Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation.

Abstract

This review builds on self-control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1998) to develop a theoretical framework for investigating associations of implicit theories with self-regulation. This framework conceptualizes self-regulation in terms of three crucial processes: goal setting, goal operating and goal monitoring. In this meta-analysis, we included articles that reported a quantifiable assessment of implicit theories and at least one self-regulatory process or outcome. Using a random effects approach, meta-analytic results (total unique N = 28,217; k = 113) across diverse achievement domains (68% academic) and populations (age range = 5-42; 10 different nationalities; 58% from United States; 44% female) demonstrated that implicit theories predict distinct self-regulatory processes, which, in turn, predict goal achievement. Incremental theories, which, in contrast to entity theories, are characterized by the belief that human attributes are malleable rather than fixed, significantly predicted goal setting (performance goals, r = -.151; learning goals, r = .187), goal operating (helpless-oriented strategies, r = -.238; mastery-oriented strategies, r = .227), and goal monitoring (negative emotions, r = -.233; expectations, r = .157). The effects for goal setting and goal operating were stronger in the presence (vs. absence) of ego threats such as failure feedback. Discussion emphasizes how the present theoretical analysis merges an implicit theory perspective with self-control theory to advance scholarship and unlock major new directions for basic and applied research. Abstract = 221; Overall Word Count = 32,266 KEY WORDS: implicit theories, self-regulation, self-control theory, achievement Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation 2 Mindsets Matter: A Meta-Analytic Review of Implicit Theories and Self-RegulationWhy do some students seek to gain competency, whereas others seek to outperform their peers? Why do some athletes redouble their efforts when facing setbacks, whereas others respond with helplessness? Why do some dieters feel confident in their ability to face challenges to their weight-loss goals, whereas others feel they lack the requisite skills? Research on implicit theories has sought to answer these and similar questions for decades, examining how lay beliefs, namely incremental theories (beliefs that human attributes can be improved or developed) and entity theories (beliefs that human attributes are fixed or invariant), influence self-regulation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Molden & Dweck, 2006).Although research on implicit theories originated within an academic context, scholars have extended the theory to additional achievement domains, such as athletics (e.g., Kasimatis, Miller, & Marcussen, 1996;Ommundsen, 2003), weight management (Burnette, 2010), and leadership (Burnette, Pollack, & Hoyt, 2010). Across these contexts, implicit theories have been postulated to be linked to various self-regulatory processes, including goal setting (e.g., Robins & Pals, 2002), social comparison (Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008), ...

Growth mindset is not associated with scholastic aptitude in a large sample of university applicants

“…Importantly, the self-regulatory processes associated with growth mindset are positively associated with goal achievement. Growth mindset itself was therefore shown to be associated with a higher likelihood of achieving one's goals; even though, the results of the meta-analysis suggest that the association is weak (Burnette et al, 2013).While Burnette et al (2013) showed the association between implicit theories and achievement, some research (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; see also Yeager et al, 2014) suggests that people with growth and fixed mindset may not differ in their baseline abilities and the difference appears only when encountering adversities or challenging situations. For example, students with growth and fixed mindset may not differ in their mathematics grades before entering junior high school, but the transition to high school poses a significant challenge to which students with growth mindset might adapt better.…”

“…These two views are labeled as a fixed mindset and growth mindset, respectively (Dweck, 2012;Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Molden & Dweck, 2006). A recent metaanalysis showed that implicit theories about intelligence are associated with various aspects of self-regulation (Burnette, O'Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2013). People with growth mindset tend to set learning goals rather than performance goals, they tend to adopt strategies focused on mastery rather than helpless-oriented strategies, and when monitoring their goal achievement, they tend to focus on future expectations of success rather than negative emotions.…”

Implicit theories of intelligence in STEM education: perspectives through the lens of technology education students

“…They have also been shown to be associated with other constructs including academic motivation (Ommundsen et al 2005), cognitive engagement (Dupeyrat and Mariné 2005), learning and achievement goals (Blackwell et al 2007;Dinger and Dickhäuser 2013), epistemic beliefs and goal orientations (Chen and Pajares 2010), selfefficacy (Chen and Pajares 2010;Davis et al 2011), and self-regulated learning (Burnette et al 2013;Greene et al 2010). While clearly an important framework, an alternative position on implicit theories exists with respect to the 'prototypical' nature of intelligence.…”

The Pivotal Role of Effort Beliefs in Mediating Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Achievement Goals and Academic Motivations

“…However, although effort beliefs played a prominent role in Dweck's (1999) monograph introducing the self-theories meaning system, empirical research mostly focussed on the derivation of relationships between implicit theories, and goal setting behaviour and self-regulation of learning (Burnette et al, 2012). Given that the large majority of empirical studies based on the self-theories framework have not explicitly conceptualized effort belief constructs, we assert that the full potential of self-theoretical frameworks is yet to be achieved.…”

“…Studies that do leave out students' beliefs as mediators of the relationships between implicit theories and achievement goals, be it effort beliefs or epistemological beliefs as in the Chen and Pajares (2010) study, typically find no more than very weak direct relationships between implicit theories and achievement goals. In their very recent metaanalysis of 113 empirical studies on implicit theories, Burnette, O'Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, and Finkel (2012) conclude that 'incremental theories correlate negatively with performance goals and positively with learning goals, although these correlations are small to moderate in magnitude' (p. 19), correlations being -. 15 and .19, respectively.…”