The social contagion of incremental and entity trait beliefs

Burkley, Edward; Curtis, Jessica; Hatvany, T

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.063

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies using the mindset scale with college students have reported some validity evidence, such as indicators of the measure's internal structure (e.g., Cronbach's alpha, omega-total, and factor analyses) and test-retest reliability (Burkley et al, 2010(Burkley et al, , 2017Dai and Cromley, 2014;Scott and Ghinea, 2014;Smiley et al, 2016;Flanigan et al, 2017). An important component of validity that has yet to be assessed with the mindset scale is response process validity, which means that respondents engage in a common set of cognitive processes when responding to the items (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014; Bandalos, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge or Abilities? How Undergraduates Define Intelligence

Limeri

Choe

Harper

et al. 2020

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether students view intelligence as a fixed or malleable trait (i.e., their “mindset”) has significant implications for their responses to failure and academic outcomes. Despite a long history of research on mindset and its growing popularity, recent meta-analyses suggest that mindset does a poor job of predicting academic outcomes for undergraduate populations. Here, we present evidence that these mixed results could be due to ambiguous language on the mindset scale. Specifically, the term “intelligence” is a referent in every item of the mindset scale but is never defined, which could result in differing interpretations and measurement error. Therefore, we conducted an exploratory, qualitative study to characterize how undergraduate students define intelligence and how their definitions may influence how they respond to the mindset scale. We uncovered two distinct ways that undergraduates define intelligence: knowledge and abilities (e.g., ability to learn, solve problems). Additionally, we found that students’ definitions of intelligence can vary across contexts. Finally, we present evidence that students who define intelligence differently also interpret and respond to the items on the mindset scale differently. We discuss implications of these results for the use and interpretation of the mindset scale with undergraduate students.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge or Abilities? How Undergraduates Define Intelligence

Limeri

Choe

Harper

et al. 2020

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one study, undergraduates read magazine articles purportedly featuring a successful athlete or businessperson espousing either a fixed mindset (e.g., the person has always been talented in this field) or a growth mindset (e.g., the person has not always been successful and has improved his or her skills with effort and practice). Results supported the social contagion effect; students' mindsets shifted to align with the view espoused by the article they read (Burkley et al, 2017). A growth mindset TPD motivation intervention could use a similar structure by having instructors read an article about or watch an interview with a respected scientist or educator in their fields espousing a growth mindset about developing their teaching skills and overcoming setbacks when implementing new teaching strategies.…”

Section: Target 1: Teaching Mindsetmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Another important design question is the dosage, or frequency, of interventions. Some psychosocial interventions elicit positive outcomes from just a single intervention activity (e.g., Brady et al, 2016;Burkley et al, 2017), whereas others involve repeated interventions (e.g., Blackwell et al, 2007;Yeager et al, 2019). Thus, researchers should investigate dosage effects with instructor interventions to determine the optimal strategy for a given context and population.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveraging Psychosocial Interventions to Motivate Instructor Participation in Teaching Professional Development

Limeri

Musgrove

Henry

et al. 2020

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As students are strongly influenced by their peers, especially during adolescence (Li et al 2011 ; Simons-Morton and Chen 2009 ), social contagion may be pervasive in the school context. In schools, social contagion research has demonstrated that student motivational orientations (Burgess et al 2018 ; Radel et al 2010 ; Wild and Enzle 2002 ), mindsets (Burkley et al 2017 ; King 2019 ), engagement (Mendoza and King 2020 ), academic achievement (Fortuin et al 2015 ), and emotions (King and Datu 2017 ) spread among classmates. Despite the growing literature on social contagion in the educational context, whether social contagion applies to maladaptive goals like student work avoidance goals is still unknown.…”

Section: Social Contagionmentioning

confidence: 99%