IntroductionThe “growth mindset” refers to the belief that people’s abilities are malleable and can be improved1,2. Although significant resources have been devoted to developing a growth mindset through education and training3, there have been controversies about whether the growth mindset merits such attention4,5,6,7. This research aims to provide additional insights into this debate by investigating the natural effects of mindsets on academic achievement. Specifically, it examines the effects of growth mindset on performance trajectory over four years of college education, explores its effects on performance in specialized (vs. non-specialized) areas of education, and verifies whether the belief in a growth mindset has a linear effect on performance as assumed in the growth mindset literature.The growth mindset is often contrasted with a fixed mindset, which suggests that people are born with certain abilities that cannot be changed. The fixed and growth mindsets are conceptualized as opposite ends of a continuum, ranging from a relatively rigid and immutable view of personal attributes to a dynamic view of change8,9. The growth mindset is built on a model of achievement motivation10,11,12. Its premise is that fundamental beliefs about personal attributes can shape how individuals respond to challenges and setbacks1,2. With the belief that people can change and improve with effort, a growth (vs. fixed) mindset should motivate people to persist in tackling obstacles across different contexts13,14,15. Consistent with this notion, research has shown that a growth mindset could enhance the performance satisfaction and actual performance of at-risk high school students16, facilitate the transition to high school17, raise first-time college enrollment and increase first-year college grade15, and enhance receptiveness toward self-paced learning in college18. The effects of the growth mindset have also been found in other achievement settings, such as confronting prejudice at work19, negotiating with challenging counterparts20, and promoting peace in the midst of conflicts21.Due to its potential positive impact on human capital development, the growth mindset has drawn significant attention. The popularization of the growth mindset coincides with the priority of policymakers worldwide in developing human capital through training and education22. Developing human capital not only increases productivity and economic growth, but also improves social well-being and equality3,23,24. This vision is reflected in the goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which promotes quality education and lifelong learning opportunities. Such an emphasis is not surprising, as educational attainment, an important indicator of human capital development, contributes positively to job performance and provides society with a high-quality labor supply25,26,27,28. Indeed, many global initiatives that aim to develop human capital, such as the Global Insights Initiative (GINI) launched by the World Bank3, have focused on promoting a “growth mindset” among students and educators.Although interventions aiming to promote the growth mindset in educational settings have been implemented around the world (e.g., Chile29, China30, Finland31, Germany32, India14, Indonesia33, Peru34, South Africa35, the Netherlands36, and the US37), there is a vigorous debate about its merits4. Indeed, some researchers have questioned whether growth mindsets have any effect on human capital5,6, whereas others maintain that its effects exist but are heterogeneous; that is, the effects vary in magnitude depending on the social and economic conditions of the intervention settings7. These discussions can help advance science and lead us to reconsider the fundamentals upon which such global psychological interventions are built4,38.The debate regarding growth mindsets tends to focus exclusively on intervention effects. However, intervention effectiveness and robustness are often confounded with other factors, such as the availability of resources38. In this research, we ask a more fundamental question: Do mindsets matter to academic performance in the absence of interventions? Everyone brings a mindset to the table, but there is relatively scant evidence regarding the possible long-term effects of mindsets on developmental trajectories. Studies that examine the effects of mindsets in the absence of interventions tend to capture performance outcomes only at one time point, with a single performance indicator (e.g., a standardized test score)8,30,39. Longitudinal studies that examine performance trajectory often involve interventions and focus on change of a single performance indicator at an aggregate level (e.g., overall GPA) within a relatively short time frame (e.g., two years of junior high school13; two semesters in high school16, first year in college15). Our study examines the effects of growth mindsets throughout an important life stage -- from initial university entrance to program completion and graduation. It also investigates performance outcomes at multiple levels (i.e., individual-level, term-level, and course-level) to assess the robustness of the effects.In this study, we focus on three potential areas where mindsets could exert influence. First, the growth mindset framework posits that belief in the malleability (vs. fixedness) of ability should motivate individuals to take a knowledge mastery approach and to persist. Thus, we examined whether growth mindsets are associated with better overall academic performance and improvements in performance over time as individuals progress across the four years of their university education. Second, the growth mindset framework argues that the effects of mindsets should be more pronounced when facing challenges4. Since taking classes in subject areas outside of (vs. within) one’s expertise specialization would be more challenging, as it involves unfamiliar (vs. familiar) subject areas, we examined the relationship between mindsets and performance in specialized (i.e., major) versus non-specialized (i.e., non-major) areas. Third, the growth mindset and fixed mindset are conceptualized as opposite ends of a continuum8,9. Accordingly, training and interventions based on the growth mindset framework aspire to increase endorsement of beliefs in growth and change, because such beliefs are argued to be more conducive to performance. An implicit tenet in such growth mindset interventions is that there is a linear and positive association of growth mindsets with performance: That is, the stronger the beliefs in a growth mindset, the better the performance outcome would be. Therefore, a typical intervention aims to increase the endorsement of growth and change, such that those who weakly endorse these beliefs would show a relatively stronger endorsement, and those with a priori moderate beliefs would correspondingly shift further along the continuum. This linear assumption is central to the effectiveness of growth mindset interventions, but it has not been verified or challenged empirically. Therefore, we explore the linearity (or non-linearity) of the effect of growth mindsets on performance.In sum, this research investigates the natural effects of mindsets on academic performance at university as measured by: (a) cumulative grade point averages and the trajectory of this performance across terms during the four years, (b) performance in specialized (vs. non-specialized) areas, and (c) whether the strength of belief in a growth mindset has a (non)linear effect on performance. This study consists of 915 students who consented to participate and completed the growth mindset measure1,40 as part of an introductory orientation exercise. The final study includes 6918 student-terms and 33,607 student-courses. The growth mindset measure is scored such that a higher score indicates a stronger belief in change. Each of the four academic years consists of two main terms (Fall and Spring). Performance was assessed in terms of the Final Cumulative Grade Point Average (Final CGA), the Term Grade Point Average (Term GPA), and the course grade.ResultsSummary statistics for the key variables are presented in Supplementary Table 1.Growth mindset and performance over timeAs an initial test, we regressed students’ final CGAs (i.e., upon graduation) on mindset, controlling for gender and intake cohort. Note that the growth mindset was measured and analyzed as a continuous variable. For ease of discussion, we refer to the relatively stronger [and weaker] endorsement of growth mindset as growth ( + 1 SD) [and fixed (-1SD)] mindsets. Overall, as shown in Table 1 and consistent with the canonical growth mindset predictions, students who endorsed stronger growth mindsets did indeed show better performance overall (Final CGA: B = 0.023, SE = 0.013, p = 0.086; Column 1). Furthermore, growth mindset was also positively associated with their performance at the term level (Term GPA: B = 0.023, SE = 0.006, p