Mental Performance

Growth Mindset: What It Is and How to Develop It

The evidence on growth mindset is more nuanced than you've been told. Here's what three decades of research actually shows about changing your beliefs about intelligence.

17 min readBy Brain Zone Team

You've probably heard the advice: believe you can improve, and you will. Praise effort over intelligence. Embrace challenges. Your brain can change. These ideas have swept through schools and workplaces over the past two decades, promising that simply changing how you think about your abilities can transform your performance.

The reality is more interesting—and more useful—than the hype suggests. After three decades of research, including large-scale randomized trials with over 12,000 participants, we can finally say what works, what doesn't, and why growth mindset has been both oversold and unfairly dismissed.

The evidence shows that growth mindset interventions produce small but reliable effects, concentrated in specific populations facing particular challenges. The improvements are real. They're just not magic. And understanding the difference matters if you want to actually benefit from the research rather than waste time on empty motivational slogans.

What growth mindset actually means

Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck introduced the term "growth mindset" in her 2006 book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, though the research began decades earlier. The core idea is deceptively simple: your beliefs about whether intelligence can change actually shape how you respond to challenges, setbacks, and effort.

People with a growth mindset believe that intellectual abilities can be developed through effort, good strategies, and input from others. When they encounter difficulty, they interpret it as information about what to work on next. People with a fixed mindset believe abilities are innate and largely unchangeable. When they hit obstacles, they interpret them as evidence of their limitations.

This distinction emerged from Dweck's research on learned helplessness starting in the 1970s. She noticed something peculiar: children with similar ability levels responded completely differently to failure. Some persisted, trying new strategies and staying engaged. Others gave up immediately, as if the difficulty confirmed something they already believed about themselves. The difference wasn't in their skills—it was in their interpretation of what those skills meant.

The most influential early demonstration came from a 1998 study with 128 fifth graders. After solving some puzzles successfully, half the children were praised for intelligence ("You must be smart at these problems") while the other half were praised for effort ("You must have worked hard"). Then all the children were given a choice: they could try harder problems where they'd learn a lot, or easier problems where they'd look smart.

The results were dramatic. Children praised for effort chose challenging tasks 92% of the time. Children praised for intelligence chose them only 67% of the time. When later given difficult problems, the intelligence-praised group gave up faster and performed worse on final problems than they had initially. Perhaps most troubling: 38% of children praised for intelligence later misrepresented their scores to peers, compared to only 13% of the effort-praised group. A simple comment about being smart had made children more fragile, less persistent, and more likely to lie.

The neuroscience: solid foundation, shaky specifics

The scientific case for teaching that "brains can change" rests on decades of neuroplasticity research. Studies of London taxi drivers showed that learning the city's complex layout literally expanded the hippocampus, the brain region involved in spatial memory. Music training produces measurable structural changes in children's brains within 15 months. At the cellular level, synaptic plasticity mechanisms allow neural connections to strengthen and weaken throughout life based on experience.

This provides legitimate scientific grounding for the message that learning physically changes your brain. When students learn that synapses strengthen with practice and new neural pathways form through challenge, they're learning real neuroscience, not motivational pseudoscience.

But here's where we need to be honest: the neuroscience specifically supporting mindset theory—the claim that your beliefs about intelligence causally drive neural differences—is much thinner than popular accounts suggest.

A 2025 scoping review identified only about 15 empirical studies examining the neural correlates of growth mindset. The most-cited work, a 2011 study by Jason Moser and colleagues, used EEG to show that people with growth mindsets showed larger "error positivity" brain responses—theoretically reflecting greater attention to mistakes, which enables learning.

Except a 2021 replication attempt found that when researchers applied proper statistical corrections, the mindset-related brain differences disappeared entirely. The authors concluded the original findings "may be artifacts" of delayed responses to stimuli rather than genuine differences in error processing.

The honest assessment is this: neuroplasticity provides general scientific support for the idea that brains change with learning. This validates teaching students about brain malleability. But it doesn't specifically validate the causal chain that mindset beliefs drive neural processing which drives academic outcomes. Your brain changes when you learn regardless of whether you believe intelligence is fixed or growable. The specific neural mechanisms linking mindset to performance remain unclear.

The meta-analytic evidence: small effects with big caveats

When you pool all the research together, what do you find? Three major meta-analyses have examined this question, and their differing conclusions reveal as much about scientific debate as about growth mindset itself.

The 2018 meta-analysis by Victoria Sisk and colleagues analyzed 273 studies with 365,915 participants. The correlation between mindset and achievement was weak: r = 0.09. When they examined 43 intervention studies, the average effect size was d = 0.08—meaning a typical growth mindset program moved an average student from the 50th to roughly the 53rd percentile. Not nothing. Not revolutionary.

Crucially, effects were about four times larger for low-income students and those academically at risk. This pattern would become increasingly important.

A 2023 pre-registered meta-analysis by Brooke Macnamara and Guillermo Campitelli took a more skeptical approach. Using stricter quality criteria, they found an overall effect of d = 0.05 across 63 studies with 97,672 participants. When examining only the highest-quality studies—those that were pre-registered, included manipulation checks, and avoided confounds—the effect became statistically nonsignificant (d = 0.02).

They also found troubling evidence of publication bias: researchers with financial conflicts of interest were 2.5 times more likely to report positive effects. This pattern suggests the published literature may paint an overly optimistic picture.

A third 2023 meta-analysis by Jeni Burnette and colleagues used different statistical methods and reached more positive conclusions: d = 0.14 for academic achievement in targeted populations with strong implementation. But even they noted that "null and even negative effects are to be expected" depending on context.

The most rigorous single study to date is the National Study of Learning Mindsets, published in Nature in 2019. This pre-registered trial involved 12,490 ninth graders across 65 nationally representative U.S. public schools. A brief online intervention—less than 50 minutes total, costing about 20 cents per student—improved lower-achieving students' GPAs by 0.10 grade points and reduced D/F grades by 5.3 percentage points.

The effect was largest when school norms supported challenge-seeking. In schools where students believed that peers valued challenge and effort, the intervention effects nearly doubled. In schools with fixed-mindset cultures, the effects were minimal. This finding may be the study's most important contribution: individual mindset change matters, but context determines whether growth-minded behaviors are possible and rewarded.

Independent researchers in Norway and analysts at MDRC have successfully replicated these findings. The effects are real. They're just modest, context-dependent, and concentrated in specific populations.

When growth mindset interventions fail completely

Scientific honesty requires acknowledging the substantial evidence of failure. Growth mindset interventions don't always work. Sometimes they don't work at all.

Li and Bates (2019) attempted to replicate the famous praise study with 624 Chinese students and found no effect of growth mindset manipulation on performance or resilience to failure. The UK's large-scale "Changing Mindsets" trial with 4,584 students found effect sizes of approximately zero on all outcomes—even for disadvantaged students who were supposed to benefit most.

A large intervention in Argentina similarly produced null results. Two different UK studies examining teacher-delivered interventions found no effects, suggesting that professional development changing teacher behavior doesn't necessarily translate to student outcomes. A study with college students found no meaningful differences in GPA, retention, or credit hours from growth mindset training, including for minority and first-generation students.

These failures follow a pattern: interventions tend to work when delivered directly to students in brief, well-designed formats in supportive contexts. Teacher-delivered implementations and interventions in certain cultural contexts consistently fail. The effects appear highly fragile and context-dependent—more so than early research indicated.

There's also a troubling methodological pattern. As studies get more rigorous—with pre-registration, manipulation checks, and proper controls—effect sizes consistently shrink. This is exactly what you'd expect if publication bias and methodological flexibility inflated early estimates. The highest-quality studies find the smallest effects.

What growth mindset is not

The gap between research and implementation represents perhaps the theory's most significant problem. Carol Dweck herself has identified "false growth mindset" as a major concern, writing that "in the beginning, we did not recognize the complexity of the implementation."

Growth mindset is not positive thinking. It's not telling yourself you can do anything if you just try hard enough. It's not praising effort regardless of outcomes. And it's definitely not blaming people for their limitations because they didn't adopt the right mindset.

The most damaging misconception is effort worship. When teachers praise students for trying hard without any actual learning or improvement, they teach the wrong lesson—that effort matters more than results. Dweck has explicitly stated: "Great effort became the consolation prize for children who weren't learning." The research shows that effort must be productive—combined with good strategies, help-seeking when stuck, and actual improvement.

Growth mindset also doesn't mean everyone can achieve anything. The theory doesn't deny individual differences in ability or starting points. It doesn't claim willpower can overcome structural barriers like poverty, discrimination, or inadequate resources. When organizations use growth mindset rhetoric to dismiss legitimate concerns about systemic problems—telling struggling employees they just need to adopt a better mindset—they're misapplying the concept in ways that can cause real harm.

Research estimates that about 25% of teachers, 15% of adults, and 12% of students display "false growth mindset"—appearing growth-minded on questionnaires while showing fixed-mindset patterns in their actual behavior. They might say they believe abilities can grow, but their actions reveal they don't really believe it. This disconnect between stated beliefs and behavior may explain why some interventions that should work according to self-reported mindset measures fail to produce outcomes.

What actually works: evidence-based strategies

If you want to benefit from growth mindset research rather than waste time on empty slogans, focus on what the highest-quality studies show actually works.

Brief, well-designed interventions teaching brain plasticity work better than lengthy programs. The National Study of Learning Mindsets intervention lasted less than 50 minutes total—two 25-minute online sessions. Students learned how learning strengthens neural connections, read stories from peers and scientists about overcoming struggles, and completed "saying-is-believing" exercises where they wrote letters to future struggling students explaining what they'd learned about brain growth.

This format works because it's direct, credible, and activates commitment. When students explain concepts to others, they internalize them more deeply than through passive listening.

Process praise works—but only when tied to actual learning. Praising specific strategies ("You tried three different approaches before finding one that worked") is more effective than generic effort praise ("You worked so hard!"). But research with adolescents suggests they may interpret process praise as condescending if they perceive adults as having low expectations. The praise has to be genuine, specific, and connected to real achievement.

Feedback must be honest and strategy-oriented. Effective feedback connects process to outcomes: "Your strategy of breaking the problem into parts helped you find the error." When students struggle despite effort, effective teachers acknowledge the difficulty, help identify alternative strategies, and maintain high standards while expressing confidence. Telling students "you can do anything" without providing knowledge, strategies, and resources isn't growth mindset—it's empty encouragement that may actually harm motivation.

Context matters as much as individual mindset. The most important finding from the National Study may be that peer norms and school culture dramatically moderated intervention effects. When students' peers supported challenge-seeking, effects nearly doubled. In fixed-mindset environments where students believed peers valued looking smart over learning, the intervention barely worked.

This suggests individual mindset change is necessary but insufficient. If your environment punishes failure, ridicules mistakes, or rewards looking competent over genuine learning, developing a growth mindset may just make you more frustrated. The environment needs to support the behaviors growth mindset encourages.

Applications beyond the classroom

Most research examines academic achievement, but growth mindset principles have been applied—with varying success—to other domains.

In workplaces, Microsoft's cultural transformation under CEO Satya Nadella is frequently cited. The company shifted from a "know-it-all" to a "learn-it-all" culture, and its market value increased from $300 billion to over $2.5 trillion during his tenure. But attributing this to growth mindset is problematic. The change coincided with major strategic shifts to cloud computing and other business transformations. Correlational studies link employee growth mindset to engagement and innovation, but rigorous organizational experiments are scarce.

Research on aging shows more promise. Psychologist Becca Levy's longitudinal studies found that older adults with positive beliefs about aging lived 7.5 years longer than those with negative perceptions, even controlling for health and demographic factors. Positive age beliefs predicted better recovery from disability and may protect against dementia even among those with high-risk genes. However, these studies examine age beliefs broadly, not growth mindset specifically about cognitive abilities.

Athletic performance research is largely correlational, showing growth mindset predicts motivation and adaptive coping with setbacks. The evidence for injury recovery is stronger, suggesting athletes who view setbacks as "hurdles to overcome" rather than permanent limitations recover better. But this represents general positive psychology as much as growth mindset specifically.

Creativity applications have the weakest evidence base. While the theoretical connections are compelling—creative work requires embracing failure and persisting through obstacles—empirical support is limited. Large studies found growth creative mindset predicted creative thinking, but effect sizes were small and other studies found non-significant relationships.

A realistic assessment

Growth mindset theory represents a genuine scientific contribution that has been both oversold and unfairly dismissed. The preponderance of evidence suggests several clear conclusions.

Effects are real but small. The best estimates place intervention effects at d = 0.08-0.14 for academic outcomes. To put this in perspective: a 0.10 grade point boost applied nationally could prevent approximately 90,000 at-risk ninth graders from failing courses annually. This is worthwhile. It's not revolutionary.

Benefits concentrate in specific populations. Lower-achieving students facing academic challenges and transitions show the largest effects. High-achieving students show minimal academic gains, though they may enroll in more challenging courses. Interventions are most effective when school or work environments actively support challenge-seeking behavior rather than just looking competent.

Implementation quality determines outcomes. Brief, well-designed direct-to-student interventions outperform longer teacher-delivered programs. Context matters enormously—the same intervention can succeed or fail depending on peer norms and organizational culture. Superficial implementations like motivational posters, one-time lectures, or slogans without substance likely accomplish nothing and may breed cynicism.

The theory has been significantly misapplied. Effort praise without learning, "you can do anything" messaging without support, and blaming people's mindsets for structural failures all represent corruptions of the research. Dweck has acknowledged these problems and revised her public messaging accordingly.

Continued skepticism is warranted. The pattern of declining effect sizes as study quality increases, evidence of publication bias, and consistent failures in certain contexts all suggest caution. The neuroscience claims significantly outrun the evidence. The highest-quality pre-registered studies find the smallest effects.

Putting it into practice

If you want to apply growth mindset principles in your own life, here's what the evidence actually supports.

Focus on productive strategies, not effort alone. When you struggle with something, don't just "try harder"—try differently. Seek out effective strategies, ask for help from people who've mastered what you're working on, and be willing to abandon approaches that aren't working. Effort matters, but only when it's directed intelligently.

Create environments that reward learning over looking smart. If you're in a position to influence culture—as a manager, teacher, or parent—make it safe to make mistakes. Celebrate when people try challenging things even if they don't succeed immediately. Share your own struggles and what you learned from them. The strongest growth mindset interventions work by changing what behaviors are rewarded and respected, not just what individuals believe.

Be honest about limitations while maintaining room for growth. You can acknowledge that some things are harder for you than others while still believing you can improve. The research doesn't claim everyone has identical potential—it claims abilities can be developed from wherever you start. This is an important distinction that prevents growth mindset from becoming toxic positivity.

Pay attention to your "fixed mindset triggers"—situations where you default to fixed thinking. Maybe it's when you compare yourself to others, receive criticism, or witness someone else's effortless success. Everyone has these triggers. The goal isn't to eliminate them but to recognize them and respond more productively.

Question growth mindset dogma. If someone tells you that mindset is the answer to complex problems, or that people fail because they didn't believe in themselves enough, maintain healthy skepticism. The research shows small effects in specific contexts, not magical transformation through positive thinking.

The most honest summary is this: growth mindset represents one potentially useful tool among many for supporting learning and performance. It's not a solution to educational inequality, a substitute for adequate resources and skilled teaching, or a way to blame people for structural problems. Used appropriately—with realistic expectations, in supportive contexts, and combined with actual strategies and resources—it can provide modest benefits, particularly for people facing challenges and transitions.

That's less inspiring than "change your mindset, change your life." But it's what the science actually shows. And understanding what really works is more valuable than believing in what doesn't.

Sources and Further Reading: