CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 364Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessLanguage Development and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Subtle Linguistic Cues Affect Children's Motivation

Cimpian, Andrei, Arce, Holly-Marie C., Markman, Ellen M., Dweck, Carol S.·2007·Psychological Science
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01896.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Are preschoolers’ reactions to setbacks influenced by whether their successes are rewarded with generic or nongeneric praise? Previous research has focused on the role of category-referring generics (e.g., ‘‘Dogs are friendly’’) in shaping children’s knowledge about natural kinds (see Gelman, 2004). Generic sentences can, however, refer to individuals as well as categories. For example, ‘‘John is friendly’’ is generic because it reports a general regularity—albeit about a single person—rather than a particular fact or episode (Carlson & Pelletier, 1995). In contrast, the nongeneric ‘‘John was friendly at the party’’ refers to a specific past event. Generic sentences about an individual imply that the particular behavior commented on (e.g., John smiling warmly) stems from a stable trait (e.g., friendliness) or skill (see Gelman & Heyman, 1999). Are children sensitive to this subtle connotation with respect to their own behavior? If so, then generic praise may lead children to think in trait terms, such that later mistakes could signal a negative trait or low ability and therefore undermine motivation (Dweck, 1999, 2006). Preliminary support for this claim comes from a study by Kamins and Dweck (1999). Praising the whole person (e.g., ‘‘You are a good boy/girl’’) after success on a task fostered helpless responses to subsequent mistakes more than praising the process through which success was achieved (e.g., ‘‘You found a good way to do it’’). We suggest that children’s behavior was in part driven by the fact that the person praise was generic, connoting a stable trait of the child, while the process praise was nongeneric, focusing on one specific episode. Would manipulating only the genericness of the praise result in similar patterns of coping? For example, would children’s motivation be affected differently by ‘‘You are a good drawer’’ (generic) than by ‘‘You did a good job drawing’’ (nongeneric)? Note that these sentences are much more similar than the person-process pairs used by Kamins and Dweck—so similar, in fact, that adults may not be aware of their contrasting implications and are thus likely to use them interchangeably in interactions with children. Demonstrating that children praised in these two ways react differently to a challenge would be evidence for the importance of the generic/nongeneric distinction in shaping young children’s conceptions of their abilities.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01896.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Carlson G.N., 1995, The generic book

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cimpian, A., Arce, H.-M. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Cimpian, Andrei
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2007-04
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
314-316
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01896.x
OpenAlex
W1975647214
Cited by
364
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 13
FWCI
15.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
children's motivation, genericity, trait attribution, connotation, setback, coping with failure, conceptions of ability, preschool children
MeSH terms
Child, Preschool, Cues, Female, Humans, Linguistics, Male, Motivation, Self Concept

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review