Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Growth mindset research has received global attention. However, the psychological antecedents of growth mindset remain under-explored. We propose that autonomous orientation would foster growth mindset, whereas controlled and impersonal orientations would impede it. We found support for this proposition in two studies. In a laboratory experiment (Study 1), Chinese sixth-graders primed with the autonomous orientation scored significantly higher on growth-mindset measures than those in the control group, whereas students primed with the controlled and impersonal orientations scored significantly lower. Furthermore, in a classroom intervention experiment (Study 2), using a newly designed autonomy orientation intervention, students in the treatment group showed stronger growth mindset than those in the control group, and the effect lasted for at least three months. Overall, our findings suggest that autonomy orientation is an antecedent of growth mindset and can be used to improve growth mindset among adolescents.

Keywords

growth mindset causality orientation autonomous orientation‌educational intervention Chinese adolescents

Introduction

Growth mindset (GM) is the belief that intelligence is not fixed and can be improved (Dweck, 2006; Dweck et al., 1995). This belief has a profound impact on human behavior. Research has established that GM predicts optimal functioning across psychological, social, and academic domains, including better academic and occupational performance (Han & Stieha, 2020; Yeager et al., 2016, 2019), self-regulation (Burnette et al., 2013), psychological well-being (Zeng et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2021), and fewer mental health difficulties (Fehm et al., 2008; Lim et al., 2018; Schleider & Weisz, 2018). Given the promising effects of GM, its interventions have become popular around the world in the recent decades, especially in primary and secondary schools (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2007; see Dweck & Yeager, 2019 for review). Indeed, Boaler (2013) has characterized the GM movement as a “revolution that is reshaping education.”

In contrast to the worldwide adoption of GM interventions, the effectiveness of these interventions varied across studies, with some studies showing null effects (see Burnette et al., 2022; Macnamara & Burgoyne, 2022; Sisk et al., 2018 for meta-analysis). Thus, to improve GM intervention effectiveness, it is important to identify its psychological antecedents.

The present research was designed to fill this gap by studying the psychological factors that can raise GM in the classroom. The current research focuses on causality orientation (CO) as a candidate construct that can be used to strengthen GM and guide the design of GM classroom interventions.

Causality orientation and basic psychological need satisfaction

CO is a person variable that reflects people's “characteristic ways of perceiving and organizing motivationally relevant perceptions and information” (Ryan & Deci, 2017). It affects how people react to the environment, including the interpretation of information, motivation, and behaviors elicited by the environment. Ryan and Deci (2017) have identified three different COs: the autonomous orientation (AO), the controlled orientation, and the impersonal orientation. AO refers to the personal assumption that one initiates and regulates his or her own behavior. Controlled orientation is the personal assumption that behavior is governed by internal or external controls, such as rewards, gains, or recognition. Lastly, impersonal orientation represents the personal assumption that behavior regulation occurs outside one's control, that is, that behavior and results are unrelated.

According to the self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; see also Dweck's theory of psychological coherence, 2017), autonomy, competence, and relatedness are three universal human needs and the gratification of these needs is necessary for psychological growth, internalization, and well-being. CO is closely related to people's subjective satisfaction of these needs. Although having a supportive environment is important, external contingencies alone do not determine the satisfaction of these needs. Even with the same life circumstances, degrees of basic psychological need satisfaction would vary across individuals, depending on their CO (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Specifically, individuals with high AO experience greater basic psychological need satisfaction because they tend to perceive the environment as being relatively supportive, whereas those with a high controlled orientation and impersonal orientation feel more basic psychological need frustration (Baard et al., 2004).

In short, basic psychological need satisfaction is crucial for the development of healthy personality traits and well-being (Dweck, 2017), and CO is a person variable that influences how people interpret life experiences and obtain satisfaction of basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Formation of mindsets, basic psychological need satisfaction, and causality orientation

GM, as a mental representation of nature of self and the world (Dweck, 1999), is formed based on people's life experiences relevant to their basic psychological need satisfaction. Specifically, Dweck (2017) argues that people pursue goals that satisfy their basic psychological needs. They also learn about the properties of themselves and the outside environment that are important to successfully achieve these goals. Over time, simple ideas about discrete life experiences or about connections between things that happen in the environment evolve into more generalized beliefs (see Epstein, 1990). In short, the satisfaction of basic psychological needs plays a significant role in how individuals create mental representations from their life experiences, and growth or fixed mindsets are the key components of such mental representations.

We propose that CO would influence the formation of mindsets in the following way. AO orients individuals to the intrinsic motivation of task engagement. Students with a strong AO engage and persist in a task to satisfy their needs for autonomy and competence in absence of extrinsic motivations and external recognition (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The resulting persistence and resilience would lead to task mastery and ability enhancement in the long run and provide experiential evidence that ability can grow with effort and improved strategies (Dweck, 2006).

In contrast, controlled orientation directs individuals’ attention to extrinsic motivations and external recognition of positive outcomes. This orientation would lead to the expectation that external recognition or rewards are conditional on one's success in task mastery. Therefore, having a controlled orientation will not only constrain satisfaction of the autonomy need, but will also frustrate the needs for competence and acceptance or relatedness when individuals encounter frustration or setbacks. Accordingly, individuals with a controlled orientation would likely give up a challenging task prematurely and have limited opportunities to witness how task mastery is achievable through effective effort investment. This orientation will therefore hinder the development of GM and reinforce the belief that ability is fixed.

Finally, the impersonal orientation sets up the perception that task outcomes are not controllable. This perception lowers the expectation that the needs for competence and autonomy can be met and reduces the motivation for growth-empowered goal pursuits. Thus, having an impersonal orientation would lower task engagement in general and limit the opportunity to experience personal growth. As such, the impersonal orientation would also hinder the development of GM and reinforce the belief that ability is fixed.

This hypothesized relationship between CO and mindset is consistent with some past research findings. For example, Koestner and Zuckerman (1994) noted that CO and GM have similar psychological effects. Ma et al. (2020) have reported an association between perceived autonomy support and GM in undergraduate students. However, the causal effect of CO and GM have not been examined in past research.

Overview of the present research

We propose that different COs could foster different mindsets. People with AO would attend more to autonomy-supportive information and put in an effort to pursue goals chosen by themselves, which would strengthen their GM. In contrast, people with controlled orientation or impersonal orientation attend more to information related to rewards, status, or obstacles and pursue performance goals, which would strengthen their fixed mindset.

We conducted two studies to test the hypothesis that AO strengthens the GM, whereas controlled and impersonal orientations strengthen the fixed mindset. We tested this hypothesis in a laboratory experiment (Study 1) and a field experiment (Study 2). The data and supplementary materials are available at OSF (https://osf.io/62edj/?view_only=009b0e0bad624cc783652f8c7664426e).

Study 1

A laboratory experiment was designed to test the causal relationship between COs and mindsets. Primary school students’ COs were manipulated. We expected that students primed with the AO would have a stronger GM, while those primed with controlled and impersonal orientations would have a stronger fixed mindset.

Method

Participants

A priori power analysis using GPower 3.1.9.2 was conducted to determine the sample size. The effect-size parameter was set based on an ANOVA test (fixed effects, omnibus, one-way), with an alpha error probability value of .05. For an effect size of .2, the theoretically expected effect size in the field (e.g., Yeager et al., 2019), 280 participants were required to reach 80% power.

A total of 259 sixth-graders from seven classes participated in Study 1. We excluded the data from seven participants because they did not complete questionnaires seriously. The final sample (N = 252; 121 males and 131 females, age M = 12.07, SD = .95) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: AO condition (32 males and 30 females), controlled orientation condition (31 males and 31 females), impersonal orientation condition (27 males and 37 females), and the control condition (31 males and 33 females).

Procedure

Research for this study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Tsinghua University. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

First, we manipulated participants’ CO by having them complete different writing assignments. Ryan and Deci (2017) propose that a CO was activated when its attendant motivation was made salient. Specifically, the AO is activated when autonomous motivations (e.g., individual interests) are rendered salient. The controlled orientation is activated when controlled motivations (external rewards and prizes) are made salient. The impersonal perspective is activated in the absence of motives following goal frustrations. Therefore, to manipulate causal orientation, we requested the participants to write about their interests and elaborate on their experiences when they engaged in an activity that really interested them (Autonomous Orientation Condition), the prizes they had won, (Controlled Orientation Condition), an experience that made them feel helpless (Impersonal Orientation), or any recent experience (Control Condition). In the Controlled Orientation Condition, participants were further instructed to focus their description on the prize itself, including the use and enjoyment of the prize, rather than the process by which they received it. We did so to prevent these participants from thinking about autonomous motivations such as interest, meaning, and self-improvement in the process of pursuing a prize. Detailed research materials and the design principle we followed can be found in Supplementary Material 1.

Finally, we measured the participants’ GM, our dependent variable, by having participants fill out PIC and MAP questionnaires (see below).

Measures

Growth mindset

We assessed GM with two measures. First, unlike the early studies, which referred to GM as only an implicit theory, GM research in recent years has followed the meaning-system approach (Hong et al., 1999) and paid attention not only to the core belief but also to the components of its meaning system, such as attitudes toward challenges, errors, and obstacles. Thus, following the correspondence principle for mindset-measurement selection (Chan et al., this issue), which promotes an exact pair for a measurement and its aim, the established Mindset Assessment Profile (MAP; Dweck, 2012) was used, which is a 6-point, 8-item measure. The items can be found in Supplementary Material 2, and two sample items are: “You can learn new things, but you cannot really change your basic level of intelligence” and “I like my work best when I can do it perfectly without any mistakes.” In the present study, the internal reliability of the scale was .75.

To obtain convergent evidence for our hypothesis, we constructed a new measure of GM. GM is defined as the belief that intelligence can be significantly enhanced via appropriate effort (Dweck & Yeager, 2019; Yeager & Dweck, 2020). Therefore, participants’ predictions on the magnitude of intelligence change of their own and that of their classmates after three years of exerting effort or not reveals their mindset. In the new measure, participants used an analog scale from 1 to 10. The sample questions are: “Your current intelligence level is at the center of the scale. What will be your level of intelligence three years later (1) if you work hard with effective strategies? (2) if you do not work hard or study in the correct way?” Participants’ predictions of upward/downward intelligence change resulting from hard work and improved strategies/absence of effort in appropriate ways are computed as the average of their response for that of their own and of their classmates. The higher the measurement score, the more strongly the participant believed intelligence was malleable. See Supplementary Material 3a and 3b for the detailed materials and scoring method.

Intrinsic motivation

As a manipulation check, we constructed a 4-item measure of participants’ intrinsic motivation with respect to job preference. Participants indicated on a 7-point Likert scale how much they valued wealth (reverse scored), status (reverse scored), enjoyment, and social contribution in their imagined future job (see the Supplementary Material 4). According to Ryan and Deci's Goal Contents Mini-Theory of the SDT (2017), a change in motivation usually (albeit not always) accompanies a change in CO.

Results and discussion

As expected, one-way variance analysis (ANOVA) results showed that the four priming conditions differed significantly in intrinsic motivation, F_{(3, 244)} = 2.75, p = .043. Follow-up Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) analysis revealed that intrinsic motivation was higher in the Autonomous Orientation Condition (M = 6.56, SD = .91) than the Controlled Orientation Condition (M = 6.10, SD = 1.12), Impersonal Orientation Condition (M = 6.17, SD = 1.14), and the Control Condition (M = 6.43, SD = 1.00). The manipulation was effective.

To test our hypothesis, we performed a one-way ANOVA performed on Mindset Assessment Profile. The effect of the manipulation was significant, F_{（3, 248）} = 3.08, p = .03, η² = .04. As illustrated in Figure 1, Fisher's LSD test results showed that the GM was stronger in the Autonomous Orientation Condition (M = 3.74, SD = .65) than the Controlled Orientation Condition (M = 3.41, SD = .79, p = .014) and the Impersonal Orientation Condition (M = 3.41, SD = .75, p = .013). The mean of Control Condition (M = 3.62, SD = .76) fell between that of the Autonomous Orientation Condition and the Controlled and Impersonal Conditions.

Figure 1.

The effect of causality orientation priming on the growth mindset (MAP) score.

Next, we replaced the dependent measure with participants’ prediction of upward intelligence change resulting from hard work and improved strategies. All participants predicted an upward change, and the predicted change was more pronounced in the Autonomous Orientation Condition (M = 3.56, SD = 1.00) than the other two CO conditions (Controlled Orientation Condition: M = 2.93, SD = 1.39, p = .005; Impersonal Orientation Condition: M = 3.02, SD = 1.36, p = .015). Again, the Control Condition scored below the Autonomous Orientation Condition and below the two Causality Orientation Conditions (M = 3.36, SD = 1.16, see Figure 2). The main effect of the manipulation on upward predicted change in the one-way ANOVA was significant, F _{(3, 248)} = 3.53, p = .02, η² = .04.

Figure 2.

The effect of causality orientation priming on the predicted change in intelligence.

Finally, we performed a one-way ANOVA on the predicted downward change in intelligence resulting lack of effort or ineffective strategies. As shown in Figure 2, all participants predicted downward change, and the predicted downward change was more sizable in the Autonomous Orientation Condition (M = 3.02, SD = 1.38) than the Controlled Orientation Condition (M = 2.32, SD = 1.59, p = .007). The predicted downward change in the Autonomous Orientation Condition was also bigger than that in the Impersonal Orientation Condition (M = 2.80, SD = 1.36, ns), although the difference was not significant, possibly because the reminder of frustrating experience in the Impersonal Orientation Condition had led the participants to make relative pessimistic prediction of downward intelligence change. The CO priming effect on downward predicted change in the one-way ANOVA was significant, F (3, 248) = 2.67, p = .048, η² = .048.

The post-hoc power estimates for the three dependent measures were 73% for GM, 79% for upward intelligence prediction, and 85% for downward intelligence prediction. In summary, the present lab experiment tested and found support for the hypothesized causal effect of AO on GM increase.

Study 2

To provide further evidence for our hypothesis in a naturalistic setting, we examined the effect on GM of a classroom intervention designed to enhance adolescents’ AO.

Method

Participants

Participants were fifth-graders from four classes of a public elementary school in Beijing, China. We adopted a pseudo-random experimental design and randomly assigned two classes to the experimental group and two classes to the control group. A total of 138 students from four classes were recruited, and 101 of them completed both the pre-test, the intervention course, and the follow-up survey three months later. Twenty respondents provided identical responses to all items in the survey and their data were not included in the analysis. Finally, we also excluded from the analysis the data from one participant who gave an outlier response to the GM scale (three standard deviations below the sample mean). The final sample consisted of 77 valid cases (46 males and 31 females, age M = 10.56, SD = .34), with 39 students in the experimental group (24 males and 15 females) and 38 in the control group (19 males and 19 females).

Procedure

At the beginning of the fall semester (Pre-Test), we measured participants’ baseline GM and intrinsic motivation. Three months later, students in experimental group participated in an extra-curricular activity designed to increase their AO and the students in the placebo control group participated in another activity that, theoretically, would not affect either GM or CO. All participants completed the same measures again immediately after the intervention (Post-Test 1). Finally, all the participants reported their GM three months after the intervention (Post-Test 2).

The intervention activity, which was named “I Am the Master of My Work” lasted for 45 min. The activity was designed based on the self-determination theory to guide students in autonomous decision-making. The intervention focused students’ attention on their interests, values, and passion. Following the guidance provided in the course, the participants were led to formulate a plan that would leverage on their strengths in their goal pursuits. Supplementary Material 5 provides detailed information on course activities and their objectives.

Only students in the experimental group joined the intervention program. Students in the placebo control group took a course named “My Family Advantage Tree” in another classroom. This alternative was designed to promote interpersonal connection, positive emotions, and a sense of meaning. The participants were asked to draw a tree to represent their family members’ strengths, find commonalities among family members, and identify the uniqueness of each family member.

Measures

Growth mindset

We assessed GM with the MAP measure (α = .64) used in Study 1.

Intrinsic learning motivation

We measured intrinsic learning motivation with the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (Ryan & Connell, 1989; scale ranged from 1 to 5; α = .85). The items can be found in the Supplementary Material 6.

Results and discussion

Independent t-test results showed that before the intervention was introduced, the two groups did not differ in GM (M = 1.59, SD = .88 for the experimental group, and M = 1.69, SD = .86 for the control group; t = −.86, p = .39) or intrinsic learning motivation (M = 3.62, SD = 1.05 for the experimental group and M = 3.59, SD = .96 for the control group; t = −.126, p = .90).

To check the effectiveness of the intervention without alerting the participants to the intention of this study, based on the assumption that intrinsic motivation should be high when students had a high level of AO (Ryan & Deci, 2017), we compared the two groups on their level intrinsic motivation before and after the experimental treatment. The pre-test was taken at the beginning of the semester and the post-test was taken three months later. Because students faced the final exam at the time the post-test was administered, we expected intrinsic motivation to drop, and this was the case in the control group. For the control group, compared to the baseline measure (M = 3.59, SD = .96), intrinsic motivation dropped significantly immediately after the treatment (M = 3.02, SD = .85, t = 2.725, p = .008). In contrast, for the experimental group, the level of intrinsic motivation remained high after the treatment (M = 3.62, SD = 1.04 before the treatment; M = 3.57, SD = 1.00 following the treatment; t = .206, p = .838). This result provided evidence that the AO intervention was effective.

After the treatment, the experimental group showed a significant increase in GM (M = 3.58, SD = .70) compared to the baseline (M = 3.24, SD = .67). After three months, their GM (M = 3.40, SD = .72) was still significantly higher than the baseline, although it was lower than that measured immediately after the treatment. In contrast, the GM of the control group showed no significant change from the baseline (M = 3.14, SD = .42) immediately after the treatment (M = 3.15, SD = .60) or three months later (M = 3.13, SD = .64).

We further conducted a 2 (experimental vs. control group) by 3 (pre-test, post-test 1, and post-test 2) ANOVA, using measurement time as a within-subjects factor. The Mauchly test result was not significant (p = .174); the assumption of variance homogeneity was supported. As shown in Figure 3, the two-way interaction between conditions and time was significant, F _(2,150) = 3.16, p = .045, η² = .04. Simple effects analysis revealed no difference between the mindsets of students in the two groups before the treatment, F _(1,75) = .73, p = .39, η² = .01. After the treatment, the GM levels of the students in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group, F _{(1, 75)} = 8.42, p = .005, η² = .10; this difference remained marginally significant three months after the treatment, F _(1,75) = 3.03, p = .09, η² = .04. Additionally, in the experimental group, the effect of time was significant, F _{(2, 74)} = 6.88, p = .002, η² = .16, whereas the effect of time in the control group was not, F _{(2, 74)} = .03, p = .97, η² = .001. The main effect of conditions was significant, F = 4.782, p = 0.032, η² = 0.060. The main effect of time was significant too, F = 3.685, p = 0.030, η² = 0.091. In short, the autonomous intervention had a lasting effect on students’ GM in the experimental group.

Figure 3.

Change in growth mindset for the experimental and control groups.

General discussion

What are some psychological factors that foster the development of GM? This important question is under-explored. In the present research, we examined CO as one facilitator of mindsets. Specifically, we propose and found in two studies that the AO supports the development of GM and the controlled and impersonal orientations support the development of fixed mindset.

In Study 1, we manipulated CO and found that it influenced participants’ mindsets. Participants primed with AO had stronger endorsement of the GM and weaker endorsement of the fixed mindset, compared to those who were primed with controlled or impersonal orientation. In Study 2, we taught the AO to fifth-graders and found that the intervention significantly strengthened students’ endorsement of GM immediately and three months after the intervention.

The finding that the AO strengthens the GM and that controlled or impersonal orientation weakens it aligns with past research on the development of GM. Past studies have identified some practices that promote students’ GM, which include praising students’ effort/process instead of their intelligence/personal traits (e.g., Haimovitz & Dweck, 2016; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). We posit that these practices strengthen the perceived connection between effort and processes, which are controllable intellectual inputs, and task mastery and social approval. Hence, students who receive effort/process praise experience gratification of their basic psychological needs of predictability, competence, and approval (Dweck, 2017). Gratification of these basic needs increases their intrinsic motivation in learning and strengthens their AO, according to the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Our classroom intervention effectively increased students’ intrinsic motivation, which theoretically attends the AO. Most existing GM interventions have focused on changing students’ beliefs about the malleability of a valued attribute (e.g., intelligence) by presenting persuasive to the students’ scientific facts about the mutability of the attribute. As Yeager and Dweck (2020) note, for these interventions to be effective, the belief nurtured in the intervention must be validated in real-life practices. Repeated failures to improve learning outcomes despite increased effort and improved strategies in school would invalidate the nurtured belief, compromising the sustainability of the intervention effect.

In the present study, instead of applied established methods in changing students’ belief on neuroplasticity (e.g., Aronson et al., 2002; Huang et al., 2022), we altered students’ CO. This intervention helps students maintain a high level of intrinsic learning motivation even in the absence of extrinsic rewards for the effort. The strengthened AO should help students maintain their effort despite frustrations and setbacks and create experiences of task mastery and improved ability in the long run. Such experiences should help foster and support the GM. Thus, our AO intervention presents a theoretically viable and empirically sound alternative approach to existing GM interventions.

Limitations and future directions

As a first study of CO's influence on GM, the present study has several limitations. First, in Study 2, there is a three-month gap between the pre-test and the intervention. During this time, students’ endorsement of GM could has changed. Second, Study 2 is not a randomized, placebo-controlled experiment, and the sample size was small. This experimental design was not ideal for testing the causal effect of AO on GM. We propose to replicate this study in a random clinical trial experiment.

Moreover, the casual relationship between AO and GM could be bidirectional and cyclical. The current research only explored the effect of COs on mindsets. Future studies are needed to fill this research gap.

These limitations notwithstanding, our findings are important for their practical implications for real-world educational practices. The finding that COs can impact mindsets suggests parents and educators may foster children's GM by nurturing their AO. They can do so by creating conditions that could help students meet their basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In addition, the finding that controlled and impersonal orientations could lower GM should alert parents and educators to the negative effects of being psychologically controlling in parenting and teaching.

The intervention method used in Study 2 can be further developed for general use. Existing GM interventions have emphasized mobilization of effective effort (Dweck, 2015). Because students sometimes associate effort with hardship and endurance, such interventions may not appeal to students who are averse to the pain of labor. In contrast, GM intervention through AO shifts the emphasis to developing children's interests, values, and other intrinsic motives. The learning process is likely to be accompanied by positive experiences such as immersion, passion, meaning, and pride. By prioritizing the facilitation of self-direction over endurance and perseverance, our proposed GM intervention presents an attractive alternative to the existing ones.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909231157466 - Supplemental material for Autonomy matters: Influences of causality orientations on Chinese adolescents’ growth mindset

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909231157466 for Autonomy matters: Influences of causality orientations on Chinese adolescents’ growth mindset by Yukun Zhao, Zhen Huang, Yiwen Wu and Kaiping Peng in Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Zhen Huang

Yiwen Wu

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Aronson

J. M.

Fried

C. B.

Good

(2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1491

Baard

P. P.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x

Blackwell

L. S.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Dweck

C. S.

(2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x

Boaler

(2013). Ability and mathematics: The mindset revolution that is reshaping education. Forum (Chicago, IL), 55(1), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.2304/forum.2013.55.1.143

Burnette

J. L.

Billingsley

Banks

G. C.

Knouse

L. E.

Hoyt

C. L.

Pollack

J. M.

Simon

(2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of growth mindset interventions: For whom, how, and why might such interventions work? Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000368

Burnette

J. L.

O’Boyle

E. H.

VanEpps

E. M.

Pollack

J. M.

Finkel

E. J.

(2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 655–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029531

Chan

H. S.

Chiu

C. Y.

Lee

S. L.

Tong

Y. Y.

Leung . (This issue). Improving the predictor-criterion consistency of mindset measures: Application of the correspondence principle. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 227–268.

10.

Dweck

(2015). Carol Dweck revisits the growth mindset. Education Week, 35(5), 20–24. https://www.studentachievement.org/wp-content/uploads/Carol-Dweck-Revisits-the-Growth-Mindset.pdf.

11.

Dweck

C. S.

(1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.

12.

Dweck

C. S.

(2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Incorporated.

13.

Dweck

C. S.

(2012). Mindset assessment profile. Retrieved July 15, 2019, from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/9CFE0C88-2B48-4ED2BF39-7D6D4E43CB15/0/MindsetAssessmentProfile.pdf

14.

Dweck

C. S.

(2017). From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review, 124(6), 689–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082

15.

Dweck

C. S.

Chiu

C. Y.

Hong

Y. Y.

(1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1

16.

Dweck

C. S.

Yeager

D. S.

(2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618804166

17.

Epstein

(1990). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In Pervin

(Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 165–192). Guilford Press.

18.

Fehm

Beesdo

Jacobi

Fiedler

(2008). Social anxiety disorder above and below the diagnostic threshold: Prevalence, comorbidity and impairment in the general population. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43(4), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-007-0299-4

19.

Haimovitz

Dweck

C. S.

(2016). What predicts children’s fixed and growth intelligence mind-sets? Not their parents’ views of intelligence but their parents’ views of failure. Psychological Science, 27(6), 859–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616639727

20.

Han

S. J.

Stieha

(2020). Growth mindset for human resource development: A scoping review of the literature with recommended interventions. Human Resource Development Review, 19(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320939739

21.

Hong

Ying-yi

Chiu

Chi-yue

Dweck

Carol S

Lin

Derrick M.-S

Wan

Wendy

(1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588

22.

Huang

Wei

Shi

(2022). Whether and how can a growth mindset intervention help students in a non-western culture? Evidence from a field experiment in China. Educational Psychology, 42(7), 913–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2085669

23.

Koestner

Zuckerman

(1994). Causality orientations, failure, and achievement. Journal of Personality, 62(3), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00300.x

24.

Lim

G. Y.

Tam

W. W.

C. S.

Zhang

M. W.

R. C.

(2018). Prevalence of depression in the community from 30 countries between 1994 and 2014. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21243-x

25.

Lan

(2020). A structural equation model of perceived autonomy support and growth mindset in undergraduate students: The mediating role of sense of coherence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2055. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02055

26.

Macnamara

B. N.

Burgoyne

A. P.

(2022). Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000352

27.

Mueller

C. M.

Dweck

C. S.

(1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33

28.

Ryan

R. M.

Connell

J. P.

(1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749

29.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68

30.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.

31.

Schleider

Weisz

(2018). A single-session growth mindset intervention for adolescent anxiety and depression: 9-month outcomes of a randomized trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12811

32.

Sisk

V. F.

Burgoyne

A. P.

Sun

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, 29(4), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704

33.

Yeager

D. S.

Dweck

C. S.

(2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000794

34.

Yeager

D. S.

Hanselman

Walton

G. M.

Murray

J. S.

Crosnoe

Muller

Tipton

Schneider

Hulleman

C. S.

Hinojosa

C. P.

Paunesku

Romero

Flint

Roberts

Trott

Iachan

Buontempo

Yang

S. M.

Carvalho

C. M.

, … Dweck

C. S.

(2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y

35.

Yeager

D. S.

Walton

G. M.

Brady

S. T.

Akcinar

E. N.

Paunesku

Keane

Kamentz

Ritter

Duckworth

A. L.

Urstein

Gomez

E. M.

Markus

H. R.

Cohen

G. L.

Dweck

C. S.

(2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(24), E3341–E3348. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1524360113

36.

Zeng

Hou

Peng

(2016). Effect of growth mindset on school engagement and psychological well-being of Chinese primary and middle school students: The mediating role of resilience. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01873

37.

Zhao

Chi

(2021). Growth mindset of socioeconomic status boosts subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110301

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB