This research sought to integrate C. S. Dweck and E. L. Leggett's (1988) model with attribution theory. Three studies tested the hypothesis that theories of intelligence—the belief that intelligence is malleable (incremental theory) versus fixed (entity theory)—would predict (and create) effort versus ability attributions, which would then mediate mastery-oriented coping. Study 1 revealed that, when given negative feedback, incremental theorists were more likely than entity theorists to attribute to effort. Studies 2 and 3 showed that incremental theorists were more likely than entity theorists to take remedial action if performance was unsatisfactory. Study 3, in which an entity or incremental theory was induced, showed that incremental theorists' remedial action was mediated by their effort attributions. These results suggest that implicit theories create the meaning framework in which attributions occur and are important for understanding motivation.

Attributions have been widely recognized as mediators of adaptive and maladaptive behavior patterns in the face of setbacks. Weiner, for example has argued that attributions are the basis of achievement-motivation patterns, such as persistence versus nonpersistence following failure (Weiner, 1979, 1985; Weiner & Kukla, 1970); Seligman and his colleagues have argued that an optimistic versus pessimistic attributional style forms the basis of adaptive versus maladapative patterns, including vulnerability to depression (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993; Seligman, 1975; Seligman, Reivich, Jaycox, & Gillham, 1995). Dweck has shown that attributions mediate helpless and mastery-oriented responses to setbacks, predicting cognitions, affect, and performance as people...