint intentions and attention (Tomasello,
Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005). Thus, book reading is a way for the adult to
10
indicate, “Pay attention to this, because I think it is important for you.” Previous
research suggests that preschoolers are sensitive to cultural messages implicit within
books (Tsai, Louie, Chen, & Uchida, 2007), and that personal storytelling (in which
adults tell children stories about themselves and their past experiences) is one way in
which children are socialized into their culture and its meaning systems (Miller,
Wiley, Fung, & Liang, 1997). These studies suggest that children readily pick up on
implicit or explicit messages in the stories they hear, and learn about what kinds of
things they should value.
Storytelling can also create strong identification with characters. The more
strongly children identify with characters they read in books, the more powerful the
effects on their socialization (Cohen, 2001). When they identify with a character, they
internalize that character’s point of view and share his or her goals (Bettelheim, 1976).
Similarity to a character (e.g., in terms of gender) increases the likelihood of
identification, which then increases the character’s effects on the child’s behavior
(Anderson et al., 2003; Cohen, 2001; Jose & Brewer, 1984; Maccoby & Wilson, 1957;
McArthur & Eisen, 1976).
The power of stories to shape children’s imagination suggests that a
manipulation that taps into this source could have a strong effect, as children identify
with and learn from characters in stories quite readily. Storybooks may be an effective
source of motivation for children, as narratives can have profound impacts on the lives
of the listeners. Because stories are so common yet powerful, they seem to provide a
logical method for increasing motivation that could be easily utilized in real
classrooms (Martin, 2008). Furthermore, previous research with college students
suggests that visualizing success from a third-person perspective (that is, looking at
yourself from the outside, as in a story) may increase achievement motivation more
than visualizing success from a first-person perspective (that is, imagining the
situation through your own eyes; Vasquez & Buehler, 2007). While this research has
not been replicated with children, it suggests that this type of perspective may help
children see the larger meaning and importance of their actions—that choosing a
harder task could be an important way to learn more.
11
Motivational Factors to be Examined
Two other factors were tested in the current research to examine whether they
influenced young children’s motivation: personal identity, and persuading another
person. (A third factor, different types of praise, was also examined in the final study;
see above for a discussion of the effects of praise on motivation.)
Personal Identity
Another potential way to increase motivation in young children is to create a
sense of identity linked to motivation. Will children show greater motivation if they
see themselves as someone who takes on challenges and persists? Research suggests
that identity and the way in which people perceive and categorize themselves can have
profound effects on their motivation. For example, labeling individuals in a particular
way can cause them to see themselves in that way. Fifth-grade students who were told
by teachers and the principal that they were neat and tidy threw significantly more
trash in the garbage instead of littering several days later (hence they became more
neat and tidy) than students who were told that they should be neat and tidy (Miller,
Brickman, & Bolen, 1975). Several weeks later, this group continued to throw away
more trash. Although this study did not explicitly measure motivation, it caused
behavioral change that persisted several weeks later. Convincing children that they
are already motivated and persistent may lead them to incorporate that into their
identity and to actually be more motivated and persistent. For young children in
particular, the more similar their identity is to the main character in a story, the more
likely they may be to identify with that character and apply the messages from that
story to their own lives. For example, one study found that preschool children showed
greater persistence at a task (attempting to use tongs to lift flowers in a bottle) after
hearing a story depicting achievement behavior involving a child of the same gender
compared to a story involving an opposite-gender child (McArthur & Eisen, 1976).
In addition, factors that increase the association between an academic task and
the self have been shown to lead to an increase in challenge seeking (Pintrich, 2003).
For example, Cordova and Lepper (1996) increased self-relevance in a math computer
game for 4th- and 5th-graders through personalization. This involved the incorporation
12
of students’ name, birthday, and favorite things into the game. Children who played a
personalized game wanted to spend more time playing the math game instead of going
to recess, and preferred to play a more challenging version of the game next time.
This suggests that motivational stories may be more effective if they are personally
relevant to children’s identity.
Persuasion and Dissonance
Many previous studies with older children and adults suggest that an extremely
effective way to change someone’s attitudes (e.g., attitudes toward challenging tasks)
is to have that person advocate a particular position (see Hovland, 1951). This effect
is also known as self-persuasion, because the act of persuading someone else appears
to more effectively persuade the speaker at the same time (Cialdini, Petty, &
Cacioppo, 1981). Persuading another person has been found to create long-lasting
attitude change in the self (see Aronson, 1999; Wilson, 1990). This may be due to
cognitive dissonance or self-perception effects (Bem, 1967; Festinger & Carlsmith,
1959), as individuals observe themselves endorsing that attitude, and infer that they
must truly believe it, also known as the “saying-is-believing effect” (Higgins &
Rholes, 1978; Janis & King, 1954). Several educational interventions have had
success with having students advocate a particular message to others. For example,
Aronson, Fried, and Good (2002) found that African American college students who
taught middle school pen pals that intelligence is malleable showed improvements
themselves in motivation and grades.
What about young children? Do they possess the cognitive capacity to exhibit
dissonance or track previous behavior and act consistently? Some studies with
preschoolers show evidence that they may be sensitive to similar kinds of dissonance
or self-perception effects (Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963; Egan, Santos, & Bloom, 2007;
Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973). In terms of an attitude such as challenge seeking,
dissonance could potentially occur if children have told someone else to choose
challenges, yet choose an easier task themselves. To avoid this dissonance, they may
choose harder tasks for themselves in order to be consistent with their previous
behavior of telling someone else that challenges are good. Would the motivational
13
effects of this manipulation be stronger if children could be induced to convince
someone else to take on challenges and persist? Would telling someone else to choose
challenging tasks make children more likely to choose challenging tasks themselves?
Summary
In conclusion, the current research examines a basic intervention involving
praise for effort, strategies for persisting, and a role model who copes with failure.
Some factors, such as praise for effort and strategies for persisting, have been shown
to effectively increase the motivation of young children in particular, while others
such as coping models have been demonstrated mainly with older children (Keister,
1943; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Patterson & Mischel, 1975; Schunk, 1981). This
intervention also incorporates concrete examples of motivation (e.g., a child choosing
a harder puzzle over an easier puzzle), and utilizes storybooks to communicate the
intervention. However, many motivational factors have not been tested systematically
with young children, and a solid understanding of the ways to increase challenge
seeking in preschoolers is still lacking from the literature. Will this intervention be
more effective if the storybooks are relevant to children’s personal identity? Will
having children persuade someone else of the value of challenges increase the
intervention’s effectiveness?
Current Research
The current dissertation has several main aims:
1) The primary aim of Study 1 is to extend research in motivation while
beginning to incorporate findings from cognitive development to increase young
children’s challenge seeking and persistence through storybooks. Do these storybooks
become more effective as the main character in the story increases in similarity to the
child? Independently of this manipulation, Study 1 also looks at how children’s
beliefs about goodness and badness relate to their motivation. Are children who
believe that mistakes imply badness more likely to avoid challenge?
2) A second aim, in Study 2, includes the examination of the effectiveness of
this manipulation in older children (kindergarteners). Are older children better able to
generalize from a story to themselves, regardless of how similar they are to the main
14
character? Further, Study 2 compares the effectiveness of the manipulation in
populations of struggling and non-struggling students.
3) A third aim, in Study 3, is to explore whether persuading another might
increase the book’s effectiveness, by having children transmit the ideas of the
storybook to others, compared to children who actively explain what happened in the
story. Do children who teach a puppet to choose hard tasks show more challenge
seeking themselves? Furthermore, do the storybooks create robust challenge seeking,
even after children have experienced a real challenge?
4) The fourth aim, in Study 4, is to explore whether effects persist over time.
Do the effects last at least two weeks?
5) A fifth aim, in Study 5, is to examine more closely one particular element in
the story (praise for effort), and how it might affect motivation. Does hearing a story
containing effort/process praise increase challenge seeking and persistence relative to
a story that does not?
STUDY 1: MOTIVATION IN PRESCHOOLERS
The research cited in the Introduction was used to create storybooks to
encourage children to choose hard tasks and persist at them. The storybooks used
processes shown to be effective in younger (4-5-year-old) and/or older (9-12-year-old)
children, such as praise for effort, strategies to resist the temptation to give up, and a
role model who struggles before succeeding (Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Patterson &
Mischel, 1975; Schunk, Hanson, & Cox, 1987). Previous interventions have also
utilized this process of combining several factors to maximize effects on children’s
motivation (Miller, Brickman, & Bolen, 1975). Thus, the story was designed to teach
children that they can and should choose challenges and persist in the face of
difficulty. Many children are familiar with the story of “The Little Engine that Could”
(Piper, 1930), but the story of a train trying to get over a mountain may not be
personally meaningful to children. But what if the main character were the child
herself? What if the task were more relevant to her life?
The story included a concrete situation (choosing easy or hard puzzles) that
was highly similar to the dependent measures, since the primary purposes of this study
15
were: 1) to establish the effectiveness of the storybooks in increasing children’s
challenge seeking and persistence; and 2) to examine whether similarity to the main
character increased this effectiveness. In Study 1, 4- and 5-year-old preschool
children were read one of four books by a researcher. Three were treatment stories
and one was a control story. The treatment books involved a main character learning
to try hard and persist, and varied in the main character’s similarity to the participating
child. Children then responded to questions assessing their preference for easy or
challenging tasks (including puzzles, as in the story, and also other activities, to assess
children’s generalization to other types of tasks). Children also gave explanations for
their choice of tasks, to see whether they explicitly mentioned seeking or avoiding
challenge. They were then given the chance to persist on an actual puzzle.
In addition to these measures, a secondary goal of this study (and of Study 2)
was to explore how children’s beliefs relate to motivation. Some children hold beliefs
that have been related to helplessness and lack of motivation in the face of difficulty.
These children have a tendency to overgeneralize trait inferences on the basis of
limited information, and perceive a single instance of making a mistake or
misbehaving as diagnostic of overall badness. That is, they see mistakes and
misbehavior as conveying implications about global goodness and badness. For these
children, a single mistake takes on broader significance, and can have negative
motivational consequences. In this dissertation, these types of beliefs will be referred
to as “global badness beliefs,” as children who hold these beliefs make global
assumptions about goodness and badness based on limited evidence.
Previous research has found that children who endorse these global beliefs are
more likely to show helpless responses to challenge, such as negative affect, self-
blame, and lack of persistence (Heyman, Dweck, & Cain, 1992). While those results
are correlational, children’s beliefs were measured before they displayed helplessness,
suggesting that children who hold these beliefs are more likely to then overgeneralize
following negative experiences and thus are more likely to become helpless (Heyman,
Dweck, & Cain, 1992). Much previous research suggests that 4- and 5-year-old
children are remarkably resilient in general and show high motivation when they are
16
not currently faced with an overly challenging task (Cimpian, 2010). However, it is
possible that children’s beliefs may also predict their behavior even in the absence of
experienced difficulty, that is, when they are simply contemplating challenges.
Children who believe that making a mistake is bad may attempt to avoid taking on
challenges, because failing at a challenging task may have more global implications
for their self-worth. Thus, an additional goal of this study (and Study 2) was to
examine whether children’s beliefs are related to challenge seeking even in the
absence of current difficulty.
While previous studies had asked children to make these global badness
judgments about other children (e.g., Heyman, Dweck, & Cain, 1992; Kamins &
Dweck, 1999), this study added a new question tapping into children’s beliefs about
their own mistakes, which may be an even more powerful method of assessing beliefs
critical for their motivation (Dweck, 1999).
Method
Participants
Participants were 53 preschoolers (mean age = 4 years, 7 months; range: 4
years, 0 months to 5 years, 7 months; 18 male, 35 female; 32 Caucasian, nine Asian
American, four Latino/a, three African American, and five multiple ethnicities) at a
research nursery school. The majority of them came from middle- to upper-middle-
class backgrounds.
Materials
Participants were randomly assigned to hear one of four storybooks. (See
Appendix A for full texts.) Three treatment books involved a character that learned to
“keep trying” on a hard puzzle. The main character was either an animal (“Little
Bird”), another child (“Taylor”), or the participating child him/herself. “Animal” and
“another child” books were matched to the participant’s gender (McArthur & Eisen,
1976). A control book involved the participating child playing with a bouncing ball
(to control for potential effects of hearing a self-relevant story), with a storyline that
did not involve motivation. The books in which the participating child was the main
character were individually printed with the child’s name.
17
The researcher frequently made comments directly to the child to connect the
child in the story to him/her. This helped to ensure that the participating child knew
the story was about him/her and not a child with the same name. For example, after
reading “Carol’s parents gave her two new puzzles,” the researcher turned to the child
and said directly to her, “So YOUR parents gave YOU two new puzzles.”
In the treatment books, the main character was given a choice between an easy
puzzle and a hard puzzle, and chose the hard puzzle. After the character had struggled
on the puzzle, his or her parents gave encouragement and praise for trying (including
the phrases, “Just keep trying! You’ll see what happens,” and the child telling him or
herself, “I’ll just keep trying, and I’ll see what happens”), and he or she succeeded at
getting the pieces. The character then went to school and was given another choice
between an easy puzzle and a hard puzzle. Again, he or she chose the hard puzzle so
he or she could learn. Finally, the character’s classmates were impressed by the hard
choice and praised him or her (see Child, 1946).
Procedure
Children were brought to a research room individually by a researcher who
was familiar to them. First, children listened to the story read aloud by a researcher.
While listening and looking at the pictures, participants were asked several questions
to ensure they stayed engaged in the story. (See Appendix A.)
Challenge Seeking
After the story, children were given a series of eight choices between easy and
hard tasks to assess the effects on challenge seeking. (These questions were selected
based on the results of several pilot studies.) Four questions involved puzzle tasks
(similar to the story), and four questions involved other activities common in
preschool (e.g., building a tower with blocks) to assess whether the effect would
generalize to other tasks (Child & Adelsheim, 1944). (See Table 1.) After each
choice, children were told “Good choice!” and asked to explain why they chose that
one (Smiley & Dweck, 1994).
Persistence
18
Next, children worked on a moderately challenging puzzle but were told they
could switch at any time to another, obviously easier puzzle (to assess persistence).
Every minute and a half, children were reminded, “Remember, you can switch to the
other puzzle if you want.” There was no time limit.
Global Badness Beliefs
Finally, children answered two questions about their global beliefs about
badness: 1) in terms of others: “Imagine there’s a new boy/girl in your class. You
look over at his/her drawing and see that s/he did lots and lots of things wrong. Does
this mean that s/he is bad? [Yes or no?]” and 2) in terms of the self: “Now imagine
that you made a drawing and did lots and lots of things wrong. How would this make
you feel? Like you were not bad at all, a little bit bad, or really bad?” The “other
child” question was always matched to the participant’s gender.
Debriefing
Children were thanked for their hard work on the puzzle. Children who had
switched to the easy puzzle were asked if they wanted the researcher to help them
finish the challenging puzzle.
Results
The dependent measures (challenge seeking and persistence) were examined in
terms of three main predictors: condition, age, and global beliefs. Analyses also
looked at children’s explanations for their choices, and a motivational composite
combining challenge seeking and persistence. The effect of researcher was also tested
in all studies to ensure that the effect of researcher did not interact with condition
(which was the case in all analyses). Some children did not respond to all questions,
so the number of participants varied for different measures.
Overall, all three treatment books increased children’s challenge seeking, but
only the treatment story about the participating child increased persistence. For an
overall summary of results, see Table 2.
Challenge Seeking
The eight challenge-seeking items formed a reliable scale, α = .86 (and none of
the items increased the reliability of the scale if deleted). Effects on challenge seeking
19
were analyzed in two complementary ways: first, the main effects were examined
individually using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Second, the challenge seeking
data were also analyzed using a regression model, in which all the independent
variables were analyzed simultaneously (along with random effects of participant) to
gain a more complete picture of how these variables might work together.
Effect of Condition
As predicted, all three treatment books taken together significantly increased
overall challenge seeking, compared to the control condition. Across all eight
challenge-seeking choices, an overall ANOVA indicated that the conditions were
significantly different from each other, F(3,49) = 3.31, p = .028. (See Figure 1.) Post-
hoc contrasts revealed that this overall difference was driven by the difference
between the three treatment conditions combined compared to the control condition.
Children in the three treatment conditions combined chose significantly more
challenging items than children in the control condition, t(49) = 3.14, p = .003, which
supported the primary hypothesis that these books would increase challenge seeking.1
However, the three treatment books did not differ from one another (ps > .82) and
hence, for this measure, did not support the hypothesis that young children would be
more influenced by a book that featured themselves as the main character than a book
that featured someone else as the main character. (For results analyzed in terms of
puzzle choices and activity choices separately, see Table 4.) Thus, as predicted,
hearing storybooks that incorporated praise for effort, strategies for persisting, and
concrete examples of a role model who coped with failure significantly increased
preschool children’s challenge seeking.
Age
There was a marginal interaction between age and condition (treatment vs.
control). The treatment books were marginally more effective for children who were
four and a half or older (younger control: M = 2.67, SD = 2.60; older control: M =
1 Individually, each treatment condition was also significantly higher than the control condition; animal vs. control: t(49) = 2.68, p = .010; another child vs. control: t(49) = 2.46, p = .018; participating child vs. control: t(49) = 2.59, p = .013.
20
1.25, SD = 1.89; younger treatment: M = 4.00, SD = 2.66; older treatment: M = 5.75,
SD = 2.36), F(1,49) = 3.50, p = .067. The main effect of condition remained
significant overall (p = .001). Thus, unsurprisingly, while the intervention was
effective for all children, it was especially effective for older children, who were better
able to generalize from a story to themselves.
Global Beliefs
Children’s answers to the global belief questions (e.g., “If a child makes
mistakes, does that mean she is bad?”) were coded as one point for a “yes” or “little
bad,” and two points for “really bad.” The two questions were marginally correlated,
r(51) = .25, p = .08.
As predicted, children’s overall global beliefs were related to one aspect of
motivation. Beliefs were significantly negatively correlated with total number of
challenge-seeking choices, r(51) = -.44, p = .001. (See Figure 2.) Children who
endorsed more global beliefs (i.e., believed that making mistakes implies global
badness) were less willing to take on challenging tasks.
If each global belief question was considered separately, both questions
showed the same pattern: the question about the self was significantly correlated with
challenge-seeking choices, r(53) = -.38, p = .005, while the question about others was
marginally significant, r(51) = -.27, p = .057 (the two overlapping correlations were
not significantly different from each other, z = .67, p = .25). This suggests that global
belief questions regarding both the self and others may be useful predictors of
children’s challenge seeking, although combining both questions may be even more
useful.
Regression Model
Because challenge seeking involved repeated measures and a binary outcome
variable, the challenge-seeking choice data was also analyzed using a logistic mixed-
effects model that analyzed the effects of all independent variables simultaneously
(Baayen, Davidson, & Bates, 2008; Bates & Sarkar, 2007). This type of analysis is an
alternative to the use of analysis of variance (ANOVA) models for categorical
dependent measures, and has been argued to be less problematic (e.g., when
21
confidence intervals exceed interpretable results) and less likely to lead to spurious
null results or spurious significances (Jaeger, 2008; see also Perry, Samuelson,
Malloy, & Schiffer, 2010). Condition was coded using three orthogonal Helmert style
contrasts (see Table 3). Contrast 1 tested whether the three treatment conditions were
different from the control. Contrast 2 tested whether the participating child condition
was different from the other two treatment conditions. Contrast 3 tested whether the
animal and another child conditions differed from each other.
The results of the regression model confirmed the findings of the previous
analyses with significant effects of both condition and global beliefs. The initial
model was a completely specified model with condition, item type (puzzles vs.
activities), global beliefs, and age (older or younger than 4 years, 6 months) as fixed
effects, and participant and item as random effects. Uninformative effects were
systematically removed by comparing models (see Perry, Samuelson, Malloy, &
Schiffer, 2010). For children’s global beliefs, missing scores were replaced by the
overall mean, and beliefs were centered.
The final model included condition, item type,2 and global beliefs as predictors
of challenge seeking choices. Most importantly, children in the treatment conditions
chose significantly more challenging options compared to children in the control
condition, z = 2.59, p = .001. In addition, children who endorsed more global beliefs
(about both self and others) chose significantly fewer challenging options, z = -2.40, p
= .017. (While age was not a significant predictor in the final model, it did show a
marginal interaction with condition when only condition and age were included as
fixed effects, z = 1.91, p = .056.) Thus, as predicted and supporting prior analyses,
the best overall model included condition and global beliefs as predictors of challenge
seeking choices.
Explanations
2 Across all conditions, children were more likely to choose hard puzzles than hard activities, z = 4.41, p < .001. This suggests that children were better able to generalize from the story to real life in terms of tasks that were similar to those explicitly mentioned in the story.
22
In addition to the effects on challenge seeking, children’s explanations of their
choices were also coded, to give further insight into children’s thought processes.
Children’s explanations of their choices were coded as to whether they were related to
seeking challenge (e.g., “I want to try and try,” “I like doing hard things,” “I want to
learn”) or avoiding challenge (e.g., “because I like easy ones,” “because I can’t do the
non-easy puzzle”). An overall ANOVA revealed that the conditions were marginally
different in the number of challenge-seeking explanations that children gave, F(3,49)
= 2.75, p = .053 (control: M = 0.77, SD = 1.79; animal: M = 2.46, SD = 2.33, another
child: M = 3.46, SD = 3.05, participating child: M = 2.50, SD = 2.41). Post-hoc
comparisons showed that children who heard the three treatment books gave
significantly more challenge-seeking explanations than children in the control
condition, t(49) = 2.62, p = .012. In terms of challenge-avoiding explanations, post-
hoc comparisons showed that children who heard the three treatment books were
marginally less likely to give challenge-avoiding explanations, compared to the
control condition, t(49) = -1.81, p = .077. Thus, in addition to being more likely to
take on challenging tasks, children in the treatment conditions were more likely to
give explanations for those choices that referenced wanting or valuing challenge, and
less likely to give explanations involving a desire to avoid challenge. (See Table 5.)
Children were indeed choosing harder tasks specifically because they wanted to learn
or wanted a challenge, and not for other reasons.
Persistence
As predicted, there was an effect of condition on persistence. Persistence was
examined in terms of whether children finished the puzzle or quit to work on the easy
puzzle. (For further analyses of how long children persisted before quitting the puzzle
and the number of puzzle pieces correctly placed, see Table 6.) An overall chi-square
revealed that the conditions were marginally different from each other in persistence,
χ2(3, N = 53) = 6.63, p = .085. Specifically, the treatment book about the participating
child increased persistence on the challenging puzzle compared to the other three
23
conditions, χ2(1, N = 53) = 5.81, p = .016.3 (See Figure 3.)4 Thus, in line with the
original hypothesis, hearing a story in which their personal identity was connected to
motivation increased preschool children’s persistence.
Age
Significantly more older children persisted on the puzzle than younger
children, χ2(1, N = 53) = 6.94, p = .008 (older children: 71% persisted; younger
children: 34%). However, there was no interaction with condition (p = .98).
Global Beliefs
Unlike the choice measure, there was no relationship between beliefs and
persistence (p = .81).
Motivation Composite
Challenge seeking and persistence are related theoretically and both carry
predictive importance for motivation and achievement-related outcomes (as a potential
marker of academic trajectories). For example, Dweck and Leggett (1988) suggest that
both seeking challenge and showing high persistence are part of a mastery-oriented
approach to learning. Thus, both challenge seeking and persistence were combined in
a motivation composite to examine whether the composite varied as similarity to the
main character increased. (In this sample, persistence was not correlated with
challenge seeking, r(53) = -.03, p = .84.)
Effect of Condition
The overall motivation composite revealed a significant effect of condition.
Challenge-seeking choices (how many hard options chosen out of 8) and a dummy
3 Children in the participating child condition were marginally more likely to complete the puzzle than children in the control condition, χ2(1, N = 27) = 3.04, p = .08, and than children in the another child condition, χ2(1, N = 27) = 3.04, p = .08, and significantly more likely than children in the animal condition, χ2(1, N = 27) = 6.24, p = .013. 4 Some children were given an 8-piece puzzle while others were given a 14-piece puzzle to examine effects at different levels of difficulty, although the proportion of children given each puzzle did not differ by condition, p = .99. The pattern of results was identical for both puzzles, and there was no interaction between condition and puzzle type on persistence, p = .67.
24
coding of persistence (whether or not children finished the challenging puzzle) were
equally weighted and combined into an overall motivation composite ranging from 0
to 1. An overall ANOVA revealed that the conditions were significantly different
from each other, F(3,49) = 3.12, p = .034. In this case, the linear trend was also
examined to determine the effects of varying similarity to the main character. The
linear trend was significant, F(1,49) = 8.89, p = .004. (See Figure 4.) Post-hoc
comparisons showed that the participating child condition was significantly higher in
composite motivation than the animal condition, t(49) = 2.09, p = .042. The
participating child condition also showed a trend toward being higher than the another
child condition, t(49) = 1.52, p = .14. These results indicated that, as predicted,
overall motivation increased as similarity to the main character increased—the
“participating child” condition was slightly more effective than the “another child”
condition, and significantly more effective than the “animal” condition.
Discussion
These results support the hypothesis that storybooks about a character learning
to try hard things and persist can lead young children to choose harder tasks and
persist at them.
All three treatment books were effective in increasing the number of
challenging tasks that children chose. This effect held for hard tasks related to puzzles
(as mentioned in the story) and to a lesser extent for tasks related to other activities
such as singing and playing games, suggesting that children in all three treatment
conditions were able to generalize the idea of the story to tasks other than puzzles.
Although children were more likely to select the challenging choice for puzzles than
other activities, the treatment books led to significantly more choices of challenge both
for puzzles and for other activities.
Interestingly, the book about themselves learning to try hard was particularly
effective in making children persist on an actual puzzle. Thus, personal identity was
not critical for children’s challenge seeking choices, but had a significant effect on
their motivated behavior on a real puzzle. Perhaps this book was more effective in
convincing these children that they were the kind of children who would not give up.
25
They heard a story in which they tried hard and refused to give up, and this changed
their behavior when they encountered a challenge. Perhaps the other treatment books
helped children have a positive attitude toward challenges, but that effect was not
robust enough to help children persist. Overall, the motivation composite did vary as
a function of how similar the child was to the main character in the story, indicating
that making the main character more similar to the child increased his or her overall
motivation.
As hypothesized, children’s beliefs also played an important role in one aspect
of motivation, as children with more global beliefs about badness were less likely to
choose challenging tasks. Independently of condition, children’s beliefs were
significantly related to the number of hard items they selected. Perhaps these children,
who believed that mistakes carried global implications, were more concerned about
the potential consequences of failure if the task proved too challenging. Previous
studies have shown that children’s beliefs are related to their responses when they are
experiencing difficulty or challenge. The current findings suggest that children’s
beliefs have important consequences even when children are not currently
experiencing challenge. Indeed, Study 1 suggests that children who hold more global
beliefs may be less likely to choose to put themselves into challenging situations.
This study was only the first step toward gaining a richer understanding of
motivation in early childhood. One potential concern about this study is that it
allowed for the possibility of social desirability effects. In essence, the treatment
storybooks told children that what the researcher valued was motivation and the
choice of hard tasks. However, teaching children to value challenges is a theoretically
important component of the effect, and social desirability cannot entirely explain the
effects. Only children who heard a book about themselves were more likely to persist.
Moreover, Study 4 suggests that the effects on challenge seeking last over a longer
time period, indicating that the storybooks may lead to real and lasting motivational
change.
Finally, several results indicated the importance of age in the effects of the
storybooks on children’s motivation. In particular, the effects on challenge seeking
26
were stronger in older children than younger children. This suggests that there may be
interesting developmental differences in the effectiveness of this manipulation.
To gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of this manipulation across
different groups, Study 2 examined effects in older children. More specifically, Study
2 examined effects in two samples of kindergarten children: a group who was
struggling academically and a non-struggling group.
STUDY 2: MOTIVATION IN OLDER CHILDREN
The results of Study 1 suggest that it is possible to increase the challenge
seeking and persistence of young children with storybooks. What about the challenge
seeking and persistence of slightly older students? In terms of generalization, older
children should have less trouble than younger children in transferring what they have
learned to a new situation. In terms of the effect of the storybooks, this improved
generalization ability of older children indicates that the similarity between the main
character and the participant may be less critical for older children. Further, older
children are in a more formal school setting, and some are beginning to experience
academic challenge and struggle.
Study 2 tested two primary questions. First, does the difference between
treatment books matter for older children? Second, how effective are the treatment
books for a group of students struggling academically, compared to a non-struggling
group? To test these questions, two groups of 5- and 6-year-old children participated
in the same procedure as in Study 1. The non-struggling group was comprised of
middle-to upper-middle-class students in a suburban public school, from a population
highly similar to the children in Study 1, and the other group was comprised of
students in a literacy summer program, who had been nominated by their kindergarten
teachers as needing extra instruction.
Method
Participants
Participants were 70 children in kindergarten (N = 37) or in a summer school
program immediately following kindergarten (N = 33); mean age = 6 years, 1 month;
27
range: 5 years, 5 months to 7 years, 6 months; 32 male, 38 female. The two school
samples did not differ in age or gender (ps > .86).
According to school demographic information, there were 34 Caucasian, 11
Asian American, 16 Latino/a, one African American, and eight “Other Ethnicity”
participants. The summer school sample had a higher proportion of Latino/a children
(39%) and a lower proportion of Caucasian children (33%), compared to the public
school population, 8% Latino/a and 62% Caucasian (p = .018). (Thus, the struggling
and non-struggling samples also differed in demographics and school characteristics;
however, the struggling/non-struggling distinction is most relevant for the purposes of
this study.)
Some children did not respond to all questions, so the number of participants
varied for different measures.
Materials
Participants heard the same books as Study 1. Children were randomly
assigned to the control condition or one of three (animal, another child, or
participating child) treatment conditions.
Procedure
The procedure was identical to Study 1. Children responded to questions
assessing: 1) challenge seeking choices and explanations, 2) persistence on a
challenging puzzle, and 3) global beliefs about badness.
Results
See Table 2 for a summary of overall results. In addition to condition, age, and
global beliefs, analyses also examined differences between the two school groups.
As expected, there were no differences among the three treatment conditions
for either challenge seeking or persistence. However, there were intriguing
differences between the two groups of students in the effectiveness of the treatment
conditions compared to the control condition. The intervention had a greater effect on
challenge seeking for the non-struggling students (particularly for the puzzle items),
but had a greater effect on persistence for the struggling students. While it may be
more difficult to encourage challenge seeking among children who have struggled
28
with academic challenges, the results are promising in suggesting that struggling
students may be responsive to intervention in terms of behavioral persistence.
Challenge Seeking
The eight challenge-seeking items formed a reliable scale, α = .87 (and none of
the items increased the reliability of the scale if deleted). For the results of children’s
explanations for their choices, see Table 5. Again, analyses are presented twice: first,
main effects were examined individually using ANOVAs, and second, a regression
model examined all independent variables simultaneously.
Effect of Condition
First, differences among the three treatment conditions were examined. There
were no significant differences among treatment conditions in either school sample (ps
> .20), so further analyses collapsed across treatment conditions.
Among children in the public school, there was a trend for children in the
treatment conditions to show greater challenge seeking compared to children in the
control condition (control: M = 4.56, SD = 3.05; treatment: M = 5.92, SD = 2.48),
t(32) = -1.33, p = .19. Among children at the literacy summer school, there was no
effect on challenge seeking (control: M = 3.22, SD = 3.19; treatment: M = 3.05, SD =
2.21), t(29) = 0.18, n.s.
Global Beliefs
Beliefs were examined combining both groups of students. As in Study 1, the
two global belief questions (self and other) were significantly correlated with each
other, r(67) = .24, p = .048.
As predicted, children’s beliefs were again related to motivational outcomes.
Beliefs were significantly negatively correlated with total number of challenging
choices, r(62) = -.28, p = .026.5 (See Figure 5.) As in Study 1, children who endorsed
more global beliefs about badness were less willing to take on challenging tasks.
School Site
There was a main effect of school site. Children at the public school were
5 Considered separately, each global belief question was also significantly correlated with challenge seeking; self: r(63) = -.25, p = .048; other: r(64) = -.26, p = .035.
29
considerably higher in challenge seeking than children at the literacy summer program
(public school: M = 5.56, SD = 2.67; summer program: M = 3.10, SD = 2.48), t(63) = -
3.84, p < .001. This effect did not interact with condition, suggesting that there were
large differences between these two groups in how willing they were to take on
challenges. It is unclear whether this difference may be a cause or consequence of the
differences in academic experiences of these children. See further discussion below of
differential effects of school setting.
Regression Model
The results of the regression supported the findings of the ANOVA analyses,
in terms of a main effect of school site and a slight tendency for students in the public
school in the treatment conditions to show an increase in challenge seeking. As in
Study 1, challenge-seeking choices were analyzed using a logistic mixed-effects
model (Bates & Sarkar, 2007). Condition was again coded using three orthogonal
Helmert style contrasts (see Table 3).
I began with a completely specified model with condition, item type (puzzles
vs. activities), global beliefs, school, and age (centered around the mean) as fixed
effects, and participant and item as random effects. As in Study 1, models were
compared systematically to remove uninformative effects. For children’s global
beliefs, missing scores were replaced by the overall mean, and beliefs were centered.
Missing challenge-seeking responses were also replaced by the overall mean.
The final model included school, age,6 and a three-way interaction involving
condition as predictors of challenge seeking choices. First, school was a significant
predictor. Children at the literacy summer school were less likely to choose
challenging tasks compared to children at the public school, z = 4.19, p < .001.
Interestingly, there was a significant three-way interaction between school, item type,
and condition (treatment versus control), z = 2.63, p = .009. The treatment conditions
increased challenge seeking primarily in terms of puzzle items for children at the
6 Age (continuous) was a marginally significant predictor, z = 1.72, p = .086, but did not interact with other variables. As in Study 1, older children were more likely to choose challenging tasks than younger children.
30
public school. This suggests that the treatment condition did have an effect on
challenge seeking, but chiefly for students at the public school, and chiefly in terms of
challenging puzzles.
In summary, Study 2 addressed two primary questions: are there differences
among the treatment conditions for older children, and are there differences for
struggling and non-struggling students? First, there was no difference between
treatment conditions in terms of challenge seeking for older children. Regardless of
the main character of the story, children showed equivalent challenge seeking.
Second, it appears that the intervention was not enough to increase the challenge
seeking of struggling students, although it did have some effect on students at the
public school.
Persistence
The analyses of persistence revealed that the three treatment books
significantly increased persistence compared to the control condition.
Again, persistence was examined in terms of whether children finished the
puzzle or quit to work on the easy puzzle. (See Table 6 for additional analyses of
persistence.) First, differences among the three treatment conditions were examined.
There were no significant differences at either school site, so analyses collapsed across
treatment conditions (ps > .30).
Although there were no significant differences in persistence between children
in the treatment and control conditions at the public school, the results were in the
predicted direction (control: 50% of children persisted; treatment: 70% of children
persisted), χ2(1, N = 37) = 1.33, p = .25.
In contrast, there was a highly significant difference between the treatment and
control conditions at the literacy summer school (control: 33% of children persisted;
treatment: 88% of children persisted), χ2(1, N = 33) = 9.68, p = .002.
Across both school groups, the overall effect of condition was significant, χ2(1,
N = 70) = 8.48, p = .004.7 (See Figure 6.) Thus, these older children were more likely
7 Some children were given an 11-piece puzzle while others were given a 14-piece puzzle to examine effects at different levels of difficulty, although the proportion of
31
to persist at a moderately challenging puzzle after hearing a motivational book,
regardless of whether the main character was an animal, another child, or the
participating child.
School Site
There was no difference between sites in the overall percentage of children who
persisted (literacy summer school: 73% persisted; public school: 65%), n.s. However,
logistic regression revealed a significant interaction between school and condition, z =
-3.66, p < .001, indicating that the effect of condition on persistence was larger for
summer school students than for public school students. Effect size was calculated
(using proportion of children who finished the puzzle) for each school site and
compared the effect of the three treatment books to the control book. The effect size
was very high at the literacy summer school, d = -1.13, and moderate at the public
school, d = -0.40.
In summary, recall the primary questions of Study 2: are there differences
among the treatment conditions for older children, and are there differences for
struggling vs. non-struggling students? In terms of persistence, just as for challenge
seeking, there were no differences among treatment conditions for older children.
Children were just as likely to persist after hearing a book about an animal, another
child, or themselves persisting. However, in contrast to the challenge seeking
measure, the effect of the intervention on persistence was larger for struggling
students than for non-struggling students.
Motivation Composite
Correlation between Challenge Seeking and Persistence
Persistence was positively but not significantly correlated with hard choices,
r(65) = .15, p = .23.
Effect of Condition
children given each puzzle did not differ by condition, p = .92. There was no difference in how likely children were to persist on either puzzle, and there was no interaction between condition and puzzle type on the proportion of children who finished the puzzle, p = .40.
32
Again, an overall motivation composite was created to explore effects on
overall motivation. In a motivation composite including all eight challenge-seeking
items and a dummy coding of persistence, once again, there were no differences
among the three treatment conditions at either school (ps > .29), so the treatment
conditions were combined. Overall, across both schools, the effect of condition was
significant, t(63) = -2.69, p = .009. (See Figure 7.) The difference between the
treatment and control conditions was significant for students in the summer program
(control: M = .37, SD = .31; treatment: M = .62, SD = .24), t(29) = -2.43, p = .021, and
showed a trend toward being significant for students in the public school (control: M =
.51, SD = .40; treatment: M = .71, SD = .33), t(32) = -1.51, p = .14.
In summary, when considering overall motivation, again, there were no
differences among treatment conditions for older children. However, across both
samples of students, the treatment storybooks lead to significantly greater overall
motivation.
Discussion
These results suggest that the intervention is also effective for older students,
and has real potential to make a difference for struggling students. These results also
support findings from Study 1 that children who hold global beliefs about badness are
less willing to take on challenge tasks.
Across both challenge seeking and persistence, there were no differences among
treatment conditions. This finding supports results from the literature suggesting that
older children are better able to generalize than younger children. In the case of the
storybooks, kindergarten children may have been able to connect the story equally
well to their own lives, regardless of who the main character in the story was. This
was particularly true for the persistence measure, indicating that kindergarteners were
better able to generalize what they had learned to change their own behavior.
Although the effects for challenge seeking were small (perhaps because
kindergarten children are in a more formal and evaluative academic setting compared
to preschool children), the intervention showed a trend among non-struggling students
for increased challenge seeking. However, there was no effect for struggling students.
33
Struggling students may have had many experiences with academic challenges, and
may be more likely to consider “hard” tasks beyond their ability. If students have
different understandings of what the word “hard” means based on their skill level, then
“hard” for struggling children may signify “too hard” to them. Future research could
examine this question by asking children (at the end of the research procedure) to
identify which of various puzzles they consider “hard” and which the researcher meant
by “hard.” The context of the story may also be interpreted differently by struggling
and non-struggling students—perhaps the non-struggling students were more familiar
with a classroom context (as in the story) that encouraged challenge seeking and
supported effort. In terms of the current results, while it may be more difficult to
encourage challenge seeking among children who have struggled with academic
challenges, the results were highly promising in suggesting that struggling students
may be responsive in terms of behavioral persistence.
For kindergarten children, all three treatment books increased persistence, and
this effect was even stronger for the struggling students. Although they may have
avoided choosing challenging tasks, the intervention helped them find the motivation
to keep working when they encountered a moderately challenging puzzle. They may
have been even more likely than the non-struggling students to identify with the
struggling role model in the story, and been encouraged to keep working when they
encountered a challenge. As discussed in the Introduction, the achievement gap in this
country is evident from the time that students begin elementary school, and widens
over time (Phillips, Crouse, & Ralph, 1998). If this manipulation could be used to
increase the persistence of children who are slightly academically behind, that
persistence could translate into slightly better learning, which could then create a
recursive cycle of improved motivation and enhanced learning. Even a small change
in students’ academic trajectories at this point has the potential to create larger effects
in the long run (see Cohen et al., 2009).
Overall, Studies 1 and 2 indicate that it is possible to use storybooks to increase
young children’s motivation. However, several concerns remain. For example, one
concern with Studies 1 and 2 is that children had no frame of reference when choosing
34
between “easy” and “hard” tasks. When the storybook had an effect on challenge
seeking and students desired hard tasks, did they really know what they were
choosing? How strong was their desire for challenge? Thus, subsequent studies, with
preschoolers, focused on challenge seeking and gave children the opportunity to
express a desire for challenge both before and after they experienced genuine
difficulty. Does the storybook intervention help children remain challenge seeking,
even after they have experienced an extremely challenging task? Thus, for Studies 3
and 4, challenge seeking was measured both before and after children experienced a
highly challenging puzzle. Moreover, the next study also explored additional ways to
increase the effectiveness of the storybooks: explanation of the value of challenges to
another person, either with or without the intention to persuade that other person to
take on a challenging task.
STUDY 3: PERSUASION AND CHALLENGE SEEKING
In Study 3, two treatment conditions were compared to a control condition.
The first treatment condition involved children attempting to persuade another person
(in this case, a puppet) to take on a hard task. As discussed in the Introduction,
persuading another person often leads to greater attitude change for the persuader as
well. In terms of challenge seeking, dissonance could potentially occur if children
have told someone else to choose challenges, yet choose an easier task themselves. To
avoid this dissonance, they may choose harder tasks for themselves in order to be
consistent with their previous behavior of telling someone else that challenges are
good. Further, in this case, the persuasion involved an explanation to the puppet of
why challenges might be beneficial. Generating explanations (e.g., explicitly stating
why hard tasks are good) may help children in generalizing what they learned in a
previous situation to a new situation (Brown & Kane, 1988; Williams & Lombrozo,
2010). That is, explaining why challenges are beneficial may help children generalize
from the story to show greater challenge seeking in their own lives. This is similar to
a tactic frequently used by highly effective tutors, namely, to ask the student to reflect
on a solution or principle and consider how it might apply to other contexts (Lepper &
Woolverton, 2002). To control for the effects of this explanation, that treatment
35
(“explain + persuade”) condition was compared to the effect of a treatment condition
in which children explained to the researcher why hard tasks are good without any
element of persuasion (“explain”).
These two treatment conditions (in which the participating child was the main
character of the motivational story) were compared to a control condition in which
children answered questions about the control storybook.
Method
Participants
Participants were 36 children in at a research nursery school (mean = 4 years, 9
months; range: 4 years, 6 months to 5 years, 7 months; 14 male, 22 female; 13
Caucasian, 10 Asian American, nine Latino/a, two Middle Eastern, one African
American, and one multiple ethnicity). Because this was potentially a more subtle
manipulation (with a small distinction between treatment conditions), only children
who were at least four and a half years old participated.
Materials
Participants heard the same books as children in the participating child and
control conditions in Study 1, with slight modifications to ensure children were more
involved in the story by answering questions about it. While children in Studies 1 and
2 responded to two questions during the story (e.g., “What do YOU think you/he/she
should do?” and “Which one did you/he/she pick?”), in Study 3 children answered
additional questions during the story to keep them engaged.
For the puzzle measure, a different puzzle was used to determine the hardiness
of the effect of the storybook on challenge seeking—an extremely challenging 20-
piece jigsaw puzzle.
Children were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: control, treatment
book with explanation questions only (“explain”), or treatment book with explanation
of the value of challenges and inducement to persuade a puppet (“explain +
persuade”).
Procedure
Storybook and Questions
36
Control condition. After hearing the story, children in the control condition
answered three questions about the story they had heard (“What happened in that
story?” “Which ball did you pick?” and “Why that one was a good one to pick?”).
Explain condition. After hearing the story, children in the explain condition
answered three questions about the story they had heard (“What happened in that
story?” “Which puzzle did you pick?” and “Why that one was a good one to pick?”).
The third question elicited explanations from children about the advantages of taking
on challenges.
Explain + persuade condition. After hearing the story, children in the explain
+ persuade condition were introduced to a gender-matched puppet who could choose
an easy or a hard puzzle, and were asked to teach the puppet what they had learned
from the book in choosing: “Which one should Sam pick?” The puppet then asked
which one s/he should pick (“Which one do you think I should pick?”), why s/he
should pick that one (“Why should I pick that one?”), and why it was good for him/her
to choose hard things (“Why is it good for me to learn hard things?”). Thus, children
had the opportunity to make a recommendation, attempt to persuade the puppet, and
explain why taking on challenges is beneficial. If children suggested that the puppet
choose the easy puzzle, they were reminded to think about what happened in the book,
and asked again.
Emotion
To make sure that mood was not responsible for condition effects, children
were asked to rate how happy they felt (on a 6-point scale). This question was
repeated immediately after children worked on the puzzle as well.
Challenge Seeking
Next, children responded to four of the challenge-seeking items (“pre-
challenge”) and gave explanations for their choices. The remaining four challenge-
seeking questions were asked after children worked on the challenging puzzle (“post-
challenge”), which allowed an examination of how the intervening challenge
experience affected children’s responses. The pre- and post-challenge sets of four
questions each included two puzzle items and two activity items.
37
Puzzle
Children were given a difficult puzzle and, so as not to induce an overly high
degree of frustration, told they could switch to another (visibly easier) puzzle at any
point. This puzzle had 20 pieces and each piece was jigsaw shaped, which made it
extremely challenging. A five-minute time limit was established so that children
would not be disrupted from the classroom for an unlimited period of time.
Debriefing
All children who had not previously finished the challenging puzzle were then
told, “Now let’s finish this puzzle together,” and the researcher scaffolded children at
the appropriate level to help them successfully complete the puzzle. Finally, children
were thanked for their hard work on the puzzle and returned to the classroom.
Results
There was a failure of random assignment to condition, such that children in
the control condition were significantly older than children in the two treatment
conditions, F(1,34) = 5.49, p = .025 (control: M = 4 years, 10 months; treatment: M =
4 years, 8 months). However, controlling for age, the results replicated the effects of
the treatment books on overall challenge seeking. (See Table 2.) Children in both
treatment conditions were significantly more likely to choose challenging tasks than
children in the control condition, but this effect was not robust enough to withstand
children’s subsequent experience of an extremely challenging task.
Emotions
There were no significant differences by condition in how happy children
reported that they felt, either immediately after the story (control: M = 5.00 out of 6,
SD = 1.61; explain: M = 5.85, SD = 0.38; explain + persuade: M = 5.58, SD = 0.79),
F(2,33) = 2.09, p = .14, or immediately after working on the puzzle (control: M = 5.27
out of 6, SD = 1.27; explain: M = 5.31, SD = 1.11; explain + persuade: M = 5.42, SD =
1.00), F(2,33) = 0.05, p = .95.
Challenge Seeking
The eight challenge-seeking items formed a reliable scale, α = .87. For the
results of children’s explanations for their overall choices, see Table 5. Again,
38
analyses are presented twice: first, main effects were examined individually using
ANOVAs, and second, a regression model examined all independent variables
simultaneously.
Effect of Condition
Both treatment conditions led to greater challenge seeking than the control
condition. In terms of number of overall hard choices selected, there was no
significant difference between the two treatment groups, t(33) = -0.10, p = .92.
Looking at pre-challenge and post-challenge choices separately, there were also no
differences between the two treatment groups, ps > .73. Thus, further analyses
collapsed across treatment condition. Controlling for age in months, condition
(combined treatment conditions vs. control) significantly predicted challenge seeking,
F(1,33) = 6.74, p = .014. (See Figures 8 and 9 .) Older children also showed greater
challenge seeking, F(1,33) = 5.85, p = .021. Results remained the same controlling
for the emotion that children reported after hearing the story.
Thus, although there was a tendency for older children to choose more
challenging tasks (as in Study 1), the treatment conditions overall led children to be
more likely to take on challenges.
Pre- and Post-Challenge
When challenge-seeking choices were divided into pre- and post-challenge
items, the effect of condition was significant for items assessed pre-challenge, and
marginally significant for items assessed post-challenge. Controlling for age, children
in the treatment conditions were significantly more likely to choose challenging tasks
before they experienced a challenge, F(1,33) = 7.34, p = .011, d = .82. After they
experienced a challenge, children in the treatment conditions were marginally more
likely to choose challenging task, F(1,33) = 3.33, p = .077, d = .31. The interaction
between assessment (pre- or post-challenge) and condition was marginally significant,
F(1,34) = 3.40, p = .074. Thus, the effect of the intervention was marginally weaker
after children directly experienced an extremely challenging situation.
Regression Model
39
The results of the regression model supported the previous analyses, indicating
a main effect of condition and an interaction between condition and time (pre- or post-
challenge). As in Studies 1 and 2, overall challenge-seeking choices were analyzed
using a logistic mixed-effects model (Bates & Sarkar, 2007), and looked in particular
at effects of condition and item time (pre- and post-challenge). Condition was coded
using two orthogonal Helmert style contrasts. Contrast 1 tested whether the two
treatment conditions were different from the control condition. Contrast 2 tested
whether the two treatment conditions differed from each other. The initial model was
a completely specified model with condition, item type (puzzles vs. activities), item
time (pre- or post-challenge), and age (older or younger than 4 years, 8 months) as
fixed effects, and participant and item as random effects. As before, models were
compared systematically to remove uninformative effects.
The final model included only condition and item time8 as predictors of
challenge seeking choices. Condition was a marginally significant predictor in terms
of the two treatment conditions versus the control condition, z = 1.66, p = .097. As
discussed previously, children in the treatment conditions were more likely to choose
challenging tasks than children in the control condition.
Importantly, there was a marginally significant interaction between condition
and item time, z = 1.76, p = .078. (See Table 4 for effects of condition on challenge
seeking pre- and post-challenge.) Children in the treatment conditions were
significantly different from those in the control condition before working on the
challenging puzzle, but not after working on the puzzle. This suggests that the effect
of the intervention was not robust enough to fully withstand children’s experience of
an extremely challenging puzzle.
Discussion
Persuasion, in the form of instructing a puppet of the value of choosing hard
tasks and persisting, did not appear to increase challenge seeking above a condition in
8 Children were more likely to choose challenging tasks pre-challenge than post-challenge, z = 3.46, p < .001.
40
which children explained the value of choosing hard tasks. There are several potential
explanations for these results.
First, it is possible that young children need more explicit emphasis and
reminders of their behavior (e.g., that they have said that hard tasks are good) in order
to show motivational change (e.g., to demonstrate a positive attitude toward hard tasks
by choosing more hard tasks) in accordance with that behavior. Perhaps the
persuasion experience was not salient enough, as the puppet went away after the child
explained the value of challenges, and children were not reminded of what they had
told the puppet. Furthermore, previous research suggests that attitudes and behaviors
show little consistency in young children unless linked in some explicit way, such as a
group identity (Master & Walton, 2011; see also Patterson & Bigler, 2006). Future
research should examine the effects of inducing children to advocate for the choice of
hard tasks using minimal and unobtrusive coercion (see Lepper, Nisbett, & Greene,
1973), giving children repeated reminders of that behavior, and then examining
attitude change (in terms of whether children show a greater preference for hard
tasks).
Second, it is also possible that the explain condition was equally effective for
independent reasons. Perhaps thinking about why the hard puzzle was good to choose
and constructing an explanation for the researcher was just as effective in boosting
challenge seeking as telling the puppet to choose the hard one and constructing an
explanation for the puppet. When children generate their own explanations or
examples, they may generalize knowledge more easily (Brown & Kane, 1988). For
example, in one study, 3-year-old children were given several sets of analogous
problems and were trained in one of several conditions. One group was asked to say
how the first two analogous problems were similar, and another group was told to
teach a puppet the two solutions to the problems. Both groups were significantly
better than a control group at solving the third analogous problem (Brown & Kane,
1988). Indeed, there were no differences in that study between children who
explained the link between two solutions to a problem and children who taught those
solutions to a puppet. Although in the current study the explain condition was
41
included as a strong control for the explain + persuade condition, future research
should examine whether each of these conditions increases challenge seeking above a
situation in which children are exposed to the story but do not answer questions about
it.
The other primary result of this study was the interaction between condition (in
terms of treatment vs. control) and the time point at which children responded (either
before or after the challenging experience). Children in the treatment conditions were
significantly more likely to choose challenging tasks, but only before they experienced
the challenging puzzle. The effect was weaker after they experienced the challenge.
This suggests that the effects of the treatment books may not be robust enough to fully
withstand children’s experience of challenges in the real world. However, it is also
possible that the treatment storybooks may become more effective over a longer
period of time. Perhaps children need real-world experience with a variety of
challenging tasks to connect the message of the storybooks to the value of challenges
in their own lives. This possibility is examined in Study 4.
Indeed, in evaluating the findings of Studies 1, 2, and 3, an important issue to
consider is how applicable these results (from laboratory studies) are to long-lasting
motivation in actual classrooms. Previous short-term studies that have been conducted
in classrooms or that examined long-term academic effects have found promising
results with long-term effects on students’ motivation and achievement (Miller,
Brickman, & Bolen, 1975; Walton & Cohen, 2007; Wilson & Linville, 1982). A first
step toward examining whether the effects of this manipulation lead to long-lasting
motivation is to look at whether the effects last for a longer period of time than the 15-
minute duration of the research session. As mentioned previously, the effects may
become even stronger over time, as children experience the positive consequences of
working hard at challenging tasks.
STUDY 4: LONGITUDINAL EFFECTS ON CHALLENGE SEEKING
Can this manipulation (hearing a story about themselves taking on a challenge,
trying different strategies, being praised for effort, and finally succeeding) change the
way children approach challenges not just in the immediate aftermath of the
42
storybook? Could children be more likely to choose challenging tasks and persist,
even up to several weeks later? Furthermore, would the effect be more likely to last if
children were given a “booster” reminder of the manipulation? Study 4 explored these
questions.
This study also offered a methodological improvement on previous studies:
because some measures were taken long after the manipulation, it may help rule out
social desirability as an alternate explanation for the results of Studies 1-3. Children
participated at multiple time points: Time 1 involved the storybook and measures of
challenge seeking, Time 2 involved a “booster” reminder for some children of the
story, and Time 3 involved measures of challenge seeking several weeks later.
Method
Participants
Participants were 4- and 5-year-old preschoolers at a research nursery school.
Forty children participated throughout all three time points (mean age = 4 years, 6
months; range = 4 years, 0 months to 5 years, 3 months; 15 male, 25 female).
Twenty-one were Caucasian, seven were Latino/a, six were African American, four
were Asian American, and two were multiple ethnicities.
Due to absences or disinterest in going to the “Game Room” (the research
room), one child was run only at Time 1 and an additional child was run only at Times
1 and 2.
Materials
The materials were the same as in Study 3. Children were randomly assigned
to the treatment or control condition. Within each condition, half the children were
randomly assigned to receive a “booster” reminder of the storybook.
Procedure
Time 1
The procedure during Time 1 was very similar to the procedure in Study 3.
Children 1) heard a story (either the treatment or control story containing the
participating child as the main character); 2) answered four challenge-seeking
43
questions; 3) worked on a highly challenging puzzle; 4) answered four more
challenge-seeking questions; and 5) were debriefed.
Time 2
To see whether the effects lasted longer if children were given a reminder of
the intervention during a “booster” session, half the children from each condition were
randomly assigned to return to the Game Room approximately a week after Time 1
with the same researcher. They were shown the storybook again. Rather than reading
the book word for word, the researcher reminded children what happened in the story,
and talked them through it, e.g., “Remember how you got the easy puzzle and the hard
puzzle? You had a choice. Which one did you pick? Why did you pick the hard one?
When you try hard things, you learn more, right?” or “Remember how you got the
green ball and the red ball? You had a choice. Which one did you pick? Why did
you pick the green one? When you played with the green ball, you had fun, right?”
Children’s responses to the questions at Time 2 were coded on a scale from 0-2 (0 =
clearly incorrect, 1 = other, 2 = clearly correct) to assess how well they processed the
story.
If children were absent or chose not to go to the “Game Room” that day, the
researcher continued to invite them on the next available school day(s).
Time 3
Approximately two weeks after children participated at Time 1, all children
returned to the “Game Room” with the same researcher as before. The procedure was
the same as Time 1, except that children did not hear a storybook or any reminder of
the storybook that they heard. A new (and similarly difficult puzzle) was used for the
challenging experience. If children were absent or chose not to go to the Game Room
that day, the researcher continued to invite them on the next available school day(s).
Results
Overall, the results suggest that the effect of condition on challenge seeking
became stronger over time, as well as better able to withstand the experience of an
extreme challenge. (See Table 2 for a summary of overall results.) In addition,
challenge seeking showed high stability over time.
44
Time 1
Challenge Seeking
The eight challenge-seeking items formed a reliable scale, α = .84 (and none of
the items increased the reliability of the scale if deleted). For the results of children’s
explanations for their choices, see Table 5.
Effect of condition. Overall, there was a trend for children in the treatment
condition to choose more hard options than children in the control condition (control:
M = 2.50, SD = 0.48; treatment: M = 3.80, SD = 0.66), t(38) = -1.59, p = .12. (See
Figure 10.)
There was a significant interaction with age—among older children (4 years, 6
months and older), children in the treatment condition showed more challenge seeking
than children in the control condition (younger control: M = 3.75, SD = 2.38; older
control: M = 1.67, SD = 1.61; younger treatment: M = 2.67, SD = 2.69; older
treatment: M = 4.73, SD = 2.94), F(1,36) = 7.10, p = .011. As in Study 1, the
treatment storybook was most effective for older children.
Regression model. The results of the regression model supported the previous
analyses. The initial model for overall challenge-seeking choices included fixed
effects for condition, age (older or younger than 4 years, 6 months), item type (puzzles
vs. activities),9 and item time (pre- or post-challenge), and random effects of item and
participant. There was a significant interaction between condition and age, z = 2.63, p
= .009. Older children in the treatment condition were most likely to choose
challenging tasks (see above).
Time 2
Children participated at Time 2 (the “booster”) an average of eight days after
participating at Time 1, and this did not differ by condition, p = .42.
Children in the treatment and control conditions seemed to remember and
respond to questions about the books equally well (average scores: control: M = 1.60
out of 2, SD = 0.38; treatment: M = 1.67, SD = 0.47), t(18) = -0.38, p > .70.
9 On average, children chose more challenging puzzles than activities, z = 3.80, p < .001.
45
Time 3
Children participated at Time 3 an average of 17 days after participating at
Time 1, and this did not differ by condition, p = .54.
Challenge Seeking
The eight challenge-seeking items formed a reliable scale, α = .89 (and none of
the items increased the reliability of the scale if deleted). There was a significant
correlation between challenge seeking at Time 1 and Time 3, r(40) = .82, p < .001.
The effect of condition became stronger over time, particularly for older
children in the treatment condition, and for younger children in the treatment condition
who received a booster at Time 2. Furthermore, the effect of condition on challenge
seeking was significant both pre- and post-challenge experience.
Effect of condition. Considering the four groups separately (treatment/booster,
treatment/no booster, control/booster, control/no booster), there was an overall
marginal effect of condition on hard choices, F(3,36) = 2.56, p = .07. (See Figure 11.)
A planned post-hoc contrast between the treatment and control conditions was
significant, t(36) = 2.32, p = .026, indicating that children in the treatment condition
were significantly more likely to choose challenging tasks overall. There was no
difference between the two control conditions, p = .75. There was a trend for children
in the treatment/booster condition to choose more challenging tasks than children in
the treatment/no booster condition, t(36) = 1.45, p = .15. Comparing this effect to the
effect at Time 1, there was a marginal interaction between condition and time point,
indicating that the effect of condition was marginally larger at Time 3, F(3,36) = 2.41,
p = .08.
Pre- and post-challenge. When challenge-seeking choices were divided into
pre- and post-challenge items, the effect of condition was significant for items
assessed pre-challenge, and remained significant even for items assessed post-
challenge. (See Table 4.) Children in the treatment conditions were significantly
more likely to choose challenging tasks before they experienced a challenge, t(38) = -
2.17, p = .036. They were also significantly more likely to choose challenging tasks
after they experienced a challenge, t(38) = -2.23, p = .032. The interaction between
46
assessment (pre- or post-challenge) and condition (treatment or control) was not
significant, indicating that the size of the condition effect did not change, F(1,38) =
0.12, p = .73. Thus, two weeks after hearing the storybooks, children who heard the
treatment books remained challenge seeking even after working on a very challenging
task.
Regression model. The regression model supported the previous analyses,
indicating a significant effect of treatment condition. The initial model for challenge-
seeking choices included fixed effects of the child’s choice for that item at Time 1,10
condition (treatment vs. control), booster status,11 age (older or younger than 4 years, 6
months), item type (puzzles vs. activities), item time (pre- or post-challenge), and
random effects of participant and item.
The main effect of treatment was a trend, z = 1.54, p = .12, and there was a
significant interaction between treatment and age, z = 2.57, p = .010. Older children in
the treatment condition were most likely to choose the challenging option overall.
Interestingly, there was a marginally significant three-way interaction between
treatment, booster, and age, z = -1.89, p = .059. Older children in the treatment
condition showed more challenge seeking regardless of the booster, but younger
children in the treatment condition showed more challenge seeking only if they
received the booster (see Figure 12). For older children, hearing the intervention
storybook once may be enough to produce lasting change. However, younger children
may need more explicit cues and reminders of the value of choosing challenging tasks
in order to show long-term effects.
Discussion
The results of Study 4 suggest that even brief manipulations in a laboratory
have the potential to create changes for young children that last beyond the laboratory
session, with effects that may become even stronger over time. The effect size of 10 Children who chose the challenging option for a particular item at Time 1 were also more likely to choose the challenging option for that item at Time 3, z = 3.49, p < .001. 11 Across both conditions, children who received a booster were more likely to choose the challenging option, z = 2.19, p = .028 (but see below for more details about the combined effect of treatment and booster).
47
condition (treatment vs. control) on challenge seeking at Time 1 was 0.52, but at Time
3, it was 0.77. Thus, this manipulation has the potential to affect children’s choices
and persistence in the classroom over longer periods of time.
Furthermore, the ability of the intervention to create resilient motivation, the
kind of challenge seeking that can withstand an immediate challenging experience,
increased over time. At Time 1, there was not a significant difference between
conditions post-challenge, but there was a significant different post-challenge two
weeks later. Why did the effect get stronger? And why did the effect remain robust at
Time 3 in Study 4, but not in Study 3? These findings illustrate both the fragility of
this effect (post-challenge in Study 3) and its robustness (Studies 1, 2, and 4 and pre-
challenge in Study 3). Perhaps, following Time 1, children attempted a variety of
challenging tasks, succeeded at many of them, and paid greater attention to the
challenges they experienced. This then gave them a new way of perceiving and
construing those challenges (for similar effects of time in a very different population
and for a very different psychological process, see Marigold, Holmes, & Ross, 2007).
This could create a recursive cycle in which children begin to take on more challenges
and see the benefits of those challenging experiences. Similarly, children may also
have been able to weight that challenging experience (at Time 3) in light of all the
other challenges that they had succeeded at in the past two weeks. Thus, that
particular experience with difficulty may not have been as salient as it was in Study 3.
Previous studies suggest that identity- and motivation-related interventions
frequently have effects that strengthen over time, as they tap into the recursive cycles
of motivation and learning and achievement (Cohen et al., 2009). Children may go
away, think about these ideas, put them into practice, and fully embrace them. One of
the most important directions for future research may be to better understand these
recursive cycles and their power at different stages of development. Can children who
experience successful motivational interventions in early childhood better withstand
the decline in motivation that is typically seen in early adolescence?
In addition, this study suggests that this aspect of children’s motivation shows
a great deal of stability over time. Challenge seeking showed high test-retest
48
reliability between Time 1 and Time 3. This suggests that children by this age may
already be on particular motivational trajectories, yet those trajectories can be shifted
by interventions that target relevant psychological processes.
Study 4 was only the first step in longitudinally examining how long these
effects may last and how much motivation children may show in a subsequent
situation. The situations in Time 1 and Time 3 were extremely similar, in terms of an
identical researcher asking identical questions. Further research, beyond the scope of
this dissertation, should examine a new situation with a new adult in addition to a
different time point. Furthermore, another possibility for increasing real-world
validity might be to get teachers’ ratings of children’s academic motivation pre- and
post-intervention.
Despite these limitations, anecdotal evidence suggests that this manipulation
has the potential to affect children’s lives outside the laboratory and inside the
classroom. As I was conducting this study, I was in the classroom preparing to bring a
child to the research “Game Room” for Time 3. He was in the treatment condition and
had received the booster reminder the week before. We were planning to go to the
Game Room as soon as he finished the project he was working on. Another child
nearby was trying to get a basketball through the basketball hoop. She wasn’t
succeeding, so she decided to quit. He called out to her, “You have to keep trying!”
Then he turned to me and said, “Remember the book? If you keep trying the same
thing, you learn that thing and if you keep trying the same thing over and over, you get
better at that same thing. Then you can do whatever you want better and better.”
While this is anecdotal evidence, it suggests that some children were able to retain the
message of the storybook and apply it to their lives in the classroom. Moreover, some
children may even be able to communicate that message to other children. Given the
power of social norms to affect behavior, this raises the possibility that a future
intervention that could change classroom norms related to challenge seeking could be
extremely powerful. Could we create a classroom where the group identity is one that
embraces challenge (see Master & Walton, 2011; Woodhead, 1988)?
49
While the results of Studies 1-4 suggest that children’s motivation can indeed
be increased through the use of storybooks, the storybooks included several different
types of factors predicted to increase motivation in children, including praise for
effort, strategies for persisting (such as, “Just keep trying!”), and role models who
coped with failure. Thus, these studies offer no way of isolating which aspects of the
storybook might have been most critical in creating the effects on challenge-seeking
and persistence. As a beginning, Study 5 examined one aspect of the story that may
have been particularly important: whether or not children were praised for effort. In
all of the treatment books in Studies 1-4, but none of the control books, children heard
parents and peers praise the main character for trying. Could the fact that children
heard themselves (or another character) praised for effort be at least partially
responsible for the effects in Studies 1-4?
STUDY 5: EFFECTS OF PRAISE ON MOTIVATION
Based on previous research, one element of the storybook in particular may
have been particularly effective in increasing children’s motivation. In all the
treatment condition stories, after struggling with a challenging puzzle, the main
character received praise and positive feedback from an adult and peers for persisting.
Previous research with young children shows that process praise (also referred to as
effort praise) is beneficial for young children’s motivation (Kamins & Dweck, 1999;
Zentall & Morris, 2010). As described in the Introduction, in a study by Kamins and
Dweck (1999), children role-played their reactions to an unsuccessful activity, and
those who had been given process praise were less likely than those given person
praise to show helpless behaviors (such as negative self-evaluations and a lack of
persistence—i.e., choosing to give up and do something else rather than continue).
They were also more likely to construct a solution to the role-played problem (e.g., “I
can do it again better if I take my time”). Similar effects were seen when preschool
children were given generic person praise (“You are a good drawer”) or non-generic
process praise (“You did a good job drawing”) (Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck,
2007; Zentall & Morris, 2010). Children given process praise were more likely to
50
show mastery-oriented behaviors, that is, to evaluate themselves positively and report
that they would persist following a failure scenario.
However, those studies differ from the current studies in several respects.
First, in those studies, the praise was administered during a role-playing scenario,
while the current studies used a storybook in which the child received praise. Second,
those studies used only self-report measures for persistence, in addition to the self-
evaluation measures. In contrast, the current research measured behavioral persistence
on a challenging task. Finally, those studies did not directly measure challenge
seeking. Will process praise administered through a storybook (without the example
of a role model who copes with failure or who has strategies for persisting) increase
challenge seeking and behavioral persistence, in addition to creating more positive
self-evaluations after an imagined failure?
In addition, on an exploratory basis, this study examined how children
responded to a combination of person- and process-praise: praise for being a “hard
worker.” Such praise might have positive effects on children’s motivation due to the
emphasis on hard work, and help children attribute their success to consistent hard
work and effort. Indeed, previous work has found that allowing children to take on a
noun identity (such as being a “helper”) can motivate preschool children’s prosocial
behavior (Bryan & Master, 2011). However, it is also possible that such praise might
have negative effects on children’s motivation due to the emphasis on an aspect of
personality that they do not perceive control over. Will children be more sensitive to
the evaluative “person” aspect of this type of praise, or more sensitive to the
“process”-based emphasis on hard work?
In addition to challenge seeking and persistence, children’s self-evaluations
following failure were also measured to give a more complete picture of children’s
helpless or mastery-oriented behaviors (as another index of children’s responding to
difficulty), and to allow a more direct comparison of the results to previous studies in
the literature. This comparison was important given that the current study changed the
method of delivering praise from role-played scenarios to storybooks. Study 5 also
included a neutral control condition, in which children were not praised.
51
Method
Participants
Participants were 51 4- and 5-year-old children at a research nursery school
(25 were male; 26 were female). Twenty-six were Caucasian, 14 were Asian
American, five were African American, three were Latina, and three were Middle
Eastern. As in Study 3, only children older than 4 years, 6 months participated (mean
age = 4 years, 10 months; range = 4 years, 6 months to 5 years, 6 months).
Materials
Children were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. The storybooks
were simplified so that the element of praise was highly salient for children, and there
was no mention of struggle. All children were read a storybook in which they were
the main character and completed three puzzles (see Appendix B). After each puzzle,
children in the control condition were told, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle!”
Children in the person praise condition were told, “You got all the pieces in the
puzzle! You must be really good at puzzles.” Children in the person/process praise
condition were told, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must be a really hard
worker at puzzles.” Children in the process praise condition were told, “You got all
the pieces in the puzzle! You must have worked really hard at puzzles.” Thus, all
children heard a book in which they successfully completed several puzzles and
received positive feedback, but different conditions attributed the child’s success to
different factors.
Procedure
Introduction
Once children entered the laboratory room, the researcher told them that they
would play with toys and act out stories. The researcher spread out a row of small
diverse-looking dolls, and asked the child to select a doll to represent him or her. The
researcher then brought out another doll named “Teacher Debbie.” To get used to
interacting with the dolls, the “Teacher Debbie” doll asked the child’s doll a series of
questions about his/her favorite color and flavor of ice cream and whether s/he had
siblings.
52
Next, the researcher read children the story in which they successfully
completed several puzzles and received a particular type of praise. After that, the
researcher brought the dolls back out and had the child role-play two situations in
which Teacher Debbie asked the child to complete a puzzle and then criticized the
puzzle. For example, in the second scenario the researcher said, “Let’s see what
happens in the next story. Here’s another puzzle piece. Another day you were sitting
at the puzzle table. After a little while Teacher Debbie says, ‘(Child’s name), will you
do this horse puzzle?’ and you say, ‘Okay, teacher.’ And so you start doing the
puzzle. You start putting pieces in, but you aren’t sure where they go. You look at
what you did and think to yourself, ‘Uh-oh, those pieces are in the wrong place,’ but
you want to show the teacher the puzzle you did so you say, ‘Teacher, I did a puzzle
for you.’ The teacher looks at the puzzle you did and says, ‘THAT doesn’t look like a
horse. The pieces are in the wrong place and you didn’t finish it.’”
Note that there were two primary advantages to using a role-played scenario to
measure children’s reactions to failure: 1) This controlled for individual differences in
children’s actual ability to complete puzzles; and 2) The role-played scenario
prevented the researcher from criticizing the child’s actual performance (Burhans &
Dweck, 1995).
Self-Evaluations
A new measure (not assessed in Studies 1-4) involved children’s self-
evaluations following this failure experience. As in Kamins and Dweck (1999) and
Cimpian et al. (2007), children responded to four questions measuring their self-
evaluations following criticism to assess an important aspect of helpless vs. mastery-
oriented responses. First, they rated how much they liked the puzzle they had made in
the last scenario on a 6-point scale (“product evaluation”). Second, they rated how
happy they felt on a 6-point scale, after not getting the pieces in the second scenario
(“affect”). Third, they were asked whether not getting the pieces made them feel like
they were good or not good at puzzles (“assessment of goodness”). Fourth, they were
asked whether not getting the pieces made them feel like they were a good girl/boy or
not a good girl/boy (“assessment of goodness”). Measuring children’s self-evaluations
53
provided another index of children’s motivation following difficulty and allowed more
direct comparison of the results to previous studies in the literature.
Challenge Seeking
Next, children responded to four of the challenge-seeking questions used in
Studies 1-4 (easy vs. hard puzzle; few vs. lots of pieces; easy vs. hard tower of blocks;
and easy vs. hard game) and gave explanations for their choices.
Persistence
Children were given a puzzle and told they could switch to a visibly easier
puzzle at any time. They worked for up to five minutes, and were reminded every 90
seconds that they could switch to the other puzzle if they wanted.
Results
Overall, children in the process praise condition showed higher motivation
than children in the other conditions. More specifically, they showed higher
motivation than children in the person praise condition in terms of self-evaluations,
and higher motivation than the control condition in terms of challenge seeking and
persistence.
Self-Evaluations
Correlations
The two assessment of goodness questions (good vs. not good at puzzles, and
good vs. not good child) were significantly correlated, r(51) = .34, p = .015. The
affect question (“how happy did you feel?”) was marginally correlated with a
composite of the two assessment of goodness questions, r(50) = .26, p = .072. The
product evaluation question (“how much did you like the puzzle you made?”) was not
significantly correlated with the other self-evaluation questions.
Effect of Condition
There was a significant effect of condition for the self-evaluation composite.
Children in the person and person/process praise conditions showed particularly low
self-evaluations. Post-hoc comparisons compared the process praise condition to the
other conditions as a group and individually.
54
Self-evaluation composite. The four items were standardized and averaged to
form a self-evaluation composite. Overall, there was a significant effect of condition,
F(3,46) = 2.78, p = .05. (See Figure 13.) Post-hoc contrasts indicated a trend for
children in the process praise condition to report higher self-evaluations than the other
three conditions combined, t(46) = 1.54, p = .13, and indicated significantly higher
self-evaluations compared to the person and person/process conditions combined,
t(46) = 2.16, p = .036. Recall that the self-evaluation measures allowed a comparison
to previous studies to ensure that the change in the method of giving praise (from role-
played scenario to storybooks) did not change the pattern of results. Indeed,
replicating previous findings, children in the process praise condition reported
significantly higher self-evaluations than children in the person praise condition, in
particular, t(46) = 2.36, p = .022.12
Challenge Seeking
The four challenge-seeking items formed a less reliable scale (compared to the
full eight item scale in Studies 1-4), α = .67. For the results of children’s explanations
for their choices, see Table 5. Overall, the results indicate that process praise
increased children’s challenge seeking compared to other types of praise or no praise.
Effect of Condition
There was an overall trend in the effect of condition on challenge-seeking
choices, F(3,47) = 2.16, p = .11. (See Figure 14.) Post-hoc contrasts revealed that
children in the process praise condition were marginally more likely to choose
challenges than children in the other three conditions, t(47) = 1.98, p = .054, and
significantly more likely to choose challenges than children in the control condition,
t(47) = 2.52, p = .015. Consistent with the previous studies reported in this
dissertation, children who heard a story in which they were praised for their effort
showed increased challenge seeking. While the effects in previous studies could be
due to other factors as well (e.g., strategies for persisting or role models who cope
12 Children in the control condition also showed significantly higher self-evaluations compared to children in the person praise condition, t(46) = -2.47, p = .017.
55
with failure), these results indicate that praise for effort without those other factors can
increase children’s challenge seeking.
Age
There was a significant effect of age on challenge-seeking choices, F(1,43) =
9.42, p = .004, and a marginal interaction of age with condition, F(3,43) = 2.43, p =
.079. After controlling for age, condition became marginally significant, F(3,43) =
2.65, p = .061, instead of showing a weaker trend toward significance. Younger
children (less than 4 years, 10 months) in the control condition were lowest in
challenge-seeking choices (M = 0.56, SD = 0.53), while older children in the process
praise condition were highest (M = 3.80, SD = 0.45). Thus, older preschool children
who heard a story involving process praise showed a greater increase in challenge
seeking (similar to the age-related findings in Studies 1 and 3, although those studies
involved storybooks with other motivational factors as well).
Regression Model
The regression model supported the previous analyses, indicating a main effect
of process praise (compared to the control condition) and an interaction between
condition and age. The initial model included fixed effects of item type (puzzle vs.
activities),13 condition (dummy-coded to contrast each condition with the control
condition), and age (older or younger than 4 years, 10 months),14 and random effects
of participant and item.
There was a significant effect of the process praise contrast, z = 2.68, p = .007
(process praise vs. control). Children in the process praise condition were more likely
to choose challenging tasks than children in the control condition. There were
marginal interactions between age and the process praise contrast, z = 1.79, p = .073,
and between age and the person praise contrast, z = -1.72, p = .086. As in the previous
analysis, older children in the process praise condition were the most challenge
13 Children were more likely to choose challenging puzzles than challenging activities, z = 2.13, p = .034. 14 Overall, older children were more likely to choose challenging tasks, z = 3.25, p = .001.
56
seeking, while younger children in the control condition were the least challenge
seeking.
Persistence
The main effect of condition on whether children persisted on the puzzle was
not significant (control: 21% of children persisted; person praise: 42%; person/process
praise: 23%; process praise: 50%), χ2 (1, N = 51) = 3.38, p = .34. However, there was
a trend for children in the process praise condition to be more likely than children in
the control condition to persist, χ2(1, N = 26) = 2.33, p = .13. (See Table 6 for further
persistence analyses.)
Motivation Composite
Correlation between Challenge Seeking and Persistence
Persistence was significantly positively correlated with the number of hard
choices, r(51) = .47, p < .001.
Effect of Condition
As in Studies 1 and 2, a motivational composite of challenge seeking and
persistence was examined, and revealed higher motivation in the process praise
condition than the control condition. There was a trend indicating an effect of
condition on the overall motivation composite of challenge seeking and persistence,
F(3,47) = 1.95, p = .13. (See Figure 15.) Children in the process praise condition
showed marginally higher motivation on the composite measure than children in the
other three conditions, t(47) = 1.90, p = .06, and significantly higher motivation than
children in the control condition, t(47) = 2.29, p = .027. Thus, children who heard a
story about themselves that involved effort praise showed greater overall motivation in
terms of challenge seeking and persistence combined than did children who heard a
story not involving effort praise (similar to the motivation composite results in Studies
1 and 2, although those studies involved storybooks with other motivational factors as
well).
Mastery-Orientation Composite
I also created a broader mastery-oriented motivation composite that included
self-evaluation in addition to challenge seeking and persistence, by standardizing and
57
averaging the three measures. There was a slight trend for an overall condition
difference, F(3,46) = 1.93, p = .14, and post-hoc contrasts revealed that children in the
process praise condition showed significantly higher mastery orientation overall
compared to the other three conditions, t(46) = 2.30, p = .026. When compared to
each other condition individually, children in the process praise condition showed
significantly higher mastery orientation compared to the control condition, t(46) =
2.24, p = .030, marginally higher compared to the person/process praise condition,
t(46) = 1.97, p = .055, and a trend toward higher mastery orientation compared to the
person praise condition, t(46) = 1.56, p = .13. (See Figure 16.) Overall, children who
heard a story about themselves being praised for effort showed more mastery-oriented
behaviors, in terms of more positive reactions to failure and greater challenge seeking
and persistence, than children who received other types of praise or no praise.
Discussion
These results suggest that the praise element of the storybooks in Studies 1-4
was at least partially responsible for the effects on challenge seeking and persistence.
Praising children for their process and effort through stories led to greater challenge
seeking and a trend toward greater persistence.
The conditions showed different patterns of effects for different measures. In
particular, the pattern of results for self-evaluations differed from that of challenge
seeking and persistence. Children in the process praise and control conditions showed
the highest motivation in terms of positive self-evaluations, while children in the
process praise condition showed higher motivation than the control condition in
challenge seeking and persistence. The first set of results (self-evaluations) may be
because person-related praise makes children particularly vulnerable to evaluating
themselves negatively following a failure experience. They may conclude that if they
are good at puzzles when they succeed, then they must not be good at puzzles when
they fail. In terms of the second set of results (challenge seeking and persistence), the
finding that person praise did not lead to less challenge seeking and persistence is
surprising. However, previous studies with young children have found that person
praise in young children can sometimes lead to low self-evaluations following failure
58
yet relatively high persistence (Zentall & Morris, 2010). Overall, when all aspects of
motivation and mastery orientation were considered, children who had been given
process praise (“You must have worked really hard”) showed the highest total
motivation.
In contrast to the effects of process praise, children in the person/process
condition (“hard worker”) frequently showed effects intermediate in terms of
motivation. These children did not differ in negative self-evaluations compared to
children in the person praise condition, and did not differ in challenge seeking and
persistence compared to the control condition. These results suggest that this type of
praise may carry some of the negative effects of person praise without all of the
benefits of process praise. Any type of praise that evaluates children for personal
qualities, even qualities that place value on effort, may hinder children when they
encounter challenges (see also Zentall & Morris, 2010).
Although the current study added additional conditions, these results replicate
previous findings in the literature and in this dissertation. First, children in the person
praise condition were more negatively affected by the role-played failure scenario in
terms of their self-evaluations, compared to children in the process praise condition
(Cimpian et al., 2007; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Zentall & Morris, 2010). As in
previous research, it seems that children are extremely vulnerable to the sense that
they are being evaluated based on their traits or ability. Rather than giving them
enduring confidence, praising children for ability makes them more likely to doubt
their ability when they encounter difficulty.
Second, children in the process praise condition showed higher levels of
challenge seeking and tended to show higher levels of persistence, compared to
children in the control condition. This supports the findings of other studies in this
dissertation, and suggests that children who receive positive feedback from adults
about taking on challenges and not giving up show motivational benefits compared to
children in a control condition. Stories in which the participating child is praised can
send the message that effort is valued and important. Although the other studies in
59
this dissertation contained other elements besides praise, the praise element of the
story seems to be at least partially responsible for the effects in those studies.
However, this does not rule out the possibility that the results of Studies 1-4
were also due to other elements in the story. For example, hearing about a character
who struggled to cope with failure may also have contributed to greater challenge
seeking in the previous studies. Indeed, the results of a pilot study (N = 17) indicated
that older preschool children who heard about a character who struggled before
learning how to do a task showed marginally more challenge seeking (p = .098) than
children who heard about a character who was immediately successful at a task. It
would be very interesting for future research to vary both effort praise (vs. no effort
praise) and struggle (vs. immediate success) within the same study to more directly
compare the effects. Thinking about the process of learning as involving struggle may
be critical for children, such that thinking about success (without this element of the
learning process) may not instill the same motivation to persevere.
Overall, these results indicate that process praise has beneficial consequences
for young children’s challenge seeking and persistence, even following situations in
which children do not succeed.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Challenge seeking and persistence are aspects of motivation that are
particularly critical for students’ learning. The studies reported here lay the
foundation for a better understanding of the factors that affect challenge seeking and
persistence in young children, with the ultimate goal of using that understanding to
create educational interventions that set children on more successful academic
trajectories.
Discussion of Findings
The results from Study 1 suggest that challenge seeking and persistence can be
increased in children using storybooks that include praise for effort, strategies for
persisting, and a role model who copes with failure. While these books increased
children’s challenge seeking regardless of who the main character was, the books were
most effective for preschoolers’ behavioral persistence when the main character was
60
the child himself or herself. Thus, personal identity seemed to matter more for
preschool children’s persistence than for challenge seeking.
In contrast, in Study 2, the books were equally effective in increasing
persistence for kindergarten students whether the main character was the participating
child, another child, or an animal. Moreover, the books were highly effective in
increasing persistence in a group of academically struggling students. Furthermore,
both Studies 1 and 2 also found that children who endorsed global beliefs about
badness (that making a mistake implies global badness) were less likely to take on
challenging tasks.
The results from Study 3 showed that the treatment book was equally effective
regardless of whether children explained the value of challenges or attempted to
persuade someone else of the value of challenges. Study 3 also found that the effect of
the treatment book on challenge seeking was weakened after children experienced a
real challenge.
The results from Study 4 are particularly exciting, as these results suggest that
these effects may become stronger over time, and that children may become more
likely to show robust challenge seeking even after experiencing real challenges. Older
preschool children showed these long-term effects whether or not they were reminded
of the value of taking on challenges, whereas younger children remained challenge
seeking only if they had been previously reminded of the story.
The results from Study 5 indicate that praise may be a critical component of
this process. Children who heard a story about themselves being praised for effort
showed more positive self-evaluations following failure, compared to children who
heard a story about themselves praised for person-based traits such as ability.
Children who heard a story in which they were praised for effort also showed greater
challenge seeking and slightly greater persistence than children who heard a control
story in which they were not praised for effort.
In Studies 1, 3, 4, and 5, the treatment books showed reliable effects on
challenge seeking (see Table 2). This suggests that children are sensitive to the
messages they hear in stories, and that stories can be used to teach children about the
61
value of taking on challenges. Studies 1, 2, and 5 also suggested that these books
could be use to increase young children’s persistence at challenging tasks. Hearing a
story about themselves persisting (“I’ll just keep trying, and I’ll see what happens”) in
which they are praised for persistence and working hard may be an important way to
encourage young children to persist when they encounter challenges.
Challenge Seeking and Persistence
Another interesting finding across studies was the relationship between
challenge seeking and persistence. Although challenge seeking and persistence were
not correlated in Study 1, there was a moderately high correlation in Studies 2 and 5
between the number of challenging items that children chose and their persistence on a
challenging puzzle. When data from the three studies were combined, the overall
correlation between challenge seeking and persistence was significant, r(169) = .23, p
= .002. This suggests that these may be related components of motivation. Indeed, in
the real world, children’s behavior in both types of situations may create a feedback
loop, in which children choose a challenging task, persist at it, and realize the benefits
of having persisted, which then increases their continuing preference for challenging
tasks that they can learn from. Children who show motivational deficits may also
create feedback loops: children who choose easy tasks may enjoy the sensation of
easily completing tasks and dislike the sensation of frustration while trying to persist
on challenging tasks, which may make them more likely to continue to choose easy
options in the future. In this way, children with different motivational tendencies may
place themselves on very different academic trajectories in school.
However, there could be several reasons for the overall correlation between
challenge seeking and persistence. The manipulation incorporated several different
motivational factors, so different aspects of the manipulation may have had separate
effects on challenge seeking and persistence. Furthermore, challenge seeking and
persistence did not always show similar patterns of effects. In Study 1, all the
treatment books increased preschoolers’ challenge seeking, but only the book about
the participating child increased persistence. In contrast, in Study 2, the treatment
books led to significant increases in kindergarteners’ persistence but not challenge
62
seeking. Perhaps challenge seeking may be more strongly related to goal-related
processes (e.g., whether children are more concerned with learning or performing
well), while persistence may be more strongly tied to self-regulation processes. Few
studies have measured both challenge seeking and persistence in children, and many
of those previous studies used self-report measures of persistence rather than
behavioral persistence at a task. In line with the current findings, some studies also
demonstrate that challenge seeking and persistence do not always correlate or show
identical effects. For example, Nichols, Whelan, and Meyer (1991) found that 5th
grade students who had been given learning goals chose harder tasks following failure
feedback compared to those who had been given performance goals, but there was no
difference in their persistence (in terms of the number of additional problems they
wanted to work on). In terms of persistence, recent work found that preschoolers’
persistence on some tasks was correlated with motivational measures such as valuing a
task, and on other tasks was correlated with self-regulation measures such as working
memory (Berhenke, Lan, & Morrison, 2011). Thus, challenge seeking and persistence
appear to be separable aspects of motivation.
However, some previous studies have found effects on both challenge seeking
and persistence—for example, Mueller and Dweck (1998) found that 5th graders who
were given effort praise showed both greater challenge seeking (in terms of choosing
harder problems that they could learn from over easier problems that would make
them look smart) and persistence (in terms of how much they would like to take the
problems home to work on). Perhaps persistence is more likely to be correlated with
challenge seeking when it is clear to children that persistence will lead to greater
learning (for example, perhaps the preschoolers in Study 1 who heard about
themselves persisting in the story were better able to see the learning value of
persistence for themselves, compared to children who heard a story about someone
else). In contrast, when performance-avoidance goals are salient to children (such as
the struggling students in Study 2, who may have been afraid to take on challenges
and fail at them), it may be easier to change children’s persistence than their challenge
seeking.
63
In addition, the way in which persistence is measured may be relevant. Several
previous studies used self-report measures of persistence (in terms of how many
additional problems children would like, or whether they would like to continue
working) rather than behavioral persistence (in terms of whether children keep
working and complete a task, as in Studies 1, 2, and 5). It also remains an open
question as to whether these various ways of measuring persistence show high
congruence with each other; indeed, a large body of literature suggests that there are
frequently discrepancies between self-reports and behavior, particularly for children
(see Quattrone, 1985). It may be that challenge seeking and persistence show more
similar patterns of effects when both are measured as self-report (as in Mueller &
Dweck, 1998). At any rate, the relationship between challenge seeking and persistence
remains an open and theoretically rich question for future research to clarify.
Aside from the relationship between the two factors, there could be particular
situations in a classroom context in which it might be more important to boost either
challenge seeking or persistence. In the classroom, teachers frequently have
opportunities to guide or scaffold one aspect of motivation while allowing children to
make choices about the other. For example, teachers may give a task with a certain
level of difficulty (e.g., moderately challenging), but allow children to choose how
long they wish to work on it before moving on to another task. Conversely, teachers
may assign a certain amount of time for a task, but allow children freedom to choose
their own level of difficulty for that task. Thus, the importance of each aspect might
differ based on the educational context. In the long term, however, both are
important—students should both take advantage of challenging opportunities (e.g.,
more advanced courses) and persist in working hard at those.
As discussed in the Introduction, few studies have attempted to create long-
term motivational change in preschool children. Although young children in general
may show a preference for easy tasks (Nicholls, 1978), the children who participated
in the current studies were highly responsive to an intervention that encouraged them
to see challenges as positive learning experiences. Although their preferences for
challenging tasks may be highly stable over time (see Study 4), those preferences can
64
be shifted to put children onto an academic trajectory in which they are more willing
to take on challenging tasks.
Global Beliefs and Challenge Seeking
These studies also indicate the potential importance of young children’s beliefs
for challenge seeking. Studies 1 and 2 found that children who believed that making a
mistake had consequences for global badness were less likely to take on challenges.
Across both studies, the correlation between global beliefs and challenge seeking was
highly significant, r(113) = -.36, p < .001. As mentioned previously, this is an
intriguing new finding. While previous studies in the literature revealed the
importance of children’s beliefs for their reactions to challenging situations (with
greater endorsement of global beliefs correlated with helpless responses), these studies
suggest that children’s beliefs may play an important role in motivation even when
children are not encountering difficulty. In particular, children who endorse these
beliefs may avoid challenges for fear that failure may have global implications for
their self-worth. This is a promising direction for future research. Can children’s
global beliefs be reliably changed, and if so, does that have positive motivational
consequences?
This type of relationship may also be bidirectional, in which experiencing
challenges helps children develop more beneficial beliefs. Children may attempt a
challenging task, fail, but realize that this failure does not mean they are bad.
Intriguingly, longitudinal studies suggest that challenge seeking predicts an increase in
the belief that intelligence is malleable in older children (Pomerantz & Saxon, 2001).
Thus, beliefs that ability can change, and that mistakes do not imply global-self worth,
may make children more likely to take on challenges so that they can learn more, and
taking on challenges may also help foster these beneficial beliefs.
Motivation in Early Childhood
Finally, a recurring theme throughout these studies was the importance of age
in children’s challenge seeking and persistence. Age played an important role in
several studies, in three primary ways. First, there were often main effects of age
(Studies 1, 2, 3, and 5). Older children were often more challenge seeking, more
65
persistent, and gave explanations that were more likely to reference seeking challenge
and less likely to reference avoiding challenge. This is concordant with other research
suggesting that, at least during elementary school, children become more focused on
learning as they become older (Kinlaw & Kurtz-Costes, 2007). Over a longer period
of development, this may become a U-shaped curve, in which children increase in
motivation until early adolescence, when they show a decrease in motivation. Second,
age often showed an interaction with the effect of condition (Studies 1, 4, and 5). In
several studies with preschoolers, the treatment manipulation was more effective in
older children. Perhaps older preschool children are more attentive, more cognitively
advanced, and/or better able to generalize what they have learned in the story to their
own choices. Third, the pattern of results often differed by age. In particular,
preschool children in Study 1 showed effects on persistence only for the treatment
book involving the participating child. In contrast, kindergarten children in Study 2
showed effects on persistence regardless of which treatment book they heard.
Understanding how motivation relates to development in early childhood may be
extremely important.
Directions for Future Research
While the results of these five studies are encouraging, many questions remain
to be explored. First, is it possible to create storybooks that might change children’s
global beliefs? If so, could belief change in early childhood produce motivational
change, similar to the effects seen in older children with implicit beliefs about
intelligence (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007)? Future research should
examine books designed to change children’s beliefs to potentially make them more
willing to take on challenges and less afraid of failure.
Second, the results suggest that the effects can remain several weeks later in a
highly similar situation (e.g., same researcher, same room, same questions). How
robust are these effects precisely? Will the effects stay the same or become stronger
over even longer periods of time, as children experience positive consequences in the
real world from succeeding at difficult tasks? Will the effects generalize to new
situations with new people outside the laboratory? Further, would the stories be as
66
effective if parents read them to children in their home? Future studies could examine
the effects of sending the books home with children (or sending families new stories
every few weeks) to see whether involving parents in this process would successfully
increase challenge seeking. Other research could examine what parents could do to
help their children generalize from popular children’s books (such as “The Little
Engine That Could”). Could parents help their children generalize the moral of the
story (e.g., to take on challenges and persist), even from a highly dissimilar character?
A third important direction for future research is to establish in a controlled
setting a direct causal link between increased motivation (in terms of challenge
seeking and persistence) and learning. There is some converging evidence indicating
that increased motivation in children leads to improved learning (Cordova & Lepper,
1996; Master & Walton, 2011), but it would be valuable to demonstrate this in a
carefully controlled way for multiple age groups and across many types of learning
situations. For example, a future study could examine children’s learning at several
points in kindergarten (e.g., in literacy skills or math skills) to create growth curves in
how much children have learned, and explore whether challenge seeking facilitates
growth in learning.
Another issue to consider is how applicable results from laboratory studies are
to motivation in actual classrooms. Laboratory experiments may be missing factors
that could mediate or moderate effects, such as presence of peers and familiarity with
the task (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). However, studies that have been conducted in
classrooms or have examined long-term academic effects have found promising
results. For example, teachers who were trained to attribute children’s successes and
failures to effort, or who were trained to emphasize learning goals, improved their
students’ motivation (Fuchs, Fuchs, Karns, Hamlett, Katzaroff, & Dutka, 1997; Miller
et al., 1975; Thomas & Pashley, 1982). Similarly, many studies have looked at the
effects of computer programs or modules that could easily be incorporated into
classroom settings (Blackwell & Dweck, 2008; Cordova & Lepper, 1996). Finally,
several intervention studies have found long-term effects on older students’ motivation
and achievement (Walton & Cohen, 2007; Wilson & Linville, 1982). While
67
replicating the results of laboratory manipulations in real classroom settings is
important for future research, these studies provide encouraging results. In many
cases, seemingly simple interventions can have profound effects if they can change the
outcome of negative exacerbation cycles to allow students to reach their full potential
(Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master, 2006; Walton & Cohen, 2007).
Furthermore, as mentioned previously, future research should continue to
isolate the different elements of the storybooks (praise for effort, strategies for
persisting, and role models who cope with failure) to compare the effects of the
different components. For example, four different stories could be directly compared
within the same study: 1) the main character struggles and receives effort praise
(similar to Studies 1-4), 2) the main character succeeds and receives effort praise
(similar to Study 5), 3) the main character struggles but is not praised, and 4) the main
character succeeds and is not praised. Further studies could also examine the
effectiveness of combining each element with an explicit strategy for persisting (e.g.,
“I’m going to keep trying!”).
Such research would also help clarify how the different elements of the story
might interact (or potentially cancel each other out) in various situations. Does
combining motivational factors create additive effects (such that more factors are
better than fewer in boosting motivation)? Alternatively, might different factors
interact to produce even greater effects when combined? For example, perhaps
including both a description of the process of struggling and a strategy for how to
persist despite struggling gives children the tools to persist and the ability to recognize
when those tools are necessary. It is also possible that different motivational factors
might be redundant (producing no additive effects) or even work against each other.
That is, perhaps the struggling students in Study 2 would have chosen more
challenging tasks following a story involving effort praise that did not involve coping
with struggle, but the element of struggle in the story that they heard increased their
anxiety about failing at hard tasks. Other aspects of the story (besides the factors
emphasized in the Introduction) may also have affected the results, such as when
classmates praised the main character by saying, “You’re just like a big kid!” While
68
in many cases young children look up to older children, it is not clear whether that
statement conveys person-based praise (like “hard worker”) or implies growth. One
important direction for future motivational research is to gain a deeper understanding
of more complex manipulations and interventions.
Conclusion
This dissertation makes several potentially valuable contributions to our
knowledge of developmental psychology. First, it begins to bring findings from
cognitive development together with research on motivation. Previous research on
generalization in children has explored the factors that help children transfer what they
have learned in one situation to another situation. In the present case, this dissertation
applies this previous research to help children generalize increased motivation from a
story to themselves in a new learning situation. Previous research suggests that
increased similarity between situations helps children see the connections between
those situations (Crisafi & Brown, 1986). In this dissertation, the first study found
that preschool children were more likely to internalize the message of the story and
show increased persistence in a new situation when the main character of the story
was more similar to them. In addition to generalizing from the character to
themselves, children were also asked to generalize from the task in the story (puzzles)
to other activities. Although these effects were not discussed extensively, it is worth
noting that children were more likely to choose challenging tasks directly mentioned
in the story (puzzles) than other activities not mentioned in the story (building block
towers, playing games, drawing pictures, and singing songs). Further research could
more directly quantify this by asking children to rate how similar these other tasks are
to puzzles, and then examining whether children’s generalization of increased
challenge seeking to these activities varies based on the similarity between these
activities and puzzles. Thus, this research has the potential to encourage further
application of the tools of cognitive development to the field of motivation.
On a more practical level, these findings may impact the way researchers
investigate motivation in young children. The importance of challenge seeking and
persistence for academic success is clear, and interventions to increase the motivation
69
of older children have been quite successful (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck,
2007). However, experimental manipulations to increase the challenge seeking and
persistence of young children, and longitudinal studies to examine their long-term
effects, have not been conducted. Many large-scale interventions have positive results
but fail to measure motivation or to clarify the most critical variables that might have
brought about the results. Other longitudinal studies include motivation but cannot
make conclusions about causality. In contrast, the current research used controlled
experiments that can help clarify the most critical ingredients for increasing
motivation. Furthermore, many early childhood interventions involve a great deal of
time and money. In contrast, these studies examined whether a relatively brief
intervention could help children internalize greater challenge seeking and persistence.
Thus, this has the potential to become a small manipulation with large effects.
Another implication of these findings is the potential for introducing
motivational change through the vehicle of stories. While other studies have used
storybooks to create motivational change in young children (McArthur & Eisen,
1976), the studies presented here effectively demonstrated improvements in two key
aspects of motivation, challenge seeking and persistence, and showed that the effects
on challenge seeking over time may be robust and durable. These findings support the
idea of storybooks as useful pedagogical tools, as discussed in the Introduction, for
teaching children important principles, whether motivational or moral. When children
listen to stories, they pay attention not only to the plot of the story, but also to the
deeper meaning and implications of the story. When that meaning is relevant for them
personally, it may lead to changes in what they value and the choices that they make.
In addition, storybooks can communicate information in a way that is easy to
disseminate on a larger scale, creating the potential to reach many children efficiently.
Finally, this research has implications for educational settings as well. This
dissertation helps to clarify the most effective ways to increase challenge seeking and
persistence in young children. These findings have the potential to be used by
teachers in their communications to their own students. For example, teachers can
help to shape students’ self-perceptions by reminding them of times when they chose
70
hard tasks and persisted. Furthermore, by improving our understanding of the beliefs
that make children more vulnerable, we can help teachers identify which students may
need additional support and reassurance in learning situations. These findings suggest
that the academic context that children are in may have significant effects on their
challenge seeking—in particular, students who were in a remedial context were
particularly wary of taking on challenges (Study 2). One important task for
educational research is to continue to gain a better understanding of which factors may
be most helpful for students in particular contexts.
Motivation is one of the most important factors in lifelong success
(Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). However, differences in motivation
can be seen in young children as early as preschool. What are the long-term effects of
intervening on these differences in motivation? While longitudinal studies of this type
have not yet been done, the motivation literature does suggest that persistence and
challenge seeking tend to lead to more positive outcomes. If so, then teaching young
children to persist and choose challenges may have many benefits. Challenge seeking
and persistence in young children are also critical because children play a large role in
constructing their own trajectories through the choices they make (Lufi & Cohen,
1987; Scarr & McCartney, 1983). In the long run, students who consistently seek
challenge rather than not will have increased opportunities to learn and improve
(Ames & Archer, 1988; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999; Lepper & Greene,
1978). In contrast, when students give up easily, they may miss many opportunities to
reach their goals (Heyman & Dweck, 1992). Motivation can provide the necessary
force to sustain a life-long pursuit of challenge and learning.
71
Appendix A: Storybook Texts in Studies 1 and 2
Control Condition (Bold text indicates sentence spoken directly to child.)
[Name]’s parents (your parents) gave [him/her] two new bouncing balls for
[his/her] birthday. One was green. It had some stripes. The other one was red. It had
some dots. They looked like they would bounce really high! [S/He] thought, “Should
I try the green one or the red one?” [S/He] decided to try the green one. [S/He]
picked it up so [s/he] could play with it inside [his/her] playroom. [S/He] said,
“Should I play with it?” Let’s tell you to play with the ball! What do YOU think
you should do? [Name] said to [himself/herself], “I’ll play with the green one for a
little while.”
So [s/he] played with it. [S/He] took the ball outside to the backyard, and thought
about how to play with it. [S/He] threw it up in the air, then caught it. [S/He]
bounced it on the ground and then caught it in [his/her] hands. [Name] told [his/her]
parents (so you told your parents), “Thank you for the ball! I bounced it and caught
it.” [His/her] parents said, “We’re so glad that you like your birthday present.”
Finally [name] took the green ball back inside the house. [S/He] was glad that [s/he]
had [his/her] ball. [S/He] wanted to play some more. [S/He] tossed it down on the
ground. It bounced off the floor and went very high! [His/her] parents said, “We’re
glad that you’re playing with your ball.”
The next day [name] went to school. [His/her] teacher was giving out bouncing
balls. She put out a green one and a red one. Which one did [name] pick? [S/He]
picked the green one. Let’s ask [name] (so we’re going to ask you) why [s/he]
picked that one. “I picked the green one because I like to bounce green balls.” After
that, [s/he] bounced the ball high in the air. All the other kids said, “Wow, [name]
picked the green ball! [S/He] bounced it high! [S/He’s] just like the big kids! Wow!”
and [name] smiled.
Treatment Condition: Animal
72
Little Bird’s parents gave [him/her] two new puzzles for [his/her] birthday. One
was easy. It only had a few pieces. One was hard. It had a lot of pieces. [S/he]
thought, “Should I try the easy puzzle or the hard puzzle?” [S/he] decided to try the
hard puzzle. [S/he] picked up a piece, but [s/he] didn’t know where it went. Little
Bird said, “Uh-oh, this is too hard!” [His/Her] parents said, “Just try! You’ll see what
happens.” Let’s tell Little Bird to keep trying! What do YOU think Little Bird
should do? Little Bird said to [himself/herself], “I’ll just keep trying, and I’ll see
what happens.”
So [s/he] tried. [S/he] picked up another piece, and thought about where to put it.
[S/he] tried it in one place, then another. [S/he] turned it around and tried it the other
way. But [s/he] still couldn’t quite do it. [His/Her] parents said, “You’re just like a
big kid! You’re trying hard things. That makes our hearts feel happy.” Finally [s/he]
saw where to put that piece. “I figured it out!” said Little Bird. [S/he] felt proud for
picking the hard puzzle and trying so hard. [S/he] tried another piece. That one was
even harder, but [s/he] kept trying! Little Bird told [his/her] parents, “I didn’t give up!
I’m learning something hard, and that makes me feel happy.” [His/Her] parents said,
“We’re so proud that you’re trying something hard.”
The next day Little Bird went to school. [His/Her] teacher was giving out puzzles.
She put out an easy puzzle and a hard puzzle. Which one did Little Bird pick?
[S/he] picked the hard one. Let’s ask Little Bird why [s/he] picked that one. “I
picked the hard one because I like to try and I like to learn.” After that, [s/he] tried a
lot of hard puzzles. All the other kids said, “Wow, Little Bird picked the hard ones!
[S/he] worked hard on them, and [s/he] got the pieces! [S/he’s] just like the big kids!
Wow!” and Little Bird smiled.
Treatment Condition: Another Child
Taylor’s parents gave [him/her] two new puzzles for [his/her] birthday. One was
easy. It only had a few pieces. One was hard. It had a lot of pieces. [S/He] thought,
“Should I try the easy puzzle or the hard puzzle?” [S/He] decided to try the hard
puzzle. [S/He] picked up a piece, but [s/he] didn’t know where it went. Taylor said,
73
“Uh-oh, this is too hard!” [His/her] parents said, “Just try! You’ll see what happens.”
Let’s tell Taylor to keep trying! What do YOU think Taylor should do? Taylor
said to [himself/herself], “I’ll just keep trying, and I’ll see what happens.”
So [s/he] tried. [S/He] picked up another piece, and thought about where to put it.
[S/He] tried it in one place, then another. [S/He] turned it around and tried it the other
way. But [s/he] still couldn’t quite do it. [His/her] parents said, “You’re just like a
big kid! You’re trying hard things. That makes our hearts feel happy.” Finally [s/he]
saw where to put that piece. “I figured it out!” said Taylor. [S/He] felt proud for
picking the hard puzzle and trying so hard. [S/He] tried another piece. That one was
even harder, but [s/he] kept trying! Taylor told [his/her] parents, “I didn’t give up!
I’m learning something hard, and that makes me feel happy.” [His/her] parents said,
“We’re so proud that you’re trying something hard.”
The next day Taylor went to school. [His/her] teacher was giving out puzzles.
She put out an easy puzzle and a hard puzzle. Which one did Taylor pick? [S/He]
picked the hard one. Let’s ask Taylor why [s/he] picked that one. “I picked the
hard one because I like to try and I like to learn.” After that, [s/he] tried a lot of hard
puzzles. All the other kids said, “Wow, Taylor picked the hard ones! [S/He] worked
hard on them, and [s/he] got the pieces! [S/He’s] just like the big kids! Wow!” and
Taylor smiled.
Treatment Condition: Participant
[Name]’s parents (your parents) gave [him/her] two new puzzles for [his/her]
birthday. One was easy. It only had a few pieces. One was hard. It had a lot of
pieces. [S/He] thought, “Should I try the easy puzzle or the hard puzzle?” [S/He]
decided to try the hard puzzle. [S/He] picked up a piece, but she didn’t know where it
went. [Name] said, “Uh-oh, this is too hard!” [His/Her] parents said, “Just try!
You’ll see what happens.” Let’s tell you to keep trying! What do YOU think you
should do? [Name] said to [himself/herself], “I’ll just keep trying, and I’ll see what
happens.”
74
So [s/he] tried. [S/He] picked up another piece, and thought about where to put it.
[S/He] tried it in one place, then another. [S/He] turned it around and tried it the other
way. But [s/he] still couldn’t quite do it. [His/Her] parents said, “You’re just like a
big kid! You’re trying hard things. That makes our hearts feel happy.” Finally [s/he]
saw where to put that piece. “I figured it out!” said [name]. [S/He] felt proud for
picking the hard puzzle and trying so hard. [S/He] tried another piece. That one was
even harder, but [s/he] kept trying! [Name] told [his/her] parents (so you told your
parents), “I didn’t give up! I’m learning something hard, and that makes me feel
happy.” [His/Her] parents said, “We’re so proud that you’re trying something hard.”
The next day [name] went to school. [His/Her] teacher was giving out puzzles.
She put out an easy puzzle and a hard puzzle. Which one did [name] pick? [S/He]
picked the hard one. Let’s ask [name] (so we’re going to ask you) why [s/he]
picked that one. “I picked the hard one because I like to try and I like to learn.”
After that, [s/he] tried a lot of hard puzzles. All the other kids said, “Wow, [name]
picked the hard ones! [S/he] worked hard on them, and [s/he] got the pieces! [S/he’s]
just like the big kids! Wow!” and [name] smiled.
75
Appendix B: Storybook Texts in Study 5
Control Condition
One day, [name] went to school. [S/he] decided to do an elephant puzzle.
[S/he] put in the ears, the nose, and the tail. [S/he] kept putting pieces in. Then [s/he]
finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the
pieces in the puzzle!”
Then [s/he] decided to do a snail puzzle. [S/he] found all the pieces of the
shell and put those pieces together. Then [s/he] finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher
looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle!”
Next, [s/he] decided to do a dinosaur puzzle. [S/he] put in the sharp teeth and
the big tail. Then [s/he] put in the rest of the pieces. [His/her] teacher looked at the
puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle!”
You did the puzzle of the elephant, the puzzle of the snail, and the puzzle of
the dinosaur!
Person Praise
One day, [name] went to school. [S/he] decided to do an elephant puzzle.
[S/he] put in the ears, the nose, and the tail. [S/he] kept putting pieces in. Then [s/he]
finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the
pieces in the puzzle! You must be really good at puzzles.”
Then [s/he] decided to do a snail puzzle. [S/he] found all the pieces of the
shell and put those pieces together. Then [s/he] finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher
looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must be
really good at puzzles.”
Next, [s/he] decided to do a dinosaur puzzle. [S/he] put in the sharp teeth and
the big tail. Then [s/he] put in the rest of the pieces. [His/her] teacher looked at the
puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must be really good at
puzzles.”
76
You did the puzzle of the elephant, the puzzle of the snail, and the puzzle of
the dinosaur. You must be really good at puzzles!
Person/Process Praise
One day, [name] went to school. [S/he] decided to do an elephant puzzle.
[S/he] put in the ears, the nose, and the tail. [S/he] kept putting pieces in. Then [s/he]
finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the
pieces in the puzzle! You must be a really hard worker at puzzles.”
Then [s/he] decided to do a snail puzzle. [S/he] found all the pieces of the
shell and put those pieces together. Then [s/he] finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher
looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must be a
really hard worker at puzzles.”
Next, [s/he] decided to do a dinosaur puzzle. [S/he] put in the sharp teeth and
the big tail. Then [s/he] put in the rest of the pieces. [His/her] teacher looked at the
puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must be a really hard
worker at puzzles.”
You did the puzzle of the elephant, the puzzle of the snail, and the puzzle of
the dinosaur. You must be a really hard worker at puzzles!
Process Praise
One day, [name] went to school. [S/he] decided to do an elephant puzzle.
[S/he] put in the ears, the nose, and the tail. [S/he] kept putting pieces in. Then [s/he]
finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the
pieces in the puzzle! You must have worked really hard at the puzzle.”
Then [s/he] decided to do a snail puzzle. [S/he] found all the pieces of the
shell and put those pieces together. Then [s/he] finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher
looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must have
worked really hard at the puzzle.”
Next, [s/he] decided to do a dinosaur puzzle. [S/he] put in the sharp teeth and
the big tail. Then [s/he] put in the rest of the pieces. [His/her] teacher looked at the
77
puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must have worked really
hard at the puzzle.”
You did the puzzle of the elephant, the puzzle of the snail, and the puzzle of
the dinosaur. You must have worked really hard at the puzzles!
78
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’
learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D.,
Linz, D., et al. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. American
Psychologist, 4, 81-110.
Applebee, A. N. (1978). The child’s concept of story. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation in university
students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 430-446.
Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psychologist, 54, 875-
884.
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Effect of the severity of threat on the
devaluation of forbidden behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66, 584-588.
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, 113-125.
Baayen, R. M., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with
crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and
Language, 59, 390-412.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating
behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and
intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., Stechuk, R., &
79
Burns, S. (2008). Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: A
randomized trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 299-313.
Bates, D. M., & Sarkar, D. (2007). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4
classes (R package Version 0.999375-38) [Computer software]. Retrieved
from http://www.R-project.org.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive
dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183-200.
Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Kaplan, A. (2005). Motivational influences on transfer of
problem-solving strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 1-22.
Berhenke, A. L., Lan, X., & Morrison, F. J. (2011, March). Motivation or self-
regulation? Exploring the nature of persistence during a challenging task.
Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Montreal, Canada.
Bettelheim, B. (1976). The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy
tales. London: Thames and Hudson.
Bird, J. E., & Thompson, G. B. (1986). Understanding of the dimensional terms ‘easy’
and ‘hard’ in the self-evaluation of competence. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 9, 343-357.
Blackwell, L. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). The motivational impact of a computer-
based program that teaches how the brain changes with learning. Unpublished
manuscript.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of
intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal
study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263.
Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Brown, A. L. (1989). Analogical learning and transfer: What develops? In S.
Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 369-
412). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges
80
in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
Brown, A. L., & Kane, M. J. (1988). Preschool children can learn to transfer: Learning
to learn and learning from example. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 493-523.
Bryan, C., & Master, A. (2011). Little helpers: Nouns motivate young children’s
helping behavior more than verbs. Manuscript in preparation, Stanford
University.
Burhans, K. K., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The role of
contingent worth. Child Development, 66, 1719-1738.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and self-regulation. In
E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism & pessimism: Implications for theory, research,
and practice (pp. 31-51). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Chen, Z. (1999). Schema induction in children’s analogical problem solving. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 91, 703-715.
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of
the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098-1120.
Chen, Z., Yanowitz, K. L., & Daehler, M. W. (1995). Constraints on accessing
abstract source information: Instantiation of principles facilitates children’s
analogical transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 445-454.
Child, I. L. (1946). Children’s preference for goals easy or difficult to obtain.
Psychological Monographs, 60, No. 4.
Child, I. L., & Adelsheim, E. (1944). The motivational value of barriers for young
children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 65, 97-111.
Child, I. L., Potter, E. H., & Levine, E. M. (1946). Children’s textbooks and
personality development. Psychological Monographs, 60, No. 3.
Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and attitude change.
Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 357-404.
Cimpian, A. (2010). The impact of generic language about ability on children’s
achievement motivation. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1333-1340.
81
Cimpian, A., Arce, H. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic
cues affect children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314-316.
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of
audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 245-
264.
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial
achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307-
1310.
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009).
Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority
achievement gap. Science, 324, 400-403.
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of
learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715-730.
Crisafi, M. A., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Analogical transfer in very young children:
Combining two separately learned solutions to reach a goal. Child
Development, 57, 953-968.
Curie, M. (1921). The discovery of radium, address by Madame M. Curie at Vassar
College. Poughkeepsie, NY: Vassar College.
Danner, F. W., & Lonky, E. (1981). A cognitive-developmental approach to the
effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 52, 1043-1052.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program
improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387-1388.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit:
Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92, 1087-1101.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality,
82
and development. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on
motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 199-235). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in personality, motivation, and
development. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Edison, T. A. (1948). The diary and sundry observations of Thomas Alva Edison. New
York: Greenwood Press.
Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance:
Evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science, 18, 978-983.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement
goals and intrinsic motivation: A meditational analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.
Feather, N. T. (1962). The study of persistence. Psychological Bulletin, 59, 94-115.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced
compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998).
Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice
strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 218-233.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., Katzaroff, M., & Dutka, S. (1997).
Effects of task-focused goals on low-achieving students with and without
learning disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 513-543.
Ganea, P. A., Pickard, M. B., & DeLoache, J. S. (2008). Transfer between picture
books and the real world by very young children. Journal of Cognition and
Development, 9, 46-66.
Gentner, D., & Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the
development of analogy. Cognitive Science, 10, 277-300.
Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in
83
disadvantaged children. Science, 312, 1900-1902.
Helmreich, R. L., Beane, W., Lucker, G. W., & Spence, J. T. (1978). Achievement
motivation and scientific attainment. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 4, 222-226.
Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation:
Their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion,
16, 231-247.
Heyman, G. D., Dweck, C. S., & Cain, K. M. (1992). Young children’s vulnerability
to self-blame and helplessness: Relationship to beliefs about goodness. Child
Development, 63, 401-415.
Higgins, E. T., & Rholes, W. S. (1978). “Saying is believing”: Effects of message
modification on memory and liking for the person described. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 363-378.
Holyoak, K. J., Junn, E. N., & Billman, D. O. (1984). Development of analogical
problem-solving skill. Child Development, 55, 2042-2055.
Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories,
attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 588-599.
Hovland, C. I. (1951). Changes in attitude through communication. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 424-437.
Janis, I. L., & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 211-218.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Brickman, P. (1982). Expectations and what people learn from
failure. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value
models in psychology (pp. 207-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation
or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59,
434-446.
Jennings, K. D., Connors, R. E., & Stegman, C. E. (1988). Does a physical handicap
alter the development of mastery motivation during the preschool years?
84
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27,
312-317.
Jennings, K. D., & Dietz, L. J. (2003). Mastery motivation and goal persistence in
young children. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes & K. A.
Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp.
295-309). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jose, P. E., & Brewer, W. F. (1984). Development of story liking: Character
identification, suspense, and outcome resolution. Developmental Psychology,
20, 911-924.
Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism:
Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology,
35, 835-847.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal
orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141-184.
Keister, M. E. (1943). The behavior of young children in failure. In R. G. Barker, J. S.
Kounin, & H. F. Wright (Eds.), Child behavior and development: A course of
representative studies (pp. 439-440). New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Kinlaw, C. R., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2007). Children’s theories of intelligence: Beliefs,
goals, and motivation in the elementary years. Journal of General Psychology,
134, 295-311.
Kistner, J. A., Ziegert, D. I., Castro, R., & Robertson, B. (2001). Helplessness in early
childhood: Prediction of symptoms associated with depression and negative
self-worth. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 336-354.
Kohlberg, L. (1994). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. In B. Puka (Ed.), Moral development: Defining perspectives in
moral development (Vol. 1, pp. 1-134). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Kun, A. (1977). Development of the magnitude-covariation and compensation
schemata in ability and effort attributions of performance. Child Development,
48, 862-873.
85
Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic
correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184-196.
Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1978). Overjustification research and beyond: Toward a
means-ends analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. R. Lepper &
D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the
psychology of human motivation (pp. 109-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic
interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.
Lepper, M. R., & Woolverton, M. (2002). The wisdom of practice: Lessons learned
from the study of highly effective tutors. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving
academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 135-
158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lepper, M. R., Yow, W. Q., & Master, A. (2011). [Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
orientations in the classroom.] Unpublished data, Stanford University.
Lufi, D., & Cohen, A. (1987). A scale for measuring persistence in children. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 51, 178-185.
Luster, T., & McAdoo, H. (1996). Family and child influences on educational
attainment: A secondary analysis of the High/Scope Perry preschool data.
Developmental Psychology, 32, 26-39.
Lütkenhaus, P. (1984). Pleasure derived from mastery in three-year-olds: Its function
for persistence and the influence of maternal behavior. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 7, 343-358.
Maccoby, E. E., & Wilson, W. C. (1957). Identification and observational learning
from films. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 55, 76-87.
Marigold, D. C., Holmes, J. G., & Ross, M. (2007). More than words: Reframing
compliments from romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteem
individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 232-248.
86
Martin, A. J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a
multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33,
239-269.
Marum, E. (1996). Reading more than print. In E. Marum (Ed.), Children and books in
the modern world: Contemporary perspectives on literacy (pp. 141-145).
London: The Falmer Press.
Master, A., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Perceived group membership increases task
motivation and learning in young children. Manuscript in preparation,
Stanford University.
McArthur, L. Z., & Eisen, S.V. (1976). Achievement of male and female storybook
characters as determinants of achievement behavior by boys and girls. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 467-473.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand
Company, Inc.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfield, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations
and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 514-523.
Miller, R. L., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. (1975). Attribution versus persuasion as a
means for modifying behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
31, 430-441.
Miller, P. J., Wiley, A. R., Fung, H., & Liang, C.-H. (1997). Personal storytelling as a
medium of socialization in Chinese and American families. Child
Development, 68, 557-568.
Mischel, W., & Patterson, C. J. (1976). Substantive and structural elements of
effective plans for self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
34, 942-950.
Morgan, G. A., Harmon, R. J., & Maslin-Cole, C. A. (1990). Mastery motivation:
Definition and measurement. Early Education and Development, 1, 318-339.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation
and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
87
Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability,
perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks
require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814.
Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Quality and equality in intellectual development: The role of
motivation in education. American Psychologist, 34, 1071-1084.
Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents’ theories of
education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683-692.
Nichols, A. L., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (1991). The effects of children’s goal
structures and performance feedback on mood, task choice, and task
persistence. Behavior Therapy, 22, 491-503.
Patterson, M. M., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Preschool children’s attention to
environmental messages about groups: Social categorization and the origins of
intergroup bias. Child Development, 77, 847-860.
Patterson, C. J., & Mischel, W. (1975). Plans to resist distraction. Developmental
Psychology, 11, 369-378.
Patterson, C. J., & Mischel, W. (1976). Effects of temptation-inhibiting and task-
facilitating plans on self-control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 33, 209-217.
Perry, L. K., Samuelson, L. K., Malloy, L. M., & Schiffer, R. N. (2010). Learn locally,
think globally: Exemplar variability supports higher-order generalization and
word learning. Psychological Science, 21, 1894-1902.
Phillips, M., Crouse, J., & Ralph, J. (1998). Does the black-white test score gap widen
after children enter school? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips, The black-white test
score gap (pp. 229-272). Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc.
Piaget, J. (1977). Problems of equilibration. In M. H. Appel & L. S. Goldberg (Eds.),
Topics in cognitive development, Volume 1: Equilibration: Theory, research,
and application (pp. 3-13). New York: Plenum Press.
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
88
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 667-686.
Piper, W. (1930). The little engine that could. New York: Platt & Munk.
Pomerantz, E. M., & Saxon, J. L. (2001). Conceptions of ability as stable and self-
evaluative processes: A longitudinal examination. Child Development, 72, 152-
173.
Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2006). Motivational influences on transfer. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 147-160.
Quattrone, G. A. (1985). On the congruity between internal states and action.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 3-40.
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A
theory of genotype to environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424-435.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A
self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105.
Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer-model attributes and
children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54-
61.
Sigman, M., Cohen, S. E., Beckwith, L., & Topinka, C. (1987). Task persistence in 2-
year-old preterm infants in relation to subsequent attentiveness and
intelligence. Infant Behavior and Development, 10, 295-305.
Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goals
among young children. Child Development, 65, 1723-1743.
Stipek, D. J. (2001). Pathways to constructive behavior: Importance of academic
achievement in early elementary grades. In A. Bohart & D. Stipek (Eds.),
Constructive and destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, and
society (pp. 291-315). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Stipek, D. J. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Stipek, D. J., & Greene, J. K. (2001). Achievement motivation in early childhood:
Cause for concern or celebration? In S. Golbeck (Ed.), Psychological
89
perspectives on early childhood education: Reframing dilemmas in research
and practice (pp. 64-91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, A., & Pashley, B. (1982). Effects of classroom training on LD students’ task
persistence and attributions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 133-144.
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding
and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 28, 675-735.
Tsai, J. L., Louie, J. Y., Chen, E. E., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Learning what feelings to
desire: Socialization of ideal affect through children’s storybooks. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 17-30.
Van Dulken, S. (2000). Inventing the 20th century: 100 inventions that shaped the
world. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Vasquez, N. A., & Buehler, R. (2007). Seeing future success: Does imagery
perspective influence achievement motivation? Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1392-1405.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82-96.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Students’ motivation during the middle school
years. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of
psychological factors on education (pp. 159-184). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Williams, J. J., & Lombrozo, T. (2010). The role of explanation in discovery and
generalization: Evidence from category learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 776-
806.
Wilson, T. D. (1990). Self-persuasion via self-reflection. In J. M. Olson & M. P.
Zanna (Eds.), Self-inference processes: The Ontario symposium, Volume 6, pp.
43-67. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1982). Improving the academic performance of
college freshmen: Attribution therapy revisited. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 367-376.
90
Woodhead, M. (1988). When psychology informs public policy: The case of early
childhood intervention. American Psychologist, 43, 443-454.
Zentall, S. R., & Morris, B. J. (2010). “Good job, you’re so smart”: The effects of
inconsistency of praise type on young children’s motivation. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 155-163.
91
Table 1. Challenge seeking scale, Studies 1 and 2.
Puzzle Choices
1. This puzzle is hard and this puzzle is easy. I might give you this one or this one. Which one do you want to do?
2. This puzzle you won’t have to work so much to finish, and this puzzle you’ll have to really work a lot. I might give you this one or this one. Which one do you want to do?
3. This puzzle will take a long time to finish, and this one you can do quickly. I might give you this one or this one. Which one do you want to do?
4. This puzzle has just a few pieces and this puzzle has lots of pieces. I might give you this one or this one. Which one do you want to do?
Activity Choices
1. Now, instead of puzzles, there are two songs I could teach you. One song is hard to learn and one song is easy. Which one do you want to learn?
2. I have one picture that’s easy to color and one picture that’s hard to color. Which one do you want to color?
3. I have some blocks that make a tower that’s hard to build and some blocks that make a tower that’s easy to build. Which one would you rather build?
4. I have one game that’s easy to play and one game that’s hard to play. Which one would you rather play?
92
Table 2. Summary of results.
CHALLENGE SEEKING
PERSISTENCE MOTIVATION composite
Study 1: 3 treatment vs. control
p = .003
p = .085
p = .039
Study 2: 3 treatment vs. control
n.s.
p = .004
p = .009
Study 3: 2 treatment vs. control (controlling for age)
p = .021
Study 4: Time 1 treatment vs. control
p = .12
Time 3 treatment vs. control p = .026
Study 5: process praise vs. control
p = .015
p = .13
p = .027
93
Table 3. Helmert style contrasts for condition, Studies 1 and 2. Contrast 1 Contrast 2 Contrast 3 Control -3 0 0 Animal 1 -1 -1 Another child 1 -1 1 Participating child 1 2 0
94
Table 4. Effects of condition on puzzle and activity choices separately, and pre-challenge and post-challenge choices.
PUZZLE Choices
ACTIVITY Choices
PRE- Challenge
POST- Challenge
Study 1: 3 treatment vs. control
p = .003
p = .014
N/A
N/A
Study 2: 3 treatment vs. control
n.s.
n.s.
N/A
N/A
Study 3: 2 treatment vs. control (controlling for age)
p = .031
p = .012
p = .011
p = .077
Study 4: Time 1 treatment vs. control
p = .20
p = .11
p = .20
p = .14
Time 3 treatment vs. control p = .065 p = .023 p = .036 p = .032
Study 5: process praise vs. control
p = .012
p = .072
N/A
N/A
95
Table 5. Effects on children’s open-ended explanations for their choices.
Challenge-SEEKING Challenge-AVOIDING Study 1: 3 treatment vs. control
p = .012
p = .077
Study 2: 3 treatment vs. control
n.s.
n.s.
Study 3: 2 treatment vs. control (controlling for age)
p = .033
p = .001
Study 4: Time 1 treatment vs. control
p = .022
p = .15
Time 3 treatment vs. control p = .032 p = .018
Study 5: process praise vs. control
n.s.
n.s.
96
Table 6. Effects of condition on length of time persisted (for children who quit) and number of puzzle pieces correctly placed.
Length of Time before Quit
Correct Puzzle Pieces
Study 1: Participating child vs. other conditions
n.s.
p = .020 Study 2: 3 treatment vs. control
n.s.
p = .13 Study 5: process praise vs. control
p = .07
p = .07
97
Figure 1. Challenge seeking, Study 1. The control condition was significantly different from the other conditions. Error bars represent +1 standard error.
99
Figure 3. Persistence, Study 1. The participating child condition was significantly different from the other conditions.
100
Figure 4. Motivation composite, Study 1. The participating child condition was significantly different from the control and animal conditions.
102
Figure 6. Persistence, Study 2. The control condition was significantly different from the treatment conditions.
103
Figure 7. Motivation composite, Study 2. The control condition was significantly different from the treatment conditions.
105
Figure 9. Challenge seeking by age (older or younger than 4 years, 8 months), Study 3. (Note that all of the younger children in the control condition chose all easy tasks.)
106
Figure 10. Challenge seeking, Study 4, Time 1. The treatment conditions showed a trend toward being higher than the control conditions.
107
Figure 11. Challenge seeking, Study 4, Time 3. The treatment conditions were significantly different from the control conditions.
108
Figure 12. Interaction between booster and age on challenge seeking for children in the treatment condition, Study 4.