In decision theory and general systems theory, a mindset is a set of assumptions, methods, or notations held by one or more people or groups of people.[citation needed]

A mindset can also be seen as incident of a person's world view or philosophy of life.[citation needed]

A mindset may be so firmly established that it creates a powerful incentive within these people or groups to continue to adopt or accept prior behaviors, choices, or tools.[citation needed] The latter phenomenon is also sometimes described as mental inertia, "groupthink", and it is often difficult to counteract its effects upon analysis and decision making processes.

In cognitive psychology, a mindset represents the cognitive processes activated in response to a given task (French, 2016).

History (Academic)Edit

It would appear that some of the earliest empirical explorations of mindset originated in the early 1900s (Gollwitzer 1990, 2012). These studies are identified as foundational to and precursory for the study of cognition (Gollwitzer 1990, 2012). The attention to mindset within the study of cognitive psychology has continued relatively unabated. In addition to the field of cognitive psychology, the use of mindset is evident within the social sciences and several other fields (e.g., positive psychology). A characteristic of this area of study, in all its various manifestations, is the fragment use of mindset throughout the academy (e.g. French, 2016).

In politicsEdit

A well-known[by whom?] example is the "Cold War mindset" prevalent in both the U.S. and USSR, which included absolute trust in two-player game theory, in the integrity of command chain, in control of nuclear materials, and in the mutual assured destruction of both in the case of war.[citation needed] Although most consider that this mindset usefully served to prevent an attack by either country, the assumptions underlying deterrence theory have made assessments of the efficacy of the Cold War mindset a matter of some controversy.

Most theorists consider that the key responsibility of an embedded power group is to challenge the assumptions that comprise the group's own mindset.[citation needed] According to these commentators, power groups that fail to review or revise their mindsets with sufficient regularity cannot hold power indefinitely, as a single mindset is unlikely to possess the flexibility and adaptability needed to address all future events. For example, the variations in mindset between Democratic Party and Republican Party Presidents in the U.S. may have made that country more able to challenge assumptions than the Kremlin with its more static bureaucracy.

Modern military theory attempts to challenge entrenched mindsets in dealing with asymmetric warfare, terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In combination, these threats represent "a revolution in military affairs" and require very rapid adaptation to new threats and circumstances. In this context, the cost of not implementing adaptive mindsets cannot be afforded.

In system thinkingEdit

Building on Magoroh Maruyama's concept of Mindscape,[1][2] Mindset Theory includes cultural and social orientation type values: Hierarchical Individualism (HI), Egalitarian Individualism (EI), Hierarchical Collectivism (HC), Egalitarian Collectivism (EC), Hierarchic Synergism (HS), Egalitarian Synergism (ES), Hierarchical Populism (HP), and Egalitarian Populism (EP).[3]

CollectiveEdit

Naturally, the question regarding the embodiment of a collective mindset comes to mind. Erikson's (1974) analysis of group-identities and what he calls a life-plan seems relevant here. He recounts the example of American Indians, who were meant to undergo a reeducation process meant to imbue a modern "life-plan" that aimed for a house and a richness expressed by a filled bank account. Erikson writes that the Indians' collective historic identity as buffalo hunters was oriented around such fundamentally different reasons/goals that even communication about the divergent "life plans" was itself difficult.

There is a double relation between the institution embodying for example an entrepreneurial mindset and its entrepreneurial performance. Firstly, an institution with an entrepreneurial philosophy will set entrepreneurial goals and strategies as a whole, but maybe even more importantly, it will foster an entrepreneurial milieu, allowing each entity to pursue emergent opportunities. In short, philosophical stance codified in the mind, hence as mindset, lead to a climate that in turn causes values that lead to practice.

Collective mindsets in this sense are described in such works as Hutchin's "Cognition in the wild" (1995), who analyzes a whole team of naval navigators as the cognitive unit or as computational system, or Senges' Knowledge entrepreneurship in universities (2007). There are also parallels to the emerging field of "collective intelligence" (e.g. (Zara, 2004)) and exploiting the "Wisdom of the crowds" (Surowiecki, 2005) of stakeholders. Zara notes that since collective reflection is more explicit, discursive, and conversational, it therefore needs a good ¿gestell?—especially when it comes to information and communication technology.

Most historians use the concept of mentality or mindset to denote very slowly changing mental dispositions active over longer periods of time, but occasionally there have been efforts to also apply it to much more rapidly changing historical situations such as the French revolution (Michel Vovelle) or the short period of Allied occupation of Germany after World War II (Hentschel 2007).

Specific theoriesEdit

Types and theoriesEdit

As previously alluded to, there is a great deal of variation within the study of mindsets. This variation includes how to define, measure, and conceptualize a mindset as well as the types of mindset identified. Even amongst scholars within the same disciple studying the same mindset, substantial variations exist (French, 2016). Nevertheless, any discussion of mindset should include recognition concerning the numerous, varied, and growing number of mindsets and mindset theories that receive attention in multiple disciplines throughout the academy.

Fixed and Growth MindsetEdit

According to Carol Dweck,[4] individuals can be placed on a continuum according to their implicit views of "where ability comes from".

Dweck states that there are two categories (growth mindset versus fixed mindset) that can group individuals based on their behaviour, specifically their reaction to failure. Those with a "fixed mindset" believe that abilities are mostly innate and interpret failure as the lack of necessary basic abilities, while those with a "growth mindset" believe that they can acquire any given ability provided they invest effort or study. In particular, an individual's mindset impacts how they face and cope with challenges, such as the transition into junior high school from elementary school or losing your job.[4] According to Dweck, individuals with a "growth" theory are more likely to continue working hard despite setbacks.

Dweck argues that the growth mindset "will allow a person to live a less stressful and more successful life".

In a 2012 interview, Dweck defined both fixed and growth mindsets:

In a fixed mindset students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their talents, are just fixed traits. They have a certain amount and that's that, and then their goal becomes to look smart all the time and never look dumb. In a growth mindset students understand that their talents and abilities can be developed through effort, good teaching and persistence. They don't necessarily think everyone's the same or anyone can be Einstein, but they believe everyone can get smarter if they work at it.[5]

Classroom ImplicationsEdit

A large part of Dweck's research on mindsets has been done in the field of education, and how these mindsets affect a student's performance in the classroom. In order for students to effectively adopt a growth mindset, a classroom culture needs to be established that nurtures this type of thinking. One of the ways educators can do this is by creating a growth-mindset culture in their classroom that provides the right kind of praise and encouragement [6]. According to Dweck (2010), “praising students for the process they have engaged in--the effort they applied, the strategies they used, the choices they made, the persistence they displayed, and so on--yields more long-term benefits than telling them they are “smart” when they succeed.”[7] As such, it is important for educators to carefully craft and design meaningful learning activities for their students to engage in the classroom. According to Dweck 2010, “the teacher should portray challenges as fun and exciting, while portraying easy tasks as boring and less useful for the brain.” [8] Students who are engaged in more challenging learning activities, have more opportunities to make mistakes and struggle, allowing the teacher to interject with some new strategies to try while praising students for the work they have done so far.

A second strategy to promote a growth-mindset culture in the classroom is to explicitly teach lessons related to what it means to adopt a growth mindset. Possible activities include establishing personal goals, writing letters, or having students share with one another something they used to be poor at and now are very good at. [9] In a recent study by Hussein (2018), the effects of reflective journal writing on students’ growth mindset was examined. It was found that the use of journaling could positively affect a student’s learning process by improving their conceptual knowledge, promoting growth mindset, and enhancing understanding of their thoughts through writing.[10]

The way educators evaluate their students’ work and communicate their progress can also contribute to the establishment of a growth mindset culture in the classroom. More specifically, Dweck (2010) identifies the word “yet” as a valuable tool to assess students learning. If an educator hears students saying they are not good at something or can’t do something, it is important for the teacher to interject with the words “not yet” to reinforce the idea that ability and motivation are fluid. [11] Overall, it is clear to see that a classroom that includes challenging learning tasks, praising of the process, and explicit growth mindset teaching and assessment, is a classroom where students will have the tools needed to become lifelong learners.

Reshaping Mindsets in Students and EducatorsEdit

While elements of our personality – such as sensitivity to mistakes and setbacks – can make us predisposed towards holding a certain mindset, we are able to develop and reshape our mindset through our interactions.[12] In multiple studies, Dweck and her colleagues noted that alterations in mindset could be achieved through "praising the process through which success was achieved",[13] "having [college aged students] read compelling scientific articles that support one view or the other",[12] or teaching junior high school students "that every time they try hard and learn something new, their brain forms new connections that, over time, make them smarter".[14] These studies all demonstrate how framing and discussing students' work and effort play a considerable role in the type of mindset students develop and students' conceptions of their own ability.

While a great deal of research in the education field has focused on a students ability to adopt a growth mindset, less attention and focus has been given to teacher mindsets and the role they play in influencing their students. Hattie (2012) states, “differing mindsets, or assumptions, that teachers possess about themselves and their students play a significant role in determining their expectations, teaching practices, and how students perceive their own mindset.”[15] In a recent study by Patrick & Joshi (2019), the way teachers explain growth and fixed mindsets was explored. Using 150 semi-structured interviews, two major findings were revealed. The first finding was that teachers’ prior beliefs about learning and learners influenced how they engaged with these mindsets.[16] Secondly, it was found that many teachers tended to oversimplify the concepts of a growth and fixed mindset into positive and negative traits.[17] This suggests the need for more teacher training and support in order for teachers to be able to successfully implement growth mindset initiatives in their classrooms. A study conducted by Seaton (2018), looked specifically at the impact of teacher training aimed at influencing their mindsets and the effect on their resulting practice. The teachers in this study underwent six different training sessions. It was found that the training sessions had an impact on teachers’ mindsets & this change was sustained three months after the training as well.[18] The results of this study suggest that adults’ mindsets are malleable and can shift if the right supports are in place.[19] This study reinforces the bond between a teacher's own beliefs and how they can strongly influence the mindset of his/her students; therefore, further highlighting the need for proper teacher training in order for mindset initiatives within schools to be fully successful.

Fixed and Growth Mindsets in Males vs. FemalesEdit

Carol Dweck and Jo Boaler have done extensive research on the topics of fixed and growth mindset. However, studies on mindset depict results that show that there is a disparity in the fixed and growth mindsets of females and males. In Boaler's Ability and Mathematics: the Mindset Revolution that is Reshaping Education, she notes that fixed mindset beliefs lead to inequalities in education and are a main reason for low achievement and participation amongst minorities and female students.[20] Boaler's research shows that many women feel as though they are not smart enough nor capable enough to continue in certain subjects, such as STEM areas of academia. Boaler uses Carol Dweck's research showing that "gender differences in mathematics performance only existed among fixed mindset students" (Boaler, 2013).

In addition, there have been tests administered by L.S. Blackwell to see if the fixed mindset of women can be changed to a growth mindset (Boaler, 2013). This is the mindset in which Boaler and Dweck believe people can gain knowledge. Boaler said, "The key growth mindset message was that effort changes the brain by forming new connections, and that students control this process. The growth mindset intervention halted the students’ decline in grades and started the students on a new pathway of improvement and high achievement" (Boaler, 2013). Educational systems focusing on creating a growth mindset environment allows for girls to feel like their intelligence is moldable rather than constant.

Implications for At Risk StudentsEdit

Dweck’s research and theory of growth and fixed mindsets has been useful in intervention strategies with at risk students, dispelling negative stereotypes in education held by teachers and students, understanding the impacts of self-theories on resilience, and understanding how process praise can foster a growth mindset and positively impact students' motivation levels.[21] .  In particular, a study by Rhew, Piro, Goolkasian & Cosentino (2018), suggested that a growth mindset intervention can increase the motivation levels of adolescent special education participants.[22] In another study, it was suggested that substance use has adverse effects on adolescent reasoning.[23] Developing a growth mindset in these adolescents was shown to reduce this adverse effect. These studies further illustrate how educators can use intervention strategies, targeting a growth mindset, by allowing students to see that their behaviour can be changed with effort.[24]

CriticismEdit

In recent years, there has been criticism leveraged at "growth mindset" as a concept, and the related research that has been carried out.[25] See the page on Carol Dweck, under the header criticism.

Benefit MindsetEdit

In 2015, Ashley Buchanan proposed a complimentary evolution to the fixed and growth mindset – the benefit mindset.

The benefit mindset describes society's everyday leaders who promote well-being on both an individual and a collective level. That is, people who discover their strengths to make valuable contributions to causes that are greater than the self. They question why they do what they do, positioning their actions within a purposeful context.[26]

Buchanan argues "creating cultures of contribution and everyday leadership could be one of the best points of leverage we have for simultaneously bringing out the best in people, organisations and the planet."

Global MindsetEdit

Originating from the study of organizational leadership and coinciding with the growth of multinational corporations in the 1980s, organizations observed that the effectiveness of their executives did not necessarily translate cross-culturally. Global mindset emerged as an explanation (Javidan & Walker, 2013). Essentially, leaders in cross-cultural contexts were hypothesized to need an additional skill, ability, or proficiency (i.e. a global mindset) that enabled effectiveness regardless of the culture or context (Perlmutter, 1969; Rhinesmith, 1992).

One of the defining characteristics of the study of global mindset is the variety in which scholars conceptualize and operationalize the construct; and yet; scholars typically agree that global mindset and its development increases global effectiveness for both individuals and organizations (French & Chang, 2016).

Abundance and scarcityEdit

Those with abundance mindset believe that there are enough resources for everyone, while those with the scarcity mindset believe that there is a limited number of resources and that one's gain must entail another's loss, leading to competition for resources.

Productive and defensiveEdit

According to Chris Argyris (2004), there are two dominant mindsets in organizations: the productive mindset and the defensive mindset.[27] The productive mindset seeks out valid knowledge that is testable. The productive reasoning mindset creates informed choices and makes reasoning transparent.

The defensive mindset, on the other hand, is self-protective and self-deceptive. When this mindset is active, people or organizations only seek out information that will protect them. Truth can be shut out when it is seen as threatening. The defensive mindset may lead to learning based on false assumptions or prevent learning altogether (Argyris, 2004).

See alsoEdit

Dual mentalityEdit

NotesEdit

  1. ^ Maruyama, M. (1980). Mindscapes and Science Theories, Current Anthropology, Vol. 21, No. 5. (Oct., 1980), pp. 589-608
  2. ^ Maruyama, M. (1988). Dynamics among Business Practice, Aesthetics, Science, Politics and Religion. Cultural Dynamics 1988; 1; 309-335
  3. ^ Yolles, M.I, Fink, G., 2014, Personality, pathology and mindsets: part 1-3. Vol. 43 n.(1)
  4. ^ a b Dweck, Carol (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0-345-47232-8.
  5. ^ "Stanford University's Carol Dweck on the Growth Mindset and Education". OneDublin.org. 2012-06-19.
  6. ^ Dweck, Carol S. (September 2010). "Even Geniuses Work Hard". Educational Leadership. 68 (1): 16-20.
  7. ^ Dweck, Carol S. (September 2010). "Even Geniuses Work Hard". Educational Leadership. 68 (1): 16-20.
  8. ^ Dweck, Carol S. (September 2010). "Even Geniuses Work Hard". Educational Leadership. 68 (1): 16-20.
  9. ^ Dweck, Carol S. (September 2010). "Even Geniuses Work Hard". Educational Leadership. 68 (1): 16-20.
  10. ^ Hussein, Hinda (2018). "Examining the Effects of Reflective Journals on Students' Growth Mindset: A Case Study of Tertiary Level EFL Students in the United Arab Emirates". IAFOR Journal of Education. 6 (2): 33–50.
  11. ^ Dweck, Carol S. (September 2010). "Even Geniuses Work Hard". Educational Leadership. 68 (1): 16-20.
  12. ^ a b Aldhous, P. (2008). Free your mind and watch it grow. New Scientist, 199(2670), 44-45.
  13. ^ Cimpian, A., Aree, H.C., Markman, E.M., Dweck, C.S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect children’s motivation. Association for Psychological Science, 18(4), 314-316.
  14. ^ Dweck, C.S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Early Intervention at Every Age, 65(2), 34-39.
  15. ^ Hattie, John (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Taylor and Francis.
  16. ^ Patrick, Susan Kemper; Joshi, Ela (2019). ""Set in Stone" or "Willing to Grow"? Teacher sensemaking during a growth mindset initiative". Teaching and Teacher Education. 83: 156–167.
  17. ^ Patrick, Susan Kemper; Joshi, Ela (2019). ""Set in Stone" or "Willing to Grow"? Teacher sensemaking during a growth mindset initiative". Teaching and Teacher Education. 83: 156–167.
  18. ^ Seaton, Fiona S. (2018). "Empowering teachers to implement a growth mindset". Educational Psychology in Practice. 34 (1): 41–57.
  19. ^ Seaton, Fiona S. (2018). "Empowering teachers to implement a growth mindset". Educational Psychology in Practice. 34 (1): 41–57.
  20. ^ Boaler, Jo (2013). "Ability and Mathematics: the mindset revolution that is reshaping education" (PDF). Forum. 55 (1): 143–152.
  21. ^ Veronikas, S., Shaughnessy, M.F. (2004). A reflective conversation with Carol Dweck. Gifted Education International, 19(1), 27-33.
  22. ^ Rhew, Emily; Piro, Jody S.; Goolkasian, Pauline; Cosentino, Patricia (2018). "The effects of a growth mindset on self-efficacy and motivation". Cogent Education. 5 (1). doi:10.1080/2331186X.2018.1492337.
  23. ^ Wang, Cuicui; Luo, Jie; Nie, Peixin; Wang, Daoyang (2019). "Growth Mindset Can Reduce the Adverse Effect of Substance Use on Adolescent Reasoning". Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01852.
  24. ^ Wang, Cuicui; Luo, Jie; Nie, Peixin; Wang, Daoyang (2019). "Growth Mindset Can Reduce the Adverse Effect of Substance Use on Adolescent Reasoning". Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01852.
  25. ^ Moreau, David; Macnamara, B; Hambrick, D (2019-02-01). "Overstating the Role of Environmental Factors in Success: A Cautionary Note". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 28 (1). doi:10.1177/0963721418797300.
  26. ^ Buchanan, Ashley; Kern, Margaret L. (2017-06-08). "The benefit mindset: The psychology of contribution and everyday leadership". International Journal of Wellbeing. 7 (1). doi:10.5502/ijw.v7i1.538. ISSN 1179-8602.
  27. ^ "Surfacing Your Underground Organization". 2004-11-01.

ReferencesEdit

  • Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and Rationalizations: The Limits to Organizational Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  • Erikson, E.H. (1974). Identitaet und Lebenszyklus: Surkamp
  • French, R. P., II. (2016). The fuzziness of mindsets: Divergent conceptualizations and characterizations of mindset theory and praxis. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(4), 673-691. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2014-0797 https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJOA-09-2014-0797
  • French, R. P., II, & Chang, H. (2016). Conceptual re-imagining of global "mindset": Knowledge as prime in the development of global leaders. Journal of International Organizations Studies, 7(1), 49-62. http://journal-iostudies.org/sites/journal-iostudies.org/files/JIOS-ReviewEssay_GlobalMindset.pdf
  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 52–92). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (2012). Mindset theory of action phases. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 526–545). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Hentschel, K. (2007). The Mental Aftermath. The Mentality of German Physicists 1945–1949. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press.
  • Javidan, M., & Walker, J. L. (2013). Developing your global mindset: The handbook for successful global leaders. Edina, MN: Beaver's Pond Press.
  • Perlmutter, H. V. (1969). The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business, 4(1), 9-18.
  • Rhinesmith, S. H. (1992). Global mindsets for global managers. Training & Development, 46(10), 63-68.
  • Senges, M.(2007) Knowledge entrepreneurship in universities: Practice and strategy in the case of internet based innovation appropriation
  • Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few. London: Abacus.
  • Vovelle, M. (1990). Ideologies and Mentalities. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press (transl. by Eamon O'Flaherty).
  • Zara, O. (2004). Managing collective intelligence: Towards a new corporate governance
  • Maj. Sonise Lumbaca (2012). AWG program reinforces adaptive mindsets, builds adaptive Army leaders.