Trial Outcomes & Findings for Effect of Emotion Mindsets on Emotion Processing (NCT NCT03978871)

NCT ID: NCT03978871

Last Updated: 2025-04-17

Results Overview

Participants completed a six-item fixed emotion mindset measure (EMS-fixed) measure, prior to (pre-induction EMS) and following the induction lessons (post-induction EMS). Items were drawn from the Implicit Theories of Emotion Scale (Tamir et al., 2007) and the Emotion Mindset Scale (EMS; Livingstone, 2013). Participants rated each item on a 6-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 =Strongly Agree). Means were computed for these items, with higher scores representing a higher fixed emotion mindset mindset. For this analysis, we compared mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control). Minimum=1 Maximum=6 High= more fixed emotion mindset, worse outcome

• Recruitment status: COMPLETED
• Study phase: NA
• Target enrollment: 163 participants
• Primary outcome timeframe: Pre vs. Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
• Results posted on: 2025-04-17

Participant Flow

Participants were recruited from local high schools between August of 2018 and June of 2022. The first participant was enrolled in the main study in August of 2018 and the last participant was enrolled in June of 2022. The study was completed by October of 2022.

One additional participant consented, but then declined participation due to concerns about claustrophobia while in the fMRI machine.

Participant milestones

Measure	Growth Mindset Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Control: Brain education
Overall Study STARTED	81	82
Overall Study 2-Month Follow-up	72	75
Overall Study 4-Month Follow-up	74	75
Overall Study COMPLETED	70	70
Overall Study NOT COMPLETED	11	12

Reasons for withdrawal

Measure	Growth Mindset Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Control: Brain education
Overall Study Lost to Follow-up	11	12

Baseline Characteristics

one participant did not fill out this information.

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Measure	Growth Mindset n=81 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=82 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Control: Brain education	Total n=163 Participants Total of all reporting groups
Age, Categorical <=18 years	81 Participants n=81 Participants	82 Participants n=82 Participants	163 Participants n=163 Participants
Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years	0 Participants n=81 Participants	0 Participants n=82 Participants	0 Participants n=163 Participants
Age, Categorical >=65 years	0 Participants n=81 Participants	0 Participants n=82 Participants	0 Participants n=163 Participants
Age, Continuous	15.63 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.10 • n=81 Participants	15.72 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.06 • n=82 Participants	15.68 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.08 • n=163 Participants
Sex: Female, Male Female	81 Participants n=81 Participants	82 Participants n=82 Participants	163 Participants n=163 Participants
Sex: Female, Male Male	0 Participants n=81 Participants	0 Participants n=82 Participants	0 Participants n=163 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized African American	7 participants n=81 Participants	10 participants n=82 Participants	17 participants n=163 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized Asian	8 participants n=81 Participants	6 participants n=82 Participants	14 participants n=163 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized Latina/o	4 participants n=81 Participants	3 participants n=82 Participants	7 participants n=163 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized White	52 participants n=81 Participants	56 participants n=82 Participants	108 participants n=163 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized Other	10 participants n=81 Participants	7 participants n=82 Participants	17 participants n=163 Participants
Region of Enrollment United States	81 participants n=81 Participants	82 participants n=82 Participants	163 participants n=163 Participants
Grade Eighth Grade	6 Participants n=81 Participants	10 Participants n=82 Participants	16 Participants n=163 Participants
Grade Ninth Grade	38 Participants n=81 Participants	29 Participants n=82 Participants	67 Participants n=163 Participants
Grade Tenth Grade	20 Participants n=81 Participants	25 Participants n=82 Participants	45 Participants n=163 Participants
Grade Eleventh Grade	14 Participants n=81 Participants	17 Participants n=82 Participants	31 Participants n=163 Participants
Grade Twelfth Grade	3 Participants n=81 Participants	1 Participants n=82 Participants	4 Participants n=163 Participants
Marital Status of Caregiver Married	62 Participants n=81 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.	63 Participants n=81 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.	125 Participants n=162 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.
Marital Status of Caregiver Single (never married)	6 Participants n=81 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.	7 Participants n=81 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.	13 Participants n=162 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.
Marital Status of Caregiver Single (divorced)	11 Participants n=81 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.	8 Participants n=81 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.	19 Participants n=162 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.
Marital Status of Caregiver Separated	1 Participants n=81 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.	1 Participants n=81 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.	2 Participants n=162 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.
Marital Status of Caregiver Other (specified)	1 Participants n=81 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.	2 Participants n=81 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.	3 Participants n=162 Participants • one participant did not fill out this information.
Total Gross Annual Family Income $15-29,999	5 Participants n=81 Participants	3 Participants n=82 Participants	8 Participants n=163 Participants
Total Gross Annual Family Income $30-44,999	7 Participants n=81 Participants	7 Participants n=82 Participants	14 Participants n=163 Participants
Total Gross Annual Family Income $45-59,999	15 Participants n=81 Participants	8 Participants n=82 Participants	23 Participants n=163 Participants
Total Gross Annual Family Income $60-74,999	9 Participants n=81 Participants	6 Participants n=82 Participants	15 Participants n=163 Participants
Total Gross Annual Family Income $75-89,999	4 Participants n=81 Participants	5 Participants n=82 Participants	9 Participants n=163 Participants
Total Gross Annual Family Income $90,000 and over	40 Participants n=81 Participants	50 Participants n=82 Participants	90 Participants n=163 Participants
Total Gross Annual Family Income $0-14,999	0 Participants n=81 Participants	2 Participants n=82 Participants	2 Participants n=163 Participants
Total Gross Annual Family Income Missing	1 Participants n=81 Participants	1 Participants n=82 Participants	2 Participants n=163 Participants
Female Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Professional Degree (M.D., PhD., etc.)	7 Participants n=81 Participants	6 Participants n=82 Participants	13 Participants n=163 Participants
Female Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Master's Degree (M.A., M.S.)	19 Participants n=81 Participants	23 Participants n=82 Participants	42 Participants n=163 Participants
Female Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Some graduate school	6 Participants n=81 Participants	6 Participants n=82 Participants	12 Participants n=163 Participants
Female Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Bachelor's degree (B.A., B.S.)	25 Participants n=81 Participants	20 Participants n=82 Participants	45 Participants n=163 Participants
Female Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Associate's degree	4 Participants n=81 Participants	7 Participants n=82 Participants	11 Participants n=163 Participants
Female Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Some college	10 Participants n=81 Participants	15 Participants n=82 Participants	25 Participants n=163 Participants
Female Caregiver's Highest Level of Education High school diploma	8 Participants n=81 Participants	4 Participants n=82 Participants	12 Participants n=163 Participants
Female Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Missing	1 Participants n=81 Participants	1 Participants n=82 Participants	2 Participants n=163 Participants
Female Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Some high school	1 Participants n=81 Participants	0 Participants n=82 Participants	1 Participants n=163 Participants
Male Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Professional Degree (M.D., PhD., etc.)	12 Participants n=81 Participants	17 Participants n=82 Participants	29 Participants n=163 Participants
Male Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Master's Degree (M.A., M.S.)	15 Participants n=81 Participants	11 Participants n=82 Participants	26 Participants n=163 Participants
Male Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Bachelor's Degree (B.A., B.S.)	16 Participants n=81 Participants	18 Participants n=82 Participants	34 Participants n=163 Participants
Male Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Associate's Degree	8 Participants n=81 Participants	9 Participants n=82 Participants	17 Participants n=163 Participants
Male Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Some college	12 Participants n=81 Participants	10 Participants n=82 Participants	22 Participants n=163 Participants
Male Caregiver's Highest Level of Education High school diploma	5 Participants n=81 Participants	0 Participants n=82 Participants	5 Participants n=163 Participants
Male Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Some high school	1 Participants n=81 Participants	0 Participants n=82 Participants	1 Participants n=163 Participants
Male Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Missing	12 Participants n=81 Participants	13 Participants n=82 Participants	25 Participants n=163 Participants
Male Caregiver's Highest Level of Education Some graduate school	0 Participants n=81 Participants	3 Participants n=82 Participants	3 Participants n=163 Participants
Male Caregiver's Highest Level of Education 8th grade completed	0 Participants n=81 Participants	1 Participants n=82 Participants	1 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 1 Relationship to Child Biological Mother	69 Participants n=81 Participants	70 Participants n=82 Participants	139 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 1 Relationship to Child Stepmother	1 Participants n=81 Participants	1 Participants n=82 Participants	2 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 1 Relationship to Child Biological Father	9 Participants n=81 Participants	9 Participants n=82 Participants	18 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 1 Relationship to Child Other	2 Participants n=81 Participants	1 Participants n=82 Participants	3 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 1 Relationship to Child Missing	0 Participants n=81 Participants	1 Participants n=82 Participants	1 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 2 Relationship to Child Biological Father	55 Participants n=81 Participants	53 Participants n=82 Participants	108 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 2 Relationship to Child Stepfather	2 Participants n=81 Participants	3 Participants n=82 Participants	5 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 2 Relationship to Child Biological Mother	8 Participants n=81 Participants	10 Participants n=82 Participants	18 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 2 Relationship to Child Other	3 Participants n=81 Participants	1 Participants n=82 Participants	4 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 2 Relationship to Child Missing	13 Participants n=81 Participants	14 Participants n=82 Participants	27 Participants n=163 Participants
Caregiver 2 Relationship to Child Stepmother	0 Participants n=81 Participants	1 Participants n=82 Participants	1 Participants n=163 Participants
Risk Group Low Risk	54 Participants n=81 Participants	54 Participants n=82 Participants	108 Participants n=163 Participants
Risk Group High Risk	27 Participants n=81 Participants	28 Participants n=82 Participants	55 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 1	3 Participants n=81 Participants	6 Participants n=82 Participants	9 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 2	7 Participants n=81 Participants	5 Participants n=82 Participants	12 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 3	1 Participants n=81 Participants	0 Participants n=82 Participants	1 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 4	4 Participants n=81 Participants	2 Participants n=82 Participants	6 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 5	2 Participants n=81 Participants	8 Participants n=82 Participants	10 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 6	16 Participants n=81 Participants	2 Participants n=82 Participants	18 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 7	7 Participants n=81 Participants	21 Participants n=82 Participants	28 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 8	12 Participants n=81 Participants	2 Participants n=82 Participants	14 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 9	1 Participants n=81 Participants	8 Participants n=82 Participants	9 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 10	3 Participants n=81 Participants	7 Participants n=82 Participants	10 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 11	1 Participants n=81 Participants	4 Participants n=82 Participants	5 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 12	12 Participants n=81 Participants	6 Participants n=82 Participants	18 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 13	5 Participants n=81 Participants	1 Participants n=82 Participants	6 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 14	2 Participants n=81 Participants	3 Participants n=82 Participants	5 Participants n=163 Participants
School Code School 15	5 Participants n=81 Participants	7 Participants n=82 Participants	12 Participants n=163 Participants
Emotion Mindset Scale (Pre-Induction EMS)	3.03 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.96 • n=81 Participants	3.03 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.92 • n=82 Participants	3.03 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.94 • n=163 Participants
Emotion Mindset Scale (Post-Induction EMS)	2.17 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.90 • n=81 Participants	2.76 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.90 • n=82 Participants	2.46 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.95 • n=163 Participants
Emotion Regulation Self-Efficacy (Pre-ESES)	3.53 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.79 • n=80 Participants • One participant did not fully complete this measure.	3.34 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.89 • n=82 Participants • One participant did not fully complete this measure.	3.43 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.84 • n=162 Participants • One participant did not fully complete this measure.
Emotion Regulation Self-Efficacy (Post-ESES)	3.79 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.82 • n=81 Participants	3.40 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.86 • n=82 Participants	3.59 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.86 • n=163 Participants
Tamir pre self-efficacy	2.89 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.62 • n=81 Participants	2.70 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.62 • n=82 Participants	2.79 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.63 • n=163 Participants
Tamir post self-efficacy	3.16 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.67 • n=81 Participants	2.72 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.70 • n=82 Participants	2.94 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.72 • n=163 Participants
Youth Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation Scale (YERD) Proactive Engagement Factor	2.96 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.77 • n=81 Participants	2.70 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.77 • n=82 Participants	2.83 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.78 • n=163 Participants
Youth Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation Scale (YERD) Involuntary Dysregulation Factor	2.44 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.66 • n=81 Participants	2.47 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.75 • n=82 Participants	2.45 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.71 • n=163 Participants
Youth Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation Scale (YERD) Disengagement Factor	3.23 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.65 • n=81 Participants	3.02 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.73 • n=82 Participants	3.13 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.69 • n=163 Participants
Emotion Regulation Strategies (ERS) Proactive engagement factor	3.05 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.01 • n=77 Participants • Six participants refused to complete the Trier Social Stress Test so this measure did not apply to them.	2.71 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.02 • n=80 Participants • Six participants refused to complete the Trier Social Stress Test so this measure did not apply to them.	2.87 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.02 • n=157 Participants • Six participants refused to complete the Trier Social Stress Test so this measure did not apply to them.
Emotion Regulation Strategies (ERS) Involuntary dysregulation factor	2.54 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.01 • n=77 Participants • Six participants refused to complete the Trier Social Stress Test so this measure did not apply to them.	2.75 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.05 • n=80 Participants • Six participants refused to complete the Trier Social Stress Test so this measure did not apply to them.	2.65 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.03 • n=157 Participants • Six participants refused to complete the Trier Social Stress Test so this measure did not apply to them.
Emotion Regulation Strategies (ERS) Cognitive avoidance factor	2.77 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.03 • n=77 Participants • Six participants refused to complete the Trier Social Stress Test so this measure did not apply to them.	2.63 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.00 • n=80 Participants • Six participants refused to complete the Trier Social Stress Test so this measure did not apply to them.	2.70 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.01 • n=157 Participants • Six participants refused to complete the Trier Social Stress Test so this measure did not apply to them.
Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ) Child	1.84 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.68 • n=80 Participants • Two participants did not fully complete this measure.	1.80 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.64 • n=81 Participants • Two participants did not fully complete this measure.	1.82 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.66 • n=161 Participants • Two participants did not fully complete this measure.
Revised Child Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS)	13.62 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.08 • n=81 Participants	13.61 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.24 • n=82 Participants	13.61 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.14 • n=163 Participants
Affect Scale mean Negative Affect pre trier (mt1pretrierneg)	7.21 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.68 • n=81 Participants • Some participants did not fully complete these measures.	7.90 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.57 • n=82 Participants • Some participants did not fully complete these measures.	7.55 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.12 • n=163 Participants • Some participants did not fully complete these measures.
Affect Scale mean Negative Affect post trier (mt1posttrierneg)	15.05 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.83 • n=77 Participants • Some participants did not fully complete these measures.	16.51 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.35 • n=80 Participants • Some participants did not fully complete these measures.	15.78 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.56 • n=157 Participants • Some participants did not fully complete these measures.
Induction Validity Check mean induction validity (mt1validity)	8.01 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.30 • n=81 Participants	7.21 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.57 • n=82 Participants	7.61 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.49 • n=163 Participants
Induction Validity Check Interesting (t1interesting)	7.46 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.79 • n=81 Participants	7.05 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.05 • n=82 Participants	7.25 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.93 • n=163 Participants
Induction Validity Check Informative (t1informative)	8.35 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.61 • n=81 Participants	8.01 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.88 • n=82 Participants	8.18 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.75 • n=163 Participants
Induction Validity Check Persuasive (t1persuasive)	7.20 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.02 • n=81 Participants	5.55 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.54 • n=82 Participants	6.37 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.43 • n=163 Participants
Induction Validity Check Easy to Understand (t1understand)	9.04 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.62 • n=81 Participants	8.22 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.83 • n=82 Participants	8.63 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.77 • n=163 Participants
Induction Validity Check Validity Affect (t1validityaffect)	7.86 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.83 • n=81 Participants	7.23 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.50 • n=82 Participants	7.55 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.70 • n=163 Participants
Social Evaluation (SET) Task Mean Negative Immerse	4.34 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.51 • n=74 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.	4.28 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.63 • n=76 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.	4.31 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.57 • n=150 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.
Social Evaluation (SET) Task Mean Negative Reframe	3.49 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.51 • n=74 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.	3.45 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.67 • n=76 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.	3.48 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.59 • n=150 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.
Social Evaluation (SET) Task Mean Positive Immerse	1.61 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.60 • n=74 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.	1.61 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.58 • n=76 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.	1.61 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.59 • n=150 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.
Social Evaluation (SET) Task Mean Positive Reframe	2.39 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.64 • n=74 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.	2.32 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.60 • n=76 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.	2.36 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.62 • n=150 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.
Social Evaluation (SET) Task Mean Neutral Immerse	2.90 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.33 • n=74 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.	2.87 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.43 • n=76 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.	2.89 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.38 • n=150 Participants • Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.
Socioemotional Go/No-go Task- Reaction Time mean reaction time to correct go positive condition (pos.correctgoRT)	427.89 Reaction time in milliseconds STANDARD_DEVIATION 38.25 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	433.44 Reaction time in milliseconds STANDARD_DEVIATION 28.81 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	430.66 Reaction time in milliseconds STANDARD_DEVIATION 33.86 • n=150 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.
Socioemotional Go/No-go Task- Reaction Time mean reaction time to correct go negative condition (neg.correctgoRT)	424.19 Reaction time in milliseconds STANDARD_DEVIATION 36.18 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	431.78 Reaction time in milliseconds STANDARD_DEVIATION 31.89 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	427.98 Reaction time in milliseconds STANDARD_DEVIATION 34.20 • n=150 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.
Socioemotional Go/No-go Task- Reaction Time mean reaction time to correct go neutral condition (neu.correctgoRT)	430.37 Reaction time in milliseconds STANDARD_DEVIATION 33.42 • n=74 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	434.35 Reaction time in milliseconds STANDARD_DEVIATION 37.70 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	432.37 Reaction time in milliseconds STANDARD_DEVIATION 30.63 • n=149 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.
Socioemotional Go/No-go Task- Accuracy Positive accuracy	0.63 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.10 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	0.60 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.12 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	0.62 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.11 • n=150 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.
Socioemotional Go/No-go Task- Accuracy negative accuracy	0.64 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.10 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	0.62 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.12 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	0.63 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.11 • n=150 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.
Socioemotional Go/No-go Task- Accuracy neutral accuracy	0.65 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.11 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	0.63 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.13 • n=75 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.	0.64 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.12 • n=150 Participants • Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Pre vs. Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Participants completed a six-item fixed emotion mindset measure (EMS-fixed) measure, prior to (pre-induction EMS) and following the induction lessons (post-induction EMS). Items were drawn from the Implicit Theories of Emotion Scale (Tamir et al., 2007) and the Emotion Mindset Scale (EMS; Livingstone, 2013). Participants rated each item on a 6-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 =Strongly Agree). Means were computed for these items, with higher scores representing a higher fixed emotion mindset mindset. For this analysis, we compared mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control). Minimum=1 Maximum=6 High= more fixed emotion mindset, worse outcome

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=81 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=82 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Pre to Post Mindset Manipulation on Emotion Mindset Scale (Measures Beliefs About Whether Emotions Are Fixed or Malleable) pre-induction EMS	3.03 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.96	3.03 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.92
Mean Change From Pre to Post Mindset Manipulation on Emotion Mindset Scale (Measures Beliefs About Whether Emotions Are Fixed or Malleable) post-induction EMS	2.17 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.90	2.76 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.90

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Pre vs. Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Participants completed a measure assessing their perceived ability to manage emotions prior to and following the induction. Items were derived from the using and managing your own emotions subscale of the Youth-Emotional Self-efficacy Scale (5 items; Qualter et al., 2015). Participants rated the items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Disagree Strongly to 5 = Agree Strongly). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores indicating greater emotion regulation self-efficacy. Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) Minimum=1 Maximum=5 High=better outcome

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=80 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=82 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Pre to Post Mindset Manipulation on Emotional Self-efficacy Scale (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions) pre-Emotional Self-efficacy	3.53 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.79	3.34 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.89
Mean Change From Pre to Post Mindset Manipulation on Emotional Self-efficacy Scale (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions) post-Emotional Self-efficacy	3.79 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.82	3.40 score on a scale Standard Deviation .86

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Pre vs. Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

To assess emotion regulation self-efficacy participants completed a self-efficacy measure adapted from Tamir and colleagues (2007). Prior to and following the induction, participants were asked to rate 12 emotion-eliciting events drawn from daily life. Three scenarios were adapted from the Tamir self-efficacy measure (Tamir et al. 2007. Participants rated how confident they were in their ability to control their emotions in each scenario on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores reflecting greater self-efficacy. Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) Minimum=1 Maximum=5 High=better outcome

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=81 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=82 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Pre to Post Mindset Manipulation on Emotional Self-efficacy Vignettes (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions in Specific Situations) pre-induction Emotional Self-Efficacy	2.89 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.62	2.70 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.62
Mean Change From Pre to Post Mindset Manipulation on Emotional Self-efficacy Vignettes (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions in Specific Situations) post-induction Emotional Self-Efficacy	3.16 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.67	2.72 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.70

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Population: 1 participant's data could not be used in the growth mindset condition in analyses. The means reported here for the growth mindset condition are slightly different than the means reported at baseline because here we are reporting the means of the participants analyzed, which does not include the one participant who's data could not be used.

The socioemotional Go/No-go presents participants with a socially appetitive image, socially aversive image, or neutral image. After the image, a white box with a black letter was superimposed on the image for 500 ms. Participants were instructed to respond as quickly as possible to every letter. Responses during these 500 ms were used for analysis. Mean reaction times (RT) in milliseconds to positive stimuli (pos.correctgoRT), negative stimuli (neg.correctgoRT) and neutral stimuli (neu.correctgoRT) were calculated, with higher numbers indicating slower RT.

Will compare mean performance as reflected in reaction time across the two conditions (mindset and control)

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=74 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=75 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Performance on Go/Nogo Task- Reaction Time positive correct_go reaction time	427.40 Reaction time in milliseconds Standard Deviation 38.28	433.44 Reaction time in milliseconds Standard Deviation 28.81
Mean Difference in Performance on Go/Nogo Task- Reaction Time negative correct_go reaction time	423.37 Reaction time in milliseconds Standard Deviation 35.72	431.78 Reaction time in milliseconds Standard Deviation 31.89
Mean Difference in Performance on Go/Nogo Task- Reaction Time neutral correct_go reaction time	430.37 Reaction time in milliseconds Standard Deviation 33.42	434.35 Reaction time in milliseconds Standard Deviation 37.70

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

The socioemotional Go/No-go presents participants with a socially appetitive image, socially aversive image, or neutral image. After, a letter was superimposed on the image. Participants were instructed to respond to every letter except for 'X'. Participants completed 4 blocks of each condition. Accurate responses to the letters after the socially appetitive images (positive accuracy), socially aversive image (negative accuracy) and neutral image (neutral accuracy) were indicated (0-1 scale). Mean scores across the four blocks were calculated, with higher scores indicating more accuracy. Will compare mean performance as reflected in accuracy across the two conditions (mindset and control)

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=75 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=75 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Performance on Go/Nogo Task- Accuracy positive accuracy	0.63 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.10	0.60 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.12
Mean Difference in Performance on Go/Nogo Task- Accuracy negative accuracy	0.64 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.10	0.62 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.12
Mean Difference in Performance on Go/Nogo Task- Accuracy neutral accuracy	0.65 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.11	0.63 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.13

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Participants completed a measure to assess the emotion regulation strategies (ERS) they used during the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST). Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much). Factor analyses yielded three emotion regulation strategies factors- involuntary dysregulation, proactive engagement, and cognitive avoidance. Scores were computed as the mean of the items on each factor (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of each type of response. In analyses, we compare mean scores for each of these factors across the two conditions (mindset and control). Higher scores on proactive engagement are considered adaptive and higher scores on involuntary dysregulation and cognitive avoidance are considered maladaptive.

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=80 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=77 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Emotion Regulation Strategies on the Emotion Regulation Strategy Scale involuntary dysregulation	2.54 units on a scale Standard Deviation 1.01	2.75 units on a scale Standard Deviation 1.05
Mean Difference in Emotion Regulation Strategies on the Emotion Regulation Strategy Scale proactive engagement	3.05 units on a scale Standard Deviation 1.01	2.71 units on a scale Standard Deviation 1.02
Mean Difference in Emotion Regulation Strategies on the Emotion Regulation Strategy Scale cognitive avoidance	2.77 units on a scale Standard Deviation 1.03	2.63 units on a scale Standard Deviation 1.00

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Population: Some participants declined participation in these tasks and other data was lost due to technological error.

The Social Evaluation Task (SET) examines emotion reactivity and regulation with social stimuli. Stimuli consisted of video clips with actors expressing criticism (negative condition), praise (positive condition) or neutral statements (neutral condition). Participants were asked to imagine the person was either an actor practicing lines (reframe condition), or a close friend (immerse condition). Participants were subsequently asked to rate how they felt on a 5 item Likert scale from "Very Good" to "Very Bad". To reduce the influence of carryover effects across blocks, participants also engaged in a counting task at the conclusion of each block. We conducted ROI analyses of bilateral amygdalae to compare activation patterns during relevant trials of the Social Evaluation Task (negative immerse > neutral immerse) across experimental conditions (mindset vs control).

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=76 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Amygdala Activation- Social Evaluation Task	0.04 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.23	-0.01 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.31

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Population: Some participants declined participation in these tasks and other data was lost due to technological error.

The Socioemotional Go/No-go Task examines inhibitory control in the presence of socioemotional distractors. Participants were presented with a socially aversive image, or neutral image for 300ms. After the image, a white box with a black letter was superimposed on the image for 500 ms. Participants were instructed to respond quickly to every letter except an infrequent nontarget letter. We conducted ROI analyses of bilateral amygdalae to compare activation patterns of emotion reactivity during relevant trials of the Socioemotional Go/No-go Task (negative > neutral) across experimental conditions (mindset vs control).

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=75 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Amygdala Activation- Go/No-go Task	0.49 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.45	0.49 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.54

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

The Social Evaluation Task (SET) examines emotion reactivity and regulation with social stimuli. Stimuli consisted of video clips with actors expressing criticism (negative condition), praise (positive condition) or neutral statements (neutral condition). Participants were asked to imagine the person was either an actor practicing lines (reframe condition), or a close friend (immerse condition). Participants were subsequently asked to rate how they felt on a 5 item Likert scale from "Very Good" to "Very Bad". To reduce the influence of carryover effects across blocks, participants also engaged in a counting task at the conclusion of each block. Psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis was conducted in SPM12 to examine task-dependent changes in connectivity between amygdalae and frontoparietal network (FPN) during relevant trials (negative reframe > negative immerse) across experimental conditions (mindset vs control).

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=76 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Frontal Parietal Network-Amygdala Connectivity- Social Evaluation Task	0.01 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.41	-0.01 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.33

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

The Socioemotional Go/No-go Task examines inhibitory control in the presence of socioemotional distractors. Participants were presented with a socially aversive image, or neutral image for 300ms. After the image, a white box with a black letter was superimposed on the image for 500 ms. Participants were instructed to respond quickly to every letter except an infrequent nontarget letter. Psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis was conducted in SPM12 to examine task-dependent changes in connectivity between amygdalae and frontoparietal network (FPN) during relevant trials of the Socioemotional Go/No-go Task (negative > neutral) across experimental conditions (mindset vs control).

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=76 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Frontal Parietal Network-Amygdala Connectivity- Go/No-go Task	-0.17 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.61	0.01 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.48

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Pre-Trier vs. Post-Trier: baseline

Population: Six participants declined participation on this task.

Before (Pre-trier negative affect) and after (Post-trier negative affect) completing the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) at baseline, participants completed ratings of negative emotions (10 items), modified from another affect measure (Owens et al., 2019), to test the efficacy of the TSST. Participants rated their emotions on a 100-point scale (0 = Not at All to 100 = Extremely) to indicate the extent they were feeling a negative emotion at that particular moment. Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of negative emotions. In this analysis, we compared mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control).

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=77 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=80 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change on Self-Reported State Negative Affect Pre-trier negative affect	6.93 score on a scale Standard Deviation 9.66	8.00 score on a scale Standard Deviation 8.63
Mean Change on Self-Reported State Negative Affect Post-trier negative affect	15.05 score on a scale Standard Deviation 14.83	16.51 score on a scale Standard Deviation 14.35

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

The Social Evaluation Task examines emotion reactivity and regulation in the context of social stimuli. Stimuli consisted of video clips with actors expressing criticism (negative immerse or reframe), praise (positive immerse or reframe), or neutral statements (neutral immerse). In immerse trials, participants imagined that the person was a close friend. During the reframe trials, participants imagined that the person was an actor. After each trial, participants rated how they felt from 1 (Very Good) to 5 (Very Bad). Means of each condition were computed with higher scores indicating more negative emotions. In this analysis, we compared mean difference between criticism and praise vs. neutral trials across the two conditions (mindset and control) for the Social Evaluation Task

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=74 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=76 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference on Self-Reported Affect on Social Evaluation Task negative immerse	4.34 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.51	4.28 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.63
Mean Difference on Self-Reported Affect on Social Evaluation Task positive immerse	1.61 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.60	1.61 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.58
Mean Difference on Self-Reported Affect on Social Evaluation Task negative reframe	3.49 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.51	3.45 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.67
Mean Difference on Self-Reported Affect on Social Evaluation Task positive reframe	2.39 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.64	2.32 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.60
Mean Difference on Self-Reported Affect on Social Evaluation Task neutral immerse	2.90 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.33	2.87 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.43

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 2 months

Participants completed a six-item fixed emotion mindset measure (EMS-fixed) measure, prior to (pre-induction EMS) the induction lessons and again at at 2-month follow-up. Items were drawn from the Implicit Theories of Emotion Scale (Tamir et al., 2007) and the Emotion Mindset Scale (EMS; Livingstone, 2013). Participants rated each item on a 6-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 =Strongly Agree). Means were computed for these items, with higher scores representing a higher fixed emotion mindset mindset. Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) Minimum=1 Maximum=6 High=better outcome

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=81 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=82 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Emotion Mindset Scale Scores pre-induction child fixed emotion mindset	3.03 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.96	3.03 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.92
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Emotion Mindset Scale Scores post-induction child fixed emotion mindset (2months)	2.74 score on a scale Standard Deviation 1.00	3.17 score on a scale Standard Deviation 1.01

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 4 months

Participants completed a six-item fixed emotion mindset measure (EMS-fixed) measure, prior to (pre-induction EMS) the induction lessons and again at at 4-month follow-up. Items were drawn from the Implicit Theories of Emotion Scale (Tamir et al., 2007) and the Emotion Mindset Scale (EMS; Livingstone, 2013). Participants rated each item on a 6-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 =Strongly Agree). Means were computed for these items, with higher scores representing a higher fixed emotion mindset mindset. Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) Minimum=1 Maximum=6 High=better outcome

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=81 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=82 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Emotion Mindset Scores pre-induction child fixed emotion mindset	3.03 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.96	3.03 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.92
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Emotion Mindset Scores post-induction child fixed emotion mindset (4months)	2.80 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.98	3.11 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.92

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 2 months

Population: Because only 69 participants in the growth mindset condition and 66 participants in the brain education completed the follow-up at 2-months, these analyses included only the same 69 and 66 participants who also completed the measure at baseline. Thus, the sample at baseline for pre-induction emotional self-efficacy is smaller in these analyses and the mean is different for baseline than it was initially at baseline because it includes a smaller portion of the sample.

Participants completed a measure assessing their perceived ability to manage emotions prior to the induction and again at a 2-month follow-up. Items were derived from the using and managing your own emotions subscale of the Youth-Emotional Self-efficacy Scale (5 items; Qualter et al., 2015). Participants rated the items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Disagree Strongly to 5 = Agree Strongly). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores indicating greater emotion regulation self-efficacy. Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) Minimum=1 Maximum=5 High=better outcome.

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=69 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=66 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Scale Scores (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions) pre-induction emotional self-efficacy	3.64 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.68	3.38 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.93
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Scale Scores (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions) post-induction emotional self-efficacy (2months)	3.55 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.76	3.40 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.93

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 4 months

Population: Because only 70 participants in the growth mindset condition and 70 participants in the brain education completed the follow-up at 4-months, the number analyzed includes only the same 70 and 70 participants who also completed the measure at baseline. Thus, the sample at baseline for pre-induction emotional self-efficacy is smaller in these analyses and the mean is different for baseline than it was initially at baseline because it includes a smaller portion of the sample.

Participants completed a measure assessing their perceived ability to manage emotions prior to the induction and again at a 4-month follow-up. Items were derived from the using and managing your own emotions subscale of the Youth-Emotional Self-efficacy Scale (5 items; Qualter et al., 2015). Participants rated the items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Disagree Strongly to 5 = Agree Strongly). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores indicating greater emotion regulation self-efficacy. Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) Minimum=1 Maximum=5 High=better outcome.

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=70 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=70 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Scale Scores (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions) pre-induction emotional self-efficacy	3.64 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.67	3.37 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.91
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Scale Scores (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions) post-induction emotional self-efficacy (4months)	3.63 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.69	3.39 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.94

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 2 months

Population: Because only 69 participants in the growth mindset condition and 66 participants in the brain education completed the follow-up at 2-months, the number analyzed includes only the same 69 and 66 participants who also completed the measure at baseline. Thus, the sample at baseline for pre-induction emotional self-efficacy vignettes is smaller in these analyses and the mean is different for baseline than it was initially at baseline because it includes a smaller portion of the sample.

To assess emotion regulation self-efficacy participants completed a self-efficacy measure adapted from Tamir and colleagues (2007). Prior to the induction and again. at a 2-month follow-up, participants were asked to rate 12 emotion-eliciting events drawn from daily life. Three scenarios were adapted from the Tamir self-efficacy measure (Tamir et al. 2007. Participants rated how confident they were in their ability to control their emotions in each scenario on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores reflecting greater self-efficacy.Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) Minimum=1 Maximum=5 High=better outcome

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=69 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=66 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Vignettes Scores pre-induction emotional self-efficacy vignette score	2.95 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.61	2.70 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.65
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Vignettes Scores post-induction emotional self-efficacy vignette score (2months)	2.93 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.69	2.69 units on a scale Standard Deviation 0.66

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 4 months

Population: Because only 69 participants in the growth mindset condition and 69 participants in the brain education completed the follow-up at 4-months, the number analyzed includes only the same 70 and 70 participants who also completed the measure at baseline. Thus, the sample at baseline for pre-induction emotional self-efficacy vignettes is smaller in these analyses and the mean is different for baseline than it was initially at baseline because it includes a smaller portion of the sample.

To assess emotion regulation self-efficacy participants completed a self-efficacy measure adapted from Tamir and colleagues (2007). Prior to the induction and again at a 4-month follow-up, participants were asked to rate 12 emotion-eliciting events drawn from daily life. Three scenarios were adapted from the Tamir self-efficacy measure (Tamir et al. 2007. Participants rated how confident they were in their ability to control their emotions in each scenario on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores reflecting greater self-efficacy.Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) Minimum=1 Maximum=5 High=better outcome

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=69 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=70 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Vignettes Scores pre-induction emotional self-efficacy vignettes score	2.95 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.59	2.71 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.62
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Vignettes Scores post-induction emotional self-efficacy vignettes score (4months)	3.19 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.68	2.74 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.60

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 2 months

Population: Some participants did not complete all of the items and thus their emotion regulation strategies factors could not be calculated. Because only 72-73 participants in the growth mindset condition and 70-71 participants in the brain education completed the follow-up at 2-months (some participants filled out half the measure), the number analyzed includes only the same 72-73 and 70-71 participants who also completed the measure at baseline.

To assess emotion (dys)regulation, participants completed a novel 44-item emotion regulation measure at baseline and again at a 2-month follow-up. Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much). Factor analyses yielded three emotion regulation strategies factors- proactive engagement, involuntary dysregulation, and disengagement. Scores were computed as the mean of the items on each factor (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of type of response. Higher scores on proactive engagement are considered adaptive and higher scores on involuntary dysregulation are maladaptive.

Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control)

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=73 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=71 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Pre-induction ERD proactive engagement	2.97 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.80	2.69 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.78
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Post-induction ERD proactive engagement (2Months)	3.07 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.74	2.85 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.75
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Pre-induction ERD involuntary dysregulation	2.40 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.63	2.45 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.77
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Post-induction ERD involuntary dysregulation (2months)	2.44 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.68	2.68 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.79
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Pre-induction ERD disengagement	3.28 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.62	3.05 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.73
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Post-induction ERD disengagement (2months)	3.30 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.66	3.17 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.68

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 4 months

Population: Some participants did not complete all of the items and thus their emotion regulation strategies factors could not be calculated. Because only 71-72 participants in the growth mindset condition (some participants filled out half the measure) and 74 participants in the brain education completed the follow-up at 4-months, the number analyzed includes only the same 71-72 and 74 participants who also completed the measure at baseline.

To assess emotion (dys)regulation, participants completed a novel 44-item emotion regulation measure at baseline and again at a 4-month follow-up. Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much). Factor analyses yielded three emotion regulation strategies factors- proactive engagement, involuntary dysregulation, and disengagement. Scores were computed as the mean of the items on each factor (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of type of response. Higher scores on proactive engagement are considered adaptive and higher scores on involuntary dysregulation are maladaptive.

Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control)

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=74 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Pre-induction ERD proactive engagement	2.96 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.79	2.73 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.78
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Post-induction ERD proactive engagement (4months)	3.12 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.72	2.78 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.74
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Pre-induction ERD involuntary dysregulation	2.42 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.64	2.49 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.78
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Post-induction ERD involuntary dysregulation (4months)	2.47 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.79	2.64 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.83
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Pre-induction ERD disengagement	3.23 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.68	2.99 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.71
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores Post-induction ERD disengagement (4months)	3.28 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.66	3.15 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.75

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Population: Some participants declined participation in these tasks and other data was lost due to technological error.

The Social Evaluation Task (SET) examines emotion reactivity and regulation with social stimuli. Stimuli consisted of video clips with actors expressing criticism (negative condition), praise (positive condition) or neutral statements (neutral condition). Participants were asked to imagine the person was either an actor practicing lines (reframe condition), or a close friend (immerse condition). Participants were subsequently asked to rate how they felt on a 5 item Likert scale from "Very Good" to "Very Bad". To reduce the influence of carryover effects across blocks, participants also engaged in a counting task at the conclusion of each block. We conducted ROI analyses of the cingulo-opercular network (CON) to compare activation patterns of emotion reactivity during relevant trials (negative reframe > negative immerse) across experimental conditions (mindset vs control).

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=76 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Cingulo-Opercular Network Activation- Social Evaluation Task	-0.07 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.41	-0.02 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.37

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Population: Some participants declined participation in these tasks and other data was lost due to technological error.

The Socioemotional Go/No-go Task examines inhibitory control in the presence of socioemotional distractors. Participants were presented with a socially aversive image, or neutral image for 300ms. After the image, a white box with a black letter was superimposed on the image for 500 ms. Participants were instructed to respond quickly to every letter except an infrequent nontarget letter. We conducted ROI analyses of the cingulo-opercular network (CON) to compare activation patterns during relevant trials of the Socioemotional Go/No-go Task (negative > neutral) across experimental conditions (mindset vs control).

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=75 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Cingulo-Opercular Network Activation- Go/No go Task	-0.11 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.62	-0.02 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.68

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Population: Some participants declined participation in these tasks and other data was lost due to technological error.

We conducted ROI analyses of the cingulo-opercular network (CON) to explore difference in mean intrinsic neural activity across experimental conditions (mindset vs control). Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. 12 ROI masks were generated from the CON network of a modified Schaefer atlas.

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=70 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=74 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Cingulo-Opercular Network Activation- Resting State	-0.0000003502 BOLD signal change Standard Error 0.00002200	0.000003274 BOLD signal change Standard Error 0.00001911

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Population: Some participants declined participation in these tasks and other data was lost due to technological error.

The Social Evaluation Task (SET) examines emotion reactivity and regulation with social stimuli. Stimuli consisted of video clips with actors expressing criticism (negative condition), praise (positive condition) or neutral statements (neutral condition). Participants were asked to imagine the person was either an actor practicing lines (reframe condition), or a close friend (immerse condition). Participants were subsequently asked to rate how they felt on a 5 item Likert scale from "Very Good" to "Very Bad". To reduce the influence of carryover effects across blocks, participants also engaged in a counting task at the conclusion of each block. Psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis was conducted in SPM12 to examine task-dependent changes in connectivity between amygdalae and cingulo-opercular network (CON) during relevant trials (negative reframe > negative immerse) across experimental conditions (mindset vs control).

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=76 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal Cingulo-Opercular Network-Amygdala Connectivity- Social Evaluation Task	-0.005 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.40	0.004 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.34

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Population: Some participants declined participation in these tasks and other data was lost due to technological error.

The Socioemotional Go/No-go Task examines inhibitory control in the presence of socioemotional distractors. Participants were presented with a socially aversive image, or neutral image for 300ms. After the image, a white box with a black letter was superimposed on the image for 500 ms. Participants were instructed to respond quickly to every letter except an infrequent nontarget letter. Psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis was conducted in SPM12 to examine task-dependent changes in connectivity between amygdalae and cingulo-opercular network (CON) during relevant trials (negative > neutral) across experimental conditions (mindset vs control).

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=76 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Cingulo-Opercular Network-Amygdala Connectivity- Go/no go Task	-0.12 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.60	0.03 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.49

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Population: Some participants declined participation in these tasks and other data was lost due to technological error.

Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. We conducted connectivity analysis between the cingulo-opercular network (CON) and bilateral amygdala to explore difference in mean intrinsic CON-amygdala neural connectivity across experimental conditions (mindset vs control). 12 ROI masks were generated from the CON network of a modified Schaefer atlas. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas.

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=70 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=74 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal Cingulo-Opercular Network-Amygdala Connectivity- Resting State	0.20 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.12	0.20 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.10

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline

Population: Some participants declined participation in these tasks and other data was lost due to technological error.

The Social Evaluation Task (SET) examines emotion reactivity and regulation with social stimuli. Stimuli consisted of video clips with actors expressing criticism (negative condition), praise (positive condition) or neutral statements (neutral condition). Participants were asked to imagine the person was either an actor practicing lines (reframe condition), or a close friend (immerse condition). Participants were subsequently asked to rate how they felt on a 5 item Likert scale from "Very Good" to "Very Bad". To reduce the influence of carryover effects across blocks, participants also engaged in a counting task at the conclusion of each block. We conducted exploratory whole-brain voxelwise analyses in SPM12 to compare activation patterns during relevant trials of the Social Evaluation Task (negative immerse > neutral immerse and negative reframe > negative immerse) across experimental conditions (mindset > control).

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=76 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Group Differences in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Whole-Brain Analyses- Social Evaluation Task Anterior Cingulate/Medial Frontal Gyrus	0.37167 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.49233	0.01202 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.51865
Group Differences in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Whole-Brain Analyses- Social Evaluation Task Middle Frontal Gyrus (Left)	0.17254 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.30488	-0.07882 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.33388
Group Differences in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Whole-Brain Analyses- Social Evaluation Task Posterior Cingulate/Cingulate	0.16448 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.37390	-0.09570 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.45070
Group Differences in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Whole-Brain Analyses- Social Evaluation Task Middle Temporal Gyrus (Left)	0.08163 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.54079	-0.33910 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.60712
Group Differences in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Whole-Brain Analyses- Social Evaluation Task Middle Frontal Gyrus (Right)	0.13315 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.35573	-0.13705 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.39000
Group Differences in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Whole-Brain Analyses- Social Evaluation Task Superior/Middle Temporal Gyrus (Right)	0.29583 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.49264	-0.06817 BOLD signal change Standard Deviation 0.56753

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 2 months

Population: Because only 71 participants in the growth mindset condition and 70 participants in the brain education completed the follow-up at 2-months, the number analyzed includes only the same 71 and 70 participants who completed the measure at baseline and follow-up. The number of participants and means are different at baseline because these include a smaller set of the sample than initially at baseline.

Participants completed the short form of the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ; Angold et al., 1995) to assess depressive symptoms (13 items) at baseline and again at a 2-month follow-up. The original version was modified (Liang & Eley, 2005) to provide a 4-point response format (1 = Not at All, 2 = A Little Bit, 3 = Pretty Much, 4 = Very Much). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of depressive symptoms.

Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) at baseline and the two month follow-up.

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=71 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=70 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Depressive Symptoms Scores Baseline depression (SMFQ)	1.81 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.69	1.84 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.67
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Depressive Symptoms Scores Follow-up depression (SMFQ; 2months)	1.91 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.74	2.00 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.74

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 4 months

Population: Because only 71 participants in the growth mindset condition and 72 participants in the brain education completed the follow-up at 4-months, the number analyzed includes only the same 71 and 72 participants who completed the measure at baseline and follow-up. The number of participants and means are different at baseline because these include a smaller set of the sample than initially at baseline.

Participants completed the short form of the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ; Angold et al., 1995) to assess depressive symptoms (13 items) at baseline and again at a 4-month follow-up. The original version was modified (Liang & Eley, 2005) to provide a 4-point response format (1 = Not at All, 2 = A Little Bit, 3 = Pretty Much, 4 = Very Much). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of depressive symptoms.

Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control) at baseline and the four-month follow-up.

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=71 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=72 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Depressive Symptoms Scores Baseline depression (SMFQ)	1.81 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.68	1.82 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.67
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Depressive Symptoms Scores Follow-up depression (SMFQ; 4months)	1.94 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.72	2.05 score on a scale Standard Deviation 0.82

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 2 months

Population: Because only 72 participants in the growth mindset condition and 69 participants in the brain education completed the follow-up at 2-months, the number analyzed includes only the same 72 and 69 participants who completed the measure at baseline and follow-up. The number of participants and means are different at baseline because these include a smaller set of the sample than initially at baseline.

Participants completed the Revised Child Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1985) at baseline and again at a 2-month follow-up. The RCMAS includes 28 items assessing anxiety symptoms (e.g., "I often worry about something bad happening to me.") rated on a dichotomous scale (0 = No, 1 = Yes). Total anxiety scores were created by taking the sum of the items, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of anxiety. The RCMAS shows strong internal consistency (Reynolds & Richmond, 1978) and test-retest reliability (Wisniewski et al., 1987). Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control)

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=72 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=69 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Anxiety Symptoms Scores Baseline anxiety (RCMAS)	13.04 score on a scale Standard Deviation 5.98	13.98 score on a scale Standard Deviation 6.37
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Anxiety Symptoms Scores Follow-up anxiety (RCMAS; 2months)	13.60 score on a scale Standard Deviation 7.17	15.21 score on a scale Standard Deviation 7.55

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: At baseline and in approximately 4 months

Population: Because only 70 participants in the growth mindset condition and 73 participants in the brain education completed the follow-up at 4-months, the number analyzed includes only the same 70 and 73 participants who completed the measure at baseline and follow-up. The number of participants and means are different at baseline because these include a smaller set of the sample than initially at baseline.

Participants completed the Revised Child Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1985) at baseline and again at a 4-month follow-up. The RCMAS includes 28 items assessing anxiety symptoms (e.g., "I often worry about something bad happening to me.") rated on a dichotomous scale (0 = No, 1 = Yes). Total anxiety scores were created by taking the sum of the items, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of anxiety. The RCMAS shows strong internal consistency (Reynolds & Richmond, 1978) and test-retest reliability (Wisniewski et al., 1987). Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control). Will compare mean change scores across the two conditions (mindset and control)

Outcome measures

Measure	Growth Mindset n=70 Participants Persuasive education about emotions, brain development, and teenagers' ability to learn how to manage emotions Growth Mindset: Growth emotion mindset induction	Brain Education n=73 Participants Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain Brain Education: Brain education
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Anxiety Symptoms Scores Baseline anxiety (RCMAS)	13.50 score on a scale Standard Deviation 6.09	13.60 score on a scale Standard Deviation 6.30
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Anxiety Symptoms Scores Follow-up anxiety (RCMAS; 4months)	13.53 score on a scale Standard Deviation 7.36	13.92 score on a scale Standard Deviation 7.03

Adverse Events

Growth Mindset

Serious events: 0 serious events

Other events: 0 other events

Deaths: 0 deaths

Brain Education

Serious events: 0 serious events

Other events: 0 other events

Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Dr. Karen Rudolph

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Phone: 217-333-8624

Email: krudolph@illinois.edu

Results disclosure agreements

• Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
• Publication restrictions are in place