Cross-National Comparison of Growth-Mindset Endorsement and its Link to Achievement Goals: A Comparative Survey in Pakistan, China, the United States, and Japan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70670/sra.v3i4.1267Keywords:
Growth mindset; Achievement goals; Mastery goals; Cross-national comparison; Measurement invariance; Higher education.Abstract
Background and Study Aim. The belief that intelligence and abilities are malleable (growth mindset) is linked to adaptive learning strategies, yet cross-national variation in endorsement and its association with achievement goals is understudied. This study compares growth-mindset endorsement and its relationships to mastery and performance achievement goals across Pakistan, China, the United States, and Japan.
Material and Methods. Using a cross-sectional comparative survey, 1,370 university-age participants (Pakistan n = 300, China n = 350, USA n = 400, Japan n = 320) completed validated 1–7 Likert scales assessing growth mindset, mastery goals, and performance goals. Instruments were forward-back translated and pilot-tested. Analyses included descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlations, hierarchical linear regressions with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors, and country × mindset interaction probes. Measurement invariance testing (multi-group CFA) was conducted to evaluate comparability of constructs across languages.
Results. Growth-mindset endorsement differed across countries, F(3,1366) = 45.36, p < .001 (China highest; Japan lowest). Growth mindset correlated more strongly with mastery goals (r = .38–.54, all p < .001) than with performance goals (r = .12–.24, mixed significance). Hierarchical regression showed a robust association between growth mindset and mastery goals (standardized β ≈ .45, p < .001); interaction tests indicated modest cultural moderation. Measurement invariance supported configural and metric equivalence; partial scalar invariance was achieved after freeing two items.
Conclusion. Growth-mindset endorsement and its link to mastery goals are robust across diverse contexts but are culturally patterned; interventions should be culturally adapted. Future studies should use longitudinal or experimental designs and apply multilevel modeling to unpack individual-level and contextual pathways.
