Exploring the benefits and costs of a growth mindset in a digital app weight management program

Abstract

We explored the potential benefits and costs of believing one can change their weight (i.e. growth mindset) in the context of a digital weight management program. We investigated mechanisms by which growth mindsets relate to weight loss achievement and body shame. Among participants seeking to lose weight (N = 1626; 74.7% female; 77.9% White; M_age = 45.7), stronger growth mindsets indirectly predicted greater weight loss achievement through positive offset expectations and subsequent increased program engagement. Additionally, stronger growth mindsets predicted less body shame through positive offset expectations but predicted more body shame through increased onset responsibility, replicating the double-edged sword model of growth mindsets. We conclude with applications that leverage growth mindsets for optimal behavior change while mitigating costs such as body shame.

Keywords

achievement body shame mindset self-efficacy self-regulation weight loss

Introduction

With rising rates of obesity (Ward et al., 2019), digital weight management programs continue to increase in popularity and serve as an accessible, affordable option for those seeking weight loss and health-related behavior change (Berry et al., 2021; Dávalos et al., 2009). Although recent randomized control trial studies reveal that weight management programs predict increased physical activity (Berry et al., 2021; Duncan et al., 2020) and healthier eating (Beleigoli et al., 2019; van Beurden et al., 2019), weight loss is more elusive (Beleigoli et al., 2019; Goldstein et al., 2019; Patel et al., 2021).

When digital weight loss interventions fail to promote weight loss, limited engagement is one critical factor. Indeed, engagement, including self-monitoring and seeking social support, is key to harnessing the benefits of digital weight management programs such as weight loss and health-promoting behaviors (Auster-Gussman et al., 2022; Behr et al., 2022; Patel et al., 2021). There are many factors that facilitate app engagement including resources (e.g. time, social support; Zevin et al., 2019) and pragmatic aspects of the program (e.g. user experience; Lyzwinski et al., 2018). Of the most relevance to the current work is motivation (Morrison, 2015), as many health—related behavioral change models in psychology focus on precursors to motivation. For example, the theory of planned behavior highlights the importance of control beliefs as an important predictor of health-related behavior change (Ajzen, 2020). Building on this and a long line of mindset theory, in the current work we suggest a related concept—namely, growth mindsets—are a critical belief system when examining engagement.

Specifically, we suggest that growth mindsets add to existing theories in two keys ways. First, they provide a modifiable, cost-effective lever on which to intervene, which can result in meaningful effects (e.g. Burnette et al., 2023b). Second, we suggest that growth mindsets are powerful belief structures that come earlier in the psychological chain and are causally related to many of the key constructs in related models (e.g. Ajzen, 2020). Third, we highlight both the potential costs and benefits of growth mindsets and they mechanisms by which they relate to improved motivation but potentially more stigma. Namely, we focus on efficacy and blame to outline how to harness the benefits without the costs of growth mindsets.

Mindset theory

Building on research showing the power of beliefs to shape motivation (Burnette et al., 2022, 2023a; Molden and Dweck, 2006), we suggest growth mindsets matter for engagement and subsequently weight loss achievement in the context of digital weight management programs. Mindset theory encompasses individuals’ beliefs regarding the malleability of human capacities on a continuum from “fixed” to “growth,” where a stronger fixed mindset represents a belief that an attribute is static and cannot change. On the other hand, a stronger growth mindset represents a belief that an attribute is malleable and can change with time, appropriate strategies, effort, and support.

Although mindset theory was originally developed in academic contexts (Dweck and Leggett, 1988), it has continually been applied in a variety of settings, such as psychological flourishing (Burnette et al., 2022b), social functioning (Yeager and Dweck, 2012), and of relevance to the current work, weight management (Burnette, 2010; Burnette and Finkel, 2012). Additionally, mindsets can be dispositional or deliberate. An individual can intentionally override their default mindset (fixed or growth) through deliberate efforts (Heslin et al., 2020) and via interventions (e.g. Paunesku et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2016). Regardless of whether mindsets are assessed as dispositional characteristics or induced via laboratory manipulations or field interventions, there are downstream effects on motivation and goal achievement (e.g. Burnette et al., 2013).

Mindsets of weight

In the current work, we examine both potential benefits and costs of growth mindsets of weight. First, we examine the positive link to weight loss achievement through both psychological and behavioral processes. Second, we outline potential downsides of growth mindsets of weight by examining links to body shame, pulling from the double-edged sword (DES) model (Hoyt and Burnette, 2020).

Growth mindsets, self-regulation, and motivation

Individuals with a stronger growth mindset self-regulate with a variety of strategies, which can lead both directly and indirectly to achievement—although the direct link to achievement is less consistent (e.g. Burnette et al., 2013; Sisk et al., 2018). Effective self-regulatory strategies include optimism, persistence, goal orientation, and effort beliefs (e.g. Burnette et al., 2013; Cury et al., 2006; Dweck and Yeager, 2019; Zhao et al., 2021). Each of these predicts challenge-seeking and achievement (Dweck and Yeager, 2019). Although most of the work in mindsets focuses on academic achievement, we build on this prior work to draw on mindset theory and empirical findings in physical health domains. For example, stronger growth mindsets of fitness are associated with greater exercise intentions (Orvidas et al., 2018), and stronger growth mindsets of health are associated with greater healthy eating intentions (Thomas et al., 2019) and physical activity (John-Henderson et al., 2021). In the context of physical health behaviors, these studies merge the foundation of mindset theory with the long-standing achievement motivation literature (Wigfield and Eccles, 2000), highlighting the mediating effects of expectancy-value beliefs. More specifically, an individual who has a stronger belief in their potential for success (offset expectations) is more likely to be motivated and engage in related behaviors (Wigfield and Eccles, 2000).

We extend on these empirical foundations along with the mindset intervention effectiveness model outlined in a recent meta-analysis (Burnette et al., 2023a). The mindset intervention effectiveness model posits that growth mindsets impact psychological processes related to motivation, with a focus on self-efficacy and expectations. These psychological processes predict behavior (i.e. goal engagement), which in turn predicts the distal end goal—in this case, weight loss achievement. Below, we briefly discuss each potential link.

Mindsets and expectations

Self-efficacy encompasses two processes (Bandura, 1986). Namely, efficacy expectations, which capture the belief that a behavior will lead to a specific outcome, and outcome expectations, which encompass a future-oriented belief in one’s ability to successfully execute the behavior required to produce that outcome (Bandura, 1986; Brickman et al., 1982). In the current work, we focus on outcome expectations, called offset expectations in weight management literature (Burnette et al., 2017b). Growth mindsets orient individuals toward learning and instill a sense of positive expectations (Becker et al., 2023; Burnette, 2010; Burnette et al., 2013). In various contexts, including general health (Dohle et al., 2022), physical exercise (Orvidas et al., 2018), and weight (Burnette, 2010; Burnette et al., 2017b; Hoyt et al., 2019), stronger growth mindsets are linked to greater self-efficacy and expectations. In the current work, we seek to replicate the positive link between growth mindsets of weight and offset expectations.

Mindsets, expectations, and engagement

The link between growth mindsets and the distal outcome of weight loss may also be mediated by behavioral processes, specifically program engagement. Although there are no studies to our knowledge that examine the relationship between growth mindsets and digital weight management program engagement, in the domain of education, stronger growth mindsets predict increased school engagement (Iqbal et al., 2022; Tseng et al., 2020). In the context of weight, stronger growth mindsets predict self-monitoring (Hancı et al., 2021), physical activity (John-Henderson et al., 2021; Orvidas et al., 2018; O’Brien and Hess, 2020) and healthier eating (Ehrlinger et al., 2017; Schreiber et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022)—all of which are facets of engagement. We suggest growth mindsets of weight will also predict engagement in weight management programs with downstream implications for weight loss achievement.

We also note that offset expectations play a key role in engagement (Bandura, 1977; Schunk and Mullen, 2012). More specifically, those who feel competent are more likely to be motivated (Bandura, 1977; Kelly et al., 1991), persist (Burnette et al., 2020b; Chouinard et al., 2007), and achieve their goals (Freiberger et al., 2012; Zimmerman, 2013). In many health-related contexts, such as physical activity and eating behaviors, self-efficacy predicts positive behavior change and maintenance (Ehrlinger et al., 2017; Reuter et al., 2010; Sheeran et al., 2016; Strecher et al., 1986). Positive offset expectations may have a similar effect on engagement in a digital weight management program (Antoun et al., 2022).

Expectations, engagement, and weight loss achievement

Overall, expectations and engagement are linked to weight loss achievement. For example, offset expectations specific to weight, diet, and exercise are indirectly linked to greater weight loss achievement through engagement in corresponding health behaviors (Byrne et al., 2012; Flølo et al., 2019; Linde et al., 2006; Nezami et al., 2016). Although the effects of offset expectations on weight loss are distal and the consideration of behavioral mediation (i.e. engagement) remains relevant (Miller et al., 2017), there is evidence for the association between more positive offset expectations and goal achievement. For example, greater self-efficacy is significantly associated with weight loss achievement, even when controlling for dietary adherence (Warziski et al., 2008). Deliberately enhancing self-efficacy leads to improved food choices and weight loss achievement (Roach et al., 2003). Additionally, in a systematic review of digital interventions, longer platform use predicted clinically meaningful weight loss (Beleigoli et al., 2019). General engagement, such as completing modules, weigh-ins, and engaging in coaching conversations also predicted weight loss (Auster-Gussman et al., 2022; Goldstein et al., 2019). We expect to replicate these findings, showing that expectations and engagement will predict greater weight loss achievement.

Overall, we test the model outlined in a recent meta-analysis (Burnette et al., 2023b) in a sample of participants who are seeking to lose weight using a digital program. We test and report each link in the theoretical model to illustrate the potential positive motivation-related outcomes of growth mindsets.

Double-edged sword (DES) model of growth mindsets

Additionally, we seek to replicate past work showing potential costs in the context of stigma. The DES model outlines how growth mindsets influence internalized stigma, defined as the acceptance of stereotypes and the belief that they are true for oneself (Corrigan et al., 2009). For example, growth mindsets of weight can increase body shame through increased onset responsibility attributions but decrease it via increased offset expectations attributions¹ (Burnette et al., 2017b; Hoyt et al., 2017, 2019). Key to understanding the double-edged sword model are the theoretical underpinnings of attribution theory which proposes individuals seek a deeper understanding of stigmatizing conditions in themselves or others (Weiner, 1985). More specifically, individuals seek to understand the extent one is responsible for acquiring a stigmatizing condition (onset responsibility) and the extent one has the capacity to manage that condition in the future (offset expectations; Hoyt and Burnette, 2020; Weiner et al., 1988). In the context of weight, onset responsibility delineates the extent to which a person feels responsible for the onset of their current weight, whereas offset expectations capture the belief for potential future weight management success.

The DES model of growth mindsets has been replicated in a variety of stigmatized contexts, including poverty (Hoyt et al., 2023), criminality (Hoyt et al., 2022b), and weight (Burnette et al., 2017b; Hoyt et al., 2017, 2019), revealing opposing mediating effects of onset responsibility and offset expectations attributions on stigma, with much of this work focusing on internalization of stigma such as body shame. Importantly, body shame predicts a host of negative outcomes including depression, binge eating, lower self-esteem, and poorer weight loss treatment outcomes (Pila et al., 2015; Tomiyama et al., 2018). Thus, understanding how motivational approaches to weight loss may also trigger shame is critical.

DES model: Growth mindsets, onset responsibility, and body shame

Because stronger growth mindsets are often associated with personal effort instead of innate ability (Dweck, 2006), individuals holding a stronger growth mindset feel a greater sense of responsibility for their weight, resulting in more body shame (Burnette et al., 2017b). In the context of weight, this onset responsibility may show up as attributing blame to oneself or others for being at a higher weight as a result of not putting enough effort into maintaining or losing weight (Burnette et al., 2013; Weiner et al., 1988). This sense of controllability points the finger at individuals for their weight and predicts increased body shame (Burnette et al., 2017b; Hoyt et al., 2017). Furthermore, individuals with a tendency to hold stronger responsibility and controllability attributions are more likely to hold anti-fat prejudice and weight bias (Crandall et al., 2001; Talumaa et al., 2022).

DES model: Growth mindsets, offset expectations, and body shame

On the other hand, the DES model outlines how through offset expectation attributions, growth mindsets predict less body shame. Offset expectations transform unchangeable situations into malleable ones (Bandura, 1986), empowering individuals with the belief that they can attain weight loss-related achievement. Offset expectations are related to optimism that one has the ability to achieve a future goal, as well as reduced body shame and anti-fat prejudice (Burnette et al., 2020a; Hoyt et al., 2019). Research in the domain of weight emphasizes the mediating role of offset expectations in not only successful goal achievement (Strecher et al., 1986), but also in reduced internalized stigma.

Current work

The goal of this work is to replicate and extend past research by exploring benefits and costs of a growth mindset of weight in the context of a digital weight management program. First, we seek to test the mindset intervention effectiveness model, which outlines the positive implications of growth mindsets for motivation. Specifically, we hypothesize that stronger growth mindsets of weight will have an indirect effect on greater weight loss through a serial mediation of positive offset expectations and higher app engagement. Second, we seek to replicate findings from the DES model, focusing on the implications of growth mindsets of weight for body shame. We hypothesize that stronger growth mindsets of weight will have both a positive and negative indirect effect on body shame through a parallel mediation of stronger onset responsibility and stronger offset expectations, respectively.

Method

Procedure

We invited a random subset of individuals who signed up for a weight management program (Noom Weight; NW). NW is a mobile health behavior change program that is designed to promote behavioral change, as well as clinically significant weight loss (Carey et al., 2021; McCallum et al., 2021). NW provides self-monitoring features to track exercise, food intake, and weight as well as access to a virtual coach and a virtual support group facilitated by a health coach. Users are also encouraged to engage with daily curriculum which includes articles regarding diet, exercise, and techniques for sustainable behavior change. For a more detailed description of the program, please see Mitchell et al. (2021).

We assessed psychological and demographic variables at baseline and collected weekly engagement data throughout the 16-week program.² Participants who completed the baseline survey were entered into a raffle to win one of two $200 gift cards. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board and participants provided informed written consent.

Participants

A total of 1903 participants who were already signed up for NW enrolled in the study and met inclusion criteria of living in the US, being 18 years old or older, and English speaking. Of these participants, 40 failed the CAPTCHA or attention check and 162 did not enter an email address and/or were unable to be matched to NW engagement data, resulting in 1701 participants. Once participants were matched with NW engagement data, 75 participants who never engaged in NW were excluded from analysis, resulting in a final sample of 1626 participants who enrolled in the study, completed the pre-program survey, and engaged with NW.

Measures

Primary measures included mindsets of weight, offset expectations, app engagement, weight loss, onset responsibility, and body shame.

Mindsets of weight

To assess growth mindsets of weight, we used an established six-item measure (Burnette, 2010; e.g. “You have a certain body weight, and you can’t really do much to change it”; 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”). Higher scores indicate a stronger growth mindset of weight (α = 0.83).

Offset expectations

To assess offset expectations, we used a six-item measure, adapted from an effort-based efficacy belief scale (Blackwell et al., 2007; Burnette et al., 2017a; e.g. “The more effort I put into managing my weight, the more successful I will be at it”; 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”). Higher scores indicate higher offset expectation beliefs (α = 0.71).

App engagement

We extracted app engagement data from the program database. Based on previous work (Mitchell et al., 2021), we collected the total number of activities performed by each participant per week: (1) the number of meals logged, (2) the number of times participants self-reported their weight, (3) the number of times participants self-reported, (4) the number of messages participants sent to their coach, (5) the number of articles read, (6) the number of group activities (posts, post hearts, thread posts, thread post hearts) the participant engaged in, and (7) the number of steps taken (as recorded by participant’s phone pedometer or self-reported). We then created an average weekly score for each variable and standardized each of score into a z-score. These seven frequencies were summed to form a total engagement score for each participant, with higher numbers representing more engagement. See Supplemental Files (Table 1) for more details on engagement data.

Weight loss

Percent weight loss was calculated by dividing the weight change by baseline weight and multiplying by 100. Weight loss was calculated by subtracting the latest weight³ from the initial weight self-reported within the app (M = −4.70 kgs; SD = 5.43 kgs). The average baseline weight was 94.13 kgs (SD = 21.27 kgs; range = 49.76–202.76 kgs) and the average last weight reported was 89.42 kgs (SD = 20.83 kgs; range = 50.3–196.63 kgs). Numbers that are negative indicate weight loss. We chose to keep weight unstandardized for meaningful interpretation; however, we ran sensitivity analyses with weight standardized and found the same results.

Onset responsibility

To assess onset responsibility, we used a single-item measure used in past weight-related mindset work (Burnette et al., 2017a; e.g. “How responsible are you personally for your current weight? That is, how much do you feel that your current weight is a result of choices you make, rather than something you can’t control?”; 0 = “Not at all responsible” to 4 = “Completely responsible”). Higher scores indicate more blame and individual responsibility.

Body shame

To assess participants’ body shame, we used the six-item subscale of the Weight and Body-Related Shame and Guilt Scale (Conradt et al., 2007; e.g. “The appearance of my body is embarrassing for me in front of others”; 0 = “Never” to 4 = “Always”). Higher scores indicate more body shame (α = 0.89).

Data analysis

We analyzed the data using SPSS and Hayes’ (2017) PROCESS, a mediation and moderation package. We then applied descriptive statistics for the means and standard deviations of the continuous variables and the frequencies and percentages of the categorical variables. Next, we used the Pearson correlation coefficient to measure the relationships between participants’ growth mindsets of weight, offset expectation, engagement, weight loss, onset responsibility, and body shame. Before we tested the mediation models, the variables’ distribution and zero-order associations were examind. Finally, we used Hayes’ PROCESS models 4 (parallel mediation) and 6 (serial mediation) to explore the mediation models. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Participant characteristics

Participants were mainly female (n = 1370, 74.7%) and White (n = 1429, 77.9%). The average age was 45.71 (SD = 13.85, range = 18–85) and the average BMI (kg/m²) at baseline was 33.35 (SD = 6.65, range 22.2–76.72). At baseline, 98% of participants reported a BMI of 25 kg/m² or above. Over 16 weeks, participants lost an average of 4.96% of their initial weight (SD = 5.32%; M = −4.70 kgs; SD = 5.43 kgs) and did an average of 627.71 in-app engagement actions (SD = 401.81). Participants averaged 39.23 in-app engagement actions per week (SD = 35.94). Descriptive data of engagement behaviors were similar to previous studies using NW (e.g. Yang et al., 2021). See Table 1 for descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and bivariate correlations.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, reliability, and bivariate correlations.

	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. GMW	5.42	0.96	0.83	-
2. OE	4.61	0.94	0.71	0.46**	-
3. Engage	0.06	4.38	-	0.03	0.08**	-
4. WL	−4.70	5.34	-	−0.03	−0.06*	−0.49**	-
5. OR	4.25	0.72	-	0.34**	0.29**	0.07**	−0.09**	-
6. Body shame	3.19	0.94	0.89	−0.12**	−0.26**	−0.13**	−0.02	0.00	-

GMW: growth mindsets of weight; OE: offset expectations; Engage: engagement (Engagement is a sum of six z-scores); WL: weight loss (kilograms; Last weigh-in reported − first weigh-in; negative numbers indicate weight loss and positive numbers indicate weight gain); OR: onset responsibility.

p ⩽ 0.01. **p ⩽ .0.001.

Intervention effectiveness achievement model

We used Hayes’ (2017) PROCESS model 6 to test the serial mediation prediction that growth mindsets of weight will predict increased weight loss and do so in part through stronger positive offset expectations and in turn, higher levels of engagement. As predicted, stronger growth mindsets of weight significantly predicted stronger positive offset expectations (B = 0.45, t(1623) = 20.59, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.40, 0.49]) which in turn predicted higher levels of engagement (B = 0.37, t(1622) = 2.84, p = 0.005, 95% CI [0.11, 0.62]). Higher levels of engagement then predicted weight loss (B = −0.60, t(1622) = −22.53, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.65, −0.54]). Through these mediating effects, growth mindsets of weight significantly and indirectly predicted weight loss (B = −0.10, 95% CI [−0.17, −0.03]). Please see Supplemental Files (Figure 1) for a visualization of results.

Sensitivity analysis

We ran the same model with a standardized weight loss score, with and without outliers. Weight loss at 1.5 IQR outside the lower and upper quartiles were considered outliers (Bakker and Wicherts, 2014; Tukey, 1977). These analyses replicated findings.

Double-edged sword (DES) model

We then tested our DES predictions using Hayes’ (2017) PROCESS model 4 with parallel mediators. Stronger growth mindsets of weight significantly predicted more positive offset expectations (B = 0.45, t(1624) = 20.60, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.40, 0.49]) and greater onset responsibility (B = 0.26, t(1624) = 14.66, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.22, 0.29]). Positive offset expectations predicted less body shame (B = −0.27, t(1622) = −9.94, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.33, −0.22]) whereas onset responsibility predicted more body shame (B = 0.11, t(1622) = 3.36, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.05, 0.18). Thus, there was a significant negative indirect effect of growth mindsets on body shame through positive offset expectations (B = −0.12, 95% CI [−0.15, −0.09]) and there was a significant positive indirect effect of growth mindsets on body shame through onset responsibility (B = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.05]. Please see Supplemental Files (Figure 2) for a visualization of results.

Discussion

We offered a conceptual replication of the benefits and costs of growth mindsets of weight in the context of a digital weight management program. Namely, growth mindsets predicted greater weight loss achievement through more positive offset expectations and engagement. We also replicated the DES model: stronger growth mindsets predicted greater body shame via increased onset responsibility and less body shame through offset expectations.

These findings can contribute to previous work demonstrating the importance of growth mindsets for motivation and achievement. Although there is existing research noting the relationship between stronger growth mindsets and improved health outcomes such as exercise (Orvidas et al., 2018) and eating behaviors (Ehrlinger et al., 2017; Thomas et al., 2019), very little work has explored the effects of growth mindsets on weight loss (Burnette, 2010; Burnette and Finkel, 2012). Additionally, in the context of psychological behavioral interventions, Miller et al. (2017) highlight the critical role of identifying behavioral pathways through which a manipulated psychological state could produce an outcome. In line with these recommendations, we explored the distal impact of growth mindsets on weight loss achievement through positive offset expectations and program engagement—a behavioral outcome that moves beyond self-report (Baumeister et al., 2007). Furthermore, to our knowledge, we are the first to test the overall mindset intervention effectiveness model (Burnette et al., 2023a) in the context of weight. This model outlines both psychological and behavioral processes relevant to goal achievement. Although the role of offset expectations (Burnette, 2010) and setback-related coping (Burnette and Finkel, 2012) have been explored as mediators in preliminary studies, we add to these findings by testing the entire model.

We suggest that growth mindsets can serve as a lever positioned early in the psychological chain that can be used to foster goal achievement. Because growth mindset interventions are relatively low cost, in terms of time and money (e.g. Yeager et al., 2019), they can be efficiently encouraged in digital weight management programs to improve engagement and weight loss via increased offset expectations (i.e. self-efficacy). For example, growth mindset messaging and concepts may be incorporated into existing curriculum or coaching material for weight management programs using implementation practices specific to mindsets (e.g. mindset metaphors, scientific evidence for mindset change; see Burnette et al., 2023b for more details).

However, prior to implementing these interventions at scale, it is critical to understand potential costs of fostering growth mindsets. Indeed, the current research replicated the DES model highlighting the mixed effects growth mindsets on body shame. Growth mindsets can predict body shame, anti-fat prejudice, risk for eating disorders, and unhealthy weight control behaviors via personal responsibility (Burnette et al., 2017b; Chernishenko et al., 2021; Hoyt et al., 2017, 2019). Understanding the role of these attributions can provide a path forward to harness benefits without costs. For example, growth mindset compensatory messaging can minimize the cost of onset responsibility attributions (e.g. increased shame or stigma) and enhance the benefits of offset efficacy beliefs (e.g. increased self-regulatory benefits) by removing blame from a person and emphasizing their potential (Hoyt and Burnette, 2020). This type of messaging conveys that weight is changeable with effort and the right strategies while emphasizing the importance of not blaming oneself or others for the onset of weight (Burnette et al., 2017b) and has also been used in the context of addiction (Burnette et al., 2019). Given that our findings confirm the DES effects, yet show potential motivation and achievement gains, we suggest future research continue to explore implementing growth mindset compensatory messaging interventions.

Limitations

Before putting these findings into practice, there are important limitations to note, which provide a springboard for future inquiry. First, we utilized a convenience sample by recruiting participants already enrolled in Noom, possibly limiting generalizability of our findings to individuals actively seeking weight loss. Additionally, most participants in this study were White, female, and categorized as obese based on BMI. It is unclear whether these findings would hold across different populations. For instance, stronger growth mindsets in individuals with higher BMIs, compared to individuals with lower BMIs, predicted less body shame and disordered eating (Bruchmann et al., 2022). Thus, findings linking growth mindsets to weight-related outcomes may depend on the overall sample BMI and more work is needed to replicate effects. Furthermore, we suggest that future research investigates participants’ previous weight loss attempts (e.g. quantity, recency). Although preliminary evidence highlights the protective effect of stronger growth mindsets on weight-related setbacks (Burnette et al., 2010), it is possible that weight loss history may impact the long-term effects of growth mindsets. Additionally, we calculated weight loss achievement using participants’ self-reported weigh-ins. Although participants are encouraged to weigh in using the same scale and at the same time daily, future research may replicate these findings with greater validity and reliability. Finally, this study relies heavily on mediational analysis, laying an appropriate theoretical foundation but requiring future empirical and experimental exploration. For example, analyses alone fail to prove the causal role of mediating mechanisms (Fiedler et al., 2011). Thus, we encourage future work to incorporate manipulation-of-mediator designs (Pirlott and MacKinnon, 2016) to address limitations inherent to correlational analyses.

Conclusion

In sum, we provided insight into the potential benefits and costs of growth mindsets of weight in a digital weight management program. Continued understanding of growth mindsets of weight and related messaging may serve as a lever for promoting weight loss achievement while also protecting against potential costs such as body shame. We hope that these findings can serve as a foundation and catalyst for continued applications of mindset theory to weight-related research.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053241226610 – Supplemental material for Exploring the benefits and costs of a growth mindset in a digital app weight management program

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053241226610 for Exploring the benefits and costs of a growth mindset in a digital app weight management program by Sydney Earl, Jeni L Burnette and Annabell Suh Ho in Journal of Health Psychology

Footnotes

Author contributions

Conceptualization: SE, JLB, ASH, Formal analysis: SE, Investigation: SE, JLB, ASH, Methodology: SE, JLB, Supervision: JLB, ASH., Writing - original draft: SE Writing - review & editing: SE, JLB, ASH.

Data sharing statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Noom Inc. but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so the data are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Noom Inc. Ethics approval, participant permissions, and all other relevant approvals were granted for this data sharing.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Author ASH. is an employee of Noom Inc. and has received salary and/or stock compensation from Noom Inc. Author SE. is a contractor for Noom and received salary but not stock options. The Supplemental Material are available via the Sage Journals platform.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for participant compensation came from Noom Inc., however Noom Inc. did not play a role (other than the authors) in study design, analysis, interpretation of data, or decision to publish.

Ethics approval

The North Carolina State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved all procedures (Protocol Number: 24429).

Informed consent

All participants provided informed written consent.

ORCID iDs

Sydney Earl

Jeni L Burnette

Annabell Suh Ho

Notes

References

Ajzen

(2020) The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2(4): 314–324.

Antoun

Itani

Alarab

, et al. (2022) The effectiveness of combining nonmobile interventions with the use of smartphone apps with various features for weight loss: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 10(4): e35479.

Auster-Gussman

Lockwood

Graham

, et al. (2022) Engagement in digital health app-based prevention programs is associated with weight loss among adults age 65. Frontiers in digital health 4: 886783.

Bakker

Wicherts

(2014) Outlier removal, sum scores, and the inflation of the type I error rate in independent samples t tests: The power of alternatives and recommendations. Psychological Methods 19(3): 409–427.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

Bandura

(1986) The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4(3): 359–373.

Baumeister

Vohs

Funder

(2007) Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science 2(4): 396–403.

Becker

Burnette

Hoyt

(2023) Coping in the time of COVID-19: Mindsets and the stories we tell. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 53(2): 153–165.

Behr

Earl

, et al. (2022) Changes in health-promoting behaviors and their association with weight loss, retention, and engagement on a digital program: prospective study. Nutrients 14(22): 4812.

10.

Beleigoli

Andrade

Cançado

, et al. (2019) Web-based digital health interventions for weight loss and lifestyle habit changes in overweight and obese adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research 21(1): e298.

11.

Berry

Kassavou

Sutton

(2021) Does self-monitoring diet and physical activity behaviors using digital technology support adults with obesity or overweight to lose weight? A systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews 22(10): e13306.

12.

Blackwell

Trzesniewski

Dweck

(2007) Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development 78(1): 246–263.

13.

Brickman

Rabinowitz

Karuza

, et al. (1982) Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist 37(4): 368–384.

14.

Bruchmann

Thai

Wingard

(2022) One size does not fit all: Implicit theories of body weight and body mass index interact to predict body image disturbances. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 52(5): 391–401.

15.

Burnette

(2010) Implicit theories of body weight: Entity beliefs can weigh you down. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(3): 410–422.

16.

Burnette

Hoyt

Orvidas

(2017b) Mindsets of body weight. In: Zedelius

Müller

BCN

Schooler

(eds) The Science of Lay Theories: How Beliefs Shape Our Cognition, Behavior, and Health. New York City: Springer International Publishing, pp.319–339.

17.

Burnette

Billingsley

Hoyt

(2022b) Harnessing growth mindsets to help individuals flourish. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 16(3): e12657.

18.

Burnette

Billingsley

Banks

, et al. (2023a) A systematic review and meta-analysis of growth mindset interventions: For whom, how, and why might such interventions work? Psychological Bulletin 149(3–4): 174–205.

19.

Burnette

Finkel

(2012) Buffering against weight gain following dieting setbacks: An implicit theory intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48(3): 721–725.

20.

Burnette

Forsyth

Desmarais

, et al. (2019) Mindsets of addiction: Implications for treatment intentions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 38(5): 367–394.

21.

Burnette

Hoyt

Dweck

, et al. (2017a) Weight beliefs and messages: Mindsets predict body-shame and anti-fat attitudes via attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 47(11): 616–624.

22.

Burnette

Knouse

Billingsley

, et al. (2023b) A systematic review of growth mindset intervention implementation strategies. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 17(2): e12723.

23.

Burnette

Knouse

Vavra

, et al. (2020a) Growth mindsets and psychological distress: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review 77: 101816.

24.

Burnette

O’Boyle

VanEpps

, et al. (2013) Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin 139(3): 655–701.

25.

Burnette

Pollack

Forsyth

, et al. (2020b) A growth mindset intervention: Enhancing students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and career development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 44(5): 878–908.

26.

Byrne

Barry

Petry

(2012) Predictors of weight loss success. Exercise vs. dietary self-efficacy and treatment attendance. Appetite 58(2): 695–698.

27.

Carey

Yang

DeLuca

, et al. (2021) The relationship between weight loss outcomes and engagement in a mobile behavioral change intervention: Retrospective analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 9(11): e30622.

28.

Chernishenko

Mesler

Basil

(2021) I can be perfect! Implicit mindset moderates the relationship between perfectionism and consumers’ maladaptive weight management behavior. Personality and Individual Differences 183: 111084.

29.

Chouinard

Karsenti

Roy

(2007) Relations among competence beliefs, utility value, achievement goals, and effort in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology 77(3): 501–517.

30.

Conradt

Dierk

Schlumberger

, et al. (2007) Development of the weight-and body-related shame and guilt scale (WEB–SG) in a nonclinical sample of obese individuals. Journal of Personality Assessment 88(3): 317–327.

31.

Corrigan

Larson

Rüsch

(2009) Self-stigma and the “why try” effect: Impact on life goals and evidence-based practices. World Psychiatry 8(2): 75–81.

32.

Crandall

D’Anello

Sakalli

, et al. (2001) An attribution-value model of prejudice: Anti-fat attitudes in six nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(1): 30–37.

33.

Cury

Elliot

Da Fonseca

, et al. (2006) The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(4): 666–679.

34.

Dávalos

French

Burdick

, et al. (2009) Economic evaluation of telemedicine: Review of the literature and research guidelines for benefit-cost analysis. Telemedicine and e-Health 15(10): 933–948.

35.

Dohle

Schreiber

Wingen

, et al. (2022) Blaming others for their illness: The influence of health-related implicit theories on blame and social support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 52(4): 210–219.

36.

Duncan

Fenton

Brown

, et al. (2020) Efficacy of a multi-component m-health weight-loss intervention in overweight and obese adults: A randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(17): 6200.

37.

Dweck

(2006) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York City: Random House Publishing Group.

38.

Dweck

Leggett

(1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review 95: 256–273.

39.

Dweck

Yeager

(2019) Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science 14(3): 481–496.

40.

Ehrlinger

Burnette

Park

, et al. (2017) Incremental theories of weight and healthy eating behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 47(6): 320–330.

41.

Fiedler

Schott

Meiser

(2011) What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47(6): 1231–1236.

42.

Flølo

Tell

Kolotkin

, et al. (2019) Eating self-efficacy as predictor of long-term weight loss and obesity-specific quality of life after sleeve gastrectomy: A prospective cohort study. Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases 15(2): 161–167.

43.

Freiberger

Steinmayr

Spinath

(2012) Competence beliefs and perceived ability evaluations: How do they contribute to intrinsic motivation and achievement? Learning and Individual Differences 22(4): 518–522.

44.

Goldstein

Bond

, et al. (2019) Associations between self-monitoring and weight change in behavioral weight loss interventions. Health Psychology 38(12): 1128–1136.

45.

Hancı

Ruijten

PAM

Lacroix

, et al. (2021) The impact of mindset on self-tracking experience. Frontiers in Digital Health 3: 676742.

46.

Hayes

(2017) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

47.

Heslin

Keating

Ashford

(2020) How being in learning mode may enable a sustainable career across the lifespan. Journal of Vocational Behavior 117: 103324.

48.

Hoyt

Billingsley

Burnette

, et al. (2023) The implications of mindsets of poverty for stigma against those in poverty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 53(5): 385–407.

49.

Hoyt

Burnette

(2020) Growth mindset messaging in stigma-relevant contexts: Harnessing benefits without costs. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7(2): 157–164.

50.

Hoyt

Burnette

Auster-Gussman

, et al. (2017) The obesity stigma asymmetry model: The indirect and divergent effects of blame and changeability beliefs on antifat prejudice. Stigma and Health 2(1): 53–65.

51.

Hoyt

Burnette

Thomas

, et al. (2019) Public health messages and weight-related beliefs: Implications for well-being and stigma. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2806.

52.

Hoyt

d'Almeida

Forsyth

, et al. (2022b) Mindsets of criminality: Predicting punitive and rehabilitative attitudes. Psychology Crime and Law 2: 1–18.

53.

Iqbal

Hassan

Jadoon

, et al. (2022) Association of school engagement, well-being, resilience, and growth mindset among adolescents in high school. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research 36(4): 631–644.

54.

John-Henderson

Tintzman

Counts

, et al. (2021) Health mindsets as a predictor of physical activity and body mass index in American Indian college students. Journal of Health Psychology 26(12): 2098–2105.

55.

Kelly

Zyzanski

Alemagno

(1991) Prediction of motivation and behavior change following health promotion: Role of health beliefs, social support, and self-efficacy. Social Science & Medicine 32(3): 311–320.

56.

Linde

Rothman

Baldwin

, et al. (2006) The impact of self-efficacy on behavior change and weight change among overweight participants in a weight loss trial. Health Psychology 25(3): 282–291.

57.

Lyzwinski

Caffery

Bambling

, et al. (2018) Consumer perspectives on mHealth for weight loss: A review of qualitative studies. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 24(4): 290–302.

58.

McCallum

May

, et al. (2021) Body positivity and self-compassion on a publicly available behavior change weight management program. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(24): 13358.

59.

Miller

Dannals

Zlatev

(2017) Behavioral processes in long-lag intervention studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science 12(3): 454–467.

60.

Mitchell

Yang

Behr

, et al. (2021) Psychosocial characteristics by weight loss and engagement in a digital intervention supporting self-management of weight. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(4): 1712.

61.

Molden

Dweck

(2006) Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist 61(3): 192–203.

62.

Morrison

(2015) Theory-based strategies for enhancing the impact and usage of digital health behaviour change interventions: A review. Digital Health 1: 2055207615595335.

63.

Nezami

Lang

Jakicic

, et al. (2016) The effect of self-efficacy on behavior and weight in a behavioral weight-loss intervention. Health Psychology 35(7): 714–722.

64.

Orvidas

Burnette

Russell

(2018) Mindsets applied to fitness: Growth beliefs predict exercise efficacy, value and frequency. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 36: 156–161.

65.

O’Brien

Hess

(2020) Examining the impact of aging-related mindsets and motivation on activity engagement in older adults. Innovation in Aging 4(Suppl 1): 587.

66.

Patel

Wakayama

Bennett

(2021) Self-monitoring via digital health in weight loss interventions: A systematic review among adults with overweight or obesity. Obesity 29(3): 478–499.

67.

Paunesku

Walton

Romero

, et al. (2015) Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science 26(6): 784–793.

68.

Pila

Sabiston

Brunet

, et al. (2015) Do body-related shame and guilt mediate the association between weight status and self-esteem? Journal of Health Psychology 20(5): 659–669.

69.

Pirlott

MacKinnon

(2016) Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66: 29–38.

70.

Reuter

Ziegelmann

Wiedemann

, et al. (2010) Changes in intentions, planning, and self-efficacy predict changes in behaviors: An application of latent true change modeling. Journal of Health Psychology 15(6): 935–947.

71.

Roach

Yadrick

Johnson

, et al. (2003) Using self-efficacy to predict weight loss among young adults. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103(10): 1357–1359.

72.

Schreiber

Job

Dohle

(2020) Is your health malleable or fixed? The influence of implicit theories on health-related attitudes and behaviour. Psychology and Health 35(12): 1421–1439.

73.

Schunk

Mullen

(2012) Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In: Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Boston, MA: Springer US, pp.219–235.

74.

Sheeran

Maki

Montanaro

, et al. (2016) The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology 35(11): 1178–1188.

75.

Sisk

Burgoyne

Sun

, et al. (2018) To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science 29(4): 549–571.

76.

Strecher

DeVellis

Becker

, et al. (1986) The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Education Quarterly 13(1): 73–92.

77.

Talumaa

Brown

Batterham

, et al. (2022) Effective strategies in ending weight stigma in healthcare. Obesity Reviews 23(10): e13494.

78.

Thomas

Burnette

Hoyt

(2019) Mindsets of health and healthy eating intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 49(6): 372–380.

79.

Tomiyama

Carr

Granberg

, et al. (2018) How and why weight stigma drives the obesity ‘epidemic’ and harms health. BMC Medicine 16(1): 123–126.

80.

Tseng

Kuo

Walsh

(2020) Exploring first-time online undergraduate and graduate students’ growth mindsets and flexible thinking and their relations to online learning engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development 68(5): 2285–2303.

81.

Tukey

(1977) Exploratory data analysis. In: Addison-Wesley Series in Behavioral Science: Quantitative Methods. Boston: Addison Wesley, pp.131–160.

82.

van Beurden

Smith

Lawrence

, et al. (2019) Feasibility randomized controlled trial of ImpulsePal: Smartphone app-based weight management intervention to reduce impulsive eating in overweight adults. JMIR formative research 3(2): e11586.

83.

Ward

Bleich

Cradock

, et al. (2019) Projected US state-level prevalence of adult obesity and severe obesity. New England Journal of Medicine 381(25): 2440–2450.

84.

Warziski

Sereika

Styn

, et al. (2008) Changes in self-efficacy and dietary adherence: The impact on weight loss in the PREFER study. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 31(1): 81–92.

85.

Weiner

(1985) An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review 92(4): 548–573.

86.

Weiner

Perry

Magnusson

(1988) An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(5): 738–748.

87.

Wigfield

Eccles

(2000) Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 68–81.

88.

Yang

Mitchell

, et al. (2021) Cross-national outcomes of a digital weight loss intervention in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Ireland, and Australia and New Zealand: a retrospective analysis. Frontiers in Public Health 9: 604937.

89.

Yeager

Dweck

(2012) Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist 47(4): 302–314.

90.

Yeager

Hanselman

Walton

, et al. (2019) A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature 573(7774): 364–369.

91.

Yeager

Walton

Brady

, et al. (2016) Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(24): e3341–e3348.

92.

Zevin

Dalgarno

Martin

, et al. (2019) Barriers to accessing weight-loss interventions for patients with class II or III obesity in primary care: A qualitative study. CMAJ Open 7(4): e738–e744.

93.

Zhang

(2022) Implicit theories of body weight and engagement in healthy lifestyles among young adults: The mediating effect of self-control. Journal of Health Psychology 27(12): 2797–2805.

94.

Zhao

Chen

King

, et al. (2021) When adolescents believe that SES can be changed, they achieve more: The role of growth mindset of SES. Personality and Individual Differences 183: 111104.

95.

Zimmerman

(2013) Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In: Zimmerman

Schunk

(eds) Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. London: Routledge, pp.1–36.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB