The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Knowledge or Abilities? How Undergraduates Define Intelligence
Open accessAbstract
Whether students view intelligence as a fixed or malleable trait (i.e., their “mindset”) has significant implications for their responses to failure and academic outcomes. Despite a long history of research on mindset and its growing popularity, recent meta-analyses suggest that mindset does a poor job of predicting academic outcomes for undergraduate populations. Here, we present evidence that these mixed results could be due to ambiguous language on the mindset scale. Specifically, the term “intelligence” is a referent in every item of the mindset scale but is never defined, which could result in differing interpretations and measurement error. Therefore, we conducted an exploratory, qualitative study to characterize how undergraduate students define intelligence and how their definitions may influence how they respond to the mindset scale. We uncovered two distinct ways that undergraduates define intelligence: knowledge and abilities (e.g., ability to learn, solve problems). Additionally, we found that students’ definitions of intelligence can vary across contexts. Finally, we present evidence that students who define intelligence differently also interpret and respond to the items on the mindset scale differently. We discuss implications of these results for the use and interpretation of the mindset scale with undergraduate students.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Recent research (Burgoyne et al., 2018; Limeri et al., 2020) has questioned the assumption that measures of mindset collected before and after an intervention are valid and reliable.
“Recent research (Burgoyne et al., 2018;Limeri et al., 2020) has questioned this assumption.”
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 Limeri et al., 2020
The Introduction (page unavailable) questions the validity of the mindset scale for undergraduates, and the Discussion (page unavailable) suggests that differing interpretations of its items may introduce measurement error. The paper does not specifically assess measures collected before and after an intervention or establish that those measures are unreliable; it notes that some studies have reported test–retest reliability. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement
Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Tipton, E., Schneider, B., Hulleman, C. S., Hinojosa, C. P., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y · Cited by 1,513 · cited 1×
“…have benefited students—improving academic performance, increasing persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and eliminating gender and racial achievement gaps (e.g., Blackwell et al. , 2007; Good et al. , 2003; Yeager et al. , 2014, 2019; Fink et al. , 2018).”
Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation.
Burnette, J. L., O'Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0029531 · Cited by 1,367
Social-Psychological Interventions in Education: They’re Not Magic
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654311405999 · Cited by 1,345
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617739704 · Cited by 1,159
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003) · Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002 · Cited by 1,096
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 40
- 2014, Standards for educational and psychological testing
- Bandalos D. L., 2018, Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences
- Berg C. A., 1985, Developmental Review, 5, 334, 10.1016/0273-2297(85)90017-6 · DOI
- Berg C. A., 1992, Psychology and Aging, 7, 221, 10.1037/0882-7974.7.2.221 · DOI
- Buckley J., 2019, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 75, 10.1007/s10798-017-9438-8 · DOI
- Burkley E., 2017, Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 45, 10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.063 · DOI
- Burkley M., 2010, Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 234, 10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.002 · DOI
- Burnette J. L., 2020, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 107, 10.1177/1948550619841631 · DOI
- Cook D. A., 2017, Medical Education, 51, 1061, 10.1111/medu.13405 · DOI
- Costa A., 2018, Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 829, 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829 · DOI
- Dai T., 2014, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 233, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.003 · DOI
- De Castella K., 2015, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30, 245, 10.1007/s10212-015-0244-y · DOI
- Dommett E. J., 2013, Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2, 122, 10.1016/j.tine.2013.05.002 · DOI
- Dweck C. S., 1999, Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development
- Dweck C. S., 1995, Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267, 10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1 · DOI
- Fink A., 2018, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19, 783, 10.1039/C7RP00244K · DOI
- Flanigan A. E., 2017, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 179, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.10.003 · DOI
- Fontana A., 2000, Handbook of qualitative research, 645
- Fry P. S., 1984, International Journal of Psychology, 19, 457, 10.1080/00207598408247541 · DOI
- Gunderson E. A., 2017, Developmental Psychology, 53, 1188, 10.1037/dev0000282 · DOI
- 10.1187/cbe.18-06-0108 · DOI
- Hong Y., 1999, Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology, 77, 588
- Hsieh H.-F., 2005, Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277, 10.1177/1049732305276687 · DOI · Paper page
- Kinlaw C. R., 2003, Developmental Review, 23, 125, 10.1016/S0273-2297(03)00010-8 · DOI
- Levy S. R., 1998, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421, 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1421 · DOI
- Lim W., 2002, Intelligence, 30, 185, 10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00097-6 · DOI
- National Research Council, 2001, Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment
- Okagaki L., 1993, Child Development, 64, 36, 10.2307/1131436 · DOI
- Orosz G., 2017, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1, 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00311 · DOI
- Scott M. J., 2014, IEEE Transactions on Education, 57, 169, 10.1109/TE.2013.2288700 · DOI
- Shively R. L., 2013, Social Psychology of Education, 16, 241, 10.1007/s11218-012-9208-0 · DOI
- Smiley P. A., 2016, Motivation and Emotion, 40, 878, 10.1007/s11031-016-9575-5 · DOI
- Sriram R., 2014, Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 15, 515, 10.2190/CS.15.4.c · DOI
- Sternberg R. J., 1985, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607, 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607 · DOI
- Sternberg R. J., 2000, Handbook of intelligence, 3, 10.1017/CBO9780511807947.002 · DOI
- Sternberg R. J., 2007, Educational Researcher, 36, 148, 10.3102/0013189X07299881 · DOI
- Wang A. Y., 1988, Psychological Record, 38, 533, 10.1007/BF03395045 · DOI
- Yeager D. S., 2012, Educational Psychologist, 47, 302, 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805 · DOI · Paper page
- Yeager D. S., 2014, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 867, 10.1037/a0036335 · DOI · Paper page
- Yussen S. R., 1985, The growth of reflection in children, 207
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Macnamara, B. N., & Burgoyne, A. P. (2023) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000352 · Cited by 415
Metadata
- Authors
- Limeri, L. B., Choe, J., Harper, H. G., Martin, H. R., Benton, A., & Dolan, E. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Georgia (US)
- Agnes Scott College (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Limeri, Lisa B.
- Venue
- CBE—Life Sciences Education
- Published
- 2020-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- ar5
- ISSN
- 1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8697642
- OpenAlex
- W3003421020
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 7.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-sa
- Locations
- CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1659423)
- University of Georgia
- 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 › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- intelligence, growth mindset, fixed mindset, undergraduate students, definition of intelligence, measurement error, scale interpretation, educational outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Intelligence, Learning, Terminology as Topic, Students, Universities
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