Cited by 415Education, Achievement, and GiftednessGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 105 of the 105 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 81 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices.

Open access
Macnamara, Brooke N., Burgoyne, Alexander P.·2023·Psychological Bulletin

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

According to mindset theory, students who believe their personal characteristics can change—that is, those who hold a growth mindset—will achieve more than students who believe their characteristics are fixed. Proponents of the theory have developed interventions to influence students’ mindsets, claiming that these interventions lead to large gains in academic achievement. Despite their popularity, the evidence for growth mindset intervention benefits has not been systematically evaluated considering both the quantity and quality of the evidence. Here, we provide such a review by (a) evaluating empirical studies’ adherence to a set of best practices essential for drawing causal conclusions and (b) conducting three meta-analyses. When examining all studies (63 studies, N = 97,672), we found major shortcomings in study design, analysis, and reporting, and suggestions of researcher and publication bias: Authors with a financial incentive to report positive findings published significantly larger effects than authors without this incentive. Across all studies, we observed a small overall effect: d ̅ = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.09], which was non-significant after correcting for potential publication bias. No theoretically-meaningful moderators were significant. When examining only studies demonstrating the intervention influenced students’ mindsets as intended (13 studies, N = 18,355), the effect was non-significant: d ̅ = 0.04, 95% CI = [-0.01, 0.10]. When examining the highest-quality evidence (6 studies, N = 13,571), the effect was non-significant: d ̅ = 0.02, 95% CI = [-0.06, 0.10]. We conclude that apparent effects of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement are likely attributable to inadequate study design, reporting flaws, and bias.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis finds that growth mindset interventions show only a small overall effect on academic achievement, and that effect becomes non-significant after correcting for publication bias. When analyses are restricted to studies that changed students’ mindsets as intended or to the highest-quality evidence, effects are non-significant.

Key findings

  • Across all studies (63 studies, N = 97,672), the overall effect was small and significant: *d* = 0.05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.09], *p* = .004; after publication-bias correction, estimates were non-significant (*d* = 0.03 trim-and-fill; *d* = 0.01 PET).
  • Among studies showing the intervention changed students’ mindsets as intended (13 studies, N = 18,355), the effect was non-significant: *d* = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.10], *p* = .146.
  • Among the highest-quality evidence (6 studies, N = 13,571), the effect was non-significant: *d* = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.06, 0.10], *p* = .666.
  • Authors with a financial incentive to report positive findings published significantly larger effects than authors without this incentive; for financially incentivized authors, published effects averaged *d* = 0.18 versus unpublished *d* = 0.02, while for non-incentivized authors published effects averaged *d* = −0.10 versus unpublished *d* = 0.05.

Methods

  • Systematic review and three random-effects meta-analyses of treatment-vs.-control growth mindset intervention studies measuring academic achievement (grades or standardized test scores), updating Sisk et al. (2018) through August 7, 2019.
  • Meta-Analysis 1 included all eligible studies regardless of quality; Meta-Analysis 2 included only studies with evidence that the intervention significantly shifted treatment students’ mindsets toward growth mindset; Meta-Analysis 3 included studies with such mindset evidence and at least 60% of 10 best-practices criteria.
  • Effect sizes were Cohen’s *d*, adjusted where possible for baseline achievement, dependent effects, and cluster design effects; analyses included moderator tests and publication-bias assessments (funnel plot, Egger’s regression, trim-and-fill, PET-PEESE).

Limitations

  • Stated by the authors: search timeframe and inaccessible unpublished studies; English-language restriction; preregistered scope decisions; reliance on the assumption that mindset measures are valid and reliable; heterogeneity across models; and the generally low quality of included studies, which required lowering standards for Meta-Analysis 3.
  • Evident in the text: no studies met all best-practices criteria; Meta-Analysis 3 still included studies that failed multiple best practices and may still overestimate effects; some alternate best-practices models were not preregistered but suggested by a reviewer; and the authors could not publish analysis code because they used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000352

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

25 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Histogram of Independent Records Included Through the Last Full Year of Our Search
Figure 2 Histogram of Independent Records Included Through the Last Full Year of Our SearchCC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Differences in Effects of Published Versus Unpublished Growth Mindset Interventions Depending on the Authors' Financial Incentives to Report Positive Effects
Figure 3 Differences in Effects of Published Versus Unpublished Growth Mindset Interventions Depending on the Authors' Financial Incentives to Report Positive EffectsCC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Histogram of Independent Samples Meeting Best Practices Criteria
Figure 4 Histogram of Independent Samples Meeting Best Practices CriteriaCC-BY · From the PDF
Image 5
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 6
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 7
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 8
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 9 on Quality of Studies
Figure 9 on Quality of StudiesCC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

97 Own interpretation · 87 Own result · 25 Sources not found · 21 No full text of the sources · 18 No basis given · 16 Own method · 7 Not checked yet · 4 Supported · 4 Partly supported · 2 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 37
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 98
123 of 123
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The second meta-analysis model assumes that measures of mindset are valid and reliable, and that other factors are not the key mechanisms driving effects.

    “We note, however, that this model rests on the assumption that measures of mindset are valid and reliable, and that other factors are not the key mechanisms driving effects.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Construct measures are valid and reliable.

    “Assuming construct measures are valid and reliable”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Intent-to-treat analyses should yield more conservative estimates than per-protocol analyses.

    “Despite the assumption that intent-to-treat analyses should yield more conservative estimates than per-protocol analyses”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The effect of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement occurs via motivational processes, such as motivation to learn and seek challenges.

    “In the case of mindset, the effect of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement is assumed to occur via motivational processes, such as motivation to learn and seek challenges.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Studies without the best-practice characteristics increase the risk to internal validity in individual study results.

    “Studies without these characteristics increase the risk to internal validity in individual study results.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Measures of mindset are valid and reliable.

    “Thus, if we assume measures of mindset are valid and reliable, a better test of the importance of growth mindset is to only meta-analyze studies with evidence the intervention influenced students' mindsets as intended.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Measures of mindset accurately reflect students' beliefs.

    “Thus, assuming measures of mindset accurately reflect students' beliefs, studies included in Meta-Analysis 2 meet the minimal standard of evidence to attribute effects to growth mindset.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Measures of mindset collected before and after an intervention are valid and reliable.

    “We based Meta-Analysis 2: Minimal Standard of Evidence and Meta-Analysis 3: Best Available Evidence on the assumption that measures of mindset collected before and after an intervention are valid and reliable.”
8 of 8

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upχ²(1) = 0.13reported p = .911 · recomputed p = .718

    “χ 2 (1, N = 61) = 0.13, p = .911”

  • Not confirmedt(77) = 1.86reported p = .034 · recomputed p = .067

    “t(77) = 1.86, p = .034”

  • Not confirmedt(19) = 0.25reported p = .402 · recomputed p = .805

    “t(19) = 0.25, p = .402”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 0.96reported p = .328 · recomputed p = .327

    “Q(1) = 0.96, p = .328”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 7.9reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “Q(1) = 7.90, p = .005”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 4.04reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .044

    “Q(1) = 4.04, p = .044”

  • ConsistentF(1, 75) = 6.35reported p = .014 · recomputed p = .014

    “F(1, 75) = 6.35, p = .014”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 7.09reported p = .008 · recomputed p = .008

    “χ 2 (1, N = 61) = 7.09, p = .008”

  • ConsistentQ(2) = 0.47reported p = .791 · recomputed p = .791

    “Q(2) = 0.47, p = .791”

  • ConsistentQ(2) = 0.28reported p = .87 · recomputed p = .869

    “Q(2) = 0.28, p = .870”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 2.1reported p = .147 · recomputed p = .147

    “Q(1) = 2.10, p = .147”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 0.21reported p = .647 · recomputed p = .647

    “Q(1) = 0.21, p = .647”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 0.39reported p = .534 · recomputed p = .532

    “Q(1) = 0.39, p = .534”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 6.01reported p = .014 · recomputed p = .014

    “Q(1) = 6.01, p = .014”

  • ConsistentQ(3) = 4.33reported p = .228 · recomputed p = .228

    “Q(3) = 4.33, p = .228”

  • ConsistentQ(3) = 0.4reported p = .939 · recomputed p = .940

    “Q(3) = 0.40, p = .939”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 2.99reported p = .084 · recomputed p = .084

    “Q(1) = 2.99, p = .084”

  • ConsistentQ(3) = 1.61reported p = .657 · recomputed p = .657

    “Q(3) = 1.61, p = .657”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 0.18reported p = .674 · recomputed p = .671

    “Q(1) = 0.18, p = .674”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 0.16reported p = .686 · recomputed p = .689

    “Q(1) = 0.16, p = .686”

  • ConsistentQ(2) = 3.98reported p = .137 · recomputed p = .137

    “Q(2) = 3.98, p = .137”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 0.04reported p = .838 · recomputed p = .841

    “Q(1) = 0.04, p = .838”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 1.29reported p = .256 · recomputed p = .256

    “Q(1) = 1.29, p = .256”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 9.66reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “Q(1) = 9.66, p = .002”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 0.08reported p = .781 · recomputed p = .777

    “Q(1) = 0.08, p = .781”

25 of 25

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Show all 103 references

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Barron, Hulleman, Hartka, & Inouye (2017) -M1-M3 Dommett, Devonshire, Sewter, & Greenfield (2013) -S2 Saunders (2013)
  2. Barron et al. (2017) -M1-M3 Dommett et al. (2013) -S2 Saunders (2013)
  3. Alimohamadi, Y., & Sepandi, M. (2019). Considering the design effect in cluster sampling. Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Research, 11(1), 78. https://doi.org/10.15171/jcvtr.2019. · DOI
  4. Burnette, J. L., Hoyt, C. L., Russell, V. M., Lawson, B., Dweck, C. S., & Finkel, E. (2016). A growth mind-set intervention improves interest but not academic performance in the field of computer science. Unpublished preprint of methods and results.
  5. Dweck, C. S. (2009). Mindsets: Developing talent through a growth mindset. Olympic Coach, 21(1), 4-7.
  6. Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success (2 nd ed.). New York: Random House.
  7. Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019a). A simple re-analysis overturns a "failure to replicate" and highlights an opportunity to improve scientific practice: Commentary on Li and Bates (in press). Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David- Yeager/publication/337856605_A_Simple_Re- Analysis_Overturns_a_Failure_to_Replicate_and_Highlights_an_Opportunity_to_Impro ve_Scientific_Practice_Commentary_on_Li_and_Bates_2019/links/5def33d292851c8364 7068f8/A-Simple-Re-Analysis-Overturns-a-Failure-to-Replicate-and-Highlights-an- Opportunity-to-Improve-Scientific-Practice-Commentary-on-Li-and-Bates-2019.pdf] remedial math. Journal of Counseling and Psychology, 2(1), 3. https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/jcp/vol2/iss1/3
  8. Gauthreaux, E. F. (2015). Effect of specific feedback on growth mindset and achievement. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University.
  9. Huffman, G. C. (2017). An intelligence mindset intervention for first semester college students. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
  10. Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: Wiley.
  11. Macnamara, B. N., & Burgoyne, A. P. (2018, August 11). Preregistration for Do growth mindset interventions impact students' academic achievement? A systematic review and meta- analysis with recommendations for best practices. Open Science Framework. <www. osf.io/ga9jk>. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/ga9jk · DOI
  12. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6(7): e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 underachievement. Psychological Science, 26, 784-793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017 · DOI
  13. Peterson, L. (2018). Can explicit teaching of a growth mindset in early elementary increase student ability? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Concordia University.
  14. Tillis, G. E. (2019). Toward a transformative transition: A critical pedagogical approach to social-psychological interventions in first-year seminar. In J. Hoffman, P. Blessinger, & M. Makhanya (Eds.), Strategies for Fostering Inclusive Classrooms in Higher Education: International Perspectives on Equity and Inclusion (Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 16), (pp. 183-195).
  15. * Whorrall, A. L. (2018). Academic motivation and achievement of middle school Hispanic students: Exploring the use of mindset and Brainology in education. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northcentral University.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 415

Metadata

Authors
Macnamara, B. N., & Burgoyne, A. P.
Affiliations
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2023-03
Volume
149
Issue
3-4
Pages
133-173
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W4308060187
Cited by
415
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 141 · 2025: 141 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 45
FWCI
68.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Education Development Trust
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
growth mindset intervention, academic performance, study design flaws, reporting bias, intervention effectiveness, best practices

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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