Growth mindset and socioeconomic inequality in academic achievement across seventy-three PISA countries – Nature

Executive Summary

This report investigates the role of ‘growth mindset’ as a mechanism for reducing educational inequalities, a key objective within Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4: Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Using 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data from 73 countries, the study assesses the extent to which a growth mindset mediates or moderates the effect of socio-economic status (SES) on academic achievement. A four-way decomposition analysis was employed to separate the total effect of SES on test scores into direct, indirect, and interaction components. The findings indicate that growth mindset mediates a minimal portion of the total effect of SES on student achievement, accounting for no more than 2.9% to 3.2% of the disparity. This result challenges the influential proposition that fostering a growth mindset can substantially temper the impact of poverty on academic outcomes, suggesting that policy interventions aimed at achieving SDG 4 and SDG 10 must prioritize structural and systemic factors over individual-level psychological traits.

1. Introduction: Aligning Educational Interventions with Sustainable Development Goals

1.1. The Challenge of SDG 4 and SDG 10 in Education

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a global framework for achieving a sustainable future. Central to this agenda are SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education, and SDG 10, which seeks to reduce inequality within and among countries. A critical target within these goals (Target 4.5) is the elimination of disparities in education and ensuring equal access for all, particularly for students from vulnerable and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. The persistent achievement gap between students of high and low socio-economic status (SES) remains a primary obstacle to realizing these global objectives.

1.2. Growth Mindset as a Potential Lever for Educational Equity

In the search for scalable and effective interventions, ‘growth mindset’—the belief that intelligence is malleable—has been widely promoted as a powerful tool to advance educational equity. Proponents argue that it is particularly beneficial for disadvantaged populations and can help “temper the effects of poverty on academic achievement.” This has led to the widespread adoption of growth mindset interventions in educational systems globally, often with the explicit aim of narrowing the achievement gap and contributing to the targets of SDG 4 and SDG 10. However, the empirical evidence quantifying the precise impact of this mechanism on a global scale has been limited.

1.3. Research Objectives

This report aims to rigorously evaluate the claim that growth mindset can significantly mitigate educational inequality. It quantifies the extent to which growth mindset mediates the relationship between family SES and academic achievement across 73 diverse national contexts. By providing a comprehensive, cross-national analysis, this study assesses the viability of growth mindset as a primary policy lever for achieving the equity-focused targets of SDG 4 and SDG 10.

2. Methodology

2.1. Data Source and Scope

The analysis utilizes data from the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The dataset provides internationally comparable measures for a sample covering 73 countries.

• Outcome Variables: Standardized test scores in mathematics, reading, and science.
• Exposure Variable: The PISA index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS), serving as a proxy for student SES.
• Mediator Variable: A dichotomous variable indicating whether a student holds a ‘growth mindset’ versus a ‘fixed mindset’.
• Control Variables: Gender, migration status, and country-fixed effects were included to account for potential confounders.

2.2. Analytical Framework

To move beyond standard regression models that may obscure the true nature of the relationships, this study employs a four-way decomposition approach within a counterfactual framework. This method disentangles the total effect of SES on academic achievement into four distinct components, providing a nuanced understanding of the mediating and moderating role of growth mindset.

1. Controlled Direct Effect (CDE): The effect of SES on achievement that is independent of growth mindset.
2. Pure Indirect Effect (PIE): The effect of SES on achievement that operates solely through its influence on growth mindset.
3. Reference Interaction (INT_ref): The interaction between SES and growth mindset on achievement, assuming SES does not influence mindset.
4. Mediated Interaction (INT_med): The portion of the interaction effect that is dependent on SES influencing mindset.

3. Key Findings: Assessing the Impact of Growth Mindset on Educational Inequality

3.1. Overall Relationship between SES, Mindset, and Achievement

Initial analysis confirms established patterns in educational data:

• A strong, positive relationship exists between student SES and academic test scores across all subjects.
• Students from higher SES backgrounds are more likely to report a growth mindset.
• While holding a growth mindset is associated with higher test scores across all SES levels, the performance advantage conferred by higher SES is substantially larger and more consistent.

3.2. Decomposition Analysis Results

The four-way decomposition reveals the limited role of growth mindset in explaining the socioeconomic achievement gap. The findings, averaged across 73 countries, are summarized below:

• Total Effect: A substantial and statistically significant achievement gap exists between low- and high-SES students. For mathematics, this gap is 0.587 standard deviations.
• Controlled Direct Effect (CDE): The vast majority of the SES effect on achievement operates through direct pathways, independent of growth mindset. The CDE accounts for approximately 98% of the total effect in mathematics.
• Pure Indirect Effect (PIE): The portion of the achievement gap mediated by growth mindset is minimal. This indirect pathway explains only 2.9% of the total effect for math and 3.2% for both science and reading.
• Interaction Effects: Both the reference and mediated interaction effects are negligible, indicating that growth mindset does not meaningfully moderate or alter the powerful, direct impact of SES on academic performance.

3.3. Cross-National Variations

While the overall finding of a minimal mediating effect is consistent globally, some cross-national variation exists. In a few countries, such as Chile and Indonesia, the proportion mediated reached a maximum of 11%. However, for the vast majority of countries, the mediating effect of growth mindset on the SES-achievement gap remained below 8%, reinforcing the conclusion that it is not a primary driver of educational inequality.

4. Discussion and Policy Implications for Achieving SDGs

4.1. Re-evaluating Growth Mindset as a Tool for SDG 4 and SDG 10

The findings of this report present a significant challenge to the narrative that promoting growth mindset is a key strategy for achieving the educational equity targets of SDG 4 and SDG 10. The evidence from 73 countries demonstrates that the direct effects of socioeconomic status—encompassing factors like access to resources, parental support, and quality of schooling—overwhelmingly determine academic outcomes. The influence of growth mindset, while positive, is insufficient to meaningfully “temper” these powerful structural disadvantages. Relying on such interventions to close the achievement gap is therefore unlikely to be effective and may divert attention and resources from more impactful systemic reforms.

4.2. Limitations of the Analysis

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. The analysis is based on observational data, which cannot definitively establish causality. Potential unmeasured confounders and the possibility of reverse causality (whereby higher achievement fosters a growth mindset) mean that the small mediation effects reported should be interpreted as upper-bound estimates. The true causal effect of growth mindset on reducing the SES achievement gap is likely even smaller than the 2.9-3.2% reported here.

4.3. Recommendations for Policy and Future Research

Based on these findings, the following recommendations are proposed for policymakers, educators, and researchers working towards achieving SDG 4 and SDG 10:

1. Prioritize Structural Interventions: To make meaningful progress on SDG 4.5 and SDG 10.3, policy efforts must focus on addressing the root causes of educational inequality. This includes investing in equitable school funding, improving teacher quality and distribution, providing comprehensive support for low-income families, and ensuring access to high-quality early childhood education.
2. Adopt a Holistic and Contextualized Approach: While growth mindset interventions may offer some benefits to individual students’ motivation, they should not be viewed as a standalone solution for systemic inequality. If implemented, they should be part of a broader, multi-faceted strategy and must be carefully adapted to specific cultural and national contexts, as their effectiveness varies.
3. Direct Future Research Towards Systemic Factors: Future research should employ longitudinal designs to better understand the causal pathways between SES, mindset, and achievement. More importantly, research should focus on identifying and evaluating the most effective structural interventions for reducing socioeconomic disparities in education.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to three Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire study revolves around “academic achievement,” “learning outcomes,” and “educational inequalities.” The research uses data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to measure student performance in math, reading, and science, which are core components of quality education. The article’s main objective is to investigate factors that influence educational outcomes, specifically the relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and student achievement, directly aligning with the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article is fundamentally an analysis of inequality. It explicitly investigates the “socioeconomic achievement gap” and whether a “growth mindset moderates or mediates the effect of socio-economic status (SES) on academic achievement.” By focusing on how poverty and socioeconomic background impact educational success, the study directly confronts the challenge of inequality within countries. The analysis across 73 countries also provides a comparative perspective on these inequalities, which is a key aspect of SDG 10.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  While not the primary focus, SDG 1 is strongly connected. The article repeatedly refers to the “effects of poverty on academic achievement” and the challenges faced by “socioeconomically disadvantaged populations” and “students from low-income families.” Education is a critical pathway out of poverty, and by examining mechanisms that might “temper the effect of poverty on academic achievement,” the study explores a factor that could potentially help break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. The analysis of socioeconomic status (SES) is a direct proxy for measuring the conditions related to poverty and economic disadvantage.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s focus, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 4.1: Ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

   The study directly addresses this target by using PISA test scores as its main outcome variable. The article states, “Our main outcome of interest was the first plausible value of PISA test scores in mathematics… Results for Science and Reading scores were substantively similar.” These scores are a measure of “effective learning outcomes” for secondary school students, which is the level of education PISA assesses.

2. Target 4.5: Eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education… for the vulnerable.

   The core of the article is the analysis of educational disparities affecting a vulnerable group: students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The study aims to “assess the extent to which growth mindset ‘tempers’ or ‘buffers’ the effect of socioeconomic origins on academic achievement.” By focusing on the “socioeconomic achievement gap,” the research directly aligns with the goal of ensuring equal access and outcomes for vulnerable populations.

3. Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status.

   The article investigates educational inclusion by analyzing how a student’s “economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS)” impacts their academic achievement. The finding that “the direct effect of SES on PISA test scores was consistently large and highly significant” highlights a major challenge to the educational and subsequent social inclusion of individuals from lower economic strata. The study’s cross-country analysis of this phenomenon speaks directly to reducing inequalities based on economic status.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article explicitly uses and implies several indicators that align with official SDG indicators for measuring progress.

• PISA Test Scores in Mathematics, Reading, and Science

  This is an explicit indicator used throughout the study. The article states it uses “data from the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) dataset” and that its outcome is “PISA test scores in mathematics, science, and reading.” This directly corresponds to Indicator 4.1.1, which measures the “Proportion of children and young people… at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics.”

• Socioeconomic Achievement Gap

  The entire study is structured around measuring the disparity in educational outcomes between different socioeconomic groups. The article quantifies the “total effect of SES on standardized test scores” and the “overall difference in PISA learning scores between students with low versus high socioeconomic status.” This measurement of disparity is a practical application of Indicator 4.5.1, which calls for “Parity indices (…bottom/top wealth quintile…)” to assess equality in education. The “socioeconomic achievement gap” is effectively a parity measure.

• PISA Index of Economic, Social, and Cultural Status (ESCS)

  The article identifies ESCS as its primary “exposure variable.” It is described as being “derived from three variables related to family background: parents’ highest level of education (PARED), parents’ highest occupational status (HISEI), and home possessions (HOMEPOS).” This composite index serves as a detailed indicator for stratifying the population by socioeconomic status, allowing for the analysis of inequalities as required by targets under SDG 10 and SDG 4.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nature.com