Cited by 24

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A process model of mindsets: Conceptualizing mindsets of ability as dynamic and socially situated.

de Ruiter, Naomi M. P., Thomaes, Sander·2023·Psychological Review

Abstract

Mindsets of ability (i.e., "fixed" and "growth" mindsets) play a pivotal role in students' academic trajectories. However, relatively little is known about the mechanisms underlying mindset development. Identifying these mechanisms is vital for understanding, and potentially influencing, how mindsets emerge and change over time. In this article, we formulate a comprehensive theoretical model that purports to account for the emergence and development of ability mindsets: the process model of mindsets (PMM). The PMM is rooted in complex dynamic systems and enactive perspectives, which allow for conceptualizing psychological phenomena as dynamic and socially situated. The PMM accounts for how mindset-related behaviors, action tendencies, beliefs, and social interactions can become codependent and robust over time. We discuss how the model helps to further our understanding of the efficacy of mindset interventions and the heterogeneity thereof. The PMM has a broad explanatory scope, is generative, and paves the way for future process studies of mindsets and mindset interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/rev0000425

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Metadata

Authors
de Ruiter, N. M. P., & Thomaes, S.
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2023-10
Volume
130
Issue
5
Pages
1326-1338
ISSN
  • 1939-1471
  • 0033-295X
Cited by
24
References
0
Language
en
Funders
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • National Initiative for Education Research (405.16380.015)

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