Darker cells mean a higher score for this topic on that metric.
LessMore
Last reviewed Sources & creditsMedia creditsMethodology
Quick answers
Does this atlas rank groups by IQ, race or nation?
No. Pathways and evidence stay individual. Scores are browsing aids — never group biological or racial ranks.
What did Mueller and Dweck 1998 show?
Children praised for intelligence later avoided challenges more than children praised for effort, in their experiments. Later replications have been mixed.
What did Sisk et al. 2018 find?
Two meta-analyses: mindset–achievement correlations were small on average; interventions had small average effects, with some larger effects for students at higher risk.
What did Li and Bates report?
Failures to replicate core praise effects in their samples. The debate is about robustness and moderators, not about whether beliefs can ever matter.
Did Binet already think intelligence was educable?
Yes. Binet’s original project was instructional. Dweck often cites that history against later “fixed IQ” folklore.
Is growth mindset the opposite of giftedness?
No. Gagné’s talents develop. A gifted label plus incremental theory is a common, coherent pairing. Entity giftedness (“I am a genius, so I must not struggle”) is the failure mode.
Research on growth mindset runs from Mueller & Dweck (1998) through later critiques. Mechanisms are interacting systems.
Evidence percentages below are relative judgements for this atlas, not fabricated precise statistics. Named studies keep their published bands.
Findings
- 1998 · Mueller & Dweck — Intelligence praise can reduce challenge-seeking Famous, neat, and later a replication target.
- 2007 · Blackwell, Trzesniewski, Dweck — Incremental lesson, maths grades A widely cited school study; size and generality later questioned.
- 2006 · Carol Dweck — Public vocabulary The book created a shared language for teachers — a cultural fact even when effects are small.
- 2018 · Sisk, Burgoyne, Macnamara et al. — Small average effects Mindset–achievement links and interventions are modest in meta-analysis; some subgroups larger.
- 2018 · Li & Bates — Replication failures Their studies did not recover the original praise pattern. Methods debate followed.
- 2019 · Yeager et al. — Small average, larger for some A nationally scaled US experiment: overall small, more for lower achievers in supportive schools.
Mechanisms
- Interpretation of effort — If effort means “I am dumb”, students hide work. If effort means “I am learning”, they can stay visible.
- Goal choice — Learning goals versus looking-smart goals change which tasks get chosen after a success.
- Climate lock — A growth message in a school that punishes the first B is a contradiction students can hear.
- Not a skill transplant — Believing maths can grow is not a substitute for a well-designed next problem (Ericsson’s hour still has to happen).
Evidence
Influential; mixed later replications.
Best sizing of the literature as a whole: small.
Better powered; still modest averages.
Low-cost, theoretically clean: do not treat struggle as a verdict.
Weak as a standalone intervention.
Debates
- Effect size versus cultural value — A small d can still be worth a sentence of teacher talk. It cannot carry a district’s entire equity plan.
- What failed to replicate — Praise experiments, school grade effects, or only some moderators? The camps disagree on the wreckage map.
- Mindset and inequality — Critics say the message can become “try harder” without changing load, tracking or tutoring access.
Growth mindset: size the claim to the study. Interaction, not a 50/50 slogan, is the default model.
OriginsScienceSignsDevelopPracticeExemplarsMyths In this language region