Construct · 6 fields · 10 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaninggrowthcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to mindset is growth.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
A belief about whether intelligence is a fixed quantity or something that develops with effort. Dweck and Leggett laid it out in 1988 as two implicit theories, entity and incremental, that steer children toward performance goals or learning goals and thence toward helpless or mastery responses to failure; Dweck, Chiu, and Hong published the three-item scale in 1995, and the 2006 book renamed the theories fixed and growth mindset. Yeager and Dweck argued in 2012 that the belief promotes resilience to setbacks. Sisk, Burgoyne, Sun, Butler, and Macnamara's 2018 meta-analyses found the correlation with achievement is about .10 and the average intervention effect about .08, with most interventions not different from zero. The construct is a lay theory about a trait, and its distinguishing feature is that it is about malleability, not about a current cognitive state.[1][2][3]
A readiness to approach a problem the way the last several problems were solved, even when a simpler route exists. Luchins established it in 1942 with the water-jar problems: after five problems solvable only by the formula B minus A minus 2C, most subjects applied the same formula to problems with a direct two-jar solution, and many failed a problem the formula could not solve. He called the effect Einstellung, the German for set or attitude, and it entered English as mental set. The set is induced in minutes by task sequence, is a property of the procedure rather than the person, and its measure is the failure to see the easy solution. Nothing about it concerns beliefs about oneself.[4]
A procedure activated by one task that is then applied to an unrelated choice. Wyer and Xu's 2010 review defined a behavioural mind-set as the persistence of a cognitive or motor procedure once used: comparing products makes people more likely to buy, listing differences makes them prefer variety, and the effect survives across domains. The neighbouring construct is construal level, which Trope and Liberman set out in 2010 as abstract versus concrete representation driven by psychological distance; marketers prime an abstract or concrete mindset and read it off in preferences for why versus how. Both are mindsets in Gollwitzer's meaning, states induced by a prior task, and neither is a belief anyone holds about anything.[6][7]
A highly complex cognitive structure characterized by openness to and articulation of multiple cultural and strategic realities, and by the capacity to integrate across them. Levy, Beechler, Taylor, and Boyacigiller reviewed the literature in 2007 and found the term used for two things, cosmopolitanism toward cultures and cognitive complexity toward strategy, with little agreement on either and almost no measurement. The unit is a manager or a top team, the referent is how they think about the world outside the home country, and the construct is a durable competence rather than a primed state or a belief about one's own ability. Its link to firm performance is asserted far more often than shown.[8]
The state of having less than one needs, which captures attention and narrows it to the shortfall, improving focus on the scarce resource while taxing cognitive bandwidth for everything else. Shah, Mullainathan, and Shafir showed it in 2012 with laboratory games in which participants given fewer guesses or less time attended more closely, borrowed more, and did worse overall; Mullainathan and Shafir's 2013 book extended the account to poverty, dieting, and loneliness. The mindset is caused by the situation and disappears when the scarcity does, and the same person shows it in one domain and not another. It is closest to Luchins's set in being externally induced, and furthest from Dweck's in being about resources rather than self-theories.[9][10]
Next
Combine items across the mindset scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct
Social cognition
the cognitive orientation tied to a phase of goal pursuit, deliberative while choosing goals and implemental after deciding.The cognitive orientation that goes with a phase of goal pursuit. Gollwitzer's 1990 mindset theory of action phases holds that choosing between goals puts a person in a deliberative mindset, open-minded and even-handed about pros and cons, and that having decided puts them in an implemental mindset, closed-minded, optimistic, and focused on when and how; the mindsets carry over to unrelated tasks, which is how they are detected. Gollwitzer reviewed the theory in 2012 with the added phases of actional and evaluative mindsets. Like Luchins's set it is a transient state induced by a task, but its content is a stance toward a goal rather than a solution routine, and it is deliberately borrowed from the Würzburg school's Einstellung.[5]