As was previously mentioned, White (1959) contends that people have a desire to have an impact on their environment, and to do so with a level of aptitude that requires a sense of mastery. If so, the next logical question is, by what internal criteria is the level of impact measured? The attempt to develop mastery of a skill is directly related to the perception of our capacity to do so. This is done through cognitive, emotional, and behavioral constructs (Sternberg & Kolligian, 1990). These constructs are broken down into two components: ability and intelligence. This summary focuses on developmental changes in the understanding of these components as children age.
First, we must define the concept of ability, which is at the heart of this theory. Ability is a generalized spectrum of competence that crosses different domains. Nicholls teases out three subsets that require differentiation:
Luck and Skill
This pairing investigates the belief that effort alone can positively affect an outcome regardless of the nature of the task, as either luck or skill related. Younger children believe that those who work harder show higher ability (Weiss & Williams, 2004). In both Nicholls’s (1978, 1980, 1989) and Sternberg and Kolligian's (1990) research, children up to the age of approximately 12, had difficulty distinguishing the difference between luck and skill. There are four categories through which children typically progress during development:
Ultimately, as children understand the differences between luck and skill, they begin to understand the limits of their abilities and of what they are truly capable of achieving (Weiss & Williams, 2004). In addition, this understanding allows the children to be more selective as to how they use their efforts. This will lead to less wasted effort, as it is recognized that effort will not have an impact on tasks of luck.
Difficulty and Ability
The concept of difficulty in this pairing is more complex than a cursory understanding. As adults, we typically define difficulty in the context of tasks that cannot be accomplished by others (e.g., “it was difficult because very few people could accomplish the task”). This is a matter of the perception of task difficulty (Nicholls, 1978). Much like the luck/skill pairing, a child’s understanding of difficulty moves through three levels of reasoning to higher-ordered thinking. The levels are:
There is, however, a cause for concern in relation to the new aptitude children have in recognizing differences in ability against their peers, particularly where they might rank themselves lower than their peers. First, this can lead to a decrease in self-referenced evaluations which will, in turn, lead to a lower expectation of ability. Second, depending on the awareness of rankings against their peers, children may become focused on the process of ranking such that they lose interest in learning the material for mastery sake (Harter, 1981b).
Ability and Effort
In the final pairing, we must think of ability as capacity. But, capacity must be referenced in some way so as to determine whether or not a person exerted great or little ability to achieve, or fail to achieve, a goal. Again, as with the previous two pairings, developmental changes in children concerning ability and effort move through levels. There are four:
The implication to children's perceptions of competence is seen in the perceptions of their accomplishments against those of their peers. This becomes especially true for children in early adolescence (Horn & Harris, 2002). More specifically, these perceptions compare the impact of the ratio of ability to effort against the accomplishments. As an example, if it takes less time or effort for one child to achieve the same success as another, the second child is likely to lack a sense of accomplishment since the first child seems to have greater ability. Thus, if children feel like they lack ability as evidenced by their best not being good enough, then there is little incentive to attempt to master the skill.
Moreover, if greater effort is undertaken to avoid failure, the more powerfully additional failure will corroborate a sense of incompetence (Nicholls, 1989, 1990). Conversely, Nicholls (1975) found that when children felt success was more easily achievable with less effort than needed, they exhibited higher levels of motivation to succeed. This allows for the hope that future success through high ability seems probable, where success through high effort is less probable.
Let us now turn our attention to the second component, that of intelligence. The premise of this is in the actual cognitive understanding of information in various domains (i.e., learning math, playing music, tying one’s shoes, etc.), but not in the measurement of capability, as previously defined.
Nicholls describes the concept of intelligence as being either 'verbal'- concrete learning characterized by memorization, or 'non-verbal'- abstract learning characterized by problem finding and solving. Yet, these distinctions do not exist in young children.
For young children, the evaluation of intellectual skills is purely based on subjective difficulty. As they age, and experience "effortful learning," the distinctions become more apparent. However, abstract learning moves from being considered easier to improve early on, to more difficult to improve.
This is because abstract learning appears less rigid in specific meanings, allowing more wiggle room in understanding. But, further development turns the tables. Later, abstract learning is deemed more difficult to improve due to a greater need for more words as the foundation of abstract concepts, and a greater difficulty in the comparison of concepts.
Ultimately, the two intelligence constructs can be understood, where verbal intelligence has memorizable material that this author would describe as acting in a linear fashion, much like a lightning bolt that strikes one spot; but, that abstract intelligence utilizes problem-solving abilities that this author would describe as acting in a cloud fashion, much like sheet lightning that covers a much wider area.
The data goes on to suggest that there is a correlation between verbal (concrete) intelligence and comparisons deemed superior or inferior, while abstract intelligence is correlated with the desire of self-improvement and skill mastery.
As such, those for whom concrete intelligence is pervasive, they typically, but not always, trend towards an ego-orientation of motivated behavior where comparisons are critical to their process of goal achievement. But, those for whom abstract intelligence is pervasive, they typically, but not always, trend towards a task-orientation of motivated behavior where the pursuit of mastery of a skill is critical to their process of goal achievement.
We will finish our discussion of Nicholls’s theory by delving deeper into the two goal orientation constructs just mentioned. These two constructs that can direct achievement efforts are (Nicholls, 1975, 1989, 1990):
Ego orientation- feelings of success motivated by exhibiting superior performance through comparison with others.
Task orientation- feelings of success motivated by exhibiting mastery of skills through self-referenced performances.
These orientations are guided by various factors. One factor has already been expounded upon- the developmental factor of understanding ability against effort, difficulty, and capacity. Weiss and Williams (2004) suggest that in the absence of either a performance or mastery environment, children are likely to adopt a task orientation as their concept of ability is limited. It is not until they have a firmer grasp of ability that they are better equipped to make appropriate comparisons leading to an ego-oriented construct. However, it should be noted that children who exhibit an ego-orientation but do not believe they are able to outperform their competition, will likely engage in maladaptive behaviors to hide their low ability (Williams & Gill, 1995).
The second factor guiding task vs. ego orientation is the predisposition toward a goal orientation. Weiss and Williams (2004) describe this as one’s “proneness” toward an orientation across domains. For children, being oriented one way versus the other, can produce either adaptive or maladaptive motivational patterns. Adaptive patterns, as is more common in children who are task-oriented, tend to inspire performance while mitigating perceived obstacles through greater effort, perceived competence, positive affect, and intrinsic motivation. Conversely, maladaptive patterns, as is more common in children who are ego-oriented, tend to suppress performance, especially in the face of obstacles due to less effort, perceived competence, positive affect, and intrinsic motivation (Dweck, 1986; Weiss and Williams, 2004). This can happen either during competition or during practice.
The final factor is environmental in nature and includes elements of objectivity, a rewards system, and subjectivity. The question becomes, is the motivational climate performance (ego) or mastery (task) oriented? Nicholls (1990) suggests that environments focused on performance and measurement, facilitate an ego orientation. This fosters a dependency on pure athleticism and trying to win, rather than on effort, interest, and the process that characterizes a task orientation. Further, a task orientation is associated with greater satisfaction of both the process of skill acquisition as well as performance.
As such, the goal of the coach should be to focus children on obtaining particular skills, while increasing the intensity or pressure for which such skills are necessary.
First, we must define the concept of ability, which is at the heart of this theory. Ability is a generalized spectrum of competence that crosses different domains. Nicholls teases out three subsets that require differentiation:
- Luck and skill
- Difficulty and ability
- Ability and effort
Luck and Skill
This pairing investigates the belief that effort alone can positively affect an outcome regardless of the nature of the task, as either luck or skill related. Younger children believe that those who work harder show higher ability (Weiss & Williams, 2004). In both Nicholls’s (1978, 1980, 1989) and Sternberg and Kolligian's (1990) research, children up to the age of approximately 12, had difficulty distinguishing the difference between luck and skill. There are four categories through which children typically progress during development:
- Luck and skill are undifferentiated- luck and skill tasks are classified in terms of difficulty, where effort is thought to improve the outcomes of both. But, that skill tasks are viewed as more difficult than luck tasks is due to the greater effort required to solve the problem.
- Non-articulation of skill and luck outcomes are partially differentiated- effort is still the focus, but greater emphasis is put on effort in skill tasks. There is a higher expectation to do well due to the budding ability to make comparisons—comparisons that they are unable to explain.
- Articulation is made between skill and luck tasks, but it is still partially differentiated- the use of comparisons is more advanced allowing for an increased expectation to do well with effort on skill tasks. These comparisons are able to be explained. However, the children still have an expectancy that their efforts will have a positive impact on luck tasks.
- Skill and luck are differentiated- it is clearly understood that effort will have no effect on luck tasks, but will improve the chances of doing well on skill tasks.
Ultimately, as children understand the differences between luck and skill, they begin to understand the limits of their abilities and of what they are truly capable of achieving (Weiss & Williams, 2004). In addition, this understanding allows the children to be more selective as to how they use their efforts. This will lead to less wasted effort, as it is recognized that effort will not have an impact on tasks of luck.
Difficulty and Ability
The concept of difficulty in this pairing is more complex than a cursory understanding. As adults, we typically define difficulty in the context of tasks that cannot be accomplished by others (e.g., “it was difficult because very few people could accomplish the task”). This is a matter of the perception of task difficulty (Nicholls, 1978). Much like the luck/skill pairing, a child’s understanding of difficulty moves through three levels of reasoning to higher-ordered thinking. The levels are:
- Egocentric- this is a completely self-referenced scheme, where if a task is deemed “hard,” it is hard for that child. The child then internalizes the belief that he or she is not good at the task. The results of Fry’s (2000) study suggests that approximately 90% of the children in this level are under the age of eight.
- Objective- this is the grey area where children are able to recognize various difficulty levels by objective means, but are unable to assess if a task is too difficult, or if their ability is too low to perform it. Fry’s (2000) study shows that approximately 96% of the children in this level are between 6-11 years.
- Normative- this is where the ability to differentiate between ability and difficulty is complete, as it pertains to the success of others. Thus, if fewer peers succeed in completing the task, it can be deemed as hard and requiring greater ability. Fry’s (2000) study shows that approximately 63% of the children in this level are over nine years.
There is, however, a cause for concern in relation to the new aptitude children have in recognizing differences in ability against their peers, particularly where they might rank themselves lower than their peers. First, this can lead to a decrease in self-referenced evaluations which will, in turn, lead to a lower expectation of ability. Second, depending on the awareness of rankings against their peers, children may become focused on the process of ranking such that they lose interest in learning the material for mastery sake (Harter, 1981b).
Ability and Effort
In the final pairing, we must think of ability as capacity. But, capacity must be referenced in some way so as to determine whether or not a person exerted great or little ability to achieve, or fail to achieve, a goal. Again, as with the previous two pairings, developmental changes in children concerning ability and effort move through levels. There are four:
- Ability is either effort or outcome- there is no sense of cause and effect. Children think that if a person exerts more effort, they are better regardless of a lesser outcome. Or, if a person has a positive outcome, that would suggest that they are better regardless of effort.
- Outcomes are caused by effort- cause and effect are discernible now. However, because outcomes are viewed as solely affected by effort, poor outcomes are associated with either a lag in effort or misapplied effort, as in trying hard but making mistakes.
- Outcomes are affected by more than just effort- children are beginning to understand capacity (i.e., someone who achieves a positive outcome with less effort, has more ability). But, there is still the notion that equal effort will produce equal achievement.
- Ability is capacity- there is a clear understanding that ability and effort are separate entities and that each can be a determinant of the other. If ability is viewed as capacity, then low ability will limit the effect of effort on success, while high ability will increase the effect of effort on success. Or, when effort is limited by ability, then success with lower effort suggests higher ability.
The implication to children's perceptions of competence is seen in the perceptions of their accomplishments against those of their peers. This becomes especially true for children in early adolescence (Horn & Harris, 2002). More specifically, these perceptions compare the impact of the ratio of ability to effort against the accomplishments. As an example, if it takes less time or effort for one child to achieve the same success as another, the second child is likely to lack a sense of accomplishment since the first child seems to have greater ability. Thus, if children feel like they lack ability as evidenced by their best not being good enough, then there is little incentive to attempt to master the skill.
Moreover, if greater effort is undertaken to avoid failure, the more powerfully additional failure will corroborate a sense of incompetence (Nicholls, 1989, 1990). Conversely, Nicholls (1975) found that when children felt success was more easily achievable with less effort than needed, they exhibited higher levels of motivation to succeed. This allows for the hope that future success through high ability seems probable, where success through high effort is less probable.
Let us now turn our attention to the second component, that of intelligence. The premise of this is in the actual cognitive understanding of information in various domains (i.e., learning math, playing music, tying one’s shoes, etc.), but not in the measurement of capability, as previously defined.
Nicholls describes the concept of intelligence as being either 'verbal'- concrete learning characterized by memorization, or 'non-verbal'- abstract learning characterized by problem finding and solving. Yet, these distinctions do not exist in young children.
For young children, the evaluation of intellectual skills is purely based on subjective difficulty. As they age, and experience "effortful learning," the distinctions become more apparent. However, abstract learning moves from being considered easier to improve early on, to more difficult to improve.
This is because abstract learning appears less rigid in specific meanings, allowing more wiggle room in understanding. But, further development turns the tables. Later, abstract learning is deemed more difficult to improve due to a greater need for more words as the foundation of abstract concepts, and a greater difficulty in the comparison of concepts.
Ultimately, the two intelligence constructs can be understood, where verbal intelligence has memorizable material that this author would describe as acting in a linear fashion, much like a lightning bolt that strikes one spot; but, that abstract intelligence utilizes problem-solving abilities that this author would describe as acting in a cloud fashion, much like sheet lightning that covers a much wider area.
The data goes on to suggest that there is a correlation between verbal (concrete) intelligence and comparisons deemed superior or inferior, while abstract intelligence is correlated with the desire of self-improvement and skill mastery.
As such, those for whom concrete intelligence is pervasive, they typically, but not always, trend towards an ego-orientation of motivated behavior where comparisons are critical to their process of goal achievement. But, those for whom abstract intelligence is pervasive, they typically, but not always, trend towards a task-orientation of motivated behavior where the pursuit of mastery of a skill is critical to their process of goal achievement.
We will finish our discussion of Nicholls’s theory by delving deeper into the two goal orientation constructs just mentioned. These two constructs that can direct achievement efforts are (Nicholls, 1975, 1989, 1990):
- Ego orientation
- Task orientation
Ego orientation- feelings of success motivated by exhibiting superior performance through comparison with others.
Task orientation- feelings of success motivated by exhibiting mastery of skills through self-referenced performances.
These orientations are guided by various factors. One factor has already been expounded upon- the developmental factor of understanding ability against effort, difficulty, and capacity. Weiss and Williams (2004) suggest that in the absence of either a performance or mastery environment, children are likely to adopt a task orientation as their concept of ability is limited. It is not until they have a firmer grasp of ability that they are better equipped to make appropriate comparisons leading to an ego-oriented construct. However, it should be noted that children who exhibit an ego-orientation but do not believe they are able to outperform their competition, will likely engage in maladaptive behaviors to hide their low ability (Williams & Gill, 1995).
The second factor guiding task vs. ego orientation is the predisposition toward a goal orientation. Weiss and Williams (2004) describe this as one’s “proneness” toward an orientation across domains. For children, being oriented one way versus the other, can produce either adaptive or maladaptive motivational patterns. Adaptive patterns, as is more common in children who are task-oriented, tend to inspire performance while mitigating perceived obstacles through greater effort, perceived competence, positive affect, and intrinsic motivation. Conversely, maladaptive patterns, as is more common in children who are ego-oriented, tend to suppress performance, especially in the face of obstacles due to less effort, perceived competence, positive affect, and intrinsic motivation (Dweck, 1986; Weiss and Williams, 2004). This can happen either during competition or during practice.
The final factor is environmental in nature and includes elements of objectivity, a rewards system, and subjectivity. The question becomes, is the motivational climate performance (ego) or mastery (task) oriented? Nicholls (1990) suggests that environments focused on performance and measurement, facilitate an ego orientation. This fosters a dependency on pure athleticism and trying to win, rather than on effort, interest, and the process that characterizes a task orientation. Further, a task orientation is associated with greater satisfaction of both the process of skill acquisition as well as performance.
As such, the goal of the coach should be to focus children on obtaining particular skills, while increasing the intensity or pressure for which such skills are necessary.