Cited by 215Education, Achievement, and GiftednessGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationChild and Animal Learning Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Open access
Li, Yue, Bates, Timothy C.·2019·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Mindset theory predicts that a growth mindset can substantially improve children's resilience to failure and enhance important outcomes such as school grades. We tested these predictions in a series of studies of 9-13-year-old Chinese children (n = 624). Study 1 closely replicated Mueller and Dweck (1998). Growth mindset manipulation was associated with performance on a moderate difficulty postfailure test (p = .049), but not with any of the 8 motivation and attribution measures used by Mueller and Dweck (1998): mean p = .48. Studies 2 and 3 included an active control to distinguish effects of mindset from other aspects of the manipulation, and included a challenging test. No effect of the classic growth mindset manipulation was found for either moderate or more difficult material in either Study 2 or Study 3 (ps = .189 to .974). Compatible with these null results, children's mindsets were unrelated to resilience to failure for either outcome measure (ps = .673 to .888). The sole exception was a significant effect in the reverse direction to prediction found in Study 2 for resilience on more difficult material (p = .007). Finally, in 2 studies relating mindset to grades across a semester in school, the predicted association of growth mindset with improved grades was not supported. Neither was there any association of children's mindsets with their grades at the start of the semester. Beliefs about the malleability of basic ability may not be related to resilience to failure o…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0000669

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Li, Y., & Bates, T. C.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2019-09
Volume
148
Issue
9
Pages
1640-1655
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2970046647
Cited by
215
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 3
FWCI
32.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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 › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
growth mindset, fixed mindset, motivation, educational attainment, school grades, cognitive ability, children, replication, Chinese children
MeSH terms
Academic Success, Adolescent, Child, China, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Practice, Psychological, Schools

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