A pre-registered randomized controlled trial (Heaman et al., 2024, 'Changing Minds') found that a 30-minute online intervention teaching adolescents a growth mindset of personality was followed, between baseline and a 4-month follow-up, by reduced depressive symptoms among girls in the experimental condition (d = 0.31) while girls in the active control condition worsened (d = −0.20), with no comparable change among boys (d ≈ 0.07); it had no effect on subjective happiness, produced inconclusive life-satisfaction findings, and — critically — its active control condition (a growth mindset of athletic ability module) itself increased personality growth mindset. The open problem is whether single-session growth-mindset-of-personality interventions constitute a durable, specific, and population-generalizable preventive intervention for adolescent depressive symptoms and well-being, or a transient, girl-specific, non-specific optimistic-messaging effect. Specifically unresolved are: durability of effects beyond roughly 4 months; whether and why boys fail to benefit, and which aspects of such interventions are more or less effective for boys specifically; whether effects appear on more targeted, domain-specific well-being measures; replication in various populations beyond the source trial's sample; and the implications of the control condition's own increase in personality growth mindset, including whether observed benefits reflect an optimistic message rather than specifically teachings about growth mindset. Literature through 2026, including a new meta-analysis of self-administered single-session interventions, leaves all of these directions open.

Background

A 'growth mindset' (also called an implicit theory) is the belief that a psychological attribute is malleable rather than fixed; a growth mindset of personality is the specific belief that one's own personality can change. Single-session interventions (SSIs) are fully self-contained, typically 20–30 minute, often online, psychoeducational programs developed to extend scarce mental-health services to the many adolescents who never reach treatment. Because adolescent depression is common, frequently recurrent, and undertreated, a scalable SSI that prevented or reduced depressive symptoms would have substantial public-health value. Several trials tested SSIs teaching a growth mindset of personality: Miu and Yeager (2015) reported that a brief reading-and-writing activity teaching an incremental theory of personality (the belief that people's socially relevant characteristics can change) reduced the incidence of clinically significant self-reported depressive symptoms by nearly 40% at 9-month follow-up in three community samples of students entering high school (N = 599), and eliminated the elevated symptom risk associated with endorsing a fixed ('entity') theory of personality at baseline; Schleider and Weisz (2018) reported 9-month reductions in parent- and youth-reported depression in a selected sample of 96 high-symptom adolescents; Burnette et al. (2018) found in a sample of 222 rural adolescent girls that the intervention shifted mindsets and indirectly improved academic outcomes; and Schleider et al. (2020), analyzing mental-health outcomes in the same rural sample, reported modest reductions in depressive symptoms (d = 0.23) at 4-month follow-up (effects on social anxiety and conduct problems were nonsignificant). Meta-analytically, growth mindsets show only a small negative association with psychological distress (r ≈ −0.22; Burnette et al., 2020), and a meta-analysis of implicit theories and youth mental health (Schleider, Abel & Weisz, 2015) called the evidence base limited. Well-being outcomes were largely neglected: most trials measured only symptoms. Heaman, Cherry, McMurtry, Giguère and Lumley (2024) conducted a pre-registered randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04133389) in which 472 English-speaking students in grades 9 and 12 (ages 13–18) at three Ontario, Canada high schools were randomly assigned to a 30-minute online growth-mindset-of-personality module or an active control module matched in format, length, and positive tone but teaching a growth mindset of athletic ability; of these, 318 participants (58% girls, 60.8% White, mean age 14.9) returned for the 4-month follow-up and were analyzed (152 in the experimental condition and 166 in the control condition), an overall attrition rate of 31%. Outcomes were self-reported depressive symptoms (a modified Beck Depression Inventory–II, BDI-II, with the item querying suicidal ideation removed per ethics review, 20 items summed to 0–60), subjective happiness (Subjective Happiness Scale, SHS), and life satisfaction (Brief Multidimensional Student Life Satisfaction Scale, BMSLSS), at baseline and 4-month follow-up, with mindset beliefs measured in both arms using the Implicit Personality Theory Questionnaire (IPTQ, belief that personality can change) and the Implicit Person Theory Measure (IPTM, general belief that people can change). A 2(time) × 2(condition) × 2(gender) analysis found a small three-way interaction for depressive symptoms, F(1,308) = 6.807, p = .01, η² = .022. The effect sizes attached to this finding are within-cell changes from baseline to the 4-month follow-up — the paper's analysis plan states that effect sizes represent mean change in outcome scores over time in each intervention condition: girls' symptoms decreased in the experimental condition (mean change 2.221 points, p = .004, d = 0.311) and increased in the control condition (mean change −1.451 points, p = .046, d = −0.203), whereas boys showed no change in either condition (experimental d = −0.069; control d = 0.019). The causal claim therefore rests on the interaction together with these divergent within-cell changes rather than on any single change score, and the authors frame the girls' benefit as protection against the typical increase in depressive symptoms observed in control girls. There was no effect on subjective happiness and no omnibus effect on life satisfaction. Uniquely, mindset was measured in the control arm too: the athletic-ability control also increased personality growth mindset (d = 0.669 immediately post-intervention; d = 0.225 at follow-up), complicating the interpretation that effects are specific to personality-mindset content; the paper likewise notes the criticism that such control conditions may leave observed differences attributable to the benefits of an optimistic message rather than specifically to teachings about growth mindset. The trial's discussion and limitations sections therefore raised six distinct open directions that together describe the current evidence gap: (1) the 4-month follow-up cannot establish durability, and longer follow-up periods — the paper points to Miu & Yeager (2015) and Schleider & Weisz (2018) as examples — or preferably longitudinal designs with multiple follow-up points would add to the understanding of long-term effects of these interventions; (2) the intervention did not affect boys' depressive symptoms for unknown reasons, and further research should determine which aspects of interventions are more or less effective for boys specifically and how best to engage at-risk boys and meet their needs, possibly by considering how to apply growth mindset to values aligned with an autonomous prototype of depression more common in boys; (3) well-being findings (life satisfaction) were inconclusive, possibly because the measures used were too broad to detect change in life satisfaction and in well-being in peer relations, and more targeted, domain-specific measures of well-being have not been examined; (4) the predominantly White/European, university-bound Ontario sample limits generalizability to other populations; (5) the control condition's unexpected increase in personality growth mindset calls for further research to delineate the implications of such a control condition for growth-mindset beliefs, including whether benefits reflect an optimistic message rather than specifically growth-mindset-of-personality teaching; and (6) effects were modest, and replication of interventions in various populations is needed to build toward the capacity for high-quality meta-analyses of similar intervention studies.

Problem Statement

Determine whether single-session, online growth-mindset-of-personality interventions for adolescents — interventions of the kind evaluated in the source trial (Heaman et al., 2024), such as its 30-minute online module — are a durable, specific, and population-generalizable preventive intervention for depressive symptoms and well-being, rather than a transient, girl-specific, or non-specific effect. The source paper raises the following distinct, currently unresolved open directions, posed as separate research questions rather than as conditions that a single study must satisfy jointly: no single study need settle them all, and each is an independently refutable part of the determination (strand (4) below combines the source's generalizability limitation with its call for replication in various populations):

(1) Durability — do effects on depressive symptoms and well-being persist at follow-up periods longer than the roughly 4 months used in the source trial? Earlier randomized trials with 9-month follow-up (Miu & Yeager, 2015; Schleider & Weisz, 2018) are relevant evidence — the source cites them as examples of the longer follow-up periods wanted — but they evaluated different interventions and samples with a single follow-up point and did not examine well-being or gender-moderated effects, so they do not settle the question for these interventions.

(2) Gender — the intervention did not affect boys' depressive symptoms. Which aspects of such interventions are more or less effective for boys specifically, how can boys' needs best be met, and what explains the gender difference? One candidate explanation the source offers is the differing social roles and value orientations of boys and girls (boys may be higher than girls in autonomy, i.e., value of and motivation towards independence and self-esteem). This direction is exploratory: it includes determining which aspects of interventions speak to adolescents consuming them and what may be missing the mark for boys, and it admits the possibility that no available framing makes this content effective for boys.

(3) Well-being outcomes — do effects emerge on more targeted, domain-specific measures of well-being (for example, well-being in peer relations), given that the global measures used may have been too broad to detect change?

(4) Generalizability and replication — do effects replicate in various populations beyond the source trial's predominantly White/European, university-bound Ontario sample, so as to build toward the capacity for high-quality meta-analyses of similar intervention studies?

(5) Specificity of the active control — the active control (a growth mindset of athletic ability module) itself increased personality growth mindset. What are the implications of such a control condition for growth-mindset beliefs, and to what extent do the observed benefits reflect an optimistic message rather than specifically teachings about growth mindset of personality?

References

  1. Heaman, J. A. L., Cherry, K. M., McMurtry, C. M., Giguère, B., & Lumley, M. N. (2024). Changing Minds: An RCT of a Growth Mindset Intervention on Depressive Symptoms and Well-being in Adolescent Girls and Boys. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 9(1), 381–409. doi:10.1007/s41042-023-00128-z. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-023-00128-z
  2. Miu, A. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Preventing Symptoms of Depression by Teaching Adolescents That People Can Change. Clinical Psychological Science, 3(5), 726–743. doi:10.1177/2167702614548317. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614548317
  3. Schleider, J., & Weisz, J. (2018). A single-session growth mindset intervention for adolescent anxiety and depression: 9-month outcomes of a randomized trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(2), 160–170. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12811. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12811
  4. Burnette, J. L., Russell, M. V., Hoyt, C. L., Orvidas, K., & Widman, L. (2018). An online growth mindset intervention in a sample of rural adolescent girls. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 428–445. doi:10.1111/bjep.12192. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12192
  5. Schleider, J. L., Burnette, J. L., Widman, L., Hoyt, C., & Prinstein, M. J. (2020). Randomized Trial of a Single-Session Growth Mind-Set Intervention for Rural Adolescents' Internalizing and Externalizing Problems. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 49(5), 660–672. doi:10.1080/15374416.2019.1622123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2019.1622123
  6. Schleider, J. L., Abel, M. R., & Weisz, J. R. (2015). Implicit theories and youth mental health problems: A random-effects meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 35, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2014.11.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.11.001
  7. Calvete, E., Fernández-Gonzalez, L., Orue, I., Echezarraga, A., Royuela-Colomer, E., Cortazar, N., Muga, J., Longa, M., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). The Effect of an Intervention Teaching Adolescents that People can Change on Depressive Symptoms, Cognitive Schemas, and Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis Hormones. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 47(9), 1533–1546. doi:10.1007/s10802-019-00538-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00538-1
  8. Burnette, J. L., Knouse, L. E., Vavra, D. T., O'Boyle, E., & Brooks, M. A. (2020). Growth mindsets and psychological distress: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 77, 101816. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101816
  9. Ball, J., Meiser-Stedman, R., Thompson, Z., & Chiu, K. (2026). Self-administered single-session interventions for mental health in young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, online ahead of print, article jcpp.70192. doi:10.1111/jcpp.70192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.70192
  10. Ball, J., Meiser-Stedman, R., Loades, M., Perkins, A., Bowers, G., Pass, L., Cassidy, J., & Chiu, K. (2025). The efficacy of an online self-administered single session intervention to promote growth mindset in adolescents: A randomised controlled trial. JCPP Advances, 6(2), e70026. doi:10.1002/jcv2.70026. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.70026
  11. Rudolph, K. D., Skymba, H. V., Clapham, R. B., Dodson, J., Finnegan, M., Troop-Gordon, W., & Heller, W. (2026). Improving Mental Health in Adolescent Girls via a Randomized Trial of an Emotion Mindset Intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 78(3), 402–409. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2025.10.023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2025.10.023
  12. Zhu, S., Hu, Y., Qi, D., Xi, A., Chen, S., Wang, R., Lee, P., & Wong, P. W. C. (2026). Effects of a Digital Parent-Child Single-Session Growth Mindset Intervention on Adolescent Depression and Anxiety Symptoms: A Three-Arm Waitlist Randomized Controlled Trial. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 16(6), 84. doi:10.3390/ejihpe16060084. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe16060084
  13. Venturo-Conerly, K. E., Osborn, T. L., Alemu, R., Roe, E., Rodriguez, M., Gan, J., Arango, S., Wasil, A., Wasanga, C., & Weisz, J. R. (2022). Single-session interventions for adolescent anxiety and depression symptoms in Kenya: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 151, 104040. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2022.104040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2022.104040
  14. Martow, J. H., Heaman, J. A. L., & Lumley, M. N. (2022). The What, Why, and How of Adolescent Interpersonal Goal Setting Following a Growth Mindset Intervention. Journal of Adolescent Research, 40(1), 3–43. doi:10.1177/07435584221137066. https://doi.org/10.1177/07435584221137066
  15. Meyer, H. H., & Stutts, L. A. (2024). The Effect of Mindset Interventions on Stress and Academic Motivation in College Students. Innovative Higher Education, 49(4), 783–798. doi:10.1007/s10755-024-09706-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-024-09706-8
  16. Ren, H. (2025). A Review on Single Session Mindset Interventions on Major Depressive Disorders in Adolescents. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applied Psychology and Marketing Management, 318–322. doi:10.5220/0014113200004942. https://doi.org/10.5220/0014113200004942