A Spotlight on Bias in the Growth Mindset Intervention Literature: A Reply to Commentaries That Contextualize the Discussion (Oyserman, 2023; Yan & Schuetze, 2023) and Illustrate the Conclusion (Tipton et al., 2023)
Macnamara BN, Burgoyne AP · 2023
grade Dcritiqueindependentnot-applicable
Sample
Not applicable - reply article
Population
Not applicable.
Design
The critics' reply to the developer team's commentary. Retained because it states the two numbers that most cleanly characterise the literature's reliability.
Key findings
Restates that 94% of growth-mindset interventions included confounds, that authors with a known financial incentive were 2.5 times as likely to report positive effects, and that higher-quality studies were LESS likely to show benefit. Charges that Tipton et al.'s reanalysis changed effect sizes, changed how moderators were coded, and changed which studies were included, often without explanation.
Genetic confound
Not applicable.
Replication notes
Not applicable.
DOI / URL
10.1037/bul0000394
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth-mindset interventions containing confounds | proportion | 94% | mixed | not applicable | none | not-applicable | domain-skill |
| Quality of study and probability of a positive result | direction | higher-quality studies were less likely to show benefit | mixed | not applicable | none | not-applicable | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Does teaching a growth mindset raise achievement?mixedconf: highgc: low