Growth mindsets associate with higher US mathematics scores but slightly lower Chinese mathematics scores (country × mindset interaction)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2021 · checked against its sources 2026-10-26 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The country × mindset interaction significantly predicted mathematics performance, with fixed mindsets associated with higher scores among Chinese students and lower scores among US students. → Xin Sun 2021 q3 i0 For US students, fixed mindset groups scored lower with moderate-to-large effect sizes (d = −0.25 to −0.86), while for Chinese students fixed groups scored higher with small effect sizes (d = 0.13–0.31). → Xin Sun 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Xin Sun 2021¶

Xin Sun, Shaylene Nancekivell, Susan A. Gelman and Priti Shah. (2021). Growth mindset and academic outcomes: a comparison of US and Chinese students. npj Science of Learning 6:21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00100-z

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Regression of PISA mathematics scores on country, mindset response, and their interaction; the omnibus "interaction also yielded significance", β = 34.16, indicating the mindset–achievement link differs across the two countries.

"Importantly, their interaction also yielded significance, βcountrymindset= 34.16, SEcountrymindset= 2.28, t = 14.99, 95% CI = (29.69, 38.62), suggesting that mindset is associated with mathematics achievements differently across the two countries."

Xin Sun 2021 (2)¶

Xin Sun, Shaylene Nancekivell, Susan A. Gelman and Priti Shah. (2021). Growth mindset and academic outcomes: a comparison of US and Chinese students. npj Science of Learning 6:21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00100-z

q3 · i0 · associational · r2

Six pairwise comparisons of PISA mathematics scores by mindset response per country (Table 2); for Chinese students fixed-mindset students scored higher with "small effect sizes (d = 0.13–0.31)".

"For US students, those who held fixed mindsets had lower mathematics scores than those with relatively more growth mindsets (Mscore difference = −22.64 to −72.78) and this association yielded moderate to large effect sizes ( d = −0.25 to −0.86)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Mindset — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Motivation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Spontaneous intelligence definitions relate to mindset ratings: crystallized-only definers hold more growth mindsets, with no country × definition interaction — related
• Mindset ratings differ by intelligence definition (self-defined, fluid, crystallized) with a significant country × definition interaction — related
• Chinese middle-school students endorse significantly more fixed mindsets of intelligence than US students (PISA 2018) — related
• Growth mindset interventions improve math outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged and high-risk students, but effects depend on a supportive teacher-mindset context — related
• Students with stronger growth mindsets earn higher grades than fixed-mindset students in early university terms, but the gap narrows and is statistically indistinguishable from Term 7 (observational) — related
• The mindset-performance relationship is U-shaped and non-monotonic: the strongest growth- and strongest fixed-mindset students outperform those with moderate or slightly fixed mindsets — related
• Growth mindset is positively associated with PISA reading, science and math performance overall (Model B standardized βs .21, .20, .16) — related
• The mindset–achievement association is significantly weaker in more culturally distant (non-WEIRD) countries for reading and science, and marginally for math — related
• Growth mindset is associated with better PISA performance across SES levels, but appears less beneficial at low SES and advantaged students still achieve better outcomes — related