CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 868Education, Achievement, and GiftednessGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function

What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?

Open access
Yeager, David S., Dweck, Carol S.·2020·American Psychologist
DOI 10.1037/amp0000794PMC PMC8299535
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The growth mindset is the belief that intellectual ability can be developed. This article seeks to answer recent questions about growth mindset, such as: Does a growth mindset predict student outcomes? Do growth mindset interventions work, and work reliably? Are the effect sizes meaningful enough to merit attention? And can teachers successfully instill a growth mindset in students? After exploring the important lessons learned from these questions, the article concludes that large-scale studies, including preregistered replications and studies conducted by third parties (such as international governmental agencies), justify confidence in growth mindset research. Mindset effects, however, are meaningfully heterogeneous across individuals and contexts. The article describes three recent advances that have helped the field to learn from this heterogeneity: standardized measures and interventions, studies designed specifically to identify where growth mindset interventions do not work (and why), and a conceptual framework for anticipating and interpreting moderation effects. The next generation of mindset research can build on these advances, for example by beginning to understand and perhaps change classroom contexts in ways that can make interventions more effective. Throughout, the authors reflect on lessons that can enrich metascientific perspectives on replication and generalization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/amp0000794

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Personalized instruction can foster a growth mindset, which has been shown to promote students' persistence in the face of difficulties.

    “In addition, personalized instruction can foster a growth mindset, which has been shown to promote students’ persistence in the face of difficulties16,17.”

    From AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: an RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting (2025) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Abstract (page not provided) reports that people with a growth mindset are more likely to thrive in the face of difficulty, supporting the persistence portion of the claim. But the discussion of teacher interventions in Controversy 4 (page not provided) does not establish that personalized instruction fosters a growth mindset; it says the field still needs to determine which teacher practices affect students’ mindsets. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Aronson JM, Fried CB, & Good C (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. 10.1006/jesp.2001.1491 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bahník Š, & Vranka MA (2017). Growth mindset is not associated with scholastic aptitude in a large sample of university applicants. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 139– 143. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.046 · DOI
  3. Benartzi S, Beshears J, Milkman KL, Sunstein CR, Thaler RH, Shankar M, Tucker-Ray W, Congdon WJ, & Galing S (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041– 1055. 10.1177/0956797617702501 28581899 PMC5549818 · DOI
  4. Broda M, Yun J, Schneider B, Yeager DS, Walton GM, & Diemer M (2018). Reducing inequality in academic success for incoming college students: A randomized trial of growth mindset and belonging interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(3), 317– 338. 10.1080/19345747.2018.1429037 PMC10798796 38250254 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Burgoyne AP, Hambrick DZ, & Macnamara BN (2020). How firm are the foundations of mind-set theory? The claims appear stronger than the evidence. Psychological Science, 31(3), 258– 267. 32011215
  6. Burnette JL, Knouse LE, Vavra DT, O’Boyle E, & Brooks MA (2020). Growth mindsets and psychological distress: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 101816. 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101816 32163802 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chetty R, Friedman JN, & Rockoff JE (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2593– 2632. 10.1257/aer.104.9.2593 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Cheung ACK, & Slavin RE (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 283– 292. 10.3102/0013189X16656615 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Cury F, Elliot AJ, Da Fonseca D, & Moller AC (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 666– 679. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.666 16649862 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Diener CI, & Dweck CS (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 451. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.451 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dweck CS (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.
  12. Dweck CS, & Reppucci ND (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1), 109– 116. 10.1037/h0034248 · DOI
  13. Elliott ES, & Dweck CS (1988a). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5– 12. 10.1037//0022-3514.54.1.5 3346808 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Elliott ES, & Dweck CS (1988b). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5– 12. 10.1037//0022-3514.54.1.5 3346808 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Ganimian AJ (2020). Growth-mindset interventions at scale: Experimental evidence from Argentina. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(3), 417– 438. 10.3102/0162373720938041 · DOI
  16. Gopalan M, & Yeager DS (2020). How does adopting a Growth Mindset Improve Academic Performance? Probing the Underlying Mechanisms in a Nationally- Representative Sample. OSF Preprints. 10.31219/osf.io/h2bzs · DOI
  17. Grant H, & Dweck CS (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541– 553. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541 14498789 · DOI
  18. Hattie J, Biggs J, & Purdie N (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99– 136. 10.3102/00346543066002099 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Hong Y, Chiu C, Dweck CS, Lin DM-S, & Wan W (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588– 599. 10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hulleman CS, Schrager SM, Bodmann SM, & Harackiewicz JM (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422– 449. 10.1037/a0018947 20438145 · DOI
  21. Kenny DA, & Judd CM (2019). The unappreciated heterogeneity of effect sizes: Implications for power, precision, planning of research, and replication. Psychological Methods, 24(5), 578– 589. 10.1037/met0000209 30742474 · DOI
  22. Kraft MA (2020). Interpreting Effect Sizes of Education Interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241– 253. 10.3102/0013189X20912798 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Krueger AB (2003). Economic Considerations and Class Size. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F34– F63. JSTOR.
  24. Li Y, & Bates TC (2019). You can’t change your basic ability, but you work at things, and that’s how we get hard things done: Testing the role of growth mindset on response to setbacks, educational attainment, and cognitive ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(9), 1640– 1655. 10.1037/xge0000669 31464486 · DOI
  25. Li Y, & Bates TC (2020). Testing the association of growth mindset and grades across a challenging transition: Is growth mindset associated with grades? Intelligence, 81, 101471. 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101471 · DOI
  26. McShane BB, Tackett JL, Böckenholt U, & Gelman A (2019). Large-scale replication projects in contemporary psychological research. The American Statistician, 73(sup1), 99– 105. 10.1080/00031305.2018.1505655 · DOI
  27. Miele DB, & Molden DC (2010). Naive theories of intelligence and the role of processing fluency in perceived comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 535– 557. 10.1037/a0019745 20677898 · DOI
  28. Molden DC, & Dweck CS (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61(3), 192– 203. 10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192 16594836 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Muenks K, Canning EA, LaCosse J, Green DJ, Zirkel S, Garcia JA, & Murphy MC (2020). Does my professor think my ability can change? Students’ perceptions of their STEM professors’ mindset beliefs predict their psychological vulnerability, engagement, and performance in class. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 10.1037/xge0000763 32378957 · DOI
  30. Nussbaum AD, & Dweck CS (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self-theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 599– 612. 10.1177/0146167207312960 18276895 · DOI
  31. Nye B, Hedges LV, & Konstantopoulos S (2000). The effects of small classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee class size experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 123– 151. 10.3102/00028312037001123 · DOI
  32. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives. PISA, OECD Publishing. 10.1787/acd78851-en. · DOI
  33. Paunesku D, Walton GM, Romero C, Smith EN, Yeager DS, & Dweck CS (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6), 784– 793. 10.1177/0956797615571017 25862544 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Qin X, Wormington S, Guzman-Alvarez A, & Wang M-T (2020). Why does a growth mindset intervention impact achievement differently across secondary schools? Unpacking the causal mediation mechanism from a national multisite randomized experiment. OSF Preprints. 10.31219/osf.io/7c94h PMC9165420 35662801 · DOI
  35. Rege M, Hanselman P, Ingeborg FS, Dweck CS, Ludvigsen S, Bettinger E, Muller C, Walton GM, Duckworth AL, & Yeager DS (in press). How can we inspire nations of learners? Investigating growth mindset and challenge-seeking in two countries. American Psychologist. PMC8113339 33180534
  36. Robins RW, & Pals JL (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self & Identity, 1(4), 313– 336. 10.1080/15298860290106805 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Schleider JL, Abel MR, & Weisz JR (2015). Implicit theories and youth mental health problems: A random-effects meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 35, 1– 9. 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.11.001 25462109 · DOI
  38. Schroder HS, Dawood S, Yalch MM, Donnellan MB, & Moser JS (2016). Evaluating the domain specificity of mental health–related mind-sets. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 508– 520. 10.1177/1948550616644657 · DOI
  39. Seo E, Lee HY, Jamieson JP, Reis HT, Beevers CG, & Yeager DS (in press). Trait attributions and threat appraisals explain the relation between implicit theories of personality and internalizing symptoms during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology. PMC8458488 33752772
  40. Sisk VF, Burgoyne AP, Sun J, Butler JL, & Macnamara BN (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. 10.1177/0956797617739704 29505339 · DOI
  41. Slavin RE (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 5– 11. 10.3102/0013189X015009005 · DOI
  42. Tipton E, Yeager DS, Iachan R, & Schneider B (2019). Designing probability samples to study treatment effect heterogeneity. In Lavrakas PJ (Ed.), Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques that Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment. (pp. 435– 456). Wiley. 10.1002/9781119083771.ch22 · DOI
  43. Vivalt E (2020). How much can we generalize from impact evaluations? Journal of the European Economic Association, 47. 10.1093/jeea/jvaa019 · DOI
  44. Walton GM, & Yeager DS (2020). Seed and soil: Psychological affordances in contexts help to explain where wise interventions succeed or fail. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 10.1177/0963721420904453 PMC7384695 32719574 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Weiner B, & Kukla A (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(1), 1– 20. 10.1037/h0029211 · DOI
  46. West MR, Buckley K, Krachman SB, & Bookman N (2017). Development and implementation of student social-emotional surveys in the CORE Districts. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 10.1016/j.appdev.2017.06.001 · DOI
  47. Yeager DS (2019). The National Study of Learning Mindsets, [United States], 2015–2016. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [ distributor]. 10.3886/ICPSR37353.v1 · DOI
  48. Yeager DS, Carroll JM, Buontempo J, Cimpian A, Woody S, Crosnoe R, Muller C, Murray J, Mhatre P, Kersting N, Hulleman C, Kudym M, Murphy M, Duckworth AL, Walton G, & Dweck CS (2020). Teacher mindsets help explain where a growth mindset intervention does and doesn’t work [ Manuscript submitted for publication.]. PMC8985222 34936529
  49. Yeager DS, Dahl RE, & Dweck CS (2018). Why interventions to influence adolescent behavior often fail but could succeed. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 101– 122. 10.1177/1745691617722620 29232535 PMC5758430 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Yeager DS, & Dweck CS (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302– 314. 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Yeager DS, Fong CJ, Lee HY, & Espelage DL (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 36– 51. 10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Yeager DS, Romero C, Paunesku D, Hulleman CS, Schneider B, Hinojosa C, Lee HY, O’Brien J, Flint K, Roberts A, Trott J, Greene D, Walton GM, & Dweck CS (2016). Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 374– 391. 10.1037/edu0000098 27524832 PMC4981081 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Yeager DS, Trzesniewski KH, & Dweck CS (2013). An implicit theories of personality intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion. Child Development, 84(3), 970– 988. 10.1111/cdev.12003 23106262 PMC3660787 · DOI
  54. Yeager DS, Walton GM, Brady ST, Akcinar EN, Paunesku D, Keane L, Kamentz D, Ritter G, Duckworth AL, Urstein R, Gomez EM, Markus HR, Cohen GL, & Dweck CS (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(24), E3341– E3348. 10.1073/pnas.1524360113 PMC4914175 27247409 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Yeager, David S.
ORCID
Venue
American Psychologist
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2020-12
Volume
75
Issue
9
Pages
1269-1284
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
DOI
10.1037/amp0000794
PMC
PMC8299535
OpenAlex
W3116178148
Cited by
868
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 188 · 2025: 190 · 2024: 141 · 2023: 213 · 2022: 93 · 2021: 41 · 2013: 1
FWCI
83.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • William T Grant Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (R01HD084772; P2CHD042849)
  • National Science Foundation (1761179)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Keywords
growth mindset, mindset intervention, student outcomes, effect size, replication, generalization, moderating effect, treatment effect heterogeneity, standardized measures, classroom context, meta-research
MeSH terms
Academic Success, Cognition, Humans, Individuality, Intelligence, Learning, Models, Psychological, Students

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