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.

Although most interpersonal interactions take place between people who know each other, most selfpresentation research has focused on self-presentation to strangers. Five studies showed that selfpresentational favorability differed as a function of whether the interaction partner was a friend or a stranger. Studies 1 and 2 found that self-presentations to friends were consistently more modest than self-presentations to strangers. In Studies 3 and 4, self-presentations were manipulated by instructing participants to present themselves in either a self-enhancing or modest manner. Modesty with strangers and self-enhancement with friends both resulted in impaired recall for the interaction, consistent with the view that those strategies contradict familiar, overlearned patterns. Study 5 distinguished self-deprecation from modesty. Taken together, the results indicate that people habitually use different self-presentation strategies with different audiences, relying on favorable self-enhancement with strangers but shifting toward modesty when among friends.Self-presentation is one of the fundamental and important processes by which people negotiate identities for themselves in their social worlds. In the privacy of one's own mind, perhaps, one may be relatively free to imagine oneself having any sort of identity, but serious identity claims generally require social validation by other people, and so the construction of identity requires persuading others to see one as having desired traits and qualities (e.g., Baumeister, 1982;Schlenker, 1980;Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982).The importance of self-presentation is reflected in how pervasive the motivations are. It appears that there is a strong and pervasive desire to make a positive impression on others (e.g., Jones & Wortman, 1973; see also Leary & Kowalski, 1990;Sedikides, 1993). However, how one creates a positive impression may vary depending on the audience one is trying to impress. As Tedeschi (1986) asserted, the distinction between behavior that occurs in intimate relationships and behavior that occurs in impersonal interactions has been largely neglected by selfpresentation researchers. The purpose of the present studies was to demonstrate that self-presentation differs for these different audiences. Specifically, the studies attempted to demonstrate that people self-present in a much more self-promoting manner with strangers and in a more modest manner with friends and acquaintances. Moreover, we suggest that in terms of Paulhus's

In 3 experiments, supportive audiences were associated with unexpected performance decrements (i.e., "choking" under pressure). On a difficult, skill-based task, participants were more likely to fail when observed by supportive audiences than when observed by nonsupportive audiences. When the criterion for success was easy, supportive audiences had no effect. With a difficult criterion, supportive audiences elicited cautious, protective strategies that were associated with poor performance: Speed decreased without improving accuracy. Despite impairments caused by supportive audiences, performers found supportive audiences more helpful and less stressful than neutral or adversarial audiences, and participants believed (wrongly) that they performed better with a supportive audience. Results suggest that people are not aware of debilitating effects of supportive audiences and may opt for emotional comfort rather than objective success.

No abstract

No abstract