fear of failure in students essay

Essay on Fear of Failure

Students are often asked to write an essay on Fear of Failure in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Fear of Failure

Understanding fear of failure.

Fear of failure is a common feeling that arises when we face a challenge. It’s a fear that we might not succeed, which can stop us from trying at all.

Effects of Fear

This fear can limit our potential. It can prevent us from taking risks, stunting our growth and development.

Overcoming the Fear

Overcoming this fear involves understanding that failure is a part of learning. We can grow from our mistakes, turning them into stepping stones towards success.

Also check:

• Speech on Fear of Failure

250 Words Essay on Fear of Failure

Introduction.

Fear of failure, or atychiphobia, is a psychological condition where an individual has a persistent, irrational dread of not meeting expectations or achieving success. This fear can be paralyzing, often leading to procrastination, anxiety, and a decrease in performance.

The Psychology of Fear

The fear of failure is deeply rooted in our psyche, often stemming from early life experiences. It is reinforced by societal pressures to succeed and the stigma attached to failure. The dread of not meeting expectations, coupled with the potential for public humiliation, can lead to debilitating anxiety.

Impact on Personal and Academic Life

This fear can significantly impact one’s personal and academic life. It can hinder risk-taking, creativity, and exploration, all of which are crucial for personal growth and academic success. Students may avoid challenging tasks, limiting their potential and stifling their intellectual development.

Overcoming the fear of failure involves a shift in perspective. Viewing failure as an opportunity for learning and growth, rather than a negative outcome, can help mitigate these fears. Strategies such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness, and exposure therapy can also be effective.

In conclusion, the fear of failure is a profound issue that can inhibit personal and academic progress. However, with the right mindset and therapeutic strategies, it is possible to overcome this fear, fostering resilience and promoting success.

500 Words Essay on Fear of Failure

Fear of failure, also known as atychiphobia, is a complex emotion that can significantly impact an individual’s life. It is characterized by an overwhelming dread or anxiety about making mistakes or not meeting expectations. This fear can lead to avoidance of challenges and opportunities, thereby stifling personal growth and achievement. Understanding the nature, causes, and consequences of this fear is essential to overcoming it and achieving one’s full potential.

The Nature of Fear of Failure

Fear of failure is not just about the dread of not succeeding. It is often tied to deeper issues such as the fear of criticism, the fear of disappointing others, and the fear of losing one’s self-esteem. It can manifest itself in various forms, such as procrastination, perfectionism, and self-sabotage. These manifestations can lead to a vicious cycle where the fear of failure results in behaviors that, in turn, increase the likelihood of failure.

Causes of Fear of Failure

The root causes of fear of failure are often traced back to early life experiences. Negative feedback or punishment for failures during childhood can lead to the development of this fear. Societal and parental expectations can also contribute to its growth. Furthermore, internal factors such as personality traits and cognitive biases can make some individuals more susceptible to this fear.

Consequences of Fear of Failure

The fear of failure can have far-reaching consequences. It can limit an individual’s willingness to take on new challenges, stifle creativity, and hinder personal and professional growth. It can also lead to chronic stress and mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. Moreover, it can impact relationships, as the fear of disappointing others can lead to avoidance of social interactions.

Overcoming Fear of Failure

Overcoming the fear of failure involves acknowledging and understanding the fear, reframing failure, and fostering a growth mindset. Acknowledging the fear is the first step towards overcoming it. This can involve introspection or seeking professional help. Reframing failure involves viewing it not as a negative outcome but as a learning opportunity. This shift in perspective can reduce the fear associated with failure. Lastly, fostering a growth mindset, a concept popularized by psychologist Carol Dweck, can help individuals view challenges as opportunities for learning and growth rather than threats to their self-worth.

Fear of failure is a pervasive issue that can significantly limit an individual’s potential. However, with understanding, self-reflection, and a shift in mindset, it is possible to overcome this fear. By reframing failure as a stepping stone to success and fostering a growth mindset, individuals can turn their fear of failure into a powerful motivator for personal and professional growth.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on My Favourite Subject
• Essay on My Favorite Subject English
• Essay on Favorite Subject

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Fear of Failure in Students: Understanding and Overcoming

• POSTED ON February 26, 2024
• by Barbara Isla

[Level Up Your Life]  With a growing library of 3,000+ on-demand video courses, you can level up at your own pace.

Click here to get your All Access Pass today

Fear of failure is a common experience among students, and I’m no stranger to it myself. Reflecting on my own academic journey, I recall the daunting pressure of exams, reports, and presentations, and the way these academic challenges seemed to mirror the obstacles in real life. The prospect of not succeeding was frightening, yet, in hindsight, it was these very challenges that forged my resilience. 

Embracing my fears spurred me into action, pushing me to work harder despite the self-doubt that often whispered in my ear. Overcoming fear of failure is no small feat, but through personal experience and insights gathered from experts, I’ve compiled a list of strategies that can help alleviate the stress of academic pressures.

Additionally, for those looking to delve deeper into personal growth, I recommend exploring self-development courses . These resources can be instrumental in reshaping your attitude and mindset towards failure, transforming it from a source of anxiety into a stepping stone for success.

What Is Fear of Failure in Students?

The fear of failure is a pervasive sentiment that affects many students across various stages of their education. This fear can significantly impact their academic performance, social interactions, and overall mental health. 

Understanding the roots of this fear and addressing them effectively is crucial for students, educators, and parents alike.

Fear of failure, also known as atychiphobia , is the overwhelming worry or anxiety about not meeting personal or societal expectations. In students, this fear often manifests as a paralyzing dread of poor academic performance, criticism, or the inability to achieve their goals.

Scientific Reason Behind Fear of Failure

The fear of failure is deeply rooted in our evolutionary past, where failure often meant life-threatening consequences. This primal fear can trigger the body’s fight-or-flight response, releasing stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline. 

Neurologically, the amygdala, a part of the brain associated with emotional responses, activates this fear response. Simultaneously, the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in decision-making and social behavior, may become impaired under stress, making rational thinking and learning more challenging.

Examples Of Fear of Failure 

Career advancement.

An employee may hesitate to apply for a promotion or take on new responsibilities, fearing failure and criticism, potentially stalling their career progression.

Here’s an article on Career Shift: How To Do It The Right Way . 

Social situations

Someone might avoid social interactions or trying new activities with peers due to the fear of embarrassment or rejection, leading to social isolation and missed opportunities for personal growth.

Academic pressure

A student might avoid participating in class or taking challenging courses due to the fear of not performing well, which could reinforce feelings of inadequacy and lead to a decline in academic performance. This is what we’ll focus on in this article. 

Causes of Fear of Failure in Students

Below are detailed explanations of the primary factors contributing to the development of fear of failure in students, each illustrating how different pressures and experiences shape their perceptions and reactions to potential failure.

• High parental expectations: When parents set very high standards for their children’s academic achievements, it can lead to intense pressure to succeed. This pressure often causes anxiety and fear of disappointing their parents if they fail to meet these expectations.
• Societal pressure to succeed: Society often values success and achievement, creating an environment where failure is looked down upon. This societal norm can make students fear failure, as they believe it will lead to judgment or rejection from their peers and the community.
• Previous experiences of failure: Students who have experienced failure in the past may develop a fear of repeating those failures. These past experiences can lead to a lack of confidence and a belief that future efforts will also result in failure.
• Low self-esteem: Students with low self-esteem often doubt their abilities and worth, which can make the prospect of failure particularly terrifying. This lack of self-confidence can prevent them from taking on challenges due to fear of not being good enough.

Read this article on 7 Holistic Strategies for Building Self-Confidence After Setbacks .

Effects of Fear of Failure

The effects of fear of failure are far-reaching, impacting students’ academic achievements, social relationships, and mental health. It can lead to procrastination, avoidance of challenging tasks, perfectionism, anxiety, and depression.

10 Tips to Overcome Fear of Failure in Students

Educators, parents, and students can leverage the following strategies. 

1. Foster a growth mindset

We encourage you to embrace challenges as valuable opportunities for learning and growth. It’s vital to stress the significance of effort and perseverance over simply relying on innate ability. This approach can transform how students perceive their capabilities and their educational journey.

2. Set realistic goals

Setting achievable goals for yourself is key. When you break down those big assignments or projects into smaller, manageable pieces, it becomes less overwhelming and more doable. This approach will not only help you make steady progress but also increase your motivation and confidence as you see yourself accomplishing each step.

C.L. Mike Schmidt also encourages students to set realistic goals. 

“Assisting students in setting realistic and attainable goals is an effective strategy for overcoming their fear of failure. You see, when students set achievable goals, they develop a sense of agency over their learning journey, which reduces anxiety about potential setbacks. The emphasis on progress rather than flawless execution reinforces the idea that mistakes are unavoidable in the growth process and should be welcomed rather than avoided.”

3. Encourage positive self-talk

Learning to catch and change your negative thoughts to positive affirmations is a game-changer. This habit can greatly boost your confidence and ability to tackle challenges head-on. By fostering a resilient and optimistic mindset, you’re equipping yourself with a powerful tool for personal growth and success.

Here’s what Suzana Mihajlovic has to say about changing one’s internal self-image. 

“ Studies by Dr Maxwell Maltz show that the image we hold of ourselves on the inside will determine the results we get externally. So, help the student (or yourself) to change the perception of themselves (yourself) from the inside out. This is so powerful and quite easy to do.” 

4. Normalize failure

Remember, even the most successful people have faced failures but didn’t let them stop their progress. Understanding that failure is a normal part of learning and growing helps take away its power to intimidate us. This mindset encourages resilience and perseverance, showing that setbacks are just steps on the path to success.

5. Accept constructive feedback

It’s important to see feedback as a tool for growth, focusing on your effort and progress rather than just the final result. Constructive criticism is there to guide you towards improvement, not to make you feel disheartened. Embracing it can empower you to achieve even better results.

6. Learn stress management techniques

Mastering stress management strategies like deep breathing, mindfulness, and effective time management is crucial. These techniques can greatly help in reducing anxiety and improving your ability to handle academic pressures and life’s challenges. Incorporating these into your daily routine can make a big difference in your overall well-being and academic performance.

7. Dare to take risk

Stepping out of your comfort zone and taking risks is crucial for growth. Remember, it’s the effort and courage that count as much as the successes. Embracing the opportunities to try new things can lead to valuable learning experiences, even if it doesn’t always result in immediate success. Challenge yourself to explore and experiment; it’s a vital part of your learning journey.

8. Develop problem-solving skills

Developing a systematic approach to solving problems can greatly increase your confidence in facing challenges. By learning effective strategies to navigate obstacles, you not only boost your academic performance but also equip yourself for real-life situations. Cultivating these skills is essential for turning challenges into opportunities for growth.

9. Emphasize the journey, not just the destination

It’s important to focus on your entire learning journey and the growth you experience along the way, rather than fixating solely on grades or outcomes. Adopting this mindset can lead to a more enriching and enjoyable educational experience, helping you appreciate the process of learning itself and the progress you make, no matter how small.

10. Provide support and resources

Knowing where to find academic and emotional support is vital. Whether it’s tutoring, counseling, or mentorship programs, these resources can provide you with the assistance and guidance you need to navigate your educational journey successfully. Don’t hesitate to reach out and take advantage of the support available to you; it can make a significant difference in your academic and personal growth.

11. Practice meditation 

Incorporating breathing exercises or meditation into daily routines can significantly alleviate the stress and anxiety associated with fear of failure.

“ There are many short and simple mediation techniques out there for students. Meditation can be as simple as taking ten minutes out of the day three times per day to be still or to focus on one’s breath. If the student has difficulty being still, there are many walking meditations available too.” 

Building a Supportive Environment

Building a supportive environment for students is crucial for their development of resilience, creativity, and growth mindset. Such an environment encourages students to embrace challenges, understand the value of failure as a learning opportunity, and recognize risk-taking as an essential part of personal and academic development.

Role of Educators and Parents

Educators and parents are pivotal in shaping a culture that celebrates resilience and learning from setbacks. By exemplifying how to navigate failures and challenges gracefully, they provide a live blueprint for students, showcasing that perseverance and resilience are vital for overcoming obstacles.

Michael Bongalos shares his insights about the role of parents in this aspect. 

“Fear of failure often takes root in environments where family support is lacking, especially when failure is met with criticism rather than understanding. Conversely, parents who instill confidence in their children and view failures as learning opportunities help to build resilience against fear. Such supportive environments teach children to see setbacks not as defeats, but as stepping stones for growth, without resorting to mockery or discouragement, which can negatively impact a student’s mindset.”

If you’re a parent diving into this article, you’ll definitely want to know what Seb Battaglia has to share.

“Students who fear failure often have over controlling parents, or parents who punish them for failing, forcing them into perfectionism. This is a big issue because our growth is based on learning from failures. Yet, that is not taught in school, or as parents we are not used to teaching it to our kids. I am a PhD scientist by training, I also taught in colleges, and my wife is a high school teacher. We both believe that students should be taught not only that failing is ok, but how to accept it and learn from it.”  

Modeling Resilience

To cultivate a supportive atmosphere, it’s essential for educators and parents to demonstrate resilience in their own lives. Showing students that setbacks are part of everyone’s journey emphasizes that perseverance is key to success. This approach helps in normalizing the process of learning through failure.

Jon Morgan of Venture Smarter has this to share about being resilient. 

“ Teaching resilience and perseverance is a lesson that extends beyond the academic realm. I find it beneficial to share stories of renowned individuals who faced numerous failures before achieving success. These narratives serve as powerful examples that setbacks are not indicators of inadequacy but rather opportunities for personal and intellectual development. By instilling the belief that challenges can be overcome with determination and adaptability, students are better equipped to face the uncertainties of academic and personal life.” 

Key Takeaways

In navigating the complexities of fear of failure, it’s crucial for students, educators, and parents to actively engage with and apply the strategies outlined above. Embracing a growth mindset, setting achievable goals, and learning to view challenges as opportunities for development are more than just tips; they are essential steps towards building resilience and confidence. 

We encourage everyone involved in the educational journey—students striving for success, educators shaping the minds of tomorrow, and parents supporting their children’s growth—to take these strategies to heart. Implementing these practices can transform fear of failure from a formidable obstacle into a catalyst for personal and academic achievement.

We highly recommend exploring the Skill Success All Access Pass . This resource offers an expansive range of courses designed to enhance skills, boost confidence, and promote a positive mindset. Take this opportunity to access more than 3,000 resources that can support your path to success. 

Ready to fully dive into your learning? Join All Access Pass and unlock our entire course library for only $15/month.

Click here to learn more

Barbara Isla

Browse all categories, related posts, financial literacy: mastering finances for success, how to use customer feedback for business growth, easy online finance: basics of banking & investing, 3 powerful strategies to take control of your finances, 11 essential skills for ai developers.

Be the first to get the newest articles!

Get free articles weekly and put your skills on turbo mode. Subscribe with your email today.

Look out for useful articles and resources delivered straight to your inbox.

Looking for a solution to discover, change, or advance your career?

Get all access pass for only $15/month and unlock 3,000+ online video courses today..

SKILLSUCCESS.com 2024 All rights reserved

Online courses.

Software Tutorials

Personal Development

Career Development

Become an Instructor

Support FAQs

Create An Account

All Access Pass

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

SKILLSUCCESS.com 2022 All rights reserved

Subscribe For Success!

Get fresh content every week to upgrade your skills today!

Join our newsletter and get your first course free!

Congratulations! You get one free course of your choice. Please check your email now for the redemption code.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Deal With the Fear of Failure

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Rachel Goldman, PhD FTOS, is a licensed psychologist, clinical assistant professor, speaker, wellness expert specializing in eating behaviors, stress management, and health behavior change.

Verywell / Jiaqi Zhou

Characteristics of the Fear of Failure

• Identifying

Causes of the Fear of Failure

Treatment for fear of failure, coping with fear of failure.

The fear of failure, also known as atychiphobia , is an irrational and persistent fear of failing. This fear can stem from a number of sources. Sometimes it might emerge in response to a specific situation. In other cases, it might be related to another mental health condition such as anxiety or depression .

The fear of failure may also be related to being a perfectionist . Because perfectionists have such high expectations for how they expect things to turn out, they may experience a nagging fear that they won't live up to those often unrealistically high standards.

This article discusses the signs of a fear of failure and what causes this fear. It also explores treatments that can help and how to prevent this fear from holding you back.

Get Help Now

We've tried, tested, and written unbiased reviews of the best online therapy programs including Talkspace, BetterHelp, and ReGain. Find out which option is the best for you.

A fear of failure can produce emotional and behavioral symptoms. Some of the common signs of this fear include:

• Feeling a loss of control
• Helplessness
• Powerlessness

In addition to emotional and behavioral symptoms, people with a fear of failure may also experience physical symptoms including rapid heart rate, chest tightness, trembling, dizziness, lightheadedness, sweating, and digestive problems.

Identifying the Fear of Failure

The fear of failure may affect people in a variety of ways, which means that it's not always easy to identify. Some of the ways that people may experience the fear of failure include:

• Believing that you don't have the skills or knowledge to achieve something
• Feeling like you won't be able to achieve your goals
• Procrastinating to the point that it affects your performance or ability to finish on time
• Telling people that you will probably fail so that expectations remain low
• Underestimating your own abilities to avoid feeling let down
• Worrying that imperfections or shortcomings will make other people think less of you
• Worrying that you will disappoint others if you fail

In some cases, the fear of failure may cause people to avoid trying altogether. Because they are so afraid that they will try and not succeed, they simply decide not to try at all in order to prevent potential pain, embarrassment, or disappointment.

Atychiphobia

While fear of failure is not listed as a distinct condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) , it is possible that you might be diagnosed with a specific phobia if your symptoms meet certain diagnostic criteria. In order to be diagnosed with a specific phobia, your symptoms must:

• Involve excessive and unreasonable fear
• Involve an immediate anxiety response
• Be marked by avoidance or extreme distress 
• Limit your ability to function normally
• Last as least six months and not be due to another condition

A fear of failure can have a wide variety of causes. Some potential causes include:

Critical Upbringing

People who grow up in households that are highly critical or unsupportive may be more likely to experience a fear of failure. Because they felt that they could never live up to their family's expectations during childhood, they may continue to fear making mistakes as adults. 

Definitions of Failure

People often have different definitions of what failure means. For some people, it means not achieving something exactly as they planned. This can create a set of expectations that is very difficult to live up to.

Anxiety is also influenced by genetic factors. If members of your family also have anxiety conditions, you might be more likely to develop fears and anxieties yourself.

Perfectionism

Fear of failure sometimes stems from perfectionism. When people have extremely high standards, it often seems like nothing lives up to their expectations. This includes their own performance and achievements. Because they fear not reaching the high standards they've set, they may experience an intense fear of failing.

People who experienced a difficult or even traumatic failure may also be very afraid of repeating that experience in the future.

Having a panic attack during a presentation or being ridiculed for your performance, for example, could contribute to feelings of fear. Negative consequences resulting from failure, such as losing a job or not getting into a college, can also be risk factors that contribute to the fear of failure.

While everyone may be afraid of failing from time to time, it becomes more serious when it inhibits your ability to pursue your goals and achieve the things you want to accomplish in life.

Impact of the Fear of Failure

A fear of failure can take a toll on a person’s belief in their abilities and their motivation to pursue their goals. 

• Low self-esteem : People who fear failure may also engage in negative self-talk or have low self-confidence that makes it difficult to pursue goals. 
• Poor motivation : When people fear failure, they may also experience a lack of motivation that makes it difficult to get started on projects and work toward goals. When something seems too challenging or involves learning new skills, people may simply give up or refuse to get involved.
• Self-sabotage : It isn't uncommon for people who fear failure to engage in acts of self-handicapping that undermine their own chances of success. Research has found, for example, that students who fear failing often engage in self-handicapping behaviors that actually limit academic success and perpetuate failure.   
• Shame : The fear of failure often stems from a fear of experiencing shame or embarrassment. Failing can trigger feelings worthlessness , so avoiding trying in the first place can sometimes serve as a way to protect the self from disappointment, regret, and sadness.

Treatment for the fear of failure depends on a variety of factors including how you experience this fear and the impact that it has on your life. In many cases, people can use self-help strategies to cope with these feelings. 

If your fear of failure is impeding your ability to function normally, it is important to talk to a professional. Treatment options for a fear of failure might include:

Psychotherapy

Psychotherapy can help you address the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that contribute to a fear of failure. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is a type of therapy that helps people identify and change negative thought patterns that contribute to feelings of fear. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) may also be helpful.

Medications

Medications may be prescribed to help you manage feelings of anxiety or depression that might be linked to your fear. Selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are a type of antidepressant that are commonly prescribed to treat mood conditions and anxiety. Anti-anxiety medications, such as Xanax (alprazolam) and Ativan (lorazepam), may also be prescribed.

In many cases, a combination of these two treatment options with lifestyle changes may be the most effective

There are also a number of strategies that you can use to help reduce feelings of fear about failure. Some of these include:

Consider the Outcomes

Sometimes thinking about the worst possible outcome—and then coming up with a plan for how you’ll deal with it—can help reduce anxiety when you are pursuing your goals. 

Focus on the Things You Can Control

Instead of worrying about aspects of the situation that you have no power over, focus your energy on things that you can control. 

When you are facing a challenge that might trigger your fear of failing, work on developing alternative plans just in case your initial efforts don’t go as planned. Having a plan B (or plan C) can help you feel less anxious and more secure.

Redefine Failure

Changing how you think about failure may also help reduce your feelings of fear. Failure is part of life and can be an important opportunity to learn and acquire new skills.

It can certainly be disappointing, but it is important to maintain a healthy perspective toward the potential benefits of failing from time to time. Remember that success is often reached through a series of progressive failures that lead to new information, skills, and strategies.

Use Positive Thinking

Avoid negative self-talk that can undermine your confidence and create feelings of anxiety. Instead, work on thinking more like an optimist to keep your motivation high.

Visualization May Backfire

While visualization is often touted as a tool for success, research actually shows that this motivational strategy can backfire with people who have a high fear of failure. One study found that people with a strong fear of failing experienced strong negative moods after they engaged in an activity that involved visualizing success.

A Word From Verywell

The fear of failure is something that everyone experiences from time to time, but this can become much more problematic when such feelings become persistent. Practice self-compassion and work on taking small steps toward building your confidence and managing your fears.

American Psychiatric Association.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , 5th ed . Washington, DC; 2013.

Meier SM, Deckert J. Genetics of anxiety disorders . Curr Psychiatry Rep . 2019;21(3):16. doi:10.1007/s11920-019-1002-7

Kelly JD 4th. Your best life: Perfectionism--the bane of happiness . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2015;473(10):3108-11. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4279-9

Bartels JM, Herman WE.  Fear of failure, self-handicapping, and negative emotions in response to failure ; 2011.

Hjeltnes A, Binder PE, Moltu C, Dundas I. Facing the fear of failure: An explorative qualitative study of client experiences in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program for university students with academic evaluation anxiety . Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being . 2015;10:27990. doi:10.3402/qhw.v10.27990

Langens TA. Tantalizing fantasies: positive imagery induces negative mood in individuals high in fear of failure . Imagination, Cognition and Personality . 2002;21(4):281-292. doi:10.2190/HGH6-3RM6-2VCG-YCQH

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Our Mission

5 Ways to Unleash Student Creativity and Reduce Fear of Failure

Fear stifles creativity. By making space for the exchange of high-quality, low-stakes feedback, you can encourage the right kind of risk-taking.

To stimulate creativity and risk-taking in the classroom you have to get students comfortable with an emotion that can cripple anyone: fear. Speaking to the Usable Knowledge blog , Harvard Graduate School of Education professor Karen Brennan says fear around creative work in the classroom—in any subject area—often shows up during the feedback process, when students worry about public exposure of their mistakes.

To loosen things up, Brennan says teachers can focus on creating low-stakes opportunities grounded in strategies that elicit quality peer feedback. These opportunities should be combined with clear principles and standards so that students understand what quality feedback—and true creativity—looks like: not settling for the first idea, for example, and embracing trial and error and the iterative process of drafting, revising, and revising again. 

“It’s incredibly exciting to have your work seen by others, to have others respond to it,” Brennan said. “We don’t necessarily make as much space as we might in the classroom for that.” 

A big part of the work also involves creating a classroom environment where students feel safe sharing and receiving feedback to begin with. For educators like Jamie Kobs , a veteran high school English teacher in Wisconsin, that means ceding some control over the learning process to her students, and encouraging them to see each other as sounding boards for their classroom work. “Having more frequent interactions among students builds rapport and trust and disrupts the idea that I’m the only expert in the room,” Kobs said. 

As the top-down dynamics of a traditional classroom begin to shift—and cycles of peer feedback and revision become more familiar—students will feel more confident giving and receiving feedback and taking risks in their own creative work—whether that is a podcast, a piece of fiction, a work of art, or even a science project. As educator John McCarthy put it , creativity is a “fluid and flexible process,” and students need to get used to its messiness.

So how does this look in the classroom? Here are some strategies to jump-start honest and constructive peer feedback among students. 

Use Simple Rubrics to Practice Feedback and Revision

To make feedback less daunting, limit the amount each student gets to just three or four of their classmates. Use the “red, yellow, green” strategy and ask each classmate to tell the student something they’d change about their creative work, something they wondered about, and something they liked. 

Or you can try sentence starters to keep student feedback targeted and productive, and kickstart conversations for students who might normally be reluctant to speak up. Some possible sentence starters include “I like the way you… because…”—which steers students away from generalities and towards specific strengths—and “Maybe you can try…” or “Something you could do next…”, both of which evoke areas for possible improvement. 

Once a student receives peer feedback, they should then have the freedom to choose what changes they will make to their work, according to Brennan. “Part of being a creative agent in the world is making sense of the feedback you get—listening to other people’s opinions, making sense of those, taking what is going to be helpful for you, and put aside that which is not helpful,” she told Usable Knowledge.

“In those moments, kids are making sense of the world and advancing their learning and thinking.”

Take Gallery Walks

“Gallery walks get students up and out of their chairs and actively engaging with the content and each other,” writes educator Rebecca Alber. A gallery walk could involve work displayed on a screen, written or creative work hung up on the wall, or even a display of a physical project on a desk. It can also be adapted to remote-teaching via shared Google docs. Students can leave written or video feedback, or meet in small groups over Zoom.

Gallery walks allow students to peruse each other’s work and can be integrated with other strategies like sentence starters or “red, yellow, green” to ensure that students are delivering high-quality feedback during their strolls around the room (or virtual room). 

However a teacher chooses to adapt this strategy, Alber writes that the activity works best when the teacher remains in the role of a facilitator or participant in the activity. 

Actively Model Good (and Bad) Feedback

Mark Gardner , a high school English teacher in Washington, writes that every year he stands before young writers afraid of the peer review process. They fear looking dumb and lack the confidence to provide productive feedback—or simply believe peer feedback rarely goes beyond “basic conventions” such as “I liked this part” or “I didn’t get this.” 

Gardner uses the acronym SPARK—Specific, Prescriptive, Actionable, Referenced, and Kind—to guide the feedback process. Integrating a concept like SPARK in your own classroom will involve modeling it for students and helping them decipher between useful feedback and statements that are unlikely to lead to improvement. Gardner’s process includes modeling feedback by focusing on one example piece of text, and then gently prodding students towards specificity and story arc.

According to Gardner, these exercises help his students go from focusing on things like small syntax issues in their peers’ writing, to giving feedback that consists of clear statements such is “This is confusing because” or “Explain a little more about why you chose this example” that tend to hone in on bigger issues related to idea development, clarity, and arrangement. 

The benefits to good, productive feedback should be reciprocal: “In the end, good peer review should provide the writer with meaningful information for improvement, while developing the reviewer’s ability to analyze a text’s effectiveness,” Gardner writes.

Update Your Repertoire 

Part of getting kids to be more creative is allowing them to produce work in formats that excite and inspire them. 

To get her students outside of their comfort zone and combat the “incredible blandness” of their research papers, Jori Krudler, a high school English teacher, turned to podcasting . She created small groups who generated possible topics to cover and—when students realized they had latitude to choose their own area of focus, which would be reviewed by their peers—Krudler’s students became “deeply invested” in creating something interesting and meaningful, she said. “In the end they worked harder on the analysis and synthesis—and did far more thinking—than they would have done if I were the only audience.” 

Educator David Seelow writes that comic books can also be used in classrooms across subject and grade levels to encourage creativity and get students working together in groups to share feedback. Dividing students into teams that come up with possible storylines, with the ultimate goal of developing a physical comic book, is a collaborative, problem-solving activity that gets students thinking critically about narrative, plot, and character development. It also pushes students to share ideas as they revise and make decisions about what words and pictures they will use for their final product. 

Offer Students Choices 

In her blog , Educator Dr. Catlin Tucker writes that a peer feedback “choice board” is an effective strategy that allows students to focus on a handful of prompts to guide feedback to peers. 

The choice board is a simple diagram that includes six boxes with prompts that students can choose from to direct their feedback—students select two prompts only. Some prompts focus on the strengths of a piece of student work and ask questions like “What was specifically strong? Why do you think this element was particularly powerful or well done?” Other prompts focus on tweaks to improve a piece of student work, asking peers to think about “What would you suggest the student rework or reimagine in this draft?”

The process builds in agency while ensuring the feedback is “specific, meaningful, and kind,” Tucker writes. The choice board can also be adapted to various grade levels by adjusting the language included in each prompt. 

Finally, you can add sentence starters to the rubric to give English language learners additional support. For example, under the box focusing on strengths, prompts can be substituted with fill-in-the-blank statements such as, “The strongest part of this draft was _____. I thought _____ was done well. I really liked _____.” 

Overcoming Fear of Academic Failure: Reasons Why Students Fail vs. Thrive

Students who want to succeed are often, understandably, afraid of failure. 

Failure is on the minds of many students, especially those with lofty goals like college degrees and more. Similarly, parents of students are afraid of seeing their children fall prey to academic failure, since so much of today’s modern society seems to depend on academic success for upward mobility.

Of course, avoiding academic failure does not always depend on the student alone. Plenty of students find themselves in situations that can make success hard, often due to socioeconomic status and issues with education inequality. These are important issues to address and are very complex. 

For today, we will focus on cases where academic failure refers to the inability of a student with access to all necessary resources to forge ahead. The essential question then becomes, how do students get in the way of their own success?

Reasons for Student Failure

Failure is actually crucial to learning - we can learn from these mistakes and course correct, gaining resilience along the way. However, when students completely fail academically, this means that they are unable to overcome the small failures over time to learn and grow and eventually succeed.

There are many causes of student failure, and usually more than one is at play. But here are some common reasons for student academic failure, starting with perhaps the most insidious: fear.

Fear of Failure

Fear of failure, or even fear of success, causes failure. This seems a bit contradictory, but it’s unfortunately true. Many students allow their fear to overcome their ability to complete essential tasks that will help them succeed academically.

Some students fear failure, so they neglect their studies and stop trying, hoping that if they do not try then they will not have to feel bad about failing. This kind of fear can occur in students who are overachievers or who do not believe in themselves academically. Educators and parents can help students overcome their fear of failure by reminding them that they can learn from failure when they experience it.

Fear of Success

Other students fear success, which is common among students who are worried about the responsibilities they will face if they succeed or the ways their lives might change once they succeed. They might fear college life or a difficult career if they should succeed. Sometimes students are afraid of leaving others, like family members or friends, behind if they succeed.

These students need to be reminded that they are in control of their lives and can decide how far they go. But if they do not reach their full potential, they will be depriving the world of their gifts.

2. Lack of Preparation

Other students fail from a lack of preparation. This can sometimes mean that they did not do the work they needed to along the way or put off necessary steps like studying for tests, finishing key assignments, or completing college applications.

Students who lack preparation might have allowed their learning to fall short during school without seeking the help they needed to understand material and now feel they are too behind to catch up.

Fear of failure or success can actually lead to a lack of preparation, while other times, students do not prepare for other reasons, like laziness.

3. Lack of Motivation

Sometimes students lack motivation, so they become apathetic. When students are unmotivated, they might feel that academic success doesn’t matter or that they will never achieve it. Students who lack motivation might have experienced a good deal of failure early on in their education and feel there is no point in trying any longer.

These students need to find a “why” when it comes to academic success, a reason that will motivate them to achieve their goals. A motivation can come from a career goal, a desire for a future accomplishment, the hope to be financially stable, or even the desire to give back to the community or family members.

Overcoming Fear of Failure

Since failure is a natural part of life and necessary on the way to success, fear of academic failure often happens for students when they have come across a major challenge or roadblock.

With the knowledge that failure is necessary, students can certainly adopt certain mindsets and create habits that help them overcome failure to then reach success. Here are some tips on how to overcome fear of failure as a student.

Accept Failure as a Necessary Part of Life

Once students can accept failure as part of their academic journey, they might have an easier time facing failure in general. The ironic part of this truth is that the only way to avoid failure is to embrace it. If you can realize that you will absolutely fail in pursuit of success, the idea of failure will no longer feel so scary.

However, it is also important to realize that every failure will require you to overcome. You can fail, but then you must learn from that failure and try again.

Have Compassion for Yourself

In order to deal with failure, you must also have great compassion for yourself. Every human being makes mistakes, so if you make a mistake or find yourself on the wrong path, know that you can always redirect. Beating yourself up will never help you overcome failure, but recognizing why you might have failed and learning from it will always help.

Try to process every failure, allow yourself to heal from it, learn what you need to in order to improve, and then come back with a new approach.

Adopt a Mindset of Resilience

The ability to learn from failure and keep working toward your goals anyway comes from adopting a resilience mindset. This takes practice, but you can train yourself to understand that failure is part of life and then be willing to keep trying anyway.

An important aspect of resilience is the desire to learn from mistakes. Even if you fail, knowing that you can find a solution and work toward your goals in new ways should help you overcome failure.

Set Realistic, Smaller Goals Toward a Larger Goal

One way to lessen the fear of failure is to set smaller goals that are more realistic to accomplish. This might mean setting a goal to get a higher grade on your next test or to understand one new concept in a class that is difficult for you.

By achieving small goals that lead you toward a larger academic goal, you will feel more confident along the way and be able to celebrate each accomplishment .

Tips for Students to Thrive Academically

Everyone learns differently, so tips that work for one student might not work for another. That said, all students can benefit from important study tips to help prepare them for success, like these: 

Study early and often.

Keep track of academic deadlines.

Write down your goals.

Ask for help from your teachers . 

Be kind to yourself along the way.

Know your “why” or motivation for success.

Seek support from peers you admire.

Keep going.

With these tips in mind, along with a resilience mindset, there is no reason to fear failure. Utilize your resources and keep working toward your goals. Success is not a straight line! You will fail, but failure is part of the process.

Follow us on Social Media

• askUCL student enquiries
• Fees and funding
• Exams and assessments
• Certificates & Results
• Student status
• Support and wellbeing
• Library and IT
• New students
• International students
• Immigration and visas
• Life at UCL
• Events & activities
• Careers and work experience
• Academic support
• Cost of Living
• Appeals and Complaints
• Support at UCL

7 ways to overcome your fear of failure

6 July 2022

Do you find the idea of failure crippling? A fear of failure can be a major barrier to achieving your goals but here are a few steps you can take to rise above this and take on any challenge.

University can come with lots of obstacles and barriers to achieving our goals and the grades we want. One barrier to success can be our own fear of failing, stopping us from even trying to attempt our goals and/or leading us to self-sabotage our progress. Combine this with the pressure to do well at university and it can easily become overwhelming.

Here are a few tips for dealing with this fear of failure:

Recognise how you feel – recognising that the fear of failing is stopping you from trying in the first place is a great place to start. Recognise and acknowledge how you feel – it is common and OK to feel this way.

Change your perspective on failure – society has told us that failure is a bad thing. However, we often learn more from our failures than our successes and it can be an invaluable experience . One quote which summarises a positive perspective on failure is from author Eloise Ristad - “ When we give ourselves permission to fail, we, at the same time, give ourselves permission to excel. ” 

• Practice self-compassion – remember you are trying your best and that is enough. Failure is part of life and whilst it is not pleasant, it doesn’t make you any less valuable or loveable as a person. Try acknowledging the feeling of fear rather than distracting yourself. Accepting and being mindful of this feeling can help the situation feel more manageable. You may find it helpful to learn more about mindfulness through reading, you can find a list of self-help books here . Also, UCL Student's Union have a Mindful Society that practise regular mindfulness during term time. 
• Speak to someone – if you are feeling academically crippled by this fear of failure, it can help to discuss it with a trusted friend or family member. It is likely that some of your student friends are experiencing the same feelings and it can help to off-load to each other. You can also speak to one of Student Support and Wellbeing's adviser in a drop-in session or appointment .
• Get organised – recognise any easily removed barriers that are getting in your way of starting your essay or project. Maybe you need to tidy your desk and/or organise your revision notes – remember this is not procrastination and can actually be a necessary first step in getting started.
• Just do it – when avoiding starting an essay or exam revision it can be because our avoidance is often rooted in a need for everything to be perfect. Get started as soon as you can and even if it is not perfect, remember you can come back and edit it later.
• Find a positive quote – there’s a number of quotes out there which touch on this subject, find your quote and repeat it to yourself whenever you’re feeling like you’re holding back out of fear of failing. Examples: feel the fear and do it anyway ; we miss 100% of the chances we don’t take ; it is better to try and fail than to never have tried at all .

If you continue to feel overwhelmed and are held back by this fear of failure or other feelings of anxiety or sadness, you may wish to speak to your GP and Student Support and Wellbeing .

Read more similar articles

Return to UCLcares homepage

Articles of the month

Funnelback feed: https://cms-feed.ucl.ac.uk/s/search.json?collection=drupal-professional-... Double click the feed URL above to edit

Contact Student Support and Wellbeing

• Get in touch with us through askUCL, our online student enquiries system.
• Visit us for support at a drop-in session or appointment.

Follow Student Support and Wellbeing

• Follow us on Twitter (@UCLcares)
• Follow us on Facebook (@UCLcares)
• Follow us on Instagram (uclcares)

Meet the team

Find out more about who we are and what we do. 

Relevant links

• Drop-in sessions
• Crisis support
• Students' Union news
• Students' Union Advice Service

Tweets by @UCLcares  

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.18(1); Spring 2019

FAIL Is Not a Four-Letter Word: A Theoretical Framework for Exploring Undergraduate Students’ Approaches to Academic Challenge and Responses to Failure in STEM Learning Environments

Meredith a. henry.

† Department of Chemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322

Shayla Shorter

Louise charkoudian.

‡ Department of Chemistry, Haverford College, Haverford, PA 19041

Jennifer M. Heemstra

Lisa a. corwin.

§ Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder CO 80309

Associated Data

Navigating scientific challenges, persevering through difficulties, and coping with failure are considered hallmarks of a successful scientist. However, relatively few studies investigate how undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students develop these skills and dispositions or how instructors can facilitate this development in undergraduate STEM learning contexts. This is a critical gap, because the unique cultures and practices found in STEM classrooms are likely to influence how students approach challenges and deal with failures, both during their STEM education and in the years that follow. To guide research aimed at understanding how STEM students develop a challenge-engaging disposition and the ability to adaptively cope with failure, we generate a model representing hypotheses of how students might approach challenges and respond to failures in undergraduate STEM learning contexts. We draw from theory and studies investigating mindset, goal orientations, attributions, fear of failure, and coping to inform our model. We offer this model as a tool for the community to test, revise, elaborate, or refute. Finally, we urge researchers and educators to consider the development, implementation, and rigorous testing of interventions aimed at helping students develop a persevering and challenge-engaging disposition within STEM contexts.

INTRODUCTION

Introduction of students to the “world of science” is usually marked by prototypical “cookbook” scientific demonstrations in which students follow step-by-step instructions that typically yield guaranteed results. While these experiences may help students learn tools and techniques in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), they provide an incomplete experience of the process. Between these early academic experiences and Hollywood portrayals of instant scientific success, students are not made privy to the reality that struggles, ambiguity, and failure are inevitable hallmarks of the scientific process. In fact, navigating challenges, persevering through difficulties, and coping with failure are cited as some of the most important dispositions distinguishing outstanding scientists ( Lopatto et al. , 2008 ; Laursen et al. , 2010 ; Harsh et al. , 2011 ; Thiry et al. , 2012 ; Andrews and Lemons, 2015 ; Simpson and Maltese, 2017 ). Yet, research on this issue, as well as instructor and student narratives, suggests that STEM students enter college ill-equipped to view failures and challenges as learning experiences ( Marra et al. , 2012 ; Bennett, 2017 ; Simpson and Maltese, 2017 ), and this is rarely an explicit area of instruction or development emphasized in STEM classrooms ( Traphagen, 2015 ; Simpson and Maltese, 2017 ). This gap between skills and instruction may leave students inadequately prepared to approach the challenges present in the broader landscape of scientific innovation and advancement, especially as today’s scientific problems become increasingly complex and interdisciplinary ( National Science Foundation, 2016 ; Friedman, 2017 ; National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017 ; Simpson and Maltese, 2017 ). Advancing STEM will require not only a large, highly skilled workforce, but also one composed of challenge-engaging individuals who have the ability to persevere and cope productively with failure.

Therefore, we ask, “How and when do scientists develop dispositions that allow them to productively tackle challenges and learn from failure?” and “What can we, as researchers and educators, do to help build the next generation of perseverant, challenge-engaging scientists?” In this essay, we explore vetted psychological constructs and theories to build a model of how noncognitive factors may influence STEM undergraduates’ engagement with challenges and ability to cope with failures in STEM learning contexts. We define “noncognitive factors” as “skills or dispositions not associated with development of knowledge or cognitive functioning,” such as students’ affective and motivational dispositions. Based on past research and theory, we describe five constructs that we believe affect STEM students’ achievement both directly and indirectly through their responses to failure: mindset, goal orientation, fear of failure, attributions, and coping responses. Briefly, this essay addresses how mindset, or the beliefs a student holds about whether intelligence is malleable or fixed ( Dweck, 2000 , 2006 ), can influence a student’s goal orientation, or their purpose when engaging in academic tasks ( Pintrich, 2000a , b ). Mindset and goal orientation are likely to influence a student’s fear of failure, or concerns regarding the consequences of failure ( Conroy et al. , 2001 ). These prefailure dispositions and beliefs affect postfailure attributions, what a student sees as the cause of a failure ( Weiner, 1985 ), and the corresponding coping behaviors they employ in response to the threat of failure or an actual failure event ( Skinner et al. , 2003 ).

Before we describe each factor in detail, it is important to define what we mean by “failures” and “challenges.” In the broadest sense, a failure is the gap between an expected or desired result and what one ultimately experiences ( Cannon and Edmondson, 2005 ). More specifically, we define “failure” as the inability to meet the demands of an achievement context, with the result of not achieving a specific goal . Achievement contexts 1) consist of some task(s) to be performed, 2) involve evaluating the performance of said task(s) against standards or expectations that indicate goal achievement, and 3) require certain competencies to carry out the task(s) to defined standards ( Cacciotti, 2015 ). When an individual does not successfully carry out the task, they have failed . For example, not getting meaningful results from a scientific experiment when the expectation is that the results will have meaning constitutes a failure of that experiment, even if future experiments can be performed to rectify that failure. Importantly, our conceptualization of failure drawn from Cacciotti (2015) differs from that of some who argue that failure only occurs when one disengages and completely stops iterating or trying (e.g., Thomas, 2014 ). However, we also see failures as different from errors (e.g., Tulis et al. , 2016 ), in that failures are marked by not accomplishing a goal within an achievement context, while errors do not necessarily preclude accomplishment of a goal (i.e., errors can be corrected relatively quickly without failing). In this paper, “challenges” are achievement contexts that carry with them the risk of failure—that is, they push a student’s skills and knowledge to a level at which the student risks a failure by engaging with them.

Even with these formalized definitions, what constitutes a challenge or a failure is influenced by one’s personal goals, values, socialization, and so on. In other words, failure lies both in the eye of the beholder and in the expectations set forth by the context. So, while the typical grading scale and other standardized academic achievements certainly represent achievement contexts, individual students will also be influenced by other personal achievement contexts. A student who has been told that they must get all “A’s” to achieve a future goal (e.g., medical school acceptance) may see receiving a “B” on an exam as failing. Alternatively, a student who regularly receives “C’s” and “D’s” and has the goal of passing the class may see a “B” as a success!

Students’ views of failure interact with academic STEM contexts, manifesting in certain dispositions toward STEM challenges and behaviors in response to failure—in other words, students’ mindsets, goal orientations, fear of failure, attributions, and coping responses. Herein, we synthesize research and theory on these five factors and aim to:

• define each factor and discuss its underlying structures,
• explain the likely influence of each factor on STEM undergraduates’ approaches toward academic challenges and responses to failure,
• present a model framework integrating all factors to explain how students might approach academic challenges and respond to failure within undergraduate STEM contexts, and
• suggest next steps in discipline-based education research (DBER) and instruction to test this framework.

During this trajectory, we present four minimodels ( Figures 1 – 4 ) that predict how each factor interacts with others to influence STEM students’ abilities to navigate academic challenges. We also present theoretical and empirical support for these models in the Supplemental Material (Supplemental Figures 1–4). These minimodels build toward our larger model framework (aim 3; Figure 5 ). Thus, we aim to build understanding of each factor within the larger STEM challenge and failure context as we go. We have elected to present the constructs within our framework in a largely dichotomous way to help clarify connections between constructs. However, it is important to note that there is a great deal of complexity within any of the factors presented here (see Considering Nuance ). It is our aim that this work will contribute to future DBER efforts to understand students’ behaviors and outcomes in challenge and failure contexts and spark change in how we think about STEM curricular design and instruction to help students better navigate challenges and failures.

Minimodel 1: mindset and goal orientations. Predicted relationships between mindset (green), goal orientation (blue), and prefailure disposition (orange) for undergraduate STEM contexts. Solid lines represent relationships with empirical support in the literature, primarily drawn from contexts outside undergraduate STEM learning (Supplemental Figure 1). Dashed lines represent relationships without empirical support. Growth mindset leads to a challenge-engaging prefailure disposition; fixed mindset, by contrast, leads to a challenge-avoiding prefailure disposition. Growth mindset leads to mastery goal orientations, while fixed mindset leads to performance goal orientations. Performance goals lead to a challenge-avoiding disposition. Mastery-approach goals lead to a challenge-engaging disposition and mastery-­avoidance goals tend to lead to challenge-avoiding dispositions. We predict, however, that some individuals with mastery-­avoidance goals may express challenge-engaging disposition (dashed line).

Minimodel 4 - Prefailure dispositions, Coping, and Long Term Outcomes: Predicted relationships between prefailure dispositions (orange), attributions (brown), coping responses (red), and long term outcomes (turquoise) for undergraduate STEM contexts. Solid lines represent relationships with empirical support in the literature primarily drawn from contexts outside undergraduate STEM learning (Supplemental Figure 3). Individuals with challenge-engaging dispositions are likely to attribute failure to unstable and controllable causes and engage in adaptive coping. These students are likely to experience academic success. Individuals with challenge-avoiding dispositions are likely to attribute failure to stable and uncontrollable causes and engage in maladaptive coping. This likely leads to loss of interest in the STEM discipline, burnout, and often attrition.

The failure mindset coping model. All connections from previous minimodels are modeled simultaneously, leading to the emergence of two pathways. On the right, growth mindset and mastery goal orientations are linked to more positive long-term outcomes through a challenge-engaging disposition, controllable attributions, and adaptive coping. On the left, a fixed mindset and performance goal orientations are related to more negative long-term outcomes via interaction with fear of failure, challenge avoidance, uncontrollable attributions, and maladaptive coping. All relationships (solid arrows) represent predicted relationships between constructs in undergraduate STEM contexts. However, all relationships are supported by previous work outside undergraduate STEM contexts (see Supplemental Figures).

HOW STUDENTS APPROACH CHALLENGE

To start, we discuss the likely influence of STEM undergraduates’ dispositions and goals on their engagement with a challenge before a failure occurs. We begin our discussion with the construct of mindset, which is likely to affect all subsequent factors either directly or indirectly.

“Mindset,” more formally known as “the implicit theory of intelligence,” is a term introduced by researcher Carol Dweck in 1999. It gained worldwide fame in 2006 with the publication of her best seller Mindset: The New Psychology of Success . Through decades of research studying achievement and success, Dweck repeatedly noticed that individuals with similar skills and abilities experienced drastically different outcomes: some achieving great success, and others fading into obscurity. In some cases, individuals lacking basic skills and abilities rose to great heights through perseverance and hard work, while those with “raw talent” never reached their full potential. These patterns are visible across a wide variety of domains—in the classroom ( Dweck, 2006 , chap. 3, 2009), in the boardroom ( McCall, 1998 ; Collins, 2001 ; Dweck, 2006 , chap. 5), and on multiple sports fields ( Wooden and Jamison, 1997 ; Lewis, 2005 ; Dweck, 2006 , chap. 4). Dweck’s ultimate conclusion is that success is less a result of one’s abilities than of one’s beliefs about one’s abilities and the work put forth in improving those abilities.

At the heart of mindset theory is the idea that some individuals have a fixed mindset— they believe that intelligence and capacity for specific abilities are unchangeable traits—while others have a growth mindset— believing that these qualities are malleable and that the brain and our abilities can grow over time and through effort ( Dweck, 2000 , 2006 ). As an example of these dispositions in STEM contexts, we can look to our vignettes ( Box 1 ). These vignettes represent fictional students constructed from the experiences of the authors and are meant to illustrate constructs. Names are pseudonyms. In the vignettes, we see that both Deirdre (vignette 1) and Nick (vignette 3) have fixed mindsets. Deirdre is “just not a numbers person,” Nick “has always been a smart kid,” and neither of them believes those facts to be changeable. In contrast, Riley (vignette 2) knows “they would have a lot to learn” but does not doubt that they will be able to improve their research skills over time, exemplifying a growth mindset. Notably, individuals can have a fixed mindset regarding some challenges and a growth mindset about others; one might have a fixed mindset about sports and a growth mindset about math, for example ( Gross-Loh, 2015 ). Also, students can hold aspects of both a fixed and growth mindset at the same time ( Dweck, 2006 ; Atwood, 2010 ; Claro et al. , 2016 ). Thus, mindsets depend on context, and one individual can hold fixed and growth mindsets about different things simultaneously.

BOX 1. Vignettes demonstrating students’ approach to challenges and response to failure

Vignette 1: deirdre.

Deirdre waited until she was a senior to take the required math course for her biology degree. When asked why, she would say it was because she is “just not a numbers person,” so she knew the course would be challenging and wanted to avoid it as long as possible. After receiving a “D” on the first exam, Deirdre tells her friends that she’s not surprised she did so poorly, because she was “so totally sick” on the day of the exam. Deirdre attends the first review session for the next exam, but after the TA (teaching assistant) calls on her to work through a problem and then points out a flaw in her logical reasoning and suggests some changes to her study methods, Deirdre decides that the TA just likes embarrassing students, so the sessions are “worthless.” She does not attend any more sessions and thinks: “It is not my fault if I fail. The system is built to make me look dumb. It’s not me that’s a failure.” After failing the second exam, she drops the class to avoid having an “F” on her transcript.

Vignette 2: Riley

Riley was excited to start working in their first laboratory position. They knew they would have a lot to learn, because they had never worked in a lab before, but they also knew that practical experience was the best way to gain the skills needed for their future career. As such, Riley was determined to truly understand each skill and become a proficient scientist. After gaining competence in basic laboratory skills, Riley is given their first lab project. For several weeks, Riley tries to get the first step in the process to work without success. They are disappointed, but try to think of the experience as an opportunity to learn, grow, and become a better scientist: “If I keep it up, I will get better. I know I have it in me.”  Riley knows that if they put in more effort, they will eventually succeed. They continue trying different solutions, incorporating feedback from the advisor, and even asking for additional help from lab mates. Eventually, Riley is successful and feels the thrill of having solved a challenging problem.

Vignette 3: Nick

Nick was the high school valedictorian. He has always enjoyed school, and academic success has always come fairly easily. He is very excited to be starting college, and he takes on a very ambitious course load for his first semester as a physics major, excited to prove his talent. But college courses are different than expected, and when midterms are over, Nick is shocked to find that he has “C’s” in most of his courses. Nick schedules meetings with all his professors, and several of them suggest different ways that he might change his approach to note-taking and studying the course material. But Nick is confused by that. He has always been a smart kid, and smart kids do not have to study. If he must start studying now that he is in college, does that mean he is not actually smart? He starts to believe that he does not have the ability to grasp the material. The thought makes Nick anxious and upset, and whenever he sits down to study, he becomes distracted by negative thoughts. He spends hours in the library, but most of this “study time” is actually spent worrying and thinking “I have to do good on this next exam. I need to get an ‘A.’ I’ll never become an astrophysicist if I don’t get an ‘A.’ They’re all naturally smart. If I can’t get an ‘A,’ maybe I’m just not good enough. What will people think of me!?”

The Impact of Mindset during Academic Challenge and Failure

One’s mindset affects one in profound ways, influencing self-­perception (e.g., Ehrlinger et al. , 2016 ), overall goals for learning (e.g., Haimovitz and Dweck, 2017 ; Lou and Noels, 2017 ), approaches to challenges and new opportunities (e.g., Dweck, 2007 ), and responses to criticisms and failures (e.g., Forsythe and Johnson, 2017 ). Individuals with a fixed mindset are more likely to see learning as an opportunity to prove their talent and intelligence, or “win,” and may see academic challenges as things to be avoided (a challenge-avoiding disposition). They will likely quit easily in the face of challenges and become defensive under criticism, as they see it as a personal attack on fixed traits and personal worth ( Forsythe and Johnson, 2017 ). For example, Deirdre (vignette 1) was unable to use her TA’s constructive criticism to help her improve her math study skills. Instead, her fixed mindset contributed to her conclusion that the TA was picking on her. Likewise, Nick (vignette 3) began to question his personal worth when his identity as a “smart kid” was threatened by his poor performance in physics, and his resulting anxiety led to rumination. In contrast, those having a growth mindset see learning as a chance to improve and actively seek out challenges, regardless of the risk of “looking silly” (a challenge-engaging disposition). They are more likely to be optimistic, to persevere in the face of setbacks, and to feel energized in the face of failures ( Forsythe and Johnson, 2017 ). Under criticism, those with a growth mindset tend not to attach the feedback to their self-worth and focus instead on improving the target skill ( Dweck, 2000 , 2007 ; Ehrlinger et al. , 2016 ; Forsythe and Johnson, 2017 ). Accordingly, when Riley’s (vignette 2) experiment did not succeed right away, they were able to use the advisor’s feedback to work toward improving their research skills. The challenges they faced motivated them to continue putting forth effort, which ultimately led to success. Table 1 contains common phrases that students holding each of the two mindsets might think or say when approaching a challenge or confronting a failure.

A comparison of fixed versus growth mindset using hypothetical student voices

While a fixed mindset is most often conceptualized as holding a fixed negative perception of one’s abilities (e.g., vignette 1: Deirdre is “just not a numbers person”), individuals can hold fixed positive perceptions of their abilities as well (e.g., vignette 3: Nick “has always been a smart kid”). Individuals having fixed positive perceptions can succeed, at least for a while, with a fixed mindset. The problem is that this success, in large part, depends on their ability to avoid failure, often by avoiding challenges ( Dweck, 2007 ). When such individuals do inevitably encounter struggle or failure, they often respond in an unproductive manner. So, when Nick was unable to avoid challenges and failures in his physics classes, he was ill-equipped to deal with these obstacles, which distracted him from productive action.

Although mindset studies in K–12 contexts are relatively common, there continues to be very little published research that specifically investigates mindset’s effects on noncognitive factors in college-level STEM environments. Dweck (2006) did find that undergraduate students in introductory chemistry courses with growth mindsets demonstrated similar adaptive behaviors to those previously discussed (e.g., changing study strategies, seeing failures as opportunities for growth), while those with fixed mindsets used ineffective study methods, avoided challenges, and were more likely to lose interest in further pursuing chemistry. This suggests that mindset might have similar impacts in undergraduate STEM contexts as in previously studied contexts. Considering the potential of mindset interventions to shift how students approach challenges and respond to failures, it is worthwhile to further examine this construct in STEM-­specific undergraduate contexts, as we propose in this essay.

Despite the strong focus on noncognitive factors as outcomes in this essay, it is worth noting that a majority of mindset studies have investigated academic success as an outcome of holding a growth mindset. Several studies, including correlational, quasi-experimental, and pre–post intervention designs, have found that a growth mindset is associated with higher academic achievement for students (e.g., Blackwell et al. , 2007 ; Paunesku et al. , 2015 ; Nichols, 2017 ). In contrast, fixed mindsets are often associated with low achievement (e.g., Dweck, 2000 , 2007 ). However, in recent years, researchers have questioned the benefit of mindset interventions to improve academic success. Sisk and colleagues conducted two meta-analyses on this topic ( Sisk et al. , 2018 ). In the first, they examined the link between mindset and academic achievement as well as possible moderators of that relationship. In the second, they looked at the relationship between mindset interventions and academic outcomes. After investigating the results of 129 studies in the first meta-analysis, Sisk and colleagues found only a weak relationship between mindset and academic achievement with very small effects. After analyzing the results of 29 studies for the second meta-analysis, they found very few significant relationships between interventions and academic outcomes. These results raise the question: “Does mindset actually improve academic success, and if so, for whom and in what contexts?” Notably, interventions that were found to be most successful improved performance for “at-risk” students (i.e., groups underserved in STEM) who were facing challenges (e.g., Aronson et al. , 2002 ; Yeager et al. , 2016 ). This nuance is acknowledged in the meta-analyses ( Sisk et al. , 2018 ). Given that many studies did not find significant effects but that some studies did, researchers have called for additional studies to shed light on how mindset affects academic achievement in specific contexts (e.g., STEM contexts) and for specific groups, such as underserved groups in STEM ( Sisk et al. , 2018 ).

While these meta-analyses bring into question the efficacy of mindset interventions to improve academic success specifically, they do not constitute an argument against our proposed framework. Sisk and colleagues (2018 ) did not consider noncognitive factors that may result from mindset interventions (e.g., goal orientation, positive coping). We focus specifically on these factors in this essay, because they contribute to students’ overall positive development (e.g., their ability to cope adaptively with failures and obstacles) and are arguably critical to success as students progress into their future careers.

Goal Orientation

A distinct construct, but one closely related to mindset, is goal orientation ( Table 2 ), which describes the goals and aims students tend to hold when approaching a new task. These goals fall into two main orientations: 1) mastery or 2) performance ( Pintrich, 2000a , b ). Individuals with mastery goal orientations are motivated by a desire to achieve competence in a task. Riley (vignette 2) is an example of someone driven by mastery goals. Their aim in doing the work is to become a proficient scientist, and they seek to truly understand what they are doing. Alternatively, for those with a performance goal orientation, appearing competent to those around them is the central motivating factor. Nick (vignette 3) holds a clear performance goal orientation, placing high value on appearing smart to others. Another way of conceptualizing this is that mastery goals are internally driven by self-appointed standards, while performance goals are externally driven by normative standards (i.e., evaluation criteria agreed on by people of a certain group; Kassin et al. , 2017 ).

A comparison of goal orientations using hypothetical student voices

Further exploration shows that each type of goal orientation can be broken into two subtypes: approach and avoidance. Individuals with an approach orientation are driven by a desire to gain (or approach) success, much like Riley’s (vignette 2) desire to gain competence. Those with an avoidance orientation, on the other hand, are driven to prevent (or avoid) failure, much like Deirdre’s (vignette 1) desire to avoid failing her course or looking dumb. By crossing the two goal orientations with these subtypes, we arrive at four categories of motivations, represented in Table 2 ( Elliot and Church, 1997 ; Elliot and McGregor, 2001 ). A student with a mastery-approach orientation is driven by a desire to succeed at some internally-held standard. By contrast, a student with a mastery-avoidance orientation seeks to avoid failing to meet an internally held standard. One with a performance-approach orientation wishes to attain success on some normative standard; someone with a performance-avoidance orientation wishes to avoid failing to meet a normative standard ( Elliot and Church, 1997 ; Moller and Elliot, 2006 ; Chen et al. , 2009 ). Because of this 2 × 2 nature of goal orientations, we could assess two individuals as both having a mastery orientation. Yet, depending on whether their orientation is mastery-approach or mastery-avoidance, we would expect different approaches to challenge and responses to failure.

The Impact of Goal Orientation during Academic Challenge and Failure

Based on theory, we expect those who hold a performance orientation, regardless of whether it is approach or avoidance oriented, to exhibit the challenge-avoiding behaviors we previously discussed as being typical of a fixed mindset (seeking easy as opposed to challenging tasks, making excuses, etc.; Elliot and Dweck, 1988 ; Elliot and Church, 1997 ; Elliot and McGregor, 2001 ; Moller and Elliot, 2006 ). Empirical work supports this hypothesis. Individuals with performance orientations tend to show reduced effort, less creative thinking, and compromised problem-solving in challenging situations ( Elliot and Dweck, 1988 ; Harackiewicz et al. , 2000 ; Doménech-Betoret and Gómez-Artiga, 2014 ; Mikail et al. , 2017 ). Furthermore, evidence from physics and chemistry graduates suggests that individuals with performance orientations tend to be less productive over the course of their career than individuals with mastery orientations ( Hazari et al. , 2010 ). On the other hand, studies observe conflicting patterns of behavior among students with mastery orientations. Those with mastery-approach orientations consistently exhibit challenge-engaging behaviors (staying motivated, being optimistic, etc.; Elliot and Church, 1997 ; Elliot and McGregor, 2001 ; Chen et al. , 2009 ). The behavior of individuals with mastery-avoidance orientations is more ambiguous; they may exhibit either challenge-avoiding or challenge-approaching behaviors. Recall that mastery-avoidance students want to avoid failing to meet some internally held standard. This motivation may cause them to be extremely motivated to achieve, seeking out challenges to enhance their knowledge (challenge-approach). However, should they begin to experience obstacles and the specter of failure be raised, their behavior may change. They may begin to offer excuses or reduce effort, cushioning their self-worth by offering other reasons, beside personal ability, for why they may not succeed (challenge-avoiding; Chen et al. , 2009 ).

While certain behaviors might often indicate the presence of a specific goal orientation, this is not always the case, and we must consider this interaction with more nuance. For example, if Deirdre (vignette 1) and Nick (vignette 3) were both in your class, you might notice that neither of them completed an optional study guide for an upcoming exam. While their actions were the same, their behaviors were motivated by different goal orientations. Deirdre likely assumed that the study guide, like the TA in the study session, would be “worthless,” because she perceives that the “system” is designed for her to fail. This would allow her to justify her failure and avoid attributing the failure to her own shortcomings, thus avoiding embarrassment or shame (performance-avoidance). Nick, however, was probably so distracted by his negative thoughts and his need to perform at the highest level that he could not focus enough to complete the study guide (performance-approach). Although outwardly these two students appear similar, they are in fact motivated by different factors, and their internal processes are different. Similarly, two students with high grades might be motivated by two very different underlying goal orientations; one may have a mastery-approach orientation, while the other may have a performance-approach orientation. Although both students may typically be high achievers, they respond quite differently when a challenge results in failure, especially because students with mastery-approach orientations are buffered against the negative impact of failure on self-worth ( Niiya et al. , 2004 ). This is something we should consider as instructors when helping students navigate challenges and failures. To help visualize the interconnectedness between these themes in the literature of mindset, goal orientations, and prefailure dispositions for STEM undergraduates, we created minimodel 1 ( Figure 1 ).

Fear of Failure

Yet another noncognitive factor at play within this paradigm is fear of failure (FF), which has a strong influence on how students might approach an academic challenge. FF has been explained by aspects that are emotional/affective (i.e., a temporary negative emotional state; Martin and Marsh, 2003 ), related to personality (i.e., a stable trait oriented toward avoiding situations in which failure is likely; Noguera et al. , 2013 ), and cognitive (i.e., perceptions of achievement contexts as threats to success; Conroy, 2001 ). Modern studies recognize that all three components contribute to one complete definition of FF ( Cacciotti, 2015 ; Conroy et al. , 2001 ). Namely, FF is a “temporary cognitive and emotional reaction towards environmental stimuli that are apprehended as threats in achievement contexts” ( Cacciotti, 2015 , p. 39). It is also important to acknowledge that the effect of any one factor on FF depends on the particular achievement context an individual is facing ( Conroy et al. , 2001 ).

The Impact of FF during Academic Challenge and Failure

In general, FF has a negative influence on challenge engagement (e.g., Bledsoe and Baskin, 2014 ). Perhaps the most negative outcome of FF is that it leads to self-handicapping , the creation or assertion of obstacles that might “explain away” poor performance on a task ( Elliot and Church, 2003 ; Elliot and Thrash, 2004 ; Bartels and Herman, 2011 ). Self-handicapping commonly involves 1) making excuses either before or after failure occurs and 2) reducing effort ( Berglas and Jones, 1978 ; Chen et al. , 2009 ; del Mar Ferradás et al. , 2016 ). As an example, Deirdre (vignette 1) engaged in both of these behaviors. She excused her poor performance by asserting she was “totally sick,” and she reduced effort by not attending study sessions. Now, after future failures, Deirdre can console herself: “Well, of course I didn’t do that well; I didn’t even go to the study sessions!” Self-handicapping is a defense mechanism that protects one’s sense of self-worth in the short term by alleviating threats, but it has high long-term costs ( Zuckerman and Tsai, 2005 ; Chen et al. , 2009 ; Cox, 2009 ). In Deirdre’s case, not going to the study sessions and excusing her poor performance might protect her from immediate failure or feeling “stupid,” but it ultimately had negative effects on her class performance. This result is typical of such behavior ( Zuckerman and Tsai, 2005 ; Chen et al. , 2009 ). Collectively, the two forms of self-handicapping may be thought of as contributing to a challenge-avoiding prefailure disposition.

As we have already discussed, individuals are likely to enter challenges with different goal orientations. These goal orientations interact with FF to predict which prefailure disposition an individual is likely to exhibit ( Figure 2 ). Because individuals with a mastery-approach orientation are driven by a desire to achieve internal standards, they are less likely to view challenges as threats ( Elliot and Church, 1997 ; Chen et al. , 2009 ). FF is therefore unlikely to influence, or be influenced by, the mastery-approach orientation. FF is, however, related to the other three goal orientations ( Moller and Elliot, 2006 ). Those with avoidance orientations (both performance and mastery) wish to prevent some real or perceived incompetence, making them more likely to interpret challenges as threatening and leading to higher FF ( Elliot and Church, 1997 ; Elliot and Thrash, 2004 ). People with avoidance orientations are thus likely to increase self-handicapping behaviors, resulting in an overall challenge-avoiding disposition ( Elliot and McGregor, 2001 ; Conroy and Elliot, 2004 ; Chen et al. , 2009 ). Fear of failure is also related to performance-approach orientations, as some individuals seek achievement as a way to avoid failure ( Elliot and Church, 1997 ; Conroy and Elliot, 2004 ). Notably, individuals with a performance-approach orientation who are also high in FF actually show fewer challenge-avoiding behaviors such as self-handicapping ( Elliot and Church, 1997 ; Elliot and McGregor, 2001 ; Chen et al. , 2009 ). This relationship is likely attributable to these individuals making an effort to achieve to avoid realizing their FF. The concern, then, is how these individuals will respond when struggles and failures become unavoidable, as is often the case in science, where pursuit of novel discoveries requires engagement with situations in which failure is likely. Altogether, the current state of the literature suggests that the interaction of goal orientations and FF in predicting behavior is highly complex.

Minimodel 2: FF and goal orientations. Predicted relationships between fear of failure (purple), goal orientation (blue), and prefailure disposition (orange) for undergraduate STEM contexts. Solid lines represent relationships with empirical support in the literature primarily drawn from contexts outside undergraduate STEM learning (Supplemental Figure 2). Dashed lines represent relationships without empirical support. Reciprocal relationships exist between FF and challenge-avoiding prefailure dispositions and also between FF and three of the four goal orientations: mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance. Goal orientations may directly influence the different prefailure dispositions. Note that performance-approach goal orientations are hypothesized to be related to lower levels of challenge-avoiding behaviors like making excuses and reduced efforts when combined with higher FF (red line), which is different from the predictions in minimodel 1 in the absence of FF.

An understanding of the causes of FF is key to analyzing why we see such variable individual behavior. Conroy and colleagues (2001 ) interviewed elite performers and athletes in depth about 1) how they determine whether or not something is a failure and 2) their perceived consequences of failing. Based on respondents’ answers, those authors assert that FF comes from the influence of five distinct factors: 1) fear of shame or embarrassment (e.g., “When I am not succeeding, I worry about what others think of me.”); 2) fear of devaluing one’s self-estimate (e.g., “When I am failing, I blame my lack of talent.”); 3) fear of having an uncertain future (e.g., “When I am failing, it upsets my ‘plan’ for the future.”); 4) fear of losing social influence (e.g., “When I am not succeeding, some people are not interested in me anymore.”); and 5) fear of upsetting important others (e.g., “When I am failing, I lose the trust of people who are important to me.”). An understanding of which fears are most related to specific goal orientations and, thus, to prechallenge dispositions, could help explain the differences seen in actual rates of self-handicapping behaviors and different prefailure dispositions in STEM. However, there is very little research addressing these questions in undergraduate STEM contexts. More nuanced investigations will be of great importance, because students with high FF might be less likely to pursue STEM degrees or, if they do choose STEM fields, could experience high levels of attrition when confronted with challenges ( Cacciotti, 2015 ). As a starting point for these investigations, we use the research described here to build minimodel 2, which explores FF, goal orientations, and prefailure dispositions ( Figure 2 ).

HOW STUDENTS RESPOND TO FAILURE

Thus far, we have described constructs that primarily influence how STEM students engage with challenges (i.e., antecedents to failure), which in turn affect subsequent responses to failure. In this section, we focus on factors that describe the way students perceive failures and respond after they occur. We explore the relationships between these factors and the constructs discussed earlier.

Attributions

Attributions are the perceived causes of successes or failures that occur in an achievement context ( Weiner, 1985 ). Researchers describe attributions using three qualities. “Locus” refers to whether we see the cause as initiating from within ourselves (e.g., “I was responsible”) or outside ourselves (e.g., “They were responsible”; Rotter, 1966 ; Weiner, 1985 ). “Stability” refers to whether a cause is relatively permanent (i.e., whether the cause is lasting and unchangeable from context to context) or impermanent ( Rotter, 1966 ). “Controllability” refers to whether or not we view a cause as within our control ( Weiner, 1979 ). Different combinations of these three characteristics result in four commonly perceived causes of success and failure: ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck ( Weiner et al. , 1971 ). An ability attribution assigns cause to one’s ability or inability to do a task. Ability was originally described by Weiner as having an internal locus that is stable and uncontrollable (1985). Effort, on the other hand, assigns cause to the effort one exerts during the task and is considered internal, unstable (i.e., the amount of effort one exerts can change from situation to situation), and controllable. Task difficulty and luck have an external locus, meaning that students view the cause of the failure as initiating from a source outside themselves. Task difficulty is considered external, stable, and uncontrollable, while luck is considered external, unstable, and uncontrollable. Other examples of each of these attributions as they might be used by students after experiencing a classroom challenge can be viewed in Table 3 .

An illustration of different failure attributions using student voices

Whether or not an attribution is viewed as stable and controllable determines whether a student will view past failures and future challenges as within their control and respond with productive strategies intended to avoid future failures. Whether an attribution is viewed as internal or external determines how the failure will affect a student’s self-esteem and self-efficacy following the outcome ( Weiner et al. , 1971 ; Clifford et al. , 1988 ; Sukariyah and Assaad, 2015 ; Simpson and Maltese, 2017 ). These characteristics have important implications for how students cope with failures and are also related to the various constructs discussed earlier.

The Impact of Attributions during Academic Challenge and Failure

STEM students’ prefailure dispositions are likely to predict postfailure attributions. These, in turn, are likely to predict how students ultimately cope with failure. Students with a fixed mindset are likely to use ability attributions or external attributions to explain failures ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ; Mueller and Dweck, 1998 ; Robins and Pals, 2002 ). These students see ability as stable and uncontrollable, which often leads them to adopt a helpless response pattern in which they view future failures as inevitable ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ; Elliot and Dweck, 1988 ; Robins and Pals, 2002 ). Thus, they disengage or become preoccupied with fears about failure. This is exemplified by Nick (vignette 3), who views his lack of ability as the obstacle to his success. This is counter to a student with a growth mindset who is likely to view failure as related to a lack of effort ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ; Hong et al. , 1999 ; Robins and Pals, 2002 ; Blackwell et al. , 2007 ; Baird and Harlow, 2012 ; Smiley et al. , 2016 ). Like Riley (vignette 2), such a student is likely to view a failure as something that was within their control (internal locus and controllable), could have been changed, and can be changed in the future (unstable). Growth-minded students are therefore much more likely to use adaptive coping strategies and to tolerate failure to a greater degree ( Clifford et al. , 1988 ; Hong et al. , 1999 ; Smiley et al. , 2016 ).

Similar to mindset, goal orientations show strong relationships with effort and ability attributions. In general, mastery goals predict effort attributions, whereas performance goals predict ability attributions ( Ames and Archer, 1988 ; Robins and Pals, 2002 ; Grant and Dweck, 2003 ; Smiley et al. , 2016 ), although certain contexts (e.g., group vs. individual work settings) and student backgrounds (e.g., hailing from an Asian culture) may change this relationship ( Grant and Dweck, 2003 ). Some work suggests that goal orientations completely mediate the effect of mindset on attributions; that is, mindset only affects attributions via its influence on goal orientations. For example, Smiley et al. (2016) proposed that mindset affects whether one holds mastery or performance orientation goals and that these goals, not mindset , influence postfailure attributions. But more research is needed to investigate whether this is always the case.

While most work has focused on how mindset and goal orientations influence ability and effort, which are internal attributions, it is worth considering predictions regarding external attributions for failure, including luck and task difficulty. As discussed earlier, FF and avoidance goal orientations lead to self-handicapping behaviors, which result in external attributions for failure ( Chen et al. , 2009 ; del Mar Ferradás et al. , 2016 ). This is reflected in vignette 1, when Deirdre blames her failure on being sick and even sets herself up to blame her future failures on the TA before these failures have even occurred. Having external attributions protects against the negative effects that failing may have on one’s self-efficacy ( Weiner et al. , 1971 ; Zuckerman, 1979 ; del Mar Ferradás et al. , 2016 ). At times, this may help scientists to maintain their motivation, and indeed, some professional scientists hold external attributions for failure (e.g., Simpson and Maltese, 2017 ). Yet such external attributions are often seen as uncontrollable, which leads to pessimistic views about future success ( Núñez et al. , 2005 ) and thus maladaptive coping (discussed below).

An interesting exception to this is found in work done with typical college-age (20- to 24-year-old) Navy recruits. This work examined a factor considered external, unstable, and controllable—the strategy one uses to achieve a particular task. Recruits who attributed failure to this cause tended to have as positive or more positive responses to failure than students who attributed the failure to effort ( Clifford et al. , 1988 ). This may be because this attribution is seen as both controllable and external , which might alleviate self-blame associated with failure while also resulting in adaptive coping. This result aligns with much research supporting the claim that attributions viewed as unstable and controllable are likely to elicit adaptive coping responses from students, because they allow students to view failures as temporary and within their control. Therefore, we have incorporated these characteristics into minimodel 3 ( Figure 3 ). Because theory and research on external versus internal loci affecting coping are mixed and indicate both negative and positive responses to failure, we have not included these in our model.

Minimodel 3: attribution. Predicted relationships between mindset (green), goal orientation (blue), attributions (brown), and coping style (red) for undergraduate STEM contexts. Solid lines represent relationships with empirical support in the literature primarily drawn from contexts outside of undergraduate STEM learning (Supplemental Figure 3). Those with a growth mindset and mastery orientations are more likely to attribute the cause of a failure to something within their ability to change. This, in turn, is related to more adaptive coping behaviors. By contrast, those with fixed mindsets and performance goal orientations are likely to judge failures as resulting from something beyond their control, which is related to maladaptive coping.

We define “coping” as individuals’ behavioral responses to stressors (such as failures) that typically serve to allow one to tolerate or minimize the stress ( Skinner et al. , 2003 ). Identifying the specific coping mechanisms STEM students use when dealing with academic challenges and subsequent failures and relating them to the constructs previously discussed can help us better understand how and why our students respond in certain ways, as well as how these responses influence their success and long-term well-being. For example, a student may cope with stress by engaging in problem solving with the intention of figuring out and alleviating the problem causing the stress, as Riley (vignette 2) did when they continued to troubleshoot their research project. Alternatively, they may choose to escape the stress by avoiding the stressful situation or disengaging mentally, as demonstrated when Deirdre (vignette 1) did not attend study sessions and dropped her class ( Skinner et al. , 2003 ). A coping mechanism can be considered adaptive when it helps an individual maintain their well-being and/or move beyond a stressor or maladaptive when it exacerbates threats to the individual’s well-being and prevents resolution or progress beyond the stressor ( Carver et al. , 1989 ; Lazarus, 1993 ; Skinner et al. , 2003 ; Shin et al. , 2014 ). Whether or not a coping mechanism is considered adaptive or maladaptive depends on the specific stressor ( Lazarus, 1993 ; Skinner et al. , 2003 ). For example, it may be maladaptive to avoid a stressor when it can be easily resolved with little effort (e.g., a student may avoid failing an exam simply by studying), but it could be adaptive to avoid a stressor when nothing can be done to resolve it. For example, when a student realizes that they cannot do well in a course due to unforeseen personal challenges, the student may choose to avoid course challenges by dropping the course. Thus, to assess whether a coping strategy is adaptive or maladaptive, we must consider context.

Coping can be considered either a stable characteristic of an individual or context dependent, with an individual’s coping strategy depending on the stressor and context at hand (reviewed in Lazarus, 1993 ). We view coping as largely context dependent; that is, the context interacts with the person to determine the kind of coping strategy they will employ. This view aligns with our ideas that coping can be unique to the academic context a student experiences, and the characteristics of that context, such as class supports and instructor actions, influence coping. However, we also draw upon theory that predicts that coping responses to similar situations will become increasingly stable over time ( Spencer et al. , 1997 ). Thus, we expect students to have predispositions toward certain coping styles—perhaps resulting from their mindsets, goal orientations, and past coping experiences—but to be influenced by the context in which they experience a stressor. In keeping with the view of coping as context specific, we define “adaptive academic coping” as coping that both helps students to maintain well-being and moves them productively toward desired academic outcomes and “maladaptive academic coping” as coping that poses a threat to students’ well-being and/or prevents students from achieving desired academic outcomes.

Postfailure Coping and Relationships with Other Constructs

In their extensive review and critique of coping structure, Skinner and colleagues (2003 ) describe multiple distinct categories of coping that are well-supported in the broader coping literature ( Table 4 ). Evidence in the literature suggests that several of these categories are likely to be consistently adaptive or maladaptive in K–12 academic contexts ( Struthers et al. , 2000 ; Brdar et al. , 2006 ; Alimoglu et al. , 2010 ; Sevinç and Gizir, 2014 ; Shin et al. , 2014 ). We draw on this work to predict whether these strategies might serve as adaptive or maladaptive in undergraduate STEM contexts and present these predictions along with example quotes in Table 4 . Although we anticipate exceptions to our predictions, these generalizations will likely hold in undergraduate STEM contexts based on previous work.

Definitions (adapted from Skinner et al. , 2003 ), examples of coping behaviors in academic contexts using hypothetical student voices, and predicted outcomes of specific coping constructs

As previously discussed, the specific strategies that students use to cope with a problem or stressor matter, because they can either advance students through problems and support their well-being (adaptive) or they can prevent problems from being solved and exacerbate threats to well-being (maladaptive). Furthermore, coping strategies become increasingly stable over time ( Lazarus, 1993 ; Spencer et al. , 1997 ), leading to trends in how students deal with problems in specific contexts. So, STEM students who avoid studying for chemistry once are more likely to avoid studying again later in the semester and in future classes. Similarly, students who blame others for a first research failure may also be more likely to do so as their research careers progress. Practicing maladaptive coping strategies can have lasting consequences. However, as STEM instructors, we have the opportunity to leverage the constructs described earlier to help students adopt and practice adaptive coping strategies and to create a climate in which adaptive coping is a more likely response to failure (see Implications for Research and Instruction ). This can have lasting positive consequences for our students.

We use the research described earlier to build minimodel 4 ( Figure 4 ), which explores our predicted relationships between prefailure dispositions, adaptive and maladaptive coping, and long-term outcomes for STEM undergraduates.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: PREDICTING HOW STEM UNDERGRADUATES APPROACH CHALLENGES AND RESPOND TO FAILURE

Just as prefailure disposition can be predicted based on mindset, goal orientation, and FF, so can students’ postfailure attributions and coping styles. We know from research outside STEM and in K–12 settings that students who hold a growth mindset, are low in FF, and/or approach problems with mastery goal orientations (challenge-approach) tend to attribute failures to controllable, unstable causes (effort attributions) and respond with adaptive problem-focused coping strategies that advance their ability to learn from the problem and make progress ( Clifford et al. , 1988 ; Heine et al. , 2001 ; Brdar et al. , 2006 ; Mortenson, 2006 ; Shin et al. , 2014 ; Snyder et al. , 2014 ; Smiley et al. , 2016 ; Lou and Noels, 2017 ). Likewise, students who hold a fixed mindset, are high in FF, and/or have a performance-based or avoidance-based goal orientation (challenge-avoidance) tend to attribute failures to uncontrollable causes (ability attributions) and cope by venting, avoiding the problem, and distancing themselves mentally from the perceived failure ( Heine et al. , 2001 ; Robins and Pals, 2002 ; Brdar et al. , 2006 ; Mortenson, 2006 ; Shin et al. , 2014 ; Snyder et al. , 2014 ; Smiley et al. , 2016 ; Lou and Noels, 2017 ). Holding with our definition of “maladaptive,” these coping strategies do not further these students’ learning and result in further threats to their well-being.

Based on these findings, we predict that STEM undergraduates who use adaptive coping strategies will tend to demonstrate a greater ability to navigate scientific obstacles, seek out subsequent challenges, and show perseverance and a positive disposition in the face of setbacks. We can also predict that STEM undergraduates who use maladaptive coping to deal with challenges are more likely to lose interest in pursuing STEM education, to suffer burnout, and to leave STEM. In an effort to bring theory to bear on our understanding of how STEM undergraduates develop the ability to navigate failure, and as a starting point for future investigations, we present an integrated complete model predicting how the previously discussed concepts influence STEM undergraduates’ engagement with academic challenges and responses to failures ( Figure 5 ). This model integrates the four previously presented minimodels. In this final model, the lines present predicted relationships, because, as of yet, little empirical support exists for these relationships in STEM undergraduate contexts. However, each relationship is based on empirical evidence present in work from K–12 contexts or higher-education outside STEM (see Supplemental Figures 1–4). It is our hope that this comprehensive model will generate future directions for DBER research and rich discussion aimed at uncovering how undergraduate STEM students develop into perseverant, challenge-engaging individuals. However, we caution our readers that this model is an imperfect representation of reality as described in the following sections.

Considering Nuance

In the previous sections, Figure 5 , and much of the literature addressing these concepts, each concept is distilled to its most defining characteristics, and typical examples are presented in order to construct a clear picture of interactions between constructs. Yet, in reality, these constructs and their interactions are much more complex. Three primary considerations increase this complexity.

First, though these constructs are often presented as dichotomous or discrete, with individuals falling into mutually exclusive units, they in fact represent continuous spectra and are often not mutually exclusive. For example, students may believe that intelligence is malleable to a point but that there is a certain amount of our intelligence that is fixed. These students would fall in the middle of the spectrum from growth to fixed mindset, termed “mixed mindset.” In fact, Dweck’s research has found that around 20% of the general population have mixed mindsets ( Dweck, 2006 ). There are also specific examples of this in K–12 academics and athletics ( Atwood, 2010 ; Claro et al. , 2016 ). Students can also hold multiple goal orientations at once. In fact, many studies describe how students hold a mastery-approach goal orientation at the same time as a performance-approach goal orientation (e.g., Pintrich, 2000a ). Likewise, after a single failure, a student may hold both uncontrollable and controllable attributions ( Weiner, 1985 ). This can make it challenging to tease apart the effects of these dispositions. It can make it even more challenging to consider how to apply knowledge of these constructs in a STEM classroom, as it can be hard to easily discern students’ dispositions.

Second, whether or not a student adopts a growth mindset, mastery orientation, or controllable attribution is highly context dependent. For example, we know that one’s mindset can vary depending on the discipline or achievement context ( Atwood, 2010 ; Claro et al. , 2016 ), and we hypothesize that mindset may also vary among subdisciplines. This has led to studies that highlight how students can hold different mindsets depending on the academic setting ( Quihuis et al. , 2002 ) and the development of instruments to measure mindset in specific academic domains (e.g., I’lhan and Çetin, 2013). Coping responses to failure also vary across disciplines. For example, professionals in math fields were less likely to see embracing failure as a part of their success than those in other STEM disciplines ( Simpson and Maltese, 2017 ). In addition, aspects of the learning context apart from discipline affect these constructs. Grant and Dweck (2003) found that group work was more likely to push students toward a performance goal orientation regardless of their mindset and regardless of whether they attributed their success or failure to effort. They hypothesized that, in a group context, students would be more responsible for the outcomes of the group and thus feel more pressure to perform. This example illustrates that how we structure the learning environment is likely to influence students’ dispositions and also that it can alter expected relationships between constructs. Thus, while the model presented above draws on the most typical relationships between these constructs, these relationships do not always hold.

Third, a student’s background and culture influence these constructs and the degree to which students might respond to interventions targeting each construct. This is important because these differences exist along lines that distinguish historically underserved students from well-served students in STEM. For example, mindset interventions have had a more beneficial effect for disadvantaged students ( Blackwell et al. , 2007 ; Yeager et al. , 2016 ; Fink et al. , 2018 ), leading to increased academic achievement and retention in college courses ( Aronson et al. , 2002 ). Emphasizing a growth mindset has been shown to buffer the negative effects of poverty ( Claro et al. , 2016 ) and stereotype threat among racial minorities ( Good et al. , 2003 ). Mindset interventions have also been shown to be effective in reducing the achievement gap between men and women ( Good et al. , 2003 ). In addition, holding a mastery-­approach goal orientation has a more positive effect on members of underrepresented groups. Due to phenomena including stereotype threat and low belonging, minority groups in majority settings (women, racial/ethnic minorities, low socioeconomic status, etc.) are likely to perform better when they emphasize their individual ability to master the material instead of their performance in front of others ( Darnon et al. , 2018 ). Differences across international lines also play a role, as Korean students who have performance goal orientations often attribute failure to lack of effort ( Grant and Dweck, 2003 ), a relationship that would be uncommon in American culture, which typically associates mastery goal orientations with effort attributions. Responses postfailure are no exception, with gender and culture playing a role in choice of coping strategy. For example, Simpson and Maltese (2017) describe how women are more likely than men to personalize failure, while men use it as a motivator. Additionally, in a study comparing coping responses to academic failure in Chinese versus American university students, American students were more likely to engage in support seeking than their Chinese counterparts ( Mortenson et al. , 2009 ).

We advocate for considering and exploring this nuance in both future research and instruction within undergraduate STEM contexts. Importantly, a more nuanced approach will allow us to consider how each student’s unique characteristics and life experiences influence the interplay of these factors and will allow us to examine instances in which the models above do not apply, which may prove more informative than typical cases.

Implications for Research and Instruction

Across DBER disciplines, there are relatively few studies that examine STEM undergraduates’ dispositions before failure and their reactions postfailure. There are even fewer that consider interactions between three or more of the concepts discussed here. This is an important area of work in which DBER scholars can make a contribution. The model presented in this paper, which draws on theory and research from a variety of fields, is one framework that could guide such investigations. However, there are many other theories and frameworks that could also be used to address these questions (see Limitations, Assumptions and Related Constructs for Consideration ), and we hope to encourage broad exploration of this topic. Given the complexity of the proposed model, it is unlikely that any one study would appropriately and fully test all hypothesized relationships among variables. Rather, we suggest that mixed-methods studies that investigate the potential correlational and causal links among several, but not all, of the variables described in our model would be the most effective means of providing support for this framework. Further convergent evidence could also then be built through the use of meta-analysis and systematic reviews. An accumulation of evidence over time can support, or refute, aspects of the model, much like studies of other complex models described in social psychology (e.g., Lent et al. , 2002 ). More specifically, we feel that this model could help frame studies that aim to 1) examine how prefailure dispositions and responses to failures are unique in the undergraduate STEM learning context—a context in which failures are common and yet students often enter with an expectation of fast success; 2) distinguish between how student-level factors (e.g., preclass dispositions and attitudes as addressed in this essay) and course-level factors (e.g., instructor actions and class design not addressed in this essay) affect how students approach challenges and respond to failure; and 3) design and examine interventions aimed at helping students engage with challenges and respond to failures. This third priority, which is strongly supported by the other two, should be a central focus of future DBER work, considering the widespread goals of student retention in STEM fields and development of the next generation of challenge-engaging, perseverant scientists.

Work on interventions is at the heart of both future research and instruction because interventions are instructor implemented and can be tested and adjusted via DBER research. Each construct in our model is a leverage point at which to employ and test interventions. Fortunately, work done mainly in K–12 contexts can inform intervention design. Prior interventions on mindset have exposed students to this concept through in-­person or online explanations of how intelligence can change with effort (e.g., Hong et al. , 1999 ; Blackwell et al. , 2007 ; Yeager et al. , 2016 ). In general, mindset interventions resulted in more productive problem solving, increased resilience, and use of productive coping strategies ( Hong et al. , 1999 ; Blackwell et al. , 2007 ), and they have been successfully employed in STEM university settings (e.g., Fink et al. , 2018 ). Although questions remain regarding whether these interventions are effective in increasing academic achievement ( Sisk et al. , 2018 ), we hypothesize that they promote other important outcomes for STEM students, such as willingness to confront research challenges and improved ability to cope with failure. Interventions targeting goal orientations have long focused on promoting a collaborative or individualistic, instead of competitive, learning culture in order to help students develop a mastery goal orientation ( Ames, 1984 ; Johnson et al. , 1985 ; Ames and Archer, 1988 ; Roseth et al. , 2008 ). FF interventions have mainly targeted affective components of this construct, such as anxiety before exams, aiming to reduce the negative emotions associated with fear of failure before a challenge (e.g., Neff et al. , 2005 ; Hjeltnes et al. , 2015 ). Finally, attribution retraining, in which instructors use explicit language attributing failures or successes to controllable causes have proved successful in university and STEM K–12 contexts in shifting students attributions (e.g., Chodkiewicz and Boyle, 2014 ). These are only limited examples of what could be done, and much more work exists that addresses interventions targeting these constructs and can be leveraged by undergraduate STEM instructors.

Despite the obvious value of prior intervention development and research, it is important that instructors and researchers implement and test these interventions in STEM undergraduate environments. Individuals undergo many biological, cognitive, social, and personality changes during the transition to college and early adult periods ( Steinberg, 2014 ), which may affect their responses to interventions. In addition, many of the factors are context dependent (see Considering Nuance ). Thus, investigating the efficacy of interventions across STEM will be important. To guide this work, we can draw on research with mindset interventions that has yielded recommendations for best practices likely to be useful for creating interventions on all noncognitive factors included within our model ( Walton, 2014 ). To be most effective, interventions should aim to:

• persuade, not compel, students to adopt a change;
• recognize the importance of students’ subjective experiences;
• target recursive processes ( Fink et al. , 2018 ); and
• not be intended as a “magic bullet” or “one size fits all” fix ( Yeager and Walton, 2011 ).

Ideally, teams of psychologists, education researchers, and instructors can draw upon these best practices to design and test impactful interventions within our proposed framework.

Finally, beyond employing and testing interventions, it is important that undergraduate STEM instructors also consider the questions and constructs presented here when designing curricula and especially when students are likely to encounter significant challenge or failure. Curricular design, pedagogical style, and instructor dispositions are likely to have large effects on how students approach academic challenges, make errors, and respond when they fail. For example, instructors may need to allow adequate time to address challenges, work through failures, or iterate to help students develop their ability to navigate failure and achieve other valued outcomes ( Corwin et al. , 2018 ; Gin et al. , 2018 ). Likewise, a classroom’s overall “error climate” influences how students react to errors that may occur during challenges ( Steuer et al. , 2013 ). Instructors may also want to consider how evidence-based instructional approaches, such as incorporating random call or group work into classes might influence engagement with challenges and response to failure or moderate these through effects on students’ affect or behavior ( Grant and Dweck, 2003 ; England et al. , 2017 ; Cooper et al. , 2018 ). STEM instructors and course designers can draw upon new research in DBER and theory from psychology and K–12 education to inform classroom practice, with the aim of creating environments that assist students in developing persevering, challenge-engaging dispositions. Together with research in STEM education and DBER fields, these actions will bring us all one step closer to facilitating the growth of a next generation of scientists who are capable (and excited) to take on this century’s scientific challenges in innovative ways.

Limitations, Assumptions, and Related Constructs for Consideration

While the previous discussions are starting points from which to consider how broadly explored psychosocial constructs influence how students approach challenges and respond to failures, this is far from a comprehensive exploration of the literature. We must recognize the constraints and assumptions of the model we present. This model 1) includes only student-level noncognitive dispositions, and excludes contextual factors, pedagogical factors, and demographic factors; 2) makes the assumption that success is a desired outcome by students, although this may not always be the case; 3) is limited to an examination of instances in which failure is a possible outcome; 4) draws connections based mainly on quasi-experimental and correlational work (very few of the studies we draw upon are experimental and include randomization; cause cannot be inferred with complete certainty). In addition, other constructs merit mention and recognition due to their potential to influence these processes. Yet these constructs are not included, because they fall outside of scope of our model.

An extensive body of work headed by Manu Kapur (e.g., Kapur, 2010 , 2014a , b , 2016 ) describes how instructors can design classroom activities for “productive failure” by creating challenging tasks that students are unlikely to successfully complete ( Kapur and Bielaczyc, 2012 ). The idea behind productive failure is that students who work on such challenges will, by necessity, consider more of the critical features of a concept in their attempt to complete a task that is just beyond their skill level than they would completing a task at which they would be likely to succeed. This increases their engagement and attention to critical features in subsequent instruction, increasing learning ( Kapur and Bielaczyc, 2012 ). This work is concerned primarily with how the instructors’ deliberate curricular design choices impact student learning of concepts. Alternatively, our model focuses primarily on students’ psychosocial dispositions as they relate to any failure context, planned or not. Thus, this work is beyond the scope of this paper. However, scholars considering students’ psychosocial dispositions during an approach to challenge or response to failure may find this work useful because Kapur and colleagues also consider how students’ psychosocial dispositions may influence their engagement with planned failure activities.

Work on learning from errors ( Tulis et al. , 2016 ) likewise may be useful in consideration of how students approach challenges. Errors are described as an unintended discrepancy between a current and desired state or deviation from a given standard by Maria Tulis, the pre-eminent scholar in this field ( Tulis et al. , 2016 , 2018 ). Notably, they are distinguished from failures, because they do not necessarily preclude accomplishment of a goal; they are at a finer grain size. While our model focuses on the larger grain size of failures that do preclude goal achievement, constructs drawn from the literature on learning from errors may be of use. For example, students’ beliefs about errors as learning opportunities are likely to influence their reaction to errors made while tackling challenges and may ultimately influence success or failure ( Tulis et al. , 2018 ). Also, as for many of the constructs discussed earlier, students holding a mastery goal orientation are more likely to believe that they can learn from errors than students who hold a performance goal orientation ( Tulis et al. , 2018 ). In addition the error climate in a classroom can influence how students address errors and their motivation during a challenge ( Steuer et al. , 2013 ), indicating that this may be a target for classroom interventions. Thus, while the focus of this work is at a finer grain than what we addressed earlier, it is an important body of literature meriting consideration.

Our model assumes that academic achievement is a desired goal, but this assumption is not always true. Fear of success is a construct that can be employed to understand how students approach challenge and respond to failure (or success) when success is not the desired goal. Originally characterized to explain underperformance of otherwise capable men ( Freud, 1957 ; Ogilvie, 1968 ) and women in the workplace ( Horner, 1968 ), fear of success describes a fear that success in an achievement setting will result in a some type of individual loss, negative impact on social standing, and/or undue burden to maintain high standards ( Ogilvie, 1968 ; Metzler and Conroy, 2004 ). Fear of success is a construct related to FF, in that both describe a type of anxiety experienced in achievement contexts, but because fear of success is not attributed to the anticipation or experience of a failure event, it is outside the scope of this discussion.

A large and heavily influential area that we chose not to address in this work is emotions that moderate approach to challenges and responses to failure. The literature on students’ emotional response to failure is extensive and complex. Indeed, there is work on how excitement, enjoyment, pride, shame, anxiety, boredom, anger, and frustration, among others, relate to challenges and failures and how these mediate or moderate coping responses or influence engagement in STEM (e.g., Tulis and Ainley, 2011 ; Smiley et al. , 2016 ; England et al. , 2017 ). However, we chose to focus this article primarily on cognitive and motivational aspects that influence this process. The one exception to this is FF, which has both cognitive and affective components and which we decided to include in our model. A large and longer review would be useful to elaborate on what we know about the role of affect and emotion in this process.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge members of Failure as a Part of Learning: A Mindset Education Network (FLAMEnet) and the Heemstra lab for their support in reading and commenting on early drafts of this essay. We acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation (DBI 1827160).

• Alimoglu M. K., Gurpinar E., Mamakli S., Aktekin M. (2010). Ways of coping as predictors of satisfaction with curriculum and academic success in medical school . Advances in Physiology Education , , 33–38. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ames C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and individualistic goal structures . Journal of Educational Psychology , ( 3 ), 478. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ames C., Archer J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes . Journal of Educational Psychology , ( 3 ), 260–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrews T. C., Lemons P. P. (2015). It’s personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 1 ), ar7 10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aronson J., Fried C. B., Good C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , , 113–125. [ Google Scholar ]
• Atwood J. R. (2010). Mindset, motivation and metaphor in school and sport: Bifurcated beliefs and behavior in two different achievement domains . Paper presented at: 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association (Denver, CO).
• Baird G., Harlow L. (2012). Implicit theories of intelligence motivation model of achievement . Poster presented at: Annual Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science (Boston, MA).
• Bartels J. M., Herman W. E. (2011). Fear of failure, self-handicapping, and negative emotions in response to fear of failure . Poster presented at: 23rd Annual Convention for the Association for Psychological Science (Washington, DC).
• Bennett J. (2017, June 24). On campus, failure is on the syllabus . New York Times. Retrieved December 28, 2018, from www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/fashion/fear-of-failure.html
• Berglas S., Jones E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , , 405–417. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackwell L. S., Trzesniewski K. H., Dweck C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and intervention . Child Development , ( 1 ), 246–263. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bledsoe T., Baskin J. (2014). Recognizing student fear: The elephant in the classroom . College Teaching , ( 1 ), 32–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brdar I., Rijavec M., Loncaric D. (2006). Goal orientations, coping with school failure and school achievement . European Journal of Psychology of Education , ( 1 ), 53–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacciotti G. (2015). Fear of failure in entrepreneurship: A review, reconceptualization, and operationalization (Doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick, Coventry, England). Retrieved December 28, 2018, from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/73258/1/WRAP_THESIS_Cacciotti_2015.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Cannon M. D., Edmondson A. C. (2005). Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently): How great organizations put failure to work to innovate and improve . Long Range Planning , , 299–319. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carver C. S., Scheier M. F., Weintraub J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , ( 2 ), 267–283. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen L. H., Wu C. H., Kee Y. H., Lin M. S., Shui S. H. (2009). Fear of failure, 2×2 achievement goal and self-handicapping: An examination of the hierarchical model of achievement motivation in physical education . Contemporary Educational Psychology , , 298–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chodkiewicz A. R., Boyle C. (2014). Exploring the contribution of attribution retraining to student perceptions and the learning process . Educational Psychology in Practice , ( 1 ), 78–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Claro S., Paunesku D., Dweck C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , ( 31 ), 8664–8668. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clifford M. M., Kim A., McDonald B. A. (1988). Responses to failure as influenced by task attribution, outcome attribution, and failure tolerance . Journal of Experimental Education , ( 1 ), 17–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t . New York, NY: HarperCollins. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conroy D. E. (2001). Progress in the development of a multidimensional measure of fear of failure: The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI) . Anxiety, Stress, and Coping , ( 4 ), 431–452. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conroy D. E., Elliot A. J. (2004). Fear of failure and achievement goals in sport: Addressing the issue of the chicken and the egg . Anxiety, Stress and Coping , ( 3 ), 271–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conroy D. E., Poczwardowski A., Henschen K. P. (2001). Evaluative criteria and consequences associated with failure and success for elite athletes and performing artists . Journal of Applied Sports Psychology , ( 3 ), 300–322. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper K. M., Downing V. R., Brownell S. E. (2018). The influence of active learning practices on student anxiety in large-enrollment college science classrooms . International Journal of STEM Education , ( 1 ), 23. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corwin L. A., Runyon C. R., Ghanem E., Sandy M., Clark G., Palmer G. C., Dolan E. L. (2018). Effects of discovery, iteration, and collaboration in laboratory courses on undergraduates’ research career intentions fully mediated by student ownership . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 2 ), ar20. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cox R. D. (2009). “It’s just that I was afraid”: Promoting success by addressing students’ fear of failure . Community College Review , , 52–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darnon C., Jury M., Aelenei C. (2018). Who benefits from mastery-approach and performance-approach goals in college? Students’ social class as a moderator of the link between goals and grade . European Journal of Psychology of Education , ( 4 ), 713–726. [ Google Scholar ]
• del Mar Ferradás M., Freire C., Valle A., Núñez J. C., Regueiro B., Vallejo G. (2016). The relationship between self-esteem and self-worth protection strategies in university students . Personality and Individual Differences , , 236–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doménech-Betoret F., Gómez-Artiga A. (2014). The relationship among students’ and teachers’ thinking styles, psychological needs and motivation . Learning and Individual Differences , , 89–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success . New York: Ballantine. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise . Educational Leadership , ( 2 ), 34–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (2009). Can we make our students smarter? Education Canada , ( 4 ), 56–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S., Leggett E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality . Psychological Review , ( 2 ), 256–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehrlinger J., Mitchum A. L., Dweck C. S. (2016). Understanding overconfidence: Theories of intelligence, preferential attention, and distorted self-assessment . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , , 94–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., Church M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , ( 1 ), 218–232. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., Church M. A. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and self-handicapping . Journal of Personality , ( 3 ), 369–396. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., McGregor H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , ( 3 ), 501–519. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., Thrash T. M. (2004). The intergenerational transmission of fear of failure . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , , 957–971. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot E. S., Dweck C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , ( 1 ), 5–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• England B. J., Brigati J. R., Schussler E. E. (2017). Student anxiety in introductory biology classrooms: Perceptions about active learning and persistence in the major . PLoS ONE , ( 8 ), e0182506. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fink A., Cahill M. J., McDaniel M. A., Hoffman A., Frey R. F. (2018). Improving general chemistry performance through a growth mindset intervention: Selective effects on underrepresented minorities . Chemistry Education Research and Practice , ( 3 ), 783-806. 10.1039/c7rp00244k [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forsythe A., Johnson S. (2017). Thanks, but no-thanks for the feedback . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 6 ), 850–859. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud S. (1957). Some character-types met with in psycho-analytic work. The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Volume 14 (1914–1916): On the history of the psycho-analytic movement, papers on metapsychology and other works (pp. 309–333). London, UK: Hogarth Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman T. L. (2017). Thank you for being late: An optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of accelerations . London, UK: Macmillan Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gin L. E., Rowland A., Steinwand B., Bruno J., Corwin L. A. (2018). Students who fail to achieve pre-defined research goals may still experience numerous positive outcomes as a result of CURE participation . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 4 ), ar57. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 , ( 6 ), 645–662. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant H., Dweck C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , ( 3 ), 541–553. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gross-Loh C. (2015, December 16). How praise became a consolation prize . The Atlantic . Retrieved December 28, 2018, from www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/12/how-praise-became-a-consolation-prize/510845
• Haimovitz K., Dweck C. S. (2017). The origins of children’s growth and fixed mindsets: New research and a new proposal . Child Development , ( 6 ), 1849–1859. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harackiewicz J. M., Barron K. E., Tauer J. M., Carter S. M., Elliot A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time . Journal of Educational Psychology , ( 2 ), 316–330. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harsh J. A., Maltese A. V, Tai R. H. (2011). Undergraduate research experiences from a longitudinal perspective . Journal of College Science Teaching , ( 1 ), 84–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hazari Z., Potvin G., Tai R. H., Almarode J. (2010). For the love of learning science: Connecting learning orientation and career productivity in physics and chemistry . Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research , ( 1 ), 010107. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heine S. J., Kitayama S., Lehman D. R., Takata T., Ide E., Leung C., Matsumoto H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , ( 4 ), 599–615. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hjeltnes A., Binder P. E., Moltu C., Dundas I. (2015). Facing the fear of failure: An explorative qualitative study of client experiences in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program for university students with academic evaluation anxiety . International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being , ( 1 ), 27990. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong Y. Y., Chiu C. Y., Dweck C. S., Lin D. M. S., Wan W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , ( 3 ), 588. [ Google Scholar ]
• Horner M. S. (1968). Sex differences in achievement motivation and performance in competitive and non-competitive situations (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) .
• İlhan M., Çetin B. (2013). Mathematics oriented implicit theory of intelligence scale: Validity and reliability study . Education Sciences & Psychology , ( 3 ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson R. T., Johnson D. W., Stanne M. B. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction . Journal of Educational Psychology , ( 6 ), 668. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapur M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving . Instructional Science , ( 6 ), 523–550. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapur M. (2014a). Comparing learning from productive failure and vicarious failure . Journal of the Learning Sciences , ( 4 ), 651–677. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapur M. (2014b). Productive failure in learning math . Cognitive Science , ( 5 ), 1008–1022. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapur M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning . Educational Psychologist , ( 2 ), 289–299. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapur M., Bielaczyc K. (2012). Designing for productive failure . Journal of the Learning Sciences , ( 1 ), 45–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kassin S., Fein S., Markus H. R. (2017). Social Psychology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laursen S., Hunter A-B., Seymour E., Thiry H., Melton G. (2010). Undergraduate research in the sciences: Engaging students in real science . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazarus R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future . Psychosomatic Medicine , , 366–388. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lent R. W., Brown S. D., Hackett G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory . Career Choice and Development , , 255–311. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis M. (2005). Coach: Lessons on the game of life . New York: Norton. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopatto D., Alvarez C., Bernard D., Chandrasekaran C. (2008). Undergraduate research: Genomics Education Partnership . Science , ( 5902 ), 684–685. 10.1126/science.1165351 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lou N. M., Noels K. A. (2017). Measuring language mindsets and modeling their relations with goal orientations and emotional and behavioral responses in fear situations . Modern Language Journal , ( 1 ), 214–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marra R. M., Rodgers K. A., Shen D., Bogue B. (2012). Leaving engineering: A multi-year single institution study . Journal of Engineering Education , ( 1 ), 6–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin A. J., Marsh H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist , , 31–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCall M. W. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next generation of leaders . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Metzler J. N., Conroy D. E. (2004). Structural validity of the Fear of Success Scale . Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science , ( 2 ), 89–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikail I., Hazleena B., Harun H., Normah O. (2017). Antecedents of intrinsic motivation, metacognition and their effects on students’ academic performance in fundamental knowledge for matriculation courses . Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction , ( 2 ), 211–246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moller A. C., Elliot A. J. (2006). The 2×2 achievement goal framework: An overview of empirical research . In Mittel A. V. (Ed.), Focus on educational psychology (pp. 307–326). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mortenson S. T. (2006). Cultural differences and similarities in seeking social support as a response to academic failure: A comparison of American and Chinese college students . Communication Education , ( 2 ), 127–146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mortenson S. T., Burleson B. R., Feng B., Liu M. (2009). Cultural similarities and differences in seeking social support as a means of coping: A comparison of European Americans and Chinese and an evaluation of the mediating effects of self-construal . Journal of International and Intercultural Communication , ( 3 ), 208–239. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mueller C. M., Dweck C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , ( 1 ), 33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 10.17226/24622 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Science Foundation. (2016). NSF’s 10 Big Ideas . Retrieved December 28, 2018, from www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas
• Neff K. D., Hsieh Y. P., Dejitterat K. (2005). Self-compassion, achievement goals, and coping with academic failure . Self and Identity , ( 3 ), 263–287. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nichols M. K. (2017). An examination of differences in Division I FBS student-athlete academic and athletic performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada-Las Vegas). Retrieved December 28, 2018, from https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4021&context=thesesdissertations [ Google Scholar ]
• Niiya Y., Crocker J., Bartmess E. N. (2004). From vulnerability to resilience: Learning orientations buffer contingent self-esteem from failure . Psychological Science , ( 12 ), 801–805. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noguera M., Alvarez C., Urbano D. (2013). Socio-cultural factors and female entrepreneurship . International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , , 183–197. [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., González-Pienda J. A., González-Pumariega S., Roces C., Alvarez L., González P., Rodríguez S. (2005). Subgroups of attributional profiles in students with learning difficulties and their relation to self-concept and academic goals . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , ( 2 ), 86–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ogilvie B. C. (1968). The unconscious fear of success . Quest , ( 1 ), 35–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paunesku D., Walton G. M., Romero C., Smith E. N., Yeager D. S., Dweck C. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement . Psychological Science , ( 6 ), 784–793. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pintrich P. R. (2000a). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement . Journal of Educational Psychology , ( 3 ), 544–555. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pintrich P. R. (2000b). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning . In Boekaerts M., Zeidner M., Pintrich P. R. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–529). Cambridge, MA: Academic. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quihuis G., Bempechat J., Jimenez N. V., Boulay B. A. (2002). Implicit theories of intelligence across academic domains: A study of meaning making in adolescents of Mexican descent . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , ( 96 ), 87–100. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robins R. W., Pals J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change . Self and Identity , ( 4 ), 313–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roseth C. J., Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures . Psychological Bulletin , ( 2 ), 223. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rotter J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement . Psychological Monographs: General and Applied , ( 1 ), 1. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sevinç S., Gizir C. A. (2014). Factors negatively affecting university adjustment from the views of first-year university students: The case of Mersin University . Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice , ( 4 ), 1301–1308. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shin H., Park Y. M., Ying J. Y., Kim B., Noh H., Lee S. M. (2014). Relationships between coping strategies and burnout symptoms: A meta-analytic approach . Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , ( 1 ), 44–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simpson A., Maltese A. (2017). “Failure is a major component of learning anything”: The role of failure in the development of STEM professionals . Journal of Science Education and Technology , ( 2 ), 223–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sisk V. F., Burgoyne A. P., Sun J., Butler J. L., Macnamara B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses . Psychological Science , ( 4 ), 549–571. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner E. A., Edge K., Altman J., Sherwood H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping . Psychological Bulletin , ( 2 ), 216–269. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smiley P. A., Buttitta K. V., Chung S. Y., Dubon V. X., Chang L. K. (2016). Mediation models of implicit theories and achievement goals predict planning and withdrawal after failure . Motivation and Emotion , ( 6 ), 878–894. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder K. E., Malin J. L, Dent A. L, Linnenbrink-Garcia L. (2014). The message matters: The role of implicit beliefs about giftedness and failure experiences in academic self-handicapping . Journal of Educational Psychology , ( 1 ), 230–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer M. B., Dupree D., Hartmann T. (1997). A phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST): A self-organization perspective in context . Development and Psychopathology , ( 4 ), 817–833. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence . New York: Mariner Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steuer G., Rosentritt-Brunn G., Dresel M. (2013). Dealing with errors in mathematics classrooms: Structure and relevance of perceived error climate . Contemporary Educational Psychology , , 196–210. [ Google Scholar ]
• Struthers C. W., Perry R. P., Menec V. H. (2000). An examination of the relationship among academic stress, coping, motivation, and performance in college . Research in Higher Education , ( 5 ), 581–592. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sukariyah M. B., Assaad G. (2015). The effect of attribution retraining on the academic achievement of high school students in mathematics . Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , , 345–351. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thiry H., Weston T. J., Laursen S. L., Hunter A-B. (2012). The benefits of multi-year research experiences: Differences in novice and experienced students’ reported gains from undergraduate research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 3 ), 260–272. 10.1187/cbe.11-11-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas A. M. (2014). Making makers: Kids, tools, and the future of innovation . Sebastopol, CA: Maker Media, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Traphagen S. (2015, May 13). Teacher: The important conversations we are too “scared” to have . Washington Post . Retrieved December 28, 2018, from www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/05/13/teacher-the-helpful-conversations-we-are-too-scared-to-have/?utm_term=6dc22b2d070c
• Tulis M., Ainley M. (2011). Interest, enjoyment and pride after failure experiences? Predictors of students’ state-emotions after success and failure during learning in mathematics . Educational Psychology , ( 7 ), 779–807. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tulis M., Steuer G., Dresel M. (2016). Learning from errors: A model of individual processes . Frontline Learning Research , ( 2 ), 12–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tulis M., Steuer G., Dresel M. (2018). Positive beliefs about errors as an important element of adaptive individual dealing with errors during academic learning . Educational Psychology , ( 2 ), 139–158. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walton G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions . Current Directions in Psychological Science , ( 1 ), 73–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiner B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences . Journal of Educational Psychology , ( 1 ), 3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiner B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion . Psychological Review , ( 4 ), 548. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiner B., Frieze I., Kukla A., Reed L., Rest S., Rosenbaum R. M. (1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure . New York: General Learning Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wooden J., Jamison J. (1997). A lifetime of observations and reflections on and off the court . Lincolnwood, IL: Contemporary Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeager D. S., Walton G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic . Review of Educational Research , ( 2 ), 267–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeager D. S., Walton G. M., Brady S. T., Akcinar E. N., Paunesku D., Keene L., Dweck C. S. (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps at scale . Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences USA , ( 24 ), E3341–E3348. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zuckerman M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory . Journal of Personality , ( 2 ), 245–287. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zuckerman M., Tsai F. F. (2005). Costs of self-handicapping . Journal of Personality , ( 2 ), 411–442. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life Courage

Dealing with the Fear of Failure

Fear of failure stops forward movement.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Benefits of Volunteering

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Home / Essay Samples / Life / Myself / Fear of Failure

Fear of Failure Essay Examples

A discussion of whether we should fear failure.

In order for us to come to a full understanding of that question, we must first define the variables it contains. The first is fear which, as defined by Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in the movie Nightcrawler, can be viewed as an acronym with the letters...

Fear of Failure Among American Students

“There is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve: the fear of failure.” This is a quote by Paulo Coelho. Although, it is not directly referring to the public school system, I believe that this quote fits the mold for it very...

The Failure is One Step to Big Beginning

“Failure is success if we learn from it.” - Malcolm Forbes Bill Gates, an entrepreneur, programmer, philanthropists and perhaps ‘risk taker’. At a young age, after a few years living in the world of high school, it ended and he was kicked out into the...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

You may also like

• Social Work
• Ethical Dilemma
• Self Awareness Essays
• Reputation Essays
• Self Reflection Essays
• Values Essays
• Biography Essays
• Self Esteem Essays
• Coming of Age Essays
• Maturity Essays
• Obedience Essays
• Being Yourself Essays

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->