WHAT WORKS

Growth Mindset Interventions CLEARINGHOUSETM

January 2022
Intervention Report | Supporting Postsecondary Success
Topic Area NCEE 2022-006
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

A Publication of the National Center for Education Evaluation at IES

Large numbers of students who enroll in college do not This What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) report, part of
complete a degree. Yet, earning a college degree is one of the the WWC’s Supporting Postsecondary Success topic area,
primary pathways for economic success and is increasingly explores the effects of Growth Mindset interventions on
required for good jobs and high wages.1 The way students postsecondary students’ academic achievement, college
interpret early academic struggles in college may affect enrollment, and progressing in college. The WWC identified
whether or not they remain enrolled. If students attribute 15 studies of Growth Mindset interventions. Six of these
their academic challenges to a perceived lack of intelligence studies meet WWC standards. The evidence presented in
or inability to succeed in college, they may be less likely to this report is from studies of the impact of Growth Mindset
persist.2 Growth Mindset interventions aim to improve college interventions on postsecondary students—including Black,
persistence and academic achievement by encouraging White, Hispanic, first-generation, and Pell grant-eligible
students to view intelligence as a “malleable” characteristic students—in both public and private postsecondary settings.
that grows with effort, and to view academic challenges as
temporary setbacks that they can overcome.3

What Happens When Students Participate in Growth Mindset Interventions?4

The evidence indicates that implementing Growth Mindset Findings on Growth Mindset interventions from six studies
interventions: that meet WWC standards are shown in Table 1. The table
reports an effectiveness rating, the improvement index,
• may increase academic achievement
and the number of studies and students that contributed
• may result in little or no change in college to the findings. The improvement index is a measure of the
enrollment intervention’s effect on an outcome. It can be interpreted
• may result in little or no change in progressing in as the expected change in percentile rank for an average
college comparison group student if that student had received the
intervention.

Table 1. Summary of findings on Growth Mindset interventions from studies that meet WWC standards
Study findings Evidence meeting WWC standards (version 4.0)
Improvement index
Outcome domain Effectiveness ratinga (percentile points) Number of studies Number of students
Academic achievement Potentially positive effects +13 5 5,301
College enrollment No discernible effects +1 2 8,194
Progressing in college No discernible effects -2 3 8,351
Note: The improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the
intervention. For example, an improvement index of +13 means that the expected percentile rank of the average comparison group student would increase by 13 points if the
student received a Growth Mindset intervention. The improvement index values are generated by averaging findings from the outcome analyses that meet WWC standards, as
reported by Aronson et al. (2002), Bostwick & Becker-Blease (2018), Broda et al. (2018), Fink et al. (2018), Suh et al. (2019), and Yeager et al. (2016). A positive or negative
improvement index does not necessarily mean the estimated effect is statistically significant. Academic achievement outcomes reported in these studies include semester or
quarter grade point average (GPA), final exam score, and course passing rate. College enrollment outcomes reported in these studies include full-time enrollment rate, which
is the percentage of students enrolled full-time. Progressing in college outcomes reported in these studies include the percentage of students completing 12 or more college
credits in a semester and the rate of retention to the following semester. The effects of Growth Mindset interventions are not known for other outcomes within the Supporting
Postsecondary Success topic area, including college attendance, postsecondary degree attainment, credential attainment, employment, or earnings.
a
Effectiveness ratings were determined according to version 4.0 of the WWC Procedures Handbook. Version 4.1 of the WWC Procedures Handbook introduces fixed-effects
meta-analysis and a revised approach to determining effectiveness ratings. Effectiveness ratings may differ depending on whether an intervention is assessed using the version
4.0 or version 4.1 WWC Procedures.

1
 BOX 1. HOW THE WWC REVIEWS AND DESCRIBES EVIDENCE

The WWC evaluates evidence based on the quality and results of reviewed studies. The criteria the WWC uses for evaluating
evidence are defined in the Procedures and Standards Handbooks and the Review Protocols. The studies summarized in this report
were reviewed under WWC Standards (version 4.0) and the Supporting Postsecondary Success topic area protocol (version 4.0).
To determine the effectiveness rating, the WWC considers what methods each study used, the direction of the effects, and the
number of studies that tested the intervention. The higher the effectiveness rating, the more certain the WWC is about the reported
results and about what will happen if the same intervention is implemented again. The following key explains the relationship between
effectiveness ratings and the statements used in this report:

Effectiveness rating Rating interpretation Description of the evidence

Positive (or negative) effects The intervention is likely to change an Strong evidence of a positive (or negative)
outcome effect, with no overriding contrary evidence
Potentially positive (or negative) effects The intervention may change an outcome Evidence of a positive (or negative) effect with
no overriding contrary evidence
No discernible effects The intervention may result in little to no No affirmative evidence of effects
change in an outcome
Mixed effects The intervention has inconsistent effects Evidence includes studies in at least two of
on an outcome these categories: studies with positive effects,
studies with negative effects, or more studies
with indeterminate effects than with positive or
negative effects

How are Growth Mindset Interventions Implemented?

The following section provides details of how postsecondary
institutions implemented Growth Mindset interventions. This Comparison group: In the six studies that contribute
information can help educators identify the requirements to this intervention report, students in the comparison
for implementing Growth Mindset interventions and group were typically exposed to alternative, non-
determine whether implementing these types of growth-mindset information and then asked to
interventions would be feasible in their institutions. describe, in their own words, how they would apply
Information on Growth Mindset interventions presented this information to their own learning or use it to
in this section comes from the studies that meet WWC advise another student. Some studies encouraged
standards (Aronson et al., 2002; Bostwick & Becker-Blease, students in the comparison group to remember
2018; Broda et al., 2018; Fink et al., 2018; Suh et al., 2019; that individuals have different intellectual strengths
and Yeager et al., 2016) and from correspondence with a and weaknesses (Aronson et al., 2002; Bostwick &
researcher in the field. Becker-Blease, 2018); other studies offered students
advice on adjusting to the physical environment of the
• Goal: Growth Mindset interventions aim to improve
campus and surrounding area (Yeager et al., 2016) or
students’ academic achievement and college persistence
tips for academic success in college, such as getting
by helping students view intellectual ability as something
sufficient sleep or engaging in stress reduction or time
that can grow over time with effort and practice rather
management activities (Broda et al., 2018; Fink et al.,
than as an innate, fixed quantity. These interventions
2018; and Suh et al., 2019).
also aim to change students’ mindsets to regard academic
challenges as learning opportunities rather than
permanent impediments. • Frequency and duration of service: Growth Mindset
• Target population: Growth Mindset interventions interventions in postsecondary settings typically occur
implemented in postsecondary settings tend to target once, either at the start of a student’s first year of college
students who are entering or are in their first semester enrollment or around the time that students complete
of college, particularly those who may interpret early their first or midterm course exams, and are administered
academic difficulties as an indication that they do in one or more sessions, each lasting about 30 minutes.
not have—and cannot develop—the ability to succeed • Intervention components: Growth Mindset interventions
academically in college. for postsecondary students typically include an exposure
• Method of delivery: Growth Mindset interventions component, in which students are exposed to messages
in postsecondary settings are delivered to students that intelligence is malleable and can grow with effort, and
individually or in groups, through online modules or in an application component, in which students describe
classroom settings. in their own words how to apply these growth mindset
messages. Refer to Table 2 for additional details.

2
Table 2. Components of Growth Mindset interventions

Key component Description

Exposure to growth Students are exposed to information that intellectual abilities grow when an individual exerts effort toward new or challenging
mindset concepts problems. This information may include summaries of research on brain plasticity, the benefits of working hard to solve difficult
problems, or testimonials from other students who overcame academic challenges through exerting effort, using effective
strategies for learning, or asking for help.
Application of growth Students are prompted to describe how they would apply growth mindset concepts to support their own or another student’s
mindset concepts persistence in the face of academic challenges. For example, students might explain how they will use these concepts to
prepare for their next exam or write a letter encouraging future first-year students that they can improve their academic abilities.

What Do Growth Mindset Interventions Cost?

This preliminary list of costs is not designed to be interventions. The program costs described in Table 3 are
exhaustive; rather, it provides educators an overview of based on the information available as of November 2020.
the major resources needed to implement Growth Mindset

Table 3. Cost ingredients for Growth Mindset interventions

Cost ingredients Description Source of funding

Personnel College personnel oversee the preparation and delivery of materials to students. College
Facilities Growth Mindset interventions can be administered in an existing classroom, laboratory, or other campus College
facility, or delivered online via computer in a location of each student’s choosing.
Equipment and Postsecondary institutions can access existing intervention materials for free online at sites such as College
materials https://www.perts.net/orientation/cg and https://www.mindsetkit.org. Alternatively, college personnel can
adapt intervention materials described or provided in the studies reviewed here. Other costs may include
the information technology infrastructure and software needed to deliver the intervention online.

For More Information:

About Growth Mindset interventions
Web:
Project for Education Research that Scales (PERTS), Growth Mindset for College Students: https://www.perts.net/orientation/cg
Growth Mindset toolkit and resources: https://www.mindsetkit.org/
Research on Growth Mindset interventions: https://mindsetscholarsnetwork.org/learning-mindsets/growth-mindset/

Research Summary
The WWC identified 15 studies that investigated the reported for long-term retention in college, on the WWC
effectiveness of Growth Mindset interventions with website (https://whatworks.ed.gov).
postsecondary students (Figure 1):
These supplemental findings and findings from studies that
• Five studies meet WWC group design standards without either do not meet WWC standards or are ineligible for
reservations review do not contribute to the effectiveness ratings.
• One study meets WWC group design standards with The six studies of Growth Mindset interventions that meet
reservations WWC group design standards reported findings on academic
• Four studies do not meet WWC group design standards achievement, college enrollment, and progressing in
• Five studies are ineligible for review college. No other findings in the studies meet WWC group
design standards within any outcome domain included in
The WWC reviews findings on the interventions’ effects the Supporting Postsecondary Success topic area.6 Citations
on eligible outcome domains from studies that meet for the 10 studies reviewed for this report are listed in the
standards, either with or without reservations. Based on this References section, which begins on page 14. Citations for
review, the WWC generates an effectiveness rating, which the five studies that are ineligible for review and the reasons
summarizes how the intervention impacts, or changes, a the WWC determined they were ineligible are also listed in
particular outcome domain. The WWC reports additional the References section.
supplemental findings, such as those the study authors

3
Figure 1. Effectiveness ratings for Growth Mindset interventions

5 studies meet WWC

standards without 1 study meets WWC
standards with 4 studies
meet WWC
do not
5 studies are
ineligible for
reservations reservations standards review

Contribute to effectiveness ratings Do not contribute to effectiveness ratings

Growth Mindset interventions have potentially positive effects on academic achievement

The WWC determined that one study that meets WWC group design standards without reservations (Aronson et al., 2002)
showed evidence of a positive and statistically significant effect of a Growth Mindset intervention on academic
achievement. Two other studies that meet WWC group design standards without reservations (Bostwick & Becker-Blease,
2018 and Suh et al., 2019) showed effect sizes greater than 0.25 of Growth Mindset interventions on academic
achievement but these findings were not statistically significant. Two studies, one that meets WWC group design
standards without reservations (Broda et al., 2018) and one that meets WWC group design standards with reservations
(Fink et al., 2018), showed evidence of indeterminate effects of Growth Mindset interventions on academic achievement.

Growth Mindset interventions have no discernible effects on college enrollment

The WWC determined that two studies that meet WWC group design standards without reservations (Broda et al., 2018;
and Yeager et al., 2016) showed evidence of an indeterminate effect of a Growth Mindset intervention on college enrollment.

Growth Mindset interventions have no discernible effects on progressing in college

The WWC determined that three studies that meet WWC group design standards without reservations (Broda et al., 2018;
Suh et al., 2019; and Yeager et al., 2016) showed evidence of indeterminate effects of Growth Mindset interventions on
progressing in college.

Main Findings
Table 4 shows the findings from the six Growth Mindset indicating evidence of positive effect with no overriding
intervention studies that meet WWC standards. The table contrary evidence. These findings are based on 5,301
includes WWC calculations of the mean difference, effect students. The effectiveness ratings for college enrollment
size, and performance of the intervention group relative and progressing in college is no discernible effects, indicating
to the comparison group. Based on findings from the six no affirmative evidence of effects. These findings are based
studies that meet WWC standards, the effectiveness rating on 8,194 and 8,351 students, respectively.
for academic achievement is potentially positive effects,

4
Table 4. Findings by outcome domain from studies of Growth Mindset interventions that meet
WWC standards

Mean
(standard deviation) WWC calculations
Sample Intervention Comparison Mean Effect Improvement
Measure (study) Study sample size group group difference size index p-value
Quarter grade point Growth Mindset vs. 51 3.46 3.19 0.27 0.85 +30 <.01
average (GPA; Aronson control (0.30) (0.33)
et al. 2002)a pen-pal
Final exam score Growth Mindset vs. 173 80.00 77.00 3.00 0.27 +11 .08
(Bostwick & Becker- fixed mindset (10.0) (12.0)
Blease 2018)b
Semester grade point Growth Mindset vs. 4,357 3.18 3.14 0.04 0.05 +2 .09
average (GPA; Broda et comparison (0.75) (0.78)
al. 2018)c
Final exam score (Fink Growth Mindset vs. 565 64.90 63.60 1.30 0.05 +2 .57
et al. 2018)d comparison (27.30) (27.20)
Course passing rate (%) Growth Mindset vs. 155 64.8 32.8 32.0 0.80 +29 .17
(Suh et al. 2019)e laughter/stress
Final exam score (Suh Growth Mindset vs. 74 73.68 74.24 -0.56 -0.04 -2 .94
et al. 2019)e laughter/stress (12.58) (15.08)
Outcome average for academic achievement across all studies 0.32 +13
Full time enrollment Growth Mindset vs. 4,357 96.0 96.0 0.00 0.00 0 >.99
rate (%) (Broda et al. comparison
2018)c
Full time enrollment Growth Mindset vs. 3,837 90.0 89.0 1.00 0.06 +3 .32
rate (%) (Yeager et al. comparison
2016)f
Outcome average for college enrollment across all studies 0.03 +1
College credits Growth Mindset vs. 4,357 13.18 13.12 0.06 0.03 +1 0.41
completed (Broda et al. comparison (2.32) (2.46)
2018)c
Retention to the Growth Mindset vs. 157 74.2 80.9 -6.70 -0.23 -9 0.63
following semester (%) laughter/stress
(Suh et al. 2019)e
Completed 12 or more Growth Mindset vs. 3,837 88.0 87.0 1.00 0.06 +2 0.35
college credits (%) comparison
(Yeager et al. 2016)f
Outcome average for progressing in college across all studies -0.05 -2
Notes: For mean difference and effect size values reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group.
The effect size is a standardized measure of the effect of an intervention on outcomes, representing the average change expected for all individuals who are given the
intervention (measured in standard deviations of the outcome measure). An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected
change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention. For example, an improvement index of +13 means that the
expected percentile rank of the average comparison group student would increase by 13 points if the student received a Growth Mindset intervention. A positive or negative
improvement index does not necessarily mean the estimated effect is statistically significant. Some statistics may not sum as expected due to rounding.
a
Aronson et al. (2002) did not require corrections for clustering or multiple comparisons nor difference-in-differences adjustments. The intervention and comparison group
means and standard deviations presented here were calculated by the WWC using data reported in the study and data provided in response to an author query. In the study,
the authors reported means, but not standard deviations, for the intervention and “control pen-pal” comparison groups separately for Black and White subgroups. In response
to an author query, the authors provided unadjusted standard deviations for students in the control pen-pal and “no pen-pal” comparison groups combined, both overall and for
Black and White subgroups. The WWC aggregated the Black and White subgroup means from Table 1 of the study using the unadjusted standard deviations for the combined
comparison groups to calculate the mean and standard deviation for all students in the control pen-pal comparison group only. The effect size and p-value reported here were
calculated by the WWC because the authors did not report these values separately for the difference between the intervention and control pen-pal comparison group. This study
is characterized as having a statistically significant positive effect on academic achievement because the mean effect reported is positive and statistically significant.
b
Bostwick & Becker-Blease (2018) did not require corrections for clustering or multiple comparisons nor difference-in-differences adjustments. The effect size and p-value
presented here were calculated by the WWC using the unadjusted means and standard deviations reported for the intervention and “fixed mindset” comparison groups because
the authors did not report these values separately for the difference between the intervention and fixed mindset comparison group. This study is characterized as having a
potentially positive effect on academic achievement because the effect size is ≥ 0.25 but not statistically significant
c
Broda et al. (2018) did not require corrections for clustering or multiple comparisons nor difference-in-differences adjustments. The effect sizes presented here were calculated
by the WWC using the unadjusted means and standard deviations for academic achievement and progressing in college and the dichotomous method for college enrollment.
The p-values presented here were calculated by the WWC. This study is characterized as having indeterminate effects on academic achievement, college enrollment, and
progressing in college because the mean effects are not statistically significant.
d
Fink et al. (2018) did not require corrections for clustering or multiple comparisons nor difference-in-differences adjustments. The effect size presented here was calculated
by the WWC. To calculate the effect size, the WWC converted standard errors to standard deviations and calculated the unadjusted and adjusted means for the full sample by

5
Table 4. Findings by outcome domain from studies of Growth Mindset interventions that meet
WWC standards (continued)
aggregating across findings by race and sex categories reported in Appendix 3, Table 4 of the study. The study is characterized as having an indeterminate effect on academic
achievement because the mean effect is not statistically significant.
e
Suh et al. (2019) required corrections for clustering because the reported analyses did not take into account the clustering of students within course sections. The WWC
also applied a correction for multiple comparisons in the academic achievement domain.The effect sizes and p-values presented here were calculated by the WWC because
the authors did not report these values separately for the difference between the intervention and “laughter/stress” comparison group. This study is characterized as having a
potentially positive effect on academic achievement because the mean effect size is ≥ 0.25 but not statistically significant and an indeterminate effect on progressing in college
because the effect size is < 0.25 and not statistically significant.
f
Yeager et al. (2016) did not require corrections for clustering or multiple comparisons nor difference-in-differences adjustments. The effect sizes presented here were calculated
by the WWC using the dichotomous method for college enrollment and progressing in college. The p-values presented here were calculated by the WWC. This study is
characterized as having indeterminate effects on college enrollment and progressing in college because the mean effects are not statistically significant.
For more information, please refer to the WWC Procedures Handbook, version 4.0, page 22.

In What Context Was Growth Mindset Studied?

The following section provides information on the setting of This information can help educators understand the context in
the six studies of Growth Mindset interventions that meet WWC which the studies of Growth Mindset interventions were
standards, and a description of the participants in conducted, and determine whether the program might be
the research. suitable for their setting.

WHERE THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED

6 studies, 9,140 students in 6 postsecondary institutions in

California, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, and Texas

Race Ethnicity
8% 6% 63% 24% 87% 13%
Asian Black White Other Non-Hispanic Hispanic

Gender: 55% Female First PELL

45% Male Generation: 21% Grant Eligible: 26%

Grades PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PS

Postsecondary

Details of Each Study that Meets WWC Standards

This section presents details for the studies of Growth Research details
Mindset interventions that meet WWC standards. These
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the
details include the full study reference, findings description,
effects of stereotype threat on African American college
findings summary, and description of study characteristics.
students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of
A summary of domain findings for each study is presented
Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113–125.
below, followed by a description of the study characteristics.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
These study-level details include contextual information
about the study setting, methods, sample, intervention Findings from Aronson et al. (2002) show evidence of a
group, comparison group, outcomes, and implementation statistically significant positive effect of a Growth Mindset
details. For additional information, readers should refer to intervention in the academic achievement domain (Table 5).
the original studies. This finding is based on an outcome analysis that includes
51 students.7

6
Table 5. Summary of findings from Aronson et al. (2002)
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Study findings

Sample Average Improvement Statistically

Outcome domain size effect size index significant
Academic achievement 51 students 0.85 +30 Yes

Table 6. Description of study characteristics for Aronson et al. (2002)

WWC evidence Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations. This is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with low
rating attrition. For more information on how the WWC assigns study ratings, please see the WWC Procedures and Standards
Handbooks (version 4.0) and WWC Standards Briefs, available on the WWC website.

Setting The study took place at a private four-year university in California. Groups of two to five undergraduate students participated
in the study together in a laboratory setting on campus.

Methods The study authors randomly assigned 109 students blocked by race (White or Black) to one of three groups, a “malleable
pen-pal” Growth Mindset intervention group (37 students), a “control pen-pal” comparison group (34 students), or a “no
pen-pal” comparison group (38 students). This review prioritized findings for the intervention group versus the control pen-
pal group to be consistent with other studies reviewed for this report and because this condition better isolates the effect of
the growth mindset intervention.8 The analytic sample included 28 students in the intervention and 23 in the control pen-pal
comparison group. This sample loss after random assignment (attrition) was within the acceptable threshold for the review.
The overall attrition rate was 28%, and the differential attrition rate was 8 percentage points.

Study sample For students in the main analytic sample comparing outcomes for the intervention and control pen-pal comparison groups,
55% were Black and 45% were White. The authors did not provide other demographic information for the study sample.

Intervention Students in the intervention group attended three one-hour sessions, spaced 10 days apart starting in mid-January and
group continuing through February. In groups of two to five, students were asked to write a reassuring letter to a middle school
student experiencing academic difficulties. Students read letters ostensibly written by seventh-grade students, but actually
prepared by the study authors. Next, researchers told students that intelligence could grow with hard work, and showed
a short video describing research showing that the human brain developed new connections in response to intellectual
challenges. Before replying to their assigned middle school “pen-pal,” students were encouraged to include information
about the malleability of intelligence, as well as illustrative examples from their own life in their response. In the second
session, students received a thank you note, ostensibly from their pen-pal and pen-pal’s teacher; students then wrote a
similar letter to a new pen-pal. In the third session, students converted their letters into a speech, recorded their speech,
and then listened twice to their own audiotaped speech.

Comparison In the control pen-pal comparison group, students attended three one-hour sessions spaced 10 days apart starting in
group mid-January and continuing through February. In groups of two to five, students were asked to write a reassuring letter
to a middle school student experiencing academic difficulties. Students read letters ostensibly written by seventh-grade
students, but actually prepared by the study authors. Next, researchers told students that intelligence was not a single
attribute but that individuals had multiple intellectual strengths and weaknesses, and showed a short video describing
how psychologists were starting to view intelligence as multiple abilities rather than a single entity. Before replying to their
assigned middle school pen-pal, students were encouraged to include information about the multiple types of intelligence
in their response. In the second session, students received a thank you note, ostensibly from their pen-pal and pen-pal’s
teacher; students then wrote a similar letter to a new pen-pal. In the third session, students converted their letters into a
speech, recorded their speech, and then listened twice to their own audiotaped speech.
In the no pen-pal comparison group, students attended one laboratory session near the end of February to complete survey
measures and sign study-related forms.

7
 Outcomes and Using data from university transcripts, study authors reported students’ grade point averages (GPA) at the end of the
measurement spring academic term (approximately nine weeks after the end of the intervention). Although the authors presented findings
separately for each of the three study groups, only the difference in GPA between the intervention and control pen-pal
comparison groups is classified as a main finding. Supplemental findings for the intervention group relative to the no pen-pal
comparison group and relative to the two comparison groups combined are available on the WWC website
(https://whatworks.ed.gov). The supplemental findings do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness.
Study authors also collected data on measures that are ineligible for review under the Supporting Postsecondary Success
topic area including students’ self-reported beliefs about the malleability of intelligence, experiences of stereotype threat,
enjoyment of the educational process, and belief that academic achievement was important to their identity. Subgroup
findings for Black and White students reported by the authors are not included because they did not meet WWC group
design standards; the study authors did not provide information on attrition separately for each group, nor was information
available on the equivalence of the analytic intervention and comparison groups at baseline for either subgroup.

Additional No additional information provided.

implementation
details

Research details for Bostwick & Findings from Bostwick & Becker-Blease (2018) show
Becker-Blease (2018) evidence of an indeterminate effect of a Growth Mindset
intervention in the academic achievement domain (Table 7).
Bostwick, K. C. P., & Becker-Blease, K. A. (2018). Quick, easy
This finding is based on an outcome analysis that includes
mindset intervention can boost academic achievement in
173 students.
large introductory psychology classes. Psychology Learning
and Teaching, 17(2), 177–193.
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=EJ1182886&id=EJ1182886

Table 7. Summary of findings from Bostwick & Becker-Blease (2018)

Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Study findings

Sample Average Improvement Statistically

Outcome domain size effect size index significant
Academic achievement 173 students 0.27 +11 No

Table 8. Description of study characteristics for Bostwick & Becker-Blease (2018)

WWC evidence Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations. This is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with low
rating attrition.

Setting The study took place on the campus of a mid-sized public university in Oregon. Students who enrolled in a large, lecture-
based introductory psychology course participated in the study. Students received materials for the intervention or one of
two comparison conditions immediately after the first course exam was administered in class.

Methods The study authors randomly assigned 278 students enrolled in an introductory psychology course to one of three groups,
93 students to a Growth Mindset intervention group, 94 students to a “fixed mindset” comparison group, and 91 students to
a “class attendance matters” comparison group. This review prioritized findings for the Growth Mindset intervention group
versus the fixed mindset comparison group to be consistent with other studies reviewed for this report and because the
study authors argued this condition better approximates the “business as usual” experiences of college students.9 Of the
187 students assigned to the intervention or fixed mindset group, 173 students were included in the analytic sample, with
86 students in the intervention group and 87 students in the fixed mindset group. The sample loss after random assignment
(attrition) was within the acceptable threshold for the review. The overall attrition rate was 7%, and the differential attrition
rate was less than 1 percentage point.

Study sample Study authors did not report demographic characteristics of the analytic sample. Of the 278 students randomly assigned,
gender was not specified for 14 students. Among the remaining 264 students, 66% were female. The authors noted that,
historically, 50% of students who enrolled in the introductory psychology course were first-year or transfer students.

8
 Intervention After submitting their first course exam, students in the intervention group received a letter from the instructor stating that
group recent research showed that the human brain is adaptable and that people can overcome new challenges with persistence
and hard work and strengthen areas of weakness over time.

Comparison After submitting their first course exam, students in the fixed mindset and class attendance matters groups each received
group a letter from the instructor. The letter for students in the fixed mindset group stated that people have different strengths and
weaknesses, that the key to success was to use one’s strengths, and that everyone has to approach obstacles differently.
The letter for students in the class attendance matters group stated the importance of class attendance for academic
performance and thanked the student for coming to class.

Outcomes and Study authors reported findings on students’ final exam score, administered approximately nine weeks after the delivery
measurement of the intervention. The review team leadership determined that the final exam was equivalent to a department-wide
examination, making it eligible for review under the Supporting Postsecondary Success topic area. The exam was
cumulative across content covered throughout the course and was administered to the class. Review team leadership also
determined that this exam was equivalent to a final course grade, and therefore, as a standard educational measure, its
reliability and validity are assumed to meet WWC outcome criteria.
Study authors also reported supplemental findings for the class attendance matters comparison group. These findings, and
findings that compare outcomes for the intervention group to the two comparison groups combined are available on WWC
website (https://whatworks.ed.gov). The supplemental findings do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness.
Findings for a subgroup of students who passed a “manipulation check” demonstrating that they recalled the contents of
the letter they had received did not meet WWC group design standards because of high attrition and because the analytic
intervention and comparison groups did not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement. Findings for student scores on the
second, third, and fourth course exams were ineligible for review under the Supporting Postsecondary Success topic area.

Additional No additional information provided.

implementation
details

Research details for Broda et al. (2018) Findings from Broda et al. (2018) show evidence of
indeterminate effects of a Growth Mindset intervention in the
Broda, M., Yun, J., Schneider, B., Yeager, D. S., Walton, G.
academic achievement, college enrollment, and progressing
M., & Diemer, M. (2018). Reducing inequality in academic
in college domains (Table 9). Each finding is based on an
success for incoming college students: A randomized trial
outcome analysis that includes 4,357 students.
of growth mindset and belonging interventions. Journal of
Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(3), 317–338.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1181580

Table 9. Summary of findings from Broda et al. (2018)

Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Study findings

Sample Average Improvement Statistically

Outcome domain size effect size index significant
Academic achievement 4,357 students 0.05 +2 No
College enrollment 4,357 students 0.00 0 No
Progressing in college 4,357 students 0.03 +1 No

Table 10. Description of study characteristics for Broda et al. (2018)

WWC evidence Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations. This is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with low
rating attrition.

Setting The study took place at a public university in Michigan. Several weeks before arriving on campus for a two-day orientation
program, incoming first-year students received a survey link from the university and completed the survey either prior to, or
after arriving, on campus for orientation.

9
 Methods After blocking students on race and ethnicity, study authors randomly assigned incoming first-year students who responded
to a survey invitation into one of three groups: 2,189 students to a Growth Mindset intervention group, 2,210 students to a
Social Belonging intervention group, and 2,269 students to a comparison group.10 The analytic sample for outcomes at the
end of the fall (2014) semester included 2,135 students in the Growth Mindset intervention group and 2,222 students in the
comparison group. This sample loss after random assignment (attrition) was within the acceptable threshold for the review.
The overall attrition rate was 2%, and the differential attrition rate was less than 1 percentage point.

Study sample Among students included in analyses for main findings, 54% were female, 78% were White, 7% were Black, and race was
not specified for 15% of the sample. Four percent were Hispanic. Approximately 24% were first-generation college students
and 26% were eligible for a Pell grant.

Intervention Students in the intervention group read an article summarizing research showing that the brain is malleable and that
group intelligence can grow if students exert effort when facing a challenge. Next, students wrote short essay responses to
questions about how they may or may not have applied a growth mindset to a challenge. Finally, students wrote a letter,
incorporating elements of the “brain is malleable” article, offering advice for a future first-year student. On average, students
spent 20 to 25 minutes on the intervention activities.

Comparison Students in the comparison group read stories about adapting to the physical aspects of college life, including the weather
group in Michigan, navigating around the university campus, adjusting to a new class schedule, and finding places to eat. Next,
students wrote short essay responses to questions about how the stories they had read related to the start of their own
college-going experience. On average, students spent 10 to 15 minutes on the comparison group activities.

Outcomes and Using administrative data for the end of the fall semester, study authors reported students’ grade point average (GPA;
measurement academic achievement domain), number of course credits completed (progressing in college domain), and full-time
enrollment rate (percentage of students enrolled full-time; college enrollment domain).
Supplemental findings include fall semester outcomes reported separately for Black, White, and Hispanic subgroups, as
well as spring (2015) semester GPA, course credits completed, and cumulative year-end (2014-2015) GPA for the full
sample and each subgroup. These supplemental findings are available on the WWC website (https://whatworks.ed.gov).
The supplemental findings do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness.
Ineligible outcomes included the number of course credits attempted in each of the two first-year semesters. Findings that
compared outcomes for the Social Belonging intervention group to the comparison group were not relevant to this report but
are included in a separate WWC intervention report on Social Belonging interventions for postsecondary students.

Additional No additional information provided.

implementation
details

Research details for Suh et al. (2019) Findings from Suh et al. (2019) show evidence of an
indeterminate effect of a Growth Mindset intervention in the
Suh, E. K., Dahlgren, D. J., Hughes, M. E., Keefe, T. J., &
academic achievement and progressing in college domains
Allman, R. J. (2019). Conditions for success: Fostering
(Table 11). These finding are based on outcome analyses that
first-year students’ growth mindset in developmental
include 155 and 157 students respectively.
mathematics. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students
in Transition, 31(2), 63-78.
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/fyesit/
fyesit/2019/00000031/00000002/art00004

Table 11. Summary of findings from Suh et al. (2019)

Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Study findings

Sample Average Improvement Statistically

Outcome domain size effect size index significant
Academic achievement 155 students 0.38 +15 No
Progressing in college 157 students -0.23 -9 No

10
Table 12. Description of study characteristics for Suh et al. (2019)

WWC evidence Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations. This is a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) with low
rating cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.

Setting The study took place at a public four-year university in Indiana within seven sections of a developmental mathematics
course required for graduation.11

Methods Study authors randomly assigned seven sections of a developmental mathematics course required for graduation to a
Growth Mindset intervention group (3 sections, 89 students), a “laughter/stress” comparison group (2 sections, 68 students),
or an “advice-only” comparison group (2 sections, 70 students). The analytic sample for the course passing rate included
88 students in the intervention group and 67 students in the laughter/stress comparison group. After random assignment,
there was no cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response was within the acceptable threshold for the review.
The overall attrition rate was 1%, and the differential attrition rate was less than 1 percentage point. The analytic sample for
students’ final exam score included 54 students in the intervention group and 20 students in the laughter/stress comparison
group. Although this sample loss exceeded the acceptable threshold for the review, the authors demonstrated equivalence
of the analytic sample at baseline. The analytic sample for retention to the following semester included all 157 students
randomly assigned to the intervention or laughter/stress comparison group.

Study sample Among the 227 students in the seven course sections randomly assigned, 8% were Black, 78% were White, and race
was not specified for 13% of the sample. Sixty-nine percent of these students were female, and 51% were first-generation
college students.12 Information about the characteristics of the analytic samples for main findings was unavailable.

Intervention During the second and third weeks of the fall semester, students in the Growth Mindset intervention group read a short
group article describing research showing that the brain is malleable and that intelligence can grow if students exert effort when
facing a challenge. Next, students wrote three short essay responses to prompts in which they (1) summarized the article,
(2) described a personal experience about learning something new, and (3) gave advice to a hypothetical student who was
feeling “dumb.”

Comparison Within the second and third weeks of the fall semester, students in the laughter/stress comparison group read a short
group article describing the role of laughter in health and stress management. Next, students wrote short replies to essay prompts
in which they (1) summarized the article and (2) described a personal situation in which they used laughter to relax and
improve their health. Students in the advice-only comparison group did not read an article before writing short replies to
two essay prompts in which they (1) described a personal situation in which they succeeded in a class and explained the
reasons for their success, and (2) wrote a letter to a friend who was feeling “dumb” and offered advice for how to learn and
become smarter.

Outcomes and Study authors reported the course passing rate and students’ final exam score (academic achievement domain), and
measurement the rate of retention to the following semester (percent of students who re-enrolled; progressing in college domain).
Supplemental findings include the rate of retention to the fall semester of the next academic year, as well as the course
passing rate and rate of retention to the following semester for students in the intervention group compared to those in the
advice-only comparison group. These supplemental findings are available on the WWC website (https://whatworks.ed.gov).
The supplemental findings do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness.
One study-reported finding, comparing the final exam score for students in the intervention group to those in the advice-only
comparison group, did not meet WWC group design standards due to high individual-level non-response and because the
analytic intervention and comparison groups did not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement. The study authors also
reported findings for students’ persistence to the final course exam, an ineligible outcome under the review protocol.

Additional No additional information provided.

implementation
details

Research details for Yeager et al. (2016) Findings from Yeager et al. (2016) show evidence of
indeterminate effects of a Growth Mindset intervention in
Yeager, D. S., Walton, G. M., Brady, S. T., Akcinar, E. N.,
the college enrollment and progressing in college domains
Paunesku, D., Keane, L., Kamentz, D., Ritter, G., Duckworth,
(Table 13). Each finding is based on an outcome analysis that
A. L., Urstein, R., Gomez, E. M., Markus, H. R., Cohen, G. L.,
includes 3,837 students.
& Dweck, C. S. (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college
narrows achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
113(24), E3341-E3348.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1524360113

11
Table 13. Summary of findings from Yeager et al. (2016)
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Study findings

Sample Average Improvement Statistically

Outcome domain size effect size index significant
College enrollment 3,837 students 0.06 +3 No
Progressing in college 3,837 students 0.06 +2 No

Table 14. Description of study characteristics for Yeager et al. (2016)

WWC evidence Meets WWC Group Design Standards With Reservations. This is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with low attrition.
rating

Setting The study took place at a public university in Texas. Incoming students reviewed pre-orientation materials online—including
text that served as the intervention—one week before arriving on campus for the full orientation.

Methods After blocking students on SAT score, race and ethnicity, and gender, study authors randomly assigned incoming first-year
students who completed a brief survey into one of four groups: 1,775 students to a Growth Mindset intervention group,
1,746 students to a Social Belonging intervention group, 2,062 students to a comparison group and an unknown number to
an intervention that combined elements of the Growth Mindset and Social Belonging interventions.13 The analytic sample
for outcomes at the end of the fall (2012) semester included 1,775 students in the Growth Mindset intervention group and
2,062 students in the comparison group. There was no sample loss after random assignment (attrition).

Study sample Across the 7,343 students in the analytic sample that included all four study conditions, 46% were White, 18% were Asian,
5% were Black, and race was not specified for 31% of the sample. Twenty-four percent were Hispanic. Approximately 17%
were first-generation college students and 83% were continuing-generation.14

Intervention In an online session lasting approximately 30 minutes, students in the Growth Mindset intervention group read an article
group summarizing research showing that the brain is malleable and that intelligence can grow if students exert effort when
facing a challenge. Next, students read stories from upper-class students that described how they had overcome early
struggles in college. These stories conveyed messages that initial struggles in college, such as receiving low grades, getting
critical feedback from a professor, or having difficulty with the college bureaucracy, do not imply that a student is “dumb” or
unprepared for college; rather, these challenges suggest that students may learn more effective study strategies by asking
for help and that the “knowing how” part of their brain was still developing. Finally, students wrote an essay, to be shared
with other first-year students facing struggles, that described how these messages applied to their own experience adjusting
to college.

Comparison In an online session lasting approximately 30 minutes, students in the comparison group read stories from upper-class
group students that described how they had adapted to the physical environment on campus and in the surrounding city. Next,
students wrote an essay, to be shared with other first-year students facing struggles, about how students adjust to college.

Outcomes and Using administrative data, study authors reported the percentage of students enrolled full-time (that is, enrolled for 12 or
measurement more credit hours) during the fall 2012 semester, an outcome in the college enrollment domain, and the percentage of
students who completed 12 or more credits by the end of the semester, an outcome in the progressing in college domain.
Supplemental findings include fall semester full-time enrollment and credit completion rates reported separately for
disadvantaged (all first-generation to college and all Black or Hispanic students) and advantaged (all continuing generation
Asian or European-American students) subgroups, as well the percentage of students enrolled full-time continuously for the
entire year (2012-2013) and the percentage who completed 24 or more credits by the end of the year. The authors reported
these end-of-year findings for the full sample and each subgroup. These supplemental findings are available on the WWC
website (https://whatworks.ed.gov). The supplemental findings do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness.
Findings that compared outcomes for the Social Belonging intervention group to the comparison group were not relevant
to this report but are included in a separate WWC intervention report on Social Belonging interventions for postsecondary
students.

Additional The university embedded the study materials within a set of online, pre-orientation tasks required of incoming students,
implementation such as reviewing the university honor code, health care requirements, and course registration procedures. To help ensure
details that students read the materials carefully, each web page had a timer that prevented students from advancing to the next
page until a minimum amount of time had elapsed. The study materials were framed as information about the “university
mindset,” and an opportunity to learn from older students’ experience with the transition to college. Study materials informed
students that their essays could be shared, anonymously, to help future students cope with the transition to college.

12
Research details for Fink et al. (2018) Findings from Fink et al. (2018) show evidence of an
indeterminate effect of a Growth Mindset intervention in the
Fink, A., Cahill, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., Hoffman, A., & Frey,
academic achievement domain (Table 15). This finding is
R. F. (2018). Improving general chemistry performance
based on an outcome analysis that includes 565 students.
through a growth mindset intervention: Selective effects
on underrepresented minorities. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 19(3), 783-806. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C7RP00244K

Table 15. Summary of findings from Fink et al. (2018)

Meets WWC Group Design Standards With Reservations
Study findings

Sample Average Improvement Statistically

Outcome domain size effect size index significant
Academic achievement 565 students 0.05 +2 No

Table 16. Description of study characteristics for Fink et al. (2018)

WWC evidence Meets WWC Group Design Standards With Reservations. This is a compromised randomized controlled trial (RCT) with
rating analytic intervention and comparison groups that satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.

Setting The study took place as part of a General Chemistry course at a private university. Students participated in the study by
completing activities that were incorporated into three online homework assignments.

Methods Study authors randomly assigned two cohorts of first-year students who enrolled in General Chemistry 1 in the fall of 2015
or fall of 2016 to a Growth Mindset intervention group or a “transition tips” comparison group. After random assignment,
the authors excluded from analysis students who (1) did not consent, (2) were inadvertently exposed to a “self-affirmation”
intervention designed to improve their academic performance in the course, or (3) did not participate in the intervention
or comparison group study activities. Excluding students who did not participate in the study activities compromised the
integrity of random assignment.15

Study sample The analytic sample consisted of 565 first-year students enrolled in General Chemistry 1 in the fall of 2015 or fall of 2016
who consented to participate in the study and completed three online study activities. The Growth Mindset intervention
group included 275 students and the “transition tips” comparison group included 290 students. Among the 565 students
in the analytic sample, 57% were female, 76% were White, and 24% were members of a racial or ethnic group historically
underrepresented among students earning a bachelor’s degree in chemistry or another STEM field, including Black,
American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and Hispanic students. Asian students were excluded
from the sample.

Intervention Students received three online study activities during the semester. In the first, administered two weeks before the first
group course exam, students read a short article summarizing research showing that the brain is malleable and that intelligence
can grow with effortful practice on challenging tasks, and by developing new learning strategies with support from others.
For the second activity, administered one week before the second course exam, students received a summary of the
article’s key points and were prompted to write about how the article would affect their preparation for the upcoming exam.
For the third activity, one week prior to the course final exam, students were prompted to write about how the article would
influence their studying strategies for the exam.

Comparison Students received three online study activities during the semester, administered at the same points in time as the
group intervention group received their assignments. In the first activity, students in the comparison group received a set of
“transition tips” for college success that emphasized organization and time management, maintaining their health and
balancing academic work with social and extracurricular activities, being an active participant in class, and using available
resources to support learning the course material. The second and third activities prompted students to reflect on how the
transition tips article would affect their approach to preparing for the second and final course exams.

Outcomes and Study authors reported final exam scores (academic achievement domain) for students in the intervention and comparison
measurement groups. To correct any potential differences between the fall 2015 and fall 2016 final exams and student cohorts, the
authors converted raw test scores to standardized scores (z-scores) prior to analysis. For the following outcomes, the
authors reported findings that did not meet WWC group design standards because the analytic intervention and comparison
groups did not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement: final exam scores for the subgroup of students historically
underrepresented in STEM, and average of exam scores in General Chemistry 2 during the spring semester, both for the
full sample and the subgroup of students historically underrepresented in STEM.

13
 Additional No additional information provided.
implementation
details

References standards because the equivalence of clusters in

the analytic intervention and comparison groups is
Studies that meet WWC group design standards necessary but the requirement was not satisfied.
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the Powers, M. D. (2014). Growth mindset intervention at
effects of stereotype threat on African American the community college level: A multiple methods
college students by shaping theories of intelligence. examination of the effects on faculty and students.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), [Doctoral dissertation, UCLA].
113–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1491 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/48575763 The
study does not meet WWC group design standards
Bostwick, K. C. P., & Becker-Blease, K. A. (2018). Quick, because the equivalence of clusters in the analytic
easy mindset intervention can boost academic intervention and comparison groups is necessary but
achievement in large introductory psychology classes. the requirement was not satisfied.
Psychology Learning and Teaching, 17(2), 177–193.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1182886 Sriram, R. (2014). Rethinking intelligence: The role of
mindset in promoting success for academically high-
Broda, M., Yun, J., Schneider, B., Yeager, D. S., Walton, risk students. Journal of College Student Retention:
G. M., & Diemer, M. (2018). Reducing inequality in Research, Theory & Practice, 15(4), 515–536.
academic success for incoming college students: A https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1076282 The study does not
randomized trial of growth mindset and belonging meet WWC group design standards because it is a
interventions. Journal of Research on Educational randomized controlled trial with high attrition, and
Effectiveness, 11(3), 317–338. the analytic intervention and comparison groups do
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1181580 not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
Suh, E. K., Dahlgren, D. J., Hughes, M. E., Keefe, T. J., Wright, J. C. (2018). The challenge of community college
& Allman, R. J. (2019). Conditions for success: student academic motivation: The “Go for Growth!”
Fostering first-year students’ growth mindset in intervention (Publication No. 10751685) [Doctoral
developmental mathematics. Journal of The First- dissertation, The University of North Carolina at
Year Experience & Students in Transition, 31(2), 63-78. Chapel Hill]. ProQuest LLC.
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/fyesit/ https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED585680 The study does
fyesit/2019/00000031/00000002/art00004 not meet WWC group design standards because
Yeager, D. S., Walton, G. M., Brady, S. T., Akcinar, E. N., the equivalence of the clusters in the analytic
Paunesku, D., Keane, L., Kamentz, D., Ritter, G., intervention and comparison groups is necessary but
Duckworth, A. L., Urstein, R., Gomez, E. M., Markus, the requirement was not satisfied.
H. R., Cohen, G. L., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Teaching
a lay theory before college narrows achievement Studies that are ineligible for review using the
gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy Supporting Postsecondary Success Protocol
of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(24), Burnette, J. L., Pollack, J. M., Forsyth, R. B., Hoyt, C. L.,
E3341-E3348. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1524360113 Babij, A. D., Thomas, F. N., & Coy, A. E. (2020). A
growth mindset intervention: Enhancing students’
Study that meets WWC group design standards
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and career development.
with reservations Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(5), 878-908.
Fink, A., Cahill, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., Hoffman, A., & https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1042258719864293
Frey, R. F. (2018). Improving general chemistry The study is ineligible for review because it does not
performance through a growth mindset intervention: address at least one outcome in a domain specified by
Selective effects on underrepresented minorities. the review protocol.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3), Delpeche, H. E. (2018). The implicit and the explicit: the
783-806. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00244K impact of teaching academic mindsets and reading
strategies on beginning college learners’ reading
Studies that do not meet WWC group design comprehension (Publication No. 10846277) [Doctoral
standards dissertation, University of Delaware]. ProQuest
McCabe, J. A., Kane-Gerard, S., & Friedman-Wheeler, D. LLC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED591213 The study
G. (2020). Examining the utility of growth-mindset is ineligible for review because it does not address
interventions in undergraduates: A longitudinal study at least one outcome in a domain specified by the
of retention and academic success in a first-year review protocol.
cohort. Translational Issues in Psychological Science,
6(2), 132. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000228
The study does not meet WWC group design

14
Fleurizard, T. A., & Young, P. R. (2018). Finding the right 6
The effects of Growth Mindset interventions are not
equation for success: An exploratory study on the known for other outcome domains within the Supporting
effects of a growth mindset intervention on college Postsecondary Success topic area, including college
students in remedial math. Journal of Counseling and attendance, postsecondary degree attainment, credential
Psychology, 2(1), 3. attainment, employment, and earnings.
https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/jcp/vol2/ 7
In a previous review of Aronson et al. (2002), the WWC
iss1/3 The study is ineligible for review because it based its study rating on the full sample of 79 students that
does not address at least one outcome in a domain compared the average GPA for students in the intervention
specified by the review protocol. group to the combined sample of students in either the
Lewis, L. S., Williams, C. A., & Dawson, S. D. (2020). Growth control pen-pal or no pen-pal comparison group. Although
mindset training and effective learning strategies the current study rating does not differ from that of the
in community college registered nursing students. prior review, the WWC has prioritized the finding that
Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 15(2), 123-127. compares the average GPA for students in the intervention
The study is ineligible for review because it does not group to those in the control pen-pal comparison group to
use an eligible design. align with other studies included in this report.
Moore, J. E. (2018). Mindset, self-efficacy, and first year college
8
Each study reviewed for this intervention report included
students: Perceptions of performance accomplishments a comparison group in which students participated in an
(Publication No. 10840187) [Doctoral dissertation, activity that was similar in structure but not content to
Western Connecticut State University]. ProQuest what students in the growth mindset intervention group
LLC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED587949 The study experienced. This type of comparison group served to
is ineligible for review because it does not address rule out alternative explanations for any observed effect
at least one outcome in a domain specified by the of the growth mindset messaging on college outcomes.
review protocol. For example, in Aronson et al. (2002), both the Growth
Mindset intervention and the control pen-pal comparison
Endnotes groups wrote letters to fictional students in which they
summarized information they had learned as part of
1
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., participating in the study, but the no pen-pal group
Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, did not summarize new information or write a letter.
F., and Barmer, A. (2019). The Condition of Education Any differences in outcomes between students in the
2019 (NCES 2019-144). U.S. Department of Education. intervention and no pen-pal comparison groups could
Washington, DC: National Center for Education have resulted from the fact that one group summarized
Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo. information in a written letter and the other group did
asp?pubid=2019144. not, rather than from differences in the content of that
2
Stinebrickner, R., & Stinebrickner, T. (2014). Academic information. In contrast, differences in outcomes between
performance and college dropout: Using longitudinal the intervention and control pen-pal groups isolates the
expectations data to estimate a learning model. Journal of effect of growth mindset content relative to other content
Labor Economics, 32, 601-644. about learning or adjusting to college life.
3
The WWC provided a description of this category of 9
See Bostwick and Becker-Blease’s (2018) argument that
interventions to researchers familiar with Growth Mindset “fixed mindset” messages may be a “normal and typical
and Social Belonging interventions in July 2021 and the experience for many university students” (p. 181).
WWC incorporated feedback from these researchers. 10
The study authors blocked 7,686 incoming first-year
Further verification of the accuracy of the descriptive students who responded to the survey invitation by race,
information for this type of intervention is beyond the ethnicity (White, Black, Asian, multiracial, or Hispanic)
scope of this review. and status as an international student, but after random
4
The literature search reflects documents publicly available assignment, excluded Asian, multiracial, and international
as of November 2020. Reviews of the studies in this students from analyses. Following WWC standards, v. 4.0
report used the standards from the WWC Procedures and (pp. 8; 11-13), these exclusions are not counted as attrition
Standards Handbook (version 4.0) and the Supporting because they were based on characteristics that existed
Postsecondary Success review protocol (version 4.0). The prior to the introduction of the intervention and applied
evidence presented in this report is based on available consistently across the intervention and comparison
research. Findings and conclusions could change as new groups.
research becomes available. 11
Although the Supporting Postsecondary Success protocol
5
Yeager et al. (2016) reports findings from a related study indicates that studies focused exclusively on students in
of the effects of a Growth Mindset intervention on college need of developmental coursework should be reviewed
enrollment of high school seniors (Experiment 1). The under the Review Protocol for Studies of Interventions for
study was not eligible for review under the Supporting Developmental Students in Postsecondary Education, the
Postsecondary Students review protocol, because students review team leadership determined that this study should
in the study were enrolled in high school when the be included in this intervention report because it used a
intervention was delivered. An individual study review Growth Mindset intervention.
of Experiment 1 is forthcoming under the WWC’s Study
Review Protocol, version 1.0.

15
12
In Suh et al. (2019), Table 1 shows that the initial sample 14
These percentages reflect the WWC’s calculations using
of 227 students at the time of random assignment the sample sizes by race, ethnicity, and first- or continuing
included 156 female and 71 male students. Because the generation status reported in Table S11 of Appendix 3
percentages shown in the table do not match the number (Yeager et al., 2016, pp. 42-43). These percentages differ
of female (or male) students divided by the total, the WWC from those reported elsewhere in Appendix 3 (p. 30) for
independently calculated these percentages to be 69% Asian students (19%), first-generation students (19%), and
female (156 of 227) and 31% male (71 of 227). Similarly, the continuing-generation students (81%).
percentage of Black students in the initial sample shown in 15
Although Asian students were also excluded from analyses,
Table 1 does not match the number of Black students (n=19) this exclusion would not, alone, have compromised
divided by the total (n=227). The WWC independently random assignment under WWC 4.0 standards because this
calculated this percentage to be 8.4%. characteristic existed prior to the start of the intervention
13
A separate WWC intervention report on Social Belonging and the exclusion was applied to both the intervention and
interventions under the Supporting Postsecondary comparison groups in an equivalent manner.
Students review protocol (version 4.0) includes findings
that contrast the Social Belonging intervention group with Recommended Citation
the comparison group. The intervention that combined
What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences,
elements of the Growth Mindset and Social Belonging
U.S. Department of Education. (2022, January). Growth
interventions was ineligible for inclusion in either this
Mindset Interventions for Postsecondary Students.
report or the report on Social Belonging interventions
because outcomes could not be attributed to the unique https://whatworks.ed.gov.
effects of either of the two types of interventions.

16