Mindsets and Marmite: You Either Love 'Em or You Hate 'Em"

A quick practitioners review of Mindset theory.

This blog is not here to land on one side of the argument for or against mindset theories. But to help practitioner navigate the field of managing and creating high performing teams, individuals and environments.

What are mindsets?

The term mindset dates back long before Dweck’s more recent work. It first appeared in usage in the early 1900s. In addition to the more popular “growth mindset”, there are other specific types such as “well-being” or “global mindset” (Buchanan, 2024). Mindset theory grew out of attribution and achievement goal theory. Attribution theory proposes that people’s explanations for success or failure can shape their reactions to that event. e.g. “I am rubbish at it” vs “My approach was not optimal”. Achievement goal theory suggests those who perform to validate existing skills or to ensure they avoid looking incompetent (i.e. performance goal) tend to show powerless responses to failure, versus those who perform with the intent to develop their ability (i.e. learning goal). Mindset theory tried to bridge the situational behaviours and beliefs to more situation-general mindsets (Yeager & Dweck, 2020).

Like arguments against other ‘typing’ tools such as Myers Briggs, describing mindsets as binary types e.g. growth/fixed is acknowledged by all as ineffective. These are and should always be presented as continuums, even if this makes it less popular and simpler to build tools and interventions around. Presenting them as binary is nothing short of lazy practitioner behaviour.

What should be considered is that nearly all of the growth mindset research focuses on academic environments and students or teachers. This in itself should be a consideration when trying to apply the theory outside of these very unique scenarios.

What are the controversies?

This is the subject of much academic mud slinging but in summary the mindset literature has faced several key controversies. One major debate centers on whether mindsets reliably predict student outcomes. While some large-scale studies show significant correlations between growth mindset and academic achievement, others have found null or even slightly negative results. This inconsistency has led to questions about the robustness of mindset effects

Another key controversy concerns the efficacy of mindset interventions. Studies have shown heterogeneous results, meaning the effects vary widely across different contexts, populations, and studies. By "heterogeneous results," we mean that some studies show positive effects of growth mindset interventions on academic outcomes, while others show no effect or even negative effects. This variability in outcomes has sparked debate about the reliability and generalisability of mindset interventions.

The interpretation of effect sizes is also controversial. Critics argue that the effects of mindset interventions are too small to be practically meaningful, while proponents contend that these effects are significant when compared to other educational interventions, especially considering their low cost and scalability.

These controversies highlight the complexity of mindset research and the need for nuanced understanding of when and for whom mindset interventions might be most effective.(Burgoyne et al., 2020; Li & Bates, 2020; Yeager & Dweck, 2020)

How much as a practitioner should I focus on trying to influence Mindsets?

Probably not as much as popular practice would tell you. It is inconclusive if this is fad or fact, but even if we err on fact, the effect sizes seem to be small, and there are likely more effective interventions. This is partly because "mindsets are distal predictors of outcomes" (Schroder, 2021), or more simply put, even if you can change a mindset, there are so many other things in the environment that will amplify or constrain the effect (moderate) or that mindsets are only connected to via other effects (mediated). Focusing on these moderating and mediating factors may be more effective in shifting performance. These include the original theories mindsets emerged from, e.g., setting learning vs performance goals. If your entire performance management and reward system is based upon visibly demonstrating performance, your growth mindset intervention will be the developmental equivalent of pissing into the wind.

"Perhaps more relevant, previous results supporting mindset effects have confounded other motivational factors such as achievement goals and attributions."

There is evidence these other factors work, so once you know you have nailed these other motivational factors, only then would mindset theory be additonally effective (Li & Bates, 2020).

This just got serious

We should also be wary that this space heavily crosses over with clinical practice. Mindset theory is heavily researched and practised in clinical interventions around mental health. My favourite meme in Occupational Psychology is the phrase

As mindset theories move closer into this space versus the more mediating and moderating effects of the proven motivational theories, there is a risk unqualified practitioners are equally at risk of causing harm in areas they are not trained to even look at, let alone practise in. HR practitioners are not occupational therapists. Recognise the boundary and then refer across it, don’t practice across it.

Buchanan, A. (2024). Mindset types: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x5ge8

Burgoyne, A. P., Hambrick, D. Z., & Macnamara, B. N. (2020). How Firm Are the Foundations of Mind-Set Theory? The Claims Appear Stronger Than the Evidence. Psychological Science, 31(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619897588

Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2020). Testing the association of growth mindset and grades across a challenging transition: Is growth mindset associated with grades? Intelligence, 81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101471

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000794