Since the 50s, the role of implicit theories in the organization and interpretation of information has gained increasing acceptance among both cognitive and social psychologists. These implicit theories refer to the two different assumptions people may make about the malleability of personal attributes. They may believe that a highly valued personal attribute, such as intelligence or morality, is fixed, i.e. a nonmalleable trait-like entity (entity theory), or that the attribute is a malleable quality that can be changed and developed (incremental theory). The identification of these two theories allows us to understand the cognition, emotion and behavior of individuals in achievement situations. Many studies carried out in the primary school show that children who hold an entity theory of personal attribute (i.e. they consider badness like a stable quality) have a strong tendency to attribute their failures to a fixed trait. They are more likely to attribute failures to their bad abilities. In contrast, children who hold an incremental theory of personal attribute (i.e. they consider badness as a malleable quality) are more likely to understand the same negative outcomes in terms of specific factors: they attribute them to a lack of effort. In addition, several studies have shown that entity theorists are more likely than incremental theorists to react helplessly in the face of failure. They are more likely to show negative affect and behaviors. This helpless response pattern is characterized by a lack of persistence. In contrast, incremental theorists try harder and develop better strategies and continue to work. Finally, several studies demonstrate that environmental factors play an important role in the implicit theories elaboration. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]