Many people with mental illness do not receive treatment (Reinert et al., 2021). Even when they do, 30-50% dropout prematurely (Roos & Werbart, 2013). One barrier to treatment seeking and uptake is the belief that nothing can be done about the symptoms. Not only is such a belief likely to deter treatment seeking, but it may also serve to undermine the treatment options available. Those who see depression or anxiety symptoms as stable or even innate are presumably less likely to actively engage in, and therefore benefit from, treatments that rely on patient-initiated behavior (e.g., modifying cognitions and behaviors). Carol Dweck (2006) highlighted the role of fixed and malleable mindsets in the context of studying children’s beliefs regarding intelligence (Hong et al., 1999). Specifically, her research team found that children who viewed intelligence as a malleable feature that can be improved upon with effort performed better academically than those who believed intelligence is fixed and not amenable to change. Subsequent studies have shown that malleable mindsets are associated with fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety, lower negative emotionality, and less psychopathology in general (De Castella et al., 2013; Tamir et al., 2007; Schroder et al., 2019). Additionally, given the widespread use of social media to disseminate information about important issues, including psychological health, we sought to understand how the influence of social media communication regarding mental health impacts viewers’ own beliefs about mental illness recovery. To do this, we conducted an experimental study with 321 student participants from a large Midwestern university. Participants were randomized into one of three conditions – fixed, malleable, or positive affect – and viewed a series of fictitious tweets. In the fixed condition, participants viewed tweet content presenting mental illness from a fixed mindset perspective. The malleable condition included tweet content presenting mental illness from a malleable mindset perspective. Finally, the positive affect condition did not have any mental health content, but instead included a series of tweets that were generally positive in tone.
We hypothesized that there would be significant differences between conditions on beliefs about the possibility of improving mental health trajectories, such that those in the malleable condition, when compared to those in the fixed and control condition, would have less pessimistic views on mental illness prognosis, treatment, and agentic behavior. In partial support of our hypotheses, results indicated that the malleable condition was less pessimistic in their beliefs about agentic behavior in alleviating depression and anxiety symptoms, F(2, 319) = 8.07, p < .001; and the malleable condition reported depression and anxiety to be less stable and innate than the fixed condition, F(2, 319) = 4.80, p < .010. However, conditions did not significantly differ in beliefs about how long depression and anxiety last (F(2, 319) = 1.87, p = .156) or treatment effectiveness (F(2, 319) = 1.09, p = .337). These findings suggest that subtle communication in social media may be a viable intervention for improving beliefs around agentic behavior and the malleable nature of mental illness, particularly depression and anxiety.