Author contributions: J.M.J. designed research; J.M.J. and E.R.B. performed research; J.M.J., A.W., and E.R.B. analyzed data; and J.M.J., A.W., E.R.B., and A.D.G. wrote the paper.
Published under the PNAS license. See letter "Total grit scale score does not represent perseverance" in volume 116 on page 3941.Grit has captured the public imagination and crept into educational policy throughout the United States. However, because prior studies linking grit and performance are beset by contradictory evidence, commentators increasingly state that grit is overhyped. We propose that the inconsistency between grit’s initial promise and its subsequent lack of empirical support has occurred because grit’s measurement has not matched its definition. Although grit is defined as the combination of perseverance and passion, its measurement has focused on perseverance and has not adequately captured passion. In a metaanalysis of 127 studies and two field studies, we show that passion is a key component of grit. The current theory and results suggest that perseverance without passion isn’t grit, but merely a grind.
Keywords: grit, perseverance, passion, performance, motivationPrior studies linking grit—defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals—to performance are beset by contradictory evidence. As a result, commentators have increasingly declared that grit has limited effects. We propose that this inconsistent evidence has occurred because prior research has emphasized perseverance and ignored, both theoretically and empirically, the critical role of passion, which we define as a strong feeling toward a personally important value/preference that motivates intentions and behaviors to express that value/preference. We suggest that combining the grit scale—which only captures perseverance—with a measure that assesses whether individuals attain desired levels of passion will predict performance. We first metaanalyzed 127 studies (n = 45,485) that used the grit scale and assessed performance, and found that effect sizes are larger in studies where participants were more passionate for the performance domain. Second, in a survey of employees matched to supervisor-rated job performance (n = 422), we found that the combination of perseverance, measured through the grit scale, and passion attainment, measured through a new scale, predicted higher performance. A final study measured perseverance and passion attainment in a sample of students (n = 248) and linked these to their grade-point average (GPA), finding that the combination of perseverance and passion attainment predicted higher GPAs in part through increased immersion. The present results help resolve the mixed evidence of grit’s relationship with performance by highlighting the important role that passion plays in predicting performance. By adequately measuring both perseverance and passion, the present research uncovers grit’s true predictive power.
The concept of grit has captured the public imagination. Angela Duckworth’s 2013 TED talk introduced grit to a broad audience and described it as an important predictor of future success; the talk clearly resonated with audiences, as it has over 14 million views to date (1). Her subsequent 2016 book, Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance, became an international best-seller (2). Grit has also crept into educational policy throughout the United States, influencing the design of school curriculums to boost their future success by making students “grittier” (3). These developments are seemingly occurring for good reason: prior studies have found that grit relates to several intermediaries of success, including increased deliberate practice (4), sustained retention in difficult jobs (5, 6), and task persistence (7).
Given the widespread attention and initial evidence, one would expect to find copious studies showing that grit predicts performance. Surprisingly, evidence linking grit and performance is beset by contradictory empirical results. A recent metaanalysis, as well as high-powered empirical studies, have found a weak or nonsignificant relationship between grit and various indicators of success (8 –10). Because the evidence regarding the relationship between grit and performance has been inconclusive, several commentators have stated that grit is “overrated,” “limited,” “hyped,” and “under attack” (11 –14).
We propose that the inconsistency between grit’s initial promise and its subsequent lack of empirical support has occurred because grit’s measurement has not matched its definition. Duckworth et al. (5) define grit as “perseverance and passion for long-term goals.” Although this definition of grit contains two conceptual components—perseverance and passion—we suggest that the grit literature, and consequently its measurement, has focused only on perseverance and has not adequately captured passion. The tight link between grit and perseverance has even made its way into on-line thesauruses: on https://www.thesaurus.com/, synonyms of perseverance include grit and synonyms of grit include perseverance, but neither includes passion.
The issue is not just conceptual but also methodological. We propose that the current measure of grit likely reflects perseverance alone. Indeed, studies that find effects of the grit scale on performance-related outcomes are highly connected to perseverance (e.g., increased deliberate practice, sustained retention, and task persistence). We suggest that passion is key to grit but missing in its theory and measurement, which as a result, has produced the empirical inconsistencies found in the grit literature.
Overall, academics and popular commentators alike frequently equate grit with perseverance alone and neglect the passion component. Prominent educational psychologist Mike Rose, critiquing grit, states, “[r]ather than calling their construct ‘perseverance’ or ‘persistence,’ they chose to call it ‘grit’” (15). Similarly, consider that a metaanalysis of the grit literature refers to grit as “a personality trait” (8), and compares grit to conscientiousness in their analyses. Angela Duckworth herself noted this shortcoming of the theory and measurement of grit, stating that she is thinking about revising her grit scale, “specifically the questions about passion” (16).
The neglect of passion in the measurement of grit is particularly problematic because prior research stresses that passion produces beneficial effects on performance through a key mechanism: immersion. Several studies converge on the idea that the combination of perseverance and passion may heighten individuals’ immersion in a performance domain—that is, the intensity of focus experienced—which may in turn promote higher levels of performance (17 –20). In fact, passion is key to how Angela Duckworth speaks about the beneficial outcomes of grit. In a recent interview, she noted, “I think the misunderstanding—or, at least, one of them—is that it’s only the perseverance part that matters […] But I think that the passion piece is at least as important. I mean, if you are really, really tenacious and dogged about a goal that’s not meaningful to you, and not interesting to you—then that’s just drudgery. It’s not just determination—it’s having a direction that you care about” (as cited in ref. 12).
The present research brings passion back into the conceptualization and measurement of grit. We propose that only the combination of the current grit measure, the Grit-S scale (6)—which emphasizes perseverance—with a measure that assesses whether individuals attain desired levels of passion will predict higher performance. Furthermore, we hypothesize that immersion will be a key route through which the combination of perseverance and passion attainment will improve performance. We test these propositions in a metaanalysis, a field study with employees at a technology company, and a field study of undergraduate students.
From its inception, grit has theoretically stood on the dual pillars of perseverance and passion. The definition of grit includes the word passion: “perseverance and passion for long-term goals” (5). Drawing on, integrating, and extending prior conceptualizations of passion (21 –24), * we define passion as a strong feeling toward a personally important value/preference that motivates intentions and behaviors to express that value/preference. We use the words “a strong feeling” to indicate that passion is an intense affective state, but one that is not necessarily limited to positive emotions alone (21, 24). We use the phrase “toward a personally important value/preference” to denote that the target of passion reflects an attribute that has high personal value or strong appeal to the individual (21, 23). This builds on prior notions that passion is domain-specific, such as passion for hobbies, relationships, or work (23, 25, 26). We use the phrase “that motivates intentions and behaviors to express that value/preference” to capture that passion leads individuals to consistently desire engaging and interacting with this personally important value/preference: that is, the target of their passion (22, 24).
Despite the conceptual importance of passion in grit, there are theoretical and empirical concerns about whether the grit scale truly captures passion. The scale used to assess grit features two components—“persistence of effort” and “consistency of interests”—the latter of which has been suggested to measure passion (5, 6). Theoretically, the claim that “consistency of interests” equates to passion is not supported by research. Although consistency of interests may be statistically correlated with personally important values/preferences, they are conceptually distinct. Consider this example: an academic may maintain a high consistency in an interest (e.g., the revision of manuscripts as part of the publication process), but the interest itself may have little personal importance (e.g., revising a manuscript on an unimportant topic).
Empirical results similarly cast doubt on the equivalence of consistency of interests and passion. Consider that a recent study finds no significant relationship between self-rated consistency of interests and other-rated passion (27). This concern is also borne out in a recent metaanalysis (8), which reports a corrected correlation of ρ = 0.60 between “persistence of effort” and “consistency of interests.” This correlation size supports the presence of a single construct (28), leading the authors of the metaanalysis (8) to conclude that the grit scale only measures the single factor of perseverance. This discrepancy may have occurred because the grit literature has not connected with prior passion research. In Duckworth et al.’s (5) paper introducing grit, the word “passion” only appears in the manuscript title, the definition of grit, and as a reference to a scale the authors discarded. In subsequent publications, there is no reference to passion other than including the word passion in the definition (4, 6, 29 –31).
Taking these data together, we find that there is considerable theoretical and empirical evidence that the scale intended to measure both components of grit—perseverance and passion—likely captures only perseverance. We therefore subsequently refer to what the grit scale measures as perseverance. [The grit scale, developed by Duckworth et al. (5) contained 12 items, but was superseded by a shortened eight-item version of the grit scale (termed the Grit-S scale), which has superior psychometric qualities (6). In the studies described below, we focus on the Grit-S scale, which has been used predominantly since its publication.] We highlight why passion is a key component of grit’s beneficial effects and propose that uncovering grit’s predictive power requires adequate measurement of both perseverance and passion.
We propose that passion is a key ingredient of grit and needs to be empirically captured for a positive relationship between perseverance and performance to emerge. We suggest that passion is essential for perseverance to unfold its beneficial effects because it combines with perseverance to increase immersion in an activity, evidenced by increased focus and pursuit of activities related to their passionate endeavor (17 –19). That is, the increased immersion produced by the combination of perseverance and passion leads individuals to devote greater cognitive effort and investment to their goals, as evidenced in more intense concentration (32). This heightened immersion, in turn, provides the energy and dedication that makes it more likely that individuals attain their goals (33, 34). Although perseverance helps individuals by remaining committed to their goal pursuit (5, 31), passion provides individuals with the focus necessary to achieve their goals (4, 29, 35). Thus, when individuals pursue goals they are not passionate for, perseverance may not produce increased performance. In contrast, when employees pursue goals they are passionate for, higher perseverance may improve their performance.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that many highly persevering individuals achieve success only when pursuing goals they are passionate about. Consider the Italian singer Andrea Bocelli, who originally started his career as a lawyer, a course of study that requires substantial persistence, particularly given his blindness. Even while pursuing this field of study, Bocelli continued to sing at piano bars, but it was only when Bocelli allowed himself to be immersed in the pursuit of singing, “a passion he couldn’t shake” (36), that he found success. This example illustrates that the purported benefits of the combination of perseverance and passion originally proposed by grit researchers requires the adequate measurement of both components of grit.
In further understanding the role of passion, the current research highlights the importance of passion attainment: that is, whether people experience desired levels of passion (37). In prior research, passion has commonly been assessed using an adaptation of Vallerand et al.’s (23) harmonious passion scale, which was originally developed to assess how individuals feel about activities that are “very dear to their heart” (23). However, individuals commonly assess whether they are experiencing desired levels of passion (38, 39) and are guided by whether they have met this expectation (40 –42). Indeed, a recent stream of research highlights that the experience of passion is guided by whether an individual attains or falls short of desired levels of passion and not by their absolute levels of harmonious passion (37). Thus, we propose that the combination of perseverance and passion attainment will predict performance.
To begin investigating the impact of the combination of perseverance and passion in predicting performance, we first reviewed prior studies in which the grit scale was used, and performance measured. A literature search yielded 127 studies (n = 45,485) (for more details on search and analyses, see Materials and Methods; see SI Appendix, Table S1 for list of studies included). Replicating prior research (8), we find a small but statistically significant effect of perseverance, as measured by the grit scale, on performance (estimate = 0.13, SE = 0.02, P < 0.001) (see also SI Appendix, Fig. S1).
We hypothesized that in studies where participants were more likely to experience passion for a particular performance domain, the relationship between perseverance and performance would be stronger. To assess passion in prior research, three independent coders blind to the hypothesis of this study assessed whether the majority of participants in the study would find the performance domain personally important [interrater reliability (IRR) = 0.81], in line with prior theory and the definition of passion described above. For example, in a study of entrepreneurs starting their own companies (43), the majority of participants may consider the performance domain to be personally important. In contrast, college students taking a mandatory science class may consider the performance domain to be less personally important (44).
Our analysis suggests that passion levels of a performance domain moderate the relationship between perseverance and performance. That is, we found that in studies where participants likely experienced greater passion for a performance domain, there was a stronger relationship between perseverance and performance (moderator analysis of the metaanalytic effect: estimate = 0.07, SE = 0.04, P < 0.05) (see also SI Appendix, Fig. S2 and Table S2 for further information). This analysis thus provides preliminary support for our theory that passion moderates the relationship between perseverance and performance.
We next conducted a field study with employees at a technology company. We predicted that perseverance, as measured by the Grit-S scale, would only relate to increased supervisor-rated performance when employees attained desired levels of passion. In contrast, we predicted that for employees who did not attain desired levels of passion, there would be no significant relationship between perseverance and performance.
We tested this hypothesis with data from a technology company (n = 422), where we asked employees to respond to survey measures of perseverance (as measured by the eight-item Grit-S scale) and passion attainment (with a previously developed and validated three-item scale) (see also refs. 37 and 45). We then matched employees’ survey responses to supervisor-rated performance ratings. We subsequently ran additional analyses including various control variables (e.g., age, gender, tenure, motivation, and harmonious passion) (see SI Appendix for further information and SI Appendix, Table S3 for bivariate correlations).
Before testing our hypothesis, we assessed the distinctiveness of the constructs by conducting confirmatory factor (confirmatory fit index, CFI) analyses. We first loaded items of each construct onto their respective factor, and find that the fit-indices were acceptable (46) (with the exception of the CFI): χ 2 (334) = 845.64, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, CFI = 0.92, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.08. We then compared this model to a model where we loaded all items from every measure on one common factor. This model fit the data worse: χ 2 (350) = 3110.19, RMSEA = 0.14, CFI = 0.55, SRMR = 0.12. Additionally, the fit of the first model was significantly better: Δχ 2 = 2264.55, Δdf = 16, P < 0.001. In addition, analyses reveal that the full Grit-S scale represents a single factor, which we label perseverance, and that this scale is distinct from the passion attainment measure (see SI Appendix for these and additional confirmatory factor analyses).
Our hypothesis was that the interaction between perseverance and passion attainment predicts job performance (SI Appendix, Table S4). Because supervisors assessed multiple employees, the data structure is nested; we therefore centered the variables and applied multilevel analyses (47) (SI Appendix). As shown in model 2, the interaction effect was both positive and statistically significant (estimate = 0.03, SE = 0.01, γ = 0.14, P = 0.02) and accounted for an additional 2% of variance in job performance. The highest job performance occurred when both perseverance and passion attainment were high, as depicted in Fig. 1 . This finding was empirically supported through simple slopes analyses (SI Appendix).