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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total of all reporting groups

one participant did not fill out this information.

Total family income was assessed on a 7-point scale.

Participants were identified as being at high or low risk for negative emotionality based on their initial levels of low/average fixed mindsets vs. high fixed mindsets,

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

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

Participants completed a measure assessing their perceived ability to manage emotions prior to the induction. Items were derived from the using and managing your own emotions subscale of the Youth-ESES (5 items; Qualter et al., 2015). Participants rated the items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Disagree Strongly to 5 = Agree Strongly). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores indicating greater emotion regulation self-efficacy.

One participant did not fully complete this measure.

Participants completed a measure assessing their perceived ability to manage emotions following the induction. Items were derived from the using and managing your own emotions subscale of the Youth-ESES (5 items; Qualter et al., 2015). Participants rated the items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Disagree Strongly to 5 = Agree Strongly). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores indicating greater emotion regulation self-efficacy.This measure assesses participants' levels of self-efficacy post-induction condition.

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

To assess emotion regulation self-efficacy participants completed a self-efficacy measure adapted from Tamir and colleagues (2007). Following the induction, participants were asked to rate 12 emotion-eliciting events drawn from daily life. Participants rated how confident they were in their ability to control their emotions in each scenario on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much). Scores were computed as the mean of the items, with higher scores reflecting greater self-efficacy.This measure assesses participants' levels of self-efficacy post-induction condition.

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

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

Six participants refused to complete the Trier Social Stress Test so this measure did not apply to them.

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

Two participants did not fully complete this measure.

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

Before (mt1pretrierneg) and after (mt1posttrierneg) completing the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) at baseline, participants completed ratings of negative emotions (10 items), modified from another affect measure (Owens et al., 2019), to test the efficacy of the TSST. Participants rated their emotions on a 100-point scale (0 = Not at All to 100 = Extremely) to indicate the extent they were feeling a negative emotion at that particular moment. Scores were computed as the mean of the items on each subscale, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of negative emotions.

Some participants did not fully complete these measures.

To assess the equivalence of the emotion mindset and control conditions, participants completed a short questionnaire. Participants rated four items (interesting, informative, persuasive, and easy to understand) on a 10-point scale. To assess post-induction affect, participants rated their general emotional state on a 10-point scale (1 = Very Negative to 10 = Very Positive) Scores were computed as the mean of the items. This item was included as a separate variable in analyses, with higher scores indicating more positive affect post-induction.

The Social Evaluation Task examines emotion reactivity with social stimuli. Stimuli consisted of video clips with actors expressing criticism (negative immerse or reframe), praise (positive immerse or reframe), or neutral statements (neutral immerse). In immerse trials, participants imagined that the person was a close friend. During the reframe trials, participants imagined that the person was an actor. After each trial, participants rated how they felt from 1 (Very Good) to 5 (Very Bad). Means of each condition were computed with higher scores indicating more negative emotions.

Some participants did not participate in this task and other participants' data was lost or not captured due to technological issues.

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

Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.

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

Some participants chose not to participate this task. The rest of the missing data is a result of scanner or technological issues or participant error.

Neutral education about functions of different parts of the brain

Brain Education: Brain education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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