Cited by 1,159Education, Achievement, and GiftednessGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationSchool Choice and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

To What Extent and Under Which Circumstances Are Growth Mind-Sets Important to Academic Achievement? Two Meta-Analyses

Abstract

Mind-sets (aka implicit theories) are beliefs about the nature of human attributes (e.g., intelligence). The theory holds that individuals with growth mind-sets (beliefs that attributes are malleable with effort) enjoy many positive outcomes—including higher academic achievement—while their peers who have fixed mind-sets experience negative outcomes. Given this relationship, interventions designed to increase students’ growth mind-sets—thereby increasing their academic achievement—have been implemented in schools around the world. In our first meta-analysis ( k = 273, N = 365,915), we examined the strength of the relationship between mind-set and academic achievement and potential moderating factors. In our second meta-analysis ( k = 43, N = 57,155), we examined the effectiveness of mind-set interventions on academic achievement and potential moderating factors. Overall effects were weak for both meta-analyses. However, some results supported specific tenets of the theory, namely, that students with low socioeconomic status or who are academically at risk might benefit from mind-set interventions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0956797617739704

Cites

37 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kish L., 1965, Survey sampling
  2. Williams R., 2012, Paper presented at the annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Copenhagen

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N.
Affiliations
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Macnamara, Brooke N.
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2018-03-05
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
549-571
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2789363920
Cited by
1,159
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 148 · 2025: 137 · 2024: 114 · 2023: 206 · 2022: 133 · 2021: 128 · 2020: 173 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 24
FWCI
16.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
Keywords
implicit theories of intelligence, academic performance, socioeconomic status, at-risk students, moderators, intelligence beliefs
MeSH terms
Academic Success, Adolescent, Adult, Attitude, Child, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Self Concept, Students, Young Adult

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