Handbook of Competence and Motivation- Theory and Application

Handbook of Competence and Motivation- Theory and Application

HANDBOOK OF COMPETENCE AND MOTIVATION

THE GUILFORD PRESS

Copyright © 2017 The Guilford Press

A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.

370 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10001

www.guilford.com

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording,

or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Elliot, Andrew J., editor | Dweck, Carol S., 1946– editor | Yeager,

David S., editor.

Title: Handbook of competence and motivation : theory and application /

edited by Andrew J Elliot, Carol S Dweck, David S Yeager.

Description: Second edition | New York : Guilford Press, [2017] | Includes

bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2016036820 | ISBN 9781462529605 (hardcover)

Subjects: LCSH: Achievement motivation.

Classification: LCC BF504 H36 2017 | DDC 153.8—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016036820

v

Andrew J Elliot, PhD, is Professor of Psychology at the University of Rochester He has

been a visiting professor at Cambridge University and Oxford University, United dom; King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia; and the University of Munich, Germany; and a Visiting Fellow at Churchill College (Cambridge) and Jesus College (Oxford)

King-Dr Elliot’s research focuses on achievement motivation and approach– avoidance

moti-vation He is editor of Advances in Motivation Science and author of approximately 200

scholarly publications The recipient of multiple awards for his teaching and research contributions to educational and social/personality psychology, Dr Elliot has given keynote or university addresses in more than 20 countries, and his lab regularly hosts professors, postdocs, and graduate students from around the globe

Carol S Dweck, PhD, is the Lewis and Virginia Eaton Professor of Psychology at

Stan-ford University Her research focuses on the critical role of mindsets in students’ ment and has led to successful intervention to foster student learning She is a member

achieve-of the American Academy achieve-of Arts and Sciences and the U.S National Academy achieve-of ences, and is the recipient of nine different lifetime achievement awards for her research

Sci-Dr Dweck addressed the United Nations at the beginning of its new global ment agenda and has advised governments on educational and economic policies Her

develop-bestselling book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success brought her research to the

wider public

David S Yeager, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at

Austin His research focuses on motivation and adolescent development and on the use

of behavioral science to make improvements toward pressing social issues Dr Yeager

is co-chair of the Mindset Scholars Network, an interdisciplinary network devoted to improving the science of learning mindsets and expanding educational opportunity He holds appointments at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the Population Research Center and the Charles A Dana Center at the University of Texas

at Austin, and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences Dr Yeager is the recipient of more than 15 awards in social, developmental, and educational psychol-ogy

About the Editors

vii

Katherine A Adams, PhD,

Department of Applied Psychology,

New York University, New York, New York

Eric M Anderman, PhD,

Department of Educational Studies,

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

Sian L Beilock, PhD, Department of Psychology

and Committee on Education,

University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

Rebecca S Bigler, PhD,

Department of Psychology,

University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Clancy Blair, PhD,

Department of Applied Psychology,

New York University, New York, New York

Kathryn L Boucher, PhD,

School of Psychological Sciences,

University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Indiana

Shannon T Brady, MS,

Graduate School of Education,

Stanford University, Stanford, California

Fabrizio Butera, PhD, Institute of Psychology,

University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Ruth Butler, PhD, School of Education,

Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

David E Conroy, PhD,

Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania;

Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois

Contributors

viii Contributors

Maria K DiBenedetto, PhD,

Bishop McGuinness Catholic High School,

Kernersville, North Carolina

Andrea G Dittmann, BA,

Kellogg School of Management,

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

Department of Clinical and Social Sciences

in Psychology, University of Rochester,

Rochester, New York

Meiyu Fang, PhD, Graduate Institute

of Human Resource Management,

National Central University,

Jhongli City, Taiwan

Julio Garcia, PhD,

Department of Psychology

and Graduate School of Education,

Stanford University, Stanford, California

and Graduate School of Education,

Stanford University, Stanford, California

DeLeon L Gray, PhD,

Department of Teacher Education

and Learning Sciences, College of Education,

North Carolina State University,

Raleigh, North Carolina

Wendy S Grolnick, PhD,

Department of Psychology, Clark University,

Worcester, Massachusetts

Jeremy M Hamm, PhD,

Department of Psychology and Social Behavior,

University of California, Irvine,

Irvine, California

Judith M Harackiewicz, PhD,

Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

Liat Hasenfratz, PhD,

Martin Buber Society of Fellows, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Amy Roberson Hayes, PhD,

Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, Texas

Center for the Advanced Study

of Teaching and Learning, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

Jeremy P Jamieson, PhD,

Department of Clinical and Social Sciences

in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York

Ruth Kanfer, PhD,

Department of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia

Maximilian Knogler, PhD,

School of Education, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

Beth E Kurtz-Costes, PhD,

Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Hae Yeon Lee, MA,

Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Department of Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Making,

University of Groningen,

Groningen, The Netherlands

Meagan M Patterson, PhD,

Department of Educational Psychology,

University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas

Reinhard Pekrun, PhD,

Department of Psychology,

University of Munich, Munich, Germany;

Institute for Positive Psychology

and Education, Australian Catholic University,

Department of Applied Psychology,

New York University, New York, New York

Christopher S Rozek, PhD,

Department of Psychology,

University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

Emily Q Rozenzweig, PhD,

Department of Human Development

and Quantitative Methodology,

University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

Richard M Ryan, PhD,

Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University,

Sydney, Australia;

Department of Clinical and Social Sciences

in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York

Elliot M Tucker-Drob, PhD,

Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Katie J Van Loo, PhD,

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana

Nico W Van Yperen, PhD,

Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Department of Human Development

and Quantitative Methodology,

University of Maryland,

College Park, Maryland

Allan Wigfield, PhD,

Department of Human Development

and Quantitative Methodology,

Alexander Seeshing Yeung, PhD,

Institute of Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University,

Sydney, Australia

Barry J Zimmerman, PhD,

Doctoral Program in Educational Psychology, Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, New York

xi

PART I INTRODUCTION

1 Competence and Motivation: Theory and Application 3

ANDREW J ELLIOT, CAROL S DWECK, DAVID S YEAGER

PART II CENTR AL CONSTRUCTS

2 Intelligence and Competence in Theory and Practice 9

ROBERT J STERNBERG

3 Achievement Motives 25

DAVID E CONROY

4 Achievement Goals 43

ANDREW J ELLIOT and CHRIS S HULLEMAN

5 An Attribution Perspective on Competence and Motivation: 61 Theory and Treatment Interventions

RAYMOND P PERRY and JEREMY M HAMM

6 Competence Self‑Perceptions 85

HERBERT W MARSH, ANDREW J MARTIN, ALEXANDER SEESHING YEUNG,

and RHONDA G CRAVEN

7 Achievement Values: Interactions, Interventions, and Future Directions 116

ALLAN WIGFIELD, EMILY Q ROSENZWEIG, and JACQUELYNNE S ECCLES

Contents

xii Contents

8 Mindsets: Their Impact on Competence Motivation and Acquisition 135

CAROL S DWECK and DANIEL C MOLDEN

9 Understanding and Addressing Performance Anxiety 155

SIAN L BEILOCK, MARJORIE W SCHAEFFER, and CHRISTOPHER S ROZEK

PART III RELE VANT PROCESSES

10 Challenge and Threat Appraisals 175

JEREMY P JAMIESON

11 Competence Assessment, Social Comparison, and Conflict Regulation 192

FABRIZIO BUTERA and CÉLINE DARNON

12 Competence as Central, but Not Sufficient, for High‑Quality Motivation: 214

A Self‑Determination Theory Perspective

RICHARD M RYAN and ARLEN C MOLLER

13 Competence and Pay for Performance 232

BARRY GERHART and MEIYU FANG

14 Achievement Emotions 251

REINHARD PEKRUN

15 The Many Questions of Belonging 272

GREGORY M WALTON and SHANNON T BRADY

16 Stereotype Threat: New Insights into Process and Intervention 294

ROBERT J RYDELL, KATIE J VAN LOO, and KATHRYN L BOUCHER

17 The Role of Self‑Efficacy and Related Beliefs in Self‑Regulation 313

of Learning and Performance

BARRY J ZIMMERMAN, DALE H SCHUNK, and MARIA K D i BENEDETTO

18 Interest: Theory and Application 334

JUDITH M HARACKIEWICZ and MAXIMILIAN KNOGLER

19 On Becoming Creative: Basic Theory with Implications 353 for the Workplace

CARSTEN K W DE DREU and BERNARD A NIJSTAD

20 Motivation, Competence, and Job Burnout 370

MICHAEL P LEITER and CHRISTINA MASLACH

Contents xiii

PART IV DE VELOPMENT

21 Early Reasoning about Competence Is Not Irrationally Optimistic, 387 Nor Does It Stem from Inadequate Cognitive Representations

ANDREI CIMPIAN

22 Self‑Regulation in Early Childhood: 408 Implications for Motivation and Achievement

C CYBELE RAVER, KATHERINE A ADAMS, and CLANCY BLAIR

23 Competence and Motivation during Adolescence 431

DAVID S YEAGER, HAE YEON LEE, and RONALD E DAHL

24 Competence and Motivation at Work throughout Adulthood: 449 Making the Most of Changing Capacities and Opportunities

JUTTA HECKHAUSEN, JACOB SHANE, and RUTH KANFER

25 Motivational Factors as Mechanisms of Gene–Environment 471 Transactions in Cognitive Development and Academic Achievement

ELLIOT M TUCKER‑DROB

PART V SOCIAL GROUPS AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES

26 Gender and Competence Motivation 489

RUTH BUTLER and LIAT HASENFRATZ

27 Social Class and Models of Competence: How Gateway Institutions 512 Disadvantage Working‑Class Americans and How to Intervene

NICOLE M STEPHENS, ANDREA G DITTMANN, and SARAH S M TOWNSEND

28 Race and Ethnicity in the Study of Competence Motivation 529

BETH E KURTZ‑COSTES and TANIESHA A WOODS

29 Social Striving: Social Group Membership 547 and Children’s Motivations and Competencies

REBECCA S BIGLER, AMY ROBERSON HAYES, and MEAGAN M PATTERSON

30 The Role of Parenting in Children’s Motivation and Competence: 566 What Underlies Facilitative Parenting?

EVA M POMERANTZ and WENDY S GROLNICK

31 Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School 586

KATHRYN R WENTZEL

xiv Contents

32 The Roles of Schools and Teachers in Fostering 604 Competence Motivation

ERIC M ANDERMAN and D e LEON L GRAY

33 Competence and Motivation in the Physical Domain: 620 The Relevance of Self‑Theories in Sports and Physical Education

CHRISTOPHER M SPRAY

34 Competence and the Workplace 635

NICO W VAN YPEREN

PART VI PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS

35 Turning Point: Targeted, Tailored, and Timely Psychological Intervention 657

GEOFFREY L COHEN, JULIO GARCIA, and J PARKER GOYER

Author Index 687 Subject Index 707

Purchasers of this handbook can visit www.guilford.com/elliot3-materials

to download a free supplemental e-book featuring several notable, highly

cited chapters from the first edition

A Conceptual History of the Achievement Goal Construct

CAROL S DWECK and DANIEL C MOLDEN

Competence Motivation in the Classroom

TIM URDAN and JULIANNE C TURNER

Cultural Competence: Dynamic Processes

CHI-YUE CHIU and YING-YI HONG

PART I

INTRODUCTION

3

A dozen years ago, the Handbook of

Com-petence and Motivation (Elliot & Dweck,

2005) was published The Handbook

con-sisted of 35 chapters written by well-known

scholars across diverse disciplines, and it had

an ambitious aim—to refocus the

achieve-ment motivation literature using the

con-cept of competence Specifically, we (Elliot

and Dweck) sought to establish competence

as the conceptual core of the achievement

motivation literature, and proposed that this

conceptual shift be accompanied by a shift

in terminology from achievement

motiva-tion to competence motivamotiva-tion.

Why did we ground the achievement

motivation literature in the concept of

com-petence? We did so because we saw two

pri-mary weaknesses in this literature: (1) The

literature lacked coherence and a clear set of

structural parameters on which to base

the-ory and guide operationalization (in short,

there was no obvious, consensual answer to

the question “What should and should not

be included within a literature on

achieve-ment motivation?”), and (2) the literature

was too narrowly focused and limited in

scope, especially relative to its potential As

a function of these weaknesses, the

litera-ture that had developed represented a

col-lection of loosely related conceptual ideas

and empirical findings based on a quial, primarily Western notion of the term

compe-so addressed both of the weaknesses we had

identified First, competence may be

pre-cisely and clearly defined as a condition or quality of effectiveness, ability, sufficiency,

or success Therefore, competence

motiva-tion encompasses the appetitive

energiza-tion and direcenergiza-tion of behavior with regard

to effectiveness, ability, sufficiency, or cess (as well as the aversive energization and direction of behavior with regard to ineffec-tiveness, inability, insufficiency, or failure) Second, competence motivation is broadly and deeply applicable to psychological func-tioning: It is ubiquitous in everyday life,

suc-it has an important influence on emotion and well-being, it is operative and integral throughout the lifespan, and it is relevant

to individuals across cultures In short, we believed that competence had great potential

as a precise, broadly applicable concept that could help integrate and provide guidance for a literature that was failing to reach its full potential

CHAP TER 1

Competence and Motivation

Theory and Application

ANDREW J ELLIOT

CAROL S DWECK

DAVID S YEAGER

4 I INTRODUCTION

We (and The Guilford Press) were

extremely pleased with the reception that the

Handbook received This was subjectively

represented by the many positive comments

we received from scholars in the field, and

objectively represented by the large number

of citations of the chapters in the volume

and the large number of copies sold Given

this positive reception, Guilford approached

us to request that we edit a second edition

of the Handbook We agreed and (slightly)

expanded our editorial team

We (Elliot, Dweck, and Yeager) were not

interested in a second edition that merely

rehashed the material from the initial

edi-tion; instead, we wanted new, fresh

chap-ters Indeed, this is what we both solicited

and received from our authors Structurally,

whereas some of the sections of the

Hand-book are the same as the original, others

are different Likewise, some of the chapter

topics are the same, while others are

differ-ent Many of the authors are the same, but

again, many are different What is,

emphati-cally, the same across the two editions of the

Handbook is the caliber of the authors and

the chapters that they have provided As in

the initial volume, we have received chapters

from well-known researchers in their areas

of expertise and they have, without

excep-tion, delivered excellent, authoritative,

state-of-the- science reviews of their focal topic

What is decidedly new in this edition of the

Handbook is a focus on application.

Since the first edition of the Handbook

was published, the field has entered a new

and exciting phase in which there has been

a burgeoning interest in applying basic

motivational theory, concepts, and ideas to

real-world contexts Most notably, there has

been an influx of research on the

implemen-tation and testing of motivational

interven-tions in schools (especially), the workplace,

and the ballfield (for reviews, see

Karaben-ick & Urdan, 2014; Lazowski & Hulleman,

2016; Lin- Siegler, Dweck, & Cohen, 2016;

Spitzer & Aronson, 2015; Wilson &

But-trick, 2016; Yeager & Walton, 2011) This

and related work holds considerable promise

for both “giving away” knowledge gleaned

in the ivory tower and feeding back

impor-tant information from the “front lines” that

can aid in theory refinement and

develop-ment For this reason, in this second edition

of the Handbook, we changed the charge

to our authors, explicitly asking them to include coverage of the link between theory and application This extended focus may

be concretely seen in the new title:

Hand-book of Competence and Motivation, ond Edition: Theory and Application It

Sec-is our hope that thSec-is extended focus of the

Handbook will broaden and deepen our

coverage of this important area of inquiry, and prompt new insights from the theory- to- practice interface

The Handbook reflects and celebrates the

renaissance of motivation as a field, not just the field of competence motivation, but the field of motivation more generally After the

“cognitive revolution,” the field fell into array, and research on motivation slowed to

dis-a trickle In fdis-act, in the 1980s, the esteemed

series, the Nebraska Symposium on

Moti-vation, even considered dropping the term motivation from its title (it did not do so for

fear of losing name recognition and, ingly, library subscriptions) How far the field has come since then is manifest in infor-mative, programmatic research and appli-cations grounded in attribution theories, goal theories, approach– avoidance theories, expectancy– value theories, need theories, implicit theories, cultural theories, identity theories, and more We believe that there has never been a more exciting time in the field

accord-of motivation in general and competence motivation in particular We hope the pres-ent excitement is only exceeded by the era to come (which will be, we anticipate, covered

in the future editions of the Handbook).

This volume comprises six sections Part

I is simply an introduction to the volume, and it leads into Part II, which focuses on the constructs that are central to the com-petence motivation literature These con-structs are intelligence and ability (i.e., com-petence per se), the motives that energize competence- relevant behavior, the goals that direct competence- relevant behavior, the attributions used to explain competence and incompetence, the perceptions that one has

of one’s competence, the ways in which one values competence, implicit theories about competence, and anxiety regarding incom-petence

Part III focuses on processes that are evant to competence motivation In these

1 Competence and Motivation 5

chapters, competence is not the central

focus, but it is nevertheless integrally

impli-cated in the processes under consideration

These processes are challenge and threat

appraisals, social comparison, autonomy,

performance incentives, emotions,

belong-ing, stereotype threat, self- regulated

learn-ing, intrinsic motivation, creativity, and

burnout These chapters nicely illustrate

the broad reach of competence motivation

across a diverse set of important

psychologi-cal processes

Part IV shifts from constructs and

pro-cesses to issues regarding the development of

competence motivation Here the coverage

encompasses mental representations in early

childhood, self- regulation in early

child-hood, competence motivation in

adoles-cence, competence motivation in the aging

process, and gene– environment interactions

in the emergence of competence motivation

Following development, the focus in Part

V is on demographic categories and

social-ization contexts that have a critical,

perva-sive influence on competence motivation

The roles of gender, social class, race, and

social identity are addressed, as are the

influences of parents, peers, teachers and

schools, coaches, and employers and the

workplace Finally, Part VI provides a

gen-eral primer on the intervention approach to

application that is having a major impact on

contemporary theory and research

We believe that this second edition of

the Handbook nicely builds on the

founda-tion laid by the initial edifounda-tion The chapters

herein clearly demonstrate that research on competence and motivation is continuing apace, with much fruit emerging on both the theoretical and applied fronts We trust that, like ourselves, you will learn much from and

be inspired by what you read in the pages that follow

REFERENCES

Elliot, A J., & Dweck, C S (Eds.) (2005)

Handbook of competence and motivation

New York: Guilford Press.

Karabenick, S A., & Urdan, T C (Eds.) (2014)

Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol 18 Motivational interventions Bingley,

British Journal of Educational Psychology,

PART II

CENTRAL CONSTRUCTS

9

Intelligence tests are supposed to measure a

construct that is (1) unified (so- called

“gen-eral intelligence”), (2) relatively fixed by

genetic endowment, and (3) distinct from

and precedent to the competencies that

schools develop (see, e.g., Carroll, 1993;

Hunt, 2010; Mackintosh, 2011) All three of

these assumptions are open to question

A major goal of work here is to integrate

the study of intelligence and related skills

(see reviews in Sternberg, 1990; Sternberg,

Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2011; Sternberg &

Kaufman, 2011) with the study of

com-petence (Cianciolo, Matthew, Wagner, &

Sternberg, 2006; Sternberg, 2014)

Intelli-gence tests measure achieved skills or

com-petencies Even abstract reasoning tests

mea-sure achievement in dealing with geometric

symbols, skills taught in Western schools

(see Ang, Van Dyne, & Tan, 2011; Niu &

Brass, 2011)

HOW INDIVIDUALS TRANSLATE SKILLS

INTO ACHIEVEMENT

Achievement does not just depend on

abili-ties, of course It depends on the interaction

of abilities with other key attributes of the

person Consider a model for how basic skills

or abilities are translated into achievement

Elements of the Model

The model of developing competencies has five key elements (although certainly they do not constitute an exhaustive list of elements

in the ultimate development of cies from precursor abilities): metacognitive skills, learning skills, thinking skills, knowl-edge, and motivation (Dai & Sternberg, 2004) Although it is convenient to separate these five elements, they are fully interactive They influence each other, both directly and indirectly For example, learning leads to knowledge, but knowledge facilitates fur-ther learning

competen-These elements are, to some extent, domain specific The development of com-petencies in one area does not necessarily lead to the development of competencies in another area, although there may be some transfer, depending on the relationship of the areas, a point that has been made with regard to intelligence by others as well (e.g., Gardner, 2011; Sternberg, 2002, 2003; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2007)

In the augmented theory of successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1984, 1985, 1999, 2003), intelligence is viewed as having four aspects: analytical, creative, practical, and wisdom- based skills These aspects can be somewhat domain specific For example, our

CHAP TER 2

Intelligence and Competence

in Theory and Practice

ROBERT J STERNBERG

10 II CENTRAL CONSTRUCTS

research suggests that the development of

competencies in one creative domain

(Stern-berg & Lubart, 1995, 1996) or in one

prac-tical domain (Hedlund et al., 2003;

Stern-berg, Wagner, & Okagaki, 1993; SternStern-berg,

Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995) shows

modest- to- moderate correlations with the

development of competencies in other such

domains However, psychometric research

suggests more domain generality for the

analytical domain (Jensen, 1998; Sternberg

& Grigorenko, 2002) Moreover, people

can show analytical, creative, practical, or

wisdom- based competence in one domain

without showing all three of these kinds of

competencies, or even two of the three

1 Metacognitive skills Metacognitive

skills (or metacomponents; Sternberg, 1985)

refer to people’s understanding and control

of their own cognition Seven

metacogni-tive skills are particularly important:

lem recognition, problem definition,

prob-lem representation, strategy formulation,

resource allocation, monitoring of problem

solving, and evaluation of problem solving

(Sternberg, 1985) All of these skills are

modifiable (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2007;

Sternberg, Kaufman, & Grigorenko, 2008)

2 Learning skills Learning skills

(knowledge- acquisition components) are

essential to the model (Sternberg, 1985;

Sternberg et al., 2008), although they are

certainly not the only learning skills that

individuals use Examples of learning skills

are selective encoding, which involves

distin-guishing relevant from irrelevant

informa-tion; selective combination, which involves

putting together the relevant information;

and selective comparison, which involves

relating new information to information

already stored in memory (Sternberg, 1985)

3 Thinking skills There are four main

kinds of thinking skills (or performance

components) that individuals need to

mas-ter (Smas-ternberg, 1985, 1994; Smas-ternberg et

al., 2008; Sternberg & Weil, 1980) It is

important to note that these are sets of,

rather than individual, thinking skills

Critical (analytical) thinking skills include

analyzing, critiquing, judging, evaluating,

comparing and contrasting, and assessing

Creative thinking skills include creating,

discovering, inventing, imagining, ing, and hypothesizing Practical thinking skills include applying, using, utilizing, and practicing (Sternberg et al., 2000; Sternberg

suppos-& Hedlund, 2002) Wisdom- based skills include utilizing knowledge toward a com-mon good and balancing one’s own interests with others (Sternberg, 2013) These various skills are the first step in the translation of thought into real-world action

4 Knowledge There are two main kinds

of knowledge that are relevant in academic situations Declarative knowledge is of facts, concepts, principles, laws, and the like It is

“knowing that.” Procedural knowledge is

of procedures and strategies It is “knowing how.”

5 Motivation One can distinguish among

several different kinds of motivation A first kind of motivation is achievement motiva-tion (McClelland, 1985; McClelland, Atkin-son, Clark, & Lowell, 1976) People who are high in achievement motivation seek moder-ate challenges and risks They are attracted

to tasks that are neither very easy nor very hard They are strivers— constantly trying

to better themselves and their ments A second kind of motivation, compe-tence (self- efficacy) motivation, refers to per-sons’ beliefs in their own ability to solve the problem at hand (Bandura, 1996) This kind

accomplish-of self- efficacy can result both from sic and extrinsic rewards (Amabile, 1996; Sternberg, 1996) Of course, other kinds

intrin-of motivation are important, too Indeed, motivation is perhaps the indispensable ele-ment needed for school success Without it, the student never even tries to learn And,

of course, if a test is not important to the examinee, he or she may do poorly simply through a lack of effort to perform well.Dweck (1999, 2002, 2007; Dweck & Elliott, 1983) has shown that one of the most important sources of motivation is individu-als’ motivation to enhance their intellectual skills (also see essays in Aarts & Elliot, 2011) What Dweck and her colleagues have shown is that some individuals are entity theorists with respect to intelligence: They believe that to be smart is to show oneself

to be smart, and that means not making mistakes or otherwise showing intellectual weakness Incremental theorists, in contrast,

2 Intelligence and Competence 11

believe that to be smart is to learn and to

increase one’s intellectual skills These

indi-viduals are not afraid to make mistakes, and

even believe that making a mistake can be

useful because it is a way to learn Dweck

and her colleagues’ research suggests that,

under normal conditions, entity and

incre-mental theorists perform about the same in

school But under conditions of challenge,

incremental theorists do better because they

are more willing to undertake difficult

chal-lenges and to seek mastery of new, difficult

material

6 Context All of the elements discussed

earlier are characteristics of the learner

Returning to the issues raised at the

begin-ning of this chapter, a problem with

conven-tional tests is that they assume that

individu-als operate in a more or less decontextualized

environment (see Grigorenko & Sternberg,

2001b; Sternberg, 1985, 1997 ; Sternberg

& Grigorenko, 2001) A test score is

inter-preted largely in terms of the individual’s

internal attributes But a test measures much

more, and the assumption of a fixed or

uni-form context across test- takers is not

real-istic Contextual factors that can affect test

performance include native language,

fam-ily background, emphasis of test on speedy

performance, and familiarity with the kinds

of material on the test, among many other

things

Interactions of Elements

The novice works toward competence (and

then expertise) through deliberate practice

(Ericsson, 1996; Ericsson, Krampe, &

Tesch-Römer, 1993) But this practice requires an

interaction of all five of the key elements At

the center, driving the elements, is

motiva-tion Without it, the elements remain inert

Eventually, one reaches a kind of expertise,

at which one becomes a reflective

practitio-ner of a certain set of skills But expertise

occurs at many levels The expert first-year

graduate or law student, for example, is

still a far cry from the expert professional

People therefore cycle through many times,

on the way to successively higher levels of

expertise

Motivation drives metacognitive skills,

which in turn activate learning and thinking

skills, which then provide feedback to the metacognitive skills, enabling one’s level of expertise to increase (see Sternberg, 1985) The declarative and procedural knowledge acquired through the extension of the think-ing and learning skills also results in these skills being used more effectively in the future

How does this model relate to the struct of intelligence?

con-LIMITATIONS ON THE g FACTOR

Some intelligence theorists point to the

stabil-ity of the alleged general (g) factor of human

intelligence as evidence for the existence of some kind of stable and overriding structure

of human intelligence (e.g., Bouchard, 1998; Hunt, 2010; Kyllonen, 2002)

In a collaborative study among children near Kisumu, Kenya (Sternberg, 2007; Sternberg et al., 2001), we devised a test of practical intelligence that measures informal knowledge for an important aspect of adap-tation to the environment in rural Kenya, namely, knowledge of the identities and use

of natural herbal medicines that may be used

to combat illnesses The children use this informal knowledge on average once a week

in treating themselves or suggesting ments to other children, so this knowledge

treat-is a routine part of their everyday extreat-istence

By “informal knowledge,” I refer to kinds

of knowledge not taught in schools and not assessed on tests given in the schools

The idea of this research was that children who knew what these medicines were, what they were used for, and how they should be dosed would be in a position better to adapt

to their environments than would children without this informal knowledge We do not know how many, if any, of these medicines actually work, but from the standpoint of measuring practical intelligence in a given culture, the important thing is that the people in Kenya believe that the medicines work For that matter, it is not always clear how effective are the medicines used in the Western world

We found substantial individual ences in the tacit knowledge of children

differ-of like age and schooling relative to these natural herbal medicines More important,

12 II CENTRAL CONSTRUCTS

however, was the correlation between scores

on this test and scores on an English language

vocabulary test (the Mill Hill), a Dholuo

equivalent (Dholuo is the community and

home language), and the Raven Coloured

Progressive Matrices We found significantly

negative correlations between our test and

the English language vocabulary test

Cor-relations of our test with the other tests were

trivial The better children did on the test of

indigenous tacit knowledge, the worse they

did on the test of vocabulary used in school,

and vice versa Why might we have obtained

such a finding?

Based on ethnographic observation, we

believe a possible reason is that parents in

the village may emphasize either a more

indigenous or a more Western education

Some parents (and their children) see little

value to school They do not see how

suc-cess in school connects with the future of

children who will spend their whole lives

in a village, where they do not believe they

need the kinds of competencies the school

teaches Other parents and children seem to

see Western schooling as valuable in itself

or potentially as a ticket out of the confines

of the village The parents therefore tend

to emphasize one type of education or the

other for their children, with

correspond-ing results The kinds of competencies the

families value differ, and so therefore do

scores on the tests From this point of view,

the intercorrelational structure of tests tells

us nothing intrinsic about the structure of

intelligence per se, but something about the

way abilities as developing forms of

compe-tencies structure themselves in interaction

with the demands of the environment

In another study (Grigorenko et al.,

2004), we examined the academic and

prac-tical skills of Yup’ik Eskimo children who

live in the Southwestern portion of Alaska

The Yup’ik generally live in geographically

isolated villages along water that are

acces-sible primarily by air Most of us would have

no choice in traveling from one village to

another because we would be unable to

nav-igate the terrain using, say, a dogsled These

villages are embedded in mile after mile of

frozen tundra that, to us, would all look

relatively the same The Yup’ik, however,

can navigate this terrain because they learn

to find landmarks that most of us would

never see They also have extremely sive hunting and gathering skills that almost none of us would have Yet most of the chil-dren do quite poorly in school Their teach-ers often think that they are rather hopeless students The children therefore have devel-oped extremely impressive competencies for surviving in a difficult environment, but because these skills often are not ones teach-ers (who typically are not from the Yup’ik community) have, the children are viewed as not very competent

impres-Nuñes (1994) has reported related ings based on a series of studies she con-ducted in Brazil (see also Ceci & Roazzi, 1994) Street children’s adaptive intelligence

find-is tested to the limit by their ability to form and successfully run a street business If they fail to run such a business successfully, they risk either starvation or death at the hands

of death squads should they resort to ing Nuñes and her collaborators have found that the same children who are doing the mathematics needed for running a success-ful street business cannot do well the same types of mathematics problems presented in

steal-an abstract, paper-steal-and- pencil format

If the situations were reversed, and leged children who do well on conventional ability tests or in school were forced out on the street, many of them would not survive long Indeed, in the ghettoes of urban Amer-ica, many children and adults who, for one reason or another end up on the street, in fact barely survive or do not make it at all.Jean Lave (1989) has reported similar findings with Berkeley housewives shopping

privi-in supermarkets There just is no correlation between their ability to do the mathematics needed for comparison shopping and their scores on conventional paper-and- pencil tests of comparable mathematical skills Similarly, Ceci and Liker (1986) found that expert handicappers at race tracks gener-ally had only average IQs There was no correlation between the complexity of the mathematical model they used in handicap-ping and their scores on conventional tests

In each case, important kinds of developing competencies for life were not adequately reflected by the kinds of competencies mea-sured by the conventional ability tests

The problems with the conventional model of abilities do not just apply in what

2 Intelligence and Competence 13

to us are exotic cultures or exotic

occupa-tions In one study (Sternberg, Ferrari,

Clinkenbeard, & Grigorenko, 1996;

Stern-berg, Grigorenko, Ferrari, & Clinkbeard,

1999), high school students were tested

for their analytical, creative, and practical

abilities via multiple- choice and essay items

The multiple- choice items were divided into

three content domains: verbal, quantitative,

and figural pictures Students’ scores were

factor- analyzed, then later correlated with

their performance in a college- level

intro-ductory psychology course

We found that when students were tested

for not only analytical abilities but also

creative and practical abilities (as follows

from the model of successful intelligence;

Sternberg, 1985, 1997a, 1997b), the strong

general factor that tends to result from

multiple- ability tests becomes much weaker

Of course, there is always some general

fac-tor when one facfac-tor- analyzes but does not

rotate the factor solution, but the general

factor was weak and, of course, disappeared

with a varimax rotation We also found

that all of analytical, creative, and

practi-cal abilities predicted performance in the

introductory psychology course (which itself

was taught analytically, creatively, or

practi-cally, with assessments to match) Moreover,

although the students identified as highly

analytical were the traditional population—

primarily white, middle- to upper- middle-

class, and well educated— the students who

were identified as highly creative or highly

practical were much more diverse in all of

these attributes Most importantly, students

whose instruction better matched their

triar-chic pattern of abilities outperformed those

students whose instruction more poorly

matched their triarchic pattern of abilities

Thus, conventional tests may unduly

favor a small segment of the population by

virtue of the narrow kind of competencies

they measure When one measures a broader

range of competencies, the results look quite

different Moreover, the broader range of

competencies includes kinds of skills that

will be important in the worlds of work and

the family

Even in developed countries,

practi-cal competencies probably matter as much

or more than do academic ones for many

aspects of life success Goleman (2005), for

example, has claimed that emotional petencies are more important than academic ones, although he has offered no direct evi-dence (see also Boyatzis, Gaskin, & Wei, 2015; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Cher-kasskiy, 2011; Sternberg, 2015) In a study

com-we did in Russia (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 2001a), although both academic and practi-cal intelligence predicted measures of adult physical and mental health, the measures of practical intelligence were the better predic-tors

Analytical, creative, and practical ties, as measured by our own or anyone else’s tests, are simply forms of developing competencies All are useful in various kinds

abili-of life tasks But conventional tests may unfairly disadvantage those students who do not do well in a fairly narrow range of kinds

of competencies By expanding the range of competencies we measure, we discover that many children not now identified as able have, in fact, developed important kinds of competence The abilities that conventional tests measure are important for school and life performance, but they are not the only abilities that are important

Teaching in a way that departs from notions of abilities based on a general factor also pays dividends In a recent set of studies,

we have shown that generally lower economic class third-grade and generally middle- class eighth- grade students who are taught social studies (a unit in communities)

socio-or science (a unit on psychology) fsocio-or ful intelligence (analytically, creative, and practically, as well as for memory) outper-form students who are taught just for ana-lytical (critical) thinking or just for memory (Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, 1998) The students taught “triarchically” outperform the other students not only on performance assessments that look at analytical, creative, and practical kinds of achievements, but even on tests that measure straight memory (multiple- choice tests already being used

success-in the courses) None of this is to say that analytical abilities are not important in school and life— obviously, they are Rather, what our data suggest is that other types of abilities— creative and practical ones—are important as well, and that students need to learn how to use all three kinds of abilities together However, in practice, teachers are

14 II CENTRAL CONSTRUCTS

used to teaching in conventional ways and

attaining improvements can be challenging

(Sternberg et al., 2014)

Thus, teaching students in a way that

takes into account their more highly

devel-oped competencies and also enables them to

develop other kinds of competence results

in superior learning outcomes, regardless of

how these learning outcomes are measured

The children taught in a way that enables

them to use kinds of skills other than

mem-ory actually remember better, on average,

than do children taught for memory

We have also done studies in which we

measured informal procedural knowledge

in children and adults We have done such

studies with business managers, college

pro-fessors, elementary school students, sales

people, college students, and general

popu-lations This important aspect of practical

intelligence, in study after study, has been

found to be uncorrelated with academic

intelligence, as measured by conventional

tests, in a variety of populations,

occupa-tions, and at a variety of age levels

(Stern-berg et al., 2000) Moreover, the tests

pre-dict job performance as well as or better

than do tests of IQ The lack of correlation

of the two kinds of ability tests suggests that

the best prediction of job performance will

result when both academic and practical

intelligence tests are used as predictors

Although the kind of informal procedural

competence we measure in these tests does

not correlate with academic competence,

it does correlate across work domains

For example, we found that subscores (for

managing oneself, managing others, and

managing tasks) on measures of informal

procedural knowledge are correlated with

each other, and that scores on the test for

academic psychology are moderately

cor-related with scores on the test for business

managers (Sternberg et al., 2000) So the

kinds of developing competencies that

mat-ter in the world of work may show certain

correlations with each other that are not

shown with the kinds of skills that matter in

the world of the school

It is even possible to use these kinds of

tests to predict effectiveness in leadership

Studies of military leaders showed that tests

of informal knowledge for military leaders

predicted the effectiveness of these leaders,

whereas conventional tests of intelligence did not We also found that although the test for managers was significantly correlated with the test for military leaders, only the latter test predicted superiors’ ratings of leadership effectiveness (Sternberg et al., 2000)

Both conventional academic tests and our tests of practical intelligence measure forms

of developing competencies that matter in school and on the job The two kinds of tests are not qualitatively distinct The reason the correlations are essentially null is that the kinds of skills they measure are quite differ-ent The people who are good at abstract, academic kinds of skills are often people who have not emphasized learning practi-cal, everyday kinds of skills, and vice versa,

as we found in our Kenya study Indeed, children who grow up in challenging envi-ronments such as the inner city may need

to develop practical over academic skills as

a matter of survival As in Kenya, practical skills may better predict their survival than

do more academic kinds of skills The same applies in business, where tacit knowledge about how to perform on the job is as likely

or more likely to lead to job success than is the academic skills set that in school seems

so important

PUTTING THEORY INTO PRACTICE

My colleagues and I put these ideas into practice in a series of studies and implemen-tations concerning college admissions

The Rainbow Project

The Rainbow Project (for details, see berg, 2010; Sternberg, Bonney, Gabora, & Merrifield, 2012; Sternberg & the Rain-bow Project Collaborators, 2006) was the first project designed to enhance university admissions procedures at the undergraduate level The Rainbow measures were intended,

Stern-in the United States, to supplement the dard Achievement Test (SAT) or American College Tests (ACT), but they may supple-ment any conventional standardized test of abilities or achievement

Stan-A collaborative team of investigators sought to study how successful such an aug-mentation could be Even if we did not use

2 Intelligence and Competence 15

the SAT or ACT, in particular, we still would

need some kind of assessment of the memory

and analytical abilities the tests assess

Methodological Considerations

In the Rainbow Project (Sternberg, 2010;

Sternberg & the Rainbow Project

Collabo-rators, 2006), data were collected at 15

schools across the United States, including

eight 4-year undergraduate institutions, five

community colleges, and two high schools

The participants were 1,013 students

pre-dominantly in their first year as

undergradu-ates or their final year of high school

Analy-ses are described here only for undergraduate

students because they were the only ones for

whom the authors had data available

regard-ing undergraduate academic performance

The final number of participants included in

these analyses was 793

Baseline measures of standardized test

scores and high school grade-point

aver-ages were collected to evaluate the

predic-tive validity of current tools used for

under-graduate admission criteria, and to provide a

contrast for the current measures Students’

scores on standardized university entrance

exams were obtained from the College

Board

The measure of analytical skills was

pro-vided by the SAT plus multiple- choice

ana-lytical items we added, measuring inference

of meanings of words from context, number

series completions, and figural matrix

com-pletions

Creative skills were measured by multiple-

choice items and by performance- based

items The multiple- choice items were of

three kinds In one, students are presented

with verbal analogies preceded by

coun-terfactual premises (e.g., “Money falls off

trees”) They have to solve the analogies as

though the counterfactual premises were

true In a second, students are presented

with rules for novel number operations, for

example, “flix,” which involves numerical

manipulations that differ as a function of

whether the first of two operands is greater

than, equal to, or less than the second

Par-ticipants have to use the novel number

oper-ations to solve presented math problems In

a third, participants are first presented with

a figural series that involves one or more

transformations; they then have to apply the rule of the series to a new figure with a different appearance, and complete the new series These are not typical of assessments

of creativity and were included to measure relative quickness of participants’ responses and for relative ease of scoring

Creative skills also were measured using open-ended measures One measure required writing two short stories with a selection from among unusual titles, such as

“The Octopus’s Sneakers”; another required orally telling two stories based on choices of picture collages; and still another required captioning cartoons from among various options Open-ended performance- based answers were rated by trained raters for novelty, quality, and task appropriateness Multiple judges were used for each task, and satisfactory reliability was achieved

Multiple- choice measures of practical skills were of three kinds In the first, stu-dents are presented with a set of everyday problems in the life of an adolescent and have to select the option that best solves each problem In the second, students are presented with scenarios requiring the use of math in everyday life (e.g., buying tickets for

a ballgame), and have to solve math lems based on the scenarios In the third, students are presented with a map of an area (e.g., an entertainment park) and have

prob-to answer questions about navigating tively through the area depicted by the map.Practical skills also were assessed using three situational judgment inventories: the Everyday Situational Judgment Inventory (Movies), the Common Sense Questionnaire, and the College Life Questionnaire, each of which tap different types of tacit knowledge The general format of tacit knowledge inven-tories has been described in Sternberg and colleagues (2000), so only the content of the inventories used in this study are described here The movies presented everyday situa-tions that confront undergraduate students, such as asking for a letter of recommenda-tion from a professor who shows, through nonverbal cues, that he or she does not rec-ognize the student very well One then has

effec-to rate various options for how well he or she would work in response to each situa-tion The Common Sense Questionnaire provided everyday business problems, such

16 II CENTRAL CONSTRUCTS

as being assigned to work with a coworker

whom one cannot stand, and the College

Life Questionnaire provided everyday

uni-versity situations for which a solution was

required

Unlike the creativity performance tasks,

the practical performance tasks did not give

participants a choice of situations to rate

For each task, participants were told that

there was no “right” answer, and that the

options described in each situation

repre-sented variations on how different people

approach different situations

Consider examples of the kinds of items

one might find on the Rainbow Assessment

One example of a creative item might be to

write a story using the title “3516” or “It’s

Moving Backward.” Another example might

show a collage of pictures in which people

are engaged in a wide variety of activities

helping other people One would then orally

tell a story that takes off from the collage

An example of a practical item might show

a movie in which a student has just received

a poor grade on a test His roommate had

a health crisis the night before, and he had

been up all night helping his roommate His

professor hands him back the test paper,

with a disappointed look on her face, and

suggests to the student that he study harder

next time The movie then stops The student

then has to describe how he would handle

the situation Or the student might receive

a written problem describing a conflict with

another individual with whom she is

work-ing on a group project The project is gettwork-ing

mired down in the interpersonal conflict

The student has to indicate how she would

resolve the situation to get the project done

All materials were administered in either of

two formats A total of 325 of the university

students took the test in paper-and- pencil

format, whereas a total of 468 students took

the test on the computer via the World Wide

Web

No strict time limits were set for

complet-ing the tests, although the instructors were

given rough guidelines of about 70 minutes

per session The time taken to complete the

battery of tests ranged from 2 to 4 hours

As a result of the lengthy nature of the

complete battery of assessments,

partici-pants were administered parts of the battery

using an intentional incomplete overlapping

design The participants were randomly

assigned to the test sections they were to complete

Creativity in this (and the subsequent Kaleidoscope Project) was assessed on the basis of the novelty and quality of responses Practicality was assessed on the basis of the feasibility of the products with respect to human and material resources

The Data

The conservative analysis described below does not correct for differences in the selec-tivity of the institutions at which the study took place In a study across so many under-graduate institutions differing in selectivity, validity coefficients will seem to be lower than are typical because an A at a less selec-tive institution counts the same as an A at a more selective institution When the authors corrected for institutional selectivity, the results described below became stronger But correcting for selectivity has its own problems (e.g., on what basis does one eval-uate selectivity?), so uncorrected data are used in this report The authors also did not control for university major: Different uni-versities may have different majors, and the exact course offerings, grading, and popu-lations of students entering different majors may vary from one university to another, rendering control difficult

When examining undergraduate students alone, the sample showed a slightly higher mean level of SAT scores than those found in undergraduate institutions across the United States The standard deviation was above the normal 100-point standard deviation, which means that the authors did not suffer from restriction of range The means, although slightly higher than typical, are within the range of average undergraduate students.Another potential concern is pooling data from different institutions Data were pooled because in some institutions the authors sim-ply did not have large enough numbers of cases for the data to be meaningful

Three meaningful factors were extracted from the data: practical performance tests, creative performance tests, and multiple- choice tests (including analytical, creative, and practical) In other words, multiple- choice tests, regardless of what they were supposed to measure, clustered together Thus, method variance proved to be very

2 Intelligence and Competence 17

important The results show the importance

of measuring skills using multiple formats,

precisely because method is so important

in determining factorial structure The

results show the limitations of exploratory

factor analysis in analyzing such data, and

also of dependence on multiple- choice items

outside the analytical domain In the ideal,

one wishes to ensure that one controls for

method of testing in designing aptitude and

other test batteries

Undergraduate admissions offices are not

interested, exactly, in whether these tests

pre-dict undergraduate academic success Rather,

they are interested in the extent to which

these tests predict school success beyond

those measures currently in use, such as the

SAT and high school grade-point average

(GPA) In order to test the incremental

valid-ity provided by Rainbow measures above and

beyond the SAT in predicting GPA, a series

of statistical analyses (called hierarchical

regressions) was conducted that included the

items analyzed earlier in the analytical,

cre-ative, and practical assessments

If one looks at the simple correlations, the

SAT-V (Verbal), SAT-M (Math), high school

GPA, and the Rainbow measures all predict

first-year GPA But how do the Rainbow

measures fare on incremental validity? In

one set of analyses, the SAT-V, SAT-M, and

high school GPA were included in the first

step of the prediction equation because these

are the standard measures used today to

pre-dict undergraduate performance Only high

school GPA contributed uniquely to

predic-tion of undergraduate GPA Inclusion of the

Rainbow measures roughly doubled

predic-tion (percentage of variance accounted for in

the criterion) versus the SAT alone

These results suggest that the Rainbow

tests add considerably to the prediction

achieved by SATs alone They also suggest

the power of high school GPA in

predic-tion, particularly because it is an

atheoreti-cal composite that includes within it many

variables, including motivation and

consci-entiousness

Although one important goal of this study

was to predict success in the

undergradu-ate years, another important goal involved

developing measures that reduce ethnic-

group differences in mean levels There are

a number of ways one can test for group

differences in these measures, each of which

involves a test of the size of the effect of nic group Two different measures were cho-sen: ω2 (omega squared) and Cohen’s d.

eth-There were two general findings First, in terms of overall differences, the Rainbow tests appeared to reduce ethnic- group differ-ences relative to traditional assessments of abilities such as the SAT Second, in terms

of specific differences, it appears that Latino students benefited the most from the reduc-tion of group differences The black students, too, seemed to show a reduction in differ-ence from the white students’ mean for most

of the Rainbow tests, although a substantial difference appeared to be maintained with the practical performance measures

Although the group differences are not perfectly reduced, these findings suggest that measures can be designed that reduce ethnic- and racial- group differences on standardized tests, particularly for histori-cally disadvantaged groups such as black and Latino students These findings have important implications for reducing adverse impact in undergraduate admissions

The SAT is based on a conventional chometric notion of cognitive skills Using this notion, it has had substantial success

psy-in predictpsy-ing undergraduate academic formance The Rainbow measures alone roughly doubled the predictive power of undergraduate GPA when compared to the SAT alone Additionally, the Rainbow mea-sures predict substantially beyond the con-tributions of the SAT and high school GPA These findings, combined with encouraging results regarding the reduction of between- ethnicity differences, make a compelling case for furthering the study of the mea-surement of analytic, creative, and practical skills for predicting success in the university.One important goal for the current study, and future studies, is the creation of stan-dardized assessments that reduce the differ-ent outcomes between different groups as much as possible to maintain test validity The measures described here suggest results toward this end Although the group differ-ences in the tests were not reduced to zero, the tests did substantially attenuate group differences relative to other measures such

per-as the SAT This finding could be an tant step toward ultimately ensuring fair and equal treatment for members of diverse groups in the academic domain

impor-18 II CENTRAL CONSTRUCTS

The principles behind the Rainbow

Proj-ect apply at other levels of admissions as

well Consider two examples

The Advanced Placement Project

Stemler, Grigorenko, Jarvin, and Sternberg

(2006) and Stemler, Sternberg, Grigorenko,

Jarvin, and Sharpes (2009) placed creative

and practical items on advanced placement

tests of psychology, statistics, and physics

These tests are used for college admissions

Here is an example for psychology:

A variety of explanations have been proposed

to account for why people sleep.

a) Describe the Restorative Theory of sleep

(memory).

b) An alternative theory is an evolutionary

theory of sleep, sometimes referred to as

the “Preservation and Protection” theory

Describe this theory and compare and

con-trast it with the Restorative Theory State

what you see as the two strong points and

two weak points of this theory compared

to the Restorative Theory (analytical).

c) How might you design an experiment to

test the Restorative Theory of sleep? Briefly

describe the experiment, including the

par-ticipants, materials, procedures, and design

(creative).

d) A friend informs you that she is having

trouble sleeping Based on your knowledge

of sleep, what kinds of helpful (and health-

promoting) suggestions might you give her

to help her fall asleep at night (practical)?

The authors found that by asking such

questions, as they did in the other studies,

they were able both to increase the range of

skills tested and substantially reduce ethnic-

group differences in test scores Thus, it

is possible to reduce group differences in

not only tests of aptitude but also tests of

achievement

The University of Michigan Business

School Project

Hedlund, Wilt, Nebel, Ashford, and

Stern-berg (2006) devised a test that could be

used to supplement the Graduate

Manage-ment Admissions Test (GMAT) for graduate

business school admissions The idea of the

test was to create scenarios actually likely to

be encountered in business, encompassing

a variety of business challenges, ing a personnel shortage, strategic decision making, a problem subordinate, a consult-ing challenge, interdepartmental negotia-tions, and project management There were two versions of the test One had long and involved scenarios providing relatively com-prehensive information about the problem, including graphs and charts The other ver-sion presented relatively short vignettes, such as the one below:

includ-Scenario 1: Personnel Shortage

1a You are a senior- level manager in the human resources department of a medium- size manu- facturing plant (2,500 employees) Your primary responsibility is to oversee employee selection and staffing The plant has found itself in a unique situation in which product demand has been high but unemployment levels are low This situation has resulted in a personnel shortage in key areas of the plant (20 % in production, 15%

in maintenance, and 25% in engineering) To avoid layoffs and reduce overhead costs, the com- pany has previously used temporary laborers to compensate for fluctuations in product demand For the past 6 months, product demand has been very high, and future projections continue to be positive for the next 3–6 months In the short term (3 months or less), temporary workers are more cost- effective; however, their commitment

to the job and work quality is less than that of full-time employees In the long term (6 months

or more), hiring full-time employees is more cost- effective However, if production demands drop,

as they often do, the plant would have to lay off employees, which it has never done in its entire 25-year history The plant was faced with the fol- lowing options:

Hire temporary employees to compensate for the immediate shortage and reassess the situation in 3 months.

Hire full-time employees, but let them know that if production demands decrease, you will have to let them go Hire a few full-time employees to fill some of the positions and fill the rest with temporary employees to minimize layoffs should production demand diminish Ask members of each department to evaluate their own personnel needs and

2 Intelligence and Competence 19

recommend the best approach for their

own department.

Research the situation in more detail to

get a better indication of future product

demand and of the relative costs and

ben-efits of various staffing options before

making any final decisions.

Present the available information to

members of top management and have

them make a final decision on how to best

handle the personnel shortage.

Offer overtime hours for existing

employ-ees, to see if they would like the

opportu-nity to make more money, before hiring

temporary laborers or full-time

employ-ees.

Each of the options was rated on a 1 (low)

to 7 (high) scale for how effective it would

be as a solution to the problem The answers

were compared with those of experts

The longer versions did not include

response options, but it did include a set

of questions to be addressed, based on the

detailed scenarios the students read:

•

• Problem identification and rationale

“What do you see as the main problem in

this situation?”; “Why do you consider it to

be the main problem?”; “What additional

problems need to be addressed?”

•

• Solution generation and rationale

“What would you do to address the main

problem you have identified?”; “What

alter-native courses of action did you consider?”;

“Why did you choose your particular course

of action?”

•

• Information processing “What

infor-mation did you focus on in developing a

response to the situation?”; “How did you

use the information to arrive at a response

to the situation?” “Did you draw on any

per-sonal experiences in developing a response to

the situation?”; “If so, please explain What

additional information/resources would you

need to address this problem?”

•

• Outcome monitoring and obstacle

rec-ognition “What outcome do you hope will

result from the course of action you have

chosen?”; “What obstacles, if any, do you

anticipate to obtaining this outcome?”

We found, first, that both measures icantly predicted academic success as mea-sured by first-year grades Second, we found that when our measures were used as supple-ments to the GMAT, they increased predic-tive validity of first-year grades by roughly

signif-3–4% (i.e., 03 to 04 incremental R2) Third, we found that our measures signifi-cantly predicted quality of performance on

an independent project (whereas the GMAT did not) Fourth, we found that our mea-sure positively correlated with participation

in extracurricular and leadership activities (whereas the GMAT correlated negatively) Finally, we found that our measures substan-tially reduced (but did not eliminate) ethnic- group differences relative to the GMAT

The Kaleidoscope Project

It is one thing to have a successful research project, and another actually to implement the procedures in a high- stakes situation

My colleagues and I have had the nity to do so The results of a second proj-ect, Project Kaleidoscope, are reviewed here (Sternberg, 2009; Sternberg, Bonney, Gab-ora, Karelitz, & Coffin, 2010; Sternberg & Coffin, 2010)

opportu-Tufts University in Medford, setts, has strongly emphasized the role of active citizenship in education It has put into practice some of the ideas from the Rainbow Project In collaboration with Dean of Admissions Lee Coffin, we insti-tuted Project Kaleidoscope, which represents

Massachu-an implementation of the ideas of Rainbow but goes beyond that project to include in its assessment the construct of wisdom (see also Karelitz, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2010; Stern-berg, 2009, 2010; Sternberg et al., 2010)

On the application for all of the over 15,000 students applying annually to Arts, Sciences, and Engineering at Tufts, we placed questions designed to assess wisdom, analytical and practical intelligence, and cre-ativity synthesized (WICS), an extension of the theory of successful intelligence (Stern-berg, 2003) The program is still in use, but the data reported here are for the first year

of implementation

The questions were optional Whereas the Rainbow Project was a separate high- stakes test administered with a proctor,

20 II CENTRAL CONSTRUCTS

the Kaleidoscope Project was a section of

the Tufts- specific supplement to the

Com-mon Application It just was not practical to

administer a separate high- stakes test such

as the Rainbow assessment for admission

to one university Moreover, the advantage

of Kaleidoscope is that it got us away from

the high- stakes testing situation in which

students must answer complex questions in

very short amounts of time under incredible

pressure

Students were encouraged to answer just

a single question so as not overburden them

Tufts University competes for applications

with many other universities, and if our

application was substantially more

burden-some than those of our competitor schools,

it would put us at a real-world

disadvan-tage in attracting applicants In the theory

of successful intelligence, successful

intelli-gent individuals capitalize on strengths and

compensate for or correct weaknesses Our

format gave students a chance to capitalize

on a strength

As examples of items, a creative question

asked students to write stories with titles

such as “The End of MTV” or “Confessions

of a Middle School Bully.” Another creative

question asked students what the world

would be like if some historical event had

come out differently, for example, if Rosa

Parks had given up her seat on the bus Yet

another creative question, a nonverbal one,

gave students an opportunity to design a

new product or an advertisement for a new

product A practical question queried how

students had persuaded friends of an

unpop-ular idea they held A wisdom question

asked students how a passion they had could

be applied toward a common good

Creativity and practicality were assessed

in the same way as in the Rainbow Project

Analytical quality was assessed by the

orga-nization, logic, and balance of the essay

Wis-dom was assessed by the extent to which the

response represented the use of abilities and

knowledge for a common good by balancing

one’s own, others’, and institutional

inter-ests over the long and short term, through

the infusion of positive ethical values

Note that the goal is not to replace SAT

and other traditional admissions

measure-ments such as GPAs and class rank with some

new test Rather, it is to reconceptualize

applicants in terms of academic/analytical, creative, practical, and wisdom- based abili-ties, using the essays as one but not the only source of information For example, highly creative work submitted in a portfolio also could be entered into the creativity rating,

or evidence of creativity through winning

of prizes or awards The essays were major sources of information, but if other informa-tion was available, the trained admissions officers used it

Applicants were evaluated for creative, practical, and wisdom- based skills, if suffi-cient evidence was available, as well as for academic (analytical) and personal qualities

in general

Among the applicants who were ated as being academically qualified for admission, approximately half completed

evalu-an optional essay Doing these essays had no meaningful effect on chances of admissions

However, quality of essays or other evidence

of creative, practical, or wisdom- based ties did have an effect For those rated as an

abili-A (top rating) by a trained admission officer

in any of these three categories, average rates

of acceptance were roughly double those for applicants not getting an A Because of the large number of essays (over 8,000), only one rater rated applicants except for a sam-ple to ensure that interrater reliability was sufficient, which it was

Many measures do not look like ventional standardized tests, but they have statistical properties that mimic them We were therefore interested in convergent– discriminant validation of our measures The correlation of our measures with a rated academic composite that included SAT scores and high school GPA were modest but significant for creative, practical, and wise thinking The correlations with a rating of quality of extracurricular participation and leadership were moderate for creative, prac-tical, and wise thinking Thus, the pattern

con-of convergent– discriminant validation was what we had hoped it would be

The average academic quality of cants in Arts and Sciences for whom we had data rose in the first year of the implementa-tion, in terms of both SAT and high school GPA In addition, there were notably fewer students in what before had been the bottom one-third of the pool in terms of academic

2 Intelligence and Competence 21

quality Many of those students, seeing the

new application, seem to have decided not

to bother to apply Many stronger applicants

applied

Thus, adopting these new methods does

not result in less qualified applicants

apply-ing to the institution and beapply-ing admitted

Rather, the applicants who are admitted

are more qualified, but in a broader way

Perhaps most rewarding were the positive

comments from a large number of

appli-cants who felt our application gave them

a chance to show themselves for who they

are Of course, many factors are involved in

admissions decisions, and Kaleidoscope

rat-ings were only one small part of the overall

picture

We did not get meaningful differences

across ethnic groups, a result that surprised

us, given that the earlier Rainbow Project

reduced but did not eliminate differences

And after a number of years in which

appli-cations by underrepresented minorities were

relatively flat in terms of numbers, this year,

they went up substantially In the end,

appli-cations from African Americans and

His-panic Americans increased significantly,

and admissions of African Americans were

up 30%, and those of Hispanic Americans,

15% These results suggest that ethnic/race

differences that sometimes are taken for

granted are actually dependent on the kinds

of material being tested (Sternberg,

Grigo-renko, & Kidd, 2005) So our results, like

those of the Rainbow Project, showed that it

is possible to increase academic quality and

diversity simultaneously, and to do so in for

an entire undergraduate class at a major

uni-versity, not just for small samples of students

at some scattered schools Most importantly,

we sent a message to students, parents, high

school guidance counselors, and others, that

we believe there is more to a person than the

narrow spectrum of skills assessed by

stan-dardized tests, and that these broader skills

can be assessed in a quantifiable way

The Panorama Project

During my years as Provost at Oklahoma

State University, the Panorama Project, a

project similar to Kaleidoscope, was

imple-mented, but tailored to the needs of a large

and diverse land-grant institution The

results had not yet been formally analyzed when I left Oklahoma State, but the admis-sions office and others in the administration were happy with the results

CONCLUSION

Conventional tests of abilities have tended

to value the kinds of skills most valued by Western schools This system of valuing is understandable given that Binet and Simon (1905) first developed intelligence tests for the purpose of predicting school perfor-mance Moreover, these skills are impor-tant in school and in life But in the modern world, the conception of abilities as fixed or even as predetermined is an anachronism Moreover, our research and that of others (reviewed more extensively in Sternberg, 2003; Sternberg et al., 2011) shows that the set of abilities assessed by conventional tests measures only a small portion of the kinds

of competencies relevant for life success It

is for this reason that conventional tests dict only about 10% of individual- difference variation in various measures of success in adult life (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994).Not all cultures value equally the kinds

pre-of expertise measured by these tests In a study comparing Latino, Asian, and Anglo subcultures in California, for example, we found that Latino parents valued social kinds of competence as more important to intelligence than did Asian and Anglo par-ents, who placed more value on cognitive kinds of competence (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993) Predictably, teachers also placed more value on cognitive kinds of compe-tence, with the result that the Anglo and Asian children would be expected to do bet-ter in school, and they did Of course, cogni-tive skills matter in school and in life, but

so do social skills Both need to be taught

in the school and the home to all children This latter kind of competence may become even more important in the workplace Until

we expand our notions of abilities and ognize that when we measure them, we are measuring highly diverse competencies, we risk consigning many potentially excellent contributors to our society to bleak futures

rec-We may also be potentially overvaluing dents with skills for success in a certain kind

stu-22 II CENTRAL CONSTRUCTS

of schooling, but not necessarily with equal

skills for success later in life

REFERENCES

Aarts, H., & Elliot, A (Eds.) (2011) Goal-

directed behavior New York: Ballantine.

Amabile, T M (1996) Creativity in context

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L V., & Tan, M L (2011)

Cultural intelligence In R J Sternberg & S

B Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of

intelligence (pp 582–602) New York:

Cam-bridge University Press.

Bandura, A (1996) Self- efficacy: The exercise of

control New York: Freeman.

Binet, A., & Simon, T (1905) Méthodes

nou-velles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel

des anormaux [New methods for the diagnosis

of the intellectual level of abnormal children]

L’Année Psychologique, 11, 191–336.

Bouchard, T J., Jr (1998) Genetic and

environ-mental influences on adult intelligence and

special mental abilities Human Biology, 70,

257–279.

Boyatzis, R E., Gaskin, J., & Wei, H (2015)

Emotional and social intelligence and

behav-ior In S Goldstein, D Princiotta, & J A

Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of intelligence

(pp 243–262) New York: Springer.

Carroll, J B (1993) Human cognitive

abili-ties: A survey of factor- analytic studies New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Ceci, S J., & Liker, J (1986) Academic and

nonacademic intelligence: An experimental

separation In R J Sternberg & R K

Wag-ner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and

origins of competence in the everyday world

(pp 119–142) New York: Cambridge

Univer-sity Press.

Ceci, S J., & Roazzi, A (1994) The effects of

context on cognition: Postcards from Brazil

In R J Sternberg & R K Wagner (Eds.),

Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives

on human intelligence (pp 74–101) New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Cianciolo, A T., Matthew, C T., Wagner, R

A., & Sternberg, R J (2006) Tacit

knowl-edge, practical intelligence, and expertise In

N Charness, K A Ericsson, P Feltovich, &

R Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of

expertise and expert performance (pp 613–

632) New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dai, D Y., & Sternberg, R J (Eds.) (2004)

Motivation, emotion, and cognition:

Integra-tive perspecIntegra-tives on intellectual functioning

and development Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dweck, C S (1999) Self- theories: Their role in

motivation, personality, and development

Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & cis.

Fran-Dweck, C S (2002) Messages that motivate: How praise molds students’ beliefs, motiva- tion, and performance (in surprising ways)

In J Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic

achievement: Impact of psychological factors

on education (pp 37–60) San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Dweck, C S (2007) Mindset: The new

psychol-ogy of success New York: Ballantine.

Dweck, C S., & Elliott, E S (1983) ment motivation In P H Mussen (General

Achieve-Ed.) & E M Hetherington (Vol Achieve-Ed.),

Hand-book of child psychology: Socialization, sonality, and social development (4th ed., Vol

per-4, pp 644–691) New York: Wiley.

Ericsson, K A (Ed.) (1996) The road to

excel-lence: The acquisition of expert performance

in the arts and sciences, sports and games

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ericsson, K A., Krampe, R T., & Tesch-Römer,

C (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the

acquisition of expert performance

Psycholog-ical Review, 100, 363–406.

Gardner, H (2011) Frames of mind: The theory

of multiple intelligences (3rd ed.) New York:

Basic Books.

Goleman, D (2005) Emotional intelligence

New York: Bantam Books.

Grigorenko, E L., Meier, E., Lipka, J., Mohatt, G., Yanez, E., & Sternberg, R J (2004) Aca- demic and practical intelligence: A case study

of the Yup’ik in Alaska Learning and

Indi-vidual Differences, 14, 183–207.

Grigorenko, E L., & Sternberg, R J (2001a) Analytical, creative, and practical intelligence

as predictors of self- reported adaptive

func-tioning: A case study in Russia Intelligence,

29, 57–73.

Grigorenko, E L., & Sternberg, R J (Eds.)

(2001b) Family environment and intellectual

functioning: A life-span perspective

Mah-wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hedlund, J., Forsythe, G B., Horvath, J A., liams, W M., Snook, S., & Sternberg, R J (2003) Identifying and assessing tacit knowl- edge: Understanding the practical intelligence

Wil-of military leaders Leadership Quarterly, 14,

117–140.

Hedlund, J., Wilt, J M., Nebel, K R., Ashford,

S J., & Sternberg, R J (2006) Assessing practical intelligence in business school admis- sions: A supplement to the Graduate Manage-

ment Admissions Test Learning and

Individ-ual Differences, 16, 101–127.

Herrnstein, R J., & Murray, C (1994) The bell

curve New York: Free Press.

2 Intelligence and Competence 23 Hunt, E B (2010) Human intelligence New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Jensen, A R (1998) The g factor: The science of

mental ability Westport, CT:

Praeger/Green-wood.

Karelitz, T M., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R J

(2010) The meaning of wisdom and its

devel-opment throughout life In W Overton (Ed.),

Handbook of lifespan human development

(pp 837–881) New York: Wiley.

Kyllonen, P C (2002) g: Knowledge, speed,

strategies, or working- memory capacity?: A

systems perspective In R J Sternberg & E

L Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of

intelligence: How general is it? (pp 415–445)

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lave, J (1989) Cognition in practice New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Mackintosh, N J (2011) IQ and human

intelli-gence (2nd ed.) New York: Oxford University

Press.

Mayer, J D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D R., &

Cher-kasskiy, L (2011) Emotional intelligence In

R J Sternberg & S B Kaufman (Eds.),

Cam-bridge handbook of intelligence (pp 528–

549) New York: Cambridge University Press.

McClelland, D C (1985) Human motivation

New York: Scott, Foresman.

McClelland, D C., Atkinson, J W., Clark, R

A., & Lowell, E L (1976) The achievement

motive New York: Irvington.

Niu, W., & Brass, J (2011) Intelligence in

world-wide perspective In R J Sternberg & S B

Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of

intelligence (pp 623–646) New York:

Cam-bridge University Press.

Nuñes, T (1994) Street intelligence In R J

Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

intel-ligence (Vol 2, pp 1045–1049) New York:

Macmillan.

Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R J (1993)

Paren-tal beliefs and children’s school performance

Child Development, 64, 36–56.

Stemler, S., Sternberg, R J., Grigorenko, E L.,

Jarvin, L., & Sharpes, D K (2009) Using the

theory of successful intelligence as a

frame-work for developing assessments in AP

Phys-ics Contemporary Educational Psychology,

34, 195–209.

Stemler, S E., Grigorenko, E L., Jarvin, L.,

& Sternberg, R J (2006) Using the theory

of successful intelligence as a basis for

aug-menting AP exams in psychology and

statis-tics Contemporary Educational Psychology,

31(2), 344–376.

Sternberg, R J (1984) What should intelligence

tests test?: Implications of a triarchic theory

of intelligence for intelligence testing

Educa-tional Researcher, 13, 5–15.

Sternberg, R J (1985) Beyond IQ: A triarchic

theory of human intelligence New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R J (1990) Metaphors of mind New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R J (1994) Cognitive conceptions

of expertise International Journal of Expert

Systems: Research and Application, 7, 1–12.

Sternberg, R J (1996) What should we ask

about intelligence? American Scholar, 65(2),

205–217.

Sternberg, R J (1997a) Successful intelligence

New York: Plenum Press.

Sternberg, R J (1997b) What does it mean to be

smart? Educational Leadership, 54(6), 20–24.

Sternberg, R J (1999) Intelligence as

develop-ing expertise Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 24, 359–375.

Sternberg, R J (Ed.) (2002) Why smart people

can be so stupid New Haven, CT: Yale

Uni-versity Press.

Sternberg, R J (2003) Wisdom, intelligence,

and creativity synthesized New York:

Cam-bridge University Press.

Sternberg, R J (2007) Intelligence and culture

In S Kitayama & D Cohen (Eds.), Handbook

of cultural psychology (pp 547–568) New

York: Guilford Press.

Sternberg, R J (2009) The Rainbow and Kaleidoscope Projects: A new psychological

approach to undergraduate admissions

Euro-pean Psychologist, 14, 279–287.

Sternberg, R J (2010) College admissions for

the 21st century Cambridge, MA: Harvard

(pp 53–74) New York: Springer.

Sternberg, R J (2014) The development of

adaptive competence Developmental Review,

34, 208–224.

Sternberg, R J (2015) Multiple intelligences in the new age of thinking In S Goldstein, D

Princiotta, & J A Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of

intelligence (pp 229–242) New York: Springer.

Sternberg, R J., Bonney, C R., Gabora, L., Karelitz, T., & Coffin, L (2010) Broadening the spectrum of undergraduate admissions

College and University, 86(1), 2–17.

Sternberg, R J., Bonney, C R., Gabora, L., & Merrifield, M (2012) WICS: A model for col-

lege and university admissions Educational

24 II CENTRAL CONSTRUCTS Sternberg, R J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P

R., & Grigorenko, E L (1996) Identification,

instruction, and assessment of gifted children:

A construct validation of a triarchic model

Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129–137.

Sternberg, R J., Forsythe, G B., Hedlund, J.,

Horvath, J., Snook, S., Williams, W M., et al

(2000) Practical intelligence in everyday life

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R J., & Grigorenko, E L (Eds.)

(2001) Environmental effects on cognitive

abilities Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R J., & Grigorenko, E L (Eds.)

(2002) The general factor of intelligence:

How general is it? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R J., & Grigorenko, E L (2007)

Teaching for successful intelligence (2nd ed.)

Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and

Publishing.

Sternberg, R J., Grigorenko, E L., Ferrari, M.,

& Clinkenbeard, P (1999) A triarchic

analy-sis of an aptitude– treatment interaction

Euro-pean Journal of Psychological Assessment,

15(1), 1–11.

Sternberg, R J., Grigorenko, E L., & Kidd, K

K (2005) Intelligence, race, and genetics

American Psychologist, 60(1), 46–59.

Sternberg, R J., & Hedlund, J (2002) Practical

intelligence, g, and work psychology Human

Performance, 15(1/2), 143–160.

Sternberg, R J., Jarvin, L., Birney, D., Naples,

A., Stemler, S., Newman, T., et al (2014)

Testing the theory of successful intelligence in

teaching grade 4 language arts, mathematics,

and science Journal of Educational

Psychol-ogy, 106, 881–899.

Sternberg, R J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E L

(2011) Explorations of the nature of

gifted-ness New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R J., & Kaufman, S B (Eds.) (2011)

Cambridge handbook of intelligence New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R J., Kaufman, J C., & Grigorenko,

E L (2008) Applied intelligence New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R J., & Lubart, T I (1995) Defying

the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture

of conformity New York: Free Press.

Sternberg, R J., & Lubart, T I (1996)

Invest-ing in creativity American Psychologist, 51,

677–688.

Sternberg, R J., Nokes, K., Geissler, P W., Prince, R., Okatcha, F., Bundy, D A., et al (2001) The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: A case study in

Kenya Intelligence, 29, 401–418.

Sternberg, R J., & The Rainbow Project orators (2006) The Rainbow Project: Enhanc- ing the SAT through assessments of analyti-

Collab-cal, practical and creative skills Intelligence,

In H Reese & J Puckett (Eds.), Advances in

lifespan development (pp 205–227)

Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R J., Wagner, R K., Williams, W M., & Horvath, J A (1995) Testing common

sense American Psychologist, 50, 912–927.

Sternberg, R J., & Weil, E M (1980) An aptitude– strategy interaction in linear syllo-

gistic reasoning Journal of Educational

Psy-chology, 72, 226–234.

25

The thrill of victory and agony of defeat

are well known to anybody who has

pur-sued competence Images of the victorious

and vanquished are characterized by facial

expressions, gestures, and postures that

sug-gest a highly emotional experience These

emotional experiences are powerful because

they reflect how people interpret the

mean-ing of an outcome in relation to their broader

self- concept Competence is a psychological

motive that both organizes daily experience

and shapes our self- concept Over time, self-

conscious emotions typically experienced

as a result of competence pursuits may be

evoked by the mere thought of pursuing

com-petence These anticipatory self- conscious

emotional experiences provide an early

stim-ulus around which achievement strivings are

organized Achievement motives were

con-ceived to describe these anticipatory

affec-tive experiences and explain how they

orga-nize achievement pursuits

Achievement motives have been reviewed

in a number of chapters and review

arti-cles over the years (e.g., Conroy, Elliot, &

Thrash, 2009; Elliot, Conroy, Barron, &

Murayama, 2010; Pang, 2010; Schultheiss

& Brunstein, 2005) For this volume, the

goal is to develop an integrative

perspec-tive on how these moperspec-tives organize

affec-tive, cogniaffec-tive, and behavioral experiences

during competence pursuits Research on achievement motives has slowed since its peak in the mid- to late 20th century, so recent developments in psychological theo-rizing and assessment are integrated to high-light the enduring scientific and practical value of achievement motives Special atten-tion is given to developments in dual- process models of motivation and behavior, with an aim of simultaneously differentiating and integrating these motivational systems Fol-lowing this theoretical review, this chapter addresses applications— both established and potential— of these motives in a number

of the specific contexts in which people sue competence most frequently

pur-THEORY

To understand the conceptual origins of the achievement motive construct, it is useful to return to White’s (1959) theoriz-ing about effectance motivation and com-petence Limitations of theories based on primary drives, particularly for “explain-ing exploratory behavior, manipulation, and general activity” (p 328), led White to propose a novel effectance motive Many of these unexplained, often playful behaviors exist both selectively and persistently from

CHAP TER 3

Achievement Motives

DAVID E CONROY