Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale

What it measures

Measures whether individuals believe intelligence is a fixed entity (you either have it or you don't) or a malleable quality that can be developed through effort and learning. Entity theorists (fixed mindset) believe intelligence is static and avoid challenges that might expose their limitations. Incremental theorists (growth mindset) believe intelligence can be grown through dedication and hard work and embrace challenges as learning opportunities. Originally developed for adolescents but widely used across age groups in educational, organisational, and consumer research. In consumer and marketing contexts, implicit theories predict responses to product failure, brand recovery, learning-oriented vs performance-oriented appeals, and willingness to adopt new technologies.

Response format

Likert (1–6, strongly agree to strongly disagree)

Representative items

• You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can't really do much to change it. (Entity)
• Your intelligence is something about you that you can't change very much. (Entity)
• No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite a bit. (Incremental)
• You can always greatly change how intelligent you are. (Incremental)
• You can learn new things, but you can't really change your basic intelligence. (Entity)

Usage notes & scoring

Entity theory items are reverse-scored when computing a single Incremental Theory score. Higher score = stronger growth mindset. Widely used in research on academic motivation, feedback orientation, failure recovery, and consumer learning. Dweck (2006) Mindset popularised the framework for general audiences. The scale has been adapted to measure implicit theories of personality, creativity, and moral character.

Recommended companion scales

Citation

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(1), 246–263.

Keywords