Personal qualities are malleable and fixed: Ambivalent mindset,capability ranking reinforcement,and parent–child relationship among Hong Kong Chinese parents

Abstract

Past research showed that people may hold contradictory ideas about something or someone. Mindset ambivalence refers to the psychological state in which a person holds contradictory beliefs about the malleability of a valued attribute and spontaneously expresses agreement with both the fixed and growth mindsets. Our past findings showed that a sizable proportion of Hong Kong Chinese adults possess the ambivalent mindset. In the present study, 101 Hong Kong Chinese parents completed a survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings provided further support for the prevalence of the ambivalent mindset. In addition, we found that parents with the ambivalent mindset tended to support several parental practices that would reinforce the relative ability rankings of their children. These practices included person praise, mobilization of effort to compensate for low ability, and lowering of expectation to avoid future failures. Finally, the use of these parental practices was accompanied by deterioration of parent–child relationship when children displayed undesirable self-regulatory behaviors. We discuss these findings’ implications for growth mindset interventions in Chinese societies.

Keywords

growth mindset ambivalent mindset parent-child relationship capability ranking reinforcement

Growth (fixed) mindset refers to the belief in the malleability (unchangeability) of valued personal attributes, such as intelligence, sociability, and morality (Dweck, 1999, 2006; Dweck et al., 1995a). Growth mindset has received much attention from both psychologists and educators because of the consistent finding that, compared to others, students who possess or are situationally induced to embrace the growth mindset are more motivated to pursue challenging goals, remain resilient in the face of hardship and setbacks, improve their performance, and have better social and emotional well-being (Burnette et al., 2022; Yeager et al., 2019; see also Macnamara & Burgoyne, 2022). Evidence for these beneficial effects of the growth mindset was reported in studies conducted in Hong Kong and other Chinese cities as well (e.g., Fang et al., 2022; Hong et al., 1999; Huang et al., 2022; Tao et al., 2022). For example, a classic study showed that an experimental induction of the growth mindset increased Hong Kong college students’ resilience (Hong et al., 1999). In this study, students who learned from a scientific article that intelligence could (vs. could not) grow were more likely to take remedial actions to improve their performance after receiving negative performance feedback. These findings confer confidence in the efficacy of using growth mindset interventions to bolster Chinese students’ resilience and social and emotional well-being. Subsequent intervention studies have provided evidence for the beneficial effects of growth mindset interventions on students’ academic engagement and social-emotional well-being (Burnette et al., 2022; Tipton et al., 2022; Yeager et al., 2022; Xia et al., 2022).

However, recent studies (Jia et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021; Yeager et al., 2019, 2021) suggest that some cultural factors could significantly reduce the psychological benefits of growth mindset interventions, despite these interventions being capable of strengthening students’ growth mindset. These results raise an important theoretical issue with considerable practical implications: Is strengthening students’ growth mindset sufficient by itself to weaken students’ fixed mindset and mitigate its negative psychological consequences? (See Table 1).

Table 1.

Mean ratings (95% CI) given to the fixed mindset and group mindset items by clusters of parents

Item	Growth mindset	Fixed mindset	Ambivalent mindset
Fixed mindset items	2.99 (2.70, 3.29)	4.12 (3.81, 4.43)	5.27 (4.88, 5.66)
Growth mindset items	5.53 (5.27, 5.79)	3.51 (3.23, 3.79)	5.34 (4.99, 5.69)
Wave 1	42.1%	29.5%	28.4%
Wave 2	39.4%	45.5%	15.2%

The ambivalent mindset

Related to this question is the consistently small negative correlation between the growth mindset and fixed mindset in Chinese samples (e.g., Lee et al., 2023). This is an anomaly because this empirical dissociation of the growth mindset from the fixed mindset may seem logically impossible. Conceptually, the two mindsets are logically opposite constructs: one cannot simultaneously view a personal attribute as malleable and unchangeable. Thus, we should expect a sizeable negative correlation between endorsement of the two mindsets. However, in research conducted in Hong Kong, the negative correlations of the two mindsets were typically small (see Lee et al., 2023). For example, between 2017 and 2019, we collected mindset data from 594 teachers (67.1% female; mean age = 31.91 years, SD = 17.76 years) from 5 primary schools and 3 secondary schools in Hong Kong. We measured their growth and fixed mindsets in the domains of intelligence and kind of person using standard measures of these constructs (Dweck, 1999). Internal consistency of the measures was high (α = .80 for growth mindset regarding intelligence, .82 for fixed mindset regarding intelligence, .81 for growth mindset regarding kind of person, and .76 for fixed intelligence regarding kind of person). The correlation between growth and fixed mindset was −.23 in the intelligence domain and −.24 in the kind of person domain. These correlations were significant and negative but small in size.

To explain this seemingly counterintuitive finding, we propose that in Hong Kong, some teachers and parents may embrace the ambivalent mindset: They agree with both the fixed mindset and the growth mindset. Ambivalence refers to the psychological state in which a person holds contradictory ideas about someone or something and spontaneously expresses these ideas. Past research has studied the antecedents and consequences of holding ambivalent attitudes or beliefs (see Conner & Armitage, 2008).

Do people also hold ambivalent beliefs about the malleability of valued personal attributes, believing that such attributes are both fixed and malleable? Although this issue has not been systematically investigated before, several early mindset researchers acknowledged that people can hold both mindsets (Anderson, 1995; Darley, 1995; Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1995; Lewis, 1995; Schunk, 1995). In fact, the proposers of the growth mindset construct have also acknowledged this possibility:

For simplicity's sake, we have tended to portray the two implicit theories as mutually exclusive alternatives, and in our measures, we have asked participants to choose between the two. Indeed, logically speaking, they are mutually exclusive alternatives. Believing that something cannot be changed is the logical opposite of believing it can be changed. Nonetheless, students of the human mind know that the fact that two beliefs are opposites does not prevent people from holding them both … Thus, … we think that it is perfectly possible for an individual to hold both theories. (Dweck et al., 1995b, p. 323)

If it is theoretically possible that people hold the ambivalent mindset, how widespread is this phenomenon? The present study aims to offer a preliminary assessment of the prevalence of the ambivalent mindset in Chinese societies.

One possible (albeit uninteresting) explanation of the ambivalent mindset is that it reflects a response bias (e.g., results from the acquiescence response set or the tendency to agree with all items regardless of content; Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005). Another explanation is that because the growth mindset items are compelling, even fixed mindset holders would agree (Dweck et al., 1995b). We suggested an alternative explanation, drawing on the established links of the fixed and growth mindsets to different self-validation processes (O’Keefe, 2013). Self-referenced assessment refers to the process by which the learners assess their progress with reference to their past performance, whereas social comparison is the process by which the learners determine their abilities based on how they compare to others. Whereas self-referenced assessment often leads to the recognition of the improvability of one's personal attribute, social comparison often leads to the perceived stability of the rankings of individuals along the attribute (O’Keefe, 2013). Self-referenced assessment and social comparison can take place simultaneously: people may compare their current performance with their past performance and with the current performance of their peers at the same time. Learners who have improved their performance by applying themselves but have not improved their peer rankings may infer that their abilities are both malleable (based on intrapersonal, longitudinal comparison) and fixed (based on interpersonal, cross-sectional comparison).

If the above contentions regarding the ambivalent mindset and its antecedents are valid, they could account for the small correlations between measures of fixed and growth mindsets. In response to self-report measures of mindset, unlike growth (fixed) mindset subscribers, who would (dis)agree with the growth mindset items and disagree (agree) with the fixed mindset items, subscribers of the ambivalent growth mindset would agree with both sets of items. The presence of many ambivalent mindset subscribers in a sample would therefore attenuate the negative correlation between the two mindsets.

Until now, the prevalence of the ambivalent mindset and its implications have escaped researchers’ attention. This article investigates how widespread the ambivalent mindset is and its implications for children's adjustment.

Is ambivalent mindset prevalent?

How prevalent is the ambivalent mindset? To provide a preliminary assessment of the prevalence of the ambivalent mindset, we reanalyzed the data from the study of Hong Kong teachers described above. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the belief in the fixedness (horizontal axis) and malleability (vertical axis) of a person's global quality (kind of person). Many teachers endorsed the growth mindset. They agreed with items depicting the growth mindset and disagreed with items depicting the fixed mindset. Some endorsed the fixed mindset, showing the opposite pattern. A third group agreed with both the growth and fixed mindset items. Very few participants disagreed with both the fixed and growth mindset items.

Figure 1.

Distribution of agreement with growth and fixed mindsets among Hong Kong teachers (r between the two mindset measures was −.24, p < .0001.

Given the prevalence of the ambivalent mindset in Hong Kong, the next question to ask is what its implications are for children's adjustment and their family relationship. We will address this issue in the following sections.

Capability ranking reinforcement

We posit that parents who subscribe to the ambivalent mindset are particularly inclined to have parenting practices that would reinforce capability rankings among children. We refer to these practices as capability ranking reinforcement practices. In the present study, we focused on three such practices (with due acknowledgement that other practices may have the same effect). First, when a child has good performance, adults would encourage the child to continue his or her effort so as to maintain his or her competitive edge. They would direct the child to view their superior performance as a sign of their personal qualities and a predictor of future success. Second, when a child has unsatisfactory performance, adults would encourage him or her to work harder and learn from smarter children to compensate for their low ability. Third, when a child continues to lag behind despite his or her persistent effort, adults will advise the child to accept his or her lower ability and attempt tasks so that the child could avoid further frustrations and maintain his or her self-esteem. Collectively, these practices help to maintain individual differences in capability ranking and fulfil the prophecy of irreversible capability ranking.

The first practice is referred to as person praise and is shown to be a practice that supports the development of the fixed mindset (Kamins & Dweck, 1999). Embedded in the second practice is the belief that effort is a way to compensate for low ability (Hong, 2001). This belief is popular in Hong Kong. A study found that although Hong Kong students believe that working hard is necessary for the application of ability (e.g., “If you are really good at some subjects, working hard would help you to have a thorough understanding of the subjects”), they also believe that effort is a way to compensate for low ability (“If you need to work really hard to solve some problems, this means that you are not very good at that subject”). The correlations of these two beliefs were virtually zero in the study (r = .03 for college students and r = −.07 for high school students; Hong, 2001). As Hong (2001) puts it,

inasmuch as exerting effort is a cultural norm, most Chinese students and teachers may believe to some extent that effort enhances ability. Hence, a belief in the positive rule (effort is positively related to ability) should be prevalent in Chinese culture. However, this cultural norm might not have pre-empted a belief in the compensatory rule (effort is inversely related to ability). One may still reason that an individual with high ability does not need to work as hard as someone who has lower ability to achieve success. (p. 109)

Furthermore, another study showed that among Canadian high school students, those who spent more time on studying had better average exam grades. In contrast, among Hong Kong Chinese high school students, those who had poorer average exam grades spent more time on studying (Salili et al., 2001a). Moreover, among Canadian high school students, the amount of time spent on studying was positively related to self-efficacy and unrelated to test anxiety. In contrast, among Hong Kong Chinese high school students, the amount of time spent on studying was unrelated to self-efficacy and positively related to test anxiety (Salili et al., 2001b). These results suggest that in Hong Kong, students with poor grades are often made to feel anxious about their performance and pressurized to study diligently.

The third capability ranking reinforcement practice aims to protect children from repeated failures, by advising children to stop struggling on challenging tasks and encouraging them to shift to easier ones. Hong (2001) found that this is a common practice among Hong Kong teachers. When asked to indicate how they would help a student who had been working hard but still performed poorly in class, Hong Kong teachers agreed strongly with the following practices: (1) lower the requirements to the level of the student's ability (M = 6.30, SD = 1.86 on a scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 10 (very likely)); (2) do not give the student challenging schoolwork so as not to give the student further frustrations (M = 6.18, SD = 1.96); and (3) advise the student not to be discouraged by his/her low learning ability, and encourage the student to develop in other areas that he/she is good at (e.g., music, sports; M = 7.88, SD = 1.94).

We propose that these capability ranking reinforcement practices of parents are linked to the ambivalent mindset, because parents holding the ambivalent mindset would simultaneously support the fixed mindset and the growth mindset. On the one hand, these practices support the fixed mindset by attributing low versus high performance to one's fixed ability (ability praise) and encourage low-performance individuals to accept the limits of their fixed ability. On the other hand, they support the growth mindset by prioritizing effort as a means to improve or compensate for one's low ability. Based on this reasoning, we hypothesize that these practices will be more widely used by parents holding the ambivalent mindset than other parents (Hypothesis 1).

Implications on children's adjustment and parent–child relationship

How may parents’ having an ambivalent mindset be related to children's achievement motivation and self-regulation? Past research on goal systems has identified three major types of goals people would pursue: self-improvement, self-enhancement, and self-protection (Alicke & Sedikides, 2011). The probability of pursuing each goal type is related to people's mindset. For example, O’Keefe (2013) posited that people holding the growth mindset prefer pursuing self-improvement goals by investing in remedial effort. In contrast, people holding the fixed mindset prefer pursuing self-enhancement goals by demonstrating competencies relative to others and self-protection goals by protecting or maintaining their self-image as competent individuals. Following Sedikides (2009), we propose that depending on the situation, subscribers of the ambivalent mindset (who hold both mindsets) will want their children to pursue these three types of goals in different situations. Hence, the children of these parents are likely to be exposed frequently to contrastive parental expectations in different situations. Such intraparental inconsistency would hurt children's adjustment and parent–child relationship. Indeed, research has shown that frequent exposure to intraparental inconsistency is accompanied by an increase in aggression and problems in conduct (Carrasco, Holgado-Tello & Serrano, 2015). Accordingly, we hypothesize that children with parents holding the ambivalent mindset are more likely to have more adjustment problems (e.g., low achievement motivation, exhibition of social-emotional behaviors) compared to children with parents holding the growth mindset (Hypothesis 2).

How would parents who practice capability ranking reinforcement parenting respond to children's problem behaviors? As mentioned in the last section, these parents would attribute children's performance to their fixed ability (ability praise) and encourage children with low performance to accept the limits of their fixed ability. They also prioritize effort as a means to improve or compensate for low ability. When children show desirable self-regulatory behaviors, these parents would praise their children's ability and encourage them to step up their effort to demonstrate their self-regulatory competencies relative to others. Under this circumstance, parent–child relationship tends to be good because parents would feel proud of their children's high ability and children would feel competent and appreciated.

However, when children show undesirable self-regulatory behaviors, parents practicing capability ranking reinforcement parenting will read these behaviors as signs of relatively low self-regulatory ability, compared to other well-behaved children. These parents would feel disappointed with their children's low self-regulatory ability and at the same time demand their children to effortfully self-regulate. Nonetheless, these parents also feel obliged to acknowledge their children's limited ability and lower the expectations for their children for the purpose of protecting them from further failures.

Past research has shown that each of these responses to children's unsatisfactory performance could adversely affect low confidence children's adjustment. For example, there is evidence that person praise can make children with low self-esteem attribute failure to the self and feel ashamed following failure (Brummelman et al., 2014). Parental demandingness can increase the anxiety of children with relatively low self-regulatory ability (Lo et al., 2020; Salili et al., 2001b). Finally, low self-esteem children may view parental helping, monitoring and decision making as indicative of incompetence (Pomerantz & Eaton, 2000). In short, these parental practices make children who display unsatisfactory self-regulatory performance feel ashamed of their self-regulatory failure, and anxious and incompetent. These negative emotions will further deplete these children's self-regulatory resources (Baumeister et al., 2018), lead to exhibition of more undesirable behaviors, and complete a vicious circle. Parent–child relationship will deteriorate under this circumstance. Therefore, we hypothesize that adopting capability ranking reinforcement practices can adversely affect parent–child relationship, particularly when children display undesirable behaviors such as academic disengagement and challenging social-emotional behaviors (Hypothesis 3).

Summary of research contributions and objectives

In summary, extending early mindset theories, we propose that people can hold both fixed and growth mindsets. Following the literature on attitude and belief structure (Conner & Armitage, 2008), we refer to the agreement with both mindsets as the ambivalent mindset. The prevalence of the ambivalent mindset in some Chinese societies (e.g., Hong Kong) explains the small correlation between measures of fixed and growth mindsets in these societies. The prevalence of the ambivalent mindset in a society also explains why the beneficial effects of growth mindset interventions are relatively weak in this society. If many people in the society subscribe to the ambivalent mindset, although a growth mindset intervention can effectively strengthen the belief in malleable ability, the intervention by itself may not be enough to weaken people's fixed mindset and mitigate its negative psychological consequences.

Second, we propose that three non-exhaustive parenting practices may reinforce the belief in irreversible capability rankings among individuals. These practices include person praise, mobilization of effort to compensate for low ability, and lowering of expectations to avoid further failures. These practices cohere with the ambivalent mindset because they support both the belief in improvable ability and the belief in fixed ability.

In the present study, we (1) assessed the prevalence of the ambivalent mindset among Hong Kong parents and tested its hypothesized negative association with their children's self-regulatory performance, (2) tested the hypothesized positive association of the ambivalent mindset with the adoption of capability ranking reinforcement practices, and (3) tested the hypothesized negative association of adopting capability ranking reinforcement practices with the quality of parent–child relationship when children displayed undesirable self-regulatory behaviors.

Method

Participants

In September 2020, 101 parents (86.1% female) of the children of two preschools completed an online survey (Wave 1). The participants were the children's primary caretakers. Half of them had one child and 46.3% of them had two children. Most parents were aged between 31 and 40 (62%). One-sixth of them (16.5%) were aged 30 or below, and another one-sixth between 41 and 50. The remaining ones were 50 or above. Most of them (58.6%) had high school education, and 22.7% had college or higher degrees.

In July 2021, the same parents were invited to complete the same online survey (Wave 2), and 88 of them completed it. About one-sixth of them (N = 88 parents, response rate was 87.1%; 81.5% female) completed the second survey (Wave 2). Most of them (58.2%) had one child and 40.0% had two children. Most parents were aged between 31 and 40 (59.3%). One-ninth of them (11.1%) were aged 30 or below, and 27.8% between 41 and 50. The remaining ones were 50 or above. Most of them (58.6%) had high school education, and 20.0% had college or higher degrees.

Context of the study

Between the two surveys, the participants' children joined six weekly sessions on the growth mindset concept and its attendant practices. The intervention strengthened the children's growth mindset but did not change participants’ mindset (see Chiu et al., in press). The study was conducted in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a prevention measure, all kindergartens in Hong Kong suspended face-to-face classes from November 29, 2020 to April 2021. During the school lockdown, the preschools delivered lessons through e-learning. The kindergarten lockdown provided a meaningful context for us to test the effect of capability ranking reinforcement on parent–child relationship when children needed to learn from home during the lockdown.¹

Measures

Parents’ mindset

In Wave 1 and Wave 2, the parents completed a measure of mindset (Dweck, 1999). The measure consisted of two growth mindset items (e.g., “All people can change even their most basic qualities”) and two fixed mindset items (e.g., “The kind of person someone is, is something very basic about them and it can’t be changed very much”). The inter-item correlations were high (growth mindset: r = .65, α = .79 in Wave 1 and r = .63, α = .78 in Wave 2; fixed mindset: r = .77, α = .72 in Wave 1 and r = .66, α = .65 in Wave 2). The measures had acceptable reliability given the small number of items (2) and the high inter-item correlations. In our profile analysis reported below, individual mindset items were used as criterion measures. The participants answered each item using a 7-point scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”).

Effects of mindset are domain-specific. Outcomes in a certain domain are more strongly related to mindset regarding attributes in the same domain than attributes in other domains (Chan et al., 2023; Dweck et al., 1995a, 1995b). The present study concerned the relationship between children's self-regulatory behaviors (academic disengagement and negative behavioral and emotional problems) and parent–child relationship. Self-regulatory behaviors may reflect a person's general personal qualities. Therefore, we measured parents’ mindsets about kind of person.

Capability ranking reinforcement

We measured capability ranking reinforcement in Wave 1 and Wave 2 by asking parents to indicate their extent of agreement to a set of eight items that depict capability ranking reinforcement practices. Some examples are: “We should teach according to the child's ability and shouldn’t expect children with low ability to finish challenging activities”; “We should encourage children with a lower natural ability to study harder to compensate for lack of ability”; “When a child performs well, we should let them think that they’re smart and let them have more confidence in themselves”; “We shouldn’t force children to learn a difficult topic/subject or let them encounter setbacks” (α = .68 in Wave 1 and .65 in Wave 2).

Children's academic engagement

In Wave 2, we also measured the extent of children's academic engagement. The measure consisted of five items (α = .86): During school lockdown, (1) My child engaged in active learning; (2) My child found online learning enjoyable; (3) My child was interested in online learning; (4) My child completed all assignments; and (5) My child did additional readings to deepen understanding of class materials. The parents indicated their extent of agreement with each item on a 5-point scale from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“always”).

Children's challenging social-emotional behaviors

In Wave 2, we also asked parents to indicate if their child exhibited challenging social-emotional behaviors. This measure consisted of three items (α = .84): During school lockdown, (1) My child was emotional and had many negative feelings; (2) My child displayed behaviors that were disturbing to me; and (3) My child had many behavioral problems. The parents indicated their extent of agreement with each item on a 5-point scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

Parent–child relationship

Finally, in Wave 2, we asked parents to use a scale from 0 (“very poor”) to 10 (“very good”) to rate their parent–child relationship (1) before and (2) during the school lockdown. Parent–child relationship in during the school lockdown (controlling for that before the lockdown) was the major dependent measure in the current study.²

Analysis

The current research firstly aims to identify different types of mindset and the change in the distribution of the mindset type across time. To achieve this objective, we first performed cluster analysis of the mindset items in Wave 1 and Wave 2 to identify the mindset profiles. Next, we tracked the change in the distribution of the identified profiles across the two waves of data collection. The second objective of our research is to assess the association of the different mindset profiles with the extent of using capability ranking reinforcement practices in Wave 1 and Wave 2. To achieve this goal, we performed tests of association between mindset profile and the extent of using capability ranking reinforcement practices in both waves. Finally, we aimed to test whether during school lockdowns, using capability ranking reinforcement practices was associated with poor parent–child relationship when children displayed low or high levels of undesirable behaviors. Because our hypothesis pertains to concurrent predictive relationships during the school lockdown period, we tested it by fitting a linear model to Wave 2 parent–child relationship with concurrent (Wave 2) measures of capability ranking reinforcement and undesirable children behavior, and their interaction as predictors. Because of the small sample size, simultaneous evaluation of two interactions (Capability Ranking Reinforcement X Academic Engagement, Capability Ranking Reinforcement X Challenging Social-Emotional Behavior) may yield unreliable results. Therefore, we analyzed the effect of academic engagement and challenging social emotional-emotional behavior separately in two linear models.

Results

Parents’ mindset

We performed cluster analysis (hierarchical clustering using the Wald's method) on the four items that measured parents’ mindset. Three groups of parents were identified: (1) Growth mindset parents (41.7% in Wave 1 and 39.4% in Wave 2); (2) Fixed mindset parents (30.2% in the Wave 1 and 45.5% in Wave 2); and (3) Ambivalent mindset parents (28.1% in Wave 1 and 15.2% in Wave 2). The change in the distributions of the three mindsets from Wave 1 to Wave 2 was not significant, χ² (df = 2, N = 162) = 5.43, p = .07.

As in our past studies (see “The ambivalent mindset section” of the Introduction), there was a small negative correlation of the parents’ fixed and growth mindset measures, r = −.14, p = .18 in Wave 1 and −.21, p = .09 in Wave 2. Furthermore, having a fixed mindset was associated with having more undesirable behaviors during the school lockdown. To test Hypothesis 2 regarding the association of ambivalent mindset (agreement with both fixed and growth mindset) and children's adjustment, we performed a Fixed Mind (mean-centered, Wave 2) X Growth Mindset (mean-centered, Wave 2) linear model on challenging social-emotional behavior (measured at Wave 2). Only the main effect of fixed mindset was significant (b = 0.16, SE = 0.08, β = 0.27): parents with a stronger fixed mindset found their children to have more challenging social-emotional behaviors, t(50) = 2.02, p = .049.³ This result did not support Hypothesis 2.

Next, we replaced the outcome variable in the previous regression model with academic engagement (measured at Wave 2). We found a significant Fixed Mindset (mean-centered, Wave 2) X Growth Mindset interaction, b = −0.10, SE = 0.04, β = −0.31, t(51) = −2.41, p = .02. When parents disagreed with the growth mindset (M = 2, anchor = “disagree”), whether they agreed (M = 6) with the fixed mindset (estimated value = 3.59, 95% CI = (2.874, 4.32)) or disagreed (M = 2) with it (estimated value = 2.80, 95% CI = (2.30, 3.54)) was not related to their children's academic engagement. However, when parents agreed with the growth mindset (M = 6), those who also agreed with the fixed mindset (had the ambivalent mindset, M = 6; estimated value = 2.62, 95% CI = (2.14, 3.11)) found their children to have lower levels of academic engagement than did those who disagreed with the fixed mindset (had a growth mindset, M = 2; estimated value = 3.50, 95% CI = (3.16, 3.85)).⁴ These findings are consistent with the past finding that children had more adjustment problems (presented more challenging social-emotional behaviors) when their parent had (vs. did not have) a fixed mindset. Furthermore, consistent with Hypothesis 2, among parents who agreed with the growth mindset, those who also agreed (vs. those who disagreed) with the fixed mindset reported that their children had lower levels of academic engagement. In summary, with respect to academic engagement, the results supported the hypothesis that children were academically more disengaged if their parents agreed with both the growth and fixed mindsets than if their parents had the growth mindset.

Capability ranking reinforcement practices

According to Hypothesis 1, parents who had the ambivalent mindset were more likely than other parents to support capability ranking reinforcement practices. To test this hypothesis, we classified parents into those who had (vs. did not have) the ambivalent mindset. Next, we performed an Ambivalent Mindset (whether parents had the ambivalent mindset) X Wave on capability ranking reinforcement practices. The only significant effect in this analysis was the main effect of ambivalent mindset (b = 0.08, SE = 0.04, β = 0.18), t(140) = 2.07, p = .04.⁵ Ambivalent mindset parents were more likely to report the use of capability ranking reinforcement practices (M = 2.86, SE = 0.06) than other parents (M = 2.71, SE = 0.04). This result supported Hypothesis 1.

Capability ranking reinforcement and parent–child relationship

To test our hypothesis regarding the relationship of capability ranking reinforcement and parent–child relationship during the kindergarten lockdown (Hypothesis 3), we performed a linear model analysis on parent–child relationship during the lockdown in Wave 2, with academic engagement in Wave 2, capability ranking reinforcement in Wave 2, and their interaction as predictors and parent–child relationship before lockdown (measured in Wave 2) as control variable.

The model accounted for 48.8% of the variance of the outcome variable (adjusted R² = .488. The effect of parent–child relationship before lockdown was significant, b = 0.46, β = 0.37, t(50) = 3.58, p < .0008. Parents who reported relatively positive relationship with their child before lockdown tended to report relatively positive parent–child relationship during lockdown as well. Parents who reported stronger agreement with capability ranking reinforcement had poorer parent–child relationship during lockdown after controlling for the effect of parent–child child relationship before the lockdown (b = −2.38, SE = 0.62, β = −0.39, t(50) = −3.84, p = .0003).⁶ The Academic Engagement X Capability Ranking Reinforcement interaction was significant (b = 2.15, SE = 0.71, β = 0.31, t(50) = 3.05, p = .004). Figure 2 shows that the parents reported poorer parent–child relationship during lockdown if they supported capability ranking reinforcement more, particularly when their child had lower levels of academic engagement during the lockdown.

Figure 2.

The negative relationship between capability ranking reinforcement and parent–child relationship during lockdown strengthened as the level of academic engagement decreased in Wave 2.

Next, we replaced academic engagement with challenging social-emotional behavior (measured in Wave 2) in the GLM analysis. All effects in the model were significant, and R² = .58. Again, parents who reported more positive relationship with their child before lockdown reported more positive parent–child relationship during lockdown; b = 0.41, SE = 0.16, β = 0.34, t(50) = 3.58, p = .0008 for the effect of parent–child relationship before school lockdown. Controlling for the effect of parent–child child relationship before the lockdown, parents reported poorer parent–child relationship during lockdown if their child displayed more challenging social-emotional behavior during lockdown, b = −1.07, SE = 0.23, β = −0.45, t(50) = −4.63, p < .0001 for the main effect of challenging social-emotional behavior. Controlling for the effect of parent–child child relationship before the lockdown, parents who agreed more strongly with capability ranking reinforcement had poorer parent–child relationship during lockdown, b = −1.67, SE = 0.58, β = −0.28, t(50) = −2.90, p = .006 for the main effect of capability ranking reinforcement.

Finally, the interaction of capability ranking reinforcement and challenging social-emotional behavior during lockdown was significant, b = −1.38, SE = 0.51, β = −0.25, t(50) = −2.70, p = .009. Parents who agreed with capability ranking reinforcement more strongly reported poorer parent–child interaction during lockdown, and, as shown in Figure 3, this negative relationship (controlling for parent–child-relationship before lockdown) strengthened as the frequency of challenging social-emotional behaviors increased. These results supported Hypothesis 3.

Figure 3.

The negative relationship between capability ranking reinforcement and parent–child relationship during lockdown strengthened as the frequency of challenging social-emotional behaviors increased in Wave 2.

Discussion

Replicating our past findings (see “The ambivalent mindset” section of the Introduction), there were small and nonsignificant correlations between endorsement of growth mindset and fixed mindset (r = −.14 to −.21). Hierarchical cluster analysis results revealed three major subgroups of parents: fixed mindset parents, growth mindset parents, and ambivalent mindset parents. Our results also revealed a sizable proportion of Chinese parents in Hong Kong had the ambivalent mindset: 28.1% in Wave 1. The prevalence of the ambivalent mindset decreased but remained sizable in Wave 2 (15.2%), even after parents had learned about the concept of growth mindset in a series of workshops, suggesting that the ambivalent mindset is resistant to change. The prevalence and durability of the ambivalent mindset can attenuate the correlation between measures of the fixed and growth mindsets.

The ambivalent mindset

That many Hong Kong Chinese parents have the ambivalent mindset seems inexplicable given that the two mindsets are logically opposite constructs: It seems illogical for one to simultaneously believe that ability is fixed and malleable. To explain this anomaly, we propose that although ambivalent mindset parents believe that everyone can improve their personal qualities, these parents also believe that if everyone works hard and makes improvement, initial performance rankings among individuals will not be reversed. We recommend future research that tests this proposal.

Using independent measures to measure the fixed mindset and the growth mindset can help separate ambivalent mindset parents from growth mindset parents and accurately evaluate the effects of the growth mindset. If ambivalent mindset parents are misidentified as growth mindset parents because ambivalent mindset parents also agreed with the growth mindset items, the observed effects of the growth mindset may be obscured.

Our findings also highlight that the cultural emphasis on effort in Chinese society, when interpreted in the ambivalent mindset framework, could create academic pressure and lower students’ academic engagement. As some Chinese achievement motivation researchers (e.g., Hess et al., 1987) have noted, effort is highly valued in Chinese culture. It is believed to be crucial to success, and is a salient or accessible cause many Chinese use to explain achievement outcomes. Ho et al. (2001), based on their observations of teaching and learning in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, concluded that “The careers of Chinese students are hard ones. Under immense pressure to succeed academically and preoccupied with examinations, they have to study diligently and do lots of homework. Education is viewed as a means to an end, not an end itself. Learning is hardship to be suffered, not enjoyment” (p. 242).

Consistent with these observations, past studies showed that reward for application, the belief that effort and diligence will be rewarded, is widely shared in Chinese cultures (Leung & Bond, 2004). Thus, most Chinese people would expect others to be studious or be pressurized to work hard (Grant & Dweck, 2001). Therefore, many parents may infer that if both high- and low-ability children apply themselves and improve, the initial performance rankings of these children will not change even if low-ability children work hard to improve their ability. Future research is needed to examine this proposed cultural explanation of the prevalence of the ambivalent mindset in Hong Kong and other Chinese societies.

Capability ranking reinforcement

In addition, we found that parents with the ambivalent mindset were more likely than other parents to agree with the use of several capability ranking reinforcement practices: person praise, mobilization of effort to make up for low ability, and downward adjustment of expectation to avoid failures. When their children perform well, these parents would encourage their children to work harder to maintain their competitiveness and bolster their self-confidence by praising their personal qualities. When their children do not perform well, these parents would encourage their children to work harder and learn from the smarter children. However, when children encounter failures despite the increase in effort, they will be advised to accept their low ability and try less challenging tasks to avoid setbacks. These practices, as we contend in the “Implications on children’s adjustment and parent-child relationships” section of the Introduction, will enlarge the initial performance differences.

In the present study, we found that these three capability ranking reinforcement practices are popular among Hong Kong Chinese parents. On a scale of 1 to 4, mean support for these practices was consistently higher than the mid-point (M = 2.76, 95% CI = (2.68, 2.84) in Wave 1 and M = 2.70, 95% CI = (2.60, 2.79) in Wave 2). These practices exemplify intraparental inconsistency in parenting across situations (Carrasco et al., 2015). When children succeed, parents would recognize and praise children's high ability. When children underperform, parents would pressurize children to work hard. When children fail repeatedly, parents would adjust their expectations downward and encourage children accept their children's unchangeable low ability as an attempt to protect children's self-esteem.

Our results show that this specific type of intraparental inconsistency in parenting is associated with parent–child relationship. We found that parents who strongly support capability ranking reinforcement tend to experience deteriorating relationship with their children when their children show academic disengagement or other behavioral and emotional problems in stressful times (during the school lockdown). These parents view children's problem behaviors as warning signals of their children's future failures and found themselves struggling between demanding effortful changes from their children and accepting their “unchangeable” lower self-regulatory ability. These conflicted parents may therefore waver between pushing their children to work harder to avoid their falling further behind and lowering expectations to avoid exposing their children to further frustrations. This finding is consistent with the past finding that inconsistent parenting has adverse effects on children's social-emotional development and parent–child relationship (e.g., Carrasco et al., 2015).

Implications for growth mindset interventions in Chinese contexts

Our results have implications for growth mindset interventions in Chinese contexts. If fixed and growth mindsets are separate, orthogonal constructs, teaching the growth mindset to fixed mindset Chinese may not replace their fixed mindset. A growth mindset intervention can strengthen the belief in the improvability of personal qualities. However, if people still think that strategic effort cannot reverse one's relative performance ranking, these people will simply replace their fixed mindset with the ambivalent mindset.

Indeed, although growth mindset interventions can effectively increase students’ learning motivation and performance in many countries, the evidence for the efficacy of growth mindset interventions in Chinese societies is mixed. First, the 2018 PISA study (reported in Gouedard, 2021) found that the growth mindset was not strongly associated with academic performance in Chinese contexts:

Compared to 32 points on average in reading across OECD countries, students with a growth mindset scored only … 17 points higher in … Macao (China) and 15 points in Chinese Taipei after accounting for the socio-economic profile of students and schools … Growth mindset and reading performance were unrelated in Hong Kong (China), and even negatively associated in B-S-J-Z (China). (p. 19)

The relatively low association of the growth mindset with academic engagement and performance in Chinese societies can be attributed to three interrelated factors: (1) keen academic competition among students in Chinese societies; (2) the Chinese cultural belief that effort is a way to compensate for low ability; and (3) the lack of academic mobility in Chinese societies. A recent comparative study of American and Chinese students suggests that the prevalence of the compensatory belief about effort and ability in Chinese culture may have weakened the efficacy of growth mindset interventions among Chinese students (Sun et al., 2021). Another study of Singaporean students shows that growth mindset interventions were not accompanied by significant performance gains if students did not expect upward academic mobility, defined as the potential for learners who fall behind initially to achieve academic success (Jia et al., 2021).

Accordingly, for growth mindset interventions to be effective in Chinese contexts, aside from persuading students to accept the malleability of one's abilities, educational and cultural reforms are needed to reduce academic competition and change academic engagement and learning from hard work for success to a source of intrinsic gratification (Zhao et al., 2023). We also need to replace the compensatory belief about effort and ability with the belief that ability increases with effective strivings, by providing students with the direct experiences of reaching valued personal development goals despite their initial inferior performance through the application of effective strategies. These ideas merit future investigations.

Conclusions and limitations

The present article makes a theoretical contribution by proposing the new construct of ambivalent mindset and three of its allied capability ranking reinforcement practices. This construct explains an anomaly in past findings – the small correlation between endorsement of fixed and growth mindsets. This new construct may also explain the relatively low predictive power of the growth mindset and low efficacy of growth mindset interventions in some studies conducted in Chinese contexts. Our preliminary findings also draw attention to the ambivalence and struggles parents with the ambivalent mindset may experience when their children display undesirable self-regulatory behavior, and how such ambivalence and struggles could affect the quality of parent–child relationship. Although our findings are preliminary, they invite future research to systematically study the underlying cultural and psychological mechanisms of the ambivalent mindset and capability reinforcement parental practices as well as their psychological and cultural consequences.

Nonetheless, although our results invite a new look at the growth mindset literature in Chinese contexts, given that we only had data from a small sample of Hong Kong Chinese parents of kindergarten children and the cross-sectional, correlational nature of the results, future studies are needed to confirm our propositions and extend the generality of our results. We hope that our results, despite their preliminary nature, will inspire future research to examine the growth mindset and its applications in rich cultural and ecological contexts.⁷

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909231166106 - Supplemental material for Personal qualities are malleable and fixed: Ambivalent mindset, capability ranking reinforcement, and parent–child relationship among Hong Kong Chinese parents

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909231166106 for Personal qualities are malleable and fixed: Ambivalent mindset, capability ranking reinforcement, and parent–child relationship among Hong Kong Chinese parents by Chi-Yue Chiu, Yuk-Yue Tong, Sau-Lai Lee and Hiu-Sze Chan in Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors received financial support from St. James' Settleme for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Chi-Yue Chiu

Yuk-Yue Tong

Sau-Lai Lee

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Alicke

M. D

., & Sedikides

(2011). Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection. Guilford.

Anderson

C. A.

(1995). Implicit theories in broad perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_2

Baumeister

R. F.

Tice

D. M.

Vohs

K. D.

(2018). The strength model of self-regulation: Conclusions from the second decade of willpower research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617716946

Brummelman

Thomaes

Overbeek

Orobio de Castro

van den Hout

M. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2014). On feeding those hungry for praise: Person praise backfires in children with low self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031917

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, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000368

Carrasco

M. Á.

Holgado-Tello

F. P.

Serrano

M. Á. R.

(2015). Intraparental inconsistency: The influence of parenting behaviors on aggression and depression in children. Family Relations, 64(5), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12168

Chan

H-S.

Chiu

C-y.

Lee

S-L.

Tong

Y-Y.

Leung

I. T-C.

Chan

A. H-T.

(2023). Improving the predictor-criterion consistency of mindset measures: Application of the correspondence principle. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology.

Chiu

C-y

., Chan

H-S

., Lee

S-l

., Tong

Y-m

., Tong

Y-y

., & Yeung

C-S

. (in press). The intellectual heritage and innovation of growth mindset theory: Introduction to growth mindset culture intervention strategies. Chinese Social Psychological Review.

Cohen

R. J.

Swerdlik

M. E.

(2005). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

10.

Conner

Armitage

C. J.

(2008). Attitudinal ambivalence. In Crano

W. D.

Prislin

(Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 261–286). Psychology Press.

11.

Darley

J. M.

(1995). Mutable theories that organize the world. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 290–294. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_3

12.

Dweck

C. S.

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

13.

Dweck

C. S.

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

14.

Dweck

C. S.

Chiu

Hong

(1995a). 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

15.

Dweck

C. S.

Chiu

Hong

(1995b). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_12

16.

Fang

Chang

Dang

(2022). Growth mindset matters : Influences of socioeconomic status on Chinese secondary vocational students’ learning engagement. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909221141984

17.

Gouedard

(2021). Sky’s the limit: Growth mindset, students, and schools in PISA. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/growth-mindset.pdf

18.

Grant

Dweck

C. S.

(2001). Cross-cultural responses to failure: Considering outcome attributions with different goals. In Salili

Chiu

C-y.

Hong

Y-y.

(Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 201–219). Plenum.

19.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

Elliot

A. J.

(1995). Life is a roller coaster when you view the world through entity glasses. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 298–301. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_5

20.

Hess

R. D.

Chang

C-M.

McDevitt

T. M.

(1987). Cultural variations in family beliefs about children’s performance in mathematics: Comparisons among people’s republic of China, Chinese-American, and Canadian-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.2.179

21.

D. Y. F.

Peng

Chan

S-f . (2001). An investigative research in teaching and learning in Chinese societies. In Chiu

C-y.

Salili

Hong

Y-y.

(Eds.), Multiple competences and self-regulated learning: Implications for multicultural education (pp.215–244). Information Age Publishing.

22.

Hong

Chiu

C-y.

Dweck

C. S.

Lin

D. M.

Wan

(1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: Focusing on malleable intelligence motivates remedial action via effort attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588

23.

Hong

Y-y.

(2001). Chinese Students’ and teachers’ inferences of effort and ability. In Salili

Chiu

C-y.

Hong

Y-y.

(Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 105–120). Plenum.

24.

Huang

Shi

Wang

(2022). Does growth mindset benefit mental health in Asia? Evidence from Chinese students. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909221135358

25.

Jia

., Lim

C. H

., Ismail

., & Tan

Y. C

. (2021). Stunted upward mobility in a learning environment reduces the academic benefits of growth mindsets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(10), e2011832118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2011832118

26.

Kamins

M. L.

Dweck

C. S.

(1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 835–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.835

27.

Lee

S-L.

Chan

H-Z.

Tong

Y-y.

Chiu

C-y.

(2023). Growth mindset predicts teachers’ life satisfaction when they are challenged to innovate their teaching. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology.

28.

Leung

Bond

M. H.

(2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multicultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36003-X

29.

Lewis

(1995). The nature of cause, the role of antecedent conditions in children’s attribution, and emotional behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_7

30.

B. C. Y.

Chan

S. K.

T. K.

Choi

A. W. M

. (2020). Parental demandingness and executive functioning in predicting anxiety among children in a longitudinal community study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(1), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01103-1

31.

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, Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000352

32.

O’Keefe

P. A.

(2013). Mindsets and self-evaluation: How beliefs about intelligence can create a preference for growth over defensiveness. In Kaufman

S. B.

(Ed.), The complexity of greatness: Beyond talent or practice (pp.119–134). Oxford University Press.

33.

Pomerantz

E. M.

Eaton

M. M.

(2000). Developmental differences in children’s conceptions of parental control: “They love me, but they make me feel incompetent.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(1), 140–167. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23093346

34.

Salili

Chiu

C-y

., & Lai

. (2001a). The influence of culture and context on students’ motivational orientation and performance. In Salili

Chiu

C-y

Hong

Y-y.

(Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 221–247). Plenum.

35.

Salili

H. Y.

Tong

Y. Y.

Tabatabai

(2001b). A cross-cultural comparison of the effect of culture and context of learning of student motivation and self-regulation. In Chiu

C-y.

Salili

Hong

Y-y.

(Eds.), Multiple competences and self-regulated learning: Implications for multicultural education (pp. 123–140). Information Age Publishing.

36.

Schunk

D. H.

(1995). Implicit theories and achievement behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_9

37.

Sedikides

(2009). On self-protection and self-enhancement regulation: The role of self-improvement and social norms. In Forgas

J. P.

Baumeister

R. F.

Tice

D. M.

(Eds.), Psychology of self-regulation: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (pp. 73–92). Psychology Press.

38.

Sun

Nancekivell

Gelman

S.A.

Shah

(2021) Growth mindset and academic outcomes: A comparison of US and Chinese students. NPJ Science of Learning, 6, 21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00100-z

39.

Tao

V. Y. J.

A. M. S.

(2022). Incremental intelligence mindset, fear of failure, and academic coping. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909221144703

40.

Tipton

Bryan

Murray

McDaniel

Schneider

Yeager

(2022). Why meta-analyses of growth mindset and other interventions should follow best practices for examining heterogeneity. Psychological Bulletin, Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34070.01605

41.

Xia

Zhang

Liu

Xue

Zhu

Guo

Zhang

Liu

(2022). The beneficial effect of growth mindset intervention for adolescents in economically disadvantaged areas of China. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909221142368

42.

Yeager

D. S.

Bryan

C. J.

Gross

J. J.

Murray

J. S.

Cobb

D. K.

Santos

P. H. F.

Gravelding

Johnson

Jamieson

J. P.

(2022). A synergistic mindsets intervention protects adolescents from stress. Nature, 607, 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04907-7

43.

Yeager

D. S.

Carroll

J. M.

Buontempo

Cimpian

Woody

Crosnoe

Muller

Murray Mhatre

J. P.

Kersting

Hulleman

Kudym

Murphy

Duckworth

A. L.

Walton

Dweck

C. S.

(2021). Teacher mindsets help explain where a growth mindset intervention does and doesn’t work. Psychological Science, 33(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679762110289

44.

Yeager

D. S.

Hanselman

Walton

G. M.

Murray

J. S.

Crosnoe

et al. (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

45.

Zhao

Huang

Peng

(2023). Autonomy matters: Influences of causality orientations on Chinese adolescents’ growth mindset. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909231157466

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

0.03 MB