A spotlight on bias in the growth mindset intervention literature: A reply to commentaries that contextualize the discussion (Oyserman, 2023; Yan & Schuetze, 2023) and illustrate the conclusion (Tipton et al., 2023).

Abstract

Two meta-analyses examined the effects of growth mindset interventions. Burnette et al. (2023) tested two moderators and found that effects ranged from negative to positive. We (Macnamara & Burgoyne, 2023) tested 11 preregistered moderators and examined the evidence according to a well-de fi ned set of best practices. We found major areas of concern in the growth mindset intervention literature. For instance, 94% of growth mindsetinterventionsincludedconfounds, authorswith aknown fi nancialincentivewere twoand a half times as likely to report positive effects, and higher quality studies were less likely to demonstrate a bene fi t. Yan and Schuetze (2023) contextualized these fi ndings by describing problems with mindset theory and its measurement. Likewise, Oyserman (2023) discussed how growth mindset is a culturally fl uent idea; papers supportive of growth mindset are widely embraced, whereas papers taking a skeptical approach are challenged.Inanothercommentary, Tiptonetal.(2023)challengedourresults,claimingtoproducepositive effects byreanalyzingourdata setusingBurnetteet al. ’ s (2023)approach.However,inadditiontochanging the approach, Tipton et al. changed effect sizes, how moderators were coded, and which studies were included, often without explanation. Though we appreciate the discussion of multiple meta-analytic approaches, we contend that meta-analytic decisions should be a priori, transparently reported, and consistently applied. Tipton et al. ’ s analysis illustrated our (Macnamara & Burgoyne ’ s, 2023) conclusion: Apparent effects of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement may be attributable to inadequate study design, reporting fl aws, and bias.