Psychological Reports, 1991, 69, 1195-1201.
O Psychological Reports 1991
TEACHERS' IMPLICIT "THEORIES" O F CHILDREN'S INTELLIGENCE ' JEANNE MURRONE New York Foundling Hospital
AND
MALCOLM D. GYNTHER Auburn University
Summary.-Information about teachers' implicit notions of children's intelligence was obtained by having 50 student-teachers and 79 teachers with 1 to 4 years of experience rate 150 descriptors on applicability to an hypothetical child described as above average, average, or below average in intellectual functioning. Each teacher-subiect was classified by dogmatism score and by years of teaching experience. A factor analysis disclosed that Academic Skills and Interpersonal Competencies summarize the implicit notions. Analysis of variance showed that all levels of hypothesized intelligence only affected teachers' expectations of academic skills and that the effect of intelligence was dependent upon the teachers' dogmatism. There were no clear-cut findings associated with years of experience. Results supported previous observations that people have implicit "theories" of intelligence; however, the specific composition of their ideas varies according to the context within which the rater and the person observed are placed.
Implicit notions express the common views or ways of thinking about intelligence in our present culture and so are expressions of what people conceive intelligence to be in the contexts in which it is manifested. Investigations of these commonly held beliefs or what psychologists refer to as implicit "theories" of intehgence (Neisser, 1979; Sternberg, 1985a) have been reported for adult intelligence (Berg & Sternberg, 1985; Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, & Bernstein, 1981). The factors of verbal ability, problemsolving skills, and social competence have been consistently identified. Results from studies of implicit notions of chddren's intelligence are less clear-cut. Siegler and Richards (1982) found that undergraduates viewed younger children's intelligence as consisting primarily of verbal and learning abilities. In contrast, Nicholls, Patashnick, and Mettetal's (1986) subjects distinguished between ability, which included the dynamics of task performance, and intelligence, which encompassed specific cognitive skills and their development. Murrone and Gynther (1989) found that undergraduates were consistently influenced by hypothesized level of intelligence when rating characteristics of children's behavior. Those children who were described as above average in intelligence, for example, were expected to be above average in verbal skills, problem-solving abilities, social competence, interest in learning 'This article is based on a doctoral dissertation carried out by the first author under the direction of the second author at Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849. The authors are rateful to Sam Green for his helphl comments on this manuscript. Requests for reprints should %e sent to Jeanne Murrone, Ph.D., New York Foundling Hospital, Bronx Services, 384 East 149th Street, Bronx, NY 10455.
1196
J. MURRONE & M. D. GYNTHER
or culture, and character or personality traits. Those children described as average or below average in intelligence were said to lack these characterisof the results of these studies is untics. Unfortunately, the generali~abilit~ certain because only college students served as subjects. Obtaining conceptions of children's intelligence held by classroom teachers would be much more relevant, given teachers' critical role in affecting children's development. Also, understanding teachers' implicit theories of children's intelligence would clarify "expert" opinion in this area. Snyderman and Rothman (1987) found that, despite the years of controversy about the nature of intelligence and intelligence tests (Cronbach, 1975; Gould, 1981; Linn, 1986), "experts" (those professionals who administer and use IQ tests) hold intelligence (as measured by intelligence tests) important to an individual's success in society. These opinions varied little within the total sample despite lversity of subjects' expertise. A logical complement to this study is to survey "experts," in this case classroom teachers, about their opinions (i.e., implicit notions) of the correlates of intelhgence. The purpose of the present study, then, was to obtain information about conceptions of intelligence held by teachers of elementary school-age children. Effects of years of teaching experience and dogmatism or liberalism on their conceptions were also examined.
METHOD Subjects Fifty-two student teachers, who were enrolled in internship training courses offered by the School of Education at Auburn University, and 79 teachers employed in an elementary or middle school in the Auburn-Opelika, Alabama area participated. The teachers, all women, were either in their first year of teaching or had completed at least four years of classroom teaching (range = 1 to 29 years, M = 21.1 yr.) with children of ages 4 through 12 years. Data were coded to ensure confidentiality.
Instruments The 150-item questionnaire, Conceptions of Children's Intelligence, was identical to the instrument previously used by the authors which was adapted from a master list of 250 descriptors of intelligent and unintelligent adult behaviors (Sternberg, et al., 1981). The 150 descriptors reflect various domains: academic behaviors ("reads with high comprehension," "studies hard"), problem-solving abilities ("reasons logically and well," "solves problems well"), social competence ("gets along well with others," "sizes up situations well for hislher age"), interest in learning ("Listens well," ''Lkes to read"), for example. Items that described a lack of skill or a socially undesirable quality were also included, e.g., "is unable to communicate ideas'' and "lacks respect for others."
TEACHERS' IMPLICIT THEORIES: CHILDREN'S INTELLIGENCE
1197
The Dogmatism (D) Scale Form E (Rokeach, 1960) was designed to measure individual differences in open- or closed-mindedness and is comprised of the most reliable items adapted from four prior forms. In this study, the D Scale was labeled Cognitive Style. Procedure Student-teachers were recruited at orientation meetings. The teachers who volunteered were recruited, with principals' permission, through school mail or during faculty meetings. Data were returned in prestamped envelopes addressed to the first author at the Psychological Services Clinic of Auburn University. Printed at the top of each page of the two instruments were instructions for their completion. For the Conceptions of Children's Intelligence questionnaire, only one of the options included in the parentheses below was used: "A child, between the ages of 6 and 10 years, has been given an individual intellectual assessment by a qualified professional. The results of this assessment indicate that the child scored in the (Average) (Above Average) (Below Average) range of intellectual functioning. With the above information in mind, rate the child on each of the statements." Items were rated on a scale of "1" (almost never describes) to "4" (almost always describes). A rating of "5" indicated that the item described something unrelated to intelligence, in the opinion of the rater. Each such rating was subsequently treated as missing data during analyses. For the D Scale the following instructions were given: "The best answer to each statement below is your personal oplnion. Many different and opposing viewpoints are covered. You may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps being uncertain about others. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do." Items were rated as agree ( + 1 to + 3) or dsagree (-1 to -3), with 1 representing "a little" and 3 representing "very much." The sum of ratings indicated a subject's score with higher sums being indicative of greater dogmatic thinking or closed-mindedness. An SAS factor analysis-principal components with a varimax rotation-was conducted as an heuristic by which clusters of items could be identified. Mean ratings of items for each of the identified factors were used as composite scores and a 3 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the effects of intehgence, years of experience, and reported dogmatic thinking on the ratings of children's behaviors. To identify specific main effects and patterns within interaction effects, a ScheffC test and sets of painuise simple comparisons were conducted.
1198
J. MURRONE & M. D.GYNTHER
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Factor Analysis An analysis of the eigenvalues and the proportion of the variance explained by each of the 32 factors resulting from this procedure indicated that 40% of the variance in ratings was accounted for by the first two factors. Clusters of items that loaded onto each factor indicated that Factor I (Academic Skills) was a conglomerate of academic skills and higher order cognitive abilities while Factor I1 (Interpersonal Competencies) was comprised of interpersonal or social behaviors exclusively; see Table 1. The emergence of distinct factors was consistent with the outcome of previous studies about implicit notions of adults' (Sternberg, et al., 1981; Sternberg, 1985a, 1985b) and children's intelligence (Murrone & Gynther, 1989; Siegler & Richards, 1982). Comparisons of the composition of the present factors with previously identified factors highlight some differences, however. Implicit notions of adult intelligence consistently included a problem-solving, a verbal abilities, and a social competency factor (Sternberg, et al., 1981; Sternberg, 1985b). Only problem-solving and social competence factors were identifiable for children's intelligence (Murrone & Gynther, 1989). Other work on children's intelligence has indicated that the prototypically intelligent 10-year-old is a child who reasons well, learns well, has good verbal and problem-solving abdities, and is creative (Siegler & Richards, 1982). Analysis of Variance A main effect for intelligence was obtained for Academic Skills only (p < .0001), that is, ratings of children's behaviors and characteristics pertaining to academic skills and general intellectual abilities differed according to the hypothetical intelligence with which the children were described.' In addition, a significant interaction between intelligence and dogmatism was noted ( p < .001), so the effect of information about intelligence was dependent upon the dogmatic thinking with which the teacher was classified. Those who portrayed themselves as highly dogmatic held significantly different expectations for the children rated across all three hypothetical levels of intelligence. Those who scored low on the Dogmatism Scale rated differently the above average child only. No significant main effects or interactions were obtained for Interpersonal Competencies. Follow-up Procedures Ratings were collapsed across years of experience since there were no differences associated with this variable. When Scheffe's test was computed for all pairwise simple comparisons across hypothetical intelligence, all possi'Means and standard deviations for these 12 cells are available upon request.
TEACHERS' IMPLICIT THEORIES: CHILDREN'S INTELLIGENCE
1199
TABLE 1 HIGHESTLOADED ITEMSON FACTORI, ACADEMIC SKILLS, AND FACTOR 11, INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCIES Item Content
Factor Loadngs . I I1
D~splaysa good vocabulary. Is knowledgeable about a broad range of things (for his/her age). Is able to apply knowledge to problems at h a d . Learns quickly. Reads with high comprehension. At his/her age level, assesses well the relevance of information to solve problems at hand. Approaches problems thoughtfully. Accurately interprets information presented at his/her age level. Displays a good memory. Is intellectually curious. Displays an outgoing personality. Is sensitive to other people's needs and desires. Behaves in a selfish or selE-centered way.* Lacks respect for others." Is fun to be with. Displays rowdiness.' Is kind towards others. Earns trust of others. age.* Behaves with insufficient sensitivity for hislher . Changes moods rapidly and unpredictably.* .57 'Denotes items that were originally presented in negative terms and then rescored positively for purposes of analyses.
ble comparisons were significantly different ( p < .05). I n this study, information about intelligence had a consistent, pervasive influence on how children were rated. To analyze the interaction of intelligence and dogmatism, simple effects were computed. First, the differences across the three hypothetical levels of intelligence within the two classifications of subjects by high or low dogmatism were examined. Ratings of Academic Skills for a child hypothetically classified as having above average, average, or below average intelligence were significantly different for teachers with high dogmatic thinking (F,,,,, = 11.99, p c . 0 5 ) . For teachers classified with low dogmatic thinking, only ratings of hypothetical above average children were significantly different from ratings of hypothetical below average children. I n a second set of pairwise simple comparisons, the differences between high and low dogmatic teachers within each of the three hypothetical levels of intelligence were considered. For children described as above average, highly dogmatic teachers' ratings were significantly greater than ratings given by teachers low in dogmatism (F,,,,, = 4.62, p c . 0 5 ) . For children described
J. MURRONE
1200
&
M. D. GYNTHER
as average, there was no significant difference in the teachers' ratings (F,,,,, = .69, p>.O5). Similarly, no significant difference in ratings of hypothetical children of below average intelligence was obtained (F,,,,, = 2.95, p>.O5). The lack of statistical significance for the last two F tests for simple effects may be based on the unequal and small number of subjects in each painvise simple comparison. It seems, then, that those who portrayed themselves more dogmatically expected children from each of the hypothetical intelligence levels to be quite different from one another in their academic skills. These teachers were also most demanding of children in the above average group. In contrast, those who portrayed themselves in less dogmatic ways only expected those children described as above average to be significantly more academically skilled than the others. These findings are similar to results of a previous study in which moderate negative relationships between dogmatism and tolerance (Martin & Morris, 1982) were reported. These results are also consistent with the finding that high school teachers who were more susceptible to biasing effects were also observed to have a more dogmatic interactive style with their students (Babad, Inbar, & Rosenthal, 1982). To summarize, analysis of the obtained data showed that teachers hold two distinct factors, Academic Skills and Interpersonal Competencies, in their implicit notions of the intelligence of elementary school-age children. Both novice and experienced teachers, when given hypothetical information about level of intelligence, had expectations for children's behavior based on intelhgence as described. When teachers were classified by dogmatic thinking (a cognitive style), those who portrayed themselves as being less dogmatic (i.e., flexible in thought) were less biased in their expectations. These more flexible thinkers also made less variable, more uniform judgments about children's behavior across all levels of intelligence. However, the limitations of number of subjects and the wide age range of the child described made it less clear whether differences held true for a l l three hypothetical levels of intelligence. Researchers should take a developmental perspective and limit the age of the hypothetical child to a one- or two-year age span. This would allow comparison across all stages of childhood and would provide more detailed information about implicit notions teachers hold as intelligence unfolds in the developing child. REFERENCES BABAD,E. Y., INBAR,J., & ROSENTHAL, R. (1982) Pygmalion, galatea, and the Golem: investigations of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 459-474.
BERG,C. A,, & STERNBERG, R. J. (1985) A triarchic theory of intellectual development during adulthood. Developmental Review, 5, 334-370.
BROPHY,J. (1986) Teacher influences on scudenc achievement. American Psychologict, 41, 10691077.
CRONBACH, L. J. (1975) Five decades of public controversy over mental testing. American Psychologist, 30, 1-14.
TEACHERS' IMPLICIT THEORIES: CHILDREN'S INTELLIGENCE
1201
GOULD,S. J. (1981) The mismeosure of man. New York: Norton. LINN, R. L. (1986) Educational testing and assessment: research needs and policy issues. American Psychologist, 41, 1153-1160. MARTIN,J. D., & MORRIS,D. A. (1982) Relationship of the scores on the Tolerance Scale of Jackson Personality Inventory to those in Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 377-381. MURRONE . & GYNTHER,M. D. (1989) Implicit theories or halo effect? Conceptions about c d & n l s intelligence. Psychological Reports, 65, 1187-1193. NUSSER,U. (1979) The concept of intelligence. Intelligence, 3, 217-227. NICHOLLS, J. G., PATASHNICK,M., & METIZTAL, G. (1986) Conceptions of ability and intelligence. Child Development, 57, 636-645. ROKEACH, M. (1960) The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. SIEGLER,R. S., & RICHARDS,D. D. (1982) The development of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 897971.
SNYDERMAN, M., & ROTHMAN,S. (1987) Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42, 137-144. STERNBERG, R. J. (1985a) Beyond IQ: a birrrchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge U n i v e ~Press. R. J. (1985b) Impliclt rheor~esof intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of STERNBERG, Personality and Social Psychology. 49, 607-627. STERNBERG, R. J., CONWAY, B. C , KETRON, J. L., & BERNSTEIN, M. (1981) People's conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 37-55. Accepted December 2, 1991.
O Psychological Reports 1991
TEACHERS' IMPLICIT "THEORIES" O F CHILDREN'S INTELLIGENCE ' JEANNE MURRONE New York Foundling Hospital
AND
MALCOLM D. GYNTHER Auburn University
Summary.-Information about teachers' implicit notions of children's intelligence was obtained by having 50 student-teachers and 79 teachers with 1 to 4 years of experience rate 150 descriptors on applicability to an hypothetical child described as above average, average, or below average in intellectual functioning. Each teacher-subiect was classified by dogmatism score and by years of teaching experience. A factor analysis disclosed that Academic Skills and Interpersonal Competencies summarize the implicit notions. Analysis of variance showed that all levels of hypothesized intelligence only affected teachers' expectations of academic skills and that the effect of intelligence was dependent upon the teachers' dogmatism. There were no clear-cut findings associated with years of experience. Results supported previous observations that people have implicit "theories" of intelligence; however, the specific composition of their ideas varies according to the context within which the rater and the person observed are placed.
Implicit notions express the common views or ways of thinking about intelligence in our present culture and so are expressions of what people conceive intelligence to be in the contexts in which it is manifested. Investigations of these commonly held beliefs or what psychologists refer to as implicit "theories" of intehgence (Neisser, 1979; Sternberg, 1985a) have been reported for adult intelligence (Berg & Sternberg, 1985; Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, & Bernstein, 1981). The factors of verbal ability, problemsolving skills, and social competence have been consistently identified. Results from studies of implicit notions of chddren's intelligence are less clear-cut. Siegler and Richards (1982) found that undergraduates viewed younger children's intelligence as consisting primarily of verbal and learning abilities. In contrast, Nicholls, Patashnick, and Mettetal's (1986) subjects distinguished between ability, which included the dynamics of task performance, and intelligence, which encompassed specific cognitive skills and their development. Murrone and Gynther (1989) found that undergraduates were consistently influenced by hypothesized level of intelligence when rating characteristics of children's behavior. Those children who were described as above average in intelligence, for example, were expected to be above average in verbal skills, problem-solving abilities, social competence, interest in learning 'This article is based on a doctoral dissertation carried out by the first author under the direction of the second author at Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849. The authors are rateful to Sam Green for his helphl comments on this manuscript. Requests for reprints should %e sent to Jeanne Murrone, Ph.D., New York Foundling Hospital, Bronx Services, 384 East 149th Street, Bronx, NY 10455.
1196
J. MURRONE & M. D. GYNTHER
or culture, and character or personality traits. Those children described as average or below average in intelligence were said to lack these characterisof the results of these studies is untics. Unfortunately, the generali~abilit~ certain because only college students served as subjects. Obtaining conceptions of children's intelligence held by classroom teachers would be much more relevant, given teachers' critical role in affecting children's development. Also, understanding teachers' implicit theories of children's intelligence would clarify "expert" opinion in this area. Snyderman and Rothman (1987) found that, despite the years of controversy about the nature of intelligence and intelligence tests (Cronbach, 1975; Gould, 1981; Linn, 1986), "experts" (those professionals who administer and use IQ tests) hold intelligence (as measured by intelligence tests) important to an individual's success in society. These opinions varied little within the total sample despite lversity of subjects' expertise. A logical complement to this study is to survey "experts," in this case classroom teachers, about their opinions (i.e., implicit notions) of the correlates of intelhgence. The purpose of the present study, then, was to obtain information about conceptions of intelligence held by teachers of elementary school-age children. Effects of years of teaching experience and dogmatism or liberalism on their conceptions were also examined.
METHOD Subjects Fifty-two student teachers, who were enrolled in internship training courses offered by the School of Education at Auburn University, and 79 teachers employed in an elementary or middle school in the Auburn-Opelika, Alabama area participated. The teachers, all women, were either in their first year of teaching or had completed at least four years of classroom teaching (range = 1 to 29 years, M = 21.1 yr.) with children of ages 4 through 12 years. Data were coded to ensure confidentiality.
Instruments The 150-item questionnaire, Conceptions of Children's Intelligence, was identical to the instrument previously used by the authors which was adapted from a master list of 250 descriptors of intelligent and unintelligent adult behaviors (Sternberg, et al., 1981). The 150 descriptors reflect various domains: academic behaviors ("reads with high comprehension," "studies hard"), problem-solving abilities ("reasons logically and well," "solves problems well"), social competence ("gets along well with others," "sizes up situations well for hislher age"), interest in learning ("Listens well," ''Lkes to read"), for example. Items that described a lack of skill or a socially undesirable quality were also included, e.g., "is unable to communicate ideas'' and "lacks respect for others."
TEACHERS' IMPLICIT THEORIES: CHILDREN'S INTELLIGENCE
1197
The Dogmatism (D) Scale Form E (Rokeach, 1960) was designed to measure individual differences in open- or closed-mindedness and is comprised of the most reliable items adapted from four prior forms. In this study, the D Scale was labeled Cognitive Style. Procedure Student-teachers were recruited at orientation meetings. The teachers who volunteered were recruited, with principals' permission, through school mail or during faculty meetings. Data were returned in prestamped envelopes addressed to the first author at the Psychological Services Clinic of Auburn University. Printed at the top of each page of the two instruments were instructions for their completion. For the Conceptions of Children's Intelligence questionnaire, only one of the options included in the parentheses below was used: "A child, between the ages of 6 and 10 years, has been given an individual intellectual assessment by a qualified professional. The results of this assessment indicate that the child scored in the (Average) (Above Average) (Below Average) range of intellectual functioning. With the above information in mind, rate the child on each of the statements." Items were rated on a scale of "1" (almost never describes) to "4" (almost always describes). A rating of "5" indicated that the item described something unrelated to intelligence, in the opinion of the rater. Each such rating was subsequently treated as missing data during analyses. For the D Scale the following instructions were given: "The best answer to each statement below is your personal oplnion. Many different and opposing viewpoints are covered. You may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps being uncertain about others. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do." Items were rated as agree ( + 1 to + 3) or dsagree (-1 to -3), with 1 representing "a little" and 3 representing "very much." The sum of ratings indicated a subject's score with higher sums being indicative of greater dogmatic thinking or closed-mindedness. An SAS factor analysis-principal components with a varimax rotation-was conducted as an heuristic by which clusters of items could be identified. Mean ratings of items for each of the identified factors were used as composite scores and a 3 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the effects of intehgence, years of experience, and reported dogmatic thinking on the ratings of children's behaviors. To identify specific main effects and patterns within interaction effects, a ScheffC test and sets of painuise simple comparisons were conducted.
1198
J. MURRONE & M. D.GYNTHER
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Factor Analysis An analysis of the eigenvalues and the proportion of the variance explained by each of the 32 factors resulting from this procedure indicated that 40% of the variance in ratings was accounted for by the first two factors. Clusters of items that loaded onto each factor indicated that Factor I (Academic Skills) was a conglomerate of academic skills and higher order cognitive abilities while Factor I1 (Interpersonal Competencies) was comprised of interpersonal or social behaviors exclusively; see Table 1. The emergence of distinct factors was consistent with the outcome of previous studies about implicit notions of adults' (Sternberg, et al., 1981; Sternberg, 1985a, 1985b) and children's intelligence (Murrone & Gynther, 1989; Siegler & Richards, 1982). Comparisons of the composition of the present factors with previously identified factors highlight some differences, however. Implicit notions of adult intelligence consistently included a problem-solving, a verbal abilities, and a social competency factor (Sternberg, et al., 1981; Sternberg, 1985b). Only problem-solving and social competence factors were identifiable for children's intelligence (Murrone & Gynther, 1989). Other work on children's intelligence has indicated that the prototypically intelligent 10-year-old is a child who reasons well, learns well, has good verbal and problem-solving abdities, and is creative (Siegler & Richards, 1982). Analysis of Variance A main effect for intelligence was obtained for Academic Skills only (p < .0001), that is, ratings of children's behaviors and characteristics pertaining to academic skills and general intellectual abilities differed according to the hypothetical intelligence with which the children were described.' In addition, a significant interaction between intelligence and dogmatism was noted ( p < .001), so the effect of information about intelligence was dependent upon the dogmatic thinking with which the teacher was classified. Those who portrayed themselves as highly dogmatic held significantly different expectations for the children rated across all three hypothetical levels of intelligence. Those who scored low on the Dogmatism Scale rated differently the above average child only. No significant main effects or interactions were obtained for Interpersonal Competencies. Follow-up Procedures Ratings were collapsed across years of experience since there were no differences associated with this variable. When Scheffe's test was computed for all pairwise simple comparisons across hypothetical intelligence, all possi'Means and standard deviations for these 12 cells are available upon request.
TEACHERS' IMPLICIT THEORIES: CHILDREN'S INTELLIGENCE
1199
TABLE 1 HIGHESTLOADED ITEMSON FACTORI, ACADEMIC SKILLS, AND FACTOR 11, INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCIES Item Content
Factor Loadngs . I I1
D~splaysa good vocabulary. Is knowledgeable about a broad range of things (for his/her age). Is able to apply knowledge to problems at h a d . Learns quickly. Reads with high comprehension. At his/her age level, assesses well the relevance of information to solve problems at hand. Approaches problems thoughtfully. Accurately interprets information presented at his/her age level. Displays a good memory. Is intellectually curious. Displays an outgoing personality. Is sensitive to other people's needs and desires. Behaves in a selfish or selE-centered way.* Lacks respect for others." Is fun to be with. Displays rowdiness.' Is kind towards others. Earns trust of others. age.* Behaves with insufficient sensitivity for hislher . Changes moods rapidly and unpredictably.* .57 'Denotes items that were originally presented in negative terms and then rescored positively for purposes of analyses.
ble comparisons were significantly different ( p < .05). I n this study, information about intelligence had a consistent, pervasive influence on how children were rated. To analyze the interaction of intelligence and dogmatism, simple effects were computed. First, the differences across the three hypothetical levels of intelligence within the two classifications of subjects by high or low dogmatism were examined. Ratings of Academic Skills for a child hypothetically classified as having above average, average, or below average intelligence were significantly different for teachers with high dogmatic thinking (F,,,,, = 11.99, p c . 0 5 ) . For teachers classified with low dogmatic thinking, only ratings of hypothetical above average children were significantly different from ratings of hypothetical below average children. I n a second set of pairwise simple comparisons, the differences between high and low dogmatic teachers within each of the three hypothetical levels of intelligence were considered. For children described as above average, highly dogmatic teachers' ratings were significantly greater than ratings given by teachers low in dogmatism (F,,,,, = 4.62, p c . 0 5 ) . For children described
J. MURRONE
1200
&
M. D. GYNTHER
as average, there was no significant difference in the teachers' ratings (F,,,,, = .69, p>.O5). Similarly, no significant difference in ratings of hypothetical children of below average intelligence was obtained (F,,,,, = 2.95, p>.O5). The lack of statistical significance for the last two F tests for simple effects may be based on the unequal and small number of subjects in each painvise simple comparison. It seems, then, that those who portrayed themselves more dogmatically expected children from each of the hypothetical intelligence levels to be quite different from one another in their academic skills. These teachers were also most demanding of children in the above average group. In contrast, those who portrayed themselves in less dogmatic ways only expected those children described as above average to be significantly more academically skilled than the others. These findings are similar to results of a previous study in which moderate negative relationships between dogmatism and tolerance (Martin & Morris, 1982) were reported. These results are also consistent with the finding that high school teachers who were more susceptible to biasing effects were also observed to have a more dogmatic interactive style with their students (Babad, Inbar, & Rosenthal, 1982). To summarize, analysis of the obtained data showed that teachers hold two distinct factors, Academic Skills and Interpersonal Competencies, in their implicit notions of the intelligence of elementary school-age children. Both novice and experienced teachers, when given hypothetical information about level of intelligence, had expectations for children's behavior based on intelhgence as described. When teachers were classified by dogmatic thinking (a cognitive style), those who portrayed themselves as being less dogmatic (i.e., flexible in thought) were less biased in their expectations. These more flexible thinkers also made less variable, more uniform judgments about children's behavior across all levels of intelligence. However, the limitations of number of subjects and the wide age range of the child described made it less clear whether differences held true for a l l three hypothetical levels of intelligence. Researchers should take a developmental perspective and limit the age of the hypothetical child to a one- or two-year age span. This would allow comparison across all stages of childhood and would provide more detailed information about implicit notions teachers hold as intelligence unfolds in the developing child. REFERENCES BABAD,E. Y., INBAR,J., & ROSENTHAL, R. (1982) Pygmalion, galatea, and the Golem: investigations of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 459-474.
BERG,C. A,, & STERNBERG, R. J. (1985) A triarchic theory of intellectual development during adulthood. Developmental Review, 5, 334-370.
BROPHY,J. (1986) Teacher influences on scudenc achievement. American Psychologict, 41, 10691077.
CRONBACH, L. J. (1975) Five decades of public controversy over mental testing. American Psychologist, 30, 1-14.
TEACHERS' IMPLICIT THEORIES: CHILDREN'S INTELLIGENCE
1201
GOULD,S. J. (1981) The mismeosure of man. New York: Norton. LINN, R. L. (1986) Educational testing and assessment: research needs and policy issues. American Psychologist, 41, 1153-1160. MARTIN,J. D., & MORRIS,D. A. (1982) Relationship of the scores on the Tolerance Scale of Jackson Personality Inventory to those in Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 377-381. MURRONE . & GYNTHER,M. D. (1989) Implicit theories or halo effect? Conceptions about c d & n l s intelligence. Psychological Reports, 65, 1187-1193. NUSSER,U. (1979) The concept of intelligence. Intelligence, 3, 217-227. NICHOLLS, J. G., PATASHNICK,M., & METIZTAL, G. (1986) Conceptions of ability and intelligence. Child Development, 57, 636-645. ROKEACH, M. (1960) The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. SIEGLER,R. S., & RICHARDS,D. D. (1982) The development of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 897971.
SNYDERMAN, M., & ROTHMAN,S. (1987) Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42, 137-144. STERNBERG, R. J. (1985a) Beyond IQ: a birrrchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge U n i v e ~Press. R. J. (1985b) Impliclt rheor~esof intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of STERNBERG, Personality and Social Psychology. 49, 607-627. STERNBERG, R. J., CONWAY, B. C , KETRON, J. L., & BERNSTEIN, M. (1981) People's conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 37-55. Accepted December 2, 1991.
