“I WANT TO TRY AND TRY”:

INCREASING ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION IN YOUNG CHILDREN

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES

OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Allison Master

May 2011

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/

This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/hx314zv7838

© 2011 by Allison Leigh Master. All Rights Reserved.

Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

ii

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Carol Dweck, Primary Adviser

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Ellen Markman

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Gregory Walton

Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies.

Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education

This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file inUniversity Archives.

iii

iv

ABSTRACT

Motivation to learn plays a critical role in students’ academic success. This

dissertation reports five experiments (N = 250) that increase children’s motivation

(specifically, challenge seeking and persistence) through storybooks. The first two

studies examined how manipulating the similarity between the main character of a story

and the participating child affected preschoolers’ (Study 1) and kindergarteners’ (Study

2) motivation as assessed by the choice of and persistence on challenging puzzles.

Study 2 also compared effects for struggling versus non-struggling students. Study 3

examined whether persuasion would increase challenge seeking, when children

convince someone else of the value of taking on challenges and persisting. Study 4

examined effects over time, and found that children showed a robust boost in challenge

seeking two weeks later, especially those who were reminded of the original book.

Study 5 examined whether the effects could be due to a particular aspect of the books,

process praise, which sends a message that effort and persistence are effective and

valued. Increasing children’s motivation at a young age may set the stage for future

academic achievement, creating a cycle of positive motivation and academic success.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work would not have been possible without the support and encouragement

of a number of people. First, I would like to thank Carol Dweck for her tremendous

support, wisdom, and mentoring over the past few years. Her work and ideas have

forever changed my life. I also consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to

collaborate with and learn from Ellen Markman, Greg Walton, Geoff Cohen, Mark

Lepper, and James Gross. They have all had a profound effect on the way I think about

the world and the psychological processes that shape motivation and well-being.

I would also like to thank the members of the Dweck/Walton and Markman

Labs, and all the other DevoStuds, for all of their friendship, advice, and game nights

through the years, especially Quin Yow, Carissa Romero, and Luke Butler.

The majority of this research was conducted at the Bing Nursery School, so I

would like to thank the children who participated and the teachers who encouraged

them to participate. I am particularly grateful to Chia-wa Yeh, Jennifer Winters, and

Beth Wise for all of their help and valuable feedback. Bing is an amazing place, and I

have had far more fun there over the past few years as “Teacher Game Room” than a

respectable doctoral candidate should. Thanks as well to the staff and students of the

Palo Alto Unified School District.

Many outstanding research assistants helped me collect data for this and other

projects. Special thanks to Emily Campbell, Lauren Hay, Amy Ho, Armando Lopez,

Charishma Chotalia, Isa Dillingham, Carly Janiga, Jessica Snyder, Whitney Worthen,

Cole Murphy-Hockett, Kristine Baluyot, Sadie Zapata, Jacky Mendoza, Charissa

Tansomboon, and Hannah Jaycox for all their hard work.

I would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by a Regina Casper

Stanford Graduate Fellowship, a National Science Foundation Graduate Research

Fellowship, and an Elizabeth Munsterberg Koppitz Child Psychology Graduate

Fellowship from the American Psychological Foundation.

Finally, I would like to thank my family. My parents and my sister Karen have

always supported me, believed in me, and let me be as intrinsically motivated as I

wanted to be. They are wonderful. And speaking of wonderful (and tylerrific), I am

vi

grateful to Tyler for his love and support. Together we have climbed mountains and

had amazing adventures, and I can’t wait for the next. I love you.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... 1

The Importance of Motivation…………………………………….…………………1

The Importance of Motivation in Early Childhood……………………………...…..3

Factors that Increase Motivation in Children……………………………………..…5

Factors that May Help Children Internalize Motivation………………………….…7

Motivational Factors to be Examined………………………….………………...…11

Study 1: Motivation in Preschoolers…………………………………………………...14

Method…………………………………………………………………….……16

Results……………………………………………………………………….…18

Discussion…………………………………………………………………..…..24

Study 2: Motivation in Older Children……………………………………………...….26

Method……………………………………………………………………..…...26

Results…………………………………………………………………….……27

Discussion…………………………………………………………………...….32

Study 3: Persuasion and Challenge Seeking………………………………………...…34

Method……………………………………………………………………..…...35

Results……………………………………………………………………….....37

Discussion………………………………………………………………………39

Study 4: Longitudinal Effects on Challenge Seeking………………………………......41

Method…………………………………………………………………….…....42

Results……………………………………………………………………….....43

Discussion…………………………………………………………………...….46

Study 5: Effects of Praise on Motivation…………………………………………...….49

Method……………………………………………………………………….....51

Results……………………………………………………………………...…..53

Discussion………………………………………………………………………57

General Discussion………………………………………………………………..…....59

References

Appendices……………………………………………………………………..71

viii

List of References………………………………………………………………78

Tables…………………………………………………………………………………..91

Figures………………………………………………………………………………….97

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Challenge seeking scale, Studies 1 and 2…………………………........91

Table 2 Summary of results……………………………………………………..92

Table 3 Helmert style contrasts for condition, Studies 1 and 2…………………93

Table 4 Effects of condition on puzzle and activity choices, and pre-challenge

and post-challenge choices………………………….…………….....…94

Table 5 Effects on children’s open-ended explanations for their choices………95

Table 6 Effects of condition on length of time persisted and number of puzzle

pieces correctly placed…………………………………………………96

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Challenge seeking, Study 1..……………………………...................…97

Figure 2 Children’s global badness beliefs and challenge seeking, Study 1….....98

Figure 3 Persistence, Study 1..……………………………...............................…99

Figure 4 Motivation composite, Study 1………………………………………..100

Figure 5 Children’s global badness beliefs and challenge seeking, Study 2...…101

Figure 6 Persistence, Study 2..…………………………….............................…102

Figure 7 Motivation composite, Study 2…………………………………….….103

Figure 8 Challenge seeking, Study 3..…………………………….................…104

Figure 9 Challenge seeking by age, Study 3..…………………………..........…105

Figure 10 Challenge seeking, Study 4, Time 1..…………………………........…106

Figure 11 Challenge seeking, Study 4, Time 3…………………………………..107

Figure 12 Interaction between booster and age on challenge seeking for children

in the treatment condition, Study 4..……………………………......…108

Figure 13 Self-evaluation composite, Study 5..…………………….……........…109

Figure 14 Challenge seeking, Study 5..…………………………........………….110

Figure 15 Motivation composite, Study 5..………………………………........…111

Figure 16 Mastery-orientation composite (self-evaluations, challenge seeking,

and persistence), Study 5..…………………………...................…..…112

1

INTRODUCTION

Mastery and learning can be challenging and time-consuming processes.

Many practical and scientific discoveries, from the invention of sliced bread to the

discovery of radium, are the result of years of constant struggle and effort, and history

is filled with examples of people who took on enormous challenges and never gave up

despite frustration (Curie, 1921; Van Dulken, 2000). For example, Thomas Edison

persisted in efforts to improve the design of the light bulb despite thousands of failures

to get the results he wanted before he finally succeeded. Instead of giving up, he

viewed each “failure” as a learning experience (Edison, 1948). Many individuals seek

out challenge and keep right on going, even when the going gets tough. Yet many

others give up at the first sign of trouble and consistently take the easy way out. What

motivates those individuals who persevere in school and beyond? And how can that

information be used to increase the motivation of young students who seem to lack

that inner drive?

This dissertation describes the results of several studies that explore the effects

of an intervention that uses motivationally themed storybooks to increase young

children’s motivation. The remainder of this Introduction defines the relevant aspects

of motivation, outlines their importance for learning, and discusses why examining

motivation in early childhood is particularly critical. The final sections of the

Introduction discuss more specific aspects of the intervention: motivational factors

that were incorporated into the intervention (praise for effort, strategies for

persistence, and role models who cope with failure), other factors that increase the

likelihood that children internalize motivation (the use of concrete examples to

increase generalization, and storybooks as a method of delivering the intervention),

and two other factors that were manipulated in the following studies (the use of

personal identity, and persuading another person).

The Importance of Motivation

Challenge seeking and persistence are important behavioral components of

motivation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Feather, 1962). Challenge seeking is the choice

of a harder task over an easier task. It overlaps with the distinction between learning

2

goals (e.g., the choice of a difficult task which a person expects to learn from) vs.

performance goals (e.g., the choice of a typically easy task on which a person expects

to perform well). Persistence is the continuation of work on a task. It may be

operationalized as the choice to continue a challenging or difficult task rather than

switch to an easy task, or time spent on a difficult task (Thomas & Pashley, 1982).

Both involve confronting difficulty—one is opting to take on difficulty, while the

other is opting to continue when faced with difficulty.

Seeking challenge and persisting in the face of difficulty are optimal for

learning. Children benefit most when slightly challenged in terms of their current

cognitive level (Danner & Lonky, 1981; Deci, 1975; Kohlberg, 1994; Piaget, 1952,

1977). Students who actively seek out challenges, and who persist until they master

them, are more productive and successful in school (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews,

& Kelly, 2007; Helmreich, Beane, Lucker, & Spence, 1978; Lepper, Yow, & Master,

2011; Nicholls, 1979; Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985; Stipek, 2002).

Persistence is also a key part of motivation. It is generally more likely to lead to

success and certainly tends to be a more successful strategy than quitting (Jennings,

Connors, & Stegman, 1988; Jennings & Dietz, 2003). Lack of persistence can be a

symptom of helplessness, which is a constellation of negative responses (such as

negative cognitions about the self, negative emotions, and lack of persistence) that

occur when some individuals encounter difficult situations (Hebert & Dweck, 1985,

described in Dweck, 1991; Kistner, Ziegert, Castro, & Robertson, 2001; Lütkenhaus,

1984). However, note that students should not choose impossibly difficult tasks or

mindlessly persist. It is also important for students to distinguish between useful

persistence and useless, repetitive perseveration (Carver & Scheier, 2001; Dweck,

1999; Janoff-Bulman & Brickman, 1982; Morgan, Harmon, & Maslin-Cole, 1990).

Challenge seeking can be examined in young children, who demonstrate a

coherent understanding of what types of tasks are challenging for them. Three-year-

olds can accurately use the words “easy” and “hard” to describe tasks, and match them

with tasks that they “can” and “can’t” do (Bird & Thompson, 1986). However, young

children may not yet understand the value of tasks from which they can learn. Five-

3

and six-year-olds often show a preference for easy tasks because they do not yet

perceive that a hard task has the most value, for example, when asked, “What would

your teacher be most pleased you could do?” (Nicholls,1978). Although older

students and adults understand that hard tasks yield more value than easier ones, they

too may show preferences for easy tasks. For example, some students hold

“performance avoidance” goals in which they wish to avoid all risk of failure (Elliot &

Harackiewicz, 1996) or work-avoidant goals, in which they are concerned with

minimizing their effort (Archer, 1994; Meece, Blumenfield, & Hoyle, 1988).

The Importance of Motivation in Early Childhood

Examining motivation in early childhood (including how to increase

motivation in young children) may be particularly critical, for three primary reasons.

First, early motivation can set students on a more positive trajectory to further

academic success and increased subsequent motivation (Stipek, 2001). For example,

motivation in early childhood predicts later cognitive abilities and achievement

(Luster & McAdoo, 1996; Sigman, Cohen, Beckwith, & Topinka, 1987). Although

those studies are correlational, this raises the possibility that an increase in motivation

in early childhood could improve later achievement and create a recursive causal

relationship, in which small changes in motivation lead to higher achievement and

competence, which then in turn increase motivation over time (Bronson, 2000; Cohen,

Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, Apfel, & Brzustoski, 2009; Heckman, 2006; Lepper &

Greene, 1978; Stipek & Greene, 2001). This type of increase in motivation could be

used to set students on a learning track before they have experienced real academic

failure.

Second, achievement gaps between groups appear early in education, and

could be reduced through early intervention. The academic achievement gap between

Black and White children is already substantial by the time they enter elementary

school, and further differences emerge even among children who enter elementary

school with the same skills (Phillips, Crouse, & Ralph, 1998). Interventions that

encourage preschool children to engage in cognitively challenging tasks (e.g., the

Tools of the Mind program) have been remarkably successful among low-income and

4

minority populations, suggesting that encouraging young children to take on

challenges could help to narrow or close this achievement gap (Barnett, Jung, Yarosz,

Thomas, Hornbeck, Stechuk, & Burns, 2008; Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro,

2007).

Third, motivation typically exhibits a decline as students get older. Young

children are highly intrinsically motivated to explore and learn, but they show a

decline in intrinsic motivation in school by early adolescence (Cordova & Lepper,

1996; Dweck, 1986; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; Pintrich, 2003; Wigfield &

Eccles, 2002). However, preschool through early elementary age is a developmental

stage in which children are not yet concerned that the use of effort will lead to

negative assessments of their ability (Kun, 1977). Thus, they may be particularly

responsive to an intervention that teaches them to embrace challenge and put forth

effort, and may more easily see the subsequent rewards of persistence and hard work.

Thus, challenge seeking and persistence are critical components of motivation,

and understanding the factors that affect motivation in young children is extremely

important. Many factors have been examined as determinants of challenge seeking

and persistence, but most of this research and almost all motivational interventions

have been conducted with older children. Little is known about the foundations of

motivation in early childhood. Indeed, until relatively recently, many researchers

believed that young children were universally highly resilient and unlikely to show

helpless reactions to failure, compared to older children (see Burhans & Dweck,

1995), and thus young children were not perceived to be in need of motivational

interventions.

Considering the motivational literature, what factors might be most influential

for young children and create lasting motivational change? The goal of this research

was to create a basic motivational intervention for young children and systematically

examine what factors might make it more effective. The next three sections discuss

motivational factors incorporated into the intervention (praise for effort, strategies for

persisting, and role models who cope with failure), other non-motivational factors

incorporated into the intervention to help children internalize the intervention message

5

(the use of concrete examples, and storybooks as a method of delivering the

intervention), and factors that were manipulated in different versions of the

intervention (personal identity, and persuading another person).

Factors that Increase Motivation in Children

Three factors that have been found to increase children’s motivation were

incorporated into the basic intervention: praise for effort, strategies for persisting, and

role models who cope with failure.

Praise for Effort

First, praise for effort can increase children’s motivation. Whether children are

praised for their fixed traits (such as ability) or their behavior (such as effort or use of

strategies) can affect whether they want to continue at that task. Praise for effort may

help children focus on the learning process and the development of skills, and to value

learning opportunities instead of worrying about how well they will perform (Mueller

& Dweck, 1998). Indeed, praise for effort has been shown to increase children’s

challenge seeking and persistence (Keister, 1943; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). In

contrast, other types of praise may decrease motivation if they cause children to feel

evaluated or judged on the basis of their ability. For example, when 5th graders

encountered challenging problems, those who had previously been praised for effort

(“You must have worked hard at these problems”) were more likely to want to persist

and chose more challenging problems to work on than students who had been praised

for their ability (“You must be smart at these problems,” Mueller & Dweck, 1998).

The effects of different types of praise can be seen even in young children. In

one study, five-year-olds role-played a story (Kamins & Dweck, 1999). They were

given either process praise (similar to effort praise, e.g., “You must have tried really

hard”) or person praise (similar to ability praise, e.g., “You’re really good at this”).

Afterwards, they role-played their reactions to an unsuccessful activity. Those who

had been praised for effort/process were less likely to choose to give up and do

something else rather than continue compared to children who had been given

ability/person praise. They were also more likely to persist by constructing a helpful

solution to the role-played problem (e.g., “I can do it again better if I take my time,”

6

Kamins & Dweck, 1999, p. 840). Person praise conveys that traits (such as ability)

can be judged from performance and are deep-seated. When children struggle with a

task, they may feel helpless and choose to give up rather than persist. In contrast,

effort or process-based praise shows children that their effort is what is valued, and

leads to greater persistence. This type of praise helps children focus on the learning

process and welcome challenges.

Strategies for Persisting

A second factor incorporated into the intervention was to give children self-

instruction strategies for how to persist (that is, phrases to say to themselves to keep

themselves from giving up), which can help children persist longer and avoid the

temptation to quit. Previous studies found that preschool children were better able to

keep working on a task and resist a tempting interactive toy when given a plan for

resisting, such as telling themselves, “No I can’t, I’m working,” or “I’m going to keep

working” (Mischel & Patterson, 1976; Patterson & Mischel, 1975, 1976). This verbal

strategy helped children remember that their goal was to continue working and gave

them a salient alternative response other than quitting. Thus, when adults give

children a clear verbal strategy for persistence, children are better able to resist

temptation and continue to persist. In a more academic situation, effective strategies

might include teaching children to tell themselves such things as, “Just keep trying,”

or “I’m not going to give up.”

Role Models who Cope with Failure

The third factor incorporated into the intervention was increasing children’s

self-efficacy by giving them a role model who copes with failure. Self-efficacy is an

individual’s belief that he or she can successfully perform the behavior required to

produce a given outcome (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977), and it predicts greater

persistence in children (Schunk, 1981). One factor that has been shown to enhance

self-efficacy is the use of role models who cope with failure (Bandura & Schunk,

1981). Children may observe the success of role models who either succeed right

away (“mastery” models) or experience initial difficulty followed by gradual success

(“coping” models). Coping models demonstrate to students that persistent effort can

7

overcome difficulties, and thus have a more positive effect on students’ attitudes and

behavior. In one study, 9- to 12-year old children who had been struggling in

mathematics watched a videotape of a mastery-model or coping-model peer working

on a series of fraction problems (Schunk, Hanson, & Cox, 1987). Children who saw

the coping model showed significantly more self-efficacy and completed significantly

more problems in a series of tutoring sessions on fractions. While this has not been

tested with preschool children, seeing a role model who copes with failure may help

send a message to children that persistence pays off in the end, and thus they should

stay confident and persist through their own experience of difficulty.

Factors that May Help Children Internalize Motivation

The previous section discussed several motivational factors known to increase

challenge seeking and persistence. However, simply exposing children to these

motivational factors may not be enough to ensure they internalize greater motivation

and carry it into new situations. That is, developmental differences can affect how

well children are able to generalize information that they have learned in one situation

to a new situation. The goal of this research is to maximize the chances that children

internalize factors that increase achievement motivation and generalize them to new

learning situations, promoting long-lasting behavioral change.

In attempting to apply the research on generalization to a motivational context,

we make the assumption that the generalization of motivational factors follows rules

similar to the generalization of skills and principles. Children should learn these

motivational factors as general principles (e.g., “challenging tasks are better than easy

tasks”), rather than as specific to a particular situation. However, the current research

goes a step further: what might help children generalize, not just a problem-solving

strategy from one story to another, but from a story to the self (e.g., “I should choose

more challenging tasks”)? Moreover, children must then generalize that strategy to

new tasks. In this way, the research in this dissertation provides a novel addition to

the motivation literature and a new application for the cognitive development literature

on generalization. While the effect of motivation on generalization has been

examined, with mastery goals leading to better generalization and performance-

8

approach goals leading to worse generalization (Bereby-Meyer & Kaplan, 2005; Ford,

Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998), no one has yet looked at the effects of using

generalization principles to increase motivation (Pugh & Bergin, 2006). The next

sections examine factors that should increase the effectiveness of the intervention from

areas of research other than motivation: concrete examples to help children transfer

what they have learned to new situations, and storybooks as a method of transmitting

cultural values.

Concrete Examples Improve Generalization

Many studies suggest that young children in particular struggle to generalize

what they have learned to a new situation. Older children are better able than younger

children to apply what they have learned (Bereby-Meyer & Kaplan, 2005; Brown,

1989; Brown & Kane, 1988; Chen, 1999; Chen & Klahr, 1999). For example, 5th and

6th grade students were more able than preschoolers to transfer an analogy from a

storybook to a real-life situation (Holyoak, Junn, & Billman, 1984). However, one

factor that may improve young children’s generalization is the use of concrete

examples to help them recognize when new situations are relevant to what they have

previously learned.

Concrete examples can be very helpful for children (Brown & Kane, 1988;

Chen, Yanowitz, & Daehler, 1995). For instance, in one study, 8-year-old children

were asked to solve seemingly unbelievable riddles and were given hints that were

either concrete or abstract examples that illustrated the solution (Chen et al., 1995).

Children who heard concrete examples were the most likely to see the connection and

solve the riddle. This suggests that an intervention that gives children concrete

examples of increased motivation and its benefits may help them recognize and

appreciate similar opportunities in their own lives. For example, children who observe

a concrete example of how persisting leads to success (e.g., on a challenge puzzle)

may more easily see the benefits of persistence in new situations they encounter,

compared to children who are told about the benefits of persistence in a more abstract

sense. While it may seem counter-intuitive that a concrete example can lead to greater

generalization to other situations, the concrete example can help children gain a better

9

understanding of the general principle. That is, showing children how persisting on a

puzzle can help them get better at puzzles may be more convincing and effective than

simply telling them that they should persist in general.

In conclusion, while young children may not be as effective at generalizing

their knowledge as older children and adults, several factors can help them with this

task. First, as in all learning tasks, active involvement and engagement are crucial

(Crisafi & Brown, 1986). Second, it is important that children understand the learning

situation. When children are given concrete examples, they are more likely to transfer

what they have learned to a new, similar situation (Brown & Kane, 1988; Chen et al.,

1995).

Storybooks as Pedagogy

Many of these studies that have investigated how well children generalize

knowledge used stories to teach children a principle or strategy (Brown & Kane, 1988;

Gentner & Toupin, 1986; Holyoak et al., 1984). But how well do children learn from

storybooks compared to other sources of information?

Preschool children are very familiar with storybooks. Reading storybooks is a

very common joint activity between adults and children (Ganea, Pickard, &

DeLoache, 2008). By the time they enter school, middle-class preschoolers have

heard about 1000 hours of storybooks (Adams, 1990). Most children greatly enjoy

hearing stories, and young children often request to hear the same stories over and

over. Stories for children also frequently involve achievement as themes, with the

main character exhibiting effort, persistence, and the acquisition of skills and

knowledge (Child, Potter, & Levine, 1946; McArthur & Eisen, 1976).

Storybooks also provide an effective way of communicating particular values.

Indeed, storybooks are among the most frequent situations for explicit maternal

teaching (Brown, 1992; Marum, 1996; McClelland, 1961). Young children are eager

cultural learners, and storybooks provide a natural context for them to develop cultural

beliefs (Applebee, 1978; Bettelheim, 1976). Storybooks involve collaborative

engagement between child and adult, with joint intentions and attention (Tomasello,

Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005). Thus, book reading is a way for the adult to

10

indicate, “Pay attention to this, because I think it is important for you.” Previous

research suggests that preschoolers are sensitive to cultural messages implicit within

books (Tsai, Louie, Chen, & Uchida, 2007), and that personal storytelling (in which

adults tell children stories about themselves and their past experiences) is one way in

which children are socialized into their culture and its meaning systems (Miller,

Wiley, Fung, & Liang, 1997). These studies suggest that children readily pick up on

implicit or explicit messages in the stories they hear, and learn about what kinds of

things they should value.

Storytelling can also create strong identification with characters. The more

strongly children identify with characters they read in books, the more powerful the

effects on their socialization (Cohen, 2001). When they identify with a character, they

internalize that character’s point of view and share his or her goals (Bettelheim, 1976).

Similarity to a character (e.g., in terms of gender) increases the likelihood of

identification, which then increases the character’s effects on the child’s behavior

(Anderson et al., 2003; Cohen, 2001; Jose & Brewer, 1984; Maccoby & Wilson, 1957;

McArthur & Eisen, 1976).

The power of stories to shape children’s imagination suggests that a

manipulation that taps into this source could have a strong effect, as children identify

with and learn from characters in stories quite readily. Storybooks may be an effective

source of motivation for children, as narratives can have profound impacts on the lives

of the listeners. Because stories are so common yet powerful, they seem to provide a

logical method for increasing motivation that could be easily utilized in real

classrooms (Martin, 2008). Furthermore, previous research with college students

suggests that visualizing success from a third-person perspective (that is, looking at

yourself from the outside, as in a story) may increase achievement motivation more

than visualizing success from a first-person perspective (that is, imagining the

situation through your own eyes; Vasquez & Buehler, 2007). While this research has

not been replicated with children, it suggests that this type of perspective may help

children see the larger meaning and importance of their actions—that choosing a

harder task could be an important way to learn more.

11

Motivational Factors to be Examined

Two other factors were tested in the current research to examine whether they

influenced young children’s motivation: personal identity, and persuading another

person. (A third factor, different types of praise, was also examined in the final study;

see above for a discussion of the effects of praise on motivation.)

Personal Identity

Another potential way to increase motivation in young children is to create a

sense of identity linked to motivation. Will children show greater motivation if they

see themselves as someone who takes on challenges and persists? Research suggests

that identity and the way in which people perceive and categorize themselves can have

profound effects on their motivation. For example, labeling individuals in a particular

way can cause them to see themselves in that way. Fifth-grade students who were told

by teachers and the principal that they were neat and tidy threw significantly more

trash in the garbage instead of littering several days later (hence they became more

neat and tidy) than students who were told that they should be neat and tidy (Miller,

Brickman, & Bolen, 1975). Several weeks later, this group continued to throw away

more trash. Although this study did not explicitly measure motivation, it caused

behavioral change that persisted several weeks later. Convincing children that they

are already motivated and persistent may lead them to incorporate that into their

identity and to actually be more motivated and persistent. For young children in

particular, the more similar their identity is to the main character in a story, the more

likely they may be to identify with that character and apply the messages from that

story to their own lives. For example, one study found that preschool children showed

greater persistence at a task (attempting to use tongs to lift flowers in a bottle) after

hearing a story depicting achievement behavior involving a child of the same gender

compared to a story involving an opposite-gender child (McArthur & Eisen, 1976).

In addition, factors that increase the association between an academic task and

the self have been shown to lead to an increase in challenge seeking (Pintrich, 2003).

For example, Cordova and Lepper (1996) increased self-relevance in a math computer

game for 4th- and 5th-graders through personalization. This involved the incorporation

12

of students’ name, birthday, and favorite things into the game. Children who played a

personalized game wanted to spend more time playing the math game instead of going

to recess, and preferred to play a more challenging version of the game next time.

This suggests that motivational stories may be more effective if they are personally

relevant to children’s identity.

Persuasion and Dissonance

Many previous studies with older children and adults suggest that an extremely

effective way to change someone’s attitudes (e.g., attitudes toward challenging tasks)

is to have that person advocate a particular position (see Hovland, 1951). This effect

is also known as self-persuasion, because the act of persuading someone else appears

to more effectively persuade the speaker at the same time (Cialdini, Petty, &

Cacioppo, 1981). Persuading another person has been found to create long-lasting

attitude change in the self (see Aronson, 1999; Wilson, 1990). This may be due to

cognitive dissonance or self-perception effects (Bem, 1967; Festinger & Carlsmith,

1959), as individuals observe themselves endorsing that attitude, and infer that they

must truly believe it, also known as the “saying-is-believing effect” (Higgins &

Rholes, 1978; Janis & King, 1954). Several educational interventions have had

success with having students advocate a particular message to others. For example,

Aronson, Fried, and Good (2002) found that African American college students who

taught middle school pen pals that intelligence is malleable showed improvements

themselves in motivation and grades.

What about young children? Do they possess the cognitive capacity to exhibit

dissonance or track previous behavior and act consistently? Some studies with

preschoolers show evidence that they may be sensitive to similar kinds of dissonance

or self-perception effects (Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963; Egan, Santos, & Bloom, 2007;

Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973). In terms of an attitude such as challenge seeking,

dissonance could potentially occur if children have told someone else to choose

challenges, yet choose an easier task themselves. To avoid this dissonance, they may

choose harder tasks for themselves in order to be consistent with their previous

behavior of telling someone else that challenges are good. Would the motivational

13

effects of this manipulation be stronger if children could be induced to convince

someone else to take on challenges and persist? Would telling someone else to choose

challenging tasks make children more likely to choose challenging tasks themselves?

Summary

In conclusion, the current research examines a basic intervention involving

praise for effort, strategies for persisting, and a role model who copes with failure.

Some factors, such as praise for effort and strategies for persisting, have been shown

to effectively increase the motivation of young children in particular, while others

such as coping models have been demonstrated mainly with older children (Keister,

1943; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Patterson & Mischel, 1975; Schunk, 1981). This

intervention also incorporates concrete examples of motivation (e.g., a child choosing

a harder puzzle over an easier puzzle), and utilizes storybooks to communicate the

intervention. However, many motivational factors have not been tested systematically

with young children, and a solid understanding of the ways to increase challenge

seeking in preschoolers is still lacking from the literature. Will this intervention be

more effective if the storybooks are relevant to children’s personal identity? Will

having children persuade someone else of the value of challenges increase the

intervention’s effectiveness?

Current Research

The current dissertation has several main aims:

1) The primary aim of Study 1 is to extend research in motivation while

beginning to incorporate findings from cognitive development to increase young

children’s challenge seeking and persistence through storybooks. Do these storybooks

become more effective as the main character in the story increases in similarity to the

child? Independently of this manipulation, Study 1 also looks at how children’s

beliefs about goodness and badness relate to their motivation. Are children who

believe that mistakes imply badness more likely to avoid challenge?

2) A second aim, in Study 2, includes the examination of the effectiveness of

this manipulation in older children (kindergarteners). Are older children better able to

generalize from a story to themselves, regardless of how similar they are to the main

14

character? Further, Study 2 compares the effectiveness of the manipulation in

populations of struggling and non-struggling students.

3) A third aim, in Study 3, is to explore whether persuading another might

increase the book’s effectiveness, by having children transmit the ideas of the

storybook to others, compared to children who actively explain what happened in the

story. Do children who teach a puppet to choose hard tasks show more challenge

seeking themselves? Furthermore, do the storybooks create robust challenge seeking,

even after children have experienced a real challenge?

4) The fourth aim, in Study 4, is to explore whether effects persist over time.

Do the effects last at least two weeks?

5) A fifth aim, in Study 5, is to examine more closely one particular element in

the story (praise for effort), and how it might affect motivation. Does hearing a story

containing effort/process praise increase challenge seeking and persistence relative to

a story that does not?

STUDY 1: MOTIVATION IN PRESCHOOLERS

The research cited in the Introduction was used to create storybooks to

encourage children to choose hard tasks and persist at them. The storybooks used

processes shown to be effective in younger (4-5-year-old) and/or older (9-12-year-old)

children, such as praise for effort, strategies to resist the temptation to give up, and a

role model who struggles before succeeding (Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Patterson &

Mischel, 1975; Schunk, Hanson, & Cox, 1987). Previous interventions have also

utilized this process of combining several factors to maximize effects on children’s

motivation (Miller, Brickman, & Bolen, 1975). Thus, the story was designed to teach

children that they can and should choose challenges and persist in the face of

difficulty. Many children are familiar with the story of “The Little Engine that Could”

(Piper, 1930), but the story of a train trying to get over a mountain may not be

personally meaningful to children. But what if the main character were the child

herself? What if the task were more relevant to her life?

The story included a concrete situation (choosing easy or hard puzzles) that

was highly similar to the dependent measures, since the primary purposes of this study

15

were: 1) to establish the effectiveness of the storybooks in increasing children’s

challenge seeking and persistence; and 2) to examine whether similarity to the main

character increased this effectiveness. In Study 1, 4- and 5-year-old preschool

children were read one of four books by a researcher. Three were treatment stories

and one was a control story. The treatment books involved a main character learning

to try hard and persist, and varied in the main character’s similarity to the participating

child. Children then responded to questions assessing their preference for easy or

challenging tasks (including puzzles, as in the story, and also other activities, to assess

children’s generalization to other types of tasks). Children also gave explanations for

their choice of tasks, to see whether they explicitly mentioned seeking or avoiding

challenge. They were then given the chance to persist on an actual puzzle.

In addition to these measures, a secondary goal of this study (and of Study 2)

was to explore how children’s beliefs relate to motivation. Some children hold beliefs

that have been related to helplessness and lack of motivation in the face of difficulty.

These children have a tendency to overgeneralize trait inferences on the basis of

limited information, and perceive a single instance of making a mistake or

misbehaving as diagnostic of overall badness. That is, they see mistakes and

misbehavior as conveying implications about global goodness and badness. For these

children, a single mistake takes on broader significance, and can have negative

motivational consequences. In this dissertation, these types of beliefs will be referred

to as “global badness beliefs,” as children who hold these beliefs make global

assumptions about goodness and badness based on limited evidence.

Previous research has found that children who endorse these global beliefs are

more likely to show helpless responses to challenge, such as negative affect, self-

blame, and lack of persistence (Heyman, Dweck, & Cain, 1992). While those results

are correlational, children’s beliefs were measured before they displayed helplessness,

suggesting that children who hold these beliefs are more likely to then overgeneralize

following negative experiences and thus are more likely to become helpless (Heyman,

Dweck, & Cain, 1992). Much previous research suggests that 4- and 5-year-old

children are remarkably resilient in general and show high motivation when they are

16

not currently faced with an overly challenging task (Cimpian, 2010). However, it is

possible that children’s beliefs may also predict their behavior even in the absence of

experienced difficulty, that is, when they are simply contemplating challenges.

Children who believe that making a mistake is bad may attempt to avoid taking on

challenges, because failing at a challenging task may have more global implications

for their self-worth. Thus, an additional goal of this study (and Study 2) was to

examine whether children’s beliefs are related to challenge seeking even in the

absence of current difficulty.

While previous studies had asked children to make these global badness

judgments about other children (e.g., Heyman, Dweck, & Cain, 1992; Kamins &

Dweck, 1999), this study added a new question tapping into children’s beliefs about

their own mistakes, which may be an even more powerful method of assessing beliefs

critical for their motivation (Dweck, 1999).

Method

Participants

Participants were 53 preschoolers (mean age = 4 years, 7 months; range: 4

years, 0 months to 5 years, 7 months; 18 male, 35 female; 32 Caucasian, nine Asian

American, four Latino/a, three African American, and five multiple ethnicities) at a

research nursery school. The majority of them came from middle- to upper-middle-

class backgrounds.

Materials

Participants were randomly assigned to hear one of four storybooks. (See

Appendix A for full texts.) Three treatment books involved a character that learned to

“keep trying” on a hard puzzle. The main character was either an animal (“Little

Bird”), another child (“Taylor”), or the participating child him/herself. “Animal” and

“another child” books were matched to the participant’s gender (McArthur & Eisen,

1976). A control book involved the participating child playing with a bouncing ball

(to control for potential effects of hearing a self-relevant story), with a storyline that

did not involve motivation. The books in which the participating child was the main

character were individually printed with the child’s name.

17

The researcher frequently made comments directly to the child to connect the

child in the story to him/her. This helped to ensure that the participating child knew

the story was about him/her and not a child with the same name. For example, after

reading “Carol’s parents gave her two new puzzles,” the researcher turned to the child

and said directly to her, “So YOUR parents gave YOU two new puzzles.”

In the treatment books, the main character was given a choice between an easy

puzzle and a hard puzzle, and chose the hard puzzle. After the character had struggled

on the puzzle, his or her parents gave encouragement and praise for trying (including

the phrases, “Just keep trying! You’ll see what happens,” and the child telling him or

herself, “I’ll just keep trying, and I’ll see what happens”), and he or she succeeded at

getting the pieces. The character then went to school and was given another choice

between an easy puzzle and a hard puzzle. Again, he or she chose the hard puzzle so

he or she could learn. Finally, the character’s classmates were impressed by the hard

choice and praised him or her (see Child, 1946).

Procedure

Children were brought to a research room individually by a researcher who

was familiar to them. First, children listened to the story read aloud by a researcher.

While listening and looking at the pictures, participants were asked several questions

to ensure they stayed engaged in the story. (See Appendix A.)

Challenge Seeking

After the story, children were given a series of eight choices between easy and

hard tasks to assess the effects on challenge seeking. (These questions were selected

based on the results of several pilot studies.) Four questions involved puzzle tasks

(similar to the story), and four questions involved other activities common in

preschool (e.g., building a tower with blocks) to assess whether the effect would

generalize to other tasks (Child & Adelsheim, 1944). (See Table 1.) After each

choice, children were told “Good choice!” and asked to explain why they chose that

one (Smiley & Dweck, 1994).

Persistence

18

Next, children worked on a moderately challenging puzzle but were told they

could switch at any time to another, obviously easier puzzle (to assess persistence).

Every minute and a half, children were reminded, “Remember, you can switch to the

other puzzle if you want.” There was no time limit.

Global Badness Beliefs

Finally, children answered two questions about their global beliefs about

badness: 1) in terms of others: “Imagine there’s a new boy/girl in your class. You

look over at his/her drawing and see that s/he did lots and lots of things wrong. Does

this mean that s/he is bad? [Yes or no?]” and 2) in terms of the self: “Now imagine

that you made a drawing and did lots and lots of things wrong. How would this make

you feel? Like you were not bad at all, a little bit bad, or really bad?” The “other

child” question was always matched to the participant’s gender.

Debriefing

Children were thanked for their hard work on the puzzle. Children who had

switched to the easy puzzle were asked if they wanted the researcher to help them

finish the challenging puzzle.

Results

The dependent measures (challenge seeking and persistence) were examined in

terms of three main predictors: condition, age, and global beliefs. Analyses also

looked at children’s explanations for their choices, and a motivational composite

combining challenge seeking and persistence. The effect of researcher was also tested

in all studies to ensure that the effect of researcher did not interact with condition

(which was the case in all analyses). Some children did not respond to all questions,

so the number of participants varied for different measures.

Overall, all three treatment books increased children’s challenge seeking, but

only the treatment story about the participating child increased persistence. For an

overall summary of results, see Table 2.

Challenge Seeking

The eight challenge-seeking items formed a reliable scale, α = .86 (and none of

the items increased the reliability of the scale if deleted). Effects on challenge seeking

19

were analyzed in two complementary ways: first, the main effects were examined

individually using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Second, the challenge seeking

data were also analyzed using a regression model, in which all the independent

variables were analyzed simultaneously (along with random effects of participant) to

gain a more complete picture of how these variables might work together.

Effect of Condition

As predicted, all three treatment books taken together significantly increased

overall challenge seeking, compared to the control condition. Across all eight

challenge-seeking choices, an overall ANOVA indicated that the conditions were

significantly different from each other, F(3,49) = 3.31, p = .028. (See Figure 1.) Post-

hoc contrasts revealed that this overall difference was driven by the difference

between the three treatment conditions combined compared to the control condition.

Children in the three treatment conditions combined chose significantly more

challenging items than children in the control condition, t(49) = 3.14, p = .003, which

supported the primary hypothesis that these books would increase challenge seeking.1

However, the three treatment books did not differ from one another (ps > .82) and

hence, for this measure, did not support the hypothesis that young children would be

more influenced by a book that featured themselves as the main character than a book

that featured someone else as the main character. (For results analyzed in terms of

puzzle choices and activity choices separately, see Table 4.) Thus, as predicted,

hearing storybooks that incorporated praise for effort, strategies for persisting, and

concrete examples of a role model who coped with failure significantly increased

preschool children’s challenge seeking.

Age

There was a marginal interaction between age and condition (treatment vs.

control). The treatment books were marginally more effective for children who were

four and a half or older (younger control: M = 2.67, SD = 2.60; older control: M =

                                                                                                               1 Individually, each treatment condition was also significantly higher than the control condition; animal vs. control: t(49) = 2.68, p = .010; another child vs. control: t(49) = 2.46, p = .018; participating child vs. control: t(49) = 2.59, p = .013.  

20

1.25, SD = 1.89; younger treatment: M = 4.00, SD = 2.66; older treatment: M = 5.75,

SD = 2.36), F(1,49) = 3.50, p = .067. The main effect of condition remained

significant overall (p = .001). Thus, unsurprisingly, while the intervention was

effective for all children, it was especially effective for older children, who were better

able to generalize from a story to themselves.

Global Beliefs

Children’s answers to the global belief questions (e.g., “If a child makes

mistakes, does that mean she is bad?”) were coded as one point for a “yes” or “little

bad,” and two points for “really bad.” The two questions were marginally correlated,

r(51) = .25, p = .08.

As predicted, children’s overall global beliefs were related to one aspect of

motivation. Beliefs were significantly negatively correlated with total number of

challenge-seeking choices, r(51) = -.44, p = .001. (See Figure 2.) Children who

endorsed more global beliefs (i.e., believed that making mistakes implies global

badness) were less willing to take on challenging tasks.

If each global belief question was considered separately, both questions

showed the same pattern: the question about the self was significantly correlated with

challenge-seeking choices, r(53) = -.38, p = .005, while the question about others was

marginally significant, r(51) = -.27, p = .057 (the two overlapping correlations were

not significantly different from each other, z = .67, p = .25). This suggests that global

belief questions regarding both the self and others may be useful predictors of

children’s challenge seeking, although combining both questions may be even more

useful.

Regression Model

Because challenge seeking involved repeated measures and a binary outcome

variable, the challenge-seeking choice data was also analyzed using a logistic mixed-

effects model that analyzed the effects of all independent variables simultaneously

(Baayen, Davidson, & Bates, 2008; Bates & Sarkar, 2007). This type of analysis is an

alternative to the use of analysis of variance (ANOVA) models for categorical

dependent measures, and has been argued to be less problematic (e.g., when

21

confidence intervals exceed interpretable results) and less likely to lead to spurious

null results or spurious significances (Jaeger, 2008; see also Perry, Samuelson,

Malloy, & Schiffer, 2010). Condition was coded using three orthogonal Helmert style

contrasts (see Table 3). Contrast 1 tested whether the three treatment conditions were

different from the control. Contrast 2 tested whether the participating child condition

was different from the other two treatment conditions. Contrast 3 tested whether the

animal and another child conditions differed from each other.

The results of the regression model confirmed the findings of the previous

analyses with significant effects of both condition and global beliefs. The initial

model was a completely specified model with condition, item type (puzzles vs.

activities), global beliefs, and age (older or younger than 4 years, 6 months) as fixed

effects, and participant and item as random effects. Uninformative effects were

systematically removed by comparing models (see Perry, Samuelson, Malloy, &

Schiffer, 2010). For children’s global beliefs, missing scores were replaced by the

overall mean, and beliefs were centered.

The final model included condition, item type,2 and global beliefs as predictors

of challenge seeking choices. Most importantly, children in the treatment conditions

chose significantly more challenging options compared to children in the control

condition, z = 2.59, p = .001. In addition, children who endorsed more global beliefs

(about both self and others) chose significantly fewer challenging options, z = -2.40, p

= .017. (While age was not a significant predictor in the final model, it did show a

marginal interaction with condition when only condition and age were included as

fixed effects, z = 1.91, p = .056.) Thus, as predicted and supporting prior analyses,

the best overall model included condition and global beliefs as predictors of challenge

seeking choices.

Explanations

                                                                                                               2 Across all conditions, children were more likely to choose hard puzzles than hard activities, z = 4.41, p < .001. This suggests that children were better able to generalize from the story to real life in terms of tasks that were similar to those explicitly mentioned in the story.  

22

In addition to the effects on challenge seeking, children’s explanations of their

choices were also coded, to give further insight into children’s thought processes.

Children’s explanations of their choices were coded as to whether they were related to

seeking challenge (e.g., “I want to try and try,” “I like doing hard things,” “I want to

learn”) or avoiding challenge (e.g., “because I like easy ones,” “because I can’t do the

non-easy puzzle”). An overall ANOVA revealed that the conditions were marginally

different in the number of challenge-seeking explanations that children gave, F(3,49)

= 2.75, p = .053 (control: M = 0.77, SD = 1.79; animal: M = 2.46, SD = 2.33, another

child: M = 3.46, SD = 3.05, participating child: M = 2.50, SD = 2.41). Post-hoc

comparisons showed that children who heard the three treatment books gave

significantly more challenge-seeking explanations than children in the control

condition, t(49) = 2.62, p = .012. In terms of challenge-avoiding explanations, post-

hoc comparisons showed that children who heard the three treatment books were

marginally less likely to give challenge-avoiding explanations, compared to the

control condition, t(49) = -1.81, p = .077. Thus, in addition to being more likely to

take on challenging tasks, children in the treatment conditions were more likely to

give explanations for those choices that referenced wanting or valuing challenge, and

less likely to give explanations involving a desire to avoid challenge. (See Table 5.)

Children were indeed choosing harder tasks specifically because they wanted to learn

or wanted a challenge, and not for other reasons.

Persistence

As predicted, there was an effect of condition on persistence. Persistence was

examined in terms of whether children finished the puzzle or quit to work on the easy

puzzle. (For further analyses of how long children persisted before quitting the puzzle

and the number of puzzle pieces correctly placed, see Table 6.) An overall chi-square

revealed that the conditions were marginally different from each other in persistence,

χ2(3, N = 53) = 6.63, p = .085. Specifically, the treatment book about the participating

child increased persistence on the challenging puzzle compared to the other three

23

conditions, χ2(1, N = 53) = 5.81, p = .016.3 (See Figure 3.)4 Thus, in line with the

original hypothesis, hearing a story in which their personal identity was connected to

motivation increased preschool children’s persistence.

Age

Significantly more older children persisted on the puzzle than younger

children, χ2(1, N = 53) = 6.94, p = .008 (older children: 71% persisted; younger

children: 34%). However, there was no interaction with condition (p = .98).

Global Beliefs

Unlike the choice measure, there was no relationship between beliefs and

persistence (p = .81).

Motivation Composite

Challenge seeking and persistence are related theoretically and both carry

predictive importance for motivation and achievement-related outcomes (as a potential

marker of academic trajectories). For example, Dweck and Leggett (1988) suggest that

both seeking challenge and showing high persistence are part of a mastery-oriented

approach to learning. Thus, both challenge seeking and persistence were combined in

a motivation composite to examine whether the composite varied as similarity to the

main character increased. (In this sample, persistence was not correlated with

challenge seeking, r(53) = -.03, p = .84.)

Effect of Condition

The overall motivation composite revealed a significant effect of condition.

Challenge-seeking choices (how many hard options chosen out of 8) and a dummy

                                                                                                               3  Children in the participating child condition were marginally more likely to complete the puzzle than children in the control condition, χ2(1, N = 27) = 3.04, p = .08, and than children in the another child condition, χ2(1, N = 27) = 3.04, p = .08, and significantly more likely than children in the animal condition, χ2(1, N = 27) = 6.24, p = .013.  4 Some children were given an 8-piece puzzle while others were given a 14-piece puzzle to examine effects at different levels of difficulty, although the proportion of children given each puzzle did not differ by condition, p = .99. The pattern of results was identical for both puzzles, and there was no interaction between condition and puzzle type on persistence, p = .67.  

24

coding of persistence (whether or not children finished the challenging puzzle) were

equally weighted and combined into an overall motivation composite ranging from 0

to 1. An overall ANOVA revealed that the conditions were significantly different

from each other, F(3,49) = 3.12, p = .034. In this case, the linear trend was also

examined to determine the effects of varying similarity to the main character. The

linear trend was significant, F(1,49) = 8.89, p = .004. (See Figure 4.) Post-hoc

comparisons showed that the participating child condition was significantly higher in

composite motivation than the animal condition, t(49) = 2.09, p = .042. The

participating child condition also showed a trend toward being higher than the another

child condition, t(49) = 1.52, p = .14. These results indicated that, as predicted,

overall motivation increased as similarity to the main character increased—the

“participating child” condition was slightly more effective than the “another child”

condition, and significantly more effective than the “animal” condition.

Discussion

These results support the hypothesis that storybooks about a character learning

to try hard things and persist can lead young children to choose harder tasks and

persist at them.

All three treatment books were effective in increasing the number of

challenging tasks that children chose. This effect held for hard tasks related to puzzles

(as mentioned in the story) and to a lesser extent for tasks related to other activities

such as singing and playing games, suggesting that children in all three treatment

conditions were able to generalize the idea of the story to tasks other than puzzles.

Although children were more likely to select the challenging choice for puzzles than

other activities, the treatment books led to significantly more choices of challenge both

for puzzles and for other activities.

Interestingly, the book about themselves learning to try hard was particularly

effective in making children persist on an actual puzzle. Thus, personal identity was

not critical for children’s challenge seeking choices, but had a significant effect on

their motivated behavior on a real puzzle. Perhaps this book was more effective in

convincing these children that they were the kind of children who would not give up.

25

They heard a story in which they tried hard and refused to give up, and this changed

their behavior when they encountered a challenge. Perhaps the other treatment books

helped children have a positive attitude toward challenges, but that effect was not

robust enough to help children persist. Overall, the motivation composite did vary as

a function of how similar the child was to the main character in the story, indicating

that making the main character more similar to the child increased his or her overall

motivation.

As hypothesized, children’s beliefs also played an important role in one aspect

of motivation, as children with more global beliefs about badness were less likely to

choose challenging tasks. Independently of condition, children’s beliefs were

significantly related to the number of hard items they selected. Perhaps these children,

who believed that mistakes carried global implications, were more concerned about

the potential consequences of failure if the task proved too challenging. Previous

studies have shown that children’s beliefs are related to their responses when they are

experiencing difficulty or challenge. The current findings suggest that children’s

beliefs have important consequences even when children are not currently

experiencing challenge. Indeed, Study 1 suggests that children who hold more global

beliefs may be less likely to choose to put themselves into challenging situations.

This study was only the first step toward gaining a richer understanding of

motivation in early childhood. One potential concern about this study is that it

allowed for the possibility of social desirability effects. In essence, the treatment

storybooks told children that what the researcher valued was motivation and the

choice of hard tasks. However, teaching children to value challenges is a theoretically

important component of the effect, and social desirability cannot entirely explain the

effects. Only children who heard a book about themselves were more likely to persist.

Moreover, Study 4 suggests that the effects on challenge seeking last over a longer

time period, indicating that the storybooks may lead to real and lasting motivational

change.

Finally, several results indicated the importance of age in the effects of the

storybooks on children’s motivation. In particular, the effects on challenge seeking

26

were stronger in older children than younger children. This suggests that there may be

interesting developmental differences in the effectiveness of this manipulation.

To gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of this manipulation across

different groups, Study 2 examined effects in older children. More specifically, Study

2 examined effects in two samples of kindergarten children: a group who was

struggling academically and a non-struggling group.

STUDY 2: MOTIVATION IN OLDER CHILDREN

The results of Study 1 suggest that it is possible to increase the challenge

seeking and persistence of young children with storybooks. What about the challenge

seeking and persistence of slightly older students? In terms of generalization, older

children should have less trouble than younger children in transferring what they have

learned to a new situation. In terms of the effect of the storybooks, this improved

generalization ability of older children indicates that the similarity between the main

character and the participant may be less critical for older children. Further, older

children are in a more formal school setting, and some are beginning to experience

academic challenge and struggle.

Study 2 tested two primary questions. First, does the difference between

treatment books matter for older children? Second, how effective are the treatment

books for a group of students struggling academically, compared to a non-struggling

group? To test these questions, two groups of 5- and 6-year-old children participated

in the same procedure as in Study 1. The non-struggling group was comprised of

middle-to upper-middle-class students in a suburban public school, from a population

highly similar to the children in Study 1, and the other group was comprised of

students in a literacy summer program, who had been nominated by their kindergarten

teachers as needing extra instruction.

Method

Participants

Participants were 70 children in kindergarten (N = 37) or in a summer school

program immediately following kindergarten (N = 33); mean age = 6 years, 1 month;

27

range: 5 years, 5 months to 7 years, 6 months; 32 male, 38 female. The two school

samples did not differ in age or gender (ps > .86).

According to school demographic information, there were 34 Caucasian, 11

Asian American, 16 Latino/a, one African American, and eight “Other Ethnicity”

participants. The summer school sample had a higher proportion of Latino/a children

(39%) and a lower proportion of Caucasian children (33%), compared to the public

school population, 8% Latino/a and 62% Caucasian (p = .018). (Thus, the struggling

and non-struggling samples also differed in demographics and school characteristics;

however, the struggling/non-struggling distinction is most relevant for the purposes of

this study.)

Some children did not respond to all questions, so the number of participants

varied for different measures.

Materials

Participants heard the same books as Study 1. Children were randomly

assigned to the control condition or one of three (animal, another child, or

participating child) treatment conditions.

Procedure

The procedure was identical to Study 1. Children responded to questions

assessing: 1) challenge seeking choices and explanations, 2) persistence on a

challenging puzzle, and 3) global beliefs about badness.

Results

See Table 2 for a summary of overall results. In addition to condition, age, and

global beliefs, analyses also examined differences between the two school groups.

As expected, there were no differences among the three treatment conditions

for either challenge seeking or persistence. However, there were intriguing

differences between the two groups of students in the effectiveness of the treatment

conditions compared to the control condition. The intervention had a greater effect on

challenge seeking for the non-struggling students (particularly for the puzzle items),

but had a greater effect on persistence for the struggling students. While it may be

more difficult to encourage challenge seeking among children who have struggled

28

with academic challenges, the results are promising in suggesting that struggling

students may be responsive to intervention in terms of behavioral persistence.

Challenge Seeking

The eight challenge-seeking items formed a reliable scale, α = .87 (and none of

the items increased the reliability of the scale if deleted). For the results of children’s

explanations for their choices, see Table 5. Again, analyses are presented twice: first,

main effects were examined individually using ANOVAs, and second, a regression

model examined all independent variables simultaneously.

Effect of Condition

First, differences among the three treatment conditions were examined. There

were no significant differences among treatment conditions in either school sample (ps

> .20), so further analyses collapsed across treatment conditions.

Among children in the public school, there was a trend for children in the

treatment conditions to show greater challenge seeking compared to children in the

control condition (control: M = 4.56, SD = 3.05; treatment: M = 5.92, SD = 2.48),

t(32) = -1.33, p = .19. Among children at the literacy summer school, there was no

effect on challenge seeking (control: M = 3.22, SD = 3.19; treatment: M = 3.05, SD =

2.21), t(29) = 0.18, n.s.

Global Beliefs

Beliefs were examined combining both groups of students. As in Study 1, the

two global belief questions (self and other) were significantly correlated with each

other, r(67) = .24, p = .048.

As predicted, children’s beliefs were again related to motivational outcomes.

Beliefs were significantly negatively correlated with total number of challenging

choices, r(62) = -.28, p = .026.5 (See Figure 5.) As in Study 1, children who endorsed

more global beliefs about badness were less willing to take on challenging tasks.

School Site

There was a main effect of school site. Children at the public school were

                                                                                                               5 Considered separately, each global belief question was also significantly correlated with challenge seeking; self: r(63) = -.25, p = .048; other: r(64) = -.26, p = .035.

29

considerably higher in challenge seeking than children at the literacy summer program

(public school: M = 5.56, SD = 2.67; summer program: M = 3.10, SD = 2.48), t(63) = -

3.84, p < .001. This effect did not interact with condition, suggesting that there were

large differences between these two groups in how willing they were to take on

challenges. It is unclear whether this difference may be a cause or consequence of the

differences in academic experiences of these children. See further discussion below of

differential effects of school setting.

Regression Model

The results of the regression supported the findings of the ANOVA analyses,

in terms of a main effect of school site and a slight tendency for students in the public

school in the treatment conditions to show an increase in challenge seeking. As in

Study 1, challenge-seeking choices were analyzed using a logistic mixed-effects

model (Bates & Sarkar, 2007). Condition was again coded using three orthogonal

Helmert style contrasts (see Table 3).

I began with a completely specified model with condition, item type (puzzles

vs. activities), global beliefs, school, and age (centered around the mean) as fixed

effects, and participant and item as random effects. As in Study 1, models were

compared systematically to remove uninformative effects. For children’s global

beliefs, missing scores were replaced by the overall mean, and beliefs were centered.

Missing challenge-seeking responses were also replaced by the overall mean.

The final model included school, age,6 and a three-way interaction involving

condition as predictors of challenge seeking choices. First, school was a significant

predictor. Children at the literacy summer school were less likely to choose

challenging tasks compared to children at the public school, z = 4.19, p < .001.

Interestingly, there was a significant three-way interaction between school, item type,

and condition (treatment versus control), z = 2.63, p = .009. The treatment conditions

increased challenge seeking primarily in terms of puzzle items for children at the

                                                                                                               6 Age (continuous) was a marginally significant predictor, z = 1.72, p = .086, but did not interact with other variables. As in Study 1, older children were more likely to choose challenging tasks than younger children.  

30

public school. This suggests that the treatment condition did have an effect on

challenge seeking, but chiefly for students at the public school, and chiefly in terms of

challenging puzzles.

In summary, Study 2 addressed two primary questions: are there differences

among the treatment conditions for older children, and are there differences for

struggling and non-struggling students? First, there was no difference between

treatment conditions in terms of challenge seeking for older children. Regardless of

the main character of the story, children showed equivalent challenge seeking.

Second, it appears that the intervention was not enough to increase the challenge

seeking of struggling students, although it did have some effect on students at the

public school.

Persistence

The analyses of persistence revealed that the three treatment books

significantly increased persistence compared to the control condition.

Again, persistence was examined in terms of whether children finished the

puzzle or quit to work on the easy puzzle. (See Table 6 for additional analyses of

persistence.) First, differences among the three treatment conditions were examined.

There were no significant differences at either school site, so analyses collapsed across

treatment conditions (ps > .30).

Although there were no significant differences in persistence between children

in the treatment and control conditions at the public school, the results were in the

predicted direction (control: 50% of children persisted; treatment: 70% of children

persisted), χ2(1, N = 37) = 1.33, p = .25.

In contrast, there was a highly significant difference between the treatment and

control conditions at the literacy summer school (control: 33% of children persisted;

treatment: 88% of children persisted), χ2(1, N = 33) = 9.68, p = .002.

Across both school groups, the overall effect of condition was significant, χ2(1,

N = 70) = 8.48, p = .004.7 (See Figure 6.) Thus, these older children were more likely

                                                                                                               7 Some children were given an 11-piece puzzle while others were given a 14-piece puzzle to examine effects at different levels of difficulty, although the proportion of

31

to persist at a moderately challenging puzzle after hearing a motivational book,

regardless of whether the main character was an animal, another child, or the

participating child.

School Site

There was no difference between sites in the overall percentage of children who

persisted (literacy summer school: 73% persisted; public school: 65%), n.s. However,

logistic regression revealed a significant interaction between school and condition, z =

-3.66, p < .001, indicating that the effect of condition on persistence was larger for

summer school students than for public school students. Effect size was calculated

(using proportion of children who finished the puzzle) for each school site and

compared the effect of the three treatment books to the control book. The effect size

was very high at the literacy summer school, d = -1.13, and moderate at the public

school, d = -0.40.

In summary, recall the primary questions of Study 2: are there differences

among the treatment conditions for older children, and are there differences for

struggling vs. non-struggling students? In terms of persistence, just as for challenge

seeking, there were no differences among treatment conditions for older children.

Children were just as likely to persist after hearing a book about an animal, another

child, or themselves persisting. However, in contrast to the challenge seeking

measure, the effect of the intervention on persistence was larger for struggling

students than for non-struggling students.

Motivation Composite

Correlation between Challenge Seeking and Persistence

Persistence was positively but not significantly correlated with hard choices,

r(65) = .15, p = .23.

Effect of Condition

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               children given each puzzle did not differ by condition, p = .92. There was no difference in how likely children were to persist on either puzzle, and there was no interaction between condition and puzzle type on the proportion of children who finished the puzzle, p = .40.  

32

Again, an overall motivation composite was created to explore effects on

overall motivation. In a motivation composite including all eight challenge-seeking

items and a dummy coding of persistence, once again, there were no differences

among the three treatment conditions at either school (ps > .29), so the treatment

conditions were combined. Overall, across both schools, the effect of condition was

significant, t(63) = -2.69, p = .009. (See Figure 7.) The difference between the

treatment and control conditions was significant for students in the summer program

(control: M = .37, SD = .31; treatment: M = .62, SD = .24), t(29) = -2.43, p = .021, and

showed a trend toward being significant for students in the public school (control: M =

.51, SD = .40; treatment: M = .71, SD = .33), t(32) = -1.51, p = .14.

In summary, when considering overall motivation, again, there were no

differences among treatment conditions for older children. However, across both

samples of students, the treatment storybooks lead to significantly greater overall

motivation.

Discussion

These results suggest that the intervention is also effective for older students,

and has real potential to make a difference for struggling students. These results also

support findings from Study 1 that children who hold global beliefs about badness are

less willing to take on challenge tasks.

Across both challenge seeking and persistence, there were no differences among

treatment conditions. This finding supports results from the literature suggesting that

older children are better able to generalize than younger children. In the case of the

storybooks, kindergarten children may have been able to connect the story equally

well to their own lives, regardless of who the main character in the story was. This

was particularly true for the persistence measure, indicating that kindergarteners were

better able to generalize what they had learned to change their own behavior.

Although the effects for challenge seeking were small (perhaps because

kindergarten children are in a more formal and evaluative academic setting compared

to preschool children), the intervention showed a trend among non-struggling students

for increased challenge seeking. However, there was no effect for struggling students.

33

Struggling students may have had many experiences with academic challenges, and

may be more likely to consider “hard” tasks beyond their ability. If students have

different understandings of what the word “hard” means based on their skill level, then

“hard” for struggling children may signify “too hard” to them. Future research could

examine this question by asking children (at the end of the research procedure) to

identify which of various puzzles they consider “hard” and which the researcher meant

by “hard.” The context of the story may also be interpreted differently by struggling

and non-struggling students—perhaps the non-struggling students were more familiar

with a classroom context (as in the story) that encouraged challenge seeking and

supported effort. In terms of the current results, while it may be more difficult to

encourage challenge seeking among children who have struggled with academic

challenges, the results were highly promising in suggesting that struggling students

may be responsive in terms of behavioral persistence.

For kindergarten children, all three treatment books increased persistence, and

this effect was even stronger for the struggling students. Although they may have

avoided choosing challenging tasks, the intervention helped them find the motivation

to keep working when they encountered a moderately challenging puzzle. They may

have been even more likely than the non-struggling students to identify with the

struggling role model in the story, and been encouraged to keep working when they

encountered a challenge. As discussed in the Introduction, the achievement gap in this

country is evident from the time that students begin elementary school, and widens

over time (Phillips, Crouse, & Ralph, 1998). If this manipulation could be used to

increase the persistence of children who are slightly academically behind, that

persistence could translate into slightly better learning, which could then create a

recursive cycle of improved motivation and enhanced learning. Even a small change

in students’ academic trajectories at this point has the potential to create larger effects

in the long run (see Cohen et al., 2009).

Overall, Studies 1 and 2 indicate that it is possible to use storybooks to increase

young children’s motivation. However, several concerns remain. For example, one

concern with Studies 1 and 2 is that children had no frame of reference when choosing

34

between “easy” and “hard” tasks. When the storybook had an effect on challenge

seeking and students desired hard tasks, did they really know what they were

choosing? How strong was their desire for challenge? Thus, subsequent studies, with

preschoolers, focused on challenge seeking and gave children the opportunity to

express a desire for challenge both before and after they experienced genuine

difficulty. Does the storybook intervention help children remain challenge seeking,

even after they have experienced an extremely challenging task? Thus, for Studies 3

and 4, challenge seeking was measured both before and after children experienced a

highly challenging puzzle. Moreover, the next study also explored additional ways to

increase the effectiveness of the storybooks: explanation of the value of challenges to

another person, either with or without the intention to persuade that other person to

take on a challenging task.

STUDY 3: PERSUASION AND CHALLENGE SEEKING

In Study 3, two treatment conditions were compared to a control condition.

The first treatment condition involved children attempting to persuade another person

(in this case, a puppet) to take on a hard task. As discussed in the Introduction,

persuading another person often leads to greater attitude change for the persuader as

well. In terms of challenge seeking, dissonance could potentially occur if children

have told someone else to choose challenges, yet choose an easier task themselves. To

avoid this dissonance, they may choose harder tasks for themselves in order to be

consistent with their previous behavior of telling someone else that challenges are

good. Further, in this case, the persuasion involved an explanation to the puppet of

why challenges might be beneficial. Generating explanations (e.g., explicitly stating

why hard tasks are good) may help children in generalizing what they learned in a

previous situation to a new situation (Brown & Kane, 1988; Williams & Lombrozo,

2010). That is, explaining why challenges are beneficial may help children generalize

from the story to show greater challenge seeking in their own lives. This is similar to

a tactic frequently used by highly effective tutors, namely, to ask the student to reflect

on a solution or principle and consider how it might apply to other contexts (Lepper &

Woolverton, 2002). To control for the effects of this explanation, that treatment

35

(“explain + persuade”) condition was compared to the effect of a treatment condition

in which children explained to the researcher why hard tasks are good without any

element of persuasion (“explain”).

These two treatment conditions (in which the participating child was the main

character of the motivational story) were compared to a control condition in which

children answered questions about the control storybook.

Method

Participants

Participants were 36 children in at a research nursery school (mean = 4 years, 9

months; range: 4 years, 6 months to 5 years, 7 months; 14 male, 22 female; 13

Caucasian, 10 Asian American, nine Latino/a, two Middle Eastern, one African

American, and one multiple ethnicity). Because this was potentially a more subtle

manipulation (with a small distinction between treatment conditions), only children

who were at least four and a half years old participated.

Materials

Participants heard the same books as children in the participating child and

control conditions in Study 1, with slight modifications to ensure children were more

involved in the story by answering questions about it. While children in Studies 1 and

2 responded to two questions during the story (e.g., “What do YOU think you/he/she

should do?” and “Which one did you/he/she pick?”), in Study 3 children answered

additional questions during the story to keep them engaged.

For the puzzle measure, a different puzzle was used to determine the hardiness

of the effect of the storybook on challenge seeking—an extremely challenging 20-

piece jigsaw puzzle.

Children were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: control, treatment

book with explanation questions only (“explain”), or treatment book with explanation

of the value of challenges and inducement to persuade a puppet (“explain +

persuade”).

Procedure

Storybook and Questions

36

Control condition. After hearing the story, children in the control condition

answered three questions about the story they had heard (“What happened in that

story?” “Which ball did you pick?” and “Why that one was a good one to pick?”).

Explain condition. After hearing the story, children in the explain condition

answered three questions about the story they had heard (“What happened in that

story?” “Which puzzle did you pick?” and “Why that one was a good one to pick?”).

The third question elicited explanations from children about the advantages of taking

on challenges.

Explain + persuade condition. After hearing the story, children in the explain

+ persuade condition were introduced to a gender-matched puppet who could choose

an easy or a hard puzzle, and were asked to teach the puppet what they had learned

from the book in choosing: “Which one should Sam pick?” The puppet then asked

which one s/he should pick (“Which one do you think I should pick?”), why s/he

should pick that one (“Why should I pick that one?”), and why it was good for him/her

to choose hard things (“Why is it good for me to learn hard things?”). Thus, children

had the opportunity to make a recommendation, attempt to persuade the puppet, and

explain why taking on challenges is beneficial. If children suggested that the puppet

choose the easy puzzle, they were reminded to think about what happened in the book,

and asked again.

Emotion

To make sure that mood was not responsible for condition effects, children

were asked to rate how happy they felt (on a 6-point scale). This question was

repeated immediately after children worked on the puzzle as well.

Challenge Seeking

Next, children responded to four of the challenge-seeking items (“pre-

challenge”) and gave explanations for their choices. The remaining four challenge-

seeking questions were asked after children worked on the challenging puzzle (“post-

challenge”), which allowed an examination of how the intervening challenge

experience affected children’s responses. The pre- and post-challenge sets of four

questions each included two puzzle items and two activity items.

37

Puzzle

Children were given a difficult puzzle and, so as not to induce an overly high

degree of frustration, told they could switch to another (visibly easier) puzzle at any

point. This puzzle had 20 pieces and each piece was jigsaw shaped, which made it

extremely challenging. A five-minute time limit was established so that children

would not be disrupted from the classroom for an unlimited period of time.

Debriefing

All children who had not previously finished the challenging puzzle were then

told, “Now let’s finish this puzzle together,” and the researcher scaffolded children at

the appropriate level to help them successfully complete the puzzle. Finally, children

were thanked for their hard work on the puzzle and returned to the classroom.

Results

There was a failure of random assignment to condition, such that children in

the control condition were significantly older than children in the two treatment

conditions, F(1,34) = 5.49, p = .025 (control: M = 4 years, 10 months; treatment: M =

4 years, 8 months). However, controlling for age, the results replicated the effects of

the treatment books on overall challenge seeking. (See Table 2.) Children in both

treatment conditions were significantly more likely to choose challenging tasks than

children in the control condition, but this effect was not robust enough to withstand

children’s subsequent experience of an extremely challenging task.

Emotions

There were no significant differences by condition in how happy children

reported that they felt, either immediately after the story (control: M = 5.00 out of 6,

SD = 1.61; explain: M = 5.85, SD = 0.38; explain + persuade: M = 5.58, SD = 0.79),

F(2,33) = 2.09, p = .14, or immediately after working on the puzzle (control: M = 5.27

out of 6, SD = 1.27; explain: M = 5.31, SD = 1.11; explain + persuade: M = 5.42, SD =

1.00), F(2,33) = 0.05, p = .95.

Challenge Seeking

The eight challenge-seeking items formed a reliable scale, α = .87. For the

results of children’s explanations for their overall choices, see Table 5. Again,

38

analyses are presented twice: first, main effects were examined individually using

ANOVAs, and second, a regression model examined all independent variables

simultaneously.

Effect of Condition

Both treatment conditions led to greater challenge seeking than the control

condition. In terms of number of overall hard choices selected, there was no

significant difference between the two treatment groups, t(33) = -0.10, p = .92.

Looking at pre-challenge and post-challenge choices separately, there were also no

differences between the two treatment groups, ps > .73. Thus, further analyses

collapsed across treatment condition. Controlling for age in months, condition

(combined treatment conditions vs. control) significantly predicted challenge seeking,

F(1,33) = 6.74, p = .014. (See Figures 8 and 9 .) Older children also showed greater

challenge seeking, F(1,33) = 5.85, p = .021. Results remained the same controlling

for the emotion that children reported after hearing the story.

Thus, although there was a tendency for older children to choose more

challenging tasks (as in Study 1), the treatment conditions overall led children to be

more likely to take on challenges.

Pre- and Post-Challenge

When challenge-seeking choices were divided into pre- and post-challenge

items, the effect of condition was significant for items assessed pre-challenge, and

marginally significant for items assessed post-challenge. Controlling for age, children

in the treatment conditions were significantly more likely to choose challenging tasks

before they experienced a challenge, F(1,33) = 7.34, p = .011, d = .82. After they

experienced a challenge, children in the treatment conditions were marginally more

likely to choose challenging task, F(1,33) = 3.33, p = .077, d = .31. The interaction

between assessment (pre- or post-challenge) and condition was marginally significant,

F(1,34) = 3.40, p = .074. Thus, the effect of the intervention was marginally weaker

after children directly experienced an extremely challenging situation.

Regression Model

39

The results of the regression model supported the previous analyses, indicating

a main effect of condition and an interaction between condition and time (pre- or post-

challenge). As in Studies 1 and 2, overall challenge-seeking choices were analyzed

using a logistic mixed-effects model (Bates & Sarkar, 2007), and looked in particular

at effects of condition and item time (pre- and post-challenge). Condition was coded

using two orthogonal Helmert style contrasts. Contrast 1 tested whether the two

treatment conditions were different from the control condition. Contrast 2 tested

whether the two treatment conditions differed from each other. The initial model was

a completely specified model with condition, item type (puzzles vs. activities), item

time (pre- or post-challenge), and age (older or younger than 4 years, 8 months) as

fixed effects, and participant and item as random effects. As before, models were

compared systematically to remove uninformative effects.

The final model included only condition and item time8 as predictors of

challenge seeking choices. Condition was a marginally significant predictor in terms

of the two treatment conditions versus the control condition, z = 1.66, p = .097. As

discussed previously, children in the treatment conditions were more likely to choose

challenging tasks than children in the control condition.

Importantly, there was a marginally significant interaction between condition

and item time, z = 1.76, p = .078. (See Table 4 for effects of condition on challenge

seeking pre- and post-challenge.) Children in the treatment conditions were

significantly different from those in the control condition before working on the

challenging puzzle, but not after working on the puzzle. This suggests that the effect

of the intervention was not robust enough to fully withstand children’s experience of

an extremely challenging puzzle.

Discussion

Persuasion, in the form of instructing a puppet of the value of choosing hard

tasks and persisting, did not appear to increase challenge seeking above a condition in

                                                                                                               8 Children were more likely to choose challenging tasks pre-challenge than post-challenge, z = 3.46, p < .001.  

40

which children explained the value of choosing hard tasks. There are several potential

explanations for these results.

First, it is possible that young children need more explicit emphasis and

reminders of their behavior (e.g., that they have said that hard tasks are good) in order

to show motivational change (e.g., to demonstrate a positive attitude toward hard tasks

by choosing more hard tasks) in accordance with that behavior. Perhaps the

persuasion experience was not salient enough, as the puppet went away after the child

explained the value of challenges, and children were not reminded of what they had

told the puppet. Furthermore, previous research suggests that attitudes and behaviors

show little consistency in young children unless linked in some explicit way, such as a

group identity (Master & Walton, 2011; see also Patterson & Bigler, 2006). Future

research should examine the effects of inducing children to advocate for the choice of

hard tasks using minimal and unobtrusive coercion (see Lepper, Nisbett, & Greene,

1973), giving children repeated reminders of that behavior, and then examining

attitude change (in terms of whether children show a greater preference for hard

tasks).

Second, it is also possible that the explain condition was equally effective for

independent reasons. Perhaps thinking about why the hard puzzle was good to choose

and constructing an explanation for the researcher was just as effective in boosting

challenge seeking as telling the puppet to choose the hard one and constructing an

explanation for the puppet. When children generate their own explanations or

examples, they may generalize knowledge more easily (Brown & Kane, 1988). For

example, in one study, 3-year-old children were given several sets of analogous

problems and were trained in one of several conditions. One group was asked to say

how the first two analogous problems were similar, and another group was told to

teach a puppet the two solutions to the problems. Both groups were significantly

better than a control group at solving the third analogous problem (Brown & Kane,

1988). Indeed, there were no differences in that study between children who

explained the link between two solutions to a problem and children who taught those

solutions to a puppet. Although in the current study the explain condition was

41

included as a strong control for the explain + persuade condition, future research

should examine whether each of these conditions increases challenge seeking above a

situation in which children are exposed to the story but do not answer questions about

it.

The other primary result of this study was the interaction between condition (in

terms of treatment vs. control) and the time point at which children responded (either

before or after the challenging experience). Children in the treatment conditions were

significantly more likely to choose challenging tasks, but only before they experienced

the challenging puzzle. The effect was weaker after they experienced the challenge.

This suggests that the effects of the treatment books may not be robust enough to fully

withstand children’s experience of challenges in the real world. However, it is also

possible that the treatment storybooks may become more effective over a longer

period of time. Perhaps children need real-world experience with a variety of

challenging tasks to connect the message of the storybooks to the value of challenges

in their own lives. This possibility is examined in Study 4.

Indeed, in evaluating the findings of Studies 1, 2, and 3, an important issue to

consider is how applicable these results (from laboratory studies) are to long-lasting

motivation in actual classrooms. Previous short-term studies that have been conducted

in classrooms or that examined long-term academic effects have found promising

results with long-term effects on students’ motivation and achievement (Miller,

Brickman, & Bolen, 1975; Walton & Cohen, 2007; Wilson & Linville, 1982). A first

step toward examining whether the effects of this manipulation lead to long-lasting

motivation is to look at whether the effects last for a longer period of time than the 15-

minute duration of the research session. As mentioned previously, the effects may

become even stronger over time, as children experience the positive consequences of

working hard at challenging tasks.

STUDY 4: LONGITUDINAL EFFECTS ON CHALLENGE SEEKING

Can this manipulation (hearing a story about themselves taking on a challenge,

trying different strategies, being praised for effort, and finally succeeding) change the

way children approach challenges not just in the immediate aftermath of the

42

storybook? Could children be more likely to choose challenging tasks and persist,

even up to several weeks later? Furthermore, would the effect be more likely to last if

children were given a “booster” reminder of the manipulation? Study 4 explored these

questions.

This study also offered a methodological improvement on previous studies:

because some measures were taken long after the manipulation, it may help rule out

social desirability as an alternate explanation for the results of Studies 1-3. Children

participated at multiple time points: Time 1 involved the storybook and measures of

challenge seeking, Time 2 involved a “booster” reminder for some children of the

story, and Time 3 involved measures of challenge seeking several weeks later.

Method

Participants

Participants were 4- and 5-year-old preschoolers at a research nursery school.

Forty children participated throughout all three time points (mean age = 4 years, 6

months; range = 4 years, 0 months to 5 years, 3 months; 15 male, 25 female).

Twenty-one were Caucasian, seven were Latino/a, six were African American, four

were Asian American, and two were multiple ethnicities.

Due to absences or disinterest in going to the “Game Room” (the research

room), one child was run only at Time 1 and an additional child was run only at Times

1 and 2.

Materials

The materials were the same as in Study 3. Children were randomly assigned

to the treatment or control condition. Within each condition, half the children were

randomly assigned to receive a “booster” reminder of the storybook.

Procedure

Time 1

The procedure during Time 1 was very similar to the procedure in Study 3.

Children 1) heard a story (either the treatment or control story containing the

participating child as the main character); 2) answered four challenge-seeking

43

questions; 3) worked on a highly challenging puzzle; 4) answered four more

challenge-seeking questions; and 5) were debriefed.

Time 2

To see whether the effects lasted longer if children were given a reminder of

the intervention during a “booster” session, half the children from each condition were

randomly assigned to return to the Game Room approximately a week after Time 1

with the same researcher. They were shown the storybook again. Rather than reading

the book word for word, the researcher reminded children what happened in the story,

and talked them through it, e.g., “Remember how you got the easy puzzle and the hard

puzzle? You had a choice. Which one did you pick? Why did you pick the hard one?

When you try hard things, you learn more, right?” or “Remember how you got the

green ball and the red ball? You had a choice. Which one did you pick? Why did

you pick the green one? When you played with the green ball, you had fun, right?”

Children’s responses to the questions at Time 2 were coded on a scale from 0-2 (0 =

clearly incorrect, 1 = other, 2 = clearly correct) to assess how well they processed the

story.

If children were absent or chose not to go to the “Game Room” that day, the

researcher continued to invite them on the next available school day(s).

Time 3

Approximately two weeks after children participated at Time 1, all children

returned to the “Game Room” with the same researcher as before. The procedure was

the same as Time 1, except that children did not hear a storybook or any reminder of

the storybook that they heard. A new (and similarly difficult puzzle) was used for the

challenging experience. If children were absent or chose not to go to the Game Room

that day, the researcher continued to invite them on the next available school day(s).

Results

Overall, the results suggest that the effect of condition on challenge seeking

became stronger over time, as well as better able to withstand the experience of an

extreme challenge. (See Table 2 for a summary of overall results.) In addition,

challenge seeking showed high stability over time.

44

Time 1

Challenge Seeking

The eight challenge-seeking items formed a reliable scale, α = .84 (and none of

the items increased the reliability of the scale if deleted). For the results of children’s

explanations for their choices, see Table 5.

Effect of condition. Overall, there was a trend for children in the treatment

condition to choose more hard options than children in the control condition (control:

M = 2.50, SD = 0.48; treatment: M = 3.80, SD = 0.66), t(38) = -1.59, p = .12. (See

Figure 10.)

There was a significant interaction with age—among older children (4 years, 6

months and older), children in the treatment condition showed more challenge seeking

than children in the control condition (younger control: M = 3.75, SD = 2.38; older

control: M = 1.67, SD = 1.61; younger treatment: M = 2.67, SD = 2.69; older

treatment: M = 4.73, SD = 2.94), F(1,36) = 7.10, p = .011. As in Study 1, the

treatment storybook was most effective for older children.

Regression model. The results of the regression model supported the previous

analyses. The initial model for overall challenge-seeking choices included fixed

effects for condition, age (older or younger than 4 years, 6 months), item type (puzzles

vs. activities),9 and item time (pre- or post-challenge), and random effects of item and

participant. There was a significant interaction between condition and age, z = 2.63, p

= .009. Older children in the treatment condition were most likely to choose

challenging tasks (see above).

Time 2

Children participated at Time 2 (the “booster”) an average of eight days after

participating at Time 1, and this did not differ by condition, p = .42.

Children in the treatment and control conditions seemed to remember and

respond to questions about the books equally well (average scores: control: M = 1.60

out of 2, SD = 0.38; treatment: M = 1.67, SD = 0.47), t(18) = -0.38, p > .70.

                                                                                                               9 On average, children chose more challenging puzzles than activities, z = 3.80, p < .001.  

45

Time 3

Children participated at Time 3 an average of 17 days after participating at

Time 1, and this did not differ by condition, p = .54.

Challenge Seeking

The eight challenge-seeking items formed a reliable scale, α = .89 (and none of

the items increased the reliability of the scale if deleted). There was a significant

correlation between challenge seeking at Time 1 and Time 3, r(40) = .82, p < .001.

The effect of condition became stronger over time, particularly for older

children in the treatment condition, and for younger children in the treatment condition

who received a booster at Time 2. Furthermore, the effect of condition on challenge

seeking was significant both pre- and post-challenge experience.

Effect of condition. Considering the four groups separately (treatment/booster,

treatment/no booster, control/booster, control/no booster), there was an overall

marginal effect of condition on hard choices, F(3,36) = 2.56, p = .07. (See Figure 11.)

A planned post-hoc contrast between the treatment and control conditions was

significant, t(36) = 2.32, p = .026, indicating that children in the treatment condition

were significantly more likely to choose challenging tasks overall. There was no

difference between the two control conditions, p = .75. There was a trend for children

in the treatment/booster condition to choose more challenging tasks than children in

the treatment/no booster condition, t(36) = 1.45, p = .15. Comparing this effect to the

effect at Time 1, there was a marginal interaction between condition and time point,

indicating that the effect of condition was marginally larger at Time 3, F(3,36) = 2.41,

p = .08.

Pre- and post-challenge. When challenge-seeking choices were divided into

pre- and post-challenge items, the effect of condition was significant for items

assessed pre-challenge, and remained significant even for items assessed post-

challenge. (See Table 4.) Children in the treatment conditions were significantly

more likely to choose challenging tasks before they experienced a challenge, t(38) = -

2.17, p = .036. They were also significantly more likely to choose challenging tasks

after they experienced a challenge, t(38) = -2.23, p = .032. The interaction between

46

assessment (pre- or post-challenge) and condition (treatment or control) was not

significant, indicating that the size of the condition effect did not change, F(1,38) =

0.12, p = .73. Thus, two weeks after hearing the storybooks, children who heard the

treatment books remained challenge seeking even after working on a very challenging

task.

Regression model. The regression model supported the previous analyses,

indicating a significant effect of treatment condition. The initial model for challenge-

seeking choices included fixed effects of the child’s choice for that item at Time 1,10

condition (treatment vs. control), booster status,11 age (older or younger than 4 years, 6

months), item type (puzzles vs. activities), item time (pre- or post-challenge), and

random effects of participant and item.

The main effect of treatment was a trend, z = 1.54, p = .12, and there was a

significant interaction between treatment and age, z = 2.57, p = .010. Older children in

the treatment condition were most likely to choose the challenging option overall.

Interestingly, there was a marginally significant three-way interaction between

treatment, booster, and age, z = -1.89, p = .059. Older children in the treatment

condition showed more challenge seeking regardless of the booster, but younger

children in the treatment condition showed more challenge seeking only if they

received the booster (see Figure 12). For older children, hearing the intervention

storybook once may be enough to produce lasting change. However, younger children

may need more explicit cues and reminders of the value of choosing challenging tasks

in order to show long-term effects.

Discussion

The results of Study 4 suggest that even brief manipulations in a laboratory

have the potential to create changes for young children that last beyond the laboratory

session, with effects that may become even stronger over time. The effect size of                                                                                                                10 Children who chose the challenging option for a particular item at Time 1 were also more likely to choose the challenging option for that item at Time 3, z = 3.49, p < .001. 11 Across both conditions, children who received a booster were more likely to choose the challenging option, z = 2.19, p = .028 (but see below for more details about the combined effect of treatment and booster).  

47

condition (treatment vs. control) on challenge seeking at Time 1 was 0.52, but at Time

3, it was 0.77. Thus, this manipulation has the potential to affect children’s choices

and persistence in the classroom over longer periods of time.

Furthermore, the ability of the intervention to create resilient motivation, the

kind of challenge seeking that can withstand an immediate challenging experience,

increased over time. At Time 1, there was not a significant difference between

conditions post-challenge, but there was a significant different post-challenge two

weeks later. Why did the effect get stronger? And why did the effect remain robust at

Time 3 in Study 4, but not in Study 3? These findings illustrate both the fragility of

this effect (post-challenge in Study 3) and its robustness (Studies 1, 2, and 4 and pre-

challenge in Study 3). Perhaps, following Time 1, children attempted a variety of

challenging tasks, succeeded at many of them, and paid greater attention to the

challenges they experienced. This then gave them a new way of perceiving and

construing those challenges (for similar effects of time in a very different population

and for a very different psychological process, see Marigold, Holmes, & Ross, 2007).

This could create a recursive cycle in which children begin to take on more challenges

and see the benefits of those challenging experiences. Similarly, children may also

have been able to weight that challenging experience (at Time 3) in light of all the

other challenges that they had succeeded at in the past two weeks. Thus, that

particular experience with difficulty may not have been as salient as it was in Study 3.

Previous studies suggest that identity- and motivation-related interventions

frequently have effects that strengthen over time, as they tap into the recursive cycles

of motivation and learning and achievement (Cohen et al., 2009). Children may go

away, think about these ideas, put them into practice, and fully embrace them. One of

the most important directions for future research may be to better understand these

recursive cycles and their power at different stages of development. Can children who

experience successful motivational interventions in early childhood better withstand

the decline in motivation that is typically seen in early adolescence?

In addition, this study suggests that this aspect of children’s motivation shows

a great deal of stability over time. Challenge seeking showed high test-retest

48

reliability between Time 1 and Time 3. This suggests that children by this age may

already be on particular motivational trajectories, yet those trajectories can be shifted

by interventions that target relevant psychological processes.

Study 4 was only the first step in longitudinally examining how long these

effects may last and how much motivation children may show in a subsequent

situation. The situations in Time 1 and Time 3 were extremely similar, in terms of an

identical researcher asking identical questions. Further research, beyond the scope of

this dissertation, should examine a new situation with a new adult in addition to a

different time point. Furthermore, another possibility for increasing real-world

validity might be to get teachers’ ratings of children’s academic motivation pre- and

post-intervention.

Despite these limitations, anecdotal evidence suggests that this manipulation

has the potential to affect children’s lives outside the laboratory and inside the

classroom. As I was conducting this study, I was in the classroom preparing to bring a

child to the research “Game Room” for Time 3. He was in the treatment condition and

had received the booster reminder the week before. We were planning to go to the

Game Room as soon as he finished the project he was working on. Another child

nearby was trying to get a basketball through the basketball hoop. She wasn’t

succeeding, so she decided to quit. He called out to her, “You have to keep trying!”

Then he turned to me and said, “Remember the book? If you keep trying the same

thing, you learn that thing and if you keep trying the same thing over and over, you get

better at that same thing. Then you can do whatever you want better and better.”

While this is anecdotal evidence, it suggests that some children were able to retain the

message of the storybook and apply it to their lives in the classroom. Moreover, some

children may even be able to communicate that message to other children. Given the

power of social norms to affect behavior, this raises the possibility that a future

intervention that could change classroom norms related to challenge seeking could be

extremely powerful. Could we create a classroom where the group identity is one that

embraces challenge (see Master & Walton, 2011; Woodhead, 1988)?

49

While the results of Studies 1-4 suggest that children’s motivation can indeed

be increased through the use of storybooks, the storybooks included several different

types of factors predicted to increase motivation in children, including praise for

effort, strategies for persisting (such as, “Just keep trying!”), and role models who

coped with failure. Thus, these studies offer no way of isolating which aspects of the

storybook might have been most critical in creating the effects on challenge-seeking

and persistence. As a beginning, Study 5 examined one aspect of the story that may

have been particularly important: whether or not children were praised for effort. In

all of the treatment books in Studies 1-4, but none of the control books, children heard

parents and peers praise the main character for trying. Could the fact that children

heard themselves (or another character) praised for effort be at least partially

responsible for the effects in Studies 1-4?

STUDY 5: EFFECTS OF PRAISE ON MOTIVATION

Based on previous research, one element of the storybook in particular may

have been particularly effective in increasing children’s motivation. In all the

treatment condition stories, after struggling with a challenging puzzle, the main

character received praise and positive feedback from an adult and peers for persisting.

Previous research with young children shows that process praise (also referred to as

effort praise) is beneficial for young children’s motivation (Kamins & Dweck, 1999;

Zentall & Morris, 2010). As described in the Introduction, in a study by Kamins and

Dweck (1999), children role-played their reactions to an unsuccessful activity, and

those who had been given process praise were less likely than those given person

praise to show helpless behaviors (such as negative self-evaluations and a lack of

persistence—i.e., choosing to give up and do something else rather than continue).

They were also more likely to construct a solution to the role-played problem (e.g., “I

can do it again better if I take my time”). Similar effects were seen when preschool

children were given generic person praise (“You are a good drawer”) or non-generic

process praise (“You did a good job drawing”) (Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck,

2007; Zentall & Morris, 2010). Children given process praise were more likely to

50

show mastery-oriented behaviors, that is, to evaluate themselves positively and report

that they would persist following a failure scenario.

However, those studies differ from the current studies in several respects.

First, in those studies, the praise was administered during a role-playing scenario,

while the current studies used a storybook in which the child received praise. Second,

those studies used only self-report measures for persistence, in addition to the self-

evaluation measures. In contrast, the current research measured behavioral persistence

on a challenging task. Finally, those studies did not directly measure challenge

seeking. Will process praise administered through a storybook (without the example

of a role model who copes with failure or who has strategies for persisting) increase

challenge seeking and behavioral persistence, in addition to creating more positive

self-evaluations after an imagined failure?

In addition, on an exploratory basis, this study examined how children

responded to a combination of person- and process-praise: praise for being a “hard

worker.” Such praise might have positive effects on children’s motivation due to the

emphasis on hard work, and help children attribute their success to consistent hard

work and effort. Indeed, previous work has found that allowing children to take on a

noun identity (such as being a “helper”) can motivate preschool children’s prosocial

behavior (Bryan & Master, 2011). However, it is also possible that such praise might

have negative effects on children’s motivation due to the emphasis on an aspect of

personality that they do not perceive control over. Will children be more sensitive to

the evaluative “person” aspect of this type of praise, or more sensitive to the

“process”-based emphasis on hard work?

In addition to challenge seeking and persistence, children’s self-evaluations

following failure were also measured to give a more complete picture of children’s

helpless or mastery-oriented behaviors (as another index of children’s responding to

difficulty), and to allow a more direct comparison of the results to previous studies in

the literature. This comparison was important given that the current study changed the

method of delivering praise from role-played scenarios to storybooks. Study 5 also

included a neutral control condition, in which children were not praised.

51

Method

Participants

Participants were 51 4- and 5-year-old children at a research nursery school

(25 were male; 26 were female). Twenty-six were Caucasian, 14 were Asian

American, five were African American, three were Latina, and three were Middle

Eastern. As in Study 3, only children older than 4 years, 6 months participated (mean

age = 4 years, 10 months; range = 4 years, 6 months to 5 years, 6 months).

Materials

Children were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. The storybooks

were simplified so that the element of praise was highly salient for children, and there

was no mention of struggle. All children were read a storybook in which they were

the main character and completed three puzzles (see Appendix B). After each puzzle,

children in the control condition were told, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle!”

Children in the person praise condition were told, “You got all the pieces in the

puzzle! You must be really good at puzzles.” Children in the person/process praise

condition were told, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must be a really hard

worker at puzzles.” Children in the process praise condition were told, “You got all

the pieces in the puzzle! You must have worked really hard at puzzles.” Thus, all

children heard a book in which they successfully completed several puzzles and

received positive feedback, but different conditions attributed the child’s success to

different factors.

Procedure

Introduction

Once children entered the laboratory room, the researcher told them that they

would play with toys and act out stories. The researcher spread out a row of small

diverse-looking dolls, and asked the child to select a doll to represent him or her. The

researcher then brought out another doll named “Teacher Debbie.” To get used to

interacting with the dolls, the “Teacher Debbie” doll asked the child’s doll a series of

questions about his/her favorite color and flavor of ice cream and whether s/he had

siblings.

52

Next, the researcher read children the story in which they successfully

completed several puzzles and received a particular type of praise. After that, the

researcher brought the dolls back out and had the child role-play two situations in

which Teacher Debbie asked the child to complete a puzzle and then criticized the

puzzle. For example, in the second scenario the researcher said, “Let’s see what

happens in the next story. Here’s another puzzle piece. Another day you were sitting

at the puzzle table. After a little while Teacher Debbie says, ‘(Child’s name), will you

do this horse puzzle?’ and you say, ‘Okay, teacher.’ And so you start doing the

puzzle. You start putting pieces in, but you aren’t sure where they go. You look at

what you did and think to yourself, ‘Uh-oh, those pieces are in the wrong place,’ but

you want to show the teacher the puzzle you did so you say, ‘Teacher, I did a puzzle

for you.’ The teacher looks at the puzzle you did and says, ‘THAT doesn’t look like a

horse. The pieces are in the wrong place and you didn’t finish it.’”

Note that there were two primary advantages to using a role-played scenario to

measure children’s reactions to failure: 1) This controlled for individual differences in

children’s actual ability to complete puzzles; and 2) The role-played scenario

prevented the researcher from criticizing the child’s actual performance (Burhans &

Dweck, 1995).

Self-Evaluations

A new measure (not assessed in Studies 1-4) involved children’s self-

evaluations following this failure experience. As in Kamins and Dweck (1999) and

Cimpian et al. (2007), children responded to four questions measuring their self-

evaluations following criticism to assess an important aspect of helpless vs. mastery-

oriented responses. First, they rated how much they liked the puzzle they had made in

the last scenario on a 6-point scale (“product evaluation”). Second, they rated how

happy they felt on a 6-point scale, after not getting the pieces in the second scenario

(“affect”). Third, they were asked whether not getting the pieces made them feel like

they were good or not good at puzzles (“assessment of goodness”). Fourth, they were

asked whether not getting the pieces made them feel like they were a good girl/boy or

not a good girl/boy (“assessment of goodness”). Measuring children’s self-evaluations

53

provided another index of children’s motivation following difficulty and allowed more

direct comparison of the results to previous studies in the literature.

Challenge Seeking

Next, children responded to four of the challenge-seeking questions used in

Studies 1-4 (easy vs. hard puzzle; few vs. lots of pieces; easy vs. hard tower of blocks;

and easy vs. hard game) and gave explanations for their choices.

Persistence

Children were given a puzzle and told they could switch to a visibly easier

puzzle at any time. They worked for up to five minutes, and were reminded every 90

seconds that they could switch to the other puzzle if they wanted.

Results

Overall, children in the process praise condition showed higher motivation

than children in the other conditions. More specifically, they showed higher

motivation than children in the person praise condition in terms of self-evaluations,

and higher motivation than the control condition in terms of challenge seeking and

persistence.

Self-Evaluations

Correlations

The two assessment of goodness questions (good vs. not good at puzzles, and

good vs. not good child) were significantly correlated, r(51) = .34, p = .015. The

affect question (“how happy did you feel?”) was marginally correlated with a

composite of the two assessment of goodness questions, r(50) = .26, p = .072. The

product evaluation question (“how much did you like the puzzle you made?”) was not

significantly correlated with the other self-evaluation questions.

Effect of Condition

There was a significant effect of condition for the self-evaluation composite.

Children in the person and person/process praise conditions showed particularly low

self-evaluations. Post-hoc comparisons compared the process praise condition to the

other conditions as a group and individually.

54

Self-evaluation composite. The four items were standardized and averaged to

form a self-evaluation composite. Overall, there was a significant effect of condition,

F(3,46) = 2.78, p = .05. (See Figure 13.) Post-hoc contrasts indicated a trend for

children in the process praise condition to report higher self-evaluations than the other

three conditions combined, t(46) = 1.54, p = .13, and indicated significantly higher

self-evaluations compared to the person and person/process conditions combined,

t(46) = 2.16, p = .036. Recall that the self-evaluation measures allowed a comparison

to previous studies to ensure that the change in the method of giving praise (from role-

played scenario to storybooks) did not change the pattern of results. Indeed,

replicating previous findings, children in the process praise condition reported

significantly higher self-evaluations than children in the person praise condition, in

particular, t(46) = 2.36, p = .022.12

Challenge Seeking

The four challenge-seeking items formed a less reliable scale (compared to the

full eight item scale in Studies 1-4), α = .67. For the results of children’s explanations

for their choices, see Table 5. Overall, the results indicate that process praise

increased children’s challenge seeking compared to other types of praise or no praise.

Effect of Condition

There was an overall trend in the effect of condition on challenge-seeking

choices, F(3,47) = 2.16, p = .11. (See Figure 14.) Post-hoc contrasts revealed that

children in the process praise condition were marginally more likely to choose

challenges than children in the other three conditions, t(47) = 1.98, p = .054, and

significantly more likely to choose challenges than children in the control condition,

t(47) = 2.52, p = .015. Consistent with the previous studies reported in this

dissertation, children who heard a story in which they were praised for their effort

showed increased challenge seeking. While the effects in previous studies could be

due to other factors as well (e.g., strategies for persisting or role models who cope

                                                                                                               12 Children in the control condition also showed significantly higher self-evaluations compared to children in the person praise condition, t(46) = -2.47, p = .017.

55

with failure), these results indicate that praise for effort without those other factors can

increase children’s challenge seeking.

Age

There was a significant effect of age on challenge-seeking choices, F(1,43) =

9.42, p = .004, and a marginal interaction of age with condition, F(3,43) = 2.43, p =

.079. After controlling for age, condition became marginally significant, F(3,43) =

2.65, p = .061, instead of showing a weaker trend toward significance. Younger

children (less than 4 years, 10 months) in the control condition were lowest in

challenge-seeking choices (M = 0.56, SD = 0.53), while older children in the process

praise condition were highest (M = 3.80, SD = 0.45). Thus, older preschool children

who heard a story involving process praise showed a greater increase in challenge

seeking (similar to the age-related findings in Studies 1 and 3, although those studies

involved storybooks with other motivational factors as well).

Regression Model

The regression model supported the previous analyses, indicating a main effect

of process praise (compared to the control condition) and an interaction between

condition and age. The initial model included fixed effects of item type (puzzle vs.

activities),13 condition (dummy-coded to contrast each condition with the control

condition), and age (older or younger than 4 years, 10 months),14 and random effects

of participant and item.

There was a significant effect of the process praise contrast, z = 2.68, p = .007

(process praise vs. control). Children in the process praise condition were more likely

to choose challenging tasks than children in the control condition. There were

marginal interactions between age and the process praise contrast, z = 1.79, p = .073,

and between age and the person praise contrast, z = -1.72, p = .086. As in the previous

analysis, older children in the process praise condition were the most challenge

                                                                                                               13 Children were more likely to choose challenging puzzles than challenging activities, z = 2.13, p = .034. 14 Overall, older children were more likely to choose challenging tasks, z = 3.25, p = .001.  

56

seeking, while younger children in the control condition were the least challenge

seeking.

Persistence

The main effect of condition on whether children persisted on the puzzle was

not significant (control: 21% of children persisted; person praise: 42%; person/process

praise: 23%; process praise: 50%), χ2 (1, N = 51) = 3.38, p = .34. However, there was

a trend for children in the process praise condition to be more likely than children in

the control condition to persist, χ2(1, N = 26) = 2.33, p = .13. (See Table 6 for further

persistence analyses.)

Motivation Composite

Correlation between Challenge Seeking and Persistence

Persistence was significantly positively correlated with the number of hard

choices, r(51) = .47, p < .001.

Effect of Condition

As in Studies 1 and 2, a motivational composite of challenge seeking and

persistence was examined, and revealed higher motivation in the process praise

condition than the control condition. There was a trend indicating an effect of

condition on the overall motivation composite of challenge seeking and persistence,

F(3,47) = 1.95, p = .13. (See Figure 15.) Children in the process praise condition

showed marginally higher motivation on the composite measure than children in the

other three conditions, t(47) = 1.90, p = .06, and significantly higher motivation than

children in the control condition, t(47) = 2.29, p = .027. Thus, children who heard a

story about themselves that involved effort praise showed greater overall motivation in

terms of challenge seeking and persistence combined than did children who heard a

story not involving effort praise (similar to the motivation composite results in Studies

1 and 2, although those studies involved storybooks with other motivational factors as

well).

Mastery-Orientation Composite

I also created a broader mastery-oriented motivation composite that included

self-evaluation in addition to challenge seeking and persistence, by standardizing and

57

averaging the three measures. There was a slight trend for an overall condition

difference, F(3,46) = 1.93, p = .14, and post-hoc contrasts revealed that children in the

process praise condition showed significantly higher mastery orientation overall

compared to the other three conditions, t(46) = 2.30, p = .026. When compared to

each other condition individually, children in the process praise condition showed

significantly higher mastery orientation compared to the control condition, t(46) =

2.24, p = .030, marginally higher compared to the person/process praise condition,

t(46) = 1.97, p = .055, and a trend toward higher mastery orientation compared to the

person praise condition, t(46) = 1.56, p = .13. (See Figure 16.) Overall, children who

heard a story about themselves being praised for effort showed more mastery-oriented

behaviors, in terms of more positive reactions to failure and greater challenge seeking

and persistence, than children who received other types of praise or no praise.

Discussion

These results suggest that the praise element of the storybooks in Studies 1-4

was at least partially responsible for the effects on challenge seeking and persistence.

Praising children for their process and effort through stories led to greater challenge

seeking and a trend toward greater persistence.

The conditions showed different patterns of effects for different measures. In

particular, the pattern of results for self-evaluations differed from that of challenge

seeking and persistence. Children in the process praise and control conditions showed

the highest motivation in terms of positive self-evaluations, while children in the

process praise condition showed higher motivation than the control condition in

challenge seeking and persistence. The first set of results (self-evaluations) may be

because person-related praise makes children particularly vulnerable to evaluating

themselves negatively following a failure experience. They may conclude that if they

are good at puzzles when they succeed, then they must not be good at puzzles when

they fail. In terms of the second set of results (challenge seeking and persistence), the

finding that person praise did not lead to less challenge seeking and persistence is

surprising. However, previous studies with young children have found that person

praise in young children can sometimes lead to low self-evaluations following failure

58

yet relatively high persistence (Zentall & Morris, 2010). Overall, when all aspects of

motivation and mastery orientation were considered, children who had been given

process praise (“You must have worked really hard”) showed the highest total

motivation.

In contrast to the effects of process praise, children in the person/process

condition (“hard worker”) frequently showed effects intermediate in terms of

motivation. These children did not differ in negative self-evaluations compared to

children in the person praise condition, and did not differ in challenge seeking and

persistence compared to the control condition. These results suggest that this type of

praise may carry some of the negative effects of person praise without all of the

benefits of process praise. Any type of praise that evaluates children for personal

qualities, even qualities that place value on effort, may hinder children when they

encounter challenges (see also Zentall & Morris, 2010).

Although the current study added additional conditions, these results replicate

previous findings in the literature and in this dissertation. First, children in the person

praise condition were more negatively affected by the role-played failure scenario in

terms of their self-evaluations, compared to children in the process praise condition

(Cimpian et al., 2007; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Zentall & Morris, 2010). As in

previous research, it seems that children are extremely vulnerable to the sense that

they are being evaluated based on their traits or ability. Rather than giving them

enduring confidence, praising children for ability makes them more likely to doubt

their ability when they encounter difficulty.

Second, children in the process praise condition showed higher levels of

challenge seeking and tended to show higher levels of persistence, compared to

children in the control condition. This supports the findings of other studies in this

dissertation, and suggests that children who receive positive feedback from adults

about taking on challenges and not giving up show motivational benefits compared to

children in a control condition. Stories in which the participating child is praised can

send the message that effort is valued and important. Although the other studies in

59

this dissertation contained other elements besides praise, the praise element of the

story seems to be at least partially responsible for the effects in those studies.

However, this does not rule out the possibility that the results of Studies 1-4

were also due to other elements in the story. For example, hearing about a character

who struggled to cope with failure may also have contributed to greater challenge

seeking in the previous studies. Indeed, the results of a pilot study (N = 17) indicated

that older preschool children who heard about a character who struggled before

learning how to do a task showed marginally more challenge seeking (p = .098) than

children who heard about a character who was immediately successful at a task. It

would be very interesting for future research to vary both effort praise (vs. no effort

praise) and struggle (vs. immediate success) within the same study to more directly

compare the effects. Thinking about the process of learning as involving struggle may

be critical for children, such that thinking about success (without this element of the

learning process) may not instill the same motivation to persevere.

Overall, these results indicate that process praise has beneficial consequences

for young children’s challenge seeking and persistence, even following situations in

which children do not succeed.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Challenge seeking and persistence are aspects of motivation that are

particularly critical for students’ learning. The studies reported here lay the

foundation for a better understanding of the factors that affect challenge seeking and

persistence in young children, with the ultimate goal of using that understanding to

create educational interventions that set children on more successful academic

trajectories.

Discussion of Findings

The results from Study 1 suggest that challenge seeking and persistence can be

increased in children using storybooks that include praise for effort, strategies for

persisting, and a role model who copes with failure. While these books increased

children’s challenge seeking regardless of who the main character was, the books were

most effective for preschoolers’ behavioral persistence when the main character was

60

the child himself or herself. Thus, personal identity seemed to matter more for

preschool children’s persistence than for challenge seeking.

In contrast, in Study 2, the books were equally effective in increasing

persistence for kindergarten students whether the main character was the participating

child, another child, or an animal. Moreover, the books were highly effective in

increasing persistence in a group of academically struggling students. Furthermore,

both Studies 1 and 2 also found that children who endorsed global beliefs about

badness (that making a mistake implies global badness) were less likely to take on

challenging tasks.

The results from Study 3 showed that the treatment book was equally effective

regardless of whether children explained the value of challenges or attempted to

persuade someone else of the value of challenges. Study 3 also found that the effect of

the treatment book on challenge seeking was weakened after children experienced a

real challenge.

The results from Study 4 are particularly exciting, as these results suggest that

these effects may become stronger over time, and that children may become more

likely to show robust challenge seeking even after experiencing real challenges. Older

preschool children showed these long-term effects whether or not they were reminded

of the value of taking on challenges, whereas younger children remained challenge

seeking only if they had been previously reminded of the story.

The results from Study 5 indicate that praise may be a critical component of

this process. Children who heard a story about themselves being praised for effort

showed more positive self-evaluations following failure, compared to children who

heard a story about themselves praised for person-based traits such as ability.

Children who heard a story in which they were praised for effort also showed greater

challenge seeking and slightly greater persistence than children who heard a control

story in which they were not praised for effort.

In Studies 1, 3, 4, and 5, the treatment books showed reliable effects on

challenge seeking (see Table 2). This suggests that children are sensitive to the

messages they hear in stories, and that stories can be used to teach children about the

61

value of taking on challenges. Studies 1, 2, and 5 also suggested that these books

could be use to increase young children’s persistence at challenging tasks. Hearing a

story about themselves persisting (“I’ll just keep trying, and I’ll see what happens”) in

which they are praised for persistence and working hard may be an important way to

encourage young children to persist when they encounter challenges.

Challenge Seeking and Persistence

Another interesting finding across studies was the relationship between

challenge seeking and persistence. Although challenge seeking and persistence were

not correlated in Study 1, there was a moderately high correlation in Studies 2 and 5

between the number of challenging items that children chose and their persistence on a

challenging puzzle. When data from the three studies were combined, the overall

correlation between challenge seeking and persistence was significant, r(169) = .23, p

= .002. This suggests that these may be related components of motivation. Indeed, in

the real world, children’s behavior in both types of situations may create a feedback

loop, in which children choose a challenging task, persist at it, and realize the benefits

of having persisted, which then increases their continuing preference for challenging

tasks that they can learn from. Children who show motivational deficits may also

create feedback loops: children who choose easy tasks may enjoy the sensation of

easily completing tasks and dislike the sensation of frustration while trying to persist

on challenging tasks, which may make them more likely to continue to choose easy

options in the future. In this way, children with different motivational tendencies may

place themselves on very different academic trajectories in school.

However, there could be several reasons for the overall correlation between

challenge seeking and persistence. The manipulation incorporated several different

motivational factors, so different aspects of the manipulation may have had separate

effects on challenge seeking and persistence. Furthermore, challenge seeking and

persistence did not always show similar patterns of effects. In Study 1, all the

treatment books increased preschoolers’ challenge seeking, but only the book about

the participating child increased persistence. In contrast, in Study 2, the treatment

books led to significant increases in kindergarteners’ persistence but not challenge

62

seeking. Perhaps challenge seeking may be more strongly related to goal-related

processes (e.g., whether children are more concerned with learning or performing

well), while persistence may be more strongly tied to self-regulation processes. Few

studies have measured both challenge seeking and persistence in children, and many

of those previous studies used self-report measures of persistence rather than

behavioral persistence at a task. In line with the current findings, some studies also

demonstrate that challenge seeking and persistence do not always correlate or show

identical effects. For example, Nichols, Whelan, and Meyer (1991) found that 5th

grade students who had been given learning goals chose harder tasks following failure

feedback compared to those who had been given performance goals, but there was no

difference in their persistence (in terms of the number of additional problems they

wanted to work on). In terms of persistence, recent work found that preschoolers’

persistence on some tasks was correlated with motivational measures such as valuing a

task, and on other tasks was correlated with self-regulation measures such as working

memory (Berhenke, Lan, & Morrison, 2011). Thus, challenge seeking and persistence

appear to be separable aspects of motivation.

However, some previous studies have found effects on both challenge seeking

and persistence—for example, Mueller and Dweck (1998) found that 5th graders who

were given effort praise showed both greater challenge seeking (in terms of choosing

harder problems that they could learn from over easier problems that would make

them look smart) and persistence (in terms of how much they would like to take the

problems home to work on). Perhaps persistence is more likely to be correlated with

challenge seeking when it is clear to children that persistence will lead to greater

learning (for example, perhaps the preschoolers in Study 1 who heard about

themselves persisting in the story were better able to see the learning value of

persistence for themselves, compared to children who heard a story about someone

else). In contrast, when performance-avoidance goals are salient to children (such as

the struggling students in Study 2, who may have been afraid to take on challenges

and fail at them), it may be easier to change children’s persistence than their challenge

seeking.

63

In addition, the way in which persistence is measured may be relevant. Several

previous studies used self-report measures of persistence (in terms of how many

additional problems children would like, or whether they would like to continue

working) rather than behavioral persistence (in terms of whether children keep

working and complete a task, as in Studies 1, 2, and 5). It also remains an open

question as to whether these various ways of measuring persistence show high

congruence with each other; indeed, a large body of literature suggests that there are

frequently discrepancies between self-reports and behavior, particularly for children

(see Quattrone, 1985). It may be that challenge seeking and persistence show more

similar patterns of effects when both are measured as self-report (as in Mueller &

Dweck, 1998). At any rate, the relationship between challenge seeking and persistence

remains an open and theoretically rich question for future research to clarify.

Aside from the relationship between the two factors, there could be particular

situations in a classroom context in which it might be more important to boost either

challenge seeking or persistence. In the classroom, teachers frequently have

opportunities to guide or scaffold one aspect of motivation while allowing children to

make choices about the other. For example, teachers may give a task with a certain

level of difficulty (e.g., moderately challenging), but allow children to choose how

long they wish to work on it before moving on to another task. Conversely, teachers

may assign a certain amount of time for a task, but allow children freedom to choose

their own level of difficulty for that task. Thus, the importance of each aspect might

differ based on the educational context. In the long term, however, both are

important—students should both take advantage of challenging opportunities (e.g.,

more advanced courses) and persist in working hard at those.

As discussed in the Introduction, few studies have attempted to create long-

term motivational change in preschool children. Although young children in general

may show a preference for easy tasks (Nicholls, 1978), the children who participated

in the current studies were highly responsive to an intervention that encouraged them

to see challenges as positive learning experiences. Although their preferences for

challenging tasks may be highly stable over time (see Study 4), those preferences can

64

be shifted to put children onto an academic trajectory in which they are more willing

to take on challenging tasks.

Global Beliefs and Challenge Seeking

These studies also indicate the potential importance of young children’s beliefs

for challenge seeking. Studies 1 and 2 found that children who believed that making a

mistake had consequences for global badness were less likely to take on challenges.

Across both studies, the correlation between global beliefs and challenge seeking was

highly significant, r(113) = -.36, p < .001. As mentioned previously, this is an

intriguing new finding. While previous studies in the literature revealed the

importance of children’s beliefs for their reactions to challenging situations (with

greater endorsement of global beliefs correlated with helpless responses), these studies

suggest that children’s beliefs may play an important role in motivation even when

children are not encountering difficulty. In particular, children who endorse these

beliefs may avoid challenges for fear that failure may have global implications for

their self-worth. This is a promising direction for future research. Can children’s

global beliefs be reliably changed, and if so, does that have positive motivational

consequences?

This type of relationship may also be bidirectional, in which experiencing

challenges helps children develop more beneficial beliefs. Children may attempt a

challenging task, fail, but realize that this failure does not mean they are bad.

Intriguingly, longitudinal studies suggest that challenge seeking predicts an increase in

the belief that intelligence is malleable in older children (Pomerantz & Saxon, 2001).

Thus, beliefs that ability can change, and that mistakes do not imply global-self worth,

may make children more likely to take on challenges so that they can learn more, and

taking on challenges may also help foster these beneficial beliefs.

Motivation in Early Childhood

Finally, a recurring theme throughout these studies was the importance of age

in children’s challenge seeking and persistence. Age played an important role in

several studies, in three primary ways. First, there were often main effects of age

(Studies 1, 2, 3, and 5). Older children were often more challenge seeking, more

65

persistent, and gave explanations that were more likely to reference seeking challenge

and less likely to reference avoiding challenge. This is concordant with other research

suggesting that, at least during elementary school, children become more focused on

learning as they become older (Kinlaw & Kurtz-Costes, 2007). Over a longer period

of development, this may become a U-shaped curve, in which children increase in

motivation until early adolescence, when they show a decrease in motivation. Second,

age often showed an interaction with the effect of condition (Studies 1, 4, and 5). In

several studies with preschoolers, the treatment manipulation was more effective in

older children. Perhaps older preschool children are more attentive, more cognitively

advanced, and/or better able to generalize what they have learned in the story to their

own choices. Third, the pattern of results often differed by age. In particular,

preschool children in Study 1 showed effects on persistence only for the treatment

book involving the participating child. In contrast, kindergarten children in Study 2

showed effects on persistence regardless of which treatment book they heard.

Understanding how motivation relates to development in early childhood may be

extremely important.

Directions for Future Research

While the results of these five studies are encouraging, many questions remain

to be explored. First, is it possible to create storybooks that might change children’s

global beliefs? If so, could belief change in early childhood produce motivational

change, similar to the effects seen in older children with implicit beliefs about

intelligence (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007)? Future research should

examine books designed to change children’s beliefs to potentially make them more

willing to take on challenges and less afraid of failure.

Second, the results suggest that the effects can remain several weeks later in a

highly similar situation (e.g., same researcher, same room, same questions). How

robust are these effects precisely? Will the effects stay the same or become stronger

over even longer periods of time, as children experience positive consequences in the

real world from succeeding at difficult tasks? Will the effects generalize to new

situations with new people outside the laboratory? Further, would the stories be as

66

effective if parents read them to children in their home? Future studies could examine

the effects of sending the books home with children (or sending families new stories

every few weeks) to see whether involving parents in this process would successfully

increase challenge seeking. Other research could examine what parents could do to

help their children generalize from popular children’s books (such as “The Little

Engine That Could”). Could parents help their children generalize the moral of the

story (e.g., to take on challenges and persist), even from a highly dissimilar character?

A third important direction for future research is to establish in a controlled

setting a direct causal link between increased motivation (in terms of challenge

seeking and persistence) and learning. There is some converging evidence indicating

that increased motivation in children leads to improved learning (Cordova & Lepper,

1996; Master & Walton, 2011), but it would be valuable to demonstrate this in a

carefully controlled way for multiple age groups and across many types of learning

situations. For example, a future study could examine children’s learning at several

points in kindergarten (e.g., in literacy skills or math skills) to create growth curves in

how much children have learned, and explore whether challenge seeking facilitates

growth in learning.

Another issue to consider is how applicable results from laboratory studies are

to motivation in actual classrooms. Laboratory experiments may be missing factors

that could mediate or moderate effects, such as presence of peers and familiarity with

the task (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). However, studies that have been conducted in

classrooms or have examined long-term academic effects have found promising

results. For example, teachers who were trained to attribute children’s successes and

failures to effort, or who were trained to emphasize learning goals, improved their

students’ motivation (Fuchs, Fuchs, Karns, Hamlett, Katzaroff, & Dutka, 1997; Miller

et al., 1975; Thomas & Pashley, 1982). Similarly, many studies have looked at the

effects of computer programs or modules that could easily be incorporated into

classroom settings (Blackwell & Dweck, 2008; Cordova & Lepper, 1996). Finally,

several intervention studies have found long-term effects on older students’ motivation

and achievement (Walton & Cohen, 2007; Wilson & Linville, 1982). While

67

replicating the results of laboratory manipulations in real classroom settings is

important for future research, these studies provide encouraging results. In many

cases, seemingly simple interventions can have profound effects if they can change the

outcome of negative exacerbation cycles to allow students to reach their full potential

(Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master, 2006; Walton & Cohen, 2007).

Furthermore, as mentioned previously, future research should continue to

isolate the different elements of the storybooks (praise for effort, strategies for

persisting, and role models who cope with failure) to compare the effects of the

different components. For example, four different stories could be directly compared

within the same study: 1) the main character struggles and receives effort praise

(similar to Studies 1-4), 2) the main character succeeds and receives effort praise

(similar to Study 5), 3) the main character struggles but is not praised, and 4) the main

character succeeds and is not praised. Further studies could also examine the

effectiveness of combining each element with an explicit strategy for persisting (e.g.,

“I’m going to keep trying!”).

Such research would also help clarify how the different elements of the story

might interact (or potentially cancel each other out) in various situations. Does

combining motivational factors create additive effects (such that more factors are

better than fewer in boosting motivation)? Alternatively, might different factors

interact to produce even greater effects when combined? For example, perhaps

including both a description of the process of struggling and a strategy for how to

persist despite struggling gives children the tools to persist and the ability to recognize

when those tools are necessary. It is also possible that different motivational factors

might be redundant (producing no additive effects) or even work against each other.

That is, perhaps the struggling students in Study 2 would have chosen more

challenging tasks following a story involving effort praise that did not involve coping

with struggle, but the element of struggle in the story that they heard increased their

anxiety about failing at hard tasks. Other aspects of the story (besides the factors

emphasized in the Introduction) may also have affected the results, such as when

classmates praised the main character by saying, “You’re just like a big kid!” While

68

in many cases young children look up to older children, it is not clear whether that

statement conveys person-based praise (like “hard worker”) or implies growth. One

important direction for future motivational research is to gain a deeper understanding

of more complex manipulations and interventions.

Conclusion

This dissertation makes several potentially valuable contributions to our

knowledge of developmental psychology. First, it begins to bring findings from

cognitive development together with research on motivation. Previous research on

generalization in children has explored the factors that help children transfer what they

have learned in one situation to another situation. In the present case, this dissertation

applies this previous research to help children generalize increased motivation from a

story to themselves in a new learning situation. Previous research suggests that

increased similarity between situations helps children see the connections between

those situations (Crisafi & Brown, 1986). In this dissertation, the first study found

that preschool children were more likely to internalize the message of the story and

show increased persistence in a new situation when the main character of the story

was more similar to them. In addition to generalizing from the character to

themselves, children were also asked to generalize from the task in the story (puzzles)

to other activities. Although these effects were not discussed extensively, it is worth

noting that children were more likely to choose challenging tasks directly mentioned

in the story (puzzles) than other activities not mentioned in the story (building block

towers, playing games, drawing pictures, and singing songs). Further research could

more directly quantify this by asking children to rate how similar these other tasks are

to puzzles, and then examining whether children’s generalization of increased

challenge seeking to these activities varies based on the similarity between these

activities and puzzles. Thus, this research has the potential to encourage further

application of the tools of cognitive development to the field of motivation.

On a more practical level, these findings may impact the way researchers

investigate motivation in young children. The importance of challenge seeking and

persistence for academic success is clear, and interventions to increase the motivation

69

of older children have been quite successful (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck,

2007). However, experimental manipulations to increase the challenge seeking and

persistence of young children, and longitudinal studies to examine their long-term

effects, have not been conducted. Many large-scale interventions have positive results

but fail to measure motivation or to clarify the most critical variables that might have

brought about the results. Other longitudinal studies include motivation but cannot

make conclusions about causality. In contrast, the current research used controlled

experiments that can help clarify the most critical ingredients for increasing

motivation. Furthermore, many early childhood interventions involve a great deal of

time and money. In contrast, these studies examined whether a relatively brief

intervention could help children internalize greater challenge seeking and persistence.

Thus, this has the potential to become a small manipulation with large effects.

Another implication of these findings is the potential for introducing

motivational change through the vehicle of stories. While other studies have used

storybooks to create motivational change in young children (McArthur & Eisen,

1976), the studies presented here effectively demonstrated improvements in two key

aspects of motivation, challenge seeking and persistence, and showed that the effects

on challenge seeking over time may be robust and durable. These findings support the

idea of storybooks as useful pedagogical tools, as discussed in the Introduction, for

teaching children important principles, whether motivational or moral. When children

listen to stories, they pay attention not only to the plot of the story, but also to the

deeper meaning and implications of the story. When that meaning is relevant for them

personally, it may lead to changes in what they value and the choices that they make.

In addition, storybooks can communicate information in a way that is easy to

disseminate on a larger scale, creating the potential to reach many children efficiently.

Finally, this research has implications for educational settings as well. This

dissertation helps to clarify the most effective ways to increase challenge seeking and

persistence in young children. These findings have the potential to be used by

teachers in their communications to their own students. For example, teachers can

help to shape students’ self-perceptions by reminding them of times when they chose

70

hard tasks and persisted. Furthermore, by improving our understanding of the beliefs

that make children more vulnerable, we can help teachers identify which students may

need additional support and reassurance in learning situations. These findings suggest

that the academic context that children are in may have significant effects on their

challenge seeking—in particular, students who were in a remedial context were

particularly wary of taking on challenges (Study 2). One important task for

educational research is to continue to gain a better understanding of which factors may

be most helpful for students in particular contexts.

Motivation is one of the most important factors in lifelong success

(Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). However, differences in motivation

can be seen in young children as early as preschool. What are the long-term effects of

intervening on these differences in motivation? While longitudinal studies of this type

have not yet been done, the motivation literature does suggest that persistence and

challenge seeking tend to lead to more positive outcomes. If so, then teaching young

children to persist and choose challenges may have many benefits. Challenge seeking

and persistence in young children are also critical because children play a large role in

constructing their own trajectories through the choices they make (Lufi & Cohen,

1987; Scarr & McCartney, 1983). In the long run, students who consistently seek

challenge rather than not will have increased opportunities to learn and improve

(Ames & Archer, 1988; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999; Lepper & Greene,

1978). In contrast, when students give up easily, they may miss many opportunities to

reach their goals (Heyman & Dweck, 1992). Motivation can provide the necessary

force to sustain a life-long pursuit of challenge and learning.

71

Appendix A: Storybook Texts in Studies 1 and 2

Control Condition (Bold text indicates sentence spoken directly to child.)

[Name]’s parents (your parents) gave [him/her] two new bouncing balls for

[his/her] birthday. One was green. It had some stripes. The other one was red. It had

some dots. They looked like they would bounce really high! [S/He] thought, “Should

I try the green one or the red one?” [S/He] decided to try the green one. [S/He]

picked it up so [s/he] could play with it inside [his/her] playroom. [S/He] said,

“Should I play with it?” Let’s tell you to play with the ball! What do YOU think

you should do? [Name] said to [himself/herself], “I’ll play with the green one for a

little while.”

So [s/he] played with it. [S/He] took the ball outside to the backyard, and thought

about how to play with it. [S/He] threw it up in the air, then caught it. [S/He]

bounced it on the ground and then caught it in [his/her] hands. [Name] told [his/her]

parents (so you told your parents), “Thank you for the ball! I bounced it and caught

it.” [His/her] parents said, “We’re so glad that you like your birthday present.”

Finally [name] took the green ball back inside the house. [S/He] was glad that [s/he]

had [his/her] ball. [S/He] wanted to play some more. [S/He] tossed it down on the

ground. It bounced off the floor and went very high! [His/her] parents said, “We’re

glad that you’re playing with your ball.”

The next day [name] went to school. [His/her] teacher was giving out bouncing

balls. She put out a green one and a red one. Which one did [name] pick? [S/He]

picked the green one. Let’s ask [name] (so we’re going to ask you) why [s/he]

picked that one. “I picked the green one because I like to bounce green balls.” After

that, [s/he] bounced the ball high in the air. All the other kids said, “Wow, [name]

picked the green ball! [S/He] bounced it high! [S/He’s] just like the big kids! Wow!”

and [name] smiled.

Treatment Condition: Animal

72

Little Bird’s parents gave [him/her] two new puzzles for [his/her] birthday. One

was easy. It only had a few pieces. One was hard. It had a lot of pieces. [S/he]

thought, “Should I try the easy puzzle or the hard puzzle?” [S/he] decided to try the

hard puzzle. [S/he] picked up a piece, but [s/he] didn’t know where it went. Little

Bird said, “Uh-oh, this is too hard!” [His/Her] parents said, “Just try! You’ll see what

happens.” Let’s tell Little Bird to keep trying! What do YOU think Little Bird

should do? Little Bird said to [himself/herself], “I’ll just keep trying, and I’ll see

what happens.”

So [s/he] tried. [S/he] picked up another piece, and thought about where to put it.

[S/he] tried it in one place, then another. [S/he] turned it around and tried it the other

way. But [s/he] still couldn’t quite do it. [His/Her] parents said, “You’re just like a

big kid! You’re trying hard things. That makes our hearts feel happy.” Finally [s/he]

saw where to put that piece. “I figured it out!” said Little Bird. [S/he] felt proud for

picking the hard puzzle and trying so hard. [S/he] tried another piece. That one was

even harder, but [s/he] kept trying! Little Bird told [his/her] parents, “I didn’t give up!

I’m learning something hard, and that makes me feel happy.” [His/Her] parents said,

“We’re so proud that you’re trying something hard.”

The next day Little Bird went to school. [His/Her] teacher was giving out puzzles.

She put out an easy puzzle and a hard puzzle. Which one did Little Bird pick?

[S/he] picked the hard one. Let’s ask Little Bird why [s/he] picked that one. “I

picked the hard one because I like to try and I like to learn.” After that, [s/he] tried a

lot of hard puzzles. All the other kids said, “Wow, Little Bird picked the hard ones!

[S/he] worked hard on them, and [s/he] got the pieces! [S/he’s] just like the big kids!

Wow!” and Little Bird smiled.

Treatment Condition: Another Child

Taylor’s parents gave [him/her] two new puzzles for [his/her] birthday. One was

easy. It only had a few pieces. One was hard. It had a lot of pieces. [S/He] thought,

“Should I try the easy puzzle or the hard puzzle?” [S/He] decided to try the hard

puzzle. [S/He] picked up a piece, but [s/he] didn’t know where it went. Taylor said,

73

“Uh-oh, this is too hard!” [His/her] parents said, “Just try! You’ll see what happens.”

Let’s tell Taylor to keep trying! What do YOU think Taylor should do? Taylor

said to [himself/herself], “I’ll just keep trying, and I’ll see what happens.”

So [s/he] tried. [S/He] picked up another piece, and thought about where to put it.

[S/He] tried it in one place, then another. [S/He] turned it around and tried it the other

way. But [s/he] still couldn’t quite do it. [His/her] parents said, “You’re just like a

big kid! You’re trying hard things. That makes our hearts feel happy.” Finally [s/he]

saw where to put that piece. “I figured it out!” said Taylor. [S/He] felt proud for

picking the hard puzzle and trying so hard. [S/He] tried another piece. That one was

even harder, but [s/he] kept trying! Taylor told [his/her] parents, “I didn’t give up!

I’m learning something hard, and that makes me feel happy.” [His/her] parents said,

“We’re so proud that you’re trying something hard.”

The next day Taylor went to school. [His/her] teacher was giving out puzzles.

She put out an easy puzzle and a hard puzzle. Which one did Taylor pick? [S/He]

picked the hard one. Let’s ask Taylor why [s/he] picked that one. “I picked the

hard one because I like to try and I like to learn.” After that, [s/he] tried a lot of hard

puzzles. All the other kids said, “Wow, Taylor picked the hard ones! [S/He] worked

hard on them, and [s/he] got the pieces! [S/He’s] just like the big kids! Wow!” and

Taylor smiled.

Treatment Condition: Participant

[Name]’s parents (your parents) gave [him/her] two new puzzles for [his/her]

birthday. One was easy. It only had a few pieces. One was hard. It had a lot of

pieces. [S/He] thought, “Should I try the easy puzzle or the hard puzzle?” [S/He]

decided to try the hard puzzle. [S/He] picked up a piece, but she didn’t know where it

went. [Name] said, “Uh-oh, this is too hard!” [His/Her] parents said, “Just try!

You’ll see what happens.” Let’s tell you to keep trying! What do YOU think you

should do? [Name] said to [himself/herself], “I’ll just keep trying, and I’ll see what

happens.”

74

So [s/he] tried. [S/He] picked up another piece, and thought about where to put it.

[S/He] tried it in one place, then another. [S/He] turned it around and tried it the other

way. But [s/he] still couldn’t quite do it. [His/Her] parents said, “You’re just like a

big kid! You’re trying hard things. That makes our hearts feel happy.” Finally [s/he]

saw where to put that piece. “I figured it out!” said [name]. [S/He] felt proud for

picking the hard puzzle and trying so hard. [S/He] tried another piece. That one was

even harder, but [s/he] kept trying! [Name] told [his/her] parents (so you told your

parents), “I didn’t give up! I’m learning something hard, and that makes me feel

happy.” [His/Her] parents said, “We’re so proud that you’re trying something hard.”

The next day [name] went to school. [His/Her] teacher was giving out puzzles.

She put out an easy puzzle and a hard puzzle. Which one did [name] pick? [S/He]

picked the hard one. Let’s ask [name] (so we’re going to ask you) why [s/he]

picked that one. “I picked the hard one because I like to try and I like to learn.”

After that, [s/he] tried a lot of hard puzzles. All the other kids said, “Wow, [name]

picked the hard ones! [S/he] worked hard on them, and [s/he] got the pieces! [S/he’s]

just like the big kids! Wow!” and [name] smiled.

75

Appendix B: Storybook Texts in Study 5

Control Condition

One day, [name] went to school. [S/he] decided to do an elephant puzzle.

[S/he] put in the ears, the nose, and the tail. [S/he] kept putting pieces in. Then [s/he]

finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the

pieces in the puzzle!”

Then [s/he] decided to do a snail puzzle. [S/he] found all the pieces of the

shell and put those pieces together. Then [s/he] finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher

looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle!”

Next, [s/he] decided to do a dinosaur puzzle. [S/he] put in the sharp teeth and

the big tail. Then [s/he] put in the rest of the pieces. [His/her] teacher looked at the

puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle!”

You did the puzzle of the elephant, the puzzle of the snail, and the puzzle of

the dinosaur!

Person Praise

One day, [name] went to school. [S/he] decided to do an elephant puzzle.

[S/he] put in the ears, the nose, and the tail. [S/he] kept putting pieces in. Then [s/he]

finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the

pieces in the puzzle! You must be really good at puzzles.”

Then [s/he] decided to do a snail puzzle. [S/he] found all the pieces of the

shell and put those pieces together. Then [s/he] finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher

looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must be

really good at puzzles.”

Next, [s/he] decided to do a dinosaur puzzle. [S/he] put in the sharp teeth and

the big tail. Then [s/he] put in the rest of the pieces. [His/her] teacher looked at the

puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must be really good at

puzzles.”

76

You did the puzzle of the elephant, the puzzle of the snail, and the puzzle of

the dinosaur. You must be really good at puzzles!

Person/Process Praise

One day, [name] went to school. [S/he] decided to do an elephant puzzle.

[S/he] put in the ears, the nose, and the tail. [S/he] kept putting pieces in. Then [s/he]

finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the

pieces in the puzzle! You must be a really hard worker at puzzles.”

Then [s/he] decided to do a snail puzzle. [S/he] found all the pieces of the

shell and put those pieces together. Then [s/he] finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher

looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must be a

really hard worker at puzzles.”

Next, [s/he] decided to do a dinosaur puzzle. [S/he] put in the sharp teeth and

the big tail. Then [s/he] put in the rest of the pieces. [His/her] teacher looked at the

puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must be a really hard

worker at puzzles.”

You did the puzzle of the elephant, the puzzle of the snail, and the puzzle of

the dinosaur. You must be a really hard worker at puzzles!

Process Praise

One day, [name] went to school. [S/he] decided to do an elephant puzzle.

[S/he] put in the ears, the nose, and the tail. [S/he] kept putting pieces in. Then [s/he]

finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the

pieces in the puzzle! You must have worked really hard at the puzzle.”

Then [s/he] decided to do a snail puzzle. [S/he] found all the pieces of the

shell and put those pieces together. Then [s/he] finished the puzzle. [His/her] teacher

looked at the puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must have

worked really hard at the puzzle.”

Next, [s/he] decided to do a dinosaur puzzle. [S/he] put in the sharp teeth and

the big tail. Then [s/he] put in the rest of the pieces. [His/her] teacher looked at the

77

puzzle and said, “You got all the pieces in the puzzle! You must have worked really

hard at the puzzle.”

You did the puzzle of the elephant, the puzzle of the snail, and the puzzle of

the dinosaur. You must have worked really hard at the puzzles!

78

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’

learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 80, 260-267.

Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D.,

Linz, D., et al. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. American

Psychologist, 4, 81-110.

Applebee, A. N. (1978). The child’s concept of story. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation in university

students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 430-446.

Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psychologist, 54, 875-

884.

Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Effect of the severity of threat on the

devaluation of forbidden behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 66, 584-588.

Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat

on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113-125.

Baayen, R. M., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with

crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and

Language, 59, 390-412.

Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating

behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and

intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.

Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., Stechuk, R., &

79

Burns, S. (2008). Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: A

randomized trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 299-313.

Bates, D. M., & Sarkar, D. (2007). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4

classes (R package Version 0.999375-38) [Computer software]. Retrieved

from http://www.R-project.org.

Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive

dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183-200.

Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Kaplan, A. (2005). Motivational influences on transfer of

problem-solving strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 1-22.

Berhenke, A. L., Lan, X., & Morrison, F. J. (2011, March). Motivation or self-

regulation? Exploring the nature of persistence during a challenging task.

Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child

Development, Montreal, Canada.

Bettelheim, B. (1976). The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy

tales. London: Thames and Hudson.

Bird, J. E., & Thompson, G. B. (1986). Understanding of the dimensional terms ‘easy’

and ‘hard’ in the self-evaluation of competence. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 9, 343-357.

Blackwell, L. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). The motivational impact of a computer-

based program that teaches how the brain changes with learning. Unpublished

manuscript.

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of

intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal

study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263.

Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. New

York: The Guilford Press.

Brown, A. L. (1989). Analogical learning and transfer: What develops? In S.

Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 369-

412). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges

80

in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.

Brown, A. L., & Kane, M. J. (1988). Preschool children can learn to transfer: Learning

to learn and learning from example. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 493-523.

Bryan, C., & Master, A. (2011). Little helpers: Nouns motivate young children’s

helping behavior more than verbs. Manuscript in preparation, Stanford

University.

Burhans, K. K., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The role of

contingent worth. Child Development, 66, 1719-1738.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and self-regulation. In

E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism & pessimism: Implications for theory, research,

and practice (pp. 31-51). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Chen, Z. (1999). Schema induction in children’s analogical problem solving. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 91, 703-715.

Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of

the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098-1120.

Chen, Z., Yanowitz, K. L., & Daehler, M. W. (1995). Constraints on accessing

abstract source information: Instantiation of principles facilitates children’s

analogical transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 445-454.

Child, I. L. (1946). Children’s preference for goals easy or difficult to obtain.

Psychological Monographs, 60, No. 4.

Child, I. L., & Adelsheim, E. (1944). The motivational value of barriers for young

children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 65, 97-111.

Child, I. L., Potter, E. H., & Levine, E. M. (1946). Children’s textbooks and

personality development. Psychological Monographs, 60, No. 3.

Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and attitude change.

Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 357-404.

Cimpian, A. (2010). The impact of generic language about ability on children’s

achievement motivation. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1333-1340.

81

Cimpian, A., Arce, H. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic

cues affect children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314-316.

Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of

audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 245-

264.

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial

achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307-

1310.

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009).

Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority

achievement gap. Science, 324, 400-403.

Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of

learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715-730.

Crisafi, M. A., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Analogical transfer in very young children:

Combining two separately learned solutions to reach a goal. Child

Development, 57, 953-968.

Curie, M. (1921). The discovery of radium, address by Madame M. Curie at Vassar

College. Poughkeepsie, NY: Vassar College.

Danner, F. W., & Lonky, E. (1981). A cognitive-developmental approach to the

effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 52, 1043-1052.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program

improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387-1388.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit:

Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 92, 1087-1101.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American

Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality,

82

and development. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on

motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 199-235). Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in personality, motivation, and

development. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and

personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Edison, T. A. (1948). The diary and sundry observations of Thomas Alva Edison. New

York: Greenwood Press.

Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance:

Evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science, 18, 978-983.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement

goals and intrinsic motivation: A meditational analysis. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.

Feather, N. T. (1962). The study of persistence. Psychological Bulletin, 59, 94-115.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced

compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.

Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998).

Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice

strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology,

83, 218-233.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., Katzaroff, M., & Dutka, S. (1997).

Effects of task-focused goals on low-achieving students with and without

learning disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 513-543.

Ganea, P. A., Pickard, M. B., & DeLoache, J. S. (2008). Transfer between picture

books and the real world by very young children. Journal of Cognition and

Development, 9, 46-66.

Gentner, D., & Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the

development of analogy. Cognitive Science, 10, 277-300.

Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in

83

disadvantaged children. Science, 312, 1900-1902.

Helmreich, R. L., Beane, W., Lucker, G. W., & Spence, J. T. (1978). Achievement

motivation and scientific attainment. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 4, 222-226.

Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation:

Their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion,

16, 231-247.

Heyman, G. D., Dweck, C. S., & Cain, K. M. (1992). Young children’s vulnerability

to self-blame and helplessness: Relationship to beliefs about goodness. Child

Development, 63, 401-415.

Higgins, E. T., & Rholes, W. S. (1978). “Saying is believing”: Effects of message

modification on memory and liking for the person described. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 363-378.

Holyoak, K. J., Junn, E. N., & Billman, D. O. (1984). Development of analogical

problem-solving skill. Child Development, 55, 2042-2055.

Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories,

attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 77, 588-599.

Hovland, C. I. (1951). Changes in attitude through communication. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 424-437.

Janis, I. L., & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 211-218.

Janoff-Bulman, R., & Brickman, P. (1982). Expectations and what people learn from

failure. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value

models in psychology (pp. 207-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation

or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59,

434-446.

Jennings, K. D., Connors, R. E., & Stegman, C. E. (1988). Does a physical handicap

alter the development of mastery motivation during the preschool years?

84

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27,

312-317.

Jennings, K. D., & Dietz, L. J. (2003). Mastery motivation and goal persistence in

young children. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes & K. A.

Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp.

295-309). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jose, P. E., & Brewer, W. F. (1984). Development of story liking: Character

identification, suspense, and outcome resolution. Developmental Psychology,

20, 911-924.

Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism:

Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology,

35, 835-847.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal

orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141-184.

Keister, M. E. (1943). The behavior of young children in failure. In R. G. Barker, J. S.

Kounin, & H. F. Wright (Eds.), Child behavior and development: A course of

representative studies (pp. 439-440). New York: McGraw-Hill Book

Company.

Kinlaw, C. R., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2007). Children’s theories of intelligence: Beliefs,

goals, and motivation in the elementary years. Journal of General Psychology,

134, 295-311.

Kistner, J. A., Ziegert, D. I., Castro, R., & Robertson, B. (2001). Helplessness in early

childhood: Prediction of symptoms associated with depression and negative

self-worth. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 336-354.

Kohlberg, L. (1994). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to

socialization. In B. Puka (Ed.), Moral development: Defining perspectives in

moral development (Vol. 1, pp. 1-134). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Kun, A. (1977). Development of the magnitude-covariation and compensation

schemata in ability and effort attributions of performance. Child Development,

48, 862-873.

85

Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic

motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic

correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184-196.

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1978). Overjustification research and beyond: Toward a

means-ends analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. R. Lepper &

D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the

psychology of human motivation (pp. 109-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic

interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.

Lepper, M. R., & Woolverton, M. (2002). The wisdom of practice: Lessons learned

from the study of highly effective tutors. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving

academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 135-

158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lepper, M. R., Yow, W. Q., & Master, A. (2011). [Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational

orientations in the classroom.] Unpublished data, Stanford University.

Lufi, D., & Cohen, A. (1987). A scale for measuring persistence in children. Journal

of Personality Assessment, 51, 178-185.

Luster, T., & McAdoo, H. (1996). Family and child influences on educational

attainment: A secondary analysis of the High/Scope Perry preschool data.

Developmental Psychology, 32, 26-39.

Lütkenhaus, P. (1984). Pleasure derived from mastery in three-year-olds: Its function

for persistence and the influence of maternal behavior. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 7, 343-358.

Maccoby, E. E., & Wilson, W. C. (1957). Identification and observational learning

from films. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 55, 76-87.

Marigold, D. C., Holmes, J. G., & Ross, M. (2007). More than words: Reframing

compliments from romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteem

individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 232-248.

86

Martin, A. J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a

multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33,

239-269.

Marum, E. (1996). Reading more than print. In E. Marum (Ed.), Children and books in

the modern world: Contemporary perspectives on literacy (pp. 141-145).

London: The Falmer Press.

Master, A., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Perceived group membership increases task

motivation and learning in young children. Manuscript in preparation,

Stanford University.

McArthur, L. Z., & Eisen, S.V. (1976). Achievement of male and female storybook

characters as determinants of achievement behavior by boys and girls. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 467-473.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand

Company, Inc.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfield, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations

and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 80, 514-523.

Miller, R. L., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. (1975). Attribution versus persuasion as a

means for modifying behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

31, 430-441.

Miller, P. J., Wiley, A. R., Fung, H., & Liang, C.-H. (1997). Personal storytelling as a

medium of socialization in Chinese and American families. Child

Development, 68, 557-568.

Mischel, W., & Patterson, C. J. (1976). Substantive and structural elements of

effective plans for self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

34, 942-950.

Morgan, G. A., Harmon, R. J., & Maslin-Cole, C. A. (1990). Mastery motivation:

Definition and measurement. Early Education and Development, 1, 318-339.

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation

and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.

87

Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability,

perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks

require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814.

Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Quality and equality in intellectual development: The role of

motivation in education. American Psychologist, 34, 1071-1084.

Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents’ theories of

education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683-692.

Nichols, A. L., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (1991). The effects of children’s goal

structures and performance feedback on mood, task choice, and task

persistence. Behavior Therapy, 22, 491-503.

Patterson, M. M., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Preschool children’s attention to

environmental messages about groups: Social categorization and the origins of

intergroup bias. Child Development, 77, 847-860.

Patterson, C. J., & Mischel, W. (1975). Plans to resist distraction. Developmental

Psychology, 11, 369-378.

Patterson, C. J., & Mischel, W. (1976). Effects of temptation-inhibiting and task-

facilitating plans on self-control. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 33, 209-217.

Perry, L. K., Samuelson, L. K., Malloy, L. M., & Schiffer, R. N. (2010). Learn locally,

think globally: Exemplar variability supports higher-order generalization and

word learning. Psychological Science, 21, 1894-1902.

Phillips, M., Crouse, J., & Ralph, J. (1998). Does the black-white test score gap widen

after children enter school? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips, The black-white test

score gap (pp. 229-272). Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: W. W. Norton &

Company, Inc.

Piaget, J. (1977). Problems of equilibration. In M. H. Appel & L. S. Goldberg (Eds.),

Topics in cognitive development, Volume 1: Equilibration: Theory, research,

and application (pp. 3-13). New York: Plenum Press.

Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student

88

motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 95, 667-686.

Piper, W. (1930). The little engine that could. New York: Platt & Munk.

Pomerantz, E. M., & Saxon, J. L. (2001). Conceptions of ability as stable and self-

evaluative processes: A longitudinal examination. Child Development, 72, 152-

173.

Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2006). Motivational influences on transfer. Educational

Psychologist, 41, 147-160.

Quattrone, G. A. (1985). On the congruity between internal states and action.

Psychological Bulletin, 98, 3-40.

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A

theory of genotype to environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424-435.

Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A

self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105.

Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer-model attributes and

children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54-

61.

Sigman, M., Cohen, S. E., Beckwith, L., & Topinka, C. (1987). Task persistence in 2-

year-old preterm infants in relation to subsequent attentiveness and

intelligence. Infant Behavior and Development, 10, 295-305.

Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goals

among young children. Child Development, 65, 1723-1743.

Stipek, D. J. (2001). Pathways to constructive behavior: Importance of academic

achievement in early elementary grades. In A. Bohart & D. Stipek (Eds.),

Constructive and destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, and

society (pp. 291-315). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stipek, D. J. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Stipek, D. J., & Greene, J. K. (2001). Achievement motivation in early childhood:

Cause for concern or celebration? In S. Golbeck (Ed.), Psychological

89

perspectives on early childhood education: Reframing dilemmas in research

and practice (pp. 64-91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thomas, A., & Pashley, B. (1982). Effects of classroom training on LD students’ task

persistence and attributions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 133-144.

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding

and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 28, 675-735.

Tsai, J. L., Louie, J. Y., Chen, E. E., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Learning what feelings to

desire: Socialization of ideal affect through children’s storybooks. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 17-30.

Van Dulken, S. (2000). Inventing the 20th century: 100 inventions that shaped the

world. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Vasquez, N. A., & Buehler, R. (2007). Seeing future success: Does imagery

perspective influence achievement motivation? Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1392-1405.

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and

achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82-96.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Students’ motivation during the middle school

years. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of

psychological factors on education (pp. 159-184). San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Williams, J. J., & Lombrozo, T. (2010). The role of explanation in discovery and

generalization: Evidence from category learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 776-

806.

Wilson, T. D. (1990). Self-persuasion via self-reflection. In J. M. Olson & M. P.

Zanna (Eds.), Self-inference processes: The Ontario symposium, Volume 6, pp.

43-67. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1982). Improving the academic performance of

college freshmen: Attribution therapy revisited. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 42, 367-376.

90

Woodhead, M. (1988). When psychology informs public policy: The case of early

childhood intervention. American Psychologist, 43, 443-454.

Zentall, S. R., & Morris, B. J. (2010). “Good job, you’re so smart”: The effects of

inconsistency of praise type on young children’s motivation. Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 155-163.

91

Table 1. Challenge seeking scale, Studies 1 and 2.

Puzzle Choices

1. This puzzle is hard and this puzzle is easy. I might give you this one or this one. Which one do you want to do?

2. This puzzle you won’t have to work so much to finish, and this puzzle you’ll have to really work a lot. I might give you this one or this one. Which one do you want to do?

3. This puzzle will take a long time to finish, and this one you can do quickly. I might give you this one or this one. Which one do you want to do?

4. This puzzle has just a few pieces and this puzzle has lots of pieces. I might give you this one or this one. Which one do you want to do?

Activity Choices

1. Now, instead of puzzles, there are two songs I could teach you. One song is hard to learn and one song is easy. Which one do you want to learn?

2. I have one picture that’s easy to color and one picture that’s hard to color. Which one do you want to color?

3. I have some blocks that make a tower that’s hard to build and some blocks that make a tower that’s easy to build. Which one would you rather build?

4. I have one game that’s easy to play and one game that’s hard to play. Which one would you rather play?

92

Table 2. Summary of results.

CHALLENGE SEEKING

PERSISTENCE MOTIVATION composite

Study 1: 3 treatment vs. control

p = .003

p = .085

p = .039

Study 2: 3 treatment vs. control

n.s.

p = .004

p = .009

Study 3: 2 treatment vs. control (controlling for age)

p = .021

Study 4: Time 1 treatment vs. control

p = .12

Time 3 treatment vs. control p = .026

Study 5: process praise vs. control

p = .015

p = .13

p = .027

93

Table 3. Helmert style contrasts for condition, Studies 1 and 2. Contrast 1 Contrast 2 Contrast 3 Control -3 0 0 Animal 1 -1 -1 Another child 1 -1 1 Participating child 1 2 0

94

Table 4. Effects of condition on puzzle and activity choices separately, and pre-challenge and post-challenge choices.

PUZZLE Choices

ACTIVITY Choices

PRE- Challenge

POST- Challenge

Study 1: 3 treatment vs. control

p = .003

p = .014

N/A

N/A

Study 2: 3 treatment vs. control

n.s.

n.s.

N/A

N/A

Study 3: 2 treatment vs. control (controlling for age)

p = .031

p = .012

p = .011

p = .077

Study 4: Time 1 treatment vs. control

p = .20

p = .11

p = .20

p = .14

Time 3 treatment vs. control p = .065 p = .023 p = .036 p = .032

Study 5: process praise vs. control

p = .012

p = .072

N/A

N/A

95

Table 5. Effects on children’s open-ended explanations for their choices.

Challenge-SEEKING Challenge-AVOIDING Study 1: 3 treatment vs. control

p = .012

p = .077

Study 2: 3 treatment vs. control

n.s.

n.s.

Study 3: 2 treatment vs. control (controlling for age)

p = .033

p = .001

Study 4: Time 1 treatment vs. control

p = .022

p = .15

Time 3 treatment vs. control p = .032 p = .018

Study 5: process praise vs. control

n.s.

n.s.

96

Table 6. Effects of condition on length of time persisted (for children who quit) and number of puzzle pieces correctly placed.

Length of Time before Quit

Correct Puzzle Pieces

Study 1: Participating child vs. other conditions

n.s.

p = .020 Study 2: 3 treatment vs. control

n.s.

p = .13 Study 5: process praise vs. control

p = .07

p = .07

97

Figure 1. Challenge seeking, Study 1. The control condition was significantly different from the other conditions. Error bars represent +1 standard error.

98

Figure 2. Children’s global badness beliefs and challenge seeking, Study 1.

99

Figure 3. Persistence, Study 1. The participating child condition was significantly different from the other conditions.

100

Figure 4. Motivation composite, Study 1. The participating child condition was significantly different from the control and animal conditions.

101

Figure 5. Children’s global beliefs and challenge seeking, Study 2.

102

Figure 6. Persistence, Study 2. The control condition was significantly different from the treatment conditions.

103

Figure 7. Motivation composite, Study 2. The control condition was significantly different from the treatment conditions.

104

Figure 8. Challenge seeking, Study 3.

105

Figure 9. Challenge seeking by age (older or younger than 4 years, 8 months), Study 3. (Note that all of the younger children in the control condition chose all easy tasks.)

106

Figure 10. Challenge seeking, Study 4, Time 1. The treatment conditions showed a trend toward being higher than the control conditions.

107

Figure 11. Challenge seeking, Study 4, Time 3. The treatment conditions were significantly different from the control conditions.

108

Figure 12. Interaction between booster and age on challenge seeking for children in the treatment condition, Study 4.

109

Figure 13. Self-evaluation composite, Study 5.

110

Figure 14. Challenge seeking, Study 5.

111

Figure 15. Motivation composite (challenge seeking and persistence), Study 5.

112

Figure 16. Mastery-orientation composite (self-evaluations, challenge seeking, and persistence), Study 5.