Mind-sets (aka implicit theories) are beliefs about the nature of human attributes (e.g., intelligence). The theory holds that individuals with growth mind-sets (beliefs that attributes are malleable with effort) enjoy many positive outcomes-including higher academic achievement-while their peers who have fixed mind-sets experience negative outcomes. Given this relationship, interventions designed to increase students' growth mind-sets-thereby increasing their academic achievement-have been implemented in schools around the world. In our first meta-analysis ( k = 273, N = 365,915), we examined the strength of the relationship between mind-set and academic achievement and potential moderating factors. In our second meta-analysis ( k = 43, N = 57,155), we examined the effectiveness of mind-set interventions on academic achievement and potential moderating factors. Overall effects were weak for both meta-analyses. However, some results supported specific tenets of the theory, namely, that students with low socioeconomic status or who are academically at risk might benefit from mind-set interventions.

According to mindset theory, students who believe their personal characteristics can change-that is, those who hold a growth mindset-will achieve more than students who believe their characteristics are fixed. Proponents of the theory have developed interventions to influence students' mindsets, claiming that these interventions lead to large gains in academic achievement. Despite their popularity, the evidence for growth mindset intervention benefits has not been systematically evaluated considering both the quantity and quality of the evidence. Here, we provide such a review by (a) evaluating empirical studies' adherence to a set of best practices essential for drawing causal conclusions and (b) conducting three meta-analyses. When examining all studies (63 studies, N = 97,672), we found major shortcomings in study design, analysis, and reporting, and suggestions of researcher and publication bias: Authors with a financial incentive to report positive findings published significantly larger effects than authors without this incentive. Across all studies, we observed a small overall effect: d = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.09], which was nonsignificant after correcting for potential publication bias. No theoretically meaningful moderators were significant. When examining only studies demonstrating the intervention influenced students' mindsets as intended (13 studies, N = 18,355), the effect was nonsignificant: d = 0.04, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.10]. When examining the highest-quality evidence (6 studies, N = 13,571), the effect was nonsignificant: d = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.06, 0.10]. We conclude that apparent effects of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement are likely attributable to inadequate study design, reporting flaws, and bias. Public Significance StatementThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that, despite the popularity of growth mindset interventions in schools, positive results are rare and possibly spurious due to inadequately designed interventions, reporting flaws, and bias.

Mindset refers to people's beliefs about whether attributes are malleable (growth mindset) or unchangeable (fixed mindset). Proponents of mindset have made bold claims about mindset's importance. For example, mindset is described as having "profound" effects on motivation and achievement, creating different "psychological worlds" for people, and forming the "core" of people's "meaning systems." We examined the evidentiary strength of six key premises of mindset theory in 438 participants, reasoning that strongly worded claims should be supported by equally strong evidence. However, most premises had no support. All associations were significantly weaker than r = .20. Other achievement motivation constructs, such as self-efficacy and need for achievement, correlate much more strongly with presumed associates of mindset. The strongest association with mindset (r = -.12) was opposite the predicted direction.The results suggest that the foundations of mindset theory are not firm, and that bold claims about mindset appear to be overstated.

Why are some people more skilled in complex domains than other people? Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between cognitive ability and skill in chess. Chess skill correlated positively and significantly with fluid reasoning (Gf) (r =0.24), comprehension-knowledge (Gc) (r =0.22), short-term memory (Gsm) (r =0.25), and processing speed (Gs) (r =0.24); the meta-analytic average of the correlations was (r = 0.24). Moreover, the correlation between Gf and chess skillwasmoderated by age (r=0.32 for youth samples vs. r =0.11 for adult samples), and skill level (r =0.32 for unranked samples vs. r =0.14 for ranked samples). Interestingly, chess skill correlated more strongly with numerical ability (r = 0.35) than with verbal ability (r = 0.19) or visuospatial ability (r =0.13). The results suggest that cognitive ability contributes meaningfully to individual differences in chess skill, particularly in young chess players and/or at lower levels of skill

For years, psychologists have wondered why people who are highly skilled in one cognitive domain tend to be skilled in other cognitive domains, too. In this article, we explain how attention control provides a common thread among broad cognitive abilities, including fluid intelligence, working memory capacity, and sensory discrimination. Attention control allows us to pursue our goals despite distractions and temptations, to deviate from the habitual, and to keep information in mind amid a maelstrom of divergent thought. Highlighting results from our lab, we describe the role of attention control in information maintenance and disengagement and how these functions contribute to performance in a variety of complex cognitive tasks. We also describe a recent undertaking in which we developed new and improved attention-control tasks, which had higher reliabilities, stronger intercorrelations, and higher loadings on a common factor than traditional measures. From an applied perspective, these new attention-control tasks show great promise for use in personnel selection assessments. We close by outlining exciting avenues for future research.