随着工作和生活节奏的日益加快，时间贫困——日常生活中时间不够用的弥散性感受——已成为社会突出的现象。在此背景下，人们更加渴望能够迅速预测事物并获得明确答案，以便快速决策和行动。相比于成长型思维，固定型思维往往根据有限的行为或结果样本快速反应。为深入理解时间贫困对思维模式的影响，本研究基于内隐理论，探讨时间贫困对个体思维模式的影响，并进一步探索该效应是否存在代际传递。

内隐理论认为人们对于个人特征(如智力)可塑性的信念存在差异，并将这个信念的两端定义为成长型思维(即低固定型思维)和固定型思维(即低成长型思维)。成长型思维认为个人特征容易改变，受到多种复杂因素的影响，难以通过少量行为和结果信息快速推断；而固定型思维认为个人特征固定不变，可以通过少量信息迅速推断，并用于预测未来。当个体经历高时间贫困时，会有更强的对确定性的需求(即认知闭合需要)，表现为偏好快速决策、渴望事物可预测、抗拒事物变化等方面。这时，人们会更倾向于采用固定型思维，因为相比于成长型思维，固定型思维给人们提供了一种更为确定和可预测的视角去理解人类世界，更能满足其对确定性的需求。基于此，本研究提出假设1：时间贫困负向影响成长型思维。假设2：认知闭合需要在时间贫困对成长型思维的影响中起中介作用，即时间贫困越高，人们的认知闭合需要越高，进而导致更低水平的成长型思维。

在探索个体时间贫困对成长型思维的影响及机制的基础上，本研究进一步考察其代际传递后效。本研究选择从代际视角切入传递后效的问题，是基于以下两点考虑：首先，需要抚养孩子的在职人群肩负工作和家庭双重责任，是时间最为贫困的人群之一；其次，抚养人在孩子发展过程中又起着关键作用。本研究认为主要抚养人时间贫困导致其持有更低的成长型思维，会进一步通过日常互动使儿童的成长型思维受到消极影响。一方面，主要抚养人是儿童信念、知识的重要来源，会将自己的信念通过沟通等方式直接传递给儿童。另一方面，主要抚养人的成长型思维也可能通过影响其具体教养行为，进而作用于儿童的成长型思维。低成长型思维的主要抚养人会有更多非建设性的教养行为，如控制型(而不是自主支持型)或表现导向(而不是学习导向)的教养方式，进而伤害儿童成长型思维。因此，本研究提出假设3：主要抚养人时间贫困负向影响儿童成长型思维。假设4：主要抚养人成长型思维中介了主要抚养人时间贫困对儿童成长型思维的影响，即主要抚养人时间贫困水平越高，其成长型思维水平越低，进而对儿童成长型思维产生负向影响。此外，鉴于内隐理论核心观点是成长型思维会影响对个体成长发展至关重要的思维意义系统(个体对努力的信念、目标和归因方式)，本研究进一步检验主要抚养人时间贫困是否会通过影响其成长型思维，进而影响儿童成长型思维，并最终作用于儿童思维意义系统，即导致儿童持有更消极的努力信念(假设5)、更多表现回避目标(假设6)和无助归因(假设7)，以及更少的学习目标(假设8)和韧性归因(假设9)。

为了检验时间贫困对成长型思维的影响作用、内在机制，以及在代际层面的传递后效，本文开展了4个大研究，包含12个子研究，累计被试5457名。

研究1通过7个子研究，检验时间贫困对成长型思维的负向影响(假设1)。为验证效应的稳健性，研究1针对不同成长型思维领域(一般、道德、智力和人格)、不同分析水平(个体内、个体间)、不同行为效价(积极、消极)以及不同判断对象(一般他人、重要他人)检验假设1。首先，考虑到一般领域成长型思维是把个人特征当作整体进行判断，而智力、人格、道德是人们理解人类世界时考虑的核心特征，本研究选择它们作为典型领域进行检验，以确认时间贫困对成长型思维的影响具有跨领域一致性。为避免不同领域的测量互相干扰，研究1的前四个子研究分别检验时间贫困对一般/智力/道德/人格领域成长型思维的影响。具体地，研究1.1A (N = 1856)基于针对时间贫困感特别普遍的职业群体(司法人员)的大样本调查，检验时间贫困和一般领域成长型思维的关系。研究1.1B(N = 250)拓展至一般成人样本，检验时间贫困与智力领域成长型思维的关系。为进一步提供因果证据，研究1.1C(N = 128)采用回忆范式操纵时间贫困，检验其对道德领域成长型思维的影响。研究1.1D(N = 128)采用情境想象范式操纵时间贫困，检验其对人格领域成长型思维的影响。这些研究结果在一般/智力/人格/道德领域均支持了假设1，为时间贫困与成长型思维关系的跨领域一致性提供了坚实证据。鉴于研究1.1A至1.1D发现时间贫困对成长型思维的影响具有跨领域一致性，加之智力领域是成长型思维文献中最为关注的领域，为了研究的简洁性，本文后续研究以智力领域成长型思维为代表开展。

其次，为验证时间贫困对成长型思维的影响不仅发生在个体间水平，也发生在日常的个体内水平，研究1.2(N_个体间 = 335；N_个体内 = 1516)采用日志法进行持续一周的追踪。研究结果显示，无论是个体内还是个体间，时间贫困均显著负向预测成长型思维。这表明个体间的时间贫困水平差异及个体每日时间贫困水平的波动均能影响成长型思维，从而为假设1提供了动态追踪证据。

接着，考虑到人们在面对正面信息和负面信息时反应往往存在差异，一个值得思考的问题是时间贫困是否使得人们只有在面对负面行为信息(如表现不佳)时才会迅速作出固定的否定判断，即认为个体行为所体现的负面特征难以改变；而在面对正面行为信息(如表现优异)时，时间贫困对成长型思维的影响或许不再成立。为了检验时间贫困对成长型思维的影响是否具有跨行为效价一致性，研究1.3(N = 280)操纵时间贫困和行为效价(积极、消极)，测量成长型思维。研究结果表明，时间贫困对成长型思维的影响不受行为效价的调节，即无论面对他人积极(聪明)还是消极(笨拙)表现的情境，时间贫困均使得个体倾向于认为他人难以改变。该结果支持时间贫困影响成长型思维的效应在不同行为效价上的稳健性。

最后，以往研究测量成长型思维时通常不区分判断对象的差异，认为针对不同判断对象的成长型思维均能反映个体的成长型思维。只有少数研究发现自我增强动机会导致个体对不同判断对象持有不同水平的成长型思维。具体来说，当个体面对自己(或属于自我概念的重要他人)的消极行为时，为维持积极自我概念，个体会采用更高水平的成长型思维，即认为消极行为所体现的特征可以改变。然而在面对积极行为时，个体对不同判断对象的成长型思维则无差异。为探索不同判断对象是否会影响时间贫困对成长型思维的效应，研究1.4(N = 360)操纵时间贫困和判断对象(一般他人，重要他人)，测量个体面对他人消极行为时的成长型思维。结果发现时间贫困对成长型思维的影响并不受判断对象的调节。这说明，面对不同的判断对象，时间贫困都会使个体倾向于认为个人特征难以发生变化。该结果支持时间贫困对成长型思维的影响具有跨判断对象的一致性。

上述研究1的7个子研究均一致支持时间贫困负向影响成长型思维(假设1)。

研究2通过3个子研究，检验时间贫困影响成长型思维的机制，即认知闭合需要的中介作用(假设2)。研究2.1(N = 200)测量时间贫困、认知闭合需要和成长型思维，为假设2提供相关证据。为进一步提供因果证据，研究采用双随机实验设计开展了研究2.2与2.3。具体而言，研究2.2(N = 255)操纵时间贫困，测量认知闭合需要和成长型思维。接着，研究2.3(N = 160)操纵认知闭合需要，测量成长型思维。研究2.2和研究2.3的结果共同支持了中介模型(假设2)的因果关系。

为了对假设1和假设2的效应进行更系统的估计，研究3对研究1和研究2的多项子研究进行微元分析。首先，采用随机效应模型元分析检验假设1，结果支持时间贫困显著负向预测成长型思维。其次，采用结构方程模型元分析检验假设2，结果支持认知闭合需要在时间贫困与成长型思维之间起显著中介作用。

研究4检验时间贫困影响成长型思维的代际后效，即主要抚养人时间贫困导致自身更低的成长型思维是否会传递给儿童，使得儿童的成长型思维也随之降低，以及是否会进一步影响儿童思维意义系统。研究4(N_{儿童-主要抚养人配对样本} = 1060)采用多源数据两时点(间隔三个月)研究设计，测量主要抚养人时间贫困及其成长型思维、儿童智力成长型思维及其思维意义系统和控制变量。研究结果发现，在控制第一个时间点(T1)儿童成长型思维、第二个时间点(T2)儿童时间贫困等变量后，T1主要抚养人时间贫困显著负向预测T2儿童成长型思维，且T1主要抚养人成长型思维起中介作用，结果支持假设3、4。此外，在控制相应的控制变量后，T1主要抚养人时间贫困→T1主要抚养人成长型思维→T2儿童成长型思维→T2儿童消极努力信念/无助归因/学习目标/韧性归因的链式中介成立(假设5, 7-9)，但未支持以儿童表现回避目标为结果变量的链式中介模型(假设6)。整体而言，结果支持了主要抚养人时间贫困会通过影响自身成长型思维，进而影响儿童的成长型思维，最终伤害儿童的思维意义系统，即导致儿童形成更为消极的努力信念、更可能进行无助归因，以及更少的学习目标和韧性归因。

本研究具有重要的理论贡献。第一，对于内隐理论，本研究丰富了对成长型思维的理解。本研究揭示，时间贫困增加个体对确定性的需求，因此倾向于采用更能满足其需求的固定型思维，以快速判断和预测人类世界。该研究结果支持了个体在面临不同情境时，会基于动机调整其思维模式。以往研究发现自我增强动机会改变个体的成长型思维，而本研究则从获得确定性动机的角度出发，拓展了“个体的成长型思维会随着自身在不同环境下需求变化而相应改变”的理论视角。此外，本研究结果也为理解“为什么固定型思维给人们带来脆弱性，但许多人仍持有固定型思维”的理论问题提供了重要解释。

第二，对于时间贫困领域，本研究拓展了时间贫困的后果变量。一方面，本研究将时间贫困的个体层面后果拓展至成长型思维。成长型思维是一种理解人类世界的关键认知框架，对个体多个方面产生重要影响。时间贫困促使人们采用更确定的固定型思维，但这也伴随着代价。固定型思维不仅会让人们面对挫折时更无助、更容易错过成长机会，而且会使人们对他人有更僵化的判断、更多偏见，更不愿意跨群体交往。另一方面，关于时间贫困在代际层面的后果，仅有研究发现父母时间贫困与儿童精神健康呈负相关，且未探索其背后机制。本研究将主要抚养人时间贫困的代际后果拓展至对儿童发展至关重要的成长型思维和思维意义系统。此外，本研究从代际信念传递的视角解释主要抚养人时间贫困如何影响儿童成长型思维，这也为后续探索时间贫困代际影响提供一种重要的理解框架。

第三，本研究为认知闭合需要领域提供了新的视角。以往研究中认知闭合需要在个体层面的后果集中在社会判断，包括刻板印象和偏见等。本研究发现，认知闭合需要会影响一种更深层的信念，即成长型思维。作为一种底层信念，成长型思维不仅影响个体社会判断和行为，也塑造个体对挑战和挫折的反应模式。

实践启示方面，本研究为促进人们成长型思维、激发发展潜能，及促进社会和谐提供科学依据。第一，本研究在个体层面发现时间贫困损害成长型思维，这提示人们需重视改善时间资源使用，以减少时间贫困对成长型思维的伤害，促进成长发展。第二，本研究在家庭层面发现，主要抚养人时间贫困降低其成长型思维，进而损害儿童成长型思维和思维意义系统。因此主要抚养人在经历时间贫困时既可以学习有效的时间管理来缓解时间贫困，也可以保持自我觉察避免将因时间贫困降低的成长型思维传递给儿童。第三，组织可以采取措施降低员工时间贫困，如精简非必要程序和会议、对周期性活动进行规划和预告来减少对员工的干扰，从而削弱对员工成长型思维的消极影响。第四，国家可以采取措施来缓解人们的时间贫困，如完善并落实劳动法的相关规定、通过合理城市规划减少通勤时间、制定政策时警惕政策造成的时间成本。此外，鉴于固定型思维与刻板印象及偏见密切相关，缓解时间贫困有助于减少社会中的刻板印象及偏见，降低群际冲突，促进社会和谐发展。

As the pace of work and life accelerates, time poverty—the pervasive feeling of not having enough time in daily life—has become a prominent phenomenon in contemporary society. In this context, there is an increased demand for rapid predictions and definitive answers to enable quick decision-making and action. Compared to growth mindsets, fixed mindsets can enable quicker judgments and responses within a limited scope of behaviors and outcomes. Therefore, to understand the potential impacts of time poverty on people’s mindsets, the present study aims to explore whether and how individual time poverty affects their growth mindsets, and to investigate if reduced growth mindset due to time poverty can be transmitted across generations.

Implicit theory suggests that people’s implicit beliefs about attributes vary on a continuum, with growth mindsets on the one end and fixed mindsets on the other. Growth mindsets perceive attributes as malleable, whereas fixed mindsets view attributes as unchangeable. Under higher time poverty, individuals are more likely to adopt a fixed mindset. When experiencing higher time poverty, individuals have a higher need for cognitive closure, characterized by a preference for quick decisions, a desire for predictability, and an aversion to change. Under these conditions, individuals are more likely to adopt a fixed mindset, because compared to a growth mindset, a fixed mindset offers a more certain and predictable way to understand the world, satisfying the individual’s need for cognitive closure. A growth mindset views personal characteristics as changeable and influenced by numerous complex factors, making it difficult to make quick trait judgments based on limited observations of behaviors and outcomes. Conversely, a fixed mindset assumes that personal characteristics are fixed, allowing for quick trait inferences from minimal information, which can then be used for future predictions. Therefore, time poverty leads individuals to adopt a fixed mindset to understand and cope with their circumstances more certainly and predictably. Based on this, the study proposes Hypothesis 1: Time poverty negatively affects growth mindset. Hypothesis 2: The need for cognitive closure mediates the impact of time poverty on growth mindset, specifically, higher time poverty leads to higher need for cognitive closure, which in turn results in a lower level of growth mindset.

Building on the investigation of whether and how individual time poverty affects their growth mindset, this study further explores its transmitted effects across generations. This focus on intergenerational transmission is driven by two main factors: First, caregivers often juggle work and household responsibilities, positioning them as one of the most time-poor groups. Second, these caregivers spend considerable time with the children and play a key role in children’s development. The present study posits that primary caregivers’ experience of time poverty diminishes their growth mindset, which subsequently reduces their children’s growth mindset. On the one hand, primary caregivers can directly transmit their beliefs to children through daily interactions. As frequent and essential contacts for children, primary caregivers play a crucial role in shaping children’s beliefs. On the other hand, primary caregivers’ growth mindset can also influence their parenting behaviors, which in turn affects the children’s growth mindset. Caregivers with a lower growth mindset are more likely to adopt unconstructive parenting, such as controlling parenting or performance-oriented parenting, which can hinder the development of growth mindset in children. Thus, we propose Hypothesis 3: Primary caregivers’ time poverty negatively affects children’s growth mindset; Hypothesis 4: Primary caregivers’ growth mindset mediates the relationship between primary caregivers’ time poverty and children’s growth mindset. Specifically, caregivers’ higher time poverty leads to their lower growth mindset, which in turn negatively impacts children’s growth mindset. Additionally, in line with the core proposition of implicit theory—that an individual’s growth mindset influences their mindset meaning system, which includes beliefs about effort, goals, and attribution styles, and is crucial for child development—our research aims to investigate further. The present study aims to explore whether primary caregivers’ time poverty affects children’s growth mindset and subsequently affects the children’s mindset meaning system, i.e., leading to higher negative effort beliefs (Hypothesis 5), performance-avoidance goals (Hypothesis 6) and helpless attributions (Hypothesis 7), and lower learning goals (Hypothesis 8) and resilient attributions (Hypothesis 9).

To investigate the impact of time poverty on growth mindset, its underlying mechanisms, and intergenerational outcomes, this thesis conducted four major studies encompassing twelve sub-studies, with a total of 5457 participants.

Study 1 aimed to examine the negative impact of time poverty on growth mindset (Hypothesis 1). Study 1 included seven sub-studies. To confirm the robustness of Hypothesis 1, Study 1 tested the hypothesis across different domains of growth mindset, different analysis levels (intra-individual, inter-individual), different behavioral valences (positive, negative), and different judgment targets (general others, important others).

Firstly, considering that the growth mindset of general domain relates to comprehensively evaluating personal attributes, and intelligence, personality, and morality are foundational attributes for understanding the human world, this research selected these domains as representative indices to examine the consistency of the impact of time poverty on growth mindset across various domains. To avoid measurement interference among different domains of growth mindset, Study 1 utilized four sub-studies (Studies 1.1A-1.1D) to examine the impact of time poverty on growth mindset within the general, intelligence, morality, and personality domains. Specifically, to examine the relationship between time poverty and the growth mindset of general domain, Study 1.1A (N = 1856) analyzed data obtained from a large-scale national survey focusing on judicial personnel, a demographic notably impacted by time poverty. Study 1.1B (N = 250) extended to a general adult sample to test the relationship between time poverty and growth mindset of intelligence domain. To further provide causal evidence, Study 1.1C (N = 128) used a recall paradigm to manipulate time poverty to test its impact on growth mindset of morality domain. To further examine the relationship between time poverty and growth mindset of personality, Study 1.1D (N = 128) employed an imaginary paradigm to manipulate time poverty and measured growth mindset of personality domain. The results supported Hypothesis 1 across the general, intelligence, personality, and moral domains, providing solid evidence for the consistency of the relationship between time poverty and growth mindset across domains. Due to these consistent findings and the key role of intelligence domain in growth mindset research, subsequent studies concentrated on the growth mindset of intelligence domain to refine and streamline the investigation.

Secondly, to verify that the impact of time poverty on growth mindset occurs both between individuals and within the same individual, Study 1.2 (N _{between individuals} = 335; N _{within individuals} = 1516) used a diary method for a week-long tracking. Results showed that individuals’ time poverty negatively predicted their growth mindset at both intra-individual and inter-individual levels. This indicated that variations in time poverty not only led to differences in growth mindset among individuals but also affected the growth mindset of the same individual on a day-to-day basis, thus providing dynamic tracking evidence to support Hypothesis 1.

Thirdly, considering that individuals often respond differently to negative versus positive information, it is crucial to explore whether time poverty influences growth mindset selectively, depending on the valence of observed behavior. Specifically, does time poverty cause individuals to quickly dismiss the potential for change only in response to negative behaviors (e.g., poor performance), while having minimal impact on their growth mindset when faced with positive behaviors (e.g., excellent performance)? To investigate this question, Study 1.3 (N = 280) manipulated time poverty and behavioral valence (positive, negative) to measure growth mindset. The results indicated that behavioral valence did not moderate the effect of time poverty on growth mindset. In other words, whether individuals face positive (smart) or negative (clumsy) behavioral traits, time poverty consistently leads to the belief that these traits are unlikely to change. This result supported the consistent influence of time poverty on growth mindset across different types of behavioral information, highlighting its robust main effect regardless of behavioral valence.

Fourthly, most of previous studies do not differentiate between various judgment targets when assessing growth mindset, assuming that growth mindset towards different targets consistently reflects an individual’s growth mindset. Only a few studies have explored how growth mindset varied depending on the judgment targets, revealing that self-enhancement motivation leads individuals to exhibit different levels of growth mindset toward different judgment targets. Specifically, to maintain a positive self-image, individuals tend to adopt a higher growth mindset—believing that negative characteristics reflected by behaviors are changeable—when faced with their negative behaviors or those of important others tied to their self-concept. However, this variation in growth mindset is not observed when individuals encounter positive behaviors, regardless of the judgment target. To explore whether judgment targets influence the relationship between time poverty and growth mindset, Study 1.4 (N = 360) manipulated time poverty and judgment targets (general others, important others), measuring growth mindset in the context of negative behaviors. The results indicated that judgment targets did not moderate the effect of time poverty on growth mindset. This result underscores the consistent negative effect of time poverty on growth mindset across various judgment targets. All seven sub-studies consistently supported Hypothesis 1, indicating that time poverty negatively affects growth mindset.

Study 2 conducted three sub-studies to examine how time poverty affects growth mindset, focusing specifically on the mediating role of the need for cognitive closure (Hypothesis 2). Study 2.1 (N = 200) measured time poverty, the need for cognitive closure, and growth mindset, providing correlational evidence for Hypothesis 2. To provide causal evidence, double randomization designs were employed in Studies 2.2 and 2.3. Firstly, Study 2.2 (N = 255) manipulated time poverty to examine its effect on the need for cognitive closure and growth mindset, thus providing causal evidence for the initial part of the mediation model. Secondly, Study 2.3 (N = 160) manipulated the need for cognitive closure to examine its impacts on growth mindset, providing causal evidence for the latter part of the mediation model. All three sub-studies consistently supported Hypothesis 2.

To accurately estimate the effects of Hypotheses 1 and 2, Study 3 conducted mini meta-analyses using data from the sub-studies in Studies 1 and 2. A random-effects meta-analysis examined Hypothesis 1, revealing a significant negative impact of time poverty on growth mindset. A structural equation modeling meta-analysis tested Hypothesis 2, supporting that the need for cognitive closure significantly mediated the relationship between time poverty and growth mindset.

After examining whether and how individual time poverty affects growth mindset, Study 4 further investigated its intergenerational transmission effects. Specifically, Study 4 examined whether primary caregivers’ lower growth mindset, due to time poverty, could be transmitted to children, thereby negatively impacting children’s growth mindset and mindset meaning system. Study 4 (N _{child-primary caregiver dyads} = 1060) utilized a multi-source, two-time point design (three-month interval) to measure primary caregivers’ time poverty, primary caregivers’ growth mindset, children’s growth mindset, children’s mindset meaning system, and control variables. The results showed that after controlling for children’s growth mindset at Time 1 (T1), children’s time poverty at Time 2 (T2), children’s math competence, and demographic variables, T1 primary caregivers’ time poverty significantly negatively predicted T2 children’s growth mindset. T1 primary caregivers’ growth mindset mediated this effect, supporting Hypotheses 3-4. Furthermore, the serial mediation models were supported for the path from T1 primary caregivers’ time poverty → T1 primary caregivers’ growth mindset → T2 children’s growth mindset → T2 children’s negative effort beliefs, helpless attributions, learning goals, resilient attributions (Hypotheses 5, 7-9). However, the serial mediation model that linked these factors to T2 children’s performance-avoidance goals was not supported (Hypothesis 6). Overall, the results predominantly support that primary caregivers’ time poverty, through affecting their own and their children’s growth mindset, ultimately impacts children’s mindset meaning system, leading to more negative effort beliefs and helpless attributions, and fewer learning goals and resilient attributions.

This research has important theoretical contributions. Firstly, it enriches the understanding of growth mindset by supporting that time poverty and the need for cognitive closure affect growth mindset. Specifically, the study reveals that under conditions of high time poverty, driven by an increased need for cognitive closure, individuals are more likely to adopt a fixed mindset as a means to quickly assess and predict the human world. This finding underscores how individuals dynamically adjust their mindset in response to situational demands. Furthermore, while previous studies have shown that motivation can alter growth mindset from the perspective of self-enhancement, this study broadens this perspective by showing that the desire for certainty also motivates changes in growth mindset based on varying environmental demands. Additionally, the findings provide valuable insights into why fixed mindsets, despite their potential to induce vulnerability, remain widespread among many individuals.

Secondly, this study contributes to time poverty literature by exploring its broader consequences. On the one hand, most previous studies have focused on the individual-level outcomes of time poverty, revealing negative effects on physical health, mental health, and cognitive performance. Our findings extend these impacts to include fundamental beliefs about the human world. Specifically, time poverty drives people to adopt simpler cognitive frameworks, i.e., fixed mindsets, which may facilitate quicker judgments and predictions. However, fixed mindsets carry potential costs, such as increased vulnerability to setbacks, missed opportunities for personal growth, and heightened prejudice and stereotypes. On the other hand, research into the intergenerational effects of time poverty remains limited. To our knowledge, only one study linked parents’ time poverty with negative effects on children’s mental health, without exploring the underlying mechanisms. This study extends this area by examining the influence of caregivers’ time poverty on children’s growth mindset and mindset meaning system—both vital for children’s development and achievement. Moreover, this study uses the perspective of belief transmission to understand how primary caregivers’ time poverty influences children’s growth mindset. This perspective offers a crucial framework for exploring the intergenerational impacts of time poverty in future research.

Thirdly, our study introduces a new perspective to the research on the need for cognitive closure. Previous studies have focused on its impact on social judgments, such as the primacy effect, stereotypes, and prejudice. Our research finds that the need for cognitive closure also affects more fundamental lay beliefs, i.e., the growth mindset, which not only influences individuals’ social judgments but also shapes their resilient or helpless responses to challenges and setbacks.

In terms of practical implications, this research provides evidence-based strategies for fostering growth mindset by decreasing time poverty. Firstly, at the individual level, this study finds that time poverty impairs a growth mindset, emphasizing the need to improve the use of time resources to mitigate its detrimental effects and enhance the realization of personal potential. Secondly, at the family level, the study observes that primary caregivers’ time poverty reduces their growth mindset, which in turn harms the development of children’s growth mindset and their mindset meaning system. Therefore, primary caregivers experiencing time poverty should maintain self-awareness to prevent the transmission of a diminished growth mindset to their children; moreover, they could use effective time management to alleviate their stress which can also contribute to the healthy development of children. Thirdly, organizations can take measures to reduce time poverty among employees by streamlining non-essential procedures and meetings, and by planning and providing advance notice for periodic activities to minimize disruptions. These steps can help mitigate the negative impact on employee’s growth mindset. Fourthly, governments can take measures to alleviate time poverty among the public, such as enhancing and rigorously enforcing labor law provisions, reducing commuting times through improved urban planning, and carefully considering the time costs associated with new policies. These actions are beneficial in helping generations achieve success and make contributions. Moreover, as previous studies have shown that a fixed mindset is closely linked to stereotypes and prejudices, alleviating time poverty can help reduce these societal biases in society, decrease intergroup conflicts, and promote social harmony.