This document discusses whether implicit theories of intelligence or IQ is a better predictor of educational success. It explores research that shows both predictors can be effective. Implicit theories focus on a growth mindset and flexible intelligence, while IQ provides a quantitative measure of cognitive abilities. However, IQ may be a stronger predictor as it is objective, shows clear relationships to achievement through correlations, and is not prone to bias or change like implicit theories. In conclusion, the document argues that while both show benefits, IQ is overall a better predictor of educational success due to its rigidity and strong research backing this claim.

1. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 1
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN IMPLICIT THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE BE CONSIDERED A MORE
EFFECTIVE PREDICTOR OF EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS THAN IQ?

2. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 2
Word Count on Body of the Essay: 2, 355
Student Number: UP720519
Tutor Name and Number: Endre Kadar, Tutor Group 7
This essay aims to explore the use of Intelligence Quotients (IQ) and implicit theories of
intelligence as predictors of educational success. Implicit theories of intelligence refer to an
individual’s attitudes towards intelligence and learning and whether they see them as
stable or flexible (Dweck, 2006) IQ tests are used to measure ones cognitive abilities
associated with intelligence (Binet & Simon, 1916). One could define success as an
accomplishment of an aim or purpose, therefore educational success refers to an
individual’s ability to complete educational challenges and tests throughout their life, to a
standard they are happy with, for example obtaining GCSE’s. The question of which is a
better forecaster of educational success will be explored using evidence supporting each
predictor. The evidence proving the most beneficial in predicting educational success will
be summarised towards the end of this essay. Before one can understand which is the
better predictor, one needs to understand what they are in more detail.
In further detail, implicit theories of intelligence are used to define ones relationship
with their education and were coined by Dweck, (2000) after thirty years of research in the
field. Two implicit theories of intelligence have been identified the first, the entity theory,
where the individual believes that intelligence is fixed (fixed mindset) and nothing can be
done to change it. The second, is the incremental theory, where the individual believes
intelligence can be accumulated based upon their hard work (growth mindset) (Dweck,
2000). Research within this field suggests that students with growth mindsets perform
better in educational tasks, implying future educational success, compared to those with

3. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 3
fixed mindsets (Blackwell, Trzesniewski & Dweck, 2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
can be seen as a social intelligence as they rely on teaching methods and interactions with
others to be learnt, this is dissimilar to IQ, which is much more cognitively based and can
solidly be defined. As IQ takes a more cognitive and scientific approach, it may be a better
predictor of educational success because, unlike implicit theories, it is not subjective and
therefore prone to bias through human interaction.
The American Psychological Association, (1995) defines intelligence as an individuals
ability to understand complex ideas, adapt effectively to the environment, learn from
experience, engage in various forms of reasoning and overcome obstacles by taking
thought. IQ testing was developed to measure these factors through the use of a
standardised test. Research within this field suggests cognitive abilities (as measured by
IQ) can predict approximately 20% of variance in life success, as found by Goleman, (1995).
Whereas other factors, for example, emotional intelligence can only predict approximately
10% of variance (Schutte et al, 1998). Other elements of both implicit theories of
intelligence and IQ will be explore to determine which is the most valid way of predicting
educational success.
One may argue that an element of implicit theories of intelligence proving them to be a
more effective predictor of educational success, is that they focus on individuals’ attitudes
towards their learning goals, compared to their performance in one test IQ that produces a
snapshot of their intelligence at that particular time. It would prove difficult to predict an
individuals future success based upon one test score, implicit theories of intelligence allow
for the understanding of the individuals attitudes they hold towards their own success.
(Dweck, Chiu & Hong, 1995). For example, if an individual had a fixed mindset and did not

4. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 4
believe their efforts were related to their success, they may not set themselves any learning
goals and may become less likely to succeed educationally in comparison to someone with
a growth mindset who actively strives for success. Evidence to support the predictive
benefits of mindsets was carried out by Grant and Dweck (2003). Grant and Dweck (2003)
investigated the extent to which university students were orientated towards their
learning goals versus validating their intelligence through their schoolwork when coping
with a challenging unit. Results found that a growth mindset, compared to a fixed mindset,
predicted higher final grades in their course. It can therefore be assumed that if students
set themselves orientated learning goals, they will be more likely to succeed educationally,
compared to if they are just focused on confirming their intelligence through more formal
measures, such as an IQ test. However there is evidence to suggest cognitive abilities,
measured by IQ tests, prove to be the best predictor of school achievement, as found by
Gagné and St Père (2002).
Following on from this, there is plenty more research supporting IQ as a strong predictor
of future academic success. This effectiveness may stem from its ability to establish the
skillset of those who complete it, for example language and mathematical skills. As IQ
makes ones skillset known, it becomes easier to make predictions about the type and
quality of educational achievement one may encounter in the future. Mayes, Calhoun, Bixler
and Zimmerman (2009) provided evidence supporting this concept. They found IQ to be
the single best predictor of achievement within their study. Mayes et al. (2009) also found a
significant interaction between IQ scores and reading and mathematical skills, proving IQ’s
effectiveness in predicting educational success, as it has already proven to be a significant
predictor of the educational skills needed for educational success. Research by Shaywitz,
Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher and Makuch (1992) found similar results in their research,

5. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 5
students with higher IQs made significantly greater academic progress in reading and
writing than children with lower IQs. Based upon this research it is clear to see why IQ may
be seen as the better predictor of educational success due to its ability to discover key
skills. IQ allows for the uncovering of an individuals skillset, as this is carried out by a
standardised test it does not rely on self-report, unlike implicit theories of intelligence. As
IQ does not rely on self-report measures, it makes predictions about educational success
more internally valid as results are not subject to any form of bias. This is one factor that
makes IQ a better predictor of educational success compared to implicit theories of
intelligence.
However, a factor of implicit theories that challenges IQ in predicting educational
success is that mindsets are flexible and can be changed, either through learning
information or by being taught. Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2006) supported this factor; they
gave female university students one of two explanations for gender differences in maths
results prior to carrying out a challenging maths task. One group was told gender
differences are genetically based (fixed mindset influence), and the other group was told
gender differences came from the different experiences males and females have had
(growth mindset influence). Results found females in the fixed mindset condition
performed significantly worse than those in the growth mindset condition. This suggests
that student success may be hindered if they have a fixed mindset. As this study found
significant results that mindset conditions affected educational performance, it would
suggest that implicit theories of intelligence are a good tool for predicting educational
success along with giving a reason why. However, if mindsets can be this easily changed, it
would make implicit theories a worse predictor of intelligence than IQ as one may have had
a fixed mindset, suggesting they would be less likely to academically succeed, but their

6. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 6
mindset may change to growth suggesting they would be more likely to succeed. However
in saying this, it would be difficult to know the relationship between mindset and success,
as correlations were not carried out.
As IQ produces quantitative results, it allows for correlational methods to be used so a
visual relationship can be seen between IQ and educational success. As implicit theories of
intelligence are subjective and rely on self-report, it is difficult for a valid correlation to be
carried out, therefore in terms of a quantitative prediction between implicit theories of
intelligence and IQ allows for much more valid results. The relationship between IQ and
educational achievement was investigated by Rohde and Thompson (2007). Rohde and
Thompson found that measures of general cognitive ability (tested by IQ) significantly
correlated with measures of academic achievement. A similar relationship was also found
by Mackintosh (1998) who results showed a correlation in 11-year-old IQ scores and later
educational attainment, to be approximately 0.5 (a significant positive correlation). This
proves that a significant relationship has been found between IQ scores and educational
attainment. This indicates that IQ is a better predictor of educational achievement as it
allows for visual relationships to be seen along with unbiased results to be produced as IQ
does not rely on self-report.
Just because IQ can produce these visual relationships, this does not necessarily make
them a better predictor of educational success. It has been found that based upon our
mindsets and the way we challenge our brains our, neurological structure can develop.
Neurons within our brains transmit information through connections, meaning the more
our brains are kept active through learning new information, the more connections our
brains can make (Dweck, 2010). This suggests that those with growth mindsets, who push

7. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 7
themselves to learn new ideas through setting achievement goals, will make more
connections so they can access information much quicker than someone with fewer
connections. This may be a better way of predicting educational success as someone who
can make quicker, more informed decisions will excel beyond someone who doesn’t in life
experiences such as interviews, essay writing and presenting. Good, Aronson and Inzlicht
(2003) explained to Year 8 children, this concept that the brain is like a muscle that grows
stronger with use, and every time they stretched themselves to learn something new their
brain formed new connections. They were also shown how to apply this to their
schoolwork. Students in the growth mindset group, compared to those in the control (who
received no information about the brain), showed significantly higher scores on their next
maths and verbal tests. Another piece of research proving our neurological structure can
change based upon mental challenges is Maguire et al’s. (2000) study. Maguire et al (2000)
studied 16 London taxi drivers who all were qualified and practicing for at least a year and
a half. The taxi drivers had their brains scanned using structural resonance imaging to
create a 3D image. The scans of the 16 taxi drivers were compared to the scans of a group
of 50 non-taxi drivers as a control. Results from this research found the taxi drivers group
had larger posterior hippocampi compared to the control group, with it getting larger the
longer they spent in the job. This suggests that the brain adapted to help the taxi drivers
learn the routes of London. These pieces of evidence therefore suggests those who set
themselves goals and always have to learn new things (similar to those with growth
mindsets), can physically change the structure of their brains, suggesting those with
growth mindsets are better at storing and accessing information. This research proves
useful in predicting educational success as if growth mindsets can be encouraged
throughout teaching methods either by parents or teachers at an early age, then children
will learn that the more they challenge their knowledge the more it will grow, suggesting

8. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 8
they will perform better throughout their educational endeavors. This view on mindsets
would make them a better predictor of educational success than measures that treat
human difference as fixed, such as IQ.
As previously mentioned, implicit theories of intelligence may be seen as a social
intelligence. Mindsets are a result of social interactions with others, for example they can
be changed based upon the information they receive from another individual. This may
make IQ a better predictor of academic success, as it is not subject to change. There is
plenty of research supporting this concept, with researchers getting participants to
complete cognitive tests (what IQ measures) and following their academic achievement
throughout their lives. An example of this type of research was carried out by Jencks et al.,
(1979). Jencks et al. (1979) looked at a variety of factors contributing to the amount an
individual obtained throughout over their academic life finding a strong positive
correlation between cognitive test scores and educational attainment. McKelvie, (1986)
conducted a literature review supporting IQ as a better predictor of educational success as
they noted that other studies have failed to find any relation between social intelligence
and academic success. If this is correct, then it would mean IQ is the better predictor of
educational success in comparison to implicit theories of intelligence, however in the thirty
years since this research was published, studies have been conducted, as mentioned within
this essay, proving mindset to predict academic achievement. This makes it difficulty to
decide which is the better predictor of educational achievement.
To conclude, it is clear to see the predictive benefits both IQ and implicit theories of
intelligence have on educational success. In terms of implicit theories of intelligence they
prove to be successful in predicting educational success, as they are able to focus on the

9. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 9
individuals attitudes, mindsets are flexible and can therefore be taught and growth
mindsets can increase the number of our brains connections. On the other hand, IQ is able
to demonstrate the skillsets of students, present a visual relationship due to correlations, is
not subject to bias and is inflexible and therefore not subject to change. Taking all of this
research and personal opinion into account, I would suggest IQ is a better predictor of
educational success as it does not rely on self report, it is a rigid, quantitative predictor that
allows for clear predictions about academic success to be made. IQ also has lots of
supporting research assisting in the conclusion that it is a much better predictor of
educational success when compared to implicit theories of intelligence.

10. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 10
References
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children: The Binet-Simon
Scale (No. 11). Williams & Wilkins Company.
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. s
Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S.J. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math
performance. Science, 314, 435.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments
and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological inquiry, 6(4), 267-285.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their roles in motivation, personality and development.
Psychology Press. Chicago.
Dweck, C. S. (2010). Mind-sets. Principal Leadership, 10(5), 26-29.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Gagné, F., & St Père, F. (2002). When IQ is cxontrolled, does motivation still predict
achievement? Intelligence, 30(1), 71-100.

11. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 11
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Surveying the Influence of
Transformational Leadership on Empowerment, 509.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents' standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645-662.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 85(3), 541.
Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns: Report of a task force established by the board of
scientific affairs of the American Psychological Association. Science Directorate, 1995.
Jencks, C., Bartlett, S., Corcoran, M., Crouse, J., Eaglesfield, D., Jackson, G., & Ward, S. (1979).
Who gets ahead? The Determinants of Economic Success in America.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and human intelligence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press,
Inc.
Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S., &
Frith, C. D. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi
drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(8), 4398-4403.

12. Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Educational Success Better than IQ?
UP720519 12
Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., Bixler, E. O., & Zimmerman, D. N. (2009). IQ and
neuropsychological predictors of academic achievement. Learning and Individual
Differences, 19(2), 238-241.
McKelvie, S. J. (1986). Reliability and validity of the Chapin Social Insight Test: Some
cautionary data. Psychological Reports, 58, 551-558.
Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive
ability. Intelligence, 35(1), 83-92.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L.
(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.
Personality and individual differences, 25(2), 167-177.
Shaywitz, S. E., Escobar, M. D., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Makuch, R. (1992). Evidence
that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability.
New England Journal of Medicine, 326(3), 145-150.