Search

Motivation is the process that drives, selects, and directs goals and behaviors. Motivation typically arises out of the person’s needs, and it then comes to life through the person’s specific goals. In this essay, the authors examine the concept of “needs” as the crucible from which motivated behavior arises because all individuals are born with needs that jump-start the goal-oriented, motivated behaviors that are critical to survival and thriving. These are both physical needs (such as hunger and thirst) and psychological needs (such as the need for social relationships, optimal predictability, and competence). The aim of motivation is therefore to bring about a desired (need, goal) state. Motivation underlies and organizes all aspects of a person’s psychology. As it does so, motivation “glues” a person together as a functioning individual in their culture and context.

Researchers must recognize anew that motivation is the foundation of psychology. Currently, the field of psychology tends to carve people into different pieces according to subdisciplines that focus separately on cognition, emotion, social behavior, personality traits, psychopathology, and so on. Sharing a vision of neuroscience and personality psychology, this author argues for motivation as the animating and organizing force behind behavior and as the basis for a unified perspective on psychological processes. The centrality of motivation will produce two new future developments. First, in neuroscience, motivation will better explain how the brain works, as during goal pursuit and intelligent decision-making. Second, motivation will better explain how children develop their personality, as new needs emerge and through the motivations these produce and the choices they present.

Recent successful interventions work by capitalizing on motivations that already exist within individuals, particularly within the field of adolescent behavior change. This approach is illustrated through interventions that taught adolescents a growth mindset about their abilities, encouraged healthy eating, infused schoolwork with more personal interest and meaning, and fostered “empathic discipline” among teachers of adolescents. In all of these cases, it was the connection to existing goals and values that appeared to help newly learned (or newly activated) beliefs and behaviors take root and bear fruit. This successful approach can be contrasted against the more common unsuccessful approach that tells people what they should think or do.

A growth-mindset intervention teaches the belief that intellectual abilities can be developed. Where does the intervention work best? Prior research examined school-level moderators using data from the National Study of Learning Mindsets (NSLM), which delivered a short growth-mindset intervention during the first year of high school. In the present research, we used data from the NSLM to examine moderation by teachers’ mindsets and answer a new question: Can students independently implement their growth mindsets in virtually any classroom culture, or must students’ growth mindsets be supported by their teacher’s own growth mindsets (i.e., the mindset-plus-supportive-context hypothesis)? The present analysis (9,167 student records matched with 223 math teachers) supported the latter hypothesis. This result stood up to potentially confounding teacher factors and to a conservative Bayesian analysis. Thus, sustaining growth-mindset effects may require contextual supports that allow the proffered beliefs to take root and flourish.

We live in a time of disappearing professions, pandemic-related upheaval, and growing social inequality. While recognizing that good opportunities are unequally distributed in society (an injustice that requires rectification), can

Significance Modern life and work involve grappling with many novel challenging tasks. What makes some people more strategic, and hence more effective, as they approach these tasks? This research introduces and tests a psychological construct—a “strategic mindset”—which involves asking oneself strategy-eliciting questions, such as “What can I do to help myself?” or “Is there a way to do this even better?” in the face of challenges or insufficient progress. A strategic mindset uniquely predicts how much people report actively using strategies and, in turn, how effective they are at pursuing goals across life domains. The findings suggest that being strategic entails more than just having specific strategic skills—it appears to also entail an orientation toward accessing and employing them., Many attractive jobs in today’s world require people to take on new challenges and figure out how to master them. As with any challenging goal, this involves systematic strategy use. Here we ask: Why are some people more likely to take a strategic stance toward their goals, and can this tendency be cultivated? To address these questions, we introduce the idea of a domain-general “strategic mindset.” This mindset involves asking oneself strategy-eliciting questions, such as “What can I do to help myself?”, “How else can I do this?”, or “Is there a way to do this even better?”, in the face of challenges or insufficient progress. In three studies (n = 864), people who scored higher on (or were primed with) a strategic mindset reported using more metacognitive strategies; in turn, they obtained higher college grade point averages (GPAs) (Study 1); reported greater progress toward their professional, educational, health, and fitness goals (Study 2); and responded to a challenging timed laboratory task by practicing it more and performing it faster (Study 3). We differentiated a strategic mindset from general self-efficacy, self-control, grit, and growth mindsets and showed that it explained unique variance in people’s use of metacognitive strategies. These findings suggest that being strategic entails more than just having specific metacognitive skills—it appears to also entail an orientation toward seeking and employing them.

Children begin interacting less across racial lines around middle childhood, but it remains unclear why. We examine the novel possibility that, at that time, children's prejudice theories-their understanding of prejudice as a fixed or malleable attribute-begin to influence their desire for interracial affiliation. We devise immersive behavioral experiences to evaluate when and how prejudice theories affect interracial affiliation. Study 1 measured prejudice theories among 8-13-year-olds (N = 152; 76 White, 76 racial minority) and observed children in a newly-developed social interaction task. In line with our hypothesis, children older than 10 years with stronger malleable-prejudice theories exhibited more interest and affiliation in a simulated cross- (vs. same-race) interaction, regardless of their preexisting prejudice level. Study 2 randomly assigned children to listen to a fixed- or malleable-prejudice theory story before engaging in a real, first-time interaction with a same- or cross-race partner at a different school via live video-stream (N = 150; 96 White, 54 racial minority). The malleable theory increased children's interest in further interaction with their cross-race partner. These findings highlight the promise of malleable-prejudice theories for sustaining positive interracial relationships during a critical developmental window-when the frequency of cross-race friendships typically declines.

Behavioral science interventions have the potential to address longstanding policy problems, but their effects are typically heterogeneous across contexts (e.g., teachers, schools, and geographic regions). This contextual heterogeneity is poorly understood, however, which reduces the field’s impact and its understanding of mechanisms. Here, we present an efficient way to interrogate heterogeneity and address these gaps in knowledge. This method a) presents scenarios that vividly represent different moderating contexts, b) measures a short-term behavioral outcome (e.g., an academic choice) that is known to relate to typical intervention outcomes (e.g., academic achievement), and c) assesses the causal effect of the moderating context on the link between the psychological variable typically targeted by interventions and this short-term outcome. We illustrated the utility of this approach across four experiments (total n = 3,235) that directly tested contextual moderators of the links between growth mindset, which is the belief that ability can be developed, and students’ academic choices. The present results showed that teachers’ growth mindset-supportive messages and the structural opportunities they provide moderated the link between students’ mindsets and their choices (studies 1 to 3). This pattern was replicated in a nationally representative sample of adolescents and did not vary across demographic subgroups (study 2), nor was this pattern the result of several possible confounds (studies 3 to 4). Discussion centers on how this method of interrogating contextual heterogeneity can be applied to other behavioral science interventions and broaden their impact in other policy domains.

A revised view of the amygdala, its relationship with the prefrontal cortex (PFC), and its role in intelligent human decision-making is proposed. Based on recent findings, we present a framework in which the amygdala plays a central role in the value computations that determine which goals are worth pursuing, while the PFC plays a central role in generating and evaluating possible action plans to realize these goals. We suggest that the amygdala and PFC continuously work together during decision-making and goal pursuit as individuals compute and recompute the value and likelihood of different goals while interacting with a dynamic world. Once seen as chiefly involved in simple stimulus-outcome associative learning, the amygdala is shown to play a sophisticated role in human decision-making by contributing to the moment-by-moment integration of multiple costs and benefits to determine optimal choices. We discuss implications of the framework for brain development, emotion regulation, intelligence, and psychopathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

This is the accepted manuscript version of the work published in its final form as David S. Yeager; Jamie M. Carroll; Jenny Buontempo; Andrei Cimpian; Spencer Woody; Robert Crosnoe; Chandra Muller; Jared S. Murray; Pratik Mhatre; Nicole B. Kersting; Christopher S. Hulleman; Molly Kudym; Mary C. Murphy; Angela L. Duckworth; Gregory M. Walton; Carol S. Dweck.Psychological Science, 33(1), 18-32.https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211028984 Deposited byshareyourpaper.organdopenaccessbutton.org. We've taken reasonable steps to ensure this content doesn't violate copyright. However, if you think it does you can request a takedown by emailinghelp@openaccessbutton.org.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2001, Vol. 80, No. 6, 876-893 Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/01/S5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.876 Person Theories and Attention Allocation: Preferences for Stereotypic Versus Counterstereotypic Information Jason E. Plaks Steven J. Stroessner Columbia University Barnard College, Columbia University Carol S. Dweck Jeffrey W. Sherman Columbia University Northwestern University How do people respond to information that counters a stereotype? Do they approach it or avoid it? Four experiments showed that attention to stereotype-consistent vs. -inconsistent information depends on people's implicit theories about human traits. Those holding an entity theory (the belief that traits are fixed) consistently displayed greater attention to (Experiments 1 and 4) and recognition of (Experi- ments 2 and 3) consistent information, whereas those holding an incremental (dynamic) theory tended to display greater attention to (Experiment 1) and recognition of (Experiment 3) inconsistent information. This was true whether implicit theories were measured as chronic structures (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) or were experimentally manipulated (Experiment 3). Thus, different a priori assumptions about human traits and behavior lead to processing that supports versus limits stereotype maintenance. Each of us literally chooses, by his way of attending to things, what sort of universe he shall appear to himself to inhabit (James, 1890/ 1983, p. 416). We often encounter people acting in ways that are contrary to what we stereotypically expect of them (e.g., a woman who plays . baseball, a trucker who quotes Byron). On the surface, stereotype- inconsistent information appears to pose a direct challenge to the veracity of our stereotypes. However, we know both from every- day experience and from social cognition research (e.g., L. Johnston, Hewstone, Pendry, & Frankish, 1994; Maass, Salvi, Arcuri, & Semin, 1989; Weber & Crocker, 1983) that stereotypes are remarkably resistant to such challenges. This is troublesome for researchers and policy makers interested in reducing stereo- typing and prejudice, because it suggests that merely exposing people to stereotype-inconsistent information may not necessarily lead to a decrease in stereotyping. A number of researchers have examined social-cognitive pro- cesses that may contribute to the persistence of stereotypes. In typical studies, the researcher presents participants with both stereotype-consistent and stereotype-inconsistent information and then observes whether participants process the two types of infor- mation in different ways (e.g., Belmore, 1987; Hastie & Kumar, 1979; Hemsley & Marmurek, 1982; Hilton, Klein, & von Hippel, 1991; Sherman, Lee, Bessenoff, & Frost, 1998; Srull, 1981; see Stangor & McMillan, 1992). Perceivers routinely process consis- tent and inconsistent information differently, and this differential processing often appears to contribute to the preservation of per- ceivers' stereotypes (e.g., Crocker, Hannah, & Weber, 1983; Hilton et al, 1991). This line of research has led investigators to propose that per- ceivers might follow one of several processing strategies after identifying information as consistent or inconsistent with a stereo- type. These strategies can be grouped into three broad categories, two of which lead to stereotype preservation. First, perceivers may decrease their engagement with the stereotype-inconsistent infor- mation and instead focus on stereotype-consistent information, thereby accumulating in memory more confirming evidence than disconfirming evidence (e.g., Bodenhausen, 1988; Macrae, Hew- stone, & Griffiths, 1993; D. T. Miller & Turnbull, 1986; Snyder & Swann, 1978). Second, perceivers may increase their engagement with stereotype-inconsistent information to debunk it or otherwise reinterpret it in a manner that leaves the stereotype intact (e.g., Crocker et al., 1983; Devine & Baker, 1991; Lui & Brewer, 1983; Maass et al., 1989). Presumably, these two strategies are directed toward and contribute to stereotype persistence. Third, perceivers may increase their cognitive engagement with stereotype- inconsistent information because they consider such nonredundant information to possess greater informational value than consistent information (e.g., Bassok & Trope, 1984; Skov & Sherman, 1986). Presumably, such openness to stereotype-inconsistent information undermines the persistence of stereotypes. Because such processes have clear and important implications for stereotyping, researchers have attempted to uncover general rules about when people focus on inconsistent versus consistent target information (e.g., Sherman et al., 1998; Stangor & McMil- lan, 1992; Vonk, 1994). To this end, a good deal of research has been devoted to isolating the inherent properties of consistent and inconsistent information that may lead perceivers to focus on one at the expense of the other. For example, several researchers have proposed that inconsistent information is by its very nature more Jason E. Plaks and Carol S. Dweck, Department of Psychology, Co- lumbia University; Steven J. Stroessner, Department of Psychology, Bar- nard College, Columbia University; Jeffrey W. Sherman, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jason E. Plaks, who is now at the Department of Psychology, Guthrie Hall 351525, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195. Electronic mail may be sent to jep9@u.washington.edu.

We investigated whether a growth mindset intervention could be leveraged to promote performance and interest in computer science, through what mechanisms it might do so, and whether effects were stronger for women than for men. In particular, we explored whether the growth mindset intervention improved academic performance and career interest by increasing intrinsic value. We developed and tested a scalable, online, 4-session growth mindset intervention at 7 universities, across 16 introductory computer science classes ( N = 491). The intervention did not have a significant total effect on academic performance, although it indirectly improved grades via value. Additionally, the intervention, relative to the control, improved interest in the field and value also mediated this effect. Counter to expectations, the intervention worked equally well for women and men. Theoretical and practical applications are discussed.

A growth mindset is the belief that human capacities are not fixed but can be developed over time, and mindset research examines the power of such beliefs to influence human behavior. This article offers two personal perspectives on mindset research across two eras. Given recent changes in the field, the authors represent different generations of researchers, each focusing on different issues and challenges, but both committed to “era-bridging” research. The first author traces mindset research from its systematic examination of how mindsets affect challenge seeking and resilience, through the ways in which mindsets influence the formation of judgments and stereotypes. The second author then describes how mindset research entered the era of field experiments and replication science, and how researchers worked to create reliable interventions to address underachievement—including a national experiment in the United States. The authors conclude that there is much more to learn but that the studies to date illustrate how an era-bridging program of research can continue to be generative and relevant to new generations of scholars.

Seminal work by Knobe, Prasada, and Newman (2013) distinguished a set of concepts, which they named "dual-character concepts." Unlike traditional concepts, they require two distinct criteria for determining category membership. For example, the prototypical dual-character concept "artist" has both a concrete dimension of artistic skills, and an abstract dimension of aesthetic sensibility and values. Therefore, someone can be a good artist on the concrete dimension but not truly an artist on the abstract dimension. Does this analysis capture people's understanding of cornerstone social categories, such as gender, around which society and everyday life have traditionally been organized? Gender, too, may be conceived as having not only a concrete dimension but also a distinct dimension of abstract norms and values. As with dual-character concepts, violations of abstract norms and values may result in someone being judged as not truly a man/woman. Here, we provide the first empirical assessment of applying the dual-character framework to people's conception of gender. We found that, on some measures that primarily relied on metalinguistic cues, gender concepts did indeed resemble dual-character concepts. However, on other measures that depicted transgressions of traditional gender norms, neither "man" nor "woman" appeared dual-character-like, in that participants did not disqualify people from being truly a man or truly a woman. In a series of follow-up studies, we examined whether moral norms have come to replace gender role norms for the abstract dimension. Implications for the evolution of concepts and categories are explored.

Beliefs play a central role in human development. For instance, a growth mindset—a belief about the malleability of intelligence—can shape how adolescents interpret and respond to academic difficulties and how they subsequently navigate the educational system. But do usually-adaptive beliefs have the same effects for adolescents regardless of the contexts they are in? Answering this question can reveal new insights into classic developmental questions about continuity and change. Here we present the Mindset × Context framework and we apply this model to the instructive case of growth mindset interventions. We show that teaching students a growth mindset is most effective in educational contexts that provide affordances for a growth mindset; that is, contexts that permit and encourage students to view ability as developable and to act on that belief. This evidence contradicts the “beliefs alone” hypothesis, which holds that teaching adolescents a growth mindset is enough and that students can profit from these beliefs in almost any context, even unsupportive ones. The Mindset × Context framework leads to the realization that in order to produce more widespread and lasting change, we must complement the belief-changing interventions that have been aimed at students with new interventions that guide teachers toward classroom policies and practices that allow students' growth mindset beliefs to take root and yield benefits.

The Global Mindset Initiative aims to develop, test, and launch a program to help teachers create a growth mindset culture for their students. A growth mindset is the belief that abilities can be developed, and research shows that students’ growth mindsets can predict higher achievement, well-being, and academic equity in many nations. Research also shows that cost-effective growth mindset programs for students can enhance academic outcomes. However, effects depend on whether the classroom culture allows students to use and benefit from their growth mindsets. Thus, next-generation research must address classroom cultures directly, using experimental methods. The four papers in this series set the stage by asking: What teacher practices foster a growth mindset culture? How can we motivate enduring changes in teachers’ practices? What measures best assess teacher implementation and student impact? What research designs and infrastructure are needed? With achievement, equity, well-being, and job preparation in jeopardy, the need for this kind of research is pressing.

The growth mindset is the belief that intellectual ability can be developed. This article seeks to answer recent questions about growth mindset, such as: Does a growth mindset predict student outcomes? Do growth mindset interventions work, and work reliably? Are the effect sizes meaningful enough to merit attention? And can teachers successfully instill a growth mindset in students? After exploring the important lessons learned from these questions, the article concludes that large-scale studies, including preregistered replications and studies conducted by third parties (such as international governmental agencies), justify confidence in growth mindset research. Mindset effects, however, are meaningfully heterogeneous across individuals and contexts. The article describes three recent advances that have helped the field to learn from this heterogeneity: standardized measures and interventions, studies designed specifically to identify where growth mindset interventions do not work (and why), and a conceptual framework for anticipating and interpreting moderation effects. The next generation of mindset research can build on these advances, for example by beginning to understand and perhaps change classroom contexts in ways that can make interventions more effective. Throughout, the authors reflect on lessons that can enrich metascientific perspectives on replication and generalization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

© American Psychological Association, 2020. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000647 Here we evaluate the potential for growth mindset interventions (which teach students that intellectual abilities can be developed) to inspire adolescents to be “learners”—that is, to seek out challenging learning experiences. In a previous analysis, the U.S. National Study of Learning Mindsets (NSLM) showed that a growth mindset could improve the grades of lower-achieving adolescents, and, in an exploratory analysis, increase enrollment in advanced math courses across achievement levels. Yet the importance of being a “learner” in today’s global economy requires clarification and replication of potential challenge-seeking effects, as well as an investigation of the school affordances that make intervention effects on challenge-seeking possible. To this end, the present paper presents new analyses of the U.S. NSLM (N = 14,472) to (a) validate a standardized, behavioral measure of challenge-seeking (the “make-a-math worksheet” task), and (b) show that the growth mindset treatment increased challenge-seeking on this task. Second, a new experiment conducted with nearly all schools in two counties in Norway, the U-say experiment (N = 6,541), replicated the effects of the growth mindset intervention on the behavioral challenge-seeking task and on increased advanced math course-enrollment rates. Treated students took (and subsequently passed) advanced math at a higher rate. Critically, the U-say experiment provided the first direct evidence that a structural factor—school policies governing when and how students opt in to advanced math—can afford students the possibility of profiting from a growth mindset intervention or not. These results highlight the importance of motivational research that goes beyond grades or performance alone and focuses on challenge-seeking. The findings also call attention to the affordances of school contexts that interact with student motivation to promote better achievement and economic trajectories.

In Western societies, parents and teachers often use praise in an attempt to increase children’s self-esteem and motivation. In fact, praise has become the most common type of feedback that children receive in their everyday lives, at least in many Western societies. However, there is a growing body of research showing that praise may sometimes have unintended consequences. Rather than increasing self-esteem and motivation, some forms of praise can make children concerned about upholding the positive evaluation they have received. In some cases, these concerns may lead children to avoid challenges, to give up or cheat when they struggle, or to feel bad about themselves in the face of setbacks. This lowered self-esteem and motivation may, in turn, encourage parents and teachers to provide even more praise, thus establishing a vicious cycle. We propose a transactional model to shed light on these paradoxical effects of praise, and we discuss research directions to validate the model.

People are often told to find their passion, as though passions and interests are preformed and must simply be discovered. This idea, however, has hidden motivational implications. Five studies examined implicit theories of interest—the idea that personal interests are relatively fixed (fixed theory) or developed (growth theory). Whether assessed or experimentally induced, a fixed theory was more likely to dampen interest in areas outside people’s existing interests (Studies 1–3). Individuals endorsing a fixed theory were also more likely to anticipate boundless motivation when passions were found, not anticipating possible difficulties (Study 4). Moreover, when it became difficult to engage in a new interest, interest flagged significantly more for people induced to hold a fixed rather than a growth theory of interest (Study 5). Urging people to find their passion may lead them to put all their eggs in one basket but then to drop that basket when it becomes difficult to carry.

Individuals' theories about emotions-the beliefs about the nature of emotions and the ability to influence them-have been linked to well-being. However, their causal role is not clear. To address this issue, we delivered a randomized controlled intervention to 1,645 middle school students that targeted their theories of emotion through interactive online modules. Students were taught that they could modify their emotions, get better at modifying their emotions with practice, and use strategies to improve their well-being. One month later, we found that students assigned to the intervention condition (compared to an active control condition) reported more adaptive theories of emotion and greater emotional well-being in school, although well-being outside of school was unchanged. Secondary analyses showed that these effects were present regardless of students' race, gender, or grade level. These findings suggest that theories of emotion may be a promising target for improving adolescent well-being. (PsycINFO Database Record

Children's mindsets about intelligence (as a quality they can grow vs. a trait they cannot change) robustly influence their motivation and achievement. How do adults foster "growth mindsets" in children? One might assume that adults act in ways that communicate their own mindsets to children. However, new research shows that many parents and teachers with growth mindsets are not passing them on. This article presents a new perspective on why this is the case, and reviews research on adult practices that do instill growth mindsets, concluding that a sustained focus on the process of learning is critical. After discussing key implications and promising future directions, we consider the topic in the context of important societal issues, like high-stakes testing.

In two samples (N = 247, N = 291), we examined the link between beliefs and messages about the changeable (incremental theory) vs. fixed (entity theory) nature of weight, attributions for weight, and body shame. We recruited participants using online sampling, employing a correlational design in Study 1 and an experimental design in Study 2. Across both studies, we found evidence for the stigma-asymmetry effect—incremental, relative to entity beliefs/messages of weight predicted both (a) stronger onset responsibility attributions, indirectly increasing body shame and (b) stronger offset efficacy attributions, indirectly decreasing body shame. Study 2 replicated the stigma-asymmetry effect with anti-fat attitudes. We discuss implications for public health obesity messages with the goal of reducing stigma.

In this piece, I first celebrate the growing contribution of psychology to the understanding and solution of pressing social issues. Then, despite these exciting developments, I worry about whether we have created a field that our students want to spend their lives in, and I suggest concerns that might fruitfully be addressed. Finally, I worry about the potential fragmentation of psychology and applaud programs of research that have shown the unique and important contributions to be made when the methods and perspectives of neuroscience, cognitive science, and computational modeling are integrated with those of social, personality, and developmental psychology. In sum, although this is an exciting time for our field, we can do more to ensure its vigor and its truly interdisciplinary nature as we move forward.

My career has been devoted to understanding the nature, workings, and development of children's motivation. Starting with research on motivation in animals, I went on to study the motivational impact of children's attributions, achievement goals, and mindsets about their abilities. I have explored how socialization practices affect these mindsets, as well as how interventions that change children's mindsets can enhance their motivation and learning. I am now developing a broad theory that puts motivation and the formation of mindsets (or beliefs) at the heart of social and personality development. It is hoped that this will attract even more young scholars in developmental psychology to the study of motivation.

Three studies examine how organizational mindset —whether a company is perceived to view talent as fixed or malleable—functions as a core belief that predicts organizational culture and employees’ trust and commitment. In Study 1, Fortune 500 company mission statements were coded for mindset language and paired with Glassdoor culture data. Workers perceived a more negative culture at fixed (vs. growth) mindset companies. Study 2 experimentally manipulated organizational mindset and found that people evaluated fixed (vs. growth) mindset companies as having more negative culture norms and forecasted that employees would experience less trust and commitment. Study 3 confirmed these findings from more than 500 employees of seven Fortune 1000 companies. Employees who perceived their organization to endorse a fixed (vs. growth) mindset reported that their company’s culture was characterized by less collaboration, innovation, and integrity, and they reported less organizational trust and commitment. These findings suggest that organizational mindset shapes organizational culture.