Meyer et al. (1979) documented that praise following success and the absence of blame following failure are used by adults to infer low ability. In the present study, the Meyer et al. methodology was modified for examining developmental differences in the use of praise and blame as attributional cues. Children ages 4 to 12 years were presented with videotaped scenarios depicting two students who either succeeded or failed at an achievement task. The feedback to these students was either praise versus neutral feedback following success or blame versus neutral feedback following failure. Participants then judged the effort and ability of each target child. All children inferred that the praised student was higher in effort and that the blamed student was lower in effort than were their neutral-feedback counterparts. A developmental pattern in ability judgments, however, indicated that only the oldest children inferred lower ability given praise and the absence of blame, as in the Meyer et al. study. The data for the youngest children were opposite to this pattern, with higher ability inferred given praise and lower ability reported given blame. These findings were interpreted as evidence of children's emerging understanding of a compensatory relation between effort and ability. This article is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted by the first author to the University of California, Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education under the supervision of the second author. The article was written while the second author was supported by a grant from the Spencer Foundation.We thank the students and staff of the Conine A. Seeds University Elementary School for their participation in the research. Appreciation is also extended to Bernard Weiner for his comments on the article.

Two studies examined the possibility that unsolicited help can function as a low-ability cue. In Experiment 1, children 5-12 years old viewed videotaped teaching sessions depicting two boys working on a set of math problems. One boy received assistance from a help giver (teacher or peer); the other received no such help. Participants then judged both students' ability and effort. In Experiment 2, children 4-12 years old viewed one videotape and then made inferences about the attributions, affects, and expectancies of the students. They also indicated which of the two they would prefer as a workmate. All children except 4-5-year-olds in Experiment 2 inferred that the helped student was lower in ability than his nonhelped counterpart. Age-related differences in young children's judgments about affects, expectancies, and preferred work mate showed the same developmental pattern. The implications of these findings for the development of attributional understanding and for communicating low ability in the classroom are discussed. This research was supported by a Spencer Foundation Fellowship from the National Academy of Education to Sandra Graham. We thank the staff and students of the Corrinne A. Seeds University Elementary School for their participation in the investigations reported here. Appreciation also is extended to Bernard Weiner for his helpful comments on the manuscript.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract