Third-person self-talk · name · distance
The name on the badge ran the speech.
The I-sentence sits too close to the interview. The name sits one chair back.
The pronoun is the whole sit. I keeps you inside the heat. Your name puts you one chair back, the way you already talk to a friend.
I looped I can do this in the bathroom before a pitch. The I stayed in the stall with me. The room still felt loud.
The pronoun is the distance
You already use a name for other people. Using it on yourself borrows that chair.
Kross, Bruehlman-Senecal, Park, Burson, Dougherty, Shablack, Bremner, Moser, and Ayduk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2014. 106(2):304-324. DOI 10.1037/a0035173. PMID 24467424. Seven studies. Total N = 585.
Study 1a, fifty-six students, twenty-eight per arm. Anger memory. Sixty seconds with I, or with you plus the name. Visual distance rose on the name arm, F(1, 52) = 5.96, p = .018, ηp² = .103. Study 1b, seventy-two Mechanical Turk adults after the attention check. Anxiety memory. Same lift, F(1, 67) = 4.45, p = .039, ηp² = .062.
Five minutes, then a dream-job speech
Study 3. Eighty-nine people. A Trier-style talk on why they were qualified for the job they wanted.
Five minutes to prep. No notes. Then the cue: work the feelings with I, or with the name, you, he, or she. Then five minutes at a podium in front of two evaluators and a camera.
Forty-five on I. Forty-four on the name. Sixty women. Mean age 19.01. Course credit or $20. Baseline mood sat even before they heard the task.
The raters heard the difference
Two blind coders scored confidence, nerves, and the whole talk. The name arm won the composite, F(1, 83) = 5.43, p = .022, ηp² = .061.
Global negative affect rose on the I arm after the talk, F(1, 42) = 9.80, p = .003. The name arm stayed flat, F(1, 40) = 1.20, p = .280. Condition by time, F(1, 83) = 8.39, p = .005, ηp² = .092.
Shame on the State Shame and Guilt Scale sat lower on the name arm, F(1, 82) = 7.70, p = .007, ηp² = .086. Both gaps held after they controlled for how well the talk actually went.
Shame dropped. The replay after the speech did too.
They sat five quiet minutes after the talk. Then they wrote the stream. Then they scored a five-item rumination sheet.
Recount minus reconstrue, plus the rumination sheet, became one post-event index. The name arm chewed less, F(1, 83) = 5.47, p = .022, ηp² = .062. That gap also held after performance was in the model.
Study 4 never sent them to the podium. Seventy-five people after dropouts. Challenge-to-threat on the self-report, F(1, 70) = 7.24, p = .009, ηp² = .094. Anticipatory stress, F(1, 70) = 4.78, p = .032, ηp² = .064. The name made the next room look doable.
A first impression with a stranger
Study 2. Eighty-nine women after exclusions. A male confederate. Cameras. A getting-to-know-you list.
Three minutes of I or name before he sat down. Judges scored gaze, voice, length, and discomfort, then folded nerves into one performance index. The name arm looked cleaner, F(1, 82) = 7.18, p = .009, ηp² = .081.
Anxiety after the chat fell faster on the name arm, F(1, 86) = 4.12, p = .045, ηp² = .046. Trait social anxiety did not eat the effect in the later meta-analysis across Studies 2 through 5.
The wave fell in the first second
Moser and Kross, 2017, Scientific Reports 7:4519. DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-04047-3. PMID 28674404.
Study 1. Twenty-nine people after artifact cuts, from thirty-seven run. Mean age 18.86. Sixty negative IAPS pictures, sixty neutral. Cue for two seconds: First-Person or Third-Person. Then six seconds of the picture. Ask what am I feeling, or what is [name] feeling.
Late LPP, one to six seconds. Valence by strategy, F(1, 28) = 5.18, p = .03, ηp² = 0.16. On I, negative beat neutral, t(28) = 3.07, p < .01, d = 0.89. On the name, the two pictures sat together, t(28) = 1.50, p = .15, d = 0.23. The difference scores, t(28) = 2.18, p = .03, d = 0.82. The control wave, the SPN, did not rise.
Study 2. Fifty people in the magnet after two lost scans. Eight hard memories. I trials scored 3.82 on a 1-to-5 negative scale. Name trials scored 3.24. t(49) = 7.03, p < .001, d = 1.01. Left medial prefrontal / anterior cingulate dropped on the name, t = 4.54, k = 143, p < .0001. The amygdala stayed quiet. The control network stayed quiet too.
The I-loop stays on the bathroom mirror
I am confident is a claim aimed at your own face. The name is a coach aimed at the next act.
The affirmation page already ran the doorbell sit of I am a lovable person. Low-esteem people felt worse. This sit swaps the pronoun before a real room. It does not paste a new identity on the glass.
Study 5 put 117 Mechanical Turk adults on a page. They wrote the worry with I, or with the name. Challenge-to-threat rose on the name, F(1, 113) = 14.27, p < .001, ηp² = .112. Means 1.01 versus 0.44. The sentences sounded like advice you would give a friend.
Write the name on the cue card
Print your first name in block letters. Before the next speech, the next pitch, or the next hard call, look at that card and ask what [name] is feeling, then what [name] does first.
Kross measured the cue and the room in the same hour. Duration past that hour is unknown. The card is how you keep the name in the room when I tries to climb back in.
If the chest clamps, sit until that clamp lets go, then look again. The Library keeps the other sits if you want them later.
Questions the name still leaves
Does it have to be out loud, like LeBron?
Kross ran the sit as silent prep. Moser ran it as a silent cue on a screen. Out-loud LeBron talk is a public habit. The measured sit is the name in the head, or on a card, before the room starts.
How long do I sit with the name before the speech?
Study 3 gave five minutes to prep the job talk, then the name or I cue, then five minutes at the podium. Study 2 gave three minutes of name or I before the stranger sat down. The useful clock is the next real room, not a week of drills.
What if my name just sounds fake in my head?
Both arms in Kross followed the cue equally well. Fake is the first minute. Keep the name on the card until the sentence can coach the next act. You is allowed. He or she is allowed. I is the one that stays too close.
Do I write it or only think it?
Study 5 put the name on the page. Challenge-to-threat rose. Studies 2 and 3 kept it in the head. Write the name if the inner voice slips back to I. Think it if the card would look odd in the room.
Is this a medical page?
Shame scores and rater marks. Literature. A panic attack belongs to a doctor, not another cue card.
Numbers from the two files
Kross E., Bruehlman-Senecal E., Park J., Burson A., Dougherty A., Shablack H., Bremner R., Moser J., and Ayduk O. "Self-talk as a regulatory mechanism: How you do it matters." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2014;106(2):304-324. DOI 10.1037/a0035173. PMID 24467424. Seven studies, total N=585. Study 1a n=56 (28/28), visual self-distancing F(1,52)=5.96, p=.018, ηp²=.103. Study 1b analyzed n=72 (35/37), F(1,67)=4.45, p=.039, ηp²=.062. Study 2 analyzed n=89 women (44/45), performance F(1,82)=7.18, p=.009, ηp²=.081, post-chat anxiety drop F(1,86)=4.12, p=.045, ηp²=.046. Study 3 n=89 (45/44), speech performance F(1,83)=5.43, p=.022, ηp²=.061, affect condition x time F(1,83)=8.39, p=.005, ηp²=.092, shame F(1,82)=7.70, p=.007, ηp²=.086, post-event processing F(1,83)=5.47, p=.022, ηp²=.062. Study 4 analyzed n=75 (37/38), challenge-threat F(1,70)=7.24, p=.009, ηp²=.094, anticipatory anxiety F(1,70)=4.78, p=.032, ηp²=.064. Study 5 analyzed n=117 (62/55), challenge-threat F(1,113)=14.27, p<.001, ηp²=.112, means 1.01 vs 0.44. doi.org/10.1037/a0035173 · pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24467424 · Michigan PDF
Moser J.S., Dougherty A., Mattson W.I., Katz B., Moran T.P., Guevarra D., Shablack H., Ayduk O., Jonides J., Berman M.G., and Kross E. "Third-person self-talk facilitates emotion regulation without engaging cognitive control: Converging evidence from ERP and fMRI." Scientific Reports 2017;7:4519. DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-04047-3. PMID 28674404. Study 1 analyzed n=29 (18 women, mean age 18.86) from 37 run. Late LPP valence x strategy F(1,28)=5.18, p=.03, ηp²=0.16. First-person negative vs neutral t(28)=3.07, p<.01, d=0.89. Third-person t(28)=1.50, p=.15, d=0.23. Difference scores t(28)=2.18, p=.03, d=0.82. SPN ns. Study 2 analyzed n=50 from 52. I vs name affect 3.82 (SD 0.55) vs 3.24 (SD 0.60), t(49)=7.03, p<.001, d=1.01. Left MPFC/ACC t=4.54, k=143, p<.0001. Amygdala ns. Control ROIs ns. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04047-3 · nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04047-3 · pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28674404
Orvell A., Ayduk O., Moser J., Gelman S.A., and Kross E. "Linguistic shifts: A relatively effortless route to emotion regulation?" Current Directions in Psychological Science 2019;28(6):567-573. DOI 10.1177/0963721419861411. Review of distanced self-talk and generic you. No new trial n quoted here. doi.org/10.1177/0963721419861411