What is meant by “growth mindset”? Current theory, measurement practices, and empirical results leave much open to interpretation: Commentary on Macnamara and Burgoyne (2023) and Burnette et al. (2023).

Abstract

The past decade has seen a rising interest in the growth mindset—the belief that abilities are malleable. At the same time, there have been rising criticisms. Macnamara and Burgoyne claim that growth mindset interventions do not yield meaningful effect sizes; growth mindset proponents argue that they do, for specific populations and under specific conditions. We speculate that disagreements stem from core questions for which this field has not yet answered or reached a consensus: What is meant by growth mindset and how it is measured? What is the process by which growth mindset is presumed to impact academic performance? And, what is the purpose of an intervention? We extend the discussions that Macnamara and Burgoyne and others have started about the theoretical constructs (meaning of intelligence, beliefs as uni- or multi-dimensional, process models and mediators) and practical impacts of growth mindset interventions (the value of examining heterogeneity, issues with scalability). Finally, we specify paths that may yield productive ways forward: developing better measures, rethinking what outcomes should be focal, fleshing out the theory and implications of a “meaning-systems” approach, and developing even broader-spectrum interventions that integrate science of learning findings with socio-motivational interventions to more strongly enhance learning outcomes.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 50 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.