HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Br J Educ Psychol. 2018 September ; 88(3): 428–445. doi:10.1111/bjep.12192.

An Online Growth Mindset Intervention in a Sample of Rural

Adolescent Girls
Jeni L. Burnette,
North Carolina State University

V. Michelle Russell,
North Carolina State University
Author Manuscript

Crystal L. Hoyt,
University of Richmond

Kasey Orvidas, and

North Carolina State University

Laura Widman
North Carolina State University

Abstract
Background—Students living in rural areas of the United States exhibit lower levels of
educational attainment than their suburban counterparts. Innovative interventions are needed to
Author Manuscript

close this educational achievement gap.

Aims—We investigated if an online growth mindset intervention could be leveraged to promote

academic outcomes.

Sample—We tested the mindset intervention in a sample of 222 10th grade adolescent girls (M
age=15.2; 38% White, 25% Black, 29% Hispanic) from four rural, low-income high schools in the
Southeastern United States.

Methods—We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy the growth mindset
intervention, relative to a sexual health program. We used random sampling and allocation
procedures to assign girls to either the mindset intervention (n=115) or an attention-matched
control program (n=107). We assessed participants at pretest, immediate posttest, and four-month
follow-up.
Author Manuscript

Results—Relative to the control condition, students assigned to the mindset intervention reported
stronger growth mindsets at immediate posttest and four-month follow-up. Although the
intervention did not have a total effect on academic attitudes or grades, it indirectly increased
motivation to learn, learning efficacy and grades via the shifts in growth mindsets.

Conclusions—Results indicate that this intervention is a promising method to encourage growth

mindsets in rural adolescent girls.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeni Burnette at [email protected].

 Burnette et al. Page 2

Keywords
Author Manuscript

growth mindsets; academic interventions; efficacy; belonging; learning motivation

Growth mindset interventions, which focus on cultivating students’ belief that their general
intellectual ability can improve, can foster academic achievement (Aronson, Fried, & Good,
2002; Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). In the current work, we developed and
tested if a growth mindset intervention could be leveraged to enhance academic outcomes in
a sample of students in a low-income, rural area of the Southeastern U.S. These students
face high inequality in educational outcomes compared to youth from more affluent areas
(Byun, Irvin, & Meece, 2015). There are several contributors to these attainment gaps,
including environmental factors (Khattri, Riley, & Kane, 1997), parental expectations
(Smith, Beaulieu, & Seraphine, 1995), and broader cultural influences (Chenoweth &
Author Manuscript

Galliher, 2004). These barriers likely undermine motivation to learn (Eccles, 2005).
Additionally, students are deterred from continuing their education beyond high school when
they doubt their ability to handle learning challenges and question their sense of belonging
in school. We suggest a growth mindset intervention can offset the belief that to be
successful one must have an innate ability, thereby sparking motivation, efficacy, and sense
of belonging.

Mindset Theory
We anchored our intervention in mindset theory, which differentiates between growth beliefs
and fixed beliefs about human attributes (Dweck, 2008). Students with a growth mindset
believe that intelligence is changeable and that they have the capacity to improve. These
students also view setbacks as opportunities to develop their skills and use feedback as
Author Manuscript

information to progress towards their goals. In contrast, students with a fixed mindset
believe their intelligence is a static trait that cannot be enhanced. When facing challenges,
these students get discouraged, question their ability, and disengage.

Considering the robust link between growth mindsets and effective self-regulatory processes
and goal achievement (Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2013; Dweck,
2008), several researchers investigated if growth mindset interventions could bolster
academic performance (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck,
2007; Paunesku et al., 2015). For example, for students facing negative stereotype-based
expectations of underperformance, such as female students in math, a growth mindset
intervention improved standardized test scores (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003).
Author Manuscript

However, despite mounting research examining the impact of mindsets on academic

performance, we have few clues about their potential to promote more positive learning
attitudes. The current research makes important advances to existing mindset theory
literature by systematically investigating if the benefits of growth mindsets extend to
motivation, learning efficacy and belonging, and by examining these links in a sample of
adolescents attending school in a rural, under-resourced area. A culture of anti-
intellectualism in high-poverty rural communities may undermine students’ desire to learn,
weaken their perceived ability to learn, and make students doubt their sense of school

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 3

belonging. Compared to youth in urban and suburban areas, students in rural areas question
Author Manuscript

the relevance of education because the type of work promoted in their community does not
emphasize the importance of intellectual growth (Kannapel & DeYoung, 1999). However,
growth mindsets can offset the anti-intellectual climate by highlighting that everyone has the
capacity to learn. Growth mindsets can also buffer the effect of poverty on academic
achievement outcomes (Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016).

Building from previous mindset interventions, we developed an online intervention, titled

Project Growing Minds, to promote growth mindsets across domains relevant to adolescent
girls living in high-poverty, rural contexts. The current work had four goals. First, we
examined if we could reliably shift mindsets and if this effect held at a four-month follow-
up. Second, we predicted that growth mindsets would be critical for fostering learning
motivation including intrinsic motivation (e.g., enjoyment), value (e.g., utility of learning),
and persistence (e.g., intentions to pursue education beyond high school). A fundamental
Author Manuscript

predictor of motivation to learn is evaluations of potential for mastery of the subject (Eccles,
2005), and a growth mindset captures these expectations about learning abilities.
Additionally, many correlational and experimental findings support a link between growth
mindsets and positive academic outcomes including valuing learning and being motivated to
learn (Dweck, 2000). And, at least two interventions (Aronson et al., 2002; Blackwell et al.,
2007) have demonstrated the potential for growth mindset interventions to help students
enjoy and be more motivated to engage academically.

Third, we hypothesized that growth mindsets would be critical for learning self-efficacy—
namely a belief in the capacity to learn even if it is challenging (Bandura, 1997). A recent
meta-analysis highlighted the link between growth mindsets and expectations for success in
a series of analyses examining mindsets and self-regulatory processes (Burnette et al., 2013).
Author Manuscript

Additionally, growth mindsets correlated positively with self-efficacy in academics

(Tabernero & Wood, 1999). Students with a fixed mindset tend to view failures as an
indication of a personal deficiency, which erodes their sense of self-efficacy. In contrast,
students with a growth mindset tend to view failure as part of the process, which contributes
to their self-efficacy, even when the work is hard. This is important because learning self-
efficacy is a robust predictor of academic persistence and performance (e.g., Zimmerman,
2000).

Finally, we investigate if our growth mindset intervention could increase a sense of

belonging in school. A recent study in the field of computer science found that, relative to a
control, students in a growth mindset intervention reported significantly greater belonging to
the field (BLINDED). Within computer science, there is a strong culture of brilliance that
Author Manuscript

may undermine belonging. In the current work, there is potentially a culture of anti-
intellectualism that can also undermine belonging, but we expected that cultivating a growth
mindset could offset these potential deleterious effects. Empirical lab-based work supports
this proposition. For example, when asked to think about joining a tutoring club that
advocates either a fixed or a growth mindset of intelligence, people anticipated having a
greater sense of belonging in the growth mindset organization (Murphy & Dweck, 2010).

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 4

In summary, we examine the efficacy of the Project Growing Minds intervention in a

Author Manuscript

randomized controlled trial. We hypothesized that this program would strengthen growth
mindsets of intelligence, would enhance academic attitudes including motivation to learn,
learning efficacy, and school belonging, with implications for grades.

Methods
Procedures
We randomly assigned participants to Project Growing Minds (n=115) or to an attention-
matched control program (n=107). A third-party randomly assigned participants to condition
using random sampling and allocation procedures in SPSS V22 and created randomization
envelopes for each participant. Sealed envelopes included study condition and were labeled
with participant identifiers. At the start of each individual session, research assistants opened
the sealed envelopes to reveal condition.
Author Manuscript

At baseline, approximately 2 weeks prior to the intervention, participants completed a

battery of questionnaires. Immediately following the intervention and at four-month follow-
up, participants again completed the outcome measures. Students in both conditions
completed the online interventions using headphones in a private room with minimal
instruction or interaction from the research assistant. Participants were compensated with
$10 for returning parental consent forms, regardless of whether consent was granted.
Additionally, participants received $10 for the baseline assessment, $30 for the intervention
and immediate posttest assessment, and $10 for the four-month follow-up. The University
Institutional Review Board approved procedures.

Description of Project Growing Minds

Author Manuscript

We created a short, scalable intervention lasting approximately 45 minutes, with all

information delivered via an online web-based platform (see Table 1 for details; http://
www.projectgrowingminds.com). We started with a general introduction and then anchored
the remaining modules within various abilities relevant to adolescent girls: intelligence
mindsets, person mindsets, and self-regulation mindsets. We chose this diverse structure
because it afforded a clear platform for delivering information about mindsets relevant to
success in high school—not just academically but socially as well. In addition, we sought to
anchor key findings in the mindset literature into a framework relevant to student life
without focusing exclusively on learning outcomes in order to minimize demand
characteristics.

The modules, presented in one session, had a consistent four-part structure. First, we taught
Author Manuscript

students about research related to growth mindsets. Second, we delivered the standard
growth mindset message—“you can change your intelligence” typically incorporated into
mindset interventions (e.g., Aronson et al., 2002; Paunesku et al., 2015). Third, we
incorporated a role model, an undergraduate student at one of the state’s flagship
universities, who delivered a tip for success. This tip reiterated the importance of hard work
and of adopting effective learning strategies using growth mindset messages. We included
this component because the use of successful role models can strengthen attitude change

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 5

(Crano & Prislin, 2006). And fourth, at the end of each module students participated in a
Author Manuscript

“saying is believing” exercise used in past interventions to encourages participants to adopt

the growth mindset message (e.g., Burnette & Finkel, 2012).

Description of the Control Program

HEART (Health Education and Relationship Training) was an attention-matched web-based
intervention developed to focus on cultivating sexual communication skills and safer sexual
decision-making among adolescent girls (Widman, Golin, Noar, Massey, & Prinstein, 2016).
HEART included five interactive program modules that, like Project Growing Mindsets,
took approximately 45 minutes to complete. These modules were taught within a sexual
health paradigm that emphasized personal values, positive aspects of sexuality, and the
importance of competent interpersonal skills. Additional details about the development,
acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of HEART can be found elsewhere (BLINDED).
Author Manuscript

Measures
Students completed all questionnaires online, answering questions related to sexual attitudes
and behavior before answering questions related to implicit theories, learning motivation,
efficacy, and belonging. The following measures were answered on a 7-point scale
(1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree).

Mindsets—We used a 3-item intelligence mindset questionnaire that focused on three

fixed-worded items (e.g., “You can learn new things but you can’t really change your
intelligence”; Dweck, 2000). We recoded items such that higher numbers represent stronger
growth mindsets (baseline α=.86, immediate posttest α=.87, follow-up α=.92).

Learning Motivation—Participants completed five items that tapped motivation to learn,

Author Manuscript

including intrinsic motivation (e.g., “I enjoy learning new things at school”; Benningfeld,
2013), value (e.g., “Learning is important to me”; Walton & Cohen, 2007) and persistence
(e.g., “I plan on continuing with my education after high school”). Higher scores represent
greater motivation to learn (baseline α=.82, immediate posttest α=.88, follow-up α=.88).

Learning Efficacy—Participants completed three items that tapped the capacity to learn in
challenging situations (e.g., “I am sure I can do even the hardest work in my classes”; Fast,
et al., 2010). Higher scores represent greater learning efficacy (baseline α=.90, immediate
posttest α=.92, follow-up α=.94).

School Belonging—Participants completed seven items that tapped their sense of

belonging at school (e.g., “I feel like I belong in school”; Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, & Steele,
Author Manuscript

2009; Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012). Higher scores represent greater belonging (baseline
α=.89, immediate posttest α=.92, follow-up α=.95).

Grades—We obtained 183 participants’ grades for courses taken during 9th and 10th grade.
Mean final grades for each year were calculated by averaging participants’ end of quarter
grades for each course.

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 6

Participants
Author Manuscript

We recruited female participants from four rural, low-income high schools in the
southeastern U.S. to participate. We focused on adolescent girls because we partnered with
researchers testing the efficacy of HEART1, a sex education intervention aimed at helping
adolescent girls communicate about safe sex. All 10th grade girls across the four schools
(n=371) were eligible to participate. We used active parental consent and student assent.
Seventy-eight percent of youth returned a parental consent form, and 79% of those parents
granted consent. The final sample included 222 girls (see Figure 1 for flow diagram).

No participants were lost between baseline and immediate follow-up, though 1 participant in
the growth mindset condition did not complete all measures because she ran out of time. At
the four-month follow-up assessment, 95% of participants (n=211) were retained in the
study (92% intervention; 98% control; χ2=4.18, p=.041). Of the 11 girls who did not return
Author Manuscript

for follow-up, 7 were no longer enrolled in the school district (6 intervention, 1 control) and
4 were no longer interested in participating (3 intervention, 1 control). Participants who
completed the study did not differ from participants who dropped out on race (χ2=3.94, p=.
268), pretest mindsets [t(220)=−0.60, p=.549], pretest learning motivation [t(220)= −0.05,
p=.961], or pretest learning efficacy [t(219)=0.55, p=.585]. However, the groups did differ in
their pretest reports of belonging [t(219)=2.43, p=.016] such that individuals who dropped
out of the study reported less belonging (M=3.38) than did those who remained (M=4.34).
Considering the majority of students who did not return at follow-up were no longer
enrolled, it is perhaps not that surprising that they felt less connected to school.

Results
Descriptives and pretest differences
Author Manuscript

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and correlations between variables. At pretest, students
in the intervention did not significantly differ from students in the control condition on any
relevant assessments, including race (χ2=1.13, p=.769), previous year’s final grade averages
[β=0.84, SE=1.08, t(177)=0.78, p=.438; Mintervention=83.23, SDintervention=7.52,
Mcontrol=82.39, SDcontrol=7.19], growth mindsets of intelligence [β=0.30, SE=0.19,
t(217)=1.64, p=.102; Mintervention=4.66, SDinteverntion=1.37, Mcontrol=4.35, SDcontrol=1.39],
learning motivation [β= −0.15, SE=0.13, t(217)= −1.22, p=.225; Mintervention=5.75,
SDintervention=1.04, Mcontrol=5.90, SDcontrol= 0.84], learning efficacy [β= −0.02, SE=0.18,
t(216)= −0.10, p=.925; Mintervention=5.24, SDintervention=1.39, Mcontrol=5.25,
SDcontrol=1.24], or school belonging [β= −0.14, SE=0.17, t(216)= −0.81, p=.420;
Mintervention=4.18, SDintervention=1.32, Mcontrol=4.32, SDcontrol=1.26]. These findings
support the efficacy of randomization.
Author Manuscript

Effects of the intervention at posttest

We used HLM 7.01 (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2013) to estimate two-level models
predicting our outcomes of interest (growth mindsets, learning motivation, learning efficacy,

1These efforts coordinated with a randomized controlled trial (clinical trial registration number NCT02579135) targeting sex
communication related to girls.

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 7

school belonging, and grades) in which we included a randomly varying intercept and
Author Manuscript

controlled for the interdependence of students within each school in the second level of the
model. Deviance tests conducted for the reported models indicated no other random effects
were necessary for any of the models.

Mindsets—To examine the effects of our intervention on students’ growth mindsets at

posttest, we estimated a two-level model in which growth mindsets at posttest were
regressed on a dummy-coded variable (growth mindset condition=1, control condition=0) in
the first level of the model, and the second level of the model controlled for the
interdependence of students’ data. Supporting our hypothesis, condition significantly
predicted growth mindset [β=.76, SE=0.19, t(214)=3.94, p<.001, r=.26], with girls in the
growth mindset condition reporting stronger growth mindsets (M=5.22, SD=1.40, 12.02%
increase from pretest) than girls in the control (M=4.46, SD=1.53, 2.53% increase from
pretest). Notably, this effect holds when controlling for pretest mindsets [β=0.59, SE=.16,
Author Manuscript

t(213)=3.67, p<.001, r=.24].

Academic attitudes—Second, we examined the effects of the intervention on academic

attitudes at posttest by estimating three separate two-level models in which the relevant
dependent variable was regressed onto our dummy-coded condition variable in the first level
of the model, controlling for the interdependence of students’ data in the second level.
Analyses revealed no significant total effect of condition on learning motivation [β= −0.13,
SE=−0.13, t(215)= −1.02, p=.309, r=.07, Mintervention=5.82 (1.22% increase from pretest),
SDintervention=1.07, Mcontrol=5.95 (0.85% increase from pretest), SDcontrol=0.86], learning
efficacy [β=0.04, SE=0.17, t(215)=0.21, p=.834, r=.01, Mintervention=5.56 (6.11% increase
from pretest), SDintervention=1.30, Mcontrol=5.53 (5.33% increase from pretest),
SDcontrol=1.26], or school belonging [β= −0.18, SE=0.17, t(217)= −1.02, p=.308, r=.07,
Author Manuscript

Mintervention=4.59 (9.81% increase from pretest), SDintervention=1.35, Mcontrol=4.77 (9.43%

increase from pretest), SDcontrol=1.27]. All effects remain non-significant when controlling
for pretest assessments [i.e., motivation: β= −0.02, SE=0.09, t(214)= −0.27, p=.790, r=.02;
efficacy: β=0.04, SE=0.13, t(213)=0.31, p=.759, r=.02; belonging: β= −0.06, SE=0.10,
t(215)= −0.64, p=.526, r=.04].

Mediation—Despite the lack of total effect, in line with best practices for theory
development (Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, & Petty, 2011), we examined if effects are driven
by the significant shift in mindsets. For example, previous research within a weight
management context suggests that the benefits of the intervention for avoiding weight gain
in the wake of severe setbacks was driven by stronger growth mindsets (Burnette & Finkel,
2012). The decision to examine indirect effects aligns with prevailing views suggesting that
Author Manuscript

the focus of mediation analyses should be on assessing the magnitude and significance of
indirect effects (Hayes, 2009; Rucker, et al., 2011; Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). Thus, we
next examined whether growth mindsets mediated the association between condition and
academic attitude outcomes. We estimated three separate two-level models in which the
dependent variable was regressed onto growth mindsets at posttest, controlling for our
dummy-coded condition variable in the first level of the model, and controlling for the
interdependence of the data in the second level.

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 8

First, we tested the association between growth mindsets at posttest and learning motivation
Author Manuscript

at posttest. Consistent with predictions, growth mindsets significantly predicted posttest

learning motivation [β=0.17, SE=0.04, t(213)=3.92, p<.001]. We followed Tofighi and
MacKinnon’s (2011) recommendation for computing 95% confidence intervals and
submitted the two components of the indirect effect, path a and path b, to the RMediation
program. The mediated effect was significant, 95% CI: [0.05, 0.23]. Once again, this effect
remains when controlling for pretest mindsets and pretest motivation, β=0.08, SE=0.04,
t(211)=2.34, p=.020, 95% CI: [0.01, 0.11]. With growth mindsets in the model, the effect of
condition on posttest motivation (i.e., the direct effect) was significant, β= −0.27, SE=0.13,
t(213)= −2.09, p=.038.

Second, we tested the association between growth mindsets at posttest and learning efficacy
at posttest. Again consistent with our prediction, growth mindsets significantly predicted
posttest learning efficacy, β=0.27, SE=0.06, t(213)=4.74, p<.001. Confidence intervals
Author Manuscript

computed using RMediation indicated that the mediated effect was significant, 95% CI:
[0.09, 0.35]. Once again, this effect remains when controlling for pretest mindsets and
pretest efficacy, β=0.13, SE=0.05, t(210)=2.50, p=.013, 95% CI: [0.01, 0.16]. The direct
effect of condition on posttest efficacy was not significant, β= −0.18, SE=0.17, t(213)=
−1.05, p=.294.

Finally, we tested the association between growth mindsets at posttest and school belonging
at posttest. Contrary to predictions, growth mindsets at posttest were not associated with
school belonging at posttest, β=0.04, SE=0.06, t(213)=0.61, p=.541. The effect was
unchanged when controlling for pretest mindsets and pretest belonging, β=0.04, SE=0.04,
t(210)=0.85, p=.397.
Author Manuscript

Effects of the intervention at four-month follow-up

To examine whether the effects of the intervention lasted beyond the immediate posttest, we
repeated the previous analyses using students’ reports of growth mindsets, learning
motivation, learning efficacy, and school belonging four months after the intervention.

Mindsets—Condition significantly predicted growth mindsets at the four-month follow-up,

β=0.43, SE=0.21, t(206)=2.03, p=.044, r=.14, such that girls in the intervention condition
(M=4.91, SD=1.49, 5.36% increase from pretest) reported stronger growth mindsets than did
girls in the control condition (M=4.48, SD=1.61, 2.99% increase from pretest).

Academic attitudes—Consistent with the pattern of results for posttest learning

motivation, learning efficacy, and school belonging, condition did not predict learning
Author Manuscript

motivation at follow-up [β= −0.08, SE=0.15, t(206)= −0.50, p=.618, r=.03;

Mintervention=5.61 (2.43% decrease from pretest), SDintervention=1.24, Mcontrol=5.68 (3.73%
decrease from pretest), SDcontrol=1.05], learning efficacy at follow-up [β=0.04, SE=0.20,
t(206)=0.18, p=.855, r=.01; Mintervention=5.36 (2.29% increase from pretest),
SDintervention=1.52, Mcontrol=5.33 (1.52% increase from pretest), SDcontrol=1.36], or school
belonging [β=0.23, SE=0.21, t(206)=1.10, p=.273, r=.08; Mintervention=4.87 (16.51%
increase from pretest), SDintervention=1.47, Mcontrol=4.63 (7.18% increase from pretest),
SDcontrol=1.64].

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 9

Mediation—Next, we examined whether growth mindsets at the four-month follow-up

Author Manuscript

mediated the association between condition and learning motivation, learning efficacy, and
school belonging. To determine the b-path of our mediation models, we estimated three
separate two-level models in which the dependent variable was regressed onto growth
mindsets at follow-up, controlling for our dummy-coded condition variable in the first level
of the model, and controlling for the interdependence of the data in the second level.

First, growth mindsets at follow-up significantly predicted follow-up learning motivation,

controlling for condition, β=0.14, SE=0.05, t(205)=2.78, p=.006. Confidence intervals
computed using RMediation indicated that the mediated effect was significant, 95% CI:
[0.01, 0.14]. With follow-up growth mindsets in the model, the association between
condition and follow-up learning motivation (i.e., the direct effect) was not significant, β=
−0.14, SE=0.15, t(205)= −0.88, p=.379.
Author Manuscript

Second, growth mindsets significantly predicted follow-up learning efficacy, controlling for
condition, β=0.15, SE=0.06, t(205)=2.42, p=.017. Confidence intervals computed using
RMediation indicated that the mediated effect was significant, 95% CI: [0.004, 0.15]. The
direct effect of condition on follow-up learning efficacy was not significant, β= −0.03,
SE=0.20, t(205)= −0.15, p=.884.

Finally, growth mindsets did not significantly predict follow-up school belonging,
controlling for condition, β= −0.06, SE=0.07, t(205)= −0.89, p=.377.

Grades
We examined the total effect of the intervention on grades by estimating a two-level model
in which the average of participants’ course grades was regressed onto our dummy-coded
Author Manuscript

condition variable in the first level of the model, controlling for the interdependence of
students’ data in the second level. Analyses revealed no significant total effect of condition
on participants’ final 10th grade average [β=0.64, SE=1.35, t(179)=0.47, p=.637, r=.04;
Mintervention=81.36, SDintervention=10.27, Mcontrol=80.72, SDcontrol=7.85].

We next examined if growth mindsets mediated the effect of the intervention condition on
grades. First, we tested the association between intervention condition and the average of
participants’ reports of growth mindsets across the semester (i.e., at posttest and the four-
month follow-up). Intervention condition significantly predicted the averaged growth
mindsets, β=0.64, SE=0.18, t(217)=3.61, p<.001. Second, growth mindsets significantly
predicted final 10th grade average, controlling for condition, β=2.53, SE=0.47, t(178)=5.36,
p<.001. Finally, we computed 95% confidence intervals and submitted the two components
of the indirect effect to the RMediation program. Confidence intervals indicated that the
Author Manuscript

mediated effect was significant, 95% CI: [0.66, 2.79]. The direct effect of condition on
grades was not significant, β= −0.60, SE=1.28, t(178)= −0.47, p=.642.

Discussion
The educational attainment gap for youth from impoverished, rural communities–both in
terms of proficiency and persistence–requires ongoing, innovative approaches to promoting

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 10

not only academic performance but also more positive academic attitudes. To address this
Author Manuscript

issue, we evaluated the efficacy of a brief, scalable, web-based intervention that focused on
developing growth mindsets. Overall, we found that girls who completed the mindset
intervention reported stronger growth mindsets compared to girls in a matched control
program and this effect held at the four-month follow-up. Students in the growth mindset,
relative to control condition, also indirectly reported greater learning motivation and efficacy
as well as higher end of semester grades. Contrary to predictions, we see no effects of
growth mindsets on belonging. However, both motivation and efficacy are correlated with
this outcome. Although it is promising that we found immediate and follow-up changes in
growth mindsets four months after the intervention, it is important to note that for learning
attitude outcomes and final grades, we only see an indirect effect via this shift in mindsets.

The lack of total effects of the intervention on academic attitudes and final grades is contrary
to much of existing literature. Indeed, larger high-powered studies typically find not only a
Author Manuscript

change in mindsets but also improved academic outcomes. For example, Paunesku and
colleagues (2015), in a sample of nearly 1600 students, found that growth mindset
interventions can be leveraged to enhance GPAs–especially for students at risk of dropping
out. And, using multiple samples of underrepresented students transitioning to college,
Yeager and colleagues (2016a), found that growth mindset interventions, relative to the
controls, improved enrollment rates and grades, helping to reduce achievement gaps.
However, despite many successful interventions, some work has failed to find results.
Whereas some of the studies with null results are underpowered (e.g., Donohoe, Topping, &
Hannah, 2012; 33 students total), other work may lack sufficient strength to shift mindsets—
that is, these studies may not include key ingredients for successful implementation (e.g., a
letter stapled to an exam, Bostwick, 2015). The majority of these interventions focus on
academic achievement and thus it is hard to make direct comparisons in terms of the lack of
Author Manuscript

total effect on academic attitudes in the current work. One might expect stronger effects on
psychological processes than on academic performance, making it especially surprising that
we failed to see such an effect.

In addition to not being as highly powered as some of the more recent large-scale
interventions (e.g., Paunesku et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2016a), we elaborate on two
potential explanations for the lack of total effects on learning attitudes and final grades.
First, is the sample we targeted. We worked with adolescent girls who had already
transitioned to high school and thus were not facing an identifiable ego-threat—“any event
or communication having unfavorable implications about the self” (Baumeister, Heatherton,
& Tice, 1993, p. 143). A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that the links between mindsets
and self-regulation were strongest in the presence of an ego-threat (Burnette et al., 2013).
Author Manuscript

That is, mindsets matter most in predicting psychological processes when challenges or
transitions arise. Thus, it might be that the intervention would be more successful as students
transition to high school.

Second, the approach to shifting mindsets may not have been strong enough to also shift
academic attitudes and grades. For example, a revised growth mindset intervention which
included quotes from celebrities, tailored information relevant to high-school students, the
use of bullet points rather than paragraphs and more (see Yeager et al., 2016b for full

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 11

details), outperformed more standard growth mindset interventions that focus on the
Author Manuscript

malleable message combined with a saying is believing exercise. Although we included

more information about why mindsets matter, and tips from role-models, we developed the
intervention prior to the publication detailing important components that can enhance
mindset interventions (Yeager et al., 2016a). Additionally, because we targeted multiple
mindsets (i.e., intelligence, person, self-regulation), we had limited content related to
mindsets of intelligence. Thus, added material may be necessary to enhance the potency of
the mindset intervention. An important line of future inquiry will be to articulate when and
for whom growth mindset interventions are most effective and to gain a better understanding
of which components of mindset interventions are critical.

Despite the lack of total effect, we see a shift in mindsets that lasted up to four months using
a stringent test controlling for pre-existing mindsets. There is a long line of work supporting
the importance of these growth mindsets for a number of outcomes related to academic
Author Manuscript

success including setting goals focused on learning, using mastery-oriented strategies to

reach these goals and remaining optimistic about the potential for success despite setbacks
(see Burnette et al., 2013 for a review). And, in the current work growth mindsets predicted
learning efficacy and motivation at immediate post-test and at follow-up—all of these
outcomes correlated with higher final grades, indicating the potential of fostering a stronger
belief in the malleable nature of intelligence.

Applications
Taking diverse theoretical and methodological approaches, scholars have illuminated the
critical role of growth mindsets in helping students reach their academic potential (Martin,
2015; Dweck, 2015). This is the first mindset intervention, to our knowledge, to focus on
promoting a growth mindset and positive academic outcomes in adolescent girls from rural,
Author Manuscript

impoverished communities. Students from such backgrounds face many structural inequities
stemming from economic disparities. These disadvantages can lead to poor academic
outcomes in part through their impact on psychological mindsets (Claro et al., 2016). Our
results suggest that endeavors to promote growth mindsets may help buffer students from the
disadvantages they face. Importantly, these efforts should be made hand in hand with, not as
a replacement for, those focused on dismantling systemic inequalities.

Furthermore, a better understanding of how growth mindsets affect academic development

requires us to examine not only students’ mindsets but also beliefs at the environmental or
contextual level. Individual-level interventions would likely be bolstered by cultures that
advocate student growth including teachers who themselves believe that their students have
growth potential. In addition, the online, low-cost methods incorporated here allow for
Author Manuscript

integration with other existing working models. For example, a recent systematic review of
meta-analyses in higher education suggests that there are instructional changes that might
help bolster the impact of a growth mindset such as relating information to students,
presenting information clearly, and generally creating a meaningful learning environment
(Schneider & Preckel, 2017). Furthermore, the systematic review suggests that the strongest
student predictors of academic achievement are effortful regulation, self-efficacy, and

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 12

commitment to learning—all variables with robust links to growth mindsets, highlighting the
Author Manuscript

potential value of growth mindset interventions.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study has notable strengths, including the randomized trial design and use of a
scalable online platform, there are limitations that future work should address. First, any
multifaceted intervention like this one leaves ambiguity about which component(s) drove the
effect. For example, is a role model delivering a growth mindset-related tip critical for
shifting mindsets? Alternatively, what role did the breadth of focus on mindsets play? We
sought to leverage growth mindsets to enhance academic attitudes and thus did not design
the intervention to test the question of what is required to reliably shift mindsets. Second,
although we sought to limit demand characteristics, it is still possible that students in the
intervention condition intuited that we wanted to enhance their academic attitudes.
Author Manuscript

Expectations are a potential concern in most interventions where it is difficult to design a

comparable condition that entails equivalent frequency of contact, similar delivery
mechanism, and credible content without overlapping information (Wechsler et al., 2011).
Third, educational interventions are prone to contamination because the “active” ingredients,
in this case, a growth mindset message, can be difficult to confine to just students in the
intervention condition. Thus, students could have spoken to each other about the information
they received. Such contamination is difficult to discern and can reduce effect size estimates,
introduce bias, and decrease power (Keogh-Brown, et al., 2007).

Fourth, despite statistical evidence of significant indirect effects, it is important to remember

that, “this does not mean that the hypothetical mediator is causally effective” (Fiedler Schott,
& Meiser, 2011, p. 1235). Although we identified a shift in mindsets as an important
potential intervening variable to enhance learning attitudes and improve grades, we cannot
Author Manuscript

conclude that this is the ultimate or most important mediator. Future work should continue to
elaborate on how mindset interventions work. Recent work by Miller and colleagues (Miller,
Dannals, & Zlatev, 2017), noted the importance of focusing on and assessing not only
psychological processes (i.e., attitude change) but also behavioral changes using long-lag
interventions. For example, in growth mindset intervention work, a shift towards stronger
growth mindsets may lead to more interest and efficacy regarding learning which then
fosters more effective learning strategies such as time spent studying and/or seeking help
from others (Yeager et al., 2016b). Future work seeking to identify such processes can
address two limitations in the current work—namely, the lack of causal evidence for the
mediation model and the focus on attitudes, rather than behaviors.

The potential limitations of the current work open a number of avenues for future inquiry.
Author Manuscript

Additional research is required to determine which elements are necessary and which are
sufficient for shifting mindsets and what approaches have the strongest and most enduring
effects. For example, focusing exclusively on intelligence mindsets, using boosters, using
specific strategies and examples relevant to adolescents and enhancing the interactive nature
of the webpage could all lead to stronger effects. On a related note, future work should seek
to establish a standard of care—that is, which ingredients are key to fostering not only
stronger growth mindsets but also positive academic outcomes? Furthermore, intervention

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 13

work should start to focus on not only the psychological processes driving effects of mindset
Author Manuscript

interventions but also the behavioral changes.

Conclusions
In this work, we developed a growth mindset intervention to promote positive academic
outcomes in students living in impoverished, rural areas. This intervention led to stronger
growth mindsets immediately and four months later. In turn, these mindsets predicted more
positive academic attitudes including learning motivation and learning efficacy and
correlated with higher final grades as well. Growth mindset interventions offer a promising
approach, combined with other effective techniques, to counteracting the disadvantages
faced by students living in high-poverty, rural areas, helping students achieve their academic
potential.
Author Manuscript

Acknowledgments
This project was supported by NIH grant R00 HD075654 and by funding from the NC State College of Humanities
and Social Sciences Research Office. Web design and programming technical assistance for the HEART control
program was provided by a grant from NIH (DK056350) to the University of North Carolina Nutrition Obesity
Research Center and from NCI (P30-CA16086) to Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center.

References
Aronson J, Fried CB, Good C. 2002; Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American
college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
38:113–125.
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy the exercise of control. New York, NY: Maxmillan; 1997.
Baumeister RF, Heatherton TF, Tice DM. 1993; When ego threats lead to self-regulation failure:
Negative consequences of high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64:141–
Author Manuscript

156. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.141 [PubMed: 8421250]

Benningfield, S. Unpublished master’s thesis. Western Kentucky University; Bowling Green,
Kentucky: 2013. The effects of gender and implicit theories on science achievement and interest in
elementary-aged students.
Blackwell LS, Trzesniewski KH, Dweck CS. 2007; Implicit theories of intelligence predict
achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child
Development. 78:246–263. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x [PubMed: 17328703]
Bostwick, KC. Unpublished master’s thesis. Oregon State University; Corvallis: 2015. The
effectiveness of a malleable mindset intervention in an introductory psychology course.
Burnette JL. 2010; Implicit theories of body weight: Entity beliefs can weigh you down. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin. 36:410–422. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.020 [PubMed:
20179317]
Burnette JL, Finkel EJ. 2012; Buffering against weight gain following dieting setbacks: An implicit
theory intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48:721–725. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.
Author Manuscript

2011.12.020
Burnette JL, O’boyle EH, VanEpps EM, Pollack JM, Finkel EJ. 2013; Mindsets matter: A meta-
analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin. 139:655–701. DOI:
10.1037/a0029531 [PubMed: 22866678]
Byun SY, Irvin MJ, Meece JL. 2015; Rural–nonrural differences in college attendance patterns.
Peabody Journal of Education. 90:263–279. DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2015.1022384 [PubMed:
25983357]

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 14

Chenoweth E, Galliher RV. 2004; Factors influencing college aspirations of rural West Virginia high
school students. Journal of Research in Rural Education. 19:1–14. DOI:
Author Manuscript

10.1177/089484530731125.2
Cheryan S, Plaut VC, Davies PG, Steele CM. 2009; Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues
impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
97:1045–1060. DOI: 10.1037/a0016239 [PubMed: 19968418]
Claro S, Paunesku D, Dweck CS. 2016; Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic
achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113:8664–8668. DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1608207113
Crano WD, Prislin R. 2006; Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology. 57:345–374.
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190034
Donohoe C, Topping K, Hannah E. 2012; The impact of an online intervention (Brainology) on the
mindset and resiliency of secondary school pupils: A preliminary mixed methods study.
Educational Psychology. 32:641–655. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2012.675646
Dweck, CS. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA:
Taylor and Francis Group Psychology Press; 2000.
Author Manuscript

Dweck, CS. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House Digital, Inc;
2008.
Dweck CS. 2015; Growth. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 85:242–245. DOI: 10.1111/bjep.
12072 [PubMed: 25973689]
Eccles JS. 2005; Studying the development of learning and task motivation. Learning and Instruction.
15:161–171. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.012
Fast LA, Lewis JL, Bryant Mi J, Bocian K, Cardullo A, Richard A, Rettig M, Hammond KA. 2010;
Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment on standardized
math test performance? Journal of Educational Psychology. 102:729–740. DOI: 10.1037/a0018863
Fiedler K, Schott M, Meiser T. 2011; What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology. 47(6):1231–1236. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007
Good C, Aronson J, Inzlicht M. 2003; Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An
intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Applied Developmental Psychology.
24:645–662. DOI: 10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002
Author Manuscript

Good C, Rattan A, Dweck CS. 2012; Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s
representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 102:700.doi:
10.1037/a0026659 [PubMed: 22288527]
Hayes AF. 2009; Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium.
Communication Monographs. 76:408–420. DOI: 10.1080/03637750903310360
Kannapel PJ, DeYoung AJ. 1999; The rural school problem in 1999: A review and critique of the
literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education. 15:67–79.
Keogh-Brown MR, Bachmann MO, Shepstone L, Hewitt C, Howe A, Ramsay CR, Song F, Miles JNV,
Togerson DJ, Miles S, Elbourne DR, Harvey I, Campbell MJ. 2007; Contamination in trials of
educational interventions. Health Technology Assessment. 11(43):1–127.
Khattri N, Riley KW, Kane MB. 1997; Students at risk in poor, rural areas: A review of the research.
Journal of Research in Rural Education. 13:79–100.
Martin AJ. 2015; Implicit theories about intelligence and growth (personal best) goals: Exploring
reciprocal relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 85:207–223. DOI: 10.1111/
bjep.12038 [PubMed: 24904989]
Author Manuscript

Miller DT, Dannals JE, Zlatev JJ. 2017; Behavioral processes in long-lag intervention studies.
Perspectives on Psychological Science. 12(3):454–467. DOI: 10.1177/1745691616681645
[PubMed: 28544860]
Murphy MC, Dweck CS. 2010; A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s
cognition, affect, and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 36:283–296. DOI:
10.1177/0146167209347380 [PubMed: 19826076]
Paunesku D, Walton GM, Romero C, Smith EN, Yeager DS, Dweck CS. 2015; Mind-set interventions
are a scalable treatment for academic under-achievement. Psychological Science. 26:784–793.
DOI: 10.1177/0956797615571017 [PubMed: 25862544]

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 15

Raudenbush, SW, Bryk, AS, Congdon, R. HLM 7.01 for Windows [Computer software]. Skokie, IL:
Scientific Software International, Inc; 2013.
Author Manuscript

Rucker DD, Preacher KJ, Tormala ZL, Petty RE. 2011; Mediation analysis in social psychology:
Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 5:359–
371. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x
Schneider, M; Preckel, F. Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic
review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin. 2017.
Smith MH, Beaulieu LJ, Seraphine A. 1995; Social capital, place of residence, and college attendance.
Rural Sociology. 60:363–380. DOI: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1995.tb00578.x
Tabernero C, Wood RE. 1999; Implicit theories versus the social construal of ability in self-regulation
and performance on a complex task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
78:104–127. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2829 [PubMed: 10329297]
Tofighi D, MacKinnon DP. 2011; RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence
intervals. Behavior Research Methods. 43:692–700. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x [PubMed:
21487904]
Walton GM, Cohen GL. 2007; A question of belonging: race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of
Author Manuscript

Personality and Social Psychology. 92:82–96. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82 [PubMed:

17201544]
Wechsler ME, Kelley JM, Boyd IO, Dutile S, Marigowda G, Kirsch I, Israel E, Kaptchuk TJ. 2011;
Active albuterol or placebo, sham acupuncture, or no intervention in asthma. New England Journal
of Medicine. 365:119–126. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103319 [PubMed: 21751905]
Widman L, Golin CE, Noar SM, Massey J, Prinstein MJ. 2016; Development of a web-based
HIV/STD prevention program for adolescent girls emphasizing sexual communication skills.
AIDS Education and Prevention. 28:365–377. DOI: 10.1521/aeap.2016.28.5.365 [PubMed:
27710087]
Yeager DS, Romero C, Paunesku D, Hulleman CS, Schneider B, Hinojosa C, Lee HY, O’Brien J, Flint
K, Roberts A, Trott J, Greene D, Walton GM, Dweck CS. 2016a; Using design thinking to
improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the transition to high
school. Journal of Educational Psychology. 108:374–391. [PubMed: 27524832]
Yeager DS, Walton GM, Brady ST, Akcinar EN, Paunesku D, Keane L, Kamentz D, Ritter G,
Duckworth AL, Urstein R, Gomez EM. 2016b; Teaching a lay theory before college narrows
Author Manuscript

achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113:E3341–E3348.

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1524360113
Zhao X, Lynch JG Jr, Chen Q. 2010; Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research. 37:197–206. DOI: 10.1086/651257
Zimmerman BJ. 2000; Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology. 25:82–91. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016 [PubMed: 10620383]
Author Manuscript

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Burnette et al. Page 16
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Study recruitment flow chart
Author Manuscript

Note: From immediate post-test to follow-up in the growth mindset condition, we added
back in the one student who did not have time to complete post-test. Thus, we have 115-9,
which equals 106 at follow-up.
Author Manuscript

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1

Project Growing Minds Module Descriptions

Module Content Goal Example Information

Module 1:General Introduction to Part I: Definitions of mindsets Teach about what mindsets are Define each type of mindset—both fixed and growth
Burnette et al.

Mindsets and examples

Part II: Standard message Intelligence can change Intelligence can change as your brain grows!
about changeable nature of
attribute

Part III: Student Tip Reiterate strategies associated with growth I take plenty of time to get my work done, often longer than my peers
mindsets (continues with a message related to effort not equating to ability).

Part IV: Activity Get students to think about their own What is your own mindset? Do you think that some people are just
mindsets talented in school whereas others are not?

Module 2:Intelligence Mindsets Part I: Definitions of mindsets Teach about when mindsets matter After they face a challenge, students with a growth mindset look at the
and examples challenge as a chance to grow, an opportunity to learn.

Part II: Standard message Intelligence can change With effort, you can train your brain to get smarter.
about changeable nature of
attribute

Part III: Student Tip Reiterate strategies associated with growth Next time you are stuck on a concept, try using a new strategy and ask
mindsets for help.

Part IV: Activity Get students to think about their own Describe in your own words why a growth mindset can help you in
mindsets school.

Module 3:Self-Control Mindsets Part I: Definitions of self- Teach students that self-control, like The great news is that self-control can be increased.
control and changeable intelligence, can change and grow
message

Part II: Marshmallow Video Use video from a study to teach about self- We have more potential for regulating how our lives play out than has
control been typically recognized.

Part II: Student Tip Changing self-control using growth mindset- We can change our situations to make it easier to show self-control.
oriented strategies

Part IV: Activity Get students to think about their own What is the main obstacle that might prevent you from accomplishing

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

mindsets related to self-control what you want?

Module 4: Person Mindsets Part I: Definitions of person Teach about what person mindsets are Beyond intelligence, grit, and self-control, people have the potential to
theories change their personal characteristics. That is, people can change their
personalities, thoughts, and feelings.

Part II: Building social Social skills and social confidence can Everyone can work on developing stronger social skills to develop
confidence change meaningful friendships and have more fulfilling relationships.

Part III: Student Tip Explain strategies associated with growth Look at social situations as challenges, even if you’re anxious, make an
mindsets and social skills effort to meet new people.

Part IV: Activity Get students to think about their own What is an important wish, related to friendships or relationships, that
mindsets related to social skills you want to accomplish in the next 6 months?
Page 17
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations between Variables.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Condition -- -- --
Burnette et al.

2. Pretest mindsets 4.50 1.39 .11 --

3. Posttest mindsets 4.69 1.51 .26** .58** --
4. Follow-up mindsets 4.70 1.56 .14* .42** .57** --
5. Pretest motivation 5.77 0.95 −.08 .19** .19** .10 --
6. Posttest motivation 5.85 0.97 −.07 .16* .23** .09 .75** --
7. Follow-up motivation 5.55 1.15 −.03 .18** .22** .20** .62** .65** --
8. Pretest efficacy 5.24 1.32 −.01 .16** .20** .10 .62** .55** .48** --
9. Posttest efficacy 5.50 1.27 .02 .23** .30** .15* .50** .74** .52** .68** --
10. Follow-up efficacy 5.29 1.44 .01 .24** .20** .17* .56** .60** .80** .59** .58** --
11. Pretest belonging 4.29 1.29 −.04 −.01 .01 −.13 .42** .40** .40** .41** .38** .40** --
12. Posttest belonging 4.58 1.31 −.06 .04 .05 −.06 .33** .45** .39** .36** .45** .44** .82** --
13. Follow-up belonging 4.70 1.56 .08 .10 .02 −.04 .35** .40** .50** .36** .35** .54** .66** .73** --
14. 10th grade final average 81.04 9.12 .04 .29** .31** .36** .30** .34** .40** .29** .38** .43** .14 .24** .30** --

Br J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 September 01.

Page 18