The effect of a stress mindset intervention on academic motivation among junior high school students

Abstract

In recent years, stress mindset—how individuals perceive and respond to stress—has drawn increasing attention from researchers. Studies have begun to explore its mechanisms of influence on students' mental health and academic achievement. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a middle school in China. Two classes were randomly assigned to the intervention group and received a specially designed “Stress Mindset” course based on the B.E.S.T. principle, whereas the remaining two classes served as the control group. A total of 155 students participated, including 78 in the intervention group. The average age of participants was 12.25 years, with 49.70% females. Bayesian Causal Forest (BCF) analysis showed that, compared to the control group, the intervention group exhibited a 0.46 standard deviation increase in stress‐is‐enhancing mindset (95% confidence interval [CI] = [.18, .71]). No significant improvements were observed for other variables. A mediation model supported the intervention mechanism: Group assignment (independent variable) predicted changes in academic motivation through the change in stress‐is‐enhancing mindset (B = .12, SE = .05, and 95% CI [.03, .25]). Process evaluation and qualitative feedback from researchers indicated high satisfaction and acceptability of the intervention. The stress mindset intervention effectively promoted a shift in students' perception of stress as enhancing, offering a novel paradigm for future intervention research. The findings offer a novel paradigm for future intervention research.

INTRODUCTION

Due to China's rapid economic development and ongoing social progress, younger student populations are increasingly facing intense and escalating academic competition. This phenomenon is characterized by a significant increase in individual effort and irrational competition without proportional gains in outcomes, a process commonly referred to in the Chinese cultural context as “involution” (W. Wang et al., ²⁰²⁴). Chinese adolescents often experience substantial academic pressure (Zhu et al., 2021). Recent empirical research highlights that this excessive and involuntary engagement in academic competition often leads to severe psychological depletion, burnout, and stress among Chinese students (Yi et al., 2022). Consequently, as academic pressure has intensified, the alleviation of stress and the enhancement of academic motivation have become critical topics across multiple disciplines. Consistent with self‐determination theory, academic motivation reflects students' reasons for engaging in school learning, varying in the degree to which learning is experienced as self‐determined, personally valued, or externally controlled (Howard et al., 2021). In the present study, academic motivation was operationally defined as students' general motivational orientation toward school learning. This definition emphasizes students' willingness to engage in school learning, interest in learning, and aversive reactions toward learning. Emerging research has integrated stress into the growth mindset framework and developed the stress mindset concept, which refers to an individual's belief that stress has enhancing or debilitating consequences. Previous studies have established that adopting a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset serves as a crucial psychological asset, yielding significant positive implications for both academic performance and mental well‐being (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³; Huebschmann & Sheets, ²⁰²⁰; Keech et al., ²⁰¹⁸). Furthermore, scholars have advanced specific theoretical models to explicate the mechanisms linking the stress mindset to learning outcomes and well‐being. For instance, the stress beliefs model posits that mindsets influence academic performance through proactive coping and somatic responses (Keech et al., 2018). Furthermore, holding a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset has been shown to indirectly buffer against multiple dimensions of school burnout by fostering students' academic buoyancy (Lakkavaara et al., 2024). From a biopsychosocial perspective, integrated stress optimization models highlight how altering macro‐level stress mindsets, combined with the situational cognitive reappraisal of physiological arousal, can optimize individuals' emotional and physiological responses to stress (Jamieson et al., 2018).

Junior high school students, typically aged 11–13 years, are at a critical stage of adolescent development. During this period, many individuals exhibit psychological reactance, which may contribute to emotional volatility and resistance to authority (Collins & Kuczaj, 1991). Students who face academic challenges or stressful situations may experience emotional disturbances, including depression and anxiety. X. Wang et al. (2022) elucidated the underlying mechanism—stress mindset → cognitive appraisal → depression/anxiety/exam performance—through which stress mindset exerts its beneficial effects. Therefore, investigating the effect of the stress mindset on students' academic motivation and mental health has important implications for educational and psychological interventions.

The positive effect of the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset

The growth mindset, proposed by Dweck (2000), refers to the belief that intelligence is malleable and can develop over time. Dweck (2006) extended this concept beyond intelligence by applying it to various individual traits and capabilities, such as personality, psychological resilience, and responses to stress. The stress mindset refers to an individual's beliefs about the effects of stress on health and performance. Although A. J. Crum et al. (2013) originally conceptualized the stress mindset as a unifactorial continuum in Western samples, cross‐cultural psychometric evaluations have revealed a distinct structure in Chinese populations. Specifically, the Chinese version of the Stress Mindset Measure (SMM) has been validated as a two‐factor structure, where “stress‐is‐enhancing” and “stress‐is‐debilitating” function as two relatively independent dimensions rather than a single linear continuum (He et al., 2022). Consequently, individuals can simultaneously hold varying degrees of both beliefs. This study adheres to this empirically validated two‐factor framework for Chinese emerging adulthood (college students), treating the two mindset orientations as distinct variables to evaluate the intervention's precise impact on each dimension. Previous international studies have shown that both dimensions of the stress mindset are associated with physical and psychological health. For instance, a study conducted among college students in the United States found that individuals with stress‐is‐enhancing mindsets exhibited more adaptive physiological responses to acute stressors than those with stress‐is‐debilitating mindsets (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³). Another study found that students with stress‐is‐enhancing mindsets reported lower levels of depression and anxiety under high‐stress conditions (Huebschmann & Sheets, 2020).

Within the Chinese educational context, researchers have increasingly investigated the relationship between the stress mindset and adolescents' emotional experiences, demonstrating its significant role in alleviating symptoms of depression and anxiety, as well as promoting overall psychological well‐being (Jiang et al., 2019; X. Wang et al., ²⁰²²; Zhao et al., ²⁰²⁵). Many studies have examined the effects of the stress mindset on academic outcomes. Keech et al. (2018) developed a stress mindset model and demonstrated that the stress mindset directly predicted perceived stress and that behavior aimed at proactively addressing somatic symptoms mediated the relationship between the stress mindset and health and academic performance outcomes. Furthermore, studies have found that the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset has indirect negative effects on various dimensions of school burnout (Lakkavaara et al., 2024).

Recent research indicates that the influence of stress mindset on distal academic achievement is complex and may operate through indirect mechanisms and contextual conditions. For example, research with Chinese high school students has suggested that a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset may not always exert a direct main effect on grades but may be linked to better exam performance through challenge appraisal rather than threat appraisal (X. Wang et al., ²⁰²²). Similarly, Goyer et al. (2022) showed that a stress mindset intervention could buffer the negative association between severe stress and exam performance, particularly among students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Given that the influence of stress mindset on academic achievement often operates indirectly, the present study selected academic motivation as a more proximal and sensitive educational outcome indicator.

Therefore, the present study focused on academic motivation as a proximal motivational outcome. According to A. J. Crum et al. (2013), stress mindset functions as a meta‐belief system that shapes individuals' cognitive appraisal of stress and subsequent self‐regulatory responses. A stress‐is‐enhancing mindset may make students more likely to interpret academic stressors as challenges rather than threats, thereby supporting more adaptive engagement with academic demands. In this process, academic motivation, broadly defined in the present study as students' self‐reported motivational orientation toward school learning, is included as a proximal academic‐related outcome that captures students' immediate motivational responses to academic stress.

Stress mindset intervention

Considering the importance of stress mindset interventions for promoting academic motivation and mental health, researchers have increasingly focused on developing and validating the effectiveness of such interventions. For instance, a study using an imagery‐based intervention found that participants in the intervention group exhibited a large‐sized increase in stress‐is‐enhancing mindsets immediately following the intervention and at follow‐up relative to controls (Keech et al., 2021). Notably, this intervention produced robust effects on perceived distress, positive and negative affect, proactive behavior, and academic performance at follow‐up among individuals with high baseline perceived distress, suggesting that changing stress mindset can have beneficial effects on coping with ecological stressors.

Stress mindset interventions primarily use two approaches: informational video‐based interventions and psychological imagery exercises. The former typically involves exposing participants to videos that emphasize either the enhancing or debilitating nature of stress. For instance, some studies have used videos that frame stress as either beneficial or harmful, depending on the experimental conditions (A. Crum, Akinola, et al., ²⁰¹⁷; A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³). The latter approach involves guiding individuals through structured mental imagery exercises to cultivate adaptive stress beliefs, which has been demonstrated as a promising and efficacious intervention for shifting individuals toward a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset (Keech et al., 2021). However, the intervention significantly reduced perceived distress, decreased negative affect, increased positive affect, enhanced proactive behavior, and improved academic performance among the participants who initially perceived high levels of distress (Keech et al., 2021). Furthermore, optimizing how individuals perceive stress can yield significant physiological benefits. For instance, experimental studies have demonstrated that training participants to reappraise their stress arousal as an adaptive resource leads to more optimal cardiovascular responses in stressful situations, compared to those who attempt to ignore or suppress stress (Jamieson et al., 2012, 2018). Building on this approach, subsequent research further developed a “metacognitive stress‐mindset intervention” (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰²³). The participants in these interventions are encouraged to develop metacognitive awareness of their stress mindsets, understand how these mindsets shape self‐fulfilling outcomes, and consciously choose between the two orientations based on their functional implications. The metacognitive approach offers several advantages over traditional interventions. Earlier interventions focused solely on promoting the stress‐is‐enhancing perspective (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³; A. Crum, Leibowitz, & Verghese, ²⁰¹⁷), whereas the metacognitive approach provides a balanced perspective and acknowledges that stress can have both positive and negative effects. Furthermore, the metacognitive approach incorporates cross‐disciplinary evidence, such as findings from medicine and sports, to illustrate the broad effects of the mindset on health and performance (A. J. Crum & Langer, ²⁰⁰⁷). Moreover, the mindset influences individuals' physiological, psychological, and behavioral responses to stress (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³). In addition, metacognitive stress‐mindset interventions extend beyond simply informing participants about stress mindsets; they provide a structured three‐step method for cultivating the stress‐is‐enhancing orientation. Specifically, these steps guide individuals to first acknowledge stress by recognizing their responses without denial or suppression; next, to welcome stress by connecting the experience to intrinsic values and meaningful challenges; and finally, to utilize stress by harnessing its heightened energy to address the underlying demands effectively (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰²³). This approach helps individuals intentionally and habitually adopt positive stress mindsets and responses in their daily lives.

Therefore, incorporating metacognitive stress‐mindset interventions into programs for junior high school students may enhance their understanding of stress and equip them with practical strategies for coping with it in a constructive and adaptive manner.

Combining the B.E.S.T. framework and stress mindset intervention

Although metacognitive stress‐mindset interventions have proven effective, their implementation among adolescents often faces challenges in terms of effectiveness and engagement. Additionally, video‐based interventions can shift stress mindsets in the short term (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³); their effects are often limited by passive processing and reduced engagement, particularly among those who may exhibit psychological reactance to one‐way persuasive messages (Reynolds‐Tylus, 2019). In contrast, a teacher‐led, classroom‐based intervention enables interactive engagement, real‐time feedback, and self‐generated belief articulation, which are critical for deeper cognitive processing and belief internalization (Yeager & Walton, 2011). Moreover, such an approach allows for developmentally appropriate adaptation and contextual embedding, thereby enhancing ecological validity and the sustainability of intervention effects. This synthesized approach ensures that the metacognitive shift—from viewing stress as debilitating to enhancing—is achieved through a systematic, engaging, and developmentally appropriate pedagogical structure for junior high school students. Therefore, implementing systematic and engaging interventions while avoiding didactic approaches is crucial to increase acceptance of interventions among adolescents and achieve positive outcomes. The B.E.S.T. framework, a newly emerging and integrative intervention principle, has guided the development of single‐session interventions and been utilized in several brief interventions aimed at reducing psychopathology among adolescents (Schleider et al., 2019). The present study used the B.E.S.T. framework as an implementation framework to adapt stress mindset theory into a structured classroom‐based intervention. This adaptation did not replace the core logic of Crum's original stress mindset intervention; rather, it preserved the central process of helping participants acknowledge, welcome, and utilize stress. B (Brain Science) supported the acknowledge step by helping students understand neuroplasticity and the adaptive nature of stress responses. Studies have shown that educating individuals on brain malleability and adaptability can effectively reduce the stigma surrounding mental health issues and improve the acceptance and effectiveness of interventions (Miu & Yeager, 2015; Schleider et al., ²⁰¹⁹). E (Empowerment) and S (Saying‐is‐believing) supported the welcome step by encouraging students to move from passively experiencing stress to actively accepting and reinterpreting stress as potentially meaningful and useful. E means empowering youths to a “helpers” or “expert” role. This component boosts adolescents' autonomy, sense of competence, and sense of belonging, fostering active participation in the intervention process and promoting positive socioemotional outcomes that enhance the overall effect of the intervention (Berg et al., 2009; Samdal & Rowling, ²⁰¹⁵). S further supported the utilize step by engaging students in scenario‐based reflective and persuasive writing exercises, through which they applied a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset to concrete stressful situations (Schleider et al., 2019). This component emphasizes the internalization of new beliefs through various forms of persuasive self‐expression, such as writing exercises. Research has shown that individuals who articulate new beliefs in their own words are likely to internalize and act on them, resulting in effective behavioral changes (Aronson, 1999; Yeager & Walton, ²⁰¹¹). T (Testimonials) supported the utilize step by providing socially credible examples and evidence from valued others (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰²³; Schleider et al., ²⁰¹⁹). Testimonials have been shown to increase the credibility and persuasiveness of intervention content (Hamby et al., 2015; Shen et al., ²⁰¹⁵). Personal narratives from peers, near‐peer role models, and credible experts help effectively convey intervention messages and enhance their impact on adolescents (Cody, 2017; van Laer et al., ²⁰¹⁹). Compared with the original video‐based modality, the adapted intervention emphasized active learning, contextual relevance, adolescent agency, classroom interaction, and self‐generated articulation of intervention messages, making it more suitable for Chinese junior high school students in a classroom setting.

This study

Existing research on the stress mindset has primarily focused on its relationship with mental health (T. Liu, Na, et al., ²⁰²⁵; Qiang et al., ²⁰²⁵). Furthermore, investigations into its effect on academic motivation have largely been restricted to higher education populations, such as college students (Meyer & Stutts, 2024), leaving its impact on adolescent populations underdeveloped. Therefore, this study examined the effect of a single‐session stress mindset intervention on the mental health of junior high school students in China and incorporated academic motivation as an educational outcome variable. This study adopted the B.E.S.T. framework as a guiding principle in the intervention design and included attention‐check questions in the post‐intervention assessment of the quality of engagement and intervention effectiveness to mitigate the risk of ineffective information transmission caused by unengaging intervention content.

In intervention studies, the average treatment effect (ATE) is typically used as a key metric for assessing intervention efficacy. It reflects the mean difference in outcomes between the intervention and control groups and emphasizes causal inference more than traditional methods, such as an analysis of variance. J. Liu, Hu, et al. (2025) used machine learning to evaluate interventions and demonstrated that ATE offered intuitive and concise advantages for assessing overall intervention effectiveness. Moreover, the development of machine learning methods has provided a powerful supplement to ATE estimation in causal inference research. These methods are used to confirm the presence of intervention effects and explore individual response variations induced by the intervention (Kaddour et al., 2022). Among these methods, the Bayesian Causal Forest (BCF) model has gained widespread attention due to its ability to simultaneously identify effect heterogeneity, control for confounding variables, and reduce the risk of false positives (Dorie et al., 2019; Hahn et al., ²⁰²⁰). BCF was used to estimate the ATE of the intervention and its posterior uncertainty. This Bayesian regularization framework is suitable for modest‐sample intervention studies because it can provide stabilized posterior estimates and credible intervals for treatment effects (Hahn et al., 2020). Therefore, this study used the BCF to model individual responses to the stress mindset intervention. This enabled a nuanced examination of the causal effects exhibited across variables before and after the intervention, thereby offering a comprehensive evaluation of the mechanism underlying the intervention's impact. In the analysis of intervention mechanisms, following Chen et al. (2026), we treated the intervention target as the mediator, the primary intervention outcome as the dependent variable, and group assignment as the independent variable. This configuration allows for an examination of whether and how the intervention exerts its effects on the primary outcome through the targeted mechanism. From a developmental psychology perspective, junior high school students are in a developmental stage characterized by rapid growth in cognitive abilities and self‐concept, during which the capacity to construct meaning from stressful experiences is still evolving (Collins & Kuczaj, 1991). Consequently, rather than conceptualizing academic motivation as a direct outcome determined solely by stress, explaining the mechanism through a malleable belief variable such as stress mindset is more consistent with social cognitive theory, which posits that beliefs play a central role in the formation of motivation (Dweck, 2006). Therefore, on the basis of verifying the intervention effects, the present study aims to examine the mediation mechanism of “group assignment → stress mindset → academic motivation.”

Hypotheses

This study posed the following hypotheses:

1. The B.E.S.T. framework can be incorporated into stress mindset interventions, leading to significant changes in the participants' stress mindsets, academic motivation, and mental health.

2. The intervention increases stress‐is‐enhancing mindsets and reduces stress‐is‐debilitating mindsets.

3. Changes in stress mindset will mediate the relationship between group assignment and changes in academic motivation.

METHODS

Participants

Based on the previously reported effect size of f = .25 (Meyer & Stutts, 2024), a power analysis using G*Power determined that this intervention required 136 participants. The participants were divided into the intervention and control groups. We contacted a school psychologist at a junior high school in China in 2024. With the approval of both the school administration and the students' parents, four classes willing to participate in the intervention were recruited and randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group. Two classes were assigned to the control group and two to the intervention group, resulting in a total sample of 155 students. Specifically, two classes with 78 students were randomly assigned to the intervention group, and two classes with 77 students were assigned to the control group (M_age = 12.25 years, SD = 0.46). In the intervention group, 89 participants completed the pretest and 78 completed the posttest, resulting in an attrition rate of 12.36%. In the control group, all 77 participants completed both the pretest and the posttest, yielding an attrition rate of 0%. Overall, 49.70% of the participants were women (n = 77) and 50.30% were men (n = 78).

Procedure

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the affiliated institution. During recruitment, students were informed that the intervention was a regular psychology class with no special modifications or interventions and that the topic was the stress mindset. Informed consent was obtained from the students, teachers, and parents. Participation in the intervention was entirely voluntary, and students were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. Importantly, participation in the study had no impact on students' academic performance or evaluation. All data collected through the questionnaires were anonymized to ensure confidentiality. To further protect privacy, students were instructed not to communicate with others while completing both the pretest and posttest assessments. Subsequently, the participants completed a pretest. Upon completing the course, the participants received a small gift. The study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform.

Design

The study adopted a 2 (time: pretest vs. posttest) × 2 (group: intervention group vs. control group) cluster‐randomized pretest–posttest design. This two‐wave temporal structure explicitly assesses changes induced by the intervention. The intervention group participated in a single‐session stress mindset intervention, whereas the control group received a regular school‐arranged mental health lesson unrelated to the intervention topic. The intervention group was led by an external specialist (an expert in stress mindset) who was not previously acquainted with the students. To ensure consistency across conditions, the students' regular school psychologist was also present in the classroom to assist with distributing and collecting questionnaires. For the control group, the students received their regular mental health lesson. Although the lesson content was part of the standard curriculum, the same school psychologist was present to perform the exact same administrative duties (questionnaire distribution and collection) as in the intervention group and give a lesson. After the intervention, both groups completed the posttest.

Materials

Curriculum design

The thematic course on the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset was structured around five instructional components. The teaching content and application of the B.E.S.T. framework within the intervention are shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1.

B.E.S.T. intervention framework.

First, the “Stress and Stress Mindset” section applied the “B” principle by explaining the neurobiological changes that occur when we face stress and how these changes differ depending on whether one adopts the stress‐is‐enhancing or stress‐is‐debilitating mindset. Second, in the “Distinguishing Stress‐Is‐Enhancing and Stress‐Is‐Debilitating Mindsets” section, the participants reflected on and differentiated between the two mindsets using knowledge from the first section. This section used the “E” principle to promote the participants' active classroom engagement and sense of initiative. Third, the “How to Identify and Prevent the Stress‐Is‐Debilitating Mindset” section implemented the “S” principle through persuasive writing exercises. Rather than focusing on general coping techniques, we used scenario‐based examples to ask the participants to imagine themselves as protagonists facing stress and articulate how they could identify the potential growth value and constructively utilize the stress response. This expressive writing exercise aimed to facilitate the internalization of the stress‐is‐enhancing belief. Finally, the “How to Shift from a Stress‐Is‐Debilitating to a Stress‐Is‐Enhancing Mindset” section adopted the “T” principle. We asked the participants to recall a personally stressful event, discuss how they coped with it, and share their experiences with their peers to increase the credibility and practical value of the strategies for transforming harmful mindsets into helpful ones. The details of the intervention materials are shown in Figure 1 and Supporting Information S1.

Measures

This study measured the stress mindset using the Chinese version of the Stress Mindset Measure–Specific (SMM‐S), developed by A. J. Crum et al. (2013). In accordance with the validated Chinese structure (He et al., 2022), it was treated as a two‐factor measure. This tool assesses two types of stress mindsets: stress‐is‐enhancing (e.g. experiencing stress improves my health and vitality) and stress‐is‐debilitating (e.g. stress interferes with my learning and personal growth). Each mindset is assessed using four items, with a total of eight items. Responses are rated on a 5‐point Likert format (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Items measuring the stress‐is‐debilitating mindset are reverse coded, with higher total scores reflecting a stronger stress‐is‐enhancing mindset. In this study, the pretest and posttest Cronbach's α values for the stress‐is‐debilitating subscale were .79 and .86, respectively, whereas those for the stress‐is‐enhancing subscale were .86 and .87, respectively, demonstrating high internal consistency.

This study measured perceived stress using the 10‐item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS‐10), developed by Cohen et al. (1983) and revised by Cohen (1988; e.g. do you feel anxious about the possibility that unexpected events might happen?). To capture the immediate psychological effects of the single‐session intervention, the temporal instructions of the scale were modified to assess participants' perceived stress “at this moment” rather than over the past month. Responses are rated on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = never; 5 = very often). Items 4, 5, 7, and 8 are reverse coded, with higher total scores indicating more severe perceived stress. In this study, the pretest and posttest Cronbach's α values were .84 and .85, respectively, demonstrating high internal consistency.

Academic motivation was measured using a self‐developed brief measure designed for the present intervention study. In this study, academic motivation was operationalized as students' self‐reported motivational orientation toward school learning. The scale comprises three items: I do not want to go to school; just the thought of studying gives me a headache; and learning itself is a fun thing. Responses are rated on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher total scores indicating stronger academic motivation. In this study, the pretest and posttest Cronbach's α values were .79 and .70, respectively, demonstrating high internal consistency. Additional psychometric information, including the one‐factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results, standardized factor loadings, composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE), is provided in Supporting Information S2.

This study measured depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire‐2 (PHQ‐2), which consists of two items assessing depressed mood, such as lack of interest or pleasure in doing things. The PHQ‐2 has demonstrated good reliability, validity, and clinical utility in previous research (Staples et al., 2019). Given the single‐session nature of the present intervention, the temporal frame was adapted to assess participants' current state (“right now”). This adaptation is also consistent with Kaveladze et al. (2026), who suggested that immediate affective states, including depressive states, can be assessed in the context of single‐session interventions. Participants rated the extent to which they experienced each emotion on a 4‐point Likert scale ranging from 0 = not at all to 3 = extremely. In this study, the pretest and posttest Cronbach's α values were .65 and .77, respectively, indicating acceptable internal consistency.

This study measured anxiety using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐2 (GAD‐2) scale, with two items commonly used for screening generalized anxiety disorders (e.g. feeling uneasy, anxious, or agitated). The GAD‐2 has demonstrated good reliability, validity, and clinical utility in previous research (Kroenke et al., 2007). Similarly, the instructions were adapted to reflect participants' current feelings (“at this moment”) on a 4‐point Likert scale (0 = not at all; 3 = strongly). A total score of 3 is typically considered the optimal cutoff for identifying potential cases, whereas scores above 3 suggest the need for further diagnostic assessment. In this study, the pretest and posttest Cronbach's α values were .76 and .89, respectively, demonstrating high internal consistency.

This study used a self‐developed scale to assess the participants' evaluation of the intervention. This scale comprised three items: satisfaction with the intervention, perceived effectiveness, and willingness to apply or continue using the learned concepts. Responses were rated on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score was used as an index of the perceived effectiveness of the intervention.

Statistical analyses

This study analyzed the descriptive statistics and conducted chi‐square tests and independent‐samples t‐tests using SPSS 24.0. The preregistration specified the research hypotheses, intervention and control conditions, outcome variables, and qualitative data analysis plan. The use of BCFs and the mediation analysis were added after preregistration. Therefore, these analyses should be interpreted as post‐preregistration analytic adaptations, with the mediation analysis treated as exploratory. This study employed the BCF to examine the effects of the intervention on the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset, stress‐is‐debilitating mindset, perceived stress, academic motivation, depression, and anxiety. Data analyses were conducted using R Statistical Software version 4.3.1 and the “bcf” package. Following the method of Chen et al. (2026), a mediation analysis was conducted to test the intervention mechanism. We used changes in academic motivation as the dependent variable, group assignment (0 = control group, 1 = intervention group) as the independent variable, and changes in the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset as the mediating variable. Gender and age were the control variables. All change scores were calculated by subtracting the pretest scores from the posttest scores. This mediation analysis was conducted using the full sample, including both the intervention and control groups. The analysis was performed using the SPSS PROCESS macro (Model 4) with 5000 bootstrap samples to calculate bias‐corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Furthermore, four psychology professionals independently rated the participants' level of engagement on a 10‐point scale to evaluate the intervention process. Their scoring was based on several factors, including the number of questions answered, level of detail in the described events, perspective selected, and the degree to which the applied methods aligned with those taught in class. The scoring criteria were developed through discussions between the two lead researchers, and all raters were trained before assessing the intervention materials. Inter‐rater reliability was assessed and reported using Cronbach's α values.

RESULTS

Randomization balance test

Randomization balance tests were conducted on the intervention and control group participants using chi‐square tests and independent‐samples t‐tests for demographic variables and pretest measures. The chi‐square test indicated no significant difference in gender between the two groups (χ ² = .01, df = 1, p > .05). Independent‐samples t‐tests revealed no significant differences in pretest variables between the groups (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Pretest t‐test for each variable.

	Pretest of control group	Pretest of intervention group	t	p
Stress‐is‐enhancing mindset	2.66 ± 0.81	2.72 ± 0.87	0.46	.645
Stress‐is‐debilitating mindset	3.23 ± 0.78	3.05 ± 0.76	−1.48	.142
Study motivation	3.63 ± 0.86	3.69 ± 0.94	−1.21	.230
Anxiety	1.14 ± 0.74	1.06 ± 0.77	0.43	.666
Depression	0.94 ± 0.70	0.79 ± 0.69	−1.32	.190
Perceived stress	2.90 ± 0.62	2.78 ± 0.69	−0.65	.516

Descriptive statistics and BCF analysis

The means, standard deviations, and correlations between the pretest and posttest variables in the intervention group are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2. The BCF analysis results indicated that the intervention group exhibited significantly higher levels of the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset than the control group, whereas no significant difference was observed in the stress‐is‐debilitating mindset. Specifically, the intervention increased the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset by 0.46 standard deviations, with a 95% CI of [.18, .71]. No significant intervention effects were found for the other variables (Table 2 and Figure 2).

TABLE 2.

Descriptive statistics and BCF results for pretest and posttest variables in the intervention and control groups.

	Pretest	Posttest	ATE	ATE 95% CI
Stress‐is‐enhancing mindset	2.69 ± 0.84	2.98 ± 0.84	.46	[.18, .71]
Stress‐is‐debilitating mindset	3.14 ± 0.77	3.02 ± 0.81	−.10	[−.35, .10]
Study motivation	3.63 ± 1.03	3.62 ± 0.97	.03	[−.19, .26]
Anxiety	1.10 ± 0.76	0.97 ± 0.87	.11	[−.13, .41]
Depression	0.87 ± 0.70	0.81 ± 0.76	−.01	[−.23, .22]
Perceived stress	2.84 ± 0.66	2.86 ± 0.70	−.05	[−.29, .15]

Abbreviations: ATE, average treatment effect; BCF, Bayesian Causal Forest; CI, confidence interval.

FIGURE 2.

Diagram of the effects of the intervention AM is academic motivation; ANX is anxiety; CPSS is perceived stress; DEP is depression; SMN is stress‐is‐debilitating mindset; SMP is stress‐is‐enhancing mindset.

Intervention principle

The mediation results showed that group assignment significantly predicted changes in the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset (B = .49, p < .001) and that changes in the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset significantly predicted changes in academic motivation (B = .23, p < .001). However, group assignment did not directly predict changes in academic motivation (B = −.02, p > .05). The indirect effect was significant, with estimates of B = .12, SE = .05, and 95% CI [.03, .25], which did not include 0, indicating a significant mediation effect. The direct effect estimate was B = −.02, SE = .12, 95% CI [−.25, .21], which was not significant, suggesting an indirect‐only mediation pattern.

Intervention process assessment

In the post‐intervention evaluation questionnaire, students reported high levels of perceived intervention effectiveness, satisfaction, and sustainability. The means and standard deviations for each item (effectiveness: M = 4.21, SD = 1.02; satisfaction: M = 4.35, SD = 0.94; and sustainability: M = 4.27, SD = 0.94) indicated a high level of satisfaction with the intervention.

Quantitative analysis of written responses

Four raters independently evaluated the participants' responses, and inter‐rater reliability was assessed (Table 3). The Cronbach's α coefficient was .90, indicating high reliability and strong consistency among raters. The average score was 5.59, with a standard deviation of 1.55. Moreover, the effectiveness ratings of the post‐intervention measures were significantly correlated with posttest academic motivation (r = .31, p = .013).

TABLE 3.

Qualitative evaluation scoring criteria.

Scores range (10 scores)	Evaluation standard
1–3 scores	Answered fewer than 4 out of the 7 questions. Responses were brief and did not reflect content learned in class.
4–6 scores	Answered 4 or more out of the 7 questions. Each response was over 15 characters but did not fully reflect the content taught in class.
7–9 scores	Answered 5 to 6 out of the 7 questions. Each response was detailed and demonstrated use of key intervention concepts discussed in class.
10 scores	Answered all 7 questions. Each response was detailed, reflected key concepts from the intervention class, and expressed changes in mindset after applying those strategies.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrated that a single‐session stress mindset intervention that incorporated the B.E.S.T. principles effectively increased the participants' stress‐is‐enhancing mindsets. This finding is consistent with those of previous studies, which have shown that brief, targeted interventions can significantly shift an individual's orientation toward stress (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³; Keech et al., ²⁰²¹). However, the intervention did not yield significant changes in the mental health outcomes or academic motivation. The nonsignificant group‐level change in academic motivation does not fully align with the generally adaptive effects reported in prior stress‐mindset and related mindset intervention studies. Previous research has shown that stress‐is‐enhancing mindsets can be experimentally induced and modified through brief interventions, including multimedia materials and metacognitive “rethink stress” interventions, and that such changes can improve physiological, affective, cognitive, behavioral, and stress‐related outcomes (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³; A. Crum, Akinola, et al. ²⁰¹⁷; A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰²³). In adolescent samples, a brief synergistic mindsets intervention integrating growth mindset and stress‐can‐be‐enhancing mindset components has also been shown to protect adolescents from maladaptive stress responses (Yeager et al., 2022). More directly related to academic motivation, Meyer and Stutts (2024) found that mindset interventions, including a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset condition, were associated with increases in academic motivation from pre‐ to post‐intervention among college students, although similar increases were also observed in the control group. Therefore, the present finding should be interpreted cautiously. The absence of a significant group‐level effect on academic motivation may reflect differences in outcome domains, intervention components, sample characteristics, developmental stage, and educational context.

Post‐intervention improvements in the stress mindset

This study employed the BCF, a machine learning method, to examine changes in key variables before and after the intervention. The results revealed that the intervention significantly improved the participants' stress‐is‐enhancing mindsets. This is consistent with the findings of Zhao et al. (2025) and supports J. Liu, Hu, et al.'s (2025) application of machine learning to investigate the stress mindset. We observed no significant difference between pre‐ and post‐intervention stress‐is‐debilitating mindsets. This may be due to the influence of Chinese culture. In the Chinese culture, which is deeply rooted in Confucian values that emphasize long‐term goals and perseverance (Sullivan et al., 2016), individuals are often encouraged to think positively in the face of setbacks, ultimately achieving success through endurance (Shek, 2005). However, although Chinese students are encouraged to adopt a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset, they face immense academic pressure, which is significantly associated with negative thinking and emotions (Charles et al., 2013). Previous studies have shown that severe anxiety is closely linked to learned helplessness among adolescents (Pi, 2008). This form of learned helplessness, which is difficult to alter, can cause students to perceive academic stress as unchangeable and harmful. Such negative beliefs are unlikely to improve through single‐session interventions and require sustained follow‐up interventions and long‐term research.

The results indicated that group assignment significantly predicted changes in the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset, and these changes positively predicted changes in academic motivation. This aligns with the findings of previous research suggesting that the stress‐enhancing mindset is a positive predictor of academic motivation (Meyer & Stutts, 2024). Moreover, the stress mindset has been identified as an effective factor influencing perceived stress (X. Wang et al., ²⁰²²). Stress plays a crucial role in the psychological health and academic performance of junior high school students (Zhang et al., 2022; Zhu et al., ²⁰²¹). During the intervention, students learned to cultivate a more adaptive stress mindset. Conceptually, stress mindset refers to a higher order belief about the general consequences of stress, whereas stress appraisal refers to the situational evaluation of a specific stressor, such as whether a particular stressor is evaluated as a challenge or a threat (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Although distinct, these constructs are theoretically related: A stress‐is‐enhancing mindset may make students more likely to interpret specific academic pressures as challenges rather than threats (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³). Thus, the intervention primarily targeted students' general beliefs about stress, while potentially influencing how they appraised specific academic stressors. However, the intervention did not significantly affect other variables, which may have been due to the limited duration of the single‐session format. A short intervention may not be sufficient to affect broader psychological domains. Future studies should implement interventions focusing on academic stress and its consequences to explore their potential effectiveness.

Generalizability of the intervention

The results revealed that changes in academic motivation after the intervention were not statistically significant at the group level. This finding should be interpreted in light of recent evidence suggesting that although academic motivation may increase over the short term following mindset interventions, such increases may not be unique to the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset condition (Meyer & Stutts, 2024). Building on this line of work, the present study further examined the predictive role of the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset in changes in academic motivation among Chinese junior high school students. Although the group‐level change was not statistically significant, the mediation analysis revealed that the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset significantly predicted improvements in academic motivation. This suggests that positive stress beliefs may still be linked to students' motivational changes at the individual level, whereas the overall intervention effect on academic motivation may depend on contextual, developmental, or cultural factors in the Chinese educational context.

The effect of the stress mindset may not always be situationally salient or directly observable in performance outcomes (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³). For instance, Meyer and Stutts (2024) found that stress mindset interventions significantly boosted academic motivation among university students, possibly because self‐directed learning was more prevalent at the university level. This form of learning is strongly predicted by academic motivation (Long & Liu, 2016). However, learning in junior high school is largely structured and guided by teachers and schools, and academic motivation tends to be internalized and less susceptible to changes due to brief interventions. Moreover, research suggests that the influence of the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset on academic achievement may be either indirect or conditional (Goyer et al., 2022; Keech et al., ²⁰¹⁸). Some studies have shown that interventions may yield strong emotional and academic improvements in individuals with high pre‐intervention levels of the stress‐is‐debilitating mindset (Zhao et al., 2025). Thus, the limited impact of the intervention on academic motivation observed in this study could be attributed to a range of complex factors, highlighting the need for further investigation.

Although the intervention did not significantly affect the participants' academic motivation, the approach guided by the B.E.S.T. framework demonstrated greater applicability to Chinese students than current methods used in stress mindset interventions. Existing stress mindset interventions often involve intensive, long‐term programs requiring substantial time and resources. For instance, Nguyen et al. (2023) developed a 10‐week, face‐to‐face Transforming Stress Program based on Dialectical Behavioral Therapy for medical students at a university in Vietnam. Their quasi‐experimental study demonstrated that incorporating mindfulness and skills practice into the curriculum not only improved stress mindsets in the short term but also enhanced coping strategies. However, such intensive interventions demand considerable administrative support and are difficult to implement in secondary school settings with limited personnel and tight schedules. In contrast, university‐level stress mindset interventions typically rely on reading materials involving neuroscience and stress‐related topics, often combined with group discussions (Meyer & Stutts, 2024). However, this content may be too complex, difficult to understand, or insufficiently engaging for junior high school students, leading to weak intervention outcomes.

This study incorporated the B.E.S.T. framework by adapting university‐level reading materials into a structured classroom‐based curriculum that was accessible to junior high school students. Furthermore, it intentionally avoided using short videos, which aligned with the in‐school learning habits of Chinese adolescents and minimized potential Internet‐related distractions. Thus, integrating the B.E.S.T. framework into stress mindset interventions offers a promising direction for further exploration.

Theoretical and practical implications

This study makes valuable theoretical and practical contributions regarding the development of the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset. From a theoretical perspective, by integrating the B.E.S.T. framework into the stress mindset intervention, this study offers empirical support for previous findings that metacognitive stress‐mindset interventions enhance the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset. Furthermore, prior research has indicated that metacognitive stress‐mindset interventions improve individuals' awareness of and regulation of their thought patterns, thereby promoting adaptive cognitive reappraisal in response to stress (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰²³).

From a practical perspective, this study confirms that the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset is not fixed but malleable. After a short‐term intervention, the participants demonstrated significant changes in how they approached stress, showing greater endorsement of the belief that stress can be enhancing. This finding highlights the potential of brief interventions in educational settings to improve students' abilities to positively regulate stress and provides an empirical basis for the development of stress management training in education, clinical practice, and organizational management. Therefore, this study offers new perspectives and empirical support for interventions targeting the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset.

Limitations and future directions

This study had several limitations. First, owing to the constraints of classroom and school settings during the intervention, it was not possible to randomly assign participants, which may have influenced the experimental results. Although the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the main variables were very small, suggesting limited class‐level dependency, the small number of clusters limits the strength of cluster‐level causal inference. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as preliminary and should be replicated in studies with a larger number of randomized classes. Future studies could address this by recruiting adolescent participants and using fully randomized assignment to minimize this bias. Second, previous studies have often employed follow‐up designs to examine stress mindset interventions (Zhao et al., 2025). As the effects of the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset are not limited to specific situations and may not be immediately observable in behavior (A. J. Crum et al., ²⁰¹³), follow‐up research remains essential. Thus, future studies should adopt longitudinal designs to evaluate changes in stress mindsets over time. Third, academic motivation was assessed using a brief self‐developed measure. Although this measure was designed to capture students' general motivational orientation toward school learning and showed preliminary evidence of internal structure, reliability, and convergent validity, it does not fully represent the multidimensional nature of academic motivation as conceptualized in established motivation theories, such as self‐determination theory, achievement goal theory, or approach–avoidance models. In addition, because the three‐item one‐factor CFA model was just‐identified, global model fit indices could not provide meaningful evidence of model fit. Future studies should further validate this measure and examine whether the present findings can be replicated using established multidimensional measures of academic motivation. Finally, professional psychology researchers delivered the intervention in this study, which may have limited the ecological validity of the findings. Future studies could randomly assign researchers or regular teachers as instructors for different classes to examine differences in instructional outcomes, thereby enhancing the generalizability of stress mindset interventions.

CONCLUSION

This study integrated the B.E.S.T. framework into the design of a stress mindset intervention and demonstrated that this approach effectively promoted the stress‐is‐enhancing mindset among junior high school students. These findings offer a new intervention paradigm for future research and practice in stress mindset enhancement.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

ETHICS STATEMENT

All study participants provided informed consent, and the study design was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Beijing Forestry University (Approval Number BJFUPSY‐2022‐1102). We have read and understood the journal's policies, and we believe that neither the manuscript nor the study violates any of these.

Supporting information

Data S1: Description of the Stress Mindset Intervention.

Data S2: CFA results of academic motivation questionnaire.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data associated with the study are available via the following link: 10.6084/m9.figshare.32716503.