Students in both the control and incremental conditions were asked to write a letter to an at-risk middle school student about what they learned in the webinar.
This effect was equally strong for victims of peer aggression and nonvictims, Incremental Theory Condition × Victim Status interaction b = −5.46, SE = 16.42, t 88) = 0.33, ns, and for students who were thought of as aggressive or not aggressive by their peers, Incremental Theory Condition × Baseline Aggression interaction b = −0.83, SE = 3.78, t 88) = 0.22, ns.
Participants in these two conditions did not significantly differ (see Table 7); thus, we collapsed across the incremental ability condition for the Summer program perception analyses.
This measure served as a manipulation check for the incremental ability condition.
We first conducted a manipulation check to determine whether the incremental ability condition enhanced students' beliefs that intelligence is malleable (e.g., incremental, or it can develop and grow), relative to those in the control group.
Students in the incremental ability condition focused their letters on the message that it is possible to overcome challenges and succeed, especially with hard work, to reinforce the message they received during the webinar.
As expected, participants in the incremental ability condition reported higher incremental beliefs (Summer minicourse: M = 4.75, SD = 0.79; follow-up assessment: M = 4.39, SD = 0.87) compared with students in the control condition (Summer minicourse: M = 3.94, SD = 1.06; follow-up assessment: M = 3.99, SD = 1.07).
Fourteen percent of the control group participants wrote prosocial notes (Mcoping skills = 13%; Mno treatment = 15%), whereas more than 3 times as many (44%) of those in the incremental theory condition did so, logistic regression unstandardized b = 1.68, SE = 0.55, t 88) = 3.07, p <.05, d =.86, a significant difference (see Figure 2b).
As expected, 2 weeks postintervention, students in the incremental theory condition, compared to the control groups, held less of an entity theory of personality, unstandardized b = −0.45, SE = 0.15, t(161) = 2.67 (covariate-adjusted Mincremental theory = 2.47, Mcoping skills and no treatment = 2.92), p <.05, d =.47, controlling for baseline entity theory of personality.
Changes in plastic strain were induced under incremental loading conditions and measured using the prescription.
