二分还是多重？青少年成长型思维动机框架的异质性及其与学业适应的关系

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2025.03.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用潜在剖面分析的方法考察青少年思维模式动机框架的异质性及其与学业适应的关系。结果显示：青少年思维模式的动机框架可以划分为成长竞争型、成长取向型、固定取向型和固定疏离型，其中固定取向型占比最高，固定疏离型占比最低。成长竞争型和成长取向型青少年均表现出良好的学业适应，但前者具有更高的考试焦虑和学业自我妨碍；固定疏离型青少年具有突出的负性动机框架和较高的考试焦虑和学习倦怠，呈现出低动机高焦虑的疏离状态。研究揭示了中国青少年动机框架的多重分化模式及其对学业适应的影响，对青少年学习动机和学业适应的个性化干预具有启发性。

关键词: 青少年, 成长型思维, 动机框架, 异质性, 学业适应

Abstract:

Based on an individual centered perspective, this study employed latent profile analysis to examine the heterogeneity of adolescent mindsets and motivational frameworks, as well as their relationship with academic adaptation. The results showed that the motivational framework of adolescent mindsets could be divided into growth-competitive type, growth-oriented type, fixed-oriented type, and fixed-disengaged type, with the fixed-oriented adolescents accounting for the highest proportion and the fixed-disengaged adolescents accounting for the lowest proportion. Both growth-competitive and growth-oriented adolescents exhibited good academic adaptation, but the former had higher levels of test anxiety and academic burnout. Fixed-disengaged adolescents had a prominent negative motivation framework, exhibiting a low motivation and high anxiety state of alienation. The study reveals the multiple differentiation patterns of motivation frameworks among Chinese adolescents and their impact on academic adaptation, which enlightening for personalized interventions in academic adaptation.

Key words: adolescents, growth mindset, motivational framework, heterogeneity, academic adaptation

张阔, 李珮瑜, 赵晋娥, 贾绪计. 二分还是多重？青少年成长型思维动机框架的异质性及其与学业适应的关系[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(3): 346-353.

Kuo ZHANG, Peiyu LI, Jin’e ZHAO, Xuji JIA. Dichotomous or Multiple? The Heterogeneity of Motivational Frameworks of Growth Mindset Among Chinese Adolescents and Its Effect on Academic Adaptation[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2025, 23(3): 346-353.

图/表 5

参考文献 0

	方来坛, 时勘, 张风华. 中文版学习投入量表的信效度研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2008, 16 (6): 618- 620.
	胡俏, 戴春林. 中学生学习倦怠结构研究. 心理科学, 2007, 30 (1): 162- 164, 195. DOI
	唐卫海, 马嘉翊, 刘希平, 李海南. 元认知和自我效能感与数学学习成绩的关系. 天津师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2025, (1): 107- 118.
	王才康. 考试焦虑量表(TAI)的信度和效度研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2003, 11 (1): 69- 70. DOI
	文超, 张卫, 李董平, 喻承甫, 代维祝. 初中生感恩与学业成就的关系: 学习投入的中介作用. 心理发展与教育, 2010, 26 (6): 598- 605.
	徐鑫锫, 莫玲菲, 刘明, 邓赐平. 高一学生成就目标特征模式及学业适应: 基于潜在剖面分析. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38 (1): 81- 89.
	Bai, B., & Wang, J. The role of growth mindset, self-efficacy and intrinsic value in self-regulated learning and English language learning achievements. Language Teaching Research, 2023, 27 (1): 207- 228. DOI
	Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 2007, 78 (1): 246- 263. DOI
	Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E. H., van Epps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 2013, 139 (3): 655- 701. DOI
	Chen, W. W., & Wong, Y. L. Chinese mindset: Theories of intelligence, goal orientation and academic achievement in Hong Kong students. Educational Psychology, 2015, 35 (6): 714- 725. DOI
	Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York: Psychology Press.
	Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
	Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 1988, 95 (2): 256- 273. DOI
	Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2017). Mindsets: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 135–154). New York: The Guilford Press.
	Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2019, 14 (3): 481- 496. DOI
	Giel, L. I. S., Noordzij, G., Noordegraaf-Eelens, L., & Denktaş, S. (2020). Fear of failure: A polynomial regression analysis of the joint impact of the perceived learning environment and personal achievement goal orientation. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 33(2), 123–139.
	Hecht, C. A., Yeager, D. S., Dweck, C. S., & Murphy, M. C. Beliefs, affordances, and adolescent development: Lessons from a decade of growth mindset interventions. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 2021, 61, 169- 197.
	Lee, H. Y., Jamieson, J. P., Miu, A. S., Josephs, R. A., & Yeager, D. S. An entity theory of intelligence predicts higher cortisol levels when high school grades are declining. Child Development, 2019, 90 (6): e849- e867.
	Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkind & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learners: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences. Hong Kong: CERC & ACER.
	Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L. H., … Roeser, R. The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1998, 23 (2): 113- 131. DOI
	Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., … Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales (p. 19). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
	Niemivirta, M., Pulkka, A. T., Tapola, A., & Tuominen, H. (2019). Achievement goal orientations: A person-oriented approach. In K. A. Renninger & S. E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 566–616). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
	Park, D., Gunderson, E. A., Tsukayama, E., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. Young children’s motivational frameworks and math achievement: Relation to teacher-reported instructional practices, but not teacher theory of intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2016, 108 (3): 300- 313. DOI
	Tang, X., Wang, M. T., Guo, J. S., & Salmela-Aro, K. Building grit: The longitudinal pathways between mindset, commitment, grit, and academic outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2019, 48 (5): 850- 863. DOI
	Xie, Y. J., Cao, D. P., Sun, T., & Yang, L. B. The effects of academic adaptability on academic burnout, immersion in learning, and academic performance among Chinese medical students: A cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education, 2019, 19 (1): 211. DOI
	Yeager, D. S., Carroll, J. M., Buontempo, J., Cimpian, A., Woody, S., Crosnoe, R., ... Dweck, C. S. Teacher mindsets help explain where a growth-mindset intervention does and doesn’t work. Psychological Science, 2022, 33 (1): 18- 32. DOI
	Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. What can be learned from growth mindset controversies. American Psychologist, 2020, 75 (9): 1269- 1284. DOI
	Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., … Dweck, C. S. A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 2019, 573 (7774): 364- 369. DOI
	Yu, J. L., & McLellan, R. Same mindset, different goals and motivational frameworks: Profiles of mindset-based meaning systems. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2020, 62, 101901. DOI

样本来源	类别	Log-likelihood	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	LMR-LRT(p)	BLRT(p)
样本1 (n=1878)	1	−14028.67	28077.33	28132.71	28100.94
	2	−13384.44	26800.88	26889.49	26838.66	0.71	<0.001	<0.001
	3	−12896.97	25837.93	25959.77	25889.87	0.84	<0.001	<0.001
	4	−12388.88	24833.75	24988.81	24899.86	0.86	<0.001	<0.001
	5	−12249.17	24566.35	24754.64	24646.62	0.84	<0.001	<0.001
样本2 (n=1061)	1	−7858.65	15737.30	15786.97	15755.21
	2	−7413.94	14859.88	14939.35	14888.53	0.77	<0.001	<0.001
	3	−7200.29	14444.58	14553.86	14483.98	0.76	<0.001	<0.001
	4	−7015.22	14086.44	14225.51	14136.58	0.83	0.02	<0.001
	5	−6939.10	13946.20	14115.08	14007.09	0.82	0.12	<0.001

样本来源	类别	Log-likelihood	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	LMR-LRT(p)	BLRT(p)
样本1 (n=1878)	1	−14028.67	28077.33	28132.71	28100.94
	2	−13384.44	26800.88	26889.49	26838.66	0.71	<0.001	<0.001
	3	−12896.97	25837.93	25959.77	25889.87	0.84	<0.001	<0.001
	4	−12388.88	24833.75	24988.81	24899.86	0.86	<0.001	<0.001
	5	−12249.17	24566.35	24754.64	24646.62	0.84	<0.001	<0.001
样本2 (n=1061)	1	−7858.65	15737.30	15786.97	15755.21
	2	−7413.94	14859.88	14939.35	14888.53	0.77	<0.001	<0.001
	3	−7200.29	14444.58	14553.86	14483.98	0.76	<0.001	<0.001
	4	−7015.22	14086.44	14225.51	14136.58	0.83	0.02	<0.001
	5	−6939.10	13946.20	14115.08	14007.09	0.82	0.12	<0.001

	学业自我效能	学习投入	学业成绩
1成长竞争型	3.84±0.88	3.63±0.85	3.45±1.06
2成长取向型	3.69±0.84	3.57±0.78	3.48±0.95
3固定取向型	2.98±0.75	2.86±0.76	2.77±0.97
4固定疏离型	1.78±0.82	1.74±0.92	1.93±0.92
F	237.52***	217.34***	111.77***
组间比较	组1>组2>组3>组4	组1,组2>组3>组4	组2,组1>组3>组4

	学业自我效能	学习投入	学业成绩
1成长竞争型	3.84±0.88	3.63±0.85	3.45±1.06
2成长取向型	3.69±0.84	3.57±0.78	3.48±0.95
3固定取向型	2.98±0.75	2.86±0.76	2.77±0.97
4固定疏离型	1.78±0.82	1.74±0.92	1.93±0.92
F	237.52***	217.34***	111.77***
组间比较	组1>组2>组3>组4	组1,组2>组3>组4	组2,组1>组3>组4

	学习倦怠	考试焦虑	学业自我妨碍
1成长竞争型	1.91±0.68	1.89±0.73	1.96±1.08
2成长取向型	1.84±0.56	1.70±0.58	1.57±0.71
3固定取向型	2.64±0.55	2.09±0.61	2.45±0.82
4固定疏离型	3.09±1.08	2.14±0.96	2.47±1.47
F	153.28***	24.29***	58.87***
组间比较	组4>组3>组1,组2	组4,组3>组1>组2	组4,组3>组1>组2