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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“among the studies that reported manipulation checks, the meta-analytic effect on academic achievement was significant for studies where the manipulation checks failed but non-significant for studies where the manipulation checks succeeded.”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Sisk et al. (2018)
In the citing paper
“Overall, the relationship between students' mindsets and academic achievement appears to be, at most, weak, and not always in the hypothesized direction.”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Sisk et al. (2018)
In the citing paper
“The effect on academic achievement was significant for studies that did not report manipulation checks but nonsignificant for studies that did report manipulation checks.”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Sisk et al. (2018)
In the citing paper
“Overall, Sisk and colleagues (2018) found a small meta-analytic standardized mean difference between intervention and control groups' academic achievement, favoring the interventions: 𝑑 ̅ = 0.08, 95% CI [0.02, 0.14].”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Sisk et al. (2018)
In the citing paper
“Sisk et al. (2018) found that about 1 /3 of growth mindset intervention studies did not report whether the growth mindset intervention influenced students to have more of a growth mindset.Of those that did, around half failed to demonstrate the intervention changed students' mindsets as intended.”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Sisk et al. (2018)
In the citing paper
“These inclusion criteria are identical to Sisk et al.'s (2018) inclusion criteria, with two exceptions.”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Sisk et al.'s (2018)
In the citing paper
“Thus, relative to Sisk et al. (2018), the present meta-analysis includes more than double the number of records and nearly double the total number of participants.”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Sisk et al. (2018)
In the citing paper
“Per-protocol analyses-analyses that only included the 239 schools that administered the treatment as intended-yielded ds = 0.03 and 0.01 for two academic achievement measures (see Sisk et al., 2018).”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Sisk et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“The first meta-analysis of growth mindset interventions in 2018 (which did not account for study quality) elicited conflicting conclusions: The meta-analysis authors (Sisk et al., 2018) concluded that effects of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement were small and cautioned they may be due to extraneous factors; Dweck (2018), the developer of mindset theory, concluded that the same”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Sisk et al., 2018
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 2×
“Pub-lication bias occurs when some results are systematically less likely to be published than others (e.g., studies that find small or null effects; Rosenthal, 1979).”
BackgroundMindset: The New Psychology of Success
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2397 · Cited by 7,804
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., Harbord, R. M., Schmid, C. H., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 · Cited by 7,709
(1999) · Cited by 6,308
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x · Cited by 3,784
Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A Word From Two Perspectives
Dweck, C., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (1995) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1 · Cited by 2,540
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.722805 · Cited by 2,334
P-curve: A key to the file-drawer.
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0033242 · Cited by 1,500
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Kish L., 1965, Survey sampling
- Williams R., 2012, Paper presented at the annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Copenhagen
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245919847202 · Cited by 3,295
What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2020) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000794 · Cited by 868
Ahmadi, A., Noetel, M., Parker, P. D., Ryan, R. M., Ntoumanis, N., Reeve, J., Beauchamp, M. R., Dicke, T., Yeung, A. S., Ahmadi, M., et al. (2023) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000783 · Cited by 603
Small Effects: The Indispensable Foundation for a Cumulative Psychological Science
Götz, F. M., Gosling, S. D., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2021) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620984483 · Cited by 600
Macnamara, B. N., & Burgoyne, A. P. (2023) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000352 · Cited by 415
Self-citation
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-03-05
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 549-571
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2789363920
- Semantic Scholar
- ee2e51b22572bb6f29021c8bbd12674137bcb6b2
- 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
