Pepperdine Digital Commons Pepperdine Digital Commons: Pepperdine University Pepperdine University

Pepperdine University
Pepperdine Digital Commons
Theses and Dissertations
2014
A quantitative study measuring the relationship between student

mindset, parent mindset, and anxiety
Matthew R. Northrop
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Northrop, Matthew R., "A quantitative study measuring the relationship between student mindset, parent
mindset, and anxiety" (2014). Theses and Dissertations. 513.
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd/513
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more
information, please contact [email protected] , [email protected].
Running head: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY
Pepperdine University
Graduate School of Education and Psychology
A QUANTITATIVE STUDY MEASURING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT
MINDSET, PARENT MINDSET, AND ANXIETY
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership
by
Matthew R. Northrop
December, 2014
Kay Davis, Ed.D. – Dissertation Chairperson

This dissertation, written by
Matthew R. Northrop
under the guidance of a Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been submitted to
and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Doctoral Committee:
Kay Davis, Ed.D., Chairperson
Linda Purrington, Ed.D.
Molly McCabe, Ed.D.
Sarah Schnitker, Ph.D.

© Copyright by Matthew R. Northrop (2014)
All Rights Reserved

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................ ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... x
VITA .......................................................................................................................................... xii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 4

Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................ 4
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................. 6
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 8
Conceptual & Operational Definitions .......................................................................... 10
Assumptions & Delimitations ........................................................................................ 14
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 14
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 15
Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 17
Theories of Intelligence ................................................................................................. 18

Anxiety ........................................................................................................................... 27
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 37
Chapter 3: Methods .................................................................................................................... 38
Research Design............................................................................................................. 38
Rationale for Study Design ............................................................................................ 39
Human Subjects Considerations .................................................................................... 43
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................ 44
Variables of the Study .................................................................................................... 45
Instrumentation .............................................................................................................. 46
Data Preparation and Analysis ....................................................................................... 54
Chapter 4: Results ...................................................................................................................... 58
Results ............................................................................................................................ 60
Score Analysis of the Student Survey ............................................................................ 87
Student Academic Demographics .................................................................................. 90
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY v
Findings for Research Questions ................................................................................... 97

Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................... 103
Chapter 5: Study Conclusions .................................................................................................. 105
The Issue and Significance .......................................................................................... 105

Conceptual Foundation ................................................................................................ 106
Methods........................................................................................................................ 112
Key Findings ................................................................................................................ 113
Conclusions with Implications and Recommendations ............................................... 114
Study Validity and Limitations .................................................................................... 120
Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................... 121
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 123
APPENDIX A: STICSA: Your Mood at this Moment ............................................................ 138
APPENDIX B: STICSA: General Mood Questionnaire ......................................................... 139
APPENDIX C: Implicity Theories Questionnaire (ITQ)......................................................... 140
APPENDIX D: Demographic Questions ................................................................................. 141
APPENDIX E: Highly Selective Colleges, Universities, and Academies............................... 144
APPENDIX F: IRB Approval .................................................................................................. 145

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Demographics of the Communities Surrounding Participant Schools ........................ 42

Table 2. Study’s Variables, Instruments, Sample, Number of Items, and Format of Items ...... 46
Table 3. Intelligence Domain Items of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ) for
the Parent Survey............................................................................................................. 48
Table 4. Intelligence Domain Items of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ) for
the Student Survey........................................................................................................... 49
Table 5. TIPI Items (Emotional Stability Dimension), Scoring, and Type of
Anxiety Measured ........................................................................................................... 50
Table 6. STICSA Items, Scoring, and Type of Anxiety Measured ........................................... 52
Table 7. Study’s Variables and Analysis Procedures ................................................................ 55
Table 8. Research Questions and Procedures ............................................................................ 56
Table 9. Number of Parent and Student Participants ................................................................. 58
Table 10. Demographics of Student Participants ...................................................................... 59
Table 11. Intelligence Domain Items of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ)
for the Parent Survey ....................................................................................................... 61
Table 12. Central Tendency of Intelligence Design items from the Implicit Theories
Questionnaire of the Parent Survey for Parent/Guardian Total Participants ................... 62
Questionnaire of the Parent Survey for Parent/Guardian Subgroup Participants ........... 62
Table 14. Item #1: How intelligent you are is hardly or not at all changeable by
yourself. ........................................................................................................................... 63
Table 15. Item #2: How intelligent you are depends mainly on your own effort. ..................... 64
Table 16. Item #3: How intelligent you are cannot be influenced by yourself. ......................... 64
Table 17. Item #4: If someone is not very intelligent as a child, he or she cannot be very
intelligent as an adult, even if he or she tries to. ............................................................. 65
Table 18. TIPI Items (Emotional Stability Dimension), Scoring, and Type of
Anxiety Measured ............................................................................................................ 66
Table 19. Central Tendency of Emotional Stability items from the Ten Item Personality
Inventory of the Parent Survey for Parent/Guardian Total Participants.......................... 66
Table 20. Item #5: I see myself as anxious, easily upset. .......................................................... 67
Table 21. Item #6: I see myself as calm, emotionally stable. .................................................... 68
Table 22. Descriptive Statistics of the Intelligence Domain (ITQ) for Parent/Guardian
Total Participants (TP) and Subgroup Participants (SP) ................................................. 69
Table 23. Frequency Distribution of Intelligence Domain (ITQ) for Parent/Guardian
Total Participants (TP) and Subgroup Participants (SP) ................................................. 69
Table 24. Descriptive Statistics of Emotional Stability Scores for Parent/Guardian
Total Participants (TP) and Parent/Guardian Subgroup Participants (SP) ...................... 70
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY vii
Table 25. Frequency Distribution of Emotional Stability Scores for Total Participants
(TP) and Subgroup Participants (SP) .............................................................................. 71
Table 26. Intelligence Domain Items of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ) for the
Student Survey ................................................................................................................ 72
Questionnaire of the Student Survey ............................................................................... 73
Table 28. Item #1: How intelligent you are is hardly or not at all changeable by / yourself ..... 73
Table 29. Item #2: How intelligent you are depends mainly on your own effort ...................... 74
Table 30. Item #3: You cannot influence how intelligent you are............................................. 74
Table 31. Item #4: If someone is not very intelligent as a child, he or she cannot be
very intelligent as an adult, even if he or she tries to ...................................................... 75
Table 32. STICSA Items, Scoring, and Type of Anxiety Measured ......................................... 75
Table 33. Descriptive Statistics for the Trait-Somatic items on the Student Survey. ................ 77
Table 34. Frequency distribution of the first four Trait-Somatic items from the
Student Survey ................................................................................................................ 78
Table 35. Frequency distribution of the second four Trait-Somatic items from the
Student Survey ................................................................................................................ 79
Table 36. Descriptive Statistics of the Trait-Cognitive items from the Student
Survey .............................................................................................................................. 80
Table 37. Frequency distribution of the first four Trait-Cognitive items from the
Student Survey ................................................................................................................ 81
Table 38. Frequency distribution of the fifth through seventh of the Trait-Cognitive
items from the Student Survey ........................................................................................ 81
Table 39. Frequency distribution of the eighth through tenth of the Trait-Cognitive
Table 40. Frequency distribution of the eleventh through thirteenth of the
Trait-Cognitive items from the Student Survey .............................................................. 82
Table 41. Descriptive Statistics for the State-Somatic items on the Student Survey ................ 82
Table 42. Frequency distribution of the first four State-Somatic items from the
Student Survey ................................................................................................................ 83
Table 43. Frequency distribution of the second four State-Somatic items from the
Student Survey ................................................................................................................ 83
Table 44. Descriptive Statistics of the State-Cognitive items from the Student Survey ........... 84
Table 45. Frequency distribution of the first four State-Cognitive items from the
Student Survey ................................................................................................................ 86
Table 46. Frequency distribution of the fifth through seventh of the State-Cognitive
Table 47. Frequency distribution of the eighth through tenth of the State-Cognitive
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY viii
Table 48. Frequency distribution of the eleventh through thirteenth of the

State-Cognitive items from the Student Survey .............................................................. 87
Table 49. Central Tendency: STICSA Anxiety Total for Student Participants ......................... 87
Table 50. Frequency Distribution of the STICSA Anxiety Total Score from each
of the Student Participants ............................................................................................... 88
Table 51. Central Tendency: STICSA Anxiety Total for Student Participants ......................... 89
Table 52. Frequency Distribution for the Student Mindset Total Scores .................................. 89
Table 53. Frequency Distribution of student GPA’s ................................................................. 90
Table 54. Central Tendency: Demographics of Student Participants ........................................ 90
Table 55. Frequency Distribution of student SAT scores .......................................................... 91
Table 56. Central Tendency: Demographics of Student Participants ........................................ 92
Table 57. Frequency Distribution of highest ACT score ........................................................... 93
Table 58. Central Tendency of highest ACT scores .................................................................. 93
Table 59. Central Tendency: Number of College Applications Per Student ............................. 94
Table 60. Frequency Distribution: Number of College Applications Per Student .................... 94
Table 61. Frequency Distribution: The Most Highly Selective Colleges, Universities,
and Academies in the United States to which Participants Applied ............................... 95
Table 62. Frequency Distribution of Total Sum of Applications to Highly Selective
Colleges, Universities, and Academies ........................................................................... 96
Table 63. Central Tendency: Total Sum of Applications to Highly Selective Colleges,
Universities, and Academies ........................................................................................... 96
Table 64. Frequency Distribution: Anticipated Choice of Majors Among Student
Participants ...................................................................................................................... 97
Table 65. Correlations between Student Mindset and Student Anxiety
(Trait-Cognitive, Trait-Anxiety, State-Anxiety, Cognitive Anxiety, and
Total Anxiety) ................................................................................................................. 98
Table 66. Correlations with Student Mindset and Student Anxiety (Trait-Somatic,
State-Somatic, and Total Somatic Anxiety Scores) ........................................................ 99
Table 67. Correlations Between Parent Mindset and Levels of Student Anxiety ................... 100
Table 68. Correlations between Parent Mindset Scores and Student Mindset Scores............. 101
Table 69. Correlation between a parent’s TIPI Score (Emotionally Stability) and
their Student’s Mindset ................................................................................................. 101
Table 70. Correlational Analysis Between Mindset (Both Student and Parent) and
Levels of Academic Achievement................................................................................. 102
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY ix
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my wife, Rachel, and my two boys, Justus and Caleb. You fill me
with such incredible joy! My love for you only deepens with each passing day!
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Isaac Newton once wrote, “If I have seen further it is by standing upon the shoulders of
giants.” The work contained within this dissertation is only possible because of the shoulders of
giants on which I have had the privilege of standing. These giants include the researchers,
philsophers, and educators who have laid the conceptual framework for this study. These giants
also include my mentors, friends, and family who have helped mold and shape the man I am
today and who have enouraged me along this journey.
First, I want to thank my many mentors and teachers. Although too numerous to mention
each by name, I would like to highlight a few: my dad-Dwayne Northrop, Tom Armour, Dr.
Chris Flannery, John Rouse, Scott Sommers, and Kirk Miyashiro. Each of these men have
encouraged me to strive far beyond my comfort zone and to reach towards matters of substance
and purpose.
Second, I want to thank my cohort here at Pepperdine as well as my co-workers from
Marantha High School, Oaks Christian School, and now at Legacy Christian Academy. I have
been blessed to work, to think, and to learn alongside some incredibly gifted and loving people.
Third, I am so thankful for my dissertation committee: Dr. Kay Davis, Dr. Linda
Purrington, Dr. Molly McCabe, and Dr. Sarah Schnitker. Each member of the committee has
given so much of their time, effort, experience and wisdom. They have each encouraged,
challenged, and inspired me. I am so thankful for each of them. I want to especially thank my
chair, Dr. Kay Davis, for the hundreds of hours she has spent reading through this manuscript,
my data, and speaking with me. Thank you!
Fourth, I want to thank my family: Dwayne, Marcie, Kim, Wes, Erin, Justus, and Caleb
Northrop; and Mike, Debbie, and Jessica Valdez. They have believed in me, supported me,
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY xi
encouraged me, and loved me in ways that are epic.
Fifth, I want to thank my beautiful wife, Rachel, for her undying support, enouragement,
sacrifice, and love. This journey in pursuit of a doctorate would never have happened without
her…I cherish every moment with her by my side and lover her more than words could ever
express!
Lastly, I want to thank the Lord for every good and perfect gift He has so graciously
given to me. He has provided strength, wisdom, discernment, and stamina beyond what I am
capable of on my own. And it is in Him alone that I find true purpose and meaning.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY xii
VITA
Education
Ed.D. Pepperdine University. Educational Leadership, Administration, and Policy.

(completion - 2014)
M.Ed. California State University of Northridge. Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.
(May 2010)
B.A. Azusa Pacific University. Social Science with a History Emphasis.
(May 1998)
Experience
• Legacy Christian Academy (K-8). Assistant Principal. Valencia, 2014-present

CA.
• Oaks Christian School (9-12). Dean. Westlake Village, CA. 2012-2014
• Maranatha High School (9-12). Dean. Pasadena, CA. 2006-2012
• Maranatha High School (9-12). Teacher. Pasadena, CA. 1998-2006
Publications/Presentations
• How Mindset Affects Student Achievement and Anxiety. March 2014

California Association of Independent Schools (Regional
Conference).
• What’s Sleep Got To Do With It? Pepperdine University. May 2013
Graduate School of Education and Psychology.
• Building a Crisis Management Plan. Consortium of September 2012
Religious Organizations of Southern California.
Research Experience
• A Quantitative Study Measuring the Difference Between Student 2013-2014

and Parent Mindset. Dissertation.
• The Surprising Truth About Sleep In Adolescents. Action 2012-2014
Research.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY xiii
Teaching Experience
• The Bridge Course. 9th Grade. Oaks Christian School 2014

• Advanced Placement United States History. 11th Grade.
2004-2006
Maranatha High School.
• World History. 10th Grade. Maranatha High School. 1998-2004
Professional Development
• American Association of School Administrators (AASA) 2013-present

• Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) 1998-present
Educational Interests
• Implicit theories of intelligence (aka Mindset)
• Educational leadership with special interest toward private, faith-based schools
• Improving academic achievement while decreasing levels of unhealthy anxiety among students
• Ethical leadership
• Crisis management
• Leadership through communication

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY xiv
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this quantitative study was to discover the relationship between a parent’s
mindset, his/her student’s mindset, and the student’s level of anxiety as high school seniors
during the college application process. 4 private, independent, college preparatory high schools
throughout southern California were included in the study. The parent survey measured the
parent’s mindset through the Intelligence Domain of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ)
and measured the parent’s emotional stability through the Ten Item Personality Survey (TIPI).
The student survey measured the student’s mindset through the Intelligence Domain of the ITQ,
the student’s level of anxiety through the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic
Anxiety (STICSA), and several items related to student demographics, such as: grade point
average (GPA), highest American College Testing (ACT) and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)
score, number of colleges to which the student applied, student race and gender. 26 parent-
student pairs participated representing 4 different schools. Findings in this study showed that
subjects predominently held a growth mindset which promotes learning goals, allows for
healthier responses to challenges and failures, and promotes resilience, effort, and hard work.
Given the small sample size, there was insufficient evidence to support that either a parent’s
mindset or a student’s mindset is a determinant of student anxiety during the college application
process. However, a significant, moderate correlation (r = .50, p < .05) was found between a
parent’s mindset and their student’s mindset. There was also a significant, moderate correlation
(r = .50; p < .05) between the number of college applications a student completed and their
levels of overall anxiety. It is recommended that schools provide opportunities for parents and
guardians to be educated about growth mindset. Additionally, strategies and resources should be
given to parents to help aid in developing a growth mindset among their children. It is also
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY xv
recommended that further research be conducted with a larger sample size to better assess
whether there is a relationship between mindset and anxiety.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDSET AND ANXIETY 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
When comparing equally gifted students attending college preparatory high schools, what
enables some adolescents to thrive while others experience high degrees of unhealthy anxiety?
Why do some students wither under the pressures and challenges associated with many college
preparatory schools while others seem to be motivated by the gauntlet of challenges and high
expectations? Scholars, practitioners, educators, and psychologists search to answer questions
such as these (Ansary & Luthar, 2009; Artani, 2006; Ashcraft, 2002; Blackwell, Trzesniewski &
Dweck, 2007; Britner & Pajares, 2006; Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Conner, Pope & Galloway,
2009; Dweck, 2007; Eskeles Gottfried, 1983; Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic & McDougall,
2002; Hansell, 1982; Kraag, Zeegers, Kok, Hosman, & Abu-Saad, 2006; Mangels, Butterfield,
Lamb, Good & Dweck, 2006; Martocchio, 1994; Mattoo & Nabi, 2012; Melman, Little & Akin-
Little, 2007; Mogel, 2005; Pope & Simon, 2005; Vatterott, 2009). Many have turned to theories
of intelligence—both explicit theories of intelligence (Gardner, 1999; Getzels, 1975; Guilford,
1967; Spearman, 1927) as well as implicit theories of intelligence (Dweck, Chi-yue & Ying-yi,
1995; Furnham et al., 2002; Mangels et al., 2006; Sternberg, 1985)—to provide a framework
with which to provide some clarity regarding these matters. A model stemming specifically from
the implicit theories of intelligence has emerged coined by Dweck (2006) as one’s mindset. The
studies associated with the mindset seem to suggest that the radical difference in students’
responses to challenges and setbacks may actually be caused by their intrinsic views of
intelligence (Blackwell et al., 2007). Studies suggest that these personal beliefs about
intelligence can have marked effects on resiliency, learning, student achievement, and levels of
experienced anxiety (Dweck, 2008).

Within this framework, Dweck (2006) explains that people can have one of two mindsets
when viewing levels of intelligence: a fixed mindset or a growth mindset. In the literature
addressing the mindset, a fixed mindset may also be termed as the entity theory and a growth
mindset may also be referred to as the incremental theory. For the purpose of clarity and
consistency, throughout this study, the terms fixed mindset and growth mindset will be used.
Those with a growth mindset believe that with perseverance, hard work, and education, it
is possible for levels of intelligence within individuals to drastically increase or decrease
(Dweck, 2008). Individuals with a growth mindset view the intellect as being malleable.
Learning intrinsically motivates those possessing a growth mindset. These students will often
times intentionally seek out opportunities for growth, not just a better grade. Students with this
mindset are honest about their weaknesses and are actively looking for ways to strengthen these
weaknesses through hard work, the accumulation of knowledge, and the development of their
skill sets. Critical thinking is enjoyable for those with a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006, 2009).
Research suggests that students affiliated with the growth mindset tend to have better grades, a
higher degree of motivation, and show greater degrees of improvement in learning (Blackwell et
al., 2007). In contrast to those with a fixed mindset, growth minded students view challenges as
an opportunity to be stretched and, ultimately, to grow. Failures are viewed only as setbacks with
a realization that potential has not yet been reached (Dweck, 2006, 2009). For students with a
growth mindset, the emphasis is on learning, not on grades.
In contrast, students with a fixed mindset are not as interested in learning as they are in
getting the right grade to prove their level of intelligence. These students believe levels of
intelligence are fixed and cannot be markedly increased or decreased throughout time—even
through hard work and determination. This leads those with a fixed mindset toward an urgency
to prove they are smart enough, intelligent enough, talented enough, or skilled enough.
Validation is extremely important to those with a fixed mindset. However, validation is also
difficult to achieve as it only comes with success or, perhaps, only through perfection. Failure,
on the other hand, can be catastrophic for those with a fixed mindset because it is not viewed as
an opportunity for growth, but as confirmation that they are not smart enough, intelligent
enough, or talented enough (Dweck, 2006, 2008). This leads those with a fixed mindset to place
a higher value upon appearing intelligent over developing the knowledge necessary to succeed,
not only in the classroom, but beyond. Often times, those with this mindset will intentionally
reject situations that may challenge them intellectually because they fear making a mistake and
losing the appearance that they are smart enough. Rather than seeking to remedy or strengthen
their weaknesses, students who are fixed minded actually seek to conceal their weaknesses—
even resorting at times to deceit and cheating (Dweck, 2009).
According to Dweck, Elliott, & Mussen (1983), those with a fixed mindset may also be
prone to higher levels of anxiety, particularly when faced with challenging tasks that may lower
their confidence levels. When individuals maintain high levels of confidence, whether they
possess a fixed or a growth mindset, individuals tend to exhibit mastery-oriented behavior. But
when faced with challenging tasks requiring high effort with an uncertain outcome, there is a
clear differentiation between the mindsets. Those with a growth mindset continue to exhibit
master-oriented behavior while those with a fixed mindset often experience high levels of
anxiety (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
To date, very little research, if any, has sought to discover what relationship, if any, exists
between high school students’ mindset and their levels of anxiety. For those attending
independent, academically rigorous, college-preparatory high schools, anxiety levels can run
high. The highest levels of anxiety for many students may be experienced during the college
application process during the fall semester of their senior year. The college application process
requires high effort from students and often times, the outcome is quite uncertain (Chace, 2013).
This, according to Dweck, qualifies as a challenging task, a task that provides an excellent
opportunity and backdrop for a study to discover whether there is, in fact, a clear delineation
between how those with a fixed mindset and those with a growth mindset experience anxiety
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Problem Statement
Studies have shown that one’s mindset can have a tremendous effect on an individual
from the way one approaches new challenges to the way one responds to setbacks (Dweck, 2006,
2008, 2009, 2010; Mangels et al., 2006). It is also known that students across the country are
experiencing high levels of academic anxiety and that high levels of anxiety can do great harm,
both psychologically and physiologically (Conner et al., 2009; Pope & Simon, 2005). The
dangerous effects of anxiety on adolescents have been well documented (Keller et al., 1992;
Pine, Cohen, Gurley, Brook & Ma, 1998; Pynoos, Steinberg & Piacentini, 1999; Warren,
Huston, Egeland & Sroufe, 1997). What remains unclear is whether a student’s particular
mindset affects their level of unhealthy anxiety. In addition, we know that the values and norms
of a family can have a tremendous effect on their children. What is not known is whether there is
a relationship between a parent’s mindset and their student’s mindset, and whether there is a
correlation to the levels of unhealthy anxiety as experienced by their student.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this quantitative study is to determine whether there is a relationship
between the mindset of a high school senior attending a private, independent, college-preparatory
school and their levels of unhealthy academic anxiety specifically during the college application
process. In addition, the study will also assess what, if any, relationship exists between the
mindset of a parent or guardian and the levels of unhealthy academic anxiety as experienced by
their student specifically during the college application process. Lastly, the study will also
discover if there is a relationship between a student’s mindset and their parent/guardian’s
mindset. Other variables within the study include a student’s gender, race, GPA, highest SAT
score, highest ACT score, the number of colleges receiving an application from the student,
whether students applied to any selective colleges, and whether a student is attending a faith
based school or non-faith based school will be explored. The following research questions will
guide the study:
1. To what extent, if at all, is there a relationship between the mindset of a college-
preparatory high school senior and the levels of unhealthy academic anxiety
experienced during the college application process?
2. To what extent, if at all, is there a relationship between the mindset of parents and the
levels of unhealthy academic anxiety experienced by their student during the college
application process?
3. What relationship exists, if any, between the mindset of a college-preparatory high
school senior and their parent’s or guardian’s mindset?
4. Are there differences in the mindset of high school seniors attending college-
preparatory, private, independent schools, the mindset of their parents or guardians,
or their levels of unhealthy anxiety based on selected demographic variables?
Quantitative methods are an appropriate approach for this research because the variables
of interest are known and measureable. A non-experimental design capturing survey data via
electronic methods will provide the necessary data to address the research questions.
Background of the Problem
Generally speaking, the high school years can be quite stressful. In particular, many
seniors, including those attending private, independent, college preparatory schools, experience a
high degree of anxiety related to academics, GPA, athletic and artistic performance, college
preparedness, nationally standardized tests such as the SAT or ACT, and the pursuit of college
scholarships and grants (Chace, 2013; Daigneault & Wirtz 2008; Hannon & McNaughton‐
Cassill, 2011; Pope & Simon, 2005). For some of these students, the anxiety is fueled by the
pressure to be accepted into a highly selective college, university, or academy. Others feel the
pressure from their family to gain acceptance into one specific school, perhaps their alma mater,
or perhaps purely because the college is one of the most highly selective colleges in the country.
Many fear that they will not be accepted into the college of their choice, or perhaps, into the
college of their parent’s choice (Golden, 2009). To make matters more difficult, high school
seniors face unprecedented competition to gain acceptance into the institution of their choice
(Folkman, Lazarus, Pimley & Novacek, 1987). According to NACAC (National Association for
College Admission Counseling), there are more students applying to colleges than at any other
time in our history (Artani, 2006). However, many colleges are not accepting any more students
than they have in previous years. This competition has largely led to more stringent standards of
college acceptance throughout the country (Bound, Hershbein & Long 2009).The result has been
increased competition among graduating high school students to attend the college of their
choice.
Many students and their families go to great lengths in their attempt to be accepted into
the right college. From participating in multiple clubs and athletic teams, to enrolling in as many
Advanced Placement (AP) classes as possible, students are often times severely lacking in the
amount of recommended sleep because of their grueling schedules (Eaton et al., 2010;
Foundation, 2011; Fuligni & Hardway, 2006). As one high school student explained:
“People make it seem like you can't be competitive if you don't take a thousand AP
courses,” said Elaine Singerman, a junior at Oakton High School in Vienna. “It's like our
educational system is eating us alive.” (Artani, 2006, p. A1)
This anxiety may only be exacerbated by a narrow definition of success. "In the striving
classes in America, you are where you go to college… a sense of national and global instability
leads to an apocalyptic urgency about making it. The young people feel that it's now or never. Or
maybe it was yesterday and I missed it” (Mogel, 2005, p. 26). This narrow view of success may
add a greater sense of urgency for high school students that, in turn, may lead to heightened
levels of anxiety.
In addition to discovering how a particular mindset may increase or decrease student
anxiety, this study will also seek to discover how a parent’s mindset may also affect the levels of
anxiety experienced by their student. In recent years, studies suggest a correlation between
family beliefs, values, and norms and their students’ anxiety levels (Melman et al., 2007).
Although these studies suggest a link between the values of parents and their adolescent’s levels
of experienced anxiety, to date, no known studies have sought to discover how a parent’s
mindset may affect the levels of anxiety experienced by their student.
Anxiety is likely experienced by many high school seniors including those in California,
the setting for this study (Conner et al., 2009). Many families are hoping to get their students into
one of the country’s most highly selective colleges, universities, or academies (Chace, 2013;
Hansell, 1982). In addition, many families are also hoping to avoid the ever increasing tuitions
through scholarships through student success in the academics, athletics, and the arts (Giacalone,
2004). Competition is abundant as many apply for few available seats (Chace, 2013; Hossler,
2004). It is this competition that leads families to enroll their students in private, independent,
college-preparatory high schools. At many of these schools, high expectations are often placed
upon students to gain acceptance into a highly-selective, prestigious four year college or
university (Ehrenberg, 2005; Taylor, 2013). Some believe these demands can lead to higher
levels of unhealthy, academic anxiety (Golden, 2009). This is a problem involving innumerable
variables, but what if a student’s mindset is integral to combatting this anxiety?
Conceptual Framework
The research surrounding the implicit theories of intelligence provides the conceptual
framework for this study, in particular the concept of one’s mindset as articulated and researched
by Dweck and associates (Dweck, 2006). During the past century, many theories have been
developed and researched surrounding extrinsic theories of intelligence, including seminal
studies by Spearman (1927), Sternberg (1985), and Gardner (1993). Extrinsic theories of
intelligence largely seek to define human intelligence and its many facets. Dweck’s focus,
however, has not been to define human intelligence per se, but instead to understand patterns and
behavior that may be caused by one’s personal views and theories of intelligence.
Two behavior pattern types were identified and researched extensively by Dweck and
associates: the helpless response and the mastery-oriented response (Diener & Dweck, 1978,
1980a; Dweck, 1975, 1976; Dweck & Dickon Reppucci, 1973). The helpless response pattern
was characterized by those who routinely sought to avoid challenges, often times with
deteriorating performance when facing obstacles. Conversely, the mastery-oriented response was
characterized by those who specifically sought out challenges and would continue to effectively
persevere in the midst of obstacles (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Perhaps most importantly, these
studies revealed no correlation between the skills and abilities people possess and their specific
response pattern (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
In a 1983 study (Dweck et al., 1983; Elliott & Dweck, 1988), these response patterns
were found to be fostered by the orientation of one’s goals. Those with the helpless response
pattern maintained goals that were performance oriented—focused primarily on proving
competency to others. On the other hand, those with a mastery-oriented response pattern focused
on goals that were learning oriented—concerned primarily with increasing competency and
learning (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). The task for researchers was then to
explain why people with similar levels of intellect and skill would choose to adopt such varying
goals.
Further research revealed the correlation of goals orientation with intrinsic theories of
intelligence. These subsequent studies revealed that people who believed their intellect could not
grow or diminish—a fixed mindset—typically possessed the performance oriented goals; and
those who believed their intellect could grow through study and learning—a growth mindset—
typically possessed learning oriented goals (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Therefore, a correlation was
discovered between one’s mindset, or their intrinsic theory of intellect, and their response
pattern.
This correlation between one’s mindset and a one’s response pattern provides the
conceptual framework for this study. For students who are involved in the college application
process, particularly those applying to highly-selective institutions, navigating the many
challenges and obstacles can be tremendously demanding (Chace, 2013). Is it possible that
students with a helpless response pattern experience higher levels of anxiety because these
challenges must be faced rather than avoided? Is it also possible that those with a mastery-
oriented response pattern experience lower levels of anxiety because of their propensity to accept
and even pursue challenging experiences?
Conceptual & Operational Definitions
There are many important concepts mentioned throughout the study. Those most key to
the study that may often be misunderstood are listed below. The definitions are organized by the
key variables of interest.
Mindset. Based upon research surrounding implicit theories of intelligence, a concept
has emerged that Dweck has coined as one’s mindset. According to this concept, one can possess
one of two mindsets. At one end of the spectrum is the fixed mindset. Those with this mindset
believe that the level of intelligence one possesses is, for the most part, stagnant. At the other end
of the spectrum are those with a growth mindset who define intelligence as a potential that can
only be fully realized through learning and determination (Elliott & Dweck, 1988).
Fixed mindset. A fixed mindset is the perception that an individual’s intelligence is a
fixed asset that cannot be increased or decreased through time, education, training, or effort. This
study seeks to measure respondents’ affiliation toward the fixed mindset with the 32 item
Implicit Theories Questionnaire (Spinath, Spinath, Riemann & Angleitner, 2003). Because fixed
mindset and entity theory are both used frequently within other studies within this research area,
it is important to know that for the purpose of this study and for needed clarity, fixed mindset will
be used instead of entity theory.
For those with a fixed mindset, high levels of psychological anxiety may have a tendency
to surface (Bandura & Jourden, 1991), especially within an academically challenging
environment. In a 1991 experiment with business school graduate students (N = 60), challenges
often found in academia such as difficult questions, assignments, and projects may be perceived
by students as threats to one’s fixed level of intelligence rather than a stimulus for growth
(Bandura & Jourden, 1991). In another experiment involving seventy-six employees in training,
the study suggests those with a fixed mindset may incur higher levels of anxiety. The study
showed a positive correlation between those who thought abilities were malleable (growth
mindset) and an attitude that viewed challenges and difficulties faced in training as an
opportunity for greater personal growth. Conversely, those who thought abilities to be fixed were
more likely to view training as a threat (Martocchio, 1994). High levels of anxiety may develop
among those with a fixed mindset because they have a tendency to focus on their deficiencies
rather than on accomplishing the challenging task (Bandura & Jourden, 1991; Martocchio,
1994).
Growth mindset. A growth mindset is the perception that intelligence is malleable and
can therefore be cultivated through hard work and education (Dweck, 2008). As with the entity
theory, this study also seeks to measure respondents’ affiliation toward the growth mindset with
the 32 item Implicit Theories Questionnaire (Spinath et al., 2003 & Angleitner, 2003). Because
growth mindset and incremental theory are both used frequently within studies within this
research area, it is important to know that for the purpose of this study and for needed clarity,
growth mindset will be used instead of incremental theory.
The Implicit Theories Questionnaire (Spinath et al., 2003) is designed to discover one’s
mindset and is closely aligned to Dweck’s original implicit theories scale (Dweck et al., 1995).
The questionnaire is adapted to allow implicit theories to be tested within such domains as
personality and intelligence as well as more specific skills such as athletics and mathematics.
Anxiety. When referenced in this study, anxiety, unless otherwise mentioned, refers
specifically to academic anxiety as experienced during the college application process. This
study seeks to take a cross-sectional measurement of the level of anxiety among high school
students through the use of the State–Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (Grös,
Antony, Simms & McCabe, 2007). The STICSA was chosen as the instrument for this study due
to its functionality to distinguish between acute stress and chronic stress. Acute stress is
experienced during a specific and limited period of time. This type of anxiety is experienced by
many high school seniors throughout the college search process. Chronic stress is experienced
during long periods of time and is not necessarily linked to a specific issue or challenge.
Anxiety, when referenced within this study, refers to unhealthy levels of anxiety unless
otherwise stated. Although stress, when experienced during short spans of time, can actually be a
benefit to the body and to the mind, research has demonstrated that unhealthy levels of anxiety
“impairs subsequent attention and memory, and can even induce profound amnesia” (Kim &
Diamond, 2002, p. 453). According to extensive research, for someone to be stressed, one must
have some sort of physiological response to the stressor, must perceive the stressor as aversive,
and must sense a lack of control in regard to the stressor (Kim & Diamond, 2002).
To measure anxiety, the State–Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety
(STICSA) tool will be used. The STICSA is based upon the definitive inventory for measuring
anxiety among adolescents and adults since 1968 (Grös et al., 2007). It was the first instrument
to differentiate between state anxiety and trait anxiety. State anxiety, otherwise known as acute
stress, is the type experienced for a finite period of time, perhaps due to a particular stressor such
as the college application process. Trait anxiety, otherwise known as chronic stress, is the type
that can be experienced during a much longer period of time. In addition, the STICSA was
chosen as the instrument in this study because it has been able to distinguish more accurately
between symptoms of anxiety and symptoms of depression (Grös et al., 2007).
Independent, college preparatory high school. As defined by the National Association
of Independent Schools (NAIS), independent schools are independent in two key areas:
governance and finance. Independent schools are free to create their own unique mission, free to
create their own admissions standards, free to define teacher expectations and credentials, and
free to create their own curriculum outside of the purview of any religious organization or the
local, state, or federal government (Bassett, 2006).
College preparatory seniors. High school seniors, who are typically between 17-18
years of age and who are enrolled in a private, independent high school with an academic
program that specifically prepares students for acceptance into a 4-year college, university, or
academy, will be referred to throughout this study as college-preparatory seniors.
College application process. Although some families are preparing their child to attend
a prestigious college or university even before their child is born (Quart, 2006), for the purpose
of this study, the college application process will refer throughout this study to the first semester
of a senior year. Although the college application process is unique for each student who chooses
to apply to a college, the process always includes a list of colleges to which a student will be
applying; procuring letters of recommendation from teachers, college counselors, administrators,
and many others; essay writing; several meetings with a college counselor; and the completion of
at least one college application (Chace, 2013).
Highly selective college, university, or academy. Of the 3,500 accredited colleges,
universities, and academies, only about 50 typically admit 25% or fewer of those applying each
year (Taylor, 2013). According to this definition, highly selective schools include those such as
Yale, Harvard, Stanford, West Point, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Julliard School,
University of Southern California, and the United States Air Force Academy.
Assumptions & Delimitations
This research will be limited to the collection of data from four private, independent,
college-preparatory schools located throughout southern California. All schools have
college/university matriculation rates consistently above 90% and routinely send many of their
students to highly selective colleges and universities each year. Secondly, because this is a cross-
sectional study thereby only providing a brief snapshot into the life of a high school senior, the
data will be gathered during the peak of the college admissions process to give the most accurate
data in terms of the potential anxiety experienced throughout this process.
Several assumptions are inherent within this study. First, it is assumed students and their
parents will be honest in their responses to the survey questions. A second assumption involves
the validity of the instruments used within the study to gather data which include the STICSA
(Grös et al., 2003) and the ITQ (Spinath et al., 2003). The STICSA has withstood the test of
validity for use with high school students. The STICSA is designed to measure the level of
anxiety currently experienced by the respondent and the ITQ is designed to measure the
respondent’s affiliation on a continuum in regard to the mindset theory. Lastly, the third
assumption is that the theories and research surrounding the mindset are both accurate and true.
In addition, it is assumed that having a growth mindset is favorable over having a fixed mindset.
Significance of the Study
Although there has been research suggesting a relationship between students with a fixed
mindset and heightened levels of test anxiety (Trudeau, 2009), to date, no empirical studies are
known to the researcher seeking to identify what relationship, if any, exists between mindset of a
college-preparatory high school senior and the levels of anxiety experienced during the college
application process. In addition, to date, there are also no studies known to the researcher seeking
to identify what relationship, if any, exists between the mindset of a parent and the level of
academic anxiety experienced by the student during the college application process.
Practically speaking, this study is critical for a number of reasons. First, if the results of
this study suggest a relationship between a parent’s mindset and the level of anxiety experienced
by their student, tremendous strides could be taken by college-preparatory schools across the
nation to lower levels of unhealthy anxiety amongst the student body. This could be
accomplished, for instance, by educating parents about the growth mindset and how to encourage
the growth of such a mindset within their student. In the same vein, if the research from this
study suggests a relationship between a student’s mindset and their own levels of anxiety, it
could potentially become possible to lower levels of anxiety by educating high school students
about the growth mindset. Research suggests that students who are taught about the growth
mindset can, to a much greater degree, adopt a growth mindset as their own mindset with the
result being a higher degree of effort being displayed in the class, in studying, and in the
completion of homework (Blackwell et al., 2007). Lastly, the results of this study could also
provide college counselors with information that could benefit their students in an applicable and
personalized manner. Simply stated, if the possession of a growth mindset leads to decreased
academic anxiety, it may become possible to decrease unhealthy levels of anxiety among high
school seniors throughout the nation.
Summary
The general purpose of this study is to discover what relationship exists between a
particular mindset (fixed mindset or growth mindset) and levels of experienced anxiety.
Specifically, this quantitative, cross-sectional study seeks to discover, (a) whether there is a
relationship between the mindset of a college-preparatory high school senior and their levels of
academic anxiety specifically during the college application process, (b) whether there is a
relationship between the mindset of a parent and the levels of academic anxiety as experienced
by their student specifically during the college application process, (c) whether a relationship
exists between the mindset of a college-preparatory high school senior and their parent’s or
guardian’s mindset, and (d) whether there are differences in the mindset of seniors attending
college-preparatory, private, independent high schools, the mindset of their parents/guardians, or
the academic anxiety experienced by the students based on selected demographic variables.
The second chapter provides a review of literature as it relates to the various concepts and
theories presented within this study including the theoretical framework, the history of the
college application process is explored from 1869 to present, and an extensive review of the
literature surrounding the variables of mindset and academic anxiety. The third chapter presents
the study’s methodology including the design, rationale, sampling methods and participants, and
instrumentation, as well as the data collection procedures, preparation, and analysis.

Chapter 2: Literature Review
The general purpose of this study is to discover whether there is a relationship between
the mindset of a high school senior attending a private, independent, college-preparatory school
and their levels of academic anxiety specifically during the college application process. In
addition, the study will also assess what, if any, relationship exists between the mindset of a
parent/guardian and the levels of academic anxiety as experienced by their student specifically
during the college application process. Lastly, the study will also discover if there is a
relationship between a student’s mindset and their parent or guardian’s mindset. Prior to an
effective study in this area, one must understand the research that has preceded this study,
including studies surrounding the mindset, the college application process, as well as acute and
chronic anxiety.
First, the review of literature for this chapter begins with the examination of the study’s
conceptual framework: mindset. Although the focus of the study specifically relates to the
framework of implicit theories of intelligence, in particular Dweck’s model of the mindset
(2006), the review of literature will begin with a brief discussion surrounding explicit theories of
intelligence. The review of literature will more heavily focus upon the model of mindset and its
many implications, specifically those relating most to the focus of this study: the way each
mindset tends to see performance goals versus learning goals, how each perceive failure and
effort, the studies involving the mindset and academic achievement, and the role of the mindset
as it relates to anxiety. The review of literature includes the latest research regarding the
biological functioning of the brain and how it may be affected by one’s mindset.
Also included within the literature review is research in regard to academic anxieties such
as test-anxiety, subject-specific anxiety, and college application anxiety. The review of literature
will conclude with a discussion of studies surrounding anxiety as it relates to institutions that are
faith based versus those that are not faith based.
This literature review will also include an historical background to the college acceptance
process within the United States from 1869 to 2013. This includes the evolution of nationally
standardized tests, the increasing percentage of students choosing to enroll in a college or
university, as well as the total number of colleges and universities within the country during this
same time period.
Theories of Intelligence
Explicit theories of intelligence. Although people have their own implicit theories, lay
theories, or personal beliefs regarding intelligence, many scholars have sought to extrinsically
define intelligence based upon philosophy, psychology, and empirical evidence (Mackintosh,
1998). Both modern and ancient academics alike have wrestled with the concept of intelligence.
The ancient Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, each had their own definitions. For Plato,
intelligence was purely the love of learning and of truth. Aristotle, however, articulated
intelligence as the ability to discover causal relationships (Mackintosh, 1998).
Modern academics and scholars have continued to wrestle with attempts to define and
explain this difficult concept of human intelligence (Gardner, 1999; Getzels, 1975; Guilford,
1967; Spearman, 1927). Through scientific inquiry, the objective has been “to advance beyond
this primitive, common-sense understanding (often termed ‘folk psychology’) to a more securely
grounded set of ideas, based on empirical evidence and capable of ordering the world in possibly
new and illuminating ways” (Mackintosh, 1998, p. 2). In terms of theoretical development
regarding human intelligence, some of the most influential figures in the 20th century include
Francis Galton (1822-1911), Alfred Binet (1857-1911), and Charles Spearman (1863-1945).
A cousin of Charles Darwin, father of evolutionary theory, many of Galton’s ideas
regarding intelligence actually stem from Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Galton furthered
the field of intelligence theory with two key findings. First, Galton discovered through empirical
evidence that intelligence varied greatly among human beings. Second, he maintained that
intelligence was hereditary in nature (Mackintosh, 1998).
Another influential figure, Alfred Binet, not only developed theories regarding
intelligence, but, perhaps more importantly, he also successfully developed a test to measure
levels of intelligence within individuals. Binet defined intelligence as the ability to judge,
comprehend, and reason at a high level. He also clarified his belief that intelligence was not
scholarly knowledge. Therefore, his scales did not seek to measure one’s knowledge, but they
instead attempted to measure the natural levels of intelligence within individuals. These scales
have been so successful, in fact, that the Binet scales of 1911, his last attempt before his death to
measure levels of natural intelligence, have established the foundation for contemporary IQ tests
(Mackintosh, 1998).
Another influential academic in regard to the theory of intelligence was Charles
Spearman who theorized the importance of a single process of general intelligence, simply
referred to as g (Spearman, 1927). Although Spearman understood that there were many
components to one’s intelligence, through factor analysis, he found that these components could
be accurately simplified through the measurement of the singular entity of general intelligence
(Mackintosh, 1998).
Many have theorized in opposition to Spearman’s general intelligence, believing his
definition of intelligence too narrow. Dissidents include the likes of Thurstsone, Guilford, and
Gardner (Mackintosh, 1998). The most contemporary of these authors is Gardner (1993, 1999)
who theorized the existence of eight key and separate intelligences: logical-mathematical,
linguistic, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalist, intrapersonal, and interpersonal
intelligences (Gardner, 1999).
Implicit theories of intelligence. While many scholars have continued to define
intelligence in an explicit manner, during the past few decades, others have begun the task of
studying individuals’ implicit theories of intelligence, those beliefs about intelligence that
individuals maintain, whether consciously or unconsciously. These theories are most central to
this particular study (Dweck et al., 1995; Furnham et al., 2002; Mangels et al., 2006; Sternberg,
1985). The most published model incorporating implicit theories of intelligence has been crafted
and coined by Dweck (2006) as one’s mindset.
The studies associated with the mindset seem to suggest that the radical difference in
students’ responses to challenges and setbacks may actually be caused by their intrinsic views of
intelligence (Blackwell et al., 2007). Studies suggest that these personal beliefs about
intelligence can have marked effects on resiliency, learning, student achievement, and perhaps
even levels of experienced anxiety (Dweck, 2008).
Mindset. According to Dweck (2006), there is a spectrum ranging from the fixed mindset
to the growth mindset. Those affiliated with the fixed mindset understand intelligence levels per
individual to be fixed. They believe that there is only a certain amount of intelligence that a
person possesses and not much, if anything, can be done to expand or to shrink one’s level of
intelligence. On the other hand, those with a growth mindset believe people can incrementally
grow in intelligence through time, dedication, and hard work (Dweck, 2006).
Empirical studies strongly suggest widely contrasting results between those with a
growth mindset and those with a fixed mindset, results that span multiple variables such as
gender, age, ethnicity, culture, and socioeconomic status (Aronson, Fried & Good, 2002;
Blackwell et al., 2007; Diener & Dweck, 1980; Dweck, 1976, 1995, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012;
Dweck & Dickon Reppucci, 1973; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Erdley & Dweck, 1993; Good,
Aronson, & Inzlicht 2003; Mangels et al., 2006; Rattan, Savam, Naidu & Dweck, 2012).
Contrasting results between these two mindsets include the creation of performance goals versus
learning goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Mangels et al., 2006),
contrasting responses to failure (Dweck, 2006; Moser et al., 2011; Plaks & Stecher, 2007),
different viewpoints regarding the need for effort and hard work (Dweck, 2006, 2010; Elliott &
Dweck, 1988), and contrasting longitudinal results in terms of academic achievement (Aronson
et al., 2002; Good et al., 2003; Mangels et al., 2006). Although there are numerous empirical
studies spanning multiple variables and multiple methodologies, little research has been
completed to discover what relationship exists, if any, between one’s mindset and the levels of
experienced anxiety. Before studying what is not known regarding mindset and anxiety, the
following review of literature will begin with what is known.
Performance goals vs. learning goals. Studies suggest a wide contrast between those
with a fixed mindset and those with a growth mindset in terms of their own personal
achievement goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Those with a growth
mindset typically develop and maintain learning-focused goals. These types of learning-focused
goals are mastery-oriented and place tremendous importance upon personal growth, the
development of knowledge, and continued improvement (Dweck, 1986; Elliott & Dweck, 1988).
Conversely, those with a fixed mindset typically have performance-focused goals. These types of
performance-focused goals are typically task-oriented and place emphasis upon measuring up to
a certain standard with the purpose of proving the worth, talent, or intellect (Elliott & Dweck,
1988). As opposed to mastery-orientation, the behavior pattern found to be typically associated
with this type of learning goal is helplessness (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980; Dweck, 1975;
Dweck & Leggett, 1988). As it relates to this study, in addition to this characteristic of learned
helplessness, those with a fixed mindset and the resulting performance-oriented goals remain
highly vulnerable to any type of criticism or negative feedback (Mangels et al., 2006).
Failure and effort. Evidence suggests resiliency may also be affected by one’s mindset.
Studies indicate that those with a fixed mindset view failure and negative feedback much
differently than those with a growth mindset (Blackwell et al., 2007; Plaks & Stecher, 2007).
Those with a fixed mindset typically see mistakes and failures as a reflection of their lack of
intelligence. Worse still for those with a fixed mindset, is the idea of exerting effort and still
experiencing failure—for this leaves them without excuse. (Dweck, 2006). Individuals with a
fixed mindset receive criticism or negative feedback, especially following the exertion of effort,
as the end of the road (Dweck, 2006; Moser et al., 2011; Plaks & Stecher, 2007).
Conversely, individuals with a growth mindset typically see failure as an opportunity to
grow, to learn, and to improve (Dweck, 2006; Plaks & Stecher, 2007). As previously discussed
regarding personal achievement goals, the learning-oriented goals created and sustained by those
with a growth mindset focus on learning and improving. Radically different than those with a
fixed mindset, those with a growth mindset believe effort is the key to success (Moser et al.,
2011). It is their belief in the importance of effort and toil that allows those with a growth
mindset to view failure, as disappointing and painful as it may be, as a motivational impetus to
continued learning, growth, and eventual success (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 2006; Plaks &
Stecher, 2007). Furthermore, those with a growth mindset are highly interested in hearing
feedback, even though the feedback may be negative in nature (Trope & Liberman, 2003).
Mindset and academic achievement. In two studies involving mindset and academics,
those with a growth mindset displayed increasing levels of academic achievement as opposed to
those with a fixed mindset, both in terms of GPA and achievement test scores (Aronson et al.,
2002; Good et al., 2003). A 2002 study involving Stanford undergraduates (N = 79) sought to
find whether a growth mindset would increase academic achievement scores among African-
American students (Aronson et al., 2002). The study suggested not only a strong correlation
between a growth mindset and a student’s enjoyment of academics, but it also found a strong
correlation between a growth mindset and a higher GPA (Aronson et al., 2002).
A 2003 study (N = 138) found an important correlation linking a growth mindset
intervention to significantly higher standardized test scores among female, minority, low-income
students (Good et al., 2003). According to the researchers, due to stereotypes regarding female,
minority, low-income students and their proficiency for math and science, students may
experience significant levels of anxiety when preparing and completing math and science
sections of a standardized test. Students were randomly assigned to be a part of one of four test
experimental conditions: a growth mindset intervention, an attribution intervention, a
combination intervention, and an anti-drug intervention. Students who received the growth
mindset intervention experienced significant improvements on both math and science
standardized test scores when compared to those who were part of another intervention (Good et
al., 2003).
Mindset and anxiety. Although there has been quite a bit of research regarding the
mindset, very few studies have attempted to discover what relationship, if any, exists between
mindset and anxiety. However, within this limited body of research, there seems to be a
correlation between a fixed mindset and high levels of anxiety, especially within an academically
challenging environment (Bandura & Jourden, 1991).
In a 1991 experiment with business school graduate students (N = 60), researchers found
that challenges often related to the world of academia—challenges such as difficult questions,
assignments, and projects—may be perceived by students with a fixed mindset as a threat to their
own intelligence rather than a stimulus for growth. This threat may lead to higher levels of
anxiety (Bandura & Jourden, 1991).
In another experiment involving the training of new employees (N = 76), the study found
that those with a fixed mindset reported higher levels of anxiety. The study showed a positive
correlation between those with a growth mindset and an outlook that the challenges and
difficulties experienced in training were an opportunity for greater personal growth. Conversely,
those with a fixed mindset were more likely to view training as a threat to their own intelligence
(Martocchio, 1994). High levels of anxiety may develop among those with low perceptions of
self-efficacy because they have a tendency to focus on their deficiencies rather than on
accomplishing the challenging task (Bandura & Jourden, 1991; Martocchio, 1994).
Mindset and the brain. In addition to psychological inquiries, there have also been two
important scientific, biological studies of the brain that seem to suggest a correlation between the
mindset and levels of anxiety. The first was a 2006 study from Mangels, Butterfield, Lamb,
Good, and Dweck (Mangels et al., 2006). The second was a 2008 study from Compton,
Robinson, Ode, Quandt, Fineman, and Carp (Compton et al., 2008).
The Mangels et al. (2006) study explored whether there is a relationship a student’s
mindset and how they respond to negative performance feedback, specifically whether the
students were engaged in understanding feedback that could help correct an error in general
understanding. The study’s participants were all undergrads from Columbia University (N = 47).
As part of the pre-test, students were asked a series of questions to determine whether they
affiliated more with a fixed mindset or a growth mindset. Of the participants, 25 were growth
mindset and 22 were fixed mindset. The students were each individually asked a series of general
knowledge questions. For each question, the student would give an answer to the question and
would rate their confidence as to the accuracy of their answer. Following these responses, the
students were given two separate types of feedback. The first feedback students received were
whether or not their answer was correct. Following was a second set of feedback that included
the correct answer to the question (Mangels et al., 2006).
While their brain waves were being measured, students received this feedback.
Specifically, their event-related potentials (ERPs) were measured. These waveforms from the
brain have been found to be associated with decision-making and error correction. The specific
component studied within this waveform was the P3 wave. As the P3 waves within the ERPs
from each of the participants were measured, the results showed a wide disparity between those
with a fixed mindset and those with a growth mindset. This wide disparity occurred as feedback
was given to each of the participants regarding the answers they gave to the questions during the
test. This allowed the researchers to make some valuable discoveries in relation to how the brain
operates markedly different according to one’s mindset (Mangels et al., 2006).
Following an extensive analysis of the data, researchers were able to draw several
conclusions. First, the ERPs of students with a fixed mindset widely differed from the ERPs of
students with a growth mindset when receiving the initial negative feedback to an incorrect
answer. For students with a fixed mindset, the ERPs responded in such a way that seemed to
display a high degree of concern about proving their knowledge and ability to the researchers.
Second, when receiving the second set of feedback and the correct answer, students with a
growth mindset demonstrated more sustained activity within the ERPs associated with memory,
suggesting that individuals with a growth mindset were more interested in receiving the correct
answer and learning from the feedback than were those with a fixed mindset. This was confirmed
on a surprise retest of the original questions when individuals with a growth mindset more
frequently corrected answers that were originally answered incorrectly as opposed to those with
a fixed mindset (Mangels et al., 2006).
This study suggests that an individual’s mindset seemingly modulates their brain’s ERPs.
These very same ERPs have been shown in previous studies to be “associated with the detection
and correction of errors” (Mangels et al., 2006, p. 77), supporting the notion that people process
errors differently based upon their mindset mirroring many of the earlier psychological studies
mentioned earlier in this chapter.
In 2008, the Compton study sought to examine whether individual differences regarding
how people process errors may also predict how they regulate their emotions. The participants (N
= 47), all undergrads at Haverford College, were given a Stroop color-identification task. As
opposed to the Mangel et al.’s (2006) study, these participants were not given feedback as to
whether or not their answers were accurate, except during the practice round. As students
responded throughout the test, their error-related brain potentials were measured. In doing so,
students were assessed as to their cognitive control as well as their ability to distinguish between
errors and correct answers without any clarifying feedback (Compton et al., 2008).
Following the Stroop task and the measuring of error-related brain potentials, students
reported over a two-week period about their anxiety levels and daily stressors. Through analysis
of the data, researchers reached the conclusion that those with higher levels of cognitive control
were less sensitive to daily stressors and anxiety. “The results support the notion that cognitive
control and emotion regulation depend on common or interacting systems” (Compton et al.,
2008, p. 702). In short, through this research, it appears that cognitive control and emotion
regulation are inextricably linked.
These two studies, when combined, seem to suggest a correlation between a fixed
mindset and higher levels of anxiety, and conversely, a correlation between a growth mindset
and lower levels of anxiety. If it is true that the mindset modulates the brain’s ERPs (Mangels et
al., 2006), which are associated with error correction, and those who more able to correct errors
are also less sensitive to daily stressors and anxiety (Compton et al., 2008), then the recent study
of brainwaves seem to indicate a correlation between mindset and anxiety.
Anxiety
With increased competitiveness among high school student who are hoping to attend one
of America’s most highly selective colleges or universities, it is no wonder high levels of anxiety
are experienced (Conner et al., 2009; Galloway, Conner & Pope, 2009; Pope & Simon, 2005).
However, it is important to first understand the definition of anxiety as well as the various types
of anxiety.
Through extensive research in the field, Kim and Diamond (2002) explain that there are
three necessary components that must occur before defining what one is experiencing as anxiety.
First, there must be a physiological response to a particular circumstance, a response that could
be verified by an outside source. A person’s pulse may begin to race or their blood pressure may
begin to rise. A feeling of energy may begin surging through the body. Physiologically speaking,
the energy is actually the hypothalamus within the brain sending a message to the adrenal glands
to release adrenaline into the blood stream (Medina, 2008). The second component involves
choice. If given the choice to avoid a particular circumstance, a person experiencing stress would
choose to avoid the circumstance completely. Lastly, the person must feel as if they do not have
control over the circumstance. In fact, the more powerless a person feels over a particular
circumstance, the more stress and anxiety is experienced (Kim & Diamond, 2002; Folkman et
al., 1987). When these components are all present, according to Kim and Diamond, stress is
being experienced.
According to Folkman et al., (1987), an expert on the subject of stress, anxiety can only
be understood when looking at both the person and what is going on in their environment.
Analysis of the anxiety must take place when considering both of these pertinent subsystems. In
his estimation, an environment cannot be considered the source of anxiety unless it is
experienced by a person who cognitively has characteristics making them vulnerable to that
particular environment. What causes a high degree of anxiety in one person may not affect
another at all due to their personality, beliefs, personal goals, or their particular mindset.
Similarly, a person or characteristic within a person cannot be considered the source of anxiety
unless it contains a challenge that prevents that particular person has a stake in achieving a
desired goal. If a person does not have much at stake, in spite of a circumstance that would
otherwise be a stressful environment, that person will not experience anxiety (Folkman et al.,
1987).
Acute stress. In general, there are two types of stress: acute stress and chronic stress. In
small doses, acute stress can actually be exhilarating or even life-saving (Medina, 2008; Miller,
Smith & Rothstein, 1993). Athletes experience acute stress when they need a peak performance.
Students may experience acute stress as an assignment’s deadline is quickly approaching.
Healthy stress actually helps individuals overcome challenges and threats. However, when it
comes to stress, our bodies were designed to solve problems that last for seconds, not for
extended periods of time (Medina, 2008). When acute stress is experienced in large doses, it can
lead to a variety of symptoms including back pain, heartburn, diarrhea, constipation, irritable
bowel syndrome, tension headaches, anger, irritability, and depression. Continued doses of acute
stress can lead to dizziness, a rise in blood pressure, chest pain, heart palpitations, and a
shortness of breath (Miller, 1993; Natvig & Albrektsen, 1999).
Chronic stress. When stress is experienced over a long period of time and is frequent,
relentless, and grinding, it can become quite harmful both physically and psychologically. This is
called chronic stress (Miller et al., 1993). Often times, chronic stress is exhibited when someone
cannot see his or her way out of a difficult, long-lasting circumstance. As opposed to acute stress
that is often times very noticeable by the person experiencing this type of stress, people
experiencing chronic stress can actually forget about it altogether. They get used to it (Miller et
al., 1993). Chronic stress also takes its toll on the body’s immune system. Those experiencing
chronic stress are sick more often and are more likely to have asthma, diabetes, and autoimmune
disorders (Medina, 2008). It can also play havoc on the brain’s ability to learn. First, chronic
stress keeps people from being able to process language efficiently. Secondly, both short-term
and long-term memories are affected among those experiencing chronic stress. Thirdly, it
diminishes one’s ability to adapt old information to new circumstances. Lastly, chronic stress
inhibits one’s ability to focus (Medina, 2008). “Clearly, stress hurts learning. Most important,
however, stress hurts people” (Medina, 2008, p. 180). Symptoms of chronic stress are severe,
and include: heart attacks, strokes, violent outbursts, and suicide (Miller et al., 1993).
Academic anxiety. High school students, perhaps more now than ever, are experiencing
dangerous levels of academic anxiety that, in turn, are risking the mental and physical health of
our students (Pope & Simon, 2005). A variety of reasons can be blamed for this anxiety, but
recent studies seem to indicate that our schools could actually be a key culprit for these
unhealthy levels of anxiety. In a recent mixed methods study of 3,645 high school students
attending Bay Area schools in Northern California, many students reported that they were highly
anxious, overworked, and were routinely experiencing sleep deprivation (Conner et al., 2009).
Of the respondents, 70% were always or often always stressed about schoolwork while another
56% were stressed over the college acceptance process. Respondents were also receiving far less
sleep than recommended by the National Sleep Foundation (2011). Whereas the recommended
amount of sleep for adolescents is 9.25 hours, respondents to this survey averaged 6.8 hours of
sleep with over 34% getting an average of less than 6 hours of sleep per night. For most (67%),
sleep was minimized regularly due to the amount of schoolwork (Conner et al., 2009).
When students experience unhealthy levels of academic anxiety, there are dangerous and
sometimes long-lasting consequences. In a quantitative study from 1994-1998 among 862
Norwegian 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students, academic anxiety was consistently associated with
psychosomatic symptoms (Natvig & Albrektsen, 1999). In the study, a strong positive
correlation was found between students who reported academic anxiety with feeling low,
irritable, nervous, or having difficulty sleeping (Natvig & Albrektsen, 1999). In a 2009 study
incorporating 3,287 North American self-reporting teens, the analysis of the surveys linked
academic anxiety to increased levels of drug and alcohol use (2009 Parents and Teens Attitude
Tracking Study Report, 2013).
Test anxiety. In terms of the research surrounding academic anxiety to date, perhaps
more research has been devoted to test anxiety than to any other category in the field. Estimates
place those who experience test anxiety at anywhere between 25% - 40% (Carter, Williams &
Silverman, 2008; Ergene, 2003; McDonald, 2001; Putwain, 2007). Of those who experience test
anxiety, research indicates that this type of anxiety is actually unrelated to the academic ability of
the student (Cassady & Johnson, 2002). Research has also shown that test anxiety is not only
experienced immediately prior and during a test, it proliferates the entire learning cycle
(Cassady, 2010).
Subject-specific anxiety. There have been a variety of studies regarding academic anxiety
as it relates to specific subjects such as Math (Betz, 1978; Ashcraft, 2002; Meece, Wigfield &
Eccles, 1990), Science (Britner & Pajares, 2006; Brownlow, Jacobi & Rogers, 2000), and
Foreign Language (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986). Subject-specific academic anxiety has
often been studied through the lens of a concept established by Csikszentmihalyi (1997; Goetz,
Pekrun, Hall & Haag, 2006; Schiefele & Csikszentmihalyi, 1995; Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi,
Schneider & Shernoff, 2003) which was introduced in 1975, a concept coined as flow. According
to this concept, the holistic experience of flow is achieved when someone’s whole being acts
with absolute involvement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). This occurs when there is a perfect balance
between challenges and skills. When flow is not achieved, the result is either anxiety or
boredom. On one hand, anxiety is experienced by those facing challenges for which they do not
possess the necessary skills to overcome. Conversely, those who possess high skills but who are
not challenged experience boredom (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). This has been termed the three-
channel model of flow. In 1997, a four-channel model of flow was proposed which added the
fourth element of apathy. Whereas flow was the balance of high challenge and high skills, apathy
is experienced with low challenge and low skills (Novak, Hoffman & Yung, 1998). Developing
this model further, an eight-channel model of flow was developed which added another four
elements to this concept: arousal (high challenges and moderate skills), control (moderate
challenges and high skills), relaxation (low challenges and moderate skills), and worry (moderate
challenges and low skills; (Massimini & Carli, 1988).
College application anxiety. As mentioned above, many students are experiencing stress
and anxiety in the college application process (Conner et al., 2009). This anxiety may be traced
to several causes. First, many families are placing greater emphasis upon the best college or
university lists published in mainstream journals and magazines (Hossler, 2004). Second, there
has been a dramatic increase in competition among students to attend elite institutions. Although
this rise in competition will be examined later in this study, it may partially be due to the fact that
more students are applying to colleges and universities than ever before. Whereas colleges and
universities were frequently attended by the socioeconomically advantaged, much of this began
to change in the mid-1900s. In 2012, throughout the country, 67% of seniors were graduating
with aspirations and expectations to attend college (Wallace, Abel & Ropers-Huilman, 2000).
Today’s high school juniors and seniors must traverse a gauntlet of challenges on the
pathway to gaining acceptance to the college of their choice, particularly to those colleges
deemed as highly selective. In addition to the typical challenges faced by adolescents, students
during their junior and senior year must study for and complete at least one nationally
standardized test (SAT or the ACT), wait for the results, visit numerous college campuses, meet
with their high school college counselor, make a list of colleges they are interested in attending,
apply to the colleges, and then they have to wait months for letters or emails from the colleges as
to whether or not they were accepted (Hansell, 1982). For those that are seeking to attend
college, the senior year has become increasingly more challenging and potentially more stressful
(Hansell, 1982).
Although this process has the potential of being stressful to virtually any student, there
are some potential causes that could raise anxiety levels. One of the potential sources of added
stress could be the social environment of the student and their family (Coyne & Lazarus, 1980;
Slochower & Kaplan, 1980). Communities and schools place various levels of importance upon
the college admission process, whether or not to apply to college, the rankings of colleges and
universities, and the importance of being admitted into a highly selective institution. For students
attending a private, independent, college preparatory school where nearly every student attends a
college or university upon graduation from high school, this could add tremendous anxiety for
students. This may particularly be true of environments where many of the students are accepted
into the most highly selective colleges in the nation (Hansell, 1982).
Another source of potential stress can be a student’s parents and family dynamics
(Hansell, 1982). Whether or not a student’s parents have graduated from college or not can have
large ramifications on the student’s educational goals (Alexander, Cook & McDill, 1978). This,
in turn, could add additional stress for students, especially if there is a desire on the part of the
parents for their student to follow in their footsteps by attending their alma mater (Hansell,
1982). In addition, it is possible that family dynamics such as older brothers and sister and their
college attendance could increase anxiety as well.
Lastly, the socioeconomic status (SES) of families may also play a role in the levels of
anxiety experienced by high school seniors during their college application process
(Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1969; Wheaton, 1980). According to the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCFES), based upon the 2009-2010 US dollar, the cost of tuition has
increased from the 1980 average of $7,749 to the 2010 average of $18,133 per student per year
(U.S. Department of Education, 2013). With the price of an average college tuition skyrocketing
during the past 30 years, this potentially could add increased levels of anxiety experienced by
both students and families alike.

College Application Process. Previous studies suggest that those with a fixed mindset
may be more susceptible to high levels of anxiety during periods of challenge and hardship
(Compton et al., 2008; Kim & Diamond, 2002; Martocchio, 1994). What remains to be seen is
whether there is a direct link between a particular mindset and the levels of anxiety as
experienced by high school students. This study will attempt to measure the mindset and the
levels of anxiety among college preparatory high school seniors during a time period that
typically is challenging, the college application process. For context, a brief history of the
college application process will be studied through a review of literature surrounding the topic.
During the past 150 years, the United States has experienced exponential growth in the
number of students who have attended a college or university. In 1869, there were 63,000 college
students throughout the country (Snyder, 1993). In comparison, in 2010, according to the U.S.
Department of Education, there were nearly 22.5 million students in degree-granting
postsecondary institutions (U.S. Department of Education, NCFES, 2010). Although there were
exceptions, prior to World War II, attending a college or a university within the United States
had been largely reserved for only those from an elite and typically wealthy family (Hossler,
2004).
Taking national standardized tests was not an expectation for a high school junior or
senior. In fact, when the first SAT was first introduced in 1926 by the College Board, it was only
intended to test the brightest students from across the United States who were expected to attend
the country’s most elite and highly selective colleges and universities (Hossler, 2004).
Following World War II, with the introduction of the GI Bill and other financial incentives for
the country’s war veterans, college enrollment skyrocketed (Babbidge, 1962; Hossler, 2004). Not
only were there more students attending college, there was a cultural shift within the country as
to who should be attending college. Many of the veterans attending college were non-traditional
students due to their age and socioeconomic background. Public opinion began to change as
these veterans experienced success in the classrooms of academia (Hossler, 2004).
Standardized aptitude measuring tests also became more widely accepted following
World War II. During the war, the military relied heavily upon standardized tests to more
accurately place military officers. This acceptance quickly became engrained within American
culture. During the decades following World War II, with the purpose of finding an accurate
method to determine which students to accept, many colleges and universities began to rely more
extensively upon standardized aptitude measuring tests such as the SAT and ACT, the latter of
which was founded in 1959 (Hossler, 2004). Prior to 1958, student scores remained confidential,
only seen by admissions staffs at the colleges and universities to which students applied. But it
was during this year that the College Board made the decision to release SAT scores to be
viewed by students. At that point, students and their families had a better understanding of the
schools to which they most likely would be accepted, or conversely, those schools to which they
most likely would not be accepted (Bowles, 1967).
With the increase of college applicants and with the increasing use of standardized
aptitude measuring tests, colleges and universities were able to become more selective (Hossler,
2004). This was further magnified by the development of the Advanced Placement (AP) program
in 1955 through the College Board. The AP program allowed bright high school students to
complete college-level classes at their respective high school. If successful on the AP tests,
students could receive college credit before graduating from high school therefore reducing the
number of students (Hossler, 2004).
At the end of the 1960s, as the baby-boomer generation began to enter colleges and
universities at ever increasing rates. For the first time in American history, more graduating high
school seniors were choosing to attend college than choosing to go straight into the workforce
(Hossler, 2004). Compared to the 15 to 20% of high school graduates who were choosing to
attend college in 1945, this was a marked increase that occurred in a period of only 15 years
(Tyack, 1974). Just in a matter of 10 years, between 1960 and 1970, the number of
undergraduates grew from 3.6 million to over 8 million. Students and parents alike were
beginning to view a college diploma as a pathway to the middle-class, to prosperity, and
ultimately, to financial security (Hossler, 2004).
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the process of choosing the right college became
markedly more complex. One of the major developments was in the area of financial aid. Many
colleges began using financial aid as a way to entice student. This was done not only to increase
the size of their student body, but also to recruit the brightest and most talented students as
possible (Hossler, 2004). Another chief development was the idea of ranking colleges within
mainstream media. It was during this time period that college rankings were published by the US
News and World Report (Webster, 1985). Students began to not only compete for opportunities
to attend the country’s most selective colleges and universities; it also meant that students began
competing for financial aid. Many parents and students came to believe that attending a
particular university could provide them with a ripple effect that would propel them through life.
All of these factors, including rising college tuitions, raised the stakes within the college
selection process (Hossler, 2004).
During the 1980s, the competition became increasingly fierce among students with the
goal of attending the country’s most selective colleges. There were several elements that caused
this increased competition. First, many families were placing greater emphasis upon the best
college or university lists published in mainstream journals and magazines (Hossler, 2004).
Second, there was increased competition among students to attend elite institutions due partly to
the fact that more students were applying to colleges and universities. Throughout the country,
67% of seniors were graduating with aspirations and expectations to attend college (Wallace et
al., 2000). This caused many to be denied entry to the most selective colleges, colleges that they
most likely would have been accepted into just a few years prior (Hossler, 2004).
During the past 20 years, competition has only grown fiercer. Students attending a
college or university have increased from nearly 14 million students in 1990 to over 22 million in
2010, a growth rate of nearly 36%. Meanwhile, according to the US Department of Education, in
2010, there was only an additional 500 post-secondary institutions founded during this same
period, from around 3,600 to around 4,100, a growth rate of only 12% (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010).
Summary
The general purpose of this study was to discover what relationship exists between a high
school senior’s particular mindset and the levels of their experienced anxiety. As shown, studies
suggest one’s mindset has key implications, including perceptions about effort and failure, the
creation of personal goals, student achievement, resiliency, and the ability to learn from errors.
However, due to a lack of empirical evidence, what is not as clear is whether the mindset affects
anxiety, in particular for seniors at college preparatory schools in the process of applying for
highly selective colleges and universities.

Chapter 3: Methods
Research Design
This quantitative study employed a non-experimental approach to the topic. This study
gathered new data, including the following:
1. the current level of anxiety as experienced by high school seniors,
2. the mindset (fixed vs. growth) of the students
3. the mindset of the students’ parents, and
4. self-reported demographic information (gender, current GPA, highest SAT score, highest
ACT score, the number of schools to which the student applied, and whether the student
had applied to a highly selective school)
Through analysis of the collected data, the study sought to discover the following:
preparatory high school senior and the levels of academic anxiety experienced during the
college application process?
levels of academic anxiety experienced by their student during the college application
process?
3. What relationship exists, if any, between the mindset of a college-preparatory high school
senior and their parent’s or guardian’s mindset?
4. Are there differences in the mindset of high school seniors attending college-preparatory,
private, independent schools, the mindset of their parents/guardians, or their levels of
anxiety based on selected demographic variables?

The research questions were investigated through the use of self-administered student and
parent surveys. The student survey combined two established instruments, the STICSA (Grös et
al., 2007) and the intelligence domain of the ITQ (Spinath et al., 2003) in addition to self-
reported demographic questions: gender, cumulative GPA, highest SAT score, highest ACT
score, the number of colleges receiving applications from the student, and whether they applied
to a highly selective college, university, or academy. The STICSA was used to measure self-
reported levels of acute and chronic anxiety from each participating senior. Items contained in
the intelligence domain of the ITQ measured the participant’s mindset. The parent survey
included questions from the intelligence domain of the ITQ to discover the each parent’s mindset
regarding intelligence. In addition to the ITQ, Two questions were from the Ten Item Personality
Survey (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann Jr, 2003) to measure the parent or guardian’s
emotional stability.
Rationale for Study Design
A quantitative, non-experimental approach was utilized to discover the relationship
between two known and measurable variables: mindset (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 1995,
2006; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin & Wan, 1999; Rattan et al., 2012; Spinath et al., 2003) and
anxiety (Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Ellis & Hudson, 2010; Grös et al., 2007; Martocchio, 1994;
Mattoo & Nabi, 2012). Both of the study’s variables have been well established in literature as
measureable constructs. Because the sought to measure and analyze these two established
variables, conducting a quantitative analysis to assess their relationship was the best suited
approach (Creswell, 2013).

Population, Sampling Method, and Participants
The participants for this study are high school seniors and one parent or legal guardian.
Typically, seniors are either 17 or 18 years of age. The study included four private, independent
high schools throughout Southern California. Key staff from each of the four high schools agreed
to provide access to their students and parents to be invited to participate in this study. All
seniors and their parents at each participating school were invited to complete the surveys. To
protect the identities of these sites and the participating students, these schools will only be
referred to throughout this study using pseudonyms.
School A is a private, independent, college preparatory high school located in a suburban
community near Los Angeles with a population of just over 8,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau,
2010). The town consists of small neighborhoods with the average home price of over $700,000
as of 2012. According to the 2010 census, 89% of the population was white, 6% were Asian, 1%
was African American, 2% from other races, and 3% from two or more races. Over 6% declared
they were either Hispanic or Latino. The community has a history of excellent public schools.
The local public high school regularly ranks within the top ten highest achieving high schools in
the state of California with a graduation rate over 98% and an 881 Academic Performance Index
(API) score (California Department of Education, 2012).
School B is a private, college preparatory high school located in the suburbs of Los
Angeles. The 2010 U.S. Census found there to be just over 20,000 people living in this suburb
with 69% being white, 1% being African American; 26% being Asian; 1% declaring themselves
to be in the “other” races category. Another 3% declared that they were of two or more races,
and lastly, 6% declared themselves to be Hispanic or Latino. The area surrounding the school
has an average home price of over $800,000. The local school district is one of academic
excellence. For example, the nearest high school has an API of 942 and has a 98% graduation
rate.
School C is a private, independent, college preparatory school located in a suburban
community with a population near 70,000. The demographics of the community include 82%
white, 5% Asian and Hispanic, 4% African-American and other. The local school district is not
as strong as what is found near School A and School B. The API at the nearby public high school
was at 753 as of the 2011-12 school year along with an 83% graduation rate.
Lastly, School D is a private, independent school located in a nearby suburb to Los
Angeles. It is officially located in a neighborhood of Los Angeles, but incorporated into the
greater area of Los Angeles. With a population of over 3,800,000, half of the population is white,
11% Asian, 10% African-American, and 1% Other. With an API of 746, the local school district
is the worst of the four high schools included in this study. It graduates only 66% of its high
school students throughout the school district.
It must be noted that although School D possesses differing community demographics as
opposed to the other schools in the study (see Table 1), the demographics within the school and
the type of student attending School D is quite similar to those attending the other three schools.
The demographic information is a bit misleading due to the fact that the school is located within
the city limits of a large metropolitan city. The other three participant schools are each located in
suburban towns thus skewing the demographic information (see Table 1).
Table 1
Demographics of the Communities Surrounding Participant Schools

Demographics School A School B School C School D
Population 8,000 21,000 55,000 3,884,307
Average Home Price $1,280,851 $2,016,626 $3,312,678 $610,000
White alone 89% 69% 68% 50%
American Indian and

0% 0% 1% 1%
Alaska Native
Asian alone 6% 26% 8% 11%
Black or African
1% 1% 7% 10%
American alone
Native Hawaiian and

0% 0% 0% 0%
Other Pacific Islander
Two or More Races 6% 3% 7% 5%
Hispanic or Latino 6% 6% 27% 49%
White alone, not

84% 65% 54% 29%
Hispanic or Latino
Local Public School

98% 98% 83% 66%
Graduation Rate
Local Public School
881 942 753 746
API
Note. Adapted from the California Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/), 2010
Within the four currently participating private high schools, 538 families of high school
seniors were invited to complete the surveys: 241 from School A, 106 from School B, 122 from
School C, and 69 from School D. With a 25-55% expected response rate (Cook, Heath &
Thompson, 2000), it was expected that between 134 and 290 families would respond. Following
the parent or guardian response, students were asked to participate in the study. With the same
expected response rate, it was expected that between 34 and 160 students would respond to the
survey.
Human Subjects Considerations
This study meets criteria for an Expedited Review based on Federal Guidelines,
expedited procedures, category 7 (Office for Human Research Protection, 2010). The risks to
subjects were minimal and the study was considered to be exempt research but for the fact that
minors were involved in the process.
In a letter provided to students and their parents or legal guardians, specific information
regarding the study was provided including what was being asked of them. This letter also asked
for both parent consent and for participant assent (parents and students). It was explained to
parent and student participants through this letter that they could have chosen not to be a part of
the study, chosen not to answer any questions, and/or chosen to withdraw from the study at any
time without any negative consequences. Participants were assured that data will be held
confidentially. Through an electronic process, parents and students were matched through
randomly created family codes without having to divulge any personal or revealing information.
For the purposes of ensuring confidentiality, the researcher did not use or disclose any
identifiable or personal information. Within the study, only aggregate data was reported.
Pseudonyms were used in place of school names, cities, and any other proper names. Codes were
used throughout the study to substitute for the names of students and parents. Through the use of
these codes, student data was be coded to match the data of their parents or guardians.
There were minimal risks to the student participants. For the students, the time and
energy spent completing the survey may perhaps be a further contribution to the level of anxiety
of which the student was already experiencing. There was also perhaps a risk of boredom. Since
student participants’ identity will not be shared with the school, no impact on grades would be
possible.
For parent and guardian participants, because the survey took less than five minutes to
complete, there were no foreseeable risks associated with this study. Parental participants were
not being asked questions that have any bearing on employment, social status, or continued
enrollment of their student in the school.
There were no direct benefits to participants. However, there were social benefits
expected as a result of the study including a possible link between parent affiliations toward the
fixed mindset vs. the growth mindset and their child’s level of unhealthy academic anxiety. If a
link was found, it may be possible to change parent mindsets thus decreasing the levels of
unhealthy academic anxiety experienced by high school seniors.
Site approval was secured through permission from one of each school’s key staff
members prior to any data collection. Approval for the study was obtained from Pepperdine
University’s Graduate and Professional School’s Institutional Review Board (IRB; see Appendix
F). There was no deception of the participants planned for this study. Neither was there any
remuneration for participants included within the study. There were no known conflicts of
interest within the study.
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection procedures began with an invitation phase and lasted for a period of
about four weeks. During this phase, an email was sent to all parents and guardians of high
school seniors who attended one of the participating schools. The email sent to families
contained a link to the parent survey specific to their school. When parents or guardians click on
the link, they were be directed to a page that included personal assent and parent consent to allow
their student to also participant to participate in the study. Once the personal assent and parent
consent were electronically submitted, parents and guardians were directed to the short, six-item
survey. Following the completion of the survey, parents were given a family-specific code and
link to the student survey. Parents were also given clear and concise directions as to how to allow
their student to also participate in the study.
When students received the link and their family-specific code from their parent or
guardian, they were directed to a website with a personal consent form. Once the student gave
consent, he or she was directed to a student survey designed to take no longer than 30 minutes to
complete.
During the data collection phase, one follow-up email was sent to all senior families and
students as a reminder to complete the survey process.
Variables of the Study
Variables of the study include student and parent mindset as measured by the intelligence
domain of the ITQ. This portion of the survey included four items using a five-point scale
(strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree). Another student variable of the
study is the levels of anxiety as experienced by high school seniors during the college application
process. This was measured by the STICSA. For the STICSA, respondents answered each
question using a four-point scale (not at all, a little, moderately, very much so). Lastly, the
remaining student variables of the study included each student’s gender, race, current GPA,
highest SAT score, highest ACT score, the number of colleges receiving applications from the
student, and whether the student has applied to a highly selective school.
Table 2
Study’s Variables, Instruments, Sample, Number of Items, and Format of Items

Variable Name Instrument Name Sample # of Items Format of Item
Mindset Intelligence Domain of Students, 4 5-point scale
the Implicit Theories Parents, and
Questionnaire (ITQ) Guardians
Anxiety State-Trait Inventory for Students 42 4-point scale

Cognitive and Somatic
Anxiety (STICSA)
Gender Demographics Students 1 Categorical
Race/Ethnicity Demographics Students 2 Categorical
GPA Demographics Students 1 Interval
ACT Score Demographics Students 1 Interval
SAT Score Demographics Students 1 Interval
# of Applications Demographics Students 1 Interval
Application to Demographics Students 1 Categorical

Highly Selective
School
Instrumentation
Two surveys were used to gather data for the study, one designed for students and the
other for parents. The student survey included 42 questions from the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory (Grös et al., 2007), four questions from the intelligence domain of the ITQ (Spinath et
al., 2003), and demographic items including student gender, race, cumulative GPA, highest SAT
score, highest ACT score, the number of colleges reciving applications from the student, and
whether the student is intending to apply to a high selective college, university, or academy. The
student survey was designed to take no more than 30 minutes to complete.

The parent or guardian survey contained six questions. Four questions were from the
intelligence domain of the ITQ (Spinath et al., 2003) with the purpose of measuring the parent or
guardian’s mindset. Two questions were from the Ten Item Personality Survey (TIPI; Gosling et
al., 2003) to measure the parent or guardian’s emotional stability. The parent/guardian survey
was designed to take less than five minutes to complete.
The Intelligence Domain of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire. The ITQ (Spinath et
al., 2003) is closely aligned to Dweck’s (1995) original implicit theories scale but is adapted to
allow implicit theories to be tested to gain understanding of self-theories not only regarding
intelligence, but also in areas such as one’s personality, specific abilities, athletic abilities, and
mathematical abilities. The complete questionnaire, in its entirety, consists of 32 items, each
answered on a five-point scale (1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree; Spinath et al., 2003).
However, due to the focus and purpose of this study, only questions relating to one’s intellect
will be used.
Data was analyzed for the ITQ as part of a larger study that took place throughout
Germany in 1997 through the University of Bielefeld. There were two studies, the first of which
took place through a self-assessment study taken from home by 964 pairs of twins. The second
study consisted of 400 pairs of twins who spent a day at the university completing several tests
gathering data on intelligence and personality. Through the resulting analysis of the ITQ, the
reliability of the general traits, including the intelligence domain, has been determined to have a
coefficient alpha value of .89 (N=592) (Spinath et al., 2003). For this present study, Cronbach’s
Alpha was found to be 0.70 (N=121) which is an acceptable level for instrument reliability
(Creswell, 2013).
Table 3
Intelligence Domain Items of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ) for the Parent Survey
Item Scoring
1. How intelligent you are is hardly or Strongly Agree = 1; Agree = 2; Neutral = 3;
not at all changeable by yourself. Disagree = 4; Strongly Disagree = 5
2. How intelligent you are depends Strongly Agree = 5; Agree = 4; Neutral = 3;

mainly on your own effort. Disagree = 2; Strongly Disagree = 1
3. How intelligent you are cannot be Strongly Agree = 1; Agree = 2; Neutral = 3;

influenced by yourself. Disagree = 4; Strongly Disagree = 5
4. If someone is not very intelligent as Strongly Agree = 1; Agree = 2; Neutral = 3;

a child, he or she cannot be very Disagree = 4; Strongly Disagree = 5
intelligent as an adult even if he or
she tries to.
Note. In the above table, Item 2 is designed to be reverse coded and will therefore be scored in a
reverse manner.
For both the student survey and the parent survey, the questions from the intelligence
domain of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire will be used to analyze the mindsets of the
various participants. Three of the four items will be coded as follows: 1 = strongly agree; 2 =
agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; and 5 = strongly agree. One item is reverse coded and will
therefore be coded in a reverse manner(see Table 4). The total values of the four items regarding
mindset will range between 4 and 16. The higher the total value indicates the greater the growth
mindset of the particular individual.

Table 4
Intelligence Domain Items of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ) for the Student Survey
Item Scoring
1. How intelligent you are is not at all Strongly Agree = 1; Agree = 2; Neutral = 3;
changeable by yourself. Disagree = 4; Strongly Disagree = 5
3. You cannot influence how intelligent Strongly Agree = 1; Agree = 2; Neutral = 3;
you are. Disagree = 4; Strongly Disagree = 5
she tries to.
Note. In the above table, Item 2 is design to be reverse coded and will therefore be scored in a
reverse manner. Additionally, the wording of Item 1 and Item 3 have been altered slightly as
appropriate to the age of the participants taking the student survey.
The Emotional Stability Domain of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. The Ten-
Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al., 2003) was designed to measure the Big-Five
personality dimension especially when a particular survey or instrument requires fewer items.
The Big-Five framework, the most widely used and researched personality model, includes five
dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to
experience. These dimensions are measured using ten items, two items per dimension (Gosling et
al., 2003).
For this particular study, the two items from TIPI were included within the parent or
guardian survey to measure the specific dimension of emotional stability. The purpose of
including these questions was to control for the genetic contribution to personality, in particular
to those who are perhaps predisposed to higher levels of anxiety (Digman, 1990). The
convergent correlation between these two items from TIPI and the items measuring emotional
stability within the highly reliable Big-Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) was
measured to be .81 (N = 1,813). In an earlier study, the BFI was found to have a coefficient alpha
reliability of .83 (John & Srivastava, 1999). For this particular study, the Cronbach’s Alpha
measure of reliability was 0.75 (N=95), an acceptable level for instrument reliability (Creswell,
2013).
Table 5
TIPI Items (Emotional Stability Domain), Scoring, and Type of Anxiety Measured
Item Scoring
Agree strongly = 1; Agree moderately = 2; Agree a little = 3;
1. I see myself as anxious, Neither agree or disagree = 4; Disagree a little = 5; Disagree
easily upset moderately = 6; Disagree strongly = 7

2. I see myself as calm,
Neither agree or disagree = 4; Disagree a little = 3; Disagree
emotionally stable
moderately = 2; Disagree strongly = 1
The State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety. STICSA was designed
to assess symptoms of anxiety as they relate to both the current state of an individual as well as
the general trait of an individual. There are two parts to this inventory. The first part is entitled
Your Mood at This Moment and seeks to measure levels of acute anxiety. The second part, Your
General Mood State, seeks to measure levels of chronic anxiety. Both parts consist of 21
questions each totaling 42 questions for the entire inventory. Respondents answer each question
using a scale that includes the following responses: not at all; a little; moderately; and very much
so.
The STICSA also distinguishes between somatic anxiety (i.e. hyperventilation,
palpitations, muscle tension) and cognitive anxiety (i.e. worry, intrusive thoughts, inability to
concentrate; Ree, French, MacLeod & Locke, 2008). Research suggests somatic anxiety and
cognitive anxiety are distinguishable for both acute anxiety and chronic anxiety (Ree et al.,
2008).
The STICSA instrument originally began with 131 questions each designed to measure
symptoms of anxiety. The selection of the final 42 questions was a result of the review of an
expert panel as well as the data collection from patients (N = 567) experiencing anxiety disorder
(Grös et al., 2007). Analysis of the final inventory revealed a coefficient of determination of
0.94. The reliability coefficent was 0.84 for the items designed for the somatic factor and 0.87
for the items designed for the cognitive factor (Ree et al., 2008). For this study, the reliability
coefficient of STICSA using Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.99 (N=26) a high level of instrument
reliability (Creswell, 2013).
Student anxiety was measured using the STICSA. For the data from survey items
extracted from the STICSA, each item response was coded as follows: 1 = not at all; 2 = a little;
3 = moderately; and 4 = very much so. The STICSA measured both the acute stress and chronic
stress of an individual. Each subset is scored between 21 and 84. The higher numbers represent
higher levels of the respective type of anxiety. Each of the subsets will be analyzed separately
(acute, chronic, somatic, and cognitive). In addition, responses to items were coded and
combined to create a general anxiety score.

Table 6
STICSA Items, Scoring, and Type of Anxiety Measured

Type of
Anxiety
Item Scoring Measured
Not at all = 1; A little = 2;

1. My heart beats fast Somatic
Moderately = 3; Very much so = 4

2. My muscles are tense Somatic
3. I fell agonized over my Not at all = 1; A little = 2;

Cognitive
problems Moderately = 3; Very much so = 4
4. I think that others won’t Not at all = 1; A little = 2;

Cognitive
approve of me Moderately = 3; Very much so = 4
5. I feel like I’m missing out on

things because I can’t make Cognitive
up my mind soon enough

6. I feel dizzy Cognitive

7. My muscles feel weak Somatic

8. I feel trembly and shaky Cognitive
9. I picture some future Not at all = 1; A little = 2;

Cognitive
misfortune Moderately = 3; Very much so = 4
10. I can’t get some thought out Not at all = 1; A little = 2;

Cognitive
of my mind Moderately = 3; Very much so = 4
11. I have trouble remembering Not at all = 1; A little = 2;

Cognitive
things Moderately = 3; Very much so = 4
(continued)
Type of
Anxiety
Item Scoring Measured

12. My face feels hot Somatic
13. I think that the worst will Not at all = 1; A little = 2;

Cognitive
happen Moderately = 3; Very much so = 4

14. My arms and legs feel stiff Somatic

15. My throat feels dry Somatic
16. I keep busy to avoid Not at all = 1; A little = 2;

Cognitive
uncomfortable thoughts Moderately = 3; Very much so = 4
17. I cannot concentrate without

irrelevant thoughts Cognitive Cognitive
intruding
18. My breathing is fast and Not at all = 1; A little = 2;

Somatic
shallow Moderately = 3; Very much so = 4
19. I worry that I cannot control

my thoughts as well as I Cognitive
would like to
20. I have butterflies in the Not at all = 1; A little = 2;

Cognitive
stomach Moderately = 3; Very much so = 4

21. My palms feel clammy Somatic
Note. This table includes the 21 items from STICSA, all of which will be included on the student
survey. Students will be asked to answer each of these items twice; the first time, students will
respond to each of the items through an acute lens (“During the college application process…”),
and the second time, students will respond to each of the items through the chronic lens (“In
general…”). This table also includes the possible item responses as well as the scoring assigned
to each of the item responses.
Demographic items. The remaining variables from the student survey were either
nominal (gender, race, religious, and application to a highly selective college) or ordinal (GPA,
SAT scores, ACT scores, the number of applications completed) in nature. For the items
measuring nominal data, students were given appropriate choices. For items measuring ordinal
data, students were provided a blank space in which to type in the correct answer.
Pilot of instruments. Prior to the collection of data, a pilot of the instrument took place.
There were two purposes for piloting the instrument. First, due to the instrument being in an
electronic format, the pilot ensured the ability to be read and used properly by all participants.
Second, with two separate surveys and the necessity of combining parent/guardian surveys with
student surveys, the pilot also ensured the data from both surveys were properly linked.
Consenting adults completed the pilot instrument.
Data Preparation and Analysis
Raw data was obtained from parents, guardians, and students online through Qualtrics.
Data was stored in Qualtrics and was password-protected. The data obtained through Qualtrics
was checked for completeness prior to being analyzed via SPSS, an IBM software package used
for data analysis.
Initial analysis of the data began with descriptive statistics. The means, medians, standard
deviations, and general trends represented in the data was established, including the data
regarding student mindset, parent mindset, student anxiety, student acute anxiety, student chronic
anxiety, gender of participants, student GPAs, SAT scores, ACT scores, and the number of
participants applying to highly selective colleges, universities, and academies. This portion of the
analysis also included frequency distributions for each of the surveys’ items (see Table 7).
Table 7
Study’s Variables and Analysis Procedures

Variable Name Analysis Procedures
Mindset • Item analysis
• Frequency distribution
• Scores
• Measures of central tendency
• Measures of dispersion
Anxiety • Item analysis

• Scores
Gender • Frequency distribution
Race/Ethnicity • Frequency distribution
GPA • Item analysis

ACT Score • Item analysis

SAT Score • Item analysis

# of Applications • Item analysis
Application to Highly • Frequency distribution

Selective School • Mode
Table 8
Research Questions and Procedures

Research Questions Procedures Sources of Data
1) What relationship exists, if any, • Correlational • Student Survey items 1-4

between the mindset of a college- Procedures to (ITQ)
preparatory high school senior and measure
their levels of experienced relationships • Student Survey items 5-46
academic anxiety during the (STICSA)
2) What relationship exists, if any, • Correlational • Parent Survey items 1-4

between the mindset of a parent Procedures to (ITQ)
and the levels of academic anxiety measure
as experienced by their college- relationships • Student Survey items 5-46
preparatory high school senior (STICSA)
during the college application
process?
3) What relationship exists • Correlational • Parent Survey items 1-4

between the mindset of a college- Procedures to (ITQ)
preparatory high school senior and measure
their parent’s or guardian’s relationships • Student Survey items 1-4
mindset? (ITQ)
4) Are there differences in student • Analysis of • Parent Survey items 1-4

mindset, parent mindset, or student Variance (ITQ)
anxiety based on selected
demographic variables? • t-Test • Student Survey items 1-54
(ITQ; STICSA;
Demographics)
To answer the research questions, correlational statistic procedures were used to
determine relationships among each variable. These variables included the parent mindset scores,
the parent emotional stability scores, the student mindset scores, and the student anxiety scores
(see Table 8).
With the purpose of ensuring internal validity within the study, several methods will be
employed. First, because the variables within the study were known due to prior studies, the
quantitative approach was the best choice. Second, valid and reliable instruments were used
within the study to capture necessary data. Third, appropriate statistical measurements were
utilized with the purpose of answering the research questions.

Chapter 4: Results
Following an invitation from the researcher, four private, independent, college-
preparatory high schools from southern California agreed to participate in this study. Each of the
four schools agreed to allow email invitations to be sent to the parents or guardians of each of
their current seniors. In total, families of 538 high school seniors received invitations to
participate in this study: 241 from School A, 106 from School B, 122 from School C, and 69
from School D. In total, there were 95 parents who completed the entirety of the parent survey
(Mindset and TIPI): 46 were from School A, 33 were from School B, 10 were from School C,
and 7 were from School D. Therefore, 18% of the total number of parent or guardian participants
completed the parent survey (see Table 9).
For students to be able to complete the survey, it was necessary for the parents to first
complete their survey. Therefore, there were 95 possible student participants. In total, there were
26 students who completed the entirety of the student survey, resulting in a 27% response rate
among possible student participants. The school totals of student respondents are as follows: 13
were from School A, 11 were from School B, 1 was from School C, and 1 was from School D
(see Table 9).
Table 9
Number of Parent and Student Participants

Total Number Parent Student
School of Seniors Participants Parent % Participants Student %
School A 241 46 19% 13 28%
School B 106 33 31% 11 33%
School C 122 10 8% 1 10%
School D 69 7 10% 1 14%
Total 538 95 18% 26 27%
As mentioned, the survey collected basic demographic information from each of the
student participants. Of the 26 student participants, 19 were female, 6 were male, and one chose
not to indicate their gender (see Table 10). As far as race and ethnicity, 20 were White, 1 was
Black or Negro, 1 was Chinese, 2 were Filipino, and 2 chose not to indicate their ethnicity.
Students were also asked about their Spanish origin. Of the participants, 18 were not Hispanic, 2
were Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano, 1 was Puerto Rican, 3 were of another Hispanic
origin, and 2 chose not to answer this question (see Table 10)
Table 10
Demographics of Student Participants

Male
Students Female Students No Answer
Gender 6 19 1
White Black or African, Chinese Filipino No Answer
Race 20 1 1 2 2
Not Hispanic Mexican, Mexican Puerto Other No Answer
American, Chicano Rican Hispanic
Spanish Origin 18 2 1 3 2
Note. N = 26
The analysis of the collected data sought to answer the following research questions
guiding the study:
process?
Results
There were a total of three item analyses completed for this study. First, an item analysis
was completed using the sum of all parent/guardian participants (N = 95). Throughout the study,
this grouping will be referred to as the “Parent/Guardian Total Participants” (TP). Second, an
item analysis was completed using just the data from the parent/guardian participants whose
student also completed the student survey (N = 26), a grouping referred to in this study as the
“Parent/Guardian Subgroup Participants” (SP). Lastly, a third item analysis was completed using
the data collected from the student surveys.
Item analysis of the parent survey. Two item analyses were completed for the parent
survey, once for the Parent/Guardian Total Participants (TP) and once for the Parent/Guardian
Subgroup Participants (SP). Both item analyses include the 4 items from the Intelligence
Domain of the ITQ (Spinath et al., 2003) and the 2 items measuring Emotional Stability from the
TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003). The item analysis will first be reported for the TP (N = 95), followed
by the analysis of the SP—those parent or guardian participants with coinciding student
participation (N = 26).
Parent Mindset. The Parent Survey included four items from the Intelligence Domain of
the ITQ with the purpose of measuring the mindset of parents. The four items were the following
statements:
1. How intelligent you are is hardly or not at all changeable by yourself.

2. How intelligent you are depends mainly on your own effort.
3. How intelligent you are cannot be influenced by yourself.
4. If someone is not very intelligent as a child, he or she cannot be very intelligent as an
adult, even if he or she tries to.
For each of these four statements, participants were asked to state their level of
agreement using only the five following responses: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, or
Strongly Disagree. Item two was reverse coded compared to the other items from the ITQ (see
Table 11). A higher score for each item represents a stronger growth mindset.
Table 11
Intelligence Domain Items of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ) for the Parent Survey
Item Scoring



she tries to.
The Parent/Guardian group (N = 95) showed a small amount of variation among the four
items (see Table 12). Items three (ability to influence intelligence) and four (changing
intelligence from childhood to adult) had the highest mean scores (M = 3.98) indicating a growth
mindset in these areas. Item one (intelligence can be changed) showed a slightly lower mean
score (M = 3.66) but the same median and mode as Items three and four. Item two referring to
intelligence depending on effort showed a mean score of 2.81 and a median and mode of three
indicating a lower mindset score though still above the median point on the overall 5.0 scale.
Table 12
Central Tendency of Intelligence Design items from the Implicit Theories Questionnaire of the
Parent Survey for Parent/Guardian Total Participants
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4
Mean 3.66 2.81 3.98 3.98
Median 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00
Mode 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Standard Deviation .99 1.11 .92 .85
Range 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Note. N = 95
For the Parent/Guardian Subgroup (N = 26), a different pattern emerged. All 4 items had
median scores of 4.0 with mean scores ranging from 3.35 to 4.15. Items 3 and 4 continued to
have the highest mean scores for the subgroup and Item 2 had the lowest (see Table 13).
Table 13
Central Tendency of Intelligence Design Items from the Implicit Theories Questionnaire of
the Parent Survey for Parent/Guardian Subgroup Participants
Mean 3.81 3.35 4.04 4.15
Median 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Mode 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Standard Deviation .85 1.09 .87 .46
Range 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0
Note. N = 26
Item 1: “How intelligent you are is hardly or not changeable by yourself”. In reviewing
the frequency distributions between the total parent group and the subgroup, the highest
percentage of subjects for each group Disagreed with the item about intelligence not being
changeable. There were also similar percentage of subjects who chose a Neutral position on this
item. The most variation of parent response occurred for those who Agreed with the item
(TP=16% and SP=4%) and also for those parents who took the Strongly Disagreed position (see
Table 14).
Table 14
Item #1: How Intelligent You are is Hardly or Not at All Changeable by Yourself.
Parent/Guardian Total Parent/Guardian Subgroup
Participants (TP) (N=95) Participants (SP) (N=26)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Strongly Agree 2 2.1 1 3.8
Agree 15 15.8 1 3.8
Neutral 11 11.6 3 11.5
Disagree 53 55.8 18 69.2
Strongly Disagree 14 14.7 3 11.5
Total 95 100.0 26 100.0
Item 2: How intelligent you are depends mainly on your own effort. In reviewing the
frequency distributions between the parent/guardian total participants and the subgroup with the
subgroup participants, there were similar distributions for those with the position of Strongly
Disagree (TP=8.4 and SP=3.8), Neutral (TP=21.1 and SP=19.2), as well as Strongly Agree
(TP=7.4 and SP=11.5). However, there was a widespread difference between those with the
position of Disagreed (TP=40.0 and SP=23.1) and Agreed (TP=23.2 and SP=42.3; see Table 15).
Item 3: How intelligent you are cannot be influenced by yourself. For this item, the
frequency distribution of responses was fairly similar between TP and SP. For both groups, the
largest difference was of those who said they Agree with this statement (TP=5.3 and SP=0).
There was very little difference between the groups who answered Neutral (TP=8.4 and
SP=11.5), Disagree (TP=56.8 and 57.7) and Strongly Disagree (TP=26.3 and SP=26.0; see
Table 16).
Table 15
Item #2: How Intelligent You are Depends Mainly on Your Own Effort.
Participants (TP) Participants (SP)
Disagree 38 40.0 6 23.1
Neutral 20 21.1 5 19.2
Agree 22 23.2 11 42.3
Total 95 100.0 26 100.0
Table 16
Item #3: How Intelligent You are Cannot be Influenced by Yourself.

Agree 5 5.3 0 0
Neutral 8 8.4 3 11.5
Disagree 54 56.8 15 57.7
Total 95 100.0 26 100.0
Item 4: If someone is not very intelligent as a child, he or she cannot be very intelligent
as an adult, even if he or she tries to. Once again, most of the parents in both groups responded
in a manner that is reflective of a growth mindset. Very few, if any, parents responded either
with a Strongly Agree (TP=2.1 and SP=0) or Agree (TP=4.2 and SP=0) to this statement. With
the majority of parents responding either with Disagree or Strongly Disagree, the greatest
difference between the two groups was that a much higher percentage of SP responded with
Disagree (TP=57.9 and SP=76.9; see Table 17).
Table 17
Item #4: If Someone is not very Intelligent as a Child, He or She Cannot be very Intelligent as an
Adult, Even if He or She Tries to.
Strongly Agree 2 2.1 0 0
Agree 4 4.2 0 0
Neutral 11 11.6 1 3.8
Disagree 55 57.9 20 76.9
Total 95 100.0 26 100.0
Emotional Stability of Parent/Guardian. In addition to the 4 items from the Intelligence
Domain of the ITQ (Spinath et al., 2003), the Parent Survey also included two items from the
TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003) to measure the emotional stability of the parent/guardian. Each of the
items ask the participant whether they agree or disagree with a statement about their own
personality. The two items on the survey are as follows: I see myself as anxious, easily upset, and
I see myself as calm, emotionally stable.
Respondents are asked to select the level of agreement that most accurately depicts their
personality as it relates to each of these statements (agree strongly, agree moderately, agree a
little, neither agree nor disagree, disagree a little, disagree moderately, or disagree strongly). The
higher TIPI score indicates a greater degree of emotional stability (see Table 18).
As previous, the item analysis will first be reported for the TP (N = 95), followed by the
analysis of the SP—those parent/guardian participants with coinciding student participation (N =
26).
Table 18
TIPI Items (Emotional Stability Dimension), Scoring, and Type of Anxiety Measured
Item Scoring
3. I see myself as anxious, Agree strongly = 1; Agree moderately = 2; Agree a little = 3;

easily upset Neither agree or disagree = 4; Disagree a little = 5; Disagree
moderately = 6; Disagree strongly = 7

4. I see myself as calm, Neither agree or disagree = 4; Disagree a little = 3; Disagree
emotionally stable moderately = 2; Disagree strongly = 1
The Parent/Guardian TP group (N = 95) and the SP group (N = 26) showed very little
amount of variation among Item 5 (anxious, easily upset; TP=4.52 and SP=4.62) and Item 6
(calm, emotionally stable; TP=2.44 and SP=2.27; see Table 10). Although similar, the results
reflect a TP group slightly more anxious and easily upset (TP=4.52 and SP=4.62) but also a bit
more calm and emotionally stable (TP=2.44 and SP=2.27). The median and mode were the same
for both groups for both items. The standard deviation was similar for Item 5 (TP=1.86 and
SP=1.75) and for Item 6 (TP=1.35 and SP=1.15). Although the range was consistent for Item 5
and 6 (6.0), there was a more narrow range on Item 6 for the SP (TP=6.0 and SP=4.0; see Table
19).
Table 19
Central Tendency of Emotional Stability items from the Ten Item Personality Inventory of the
Parent Survey for Parent/Guardian Total Participants (N = 95)
Participants (N = 95) Participants (N = 26)
Item #5 Item #6 Item #5 Item #6
Mean 4.52 2.44 4.62 2.27
Median 5.00 2.00 5.00 2.00
Mode 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
Std. Deviation 1.86 1.35 1.75 1.15
Range 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0
Item 5: I see myself as anxious, easily upset. In reviewing the frequency distributions
between the TP and the SP, the highest percentage of subjects for each group responded they
Agree a little with seeing themselves as “anxious, easily upset” (TP=29.5 and SP=30.8) followed
by the second largest response, Disagree moderately (TP=24.2 and SP=23.1). There were two
responses that widely differed between TP and SP. The TP had a higher percentage of
respondents answer Agree moderately (TP=12.6 and SP=3.8) while SP had a higher percentage
of respondents answer Disagree a little (TP=10.5 and SP=19.2; see Table 20).
Table 20
Item #5: I See Myself as Anxious, Easily Upset.

Agree strongly 2 2.1 1 3.8
Agree moderately 12 12.6 1 3.8
Agree a little 28 29.5 8 30.8
Neither agree nor disagree 3 3.2 1 3.8
Disagree a little 10 10.5 5 19.2
Disagree moderately 23 24.2 6 23.1
Disagree strongly 17 17.9 4 15.4
Total 95 100.0 26 100.0
Item 6: I see myself as calm, emotionally stable. Review of the frequency distribution for
Item 6 reveals more TP responded in neutral fashion (“Neither agree nor disagree”) than SP
(TP=6.3 and SP=0). The highest percentage for both groups answered Agree moderately
(TP=44.2 and SP=57.7) and Agree strongly (TP=23.2 and SP=19.2), although it is important to
note the data reflects the TP group saw themselves more strongly as calm, emotionally stable
(see Table 21).

Table 21
Item #6: I See Myself as Calm, Emotionally Stable.

Agree strongly 22 23.2 5 19.2
Agree moderately 42 44.2 15 57.7
Agree a little 13 13.7 3 11.5
Neither agree nor disagree 6 6.3 0 0
Disagree a little 10 10.5 3 11.5
Disagree moderately 1 1.1 0 0
Disagree strongly 1 1.1 0 0
Total 95 100.0 26 100.0
Score Analysis of Parent Survey. Two previously researched tools were contained
within the parent survey—the Intelligence Domain of the ITQ (Spinath et al., 2003) and the
Emotional Stability Domain from the TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003). The scores were compiled for
each of these domains and will be reported below, first for the Parent/Guardian Total Participants
and second for the Parent/Guardian Subgroup Participants.
Intelligence Domain of the ITQ. For the Intelligence Domain of the ITQ, a higher total
score correlates with a growth mindset with possible scores ranging from 4 to 20. Conversely,
the lower total score correlates with a fixed mindset.
In review of the descriptive statistics for the ITQ, the SP (N=26) had a higher score
(M=15.35) indicating a stronger growth mindset versus the TP (M=14.42). The Median also
indicates a stronger growth mindset among SP (TP=15.0 and SP=16.0). Lastly, the standard
deviation and range was smaller among the SP (see Table 22).
Table 22
Descriptive Statistics of the Intelligence Domain (ITQ) for Parent/Guardian Total

Participants (TP) (N=95) and Subgroup Participants (SP) (N=26)
TP SP
Mean 14.42 15.35
Median 15.00 16.00
Mode 16 16
Std. Deviation 2.63 2.04
Range 16 9
Note. Total Participants (N = 95); Subgroup Participants (N = 26)
Table 23
Frequency Distribution of Intelligence Domain (ITQ) for Parent/Guardian Total Participants

(TP) and Subgroup Participants (SP)
Parent/Guardian Total Parent/Guardian Subgroup Participants
Participants (TP) (SP)
Intelligence Domain
(ITQ) Scores Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
4 1 1.1 0 0
8 2 2.1 0 0
9 1 1.1 0 0
10 2 2.1 0 0
11 4 4.2 1 3.8
12 9 9.5 2 7.7
13 8 8.4 2 7.7
14 20 21.1 3 11.5
15 13 13.7 1 3.8
16 21 22.1 13 50.0
17 7 7.4 2 7.7
18 1 1.1 0 0
19 3 3.2 1 3.8
20 3 3.2 1 3.8
Total 95 100.0 26 100.0
Of a scale between 4 and 20, the mean for the Intelligence Domain scale is 12. The
review of the frequency distribution from the parent survey reveals 20.1% of TP scored a 12 or
lower, indicating a fixed mindset. In contrast, 11.5% of SP scored a 12 or lower on the scale
indicating a strong fixed mindset among TP. The vast majority of parent participants scored
between 14 and 16 (TP=56.9% and SP=65.3%). It is important to note that 50% of SP had an
Intelligence Domain score of 16 versus 21.1% of TP, once again indicating a stronger growth
mindset among SP (see Table 23).
Emotional Stability Scores (TIPI). The second tool included in the Parent Survey was the
Emotional Stability Domain from the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al.,
2003). Possible score results include a total of 13 possible scores, ranging from 2 to 14. The
higher scores on this spectrum indicate a greater tendency toward emotional stability and
conversely, the lower scores indicate a greater tendency toward emotional instability.
The mean scores for TP (M=10.07) and SP (M=10.35) were fairly consistent, as was the
median (TP and SP=11.0), standard deviation (TP=2.91 and SP 2.53), and range (TP=12 and
SP=10). There was only a slight difference between modes with TP having a mode of 12 and SP
having a mode of 11. This indicates a slightly more emotionally stable TP versus just those in the
SP (see Table 24).
Table 24
Descriptive Statistics of Emotional Stability Scores for Parent/Guardian Total Participants (TP)
and Parent/Guardian Subgroup Participants (SP)
TP SP
Mean 10.07 10.35
Median 11.00 11.00
Mode 12 11
Std. Deviation 2.91 2.53
Range 12 10
Table 25
Frequency Distribution of Emotional Stability Scores for Total Participants (TP) and Subgroup
Participants (SP)
Parent/Guardian Total
Participants (TP) Parent/Guardian Subgroup Participants (SP)
Emotional Stability
Scores Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
3 2 2.1 0 0
4 1 1.1 1 3.8
5 4 4.2 0 0
6 6 6.3 2 7.7
7 7 7.4 1 3.8
8 10 10.5 1 3.8
9 8 8.4 3 11.5
10 9 9.5 3 11.5
11 10 10.5 6 23.1
12 16 16.8 3 11.5
13 10 10.5 5 19.2
14 12 12.6 1 3.8
Total 95 100.0 26 100.0
With a range of 12 and answers varying between 3 and 14, the score median separates
scores 3 to 8 and 9 to 14. With this in mind, it can be determined that both TP and SP had a
higher percentage of participants answer above the score median. A higher percentage of SP
(80.6%) had a score between 9 and 14 when contrasted with TP (68.3%). However, with that
being said, a higher percentage of TP had the highest possible score of 14 (TP=12.6% and
SP=3.8%; see Table 25).
Item Analysis of the Student Survey. The Student Survey included 3 main sections.
First, similar to the Parent Survey, the Student Survey included the Intelligence Domain of the
ITQ to measure the student mindset. Second, the survey included an in depth measure of their
levels of anxiety. The instrument used was the STICSA, which measures state anxiety, trait
anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and somatic anxiety. Lastly, the Student Survey included a section to
gather demographic information about the student, including gender, origin, race, ACT and SAT
scores, GPA, and the number of colleges to which they applied.
Student Mindset. The Student Survey included four items from the Intelligence Domain
of the ITQ with the purpose of measuring the mindset of student participants. The four items
were the following statements:
1. How intelligent you are is hardly or not at all changeable by yourself.
3. How intelligent you are cannot be influenced by yourself.
adult, even if he or she tries to.
For each of these 4 statements, student participants were asked to state their level of
agreement using only the following responses: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, or
Strongly Disagree. Item 2 was reverse coded compared to the other items from the ITQ (see
Table 26).
Table 26
Intelligence Domain Items of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ) for the Student Survey
Item Scoring


she tries to.
When looking at the descriptive statistics for the Intelligence Domain, the means for Item
1 and 2 (Item 1=3.35 and Item 2=3.50) differs slightly from the mean of Item 3 and 4 (Item
3=4.00 and Item 4=4.12). The lowest median was 3.5 from Item 1 whereas Items 2 through 4 had
a median of 4.0. The mode of each of the items was 4 except for Item 2 which had a mode of 2.
The item with the least amount of deviation was Item 3 (SD=.59) when compared with Items 1
(SD=1.20), 2 (SD=1.24), and 4 (SD=1.06; see Table 27).
Table 27
Central Tendency of Intelligence Design items from the Implicit Theories

Questionnaire of the Student Survey
Mean 3.35 3.50 4.00 4.12
Median 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00
Mode 4 2 4 4
Std. Deviation 1.20 1.24 1.06 .59
Range 5 4 5 3
Note. Student participants (N = 26)
Item 1: “How intelligent you are is hardly or not changeable by yourself.” In response to
this statement, nearly half of the students responded with either disagree (30.8%) or strongly
disagree (19.2%). These answers are reflective of a growth mindset. The second largest
response, however, was agree (26.9%), typical of a fixed mindset (Table 28).
Table 28
Item #1: How Intelligent You are is Hardly or not at all Changeable by Yourself
Frequency Percent
Strongly Agree 1 3.8
Agree 7 26.9
Neutral 5 19.2
Disagree 8 30.8
Strongly Disagree 5 19.2
Total 26 100.0
Item 2: “How intelligent you are depends mainly on your own effort.” Similar to the
above item, the majority of students responded that they agree (30.8%) or disagree (26.9%) with
this statement indicating a growth mindset (see Table 20). There were still many who responded
disagree (34.6%; see Table 29).
Table 29
Item #2: How Intelligent You are Depends Mainly on your Own Effort
Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Disagree 9 34.6
Neutral 2 7.7
Agree 8 30.8
Total 95 100.0
Table 30
Item #3: You Cannot Influence how Intelligent You Are

Frequency Percent
Agree 2 7.7
Neutral 2 7.7
Disagree 12 46.2
Total 26 100.0
Item 3: “You cannot influence how intelligent you are.” The vast majority of students
disagreed with this statement indicating, once again, a growth mindset for the majority of student
participants. Most student participants responded that they disagree (46.2%) or strongly disagree
(34.6%). In fact, only 11.5% of student participants responded that they agree or strongly
disagree (see Table 30).

Item 4: If someone is not very intelligent as a child, he or she cannot be very intelligent
as an adult, even if he or she tries to. More so than the other items, students almost unanimously
responded disagree (65.4%) or strongly disagree (23.1%) with this statement, once again
reflecting a growth mindset. None of the students agreed or strongly agreed with this statement
and only 11.5% responded neutral (see Table 31).
Table 31
Item #4: If Someone is Not Very Intelligent as a Child, He or She Cannot be Very Intelligent as
an Adult, Even if He or She Tries To
Frequency Percent
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 0 0
Neutral 3 11.5
Disagree 17 65.4
Total 26 100.0
Table 32
STICSA Items, Scoring, and Type of Anxiety Measured

Item Scoring Type of Anxiety
1. My heart beats fast 1-4 Somatic
2. My muscles are tense 1-4 Somatic
3. I feel agonized over my problems 1-4 Cognitive
4. I think that others won’t approve of me 1-4 Cognitive
5. I feel like I’m missing out on things because I can’t make up 1-4 Cognitive
my mind soon enough
(continued)
Item Scoring Type of Anxiety

6. I feel dizzy 1-4 Cognitive
7. My muscles feel weak 1-4 Somatic
8. I feel trembly and shaky 1-4 Cognitive
9. I picture some future misfortune 1-4 Cognitive
10. I can’t get some thought out of my mind 1-4 Cognitive
11. I have trouble remembering things 1-4 Cognitive
12. My face feels hot 1-4 Somatic
13. I think that the worst will happen 1-4 Cognitive
14. My arms and legs feel stiff 1-4 Somatic
15. My throat feels dry 1-4 Somatic
16. I keep busy to avoid uncomfortable thoughts 1-4 Cognitive
17. I cannot concentrate without irrelevant thoughts Cognitive 1-4 Cognitive
intruding
18. My breathing is fast and shallow 1-4 Somatic
19. I worry that I cannot control my thoughts as well as I would 1-4 Cognitive
like to
20. I have butterflies in the stomach 1-4 Cognitive
21. My palms feel clammy 1-4 Somatic
Note: This table includes the 21 items from STICSA, all of which were asked twice on the
survey, once to score for trait anxiety and once for state anxiety. The scoring for each item is as
follows: not at all = 1; a little = 2; moderately = 3; very much so = 4.
Student Anxiety (STICSA). The State–Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic
Anxiety (STICSA; Grös et al., 2007) was designed to assess symptoms of anxiety as they relate
to both the current state of an individual as well as the general trait of an individual. There are
two parts to this inventory. The first part is entitled “Your Mood at This Moment” and seeks to
measure levels of acute anxiety. The second part is “Your General Mood State” which seeks to
measure levels of chronic anxiety. Both parts consist of 21 questions each totaling 42 questions
for the entire inventory. Respondents answer each question using a scale that includes the
following responses: not at all, a little, moderately, and very much so.
The STICSA also distinguishes between somatic anxiety (i.e. hyperventilation,
palpitations, muscle tension) and cognitive anxiety (i.e. worry, intrusive thoughts, inability to
concentrate; Ree et al., 2008). Research suggests somatic anxiety and cognitive anxiety are
distinguishable for both acute anxiety and chronic anxiety (Ree et al., 2008).
For the item analysis of the STICSA, the survey items will be analyzed in four groupings:
Trait-Somatic, Trait-Cognitive, State-Somatic, and Trait-Cognitive. For each of these groupings,
the means and the standard deviation of each item will be presented in order from highest to
lowest. Following the presentation of the means and the standard deviations for each item, the
frequency distribution will be presented for each item within each of the groupings. Lastly, the
data of all Total Scores will be analyzed.
Table 33
Descriptive Statistics for the Trait-Somatic Items on the Student Survey

My My
My heart My My face My arms My breathing is My palms
beats muscles muscles feels and legs throat fast and feel
fast are tense feel weak hot feel stiff feels dry shallow clammy
Mean 2.35 2.54 1.77 1.85 1.81 1.62 1.42 1.50
Median 2.50 3.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00
Mode 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
SD .84 1.03 .91 1.01 .90 .70 .64 .81
Range 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3
Trait-Somatic Item Analysis. For the 8 items in the Trait-Somatic grouping, the item
means ranged from 1.42 to 2.54. The higher the score, the more students admitted to having
experienced that particular phenomenon. For these participants, the most experienced
phenomenon was having tenses muscles (M=2.54) followed by a fast beating heart (M=2.35).
These two particular items also had modes of 3 whereas the rest of the items in this set had
modes of only 1. My muscles are tense also had the largest standard deviation of all 8 items
(SD=1.03). In contrast, the two least experienced phenomenon was breathing that is fast and
shallow (M=1.42) and clammy palms (M=1.50; see Table 33).
Trait-Somatic Frequency Statistics. Students were asked to select the descriptor (not at
all, a little, moderately, or very much so) that best indicated how often, in general, the statements
were true for them. Of the 8 Trait-Somatic items (see Table 34 and 35), only 1 item, my muscles
are tense, received more responses of moderately or very much so as opposed to not at all or a
little (53.8%) than any of the other items (see Table 34 and 35). My heart beats fast also had
quite a few moderately or very much so responses (50%). None of the other 6 Trait-Somatic
items had more than 26.9% answering with one of these two responses.
Table 34
Frequency Distribution of the First Four Trait-Somatic Items from the Student Survey
My heart beats My muscles “my face feels “my arms and legs
fast are tense” hot” feel stiff”
Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent
Not at all 5 19.2 5 19.2 13 50.0 12 46.2
A little 8 30.8 7 26.9 6 23.1 8 30.8
Moderately 12 46.2 9 34.6 5 19.2 5 19.2
Very much so 1 3.8 5 19.2 2 7.7 1 3.8
Total 26 100.0 26 100.0 26 100.0 26 100.0
Table 35
Frequency distribution of the second four Trait-Somatic items from the Student Survey
My muscles feel My throat feels My breathing is My palms feel
weak dry fast and shallow clammy
Not at all 12 46.2 13 50.0 17 65.4 17 65.4
A little 10 38.5 10 38.5 7 26.9 6 23.1
Moderately 2 7.7 3 11.5 2 7.7 2 7.7
Very much so 2 7.7 0 0 0 0 1 3.8
Total 26 100.0 26 100.0 26 100.0 26 100.0
More students responded very much so when prompted with my muscles are tense than
any of the other items (19.2%). In addition, another 34.6% responded that they moderately
experienced this phenomenon. More students responded with moderately to the statement, my
heart beats fast, than any of the other items (46.2%). The item with the second most responses of
moderately was to the prompt, my muscles are tense (see Tables 34 and 35).
Trait-Cognitive Item Analysis. For the 13 items in the Trait-Cognitive grouping, the item
means ranged from 1.50 to 2.81. The higher the score, the more students admitted to frequently
experiencing the phenomenon contained within that statement. From this group of student
participants, students most regularly experienced agony over problems (2.81), the inability to
stop thinking about specific things (2.73), and the need for approval from others (2.58; see Table
36). The inability to stop thinking about specific things also had the highest mode of 4. The other
two items with the highest means also had the next highest mode of 3. No other item had a mode
higher than 2.
Table 36
Descriptive Statistics of the Trait-Cognitive Items from the Student Survey

Agonized
over Approval Missing out on Trembly and Picture future Thoughts stuck
problems from others things Dizzy shaky misfortune in mind
Mean 2.81 2.58 2.27 1.69 1.50 2.31 2.73
Median 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Mode 3 3 2 1 1 2 4
SD .94 .90 1.08 .93 .71 1.01 1.22
Range 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
Trouble Busy to avoid Worry about
remembering Worst will uncomfortable Cannot uncontrollable Butterflies in
things happen thoughts concentrate thoughts stomach
Mean 1.92 2.46 2.31 2.35 2.00 1.88
Median 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
Mode 1 2 2 1 1a 1
SD 1.06 1.10 1.09 1.26 1.06 1.07
Range 3 3 3 3 3 3
Note. Student participants (N = 26); a. Multiple modes exist; The smallest value is shown
Trait-Cognitive Frequency Statistics. Of the 13 Trait-Cognitive items (see Tables 37, 38,
39, and 40), only three had more responses of moderately or very much so as opposed to not at
all or a little: I feel agonized over my problems (69.3%; see Table 37), I think that others won’t
approve of me (61.5%; see Table 37), and I can’t get some thought out of my mind (57.7%; see
Table 38). More participants replied that they very much so cannot get some thought out of my
mind than any of the other Trait-Cognitive items (38.5%; see Table 40).
There were three bimodal distributions among the Trait-Cognitive items. The first, I can’t
get some thought out of my mind, had 23.1% of the responses as not at all, 19.2% as a little or
moderately, and 38.5% as very much so (see Table 38). The second, and perhaps most
drastically, I cannot concentrate without irrelevant thoughts intruding had 34.6% of the
responses as not at all, 26.9% as a little, 7.7% as moderately, and 30.8% as very much so (see
Table 39). Lastly, I worry that I cannot control my thoughts as well as I would like to had 38.5%
of the responses of not at all, 38.5% as a little, 7.7% as moderately, and 15.4% as very much so
(see Table 39).

Table 37
Frequency Distribution of the Trait-Cognitive Items (1-4) from the Student Survey
I feel agonized I think that I feel I’m missing out
over my others won’t on things; I can’t
problems approve of me make up my mind I feel dizzy
Not at all 3 11.5 4 15.4 7 26.9 15 57.7
A little 5 19.2 6 23.1 10 38.5 5 19.2
Moderately 12 46.2 13 50.0 4 15.4 5 19.2
Very much so 6 23.1 3 11.5 5 19.2 1 3.8
Total 26 100.0 26 100.0 26 100.0 26 100.0
Table 38
I feel trembly and I picture some future I can’t get some thought
shaky misfortune out of my mind
Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent
Not at all 16 61.5 6 23.1 6 23.1
A little 7 26.9 10 38.5 5 19.2
Moderately 3 11.5 6 23.1 5 19.2
Very much so 0 0 4 15.4 10 38.5
Total 26 100.0 26 100.0 26 100.0
Table 39
I have trouble I think that the worst I keep busy to avoid
remembering things will happen uncomfortable thoughts
Not at all 12 46.2 6 23.1 7 26.9
A little 7 26.9 8 30.8 9 34.6
Moderately 4 15.4 6 23.1 5 19.2
Very much so 3 11.5 6 23.1 5 19.2
Total 26 100.0 26 100.0 26 100.0
Table 40
I cannot concentrate I worry that I cannot
I have butterflies in the
without irrelevant control my thoughts as
stomach
thoughts intruding well as I would like to
Not at all 9 34.6 10 38.5 14 53.8
A little 7 26.9 10 38.5 3 11.5
Moderately 2 7.7 2 7.7 7 26.9
Very much so 8 30.8 4 15.4 2 7.7
Total 26 100.0 10 38.5 26 100.0
State-Somatic Item Analysis. For the 8 State-Somatic items the means ranged from 2.42
to 1.42. The two items with the highest mean was my muscles are tense (M=2.42) and my heart
beats fast (M=2.31). My heart beats fast was also the only item with a mode of 2 versus each of
the others with a mode of only 1. The standard deviation was also the highest for the 2 items with
the highest means: my muscles are tense (SD=1.27) and my heart beats fast (SD=1.12; see Table
41).
Table 41
Descriptive Statistics for the State-Somatic Items on the Student Survey
My
My My My My breathing
heart My muscles face My arms throat is fast My palms
beats muscles feel feels and legs feels and feel
fast are tense weak hot feel stiff dry shallow clammy
Mean 2.31 2.42 1.85 1.65 1.65 1.46 1.46 1.42
Median 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mode 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SD 1.12 1.27 1.05 .85 .98 .58 .71 .70
Range 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
Frequency Distribution (State-Somatic). Review of the State-Somatic frequency
distribution reveals two items with bimodal distributions. The first, my heart beats fast, had
26.9% respond not at all, 38.5% a little, 11.5% moderately, and 23.1% very much so. The
second, “my muscles are tense”, had 34.6% respond “not at all”, 19.2% a little, 15.4%
moderately, and 30.8% very much so (see Table 42). These two same items were also the only
items which did not have at least 75% of the responses as either not at all or a little (see Tables
40 and 41). Each of the other 6 items had a fairly similar frequency distribution with responses of
not at all or a little ranging from 76.9% to 88.5% (see Tables 42 and 43) indicating students did
not experience this phenomenon with great regularity, if at all.
Table 42
Frequency Distribution of the State-Somatic Items (1-4) from the Student Survey
My heart beats My muscles My face feels My arms and legs
fast are tense hot feel stiff
Not at all 7 26.9 9 34.6 14 53.8 15 57.7
A little 10 38.5 5 19.2 8 30.8 8 30.8
Moderately 3 11.5 4 15.4 3 11.5 3 11.5
Very much so 6 23.1 8 30.8 1 3.8 0 0
Table 43
Frequency Distribution of the State-Somatic Items (5-8) from the Student Survey
My muscles feel My throat feels My breathing is My palms feel
weak dry fast and shallow clammy
Not at all 13 50.0 15 57.7 17 65.4 18 69.2
A little 7 26.9 10 38.5 6 23.1 5 19.2
Moderately 3 11.5 1 3.8 3 11.5 3 11.5
Very much so 3 11.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
State-Cognitive Item Analysis. The descriptive statistics for State-Cognitive anxiety as
experienced by the participants indicates means ranging from 2.88 to 1.42 (see Table 44). The
highest mean reveals participants agonized over problems (M=2.88) more often than each of the
other phenomenon. The second highest mean was for the seeking approval from others
(M=2.77). Two other items had a mean of 2.50 (Picture future misfortune and thoughts stuck in
mind; see Table 44).
The medians ranged from 3.0 to 1.0. The same two with the highest means also had the
highest medians of 3.0. The third and fourth highest means also had the next two highest
medians of 2.5.
Review of the modes reveals that these two items with the highest means and medians
also had the highest modes. More participants chose moderately or very much so when asked if
they had experienced agony over problems or if they seek approval from others (see Table 44).
Table 44
Descriptive Statistics of the State-Cognitive items from the Student Survey

Agonized Picture Thoughts
over Approval Missing out on Trembly and future stuck in
problems from others things. Dizzy shaky misfortune. mind
Mean 2.88 2.77 2.12 1.42 1.50 2.50 2.50
Median 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.50 2.50
a
Mode 4 4 1 1 1 2 1a
SD 1.03 1.11 1.11 .81 .81 1.11 1.18
Range 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Trouble Busy to avoid Worry about
remembering Worst will uncomfortable Cannot uncontrollable Butterflies in
things happen thoughts concentrate throughts stomach
Mean 1.73 2.50 2.15 2.08 2.08 2.12
Median 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mode 1 2 2 2 1 1
SD 1.00 1.11 1.08 1.02 1.09 1.20
Range 3 3 3 3 3 3
Note. Student participants (N = 26); a. multiple modes exist; the smallest value is shown
State-Cognitive Frequency Distribution. Of the 13 State-Cognitive items (see Tables 45,
46, 47, and 48), the item most experienced by participants was the feeling of being agonized over
my problems. For this item, 30.8% of participants responded as to moderately experiencing this
agony, with another 34.6% very much so experiencing this agony (see Table 45). The item
experienced second most often by participants was the thought that others won’t approve of me.
For this item, 23.1% of the participants responded as to moderately experiencing this thought,
while another 34.6% experienced this very much so (see Table 45).
The items experienced least by participants was feeling trembly and shaky or dizzy, with
only 10.5% of students responding as to feeling these phenomena moderately or very much so
(see Tables 45 and 46).
Within these 13 State-Cognitive items, two had a fairly equal distribution across all 4
possible responses. I picture some misfortune and I can’t get some thought out of my mind had
anywhere between 23.1% and 26.9% respond to each of the possibilities (see Table 46).
Lastly, of these items, there were three significant bimodal distributions. First, the
majority of the students responded that they thought the worst will happen a little (38.5%), with
the second most listed response as very much so (26.9%; see Table 47). Between these 2
responses was moderately with 15.4% of the responses. Second, there was also a bimodal
distribution for the item, I keep busy to avoid uncomfortable thoughts. Once again, the majority
of students responded that they kept busy to avoid uncomfortable thoughts a little (42.3%), but
19.2% responded that they very much so experience this phenomenon. Between these 2
responses, only 7.7% responded that they moderately stay busy for this reason (see Table 47).
Third, for the item I cannot concentrate without irrelevant thoughts intruding, 46.2% responded
that they experience this a little. However, 15.4 % responded that they very much so experience
this difficulty in concentration (see Table 48).
Table 45
Frequency Distribution of the State-Cognitive Items (1-4) from the Student Survey
I feel agonized I think that others I feel I’m missing
over my won’t approve of out; I can’t make
problems me up my mind I feel dizzy
Not at all 3 11.5 4 15.4 10 38.5 19 73.1
A little 6 23.1 7 26.9 7 26.9 4 15.4
Moderately 8 30.8 6 23.1 5 19.2 2 7.7
Very much so 9 34.6 9 34.6 4 15.4 1 3.8
Table 46
I feel trembly and I picture some future I can’t get some thought
shaky misfortune out of my mind
Not at all 17 65.4 6 23.1 7 26.9
A little 6 23.1 7 26.9 6 23.1
Moderately 2 7.7 7 26.9 6 23.1
Very much so 1 3.8 6 23.1 7 26.9
Table 47
Frequency Distribution of the State-Cognitive Items (8-10) from the Student Survey (N = 26)
I have trouble I think that the worst I keep busy to avoid
remembering things will happen uncomfortable thoughts
Not at all 15 57.7 5 19.2 8 30.8
A little 5 19.2 10 38.5 11 42.3
Moderately 4 15.4 4 15.4 2 7.7
Very much so 2 7.7 7 26.9 5 19.2
Table 48
I cannot concentrate I worry that I cannot
I have butterflies in the
without irrelevant control my thoughts as
stomach
thoughts intruding well as I would like to
Not at all 8 30.8 10 38.5 11 42.3
A little 12 46.2 8 30.8 5 19.2
Moderately 2 7.7 4 15.4 4 15.4
Very much so 4 15.4 4 15.4 5 19.2
Score Analysis of the Student Survey
STICSA Anxiety: Total Score Item Analysis. Due to the amount of questions and the
resulting wide range of possible total scores (42-168), there was a large range of scores for the
participating students (range = 121). A higher score reveals a greater degree of experienced
anxiety. The mean average was 129.85 and a median of 134.50. The standard deviation was also
large at 35.61 (see Table 49).
Table 49
Central Tendency of STICSA Scores

STICSA
Mean 129.85
Median 134.50
Mode 96a
Standard Deviation 35.61
Range 121
Note. Student participants (N = 26); a. multiple
modes exist; the smallest value is shown
STICSA anxiety: Total score frequency distribution. Review of the frequency
distribution for the Total Student Scores from the STICSA reveals a wide range of scores from
68 to 189. Only four scores were shared between two participants each (96, 102, 145, and 155;
see Table 50).
Table 50
Frequency Distribution of the STICSA Anxiety Total Score from Each of the Student Participants
Frequency Percent
68 1 3.8
78 1 3.8
82 1 3.8
93 1 3.8
96 2 7.7
97 1 3.8
102 2 7.7
104 1 3.8
125 1 3.8
128 1 3.8
134 1 3.8
135 1 3.8
138 1 3.8
139 1 3.8
145 1 3.8
149 2 7.7
155 2 7.7
167 1 3.8
179 1 3.8
183 1 3.8
188 1 3.8
189 1 3.8
Student mindset score: Item analysis. The Student Mindset Score suggests a stronger
growth mindset with a high score and a fixed mindset with a lower score. The range for possible
scores is from 4-20 with a mean score of 12. The data from the student survey reveals a higher
mean of 14.96, a median of 15, and a mode of 14 (see Table 51).

Table 51
Central Tendency: STICSA Anxiety Total for Student Participants

Student Mindset Total
Mean 14.96
Median 15.00
Mode 14a
Std. Deviation 3.10
Range 11
Note. Student participants (N = 26); multiple modes exist, the smallest value is shown
Student mindset score: Frequency distribution. Keeping in mind the possible scores for
the test range from 4-20, the frequency distribution for these student participants was 9 to 20.
There were 2 modes for this particular distribution, 14 and 15, both of which had a frequency of
5 (see Table 52).
Table 52
Frequency Distribution for the Student Mindset Total Scores

Frequency Percent
9 2 7.7
11 2 7.7
12 2 7.7
13 1 3.8
14 4 15.4
15 4 15.4
16 3 11.5
17 2 7.7
18 2 7.7
19 2 7.7
20 2 7.7
Total 26 100.0
Academic Demographics of Participating Students
The last portion of the Student Survey included the academic demographics of the
students themselves. The demographics portion of the survey included items related to the
following: gender, origin, race (see Table 10), highest ACT score, highest SAT score, current
GPA, the number of colleges to which the student applied, the names of the most highly selective
colleges to which the student applied, and, if known, the student’s anticipated major.
Student Current Grade Point Average (GPA). The mean score for GPA among study
participants was a 3.68. The median was slightly above at a 3.70 while the mode was slightly
lower at 3.50. The standard deviation was 0.33. The range of GPA was 1.62 with the lowest GPA
being 3.10 and the highest GPA being 4.72 (see Table 53).
Table 53
Frequency Distribution of Student GPA’s

Frequency Percent
3.10-3.50 9 34.6
3.54-3.75 8 30.8
3.80-4.00 8 30.8
Missing 1 3.8
Table 54
Central Tendency: Demographics of Student Participants

Current GPA
Valid 25
Mean 3.68
Median 3.70
Mode 3.50
Standard Deviation .32
Range 1.62
Highest SAT Scores. The range of SAT scores from the study’s participants was from a
low score of 1600 to a high score of 2320. To put these scores in perspective, according to data
provided by the College Board, the lowest score of these student participants was still in the 60th
percentile when compared with all students across the nation (College Board, 2014). Three
participants either did not take the SAT or chose not to answer this particular question (see Table
55).
Table 55
Frequency Distribution of Student SAT scores

Frequency Percent
2000-2320 5 19.2
1890-1950 6 23.0
1780-1880 4 15.3
1600-1700 4 15.3
Missing 7 26.9
Central Tendency of Student SAT Scores. Of the 26 student participants, 19 included
their highest SAT scores as they journey through the college application process. The mean,
median, and mode were all fairly consistent. The mean average was 1899, the median 1890 and
the mode was also 1890 (see Table 56). Compared nationwide, the median of 1890 for this
study’s participants would place in the 85th percentile according to the national data from
College Board (College Board, 2014). The range of scores for student participants was 720 out
of a possible 2400 points (see Table 56).

Table 56
Central Tendency: Demographics of Student Participants

SAT score
Valid 19
Missing 7
Mean 1899
Median 1890
Mode 1890
Standard Deviation 192
Range 720
Highest ACT Score. Of the student participants, 19 of the 26 students reported their
ACT scores. Some independent schools allow and even encourage students to either take the
ACT or the SAT test for admittance into college. The mean score was a 28 and the mode and
median was 27. According to the National Distributions of Cumulative Percents for ACT Test
Scores (ACT, 2014), the national mean was a 21. According to this same report, the mean score
of 28 from this study is the 90th percentile when compared to the rest of ACT test takers. The
range of 10 from 22 to 32 was equivalent to the 68th percentile to the 98th percentile, once again
according to the National Distributions of Cumulative Percents for ACT Test Scores (see Tables
57 and 58).
Table 57
Frequency Distribution of highest ACT score

Frequency Percent
22 - 25 3 11.5
26 3 11.5
27 4 15.4
29 2 7.7
30 3 11.5
31 1 3.8
32 3 11.5
Missing 7 26.9
Table 58
Central Tendency of highest ACT scores

Mean 28.00
Median 27.00
Std. Deviation 2.87
Range 10
Minimum 22
Maximum 32
Number of College Applications Per Student. One of the questions in the
demographics portion of the survey asked students to account for the number of colleges to
which they applied during the college application process. The statistics of central tendency
reveals that the student participants, on average, applied to 10 colleges, universities, or
academies. The mode for this data was 13 and the range was 17 (see Table 59).
Table 59
Central Tendency: Number of College Applications Per Student

Number of College Applications
Mean 10.08
Median 10.00
Mode 13
SD 4.60
Missing 1
Range 17
As can be seen both through the central tendency statistics as well as the frequency
distribution, of the student participants, more students applied to 13 colleges than any
other number (Mode = 13). There was also a wide range of 17 due to the fact that one
student applied to only one college and another applied to 18 (see Table 60).
Table 60
Frequency Distribution: Number of College Applications Per Student

Frequency Percent
1 1 3.8
4-6 6 23.0
7-10 6 23.0
11-14 8 30.1
15-16 2 7.7
18 2 7.7
Missing 1 3.8
Highly Selective Colleges to which Student Participants Applied. In reviewing which
highly selective institutions were selected by students to which to apply, it can be seen that the
most applications from this pool of students were sent to the University of California Berkeley
and to the University of Southern California, both of which had 8 applicants (N = 26). Of the
student participants, 4 applied to Stanford and 3 applied to a couple Ivy League schools: Brown
University and Cornell University (see Table 61).
Of the 26 student participants, 16 (61.5%) applied to at least one highly selective college,
university, or academy (Taylor, 2013). Of those 16, seven (26.9%) applied to only one highly
selective institution. An additional six students applied to between two and five highly selective
institutions. There were three students who applied to seven or more highly selective institutions;
two applied to seven and one applied to eight (see Table 62).
Table 61
Frequency Distribution: The Most Highly Selective Colleges to which Participants Applied
School Frequency
Barnard College 1
Brown University 6
Claremont McKenna College 6
Columbia University 8
Cornell University 2
Duke University 2
Georgetown University 1
Georgetown University 1
Harvard University 2
Harvey Mudd College 1
Johns Hopkins University 2
Northwestern University 1
Pitzer College 1
Pomona College 1
Princeton University 1
Stanford University 4
Tulane University 1
University of California-Berkeley 8
University of Notre Dame 2
University of Pennsylvania 1
University of Southern California 8
Vanderbilt University 2
Washington University of St. Louis 1
Note. See Appendix E for a full list of highly selective colleges; Student participants (N = 26)
Table 62
Frequency Distribution of Total Sum of Applications to Highly Selective Colleges

Sum of Applications Frequency Percent
0 10 38.5
1 7 26.9
2-5 6 23.0
7-8 3 11.5
When looking at central tendency data for the sum of applications sent to highly selective
colleges, universities, and academies, it can be determined that the student participants sent an
average of just under 2 applications (M=1.85) to these institutions. Also seen in the central
tendency data is that the median was 1 and the mode was 0. With some students not choosing to
apply to any highly selective institutions, and 1 students applying to 8, the range for this data was
a total of 8 (see Table 63).
Table 63
Central Tendency: Total Sum of Applications to Highly Selective Colleges

Total Sum of Applications
Mean 1.85
Median 1.00
Mode .00
Std. Deviation 2.43
Range 8.00
Anticipated Choice of Major. One of the questions on the survey asked students to
anticipate their choice of major. Three of the students answered “unknown”. The largest
percentage of students, 23.1%, answered that they were planning to major in Health Professions.
Of the participants, students also listed Business, Social Sciences, and Engineering 11.5% of the
time. The rest of the anticipated majors received less than 4% (see Table 64).
Table 64
Frequency Distribution: Anticipated Choice of Majors Among Student Participants

Frequency
Business 3
Social Sciences 3
Health Professions 6
Engineering 3
Other (see below) 7
No major selected 3
Note. One participant selected each of the following possible majors: Applied Mathematics,
Child Development, Communications, Film Production, Forensic Science, Game Design, and
Theatre Arts.
Findings for Research Questions
The analysis of the collected data sought to answer the following research questions
guiding the study:
process?

Relationship Between Student Mindset and Student Anxiety. The first research
question guiding the study was to discover to what extent, if at all, there is a relationship between
the mindset of a college-preparatory high school senior and levels of academic anxiety that may
be experienced during the college application process. A correlational analysis of the student
mindset scores and the STICSA scores used to measure anxiety among the student participants.
The analysis included the sub scores of the following types of anxiety: Trait-Somatic, Trait-
Cognitive, State-Somatic, State Cognitive, Trait, State, and the total STICSA score. The analysis
revealed varied results.
With analysis of the total STICSA score, Trait total score, State total score, Trait-
Cognitive, and State-Cognitive, no correlation was found with the anxiety experienced by the
participating students (see Table 65).
Table 65
Correlations between Student Mindset and Student Anxiety

Trait- State-
Trait-Cognitive Anxiety Anxiety Cognitive Anxiety
Total Total Total Total Total
Pearson Correlation .010 -.089 -.136 .046 -.108
Sig. (2-tailed) .960 .665 .507 .828 .600
Conversely, when the Student Mindset Score was analyzed for correlation with Trait-
Somatic Anxiety, State-Somatic Anxiety, and the Total Somatic Anxiety Score, a very weak
correlation was found (see Table 66). According to Dancey and Reidy (2004), a correlation of at
least 2.0 constitutes a weak correlation. These relationships constitute as weak correlations.
These correlations were found not to be significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed; see Table 66).
In addition, these weak correlations were found to have a negative relationship. This is
due to the fact that there is an inverse relationship as to how these items are coded. For the
STICSA, the higher the score, the higher the levels of experienced anxiety, either within the
anxiety subcategories or within the total STICSA score. The Intelligence Domain, which reveals
one’s particular mindset, is scored in such as way that the higher the score, the more growth
minded an individual. Therefore, the negative correlation suggests that the more growth minded
an individual, the less that person would experience anxiety (see Table 66).
Table 66
Correlations with Student Mindset and Student Anxiety

TraitSomatic StateSomatic SomaticTOTAL
Student Mindset Pearson Correlation -.264 -.293 -.297
Total Sig. (2-tailed) .192 .146 .141
Relationship Between Parent Mindset and Student Anxiety. The second research
question guiding this study was to discover to what extent, if at all, a relationship exists between
the mindset of parents and the levels of academic anxiety experienced by their student during the
college application process. A correlational analysis was conducted to discover the relationship
between parent’s mindset and the variety of types of anxiety. Review of this analysis shows there
is no relationship between a parent’s mindset and their student’s level of experienced anxiety
during the college application process (see Table 67). The Pearson Correlation ranged from -.003
(Trait-Somatic Anxiety) to -.114 (State-Somatic Anxiety; see Table 67).

Table 67
Correlations Between Parent Mindset and Levels of Student Anxiety

Parent Mindset Score
TraitSomatic Pearson Correlation -.003
Sig. (2-tailed) .989
TraitCognitive Pearson Correlation .087

TraitAnxietyTotal Pearson Correlation .060

StateSomatic Pearson Correlation -.114

StateCognitive Pearson Correlation .035

StateAnxietyTotal Pearson Correlation -.025

AnxietyTotal Pearson Correlation .032

SomaticTOTAL Pearson Correlation -.068

CognitiveTOTAL Pearson Correlation .040

Relationship between Student Mindset and Parent Mindset. The third research
question guiding this study was to discover what relationship, if any, exists between a student’s
mindset and their parent’s mindset. A correlational analysis reveals a mild correlation between
student mindset and parent mindset (r = .50, p < .05; see Table 61). Therefore, this study
suggests that that there is a weak correlation between a parent’s mindset and a student’s mindset
(see Table 68).

Table 68
Correlations between Parent Mindset Scores and Student Mindset Scores

Mindset Score Pearson Correlation .50
Relationship between Demographics and Student Anxiety. The last research question
was to discover if there are differences in the mindset of high school seniors attending college-
preparatory, private, independent schools, the mindset of their parents/guardians, or their levels
of anxiety based on the demographic variables contained within the study. The demographics
portion of the survey included items related to the following: gender, origin, race, highest ACT
score, highest SAT score, current GPA, the number of colleges to which the student applied, the
names of the most highly selective colleges to which the student applied, and, if known, the
student’s anticipated major. A correlational analysis was completed to discover if there were any
significant correlations. In all, there were three weak or moderate correlations found (see Table
69).
Table 69
Correlation between a parent’s TIPI Score (Emotional Stability) and their Student’s Mindset
Pearson Correlation -.406*
Note. Student participants (N = 26); correlations is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
Table 70
Correlations between the number of completed applications to colleges, universities, and

academies, and the level of anxiety experienced by a student.
Number of applications to colleges

Total Student Pearson Correlation .503*
Anxiety
Note. Student participants (N = 26); correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
Table 71
Correlations between student anxiety and their scores on the ACT and SAT tests
To date, what is your To date, what is your
highest ACT score? highest SAT score?
Total Student Pearson Correlation .361 .089
Anxiety
Sig. (2-tailed) .129 .718
There was an inverse, moderate correlation of statistical significance found between the
parent’s TIPI scores and their student’s mindset (r = -.41; p = .040). The higher the TIPI score,
the more emotionally stable a parent, and the lower the Intelligence Domain score suggests a
student has a stronger fixed mindset. Therefore, this data suggests what seems to be an illogical
finding (see Table 69).
A moderate correlation was found involving the relationship between anxiety and the
number of applications to college (r = .50; p = .010), but there was not a significant correlation
between anxiety and the number of applications to “highly selective” colleges. (see Table 70).
Lastly, a correlational analysis of the demographics revealed a statistically insignificant
and weak correlation between anxiety and the student scores on the ACT test (r = .36; p = .129).
In the analysis between anxiety and the SAT test, there was no correlation and no statistical
significance (r = .09; p = .718; see Table 71).
Relationship between Demographics and Mindset. When reviewing whether there is a
relationship between student achievement and mindset, a correlational analysis of these variables
reveals no significant correlations with any of the academic achievement data included in this
study. There were no significant correlations between SAT scores and either the student mindset
(r = .04, p = .831) or the parent mindset (r = .05, p = .865). In addition, there were also not
significant correlations between ACT scores and either the student mindset (r = .28, p = .238) or
the parent mindset (r = .23, p = .350). Lastly, there were also no significant correlations found
between student GPA and student mindset (r = .04, p = .861) or with parent mindset (r = -.20, p
= .337; see Table 72).
Table 72
Correlational Analysis Between Mindset (Both Student and Parent) and Levels of Academic
Achievement
To date, what To date, what is Current, non-weighted,
is your highest your highest SAT cumulative (9th-12th
ACT score? score? grade) GPA?
Parent Pearson
Mindset Correlation .23 .05 -.20
Score
Sig. (2-tailed) .350 .831 .337
Student Pearson
Mindset Correlation -.28 -.04 -.04
Score
Sig. (2-tailed) .238 .865 .861
Summary of Key Findings
1. There were no significant correlations between Student Anxiety and either Parent
Mindset or Student Mindset.

2. There was a moderate correlation of statistical significance between student mindset and
their parent’s mindset (r = .50, p < .05).
3. There was a moderate correlation of statistical significance between the number of
college applications a student completed and their levels of overall anxiety (r = .50; p <
.05).
4. There was an inverse, weak correlation of statistical significance found between the
parent’s TIPI (emotional stability) scores and their student’s mindset (r = -.41; p < .05).
5. There were no significant correlations between Student Mindset or Parent Mindset and
any measure of academic achievement included in this study (GPA, ACT, or SAT).
Chapter 5: Study Conclusions
The Issue and Significance
Generally speaking, life in high school can be quite stressful. For many high school
seniors, including those attending private, independent, college preparatory schools, it is not
unusual to experience a high degree of anxiety related to academics, GPA, athletic and artistic
performance, college preparedness, nationally standardized tests such as the SAT or ACT, and
the pursuit of college scholarships and grants (Chace, 2013; Daigneault & Wirtz, 2008; Hannon
& McNaughton‐Cassill, 2011; Pope & Simon, 2005). For some of these students, the pressure to
be accepted into a highly selective college, university, or academy may fuel this anxiety. Others
feel the pressure from their family to gain acceptance into one specific school, perhaps their alma
mater, or perhaps purely because the college is one of the most highly selective colleges in the
country. Many fear that they will not be accepted into the college of their choice, or perhaps, into
the college of their parent’s choice (Golden, 2009). To make matters more difficult, high school
seniors face unprecedented competition to gain acceptance into the institution of their choice
(Folkman et al., 1987). According to NACAC (National Association for College Admission
Counseling), there are more students applying to colleges than at any other time in our history
(Artani, 2006). However, many colleges are not accepting any more students than they have in
previous years. This competition has largely led to more stringent standards of college
acceptance throughout the country (Bound et al., 2009).The result has been increased
competition among graduating high school students to attend the college of their choice.
This anxiety may only be exacerbated by a narrow definition of success all too common
throughout the United States. "In the striving classes in America, you are where you go to
college… a sense of national and global instability leads to an apocalyptic urgency about making
it. The young people feel that it's now or never. Or maybe it was yesterday and I missed it”
(Mogel, 2005, p. 26). This narrow view of success may add a greater sense of urgency for high
school students that, in turn, may lead to heightened levels of unhealthy anxiety.
Conceptual Foundation
The two distinct variables of the study are anxiety and mindset. Following is the
conceptual foundation of the study and a discussion of these two variables.
Anxiety. With increased competitiveness among high school student who are hoping to
attend one of America’s most highly selective colleges or universities, it is no wonder high levels
of anxiety are experienced (Conner et al., 2009; Galloway et al., 2009; Pope & Simon, 2005).
However, it is important to first understand the definition of anxiety as well as the various types
of anxiety.
Researchers in the field of anxiety explain that there are three components of anxiety.
First, the body experiences a physiological response to a particular circumstance (Kim &
Diamond, 2002). Secondly, if given the choice to avoid a particular circumstance, a person
experiencing anxiety would choose to avoid the circumstance completely. Lastly, there is the
feeling of losing control over the particular circumstance. In fact, the more powerless a person
feels over a particular circumstance, the more anxiety is experienced (Kim & Diamond, 2002;
Folkman et al., 1987). When all three of these components are present—a physiological
response, a desire to avoid a particular circumstance, and loss of control— one is experiencing
anxiety.
It is also important to note that anxiety can only be understood when looking at both the
particular person and the particular circumstance. Analysis of the anxiety must take place when
considering both of these pertinent subsystems (Folkman et al., 1987). A particular circumstance
cannot be considered the source of anxiety unless a person who cognitively has characteristics
making them vulnerable to that particular circumstance experiences it. What causes a high
degree of anxiety in one person may not affect another at all due to their personality, beliefs,
personal goals, or their particular mindset. Similarly, a person or characteristic within a person
cannot be considered the source of anxiety unless it contains a challenge that prevents that
particular person from achieving a desired goal. If a person does not have much at stake despite a
circumstance that would otherwise be a stressful environment, that person will not experience
anxiety (Folkman et al., 1987).
Acute stress. In general, there are two types of stress: acute stress and chronic stress.
Acute stress occurs momentarily. In small doses, acute stress can actually be exhilarating or even
life-saving (Medina, 2008; Miller et al., 1993). Athletes experience acute stress when they need a
peak performance. Students may experience acute stress as an assignment’s deadline is quickly
approaching. Healthy stress actually helps individuals overcome challenges and threats.
However, when it comes to stress, our bodies were designed to solve problems that last for
seconds, not for extended periods of time (Medina, 2008). When acute stress is experienced in
large doses, it can lead to a variety of symptoms including back pain, heartburn, diarrhea,
constipation, irritable bowel syndrome, tension headaches, anger, irritability, and depression.
Continued doses of acute stress can lead to dizziness, a rise in blood pressure, chest pain, heart
palpitations, and a shortness of breath (Miller, 1993; Natvig & Albrektsen, 1999).
Chronic stress. When stress is experienced over a long period of time and is frequent,
relentless, and grinding, it can become quite harmful both physically and psychologically. This is
called chronic stress (Miller et al., 1993). Often times, chronic stress is exhibited when someone
cannot see his or her way out of a difficult, long-lasting circumstance. As opposed to acute
stress, which is often times very noticeable by the person experiencing this type of stress, people
experiencing chronic stress can actually forget about it altogether. They get used to it (Miller et
al., 1993). Chronic stress also takes its toll on the body’s immune system. Those experiencing
chronic stress are sick more often and are more likely to have asthma, diabetes, and autoimmune
disorders (Medina, 2008). It can also play havoc on the brain’s ability to learn. First, chronic
stress keeps people from being able to process language efficiently. Secondly, both short-term
and long-term memories are affected among those experiencing chronic stress. Thirdly, it
diminishes one’s ability to adapt old information to new circumstances. Lastly, chronic stress
inhibits one’s ability to focus (Medina, 2008). “Clearly, stress hurts learning. Most important,
however, stress hurts people” (Medina, 2008, p. 180). Symptoms of chronic stress are severe,
and include: heart attacks, strokes, violent outbursts, and suicide (Miller, 1993).
Academic anxiety. High school students, perhaps more now than ever, are experiencing
dangerous levels of academic anxiety that, in turn, are risking the mental and physical health of
our students (Pope & Simon, 2005). A variety of reasons can be blamed for this anxiety, but
recent studies seem to indicate that our schools could actually be a key culprit for these
unhealthy levels of anxiety. In a recent mixed methods study of 3,645 high school students
attending Bay Area schools in Northern California, many students reported that they were highly
anxious, overworked, and were routinely experiencing sleep deprivation (Conner et al., 2009).
Of the respondents, 70% were always or often always stressed about schoolwork while another
56% were stressed over the college acceptance process. Respondents were also receiving far less
sleep than recommended by the National Sleep Foundation (2011). Whereas the recommended
amount of sleep for adolescents is 9.25 hours, respondents to this survey averaged 6.8 hours of
sleep with over 34% getting an average of less than 6 hours of sleep per night. For most (67%),
sleep was minimized regularly due to the amount of schoolwork (Conner et al., 2009).
Chronic academic anxiety. When students experience prolonged and heightened levels
of academic anxiety, this chronic anxiety can lead to dangerous and sometimes long-lasting
consequences. In a quantitative study from 1994-1998 among 862 Norwegian 7th, 8th, and 9th
grade students, academic anxiety was consistently associated with psychosomatic symptoms
(Natvig & Albrektsen, 1999). In the study, a strong positive correlation was found between
students who reported academic anxiety with feeling low, irritable, nervous, or having difficulty
sleeping (Natvig & Albrektsen, 1999). In a 2009 study incorporating 3,287 North American self-
reporting teens, the analysis of the surveys linked academic anxiety to increased levels of drug
and alcohol use (2009 Parents and Teens Attitude Tracking Study Report, 2013).
Theories of intelligence. While many scholars have continued to define intelligence,
during the past few decades others have begun the task of studying individuals’ implicit theories
of intelligence. Implicit theories of intelligence are the beliefs a person holds, either consciously
or unconsciously, about aspects of intelligence, how intelligence is developed, or whether or not
intelligence can even be developed in the first place. Research surrounding implicit theories of
intelligence provides the conceptual framework for this study, in particular the concept of one’s
mindset as articulated and researched by Dweck and associates (Dweck, 2006). Dweck’s focus
has not been to define human intelligence per se, but instead to understand patterns and behavior
that may be caused by one’s own personal views and theories of intelligence.
Mindset. According to Dweck, each individual has a particular mindset. More accurately,
each person can be placed on a spectrum ranging from fixed mindset to growth mindset. Those
with a fixed mindset understand levels of intelligence, ability, and creativity to be fixed. Those
with a fixed mindset believe that there is only a certain amount of intelligence, ability, and
creativity that each person possesses and not much, if anything, can be done to expand or to
shrink these characteristics. Conversely, those with a growth mindset believe people can
incrementally grow in intelligence, ability, and creativity through time, dedication, and hard
work (Dweck, 2006).
Research has demonstrated that there are often widely contrasting results between a
growth mindset and a fixed mindset. Contrasting results include the creation of performance
goals versus learning goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Mangels et al.,
2006), contrasting responses to failure (Dweck, 2006; Moser et al., 2011; Plaks & Stecher,
2007), different viewpoints regarding the need for effort and hard work (Dweck, 2006, 2010;
Elliott & Dweck, 1988), and contrasting longitudinal results in terms of academic achievement
(Aronson et al., 2002; Good et al., 2003; Mangels et al., 2006).
Failure and effort. Evidence suggests that one’s mindset may determine their level of
resiliency. Studies indicate that those with a fixed mindset view failure and negative feedback
much differently than those with a growth mindset (Blackwell et al., 2007; Plaks & Stecher,
2007). Those with a fixed mindset typically see mistakes and failures as a reflection of their lack
of intelligence. Worse still for those with a fixed mindset is the idea of exerting effort and still
experiencing failure—for this leaves them without excuse (Dweck, 2006). Individuals with a
fixed mindset receive criticism or negative feedback, especially following the exertion of effort,
as the end of the road (Dweck, 2006; Moser et al., 2011; Plaks & Stecher, 2007).
Conversely, individuals with a growth mindset typically see failure as an opportunity to
grow, to learn, and to improve (Dweck, 2006; Plaks & Stecher, 2007). As previously discussed
regarding personal achievement goals, the learning-oriented goals created and sustained by those
with a growth mindset focus on learning and improving. Radically different than those with a
fixed mindset, those with a growth mindset believe effort is the key to success (Moser et al.,
2011). It is their belief in the importance of effort and toil that allows those with a growth
mindset to view failure, as disappointing and painful as it may be, as a motivational impetus to
continued learning, growth, and eventual success (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 2006; Plaks &
Stecher, 2007). Furthermore, those with a growth mindset are highly interested in hearing
feedback, even though the feedback may be negative in nature (Trope & Liberman, 2003).
Performance goals vs. learning goals. Studies also suggest a wide contrast between
those with a fixed mindset and those with a growth mindset in terms of their own personal
achievement goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Those with a growth
mindset typically develop and maintain learning-focused goals. These types of learning-focused
goals are mastery-oriented and place tremendous importance upon personal growth, the
development of knowledge, and continued improvement (Dweck, 1986; Elliott & Dweck, 1988).
Conversely, those with a fixed mindset typically have performance-focused goals. These types of
performance-focused goals are typically task-oriented and place emphasis upon measuring up to
a certain standard with the purpose of proving the worth, talent, or intellect (Elliott & Dweck,
1988). As opposed to mastery-orientation, the behavior pattern found to be typically associated
with this type of learning goal is helplessness (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980; Dweck, 1975;
Dweck & Leggett, 1988). As it relates to this study, in addition to this characteristic of learned
helplessness, those with a fixed mindset and the resulting performance-oriented goals remain
highly vulnerable to any type of criticism or negative feedback (Mangels et al., 2006).
This correlation between one’s mindset and a one’s response pattern provides the
conceptual framework for this study. For students who are involved in the college application
process, particularly those applying to highly-selective institutions, navigating the many
challenges and obstacles can be tremendously demanding (Chace, 2013). Is it possible that
students with a helpless response pattern experience higher levels of anxiety because these
challenges must be faced rather than avoided? Is it also possible that those with a mastery-
oriented response pattern experience lower levels of anxiety because of their propensity to accept
and even pursue challenging experiences?
Methods
A quantitative, non-experimental approach was utilized to discover the relationship
between two known and measurable variables: mindset (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 1995,
2006; Hong et al., 1999; Rattan et al., 2012; Spinath et al., 2003) and anxiety (Brownlow et al.,
2000; Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Ellis & Hudson, 2010; Grös et al., 2007; Martocchio, 1994;
Mattoo & Nabi, 2012). Both of the study’s variables have been well established in literature as
measureable constructs. Therefore, conducting a quantitative analysis to assess their relationship
was the best-suited approach for this study.
The purpose of this quantitative study was to discover whether there is a relationship
between the mindset of a high school senior attending a private, independent, college-preparatory
school and their levels of academic anxiety specifically during the college application process. In
addition, the study also assessed what, if any, relationship exists between the mindset of a
parent/guardian and the levels of academic anxiety as experienced by their student specifically
during the college application process. Lastly, the study also explored the relationship between a
student’s mindset and their parent/guardian’s mindset. Other variables within the scope of the
study included a student’s gender, race, GPA, highest SAT score, highest ACT score, the number
of colleges receiving an application from the student, and whether students applied to any
selective colleges.
Four private, independent, college-preparatory high schools from southern California
agreed to participate in this study. Each of the four schools agreed to allow email invitations to
be sent to the parents or guardians of each of their current seniors. In total, families of 538 high
school seniors received invitations to participate in this study. There were two separate surveys,
one intended for parents and the second intended for their student(s). In total, 95 parents or
guardians completed the Parent Survey, and of those 95 families, 26 high school seniors
completed the Student Survey.
The Parent Survey measured the parent’s mindset through the Intelligence Domain
(Implicit Theories Questionnaire or ITQ) as well as their emotional stability through the TIPI.
For the participating seniors, the survey included the Intelligence Domain of the ITQ to measure
their mindset, the STICSA to measure students’ levels of anxiety, as well as demographic
information about the students.
Key Findings
The collection and analysis of the study’s data resulted in five key findings. First, the data
revealed no significant correlation between student anxiety and either student mindset or parent
mindset. This data suggests that mindset may not have an effect on anxiety, in particular during
the college application process.
Second, a statistically significant moderate correlation was discovered (r = .50; p < .05)
between a parent’s mindset and their student’s mindset. This suggests a parent’s specific
mindset, whether fixed or growth, has an effect on their student’s mindset.
Third, data revealed a statistically significant moderate correlation between the number of
college applications a student had completed and their levels of overall anxiety (r = .50; p <
.05). This data suggests that students either complete more college applications because of
increased anxiety or that an increased number of college applications raises the level of student
anxiety.
Fourth, there was an inverse, statistically significant weak correlation between the
parent’s TIPI (emotional stability) scores and their student’s mindset (r = -.41; p < .05). Keeping
in mind that this was a weak correlation, this data may suggest that the more emotionally stable a
parent may be, the more their student tends to have a fixed mindset.
Fifth, there were no significant correlations between either student or parent mindset and
academic achievement as measured by student GPA, ACT scores, or SAT scores. As mentioned
in the literature review in Chapter 2, there have been numerous studies that have given evidence
of strong correlations between a growth mindset and higher levels of academic achievement
(Aronson et al., 2002; Good et al., 2003). However, the strongest correlations between these
variables had been found in minority students and among students with a low socioeconomic
background (Aronson et al., 2002; Good et al., 2003). As detailed in Table 9 in Chapter 4, most
of the participants for this study were white and it can be assumed, due to the high tuition costs
associated with each of the involved schools, that most of the students were not from a low
socioeconomic background. Therefore, the students in this study lived under different SES
conditions and were of different ethnic backgrounds than students involved in previous studies.
Conclusions with Implications and Recommendations.
First, there is insufficient evidence to support that a student’s mindset is a determinant of
his or her own anxiety during the college application process. Second, there is insufficient
evidence to support that the parent’s mindset is a determinant of their child’s anxiety during the
college application process. The third conclusion that can be made is that parental and student
mindset are indeed associated with each other. In the following sections, for each of the
conclusions, is a discussion of implications both for scholarship and for practice.
Conclusion 1: There is insufficient evidence to support that a student’s mindset is a
determinant of his or her own anxiety during the college application process. Although
much has been researched in the area of implicit theories of intelligence and mindset, very few
studies have attempted to discover the relationship between mindset and anxiety. In particular,
there have been no known studies specifically involving high school students, mindset, and
anxiety. With that being said, this research can be found somewhat contradictory to some
previous research.
In previous research, those with a fixed mindset have been found to view their own
mistakes as a personal threat to their levels of ability and intelligence (Bandura, 1991;
Martocchio, 1994; Dweck, 2006). Theoretically, these threats may lead to increased levels of
anxiety, especially when these threats are not effectively managed, because those with a fixed
mindset tend to focus more on their deficiencies rather than on their accomplishments and
growth (Martocchio, 1994; Bandura, 1991).
One of the keys to finding increased levels of anxiety for those with a fixed mindset have
to do with their mistakes and threats not being effectively managed. For this current study,
students may have been able to manage their mistakes and threats effectively, either on a
personal level, or in conjunction with help from others such as their parents or from school staff.
For example, many independent, private, college-preparatory high schools, including each of the
participating high schools in this study, have extremely successful and effective college
counselors who are able to help students negotiate through past mistakes and to present their
mistakes in such a way to colleges as to not limit their chances of college acceptance. If their
mistakes and threats are effectively managed, this may diminish the possibility of increased
levels of anxiety.
Secondly, insufficient evidence to support a relationship between a student’s mindset and
their levels of experienced anxiety may be explained if students are not experiencing each of the
components necessary for anxiety. As mentioned earlier, researchers have found there to be three
components to anxiety—a physiological response, a desire to avoid a particular circumstance,
and loss of control (Kim & Diamond, 2002). This second component—the desire to avoid a
particular circumstance—may not have been present in each of the student participants. For this
current study, student participants may not have chosen to avoid the college application process
at all. In fact, many of the participants may have been looking forward to graduation from high
school and having the opportunity to begin at college. The third component of anxiety—a loss of
control—may also have been absent from students. Due to the coaching received from their
parents and college counselors, it may be the fact that the students were confident in what they
were doing in the college application process thus allowing them to not experience any loss of
power. When these three components are all present, stress is being experienced. However, if
even one of these components is not present, stress is not being experienced. This may have been
the case for this particular study.
Recommendations for research. In order to establish sufficient evidence as to the
relationship between mindset and student anxiety, there are several recommendations for future
research. First, one of the limitations to this study was the number of participant pairs (N = 26).
Although 95 parents completed the surveys from the 4 participating high schools, only 26
students from those 95 families completed the survey. The low number of participants stymied
the potential for this study to provide statistical significance in the correlation between mindset
and anxiety. Second, it is recommended that future research in this area follow another type of
methodology. The current study only provided a single point of reference into the lives of
students through this one-time-only survey. Other studies seeking to measure anxiety levels
among students have employed methods such as the use of daily surveys over the course of two
weeks (Compton et al., 2008). Methods such as these may allow for the collection of more
accurate data from students about their levels of anxiety.
Recommendations for practice. Although this study was not able to come to a conclusion
in regard to the relationship between anxiety and mindset, it is still highly recommended that
parents, schools, and communities continue promoting a growth mindset among its youth. There
are many positive effects of having a growth mindset, effects that have and continue to be
substantiated with empirical evidence. To name a few of these positive effects, a growth mindset
promotes learning goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Mangels et al., 2006),
allows for healthier responses to challenges and failures (Dweck, 2006; Moser et al., 2011; Plaks
& Stecher, 2007), and promotes resilience, effort, and hard work (Dweck, 2006, 2010; Elliott &
Dweck, 1988). Although this study cannot substantiate the relationship between mindset and
anxiety, there are so many other benefits of a growth mindset that this should most certainly
continue to be taught to our youth.
Conclusion 2: There is insufficient evidence to support that the parent’s mindset is a
determinant of their child’s anxiety during the college application process. There are
unquestioningly an endless variety of possible variables that may lead to the experience of
unhealthy anxiety. As mentioned earlier, what causes a high degree of anxiety in one person may
not affect another at all due to their personality, beliefs, personal goals, or their particular
mindset (Folkman et al., 1987). Because there are so many contributing factors to anxiety, even
if a parent’s mindset affects their child’s level of experienced anxiety, it may not be one of the
most contributing of overall factors.
Recommendations for research. In order to establish sufficient evidence as to the
relationship between a parent’s mindset and their child’s experienced levels of anxiety, more
research is needed. First, as mentioned in the above section focused on student mindset and
anxiety, future research on this subject needs a larger number of student and parent participants.
Second, it is also recommended a different methodology be employed to gain a more accurate
perception of the anxiety being experienced by students. As mentioned above, a 2-week daily
survey for students to complete regarding the stressors and experienced anxiety may prove to be
more accurate. Third it is also recommended that all parents be surveyed for their particular
mindset. For this study, only the mindset of one parent was tested. This specific method did not
allow for multiple parents, multiple mindsets, broken homes, multiple guardians, etc. Each of
these recommendations could aid in helping to establish sufficient evidence as to the relationship
between a parent’s mindset and their child’s level of anxiety.
Recommendations for practice. Due to Conclusion 3, it is recommended that schools
attempt to not only teach students about the importance of having a growth mindset, but also to
be teaching parents as well. In addition to this, it is also recommended that teachers, school
leaders, and district officials seek to find other means by which to reduce unhealthy levels of
anxiety among its students, including, but not limited to the following: educating students about
the importance of sleep, brain malleability, study skills, and the difference between healthy and
unhealthy levels of stress. In addition, there are a number of strategies and policies that can be
adopted by schools and districts that can not only decrease unhealthy levels of anxiety, but that
can also increase levels of academic achievement. Such strategies include the creation of daily
schedules that allow for students to study and work with teachers, that decrease the amount of
times students move from one place to another, and the development of a test calendar so that
students are not taking a multitude of difficult assessments on the same day.
Conclusion 3: Parental and student mindset are associated with each other. As
mentioned above in Key Findings, a moderate correlation of statistical significance was
discovered (r = .50, p < .05) between a parent’s mindset and their student’s mindset. This
suggests a parent’s specific mindset, whether fixed or growth, has an effect on their student’s
mindset. However, this successful transference of mindset does not occur within each family.
Nor does this always take place with any value or belief. Studies point to several parental factors
in regard to this successful transference of values and beliefs from one generation to the next
(Knafo & Schwartz, 2003). Several factors of parenting allow for a more successful transference:
parental consistency over time, parental warmth and responsiveness, as well as parents’ actual
and perceived value agreement (Knafo & Schwartz, 2003). However, as researchers explain,
both parents and students play an important role in the passing off of values and beliefs.
The importance of having a growth mindset and the correlation between parent and
student mindset once again reiterates the need for successful partnerships between schools and
parents. As Epstein writes, “Without partnerships, educators segment students into the school
child and the home child, ignoring the whole child” (Epstein, 2011, p. 5). For the development of
the whole child and of a growth mindset, it is imperative that schools build strong partnerships
with their parents.
Recommendations for research. First and foremost, more studies and participants are
needed to further verify the correlation and statistical significance of the relationship between
parent mindset and student mindset. To discover the generalizability of this finding, it is
recommended that studies extend beyond southern California, beyond the college application
process at private high schools, and beyond high school seniors. This study had a small sample
size, represented more females than males, represented a majority of Caucasian students, and
assumed moderate to high SES status. It is also recommended that further research be conducted
with a larger sample size to better assess whether there actually is a relationship between mindset
and anxiety. While one finding of this study showed a significant correlation (r = .50; p < .05)
between the student’s anxiety and the number of applications being completed, additional studies
are needed to further explore whether students completed more applications because of increased
levels of anxiety or if completing more college applications leads to increased levels of student
anxiety.
Recommendations for practice. As part of the important partnership between schools and
families, opportunities must be provided for parents and guardians to be educated about growth
mindset. Strategies and resources should be given to parents to help aid in developing a growth
mindset among their children. Second, through partnership and education of families, schools
should encourage healthy parenting so that positive values and beliefs are successfully passed
along to the next generation.
Study Validity and Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. First, there were only a minimal number of
student/parent pairs (N = 26). This made it difficult to assess for significant relationships. The
low number of pairs was mostly due to the low response rate among the students themselves (see
Table 9). This low response was not necessarily a surprise as high school aged students are a
difficult demographic from which to gain responses (Richards et al., 2010), in particular during
their senior year and the development of senioritis, a common phenomenon seen by parents and
educators. In addition, students are often times extremely busy as they balance a heavy workload
at school, high school and club sports, clubs and organizations, friends, family, and church
events. Another limitation to this study was that the survey process relied upon voluntary self-
reporting of perceptions. In addition, the survey process occurred during the month of February
which may not be the point of highest anxiety during the college application process for many
seniors. Some students may have already heard if they were accepted through “early action” or
due to scholarships.
During the collection and analysis of data, several steps were taken to ensure the internal
validity of the study and its data. First, valid and reliable surveys were used to gather data. To
support the data gathering process, all survey items were carefully reviewed within Qualtrics, the
electronic survey tool through which parents and students participated in the survey, prior to
export of data for analysis. Data was directly exported from Qualtrics to IBM’s Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. In the matching of parents with students,
random individual codes were given to parents automatically through Qualtrics and were
communicated by parents to their students. These Family ID Codes remained within the data to
ensure the accuracy of the pairing of parents with their students.
Internal validity was also ensured through a rigorous process to ensure analysis of data
was handled properly. Numerous reviews of the raw data, analysis procedures and presentation
of findings occurred.
Concluding Remarks
High school students attending public, private, and charter schools are experiencing
unhealthy levels of anxiety at higher rates than ever. This unhealthy anxiety is having
tremendously dangerous consequences both physically and psychologically. Parents, schools,

districts, psychologists, organizations, school boards, and researchers are desperately looking for
answers that can decrease levels of unhealthy anxiety. This study was but a small part of this
hopefully ever-growing movement to find solutions.
In particular, this study sought to discover the relationships between student mindset,
parent mindset, and student anxiety. Although evidence was insufficient in the attempt to
discover correlations between many of these variables, the study did reveal a moderate
correlation of statistical significance between parent mindset and student mindset. This finding
reiterates the importance of developing a strong partnership between the school and its families
in order to educate and support our families and our students in teaching them about the
importance of having a growth mindset.

REFERENCES
Alexander, K. L., Cook, M., & McDill, E. L. (1978). Curriculum tracking and educational
stratification: Some further evidence. American Sociological Review, 43(1), 47-66.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2094761
Ansary, N. S., & Luthar, S. S. (2009). Distress and academic achievement among adolescents of
affluence: A study of externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors and school
performance. Development and Psychopathology, 21(01), 319-341.
doi:10.1017/S0954579409000182
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on
African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113-125. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210310191491X
Artani, L. (2006, February 6). Overachieving students hear a new message: lighten up. The
Washington Post, p. A01.
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181-185.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00196
Babbidge, H. D., & Rosenzweig, R. (1962). The federal interest in higher education. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social
comparison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60(6), 941-951. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.941

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bassett, P. (2006). Why choose an independent school? National Association of Independent
Schools. Retrieved from http://www.nais.org/Articles/Pages/Why-Choose-an-
Independent-School-3f.aspx
Betz, N. E. (1978). Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of math anxiety in college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25(5), 441-448. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.25.5.441
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an
intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
Bound, J., Hershbein, B., & Long, B. T. (2009). Playing the admissions game: Student reactions
to increasing college competition. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(4), 119-146.
doi:10.1257/jep.23.4.119
Bowles, S. (1967). The efficient allocation of resources in education. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 81(2), 189-219. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/
1879582
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499.
doi:10.1002/tea.20131
Brownlow, S., Jacobi, T., & Rogers, M. (2000). Science anxiety as a function of gender and
experience. Sex Roles, 42(1-2), 119-131. doi:10.1023/A:1007040529319
California Department of Education (2012). School report—API growth and targets met.
Retrieved on October 6, 2013, from http://api.cde.ca.gov

Carter, R., Williams, S., & Silverman, W. K. (2008). Cognitive and emotional facets of test
anxiety in African American school children. Cognition and Emotion, 22(3), 539-551.
doi:10.1080/02699930801886722
Cassady, J. C. (2010). Test anxiety: Contemporary theories and implications for learning. In J. C.
Cassady (Ed.), Anxiety in school: The causes, consequences, and solutions for academic
anxieties (pp. 7-26). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270-295. doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1094
Chace, W. M. (2013). Stress test: Why the college admissions process is so nerve-wracking.
American Interest, 8(3), 63-71. Retrieved from http://www.the-american-interest.com
Compton, R. J., Robinson, M. D., Ode, S., Quandt, L. C., Fineman, S. L., & Carp, J. (2008).
Error-monitoring ability predicts daily stress regulation. Psychological Science, 19(7),
702-708. Retrieved from http://www.blackwellpublishing.com
Conner, J., Pope, D., & Galloway, M. (2009). Success with less stress. Health & Learning,
67(4), 54-58. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web-or
internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-836.
doi:10.1177/00131640021970934
Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Cognitive style, stress perception, and coping: Handbook
on stress and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and education. NAMTA Journal, 22(2), 2-35. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov
Daigneault, S. D., & Wirtz, E. (2008). Before the pomp and circumstance: Seniors reflect on
graduating from high school. Professional School Counseling, 11(5), 327-334. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org
Dancy, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2004). Statistics without maths for psychology. Harlow, England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes
in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 36(5), 451-462. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.451
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The processing of
success. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39(5), 940-952.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.940
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review
of Psychology, 41(1), 417-440. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
Dohrenwend, B. P., and Dohrenwend, B.S (1969). Social status and psychological disorder: A
causal inquiry. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
Dweck, C. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned
helplessness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 31(4), 674-685.
doi:10.1037/h0077149
Dweck, C. (1976). Children's interpretation of evaluative feedback: The effect of social cues on
learned helplessness. Merrill - Palmer Quarterly, 22(2), 105-109. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist, 41(10),
1040. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
Dweck, C. (2007). The Secret to Raising Smart Kids. Scientific American Mind, 18(6), 36-43.
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1207-36
Dweck, C. (2008). Brainology: Transforming students' motivation to learn. Independent School,
67(2), 110-119. Retrived from http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us
Dweck, C. (2009). Who will the 21st-Century learners be? Knowledge Quest, 38(2), 8-9.
Retrieved from http://aasl.metapress.com
Dweck, C. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16-20. Retrieved
from http://www.mrscullen.com
Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle East, the
schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. American Psychologist, 67(8), 614.
doi:10.1037/a0029783
Dweck, C., Chi-yue, C., & Ying-yi, H. (1995). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of
the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 322. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_12
Dweck, C., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in
children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1), 109-116.
doi:10.1037/h0034248
Dweck, C., & Elliott, E. (1983). Achievement motivation. In Mussen, P. H. (ed.), Handbook of
child psychology (pp. 643–691). New York, NY: Wiley.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological review, 95(2), 256. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256

Eaton, D. K., McKnight-Eily, L. R., Lowry, R., Perry, G. S., Presley-Cantrell, L., & Croft, J. B.
(2007). Prevalence of insufficient, borderline, and optimal hours of sleep among high
school students. Journal of Adolscent Health, 46(4), 399-401.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.10.011
Ehrenberg, Ronald G. (2005). Method or madness? Inside the USNWR college rankings. Journal
of College Admissions, 189, 29-35. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu
Elliott, E., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
Ellis, D., & Hudson, J. (2010). The metacognitive model of generalized anxiety disorder in
children and adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13(2), 151-163.
doi:10.1007/s10567-010-0065-0
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and
improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Erdley, C. A., & Dweck, C. (1993). Children's implicit personality theories as predictors of their
social judgments. Child Development, 64(3), 863-878.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9308115037
Ergene, T. (2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction: a meta-analysis. School
Psychology International, 24(3), 313-328. doi:10.1177/01430343030243004
Eskeles Gottfried, A. (1983). Relationships between academic intrinsic motivation and anxiety in
children and young adolescents. Journal of School Psychology, 20(3), 205-215.
doi:10.1016/0022-4405(82)90050-4
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S., & Novacek, J. (1987). Age differences in stress and
coping processes. Psychology and Aging, 2(2), 171-184. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.2.2.171

Fuligni, A. J., & Hardway, C. (2006). Daily variation in adolescents' sleep, activities, and
psychological well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 353-378.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00498.x
Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & McDougall, F. (2002). Personality, cognitive ability,
and beliefs about intelligence as predictors of academic performance. Learning and
Individual Differences, 14(1), 47-64. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2003.08.002
Galloway, M. K., Connor, J. O., & Pope, D. (2009, May). Stanford study of adolescent school
experiences. Paper presented at the meeting of Challenge Success, Stanford, CA.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the twenty-first century.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Getzels, J.W. (1975). Problem-finding and teh inventiveness of solutions. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 9(1), 12-18. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1975.tb00552.x
Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A transcendent business education for the 21st century. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 3(4), 415-420. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2004.15112547
Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., Hall, N., & Haag, L. (2006). Academic emotions from a social-cognitive
perspective: Antecedents and domain specificity of students' affect in the context of Latin
instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 289-308.
doi:10.1348/000709905X42860
Golden, T. (2009). Myers-Briggs personality type and adolescent coping in the college search
(Doctoral dissertation): Retrieved from ProQuest. (304990581)

Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents' standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645-662. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr., W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five
personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528.
doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Grös, D. F., Antony, M. M., Simms, L. J., & McCabe, R. E. (2007). Psychometric properties of
the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA): Comparison to
the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 369-381.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.369
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hannon, B., & McNaughton-Cassill, M. (2011). SAT performance: Understanding the
contributions of cognivitve/learning and social/personality factors. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 25(4), 528-535. doi:10.1002/acp.1725
Hansell, S. (1982). Student, parent, and school effects on the stress of college application.
Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 23(1), 38-51. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories,
attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77(3), 588. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The
Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x

Hossler, D. R. (2004). How enrollment management has transformed–or ruined–higher
education. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(34), pp. B3-B5. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com.lib.pepperdine.edu
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Keller, M. B., Lavori, P. W., Wunder, J., Beardslee, W. R., Schwartz, C. E., & Roth, J. (1992).
Chronic course of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(4), 595-599.
doi:10.1097/00004583-199207000-00003
Kim, J. J., & Diamond, D. M. (2002). The stressed hippocampus, synaptic plasticity and lost
memories. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(6), 453-462. doi:10.1038/nrn849
Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Parenting and adolescents' accuracy in perceiving parental
values. Child Development, 74(2), 595-611. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.7402018
Kraag, G., Zeegers, M. P., Kok, G., Hosman, C., & Abu-Saad, H. H. (2006). School programs
targeting stress management in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of
School Psychology, 44(6), 449-472. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.07.001
Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and human intelligence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about
intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social
Cognitive and Affective neuroscience, 1(2), 75-86. doi:10.1093/scan/nsl013

Martocchio, J. J. (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-efficacy, and learning
in training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 819-825.
doi:10.1037/00219010.79.6.819
Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In M.
Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological
studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266-287). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Mattoo, N. H., & Nabi, R. (2012). A study on academic anxiety among adolescents (14–16
years). International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow, 1(3). Retrieved from
http://www.rrejournal.in
McDonald, A. S. (2001). The prevalence and effects of test anxiety in school children.
Educational psychology, 21(1), 89-101. doi:10.1080/01443410020019867
Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home, and
school. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on
young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics.
Journal of educational psychology, 82(1), 60-70. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.60
Melman, S., Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, K. A. (2007). Adolescent overscheduling: The
relationship between levels of participation in scheduled activities and self-reported
clinical symptomology. The High School Journal, 90(3), 18-30.
doi:10.1353/hsj.2007.0011
Miller, L. H., Smith, A. D., & Rothstein, L. (1993). The stress solution: An action plan to
manage the stress in your life. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
Mogel, W. (2005). The Oy Oy Oy Show. Independent School, 65, 26. Retrieved from
http://www.wendymogel.com
Moser, J. S., Schroder, H. S., Heeter, C., Moran, T. P., & Lee, Y.-H. (2011). Mind your errors:
Evidence for a neural mechanism linking growth mind-set to adaptive posterror
adjustments. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1484-1489. doi:10.1177/0956797611419520
National Center for Education Statistics (2010). Digest of Education Statistics: Higher education
general information survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011015_3a.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
National Sleep Foundation (2011, May 7). Sleepy connected Americans: National sleep
foundation releases annual sleep in America poll exploring connections with
communications, technology, and sleep. Retrieved from http://sleepfoundation.org/
media-center/press-release/annual-sleep-america-poll-exploring-connections-
communications-technology-use-
Natvig, G. K., & Albrektsen, G. (1999). School-related stress and psychosomatic symptoms
among school adolescents. Journal of School Health, 69(9), 362. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.lib.pepperdine.edu
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (1998). Modeling the structure of the flow
experience among web users. Paper presented at the meeting of INFORMS Marketing
Science and the Internet Mini-Conference, Boston, MA.

Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP; 2010). Categories of research that may be
reviewed by the Instituional Review Board (IRB) through an expedited review procedure.
Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/expedited98.html
Partnership for a Drug Free America, & MetLife Fountaion (2010). Parents and teens attitude
tracking study report. Retrieved from http://www.drugfree.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/FULL-REPORT-PATS-2009-3-2-10.pdf
Pine, D. S., Cohen, P., Gurley, D., Brook, J., & Ma, Y. (1998). The risk for early-adulthood
anxiety and depressive disorders in adolescents with anxiety and depressive disorders.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 55(1), 56. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.55.1.56
Plaks, J. E., & Stecher, K. (2007). Unexpected improvement, decline, and stasis: A prediction
confidence perspective on achievement success and failure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93(4), 667. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.667
Pope, D. C., & Simon, R. (2005). Help for stressed students. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 33-
37. Retrieved from http://stress.lexingtonma.org
Putwain, D. W. (2007). Test anxiety in UK schoolchildren: Prevalence and demographic
patterns. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 579-593.
doi:10.1348/000709906X161704
Pynoos, R. S., Steinberg, A. M., & Piacentini, J. C. (1999). A developmental psychopathology
model of childhood traumatic stress and intersection with anxiety disorders. Biological
Psychiatry, 46(11), 1542-1554. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00262-0
Quart, A. (2006). Extreme parenting. The Atlantic Monthly, 298(1), 110. Retrieved from
http://web.fmk.edu
Rattan, A., Savam, K., Naidu, N. V. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Can everyone become highly
intelligent? Cultural differences in and societal consequences of beliefs about the
universal potential for intelligence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 103(5),
787-803. doi:10.1031/a0029263
Ree, M. J., French, D., MacLeod, C., & Locke, V. (2008). Distinguishing cognitive and somatic
dimensions of state and trait anxiety: Development and validation of the State-Trait
Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA). Behavioural and Cognitive
Psychotherapy, 36(3), 313. doi: 10.1017/S1352465808004232
Richards, J., Wiese, C., Katon, W., Rockhill, C., McCarty, C., Grossman, D., ... & Richardson,
L. P. (2010). Surveying adolescents enrolled in a regional health care delivery
organization: mail and phone follow-up—what works at what cost? The Journal of the
American Board of Family Medicine, 23(4), 534-541. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2010.04.100019
Schiefele, U., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995). Motivation and ability as factors in mathematics
experience and achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 163-181.
doi:10.2307/749208
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158-176. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860
Slochower, J., & Kaplan, S. P. (1980). Anxiety, perceived control, and eating in obese and
normal weight persons. Appetite, 1(1), 75-83. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(80)80011-0
Snyder, T. D. (1993). 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
National Center for Education Statistics.

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2003). Implicit theories about
personality and intelligence and their relationship to actual personality and intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35(4), 939-951.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00310-0
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607-627. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607
Taylor, B. (2013). Highly selective colleges and the applicants they accept. Unigo. Retrieved
from http://www.unigo.com
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological review, 110(3), 403.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403
Trudeau, T. L. (2009). Test anxiety in high achieving students: a mixed-methods study (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (AAINR55624)
Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
U.S. Census Bureau (2012). Population estimates. Retrieved October 23, 2012, from
http://www.quickfacts.census.gov.
Vatterott, C. (2009). Rethinking homework: Best practices that support diverse needs.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wallace, D., Abel, R., & Ropers-Huilman, B. (2000). Clearing a path for success:
Deconstructing borders through undergraduate mentoring. The Review of Higher
Education, 24(1), 87-102. doi:10.1353/rhe.2000.0026

Warren, S. L., Huston, L., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. (1997). Child and adolescent anxiety
disorders and early attachment. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 36(5), 637-644. doi:10.1097/00004583-199705000-00014
Webster, D. S. (1986). Academic quality rankings of american colleges and universities.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Wheaton, B. (1980). The sociogenesis of psychological disorder: An attributional theory.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 100-124. doi:10.2307/2136730

APPENDIX A
STICSA: Your Mood at This Moment

APPENDIX B
STICSA: General Mood Questionnaire

APPENDIX C
Implicit Theories Questionnaire
Original Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ)
1. How intelligent you are, is hardly or not at all changeable by yourself.

2. How intelligent you are, depends mainly on your own effort.
3. How intelligent you are, cannot by influenced by yourself.
adult even if he or she tries to.
Adaptation of the Implicit Theories Questionnaire (ITQ) for this study
1. How intelligent you are is not changeable by yourself.

3. You cannot influence how intelligent you are.
adult even if he or she tries to.
APPENDIX D
Demographic Questions
What is your gender?

• Male
• Female
Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

• No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
• Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano
• Yes, Puerto Rican
• Yes, Cuban
• Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
What is your race?

• White
• Black, African American, or Negro
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian Indian
• Chinese
• Filipino
• Japanese
• Korean
• Vietnamese
• Other Asian
• Native Hawaiian
• Guamanian or Chamorro
• Samoan
• Other Pacific Islander
• Other
What is your highest ACT score?

• 28 or more (90th percentile)
• 25-27 (75th percentile)
• 20-24 (50th percentile)
• Less than 20 (25th percentile)
• Not applicable, I have not taken the ACT
What is your highest SAT score?

• 1930 or more (90th percentile)
• 1720 to 1920 (75th percentile)
• 50th: 1490 to 1710 (50th percentile)
• Less than 1490 (25th percentile

• Not applicable, I have not taken the SAT
What is your current, non-weighted, cumulative (9th – 12th grade) GPA?

• 3.75-4.0
• 3.5-3.75
• 3.25-3.5
• 3.0-3.25
• 2.75-3.0
• 2.5-2.75
• 2.49 or below
Have you applied to one or more of the following colleges or universities?

Alice Lloyd College
• Amherst College
• Barnard College
• Berea College
• Bowdoin College
• Brown University
• California Institute of Technology
• Claremont McKenna College
• College of the Ozarks
• Columbia University
• Cooper Union
• Cornell University
• CUNY—Baruch College
• CUNY—Lehman College
• Curtis Institute of Music
• Dartmouth College
• Duke Universtiy
• Florida Memorial University
• Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering
• Georgetown University
• Harvard University
• Harvey Mudd College
• Johns Hopkins University
• Julliard School
• LeMoyne-Owen College
• Liberty University
• Lincoln University
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
• Middlebury College
• Mississippi Valley State University
• Northwestern University
• Pitzer College
• Pomona College
• Princeton University
• Rice University
• Stanford University
• Swarthmore College
• Tufts University
• Tulane University
• United States Air Force Academy
• United States Coast Guard Academy
• United States Merchant Marine Academy
• United States Military Academy
• United States Naval Academy
• University of California—Berkeley
• University of Chicago
• University of Notre Dame
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Southern California
• Vanderbilt University
• Vassar College
• Washington and Lee University
• Washington University in St. Louis
• Wesleyan University
• Williams College
• Yale University
APPENDIX E
Highly Selective Colleges, Universities, and Academies
Amherst College Mississippi Valley State University

Barnard College Northwestern University
Berea College Pitzer College
Bowdoin College Pomona College
Brown University Princeton University
California Institute of Technology Rice University
Claremont McKenna College Stanford University
College of the Ozarks Swarthmore College
Columbia University Tufts University
Cooper Union Tulane University
Cornell University US Air Force Academy
CUNY-Baruch College US Coast Guard Academy
CUNY-Lehman College US Merchant Marine Academy
Curtis Institute of Music US Military Academy
Dartmouth College US Naval Academy
Duke University University of California-Berkeley
Florida Memorial University University of Chicago
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering University of Notre Dame
Georgetown University University of Pennsylvania
Harvard University University of Southern California
Harvey Mudd College Vanderbilt University
Johns Hopkins University Vassar College
Julliard School Washington and Lee University
LeMoyne-Own College Washington University in St. Louis
Liberty University Wesleyan University
Lincoln University Williams College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yale University
Middlebury College
APPENDIX F
IRB Approval Letter
Graduate & Professional Schools Institutional Review Board

January 29, 2014
Matthew R. Northrop
26607 Yosemite Place
Valencia, CA 91354
Protocol #: E1213D06
Project Title: A Quantitative Study Measuring the Relationship between Student Mindset,
Parent Mindset, and Anxiety as Experienced by High School Seniors
Dear Mr. Northrop:
Thank you for submitting your application A Quantitative Study Measuring the Relationship between
Student Mindset, Parent Mindset, and Anxiety as Experienced by High School Seniors, for expedited
review to Pepperdine University’s Graduate and Professional Schools Institutional Review Board (GPS
IRB). The IRB appreciates the work you and your advisor, Dr. Davis, completed on the proposal. The
IRB has reviewed your submitted IRB application and all ancillary materials. As the nature of the
research met the requirements for expedited review under provision Title 45 CFR 46.110 (Research
Category 7) of the federal Protection of Human Subjects Act, the IRB conducted a formal, but expedited,
review of your application materials.
I am pleased to inform you that your application for your study was granted Full Approval. The IRB
approval begins today, January 29, 2014, and terminates on January 29, 2015. In addition, your
application to waive documentation of informed consent has been approved.
Your final consent form has been stamped by the IRB to indicate the expiration date of study approval.
One copy of the consent form is enclosed with this letter and one copy will be retained for our records.
You can only use copies of the consent that have been stamped with the GPS IRB expiration date
to obtain consent from your participants.
Please note that your research must be conducted according to the proposal that was submitted to the
GPS IRB. If changes to the approved protocol occur, a revised protocol must be reviewed and approved
by the IRB before implementation. For any proposed changes in your research protocol, please submit
a Request for Modification form to the GPS IRB. Please be aware that changes to your protocol may
prevent the research from qualifying for expedited review and require submission of a new IRB
application or other materials to the GPS IRB. If contact with subjects will extend beyond January 29,
2015, a Continuation or Completion of Review Form must be submitted at least one month prior to
the expiration date of study approval to avoid a lapse in approval.
A goal of the IRB is to prevent negative occurrences during any research study. However, despite our
best intent, unforeseen circumstances or events may arise during the research. If an unexpected
situation or adverse event happens during your investigation, please notify the GPS IRB as soon as
possible. We will ask for a complete explanation of the event and your response. Other actions also
may be required depending on the nature of the event. Details regarding the timeframe in which
adverse events must be reported to the GPS IRB and the appropriate form to be used to report this
information can be found in the Pepperdine University Protection of Human Participants in Research:
Policies and Procedures Manual (see link to “policy material” at
http://www.pepperdine.edu/irb/graduate/).
6100 Center Drive, Los Angeles, California 90045 310-568-5600

Pepperdine Digital Commons Pepperdine Digital Commons: Pepperdine University Pepperdine University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pepperdine Digital Commons Pepperdine Digital Commons: Pepperdine University Pepperdine University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pepperdine Digital Commons Pepperdine Digital Commons: Pepperdine University Pepperdine University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pepperdine University

Pepperdine Digital Commons

Theses and Dissertations

A quantitative study measuring the relationship between student

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd

Graduate School of Education and Psychology

A QUANTITATIVE STUDY MEASURING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT

MINDSET, PARENT MINDSET, AND ANXIETY

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

Kay Davis, Ed.D. – Dissertation Chairperson

Kay Davis, Ed.D., Chairperson

Linda Purrington, Ed.D.

Molly McCabe, Ed.D.

Sarah Schnitker, Ph.D.

All Rights Reserved

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... vi

VITA .......................................................................................................................................... xii

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 17

Theories of Intelligence ................................................................................................. 18

Chapter 3: Methods .................................................................................................................... 38

Chapter 4: Results ...................................................................................................................... 58

Findings for Research Questions ................................................................................... 97

Chapter 5: Study Conclusions .................................................................................................. 105

The Issue and Significance .......................................................................................... 105

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 123

APPENDIX A: STICSA: Your Mood at this Moment ............................................................ 138

APPENDIX B: STICSA: General Mood Questionnaire ......................................................... 139

APPENDIX C: Implicity Theories Questionnaire (ITQ)......................................................... 140

APPENDIX D: Demographic Questions ................................................................................. 141

APPENDIX E: Highly Selective Colleges, Universities, and Academies............................... 144

APPENDIX F: IRB Approval .................................................................................................. 145

Table 1. Demographics of the Communities Surrounding Participant Schools ........................ 42

Table 48. Frequency distribution of the eleventh through thirteenth of the

today and who have enouraged me along this journey.

Second, I want to thank my cohort here at Pepperdine as well as my co-workers from

my data, and speaking with me. Thank you!

encouraged me, and loved me in ways that are epic.

Ed.D. Pepperdine University. Educational Leadership, Administration, and Policy.

• Legacy Christian Academy (K-8). Assistant Principal. Valencia, 2014-present

• How Mindset Affects Student Achievement and Anxiety. March 2014

• A Quantitative Study Measuring the Difference Between Student 2013-2014

• The Bridge Course. 9th Grade. Oaks Christian School 2014

• American Association of School Administrators (AASA) 2013-present

• Implicit theories of intelligence (aka Mindset)

• Educational leadership with special interest toward private, faith-based schools

• Leadership through communication

whether there is a relationship between mindset and anxiety.

expectations? Scholars, practitioners, educators, and psychologists search to answer questions

of intelligence—both explicit theories of intelligence (Gardner, 1999; Getzels, 1975; Guilford,

experienced anxiety (Dweck, 2008).

is possible for levels of intelligence within individuals to drastically increase or decrease

growth mindset, the emphasis is on learning, not on grades.

even resorting at times to deceit and cheating (Dweck, 2009).