Exercise Mindsets: An Initial Validation Study

Thursday, March 19, 2015
Exhibit Hall Poster Area 1 (Convention Center)
Joseph Otundo and Alex C. Garn, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Background/Purpose:

Dweck has recently changed terminology in her highly productive self-theories framework to “mindsets”. A growth mindset represents individuals who believe that personal characteristics and abilities can be fostered through effort. A fixed mindset represents individuals who believe personal characteristics and abilities are stable and innate. Individuals with growth mindsets are more likely to create an individual/mastery framework of success whereas individuals with a fixed mindset are more likely to validate ability through successful social comparisons. The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and reliable measure of mindsets specific to the exercise domain.

Method:

A group of undergraduate students (N= 205) enrolled in exercise classes completed a total of 10 items (5 growth items e.g., when I’m faced with a difficult exercise situation, I’m likely to view it as an opportunity to learn and grow; 5 fixed items e.g., my approach to exercise situations is to prove my basic self-worth, competence, and likeability) related to exercise mindsets on two occasions approximately one-month apart. Students also completed surveys related to mastery-oriented competence, physical self-concept, and contingent self-esteem.   

Analysis/Results:

An exploratory factor analysis revealed two distinct mindset constructs accounting for 56.82% of the variance (fixed = 36.83%; growth 19.99%). Items loaded on their intended factor (fixed .59-.86; growth .60-.76) without double loading and communalities ranged from .36-.75 (M= .50, SD= .12). The internal consistency for growth and fixed mindsets were .77 and .83. Reliability was also supported by a one-month test-retest using intra-class correlations (fixed ICC= .76 95, 95%CI= .69-.82; growth ICC= .71, 95%CI= .62-.78). Both convergent and divergent validity were supported for growth exercise mindset (r= .51 mastery competence; r= -.19 contingent self-esteem) while convergent validity was supported with the fixed exercise mindset (r= .23 contingent self-esteem).

Conclusions:

Growth mindsets are integral to cultivating adaptive psychological and behavioral outcomes whereas fixed mindsets breed stagnation. Because exercise participation often challenges individuals both mentally and physically and gratification is typically delayed, promoting a growth mindset may not always be an easy task. This measure can assist exercise leaders in evaluating exercise mindsets in order to capitalize on growth mindsets already present or remediate fixed mindsets.