Examining the Utility of Growth-Mindset Interventions in Undergraduates: A Longitudinal Study of Retention and Academic Success in a First-Year Cohort

The success and retention of first-year undergraduates, particularly those at risk due to economic or social disadvantage, is an issue at the forefront of higher education research and policy. Some have suggested that a promising target for intervention is to help students develop a growth mindset, believing that intelligence is malleable and that challenges can be embraced as learning opportunities, versus having a fixed mindset with the belief that innate abilities are relatively fixed and stable. Previous research with such interventions has shown mixed results in undergraduates. Whereas some have had promising outcomes, particularly for historically disadvantaged or at-risk student groups, others have been ineffective. The authors present the results of an institution-wide growth-mindset intervention experiment focused on first-year students at a small liberal arts college. There were no measurable benefits of the intervention based on self-report or on objective outcomes such as grade point average and retention, nor were underrepresented or at-risk groups differentially impacted. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for higher education, with respect to variability in content and delivery modes for the interventions, and debate about the value of such interventions for undergraduates. What is the significance of this article for the general public? This study found no impact of a growth-mindset intervention on academic performance and retention measures in first-year college students, including for subsets of students from historically underrepresented groups and those otherwise considered at risk. Results echo recently published null results in large-scale and meta-analytic studies of mindset but are inconsistent with studies indicating intervention-related benefits for potentially disadvantaged students. Thus, programs designed to enhance the core belief that intelligence is malleable do not consistently lead to desired outcomes; taking a broader view, higher education stakeholders need to carefully consider the value of such programs before dedicating resources toward implementation.