ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: According to Dweck's mindset theory, implicit beliefs (a.k.a. mindset) have an organizing function, bringing together mindset, achievement goals and effort beliefs in a broader meaning system. Two commonly described meaning systems are a growth-mindset meaning system with mastery goals and positive effort beliefs, and a fixed-mindset meaning system with performance goals and negative effort beliefs. AIMS: Because of assumed heterogeneity within these two meaning systems, we aim to (1) examine multiple-mindset profiles based on mindset, achievement goals and effort beliefs, by using a data-driven person-oriented approach, and (2) relate these different profiles to several outcome measures (academic achievement, motivation and school burnout symptoms). SAMPLE: Self-report questionnaire data were collected from 724 students (11.0-14.7 y.o.; 46.7% girl; 53.3% boy; Mage = 12.8 y.o.). METHODS: Latent profile analysis was conducted using mindset, achievement goals and effort beliefs. RESULTS: Four profiles were revealed: one fixed-mindset profile and three growth-mindset profiles, which differed in their performance goal levels (low, moderate and high). Growth-mindset students with low- or moderate-performance goals had more advantageous outcomes, for example, higher math grades and lower school burnout symptoms, compared to growth-mindset students with high-performance goals. Fixed-mindset students had the least advantageous outcomes, for example, lower grades, less intrinsic motivation and more school burnout symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the importance of taking a holistic approach when examining mindset meaning systems, revealing the importance of the level of performance goals and including multiple academic outcomes.
ABSTRACT
Experiencing school burnout symptoms can have negative consequences for learning. A growth mindset, the belief that human qualities such as intelligence are malleable, has previously been correlated with fewer school burnout symptoms in late adolescents. This might be because adolescents with a stronger growth mindset show more adaptive self-regulation strategies and thereby increasing resilience against academic setbacks. Here we confirmed in a sample of 426 Dutch young adolescents (11-14 years old; 48% female) that this relationship between growth mindset and school burnout symptoms holds after controlling for other potential predictors of school burnout symptoms such as academic achievement, school track, gender, and socio-economic status. Our second aim was to increase our understanding of the mechanism underlying the relation between mindset and school burnout, by measuring physiological resilience (vagal activity, a measure of parasympathetic activity, also known as heart rate variability or HRV) in a subsample (n = 50). We did not find any relation between vagal activity and growth mindset or school burnout symptoms, nor could we establish a mediating effect of vagal activity in their relation. In conclusion, we found evidence for a potential protective effect of a growth mindset on school burnout symptoms in young adolescents, but not for physiological resilience (vagal activity) as an underlying mechanism. The protective effect of growth mindset as confirmed in our younger sample can be leveraged in interventions to prevent increasing school burnout symptoms.
ABSTRACT
The different ways students deal with mistakes is an integral part of mindset theory. While previous error-monitoring studies found supporting neural evidence for mindset-related differences, they may have been confounded by overlapping stimulus processing. We therefore investigated the relationship between mindset and event-related potentials (ERPs) of error-monitoring (response-locked Ne, Pe), with and without overlap correction. In addition, besides behavioral measures of remedial action after errors (post-error slowing and accuracy), we investigated their neural correlates (stimulus-locked N2). Results indicated comparable Ne, but larger Pe amplitudes in fixed-minded students; however, after overlap correction, the Pe results were rendered non-significant. A likely explanation for this overlap was a near-significant effect of mindset on the preceding stimulus P3. Finally, although N2 was larger for trials following errors, mindset was unrelated. The current study shows that the relationship between error-monitoring and mindset is more complex and should be reconsidered. Future studies are advised to explore stimulus processing as well, and if needed, to correct for stimulus overlap. In addition, contextual influences on and individual variation in error-monitoring need more scrutiny, which may contribute to refining mindset theory.
