As reader of this blog you probably know about the work of Carol Dweck and her colleagues into growth mindsets and fixed mindsets. If not you may be interested to read an introduction (see for instance this brief post: Self-theories and progress). Whether one has a growth mindset or a fixed mindset has many implications. In general, a growth mindset stimulates, taking on challenges, welcoming feedback, putting in effort, persisting, seeking cooperation, and focusing on improvement. A fixed mindset generally associated with things such as being defensive, avoid difficult challenges, being competitive, giving up when it gets hard, less investment in own development and development of other people. Furthermore, there are two lesser known disadvantages of fixed mindset: it is related to depression and it makes one judge too quickly.

 

I suspected that there were even more benefits of growth mindsets and disadvantages of fixed mindset. I was especially curious how mindset related to basic needs and thriving. In order to explore that and hopefully learn something I administered a small scale survey exploring the relations between one’s mindset and several other variables. 70 People filled in that survey. For a description of the survey and the results see this post: A growth mindset is associated with effort and thriving. Here is an  overview of the correlations I found:

 

 

I now came across another study which also explored relationships between one’s mindset (growth or fixed) and some other variables than the ones usually found in research:

 

How you think about your intelligence influences how adjusted you are: Implicit theories and adjustment outcomes

Ronnel B. King

Abstract: Individuals hold different views towards their IQ, with some people seeing it as relatively fixed and others seeing it as malleable. Individual differences in these beliefs (implicit theories of intelligence) have been shown to influence a wide range of achievement-related outcomes in school. However, the impact of these implicit theories of intelligence on a broader range of adjustment outcomes beyond the school domain has been relatively unexplored. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine how implicit theories of intelligence are related to a wider range of adjustment and well-being outcomes. Results of the study indicated that viewing intelligence as fixed (entity theory) is associated with more maladaptive outcomes. Viewing intelligence as malleable (incremental theory) has been found to be more optimal. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

This figure shows the results of a Path analysis of implicit theories of intelligence as predictors of adjustment.

What do you think of this post?
Interesting (0) Useful (0)