CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Education, Achievement, and GiftednessNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionCognitive Abilities and Testing

Intelligence mindset shapes neural learning signals and memory

Open access
Bejjani, Christina, DePasque, Samantha, Tricomi, Elizabeth·2019·Biological Psychology
DOI 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.06.003

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Intelligence mindset, which denotes individual beliefs about whether intelligence is fixed versus malleable, shapes academic success, but the neural mechanisms underlying mindset-related differences in learning are unknown. Here, we probe the effects of individual differences in mindset on neural responses to negative feedback after a competence threat manipulation. We hypothesized that when their competence was threatened, participants with fixed mindsets would interpret further negative feedback as punishing. After receiving either no score or a competence-threatening IQ score, participants performed a learning task with feedback that emphasized either the evaluative or informational weight of negative feedback. Participants who experienced the competence threat had the strongest predictive relationships between mindset, performance, and caudate activation. The competence threat may have compounded the subjective punishment of negative feedback for fixed mindsets relative to growth mindsets, causing poorer learning from negative feedback in the evaluative context and inflexible striatal responses to negative feedback across feedback contexts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.06.003

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Few studies have combined experimental manipulation and longitudinal design to investigate reciprocal motivation-achievement relations.

    “Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, few studies have done both: combining experimental manipulation and longitudinal design to investigate reciprocal motivation-achievement relations (an exception that we are aware of is Bejjani et al., 2019 which will be discussed later).”

    From Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: a Literature Review and Research Agenda (2022) · cites this paper as Bejjani et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bejjani, C., DePasque, S., & Tricomi, E.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Bejjani, Christina
ORCID
Venue
Biological Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
146
Pages
107715
ISSN
0301-0511 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.06.003
OpenAlex
W2949283809
Cited by
19
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Biological Psychology (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
intelligence mindset, fixed mindset, growth mindset, negative feedback, striatum, learning from feedback, memory, individual differences
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Individuality, Intelligence, Learning, Male, Memory, Mental Competency, Feedback, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review