IMPLICIT THEORIES AND THEIR ROLE IN JUDGMENTS AND REACTIONS - A WORLDFROM 2 PERSPECTIVES

In this target article, we present evidence for a new model of individ ual differences in judgments and reactions. The model holds that peopl e's implicit theories about human attributes structure the way they un derstand and react to human actions and outcomes. We review research s howing that when people believe that attributes (such as intelligence or moral character) are fixed, trait-like entities (an entity theory), they tend to understand outcomes and actions in terms of these fixed traits (''I failed the test because I am dumb'' or ''He stole the brea d because he is dishonest''). In contrast, when people believe that at tributes are more dynamic, malleable, and developable (an incremental theory), they tend refocus less on broad traits and, instead, tend to understand outcomes and actions in terms of more specific behavioral o r psychological mediators (''I failed the test because of my effort or strategy'' or ''He stole the bread because he was desperate''). The t wo frameworks also appear to foster different reactions: helpless vers us mastery-oriented responses to personal setbacks and an emphasis on retribution versus education or rehabilitation for transgressions. The se findings are discussed in terms of their implications for personali ty, motivation, and social perception.