Stress mindset as a mediator between self-efficacy and coping styles

Abstract

Stress mindset is a lens through which one views stress and its consequences as beneficial or harmful for them. It is a distinct variable that differs from frequency, amount, and intensity of stress. The literature review indicated that stress mindset could mediate the link between self-efficacy and coping style, which was previously not tested. Hence, the study aimed; 1) to examine the relationship between self-efficacy, stress mindset, and coping style; 2) to investigate the influence of stress mindset and self-efficacy on coping styles; 3) to find whether stress mindset mediates the association between self-efficacy and coping styles. The study employed a correlational research design, whereby through multi-phase sampling recruited 727 participants (male = 300, female = 427, mean age = 16.26) studying in 11th and 12th standard. The researchers administered validated stress mindset, self-efficacy, and coping style and performed a multiple correlational and regression analysis. They computed mediation analysis using Haye’s model 4 in Process Macro. The finding indicated that the association between self-efficacy and self-controlling coping style is mediated by stress mindset. Furthermore, it mediated the connection between some sub-domains of self-efficacy and coping styles. The data were evident to infer that individual with high self-efficacy can interpret social stressors as beneficial and improve their coping skills.

Keywords:

• stress mindset
• self-efficacy
• coping styles
• stressors

1. Introduction

Numerous studies portrayed stress as a negative and a risk factor for health (Cortes et al., 2022; Marcatto et al., 2016). The layout of such studies formed a basis for various stress management interventions whose primary goal is to control or reduce stress (Alkoby et al., 2019), which may implicitly cause a negative framework related to stress. It eventually leads to the paradox of “stressed about controlling stress.” Nevertheless, does stress is harmful and always leads to debilitating consequences?

In line with the question, a new concept emerged in stress research known as “stress mindset.” It functions on the interpretation of stress and its consequences (Crum et al., 2013), which sprouted from the progressive effects of mindset research on learning, motivation, health, and behavior (Crum & Langer, 2007; Liu et al., 2020). It can be crucial in predicting health outcomes (Crum et al., 2013; Keech et al., 2018, 2020). Nonetheless, it can modify the cortisol reactivity during stressful events (Crum et al., 2013, 2017) and moderate work anticipation, job turnover, resilience and coping strategies (Casper et al., 2017; Chen & Qu, 2023; Heermann, 2019; Kim et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2022). Still, the role of stress mindset is unexplored in some areas.

Self-efficacy is a cognitive concept focusing on believing in one’s capabilities in stressful situations. It is a popular concept, and a plethora of studies revealed the role of self-efficacy on mental health, learning, performance, stress, and coping strategies (Beatson et al., 2020; Downes et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2023; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Li et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2022). Theoretically, there are four sources of self-efficacy beliefs, out of which the physiological and affective states explain the individual’s interpretation of physical changes based on the interpretation of stressful events (Bandura, 1997). It is similar to the function of stress mindset (Crum et al., 2013). However, insufficient research evidence determines the need for an empirical relationship between stress mindset and self-efficacy.

Coping is a medium for stressful situations and adaptations to those situations (Gaylord‐Harden et al., 2012; Kara & Açıkel, 2012). It relates to life satisfaction, well-being, suicide ideation, and psycho-physiological process (Cheng et al., 2022; De Berardis et al., 2020; Kingsbury et al., 2016; Ma & Song, 2023). In addition, coping strategies reduce the intensity of the stressor (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010), whereas stress mindset emphasizes utilizing the stressor (Walton & Crum, 2020). Theoretically, stress mindset theory stipulates that an individual with stress mindset enables him/her to choose an appropriate coping style suitable for a specific stressful situation (Crum et al., 2013). An empirical study indicated that individuals having a high “stress enhancing mindset” use more emotional support-seeking, cognitive reinterpretation, and problem-solving. In contrast, individuals having a high “stress debilitating mindset” use more depression-anxiety, irritation-anger, and helplessness coping (Horiuchi et al., 2018). Yet, there is limited research conducted on whether stress mindset is associated with a coping style (Caleon et al., 2023; Grünenwald et al., 2022).

According to the transactional stress theory, self-efficacy and coping are components of secondary appraisals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Empirical studies revealed a positive relationship between self-efficacy and problem-focused coping and a negative correlation between self-efficacy and emotional-focused coping (Jex et al., 2001; Lyrakos, 2012). However, some studies found no correlation between self-efficacy and certain coping styles, like avoidance and social support coping (Konaszewski et al., 2021; Shen, 2009). There needs to be more clarity in the association between self-efficacy and coping styles.

Theoretical Framework: In the aforementioned lines, it is evident that stress mindset has both theoretical and empirical relationships with self-efficacy and coping styles (see figure 1)

Figure 1. Theoretical framework indicating stress mindset can mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and coping style.

From self-efficacy an arrow is pointed-out towards coping style. Similarly, another arrow from self-efficacy is pointed-out to stress mindset and from stress mindset another arrow is directed towards coping style.

The existing review procured three primary research questions, which are as follows;

1. Whether stress mindset, self-efficacy, and coping styles are interrelated?

2. Can stress mindset and self-efficacy influence coping styles?

3. Can stress mindset act as a mediator between self-efficacy and coping styles?

Therefore, the objectives formulated were 1) to examine the interrelationship between self-efficacy, stress mindset, and coping styles; 2) to investigate the influence of self-efficacy and stress mindset on coping styles; 3) to find whether stress mindset mediates the association of self-efficacy and coping styles. These were employed using a correlational research design.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Through multi-stage sampling, the researchers recruited 727 (Male = 300, Female = 427, aged 14–17) participants, who were students studying in the 11th (N = 573) and 12th (N = 154) classes. The mean age is 16.26, and SD is 0.621. Geographically, a total of 146 (20.1%), 291 (40%), and 290 (39.9%) students belonged to the Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, and Vizianagaram districts, respectively (see Table 1). Researchers excluded students with severe physical and mental issues, who are undertaking medications and cannot understand English. Furthermore, they eliminated the insufficient data submitted by the participants

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants (N = 727)

Characteristics	n	%
Gender
Male	300	41.3
Female	427	58.7
Age	16.26 (Mean)	0.621(SD)
15	71	9.8
16	399	54.9
17	257	35.4
Class
11^th class	573	78.8
12^th class	154	21.2
Residence
Day-schooling	533	73.3
Staying in hostel	194	23.7
District
Srikakulam (8 colleges)	146	20.1
Visakhapatnam (8 colleges)	291	40.0
Vizianagaram (10 colleges)	290	39.9

2.2. Procedure

In the initial stage, randomly three district headquarters of Andhra Pradesh were selected (Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram, and Srikakulam), thereby a list of colleges/schools having 11th and 12th standards from each district headquarters was prepared based on the Andhra Pradesh Board of Intermediate. Ten colleges from each district headquarters were randomly selected and approached for permission in the second stage. The colleges that permit data collection used to allot specific classes, times, and dates in the third stage. The researcher informed participants about the study’s objective; participants’ rights and encouraged voluntary participation. A data sheet was given that included informed consent, socio-demographic data, and assessment measures and administered the same by the researcher. Finally, the collected data was coded and data analysis was performed.

2.3. Measures

Stress mindset Measure: This tool is designed by (Crum et al., 2013), and consists of 8 items indicating a “stress-is-debilitating mindset” and “stress-is-enhancing mindset.” A 5-point scale scoring is adapted. The higher score indicates a high enhancing stress mindset. Cronbach’s alpha of stress mindset for the present study is 0.71 (Crum et al., 2013)

Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: It is developed by (Muris, 2001), and consists of 21 items with three sub-dimensions- academic self-efficacy (ASE), emotional self-efficacy (ESE), and social self-efficacy (SSE) (Muris, 2001). The Cronbach’s alpha for academic self-efficacy is 0.71, emotional self-efficacy is 0.65, and social self-efficacy is 0.61 for the present study (Muris, 2001).

Ways of Coping Questionnaire: (Folkman et al., 1986), developed this tool. It has 66 items embedded in eight subscales- “confrontive, distancing, self-controlling, seeking social support, accepting responsibility, escape-avoidance, planful problem solving, and positive reappraisal” (Folkman et al., 1986). The Cronbach’s alpha for each sub-scale in the present study is; 0.69 for confrontive coping, 0.63 for distancing, 0.59 for accepting responsibility, 0.59 for self-controlling, 0.62 for seeking social support, 0.60 for escape-avoidance, 0.68 for planful problem solving and 0.64 for positive reappraisal (Folkman et al., 1986).

2.4. Data analysis

The collected data was coded and proceeded with data screening, where the outliers and missing values were identified and eliminated. We ensured the normality of the data before computing statistical analysis. Using SPSS version 25 software, we performed the data analysis—first, descriptive analysis is computed to describe the socio-demographic and measuring variables. Second, correlational analysis is computed to find the interrelationship between the stress mindset, self-efficacy, and coping styles. Third, regression analysis is computed to assess the influence of stress mindset and self-efficacy on coping styles. Finally, a mediation analysis using Hayes’s model 4 in Process Macro is computed to assess the role of stress mindset as a mediator between self-efficacy and coping styles.

3. Results

3.1. Correlational analysis

Table 2 indicates the interrelationship between the measured variables. Stress mindset has a significant positive correlation with self-efficacy and sub-domains of self-efficacy-Social, emotional, and academic self-efficacy. Furthermore, it is significantly related to self-controlling, seeking social support, planful problem-solving, and positive reappraisal coping styles. However, it lacks a significant relationship with confrontive, escape-avoidance, accepting responsibility, and distancing coping. Self-efficacy has a significant relationship with confrontive, self-controlling, seeking social support, planful problem-solving, and positive reappraisal coping styles. It lacks a significant relationship with distancing, accepting responsibility, and escape-avoidance coping styles.

Table 2. Inter-correlational analysis between the measured variables

	Mean (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1.SE	72.24 (9.97)
2.ASE	27.14 (4.26)	.78**
3.SSE	25.61 (4.27)	.71**	.33**
4.ESE	23.49 (4.61)	.78**	.44**	.31**
5. CCS	8.2 (3.4)	.13**	0.047	.18**	0.067						.
6. DCS	9.94 (3.1)	−0.032	0.011	−0.039	−0.043	16**
7. SCCS	11.1 (3.55)	.11**	.073*	0.049	.13**	.23**	.23**
8. SSSCS	10.25 (3.65)	.16**	.11**	.18**	0.073	.42**	.11**	.18**
9. ARCS	6.76 (2.63)	0.014	−0.062	0.041	0.048	.29**	.25**	.26**	.24**
10. ESCS	10.83 (3.96)	−0.006	−0.047	0.024	0.007	39**	.16**	.26**	.23**	.30**
11. PPSCS	10.43 (3.46)	.25**	.21**	.17**	.19**	.31**	.15**	.44**	.31**	.29**	.21**
12. PRCS	13.24 (3.71)	.16**	.14**	.11**	.12**	23**	.23**	.36**	.31**	.31**	.19**	.52**
13. SMM	21.72 (5.46)	.45**	.44**	.36**	.24**	0.026	−0.037	.14**	.14**	−0.012	−0.027	.25**	.19**

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01SE=Self-efficacy, ASE= Academic self-efficacy, SSE= Social self-efficacy, ESE= Emotional self-efficacy, CCS=confrontive coping scale, DCS= Distancing coping scale, SCCS= Self-controlling coping scale, SSSCS= Seeking social support coping scale, ARCS=Accepting responsibility coping scale, ESCS=Escape-Avoidance coping scale, PPPCS=Planful problem solving coping scale, PRCS=Positive reappraisal coping scale, SMM=Stress mindset

Similarly, academic self-efficacy is significantly related to self-controlling coping, seeking social support, planful problem-solving, and positive reappraisal coping. While it lacks a significant relationship with confrontive, distancing, accepting responsibility, and escape-avoidance coping styles. Nonetheless, social self-efficacy has a significant relationship with confrontive coping, seeking social support, planful problem-solving, and positive reappraisal coping. However, it lacks a significant relationship with distancing, self-controlling, accepting responsibility, and escape avoidance coping styles. Emotional self-efficacy is related to self-controlling, planful problem-solving, and positive reappraisal coping but lacks a significant relationship with confrontive, distancing, seeking social support, accepting responsibility, and escape-avoidance coping styles

3.2. Multiple regression analysis

Table 3 indicated that self-efficacy and stress mindset shared 2.2% of the variance in self-controlling coping style with significant indexes of F = 8.01 with p < 0.01, 3% of the variance in seeking social support coping style with significant indexes of F = 11.17 with p < 0.01, 8.8% of the variance in planful problem-solving solving with significant indexes of F = 34.73 with p < 0.01 and 4.3% of the variance in positive reappraisal coping style with significant indexes of F = 16.3 with p < 0.01.

Table 3. Multiple regression analysis: influence of self-efficacy and stress mindset on coping styles

Predictor	Dependent variable (Coping scales)	Standardized Coefficients “β”	“t”	Model summary
Self-efficacy	Self-controlling coping	.062	1.49	R^2= .022 F = 8.01, p < 0.01
Stress mindset		.11	2.64**
Self-efficacy	Seeking social support coping	.122	2.96**	R^2= .030 F = 11.17, p < 0.01
Stress mindset		.08	1.94
Self-efficacy	Planful problem-solving coping	.172	4.32**	R^2= .088 F = 34.73, p < 0.01
Stress mindset		.175	4.40**
Self-efficacy	Positive reappraisal coping	.098	2.41*	R^2= .043 F = 16.30, p < 0.01
Stress mindset		.144	3.53**
Emotional SE	Self-controlling coping	.100	2.63**	R^2= .028 F = 10.42, p < 0.01
Stress mindset		.113	2.99**
Social SE	Seeking social support coping	.148	3.78**	R^2= .037 F = 13.97, p < 0.01
Stress mindset		.082	2.08*
Academic SE	Planful problem solving coping	.072	1.65	R^2= .089 F = 17.53, p < 0.01
Social SE		.045	1.13
Emotional SE		.105	2.59**
Stress mindset		.180	4.41**
Academic SE	Positive reappraisal coping	.075	1.85	R^2= .040 F = 15.07, p < 0.01
Stress mindset		.155	3.82**

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, SE= Self-efficacy

Similarly, there is a significant influence of a few sub-scales of self-efficacy along with stress mindset on certain coping styles. Such as emotional self-efficacy and stress mindset contribute 2.8% variance in self-controlling coping. The significant indexes displayed F = 10.42 with p < 0.01. Likewise, social self-efficacy and stress mindset shared a 3.7% variance in seeking social support coping along with the significant indexes F = 13.97 with p < 0.01. Interestingly, all domains of self-efficacy and stress mindset shared an 8.9% variance in planful problem-solving with significant indexes of F = 17.53 with p < 0.01. Nonetheless, emotional self-efficacy (β=.105, t = 2.59) and stress mindset (β=.180, t = 4.41) individually showed significant influence on planful problem-solving coping, while academic (β=.072, t = 1.65) and social self-efficacy (β=.045, t = 1.13) lacks significant influence on it.

A significant influence on positive reappraisal is present due to domains of self-efficacy and stress mindset, which have significant indexes of F = 15.07 with p < 0.01. Furthermore, a 4% variance showed by predictor variables (academic self-efficacy and stress mindset) on positive reappraisal coping. Considering individual influence on criterion variable, stress mindset (β=.147, t = 3.51) influences more on positive reappraisal coping than academic self-efficacy (β=.075, t = 1.85)

3.3. Mediation analysis

Only significant models were reported in the study to maintain clarity and preciseness. There is a lack of direct effect of self-efficacy on self-controlling coping (SCCS) (β=.022, 95% CI [−.007, .051], p > 0.05) [see Table 4 and Figure 2]. However, there is a total (β=.0394, 95% CI [.014, .065], p < 0.01) and indirect effect (β=.0175, 95% CI [.0029, .032]) of self-efficacy on SCCS. While the total effect of academic self-efficacy (ASE) on SCCS is significant (β=.0606, 95% CI [.0001, .1211], p < 0.05).

Figure 2. Stress mindset mediates the association of self-efficacy and self-controlling coping style.

Table 4. Mediating effect of stress mindset (SMM) on self-efficacy (SE) and coping styles (CS)

S.no.	Path	β				Std β	95% CI [LCI, UCI]	t	p
4.1.	SE→SMM	.248				.453	.212, .284	13.66	.000
	SMM→SCCS	.071				.111	.018, .123	2.64	.0086
	SE→SCCS	.022				.062	−.007, .051	1.49	.136
	Total Effect	.0394					.014, .065	2.99	.0028
	Direct Effect	.022					−.007, .051	1.49	.136
	Indirect Effect	.0175					.0029, .032
4.2.	ASE→SMM	.564				.411	.481, .648	13.23	.000
	SMM→SCCS	.084				.129	.032, .136	3.15	.001
	ASE→SCCS	.0131				.0157	−.0539, .08	.383	.7021
	Total Effect	.0606					.0001, .1211	1.96	.049
	Direct Effect	.0131					−.0539, .08	.383	.7021
	Indirect Effect	.0475					.0161, .0813
4.3.	SSE→SMM	.4612			.3605		.374, .548	10.4	.000
	SMM→SCCS	.0886			.1365		.0386, .1390	3.45	.0037
	SSE→SCCS	.0001			.0001		−.064, .0645	.0037	.997
	Total Effect	.041					−.0195, .1015	1.33	1.839
	Direct Effect	.0001					−.064, .0645	.0037	.997
	Indirect Effect	.0409					.0156, .0656
4.4.	ASE→SMM	.564		.411			.481, .648	13.23	.000
	SMM→SSSCS	.0706		.1056			.0168, .124	2.578	.010
	ASE→ SSSCS	.0568		.0663			−.0121, .1256	1.62	.1061
	Total Effect	.0966					.0346, .1587	3.06	.0023
	Direct Effect	.0568					−.0121, .1256	1.62	.1061
	Indirect Effect	.0399					.0096, .0728
4.5.	ESE→SMM	.2798	.2364				.196, .3637	6.54	.000
	SMM→SSSCS	.0833	.1246				.0336, .1331	3.29	.001
	ESE→SSSCS	.0342	.0432				−.0246, .0931	1.14	.2538
	Total Effect	.0576					.1152, .0727	3.06	1.96
	Direct Effect	.0342					−.0246, .0931	1.62	1.14
	Indirect Effect	.0233					.0086, .0398
4.6.	ASE→SMM	.564		.411			.481, .648	13.23	.000
	SMM→PRCS	.1052		.155			.0511, .1593	3.82	.0001
	ASE→PRCS	.0654		.0753			−.0038, .1346	1.85	.064
	Total Effect	.1248					.0621, .1875	3.91	.0001
	Direct Effect	.0654					−.0038, .1346	1.85	.064
	Indirect Effect	.0594					.0256, .0934
4.7.	SSE→SMM	.4612		.3605			.374, .548	10.4	.000
	SMM→PRCS	.1174		.173			.0653, .1695	4.42	.000
	SSE→PRCS	.0368		.0423			−.0299, .1034	1.083	.279
	Total Effect	.0909					.0279, .1538	2.83	.0047
	Direct Effect	.0368					−.0299, .1034	1.083	.279
	Indirect Effect	.0541					.0286, .0814

SE=Self-efficacy, ASE= Academic self-efficacy, SSE= Social self-efficacy, ESE= Emotional self-efficacy, SCCS= Self-controlling coping scale, SSSCS= Seeking social support coping scale PRCS=Positive reappraisal coping scale

From self-efficacy an arrow is pointed-out towards self-controlling coping style. Similarly, another arrow from self-efficacy is pointed-out to stress mindset and from stress mindset another arrow is directed towards self-controlling coping style.

The indirect effect of ASE on SCCS via stress mindset is significant (β=.0475, 95%CI [.0161, .0813]), yet the direct effect of ASE on SCCS is insignificant (β=.013, 95% CI [−.054, .08], p > 0.05) [see Table 4 and Figure 3]. In contrast, the total effect of social self-efficacy (SSE) on SCCS is not significant (β=.041, 95% CI [−0.195, .1015], p > 0.05) [see Table 4 and Figure 4]. Nevertheless, the direct effect of SSE on SCCS is not significant (β=.0001, 95% CI [−.064, .0645], p > 0.05). However, the indirect effect of SSE on SCCS via stress mindset is significant (β=.0409, 95% CI [.0156, .0656]). Through observing pathways, there is a significant influence of SSE on stress mindset (β=.461, 95% CI [.374, .548], p < 0.01), and in turn, stress mindset influenced SCCS (β=.461, 95% CI [.0386, .139], p < 0.01).

Figure 3. Stress mindset mediates the association of academic self-efficacy and self-controlling coping style.

Figure 4. Stress mindset mediates the relationship between social self-efficacy and self-controlling coping style.

From academic self-efficacy an arrow is pointed-out towards self-controlling coping style. Similarly, another arrow from self-efficacy is pointed-out to stress mindset and from stress mindset another arrow is directed towards self-controlling coping style.

From Social self-efficacy an arrow is pointed-out towards self-controlling coping style. Similarly, another arrow from self-efficacy is pointed-out to stress mindset and from stress mindset another arrow is directed towards self-controlling coping style.

The total effect of ASE on seeking social support coping style (SSSCS) is significant (β=.0966, 95% CI [.0346, .1587], p < 0.01) [see Table 4]. However, the direct effect of ASE on SSSCS is not significant (β=.0966, 95% CI [−.012, .1256], p > 0.05), whereas the indirect effect of ASE on SSSCS through stress mindset is significant (β=.0399, 95% CI [.0096, .0728]). Figure 5 demonstrated a significant indirect pathway, where ASE predicts stress mindset (β=.56, 95% CI [.481, .648], p < 0.01), and in turn, stress mindset predicts SSSCS (β=.071, 95% CI [.0168, .124], p < 0.01).

Figure 5. Stress mindset mediates the connection between academic self-efficacy and seeking social support coping style.

From academic self-efficacy an arrow is pointed-out towards seeking social support coping style. Similarly, another arrow from self-efficacy is pointed-out to stress mindset and from stress mindset another arrow is directed towards seeking social support coping style.

Similarly, the total effect of emotional self-efficacy (ESE) on SSSCS (β=.0576, 95% CI [.115, .073], p < 0.05) is significant [see Table 3 and Figure 6]. However, there is a lack of a significant direct effect of ESE on SSSCS (β=.034, 95% CI [−.025, .093], p > 0.05). At the same time, there is a significant indirect effect of ESE on SSSCS via stress mindset (β=.0233, 95% CI [.0086, .0398]).

Figure 6. Stress mindset mediates the linkage between emotional self-efficacy and seeking social support coping style.

From emotional self-efficacy an arrow is pointed-out towards seeking social support coping style. Similarly, another arrow from self-efficacy is pointed-out to stress mindset and from stress mindset another arrow is directed towards seeking social support coping style

A significant total effect (β=.125, 95% CI [.0621, .1875], p < 0.01) and a significant indirect effect of ASE on positive reappraisal coping style (PRCS) (β=.0594, 95% CI [.0256, .0934]) are present in Table 4. Whereas there is a lack of significant direct effect of ASE on PRCS (β=.0654, 95% CI [−.0038, .1346], p > 0.05) [see Figure 7]. Similarly, stress mindset mediated the relationship between social self-efficacy (SSE) and PRCS. However, there is no direct effect of SSE (β=.0368, 95% CI [−.0299, .1034], p > 0.05) on PRCS; instead, there is a significant indirect effect; SSE influences PRCS (β=.0541, 95% CI [.0286, .1814]) via stress mindset [see Table 4 and Figure 8].

Figure 7. Stress mindset mediates the association between academic self-efficacy and positive reappraisal coping style.

Figure 8. Stress mindset mediates the connection between social self-efficacy and positive reappraisal coping style.

From academic self-efficacy an arrow is pointed-out towards positive reappraisal coping style. Similarly, another arrow from self-efficacy is pointed-out to stress mindset and from stress mindset another arrow is directed towards positive reappraisal coping style

From social self-efficacy an arrow is pointed-out towards positive reappraisal coping style. Similarly, another arrow from self-efficacy is pointed-out to stress mindset and from stress mindset another arrow is directed towards positive reappraisal coping style

4. Discussion

The study aimed to examine the interrelationship between the measuring variables; to investigate the influence of stress mindset and self-efficacy on coping styles. The preliminary findings of correlational and regression analysis revealed the interrelationship between the stress mindset, self-efficacy, and coping styles; and the significant influence of stress mindset and self-efficacy on self-controlling, seeking social support, problem-solving, and positive reappraisal coping styles. It infers the dominative predictor variable on the criterion variable, such as stress mindset influences self-controlling coping more than self-efficacy (see Table 3). Nonetheless, a previous study indicated that high-stress mindset individuals could cope with adverse situations by improving their self-control (Park et al., 2018).

Surprisingly, one finding indicated that self-efficacy more influences seeking social support than stress mindset (see Table 3). Perhaps, the verbal persuasion strengthened the self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997) that would be more dominant in seeking social support than stress mindset. Significantly, high self-efficacy individuals’ tendency to interact with people during problem-solving seemingly predicts the seeking social support coping (Devonport & Lane, 2006).

The regression analysis constituted a foundation for mediation analysis. It is the foremost study exploring the mediating role of stress mindset between self-efficacy and coping styles. The novel findings indicated that high self-efficacy and stress mindset can improve the self-controlling coping style of a person. Especially individuals with high self-efficacy believe that stress is good and has benefits, which can restructure their mental frameworks related to stressful situations, improve self-confidence and regulate their emotions (Bandura, 1997; Crum et al., 2013).

Stress mindset mediated the relationship between academic self-efficacy and self-controlling coping. It infers that individuals who believe in their capabilities to meet academic expectations can perceive academic performance pressures given by parents and teachers as beneficial. In this manner, they can refocus the energy of stressors to maintain control over their negative emotions like anger, frustration, sadness, and distress (Walton & Crum, 2020). Likewise, stress mindset mediated the relationship between social self-efficacy and self-controlling coping style. It implies that individuals with high social self-efficacy can perceive social stressors like interpersonal competition and peer pressures as beneficial. In turn, it can regulate their emotions by expressing displeasure meaningfully, such as humor or sarcasm. Nonetheless, a study found that individuals with a high “stress-enhancing mindset” can use more “humor” as their coping strategy (Karampas et al., 2020).

Academic self-efficacy influenced seeking social support coping style via stress mindset. It infers that individual with high academic self-efficacy can perceive their parents, friends, and teachers as sources of knowledge rather than stress boosters. It can eventually lead them to take help from teachers, parents, and friends in solving their problems. A similar finding was indicated by (Horiuchi et al., 2018), that stress mindset positively influences seeking emotional support coping (Horiuchi et al., 2018). Nevertheless, seeking emotional support can be the sub-set of seeking social support coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Emotional self-efficacy is a belief in one’s ability to regulate negative emotions like anger, frustration, sadness, and hatred. The result indicated that individuals with high emotional self-efficacy could interpret stressors from romantic or peer relationships as positive experiences. That, in turn, strengthens the emotional bonding between the partners. For instance, individuals with “stress-enhancing mindset” have more interpersonal understanding and support from their partners than individuals with “stress-debilitating mindset” (Nguyen et al., 2020).

Positive reappraisal coping implies “an effort to create positive meaning by focusing on personal growth.” The result indicated that high academic self-efficacy along with stress mindset could improve positive reappraisal. Individuals with high self-efficacy might perceive the difficulties and hurdles in their academics as challenges that help them grow academically. In line with this, previous studies revealed the influence of stress mindset on positive reframing related to positive reappraisal (Cárdenas Castro et al., 2019; Grünenwald et al., 2022). Similarly, stress mindset mediated the relationship between social self-efficacy and positive reappraisal. It implies that individuals with high social self-efficacy perceive social stressors like social evaluations and feedback as a chance to learn something new. That, in turn, increases their opportunity to interact with experts to gain knowledge for personal growth. These preliminary findings showed that social self-efficacy influences positive reappraisal through stress mindset, which validates the presumption. As such, a recent research study revealed that stress mindset plays a crucial role in enhancing personal growth (Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2022), similar to positive reappraisal.

It is essential to note that although the models indicate the mediation effect of the stress mindset between predictor and criterion variables, the shared variance percentage of independent and mediator on criterion variables is very minimal. The researcher collected data amid COVID wave two, and the data collection period might not control extraneous factors like students’ transition period, adjustment to the college environment, and increased leniency of teachers and parents toward academic performance during the COVID period.

5. Limitations and scope of the study

The study aimed to study the role of stress mindset on self-efficacy and coping styles. Therefore, factors like resilience and hardiness were excluded, which might be crucial in moderating stress mindset. Upcoming studies can include them to understand the efficient role of stress mindset on the measuring variables.

The association between self-efficacy and coping styles was insignificant in a few coping styles, which might be due to individual differences, such as emotional intelligence, emotional maturity, and personality traits. Hence, further research can nullify the individual differences using appropriate research designs, such as randomized paired comparisons and random block designs.

6. Conclusion

The study findings indicated that stress mindset mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and self-controlling coping style. Furthermore, it mediated the relationship between some of the sub-dimensions of self-efficacy and some coping styles. This preliminary study implies that individuals with high stress mindset and self-efficacy might have more self-confidence in dealing with stressful situations. They can perceive social stressors like social evaluations and negative feedback as challenges rather than threats, which help them to improve themselves. This change in interpretation may aid in regulating their emotions and responding to the stressor in a meaningful manner rather than emotional outbursts.

Authors contributions

GS: conceptualization, data collection, data analysis and preparation of manuscript; SJ: Reviewing and editing; JCE: Literature review; DPD: Methodology

Ethical considerations

The study followed the ethical considerations in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and received ethical approval from the Central University of Karnataka, India (Ethical clearance no. CUK/SSBS/PSY/EC-109).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants and their parents included in the study.

Data availability statement

The dataset would be provided on the request from corresponding author.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the ICSSR research grant with File No. RFD/2019-20/GEN/HLTH/183.