Growth mindset interventions — brief, often online programs teaching that intellectual abilities can be developed — produce small and inconsistently replicated average effects on academic outcomes, fueling a prominent replication debate. A recurring explanation is that averages mask systematic heterogeneity: effects concentrate among individuals and contexts matched to the intervention. This problem asks whether person–intervention fit — participants' baseline characteristics (e.g., growth-mindset trait; in educational settings, values and academic-risk status) functioning as boundary conditions of an intervention's effectiveness — and context-level boundary conditions (e.g., teacher mindsets, peer norms, implementation fidelity) reliably moderate the causal effects of growth mindset interventions, and whether such moderation can account for the heterogeneous replication record rather than reflecting artifacts such as publication bias, underpowered interaction tests, or ceiling effects in mindset measures.

Background

A "growth mindset" is the belief that intellectual abilities are malleable and can be developed through effort and strategy, as opposed to a "fixed mindset" — the belief that abilities are essentially static. These beliefs are studied within implicit theories ("mindset") theory, and short interventions — often self-administered online sessions of less than one hour teaching brain plasticity and the malleability of ability — have been deployed at large scale to improve students' motivation and achievement.

The evidence base is contested. Two meta-analyses by Sisk et al. (2018) found weak average associations between mindsets and achievement and little support for moderators. The National Study of Learning Mindsets (NSLM), a preregistered nationally representative U.S. randomized experiment (Yeager et al., 2019), found that a brief online growth mindset intervention improved grades among lower-achieving ninth graders (about 0.10 GPA points) but that effects on achievement varied meaningfully across schools — changes in mindset itself were homogeneous across schools while grade-point-average effects were not — with effects sustained where peer norms aligned with the intervention's message. Follow-up NSLM analyses showed contextual moderation: students' newly taught growth mindsets took root mainly when their teachers themselves held growth mindsets (Yeager et al., 2022), and the behavioral mechanism (challenge-seeking) mediated effects only in some school types (Qin et al., 2021). A teacher-delivered variant produced the largest gains precisely for students whose teachers initially held fixed mindsets (Porter et al., 2022).

Against this, Macnamara and Burgoyne (2023) systematically reviewed 63 studies and found an overall achievement effect of d ≈ 0.05 (Cohen's d, the standardized mean-difference measure) that became nonsignificant after correcting for publication bias, and — crucially for this problem — reported that no theoretically meaningful moderators were significant. Burnette et al. (2023), reviewing 53 samples, reached the opposite emphasis: effects were larger for theorized target subgroups (d = 0.14 for academic achievement when subsamples expected to benefit and high implementation fidelity were combined), but their prediction intervals (the estimated ranges within which a future study's true effect would fall) spanned negative to moderately positive values, underscoring substantial unexplained heterogeneity. The two most recent meta-analytic syntheses therefore disagree about whether person- and context-level boundary conditions exist at all, and reviews of the boundary-condition question treat it as unresolved (Ji et al., 2024).

The candidate formulation arises from recent work by Herrmann, Gielnik, and Harm (2025, 2026), which names this heterogeneity pattern "person–intervention fit" and theorizes participants' baseline growth-mindset trait as a boundary condition that influences the effectiveness of a growth mindset intervention; their evidence concerns entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial outcomes, while the person- and context-level conditions highlighted in education (values, academic-risk status, teacher mindsets, peer norms, implementation fidelity) come from the studies cited in the preceding paragraphs. Their field experiment with 112 entrepreneurs found that participants' baseline (trait) growth mindset positively moderated the intervention's effect on active feedback seeking, did not moderate entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and, in exploratory analyses, negatively moderated effects on mindset states themselves — i.e., fit effects that vary, and in the exploratory analyses even reverse sign, along the chain from proximal belief change to distal behavior. Whether fit effects explain the inconsistent replication record of mindset interventions has not been tested. No study yet has systematically tested this fit hypothesis in education or linked moderator estimates to between-study heterogeneity in the replication record.

Problem Statement

Do growth mindset intervention effects depend systematically on person–intervention fit — participants' baseline characteristics (such as growth-mindset trait; in educational settings, values and academic-risk status) functioning as boundary conditions of intervention effectiveness — and can such fit effects explain the interventions' inconsistent replication record? Concretely, the problem asks: (i) which person-level characteristics and which context-level conditions (such as teacher mindsets, classroom peer norms, and implementation fidelity) reliably moderate the causal effect of growth mindset interventions on beliefs, behavior, and achievement; and (ii) whether these moderation effects can account for the between-study heterogeneity in the replication record, or whether the apparent moderation instead reflects artifacts such as publication bias, underpowered interaction tests, ceiling effects in mindset measures, or selective reporting of exploratory subgroup analyses. The question is posed in its natural generality — without restricting population, outcome domain, or method; establishing that no boundary conditions are reliable across contexts is an admissible resolution on a par with identifying those that are.

References

  1. Herrmann, P. J., Gielnik, M. M., & Harm, A. L. (2025). A Person-Intervention Fit Perspective on the Effectiveness of Growth Mindset Interventions. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2025(1), Article 17828. doi:10.5465/amproc.2025.17828abstract. https://doi.org/10.5465/amproc.2025.17828abstract
  2. Herrmann, P. J., Gielnik, M. M., & Harm, A. L. (2026). A person-intervention fit perspective on the effectiveness of growth mindset interventions for entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 1–38. doi:10.1080/00472778.2026.2706142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2026.2706142
  3. Yeager, D. S., Carroll, J. M., Buontempo, J., Cimpian, A., Woody, S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Murray, J., Mhatre, P., Kersting, N., Hulleman, C., Kudym, M., Murphy, M., Duckworth, A. L., Walton, G. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2022). Teacher Mindsets Help Explain Where a Growth-Mindset Intervention Does and Doesn't Work. Psychological Science, 33(1), 18–32. doi:10.1177/09567976211028984. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211028984
  4. Miller, D. I. (2019). When Do Growth Mindset Interventions Work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(11), 910–912. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.08.005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.08.005
  5. Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Tipton, E., Schneider, B., Hulleman, C. S., Hinojosa, C. P., Paunesku, D., Romero, C., Flint, K., Roberts, A., Trott, J., Iachan, R., Buontempo, J., Yang, S. M., Carvalho, C. M., Hahn, P. R., Gopalan, M., Mhatre, P., Ferguson, R., Duckworth, A. L., & Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y
  6. Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To What Extent and Under Which Circumstances Are Growth Mind-Sets Important to Academic Achievement? Two Meta-Analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–571. doi:10.1177/0956797617739704. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704
  7. Macnamara, B. N., & Burgoyne, A. P. (2023). Do growth mindset interventions impact students' academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. Psychological Bulletin, 149(3–4), 133–173. doi:10.1037/bul0000352. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000352
  8. Burnette, J. L., Billingsley, J., Banks, G. C., Knouse, L. E., Hoyt, C. L., Pollack, J. M., & Simon, S. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of growth mindset interventions: For whom, how, and why might such interventions work? Psychological Bulletin, 149(3–4), 174–205. doi:10.1037/bul0000368. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000368
  9. Porter, T., Catalán Molina, D., Cimpian, A., Roberts, S., Fredericks, A., Blackwell, L. S., & Trzesniewski, K. (2022). Growth-Mindset Intervention Delivered by Teachers Boosts Achievement in Early Adolescence. Psychological Science, 33(7), 1086–1096. doi:10.1177/09567976211061109. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211061109
  10. Qin, X., Wormington, S., Guzman-Alvarez, A., & Wang, M.-T. (2021). Why Does a Growth Mindset Intervention Impact Achievement Differently across Secondary Schools? Unpacking the Causal Mediation Mechanism from a National Multisite Randomized Experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 14(3), 617–644. doi:10.1080/19345747.2021.1894520. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2021.1894520
  11. Fong, C. J., Muenks, K., Fathi, Z., Adelugba, S. F., O'Grady, M. C., Lin, S., & Goldstein, M. G. (2025). Do socializers' mindset beliefs matter for student mindset and achievement? A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 121, 102709. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102709
  12. Lou, N. M. (2025). Sustaining growth needs contextual supports: The mindset × ecological-system approach to motivation. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 15(2), 401–426. doi:10.14746/ssllt.48250. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.48250
  13. Ji, Y., Liu, C., Zhao, Y., Wang, D., & Hu, X. (2024). The heterogeneity and boundary conditions of growth mindset effect. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(3), 514. doi:10.3724/sp.j.1042.2024.00514. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1042.2024.00514