View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Exploring a Two-Factor Structure of Stress Mindsets in Academic Contexts: Their Connections with Emotional and Behavioral Outcomes

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Exploring a Two-Factor Structure of Stress Mindsets in Academic Contexts: Their Connections with Emotional and Behavioral Outcomes
Language: English
Authors: Tiffany Ting Chen, Boby Ho-Hong Ching, Hannah Xiaohan Wu (ORCID 0000-0002-5072-4619), Xiang Yu Li
Source: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal. 2025 28(1).
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 28
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Adolescents, Anxiety, Burnout, Student Behavior, Affective Behavior, Beliefs, Self Efficacy, Performance Factors, Adjustment (to Environment), Context Effect
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1007/s11218-025-10041-9
ISSN: 1381-2890
1573-1928
Abstract: This study explores the structure of stress mindsets within academic contexts and examines their associations with academic-related emotional (academic anxiety, school burnout) and behavioral (self-handicapping, proactive, and challenge-seeking behaviors) outcomes among Chinese adolescent students. Results supported a two-factor model of academic stress mindsets, distinguishing between the stress-is-enhancing (SIE) and stress-is-debilitating (SID) mindsets as related yet distinct constructs. Notably, these mindsets differentially predicted academic outcomes after controlling for demographics and other stress-related factors. Specifically, the academic SIE mindset was more associated with adaptive learning outcomes (i.e., proactive behaviors), while the academic SID mindset was more predictive of maladaptive learning outcomes (i.e., academic anxiety, school burnout, and self-handicapping behaviors). These findings extend stress mindset theory to academic settings and underscore the need to consider specific contexts when investigating stress mindsets. Future interventions designed to change students' learning states should focus on enhancing their academic SIE mindset while simultaneously reducing their academic SID mindset.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1462874
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFH1vS_9ca3CkbPv_mkmVL3AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN2HlHnRe3krjYYRDQIBEICBmyPmu4GhIrdUU8i1xgHtwFz9BphtDiGkkYbUHUWbcFbIjLE36ysk1vDQ-vKqzbmf_EePC5r5ilc4KtHNdnSTxVq4XdbPSN7V50wHGNOuPPSDu4gJ2bFiWWFlDKlvc4jOQ1LocU-BW6SK4mMP_FTSZoo2mKVozOA-iVaizYqLPJuhW6u4CzlNtCxMQ-_mHGq2EHubz4ugpUNX56S5
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183752284;luo14mar.25;2025Mar19.03:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183752284-1">Exploring a two-factor structure of stress mindsets in academic contexts: their connections with emotional and behavioral outcomes </title> <p>This study explores the structure of stress mindsets within academic contexts and examines their associations with academic-related emotional (academic anxiety, school burnout) and behavioral (self-handicapping, proactive, and challenge-seeking behaviors) outcomes among Chinese adolescent students. Results supported a two-factor model of academic stress mindsets, distinguishing between the stress-is-enhancing (SIE) and stress-is-debilitating (SID) mindsets as related yet distinct constructs. Notably, these mindsets differentially predicted academic outcomes after controlling for demographics and other stress-related factors. Specifically, the academic SIE mindset was more associated with adaptive learning outcomes (i.e., proactive behaviors), while the academic SID mindset was more predictive of maladaptive learning outcomes (i.e., academic anxiety, school burnout, and self-handicapping behaviors). These findings extend stress mindset theory to academic settings and underscore the need to consider specific contexts when investigating stress mindsets. Future interventions designed to change students' learning states should focus on enhancing their academic SIE mindset while simultaneously reducing their academic SID mindset.</p> <p>Keywords: Academic stress mindsets; Academic anxiety; School burnout; Self-handicapping behaviors; Proactive behaviors under academic stress; Challenge-seeking behaviors; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Academic stress is of serious concern in East Asian countries such as China (Zhao et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref1">79</reflink>]) because students have increasingly reported psychological problems, including depression, in recent decades (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>]). In 2021, China introduced the "Double Reduction" policy in the education sector, which aims to alleviate excessive academic stress through a series of measures, such as reducing the burden of homework and after-school tutoring (Xinhua, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref3">74</reflink>]). Despite these efforts to mitigate stress from external sources, secondary school students continue to face significant pressure from the high-stakes Senior High School Entrance Examination and the National College Entrance Examination. In such an educational system, academic stress remains prevalent. Therefore, in addition to policy interventions, understanding how students perceive and manage stress is crucial for effectively addressing the negative consequences associated with academic stress.</p> <p>Most students view academic stress as a threat to their well-being and believe that it only brings about negative outcomes, such as poor academic performance and emotional problems (Zhu et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref4">80</reflink>]). However, not all students perceive academic stress in the same manner; some of them regard it as a chance to confront challenges and enhance their learning (Hofmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref5">28</reflink>]). These beliefs about the nature of academic stress are referred to as <emph>academic stress mindsets</emph>. According to stress mindset theory (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref6">13</reflink>]), people's mindsets about stress can be conceptualized along two dimensions: the "<emph>stress-is-enhancing</emph>" (SIE) mindset, which reflects beliefs about the positive effects of stress on outcomes, and the "<emph>stress-is-debilitating</emph>" (SID) mindset, which pertains to the perceived negative impacts of stress.</p> <p>Some researchers have treated stress mindset as a unidimensional concept, placing it on a continuum with SIE and SID at opposite ends (e.g., Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]; Peixoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref8">55</reflink>]). Other studies have found that a two-factor model, in which SIE and SID are viewed as independent but related constructs, provides a better fit than the one-factor model across different sample groups (e.g., adolescent students: Caleon et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]; employers: Chen & Fang, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]; adults: Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref11">36</reflink>]; healthcare workers: Emirza & Yılmaz Kozcu, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]). Research has further demonstrated that SIE and SID display distinct mediation or correlation patterns with various outcomes (Caleon et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>]; Chen & Fang, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]; Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref15">36</reflink>]). These findings suggest that a two-factor model may be more profound because the two types of stress mindsets have different predictive validities for outcomes. Nevertheless, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the structure of stress mindsets. This inconsistency may arise from the tendency to conceptualize stress as a broad construct, thereby overlooking the specific contexts in which stress occurs (Murphy et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref16">53</reflink>]). To address this gap, the present study seeks to explore the factor structure of stress mindsets within academic contexts and investigate how academic SIE and SID mindsets differentially predict academic-related emotional and behavioral outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-3">The structure of stress mindsets: one-factor vs. two-factor model</hd> <p>The concept of stress mindset originates from the broader idea of mindset, which refers to individuals' beliefs about the malleability of abilities and traits (e.g., Dweck & Yeager, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref17">16</reflink>]; Yeager & Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref18">76</reflink>]). Subsequent research defined the belief that personal characteristics (e.g., intelligence) can be developed through effort as a growth mindset, while a fixed mindset is the belief that these characteristics are unchangeable. The mindsets that individuals adopt significantly impact their subsequent judgments, responses, performance, and health across various domains, such as intelligence, failure, and aging (e.g., Blackwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]; Ching et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]; Levy & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref21">46</reflink>]). Building upon mindset theory, Crum and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]) proposed that mindsets could also play a similar role in the domain of stress, thus extending the concept of mindset to encompass stress.</p> <p>According to stress mindset theory (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]), "stress-is-enhancing" (SIE) and "stress-is-debilitating" (SID) mindsets are generally viewed as two ends of the same continuum– if individuals tend to believe that stress is beneficial, they are less likely to view it as harmful. Based on this foundational insight, the Stress Mindset Measure (SMM), which includes two sets of items corresponding to the SIE and SID mindsets, was developed (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]). The SID-related items are reverse-coded to calculate a composite index, with higher scores indicating a mindset more inclined towards viewing stress as enhancing (SIE) and lower scores representing a mindset more inclined towards viewing stress as debilitating (SID). In this scoring procedure, two individuals with the same overall stress mindset score are considered to be at the same position on the spectrum and to have similar mindsets about stress. However, a closer examination could reveal differences between their SIE and SID scores. For example, one person could have high scores on both the SIE and SID, while another could have low scores on both. Although these two individuals would have the same overall scores (after reversing SID scores), it seems problematic to conclude that they have the same stress mindset. Therefore, could it be possible that individuals perceive stress in terms of both an enhancing and debilitating mindset, rather than exclusively adopting one or the other?</p> <p>Given this concern, we sought to determine whether individuals can simultaneously hold both types of stress mindsets. This idea has already been suggested in the context of intelligence mindsets (Grüning et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]; Scherer & Campos, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref26">63</reflink>]) and creativity mindsets (Karwowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref27">37</reflink>]; Ching et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref28">11</reflink>]). Similarly, in a growing body of research on stress mindsets across various populations (e.g., adolescent students: Caleon et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>]; university students: Iwamoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref30">32</reflink>]; Lebedeva & Solenova, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref31">45</reflink>]; adults: Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref32">36</reflink>]; healthcare workers: Emirza & Yılmaz Kozcu, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>]), a two-factor model was found to fit the data better than a one-factor model. In other words, people were more likely to conceptualize stress in terms of both enhancing and debilitating mindsets (or neither), rather than viewing them as opposing perspectives. The correlation between SIE and SID mindsets obtained in previous studies were consistently negative although their strength varied between studies (e.g., <emph>r</emph> = −.31, Caleon et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>]; <emph>r</emph> = −.57, Horiuchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref35">30</reflink>]; <emph>r</emph> = −.53, Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref36">36</reflink>]). These findings suggest that SIE and SID may not be direct opposites, but rather distinct dimensions.</p> <p>However, prior findings regarding the structure of stress mindsets have been inconsistent, even among similar populations. For example, while a two-factor structure was identified in a study of university students in Japan (Iwamoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]), a unidimensional structure was found in a comparable study conducted in Brazil (Peixoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref38">55</reflink>]). One possible reason for these differing results may be the lack of contextual specificity when discussing stress. Murphy et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref39">53</reflink>]) research on category-specific stress mindsets suggests that individuals' beliefs about stress can vary depending on the type of stressor they face. University students, in particular, experience various forms of stress, including academic, social, and employment-related pressures. Without clear differentiation between these contexts, participants may interpret the items differently by considering different types of stress, which could explain the variability in findings.</p> <p>Cultural differences may also explain the inconsistent findings observed in previous studies. The two-factor model found among Japanese university students can be attributed to the influence of Yin-Yang philosophy in East Asian cultures, which posits that "Yin" and "Yang" represent opposite but interdependent forces that together create harmony and balance (Jiang, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref40">34</reflink>]). In this context, while the SIE and SID mindsets are often perceived as contradictory, they may in fact function as complementary dimensions (Jiang, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref41">34</reflink>]). A qualitative study among Chinese individuals revealed a tendency to simultaneously hold both SIE and SID mindsets within a work context (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref42">47</reflink>]). Given these cultural influences, it may be more appropriate to investigate these two mindsets as distinct constructs rather than as polar opposites on a single continuum, particularly among Chinese adolescent students.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-4">Academic stress mindsets: relations to emotional outcomes</hd> <p>According to the stress mindset theory (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref43">13</reflink>]), individuals' mindsets about stress can influence how they experience stress psychologically and approach or avoid stress behaviorally, thereby further impacting health and performance. For example, people who endorse a SID mindset tend to perceive stress as a threat and focus on avoiding or managing it to prevent potential negative consequences, such as quitting their job when faced with stressful environments (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref44">42</reflink>]). In contrast, those with a SIE mindset tend to view stress as a challenge and to accept and use it for favorable outcomes. This mindset could contribute to greater positive emotions (e.g., Goyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref45">23</reflink>]; Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>]), improved physical and psychological well-being (e.g., Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]; Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref48">39</reflink>]), and more adaptive responses (e.g., Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>]; Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref50">38</reflink>]) compared to those with a SID mindset. It remains a question as to how students' mindsets about academic stress are related to their emotional and behavioral responses. To address this, we separately explored the associations between two distinct types of academic stress mindsets (SIE and SID) and students' responses to learning and investigated the respective contributions of these two types of mindsets.</p> <p>During the learning process, school burnout and academic anxiety are two common negative emotional responses to academic stress. Students with higher levels of academic anxiety tend to overestimate academic demands, experience excessive worries, and are more likely to develop school burnout (e.g., Romano et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref51">59</reflink>]). While school burnout seems to be a risk factor for students' health and academic success, such as less academic engagement, lower academic achievement, lower life satisfaction, and more depressive symptoms (e.g., Salmela-Aro & Upadyaya, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref52">62</reflink>]; Madigan & Curran, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref53">48</reflink>]). Negative psychological states characterized by a lack of learning motivation, physical overdraft, tiredness, and mental fatigue have been defined as school burnout (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref54">72</reflink>]). There are three aspects of school burnout (Salmela-Aro et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref55">60</reflink>]): exhaustion (e.g., chronic fatigue from overwhelming schoolwork), cynicism (e.g., indifference or detachment towards schoolwork), and inadequacy (e.g., diminished feelings of competence and lower achievement in school).</p> <p>According to the Study Demands-Resources Model (SD-R; Salmela-Aro et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref56">61</reflink>]), when the learning demands exceed students' resources, it may deplete their energy and increase their vulnerability to academic anxiety and school burnout. When integrating stress mindsets into the model, students' mindsets about academic stress can be seen as personal resources that may facilitate their learning and mitigate academic anxiety and school burnout (e.g., Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref57">36</reflink>]; Klussman et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref58">43</reflink>]). Specifically, students who view stress as more debilitating are more likely to perceive themselves as having insufficient abilities and worry about its potential negative consequences. These students require more energy to manage their reactions compared to those with lower levels of academic SID mindset. Based on the stress mindset theory (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref59">13</reflink>]), the academic SIE mindset can motivate students to accept and use stress to achieve possible positive outcomes, which may promote more positive emotion (e.g., Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref60">12</reflink>]). However, its correlation with negative emotions seems to be less definitive (e.g., Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>]). Thus, we speculated a closer connection between academic SID mindset and these two negative emotions compared to academic SIE mindset, and hypothesized that students with lower levels of academic SID mindset would be less likely to experience school burnout and academic anxiety.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-5">Academic stress mindsets: relations to behavioral outcomes</hd> <p>Combining the stress mindset theory (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref62">13</reflink>]), the regulatory focus theory (Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref63">26</reflink>]), and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework (Elliot & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref64">17</reflink>]), individuals display a promotion- or prevention-focused orientation in approaching or avoiding academic stress under the impacts of different types of mindsets about stress. Based on the time lag between students' behavioral responses and the occurrence of stressful academic activities, there are two key time periods to investigate how mindsets about academic stress relate to learning behaviors. Taking a difficult additional exam as an example, the first key time period is when the occurrence of the exam has not been confirmed. During this period, some students actively seek out these challenging exams to participate in. These behaviors are motivated by a desire for growth, learning, and improvement, which often involve stepping outside of one's comfort zone and embracing challenges that carry risks or the potential for failure (Dweck & Leggett, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref65">15</reflink>]; Porter et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref66">56</reflink>]). Although a difficult additional exam may be stressful and require more effort to complete, it offers the possibility of testing skills or abilities that can be interpreted as and transformed into opportunities (Horikoshi, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref67">29</reflink>]). Mastery-approach goals can motivate individuals to seek challenges (Dweck & Leggett, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref68">15</reflink>]). Thus, by motivating students to approach stress to obtain potential benefits, a more enhancing mindset about academic stress may link to a greater tendency to actively look for challenges.</p> <p>When students confirm that they need to participate in this exam, the second key time period is before completing the exam. With higher levels of academic SID mindset, students are guided to employ more "avoidance" responses, such as self-handicapping behaviors, to prevent debilitating outcomes from happening. In academic settings, self-handicapping behaviors refer to strategies that students use to create barriers or excuses for their potential failure (Berglas & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>]; Urdan & Midgley, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref70">70</reflink>]). Examples of such behaviors include feigning illness, overcommitting to other activities, and reducing effort. By engaging in self-handicapping, students can attribute failure to the handicap rather than a lack of ability, thereby temporarily preserving their self-worth. However, they may result in negative consequences in the long term, such as lower academic achievement, decreased intrinsic motivation, and negative affect (Schwinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref71">65</reflink>]rök et al., 2018).</p> <p>By contrast, students who endorse a more SIE mindset may proactively engage in actions such as seeking feedback from teachers and planning in advance when faced with a confirmed and difficult exam. These self-initiated and anticipatory actions, aimed at bringing about positive change or improvements in their academic performance and learning experiences, are referred to as proactive behaviors (Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref72">39</reflink>]). As a result, these students acquire new knowledge and skills, develop their potential, and demonstrate their competence, even in stressful and potentially failure-inducing situations.</p> <p>Previous research has shown that individuals who perceive stress as enhancing are more likely to adopt adaptive behaviors (e.g., proactive behaviors) in stressful contexts (Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref73">39</reflink>]; Keech, Hagger, and Hamilton, Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref74">38</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref75">40</reflink>]; Keech, Orbell, Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref76">38</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref77">40</reflink>]). Conversely, those who endorse a Stress-Is-Debilitating (SID) mindset tend to engage in maladaptive responses (e.g., behavioral disengagement; Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref78">36</reflink>]). the relations between individuals' stress mindsets and their tendencies towards self-handicapping and challenge-seeking behaviors has yet to be fully explored. Therefore, this study aims to investigate these connections within educational settings, specifically examining how students' academic stress mindsets relate to their tendency to seek challenges, engage in self-handicapping behaviors, and adopt proactive behaviors under academic stress.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-6">Overview and hypotheses</hd> <p>In sum, the current research on stress mindsets has two unresolved issues. First, previous studies have yielded inconsistent results regarding the factor structure of stress mindsets (e.g., Peixoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref79">55</reflink>]; Iwamoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref80">32</reflink>]). One possible reason for this inconsistency may be that prior research did not clearly specify the source of stress when investigating stress mindsets (Murphy et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref81">53</reflink>]). To address this issue, we adapted the original Stress Mindset Measure (SMM) items to more accurately reflect students' mindsets about academic stress by explicitly associating the advantages and disadvantages of stress with academic settings. This contextualization ensured that the research framework was specifically confined to academic contexts. In Study 1, we used Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to explore the factor structure of academic stress mindsets among Chinese adolescent students. In Study 2, we used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to further validate whether a two-factor model better explains their academic stress mindsets than a one-factor model. Given the deep influence of the Yin-Yang model in Chinese culture, individuals in China tend to believe that opposing elements can coexist simultaneously (Jiang, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref82">34</reflink>]). This philosophical perspective emphasizes the balance and complementarity of opposites rather than their mutual exclusivity. Based on this theoretical foundation, we proposed that among Chinese adolescent students, the "stress-is-debilitating" (SID) and "stress-is-enhancing" (SIE) mindsets are best understood as two distinct yet related factors. Therefore, a two-factor model is likely to provide a better fit than a one-factor model in explaining stress mindsets within this population.</p> <p>In Study 2, we also investigated how the two types of stress mindsets were differentially associated with academic-related emotional outcomes (i.e., academic anxiety and school burnout) and behavioral outcomes (i.e., self-handicapping, proactive behaviors under academic stress, and challenge-seeking behaviors). Although previous research has not directly examined the relations between stress mindsets and these specific academic outcomes, a few studies have indicated that SIE and SID mindsets are predictive of distinct consequences (Chen & Fang, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref83">9</reflink>]). Consistently, these studies have demonstrated that the SIE mindset is more strongly predictive of adaptive behaviors and less associated with maladaptive outcomes, while the SID mindset exhibits the opposite pattern (Iwamoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref84">32</reflink>]; Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref85">36</reflink>]). Therefore, we hypothesized that higher levels of an academic SIE mindset would be significantly associated with lower levels of academic anxiety and school burnout, reduced tendencies to engage in self-handicapping behaviors, and greater inclinations toward proactive behaviors under academic stress and challenge-seeking behaviors. In contrast, a stronger academic SID mindset would be associated with the opposite patterns of these relations. When controlling for the effects of other factors (e.g., demographics and other stress-related variables), we expected that an academic SID mindset would remain a significant positive predictor of academic anxiety, school burnout, and self-handicapping behaviors, whereas an academic SIE mindset would significantly and positively predict proactive behaviors under academic stress and challenge-seeking behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-7">Study 1</hd> <p>In Study 1, we preliminarily explored the factor structure of mindsets about academic stress in Chinese students. First, we adapted the existing measures of stress mindset (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref86">13</reflink>]; Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref87">40</reflink>]) into academic contexts. Then, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the factor structure of this modified measure that assesses academic stress mindsets.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-8">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183752284-9">Participants and procedure</hd> <p>Participants were 354 Chinese students from four junior (Grades 7–9) and senior (Grades 10–12) high schools in Guangxi Province, located in southern China (<emph>N</emph><subs>female</subs> = 245; <emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 14.34; <emph>SD</emph><subs>age</subs> = 1.74). The participation has been obtained with the consent of both the participants and their parents. The data collection was administered with the assistance of school teachers. Participants received the questionnaire during regular school hours to minimize disruption and ensure a high response rate. It took about 5 min for each student to complete the adapted Academic Stress Mindsets Measure (ASMM).</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-10">Measures</hd> <p> <bold> <emph>Academic Stress Mindsets Measure (ASMM).</emph> </bold> Considering that the previous measures of stress mindsets (i.e., Stress Mindset Measure, Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref88">13</reflink>]; Stress Control Mindset Measure, Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref89">40</reflink>]) were designed to assess stress mindsets in general contexts, we modified the original scale. This adaptation aimed to more accurately capture students' stress mindsets specifically related to academics. In line with the stress mindset theory (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref90">13</reflink>]), the modified scale consists of 14 items, of which 7 items are related to academic SIE mindsets (e.g., <emph>"Academic stress can motivate me to put more effort into my studies."</emph>) and the other 7 items are related to academic SID mindsets (<emph>"Academic stress makes me want to give up on studying."</emph>). Each item was rated on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 6 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Higher scores on each subscale indicate a greater endorsement of the respective mindset. Items in the modified scale demonstrated high internal consistency: academic SIE mindset (Cronbach's α = 0.92) and academic SID mindset (Cronbach's α = 0.92).</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-11">Results</hd> <p>First, we verified the factorability of the data with Bartlett's test of sphericity (BTS) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.94 and the significant Bartlett's chi-square (χ<sups>2</sups> = 3325.76, <emph>df</emph> = 91, <emph>p</emph> <.001) indicated that the data was factorable (Carpenter, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref91">7</reflink>]). Then, we conducted EFA with the varimax rotation method to explore the factor structure of the academic stress mindsets. Results showed that two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 were extracted, which explained 67.52% of the total variance of the scale (factor 1 = 51.59%; factor 2 = 15.92%). By comparing the eigenvalues of these two factors with the random eigenvalues obtained by Parallel Analysis (PA) using the Monte Carlo method based on 1000 replications (Watkins, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref92">73</reflink>]), it could be determined that these two factors were retained. Because these eigenvalues were greater than the generated random eigenvalues (factor 1 = 7.223 > 1.344; factor 2 = 2.229 > 1.264). According to the results of factor loadings, the 14 items were loaded into two factors (see Table 1): academic stress-is-enhancing (SIE) mindset (7 items) and academic stress-is-debilitating (SID) mindset (7 items).</p> <p>Table 1 EFA factor loadings of the retained 14 items of the academic stress mindsets measure (ASMM)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Items</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Factor loadings</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Academic SID mindset</p></th><th align="left"><p>Academic SIE mindset</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Academic stress makes me feel lethargic.</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.820</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.290</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Academic stress leads to a sense of aversion toward studying.</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.806</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.261</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13. Academic stress leads to a decrease in the quality of my assignments.</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.801</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.180</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. Academic stress makes me want to give up on studying.</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.792</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.241</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Under academic stress, my mind becomes confused and less clear during exams.</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.790</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.203</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Academic stress hinders my ability to focus during classes.</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.785</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.206</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. Academic stress slows me down in completing my homework.</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.754</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.214</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. Academic stress can help consolidate the knowledge I have learned.</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.198</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.824</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. Academic stress can allow me to concentrate better while solving problems.</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.245</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.807</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14. Under academic stress, I can increase my homework completion speed.</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.224</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.803</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. Academic stress contributes to higher efficiency in completing coursework.</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.212</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.802</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. Academic stress can propel me to tackle weak subjects.</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.196</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.787</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. Academic stress helps me keep a good mental state.</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.221</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.772</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. Academic stress can motivate me to seek advice from teachers and classmates.</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.278</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.698</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. SIE = stress-is-enhancing, SID = stress-is-debilitating</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-12">Summary</hd> <p>The results of the EFA provide initial evidence for the factor structure of academic stress mindsets in a sample of Chinese adolescent students. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that students' mindsets about academic stress were divided into two dimensions: academic stress-is-enhancing (SIE) and stress-is-debilitating (SID) mindsets. To some extent, this finding implies that SIE and SID mindsets, at least in the academic context, are not completely opposed. Based on this two-factor structure, would there be differences in the association between the two types of academic stress mindsets and students' emotional and behavioral responses in academic settings? Therefore, we conducted further research (Study 2) to investigate their associations as well as to examine whether the two-factor structure would be replicated in another group of Chinese adolescent students.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-13">Study 2</hd> <p>To further examine the two-factor structure of the modified scale, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using Amos version 22 with a different group of Chinese adolescent students in Study 2. Then we used the modified scale to test whether two types of academic stress mindsets predicted emotional (e.g., academic anxiety and school burnout) and behavioral responses (i.e., self-handicapping behaviors, proactive behaviors under academic stress, and challenge-seeking behaviors) differently in learning situations.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-14">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183752284-15">Participants and procedure</hd> <p>We recruited 298 Chinese adolescent students from junior and senior high schools in Guangxi Province (<emph>N</emph><subs>female</subs> = 180; <emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs>=14.82, <emph>SD</emph><subs>age</subs>=1.49). Students who took part in Study 1 were excluded. According to Yuan and Bentler ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref93">78</reflink>]), the sample size is appropriate when the sample size-to-free parameters to be estimated ranges between 5:1 and 10:1 (i.e., 5 to 10 cases for every parameter estimate). Considering that the larger model (i.e., a two-factor structure of the ASMM) contained 43 parameters to be estimated, the present sample size (<emph>N</emph> = 298) is sufficient to test the model.</p> <p>All participation was voluntary and secured through informed consent obtained from both the participants and their parents. The questionnaires were administered by the students' teachers during regular school hours. It took around 25 min for each participant to fully complete the questionnaire.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-16">Measures</hd> <p>All English scales were translated into Chinese by postgraduates proficient in both English and Chinese. The internal consistency of all measures was tested. We also conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to examine the factor structure of these measures. The model fit indices include the Chi-square/degree of freedom ratio (χ<sups>2</sups>/<emph>df</emph> ratio), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square of error approximation (RMSEA). The good model fit values are χ<sups>2</sups>/<emph>df</emph> < 3.00, CFI > 0.90, and RMSEA < 0.08 (Nazim & Ahmad, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref94">54</reflink>]); and the values of χ<sups>2</sups>/<emph>df</emph> < 5 and RMSEA ≤ 0.10 are considered acceptable (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref95">31</reflink>]; Marsh & Hocevar, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref96">49</reflink>]). We also examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the measure. Specifically, convergent validity was assessed using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and all measures demonstrated satisfactory AVE values greater than 0.50 (see Table 2). For discriminant validity, we applied the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref97">21</reflink>]), which confirmed that the square root of the AVE for each construct exceeded its highest correlation with any other construct (see Table 3).</p> <p>Table 2 Overview of the reliability and validity of each measure</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Measures</p></th><th align="left"><p>Cronbach's α</p></th><th align="left"><p>Factor loadings</p></th><th align="left"><p>AVE</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Academic stress mindsets</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Academic SIE mindset</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.64– 0.81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.61</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Academic SID mindset</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.55– 0.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.62</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Emotional outcomes</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Academic anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.42– 0.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.58</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. School burnout</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.51– 0.95</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.57</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Behavioral outcomes</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Self-handicapping behaviors</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65– 0.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.55</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. Proactive behaviors under academic stress</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.66</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41– 0.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. Challenge-seeking behaviors</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.77</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41– 0.87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Control variables</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. Neuroticism</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.51– 0.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.52</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. Academic stress levels</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.50– 0.91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Appraisals of academic stress</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. Threat appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.55– 0.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.53</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. Challenge appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.46– 0.81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Academic stress coping strategies</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. Task-oriented</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.58– 0.76</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13. Emotion-oriented</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69– 0.88</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.55</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14. Avoidance</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.51– 0.90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.51</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. SIE = stress-is-enhancing, SID = stress-is-debilitating</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Academic stress mindsets.</emph> </bold> The measure that assessed students' academic stress mindset was identical to Study 1.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-17">Emotional responses</hd> <p> <bold> <emph>Academic anxiety.</emph> </bold> We used the anxiety subscale of the Academic Emotions Questionnaire (short version) to measure students' levels of academic anxiety (Bieleke et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref98">3</reflink>]). It contained three dimensions: class-related anxiety (4 items; <emph>"Even before class</emph>,<emph> I worry whether I will be able to understand the material"</emph>); learning-related anxiety (4 items; <emph>"I get tense and nervous while studying"</emph>); and test-related anxiety (4 items; <emph>"I worry whether the test will be too difficult"</emph>). Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Higher mean scores indicate higher levels of anxiety in academic contexts. The scale provided acceptable model fit indices, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref99">46</reflink>) = 136.43, <emph>p</emph> <.001, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.97, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.081.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Academic burnout.</emph> </bold> Students' academic burnout was assessed through the School Burnout Inventory (SBI; Salmela-Aro et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref100">60</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref101">72</reflink>]). The SBI consisted of 9 items encompassing dimensions of exhaustion (4 items; e.g., <emph>"I feel overwhelmed by my schoolwork"</emph>), sense of inadequacy (2 items; e.g., <emph>"I often have feelings of inadequacy in my schoolwork"</emph>), and cynicism toward the meaning of school (3 items; e.g., <emph>"I feel a lack of motivation in my schoolwork and often think of giving up"</emph>). All items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (<emph>completely disagree</emph>) to 6 (<emph>completely agree</emph>). We calculated the mean scores for the items, with higher scores representing higher levels of academic burnout. The CFA result showed a good fit to data, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref102">18</reflink>) = 43.89, <emph>p</emph> =.001, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.44, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.070.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-18">Behavioral responses</hd> <p> <bold> <emph>Proactive behaviors under academic stress.</emph> </bold> We adapted the 6-item Proactive Under Stress Scale (Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref103">39</reflink>]) to measure students' proactive behaviors when they experience academic-related stress. A sample item is <emph>"How often did you engage in planning your time to cope with academic stress?"</emph> Participants used a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (<emph>never</emph>) to 5 (<emph>very often</emph>) to report the extent to which they are proactive, engage in planning, or avoid procrastination under academic stress. A higher mean score indicates a stronger tendency to take proactive action when facing academic stress. The items demonstrated good model fit indices, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref104">7</reflink>) = 17.00, <emph>p</emph> =.017, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.43, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.069.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Challenge-seeking behaviors.</emph> </bold> Participants' behavioral intentions to seek academic challenges were assessed via a self-report questionnaire. It contained four scenarios that describe four kinds of academic challenges, including the depth and breadth of course content as well as the difficulty levels of assignments and tests. These scenarios were adapted based on prior measures (Mueller & Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref105">52</reflink>]; Porter et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref106">56</reflink>]; Yeager et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref107">77</reflink>]) that assessed the extent to which participants prefer challenging academic activities. An example is <emph>"Imagine that</emph>,<emph> you need to take a test</emph>,<emph> and there are two types of tests. You get to choose which one to do. One choice is an easy test—it has problems you already know how to solve</emph>,<emph> and you will probably get most of the answers right without having to think very much. The other choice is a difficult test—it has problems you don't know how to solve</emph>,<emph> and you will probably get most of the problems wrong</emph>,<emph> but you might learn something new. Both tests take 30 minutes."</emph> The rating scale ranged from 1 (e.g., <emph>extremely prefer the easy test</emph>) to 6 (e.g., <emph>extremely prefer the hard test</emph>). Higher scores indicate a stronger preference for seeking academic challenges. This measure showed a good fit to the data, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>) = 0.013, <emph>p</emph> =.908, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 0.013, CFI = 1, RMSEA = 0.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Self-handicapping behaviors.</emph> </bold> We used the Academic Self-Handicapping Scale (ASHS; Urdan & Midgley, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref109">70</reflink>]) to measure participants' self-handicapping behaviors in academic contexts. The scale contained 6 items (e.g., <emph>"Some students purposely don't try hard in school so that if they don't do well</emph>,<emph> they can say it is because they didn't try. How true is this of you?"</emph>). These items were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (<emph>not at all true</emph>) to 5 (<emph>very true</emph>). A higher mean score indicates a greater tendency to self-handicap. The items provided acceptable model fit indices, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref110">7</reflink>) = 20.20, <emph>p</emph> =.005, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.89, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.080.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-19">Control variables</hd> <p>To better understand the relations of academic stress mindsets to both emotional and behavioral responses, we controlled the effects of several variables previously associated with these responses. First, we controlled for the effect of neuroticism because it has been found that neuroticism could positively predict avoidance goal pursuit (e.g., McCabe et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref111">50</reflink>]) and trigger defensive behaviors like self-handicapping (e.g., Schwinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref112">64</reflink>]). Students with higher levels of neuroticism tend to experience anxiety and burnout (e.g., Bai et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref113">1</reflink>]; Hoferichter & Raufelder, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref114">27</reflink>]). Second, we also controlled for factors similar to but distinct from academic stress mindsets (i.e., academic stress levels, academic stress appraisals, and academic stress coping strategies) to investigate the unique contribution of stress mindsets in predicting emotional and behavioral responses in academic contexts.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Neuroticism.</emph> </bold> Participants completed the 8-item neuroticism subscale of the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref115">35</reflink>]). An example item is "I see myself as someone who worries a lot." Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale from1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). A higher mean score reflects greater neuroticism. The items demonstrated good model fit indices, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref116">15</reflink>) = 33.86, <emph>p</emph> =.004, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.26, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.065.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Academic stress level.</emph> </bold> We adopted the Educational Stress Scale for Adolescents (ESSA; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref117">67</reflink>]) to measure the amount of academic stress that students experience. The scale consists of 16 items in five dimensions: pressure of study (4-item; e.g., <emph>"I feel a lot of pressure in my daily studying"</emph>), workload (3-item; e.g., <emph>"I feel that there is too much schoolwork"</emph>), worry about grades (3-item; e.g., <emph>"Academic grade is very important to my future and even can determine my whole life"</emph>), self-expectation (3-item; e.g., <emph>"I usually cannot sleep because of worry when I cannot meet the goals I set for myself"</emph>), and despondency (3-item; e.g., <emph>"It is very difficult for me to concentrate during classes"</emph>). Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Higher scores represent higher levels of academic stress. This scale provided a good fit to the data, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref118">92</reflink>) = 271.39, <emph>p</emph> <.001, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.95, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.081.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Academic stress appraisals.</emph> </bold> Students completed the 18-item Cognitive Appraisal Scale (CAS, Skinner & Brewer, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref119">66</reflink>]) to assess their evaluation and perception of stress in the academic setting. The scale contained two subscales: the 8-item challenge appraisal subscale (e.g., <emph>"I look forward to opportunities to fully test the limits of my skills and abilities"</emph>) and the 10-item threat appraisal subscale (e.g., <emph>"I am concerned that others will find fault with me"</emph>). Participants were instructed to imagine themselves in a scenario where they were about to take a test of uncertain difficulty, which would ultimately determine their enrollment in an important course for the coming year (e.g., Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref120">40</reflink>]; Skinner & Brewer, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref121">66</reflink>]). Then, they rated 18 statements on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 6 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). The mean scores of challenge appraisal and threat appraisal were calculated by averaging the items in each subscale. A higher score on each subscale indicates a greater tendency to appraise academic stress in this manner. The scale had acceptable model fit indices (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref122">124</reflink>) = 349.00, <emph>p</emph> <.001, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.82, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.078).</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Academic Stress coping strategies.</emph> </bold> The short form of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS-21; Calsbeek et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref123">6</reflink>]) was used to assess the coping strategies that students use to deal with academic stress. The CISS-21 measured three types of coping strategies: task-oriented coping (7 items; e.g., <emph>"Focus on the problem and see how I can solve it"</emph>), emotion-oriented coping (7 items; e.g., <emph>"Feel anxious about not being able to cope"</emph>), and avoidance coping (7 items; e.g., <emph>"Treat myself to a favorite food or snack"</emph>). Participants were requested to report the frequency of their engagement in different coping activities when confronted with academic stress. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (<emph>not at all</emph>) to 5 (<emph>very much</emph>). The scores of the subscales were computed by averaging the item scores, with higher scores indicating higher levels of engagement with the coping strategies. These subscales provided a good fit to the data (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib170" id="ref124">170</reflink>) = 458.01, <emph>p</emph> <.001, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.69, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.076).</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-20">Statistical analytic plan</hd> <p>First, we conducted CFAs to examine whether the proposed factor structure of the modified measure about academic stress mindsets in Study 1 is consistent with the data to test the two-factor model fit. Second, we performed correlation analyses among all the main variables. Last, we conducted a series of stepwise regressions to investigate the relation of academic stress mindsets to emotional and behavioral responses, while controlling for the effects of demographics (i.e., age and gender) and other variables (e.g., neuroticism as well as academic stress level, appraisals, and coping strategies). Multicollinearity issues were checked using the variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance. If the VIF is greater than 4 and the tolerance is less than 0.20, multicollinearity problems are indicated (Menard, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref125">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-21">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183752284-22">Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs)</hd> <p>In Study 2, we conducted CFAs to verify the factor structure derived from the EFA in Study 1. The results showed that the two-factor model of the ASMM aligned well with the data, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref126">76</reflink>) = 205.61, <emph>p</emph> <.001, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.71, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.076. The factor loadings for this model are depicted in Fig. 1. To further examine whether academic stress mindsets are more accurately represented by a two-factor structure as opposed to a unidimensional one, a one-factor model was also evaluated. This model, however, yielded a poor fit to the data, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref127">77</reflink>) = 1183.71, <emph>p</emph> <.001, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 15.37, CFI = 0.60, RMSEA = 0.220. These findings suggest that for Chinese adolescent students, it is more appropriate to consider their SIE and SID mindsets about academic stress as two separate but related dimensions rather than as a single unified construct.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 CFA factor loadings of the academic stress mindsets measure (ASMM). Note. SIE = stress-is-enhancing, SID = stress-is-debilitating</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-23">Correlation analyses</hd> <p>Pearson's correlation coefficients among all the main variables are presented in Table 2. As shown in Table 3, academic SIE mindset was negatively correlated with academic anxiety, school burnout, and self-handicapping behaviors, but positively correlated with proactive behaviors under academic stress and challenge-seeking behaviors (<emph>p</emph>s < 0.001). Students who viewed academic stress in a positive way tended to experience less anxiety and school burnout. They were also less likely to self-handicap, more engaged with proactive behaviors, and sought more challenges when they were studying. Conversely, the relations of academic SID mindset to these variables were also significant (<emph>p</emph>s < 0.001), but in a direction opposite to that of academic SIE mindset. In other words, students with a negative perception of academic stress tended to report higher levels of anxiety and school burnout. These students were more prone to self-handicapping and less likely to engage in proactive or challenge-seeking behaviors. Most of the controlled variables were also related to both emotional and behavioral responses.</p> <p>Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlation between the academic stress mindsets measure (ASMM) and other variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variables</p></th><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th><th align="left"><p>7</p></th><th align="left"><p>8</p></th><th align="left"><p>9</p></th><th align="left"><p>10</p></th><th align="left"><p>11</p></th><th align="left"><p>12</p></th><th align="left"><p>13</p></th><th align="left"><p>14</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Academic stress mindsets</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Academic SIE mindset</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.779</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Academic SID mindset</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.408<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.789</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Emotional outcomes</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Academic anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.214<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.571<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.761</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. School burnout</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.289<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.631<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.760<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.756</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Behavioral outcomes</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Self-handicapping behaviors</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.193<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.473<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.365<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.397<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.744</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. Proactive behaviors under academic stress</p></td><td align="left"><p>.504<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.510<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.485<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.505<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.381<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.708</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. Challenge-seeking behaviors</p></td><td align="left"><p>.274<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.318<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.313<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.341<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.339<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.344<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.<bold>709</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Control variables</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. Neuroticism</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.373<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.518<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.604<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.573<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.296<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.488<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.295<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.721</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. Academic stress levels</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.236<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.598<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.711<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.717<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.321<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.446<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.324<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.623<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.771</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Appraisals of academic stress</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. Threat appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.222<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.463<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.539<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.535<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.268<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.423<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.321<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.597<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.609<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.<bold>726</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. Challenge appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>.187<sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.027</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.031</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.013</p></td><td align="left"><p>.154<sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.019</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.052</p></td><td align="left"><p>.146<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.248<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.707</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Academic stress coping strategies</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. Task-oriented</p></td><td align="left"><p>.524<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.235<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.202<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.168<sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>.513<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.242<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.337<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.186<sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.250<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.324<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.708</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13. Emotion-oriented</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.087</p></td><td align="left"><p>.464<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.472<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.485<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.343<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.348<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.222<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.511<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.506<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.567<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.236<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.123<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.745</bold></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14. Avoidance</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.048</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.085</p></td><td align="left"><p>.117<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.114<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.245<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.046</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.128<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.033</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.093</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.061</p></td><td align="left"><p>.139<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.394<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.296<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.717</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Score range</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Mean</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>3.73</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.60</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.68</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.25</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.27</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.61</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.80</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.80</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>1.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.60</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.55</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.93</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.93</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. SIE = stress-is-enhancing, SID = stress-is-debilitating. <sups>a</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.05, <sups>b</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <sups>c</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.001. The bolded values on the diagonal represent the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-24">Stepwise regression analyses</hd> <p>Given that academic SIE and SID mindsets were two distinct dimensions of academic stress mindsets, we investigated their different contributions to five emotional and behavioral outcomes, respectively, after controlling for the effects of other variables. In each regression model, we entered demographics (i.e., age and gender) and other variables (i.e., neuroticism, academic stress level, appraisals, and coping strategies) into the first block and put academic SIE or SID mindsets into the second block. All models were free from multicollinearity concerns (VIFs < 2.35, 0.43 < tolerance < 0.92). As shown in Tables 4 and 5, even after accounting for the effects of demographics and other variables, both academic SIE and SID mindsets persistently emerged as significant predictors of school burnout and proactive behaviors under academic stress. Regarding academic anxiety and self-handicapping behaviors, only the academic SID mindset rather than the academic SIE mindset remained a significant predictor. However, neither academic SIE (<emph>p</emph> =.083) nor SID mindset (<emph>p</emph> =.147) exhibited a significant association with challenge-seeking behaviors in the regression model.</p> <p>Table 4 Stepwise regression of academic stress-is-enhancing mindsets on outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variables</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Emotional outcomes</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Behavioral outcomes</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Academic anxiety</p></th><th align="left"><p>School burnout</p></th><th align="left"><p>Self-handicapping behaviors</p></th><th align="left"><p>Proactive behaviors under academic stress</p></th><th align="left"><p>Challenge-seeking behaviors</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Step 1</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.026</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.036</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.259<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.056</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.045</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.043</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.115<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.053</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neuroticism</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.157<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.112</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.016</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.044</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic stress level</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.510<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.537<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.112</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.159<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.156<sup>*</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Threat appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.113</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.094</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.005</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.036</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.123</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Challenge appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.148<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.099<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.056</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.088</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.039</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Task-oriented coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.119</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.532<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.249<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotion-oriented coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.086</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.109</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.218<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.283<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.041</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Avoidance coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.054</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.033</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.198<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.155<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.196<sup>**</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.577<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.562<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.262<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.510<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.195<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Step 2</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.027</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.033</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.257<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.051</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.042</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.042</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.112<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.055</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neuroticism</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.166<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.092</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.007</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.029</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic stress level</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.512<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.534<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.110</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.154<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.153<sup>*</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Threat appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.110</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.101</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.049</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.131</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Challenge appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.149<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.097<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.054</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.083</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.036</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Task-oriented coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.033</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.056</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.079</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.430<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.190<sup>*</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotion-oriented coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.088</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.104</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.215<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.275<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.037</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Avoidance coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.060</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.018</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.187<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.127<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.180<sup>**</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic SIE mindset</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.046</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.105<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.076</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.195<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.113</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.578<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.569<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.266<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.535<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.203<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>△R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.007<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.004</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.025<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. SIE = stress-is-enhancing. <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> <.05, <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> <.01, <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> <.001</p> <p>Table 5 Stepwise regression of academic stress-is-debilitating mindsets on outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variables</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Emotional outcomes</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Behavioral outcomes</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Academic anxiety</p></th><th align="left"><p>School burnout</p></th><th align="left"><p>Self-handicapping behaviors</p></th><th align="left"><p>Proactive behaviors under academic stress</p></th><th align="left"><p>Challenge-seeking behaviors</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Step 1</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.026</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.036</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.259<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.056</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.045</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.043</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.115<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.053</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neuroticism</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.157<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.112</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.016</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.044</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic stress level</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.510<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.537<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.112</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.159<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.156<sup>*</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Threat appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.113</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.094</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.005</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.036</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.123</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Challenge appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.148<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.099<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.056</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.088</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.039</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Task-oriented coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.119</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.532<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.249<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotion-oriented coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.086</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.109</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.218<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.283<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.041</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Avoidance coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.054</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.033</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.198<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.155<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.196<sup>**</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.577<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.562<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.262<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.510<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.195<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Step 2</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.016</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.042</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.176<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.015</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.003</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.005</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.046</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.117<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.052</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neuroticism</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.149<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.097</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.033</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.014</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic stress level</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.457<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.438<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.006</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.090</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.117</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Threat appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.110</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.089</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.032</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.121</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Challenge appraisal style</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.135<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.075</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.030</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.071</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.030</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Task-oriented coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.013</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.041</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.076</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.504<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.234<sup>**</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotion-oriented coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.050</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.041</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.146<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.236<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.015</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Avoidance coping</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.051</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.027</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.191<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.150<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.193<sup>**</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic SID mindset</p></td><td align="left"><p>β</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.152<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.283<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.301<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.196<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.109</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.588<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.601<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.306<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.529<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.201<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>△R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.011<sup>**</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.045<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.019<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.006</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. SID = stress-is-debilitating. <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> <.05, <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> <.01, <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> <.001</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-25">General discussion</hd> <p>In this study, we adapted the original measure of stress mindset into academic contexts and found a two-factor structure of academic stress mindset in Chinese adolescent students. Considering the mixed findings about the factor structure of stress mindset (one-factor vs. two-factor model) in previous research (e.g., Iwamoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref128">32</reflink>]; Peixoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref129">55</reflink>]), our finding highlights the importance of considering specific contexts or sources when examining people's mindsets about stress. Both EFA and CFA results revealed that academic stress-is-enhancing (SIE) and stress-is-debilitating (SID) mindsets are two related but independent variables. Our investigation showed that academic SIE and SID mindsets uniquely predicted different academic-related outcomes, respectively. For example, a greater endorsement of academic SIE mindset was significantly associated with increased proactive behaviors and reduced levels of school burnout, after controlling for other variables (e.g., age and academic stress level). Conversely, a greater embrace of academic SID mindset was significantly linked to more maladaptive learning responses, including academic anxiety, school burnout, and self-handicapping behaviors, as well as less adoption of proactive behaviors. These findings provide insights for future interventions aimed at implementing stress mindset training, which need to focus on both increasing SIE and decreasing SID mindsets.</p> <p>Consistent with our hypothesis, academic stress mindset was better explained by a two-factor model rather than a unidimensional structure. The one-factor structure initially conceptualizes academic SIE and academic SID mindsets as opposite ends of a spectrum, analogous to a zero-sum dynamic, where an increase in one mindset corresponds to a decrease in the other (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref130">13</reflink>]). However, this approach only considers the overall mindset and may not accurately reflect the relation between academic SIE and SID mindsets. In contrast, the two-factor model may more accurately capture the distinct and potentially independent nature of these two types of stress mindsets in academic settings. The finding about the two-factor structure aligns with previous research involving a Chinese sample (Chen & Fang, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref131">9</reflink>]), and is consistent with the Yin-Yang model in Chinese culture (Jiang, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref132">34</reflink>]). In the Yin-Yang model, people are encouraged to recognize the coexistence and interdependence of opposing ideas, such as good and evil, to achieve a balance of life (Jiang, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref133">34</reflink>]). The pursuit of balance spreads in every aspect of life, including the view of stress. Thus, Chinese students tend to recognize both the positive and negative aspects of academic stress, rather than perceiving it solely as overall beneficial or detrimental.</p> <p>Given that academic SIE and SID mindsets were two independent variables, it is very likely that they may exhibit different associations with academic-related outcomes (Caleon et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref134">5</reflink>]; Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref135">36</reflink>]). In this study, we focused on how these two mindsets predicted students' emotional responses (i.e., academic anxiety and school burnout) when they were under stress and their behavioral responses when facing current and future stressful situations (i.e., proactive behaviors, as well as challenge-seeking and self-handicapping behaviors). Consistent with our hypothesis, academic SIE and SID mindsets did show opposite relations with emotional and behavioral outcomes. These results were similar to previous findings that individuals with a SIE mindset may exhibit more adaptive responses to achieve expected favorable outcomes, while those with a SID mindset may display more maladaptive responses to avoid potential negative consequences (e.g., Horiuchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref136">30</reflink>]; Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref137">40</reflink>]; Klussman et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref138">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, some associations become nonsignificant when considering the effects of demographics and other stress-related factors. Previous research has indicated that academic-related emotional and behavioral outcomes (e.g., burnout, anxiety, and procrastination) were associated with several stress-related factors, such as academic stress levels (e.g., Fariborz et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref139">19</reflink>]), appraisals of academic stress (e.g., Jamieson et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref140">33</reflink>]), and coping strategies for academic stress (e.g., Teixeira et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref141">68</reflink>]). While it might be argued that the academic stress mindset is similar to these variables, it is theoretically distinct from them. The primary distinction between stress mindsets and the other three variables lies in their relation to the process of experiencing stress. For example, individuals must encounter a specific stressful condition to report, evaluate, or deal with the stress (Kilby & Sherman, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref142">41</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref143">67</reflink>]). However, they can hold different views about stress (i.e., stress mindsets) even when not currently experiencing stress. Our regression results provide empirical evidence supporting the notion that the academic stress mindset is different from other stress-related variables. Similar to prior findings in general contexts (e.g., Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref144">13</reflink>]), we found that academic stress mindsets had additional contributions in some emotional and behavioral outcomes (i.e., academic anxiety, school burnout, proactive behaviors, and self-handicapping behaviors), even after considering the effects of other stress-related factors.</p> <p>In this study, we separately considered the additional contributions of academic SIE and SID mindsets in each regression model and found that two kinds of mindsets played different roles in the correlations with academic-related outcomes. For example, only the academic SID mindset remained a significant predictor of academic anxiety and self-handicapping behaviors, while the academic SIE mindset did not. Students with an academic SID mindset believe that academic stress results in negative outcomes, which drives them to adopt actions to prevent possible unfavorable consequences (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref145">13</reflink>]). Integrating the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework (Elliot & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref146">17</reflink>]) and the regulatory focus theory (Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref147">26</reflink>]), these students may avoid displaying their incompetence (i.e., mastery- and performance-avoidance goals) through a prevention-focused perspective. In a prevention state, individuals are more sensitive to information about safety and loss (e.g., Freitas et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref148">22</reflink>]). Thus, students who hold a stronger academic SID mindset may tend to self-handicap to avoid the possibility of connecting anticipated failure with a lack of competence, and they are more likely to feel anxious due to the expected negative outcomes. Contrary to the prevailing notion that students who perceive academic stress as potentially beneficial would inherently experience reduced academic anxiety and exhibit fewer self-handicapping behaviors, our findings indicated that these associations might not be as unequivocal as previously assumed. It implies that positive beliefs about academic stress do not necessarily reduce students' academic anxiety. Academic stress often originates from tangible stressful events, in which case, even positive beliefs may amount to little in the face of these genuine stressors.</p> <p>It seems that the academic SIE mindset is more important for "adaptive" behavioral outcomes, because it had an additional contribution to predicting proactive behaviors. The SIE mindset about academic stress motivates students to use the stress to achieve the favorable outcomes they anticipate (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref149">13</reflink>]). According to the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework (Elliot & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref150">17</reflink>]) and the regulatory focus theory (Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref151">26</reflink>]), students with higher levels of academic SIE mindset may tend to adopt a promotion-focused orientation to improve their abilities and attain success (i.e., mastery- and performance-approach goals). Thus, in a promotion state, these students tend to proactively engage in learning under academic pressure. In contrast, those who hold a higher level of academic SID mindset may tend to engage less proactively to prevent themselves from the potential negative consequences. This result is in line with previous research, which showed that individuals with a stronger endorsement of a SIE mindset about general stress reported more proactive behaviors (e.g., Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref152">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>In terms of school burnout, both academic SIE and SID mindsets were significant predictors. Consistent with previous findings (Klussman et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref153">43</reflink>]), students who were more convinced that academic stress has negative consequences reported that they experienced higher levels of school burnout. Based on the Study Demands-Resources Model (SD-R; Salmela-Aro et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref154">61</reflink>]), school burnout emerges from the imbalance between learning demands and students' resources. A higher level of academic SID mindset seems to magnify this imbalance. Guiding by such a mindset, students may tend to think that they lack the ability to handle stressful schoolwork, and feel exhausted due to the potential need to expend energy in managing or avoiding academic pressure. In the long run, they may lose interest in learning amidst this sense of powerlessness and exhaustion. Thus, the relation of academic SID mindset to school burnout may be reflected in all three dimensions of school burnout (i.e., exhaustion, inadequacy, and cynicism). Regarding the academic SIE mindset, its potential influence on school burnout may be primarily manifest in the cynicism dimension rather than others (i.e., exhaustion and inadequacy). Students with higher levels of academic SIE mindset believe that academic stress has benefits and results in favorable outcomes. When holding this belief, they are less likely to view stressful academic activities as meaningless and lose interest in these activities.</p> <p>Unlike our expectations, although challenge-seeking behaviors were positively associated with the SIE mindset and negatively related to the SID mindset, their connection became non-significant when other variables were taken into consideration. Instead, strategies that students used to cope with stressful situations (i.e., task-oriented coping and avoidance coping) appeared to be more important predictors of challenge-seeking behaviors. These findings suggest that while mindsets do have a potential impact, the practical approaches individuals use to cope with stress, such as how much they focus on tasks and problem-solving, as well as their tendency to avoid difficulties, are more directly related to their willingness to seek out challenges. Students who employ task-oriented strategies to cope with academic stress often believe in their ability to handle difficulties and tend to take proactive approaches to problem-solving (Konaszewski et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref155">44</reflink>]). Thus, they are more likely to be prepared to face difficulties and further self-improvement, which may empower them with the courage and confidence to actively seek out challenges. Conversely, given that students who adopt avoidance coping strategies tend to avoid difficulties to relieve pressure (Calsbeek et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref156">6</reflink>]), it is reasonable that they exhibit a lower tendency towards seeking challenges. Therefore, the potential contribution of SIE and SID mindsets may be diminished when analyzed alongside these coping strategies. Another possible explanation for the non-significant prediction of academic SIE mindset on challenge-seeking behaviors is that a higher level of this mindset may only promote adaptive behaviors in immediate academic-related stressful situations, rather than influencing responses to future academic stress events. Regarding students with lower levels of academic SID mindset, they may be less afraid of challenging academic activities and show a lower inclination towards avoidance or prevention (Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref157">36</reflink>]). However, it does not mean that they will adopt approach-related behaviors like proactively seeking out challenges. Thus, the connection between academic SID mindset and challenge-seeking behaviors also appears relatively weak. Considering these two perspectives, if educators aim to promote students' challenge-seeking behaviors, it may be more effective to guide students in applying more task-oriented strategies to deal with academic challenges (e.g., focused on challenges and ways to solve the problem) (Grant & Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref158">24</reflink>]), rather than solely focusing on altering their stress mindsets.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-26">Contributions and limitations</hd> <p>Our findings contribute to the current literature in two ways. First, we addressed a gap in previous research that has not reached a consensus on the structural aspects of stress mindsets (e.g., Peixoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref159">55</reflink>]; Iwamoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref160">32</reflink>]). We contextualized the examination of stress mindset structures and found that stress-is-enhancing (SIE) and stress-is-debilitating (SID) were interrelated but independent constructs, which deepened our understanding of the stress mindset theory (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref161">13</reflink>]). This finding highlights the importance of considering the specific situational contexts in which stress arises in future investigations of stress mindsets (Murphy et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref162">53</reflink>]). The discovery of the two-factor model has significant implications for both researchers and educators. It underscores the importance of considering individual differences in SIE and SID mindsets (e.g., Caleon et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref163">5</reflink>]; Horiuchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref164">30</reflink>]) when addressing students' responses to academic stress. Future research may apply a person-centered approach (e.g., Latent Profile Analysis) (Karwowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref165">37</reflink>]), which entails recognizing the variability in students' academic stress mindsets and tailoring interventions to meet these individual differences.</p> <p>Second, the co-occurrence of these two distinct academic stress mindsets allows for a nuanced exploration of the unique associations each mindset holds with different academic-related outcomes (Caleon et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref166">5</reflink>]; Karampas et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref167">36</reflink>]). Our research demonstrated that academic SID mindset was positively linked to maladaptive learning outcomes (i.e., academic anxiety, school burnout, and self-handicapping behaviors), whereas academic SIE mindset was more predictive of adaptive outcomes (i.e., proactive learning behaviors). Prior interventions based on the one-factor model have primarily aimed at shifting individuals from a predominantly SID mindset to a more SIE mindset (e.g., Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref168">14</reflink>]; Keech et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref169">38</reflink>]). Our findings indicated that effective interventions may highlight the dual nature of academic stress, assisting students in recognizing that academic stress may not necessarily be as detrimental as popular belief and can also bring them benefits. While the "Double Reduction" policy aims to alleviate academic pressure (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref170">71</reflink>]), our results demonstrate that students' stress mindsets are crucial in shaping their emotional and behavioral responses, irrespective of the pressure level.</p> <p>Our findings suggest several important educational implications for schools and educators. First, school administrators might consider incorporating stress mindset interventions into regular instructional practices to help students better understand the dual nature of stress and its potential effects (Yeager et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref171">75</reflink>]). These interventions could focus on cultivating a "stress-is-enhancing" mindset, which encourages students to view stress as a potential source of motivation and growth, while reducing a "stress-is-debilitating" mindset that frames stress as entirely harmful or overwhelming. For example, educators can help students reframe academic stress—such as pressure from exams, challenging assignments, or heavy workloads—as an opportunity to identify weaknesses and enhance problem-solving skills. This may be achieved by explicitly teaching students about the adaptive benefits of stress in appropriate contexts and providing stress-related feedback that emphasizes how to use the power of mindsets to leverage stress for positive results. Through this approach, educators can guide students to see stress not as a threat but as a signal to focus, adapt, and grow (Rege et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref172">57</reflink>]). Additionally, efforts to reduce students' negative perceptions of stress, such as providing psychological support and fostering a supportive learning environment (Federici & Skaalvik, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref173">20</reflink>]), could help mitigate potential emotional and behavioral problems. Since students may simultaneously hold both "stress-is-enhancing" (SIE) and "stress-is-debilitating" (SID) mindsets, personalized interventions may be necessary to balance these perspectives. Educators can use tailored instructional strategies and stress management techniques to enhance the benefits of a positive stress mindset while reducing the potential drawbacks of a negative one (Crum et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref174">12</reflink>]; Rew et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref175">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, it is essential to emphasize that such interventions should complement, rather than replace, systemic efforts to reduce unnecessary stressors in educational settings. In particular, for Chinese secondary school students facing significant academic pressures from high-stakes exams (e.g., Gaokao, Zhongkao) and expectations from parents and schools, stress mindset interventions may serve as an effective tool to help students navigate these unavoidable stressors. Nevertheless, these interventions must be carefully designed to avoid placing undue responsibility on students to "cope" with stress and should instead empower them with adaptive strategies while fostering supportive learning environments. Ethical considerations are important when designing and implementing stress mindset interventions. Encouraging students to adopt a stress-is-enhancing mindset must not inadvertently burden them with the sole responsibility to manage stress. Instead, interventions should aim to balance the recognition of stress's adaptive potential with the need to mitigate excessive or harmful stressors. Future research should prioritize the rigorous evaluation of stress mindset interventions, particularly their long-term effects and applicability across diverse educational and cultural contexts. Key areas for further investigation include understanding how these interventions can sustainably improve student outcomes, their potential risks, and how they can be integrated with broader strategies to reduce systemic stressors.</p> <p>Despite the contributions, this study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, due to the constraints of convenience sampling, we aimed to ensure participant diversity by recruiting students from various regions and schools across Guangxi. While this approach helped reduce potential bias, it affected the generalizability of our findings. Therefore, caution should be exercised when applying these results to more diverse populations. Future research should employ more rigorous sampling methods to further examine the associations between students' academic stress mindsets and their learning emotions and behaviors. Second, the two-factor structure of Chinese adolescent students' academic stress mindsets may imply that they hold academic SIE and SID mindsets simultaneously, and the combinations of these two mindsets at different levels may have different potential influences, which await investigation in future research.</p> <p>Third, we found that academic SIE and SID mindsets were correlated with emotional and behavioral outcomes in different ways. However, these results do not provide conclusive evidence on whether an academic SIE mindset can buffer the potential negative influence of an academic SID mindset, which requires further exploration. Additionally, our cross-sectional data limited the ability to determine the temporal order of these relations or establish causal conclusions. It is possible that students' mindsets about academic stress influence their emotional and behavioral responses (e.g., an academic SIE mindset encouraging proactive coping). Alternatively, students' responses to stressful academic challenges may shape their stress mindsets over time (e.g., adaptive responses leading to the development of an SIE mindset). A dynamic, bidirectional relation is also plausible, where mindsets and responses reinforce each other in either positive or negative cycles. Future research should explore whether an academic SIE mindset can buffer the effects of an SID mindset and clarify the directionality of these relations. Longitudinal and experimental studies are needed to examine whether stress mindsets precede learning responses or vice versa and determine the mechanisms underlying these processes.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-27">Conclusion</hd> <p>Taken together, we adapted the measure of stress mindsets into academic contexts and found a two-factor structure of academic stress mindsets in Chinese adolescent students. Given that academic stress-is-enhancing (SIE) and stress-is-debilitating (SID) mindsets are two related but distinct factors, we investigated their associations with several emotional and behavioral outcomes in academic contexts separately. The findings further support the two-factor model in academic contexts because the two kinds of academic stress mindsets exhibited different patterns of association with outcomes. In particular, a greater embrace of academic SID mindset showed stronger correlations with negative learning outcomes (academic anxiety, school burnout, and self-handicapping behaviors). Conversely, a greater endorsement of academic SIE mindset was more indicative of positive learning outcomes, specifically proactive behaviors. The study emphasizes the importance of considering both SIE and SID dimensions in research on academic stress mindsets and suggests a potentially effective way to adjust students' learning states by increasing SIE and decreasing SID mindsets about academic stress simultaneously.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-28">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183752284-29">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0183752284-30">Publisher's note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0183752284-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref108" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bai, Q, Bai, S, Dan, Q, Lei, L, & Wang, P. (2020). Mother phubbing and adolescent academic burnout: The mediating role of mental health and the moderating role of agreeableness and neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, Article 109622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref69" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Berglas S, Jones EE. Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1978; 36; 4: 405-417. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref98" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bieleke M, Gogol K, Goetz T, Daniels L, Pekrun R. The AEQ-S: A short version of the achievement emotions questionnaire. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2021; 65: 101940. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101940</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref19" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blackwell LS, Trzesniewski KH, Dweck CS. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development. 2007; 78; 1: 246-263. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Caleon IS, Kadir MBS, Tan CS, Chua J, Ilham NQB. Stress mindset, coping strategies, and well-being of secondary students in Singapore during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Psychology. 2023; 43; 5: 491-508. 10.1080/01443410.2023.2231668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref123" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Calsbeek H, Rijken M, Bekkers MJ, Van Berge Henegouwen GP, Dekker J. Coping in adolescents and young adults with chronic digestive disorders: Impact on school and leisure activities. Psychology and Health. 2006; 21; 4: 447-462. 10.1080/14768320500410910</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref91" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carpenter S. Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures. 2018; 12; 1: 25-44. 10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen H, Guo H, Chen H, Cao X, Liu J, Chen X, Tian Y, Tang H, Wang X, Zhou J. Influence of academic stress and school bullying on self-harm behaviors among Chinese middle school students: The mediation effect of depression and anxiety. Frontiers in Public Health. 2023; 10: 1049051. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1049051</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chen HL, Fang SC. Job stressors and job performance: Modeling of moderating mediation effects of stress mindset. Research Journal of Business and Management. 2019; 6; 1: 35-45. 10.17261/Pressacademia.2019.1020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ching BHH, Li XF, Chen TT. Longitudinal links between parental failure mindsets, helicopter parenting, and fixed mindset of intelligence in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2023; 52; 10: 2196-2213. 10.1007/s10964-023-01815-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ching, B. H. H, Wu, H. X, & Li, X. F. (2023b). Creative mindsets are malleable: Effects of born this way messages and different definitions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 48, Article 101308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crum AJ, Akinola M, Martin A, Fath S. The role of stress mindset in shaping cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses to challenging and threatening stress. Anxiety Stress & Coping: an International Journal. 2017; 30; 4: 379-395. 10.1080/10615806.2016.1275585</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crum AJ, Salovey P, Achor S. Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2013; 104; 4: 716-733. 10.1037/a0031201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crum, A. J, Santoro, E, Handley-Miner, I, Smith, E. N, Evans, K, Moraveji, N, Achor, S, & Salovey, P. (2023). Evaluation of the "rethink stress" mindsetintervention: A metacognitive approach to changing mindsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(9), 2603–2622. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck CS, Leggett EL. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review. 1988; 95; 2: 256-273. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck CS, Yeager DS. Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2019; 14; 3: 481-496. 10.1177/1745691618804166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot AJ, McGregor HA. A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80; 3: 501-519. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emirza S, Yılmaz Kozcu G. Protecting healthcare workers' mental health against COVID-19-related stress: The effects of stress mindset and psychological resilience. Nursing & Health Sciences. 2023; 25; 2: 216-230. 10.1111/nhs.13018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fariborz N, Hadi J, Ali TN. Students' academic stress, stress response and academic burnout: Mediating role of self-efficacy. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities. 2019; 27; 4: 2441-2454</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Federici RA, Skaalvik EM. Students' perceptions of emotional and instrumental teacher support: Relations with motivational and emotional responses. International Education Studies. 2014; 7; 1: 21-36. 10.5539/ies.v7n1p21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18; 1: 39-50. 10.2307/3151312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freitas AL, Azizian A, Travers S, Berry SA. The evaluative connotation of processing fluency: Inherently positive or moderated by motivational context?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2005; 41; 6: 636-644. 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goyer JP, Akinola M, Grunberg R, Crum AJ. Thriving under pressure: The effects of stress-related wise interventions on affect, sleep, and exam performance for college students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Emotion. 2022; 22; 8: 1755-1772. 10.1037/emo0001026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant H, Dweck CS. Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 85; 3: 541-553. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grüning DJ, Rammstedt B, Lechner CM. Fixed is not the opposite of growth: Item keying matters for measuring mindsets. Social Psychology of Education: an International Journal. 2024; 27: 2111-2127. 10.1007/s11218-023-09866-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higgins, E. T. (2012). Regulatory focus theory. In Van P. A. M. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 483–504). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n24</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoferichter F, Raufelder D. Examining the role of social relationships in the association between neuroticism and test anxiety—Results from a study with German secondary school students. Educational Psychology. 2015; 35; 7: 851-868. 10.1080/01443410.2013.849326</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofmann SG, Heering S, Sawyer AT, Asnaani A. How to handle anxiety: The effects of reappraisal, acceptance, and suppression strategies on anxious arousal. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2009; 47; 5: 389-394. 10.1016/j.brat.2009.02.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horikoshi, K. (2023). The positive psychology of challenge: Towards interdisciplinary studies of activities and processes involving challenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1090069. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1090069</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horiuchi S, Tsuda A, Aoki S, Yoneda K, Sawaguchi Y. Coping as a mediator of the relationship between stress mindset and psychological stress response: A pilot study. Psychology Research and Behavior Management. 2018; 11: 47-54. 10.2147/PRBM.S150400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999; 6; 1: 1-55. 10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iwamoto K, Takehashi H, Taka F. Reliability and validity of a Japanese translation of the stress mindset measure (SMM-J). The Japanese Journal of Psychology. 2020; 9; 6: 592-602. 10.4992/jjpsy.90.18229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jamieson JP, Black AE, Pelaia LE, Gravelding H, Gordils J, Reis HT. Reappraising stress arousal improves affective, neuroendocrine, and academic performance outcomes in community college classrooms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2022; 151; 1: 197-212. 10.1037/xge0000893</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang X. Chinese dialectical thinking—the Yin Yang model. Philosophy Compass. 2013; 8; 5: 438-446. 10.1111/phc3.12035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> John, O. P, & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed, pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karampas K, Pezirkianidis C, Stalikas A. Psychometric properties of the stress mindset measure (SMM) in a Greek sample. Psychology. 2020; 11; 8: 1185-1199. 10.4236/psych.2020.118079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karwowski M, Royston RP, Reiter-Palmon R. Exploring creative mindsets: Variable and person-centered approaches. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts. 2019; 13; 1: 36-48. 10.1037/aca0000170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keech JJ, Hagger MS, Hamilton K. Changing stress mindsets with a novel imagery intervention: A randomized controlled trial. Emotion. 2021; 21; 1: 123-136. 10.1037/emo0000678</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keech JJ, Hagger MS, O'Callaghan FV, Hamilton K. The influence of university students' stress mindsets on health and performance outcomes. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2018; 52; 12: 1046-1059. 10.1093/abm/kay008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keech JJ, Orbell S, Hagger MS, O'Callaghan FV, Hamilton K. Psychometric properties of the stress control mindset measure in university students from Australia and the UK. Brain and Behavior. 2021; 11; 2: e01963. 10.1002/brb3.1963</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilby CJ, Sherman KA. Delineating the relationship between stress mindset and primary appraisals: Preliminary findings. SpringerPlus. 2016; 5: 336. 10.1186/s40064-016-1937-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim J, Shin Y, Tsukayama E, Park D. Stress mindset predicts job turnover among preschool teachers. Journal of School Psychology. 2020; 78: 13-22. 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klussman K, Lindeman MIH, Nichols AL, Langer J. Fostering stress resilience among business students: The role of stress mindset and self-connection. Psychological Reports. 2021; 124; 4: 1462-1480. 10.1177/0033294120937440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Konaszewski K, Kolemba M, Niesiobędzka M. Resilience, sense of coherence and self-efficacy as predictors of stress coping style among university students. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. 2021; 40; 8: 4052-4062. 10.1007/s12144-019-00363-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lebedeva N, Solenova E. Russian adaptation of stress mindset Measure-General (SMM-G). European Psychiatry. 2022; 65; S1: S354-S354. 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.899</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy BR, Myers LM. Preventive health behaviors influenced by self-perceptions of aging. Preventive Medicine: an International Journal Devoted To Practice and Theory. 2004; 39; 3: 625-629. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.02.029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li Y, Ching BHH, Wu HX, Chen TT, He CC. Beneficial or debilitating: A qualitative inquiry into Chinese preschool teachers' workload-related stress mindset. Early Years. 2024; 41; 1: 61-78. 10.1080/09575146.2022.2090518</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madigan DJ, Curran T. Does burnout affect academic achievement? A meta-analysis of over 100,000 students. Educational Psychology Review. 2021; 33; 2: 387-405. 10.1007/s10648-020-09533-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh HW, Hocevar D. Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin. 1985; 97; 3: 562-582. 10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCabe KO, Van Yperen NW, Elliot AJ, Verbraak M. Big five personality profiles of context-specific achievement goals. Journal of Research in Personality. 2013; 47; 6: 698-707. 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menard, S. (1995). Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-106. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mueller CM, Dweck CS. Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 75; 1: 33-52. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, E. R, Cox, D. J, Fisseha, F, & Gunthert, K. C. (2023). Category-specific stress mindsets: Beliefs about the debilitating versus enhancing effects of specific types of stressors among young adults. Behavioral Sciences, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090709. Article 709.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nazim, A, & Ahmad, S. (2013). Modeling the influential factors of 8th grades student's mathematics achievement in Malaysia by using structural equationmodeling (SEM). International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 4(7), 950–952. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijaas.v3.i4.pp172-177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peixoto EM, Rocha GMAD, Franco JDO, Bueno JMH. Assessment of stress mindset in a sample from the North and Northeast regions of Brazil. Estudos De Psicologia (Natal). 2019; 24; 3: 328-339. 10.22491/1678-4669.20190033</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter T, Molina DC, Blackwell L, Roberts S, Quirk A, Duckworth AL, Trzesniewski K. Measuring mastery behaviours at scale: The persistence, effort, resilience, and Challenge-Seeking (PERC) task. Journal of Learning Analytics. 2020; 7; 1: 5-18. 10.18608/jla.2020.71.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rege M, Hanselman P, Solli IF, Dweck CS, Ludvigsen S, Bettinger E, Crosnoe R, Muller C, Walton G, Duckworth A, Yeager DS. How can we inspire nations of learners? An investigation of growth mindset and challenge-seeking in two countries. American Psychologist. 2021; 76; 5: 755-767. 10.1037/amp0000647</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rew L, Johnson K, Young C. A systematic review of interventions to reduce stress in adolescence. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2014; 35; 11: 851-863. 10.3109/01612840.2014.924044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romano L, Tang X, Hietajärvi L, Salmela-Aro K, Fiorilli C. Students' trait emotional intelligence and perceived teacher emotional support in preventing burnout: The moderating role of academic anxiety. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17; 13: 4771. 10.3390/ijerph17134771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmela-Aro K, Kiuru N, Leskinen E, Nurmi JE. School burnout inventory (SBI): Reliability and validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2009; 25; 1: 48-57. 10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmela-Aro, K, Tang, X, & Upadyaya, K. (2022). Study demands-resources model of student engagement and burnout. In A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmela-Aro K, Upadyaya K. School burnout and engagement in the context of demands–resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2014; 84; 1: 137-151. 10.1111/bjep.12018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scherer, R, & Campos, D. G. (2022). Measuring those who have their Minds set: An item-level meta-analysis of the implicit theories of intelligence scale in education. Educational Research Review, 37, Article 100479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100479</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwinger M, Trautner M, Pütz N, Fabianek S, Lemmer G, Lauermann F, Wirthwein L. Why do students use strategies that hurt their chances of academic success? A meta-analysis of antecedents of academic self-handicapping. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2022; 114; 3: 576-596. 10.1037/edu0000706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwinger M, Wirthwein L, Lemmer G, Steinmayr R. Academic self-handicapping and achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2014; 106; 3: 744-761. 10.1037/a0035832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner N, Brewer N. The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002; 83; 3: 678-692. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.678</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun J, Dunne MP, Hou X, Xu A. Educational stress scale for adolescents: Development, validity, and reliability with Chinese students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2011; 29; 6: 534-546. 10.1177/0734282910394976</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teixeira RJ, Brandão T, Dores AR. Academic stress, coping, emotion regulation, affect and psychosomatic symptoms in higher education. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. 2022; 41; 11: 7618-7627. 10.1007/s12144-020-01304-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Török L, Szabó ZP, Tóth L. A critical review of the literature on academic self-handicapping: Theory, manifestations, prevention and measurement. Social Psychology of Education: an International Journal. 2018; 21; 5: 1175-1202. 10.1007/s11218-018-9460-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urdan T, Midgley C. Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review. 2001; 13; 2: 115-138. 10.1023/A:1009061303214</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, D, Chen, X. Y, Ma, Z, Liu, X, & Fan, F. (2022). Has the double reduction policy relieved stress? A follow-up study on Chinese adolescents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-022-00530-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang Q, Hu W, Ouyang X, Chen H, Qi Y, Jiang Y. The relationship between negative school gossip and suicide intention in Chinese junior high school students: The mediating effect of academic burnout and gender difference. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020; 117: 105272. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watkins MW. Determining parallel analysis criteria. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods. 2006; 5; 2: 344-346. 10.22237/jmasm/1162354020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xinhua (2021). China issues guidelines to ease burden on young students. The State Council of the People's Republic of China. https://english.<ulink href="http://www.gov.cn/policies/latestreleases/202107/24/content%5fWS60fc16dfc6d0df57f98dd873.html">www.gov.cn/policies/latestreleases/202107/24/content%5fWS60fc16dfc6d0df57f98dd873.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeager DS, Bryan CJ, Gross JJ, Murray JS, Cobb DK, Santos PHF, Gravelding H, Johnson M, Jamieson JP. A synergistic mindsets intervention protects adolescents from stress. Nature. 2022; 607; 7919: 512-520. 10.1038/s41586-022-04907-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeager, D. S, & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000794</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeager DS, Romero C, Paunesku D, Hulleman CS, Schneider B, Hinojosa C, Lee HY, O'Brien J, Flint K, Roberts A, Trott J, Greene D, Walton GM, Dweck CS. Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016; 108; 3: 374-391. 10.1037/edu0000098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yuan, K. H, & Bentler, P. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling. In C. Rao, & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics (Vol. 10, pp. 297–358). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7161(06)26010-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao X, Zhu S, Ma G. Comparison study on basic rights between Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and American high school students. China Youth Study. 2009; 6: 62-68. 10.19633/j.cnki.11-2579/d.2009.06.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu X, Haegele JA, Liu H, Yu F. Academic stress, physical activity, sleep, and mental health among Chinese adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18: 7257. 10.3390/ijerph18147257</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tiffany Ting Chen; Boby Ho-Hong Ching; Hannah Xiaohan Wu and Xiang Yu Li</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Tiffany Ting Chen Tiffany Ting Chen is a doctoral student at the Faculty of Education, University of Macau. Her research interests encompass mindset and its possible outcomes, contingent self-worth, and stigmatization based on characteristics.</p> <p>Boby Ho-Hong Ching Boby Ho-Hong Ching is an associate professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Macau. His primary research interests include mathematics learning in children, self-worth, and social stigma.</p> <p>Hannah Xiaohan Wu Hannah Xiaohan Wu is a lecturer at the School of Public Administration, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Her research interests focus on child and adolescent mental health and social-cognitive development.</p> <p>Xiang Yu Li Xiang Yu Li is a doctoral student at the Faculty of Education, University of Macau. Her main research interests are in educational psychology and the cognitive psychology of mathematics.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib170" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref175"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1462874
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Exploring a Two-Factor Structure of Stress Mindsets in Academic Contexts: Their Connections with Emotional and Behavioral Outcomes
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tiffany+Ting+Chen%22">Tiffany Ting Chen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Boby+Ho-Hong+Ching%22">Boby Ho-Hong Ching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hannah+Xiaohan+Wu%22">Hannah Xiaohan Wu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5072-4619">0000-0002-5072-4619</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xiang+Yu+Li%22">Xiang Yu Li</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Social+Psychology+of+Education%3A+An+International+Journal%22"><i>Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 28(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 28
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety%22">Anxiety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Burnout%22">Burnout</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affective+Behavior%22">Affective Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beliefs%22">Beliefs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance+Factors%22">Performance Factors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjustment+%28to+Environment%29%22">Adjustment (to Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Context+Effect%22">Context Effect</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11218-025-10041-9
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1381-2890<br />1573-1928
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study explores the structure of stress mindsets within academic contexts and examines their associations with academic-related emotional (academic anxiety, school burnout) and behavioral (self-handicapping, proactive, and challenge-seeking behaviors) outcomes among Chinese adolescent students. Results supported a two-factor model of academic stress mindsets, distinguishing between the stress-is-enhancing (SIE) and stress-is-debilitating (SID) mindsets as related yet distinct constructs. Notably, these mindsets differentially predicted academic outcomes after controlling for demographics and other stress-related factors. Specifically, the academic SIE mindset was more associated with adaptive learning outcomes (i.e., proactive behaviors), while the academic SID mindset was more predictive of maladaptive learning outcomes (i.e., academic anxiety, school burnout, and self-handicapping behaviors). These findings extend stress mindset theory to academic settings and underscore the need to consider specific contexts when investigating stress mindsets. Future interventions designed to change students' learning states should focus on enhancing their academic SIE mindset while simultaneously reducing their academic SID mindset.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1462874
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1462874
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11218-025-10041-9
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 28
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Burnout
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affective Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beliefs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance Factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adjustment (to Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Context Effect
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Exploring a Two-Factor Structure of Stress Mindsets in Academic Contexts: Their Connections with Emotional and Behavioral Outcomes
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tiffany Ting Chen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Boby Ho-Hong Ching
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hannah Xiaohan Wu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xiang Yu Li
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1381-2890
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1928
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1