The two studies we presented in this article focused on feedback, assigned achievement goals, the

interactions between feedback and achievement goals (in Study 1) and between implicit theory and
achievement goals (in Study 2) in predicting performance change
In Study 1, we sought to distinguish the effects of pursuing assigned performance and learning goal
instructions from the feedback valence that followed initial task activity. As observed in Study1, positive
feedback had favorable effects on subsequent performance when individuals were assigned
performance goals, whereas performance declined when positive feedback was combined with learning
goals. Conversely, both studies found that negative feedback had favorable effects on subsequent
performance when individuals were assigned learning goals, whereas performance declined when
negative feedback was combined with performance goals.
InStudy2, we examined how (or whether) implicit theory influences individuals responses to assigned
achievement goals. Individuals with incremental theories view intelligence as a controllable and
improvable repertoire of skills and knowledge that can be expanded through effort, whereas those with
entity theories view intelligence as a fixed and general entity that is verified by performance
We find that congruence between assigned goals and implicit theory had little effect on performance.
Specifically, learning goal effects did not differ depending on implicit theory. On the other hand, having
an incremental implicit theory was associated with more favorable performance improvement among
performance goal participants as compared to when those participants maintained an entity implicit
theory
The present findings suggest that it is generally beneficial to encourage more incremental implicit
theories, especially when it is desirable to assign a performance goal
Our findings did not support a mediating effect of effort/ability attribution or affective responses in any
of the conditions.
Given that the feedback was in no way related to actual performance, it seems likely that learning goal
participants inferred their effort levels from the performance feedback they received, although this selfinference effect was not strong enough to explain the relationship between feedback and performance
improvement. Such a self-inference effect may have been more pronounced among performance goal
participants, whose higher ego-involvement in the task may have led them initially to focus more on
maintaining high effort levels. They would then interpret negative feedback as indicative of low ability.
Hence performance goal participants may have been more easily discouraged by failure, especially when
they personally maintained an entity theory of intelligence.