Growth mindset and well-being in social interactions: countering individual loneliness

Loneliness is defined as an unpleasant subjective experience resulting from a mismatch between desired and actual social relationships and is a major risk factor for mental health, peaking around age 20. College students’ cognitive processes, interpersonal relationships, and well-being contribute to loneliness, which can elevate risks for depression. Mindsets—particularly growth versus fixed—shape how individuals interpret adversity. A growth mindset enhances non-cognitive competencies, resilience, and well-being, and mitigates negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, depression). Interpersonal problems are central to mental health and are key determinants of well-being and loneliness. This study examines whether a growth mindset is associated with reduced loneliness among college students and investigates interpersonal distress and well-being as mediating mechanisms in social interactions, aiming to inform educational strategies to bolster resilience against loneliness.

Growth mindset and loneliness: A growth mindset entails beliefs in the malleability of intelligence and abilities, fostering challenge-seeking, optimism in failure, and stress regulation, and is linked to positive affect and well-being; fixed mindset relates to shame, anxiety, and depression. Loneliness is prevalent in college students and affects mental health and academics, yet few studies directly test growth mindset’s influence on loneliness (Hypothesis 1: growth mindset is significantly correlated with loneliness). Mediating role of interpersonal distress: Interpersonal distress includes anxiety, loneliness, and depression arising from social interaction challenges, leading to avoidance and withdrawal. Growth mindset is associated with openness (curiosity, creativity) and better emotion regulation, potentially reducing interpersonal distress. Interpersonal distress exacerbates loneliness by hindering positive social ties and intimacy (Hypothesis 2: interpersonal distress mediates the growth mindset–loneliness relation). Mediating role of well-being: Well-being comprises cognitive (life satisfaction) and affective (positive and negative affect) components. Growth mindset supports positive emotions and adaptive coping; fulfilling relationship needs (self-determination theory) enhances well-being. Well-being counteracts loneliness via improved perceived support and satisfaction (Hypothesis 3: well-being mediates the growth mindset–loneliness relation). Chain mediation: Interpersonal distress can lower well-being by increasing negative emotions and stress (anxiety, depression), which may increase loneliness. Thus, interpersonal distress and well-being may sequentially mediate the effect of growth mindset on loneliness (Hypothesis 4). A chain mediation model was constructed to test these pathways.

Design: Cross-sectional survey with chain mediation analysis. Participants: Random cluster sampling of undergraduates at a Chinese university (May 2023). 560 questionnaires distributed; 527 valid responses after excluding invalid patterns (effective rate 94.1%). Sample: 166 male (31.5%), 361 female (68.5%); mean age 18.36 years (range 18–21). Measures: - Growth Mindset Scale (Chinese version adapted from Dweck): 6 items (3 forward-, 3 reverse-scored), 6-point Likert (1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree). Reverse items rescored; average computed; higher scores indicate stronger growth mindset. Cronbach’s α=0.883. - Loneliness: UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): 20 items (9 reverse-scored), 4-point response scale; higher scores = greater loneliness. Cronbach’s α=0.894. - Interpersonal distress: Interpersonal Relationships Assessment Scale (IRS; 28 items across 4 dimensions: making friends, communication, interacting with the opposite sex, treating others). Two-point scale (yes=1, no=0); higher scores = more distress. Cronbach’s α total=0.873; dimension α=0.701, 0.745, 0.633, 0.669. - Well-being: Composite of Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; 5 items, 7-point), and revised Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; 12 items, 7-point). Scores standardized; well-being = SWLS + Positive Affect − Negative Affect. Cronbach’s α range=0.899–0.901. Procedure: Anonymous, in-class administration with standardized instructions; ~15 minutes per class; on-site collection. Data processing and analyses: SPSS 26.0. Common method bias tested via Harman’s single-factor test. Pearson correlations among variables. Mediation and chain mediation analyzed using PROCESS macro (bootstrapping 5,000 samples), with growth mindset as independent variable (X), interpersonal distress (M1) and well-being (M2) as mediators, loneliness as dependent variable (Y). Controlled covariates: personal ability and economic status.

Common method bias: Harman’s one-factor test yielded 16 factors with eigenvalues >1; the first factor accounted for 21.24% (<40%), indicating CMV was not a significant concern. Correlations (Table 1): Growth mindset negatively correlated with loneliness (r=−0.235, p<0.01) and interpersonal distress (r=−0.228, p<0.01), and positively with well-being (r=0.190, p<0.01). Loneliness positively correlated with interpersonal distress (r=0.618, p<0.01) and negatively with well-being (r=−0.601, p<0.01). Well-being negatively correlated with interpersonal distress (r=−0.451, p<0.01). Regression and mediation (Tables 2–3; Figure 2): - Interpersonal distress on growth mindset: β=−0.189, p<0.001; R²=0.106. - Well-being on interpersonal distress and growth mindset: interpersonal distress β=−0.382, p<0.001; growth mindset β=0.075, t=1.896 (ns); R²=0.251. - Loneliness on predictors: growth mindset β=−0.064, p<0.05; interpersonal distress β=0.423, p<0.001; well-being β=−0.392, p<0.001; R²=0.517. Direct effect: growth mindset negatively predicted loneliness (β=−0.064, p<0.05), supporting H1. Indirect effects (bootstrapped, 5,000 samples): total indirect effect=−0.067 (BootSE=0.016; 95% CI: −0.098 to −0.037), accounting for ~69.07% of the total effect; pathway G→D→L effect=−0.039 (BootSE=0.010; 95% CI: −0.059 to −0.020), supporting H2; pathway G→D→W→L effect=−0.014 (BootSE=0.004; 95% CI: −0.023 to −0.007), supporting H4. The pathway G→W→L had effect=−0.014 (BootSE=0.009; 95% CI: −0.032 to 0.002) and was not significant. Overall, a growth mindset is linked to lower interpersonal distress, higher well-being, and reduced loneliness, with interpersonal distress and well-being serving as significant mediators.

The findings address the research question by demonstrating that a growth mindset reduces loneliness among college students, primarily through its effects on interpersonal functioning and well-being in social interactions. Specifically, students with a growth mindset reported lower interpersonal distress, which in turn was associated with higher well-being; both reduced interpersonal distress and enhanced well-being predicted lower loneliness. The chain mediation pathway (growth mindset → reduced interpersonal distress → increased well-being → reduced loneliness) underscores the social-emotional mechanisms through which mindsets influence loneliness. These results highlight the importance of interventions that cultivate growth mindset to improve emotion regulation, resilience, and proactive coping in interpersonal contexts, thereby alleviating loneliness. The study contributes to understanding how individual psychological traits translate into social outcomes, offering actionable directions for educational and clinical practices focused on reducing loneliness and promoting mental health.

This study elucidates how growth mindset relates to lower loneliness among college students and clarifies sequential mediating mechanisms via interpersonal distress and well-being. By emphasizing social interaction abilities and mindset cultivation, the work suggests that educators and practitioners can reduce loneliness through strategies that foster adaptive coping, resilience, and supportive relationships. Practical recommendations include using growth mindset-consistent language, avoiding ability stereotyping, and reinforcing effort and problem-solving to help students manage interpersonal distress and fulfill intimacy needs. Future research should broaden contextual factors influencing loneliness and adopt longitudinal designs to track developmental trajectories and causal relations over time.

The study focused on interpersonal relationship contexts and did not include other potential contributors to loneliness, limiting generalizability across settings. The cross-sectional design precludes causal inference and the observation of changes over time; longitudinal and more comprehensive studies are recommended.