Educational Psychology

An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Effects of a one-shot growth mindset intervention

on beliefs about intelligence and achievement
goals

Teresa K. DeBacker, Benjamin C. Heddy, Julianna Lopez Kershen, H. Michael

Crowson, Kristyna Looney & Jacqueline A. Goldman

To cite this article: Teresa K. DeBacker, Benjamin C. Heddy, Julianna Lopez Kershen, H. Michael
Crowson, Kristyna Looney & Jacqueline A. Goldman (2018): Effects of a one-shot growth mindset
intervention on beliefs about intelligence and achievement goals, Educational Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/01443410.2018.1426833

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1426833

Published online: 18 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 38

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20
Educational Psychology, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1426833

Effects of a one-shot growth mindset intervention on beliefs

about intelligence and achievement goals
Teresa K. DeBacker, Benjamin C. Heddy, Julianna Lopez Kershen, H. Michael Crowson,
Kristyna Looney and Jacqueline A. Goldman
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This investigation employed a longitudinal design to examine the Received 11 October 2016
influence of a one-shot growth mindset intervention on ninth- Accepted 8 January 2018
graders’ implicit beliefs about intelligence and related achievement
KEYWORDS
goals in four different samples. The intervention conformed to Growth mindset; implicit
characteristics of ‘wise interventions’. Participants’ incremental beliefs beliefs; achievement
about intelligence and achievement goals were measured prior to motivation
the intervention and at several subsequent points in time following
the intervention. Our results provide modest evidence that the one-
shot intervention can promote incremental views of intelligence and
reduce the prevalence of performance goals when used at scale.

A potentially promising approach for reducing achievement gaps and encouraging academ-
ically beneficial behaviours within classrooms is to focus on student mindsets as they are
related to academic achievement. Numerous researchers have conducted interventions
focusing on changing students’ mindsets and perspectives on learning with positive results.
For example, having students learn about how their brains, like a muscle, grow in the face
of challenge, has been shown to increase growth mindset (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck,
2007). Similarly, having students’ focus on their personal values in a short writing exercise
has been shown to reduce the achievement gap between ethnic groups (Cohen, Garcia,
Apfel, & Master, 2006). We drew on documented successes in format and materials to design
a one-shot growth mindset intervention for ninth-grade students entering high school. This
investigation employed a longitudinal design to examine the influence of the growth mind-
set intervention on ninth-graders’ implicit beliefs about intelligence and related achievement
goals in two different cohorts at each of two different schools.

Intervention research
Educational research indicates that interventions intended to change target behaviours and
attitudes can be effective. Studies have demonstrated both short- and long-term improve-
ments following interventions targeted at aggression (Hudley & Graham, 1993; Yeager,

CONTACT  Teresa K. DeBacker  [email protected]

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2013), physical fitness (Flores, 1995), motivation to learn science
(Lin-Siegler, Ahn, Chen, Anny Fang, & Luna-Lucero, 2016), stereotype threat (Aronson, Fried,
& Good, 2002) and academic achievement (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007) in par-
ticipants as young as seventh graders (Blackwell et al., 2007) through undergraduate uni-
versity students (Aronson et al., 2002). In these studies, the intervention period ranged from
three days (Lin-Siegler et al., 2016) to twelve weeks (Flores, 1995) and intervention materials
included activities such as self-persuasion activities (e.g. letter writing; Aronson et al., 2002),
group discussions and role-playing (Hudley & Graham, 1993) and authoritative readings
(Blackwell et al., 2007). The majority of these intervention studies reported significant
changes in at least some participants, measured anywhere from several days (Aronson et
al., 2002) to two years (Blackwell et al., 2007) post-intervention.

One-shot intervention studies

The findings noted above suggest that a variety of interventions hold the potential to help
students in schools improve their social and academic competencies. However, researchers
and practitioners alike are concerned about the amount of instructional time that is sup-
planted by provision of any given intervention. Recent research is demonstrating that sin-
gle-session (also known as ‘one-shot’) interventions may be just as successful as longer
interventions in studies of beliefs about personality (Yeager et al., 2014), academic undera-
chievement (Paunesku, Walton, Romero, Smith, Yeager & Dweck, 2015), academic and health
outcomes (Walton & Cohen, 2011), the racial achievement gap (Cohen et al., 2006), race and
social fit (Walton & Cohen, 2007), and stress response (Crum, Salovey, & Achor, 2013). Delivery
methods in these one-shot interventions varied from online modules (Paunesku et al., 2015)
to face-to-face, paper-based interventions (Cohen et al., 2006), and participants ranged in
age from seventh-grade students (Cohen et al., 2006) through undergraduate university
students (Walton & Cohen, 2011; Wilson & Linville, 1985). The duration of these one-shot
interventions varied from less than 10 minutes (Crum et al., 2013) to one hour (Walton &
Cohen, 2011), making them highly attractive for use in school settings.
Most of these brief interventions used materials similar to those successfully implemented
in the longer interventions. For example, Paunesku et al. (2015) modelled intervention mate-
rials to address academic underachievement on the work of Aronson et al. (2002), Blackwell
et al. (2007) and Good, Aronson & Inzlicht (2003), each of which found significant results in
their target populations. Again, these intervention studies reported significant changes in
at least some participants, measured anywhere from two days (Crum et al., 2013) to three
years (Walton & Cohen, 2011) post-intervention.

Challenges with replication

Despite the promising findings noted above, replication studies are often unable to repro-
duce positive results (Schwartz, Cheng, Salehi, & Wieman, 2016). Yeager and Walton (2011,
p. 293) explain that successful interventions are ‘not magic’. In fact, they are carefully designed
theoretically based experiences designed intended to influence a target belief or psycho-
logical process through an experimentally proven technique in a setting where the change
will become self-reinforcing (Yeager & Walton, 2011). Yet, the intended influence may be
enhanced or undermined by the specific interactions among particular individuals or groups
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   3

within a designated setting. That is, it is possible that even subtle changes in social context,
intervention delivery or the individual differences represented among participants may
impede replication (Hanselman, Rozek, Grigg, & Borman, 2017; Schwartz et al., 2016; Yeager
& Walton, 2011; Yeager et al., 2016).
Following suggestions for effective interventions (Yeager & Walton, 2011; Yeager et al.,
2014), we designed a theoretically based (i.e. implicit beliefs theory) growth mindset inter-
vention to influence a target belief (i.e. incremental beliefs about intelligence) and related
psychological process (i.e. achievement goal orientation) through an experimentally proven
technique (i.e. self-persuasion) in a setting where the change had the potential to become
self-reinforcing (i.e. improved academic performance in school would strengthen incremen-
tal beliefs about intelligence). The intervention drew on methods and materials that have
been shown to be effective for our age group and in a school context, and it was delivered
in schools characterised by quality academic instruction, so that if/when possible restraints
on achievement (i.e. entity beliefs about intelligence, performance–avoidance goals) were
removed by the intervention, students could avail themselves of effective learning oppor-
tunities. Moreover, our format was stealthy (i.e. it did not make direct appeals to student
beliefs, and was not presented to students as an intervention), brief (i.e. it did not undermine
its own effectiveness by becoming controlling or invasive) and well timed (i.e. it was offered
to ninth graders as they started their first year in high school).
On the issue of heterogeneous outcomes of intervention research, Hanselman and col-
leagues (2017) suggested that, to better understand whether and how interventions may
be effected by the local context, it is important to conduct studies across diverse circum-
stances, then look for patterns within the varying findings, which may indicate the presence
of important moderators. Our data, collected from four samples of ninth-grade students,
sheds light on the degree to which our intervention is sensitive to context differences. These
samples were drawn from two different schools and collected across two different academic
years, providing an opportunity to assess outcomes across samples that were similar in some
ways, but different in other potentially important ways.

Growth mindset
Among education professionals, one of the most widely recognised constructs from the
field of achievement motivation is growth mindset. The construct emerged from a large body
of research that began in the 1980s with the conceptualisation of implicit beliefs about
intelligence as either entity beliefs (that is, the belief that intelligence is a fixed entity that
cannot be increased, recently referred to as the fixed mindset) or incremental beliefs (that
is, the belief that intelligence is a malleable quality that can be increased through practice
and effort, recently referred to as the growth mindset; Dweck, 1986, 1999). Thereafter, work
on implicit beliefs expanded to reveal that the entity/incremental distinction could be fruit-
fully applied to beliefs about personality (e.g. Erdley & Dweck, 1993; Yeager, Miu, Powers, &
Dweck, 2013), athletic ability (e.g. Biddle, Wang, Chatzisarantis, & Spray, 2003; Ommundsen,
2003) and interpersonal relationships (e.g. Knee, Patrick, & Lonsbary, 2003; Yeager,
Trzesniewski, Tirri, Nokelainen, & Dweck, 2011), among other human qualities. Moreover,
findings suggest that these implicit beliefs may be open to change in the face of intervention
(Aronson et al., 2002; Burke & Williams, 2012; Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997; Dweck & Molden,
2006; Yeager & Dweck, 2012).
4   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

Growth mindset in the classroom

Dweck’s work on implicit beliefs has long been instrumental to how we understand achieve-
ment motivation in learners. Studies have indicated that students’ implicit beliefs about the
nature of intelligence are related to their attitudes about academic tasks and persistence in
the face of challenge (Dweck, 1999, 2002; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Grant & Dweck, 2003;
Molden & Dweck, 2006). That is, when learners believe that intelligence is a fixed entity they
are prone to focus on demonstrating their adequacy, or hiding their inadequacy, when
engaged in academic tasks. On the other hand, when learners believe that intelligence is a
malleable quality they are more likely to focus on increasing their knowledge through prac-
tice and persistence. Under conditions of success, learners holding entity versus incremental
beliefs have similar behaviour in the classroom (Dweck, 2002; Grant & Dweck, 2003). Under
conditions of challenge, however, differences may emerge. Learners with incremental beliefs
often continue to strive in the face of challenge, interpreting the situation as a chance to
grow their intelligence by learning new things (Blackwell et al., 2007; Hong, Chiu, Dweck,
Lin, & Wan, 1999). Learners with entity beliefs, on the other hand, often interpret challenge
as a sign of inadequate ability and respond by withdrawing from the task or engaging in
other ego-protective behaviours (Hong et al., 1999).

Correlates of growth mindset

A large body of work on relations between implicit beliefs and other motivation constructs
shows implicit beliefs to be related in predictable ways to achievement goals (Aronson et
al., 2002; Blackwell et al., 2007; Bråten & Strømsø, 2004; Chen & Pajares, 2010; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988; Robins & Pals, 2002), persistence and effort (Brown, 2009; Hong et al., 1999),
self-regulation (Burnette, Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2012) and academic achievement
(Blackwell et al., 2007; Chen & Pajares, 2010; Henderson & Dweck, 1990; Mueller & Dweck,
1998). We included measures of achievement goals in this investigation.
Achievement goals are an essential component of learner motivation and have been
shown to have an impact on many academic outcomes (Elliot, 1999; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Achievement goals are conceptualised as the reasons that students engage, or not, in aca-
demically relevant tasks, and are known to influence how learners perceive competence
and success (Bråten & Strømsø, 2004). Initially, two types of achievement goals were described
in the motivation literature: mastery goals (wherein students focus on personal improvement
or mastering content knowledge or a skill) and performance goals (wherein students focus
on normative comparisons, either demonstrating superior performance or hiding inferior
performance; Ames, 1984; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). More recently, researchers have
proposed that mastery and performance goals can be characterised by either an approach
valence or an avoidance valence (Baranik, Stanley, Bynum, & Lance, 2010; Elliot, 1999; Elliot
& Church, 1997; Elliot & Thrash, 2001), creating a two-by-two model of achievement goals
(i.e. mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, performance-avoid-
ance). We have adopted this bifurcation of performance goals, describing learners who seek
to perform favourably when compared to others as holding performance-approach goals
and learners who seek to avoid looking incompetent when compared to others as holding
performance-avoidance goals. We have not adopted the bifurcation of mastery goals, given
difficulties associated with conceptualisation and measurement (Elliot & Murayama, 2008;
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   5

Madjar, Kaplan, & Weinstock, 2011) and evidence that the approach/avoidance distinction
may be difficult for younger learners to recognise (Sideridis & Mouratidis, 2008).
Research suggests that mastery goals have many positive effects on student learning and
motivation (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer,
Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002). On the other hand, perfor-
mance-avoidance goals have been shown to be detrimental to academic outcomes (Elliot
& Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 1999, 1999). Studies investigating the effects of perfor-
mance-approach goals on learner motivation have produced mixed findings (Harackiewicz,
Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002; Kaplan & Middleton, 2002); though, some evidence
indicates performance-approach goals can lead to increased grades as students aim to
out-compete classmates (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 1999).

Mindset interventions
A number of studies have demonstrated that implicit beliefs about intelligence (e.g. Aronson
et al., 2002; Burke & Williams, 2012) and personality (e.g. Chiu et al., 1997; Yeager & Dweck,
2012) can be altered under certain conditions. Of particular relevance to our investigation
was a study by Blackwell and colleagues (Blackwell et al., 2007) suggesting the efficacy of
their intervention materials, which were designed to promote incremental beliefs about
intelligence; and a set of studies by Yeager and colleagues (Yeager & Walton, 2011; Yeager
et al., 2013) suggesting that a one-shot intervention could produce immediate and lasting
change in implicit beliefs about personality.
Blackwell and colleagues (2007) reported that an eight-week intervention promoting
incremental beliefs about intelligence positively influenced low-achieving seventh-graders’
implicit beliefs and motivation (operationalised as learning and performance goals, beliefs
about effort, and attributions and strategies in response to failure) in math. The researchers
provided students with eight 25-min instructional sessions (once per week for eight con-
secutive weeks) that included information about the physiology of the brain, study skills,
and anti-stereotypic thinking. In addition, the treatment group read authoritative text pas-
sages about the malleable nature of intelligence and how the brain can grow through prac-
tice, and participated in related activities and discussions. The control group was taught
about human memory.
The results showed that students in the treatment condition, but not the control condi-
tion, had a significant gain in incremental belief scores three weeks following the interven-
tion. The treatment group students were also significantly more likely to receive teacher
reports of improved motivation following the intervention.
In a series of studies, Yeager and colleagues demonstrated that carefully designed (Yeager
& Walton, 2011; Yeager et al., 2013) one-shot interventions designed to promote incremental
beliefs about character and personality can have both immediate and lasting influence on
participants’ implicit beliefs about personality and their responses to various types of peer
victimisation (Yeager et al., 2011, study 3; Yeager et al., 2013, studies 2 & 3).
Yeager and colleagues (2013) provided eighth-, ninth-, and tenth-grade students with an
intervention promoting incremental beliefs about personality in a situation of hostile inter-
personal behaviour. The intervention lasted approximately 15 min and involved two phases.
First, participants read a short scientific article suggesting that the brain controls individual’s
behaviours, then read notes from upperclassmen endorsing an incremental view of
6   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

personality characteristics. Second, participants completed an exercise wherein they wrote

notes to fellow students about the malleability of personality traits. The findings showed a
significant change in student’s negative and hostile behaviour as well as an increase in
incremental view of personality across an eight-month time period.

Purpose
Teachers and school leaders wish to promote the academic success of the children and teens
in their schools. Evidence that a one-shot mindset intervention could have a lasting effect
on learners’ incremental beliefs about intelligence and achievement goal orientation would
be of high interest to education practitioners and researchers alike. We employed a longi-
tudinal design to examine the influence of the intervention on implicit beliefs about intel-
ligence and achievement goals in two different cohorts at each of two different schools.
Because school administrators insisted that the intervention be administered to all ninth
graders attending each school, we were not able to use a treatment/control group design.
As a fallback measure, in Cohort 1 we compared the scores of the intervention group at
one-year post-intervention – when they were tenth graders – with the scores of the previous
year’s incoming tenth graders, none of whom received the intervention (referred to below
as the comparison group).

Research questions and hypotheses

Five research questions guided our investigations.
RQ1. Do patterns of correlations between implicit belief score and achievement goal scores
conform to theoretical expectations? We hypothesized that implicit belief scores (wherein higher
scores reflect stronger incremental beliefs about intelligence) would be positively related to mas-
tery goals and negatively related to performance-avoidance goals, consistent with past studies
(Bråten & Strømsø, 2004; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Given the absence of a definitive theoretical-
ly-derived proposal about the relationship between implicit beliefs and performance-approach
goals, we do not pose a hypothesis regarding that relationship.
RQ2. Are there changes in mean implicit belief scores, measured at five (Cohort 1) or four (Cohort
2) points in time over the course of a calendar year? We hypothesized that participants would
show an increase in incremental belief scores across time, consistent with past studies (Aronson
et al., 2002; Burke & Williams, 2012; Chiu et al., 1997; Dweck & Molden, 2006; Yeager & Dweck,
2012).
RQ3. Are there changes in achievement goal scores, measured at five (Cohort 1) or four (Cohort 2)
points in time over the course of calendar year? We hypothesized that participants would show
an increase in mastery goals and a decrease in performance-avoidance goals because incremen-
tal views of intelligence have been shown to be positively correlated with mastery goals and
negatively related to performance-avoidance goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Again, given lack
of clarity in the literature, we do not pose a hypothesis regarding performance-approach goals.
RQ4 – Cohort 1 only. Are there differences between the implicit belief scores of the interven-
tion group and the comparison group one-year post-intervention? We hypothesized that the
students who participated in the growth mindset intervention as 9th graders (the intervention
group) would have higher implicit belief scores as they entered grade 10 when compared to
a comparison group of entering 10th grade students who did not receive the intervention.
RQ5 – Cohort 1 only. Are there differences between the achievement goal scores of the inter-
vention group and the comparison group one-year post-intervention? We hypothesized that
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   7

the students who participated in the intervention as 9th graders (the intervention group) would
have higher mastery goal scores, and lower performance- avoidance scores, as they entered
grade 10 when compared to a comparison group of entering 10th grade students who did not
receive the intervention. Again, given lack of clarity in the literature, we do not pose a hypothesis
regarding performance-approach goals.

Method – Cohort 1
Participants
Participants were drawn from the two public high schools in a mid-sized city in the
Midwestern United States. All entering ninth-grade and tenth-grade students were invited
to participate in the study. Only ninth graders received the intervention (i.e. the intervention
group). Tenth graders completed surveys, but did not otherwise participate in any study
activities (i.e. the comparison group).

School 1
School 1 is a comprehensive public high school serving approximately 1900 students in
grades 9–12. Based on 2015 reporting data (US News and World Report), the at-large school
population is 47% female and 58% male, and includes 38% students of colour (nonwhite)
and 62% identifying as white. Forty-five per cent of students are identified as economically
disadvantaged.
There were 135 ninth-grade participants at school 1 (male = 62, female = 70, no report = 3;
mean age = 14.24; White/Caucasian = 63%, African-American/Black = 14%, American Indian/
Alaska Native = 11%, Asian-American/Asian = 4%, Mexican-American/Chicano = 6%) and 86
10th graders (male = 34, female = 51, no report = 1; mean age = 15.15; White/Caucasian = 58%,
African-American/Black = 8%, American Indian/Alaska Native = 13%, Asian-American/
Asian = 7%, Mexican-American/Chicano = 10%). 

School 2
School 2 is another comprehensive public high school within the city, serving approximately
2300 students in grades 9–12. Based on 2015 reporting data (US News and World Report),
the at-large school population is 51% female and 49% male, and includes 32% students of
colour (nonwhite) and 68% identifying as white. Thirty-three per cent of students are iden-
tified as economically disadvantaged.
There were 126 ninth-grade participants at school 2 (male = 56, female = 70; mean
age = 14.15; White/Caucasian = 70%, African-American/Black = 7%, American Indian/Alaska
Native = 8%, Asian-American/Asian = 7%, Mexican-American/Chicano = 5%) and 109 10th
graders (male = 42, female = 67; mean age = 15.12; White/Caucasian = 57%, African-
American/Black = 14%, American Indian/Alaska Native = 13%, Asian-American/Asian = 4%,
Mexican-American/Chicano = 9%). 

Measures
All variables were self-report measures using six-point Likert-type scales.
8   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

Implicit beliefs
Implicit beliefs about intelligence are commonly measured using three items that address
the fixed nature of intelligence (see Chiu et al., 1997): You have a certain amount of intelligence
and you really can’t do much to change it, Your intelligence is something about you that you
can’t change very much, and You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic
intelligence. Responses were reverse-coded such that higher scores indicate stronger incre-
mental beliefs. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .79 to .87 across time points.

Achievement goals
We measured mastery, performance-avoidance, and performance-approach goals using
scales taken from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) collection (revised versions;
Midgley et al., 2000). For each scale, higher scores indicate greater endorsement of the
targeted goal orientation. Sample items include: It’s important to me that I learn a lot of new
concepts this year (mastery), It’s important to me that other students in my classes think I am
good at my class work (performance-approach), and It’s important to me that I don’t look stupid
in my classes (performance-avoidance). Cronbach’s alphas for mastery goals ranged from .84
to .88 across time points, whereas Cronbach’s alphas for performance-approach goals ranged
from .88 to .94. Cronbach’s alphas for performance-avoidance goals ranged from .75 to .88.

Intervention
Our intervention utilised materials from Blackwell and colleagues (2007) as the focus of a
one-shot growth mindset intervention modelled on the procedures used by Yeager and
colleagues (Yeager et al., 2011; Yeager et al., 2013) to influence learners’ implicit beliefs about
intelligence. At the request of school administrators, all ninth graders received the interven-
tion, although data were collected only for those students who provided parental consent
and personal assent.
The intervention consisted of three elements: a lesson, a comprehension check, and a
self-persuasion task. For the lesson, students were introduced to scientific information about
how the brain can grow with use, just like a muscle, via a Time magazine-style article entitled
‘You Can Grow Your Intelligence’ (designed by Mindsets Inc.; Blackwell et al., 2007). Students
were given a copy of the passage and asked to read along silently as they listened to a
recording of the passage being read aloud. For the comprehension check, students com-
pleted a worksheet, which entailed providing short written answers and drawing illustrations
in response to six questions about the key ideas in the reading passage (Blackwell et al.,
2007). For the self-persuasion task, students were asked to compose an original letter to a
middle school student explaining ‘in [their] own words… about how the brain can get
stronger with practice’ and recommending that the middle school student ‘work hard at
school and keep trying if they have problems with their schoolwork’. Students were provided
two pages of lined writing paper for the letter. At the conclusion of the intervention, students
completed the implicit beliefs items. This intervention has been shown to be effective in
influencing the growth mindset of ninth graders in the context of science class (Schmidt,
Shumow, & Kackar-Cam, 2015, 2017).
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   9

Procedures
Surveys
Surveys were completed in regularly scheduled Advisory classes during the school day. The
ninth-grade participants (the intervention group) completed surveys in September (Time
1: pre-test), October (Immediate post-test: immediately following the intervention, implicit
belief items only), November (Time 2: approximately two weeks post-intervention), May
(Time 3: end of academic year) and September (Time 4: the start of the following school year
when intervention participants were incoming 10th grade students). The 10th grade partic-
ipants (the comparison group) completed surveys in September (Time 1). Surveys were
administered by classroom teachers, who were provided with specific instructions for survey
administration, including a script to be read to students.

Intervention
The intervention took place in a 55-min English language arts class and was facilitated by a
trained researcher. Classroom teachers were present during the intervention. After being
introduced to students by the classroom teacher, the researcher distributed the intervention
packets to each student. The packet contained (a) the reading passage, (b) the worksheet
(i.e. the comprehension task), and (c) the letter writing prompt (i.e. the self-persuasion task).
Students were given instructions at each step in the intervention and told to work inde-
pendently and quietly, although they were also encouraged to ask questions of the researcher
as necessary. At a designated interval, the researcher assured that all students had moved
from the comprehension task on to the writing task, even if the comprehension task was
not yet completed. Likewise, at a designated interval the researcher assured that all students
moved on from the writing task to complete the implicit belief items, even if the writing task
was not yet complete. The majority of students were able to complete both the comprehen-
sion task and the writing task in the time allotted.

Results – Cohort 1
Means and standard deviations for each scale used in the study can be found in Table 1.
Throughout, data from the two schools were analysed separately.
To determine whether correlations between incremental belief scores and achievement
goal scores conformed to theoretical expectations, we calculated zero-order correlation
coefficients using Time 1 data. As anticipated, incremental beliefs were positively correlated
with mastery goals (r = .29, p < .001 and r = .27, p < .001for School 1 and School 2, respec-
tively) and negatively correlated with performance-avoidance goals (r = −.20, p < .01 and
r = −.22, p < .01 for School 1 and School 2, respectively). Performance-approach goals were
unrelated to incremental beliefs at School 1 and weakly and negatively related to incremental
beliefs at School 2 (r = −.18, p < .05).

Change over time

To assess possible changes over time, we conducted repeated measures ANOVAs with time
as the repeated factor on incremental belief and achievement goal scores. Results from the
Greenhouse–Geisser test are reported when sphericity is violated (making the standard
10   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations (in parentheses) and Findings of Repeated Measures ANOVA by
School.
Immediate
  Time 1 (Sep) post-test (Oct) Time 2 (Nov) Time 3 (May) Time 4 (Sep) p, ηp2
School 1 (n = 106)
Incr Bel 4.66abc (1.09) 5.22a (1.0) 5.14b (.90) 5.01 (1.18) 5.03c (.94) p ≤ .001,
ηp² = .065
Mastery 5.17 (.82) NA 5.12 (.83) 5.02 (.97) 5.10 (.94) n.s.
Perf-App 3.12a (1.31) NA 2.86a (1.34) 2.93 (1.22) 2.82 (1.34) p < .05,
ηp² = .028
Perf-Avd 3.52abc (1.17) NA 3.07a (1.28) 3.04b (1.29) 3.00c (1.35) p < .001,
ηp² = .08
School 2 (n = 74)
Incr Bel 4.71a (1.04) 5.10 (1.15) 5.04 (.96) 5.02 (.96) 5.13a (.92) p < .05,
ηp² = .148
Mastery 5.17 (.82) NA 4.98 (.85) 4.95a (.83) 5.17a (.81) p < .01, ηp² = .15
Perf-App 3.43 (1.29) NA 3.27 (1.41) 3.15 (1.42) 3.11 (1.47) p < .05,
ηp² = .043
Perf-Avd 3.82abc (1.28) NA 3.41a (1.32) 3.21b (1.27) 3.25c (1.39) p < .001,
ηp² = .125
Note: Within rows, variables with same superscript differed significantly.

sphericity-assumed tests inappropriate). Trend analyses, followed by Bonferroni-adjusted

pairwise comparisons, were performed as supplements to the ANOVA results. Findings of
these analyses are discussed below and noted in Table 1. Trends for each variable are illus-
trated in Figures 1 (School 1) and 2 (School 2).

Incremental beliefs
Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed statistically significant mean differences
[F(3.434,302.156) = 6.104, p ≤ .001, ηp2 = .065 (Greenhouse-Geisser)] on incremental beliefs
at School 1, with the effect size being medium in magnitude. Trend analyses revealed that
the means best fit a quadratic trend over time [F(1,88) = 10.870, p = .001, ηp2 = .110]. We
followed up this analysis with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons in order to explore
which means were significantly different. Time 1 incremental belief scores were significantly
lower than those observed at immediate post-test (p = .001), Time 2 (p = .001) and Time 4

5.5

4.5

3.5

2.5
Time 1 Immediate Post Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Incremental Beliefs Mastery

Performance Approach Performance Avoidance

Figure 1. Means on incremental belief and achievement goal scales at four points in time: School 1.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   11

5.5

4.5

3.5

2.5
Time 1 Immediate Post Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Incremental Beliefs Mastery

Performance Approach Performance Avoidance

Figure 2. Means on incremental belief and achievement goal scales at four points in time: School 2.

(p < .01). No other significant mean differences were observed in incremental beliefs across
the remaining time points.
Repeated-measures ANOVA also revealed statistically significant mean differences
[F(4,63) = 2.727, p < .05, ηp2 = .148] on incremental beliefs at School 2, with the effect size
for time being moderate in magnitude. Trend analyses revealed that the means best fit a
linear trend over time [F(1,66) = 6.529, p < .05, ηp2 = .090]. Again, Bonferroni-adjusted pair-
wise comparisons were carried out in order to explore which means were significantly dif-
ferent. Time 1 incremental belief scores were significantly lower than those observed at
Time 4 (p < .05). No other significant mean differences were observed across the remaining
time points.

Mastery goals
For students at School 1, there were no statistically significant changes in mastery goals over
time [F(2.562,269.024) = 1.135, p = .331, ηp2 = .011 (Greenhouse–Geisser)]. However, statis-
tically significant changes were observed in mastery goals for students at School 2
[F(3,71) = 4.17, p < .01, ηp² = .15]. Trend analysis indicated that a quadratic trend best fit the
pattern of means [F(1,73) = 12.743, p = .001, ηp2 = .149]. Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests
revealed only a significant difference in means between Times 3 and 4.

Performance-approach goals
For students at School 1, statistically significant changes in performance-approach goals
were observed [F(2.47,259.387) = 3.008, p < .05, ηp2 = .028 (Greenhouse–Geisser)]. Trend
analyses revealed no statistically significant trend evident in the means over time (linear
p = .061, quadratic p = .228, cubic p = .085). Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that Time 1
scores were significantly lower than Time 2 scores (p < .05).
Similarly, there were significant mean differences across time in performance-approach
goals for the students at School 2 [F(2.65, 193.424) = 3.312, p < .05, ηp2 = .043 (Greenhouse–
Geisser)]. Trend analysis indicated that a linear trend best fit the pattern of means
[F(1,73) = 6.62, p < .05, ηp2 = .083]. Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed no statistically signifi-
cant pairwise mean differences, however.
12   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

Performance-avoidance goals
Statistically significant changes in performance-avoidance goals were observed for both
the students at School 1 [F(2.508,263.375) = 9.098, p < .001, ηp2 = .08 (Greenhouse–Geisser)],
and the students at School 2 [F(2.639,192.652) = 10.470, p < .001, ηp2 = .125 (Greenhouse–
Geisser)]. Trend analyses indicated that a linear trend best fit the pattern of means for School
1 [F(1,105) = 12.308, p = .001, ηp2 = .105] and School 2 [F(1, 73) = 16.518, p < .001, ηp2 = .185].
Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that Time 1 scores were significantly higher than scores
at Times 2, 3 and 4 for both School 1 and School 2 students. No other differences were
observed in either school.

Intervention effect
Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare incremental beliefs, mastery goals,
performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals in 10th graders who
received the intervention as 9th graders (the intervention group) and 10th graders who did
not receive the intervention (the comparison group). All tests were one-tailed. See Table 2.

Incremental beliefs
There were significant differences in incremental belief scores between the intervention and
comparison groups at each school.

Achievement goals
For School 1, there were no significant differences found between the intervention and
comparison groups on achievement goal scores. For School 2, only mastery goal scores
differed significantly.

Method – Cohort 2
Participants
Participants in Cohort 2 were drawn from the same two public high schools as Cohort 1 in
the subsequent academic year. All entering ninth-grade students were invited to participate
in the study and receive the intervention.

School 1
There were 85 participants from School 1 (male = 34, female = 48, no report = 3; mean
age = 14.22; White/Caucasian = 81%, African-American/Black = 12%, American Indian/Alaska

Table 2. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for 10th grade comparison groups.
  School Intervention Comparison t df p
Incremental beliefs 1 4.98 (.99) 4.63 (1.17) 2.772 1,276 .003
  2 4.99 (1.02) 4.74 (1.18) 1.816 1,301 .035
Mastery goals 1 5.13 (.88) 5.10 (.77) .355 1,276 n.s.
  2 5.16 (.78) 4.98 (.89) 1.696 1,301 .045
Perf-app goals 1 2.91 (1.30) 3.14 (1.27) −1.484 1,276 n.s.
  2 3.01 (1.43) 3.06 (1.32) −.341 1,301 n.s.
Perf-avd goals 1 3.10 (1.29) 3.35 (1.26) −1.572 1,276 n.s.
  2 3.14 (1.37) 3.36 (1.28) −1.376 1,301 n.s.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   13

Native = 13%, Asian-American/Asian = 1%, Mexican-American/Chicano = 6%, Puerto

Rican = 2%, Other Latino = 2%).

School 2
There were 157 participants at School 2 (male = 57, female = 88, no report = 2; mean
age = 14.22; White/Caucasian = 82%, African-American/Black = 9%, American Indian/Alaska
Native = 11%, Asian-American/Asian = 5%, Mexican-American/Chicano = 5%, Other
Latino = 3%).

Procedures
All measures, materials, and procedures were the same as those used with Cohort 1. The
schedule for collecting post-intervention data differed from that in Cohort 1 in two ways.
First, data were collected at four, not five, points in time. Second, Time 2 data were collected
in January rather than in November. Data were collected from Cohort 2 in September (Time
1: pre-test), October (Immediate post-test: immediately following the intervention, implicit
belief items only), January (Time 2: approximately three months post-intervention) and May
(Time 3: end of the academic year). 

Results – Cohort 2
Means and standard deviations for each scale used in the study can be found in Table 3.
Throughout, data from the two schools were analysed separately.
To determine whether correlations between incremental belief scores and achievement
goal scores conformed to theoretical expectations, we calculated zero-order correlation
coefficients using Time 1 data. Similar to findings in Cohort 1, incremental beliefs were pos-
itively correlated with mastery goals (r = .28, p < .05 and r = .34, p < .001 for School 1 and
School 2, respectively) and negatively correlated with performance-avoidance goals (r = −.25,
p < .05 and r = −.16, p < .05 for School 1 and School 2, respectively). Performance-approach
goals were unrelated to incremental beliefs at both School 1 and School 2.

Table 3.  Means, standard deviations (in parentheses) and findings of repeated measures ANOVA by
school.
  Time 1 (Sep) Immediate post-test (Oct) Time 2 (Jan) Time 3 (May) p ηp²
School 1 (n = 68)
Incr Beliefs 4.93 (1.12) 5.31a (1.03) 5.26 b (.92) 4.84 a b (1.16) <.01 .073
Mastery 5.25 (.67) NA 5.36 (.63) 5.27 (.93) n.s.  
Perf-App 3.35 a (1.14) NA 2.86 a (1.25) 3.01 (1.26) <.01 .076
Perf-Avd 3.68 a (1.21) NA 3.44 (1.36) 3.25 a (1.28) <.05 .064
School 2 (n = 110)
Incr Beliefs 4.75 (1.02) 4.98 (1.02) 4.83 (1.09) 4.95 (.97) n.s.  
Mastery 5.30 a b (.75) NA 5.09 b (.92) 5.07 a (.88) .001 .066
Perf-App 3.21 a (1.27) NA 3.05 (1.38) 2.82 a (1.34) .001  
Perf-Avd 3.43 a (1.26) NA 3.23 (1.28) 3.08 a (1.34) <.001 .055
Note: Within rows, variables with same superscript differed significantly.
14   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

Change over time

To assess possible changes across time, we again conducted repeated measures ANOVAs
with time as the repeated factor on incremental belief and achievement goal scores. Results
from the Greenhouse–Geisser test are reported when sphericity is violated. Trend analyses,
followed by Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons, were performed as supplements to
the ANOVA results. Findings of these analyses are discussed below and noted in Table 3.
Trends for each variable are illustrated in Figures 3 (School 1) and 4 (School 2).

Incremental beliefs
Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed statistically significant mean differences
[F(2.619,175.448) = 5.298, p ≤ .001, ηp2 = .073 (Greenhouse–Geisser)] on incremental beliefs
at School 1, with the effect size being medium in magnitude. Trend analyses revealed that
the means best fit a quadratic trend over time [F(1,67) = 11.448, p = .001, ηp2 = .146]. Pairwise
comparisons indicated that Time 2 (p < .05) and Time 3 (p < .05) incremental belief scores
were significantly higher than those observed at Time 4. No other significant mean differ-
ences were observed.
Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed no statistically significant mean differences
[F(3,327) = 2.166, p = .092, ηp2 = .019] on incremental beliefs at School 2.

Mastery goals
For students at School 1, there were no statistically significant changes in mastery goals over
time [F(1.831,122.672) = .609, p = .531, ηp2 = .009 (Greenhouse–Geisser)]. However, statisti-
cally significant changes were observed in mastery goals for students at School 2
[F(2,218) = 7.673, p < .01, ηp2 = .066]. Trend analysis indicated that a linear trend best fit the
pattern of means [F(1,109) = 13.505, p < .001, ηp2 = .110]. Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests
revealed that Time 1 scores were significantly higher than Time 2 scores (p < .01) & Time 3
scores (p < .01).

Performance-approach goals
For students at School 1, statistically significant changes in performance-approach goals
were observed [F(2,134) = 5.479, p < .01, ηp2 = .076]. Trend analyses revealed that the means
best fit a quadratic trend over time [F(1,67) = 6.280, p < .05, ηp2 = .086]. Bonferroni post hoc
tests revealed that Time 1 scores were significantly higher than Time 2 scores (p < .01).

5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
Time 1 Immediate Post Time 2 Time 3

Incremental Beliefs Mastery

Performance Approach Performance Avoidance

Figure 3. Means on incremental belief and achievement goal scales at four points in time: School 1.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   15

5.5

4.5

3.5

2.5
Time 1 Immediate Post Time 2 Time 3

Incremental Beliefs Mastery

Performance Approach Performance Avoidance

Figure 4. Means on incremental belief and achievement goal scales at four points in time: School 2.

Similarly, there were significant mean differences across time in performance-approach

goals for the students at School 2 [F(2, 218) = 7.344, p = .001, ηp2 = .063]. Trend analysis indi-
cated that a linear trend best fit the pattern of means [F(1,109) = 15.444, p < .001, ηp2 = .124].
Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated that the Time 1 score was significantly higher than the
Time 3 score (p < .001).

Performance-avoidance goals
Statistically significant changes in performance-avoidance goals were observed for both
the students at School 1 [F(2,134) = 4.602, p < .05, ηp2 = .064], and the students at School 2
[F(2,218) = 6.339, p < .001, ηp2 = .055]. Trend analyses indicated that a linear trend best fit
the pattern of means for School 1 [F(1,67) = 8.127, p < .01, ηp2 = .108] and School 2
[F(1,109) = 11.261, p = .001, ηp2 = .094]. Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that Time 1 scores
were significantly higher than Time 3 scores for both School 1 (p < .05) and School 2 (p < .01)
students. No other differences were observed in either school.

Discussion
As noted at the outset, growth mindset is currently one of the most widely recognised
constructs from the field of achievement motivation. The value of growth mindset for sup-
porting meaningful engagement with academic tasks has been touted by education
researchers and practitioners alike. Yet empirical support for mindset interventions remains
thin. This investigation employed four separate samples to examine the influence of a one-
shot growth mindset intervention on ninth-graders’ incremental beliefs about intelligence
and associated achievement goals. Previous research has indicated that such interventions
can be impactful and that this impact can be sustained over a number of weeks or even
months (Yeager & Walton, 2011; Yeager et al., 2013).
We found modest support for the effectiveness of the intervention in promoting incre-
mental beliefs about intelligence. In three of the four samples, incremental belief scores
increased significantly following the intervention and remained higher than pre-test across
three additional time points. (See Figure 5). This indicates that the effect of the intervention
in these samples was modest (as indicated by the effect size coefficient) yet sustained. In
16   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

5.5

4.5

3.5
Time 1 Immediate Post Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Incremental Beliefs Cohort 1/School 1

Incremental Beliefs Cohort 1/School 2
Incremental Beliefs Cohort 2/School 1
Incremental Beliefs Cohort 2/School 2

Figure 5. Means on incremental belief scores over time in four samples.

the remaining sample, scores remained high at Time 3, but then declined significantly into
the end of the school year. This could be an example of the end-of-school-year slump in
motivation that is often recorded in the research literature (Corpus, McClintic-Gilbert, &
Hayenga, 2009; Haimovitz, Wormington, & Corpus, 2011). Finally, in Cohort 1 at one year
post-intervention, the intervention groups had significantly higher incremental belief scores
than the comparison groups.
With regard to initial associations between incremental beliefs and achievement goals,
our findings are largely consistent with theory-based predictions. In all four samples, incre-
mental belief scores were positively related to mastery goals and negatively related to per-
formance-avoidance goals; although the magnitude of the correlations was modest in all
cases. That is, learners who more strongly believed that intelligence is a malleable human
quality also tended to report that they wanted to improve their skills and learn as much as
possible at school, and that they were notably unconcerned with looking less capable than
their classmates. From the other perspective, learners who more strongly believed that intel-
ligence is a fixed entity tended to report that it was important to them to avoid appearing
less capable than their classmates, and that they were notably unconcerned with improving
their skills and learning as much as possible at school.
The relationship between incremental beliefs and performance-approach goals was weak
and negative in one sample and non-significant in the other three samples. Our results mirror
the inconsistency that is seen in the broader research literature on performance-approach
goals (Elliot & Moller, 2003; Linnenbrink, 2005; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001).
Looking at changes in achievement goal scores across time, the changes in performance
goals were consistent with our hypotheses. The pattern in each sample and for each type
of performance goal was a decline following the intervention, with scores remaining lower
than pre-test at subsequent time points. (See Figures 6 and 7). The effect was more pro-
nounced for performance-avoidance goals compared to performance-approach goals. On
the other hand, neither performance-approach nor performance-avoidance scores differed
between intervention and comparison groups at the Cohort 1 one-year follow-up.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   17

4.5

3.5

2.5
Time 1 Immediate Post Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Performance-Approach Cohort 1/School 1

Performance-ApproachCohort 1/School 2
Performance-Approach Cohort 2/School 1
Performance-Approach Cohort 2/School 2

Figure 6. Means on performance-approach scores over time in four samples.

4.5

3.5

2.5
Time 1 Immediate Post Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Performance-Avoid Cohort 1/School 1
Performance-Avoid Cohort 1/School 2
Performance-Avoid Cohort 2/School 1
Performance-Avoid Cohort 2/School 2

Figure 7. Means on performance-avoidance scores over time in four samples.

Findings related to mastery goals varied from what was hypothesised. Mastery goal scores
were consistently quite high, even prior to the intervention, and were found to be unchanged
across time (School 1 in each cohort) or to follow the familiar pattern of small but steady
declines across the academic year (School 2 in each cohort), albeit with a recovery to baseline
at the opening of the subsequent school year in Cohort 1. (See Figure 8). The degree to which
these findings reflect a ceiling effect is unknown at this time. When intervention and com-
parison groups were compared on mastery scores at the one-year post-test (Cohort 1), sig-
nificant differences were only detected at School 2.
In sum, the impact of the growth mindset intervention was most clearly seen in incre-
mental belief scores (the explicit target of the intervention; see Figure 5) and perfor-
mance-avoidance goal scores (see Figure 7). Given the wealth of evidence concerning both
the positive influence of incremental beliefs and the negative influence of performance-avoid-
ance goals on a variety of positive achievement-related behaviours and outcomes, these
are important findings.
18   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

5.5

4.5

3.5
Time 1 Immediate Post Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Mastery Cohort 1/School 1

Mastery Cohort 1/School 2
Mastery Cohort 2/School 1
Mastery Cohort 2/School 2

Figure 8. Means on mastery scores over time in four samples.

Implications for replication

Reflecting upon the heterogeneous outcomes seen in intervention research, researchers
have speculated that perhaps even subtle changes in intervention delivery, social context
or the individual differences among participants may influence the efficacy of replication
(Hanselman et al., 2017; Schwartz et al., 2016; Yeager et al., 2016). Our data shed light on
each of these issues.

Intervention delivery
As the intervention lesson was administered by researchers, there was high fidelity of inter-
vention delivery across schools and cohorts. However, within and across schools there was
likely a high degree of inconsistency regarding how teachers handled the collection of fol-
low-up data in Advisory classes. Teachers undoubtedly differed in the importance they placed
on following protocol when having students complete the follow-up surveys. It is unknown
whether this might have contributed to weak findings. In addition, there were differences
in the timing of post-intervention surveys between the two cohorts. However, this does not
appear to have influenced findings as there were no systematic differences by cohort.

Social context and individual differences

Our findings provide mixed evidence regarding the sensitivity of the intervention to the
school climate and individual differences in the student body. We collected data from two
separate schools that differed from each other in terms of the racial and socio-economic
status composition of the student body. Furthermore, at School 1 many of the teachers were
studying growth mindset in their professional learning communities and actively planning
for curricular and school climate reforms that would characterise the new ninth-grade acad-
emies slated for implementation in the subsequent academic year. This process was not
occurring in as systematic a way at School 2. Nonetheless, as can be seen in Figures 5–8,
scores showed markedly similar movement across time on incremental beliefs and all goal
scores. This indicates that the intervention was not highly sensitive to student individual
differences or school context effects. We do note that scores in Cohort 2/School 1 differed
slightly from the others. Compared to the other samples, this group had higher scores on
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   19

incremental beliefs and mastery goals, and a sharper decline in performance-approach goals.
Interestingly, this group entered ninth grade the year after teachers in the school had actively
studied mindsets using shared book study activities in their professional learning
communities.
On the other hand, intervention effects in this study were weaker than those found by
Blackwell and colleagues (2007), who used the same materials, and Yeager and colleagues
(Yeager et al., 2011; Yeager et al., 2013) who used the same format. This could be a result of
changes in intervention delivery – that is, reducing the time devoted to the intervention
from eight sessions to just one.
We acknowledge that entity beliefs about intelligence and performance goals are often
deeply woven through the broader school and home climates. Many facets of the typical
public high school setting act to promote a fixed mindset about academic ability either
explicitly or implicitly. Explicit messages include the public recognition of outstanding
achievement (e.g. publishing the Honour Roll, announcing or displaying the academic hon-
ours or awards of individuals, displaying top student work) coupled with restricted access
to master teachers, specialised courses or enrichment opportunities. Implicit messages are
embedded in classroom practices such as offering limited opportunities for formative feed-
back and mastery learning, or relying heavily on a narrow range of summative assessment
formats (e.g. test and quizzes, but not projects and performances).
Moreover, parents and teachers often speak to children and teens in a manner that implies
that intelligence is fixed. Saying, for example, ‘You’re just not a math person’, or ‘You have a
gift for writing’. Mindsets can also be implicitly reinforced through attributional patterns.
When a parent or teacher attributes an outcome to intelligence, rather than strategy use or
persistence, it can promote a fixed mindset, even if the achievement outcome is positive. In
such a context, it is not surprising that more extensive exposure to mindset content impacts
intervention effectiveness. Nevertheless, given the many pressures on instructional time, it
is hopeful that this study found positive effects on incremental beliefs with an intervention
requiring less than 60 minutes of class time.

Limitations
It is important to acknowledge limitations in the current study. First, we had a very low
participation rate, due primarily to missing parental consent. While this is often the case in
school-based research, it does call into question the representativeness of the findings.
Second, while we can predict, based on prior research, that this intervention would have a
positive effect on the academic achievement of participants via enhanced incremental beliefs
about intelligence and reduced endorsement of performance-avoidance goals, we did not
directly measure academic achievement in this study. Future research is needed to shed
light on the mechanisms and timing of possible effects on academic achievement. Third,
the study design was flawed by the lack of a true comparison group from which to gather
longitudinal data. However, the administrators at our two school sites each insisted that all
ninth-grade students receive the intervention, so that some students wouldn’t be at an unfair
disadvantage due to not receiving a potentially helpful intervention. Complying with this
request gave us an opportunity to deepen the relationship between the university and area
schools, but at the expense of utilising a stronger research design. Importantly, our work
reflects the formative nature of research embedded and informed by school realities, and
20   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

answers the call by Yeager and Dweck (2012), to build ‘collaborative partnerships between
researchers, practitioners, and students’ (p. 312). Finally, it is unknown to what extent
repeated completion of surveys may have acted as an unacknowledged element of the
intervention. Future work is needed to address this question.

Conclusion
In the current study, we implemented a one-shot growth mindset intervention and tested
the impact on views of intelligence and goal orientation. The results show promise for this
streamlined intervention to generate incremental views of intelligence and reduce the prev-
alence of performance-avoidance goals while costing little in the way of time or materials.
Although there is still much research that needs to be done improving, replicating and
scaling up such interventions, we report that one-shot interventions can be impactful on
students’ implicit beliefs and motivation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Ames, C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive andindividualistic
goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 478–487.
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic
achievement of African American students: The role of conceptions of intelligence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125.
Baranik, L. E., Stanley, L. J., Bynum, B. H., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Examining the construct validity of
mastery-avoidance achievement goals: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 23(3), 265–282.
Biddle, S. J. H., Wang, C. K. J., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Spray, C. M. (2003). Motivation for physical activity
in young people: Entity and incremental beliefs about athletic ability. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21,
973–989.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict
achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child
Development, 78(1), 246–263.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2004). Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories of intelligence as
predictors of achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 371–388.
Brown, E. D. (2009). Persistence in the face of academic challenge for economically disadvantaged
children. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7(2), 173–184.
Burke, L. A., & Williams, J. M. (2012). The impact of a thinking skills intervention on children’s concepts
of intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 145–152.
Burnette, J. L., Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2012). Mind-sets matter: A meta-
analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 655–701.
Chen, J. A., & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of Grade 6 science students: Relation to
epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 35, 75–87.
Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 19–30.
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, A., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-
psychological intervention. Science, 313(5791), 1307–1310. doi:10.1126/science.1128317
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   21

Corpus, J. H., McClintic-Gilbert, M. S., & Hayenga, A. O. (2009). Within-year changes in children’s
intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations: Contextual predictors and academic outcomes.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 154–166.
Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the
stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716–733. doi:10.1037/a0031201
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia,
PA: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2002). The development of ability conceptions.  In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), The
development of achievement motivation (pp. 57–83). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Dweck, C. S. (2015). Carol Dweck Revisits the ‘Growth Mindset’. Education Week, 35(5), 20–24.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to
self-regulation, social Perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61(3), 192–203.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist,
34(3), 169–189.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 628.
Elliot, A. J., & Moller, A. C. (2003). Performance-approach goals: Good or bad forms of regulation?
International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4-5), 339–356.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration,
and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613–628.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement
motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139–156.
Erdley, C. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1993). Children’s implicit personality theories as predictors of their social
judgments. Child Development, 64(3), 863–878.
Flores, R. (1995). Dance for health: improving fitness in African American and Hispanic adolescents.
Public Health Reports, 110(2), 189–193. doi:10.2307/4597785
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An
intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
24(6), 645–662. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 85, 541–553.
Haimovitz, K., Wormington, S. V., & Corpus, J. H. (2011). Dangerous mindsets: How beliefs about
intelligence predict motivational change. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(6), 747–752.
Hanselman, P., Rozek, C. S., Grigg, J., & Borman, G. D. (2017). New evidence on self-affirmation effects and
theorized sources of heterogeneity from large-scale replications. Journal of Educational Psychology,
109(3), 405–424.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences
of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1284–1295.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement
goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638–645.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-
term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 316–330.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A
longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and
performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3),
562–575.
22   T. K. DEBACKER ET AL.

Henderson, V. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1990). Achievement and motivation in adolescence: A new model
and data. In S. Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 308–329).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping:
A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588–599.
Hudley, C., & Graham, S. (1993). An attributional intervention to reduce peer-directed aggression among
african-american boys. Child Development, 64(1), 124–138. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02899.x
Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J. (2002). Should childhood be a journey or a race? Response to Harackiewicz
et al. (2002). Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 646–648.
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations toward
evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 41–55.
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal
contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 197.
Lin-Siegler, X., Ahn, J. N., Chen, J., Anny Fang, F.-F., & Luna-Lucero, M. (2016). Even Einstein struggled:
Effects of learning about great scientists’ struggles on high school students’ motivation to learn
science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 314–328. http://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000092
Madjar, N., Kaplan, A., & Weinstock, M. (2011). Clarifying mastery-avoidance goals in high school:
Distinguishing between intrapersonal and task-based standards of competence. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 36(4), 268–279.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom,
under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., … Urdan, T. (2000).
Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to
self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61(3), 192–203.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice,
and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328–346.
Ommundsen, Y. (2003). Implicit theories of ability and self-regulation strategies in physical education
classes. Educational Psychology, 23, 141–157.
Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Mind-set
interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6),
784–793. doi:10.1177/0956797615571017
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications (2nd
ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal
orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1, 313–336.
Schmidt, J. A., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. Z. (2015). Exploring teacher effects for mindset intervention
outcomes in seventh-grade science classes. Middle Grades Research Journal, 10(2), 17–32.
Schmidt, J. A., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. Z. (2017). Does mindset intervention predict students’
daily experience in classrooms? A comparison of seventh and ninth graders’ trajectories. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 46(3), 582–602.
Schwartz, D. L., Cheng, K. M., Salehi, S., & Wieman, C. (2016). The half empty question for socio-cognitive
interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 397–404.
Sideridis, G. D., & Mouratidis, A. (2008). Forced choice versus open-ended assessments of goal
orientations: A descriptive study. International Review of Social Psychology, 21, 219–248.
Walton, G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23(1), 73–82.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and
health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. doi:10.1126/science.1198364
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY   23

Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1985). Improving the performance of college freshmen with attributional
techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 287–293. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.49.1.287
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that
personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314.
Yeager, D. S., Johnson, R., Spitzer, B. J., Trzesniewski, K. H., Powers, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2014). The far-
reaching effects of believing people can change: Implicit theories of personality shape stress, health,
and achievement during adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 867–884.
Yeager, D. S., Miu, A. S., Powers, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). Implicit theories of personality and attributions
of hostile intent: A meta-analysis, an experiment, and a longitudinal intervention. Child Development,
84(5), 1651–1667.
Yeager, D. S., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., Hulleman, C. S., Schneider, B., Hinojosa, C., … Dweck, C. S. (2016).
Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth mindset
during the transition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 374–391. doi:10.1007/
s13398-014-0173-7.2
Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). An implicit theories of personality intervention
reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion, 84(3), 970–988. doi:10.1111/
cdev.12003
Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). Adolescents’ implicit
theories predict desire for vengeance after peer conflicts: Correlational and experimental evidence.
Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1090–1107.
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic.
Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267–301.