The guiding scientific premise for this research is that a growth emotion mindset will promote more adaptive emotion processing than a fixed emotion mindset. Because emotional sensitivity is particularly salient in adolescent girls, we will focus on this group. Using an experimental design, adolescent girls will be randomly assigned to either a mindset manipulation or a control group (brain education). Each group will complete a 25-minute computer-based lesson followed by a social stressor and a functional magnetic resonance imaging session. Two specific aims will be addressed: (1) to determine whether a growth mindset induction, relative to a control condition, predicts more adaptive emotion processing at the neural, behavioral, and psychological levels of processing; and (2) to determine whether neural processing of emotion accounts for the effect of a growth emotion mindset manipulation on behavioral and psychological processing of emotion. This study builds on a strong empirical database establishing the effect of mindsets on multiple domains of functioning but will be the first to examine the implications of a growth vs. fixed mindset about emotion for emotion processing in adolescent girls, thereby elucidating one specific youth attribute that can support or disrupt emotional development.
150 adolescent girls will complete baseline measures and then be randomly assigned to one of two conditions and will complete a computer-based lesson (see below). Girls will then engage in a social stressor outside of the scanner as well as an emotional challenge and cognitive control task in the scanner and will complete post-scan measures. Two and four months after the scan session they will complete additional survey measures. Experimental condition: The (Growth Emotion Mindset) GEM manipulation, involves 6 components: (1) Introduction: discussion of emotional experiences in teenagers; (2) Explanation of neuroplasticity, emphasizing the potential for changes in the brain and modification of emotions during adolescence; (3) Scientific evidence for the effect of emotion regulation training on mood improvement; (4) Brief factual quizzes and written summary of key points; (5) Scenarios in which older youth describe challenging situations when they used growth mindsets to help regulate negative emotions; and (6) Self-persuasion exercise: a. Girls read a hypothetical scenario about an emotional challenge and describe their likely thoughts and feelings; b. Girls imagine the same event happening to another (younger) teen and help them understand how they can change, integrating what they learned about malleability of the brain and emotion. Control condition: The control condition involves a structurally similar session, with the same number and type of reading and writing activities, that focuses on general education about the brain. Social stressor. Using an adapted version of the Trier Social Stressor Test, girls will prepare a speech in which they convince a group of peers (who ostensibly will watch a video of the speech; in reality, there are no peers) that they should be selected for a fictional television show about teens' ability to form friendships. Girls face a computer screen displaying their image while preparing and presenting a speech. At intervals of 20 seconds, a female evaluator will mark a clipboard. Before and after the Trier, girls will rate several dimensions of state negative affect. After the Trier, girls will rate their use of in vivo emotion regulation strategies. Girls will then undergo scanner training and watch a neutral video during an anatomical scan. Emotional challenge (Social Evaluation Task). Girls will watch validated videos created for functional magnetic resonance imaging, which depict females making one of three types of statements with matching affective expression: negative social-evaluative, positive social-evaluative, or neutral. Before each video, girls will receive a prompt instructing them to imagine how they would feel if the female were a friend and if the statement was directed either toward the participant (immerse), or toward a stranger (reframe). After the cue, there will be a pause, presentation of the video, and another pause. After each trial, the participant will rate how bad they feel on a 5-point scale. Resting state. Following the emotional challenge, girls will remain still and fixate on a central cross. Greater ability to flexibly engage and disengage emotion regulation in response to changing external challenges (imposed by negative, positive, and neutral videos) is expected to be reflected in the functional connectome for minutes beyond the emotional challenge task, resulting in more within-network connectivity in cognitive control networks as well as increased connectivity with emotion regions in girls engaged in proactive emotion regulation. Emotional go-nogo. This task combines a cognitive control task (go-nogo) with emotion distractors depicting negative (social rejection), positive (social acceptance), or neutral (scrambled) images taken from a validated set of stimuli. Letters are presented sequentially in a small box at the center of the screen, with emotion distractors in the background. The distractors are presented alone , prior to presentation of the letter, to make it difficult to ignore the emotional content. Girls are instructed to ignore the images and respond as quickly as possible without sacrificing accuracy with a button press to every letter (go trials), except for Xs (no-go; 25 percent of trials). Girls acquire a prepotent tendency to press and must inhibit their responses during X trials. Edited June 2020: Anticipated 75% and 100% enrollment dates as well as primary and final study completion dates and primary endpoint analyses and reporting of results were changed due to recruitment and data collection obstacles posed by the coronavirus pandemic. The new dates were estimated based on the assumption that some recruitment and data collection will resume in the fall of 2020. If this is not possible or if families are reluctant to complete sessions, completion dates may need to be changed again at a later date. Edited November 2021: Although the 75% enrollment was reached, anticipated 100% enrollment date as well as primary and final study completion dates and primary endpoint analyses and reporting of results were changed due to ongoing recruitment and data collection obstacles posed by the coronavirus pandemic. Although a small amount of recruitment and data collection resumed fall of 2020-fall of 2021, obstacles still remain due to school and family reluctance to participate in research.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
163
Growth emotion mindset induction
Brain education
University of Illinois
Champaign, Illinois, United States
Mean Change From Pre to Post Mindset Manipulation on Emotion Mindset Scale (Measures Beliefs About Whether Emotions Are Fixed or Malleable)
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
Time frame: Pre vs. Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Change From Pre to Post Mindset Manipulation on Emotional Self-efficacy Scale (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions)
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
Time frame: Pre vs. Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Change From Pre to Post Mindset Manipulation on Emotional Self-efficacy Vignettes (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions in Specific Situations)
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
Time frame: Pre vs. Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Difference in Performance on Go/Nogo Task- Reaction Time
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)
Time frame: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Difference in Performance on Go/Nogo Task- Accuracy
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)
Time frame: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Difference in Emotion Regulation Strategies on the Emotion Regulation Strategy Scale
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.
Time frame: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Amygdala Activation- Social Evaluation Task
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).
Time frame: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Amygdala Activation- Go/No-go Task
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).
Time frame: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Frontal Parietal Network-Amygdala Connectivity- Social Evaluation Task
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).
Time frame: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Difference in Parameter Estimates of BOLD Signal for Frontal Parietal Network-Amygdala Connectivity- Go/No-go Task
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).
Time frame: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Change on Self-Reported State Negative Affect
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).
Time frame: Pre-Trier vs. Post-Trier: baseline
Mean Difference on Self-Reported Affect on Social Evaluation Task
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
Time frame: Post Mindset Manipulation: baseline
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Emotion Mindset Scale Scores
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
Time frame: At baseline and in approximately 2 months
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Emotion Mindset Scores
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
Time frame: At baseline and in approximately 4 months
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Scale Scores (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions)
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.
Time frame: At baseline and in approximately 2 months
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Scale Scores (Measure Beliefs About Ability to Control Emotions)
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
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.
Time frame: At baseline and in approximately 4 months
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Vignettes Scores
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
Time frame: At baseline and in approximately 2 months
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Emotional Self-efficacy Vignettes Scores
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
Time frame: At baseline and in approximately 4 months
Mean Change From Baseline to 2 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores
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)
Time frame: At baseline and in approximately 2 months
Mean Change From Baseline to 4 Months in Self-Reported Emotion Regulation Strategies Scores
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)
Time frame: At baseline and in approximately 4 months