the fresh start mindset: transforming consumers’ lives€¦ · the fresh start mindset:...

The Fresh Start Mindset TransformingConsumersrsquo Lives

LINDA L PRICEROBIN A COULTERYULIYA STRIZHAKOVAAINSLIE E SCHULTZ

This article introduces the fresh start mindset defined as a belief that people canmake a new start get a new beginning and chart a new course in life regardlessof their past or present circumstances With historical roots in American cultureand neoliberalism and with contemporary links to liquid modernity and global con-sumer culture this mindset structures reasoning experience and everyday lan-guage and guides behavior across self- and other-transformative consumptiondomains We develop a six-item scale (FSM) to measure the fresh start mindsetand situate it within a broader nomological network including growth mindset per-sonal capacity for change optimism future temporal focus internal locus of con-trol self-efficacy perseverance resilience and consumer variety seekingIndividuals with a stronger (vs weaker) fresh start mindset invest in transformativechange through changing their circumstances including their own consumptionchoices (eg buying a new pair of sunglasses and getting a new self) they alsoare more supportive of transformative programs that assist those who are chal-lenged to get a fresh start (ie disadvantaged youth at-risk teens veterans andtax-burdened adults) Our work significantly contributes to transformative con-sumer research with attention to self-activities and programs for vulnerable popu-lations that enable new beginnings

Keywords fresh start mindset growth mindset metaphor consumer transforma-

tion vulnerable consumers consumer culture

Consumer transformation has garnered significant aca-demic attention over the past decade (Anderson

Ostrom and Bitner 2011 Anderson et al 2013 Crockettet al 2013 Mick et al 2012) At the heart of much re-search is the quest to help consumers make changes in theirlives that move them toward a more positive future(Devezer et al 2014 Mende and van Doorn 2015)Implicit in many consumer transformation initiatives is theconviction that consumers can ldquoturn over a new leafrdquoldquostart a new chapterrdquo ldquoget a second chancerdquo and ldquomake afresh startrdquo as well as an expectation that marketers publicpolicy officials and organizations can help

Transformative consumer research often tacitly embracesa culturally informed neoliberal conviction that individual-ism self-determination and perseverance can lead individu-als to set goals and make positive progress in life regardlessof past and present circumstances (Giesler and Veresiu2014 Sugarman 2015) In this research we introduce the

Linda L Price (lpriceuoregonedu) is Philip H Knight Chair and pro-fessor of marketing Lundquist College of Business University of OregonEugene OR 97403-1208 Robin A Coulter (robincoulteruconnedu) isVOYA Financial Fellow professor of marketing and department headSchool of Business University of Connecticut Storrs CT 06269-1041Yuliya Strizhakova (ystrizharutgersedu) is associate professor of mar-keting School of BusinessndashCamden Rutgers University Camden NJ08102 Ainslie E Schultz (aeschultzprovidenceedu) is assistant profes-sor of marketing School of Business Providence College Providence RI02918 The authors thank Eileen Fischer Sharon Shavitt and the anony-mous review team for their constructive guidance The authors appreciatedthe comments from faculty and students participating in seminars atCreighton University Texas Christian University University ofConnecticut University of Oregon University of Pretoria and WashingtonState University Supplemental materials are included in the web appendixaccompanying the online version of this article Correspondence Linda LPrice

Eileen Fischer served as editor and Sharon Shavitt served as associateeditor for this article

Advance Access publication November 23 2017

VC The Author 2017 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research Inc

All rights reserved For permissions please e-mail journalspermissionsoupcom Vol 45 2018

DOI 101093jcrucx115

21Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract451214653708by Adam Ellsworth Adam Ellsworthon 17 May 2018

ldquofresh start mindsetrdquo defined as a belief that people canmake a new start get a new beginning and chart a newcourse in life regardless of past or present circumstancesWe argue that the powerful ldquofresh startrdquo conceptual meta-phor lays the groundwork for a fresh start mindset structur-ing reasoning experience and everyday language guidingself-transformative behavior and supporting governmentand social programs to assist others in making a fresh start(Coulter and Zaltman 2000 Landau 2017 Landau Meierand Keefer 2010 Rucker and Galinsky 2016)

Our work makes significant theoretical and empirical con-tributions to consumer behavior and more specifically totransformative consumer research First we theoretically situ-ate the fresh start mindset in the common metaphorical fram-ing of fresh start and the underpinnings of the belief that freshstarts are possible (Lakoff and Johnson 1999 Landau 2017Landau et al 2010 Landau et al 2014) We trace the freshstart mindsetrsquos historical roots in American culture and neo-liberalism (a belief that economic and other modes of well-being expand when individuals are free to direct their lives)and also illustrate that the fresh start mindset is infused with adominant neoliberal ideology (Sugarman 2015) and is reifiedin American and Protestant sectarian beliefs and values(Lipset 1996) We argue that the fresh start mindset has con-temporary links to liquid modernity a contemporary socialcondition characterized by high levels of change institutionalflexibility and individual mobility that leaves individuals inldquoconstant fluxrdquo (Bauman 2001) as well as a global consumerculture that fuels the belief that problems can be solvedthrough consumption (McCracken 2008) Further our workdocuments that the fresh start metaphor is present in daily lifeand marketing communications and that the fresh start mind-set can be made salient and activated despite having existedlargely unquestioned (Freitas Gollwitzer and Trope 2004Landau 2017 Landau et al 2010)

Second we conceptualize the fresh start mindset within abroad nomological network Importantly we differentiate thefresh start mindset from the growth mindsetmdashthe belief thatbasic intellectual characteristics and abilities can be devel-oped (ie they are not ldquofixedrdquo) through learning dedicationand hard work (Dweck 2006) We compare and contrastthese two mindsets in relation to personal characteristics in-cluding personal capacity for change optimism future tem-poral focus internal locus of control self-efficacyperseverance resilience consumer variety seeking and needfor cognition Using nine studies we establish a valid and re-liable six-item scale (FSM) to measure the fresh start mind-set We also examine the demographic and geo-demographiccharacteristics associated with the fresh start mindset

Third we contend that the fresh start mindset driven byneo-liberalism and Protestant sectarian beliefs underestimatesluck circumstances of birth ethnicity social class structuralforces and genetics as determinants of life outcomes empha-sizing instead responsibility and perseverance amid difficul-ties (Atkinson 2008 Frank 2016 McCracken 2008)

Consequently we argue that the fresh start mindset has impli-cations for both self-transformation and support for othersrsquotransformations As related to self-transformation the freshstart mindset suggests consumers can choose to reinventthemselves by initiating new goals and adopting new life-styles to create positive futures the fresh start mindset mayalso help to account for the ldquofresh start effectrdquo that individualsexperience with temporal landmarks such as the New Year(Dai Milkman and Riis 2014 2015) We argue that the freshstart mindset fuels liquid consumption and constant self-invention by suggesting that people can make a fresh start bybuying a new outfit trying a new brand or redecorating theirhome (Bauman 2007c McCracken 2008) In two studies wedocument that a stronger fresh start mindset (contrasted withgrowth mindset) is associated with greater self-transformativeefforts to change behavior and engage in consumption ofproducts and services that will change lives

Further as related to support of othersrsquo transformationwe speculate that the fresh start mindset informs consumerresponses to programs designed to help vulnerable con-sumers make a new beginning (eg programs that em-power at-risk teens to transcend present circumstances andbegin anew programs that support veterans in their transi-tion to a new civilian life and tax and mortgage programsthat enable consumers to leave financial mistakes behindand experience a fresh start) (Livshits MacGee and Tertilt2007 Resnick and Rosenheck 2006 Slattery et al 2013)In four studies we document that the fresh start mindset(contrasted with the growth mindset) impacts practicesrelated to supporting programs (more and less transforma-tive) for vulnerable others (ie disadvantaged youthat-risk teens veterans and tax-burdened adults) Finallywe demonstrate that consumersrsquo fresh start mindset can beattenuated or heightened leading them to believe newbeginnings are less or more likely and difficult

We proceed with our conceptual overview of the freshstart mindset to illustrate the common metaphoricalframing of fresh starts detail its roots in US history con-temporary consumer culture and liquid modernity and itslink to consumption as a mechanism for continual self-reinvention establish a nomological network of personaldemographic and geo-demographic characteristics anddiscuss self-focused and other-focused transformative con-sumer behaviors We then provide details and the results ofour multimethod (nine studies) investigation and concludewith a discussion and future research opportunities

CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW THE FRESHSTART MINDSET

The Fresh Start Metaphor and BeliefsUnderlying the Fresh Start Mindset

Though the fresh start metaphor is commonly evoked inAmerican marketing communications politics and

22 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract451214653708by Adam Ellsworth Adam Ellsworthon 17 May 2018

everyday language its roots meaning and consequenceshave not been investigated The fresh start metaphor is em-bedded in political rhetoric George W Bushrsquos presidentialcampaign platform in 2000 was a ldquoFresh Start forAmericardquo and Barack Obama (2006 54) posited thatAmerica is a ldquofresh start nationrdquo where refugees and immi-grants can transform their lives writing that Americanldquovalues are rooted in a basic optimism about life and a faithin free willrdquo Barnes and Noble and other bookstores de-vote several shelves to self-transformation books Lucyrsquos awomenrsquos activewear clothing chain encourages women toldquoembrace a fresh startrdquo and advertising campaigns andproducts recruit this mindset to sell the possibility ofchange toward a positive future Table 1 catalogs numerousexamples of campaigns that promise consumers that abrand nonprofit organization or politician can bring abouta fresh start

Designed to make salient and activate a fresh start mind-set these campaigns promise people that they can vote foror buy a fresh start The common metaphoric framing isused to quickly and with minimal effort activate andmake accessible a complex knowledgebelief structurelinked to peoplersquos underlying conceptions of their socialworld and the nature of human characteristics (Lakoff andJohnson 1999 Landau 2017 Landau et al 2010 Landauet al 2014) When activated this fresh start mindset repre-sented in beliefs about the possibility of new beginningsframes how the world works and can affect subsequentpreferences goals and choices (Freitas et al 2004 Landauet al 2014)

In academic discourse the term ldquomindsetrdquo has multipleconceptualizations with scholars debating about whetherthere are multiple mindsets how they operate and howthey differ from goals and attitudes (Chiu Hong andDweck 1997 Freitas et al 2004 Murphy and Dweck 2016Rucker and Galinsky 2016) Our conceptualization of thefresh start mindset is consistent with research that demon-strates metaphors priming and framing circumstances canrecruit different mindsetsmdashfor example shifting our think-ing from abstract and long-term to the here and now think-ing of education as a journey instead of a competition orreframing our approach to stress creative tasks and schoolperformance (Crum Salovey and Achor 2013 Gollwitzer1990 Landau et al 2014 Moreau and Engeset 2016White MacDonnell and Dahl 2011 Yeager et al 2016)Specifically we argue that the fresh start mindset is a com-plex beliefknowledge structure that when activated andaccessible has consequences for preferences goalschoices and behaviors (Freitas et al 2004)

Research highlights how various mindsets influenceconsumer motivations decision processes activities andbehaviors (MacDonnell and White 2015 Moreau andEngeset 2016) and emphasizes that understanding mind-sets is vital to questions that guide consumer behavior(John and Park 2016 Murphy and Dweck 2016 Priester

and Petty 2016 Rucker and Galinsky 2016 White et al2011) Our intent is not to examine the veracity of the freshstart mindset as a description of reality (Frank 2016Zheng van Osselaer and Alba 2016) but to examine howvariations in the mindsetrsquos strength shape consumersrsquobeliefs expectations and actions about transformation intheir own and othersrsquo lives We see the fresh start mindsetas affecting self-construal (as emphasized by Murphy andDweck 2016 in relationship to the growth mindset) andalso other-construal (Wheeler and Omair 2016) As a back-drop we discuss how the fresh start mindset is embeddedin US history and contemporary consumer culture

Historical Roots of the Fresh Start Mindset

Fresh starts are baked into the US national identity As anew society the United States was absent a ldquofeudal tradi-tion of class relations to structure politics along classlinesrdquo which contributed to an ideology of individualismand egalitarianism (Lipset 1996 84 Lukes 1969) This ide-ology drives a self-management discourse that lauds con-sumers who are self-reliant and take charge of their destiny(Fischer Otnes and Tuncay 2007 Giesler and Veresiu2014 Henry 2010) The neoliberal tradition envisions peo-ple as ldquofree enterprising individuals who governthemselvesrdquo and champions personal attributes such asldquoinitiative self-reliance self-mastery and risk-takingrdquo(Sugarman 2015 104) For enterprising individuals theideal is to invest in self-improvement and reinvention byadopting advice from experts such as personal trainers fi-nancial planners life coaches and therapists and express-ing autonomy of choice ldquomostly in consumerismrdquo(Sugarman 2015 104)

Founded around an ideology of individualism and egali-tarianism rather than a common history or communityAmericans embrace the belief that anyone can come to theUnited States and start a new successful life (Kammen1993 Lipset 1996) Historically linked to shared empathyand the capacity to connect across cultures and differencesthis belief exemplifies ldquoAmericanismrdquo (Kammen 1993)Predisposed to believe not just in systematic change orgrowth within social and institutional constraintsAmericans also believe in the concept of a fresh start thepossibility of willful positive and sometimes dramaticchange in the face of dire circumstances According to thisbelief you can change your circumstances and choose whoyou will be tomorrow regardless of who you are today

Importantly the fresh start mindset goes beyond the neo-liberal belief that people can internally grow and experi-ence free will within social and institutional constraints(Dweck 2006 Zheng et al 2016) Although grounded inoptimism perseverance and a future focus the fresh startmindset is differentiated from a belief in future good luckor prospects defined by privileges of birth and class (Frank2016) The prevailing optimism in the United States was

PRICE ET AL 23


TABLE 1

FRESH START MESSAGE ILLUSTRATIONS

Company Medium Message Visual image

Home Depot Television com-mercial andPinterestboard

Home improvement retailer encouragesconsumers to make a fresh start bypurchasing home supplies (httpwwwispottvadAZDCthe-home-depot-fresh-start)

Capital One Internet banneradvertisement

Financial service provider promotes theirline of services as a means to increasethe odds of a successful financial freshstart (httpswwwcapitalonecomsign-in)

TRESemme Internet andmagazineadvertisement

Hair care manufacturer promises a freshstart through their ldquoFresh Startrdquo line ofhair care products that refresh and re-vive greasy dirty hair (httplipglossn-heelsblogspotcom201109tre-semme-freshstart-strengthing-dryhtml)

Salvation Army Internetadvertisement

International charitable organizationoffers their charitable services as afresh start for families struggling finan-cially (httpsabigrapidsorg)

Better Homesand Gardens

April 2016 maga-zine cover

The fourth bestselling magazine in theUnited States awakens consumersrsquodesire to become a better self by mak-ing a fresh start across a variety ofdomains (gardening beauty rest etc)

Torrid Internetadvertisement

Plus-sized clothing retailer offers theirclothing as a fresh start for women(httpwwwtorridcomclothinglook-booksfresh-start)

Foot Locker Televisioncommercial

Athletic supply retailerrsquos ldquoFresh Startrdquoback-to-school campaign which alsofeatures Adidas products encouragesa fresh start as a pathway to success(httpswwwyoutubecomwatchvfrac14CBu8JUGpJWU)

Governor TomWolf

Internetadvertisement

Governor Tom Wolf uses a ldquofresh startfor Pennsylvaniardquo campaign to rallysupport for and win the election forgovernor of Pennsylvania (httpwwwwolfforpacomsectionsblogplan-pennsylvania-fresh-start)



fueled by a rising standard of living in the late 19th centurythat made ldquorags to richesrdquo fresh start narratives crediblethough not common (Lipset 1996 Putnam 2015) ManyAmericans now live in neighborhoods of severe resourceconstraints felt inequality and lack of social mobilitylinked to race and high unemployment which might leavethem less likely to believe that a fresh start is possible(Hochschild 2016 Payne 2017) In these neighborhoodssocial welfare and government support is often dissolvingor moving onto the shoulders of the individual increasingfelt vulnerability (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017 Giesler andVeresiu 2014)

Americarsquos Protestant sectarian past is another historicalfactor that contributes to an emphasis on self-reliance andperseverance amid difficulties The United States both inde Tocquevillersquos time and today is the most religiouscountry in Christendom but it is a voluntary religiosityreinforced and strengthened by social and political individ-ualism and competition for believers rather than state pol-icy (Lipset 1996 19) In balancing the neoliberal emphasison personal responsibility and self-management with theChristian doctrine a fresh start promises a reset and for-givenessmdasha way forward from mistakes and failures sym-bolized in religious rituals such as baptism and confessionChristianity urges humankind to ldquogo and sin no morerdquo(John 811 King James Bible) encouraging a fresh startfor anyone who chooses These Protestant sectarian rootsare evident in modern ldquoborn againrdquo Christianity move-ments that promise new beginnings and even link thistransformation with material and financial success (Bielo2007)

Contemporary Consumer Culture and the FreshStart Mindset

Contemporary consumer culture and liquid modernityfurther strengthen and reinforce the fresh start mindset byoffering up consumption as a mechanism for continualself-reinvention Bauman Beck and Giddens vigorouslyargue that individualization and fluidity characterize ourmodern world (Atkinson 2008) Giddens posits that as theinfluence of tradition and custom shrinks ldquoself-identity hasto be created and recreated on a more active basis thanbeforerdquomdashfor example the reflexive project of the self(1990 1991 2003 47) Beck (1992) describes how moder-nity shakes people out of their communal modes of lifeforcing them to reflexively assemble their lives themselvesBauman introduced the term ldquoliquid modernityrdquo to de-scribe this global condition of rampant change and socialdisembeddedness Bauman argues that because nothingkeeps its shape long-term individuals are not constrainedby their pasts and so ldquowhat one was yesterday will no lon-ger bar the possibility of becoming someone totally differ-ent todayrdquo (2007b 2007c 104 Atkinson 2008) Otherscholars note the perpetually transitional context of

employment that is ldquoglobal disembedded mobile and

flexiblerdquo where workers are expected to constantly re-engineer their skill base (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017 Pugh

2015 Sennett 2011 Sugarman 2015 106) For exampletodayrsquos workforce can expect 11 job changes over their

working lives (Sennett 2011 Sugarman 2015) In thiswidespread ldquoreflexive habitusrdquo consumers pragmatically

prepare to change just about everything in order to improvetheir effectiveness in the world and reflexive self-

transformation becomes the norm (Bardhi and Eckhardt2017 McCracken 2008 135 Sweetman 2003)

Scholars link descriptions of spiraling individualization

and fluidity to the global explosion of consumer culturethat upends consumers squeezing them sideways andldquocreating new economic and cultural zones within and

across nationsrdquo (Bauman 2007b Giddens 2003 13)Extensive consumer research documents that brands and

products enable consumers to ldquoreflect restore and createnew aspects of the selfrdquo (Belk 1988 for a review see

Cutright Samper and Fitzsimons 2013 91) Consumptionoffers a profusion of opportunities to experiment with fluid

and multiple selves amid a cultural imperative to changeand adapt (McCracken 2008) Consumers experience the

ldquofreedomrdquo that ensues from the plethora of opportunitiesavailable to continuously self-help and self-create with am-

bivalence (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017 Beck 1992 Giddens1991 McCracken 2008) That is while liquid modernity

offers consumers the ldquoopportunity to define themselves bytheir own effortsrdquo and ldquochange the categories to which

they belongrdquo they also experience identity mobility ldquoas aseparation from the community and from family as alien-

ation and anomierdquo and often as economic and social pre-cariousness (McCracken 2008 133 284 Pugh 2015)

Linking the Fresh Start Mindset to ConsumerBeliefs and Behaviors

American culture supports a belief in new beginnings re-

gardless of the past but the fresh start mindset is alsofueled globally by liquid modernity and consumer culture

In this section we briefly consider What are the likelycharacteristics of consumers who embrace the belief that

anyone can make a fresh start in life Further how doesthis mindset influence self-focused and other-focused

transformative efforts

The Fresh Start Mindset Personal Characteristics andSelf-Focused Transformative Consumption We posit that

the fresh start mindset has a broad network of related char-acteristics First and foremost we suggest both similarities

and differences between the fresh start mindset and thegrowth mindset Dweck (2006) argues that the growth

mindset creates a love of learning and resilience essentialfor great accomplishments (Miu and Yeager 2015)people with a growth mindset believe basic intellectual

PRICE ET AL 25


characteristics and abilities can be developed (ie they arenot ldquofixedrdquo) through learning dedication and hard work(Levy Stroessner and Dweck 1998 Yeager et al 2014)Thus both the fresh start mindset and the growth mindsetemphasize that people can change through self-reliance(Dweck 1999 Dweck and Leggett 1988) which is linkedto characteristics such as internal locus of control self-efficacy hope and personal capacity to change Peoplewith an internal locus of control perceive themselves tohave control over their future and substantial ability to af-fect outcomes through their own actions and efforts(Lefcourt 1991 Rotter 1966) Self-efficacy an individualrsquosbelief in the personal ability to meet task demands and in-fluence outcomes in a broad array of contexts (ChenGully and Eden 2001) also is related to human agencyand self-reliance Hope ldquoa positive feeling and motiva-tional staterdquo arises from the beliefs that one has agencyand can make a path forward to attain onersquos goalsrdquo (Bailisand Chipperfield 2012 342) Personal capacity to changereflects a particular aspect of self-reliancemdashspecificallyan individualrsquos belief in the personal ability to create a newlife and pursue new goals Thus self-reliance (in these var-ious manifestations) acts as a buffer protecting individualsfrom rapidly changing demands circumstances and failure(Ilgen and Pulakos 1999) Despite these personal self-reliance qualities socioeconomic and cultural influencessuch as racial discrimination low income poor educationand uncertain employment status can contribute to lowerself-efficacy (Gecas 1989 Sennett and Cobb 1972) Tosummarize we expect that both the fresh start and growthmindsets are positively associated with locus of controlself-efficacy hope and personal capacity to change

The fresh start and growth mindsets also are associatedwith perseverance resilience optimism and a future tem-poral focus Perseverance the ongoing ability to work hardin the face of adversity (Duckworth et al 2007 Duckworthand Quinn 2009) and resilience the ability to bounce orspring back from stress and adversity (Smith et al 2008)are associated with a growth mindset and with optimism(Smith et al 2008 Yeager and Dweck 2012) We arguethat the fresh start mindset is associated with personal con-fidence in onersquos ability to bounce back from lifersquos difficul-ties and a belief in the possibility of a positive futureSummarizing decades of research Seligman (2011) con-cludes that optimism the general belief that the future willbe positive (Scheier Carver and Bridges 1994) is vital toovercoming setbacks and taking on new goals Comparedto pessimists optimists are more confident about the even-tual success of their goals and so exert more effort andprolong engagement (Carver and Scheier 2014) Whilehope is focused on particular goal strivings optimism isbroader and emphasizes confidence in overcoming set-backs as one works toward a positive future (Bailis andChipperfield 2012 MacInnis de Mello and Patrick 2004)For example because optimists pick and choose where to

invest their efforts when circumstances are unfavorablethey are more likely than pessimists to disengage with apointless or unattainable goal (Britton Sliter and Jex2012) A future temporal focusmdashthat is an individualrsquos at-tention to looking forwardmdashis associated with higher lev-els of conscientiousness self-control job satisfaction andcommitment (Barrick and Mount 1991 Karniol and Ross1996) Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) report that individu-als with a future focus see change as motivation for better-ment and stay focused on ldquowhat is yet to comerdquo Moreoverindividuals who focus on the future perform better thanothers during goal pursuit (Fishbach and Dhar 2008) Thefresh start mindset involves leaving the past behind and fo-cusing on building a new positive future Thus we expecta positive relationship between the fresh start mindset thegrowth mindset optimism future temporal focus persever-ance and resilience

Despite these similarities we argue that the fresh startmindset and growth mindset are quite different in how theyapproach change Specifically whereas the growth mindsetfocuses on cognitive learning and internal change of basicintelligence characteristics the fresh start mindset is linkedto the postmodern contemporary fluid consumerCompared to the growth mindset the fresh start mindsetencourages changing circumstances and seeking out newgoals and choices via consumption as a path to personaland other transformation Thus we expect that the freshstart mindset is associated with consumer variety seekingsuch as taking a chance on an unfamiliar brand or readingabout new products just out of curiositymdashthat is choosingnew and different products and practices to engage a newlife (Wood 2009 Wood and Swait 2002) We also expectconsumers who hold a fresh start mindset to be open to lesseffortful paths toward self-reinventionmdashmore willing tobelieve for example that it is possible to purchase a newself or change personal circumstances (such as onersquos placeof residence or employment) to create a new life(McCracken 2008 Sugarman 2015) Note that the freshstart mindset contrasts with using a purchase to signal anexisting identity (consistent with a fixed mindset ratherthan the growth mindset) and instead suggests that pur-chases and changed circumstances are vehicles toward anew life and changed self Although growth mindset con-sumers may focus on brands that empower learning andgrowth as a path to change (John and Park 2016 Murphyand Dweck 2016 Park and John 2012) we expect no rela-tionship between the growth mindset and consumer varietyseeking or choices aimed at transformations through con-sumption Because the growth mindset is closely associ-ated with learning as a path to self-growth and change weposit that it but not the fresh start mindset should be asso-ciated with need for cognition or the tendency to engage inand enjoy effortful thinking (Cacioppo and Petty 1982)

Based on our conceptualization of the fresh start mind-set theories of consumer culture and liquid modernity and



proposed relationships with personal capacity to changeself-efficacy and consumer variety seeking we posit thatconsumers with a fresh start mindset will put effort intoself-transformative consumption practices (eg new healthand wellness activities budgeting efforts development ofpersonal relationships and acquisitiondisposition ofgoods) We also speculate that the growth mindset (focusedon personal learning) will not predict these self-focusedtransformative consumption efforts

Fresh Start Mindset and Supporting Others to Make aFresh Start Some scholars argue that belief in self-determinism and free will makes individuals unsympa-thetic to the plight of the poor and disadvantaged who areseen as ldquostuckrdquo because of their flawed characters and lackof willful initiative (Frank 2016 Zheng et al 2016)However the fresh start mindset embraces the belief thatpeople can change and are not defined by immutable char-acter flaws or failed pasts Therefore the fresh start mind-set offers a paradoxical correction to neoliberal capitalismAlthough the fresh start mindset emphasizes self-determinism and self-responsibility it also stresses every-onersquos capacity to choose to change in the face of failureand difficulty The fresh start mindset construes not justthe self but also others as capable of change Hence inter-ventions to enable others to change should appeal to freshstart mindset consumers who believe that all people havethe capacity to succeed in life The growth mindset isldquogrounded in how people construe the selfrdquo (Murphy andDweck 2016 165) and empirical studies have emphasizedhow self-construal influences motivations and behaviorsHowever because of its shared beliefs that people canchange and are not defined by their failures the growthmindset may also be positively associated with support forother-focused transformative programs

We expect differences in how the fresh start and growthmindsets affect support for efforts to positively transformothersrsquo lives We anticipate that because of a focus onchanging environmental circumstances a fresh start mind-set favors interventions that enable others to leave theirpasts behind (eg by accessing different friends a differ-ent place to live or a new community) rather than enablethem to grow intellectually (eg by enrolling in courses)While statistics confirm a powerful structure of inequalityinspiring individual stories of transformation promise thepossibility of the American Dream that with a hand upsome consumers can climb the ladder to success (Klein andOrsquoBrien 2017) Our research investigates effects of thefresh start mindset on support of transformative programsfor vulnerable populations

OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH

Figure 1 presents an overview of our fresh start mindsetconceptualization and a roadmap denoting our empirical

studies Our multimethod research program includes ninestudies several of which address multiple objectives fo-cused on scale development discriminant validity and pre-dictive validity We first report on the development of thefresh start mindset scale (FSM) item generation (study1a) item clarification and identification of related con-structs (study 1b) and item assessment (study 1c) fol-lowed by evaluating the validity and reliability of FSM andits relationship to personal characteristics within a broadnomological network (studies 1d 2a and 3) Study 2a alsoinvestigates the fresh start mindset and consumption effortsand practices related to self and supporting programs forvulnerable others (eg disadvantaged youth low-incomefamilies ex-offenders) study 2b examines test-retest reli-ability for FSM Study 3 extends the nomological networkof the fresh start mindset manipulates the fresh start mind-set and examines effects of the manipulation in a con-sumption context In studies 4a and 4b we investigate howthe fresh start mindset impacts choices and extend our fo-cus on support of vulnerable populations to veterans andtax-burdened adults

FRESH START MINDSET (FSM) SCALEDEVELOPMENT

Study 1a Item Generation

In study 1a we sought to understand how the fresh startmindset is situated in the experience of fresh starts and thewords and phrases used to describe beliefs about fresh startsWe recruited 62 participants (paid $75 56 male 31married mean income $35000ndash39999) on AmazonMechanical Turk to complete an online survey ldquoSurvey onFresh Startsrdquo Participants responded to open-ended promptsfocused on fresh starts including ldquoIn your own words (with-out the use of the internet) describe what is a fresh startrdquoldquoHow would it feel to receive a fresh startrdquo ldquoWould youlike to get a fresh startrdquo ldquoIs it hard to get a fresh startrdquo ldquoIsthere a particular aspect or area of your life where you wouldlike a fresh startrdquo We analyzed responses to these promptswithin and across respondents to identify common themes inrelation to fresh starts and words used to describe them

Responses provide guidance for item generation illus-trating that participants vary in their belief that anyone canmake a fresh start Further participants suggest that freshstarts require a particular perspective on the world If freshstarts are possible they are the responsibility of individualsand their personal efforts A single male captures the senti-ment ldquoGetting a fresh start is a mindset and takes initiativeto achieve I would enable me to get a fresh start No oneelse can give me a fresh startrdquo A single female writes ldquoIthink that everyone at any moment is capable of getting afresh start I believe that mentality plays a huge role in cre-ating burdens and complicationsrdquo and a divorced womanreports ldquolsquoFresh startrsquo is a state of mind that may or may

PRICE ET AL 27


not be possible to transcend depends on the personrdquoThese quotes illustrate that a fresh start mindset is an indi-vidual belief and that undertaking a fresh start is challeng-ing Notably individuals who have a fresh start mindsetbelieve in the ability to chart a new course as evident in asingle malersquos comment ldquoYou can always start overrdquo butfurther notes that he is not currently in need of making afresh start ldquoIrsquove worked hard enough to have the things Ido and the people that are in my life I am completelyhappy with the way my life isrdquo and so have ldquono currentneed for a fresh startrdquo Other respondents believe that peo-ple cannot make a fresh start This inability is captured insentiments such as ldquoI think that in most aspects of life ifnot all itrsquos close to impossible to get a fresh start unlessthere are special circumstances This is because you havelittle to no control over some parts of your liferdquo and ldquoItcan be hard to get a fresh start As long as you have theright mindset and attitude though anything is possiblerdquoFrom study 1a we developed a set of 25 seven-point Likertitems (1 frac14 strongly disagree 7 frac14 strongly agree) to mea-sure the fresh start mindset

Study 1b Scale Refinement Using VisualCollages

Study 1b using the projective technique of visual col-

lages refines the initial pool of 25 items and related narra-tives to uncover the deep meanings linked to this culturally

embedded fresh start metaphor that serves as the basis for

the fresh start mindset (Belk Ger and Askegaard 2003)

Visuals can uncover the deep interrelated metaphors

thoughts emotions and beliefs that underlie culturally em-

bedded mindsets (Coulter and Zaltman 2000) To assessnaturally emergent images and ideas surrounding the fresh

start metaphor 29 undergraduate students (24 male) cre-

ated collages for course credit The instructions stated

ldquoSome people believe fresh starts are possible whereas

others do notrdquo participants selected eight to 12 imagesreflecting their own personal feelings beliefs and experi-

ences connected with the idea of a ldquofresh startrdquo They were

told to not search online for fresh start images and encour-

aged to incorporate personal photos or images Participants

wrote a short synopsis of their overall feelings beliefs and

FIGURE 1

OVERVIEW OF FRESH START MINDSET CONCEPTUALIZATION AND EMPIRICAL STUDIES



experiences conveyed by their collage and short descrip-

tions of the relevance of each image Students (identified

by pseudonyms) agreed to have their collages used in

researchMany collages depict that an individual can chart a new

course in life and make a fresh start in small and mundane

to large elaborate undertakings others depict another

storymdashthat some individuals are unable to get a fresh start

The narratives around specific images link to the metaphor

of a fresh start and the American cultural milieumdashwith ties

to hope blank slates journeys rainbows stained glass

broken jail cells and taking out the garbage Many partici-

pants present consumption practices (eg join a gym get a

new haircut buy new clothes do laundry) as ways to

prompt a needed fresh start For example Sally describes

ldquoWhile laundry may seem like a simple every day chore it

is something that allows for a person to have a fresh start

to their week in a clean outfit The memories and actions

that were made in an outfit previously do not have to be re-

peated they can pursue a fresh startrdquoAdditionally consistent with our conceptual and histori-

cal grounding of the fresh start mindset many collages

prominently feature ideologically rooted images such as

the Statue of Liberty and the American flag as Kimberly

describes ldquoFor thousands of foreigners who chose to im-

migrate to the United States America represented the idea

of a fresh start For many of these immigrants the Statue

of Liberty was their first signal of this new beginningrdquoThese narratives and images surrounding the fresh start

metaphor were helpful in further refining items to measure

the fresh start mindset We culled the initial set of 25 items

to 14 items with six reverse-coded items (table 2)

Appendix A illustrates collage images and narratives that

map to these 14 fresh start mindset items

Study 1c Scale Refinement by Expert Judges

To assess the applicability and soundness of these 14

statements to measure the fresh start mindset we solicited

judgments of 13 marketing faculty with experience in scale

development Eleven responded within our requested 10-

day time frame The judges read our definition of fresh

start mindset ldquoa belief that people can make a new start

get a new beginning and chart a new course in life

TABLE 2

FRESH START MINDSET SCALE DEVELOPMENT

FSM itemsa

Expert judgeevaluationb Study 1c

CFA factor loadings (b)

Veryappropriate

Goodquestion

Study 1d(n frac14 363)

Study 2a(n frac14 391)

1 Regardless of present circumstances someone can chart a new course in life A G 88 892 Anyone can make a new start if they want to A G 87 883 Itrsquos always possible for someone to get a new beginning A G 87 844 Whatever their past people can look forward to a new future A G 81 835 An individual can let go of the past and start anew A G 78 826 When something bad happens a person can choose to create a better life A G 74 817 Itrsquos impossible for a person to embrace a ldquofresh startrdquo in life (R) A Gc

8 No matter how much someone wants to start anew they are constrainedby their current life (R)

A

9 People have to live with their mistakes and arenrsquot able to get a ldquofresh startrdquo (R) A10 Every morning people have an opportunity to change how they live their lives11 People canrsquot escape their present circumstances (R)12 A mistake in the past will always constrain life opportunities (R)13 A personrsquos life today defines hisher future (R)14 People can change their behaviors to reinvent who they areAVE (Average Variance Explained) 69 72CR (Criterion Reliability) 93 94CA (Cronbachrsquos Alpha) 93 92v2 2375 2337Df 9 9CMINdf 264 260CFI 99 99TLI 99 99RMSEA 06 06

NOTESmdash(R) frac14 reverse-coded p lt 01aEach item is measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 frac14 strongly disagree 7 frac14 strongly agree)bldquoArdquo identifies items rated as ldquovery applicablerdquo to fresh start mindset definition by at least 8 of 11 expert judges ldquoGrdquo identifies which of the nine A items were

rated as a ldquogoodrdquo item by at least 8 of 11 expert judgescThis item was not included in the scale to measure fresh start mindset because of the low loading in study 1d

PRICE ET AL 29


regardless of their past or present circumstancesrdquo and then

evaluated each statement on 1) applicability (ldquovery

applicablerdquo ldquosomewhat applicablerdquo and ldquonot at all

applicablerdquo) and 2) quality as ldquoa good itemrdquo (ie under-

standable well-written) ldquonot a good itemrdquo (poorly written

confusing double-barreled) and ldquonot surerdquoWe first considered the judgesrsquo assessment of the appli-

cability of the 14 items at least eight of the 11 expert

judges evaluated nine items as ldquovery applicablerdquo (table 2

see items labeled A) Next we examined the judgesrsquo as-

sessment of the quality of these nine items and at least

eight of the 11 expert judges evaluated seven of the nine

items as a ldquogoodrdquo item (table 2 see items labeled G) Thus

we retained seven items (table 2 items 1ndash7) including one

reverse-coded item for further assessment

Study 1d Preliminary Scale Assessment

We recruited 403 American Amazon Mechanical Turk

participants (paid $125) to complete an online survey

ldquoHow People Get Stuck amp Unstuck in their Livesrdquo A pre-

liminary review of the data resulted in dropping 40 partici-

pants from further analyses (13 failed to correctly answer

two attention-check questions 27 were ldquoduplicatesrdquo as

they responded to another study that we fielded on this

topic) Thus 363 participants (48 male Mage frac14 33 30

married 32 own home) were included in our analysesWe assessed the seven fresh start mindset items (1 frac14

strongly disagree 7 frac14 strongly agree) from study 1c (table

2 items 1ndash7) embedded within the larger survey using a

principal component analysis with promax rotation A one-

factor solution explaining 65 of the variance was de-

rived items 1ndash6 had factor loadings ranging from 81 to

89 item 7 (reverse-coded) had a low (38) loading A sub-

sequent principal component analysis with promax rotation

including only items 1ndash6 resulted in a one-factor solution

explaining 74 of the variance Based on these analyses

we selected items 1ndash6 for our fresh start mindset scale

(hereafter FSM) A follow-up confirmatory factor analysis

of items 1ndash6 yielded a good-fitting model (v2df frac14 264

p lt 01 CFI frac14 99 TLI frac14 99 RMSEA frac14 06) Table 2

provides factor loadings and relevant statistics Both the

criterion reliability and Cronbachrsquos alpha for FSM are 93

the mean on FSM is 508 (of 7) with a standard deviation

of 120

FSM VALIDATION PREDICTION ANDTEST-RETEST RELIABILITY

Study 2a Assessing FSM Validity and Prediction

Study 2a addresses three broad objectives 1) assess the

reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of

FSM within the broad nomological network 2) understand

FSMrsquos relationship to demographic and geo-demographic

variables and 3) examine the predictive validity of thefresh start mindset related to self-focused transformativeactivities and support of others in making a fresh start Werecruited 400 American Amazon Mechanical Turk partici-pants (paid $125) to complete an online surveyldquoLifestyles and Consumer Behaviorrdquo Our final sample in-cluded 391 participants (51 male Mage frac14 37 43 mar-ried 59 employed full-time 44 own home) nineparticipants who failed attention-check questions weredropped from analyses Embedded in the survey were thesix fresh start mindset items established measures ofgrowth mindset (Levy et al 1998) optimism (Scheier et al1994) future temporal focus (Shipp Edwards andLambert 2009) self-efficacy (Chen et al 2001) persever-ance of effort (Duckworth et al 2007 Duckworth andQuinn 2009) and resilience (Smith et al 2008) all scaleswere measured using seven-point Likert items We also in-cluded standard demographic questions and measuredself-focused transformative activities and support of vul-nerable populations via transformative programs

We designed our survey to minimize potential commonmethod variance biases a priori (MacKenzie and Podsakoff2012 Podsakoff MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012) andalso used a latent marker variance technique (WilliamsHartman and Cavazotte 2010) to assess potential commonmethod variance biases post hoc The latent marker tech-nique is superior to the conceptually weaker correlation-based marker variable technique from Lindell and Whitneyand to Harmanrsquos one-factor test (MacKenzie andPodsakoff 2012 Podsakoff et al 2012) Results of the la-tent marker variable analyses indicate that commonmethod variance does not impact the fresh start mindset orits relationships with other variables in the nomologicalnetwork (web appendix A provides additional details)

FSM Development and Nomological Network A con-firmatory factor analysis of the six fresh start mindset itemsyields a good model fit (v2df frac14 260 CFI frac14 99 TLI frac1499 RMSEA frac14 06) the respective criterion reliability andCronbachrsquos alpha are 94 and 92 (table 3 study 2a) Aconfirmatory factor analysis with items measuring freshstart mindset growth mindset optimism future temporalfocus self-efficacy perseverance of effort and resilienceindicates a good model fit (CFI frac14 92 TLI frac14 91 RMSEAfrac14 06 all factor loadings are significant at p lt 001) Thefactor loadings AVE (which meet Fornell and Larckerrsquos[1981] criterion for discriminant validity) criterion reli-ability and Cronbachrsquos alpha for each scale are reported intable 3 The mean and standard deviation for FSM are 535and 109 respectively table 4 provides the means standarddeviations and cross-correlations for the seven constructsof interest Consistent with our expectations fresh startmindset is positively and significantly related to growthmindset (50) optimism (46) future temporal focus (39)self-efficacy (45) perseverance of effort (36) and



TABLE 3

STUDY 2A FRESH START MINDSET NOMOLOGICAL NETWORK

Construct and itemsa

Factorloading

AVE CR CA

Fresh start mindset 72 94 92Regardless of present circumstances someone can chart a new course in life 89Anyone can make a new start if they want to 88Itrsquos always possible for someone to get a new beginning 84Whatever their past people can look forward to a new future 84An individual can let go of the past and start anew 83When something bad happens a person can choose to create a better life 82

Growth mindset 76 96 96Everyone no matter who they are can significantly change their basic characteristics 89No matter what kind of person someone is they can always change very much 89People can change even their most basic qualities 89People can always substantially change the kind of person they are 89The kind of person someone is is something very basic about them and it canrsquotbe changed very much (R)

88

As much as I hate to admit it you canrsquot really teach an old dog new tricksPeople canrsquot really change their deepest attributes (R)

88

People can do things differently but the important part of who they arecanrsquot really be changed (R)

85

Everyone is a certain kind of person and there is not much that can bedone to really change that (R)

79

Optimism 69 93 93Overall I expect more good things to happen to me than bad 88In uncertain times I usually expect the best 87Irsquom always optimistic about my future 84I rarely count on good things happening to me (R) 81I hardly ever expect things to go my way (R) 80If something can go wrong for me it will (R) 79

Future temporal focus 71 91 91I focus on my future 86I think about what my future has in store 86I think about times to come 85I imagine what tomorrow will bring for me 80

Self-efficacy 70 95 95I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges 88In general I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me 87I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks 86I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself 85I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to which I set my mind 84Even when things are tough I can perform quite well 82When facing difficult tasks I am certain that I will accomplish them 82Compared to other people I can do most tasks quite well 74

Perseverance of effort 55 88 87I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge 79I am diligent 77I am a hard worker 76I have achieved a goal that took years of work 74I finish whatever I begin 72Setbacks donrsquot discourage me 66

Resilience 72 94 94I have a hard time making it through stressful times (R) 88I tend to take a long time to get over setbacks in my life (R) 87It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens (R) 87I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times 85It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event 83I usually come through difficult times with little trouble 78

aEach item is measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 frac14 strongly disagree 7 frac14 strongly agree)

NOTESmdashn frac14 391 (R) frac14 reverse-coded AVE frac14 average variance explained CR frac14 criterion reliability CA frac14 Cronbachrsquos alpha model fit v2 (1006) frac14 244402

p lt 001 CFI frac14 92 TLI frac14 91 RMSEA frac14 06

PRICE ET AL 31


resilience (29) Growth mindset is also positively associ-ated with these nomological network variables but has aweaker relationship with future temporal focus (11) thanthe fresh start mindset (v2 ndashD (1) frac14 896 plt 01)

Fresh Start Mindset and DemographicCharacteristics To examine age gender marital statushousehold income household size and religious affiliationas predictors of the fresh start mindset we conducted a lin-ear regression with a bias-corrected bootstrapping proce-dure with 2000 samples (Hayes 2013 Zhao Lynch andChen 2010) The regression is significant (F(6 384) frac14403 plt 01) and explains 6 of variance in the freshstart mindset Religious affiliation (vs no affiliation) is asignificant positive predictor of the fresh start mindset (bfrac14 21 tfrac14 391 plt 001) and a follow-up ANOVA indi-cates no significant differences among different religiousaffiliations (F(6 197) frac14 27 NS) No other demographiccharacteristics are significant predictors of the fresh startmindset

To examine the impact of individualsrsquo local communityenvironment on their fresh start mindset we matched par-ticipant-provided zip code data with community character-istics indicative of a locality characterized by challengingcircumstances including crime rate index unemploymentrate percent of households receiving food stamps and per-cent of Caucasian (vs non-Caucasian) residents (wwwcity-datacom) Because of the skewed distribution of thesevariables across the zip codes we performed a natural logtransformation on each of the variables Regression analy-ses (PROCESS) indicate a significant three-way interactionbetween unemployment rate households receiving foodstamps and Caucasian residents (bfrac14 12 LC frac14 01 UC frac1425 t frac14 199 p lt 05) and significant two-way interac-tions unemployment rate and percent of householdsreceiving food stamps (bfrac14 ndash51 LCfrac14 ndash103 UCfrac14 ndash01t frac14 198 p lt 05) as well as percent of Caucasian resi-dents and percent of households receiving food stamps

(bfrac14 ndash33 LCfrac14 ndash60 UCfrac14 ndash05 t frac14 234 p lt 05) We alsoobserve significant positive main effects of percent of house-holds receiving food stamps (bfrac14 136 LC frac14 19 UCfrac14 251t frac14 230 p lt 05) and percent of Caucasian residents(bfrac14 90 LC frac14 05 UCfrac14 176 tfrac14 207 p lt 05) on FSM

Floodlight analysis using the Johnson-Newman tech-nique (Spiller et al 2013) indicates that unemploymentrate is a significant moderator of the effects of percent ofCaucasian residents and percent of households receivingfood stamps on FSM (see figure A web appendix B)Specifically fresh start mindset is stronger in predomi-nantly Caucasian communities (vs non-Caucasianbfrac14 17 LC frac14 02 UC frac14 31 t frac14 235 p lt 05) character-ized by low unemployment (681 or less) and a low per-centage of households receiving food stamps (375 orless) FSM is also stronger in non-Caucasian communities(61 or more of non-Caucasian residents) with low unem-ployment (681 or less) but a higher (vs lower) percent-age of households receiving food stamps (bfrac14 12 LC frac1401 UC frac14 23 t frac14 213 p lt 05) Crime rate index has nosignificant main or interaction effects on FSM

Fresh Start Mindset as a Predictor of Self-FocusedTransformative Activities Because the fresh start mindsetis a belief in new beginnings we assessed the fresh startmindset as a predictor of the effort (1 frac14 no effort 7 frac14 agreat deal of effort) participants invested in five self-focused transformative activities including budget andhealth efforts personal relationships and disposition andacquisition consumption practices (over the past monthsee table 5 for measures and results) The structural equa-tion model yields a good fit (v2df frac14 269 CFI frac14 93 TLIfrac14 92 RMSEA lt 07) and indicates that consumers whohold a stronger fresh start mindset invest greater effortsinto each of the five self-focused transformative activitiesThe effect of FSM on budget efforts is greater than onhealth and possession disposition efforts there are no sig-nificant differences between the other self-focused

TABLE 4

STUDY 2A FRESH START MINDSET NOMOLOGICAL NETWORK CONSTRUCTS AND SCALE STATISTICS MEANS SDS ANDCORRELATIONS

Construct (Number of items)

Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

(a) Fresh start mindset (6) 535 (109) 50 46 39 45 36 29(b) Growth mindset (8) 464 (142) 20 11 23 18 22(c) Optimism (6) 487 (142) 28 69 53 68(d) Future temporal focus (4) 484 (117) 50 38 19(e) Self-efficacy (8) 539 (107) 81 64(f) Perseverance of effort (6) 484 (130) 57(g) Resilience (6) 450 (165)

aCorrelations are based on CFA n frac14 391

plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001



transformative efforts Additionally when both FSM andgrowth mindset are included as predictors of self-focusedtransformative efforts FSM effects remain significantGrowth mindset does not predict the self-focused transfor-mative activities

Fresh Start Mindset as a Predictor of Supporting Othersto Make a Fresh Start To assess fresh start mindset as apredictor of support for others in making a fresh start wefocused on ldquoothersrdquo defined here as vulnerable populationswho might find it difficult to make a fresh start in life (ielow-income families ex-offenders homeless youth and at-risk teens) In a pretest undergraduate students (n frac14 40)were asked ldquoTo what extent do you believe that [low-income families ex-offenders homeless youth and at-riskteens] are capable of transforming their own livesrdquo (1 frac14not at all capable 7 frac14 very much capable) Paired-samplet-test results indicate that participants viewed at-risk teensas more capable of transforming their lives (Mfrac14 508) thaneach of the other three vulnerable populations (M range frac14403ndash455 t-tests at p lt 05) The pretest also assessed theldquoworthinessrdquo (1 frac14 not at all worthy 7 frac14 very worthy) of

support for eight transformative programs (one more and

one less transformative) for each of the four populations

(table 6) Paired-sample t-tests for the four populations in-

dicate participants viewed the more (vs less) transforma-

tive program as more worthy of support (low-income

families Mfrac14 564 Mfrac14 411 t frac14 516 dffrac14 39 plt 001

ex-offenders Mfrac14 509 Mfrac14 403 tfrac14 520 dffrac14 39

plt 001 homeless youth Mfrac14 471 Mfrac14 398 tfrac14 273

dffrac14 39 plt 01 at-risk teens Mfrac14 523 Mfrac14 444

tfrac14 299 dffrac14 39 plt 01)Within the survey we used structural equation modeling

to examine the relationship between the fresh start mindset

and support (1 frac14 not worthy 7 frac14 very worthy) of the eight

transformative programs the model yields a good fit (v2dffrac14 173 CFI frac14 99 TLI frac14 98 RMSEA lt 04) FSM sig-

nificantly predicts support for the at-risk teensrsquo more (vs

less) transformative program and support of homeless

youth programs with no significant difference between the

more (vs less) transformative program FSM does not pre-

dict support of programs for low-income families or ex-

offenders (see table 6)

TABLE 5

STUDY 2A FSM AND PREDICTION OF SELF-FOCUSED TRANSFORMATIVE EFFORTS

Self-focused transformative effortsa

FSM as predictorb FSM and growth mindset as predictorsc

FSM b (Critical ratio) FSM b (Critical ratio) Growth mindset b (Critical ratio)

Budget-related effortsd (a frac14 76) 23 (409) 22 (398) 01 (22)better budget my spendingincrease my savingsreduce unplanned spendingmanage my credit card balances

Health-related efforts (a frac14 88) 12 (204) 12 (201) 07 (113)change my eating habitschange my exercise routineschange my attention to healthy livingmake healthier life choicesschedule regular physical activity

Personal relationship efforts (a frac14 69) 21 (330) 19 (319) 03 (63)make new friendsreconnect with friendsmake time for family and friends

Possession disposition efforts (a frac14 80) 12 (202) 11 (199) 09 (146)get rid of possessionsclean up clutterdiscard items that I no longer use

New consumption efforts (a frac14 90) 14 (205) 12 (20) ndash04 (59)try new brandssample new products

aMeasure ldquoThinking about your life please indicate the amount of effort you have put into each of the following activities over the past monthrdquo (1 frac14 no effort 7

frac14 a great deal of effort) The 17 self-focused transformative efforts were randomly presented within the questionnaire EFA and CFA results indicate a good fitting

five-factor model of self-focused transformative efforts v2 (109) frac14 45639 p lt 001 CFI frac14 90 TLI frac14 88 RMSEA lt 08bSEM model fit for the model with FSM as the only predictor v2 (215) frac14 57856 p lt 001 CMINdf frac14 269 CFI frac14 93 TLI frac14 92 RMSEA frac14 07 n frac14 391

Errors of the five effort categories were correlated due to their underlying shared variance in the transformative activities latent constructcSEM model fit for the model with FSM and growth mindset as predictors v2 (10006) frac14 244402 p lt 001 CMINdf frac14 242 CFI frac14 93 TLI frac14 91 RMSEA frac14

06 n frac14 391 Errors of the five categories of efforts were correlated due to their underlying shared variance in the transformative activities latent constructdv2-D tests were significantly different between budget-related and health-related efforts (v2-D (1) frac14 428 plt 05) and between budget-related and possession

disposition efforts (v2-D (1) frac14 506 plt 05) Comparisons of FSM effects across other effort categories were nonsignificant (p gt 05)

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33


When both FSM and growth mindset are included aspredictors of support of transformative programs FSMeffects remain significant for homeless youth and at-riskteens Growth mindset effects are significant for low-income families ex-offenders and at-risk teens (see table6) We used PROCESS to evaluate direct and indirect (viathe worthiness of support of a more transformative pro-gram) effects of FSM on consumer choice of a more (vsless) transformative program for each populationConsumers with a stronger fresh start mindset are morelikely to choose the more (vs less) transformative programfor homeless youth and at-risk teens the indirect effectsare also significant for both populations (see table 7)Growth mindset has a significant direct effect on the moretransformative program for at-risk teens and significant in-direct effects for ex-offenders homeless youth and at-riskteens

Study 2b Test-Retest Reliability

Study 2b assessed test-retest reliability of FSM Fourmonths after completing study 2a 250 participants fromstudy 2a (randomly selected) were invited to participate inan online study about consumer lifestyles for $75 The sur-vey included FSM and attention-check questions embed-ded in a larger survey about consumer lifestyles Within 48hours 193 participants (772 response rate) responded12 participants did not pass the attention checks resultingin 181 usable responses The ANOVA test indicates no

significant difference in FSM means between the first (Mfrac14 550 SD frac14 104) and second (Mfrac14 540 SD frac14 112)data collections (F(1 180) frac14 203 NS) Further the ICCcoefficient for FSM is 76 (LC frac14 68 UC frac14 82) indicat-ing that FSM has sufficient test-retest reliability similar toother consumer-based studies (Dholakia et al 2016 Lynchet al 2010)

Summary of Study 2

Study 2 documents that the fresh start mindset is distinctyet related to the growth mindset optimism future tempo-ral focus self-efficacy perseverance and resilienceReligious affiliation is the only significant demographiccorrelate of a stronger fresh start mindset Fresh start mind-set is stronger in predominantly Caucasian communitiescharacterized by low unemployment and a low percentageof households receiving food stamps and is also stronger innon-Caucasian communities with low unemployment and ahigher percentage of households receiving food stampsAdditionally individuals who hold a stronger fresh startmindset direct more effort to self-transformative activitiesrelated to budget health personal relationships disposi-tion and consumption growth mindset does not predict en-gagement in these efforts Both FSM and growth mindsetselectively support transformative programs for vulnerablepopulations Those with a fresh start mindset show moresupport of some vulnerable populations (ie homelessyouth at-risk teens) than others (ie low-income families

TABLE 6

STUDY 2A FSM AND PREDICTION OF SUPPORT FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PROGRAMS FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

Support of transformative programs fora

FSM as predictorbc FSM and growth mindset as predictorsd


Low-income familiesLess transformative food baskets ndash01 (13) ndash09 (141) 15 (264)More transformative certificate programs 08 (156) 01 (13) 14 (247)

Ex-offendersLess transformative legal advice ndash02 (29) ndash10 (148) 24 (400)More transformative career counseling 04 (33) ndash09 (144) 21 (358)

Homeless youthLess transformative short-term housing 14 (250) 14 (247) 09 (146)More transformative relocation 14 (250) 14 (247) 09 (144)

At-risk teensLess transformative clothing 01 (25) 03 (47) 13 (255)More transformative leadership camp 11 (201) 15 (203) 20 (331)

aParticipants indicated the extent to which they believed each program was worthy of support (1 frac14 not at all worthy 7 frac14 very worthy) The eight transformative

programs were randomly presented in the questionnairebSEM model fit with FSM as the only predictor v2(49) frac14 8464 p lt 01 CMINdf frac14 173 CFI frac14 99 TLI frac14 98 RMSEA frac14 04 n frac14 391 Errors of the eight trans-

formative programs were correlated due to their underlying shared variance of the latent program initiative constructcSupport for the more transformative program (leadership camp) for at-risk teens was significantly greater than for the less transformative program (clothing)

(v2-D (1) frac14 425 plt 05) There was no difference in support between the less versus more transformative programs for the other three populations (p gt 05)dSEM model fit with both FSM and growth mindset as predictors v2(50) frac14 18948 p lt 001 CMINdf frac14 379 CFI frac14 96 TLI frac14 93 RMSEA frac14 08 n frac14 391

Errors of the eight transformative programs were correlated due to their underlying shared variance of the latent program initiative construct

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001



ex-offenders) We investigate this further in studies 4a and4b and return to this finding in the discussion

MANIPULATING THE FRESH STARTMINDSET AND PREDICTINGCONSUMPTION PRACTICES

The goals of study 3 are threefold 1) to explore the rela-tionships between fresh start mindset and growth mindsetwith additional variables in the nomological network 2) tomanipulate fresh start mindsetmdashconsistent with past re-search that documents interventions can manipulate mind-sets and affect subsequent consumer choices (Crum et al2013 Yeager et al 2014)mdashand assess the fresh start mind-set and the growth mindset as predictors in a consumptioncontext and 3) to investigate the effect of fresh start mind-set and growth mindset on the support of programs targetedto vulnerable populations

Procedures and Measurement

We recruited 454 American Mechanical Turk participants(paid $125) to participate in an online survey with an embed-ded experiment Twenty-four participants did not pass two at-tention-check questions and were dropped resulting in 430usable responses Demographic characteristics (43 less than

35 years 48 female 41 no religious affiliation 41 mar-

ried 55 income of $50000 or below 57 white non-

Hispanic) are not significant predictors of FSM Participants

were randomly assigned to one of three conditions ldquoFresh

Starts Are Possiblerdquo (n frac14 143) ldquoFresh Starts Are Not

Possiblerdquo (nfrac14 137) and control (nfrac14 150) In the two manip-

ulation conditions participants viewed one of two USAToday articles (appendix B) that appeared on the screen for

three minutes To ensure ecological validity the articles de-

veloped to manipulate the fresh start mindset were derived

from news stories and statistical reports on websites (see

appendix B for references) Both articles focus on various life

constraints and difficulties (eg credit card debt dieting

criminal behavior) that can restrict an individualrsquos ability to

experience a fresh start Our manipulation is consistent with

research demonstrating that shifting from a system to an indi-

vidual perspective affects how people evaluate the influence

of agency versus structure in different circumstances (Payne

2017) Specifically the ldquoFresh Starts Are Possiblerdquo article

draws upon personal success stories of individuals overcom-

ing difficulties and constraints to experience a fresh start

whereas the ldquoFresh Starts Are Not Possiblerdquo article takes a

structural approach using statistical evidence (eg inability to

get out of debt or start a new life after being imprisoned) to

argue that getting a fresh start is difficult In the control

TABLE 7

STUDY 2A FSM AND PREDICTION OF SUPPORT OF MORE (VS LESS) TRANSFORMATIVE PROGRAMS FOR VULNERABLEPOPULATIONS

Choice of a more (vs less)transformative program fora

FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect

Indirect effect via supportof more transformative programb R2

Directeffect

Indirect effect via support ofmore transformative programb

Low-income families 02b 01 05 00 04 00Lower upper CI ndash14 16 ndash01 03 ndash11 19 ndash02 03z-value 55 54

Ex-offenders 03b 02 20 01 19 03Lower upper CI ndash06 45 ndash02 05 ndash02 39 01 09z-value 152 177

Homeless youth 02b 03 18 04 13 03Lower upper CI 01 37 01 10 ndash01 28 01 07z-value 206 181

At-risk teens 03b 02 23 03 22 03Lower upper CI 04 42 01 09 07 37 01 08z-value 235 294

aEffects are estimated in logistic regression with PROCESS with a bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure with 2000 samples and predict consumer choice of

support for a more (vs less) transformative program n frac14 391 The transformative programs for each population are provided in table 6 For each population the

less transformative program was coded as 0 and the more transformative program was coded as 1 (eg for low-income families 0 frac14 food baskets and 1 frac14 certifi-

cate programs) Presentations of four vulnerable populations and more (vs less) transformative programs were randomized Indirect effects are significant in

PROCESS when zero is not included in the confidence intervals Significant results indicate a preference for the more transformative programs p lt 05bParticipants indicated the extent to which they believed each program was worthy of support (1 frac14 not at all worthy 7 frac14 very worthy) See table 6

PRICE ET AL 35


condition participants were not exposed to information about

fresh starts All participants answered the six-item FSMNext participants were informed that a sunglasses man-

ufacturer was pretesting ad concepts We presented an ad

showing a man and woman wearing sunglasses along with

the headline ldquoNew look New yourdquo Participants reported

their attitude toward the ad their likelihood of purchasing

this pair of sunglasses how much they were willing to pay

for the sunglasses and how much they liked the male and

female models in the ad (see table 9 for measures)

Participants completed a distraction task matching US

states and capitals They then responded to measures of

growth mindset (Dweck 2008) personal capacity to change

(see table 8) locus of control (Rotter 1966) consumer vari-

ety seeking (Wood and Swait 2002) need for cognition

(Wood and Swait 2002) and demographics At the end of

the survey participants were told that the researchers

would make a contribution to one of the Hope for

Homeless Youth programs randomly presented a more

transformative program (the Relocation Program which

aims to empower homeless youth to create new lives for

themselves by relocating them geographically) and a less

transformative program (the Housing for Today Program

which provides short-term housing to homeless youth to

help them steer clear of risks)

Findings

Our results provide replicative and additional informa-

tion about the fresh start nomological network (table 8)

FSM is positively associated with growth mindset (20)

but significantly less than in study 2a (50 zfrac14 494 p lt001) As expected FSM is positively correlated with

consumer variety seeking (22) whereas growth mindset isnot (ndash04 zfrac14 432 p lt 001) Further both FSM andgrowth mindset positively correlate with belief in personalcapacity to change (60 vs 35 zfrac14 503 p lt 001) andinternal locus of control (32 vs 26 zfrac14 104 NS) Asposited growth mindset is positively associated with theneed for cognition (23) whereas FSM is not (07 zfrac14 267p lt 01)

Second we successfully manipulate the fresh start mind-set ANOVA results indicate significant differences inFSM between our manipulations (F(2 427) frac14 4909plt 001) participants viewing the ldquoFresh Starts ArePossiblerdquo article (Mfrac14 570) score significantly higher onFSM than those viewing the ldquoFresh Starts Are NotPossiblerdquo article (Mfrac14 432) (t frac14 937 dffrac14 278 plt 001)Both are significantly different from the controlcondition (Mfrac14 528) (t vs possible frac14 331 dffrac14 291 plt 01and t vs not possible frac14 645 dffrac14 285 plt 001) We find nosignificant differences in growth mindset internal locus ofcontrol need for cognition and consumer variety seekingacross conditions (all ps gt 05) personal capacity tochange is stronger in the ldquoFresh Starts Are Possiblerdquo condi-tion than the ldquoFresh Starts Are Not Possiblerdquo condition(Mfrac14 557 vs Mfrac14 522 F(2 427) frac14 427 p lt 05) withthe control condition (Mfrac14 539) not significantly differentfrom the two manipulated conditions Using PROCESS(Hayes 2013) we analyzed effects of FSM (measured) andthe fresh start mindset manipulation on consumer attitudetoward the ad likelihood to purchase the sunglassesdepicted in the ad and the log-transformed measure ofwillingness to pay for the sunglasses Consistent with ourexpectations a stronger FSM results in more positive atti-tudes toward the ad greater purchase intentions and

TABLE 8

STUDY 3 FSM AND ADDITIONAL NOMOLOGICAL NETWORK CONSTRUCTS AND SCALE STATISTICS MEANS SDS ANDCORRELATIONS


Correlationb

Meana (SD) Cronbachrsquos a (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

(a) Fresh start mindset (6) 511 (136) 96 20 60 22 32 07(b) Growth mindset (8) 434 (145) 95 35 ndash04 26 23(c) Personal capacity to change (3)c 540 (102) 82 35 33 27(d) Consumer variety seeking (6)d 423 (113) 66 05 ndash06(e) Internal locus of control (13) 703 (273) 84 13(f) Need for cognition (5) 484 (144) 81

aItems for constructs (a) (b) (c) (d) and (f) are measured on seven-point Likert scales the mean is on a seven-point scale Items for construct (e) are binary

(0 1) thus the mean is on a 13-point scalebCorrelations are based on CFA n frac14 430cItems include ldquoI am capable of creating a new life for myselfrdquo ldquoI can change the way I live my liferdquo and ldquoI am capable of pursuing new goalsrdquodItems include ldquoWhen I see a new or different brand on the shelf I often pick it up just to see what it is likerdquo ldquoI like introducing new brands and products to my

friendsrdquo ldquoI enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands just to get some variety in my purchasesrdquo ldquoI often read the information on the packages of products

just out of curiosityrdquo ldquoI get bored with buying the same brands even if they are goodrdquo and ldquoI shop around a lot for my clothes just to find out more about the latest

stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001



willingness to pay more for the pair of sunglasses (table 9)

FSM effects remain significant on attitude toward the ad

and purchase intention when male and female model liking

are included as covariates but the FSM effect on willing-

ness to pay becomes nonsignificant Further indirect

effects of the fresh start manipulation via measured FSM

on all three outcomes are significant Notably direct and

indirect effects of growth mindset on the dependent varia-

bles are not significant with or without covariatesFinally FSM is a significant predictor of donations to

the long-term relocation program for homeless youth and

also is a significant mediator of the fresh start mindset ma-

nipulation effect on donations (table 9) Neither the direct

effect nor the indirect effect of growth mindset has a signif-

icant effect on program choice

Summary

Study 3 documents that the fresh start mindset can

be manipulated and the shift in means compares

favorably to growth mindset manipulations as reported in

Yeager et al (2016) Consistent with our conceptualiza-

tion we show that fresh start mindset is similar to yet dis-

tinct from growth mindset Both mindsets are positively

associated with a personal capacity to change and internal

locus of control The fresh start mindset is associated with

consumption practices whereas growth mindset is not

growth mindset is associated with need for cognition

whereas fresh start mindset is not Similar to study 2a

fresh start mindset but not growth mindset predicts contri-

butions to a more (vs less) transformative program for

homeless youth

REPLICATING AND EXTENDING FSMEFFECTS FOR SUPPORT OF OTHERS

Studies 4a and 4b further focus on the extent to which

individuals with a fresh start mindset are supportive of

others in need of a fresh start In study 4a we consider vet-

erans in study 4b we revisit the vulnerable populations ex-

amined in study 2a and also consider individuals who face

financial hardship with the IRS

TABLE 9

STUDY 3 FSM MANIPULATED FRESH START MINDSET AND GROWTH MINDSET AND ATTITUDES TOWARD AD PURCHASELIKELIHOOD AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY CHOICE OF PROGRAM DONATION

Dependent measures

Direct effectsa Indirect effects

R2 FSMGrowthmindset

Manipulatedfresh startmindset

Manipulated freshstart mindset

via FSMb

Manipulated freshstart mindset viagrowth mindsetb

Attitude toward the sunglasses adc

B 04 22 02 00 15 00Lower upper CI 09 35 ndash08 13 ndash21 20 06 25 ndash01 03t-value 336 45 08

Purchase likelihood of sunglassesd

B 05 25 ndash03 16 18 00Lower upper CI 11 40 ndash14 09 ndash07 39 07 30 ndash03 01t-value 352 42 140

Willingness to pay for sunglassese

B 02 09 ndash05 01 06 ndash01Lower upper CI 01 17 ndash12 01 ndash14 13 01 12 ndash03 01t-value 206 154 08

Donation to homeless youth program f


aEffects are estimated in PROCESS with a bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure with 2000 samples n frac14 430 Indirect effects are significant in PROCESS

when zero is not included in the confidence intervals plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001bManipulated fresh start mindset is coded as 1 in the ldquoFresh Starts are Not Possiblerdquo condition 2 in the control condition and 3 in the ldquoFresh Starts are

Possiblerdquo conditioncldquoHow would you describe your attitude toward this ad conceptrdquo (1 frac14 very negative 7 frac14 very positive)dldquoNow imagine that you need to purchase a new pair of sunglasses how likely would you be to purchase this pair of sunglassesrdquo (1 frac14 not at all likely 7 frac14 very

likely)eldquoNow assuming that you are purchasing the pair of sunglasses shown in this ad concept how much are you willing to pay for this pair of sunglassesrdquo the re-

sponse was log-transformedfParticipants were told that the researchers would make a contribution to a program for homeless youth and were asked to choose between making a donation

to the less (short-term housing coded as 0) or more transformative (relocation coded as 1) program The program choices were randomized Significant results

depict a preference for the more transformative (relocation) program

PRICE ET AL 37


Study 4a Fresh Start Mindset and Support ofVeterans

Procedure and Measurement Study 4a focused onsupport of others in this case veterans and specifically ex-amined the predictive validity of the fresh start mindset ofnonveteran students in response to an on-campus veteranprogram Students (n frac14 129 18ndash20 age range 55 female0 married 0 veterans 0 veteran family members) partici-pated in an online survey for course credit and were en-tered to win one of five $20 gift cards Students completedFSM (M frac14 526 SDfrac14 102) and filler tasks and read abouta university program that ldquoseeks to provide a supportiveenvironment that makes the transformation from soldier tostudent easier Mentors are paired with their mentees at thebeginning of the school year based on common interestsandor academic discipline Outcomes have been verypositive as many mentors and mentees have constructedlasting mutually beneficial relationships built on a founda-tion of supportrdquo Subsequently students indicated how in-terested they were in learning about the program howinterested they were in becoming a mentor to a student vet-eran and how much money of a $20 gift card they werewilling to donate to the program and were asked to leave

their email address for future contact and information

about becoming a mentor for the program After distraction

tasks students were also asked how much they are able to

empathize with the life of student veterans All measures

and results are included in table 10

Findings Regression analyses in PROCESS indicate

that FSM predicts a significantly more empathetic attitude

toward student veterans and this empathetic attitude is

positively related to donation amount learning about the

program becoming a mentor and likelihood of providing

an email address FSM has no direct effects on the behav-

ioral outcomes rather all indirect effects of FSM via em-

pathy toward veterans are significant

Study 4b Fresh Start Mindset Replication andExtension of Support of Others

Procedures and Measurement The goals in study 4bwere a) to replicate and extend the effect of fresh start

mindset on support for programs designed to help vulnera-

ble populations (low-income families ex-offenders home-

less youth and at-risk teens) and determine whether

perceptions of others as capable of transforming their own

TABLE 10

STUDY 4A FSM AND PREDICTION OF VETERAN MENTOR INITIATIVE

Program focused on student-veterans

R2 FSM direct effecta Empathy towardveterans direct effecta

Indirect effectFSM via empathya

Empathy toward veteransb 06B 50Lower upper CI 15 85t-value 293

Donation to Veteran Mentor Programc 09B 03 12 04Lower upper CI ndash12 18 0520 01 12t-value 40 318

Interest in program informationd 06B 13 18 09Lower upper CI ndash48 17 ndash03 33 01 25t-value 87 234

Interest in becoming a mentore 06B 03 14 07Lower upper CI ndash24 36 01 28 01 20t-value 26 209

Provided email for future contactf 06B ndash53 51 25Lower upper CI ndash157 44 09 141 02 91t-value 128 287


when zero is not included in the confidence intervals plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001bldquoHow much can you empathize with (ie understand and feel for) veterans enrolling at [the university]rdquo (1 frac14 not at all able 7 frac14 very much able)cldquoAs a thank you for participating in this survey you will be entered into a drawing to win $2000 If you win you can donate any part of this prize winning to [the

university] Veteran Mentor program If you were to win how much if any of the $2000 would you donate to the Veteran Mentor program (Please note that if

you win you will receive $2000 minus the amount that you have directed to the Veteran Mentor program)rdquodldquoHow interested would you be in receiving additional information via email about [the university] Veteran Mentor programrdquo (1 frac14 not at all interested 7frac14 very

interested)eldquoHow interested would you be in becoming a mentor in [the university] Veteran Mentor programrdquo (1 frac14 not at all interested 7frac14 very interested)fParticipants who provided an email contact were coded as 1 and 0 otherwise



lives mediates the effect of fresh start mindset on supportfor a more (vs less) transformative program and b) to as-sess the effect of fresh start mindset on responses to a pro-gram designed to help individuals with tax burdens withthe IRS We recruited 200 American Mechanical Turk par-ticipants different from those in our previous studies and

paid them $125 to complete an online survey Nine partici-pants did not pass attention checks and were droppedresulting in 191 usable responses

Demographic characteristics (43 less than 35 years48 female 41 no religious affiliation 41 married55 income of $50000 or below 57 white non-Hispanic) are not significant predictors of FSM After an-swering FSM (M frac14 443 SD frac14 92) participants

responded to items that measured their support of both amore and a less transformative program for low-incomefamilies ex-offenders homeless youth and at-risk teens(identical to study 2a) and their belief in how capable (1 frac14not at all 7 frac14 very) low-income families ex-offendershomeless youth and at-risk teens are in transforming theirlives Participants then reviewed information about an IRS

program ldquodesigned to help individuals facing tough times

to meet their tax obligations to pay back taxes and to

avoid tax liens [and to] enable people to have a better

chance to stay current and keep their financial house in

orderrdquo Last participants were told the researchers would

make a donation and were asked to choose between two

(randomly presented) charities for at-risk teens the more

(leadership program) versus less (clothing program) trans-

formative choice

Findings The findings for supporting programs fo-

cused on vulnerable populations are consistent with study

2a Regression analyses in PROCESS indicate that FSM is

a significant predictor of the more (vs less) transformative

program for at-risk teens and homeless youth but not for

low-income families or ex-offenders (table 11)

Surprisingly perceptions of the populationrsquos ability to

transform their lives do not mediate FSM effects on the

support of the more (vs less) transformative programs

Participants reported on their familiarity with the existing

IRS program that is associated with providing consumers

with a fresh start and we removed 28 participants who

were aware of the program from these analyses Our

TABLE 11

STUDY 4B FSM AND PREDICTION OF SUPPORT FOR MORE (VS LESS) TRANSFORMATIVE PROGRAMS AND CHOICE OFPROGRAM DONATION

Choice dependent variable R2FSM direct

effectaIndirect effect via perception of

population being capable of transformationb

Choice of a more (vs less) transformative program forcLow-income families 10

B 25 08Lower upper CI ndash14 64 ndash15 33z-value 122

Ex-offenders 10B 11 05Lower upper CI ndash31 53 ndash10 23z-value 51

Homeless youth 25B 39 15Lower upper CI 01 77 ndash03 40z-value 196

At-risk teens 21B 40 15Lower upper CI 02 77 ndash02 35z-value 206

Choice of program donationd


aEffects are estimated in logistic regression in PROCESS using a bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure with 2000 samples n frac14 191 Indirect effects are sig-

nificant in PROCESS when zero is not included in the confidence intervals plt 05 p lt 01bldquoTo what extent do you believe (population low-income families ex-offenders homeless youth at-risk teens individuals) are capable (1 frac14 not at all 7 frac14 very)

of transforming their livesrdquocThe transformative programs for each population are provided in table 6 For each population the less transformative program was coded as 0 and more trans-

formative program was coded as 1 (eg for low-income families 0 frac14 food baskets and 1 frac14 certificate programs)dParticipants were told that the researchers would make a contribution to a program for at-risk teens and were asked to choose between making a donation to

the less (clothing) or more transformative (leadership) program The program choices were randomized Significant results document preference for the more

transformative program

PRICE ET AL 39


regression results (table 12) indicate that FSM significantly

predicts more favorable attitudes toward the IRS program

more favorable beliefs that individuals participating in the

program will pay their taxes on time in subsequent years

and that this IRS program will provide individuals with a

fresh start for their tax situation Finally participants indi-

cated their preference to support a program for at-risk

teens and similar to study 3 findings FSM is a significant

predictor of donations to the more transformative leader-

ship camp (vs clothing) program (table 11)

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

A central goal of transformative consumer research is to

help consumers make positive changes in their livesmdash

including quitting bad habits embracing new goals im-

proving personal financial and social well-being or seek-

ing a more fulfilling life (Crockett et al 2013 Mick et al

2012) We conceptualize the fresh start mindset as a com-

plex knowledgebelief structure that when activated

affects consumersrsquo underlying conceptions of their social

world and the nature of human characteristics We define

the fresh start mindset as a belief that people can make a

new start get a new beginning and chart a new course in

life regardless of past or present circumstances The fresh

start mindset is embedded in the American cultural milieu

(Kammen 1993 Lipset 1996) and consumer culture andliquid modernity fuel this mindset foregrounding the con-tinuous need for individual reinvention and adaptationmost often through consumption (Bauman 2001McCracken 2008 Sugarman 2015) Our work develops thesix-item FSM establishes its internal consistency and test-retest reliability and demonstrates discriminant validity inrelationship to the growth mindset and other personal char-acteristics within a broader nomological network Our re-search documents that both the fresh start mindset andgrowth mindset are positively associated with many adap-tive characteristics including personal capacity for changeoptimism future temporal focus internal locus of controlself-efficacy perseverance and resilience Our findingssuggest that the strength of FSM may be affected by reli-gious beliefs and by geo-demographic characteristics (un-employment rate food stamps and race) Importantly wedocument that the fresh start mindset has the power to im-pact a broad range of consumer behaviors (Freitas et al2004 Landau 2017 Landau et al 2014) including self-focused transformative efforts and support for vulnerableothers Further we demonstrate that FSM can be manipu-lated affecting consumption attitudes and choices

The Fresh Start Mindset and Self-TransformativeEfforts and Choices

The fresh start mindset can be an adaptive response tothe constantly changing circumstances of contemporaryglobal consumer culture including prompting efforts topurchase and consume products and services to enable anew positive future and changed circumstances for an en-hanced self We document that the fresh start mindset (butnot the growth mindset) is positively associated with con-sumer variety seeking self-focused transformative activi-ties toward improving health budget personalrelationships and consumption practices and consumerinclination to purchase products marketed for a ldquonew yourdquoThe fresh start mindset linked to positive change throughshopping around in ldquothe supermarket of identitiesrdquo(Bauman 2012 83) is distinct from the growth mindsetHigh levels of the growth mindset prompt change vialearning and achievement whereas low levels prompt pur-chases to signal an underlying and unchanging identity(John and Park 2016 Mathur Chun and Maheswaran2016 Park and John 2012) As noted we also establishrelationships between the fresh start mindset and optimismfuture temporal focus self-efficacy resilience persever-ance and locus of control as variables within a nomologi-cal network Certainly there are opportunities for futurework to further examine the relationship between the freshstart mindset and each of these variables in more depth

The importance of the fresh start mindset as distinctfrom the growth mindset within the context of marketingand consumer behavior in liquid modernity cannot be

TABLE 12

STUDY 4B FRESH START MINDSET AND PREDICTION OF IRSFRESH START PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

Responses to IRS program R2 FSM direct effecta

Attitude toward IRS programb 03B 19Lower upper CI 01 42t-value 208

Perception of IRS program impactc 04B 30Lower upper CI 02 57t-value 303

IRS Program as a fresh startd 14B 245Lower upper CI 32 149Wald 519

aEffects are estimated in linear and logistic regression by using a bias-

corrected bootstrapping procedure with 2000 samples n frac14 191 plt 05

p lt 01bldquoHow favorable or unfavorable is your reaction to this IRS program that is

designed to help individuals who are facing tough times to meet their tax obli-

gations to pay back taxes and to avoid tax liensrdquo (1 frac14 not at all favorable

7 frac14 very favorable)cldquoNow letrsquos think about people who participate in this IRS program How

likely are these individuals to be able to pay their taxes on time in subsequent

yearsrdquo (1 frac14 not at all likely 7 frac14 very likely)dldquoBased on the brief description of the program do you believe that people

participating in this program can get a fresh start with their tax situationrdquo

(0 frac14 no 1 frac14 yes 49 participants who marked ldquonot surerdquo were deleted from

the analysis on the IRS program as a fresh start)



underestimated Discussing possible boundary conditionson the growth mindset Wheeler and Omair (2016) positthat in many real-life contexts personal success is lessabout unwavering commitment to a single course of actionand more about what changes and adaptations to make andwhenmdashldquomalleability must be calibrated to realityrdquo (138)Relatedly Bauman (2012 59ndash63) writes ldquohave car cantravelrdquo to describe the new circumstances of human lifemdashldquoa world full of opportunitiesrdquo akin to ldquoa buffet table setwith mouth-watering dishesrdquo where ldquothe diners areconsumers In such a world little is predetermined evenless irrevocable Few defeats are final few if any mishapsirreversible yet no victory is ultimate eitherrdquo As a mind-set believing that changed circumstances can enable afresh start is adaptive and in this liquid world adaptabilitybecomes its own currency one inextricably linked to con-sumption and personal and professional fluidity (Bardhiand Eckhart 2017) We speculate that rather than an em-phasis on goal progress (as in the growth mindset) thefresh start mindset helps consumers attend to circumstan-ces and opportunities for change which can be a successfulstrategy for breaking bad habits and establishing new posi-tive routines Research suggests that altering environmen-tal conditions can be far more successful than other typesof interventions in changing habits and behaviors(Verplanken and Wood 2006 Verplanken et al 2008) Thefresh start mindset might help consumers ldquoresetrdquo whenprogress toward a goal has been interrupted start a ldquonewchapterrdquo after successful completion of a goal abandon agoal to avoid sunk costs and adopt identities adaptive to achanging environment

Of course liquid consumption has its own costs makingit difficult to sustain commitments and stay focused on lifeprojects (Bardhi and Eckhart 2017 Bauman 2007b) Afresh start mindset may lead to overemphasis on the nextnew thing For example consumers may use fresh starts toavoid rather than resolve issues and reconcile differencesand thus undercut relationships with family friends andcommunity As we suggested fresh starts are linked toconsumption Thus individuals who regularly look for afresh start may face negative psychological and financialcosts Engaging in fresh starts through consumption maylead to impulse purchases and overconsumption at the ex-pense of problem resolution At the extreme as a responseto liquid modernity this mindset could fuel ephemeral andinstrumental emotional attachments and social relation-ships with collective vulnerabilities and costs (Bardhi andEchardt 2017 Giesler and Veresiu 2014)

There are multiple opportunities for examining the freshstart mindset as well as its adaptive and maladaptive na-ture in relation to self-transformations First researchmight evaluate the fresh start mindset over time Given thelack of social mobility in the United States where ldquothepoorest fifth of Americans have been standing pretty muchin place for the last 50 yearsrdquo (Payne 2017 7) it may be

that the American cultural milieu is changing and that incoming years consumers are less likely to believe that cir-cumstances can change and that a fresh start is possible(Hochchild 2016) Second research could investigate theimplications of the fresh start mindset for brand and servicerelationships and communities For example along withvariety seeking consumers may be more accepting of flu-idity in brand identities and more willing to allow firms tomake a fresh start following a failure or transgressionThird additional work might examine the role of both ser-vice and social support past experiences and personalityin the development of the fresh start mindset and makingfresh starts in onersquos life Fourth further investigation of thefresh start mindset in the context of temporal landmarks(Andreasen 1984 Dai et al 2014 2015 Schau et al 2009)and life adversities (Fischer et al 2007 Pavia and Mason2004) is warranted Finally research might seek to betterunderstand the long-term effects of the fresh start mindseton consumers and societies to explore the ldquodarkerrdquo side ofthe fresh start mindset and to evaluate how the mindsetand its darker side interplay with related constructs suchas resilience and perseverance to contribute to consumerwell-being and coping strategies

The Fresh Start Mindset and Supporting a FreshStart in the Lives of Others

The fresh start mindset is also other-focused that iswhen active it can prompt support of and investment intransformative programs to help others change their cir-cumstances and make a fresh start At a time when incomeinequality globally is growing exponentially (Payne 2017)and ldquoone in every 113 people on earth has now been drivenfrom their home by persecution conflict and violence orhuman rights violationsrdquo (UNHCR 2016) helping otherschange their circumstances and make a fresh start must beadaptive Our findings demonstrate the fresh start mindsetpredicts support of programs designed to help vulnerablepopulations however a belief in fresh starts does not proj-ect equally to support all transformative programs for allvulnerable populations We find that those with a strongerfresh start mindset favor the more (vs less) transformativeprogram choices for at-risk teens and homeless youth butnot for low-income families and ex-offenders additionalwork might evaluate reasons for these divergent effectsFuture research is needed to understand how the fresh startmindsetrsquos embeddedness in the American cultural milieuimpacts allocation of individual corporate and govern-ment support as well as consumer volunteerism and civicengagement directed at vulnerable populations

Empathy emerged in our research as a factor that affectsconsumersrsquo support of fresh start efforts for vulnerablepopulations Specifically empathy toward student veteransaffected student engagement with the on-campus transfor-mative veteransrsquo program We speculate that lack of

PRICE ET AL 41


empathy toward ex-offenders hinders support for this pop-ulation even among individuals with a stronger fresh startmindset Hence the fresh start mindset may impact a rangeof consumer behaviors indirectly by generating particularattitudes and perceptions of specific vulnerable popula-tions Further examinations of possible mediators of thefresh start mindsetrsquos effects on consumer choices and pro-gram support could provide useful information for market-ers and public policy makers Educating consumers aboutfresh start successes among those perceived as less capableof fresh starts (eg Bard Prison Initiative Adler 2014)could help break stereotypes about populationsrsquo abilities toexperience a fresh start develop more empathetic attitudestoward vulnerable populations and provide greater supportfor individuals wanting to make a fresh start

Various transformative service organizations (eg ca-reer counseling services for veterans and ex-offenderspopulation-driven support groups and forums and after-school educational and engagement programs for low-income families) can provide much-needed fresh starts Inevaluating consumer attitudes toward and engagement withtwo programs the IRS Fresh Start program and VeteranMentor program we found a positive relationship betweenthe fresh start mindset and attitudes toward these transfor-mative services Overall transformative services and pro-grams have begun to receive some research interest(Ostrom et al 2015) and future research could further ex-plore how the fresh start mindset and positioning of suchorganizations and their employees define their transforma-tive success Special consideration should be given to eval-uating effectiveness of mobile and other digital (vs moretraditional face-to-face) services in designing and encour-aging fresh start efforts for vulnerable consumerpopulations

The Fresh Start Mindset and SocioculturalContexts

The fresh start mindset is embedded in American cultureand interwoven with its values of democracy self-relianceand pursuit of happiness The fresh start mindset is likelyto be activated by many naturally occurring stimuli includ-ing for example marketing promotional tactics (table 1) ornew stories (appendix B) In study 3 we followed a strat-egy of ecological validity versus experimental control indesigning our manipulations Specifically we manipulatedthe fresh start mindset suggesting that it is possible to geta new beginning in life by using anecdotal success storiesof veterans the financially indebted and ex-cons in a newsarticle and alternatively using statistical recidivism dataon veterans indebted individuals and ex-cons to demon-strate that many are not able to start a new life Future re-search might consider alternative manipulations withincreased controlmdashfor example contrasting failure storieswith success stories for veterans or other populations

contrasting lower versus higher recidivism rates related tochallenges of beginning a new life or manipulating differ-ent aspects of marketing promotional tactics

Other cultures with historically acknowledged classstructures family ancestry political tyrannies traditionsor strong beliefs in luck or fatalism (Chan Wan and Sin2009 Izberk-Bilgin 2014) may not be as open to the trans-formative change embedded within the fresh start mindsetor perceive its transformative power For many culturesparticularly those with volatile historical trajectories per-ceptions of change are likely to be more negative Globalconsumer culture and liquid modernity however shrinkthe importance of traditions and local cultural values mak-ing consumer identities and consumption patterns moremalleable It is important to evaluate the relevance and ac-ceptance of the fresh start mindset in cultures with varyinglevels of global consumer culture development The freshstart conceptual metaphor may also not be easily translatedinto other languages and the translated versions of thismindset may be reflective of more negative (vs positive)associations with the implied change Future researchshould account for cross-cultural nuances surrounding con-sumersrsquo fresh start mindset

Across three studies (2a 3 and 4b) age gender maritalstatus income race and household size did not impact thefresh start mindset In study 2a (but not 3 or 4b) we ob-serve that stronger religious beliefs are positively associ-ated with the fresh start mindset However the relationshipbetween religious beliefs and the fresh start mindset islikely to be complicated (Mathras et al 2016) For exam-ple even religions that foreground forgiveness differ inwho what and how they forgive (Mathras et al 2016)Future research could pursue a more nuanced understand-ing of the complex relationships between the fresh startmindset and world religions that emphasize determinismkarma or an unchangeable past

Our geo-demographic data indicate that an individualrsquosresidential community impacts the fresh start mindsetSpecifically we find a complex interaction between unem-ployment rate percent of households receiving foodstamps and race in influencing the fresh start mindset Inexamining effects of community characteristics howeverwe did not account for individual effects of these variablesFuture research could more fully explore relationships be-tween demographic and geo-demographic characteristicsimpacting the fresh start mindset

Conclusion

The fresh start mindset theoretically grounded inAmerican cultural milieu global consumer culture and liq-uid modernity represents a culturally shared belief thatimpacts consumption of products and services for self andothers directed at shaping a new positive future life Ourmultimethod research establishes the FSM a valid and



reliable scale with discriminant and predictive validity

Marketers have leveraged the fresh start metaphor how-

ever opportunities exist to more systematically examine

the effects of these campaigns We invite consumer

researchers and policy makers to consider how the fresh

start mindset might be used proactively to improve well-

beingmdashhelping consumers set new goals change habits

and transform their lives

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

This article includes nine studies conducted between fall

2013 and spring 2017 Eight studies involved surveys 1)

studies 1a 1d 2a 2b 3 and 4b involved surveys of

Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers in the United States2) study 1c involved a survey of expert judges and 3) study4a involved a survey of University of Arizona studentsStudy 1b involved 29 undergraduate students at theUniversity of Arizona who created collages for coursecredit The pretest for study 2a was conducted at RutgersUniversity 40 students voluntarily participated in the sur-vey For study 2a research assistants at the University ofConnecticut coded the zip code data of survey participantsincluding crime rate index unemployment rate percentageof households receiving food stamps and percentage ofCaucasian (vs non-Caucasian) residents (wwwcity-datacom) All authors participated in the data collections multi-ple authors participated in data analyses for each study

APPENDIX A

STUDY 2B FRESH START MINDSET ITEMS ILLUSTRATIVE QUOTES AND LINKED COLLAGE IMAGES

ItemFresh start mindset(RC-reverse coded) Illustrative quote (Pseudonym) Linked image

1 Regardless of present circum-stances someone can chart anew course in life

This picture represents a clean slate that you drawanything on Erase any imperfections and startanew (Catherine)

2 Anyone can make a new start ifthey want to

People can take what they have learned and startover giving them hope for a brighter future(Jennifer)

3 Itrsquos always possible for someoneto get a new beginning

Freedom to move somewhere new freedom to quityour job and pursue a new one freedom to let goof the past and start again (Kimberly)

4 Whatever their past people canlook forward to a new future

Stained glass is a collection of broken pieces ofglass that have been put back together to createsomething new something that is seeminglyruined can have a fresh start when effort and pa-tience are used (Sally)

5 An individual can let go of the pastand start anew

A rainbow perfectly represents a fresh start after alow The storm has passed and the rainbow rep-resents a clean slate (Kimberly)

6 When something bad happens aperson can choose to create abetter life

If one day doesnrsquot go as planned you always havethe next day to start new especially after gettinga good nightrsquos sleep (Sandra)

PRICE ET AL 43


APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)


7 Itrsquos impossible for a person to em-brace a ldquofresh startrdquo in life (RC)

Getting a fresh start comes with stipulations Youare starting over ldquoIs that even possible to dordquo isthe question I have about ldquofresh startsrdquo (Charles)

8 No matter how much someonewants to start anew they areconstrained by their current life(RC)

The broken jail cell bars represent breaking out ofonersquos old state of being into a new state of beingfocused on starting anew (Marjorie)

9 People have to live with their mis-takes and arenrsquot able to get aldquofresh startrdquo (RC)

Taking out garbage was selected because a freshstart allows one to fully rid oneself of items wemindfully and boldly can choose to remove fromour lives what does not benefit us (Ruth)

10 Every morning people have anopportunity to change how theylive their lives

Every single day someone is able to start a new ad-venture [or] routine meet new people or dosomething they never thought they could yester-day (Sophia)

11 People canrsquot escape their presentcircumstances (RC)

The moment when you decide to jump off a cliffrequires faith and trust that you will be able toswim back to shore The same faith and trust isneeded to start anew (Molly)

12 A mistake in the past will alwaysconstrain life opportunities(RC)

A product that has been warped or faded can bestripped down to its most raw components andbe rebuilt in a way that gives it new life (Jared)

13 A personrsquos life today defines hisher future (RC)

I have a picture of Maurice Clarrett He was a for-mer running back for Ohio State and ran intoproblems with the law He was not able to have aprofessional career Instead of giving up on him-self he now shares his story to communities andis a motivational speaker (Paul)

14 People can change their behav-iors to reinvent who they are

I believe in order to break something habitual youhave to really look into the choices you are mak-ing and consciously make a new choice to begina fresh start (Kayla)



REFERENCES

Adler Jerry (2014) ldquoThe Amazing Results When You Give aPrison Inmate a Liberal Arts Educationrdquo SmithsonianMagazine November httpswwwsmithsonianmagcominnovationamazing-results-when-you-give-prison-inmate-liberal-arts-education-180953041

Anderson Laurel Amy L Ostrom and Mary Jo Bitner (2011)ldquoSurrounded by Services A New Lens for Examining theInfluence of Services as Social Structures on Wellbeingrdquoworking study WP Carey School of Business Arizona StateUniversity Phoenix AZ

Anderson Laurel Amy L Ostrom Canan Corus Raymond PFisk Andrew S Gallan Mario Giraldo Martin Mende MarkMulder et al (2013) ldquoTransformative Service Research AnAgenda for the Futurerdquo Journal of Business Research 66(8) 1203ndash10

Andreasen Alan R (1984) ldquoLife Status Changes and Changes inConsumer Preferences and Satisfactionrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 11 (3) 275ndash87

Atkinson Will (2008) ldquoNot All that Was Solid Has Melted intoAir (or Liquid) A Critique of Bauman on Individualizationand Class in Liquid Modernityrdquo Sociological Review 56 (1)1ndash17

Bailis Daniel S and Judith G Chipperfield (2012) ldquoHope andOptimismrdquo in Encyclopedia of Human Behavior 2nd ed edVilayanur Subramanian Ramachandran San DiegoAcademic Press 342ndash9

Bardhi Fleura and Giana M Eckhart (2017) ldquoLiquidConsumptionrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 44 (3)582ndash97

Barrick Murray R and Michael K Mount (1991) ldquoThe Big FivePersonality Dimensions and Job Performance A Meta-Analysisrdquo Personnel Psychology 44 (1) 1ndash26

STUDY 3A FRESH START MINDSET MANIPULATION CONDITIONS

NOTEmdashThe ldquoA Fresh Start For Most Itrsquos a New Beginningrdquo article was derived from httpsblogssvvsdorgtheskyline20160926ex-con-equality

httpwwwnbcnewscomid36606475nsbusiness-small_businesstkiller-bread-rises-popularityWG43Yn1qv-U httpswwwnewyorkercommagazine

20161212the-ex-con-scholars-of-berkeley The ldquoA Fresh Start For Most Itrsquos Just NOT Possiblerdquo article was derived from httpswwwnijgovtopicscorrections

recidivismPageswelcomeaspx httpswwwthesimpledollarcomthe-state-of-american-credit-card-debt-in-2015 wwwnbcnewscomid36716808nshealth-diet_

and_nutritiontwhen-you-lose-weight-gain-it-all-backWc_otcZry4Q httpswwwnamiorgLearn-MoreMental-Health-Conditions

APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45


Bauman Zygmunt (2001) The Individualized SocietyCambridge UK Polity

mdashmdashmdash (2007a) ldquoCollateral Casualties of Consumerismrdquo Journalof Consumer Culture 7 (1) 25ndash56

mdashmdashmdash (2007b) Liquid Times Cambridge UK Politymdashmdashmdash (2007c) Consuming Life Cambridge UK PolityBeck Ulrich (1992) Risk Society Toward a New Modernity

Thousand Oaks CA SageBelk Russell W (1988) ldquoPossessions and the Extended Selfrdquo

Journal of Consumer Research 15 (2) 139ndash68Belk Russell W Guliz Ger and Soslashren Askegaard (2003) ldquoThe

Fire of Desire A Multisited Inquiry into Consumer PassionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 30 (3) 326ndash51

Bielo James S (2007) ldquolsquoThe Mind of Christrsquo Financial SuccessBorn-Again Personhood and the Anthropology ofChristianityrdquo Ethnos Journal of Anthropology 72 (3)316ndash38

Britton Ashlie R Michael T Sliter and Steve M Jex (2012) ldquoIsthe Glass Really Half-Full The Reverse-Buffering Effect ofOptimism on Undermining Behaviorrdquo Personality andIndividual Differences 52 (6) 712ndash7

Cacioppo John T and Richard E Petty (1982) ldquoThe Need forCognitionrdquo Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42 (1) 116ndash31

Carver Charles S and Michael F Scheier (2014) ldquoDispositionalOptimismrdquo Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18 (6) 293ndash9

Chan Haksin Lisa C Wan and Leo Y M Sin (2009) ldquoTheContrasting Effects of Culture on Consumer ToleranceInterpersonal Face and Impersonal Faterdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 36 (2) 292ndash304

Chen Gilad Stanley M Gully and Dov Eden (2001) ldquoValidationof a New General Self-Efficacy Scalerdquo OrganizationalResearch Methods 4 (1) 62ndash83

Chiu Chi-yue Ying-yi Hong and Carol S Dweck (1997) ldquoLayDispositionism and Implicit Theories of PersonalityrdquoJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (1) 19ndash30

Coulter Robin and Gerald Zaltman (2000) ldquoThe Power ofMetaphorrdquo in The Why of Consumption ContemporaryPerspectives on Consumers Motives Goals and Desires edS Ratneshwar David Glen Mick and Cynthia HuffmanLondon Routledge 259ndash81

Crockett David Hilary Downey A Fuat Fırat Julie L Ozanneand Simone Pettigrew (2013) ldquoConceptualizing aTransformative Research Agendardquo Journal of BusinessResearch 66 (8) 1171ndash8

Crum Alia J Peter Salovey and Shawn Achor (2013)ldquoRethinking Stress The Role of Mindsets in Determining theStress Responserdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 104 (4) 716ndash33

Cutright Keisha M Adriana Samper and Gavan J Fitzsimons(2013) ldquoWe Are What We Buyrdquo in The RoutledgeCompanion to Identity and Consumption ed Ayalla ARuvio and Russell W Belk New York Routledge 91ndash8

Dai Hengchen Katherine L Milkman and Jason Riis (2014)ldquoThe Fresh Start Effect Temporal Landmarks MotivateAspirational Behaviorrdquo Management Science 60 (10)2563ndash82

mdashmdashmdash (2015) ldquoPut Your Imperfections Behind You TemporalLandmarks Spur Goal Initiation When They Signal NewBeginningsrdquo Psychological Science 26 (12) 1927ndash36

Devezer Berna David E Sprott Eric R Spangenberg andSandor Czellar (2014) ldquoConsumer Well-Being Effects of

Subgoal Failures and Goal Importancerdquo Journal ofMarketing 78 (2) 118ndash34

Dholakia Utpal Leona Tam Sunyee Yoon and Nancy Wong(2016) ldquoThe Ant and the Grasshopper UnderstandingPersonal Saving Orientation of Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 43 (1) 134ndash55

Duckworth Angela Lee Christopher Peterson Michael DMatthews and Dennis R Kelly (2007) ldquoGrit Perseveranceand Passion for Long-Term Goalsrdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 92 (6) 1087ndash101

Duckworth Angela Lee and Patrick D Quinn (2009)ldquoDevelopment and Validation of the Short Grit Scale (GRITndashS)rdquo Journal of Personality Assessment 91 (2) 166ndash74

Dweck Carol S (1999) Self-Theories Their Role in MotivationPersonality and Development Philadelphia Taylor andFrancisPsychology Press

mdashmdashmdash (2006) Mindset The New Psychology of Success NewYork Ballantine Books

Dweck Carol S and Ellen L Leggett (1988) ldquoA Social-CognitiveApproach to Motivation and Personalityrdquo PsychologicalReview 95 (2) 256ndash73

Fischer Eileen Cele Otnes and Linda Tuncay (2007) ldquoPursuingParenthood Integrating Cultural and Cognitive Perspectiveson Persistent Goal Strivingrdquo Journal of Consumer Research34 (4) 435ndash40

Fishbach Ayelet and Ravi Dhar (2008) ldquoDynamics of Goal-Based Choice Toward an Understanding of How GoalsCommit versus Liberate Choicerdquo in Handbook of ConsumerPsychology ed Curtis P Haugtvedt Paul M Herr and FrankKardes New York Psychology Press 611ndash37

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

Frank Robert H (2016) Success and Luck Good Fortune and theMyth of Meritocracy Princeton NJ Princeton UniversityPress

Freitas Antonio L Peter M Gollwitzer and Yaacov Trope(2004) ldquoThe Influence of Abstract and Concrete Mindsets onAnticipating and Guiding Othersrsquo Self-Regulatory EffortsrdquoJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (6) 739ndash52

Gecas Viktor (1989) ldquoThe Social Psychology of Self-EfficacyrdquoAnnual Review of Sociology 15 (1) 291ndash316

Giddens Anthony (1990) The Consequences of ModernityStanford CA Stanford University Press

mdashmdashmdash (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity Self and Society in theLate Modern Age Stanford CA Stanford University Press

mdashmdashmdash (2003) Runaway World How Globalisation Is Reshapingour Lives New York Routledge

Giesler Markus and Ela Veresiu (2014) ldquoCreating theResponsible Consumer Moralistic Governance Regimes andConsumer Subjectivityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41(3) 840ndash57

Gollwitzer Peter M (1990) ldquoAction Phases and Mind-Setsrdquo inThe Handbook of Motivation and Cognition Foundations ofSocial Behavior Vol 2 ed E Tory Higgins and Robert MSorrentino New York Guilford 53ndash92

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach New York Guilford

Henry Paul C (2010) ldquoHow Mainstream Consumers Think aboutConsumer Rights and Responsibilitiesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 27 (4) 670ndash87



Herscovitch Lynne and John P Meyer (2002) ldquoCommitment toOrganizational Change Extension of a Three-ComponentModelrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3) 474ndash87

Hochschild Arlie (2016) Strangers in Their Own Land Angerand Mourning on the American Right New York New Press

Ilgen Daniel R and Elaine D Pulakos eds (1999) The ChangingNature of Performance Implications for StaffingMotivation and Development Frontiers of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology San Francisco Jossey-Bass

Izberk-Bilgin Elif (2014) ldquoInfidel Brands Unveiling AlternativeMeanings of Global Brands at the Nexus of GlobalizationConsumer Culture and Islamismrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 39 (4) 158ndash82

John Deborah Roedder and Ji Kyung Park (2016) ldquoMindsetsMatter Implications for Branding Research and PracticerdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 26 (1) 153ndash60

Kammen Michael (1993) ldquoThe Problem of AmericanExceptionalism A Reconsiderationrdquo American Quarterly45 (1) 1ndash43

Karniol Rachel and Michael Ross (1996) ldquoThe MotivationalImpact of Temporal Focus Thinking about the Future andthe Pastrdquo Annual Review of Psychology 47 (1) 593ndash620

Klein Nadav and Ed OrsquoBrien (2017) ldquoThe Power and Limits ofPersonal Change When a Bad Past Does (and Does Not)Inspire in the Presentrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 113 (2) 210ndash29

Lakoff George and Mark Johnson (1980) Metaphors We Live ByChicago University of Chicago Press

Landau Mark J (2017) Conceptual Metaphor in SocialPsychology The Poetics of Everyday Life New YorkRoutledge

Landau Mark J Brian P Meier and Lucas A Keefer (2010) ldquoAMetaphor-Enriched Social Cognitionrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 136 (6) 1045ndash67

Landau Mark J Daphna Oyserman Lucas A Keefer and GeorgeC Smith (2014) ldquoThe College Journey and AcademicEngagement How Metaphor Use Enhances Identity-BasedMotivationrdquo Journal of Personality and Social Psychology106 (5) 679ndash98

Lefcourt Herbert M (1991) ldquoLocus of Controlrdquo in Measures ofPersonality and Social Psychological Attitudes ed John PRobinson Phillip R Shaver and Lawrence S WrightsmanVol 14 San Diego Academic Press 413ndash500

Levy Sheri R Steven J Stroessner and Carol S Dweck (1998)ldquoStereotype Formation and Endorsement The Role ofImplicit Theoriesrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 74 (6) 1421ndash36

Lipset Seymour Martin (1996) American Exceptionalism ADouble-Edged Sword New York WW Norton amp Company

Livshits Igor James MacGee and Michele Tertilt (2007)ldquoConsumer Bankruptcy A Fresh Startrdquo American EconomicReview 97 (1) 402ndash18

Lukes Steven (1969) ldquoDurkheimrsquos lsquoIndividualism and theIntellectualsrsquordquo Political Studies 17 (1) 14ndash30

Lynch John G Jr Richard G Netemeyer Stephen A Spiller andAlessandra Zammit (2010) ldquoA Generalizable Scale ofPropensity to Plan The Long and the Short of Planning forTime and for Moneyrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 37(6) 108ndash28

MacDonnell Rhiannon and Katherine White (2015) ldquoHowConstruals of Money versus Time Impact ConsumerCharitable Givingrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 42 (4)551ndash63

MacInnis Deborah J Gustavo de Mello and Vanessa M Patrick(2004) ldquoConsumer Hopefulness Construct Relevance toInternet Marketing Antecedents and ConsequencesrdquoInternational Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising1 (2) 174ndash95

MacKenzie Scott B and Philip M Podsakoff (2012) ldquoCommonMethod Bias in Marketing Causes Mechanisms andProcedural Remediesrdquo Journal of Retailing 88 (4) 542ndash55

Mathras Daniele Adam B Cohen Naomi Mandel and DavidGlen Mick (2016) ldquoThe Effects of Religion on ConsumerBehavior A Conceptual Framework and Research AgendardquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 26 (2) 298ndash311

Mathur Pragya HaeEun Helen Chun and Durairaj Maheswaran(2016) ldquoConsumer Mindsets and Self-EnhancementSignaling versus Learningrdquo Journal of ConsumerPsychology 26 (1) 142ndash52

McCracken Grant David (2008) Transformations IdentityConstruction in Contemporary Culture BloomingtonIndiana University Press

Mende Martin and Jenny van Doorn (2015) ldquoCoproduction ofTransformative Services as a Pathway to ImprovedConsumer Well-Being Findings from a Longitudinal Studyon Financial Counselingrdquo Journal of Service Research18 (3) 351ndash68

Mick David Glen Simone Pettigrew Cornelia Connie Pechmannand Julie L Ozanne eds (2012) Transformative ConsumerResearch for Personal and Collective Well-Being NewYork Routledge

Miu Adriana Sum and David Scott Yeager (2015) ldquoPreventingSymptoms of Depression by Teaching Adolescents ThatPeople Can Change Effects of a Brief Incremental Theory ofPersonality Intervention at 9-Month Follow-Uprdquo ClinicalPsychological Science 3 (5) 1ndash18

Moreau C Page and Marit Gundersen Engeset (2016) ldquoTheDownstream Consequences of Problem-Solving MindsetsHow Playing with LEGO Influences Creativityrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 53 (1) 18ndash30

Murphy Mary C and Carol S Dweck (2016) ldquoMindsets ShapeConsumer Behaviorrdquo Journal of Consumer Psychology 26(1) 127ndash36

Obama Barack (2006) The Audacity of Hope Thoughts onReclaiming the American Dream New York CrownPublishers

Ostrom Amy L A Parasuraman David E Bowen Lia Patricioand Christopher Voss (2015) ldquoService Research Priorities ina Rapidly Changing Contextrdquo Journal of Service Research18 (2) 127ndash59

Park Ji Kyung and Deborah Roedder John (2012) ldquoCapitalizingon Brand Personalities in Advertising The Influence ofImplicit Self-Theories on Ad Appeal Effectivenessrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 22 (3) 424ndash32

Pavia Teresa M and Marlys J Mason (2004) ldquoThe ReflexiveRelationship between Consumer Behavior and AdaptiveCopingrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 31 (2) 441ndash54

Payne Keith (2017) The Broken Ladder How Inequality Affectsthe Way We Think Live and Die New York Viking Press

Podsakoff Philip M Scott B MacKenzie and Nathan PPodsakoff (2012) ldquoSources of Method Bias in Social ScienceResearch and Recommendations on How to Control ItrdquoAnnual Review of Psychology 63 539ndash69

Priester Joseph R and Richard E Petty (2016) ldquoA ResearchDialogue on Mindsetsrdquo Journal of Consumer Psychology 26(1) 125ndash6

PRICE ET AL 47


Pugh Allison J (2015) The Tumbleweed Society Working andCaring in an Age of Insecurity New York Oxford UniversityPress

Putnam Robert D (2015) Our Kids The American Dream inCrisis New York Simon amp Schuster

Resnick Sandra G and Robert A Rosenheck (2006) ldquoRecoveryand Positive Psychology Parallel Themes and PotentialSynergiesrdquo Psychiatric Services 57 (1) 120ndash2

Rotter Julian B (1966) ldquoGeneralized Expectancies for Internalversus External Control of Reinforcementrdquo PsychologicalMonographs 80 (1) 1ndash28

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2016) ldquoGrowingBeyond Growth Why Multiple Mindsets Matter forConsumer Behaviorrdquo Journal of Consumer Psychology 26(1) 161ndash4

Schau Hope Jensen Mary C Gilly and Mary Wolfinbarger(2009) ldquoConsumer Identity Renaissance The Resurgence ofIdentity-Inspired Consumption in Retirementrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 36 (2) 255ndash76

Scheier Michael F Charles S Carver and Michael W Bridges(1994) ldquoDistinguishing Optimism from Neuroticism (andTrait Anxiety Self-Mastery and Self-Esteem) AReevaluation of the Life Orientation Testrdquo Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 67 (6) 1063ndash78

Seligman Martin E P (2011) Learned Optimism How toChange Your Mind and Your Life New York VintageBooks

Sennett Richard (2011) The Corrosion of Character ThePersonal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism NewYork W W Norton amp Company

Sennett Richard and Jonathan Cobb (1972) The Hidden Injuriesof Class New York Knopf

Shipp Abbie J Jeffrey R Edwards and Lisa S Lambert (2009)ldquoConceptualization and Measurement of Temporal FocusThe Subjective Experience of the Past Present and FuturerdquoOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes110 (1) 1ndash22

Slattery Michelle Mallory Tascha Dugger Theodore A Lamband Laura Williams (2013) ldquoCatch Treat and ReleaseVeteran Treatment Courts Address the Challenges ofReturning Homerdquo Substance Use amp Misuse 48 (10)922ndash32

Smith Bruce W Jeanne Dalen Kathryn Wiggins Erin TooleyPaulette Christopher and Jennifer Bernard (2008) ldquoTheBrief Resilience Scale Assessing the Ability to BounceBackrdquo International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 15 (3)194ndash200

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClellan (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and theMagic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (2) 277ndash88

Sugarman Jeff (2015) ldquoNeoliberalism and Psychological EthicsrdquoJournal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 35 (2)103ndash16

Sweetman Paul (2003) ldquoTwenty-First Century Dis-EaseHabitual Reflexivity or the Reflexive Habitusrdquo SociologicalReview 51 (4) 528ndash49

UNHCR (2016) ldquoWith 1 Human in Every 113 AffectedForced Displacement Hits Record Highrdquo June 20 httpwwwunhcrorgafrnewspress201665763ace541-human-113-affected-forced-displacement-hits-record-highhtml

Verplanken Bas Ian Walker Adrian Davis and Michaela Jurasek(2008) ldquoContext Change and Travel Mode ChoiceCombining the Habit Discontinuity and Self-ActivationHypothesesrdquo Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (2)121ndash7

Verplanken Bas and Wendy Wood (2006) ldquoInterventions toBreak and Create Consumer Habitsrdquo Journal of PublicPolicy and Marketing 25 (1) 90ndash103

Wheeler S Christian and Akhtar Omair (2016) ldquoPotentialGrowth Areas for Implicit Theories Researchrdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 26 (1) 137ndash41

White Katherine Rhiannon MacDonnell and Darren W Dahl(2011) ldquoItrsquos the Mind-Set that Matters The Role ofConstrual Level and Message Framing in InfluencingConsumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviorsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 48 (3) 472ndash85

Williams Larry J Nathan Hartman and Flavia Cavazotte (2010)ldquoMethod Variance and Marker Variables A Review andComprehensive CFA Marker Techniquerdquo OrganizationalResearch Methods 13 (3) 477ndash514

Wood Stacy L (2009) ldquoThe Comfort Food Fallacy AvoidingOld Favorites in Times of Changerdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 36 (6) 950ndash63

Wood Stacy L and Joffre Swait (2002) ldquoPsychologicalIndicators of Innovation Adoption Cross-ClassificationBased on Need for Cognition and Need for Changerdquo Journalof Consumer Research 36 (6) 950ndash63

Yeager David Scott and Carol S Dweck (2012) ldquoMindsets thatPromote Resilience When Students Believe that PersonalCharacteristics Can Be Developedrdquo EducationalPsychologist 47 (4) 302ndash14

Yeager David Scott Rebecca Johnson Brian James Spitzer KaliH Trzesniewski Joseph Powers and Carol S Dweck (2014)ldquoThe Far-Reaching Effects of Believing People Can ChangeImplicit Theories of Personality Shape Stress Health andAchievement During Adolescencerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 106 (6) 867ndash84

Yeager David Scott Carissa Romero Dave PauneskuChristopher S Hulleman Barbara Schneider CintiaHinojosa Hae Yeon Lee Joseph OrsquoBrien et al (2016)ldquoUsing Design Thinking to Improve PsychologicalInterventions The Case of the Growth Mindset During theTransition to High Schoolrdquo Journal of EducationalPsychology 108 (3) 374ndash91

Zhao Xinshu John G Lynch Jr and Qimei Chen (2010)ldquoReconsidering Baron and Kenny Myths and Truths aboutMediation Analysisrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 37 (2)197ndash206

Zheng Yanmei Stijn M J van Osselaer and Joseph W Alba(2016) ldquoBelief in Free Will Implications for Practice andPolicyrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 52 (6) 1050ndash64



Copyright of Journal of Consumer Research is the property of Oxford University Press USAand its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv withoutthe copyright holders express written permission However users may print download oremail articles for individual use

ldquofresh start mindsetrdquo defined as a belief that people canmake a new start get a new beginning and chart a newcourse in life regardless of past or present circumstancesWe argue that the powerful ldquofresh startrdquo conceptual meta-phor lays the groundwork for a fresh start mindset structur-ing reasoning experience and everyday language guidingself-transformative behavior and supporting governmentand social programs to assist others in making a fresh start(Coulter and Zaltman 2000 Landau 2017 Landau Meierand Keefer 2010 Rucker and Galinsky 2016)

Our work makes significant theoretical and empirical con-tributions to consumer behavior and more specifically totransformative consumer research First we theoretically situ-ate the fresh start mindset in the common metaphorical fram-ing of fresh start and the underpinnings of the belief that freshstarts are possible (Lakoff and Johnson 1999 Landau 2017Landau et al 2010 Landau et al 2014) We trace the freshstart mindsetrsquos historical roots in American culture and neo-liberalism (a belief that economic and other modes of well-being expand when individuals are free to direct their lives)and also illustrate that the fresh start mindset is infused with adominant neoliberal ideology (Sugarman 2015) and is reifiedin American and Protestant sectarian beliefs and values(Lipset 1996) We argue that the fresh start mindset has con-temporary links to liquid modernity a contemporary socialcondition characterized by high levels of change institutionalflexibility and individual mobility that leaves individuals inldquoconstant fluxrdquo (Bauman 2001) as well as a global consumerculture that fuels the belief that problems can be solvedthrough consumption (McCracken 2008) Further our workdocuments that the fresh start metaphor is present in daily lifeand marketing communications and that the fresh start mind-set can be made salient and activated despite having existedlargely unquestioned (Freitas Gollwitzer and Trope 2004Landau 2017 Landau et al 2010)

Second we conceptualize the fresh start mindset within abroad nomological network Importantly we differentiate thefresh start mindset from the growth mindsetmdashthe belief thatbasic intellectual characteristics and abilities can be devel-oped (ie they are not ldquofixedrdquo) through learning dedicationand hard work (Dweck 2006) We compare and contrastthese two mindsets in relation to personal characteristics in-cluding personal capacity for change optimism future tem-poral focus internal locus of control self-efficacyperseverance resilience consumer variety seeking and needfor cognition Using nine studies we establish a valid and re-liable six-item scale (FSM) to measure the fresh start mind-set We also examine the demographic and geo-demographiccharacteristics associated with the fresh start mindset

Third we contend that the fresh start mindset driven byneo-liberalism and Protestant sectarian beliefs underestimatesluck circumstances of birth ethnicity social class structuralforces and genetics as determinants of life outcomes empha-sizing instead responsibility and perseverance amid difficul-ties (Atkinson 2008 Frank 2016 McCracken 2008)

Consequently we argue that the fresh start mindset has impli-cations for both self-transformation and support for othersrsquotransformations As related to self-transformation the freshstart mindset suggests consumers can choose to reinventthemselves by initiating new goals and adopting new life-styles to create positive futures the fresh start mindset mayalso help to account for the ldquofresh start effectrdquo that individualsexperience with temporal landmarks such as the New Year(Dai Milkman and Riis 2014 2015) We argue that the freshstart mindset fuels liquid consumption and constant self-invention by suggesting that people can make a fresh start bybuying a new outfit trying a new brand or redecorating theirhome (Bauman 2007c McCracken 2008) In two studies wedocument that a stronger fresh start mindset (contrasted withgrowth mindset) is associated with greater self-transformativeefforts to change behavior and engage in consumption ofproducts and services that will change lives

Further as related to support of othersrsquo transformationwe speculate that the fresh start mindset informs consumerresponses to programs designed to help vulnerable con-sumers make a new beginning (eg programs that em-power at-risk teens to transcend present circumstances andbegin anew programs that support veterans in their transi-tion to a new civilian life and tax and mortgage programsthat enable consumers to leave financial mistakes behindand experience a fresh start) (Livshits MacGee and Tertilt2007 Resnick and Rosenheck 2006 Slattery et al 2013)In four studies we document that the fresh start mindset(contrasted with the growth mindset) impacts practicesrelated to supporting programs (more and less transforma-tive) for vulnerable others (ie disadvantaged youthat-risk teens veterans and tax-burdened adults) Finallywe demonstrate that consumersrsquo fresh start mindset can beattenuated or heightened leading them to believe newbeginnings are less or more likely and difficult

We proceed with our conceptual overview of the freshstart mindset to illustrate the common metaphoricalframing of fresh starts detail its roots in US history con-temporary consumer culture and liquid modernity and itslink to consumption as a mechanism for continual self-reinvention establish a nomological network of personaldemographic and geo-demographic characteristics anddiscuss self-focused and other-focused transformative con-sumer behaviors We then provide details and the results ofour multimethod (nine studies) investigation and concludewith a discussion and future research opportunities

CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW THE FRESHSTART MINDSET

The Fresh Start Metaphor and BeliefsUnderlying the Fresh Start Mindset

Though the fresh start metaphor is commonly evoked inAmerican marketing communications politics and












PRICE ET AL 23


TABLE 1


















Governor TomWolf




































PRICE ET AL 25



















PRICE ET AL 27



















FIGURE 1











































TABLE 2


FSM itemsa



Veryappropriate

Goodquestion





A




PRICE ET AL 29










































of 120












TABLE 3



Factorloading

AVE CR CA



88


88


85


79









PRICE ET AL 31








TABLE 4



Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)



plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
























TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47











































PRICE ET AL 23


TABLE 1


















Governor TomWolf




































PRICE ET AL 25



















PRICE ET AL 27



















FIGURE 1











































TABLE 2


FSM itemsa



Veryappropriate

Goodquestion





A




PRICE ET AL 29










































of 120












TABLE 3



Factorloading

AVE CR CA



88


88


85


79









PRICE ET AL 31








TABLE 4



Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)



plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
























TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47


































TABLE 1


















Governor TomWolf




































PRICE ET AL 25



















PRICE ET AL 27



















FIGURE 1











































TABLE 2


FSM itemsa



Veryappropriate

Goodquestion





A




PRICE ET AL 29










































of 120












TABLE 3



Factorloading

AVE CR CA



88


88


85


79









PRICE ET AL 31








TABLE 4



Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)



plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
























TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47

































































PRICE ET AL 25



















PRICE ET AL 27



















FIGURE 1











































TABLE 2


FSM itemsa



Veryappropriate

Goodquestion





A




PRICE ET AL 29










































of 120












TABLE 3



Factorloading

AVE CR CA



88


88


85


79









PRICE ET AL 31








TABLE 4



Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)



plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
























TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47



















































PRICE ET AL 27



















FIGURE 1











































TABLE 2


FSM itemsa



Veryappropriate

Goodquestion





A




PRICE ET AL 29










































of 120












TABLE 3



Factorloading

AVE CR CA



88


88


85


79









PRICE ET AL 31








TABLE 4



Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)



plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
























TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47



















































FIGURE 1











































TABLE 2


FSM itemsa



Veryappropriate

Goodquestion





A




PRICE ET AL 29










































of 120












TABLE 3



Factorloading

AVE CR CA



88


88


85


79









PRICE ET AL 31








TABLE 4



Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)



plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
























TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47









































































TABLE 2


FSM itemsa



Veryappropriate

Goodquestion





A




PRICE ET AL 29










































of 120












TABLE 3



Factorloading

AVE CR CA



88


88


85


79









PRICE ET AL 31








TABLE 4



Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)



plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
























TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47










































































of 120












TABLE 3



Factorloading

AVE CR CA



88


88


85


79









PRICE ET AL 31








TABLE 4



Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)



plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
























TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47


































TABLE 3



Factorloading

AVE CR CA



88


88


85


79









PRICE ET AL 31








TABLE 4



Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)



plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
























TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47








































TABLE 4



Correlationa

Mean (SD) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)



plt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
























TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47























































TABLE 5
















p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

PRICE ET AL 33






Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47






































Summary of Study 2


TABLE 6














p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001
































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47































































TABLE 7



FSM Growth mindset

R2Directeffect


Directeffect











PRICE ET AL 35


























Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47


























































Findings







TABLE 8



Correlationb







stylesrdquo

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

















Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47
















































Summary














homeless youth








TABLE 9


Dependent measures


R2 FSMGrowthmindset



via FSMb

















PRICE ET AL 37























TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47























































TABLE 10





























formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47














































formative choice














TABLE 11


















PRICE ET AL 39






























TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47






























































TABLE 12


























PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47









































PRICE ET AL 41










Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47










































Conclusion

















APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47















































APPENDIX A















PRICE ET AL 43






















REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47






















































REFERENCES















APPENDIX B

PRICE ET AL 45
















































































PRICE ET AL 47
















































































































PRICE ET AL 47


































the fresh start mindset: transforming consumers’ lives€¦ · the fresh start mindset:...

Documents