Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113-125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491.
Reviewed: March 2022
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Growth Mindset.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade Point Average (GPA) |
Growth Mindset vs. Other intervention |
9 Weeks |
Growth mindset vs. control pen pal;
|
3.46 |
3.19 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Grade Point Average (GPA) |
Growth Mindset vs. Other intervention |
9 Weeks |
Control pen-pal and no pen-pal combined;
|
3.46 |
3.19 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Grade Point Average (GPA) |
Growth Mindset vs. Other intervention |
9 Weeks |
Growth mindset vs. no pen-pal;
|
3.46 |
3.23 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 55% | |
| White | 45% |
The study took place at a private four-year university in California. Groups of two to five undergraduate students participated in the study together in a laboratory setting on campus.
For students in the main analytic sample comparing outcomes for the intervention and control pen-pal comparison groups, 55% were Black and 45% were White. The authors did not provide other demographic information for the study sample.
Students in the intervention group attended three one-hour sessions, spaced 10 days apart starting in mid-January and continuing through February. In groups of two to five, students were asked to write a reassuring letter to a middle school student experiencing academic difficulties. Students read letters ostensibly written by seventh-grade students, but actually prepared by the study authors. Next, researchers told students that intelligence could grow with hard work, and showed a short video describing research showing that the human brain developed new connections in response to intellectual challenges. Before replying to their assigned middle school “pen-pal,” students were encouraged to include information about the malleability of intelligence, as well as illustrative examples from their own life in their response. In the second session, students received a thank you note, ostensibly from their pen-pal and pen-pal’s teacher; students then wrote a similar letter to a new pen-pal. In the third session, students converted their letters into a speech, recorded their speech, and then listened twice to their own audiotaped speech.
In the control pen-pal comparison group, students attended three one-hour sessions spaced 10 days apart starting in mid-January and continuing through February. In groups of two to five, students were asked to write a reassuring letter to a middle school student experiencing academic difficulties. Students read letters ostensibly written by seventh-grade students, but actually prepared by the study authors. Next, researchers told students that intelligence was not a single attribute but that individuals had multiple intellectual strengths and weaknesses, and showed a short video describing how psychologists were starting to view intelligence as multiple abilities rather than a single entity. Before replying to their assigned middle school pen-pal, students were encouraged to include information about the multiple types of intelligence in their response. In the second session, students received a thank you note, ostensibly from their pen-pal and pen-pal’s teacher; students then wrote a similar letter to a new pen-pal. In the third session, students converted their letters into a speech, recorded their speech, and then listened twice to their own audiotaped speech. In the no pen-pal comparison group, students attended one laboratory session near the end of February to complete survey measures and sign study-related forms.
No additional information provided.
Reviewed: February 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GPA |
Malleable Intelligence Pen Pals vs. Malleable pen pal or no pen pal |
Posttest |
Full sample;
|
3.46 |
3.19 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 53% | |
| White | 47% |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 100% |
Reviewed: January 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube