I have written before about Martin Seligman’s discovery of the phenomenon of learned helplessness. His experiments demonstrated that when animals or people are subjected to unavoidable pain or distress, around two-thirds of subjects seem to lose the capacity to take advantage of subsequent opportunities to improve their situation. The remaining one-third, however, are immune to the effect.
Seligman’s experiments were important because they proved that an individual’s mindset is an important factor in influencing behaviour, an idea which had been rejected by mainstream psychology up to that point. Seligman’s subsequent work in defining the explanatory styles that both led to learned helplessness and provided immunity to it led to the development of methods of treatment, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, which could be used to change an individual’s core beliefs and, thus, avoid extreme effects, such clinical depression.

Carol Dweck
At the time of this ‘cognitive’ revolution in psychology, Carol Dweck was a graduate student at Yale. She was particularly interested in how Seligman’s observations could be interpreted in an educational context. She was aware that some children seemed to be paralysed by failure, while others were motivated by it. Based on her research, she developed a theory that a student’s belief regarding whether his or her abilities were fixed or subject to change was crucial to educational development. The differences between the ‘fixed’ and ‘growth’ mindsets are clearly illustrated by this diagram.
In a breakthrough study in 1975 she took a group of elementary school students who were having difficulties with mathematical problems. Half of the group were coached to believe that their brains worked like muscles, which could grow stronger with more effort, and that working hard would enable them to solve the problems. The other ‘control group’ did not receive the training. The group that received the growth-mindset coaching quickly made progress, learning to solve the problems which continued to elude the uncoached control group.
Dweck found that it wasn’t just failure itself that created learning difficulties for children with fixed mindsets. Among successful pupils, fear of failure was also a potential problem. When fixed-mindset kids were told how smart they were, this seemed to create a disincentive for them to learn more, in case future failure tarnished their ’smart’ image. In his article The Talent Myth, which chronicles how an unrestrained ‘talent culture’ led to the collapse of Enron, Malcolm Gladwell describes an experiment of Dweck’s which highlights how the fixed-mindset can lead talented individuals astray:-
Dweck gave a class of preadolescent students a test filled with challenging problems. After they were finished, one group was praised for its effort and another group was praised for its intelligence. Those praised for their intelligence were reluctant to tackle difficult tasks, and their performance on subsequent tests soon began to suffer. Then Dweck asked the children to write a letter to students at another school, describing their experience in the study. She discovered something remarkable: forty per cent of those students who were praised for their intelligence lied about how they had scored on the test, adjusting their grade upward. They weren’t naturally deceptive people, and they weren’t any less intelligent or self-confident than anyone else. They simply did what people do when they are immersed in an environment that celebrates them solely for their innate “talent.” They begin to define themselves by that description, and when times get tough and that self-image is threatened they have difficulty with the consequences.
Dweck’s conclusion based on her research is that teachers and parents who praise children for their talents rather than their efforts could lead them to fear and avoid failure, rather than seeing it as a necessary part of the learning process. As the extract from Gladwell’s essay shows, in extreme cases, it can even encourage them to lie rather than admit to failure.
In recent decades the importance of a child’s self-esteem in educational achievement has had a strong influence on teaching methods. Dweck argues, however, that a ’self-esteem at all costs’ approach has diluted standards and left many children unchallenged and afraid to fail. Students may have felt good about themselves, but at the cost of lowered academic standards. Dweck emphasises the need to teach children that failure is part of the learning process, and that self-esteem is the by-product of overcoming challenges.
Dweck, who is now a professor of psychology at the University of Stanford, has provided an excellent overview of her work in her 2006 book Mindset. The book looks at the influence of mindset not only on education and parenting, but also in many other contexts including relationships, business and sports.
One important theme of the book is how an obsession with ‘natural’ talent can create barriers to those with fixed mindsets. Like Dweck, Malcolm Gladwell doesn’t believe in ‘The Natural’. In his most recent book, ‘Outliers’, he analyses a number of so-called natural talents including Bill Gates and The Beatles to show that their success was a result good fortune and hard work, without which talent alone would never have cut it. Gladwell quotes a rule of thumb of 10,000 hours of practice as a minimum for someone to become an expert in their chosen field, regardless of natural ability. Even Mozart, the most frequently cited child-prodigy, did not produce any masterpieces until he reached his twenties. Dweck believes that fixed mindsets inhibit people from finding out their true potential in a particular field because they perceive themselves as having not having enough natural talent to begin with.
The good news from Dweck’s research is that she has found that changing from one mindset to the other is quite easy given the right training. She has developed ‘Brainology‘, an online training course for schoolchildren, and also runs courses for business managers. Dweck has even become involved in sports psychology, working with English soccer team Blackburn Rovers and lecturing to the Scottish soccer establishment, including Scotland manager George Burley.
Thinking about how the concept of mindset applies to myself has been an interesting and surprising exercise for me. Looking at failure as a growth process has helped me to remain positive in the face of repeated rejection in the current job market. I also found that, upon reflection, I wasn’t quite as much of a ‘growth-mindset’ guy as I thought I was. I even noticed myself developing a fixed mindset about my possession of a growth mindset! I found that the further a growth mindset drives you forward, the bigger the risk of falling into a fixed mindset based on pride at one’s accomplishments.
The ultimate message from Dweck’s work is that defining oneself in concrete terms in any aspect of our lives puts limits on our potential, even if the definition is a positive one. By learning to enjoy the voyage of discovery on its own terms, including the opportunities for growth provided by the setbacks along the way, we can have a more fulfilling life with more potential for learning and achievement.


10 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 14, 2009 at 10:32 pm
transorz
Leif, I’m not sure how things are in the UK or Canada, but here in the States an irrational fear of child abduction among parents has led to a generation of kids who aren’t allowed outside to play independently. When I was a kid, we would leave the house on Saturday morning and reappear dirty and hungry 12 hours later. I wonder whether this is leading to another kind of learned helplessness — a terrible lack of self-reliance — in kids.
April 15, 2009 at 10:39 am
anewleif
Hi transorz,
Thanks for your comment. It appears to be the same in Canada, and it is certainly the case in the UK, where crime statistics show that there in no increased danger to children, just a greater perceived danger due to press hysteria. The story of Madeleine McCann (I don’t know if it reached the US, but it hogged the headlines literally for months in the UK) is case in point of the media’s obsession with these stories to saturation point. Although this phenomenon may not relate directly to learned helplessness in the context mentioned in the article, it does represent another area where children are being deprived of opportunities to learn at first hand about the world around them and the enjoyable challenges it can provide.
April 15, 2009 at 4:13 pm
transorz
So I guess discussing the “learned helplessness” of pretty girls who get guys to do everything for them is OT also, huh?
April 15, 2009 at 5:46 pm
anewleif
I guess it pairs with the “learned helpfulness” of guys looking to get on the good side of the same pretty girls. No study needed to confirm these behaviours!
April 19, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Lumpy
Mr Loader I very much enjoyed you article and wish it could apply to all children as you well know Tommy’s mindset is all over the place and as everyone outside of his school and family consider children like him as failures and a strain on local authorities purse strings.
The Local education authority have realeased a story in the Evening Advert a few weeks back saying that they want to take all children with Speacial needs and move them all back into mainstream. They stated in the story that they feel that the children would benefit from the social interaction in the main stream inviroment. The truth is that as always they do not give a dam about the children or there well being it comes down to money at the moment it cost the council £2000 a year per child to send them to main stream and children like Tommy cost the council £24000 a year so it doesn’t take a genius to see why they want to move them.
On the Mind set front it would destroy any positive out look they have as they would be classed as outsiders by all the other children, the average child with special needs is 3-4 years behind their piers so they will get picked on for being slower or in thier minds stupid in comparison. It is hard enough now a days for so called normal children all over the world to fit in and find there little corner that they can feel relaxed enough to grow and learn how are children who get dealt a bad hand going to be able to cope with all that and there own individual needs.
All the information in the world at the touch of our fingers but a large amount of most populations are still ignorant to any body who they see as different. Such a shame.
April 19, 2009 at 8:34 pm
anewleif
Hi Dave,
Similar to the ‘Care in the Community’ initiative, I agree that the move to integrate special needs kids into the regular school system can be nothing but financially motivated. Tommy would inevitably be judged by both teachers and fellow pupils against a ‘normal’ standard which the regular school system is not designed to enable him to attain. To expect him to benefit from the social interaction in the mainstream environment is unrealistic and, frankly, dishonest on the council’s part. I certainly hope that there is a rethink and Tommy gets the assistance appropriate to his needs.
Cheers,
Kevin
April 20, 2009 at 2:14 am
Lumpy
Hi Kevin, i know you do and i wish that the people in the position of power weren’t always so bottom line driven. I found the article really interesting and thought there is some basics things we could all take away to help ourselves and even our children to nudge them along the right path. I wish it could be that easy for Tommy and his kind. As always Kevin i Am am avid reader and loving your work cheers Dave
April 20, 2009 at 10:19 am
transorz
This discussion about “Care in the Community” interests me. Don’t know whether you are familiar with the Individual with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) here in the States but I’m wondering if what you are talking about is an equivalent movement in Canada.
Is there a sense that Carol Dweck’s research undermines the arguments in support of what U.S. educators now call “Inclusion” (formerly mainstreaming, formerly normalization) of special needs students in public schooling?
April 20, 2009 at 11:14 am
anewleif
Hi transorz. Care in the Community was a UK government policy to remove mental health patients from institutions and put them back into the community. The initiative may have saved public money, but at the cost of a greatly reduced level of support for patients and an increase in danger to society from often dangerous individuals, as well as a similar reduction in protection for psychiatric patients from the more unsavoury elements of society and from themselves.
Dave was pointing to a similar system in the UK to integrate special needs kids into regular schooling under the smokescreen of improving their social interaction with ‘normal’ kids. I’m not familiar with the legislation you mentioned but it sounds similar.
As to the links with Dweck’s theories, I haven’t read anything by her which relates directly to this situation, but my interpretation of her theory is that kids benefit from an environment where they can concentrate on learning without undue focus on their comparative levels of ability.
It seems to me that bringing special needs kids into the mainstream stretches an already stretched system too far. They will inevitably be singled out by both students and teachers, and defined by the particular issues they have. As well as this, the integration will almost certainly have a disruptive effect on the education of the other kids in the class. Special needs education at least provides an environment where specially trained teachers can support the particular needs of demanding students in a peer group environment where they are not constantly compared with their ‘normal’ counterparts.
April 20, 2009 at 11:39 am
transorz
Thanks, Kevin. (I’ll call you that if you don’t mind since you ID’d yourself earlier. Please don’t be offended but I prefer to hide behind a pseudonym.)
You’ve helped motivate me to write a new comment on this subject but more from a biased personal perpective.