The Relationship Between Growth Mindset and Students’

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROWTH MINDSET AND STUDENTS’

PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

Thesis

Submitted to

The School of Education and Health Sciences of the

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of

Educational Specialist in School Psychology

Kelly Berlin, M.S.

Dayton, Ohio

August 2019 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROWTH MINDSET AND STUDENTS’

PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

Name: Berlin, Kelly M

APPROVED BY:

______Elana Bernstein, Ph.D. Advisory Committee Chair Clinical Faculty Department of Counselor Education and Human Services, University of Dayton

______Sawyer Hunley, Ph.D. Committee Member Associate Professor Department of Counselor Education and Human Services, University of Dayton

______Thomas Lasley, Ph.D. Committee Member Chief Executive Officer Learn to Earn Dayton

©Copyright by

Kelly Marie Berlin

2019

iii

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROWTH MINDSET AND STUDENTS’

PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

Name: Berlin, Kelly University of Dayton

Advisor: Dr. Elana Bernstein, Ph.D.

Research suggests that adopting a growth mindset can have positive implications for students’ academic outcomes, adjustment, academic emotions, and motivation. Having a growth mindset is also positively associated with resilience, which is positively associated with psychological well-being. The present study examined the relationship between high school students’ self-reported levels of growth mindset and psychological well-being. Results of a survey given to (n = 85) high school students demonstrated no significant relationship between students’ overall levels of growth mindset and psychological well-being. Further, results indicated that no significant relationship existed between growth mindset and any individual domain of psychological well-being

(i.e., autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance). Implications for practice and future research in the area of growth mindset are provided.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to begin by acknowledging my thesis committee, Dr. Sawyer Hunley,

Dr. Tom Lasley, and my chair, Dr. Elana Bernstein, for their support and feedback throughout this project. I feel honored to have worked with such an accomplished group of professionals. I would also like to give a special thanks to the principal, teachers, and students at Kettering Fairmont High School for their willingness to participate in this research project. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my University of Dayton School

Psychology family, who was always available to answer questions and provide feedback as I worked to complete this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

LIST OF TABLES ix

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

Implicit Theories of Intelligence 5

Growth versus fixed mindset 6

Consequences of a Growth Versus Fixed Mindset 7

Academic achievement 7

Adjustment 9

Academic emotions 10

Motivation 11

Psychological Well-Being 12

Growth Mindset and Resilience 13

Resilience and Psychological Well-Being 14

Growth Mindset and Psychological Well-Being 15

Conclusion 16

The Present Study 16

CHAPTER III: METHODS 18

Research Question and Hypothesis 18

Research Design 19

Participants 19

Measures 20

Growth Mindset Inventory 20

Psychological Well-Being Scales 21

Procedures 21

IRB approval 21

Consent 21

Data collection 22

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 23

Data Analyses 23

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION 26

Review of Purpose and Major Findings 26

Interpretation of Findings Relative to Hypothesis 26

Assumptions 27

Limitations 28

Implications for Practice 29

Future Research 30

Conclusion 31

REFERENCES 32

APPENDIX A Participant Consent Form 39

vii

APPENDIX B Participant Assent Form 42

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Student Scores on the GMI, PWBS, and Individual Domains of

Psychological Well-Being 24

Table 2 Student Scores on the GMI, PWBS, and Individual Domains of

Psychological Well-Being by Grade Level 24

Table 3 Correlations Between Growth Mindset, Overall Psychological

Well-Being, and Individual Domains of Psychological Well-Being 25

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

There are a number of theories of intelligence posited by researchers to explain the differences in student educational outcomes. Three of the most well-known theories include Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 1985), and Piaget’s theory of cognitive development

(Piaget, 1936). Theories of intelligence are typically categorized as either: psychometric theories, cognitive theories, cognitive-contextual theories, or biological theories

(Gardner, 2011). Dweck (1999), however, identified another category: implicit theories of intelligence. She further identified the two primary implicit theories of intelligence as either entity or incremental. An entity theory of intelligence is one in which intelligence is viewed as fixed, or not affected by effort. An incremental theory of intelligence is based on the belief that intelligence is malleable, or changeable through learning and effort. Entity and incremental theories of intelligence are also referred to as fixed and growth mindsets, respectively (Dweck, 1999). The topic of fixed vs. growth mindsets has received much attention in the press recently; a quick Google search of “growth mindset news” yields articles from the Harvard Business Review (2016), Huffington Post

(2015), EdSurge (2017), U.S. News (2017), and New York Times (2016), among others.

As a result, growth mindset interventions are increasingly being implemented to improve student educational outcomes, and school-based practitioners are tasked with the duty of evaluating whether interventions are evidence-based prior to implementation.

There is strong evidence to suggest that adopting a growth mindset can have positive implications for students’ academic outcomes, adjustment, academic emotions, and motivation. For example, Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007) found that students with a growth mindset demonstrate higher levels of academic achievement than their peers with a fixed mindset. Growth mindset interventions – interventions aimed at developing students’ growth mindsets – are effective in improving academic achievement for all students, but are especially effective for underachieving students and students at risk of dropping out of high school (Paunesku et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2016). Students with a growth mindset also exhibit better adjustment outcomes such as higher levels of self-esteem, positive affect, and relationship harmony (King, 2012). Conversely, a fixed mindset predicts negative academic emotions such as anger, anxiety, shame, boredom, and hopelessness (King, McInerney, & Watkins, 2012). Students with a fixed mindset are less likely to persevere when faced with a challenge (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995;

Dweck & Master, 2009), whereas students with a growth mindset exhibit sustained motivation and higher achievement in the face of a challenge (Grant & Dweck, 2003).

Growth mindset is also related to students’ resilience, which is defined as an individual’s capacity to cope with adversity (Brooks & Goldstein, 2001; Ryff et al.,

1998). Growth mindset interventions have been found to improve students’ resilience and reduce their negative emotions in the face of social adversity (Yeager & Dweck,

2012). Students with a growth mindset view setbacks as an opportunity to improve their

2 skills, which improves their resilience in academic areas (Hong et al., 1999). Thus, a growth mindset is positively correlated with resilience.

Resilience is related to psychological well-being: It is negatively associated with symptoms of depression (Connor & Davidson, 2003) and positively associated with relational flourishing (Ryff & Springer, 2000), one of the six major domains of psychological well-being. Other domains of psychological well-being include self- acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, and autonomy

(Ryff& Keyes, 1995). Resilient individuals recover more quickly from stressful events, cope better with life challenges, and are more likely to request and make use of assistance from others (Ryff & Singer, 2003; Sagone & De Caroli, 2013; Carbonell, Reinherz, &

Giaconia, 1998). Consequently, resilient individuals may experience higher levels of psychological well-being than their non-resilient peers, but little research exists to support this notion.

Research examining the relationship between a growth mindset and students’ psychological well-being is emerging in the literature, but even with an increasing interest in this research area only a limited number of studies exist. Zeng, Hou, and Peng

(2016) found a positive association between growth mindset and psychological well- being in Chinese primary and secondary school students. However, based on a review of the literature, this relationship has yet to be explored in a U.S. student population. The purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between students’ mindsets

(fixed vs. growth) and their overall levels of psychological well-being in a sample of U.S. high school students. Results of this study may inform future programming decisions to

3 address not only the academic and behavioral needs of students, but their mental health needs as well.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review begins with definitions of entity and incremental theories of intelligence. The sections to follow describe the impact of entity and incremental theories of intelligence on academic achievement, adjustment, and academic emotions.

Next, definitions of psychological well-being and its six key domains are provided. The relationships between an entity theory of intelligence, resilience, and psychological well- being are also discussed. Finally, literature examining the impact of an entity theory of intelligence on psychological well-being is reviewed.

Implicit Theories of Intelligence

Implicit theories of intelligence refer to an individual’s beliefs about the fundamental nature of intelligence (Abdullah, 2008). These beliefs exist on a continuum, with each end representing the two ways by which people understand intelligence, as either fixed or malleable (Dweck, 1999). Individuals who view intelligence as fixed, or not impacted by effort, are said to have an entity theory of intelligence. These individuals believe that everyone has a certain level of capability that is not easily improved. Individuals who view intelligence as malleable, or changeable through learning and effort, are said to have an incremental theory of intelligence. These individuals believe that while everyone begins with a certain level of ability, this ability

5 is expandable and can improve with effort and practice. Although Dweck established the idea of an incremental and entity theory of intelligence in 1999, she coined the terms

“growth mindset” and “fixed mindset” in 2006 to represent the two theories. Growth mindset represents an incremental theory of intelligence while fixed mindset represents an entity theory of intelligence (Dweck, 2006).

Growth versus fixed mindset. Research conducted on growth and fixed mindsets suggests that implicit theories of intelligence influence constructs such as goal orientation, academic achievement, adjustment, academic emotions, resilience, and motivation. Students with a growth mindset tend to adopt learning goals in which they attempt to improve their abilities for the sake of learning and understanding a concept. In contrast, students with a fixed mindset tend to adopt performance goals in which they engage in learning for the sake of showing how smart they are in comparison to their peers (Dweck & Bempechat, 1983). These students focus more on how to demonstrate their abilities than on actually understanding a task or concept. Grant and Dweck (2003) found that learning goals positively predicted sustained intrinsic motivation, planning, and persistence.

Implicit theories of intelligence also influence how students respond to difficulties and setbacks. A growth mindset is associated with a mastery orientation, which means students are more likely to persist and try new strategies when faced with a difficulty or setback. However, students with a fixed mindset are more likely to have negative affect and fail to persevere in the face of difficulties and setbacks (Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck

& Master, 2009). Ng Lee Yen Abdullah (2008) found that growth mindset was positively associated with children’s self-efficacy and intrinsic goal orientation, suggesting that

6 students with a growth mindset are willing to work harder because they believe their effort will result in more knowledge and skills.

Consequences of a Growth Versus Fixed Mindset

Academic achievement. Recent research on implicit theories of intelligence focuses on the impact on academic achievement, specifically related to low income and underachieving populations (Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016; Paunesku et al., 2015;

Reardon, 2011). One well-established predictor of academic achievement is socioeconomic status: Individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to experience lower levels of achievement than their peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, as measured by scores on standardized math and reading assessments (Reardon, 2011). However, there is still much variability in achievement levels among individuals from the same socioeconomic background, suggesting that students’ beliefs about their abilities may have a larger effect on achievement than socioeconomic status (Claro et al., 2016). Claro et al. explored whether or not a growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement in a nationwide sample

(n =168,203) of 10th graders in Chile. They found that the association between student mindset and achievement was comparable with the association between socioeconomic status and achievement. Additionally, results showed that students with a growth mindset outperformed their peers, even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. Students with a growth mindset from low-income families demonstrated comparable test scores with students with a fixed mindset from high-income families. However, the researchers also found that students from low-income families were more likely to have a fixed mindset than their high-income peers.

In another study, researchers explored the effects of a growth mindset intervention on academic underachievement (Paunesku et al., 2015). Students participated in a brief, computer-based intervention specifically aimed at increasing growth mindset. For students at-risk of dropping out of high school, the growth mindset intervention produced an average increase in grade point average of 0.15. At-risk students also received satisfactory grades (C or higher) in more core classes following the intervention

(Paunesku et al., 2015). Yeager et al. (2016) found similar grade point average and satisfactory grade improvements in a sample of low performing 9th graders following a redesigned growth mindset intervention. Both studies implemented similar interventions in which students read an article detailing “the brain’s ability to grow and reorganize itself as a consequence of hard work and good strategies on challenging tasks,”

(Paunesku et al., 2015, p. 3). Students then completed a writing assignment in which they gave advice to a hypothetical student who thought of himself as not smart enough to succeed in school.

Most of the research on mindset and academic achievement focuses on students’ mindsets. However, parents’ implicit theories of intelligence can affect the ways in which they interact with their children and therefore the ways in which their children learn. Parents with a fixed mindset tend to interact with their children in unconstructive ways; for example, focusing on their child’s performance rather than their effort

(Moorman & Pomerantz, 2010). Andersen and Nielsen (2016) implemented a reading intervention with a growth mindset approach for parents and their children. Parents were told their child’s reading ability could be improved and were encouraged to take a mastery-oriented approach to support their child’s autonomous engagement with books.

They were also encouraged to praise their child’s effort rather than their performance.

The reading intervention with a growth mindset approach improved children’s reading abilities and expressive language skills. The intervention was more effective for children whose parents had higher levels of fixed mindsets prior to the intervention. This suggests that parents’ implicit theories of intelligence may affect the way they interact with their children and therefore influence their children’s implicit theories of intelligence.

The aforementioned studies measured short-term academic achievement. It is important to also consider the long-term effects of growth and fixed mindsets on achievement. Blackwell et al. (2007) conducted a longitudinal study on junior high school students in New York City to examine the long-term impact of students’ implicit theories of intelligence. They found that students with a growth mindset at the beginning of junior high school outperformed their peers with a fixed mindset in mathematics two years later, even after controlling for prior academic achievement. In another study conducted by the same researchers, implementation of a growth mindset intervention reversed the trajectory of students’ grades. Students’ average grade in this study was gradually declining prior to intervention. Students in the experimental group experienced a reverse in grade trajectory following the intervention, while average grades in the control group continued to decline. In this intervention students learned about the malleability of intelligence and the brain through science-based readings, activities, discussions, and instruction in the physiology of the brain.

Adjustment. Researchers have also studied the effects of implicit theories of intelligence on adjustment and well-being outcomes. As evidenced above, implicit theories of intelligence affect learning and achievement outcomes for students. As school

9 achievement has been shown to affect students’ self-esteem and self-worth (Crocker,

Karpinski, Quinn, & Chase, 2003), it is conceivable that students’ mindsets will indirectly affect students’ self-esteem and self-worth.

King (2012) investigated the association between a growth mindset and students’ adjustment outcomes, such as personal self-esteem, collective self-esteem, relationship harmony (harmony with significant others), positive/negative affect, and emotional engagement. King found that a fixed mindset was negatively associated with personal self-esteem, collective self-esteem, relationship harmony, and academic achievement; whereas it was positively correlated with negative affect and negative emotions in school.

In contrast, a growth mindset was positively associated with personal self-esteem, relationship harmony, positive affect, positive emotions in school, and academic achievement. A growth mindset was negatively correlated with negative affect and negative emotions in school. These results suggest that a growth mindset is positively associated with positive adjustment and well-being.

Academic emotions. Implicit theories of intelligence affect not only how students feel about themselves, but how they feel about school as well. Pekrun (2009) asserted a control-value theory of achievement emotions, which states that students’ degree of control over academic tasks and the value they place on academic tasks impacts the emotions they have about school. A growth mindset is associated with higher levels of perceived control, whereas a fixed mindset is associated with lower levels of perceived control. The association between mindset and perceived control directly impacts students’ degree of control over academic tasks and therefore their academic emotions.

King et al. (2012) explored the effects of growth and fixed mindsets on an individual’s

10 academic emotions (emotions towards academic-related activities). Results indicated that a fixed mindset predicted all of the negative academic emotions (i.e., anger, anxiety, shame, boredom, and hopelessness) and none of the positive academic emotions (i.e., enjoyment, hope, and pride).

Motivation. Just as implicit theories of intelligence affect the types of goals students have, they also affect students’ motivation. As noted previously, students with a fixed mindset tend to adopt performance goals (e.g., “I want to get a 100% on this

Spanish test”), whereas students with a growth mindset tend to adopt learning and mastery goals (e.g., “I want to become fluent in Spanish;” Dweck & Bempechat, 1983).

Based on these findings, it is conceivable that students with a fixed mindset who do not reach their goals may feel that expending more effort is futile, as they view intelligence as fixed and unable to change through effort. Consequently, students with a growth mindset who do not reach their learning or mastery goals may be motivated to try again and again until they master a concept or skill since they see intelligence as something that can be grown through effort. These assumptions can be supported by attribution theory, which posits that some people interpret events as being caused by one’s own behavior while others interpret events as being caused by outside circumstances (Heider, 1958).

For example, Hong et al. (1999) found that individuals with a growth mindset were more likely than individuals with a fixed mindset to attribute their failures to effort.

Additionally, the research showed that individuals with a growth mindset were more likely to take remedial action when they failed.

The results of a study conducted by Grant and Dweck (2003) showed that having learning goals predicted sustained motivation and higher achievement in the face of a

11 challenge, while ability goals (a type of performance goal) predicted withdrawal and poorer performance. Ability goals also predicted declines in intrinsic motivation.

Renaud-Dubé, Guay, Talbot, Taylor, and Koestner (2015) found similar results; in their study, students who had a growth mindset reported greater school persistence intentions, which are defined as students’ intentions to persist in school as opposed to students’ intentions to drop out (Renaud-Dubé et al., 2015).

Much of the research on implicit theories of intelligence and motivation has found that having a fixed or growth mindset influences students’ level of motivation in the face of a challenging task or after a setback (Grant & Dweck, 2003; Hong et al., 1999;

Renaud-Dubé et al., 2015). This suggests that mindsets may not influence levels of motivation prior to a task, but may be impactful after the task is completed. Therefore, one might conclude that individuals with a growth and fixed mindset have similar levels of motivation prior to a task, but individuals with a fixed mindset experience declines in motivation following a setback.

Based on this notion, Aditomo (2015) studied the effects of a growth and fixed mindset on motivation, finding that a growth mindset was negatively correlated with declines in motivation following an unsatisfactory exam grade. That is, students with a growth mindset maintained their motivation following a poor exam grade. Aditomo concluded that a growth mindset may serve as a buffer against motivation decline in students.

Psychological Well-Being

Psychological well-being is defined as an individual’s self-evaluation of his or her ability to fulfill certain domains in life. These domains include self-acceptance, personal

12 growth, purpose in life, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, and autonomy (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Ryff and Keyes (1995) further defined these domains.

Specifically, Self-acceptance is the positive evaluation of oneself and one’s past life.

Personal growth is a sense of continued growth and development as a person. Purpose in life is the belief that one’s life is purposeful and meaningful. Positive relations with others is the possession of quality relations with others. Environmental mastery is the capacity to manage effectively one’s life and surrounding world. Autonomy is the sense of self-determination. The degree to which individuals feel fulfilled in these six domains influences their overall psychological well-being. Support and work are two other domains that may contribute to an individual’s psychological well-being (Cripps &

Zyromski, 2009). Specifically, social support from family, friends, and significant others has a substantial and positive correlation with the six domains of psychological well- being (Emadpoor, Lavasani, & Shahcheraghi, 2016). One instrument used to measure psychological well-being – The Psychological Well-Being Scales (PWBS; Ryff, 1989) – includes domains such as engagement and interest, contributing to the well-being of others, competency, optimism, and being respected (Diener et al., 2009). Finally, Krok

(2015) found sense of coherence – defined as perceiving life as comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful – to be another predictor of psychological well-being.

Thus, overall psychological well-being is impacted by various adjustment and achievement outcomes; domains that are positively associated with a growth mindset.

Growth Mindset and Resilience

Resilience is defined as an individual’s capacity to cope with and maintain well- being in the face of adversity (Brooks & Goldstein, 2001; Ryff et al., 1998). Yeager and

Dweck (2012) suggest that students’ mindsets shape the ways in which they view adversity. Specifically, they found that students with a growth mindset of personality were less likely to view social adversity (such as bullying or exclusion) as the result of a personal trait. They also reported fewer negative emotions. Yeager and Dweck suggested that teaching students about growth mindset may increase their resilience, especially in the face of social adversity. As mentioned previously, students with a growth mindset view challenges and setbacks as an opportunity to improve their skills, which promotes resilience in academic areas, regardless of their level of achievement

(Hong et al., 1999). Additionally, students with a growth mindset were more resilient and earned higher grades than students with a fixed mindset when faced with a challenging school transition (Blackwell et al., 2007).

Resilience and Psychological Well-Being

As resilience helps individuals cope in the face of adversity, it may be an important factor in promoting psychological well-being. Resilient individuals recover more quickly from stressful events and are better able to cope in novel situations, which may reduce the risk of maladaptive outcomes (Ryff & Singer, 2003; Sagone & De Caroli,

2013). Connor and Davidson (2003) found that resilience was negatively associated with symptoms of depression and therefore promoted psychological well-being. Additional research has demonstrated that resilience in the face of challenges also promotes relational flourishing (Ryff & Springer, 2000), which is one of six primary domains of psychological well-being (positive relations with others).

Resilient students are better able to cope with the challenges of life than their non- resilient peers, suggesting that resilience “serves as a protective factor for quality of life

14 and contributes towards greater life satisfaction and better psychological well-being,”

(Archana, Kumar, & Singh, 2014, p. 232). Archana et al. (2014) found a significant and positive association between resilience and psychological well-being. Perhaps another reason for the association between resilience and psychological well-being is that resilient adolescents are more likely to request and make use of assistance, to feel as though they are supported in their efforts, and to feel generally satisfied (Carbonell et al.,

1998). There is also evidence to suggest that a two-way interaction exists between resilience and psychological well-being. Moreover, resilience may predict psychological well-being, and domains of psychological well-being may also predict resilience. Sagone and De Caroli (2014) found that the psychological well-being domains of self- acceptance, personal growth, and environmental mastery were the strongest predictors of resilience.

Growth Mindset and Psychological Well-Being

Given that resilience has been linked to psychological well-being, and growth mindset has been shown to increase resilience, it is logical that having a growth mindset can positively impact an individual’s psychological well-being. Zeng et al. (2016) conducted a study that explored the relationship between growth mindset, school engagement, and psychological well-being in Chinese primary and middle school students. The researchers hypothesized that growth mindset would be positively related to resilience and would predict students’ school engagement and psychological well- being. They also hypothesized that resilience would play a mediating role between growth mindset and psychological well-being and school engagement. Consistent with the hypotheses, results of the Zeng et al. study indicate that a growth mindset is positively

15 associated with resilience, school engagement, and psychological well-being. Further, results suggest that the effects of a growth mindset on school engagement and psychological well-being are mediated by resilience. These results were consistent for all age groups (i.e., ages 12 and under, ages 13 to 15, and ages 16 and over).

A more recent study by Whittington, Rhind, Loads, and Handel (2017) found an association between growth mindset and psychological well-being in veterinary students.

Specifically, data analyses indicated that students with a fixed mindset had significantly lower scores on a psychological well-being questionnaire than students with a growth mindset.

Conclusion

There is strong evidence to suggest that holding a growth mindset can have positive implications for students’ academic achievement, academic emotions, adjustment outcomes, motivation, and other goal-related outcomes. Research also shows that a growth mindset is positively associated with resilience, which is positively associated with psychological well-being (Whittington et al., 2017; Zeng et al., 2016).

The Present Study

Much of the research on the relationship between a growth mindset and psychological well-being has been conducted with international populations (Zeng et al.,

2016). Based on a review of the literature, the relationship between a growth mindset and psychological well-being in U.S. high school students has yet to be fully explored.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between a growth mindset and psychological well-being in a sample of central and southwest Ohio high school students. Specifically, the present study aimed to answer the following research

16 question: What is the relationship between a growth mindset and psychological well- being in high school students?

CHAPTER III

METHODS

This chapter begins with the research question and hypothesis. The sections to follow describe the study’s research design and type of participants recruited. Next, the surveys used to measure growth mindset and psychological well-being are described, including the number and types of questions used, as well as reliability and validity data for each scale. Finally, the procedures for IRB approval, consent, data collection, and data analysis are also described.

Research Question and Hypothesis

The current study explored the following research question: What is the relationship between a growth mindset and psychological well-being in high school students?

It was hypothesized that students’ levels of growth mindset would have a significant positive correlation with students’ psychological well-being. Specifically, higher levels of self-reported growth mindset would correlate with higher levels of self- reported psychological well-being. This hypothesis is based on previous research demonstrating a positive correlation between growth mindset and psychological well- being in Chinese primary and middle school students (Zeng et al., 2016).

Research Design

A correlational survey design was used for the current study to examine the relationship between a growth mindset and psychological well-being in high school students. This research design was selected because the researcher was only interested in the relationship between growth mindset and psychological well-being and was not manipulating either variable. Growth mindset and psychological well-being were measured using surveys.

Participants

Convenience sampling was used for this study due to its feasibility in accessing the target population. Participants included (n = 94) high school students in central and southwest Ohio. To recruit participants, the researcher worked with the principal and a partnering teacher at the primary data collection site to identify 8 classes in which the researcher could administer the surveys. The teacher of the 8 identified psychology classes was asked to send a consent form home with each student. No incentives were provided for students who returned consent forms. Students whose parents provided written consent were then invited to participate in the surveys. Ninety participants were recruited from the primary data collection sight (i.e., a high school in southwest Ohio).

An additional 4 participants were recruited from a central Ohio high school to increase the sample size to an acceptable number in order to account for incomplete surveys. The primary data collection site is comprised of 2,271 students, 84.2% of whom identify as white, non-Hispanic. Fourteen percent of the student population is identified as having a disability and 33.5% of the student population is identified as being economically disadvantaged.

The suggested sample size for two-tailed hypotheses in correlational studies is 82

(Mertens, 2015). The researcher’s target sample size was 100 to account for participants who may not have completed the surveys in entirety and therefore needed to be thrown out. To be included in the study students must have been a general education student enrolled in grades 9-12 at a public high school in central or southwest Ohio. Students were excluded from the study if they were receiving special education services in a self- contained classroom, because there may have been other variables affecting their overall psychological well-being (e.g., amount of time spent in an inclusive versus self-contained classroom). The teacher was asked to identify students receiving special education services prior to the administration of the surveys.

Measures

Growth Mindset Inventory. To measure students’ levels of growth mindset, participants completed the Growth Mindset Inventory (GMI; Dweck, 1999). This survey asked participants to respond to questions using a 6-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (6). The scale consisted of

6 items (e.g., No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite a bit).

High levels of internal reliability (a = .94 to .98) and test-retest reliability (a =

.80) have been established for the GMI (Dweck et al., 1995). Additionally, scores on the

GMI have been found to be unrelated to cognitive ability, confidence in intellectual ability, self-esteem, optimism or confidence in other people and the world, and social- political attitudes (Dweck et al., 1995), suggesting adequate levels of discriminant

20 validity. Thus, the researcher in this study determined the GMI to be an appropriate tool for measuring high school students’ levels of growth mindset.

Psychological Well-Being Scales. To measure students’ psychological well- being, participants completed the Psychological Well-Being Scales (PWBS; Ryff, 1989).

Participants responded on a 6-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). The shortened version of the PWBS consisted of 54 items (e.g., When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out). The 54 items were divided into 6 domains of psychological well-being, including: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. There were 9 items for each domain.

Acceptable levels of internal reliability have been established within each domain of the PWBS (autonomy = .83, environmental mastery = .86, personal growth = .85, positive relations with others = .88, purpose in life = .88, and self-acceptance = .91)

(Ryff, 1989). Further, other studies have established acceptable levels of validity (r = .64 to .89) and reliability (a = .77 to .88) of the PWBS in adolescent populations (Chan,

Chan, & Sun, 2016). Thus, the researcher in this study determined the PWBS to be an appropriate tool for measuring high school students’ psychological well-being.

Procedures

IRB approval. The researcher obtained approval from the University of

Dayton’s Institutional Review Board prior to the onset of the study.

Consent. The researcher first obtained consent from the principal of one southwest Ohio high school via email asking if he would be willing to allow the researcher to collect data at his school. Then, the researcher worked with the principal to

21 determine a specific class in which to collect data (i.e., Psychology). The teacher of the class was asked to send a parental consent form home with each student (see Appendix

A). Students 18 years of age or older provided consent for themselves.

Students whose parents or guardians signed the consent form or were of legal age to provide consent for themselves were invited to participate in the study. Students were informed prior to completing the surveys that participation was voluntary and were asked to sign an assent form (see Appendix B).

Data collection. The researcher had students fill out paper copies of the GMI and

PWBS on the same day. Surveys were given during the students’ regular class period.

The GMI and PWBS were stapled together, eliminating the need for student names or identification numbers to match the results of the two surveys. Students were asked to read and sign an assent form prior to completing the surveys. They were then instructed to place their completed surveys and assent forms in separate piles in order to maintain confidentiality. Instructions for completion were written at the top of each survey.

Students were only asked to provide their grade level because data was collected in mixed grade level classes. No other personal demographic data was collected.

Consequently, no identifying information was collected. Minimal risks were anticipated in this study. However, students were given a form containing their school counselor’s contact information upon completion of the survey if they had any questions or wanted to discuss their responses to the survey questions further.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between students’ self- reported levels of growth mindset and overall psychological well-being. The following research question was posed: What is the relationship between a growth mindset and psychological well-being in high school students?

Data Analyses

A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to evaluate the hypothesis that students with higher levels of self-reported growth mindset would have higher levels of self-reported psychological well-being.

Average scores on the GMI and PWBS, as well as for individual domains of psychological well-being, can be found in Table 1. Participants reported the highest average score for personal growth and the lowest average score for environmental mastery. See Table 2 for descriptive statistics broken down by grade level.

Table 1: Student Scores on the GMI, PWBS, and Individual Domains of Psychological Well-Being Variable Mean Std. Deviation N Growth Mindset 24.79a 5.80 85 Psychological Well-Being 225.25b 31.71 85 Autonomy 34.99 5.14 85 Environmental Mastery 34.34 7.30 85 Personal Growth 41.66 5.99 85 Positive Relations with Others 38.54 8.35 85 Purpose in Life 39.55 7.17 85 Self-Acceptance 36.16 9.34 85 aBased on a 6-question survey. bBased on a 54-question survey.

Table 2: Student Scores on the GMI, PWBS, and Individual Domains of Psychological Well-Being by Grade Level

Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Variable M SD N M SD N M SD N Growth Mindset 27.00 - 1 24.92 4.75 26 23.55 6.29 40 Psychological 247.00 - 1 223.31 30.17 26 227.07 33.24 40 Well-Being Autonomy 36.00 - 1 33.81 5.34 26 35.23 5.03 40 Environmental 43.00 - 1 33.62 6.85 26 35.30 7.71 40 Mastery Personal Growth 38.00 - 1 42.69 5.81 26 42.20 5.88 40 Positive Relations 41.00 - 1 39.31 7.99 26 38.55 8.92 40 with Others Purpose in Life 45.00 - 1 40.62 7.42 26 39.7 6.95 40

Self-Acceptance 44.00 - 1 33.27 8.48 26 38.05 9.59 40

aBased on a 6-question survey. bBased on a 54-question survey.

Data analysis indicated no significant relationship between students’ self-reported growth mindset and psychological well-being (r = 0.24). See Table 3 for correlational data. No significant relationship existed between growth mindset and any domain of psychological well-being: Autonomy (r = .017), Environmental Mastery (r = -.035),

Personal Growth (r = .056), Positive Relations with Others (r = .014), Purpose in Life (r

= .048), and Self-Acceptance (r = .014). See Table 2.

Individual domains of psychological well-being were significantly and positively correlated with each other (see Table 3) with the exception of autonomy and positive relations with others (r = 0.121).

Table 3: Correlations Between Growth Mindset, Overall Psychological Well-Being, and Individual Domains of Psychological Well-Being

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Growth Mindset 1 .024 .017 -.035 .056 .014 .048 .014

2. Psychological Well-Being .024 1 .519** .823** .673** .730** .658** .876**

3. Autonomy .017 .519** 1 .336** .350** .121 .260* .416**

4. Environmental Mastery -.035 .823** .336** 1 .324** .597** .461** .730**

5. Personal Growth .056 .673** .350** .324** 1 .381** .496** .476**

6. Positive Relations with Others .014 .730** .121 .597** .381** 1 .250* .613**

7. Purpose in Life .048 .658** .260* .461** .496** .250* 1 .419**

8. Self-Acceptance .014 .876** .416** .730** .476** .613** .419** 1 Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Review of Purpose and Major Findings

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between growth mindset and overall psychological well-being in a sample of high school students.

Data were also used to examine the relationship between growth mindset and each domain of psychological well-being (i.e., autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, personal growth, positive relations with others, and self-acceptance). Analyses revealed no significant relationship between students’ self-reported levels of growth mindset and overall psychological well-being. No significant relationships emerged in the analyses between growth mindset and any individual domain of psychological well- being.

Interpretation of Findings Relative to Hypothesis

As stated previously, results indicated no significant relationship between the two variables in this study. The hypothesis that students with higher levels of self-reported growth mindset would also have higher levels of self-reported psychological well-being was rejected. Results of this study are in contrast with the results of Zeng et al. (2016), which indicated that a relationship does exist between growth mindset and psychological well-being.

Participants in the Zeng et al. (2016) study were Chinese. It is possible that cultural differences between the participant groups account for the contradicting results.

Multiple studies suggest that well-being is lower among individuals from collectivistic cultures than individualistic cultures (Ahuvia, 2002; Novin, Tso, & Konrath, 2013).

Kasser and Ryan (1996) suggest that individuals from individualistic cultures possess higher levels of intrinsic motivation, which means they pursue goals because they want to. Individuals from collectivistic cultures possess higher levels of extrinsic motivation, which means they pursue goals due to social pressure or feelings of guilt, or because they think they have to. Thus, because participants in the current study are part of an individualistic culture, it is possible that their levels of psychological well-being are higher regardless of their levels of growth mindset.

Another factor potentially affecting the results of this study are the measures used.

In the Zeng et al. (2016) study participants completed an eight-item Flourishing Scale

(Diener et al., 2010) to measure their levels of psychological well-being and a 4-item scale to measure their levels of growth mindset. The current study used a 54-item psychological well-being scale and a 6-item growth mindset scale. Therefore, it is possible that measurement errors between the different scales account for the contrasting results.

Assumptions

Results of this study are based on important underlying assumptions. One important assumption for the current study is that the participating school district had not implemented specific programming or training in the area of growth mindset at the time of data collection; however, students had recently completed a unit on stress

27 management. The researcher also assumes that it is possible to assess through instrumentation such as the Growth Mindset Inventory and Psychological Well-Being

Scales the mindset disposition and psychological well-being of high school aged students.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, this study used a correlational design. It is possible that confounding variables (e.g., levels of resilience, age, socioeconomic status, etc.) played a larger role in students’ levels of psychological well-being than growth mindset. Second, as data were collected using surveys, it is possible that students’ self-reported levels of growth mindset and psychological well-being did not accurately reflect their true levels of growth mindset and psychological well-being.

Previous research suggests that individuals tend to over-report socially desirable characteristics and under-report socially undesirable characteristics. This is known as social desirability response bias (Zerbe & Paulhaus, 1987).It is also possible that some questions on the PWBS were not relevant to high school students (e.g., “I generally do a good job of taking care of my personal finances and affairs,” “I have been able to build a home and lifestyle for myself that is much to my liking.”).Third, this study employed a convenience sampling method, which limits the generalizability of the results. Finally, the teacher indicated that the participants in this study recently completed a unit on stress management. It is possible that students’ psychological well-being improved following the stress management unit and was therefore at a higher level independent of growth mindset.

Implications for Practice

Contrary to the hypothesis, results of this study do not support the notion that increasing students’ levels of growth mindset will improve their overall levels of psychological well-being. However, there is extensive research to support the use of growth mindset training in improving students’ academic achievement (Andersen &

Nielsen, 2016; Blackwell et al., 2007; Claro et al., 2016; Moorman & Pomerantz, 2010;

Paunesku et al., 2015; Reardon, 2011; Yeager et al., 2016), motivation (Aditomo, 2015;

Grant & Dweck, 2003; Hong et al., 1999; Renaud-Dubé et al., 2015), adjustment outcomes (Crocker et al., 2003; King, 2012), and academic emotions (King et al., 2012;

Pekrun, 2009). Thus, growth mindset interventions should still be considered by educators when making programming decisions, while ensuring effective evaluations of outcomes are employed.

Research also suggests that growth mindset can be developed in areas other than intelligence. For instance, one study found that increasing students’ levels of growth mindset in the area of happiness (i.e., the changeable nature of happiness) improved students’ overall levels of well-being (Van Tongeren & Burnette, 2018). Thus, educators may consider implementing growth mindset training in other areas of functioning in order to improve students’ psychological well-being.

Educators are continuously searching for cost effective, evidence-based, and efficient interventions to address academic and social-emotional concerns in students.

Based on previous research, growth mindset training may improve students’ academic achievement as well as psychological well-being (Andersen & Nielsen, 2016; Blackwell et al., 2007; Claro et al., 2016; Moorman & Pomerantz, 2010; Paunesku et al., 2015;

Reardon, 2011; Van Tongeren & Burnette, 2018; Yeager et al., 2016; Zeng et al., 2016).

However, results of this study do not support the notion that growth mindset is associated with psychological well-being. More research should be conducted in this area before educators decide to use growth mindset training to target both academic and social- emotional concerns.

Future Research

Future research examining the relationship between growth mindset and psychological well-being should address the limitations in the current study’s design.

First, a random sampling method should be used to address external validity concerns as well as potential confounding variables. Second, future studies could use parent or teacher reports in combination with student self-reports to measure overall levels of growth mindset and psychological well-being. Students’ self-report in combination with parent or teacher reports may provide a more accurate score for overall growth mindset and psychological well-being for each student and therefore reduce response bias. Future research might also examine whether growth mindset interventions improve students’ psychological well-being. Literature suggests that growth mindset interventions do in fact increase students’ levels of growth mindset (Blackwell et al., 2007). Thus, future research could identify students with low levels of psychological well-being to examine if growth mindset training improves students’ overall levels of psychological well-being.

Previous studies have identified an association between growth mindset and psychological well-being; future studies examining whether a growth mindset intervention impacts psychological well-being would allow researchers to determine if there is a causal relationship between the two variables.

Conclusion

Although results of this study did not support the hypothesis that a significant positive relationship would exist between growth mindset and psychological well-being, a review of the literature shows that holding a growth mindset has positive implications for students’ academic achievement (Andersen & Nielsen, 2016; Blackwell et al., 2007;

Claro et al., 2016; Moorman & Pomerantz, 2010; Paunesku et al., 2015; Reardon, 2011;

Yeager et al., 2016), motivation (Aditomo, 2015; Grant & Dweck, 2003; Hong et al.,

1999; Renaud-Dubé et al., 2015), adjustment outcomes (Crocker et al., 2003; King,

2012), and academic emotions (King et al., 2012; Pekrun, 2009). Thus, growth mindset interventions may have a positive impact on students in multiple areas of functioning and should therefore be considered by educators when making programming decisions.

Further research on the relationship between growth mindset and psychological well- being needs to be conducted before educators decide to implement growth mindset interventions for the sole purpose of improving students’ psychological well-being

REFERENCES

Abdullah, M. Y. (2008). Children's implicit theories of intelligence: Its relationships with

self-efficacy, goal orientations, and self-regulated learning. International Journal

of Learning, 15(2), 47-56.

Aditomo, A. (2015). Students' response to academic setback: "Growth mindset" as a

buffer against demotivation. International Journal of Educational Psychology,

4(2), 198-222. doi:10.17583/ijep.2015.1482

Ahuvia, A. C. (2002). Individualism/collectivism and cultures of happiness: A theoretical

conjecture on the relationship between consumption, culture and subjective well-

being at the national level. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 23–36.

Andersen, S. C., & Nielsen, H. S. (2016). Reading intervention with a growth mindset

approach improves children’s skills. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, 113(43), 12111-12113.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1607946113

Archana, Kumar, U., & Singh, R. (2014). Resilience and spirituality as predictors of

psychological well-being among university students. Journal of Psychosocial

Research, 9(2), 227-235.

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of

intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal

32 study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8624.2007.00995.x

Brooks, R., & Goldstein, S. (2001). Raising resilient children: Fostering strength, hope,

and optimism in your child. Lincolnwood, IL: Contemporary Books.

Carbonell, D. M., Reinherz, H. Z., & Giaconia, R. M. (1998). Risk and resilience in late

adolescence. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 15(4), 251-272.

doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.02.002

Chan, D. W., Chan, L., & Sun, X. (2016). Developing a brief version of Ryff’s scale to

assess the psychological well-being of adolescents in Hong Kong. European

Journal of Psychological Assessment, 0(0), 1-9. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/A000403

Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of

poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, 113(31), 8664-8668.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1608207113

Cripps, K., & Zyromski, B. (2009). Adolescents’ psychological well-being and perceived

parental involvement: Implications for parental involvement in middle schools.

Research in Middle Level Education Online, 33(4), 1-13.

Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K. (2003). When grades determine

self-worth: Consequences of contingent self-worth for male and female

engineering and psychology majors. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 85(3), 507-516. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.507

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov., W., Kim-Prieto, C., & Choi, D. W.

(2009). New measures of well-being. Dordrecht, NL: Springer Netherlands.

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., & Oishi, S. (2010). New

well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative

feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-

9493-y

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and

development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random

House.

Dweck, C. S., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children’s theories of intelligence. In S. Paris, G.

Olsen, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and Motivation in the Classroom, 239-

256. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments

and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.

Dweck, C. S. & Master, A. (2009). Self-theories and motivation: Students’ beliefs about

intelligence. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at

School, 171-195. New York, NY: Taylor Francis.

Emadpoor, L., Lavasani, M. G., & Shahcheraghi, S. M. (2016). Relationship between

perceived social support and psychological well-being among students based on

mediating role of academic motivation. International Journal of Mental Health

and Addiction, 14(3), 284-290. doi:10.1007/s11469-015-9608-4

Esparza, J., Shumow, L., & Schmidt, J. A. (2014). Growth mindset of gifted seventh

grade students in science. National Consortium for Specialized Secondary Schools

of Mathematics, Science & Technology Journal, 19(1), 6-13.

Garcia, D. (2011). Two models of personality and well-being among adolescents.

Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1208-1212.

doi:10.1016/J.PAID.2011.02.009

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York,

NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, M. K. (2011). Theories of intelligence. In M. A. Bray & T. J. Kehle (Eds.), The

Oxford Handbook of School Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, Inc.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541-553. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.85.3.541

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley

& Sons.

Hong, Y.Y., Chiu, C.Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit

theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning systems approach. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588-599. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.77.3.588

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential

correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287. doi:10.1177/0146167296223006

King, R. B. (2012). How you think about your intelligence influences how adjusted you

are: Implicit theories and adjustment outcomes. Personality & Individual

Differences, 53(5), 705-709. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.031

King, R. R., McInerney, D. M., & Watkins, D. A. (2012). How you think about your

intelligence determines how you feel in school: The role of theories of

intelligence on academic emotions. Learning & Individual Differences, 22(6),

814-819. doi:10.1016/J.LINDIF.2012.04.005

Krok, D. (2015). The mediating role of optimism in the relations between sense of

coherence, subjective and psychological well-being among late adolescents.

Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 134-139.

doi:10.1016/J.PAID.2015.05.006

Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (4th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Moorman, E. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2010). Ability mindsets influence the quality of

mothers' involvement in children's learning: An experimental investigation.

Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1354-1362. doi:10.1037/A0020376

Novin, S., Tso, I. F., & Konrath, S. H. (2014). Self-related and other-related pathways to

subjective well-being in Japan and the United States. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 15(5), 995–1014. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9460-9

Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S.

(2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic

underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6), 784-793.

doi:10.1177/0956797615571017

Pekrun, R. (2009). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions,

corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational

Psychology Review, 18, 315-341. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London, UK: Heinemann.

Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the

poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In G. Duncan & R. Murnane

(Eds.), Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life

Chances, 91-116. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Renaud-Dubé, A., Guay, F. F., Talbot, D., Taylor, G., & Koestner, R. (2015). The

relations between implicit intelligence beliefs, autonomous academic motivation,

and school persistence intentions: A mediation model. Social Psychology of

Education, 18(2), 255-272. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9288-0

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6),

1069-1081. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being

revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-727.

doi:10.1037//0022-3514.69.4.719

Sagone, E., & Caroli, M. D. (2013). Relationships between resilience, self-efficacy, and

thinking styles in Italian middle adolescents. Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 92, 838-845. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.763

Sagone, E., & Caroli, M. D. (2014). Relationships between psychological well-being and

resilience in middle and late adolescents. Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 141, 881-887. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.154

Schmidt, J. J., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. (2017). Does mindset intervention predict

students' daily experience in classrooms? A comparison of seventh and ninth

graders' trajectories. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 46(3), 582-602.

doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0489-z

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of intelligence. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Van Tongeren, D. R., & Burnette, J. L. (2018). Do you believe happiness can change? An

investigation of the relationship between happiness mindsets, well-being, and

satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(2), 101–109.

doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1257050

Whittington, R. E., Rhind, S., Loads, D., & Handel, I. (2017). Exploring the link between

mindset and psychological well-being among veterinary Students. Journal of

Veterinary Medical Education, 44(1), 134–140. doi:10.3138/jvme.1215-192R

Yeager, D. D., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., Hulleman, C. S., Schneider, B., Hinojosa, C.,

& ... Dweck, C. S. (2016). Using design thinking to improve psychological

interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 374-391. doi:10.1037/EDU0000098

Zeng, G., Hou, H., & Peng, K. (2016). Effect of growth mindset on school engagement

and psychological well-being of Chinese primary and middle school students: The

mediating role of resilience. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-8.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01873

Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L., (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational

behavior: A reconception. The Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 250-264.

APPENDIX A

Participant Consent Form

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON - CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

TITLE OF STUDY: The Relationship between a Growth Mindset and Students’ Psychological Well-Being

We are inviting your child to be a part of a research study led by Kelly Berlin, graduate student at the University of Dayton. Participation is voluntary. Please read the information below to learn more about the study. Before providing consent for your child to participate, please ask questions about anything you do not understand.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between students’ self-reported growth mindset – the belief that intelligence can be improved through effort – and their overall self-reported psychological well-being.

PROCEDURES

If you provide consent and your child volunteers to participate in this study, he/she will be asked to complete two surveys. The first survey measures growth mindset and the second survey measures psychological well-being. He/she will be asked to respond as honestly and completely as possible. Students are free to choose not to respond to any questions they are not comfortable answering. Your child’s responses will remain anonymous and no information will be given in the report that would allow anyone to personally identify his/her responses. The surveys will be completed during the school day as agreed upon between the researcher, teacher, and principal. Completion of both surveys will take approximately 30 minutes combined.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

There are minimal risks anticipated for students participating in this study. However, upon completion of the surveys students will be given their school counselor’s contact information if they would like to discuss their responses to the survey questions further.

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS

There are no direct benefits to you or your child. However, by participating in this research, your child will be helping to develop an understanding of the relationship 39

between growth mindset and psychological well-being, which may help improve instructional decisions and school programming in the future.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Survey responses will be collected anonymously. Therefore, when the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be included that would reveal your child’s identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

Your child does not have to participate in this study. Your child may stop participating at any time without penalty.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS

Please contact one of the investigators listed below if you have any questions about this research.

Kelly Berlin, Principal Investigator and graduate student, University of Dayton, Department of Counselor Education and Human Services, 614-546-6673, [email protected]

Dr. Elana Bernstein, Thesis Chair and Clinical Faculty, University of Dayton, Department of Counselor Education and Human Services, 937-229-3624, [email protected]

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

You may contact the Chair of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Dayton if you have questions about your rights as a research participant: Candise Powell, J.D., (937) 229-3515, [email protected].

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT (or legal guardian) Participants under the age of 18:

As parent or legal guardian, I authorize ______(child’s name) to participate in the research study described above.

As parent or legal guardian, I do not authorize ______(child’s name) to participate in the research study described above.

Signature of Parent/Guardian ______Date______

Participants 18 or older:

I, ______(your name), wish to participate in the research study described above.

I, ______(your name), do not wish to participate in the research study described above.

Date of Birth ______

Signature of Participant ______Date______

APPENDIX B

Participant Assent Form

University of Dayton - Participant Assent Form

TITLE OF STUDY: The Relationship between a Growth Mindset and Students’ Psychological Well-Being

Who is doing this research? We are inviting you to be a part of a research study led by Kelly Berlin, graduate student at the University of Dayton, and Elana Bernstein, Clinical Faculty at the University of Dayton.

Why should I do this? The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between students’ self-reported growth mindset – the belief that intelligence can be improved through effort – and their overall self- reported psychological well-being. By participating in this research, you will help to develop an understanding of the relationship between growth mindset and psychological well-being, which may help improve instructional decisions and school programming in the future.

What will happen? If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete two surveys. The first survey measures growth mindset and the second survey measures psychological well-being. You will be asked to respond as honestly and completely as possible. You are free to choose not to respond to any questions you are not comfortable answering.

How long will it last? The surveys will be completed during the school day. Completion of both surveys will take approximately 30 minutes combined.

How will you feel? There are minimal risks anticipated for students participating in this study. However, upon completion of the surveys you will be given your school counselor’s contact information if you would like to discuss your responses to the survey questions further.

Will anyone know I’m doing this? Your responses will remain anonymous and no information will be given in the report that would allow anyone to personally identify your responses.

What if I have questions or am worried about something? If you have questions about the study you may contact Kelly Berlin ([email protected]) or

Elana Bernstein ([email protected]) at any time. If you wish to discuss your survey responses further you should contact your school counselor.

Consent to Participate I agree to work with Kelly Berlin and her team on this project. I understand all that is expected of me and promise to do my best. Kelly has answered all my questions. I understand I may stop this activity at any time.

______Participant’s Name DATE

______Participant’s Signature Researcher’s Name