310 KROSS ET AL adminis trait social FL.82=78 included measures of both global affect and shame.Shame is th ey discrete by public speech tasks(Dickern Summary and Discussion Finally.prior research indicates that people often persever orocessing (Brozovich&Hcimberg. 2008: also see Nole ndoalrsteneraedreekyknfnemciaghc event p self-talk manipula whether the manipulations this variable ospect ns and one's own name enhances cople's ability regu onditi ety Method son lan uage to reter to th tyetnmentespetionmyieadpepteo Procedure and mat Finally,the rimental manipulation influen We the pan hobia Inventory and performed their first-perso S L ehavioral implica "am bothered by blushing fron of other stered a the e ment (M 36 N were standard Study3 Phase 2:Baseline affect. w"(1 very negative elf thaaned en peoplc toYe We induced social stress using a nt social stress induction was used.the icipants deliver a public speech in front of an valuati y am erson .).the tod that they would hav )Building prior indicating that visual for their "dream"job t to pow 20121. using non-fiC and ne's owr edurineiniros Due to of affect that the two groups did not differ on.this measure wasNext, we performed an ANCOVA on judges’ ratings of perfor￾mance during the structured phase of the interaction with condi￾tion as the between-subjects predictor and trait social anxiety and premanipulation anxiety as covariates. Judges’ ratings indicated that the non-first-person group performed better on the social interaction task than the first-person group, F(1, 82)
7.18, p
.009, p 2
.081 (see Figure 2, Panel B). Neither premanipulation anxiety, F(1, 82)
0.51 p
.478, p 2
.006, nor trait social anxiety, F(1, 82)
0.08, p
.774, p 2
.001, predicted this variable. Summary and Discussion Study 2 examined whether the language people use to refer to the self during introspection influences how they feel and behave under social stress. It generated three key findings. First, both groups were equally capable of implementing the self-talk manipulations. This suggests that using non-first-person language during introspection is a feasible alternative to using first-person language. Second, contrary to our expectations, condition did not influ￾ence the increase in anxiety participants reported from the first to the second assessment. However, condition did predict changes in anxiety from the second to the third anxiety assessment, indicating that participants in the non-first-person group (compared with the first-person group) displayed a sharper decrease in anxiety from before to after the social interaction. This finding is particularly noteworthy because it suggests that using non-first-person lan￾guage to refer to the self during introspection may lead people to recover more quickly from social stressors. Finally, the experimental manipulation influenced participants’ behavior during the social interaction. Judges indicated that par￾ticipants in the non-first-person group were less nervous during the interaction and performed better than their first-person counter￾parts. These findings highlight the adaptive behavioral implica￾tions that using non-first-person pronouns and one’s own name during introspection have for people when they engage in tasks that elicit social stress. Study 3 Study 3 examined the implications of the same two types of self-talk that Study 2 focused on for allowing people to regulate their thoughts, feelings, and behavior under social evaluative stress. However, a different social stress induction was used, the focus was on different dependent variables, and men as well as women were included. In so doing, we aimed in Study 3 to extend the Study 2 findings in four ways. First, in Study 3, we examined whether the Study 2 results would generalize to an arguably more powerful social stress in￾duction—a public speech task rather than an impression formation task (Beazley, Glass, Chambless, & Arnkoff, 2001; Turner et al., 1986). Building on prior research indicating that visual self￾distancing manipulations generalize to powerful negative affect inductions (Mischowski et al., 2012), we predicted that the benefits associated with using non-first-person pronouns and one’s own name during introspection would generalize to this novel context. Second, although Study 2 included a premanipulation measure of affect that the two groups did not differ on, this measure was administered after participants were informed about the nature of the study. Thus, one could argue that the premanipulation anxiety measure used in Study 2 did not constitute a true baseline measure because anxiety was likely induced to a certain degree among all participants. Study 3 included a true baseline affect measure that was administered before participants learned about the nature of the study. Third, whereas Study 2 focused specifically on anxiety, Study 3 included measures of both global affect and shame. Shame is the key discrete emotion elicited by public speech tasks (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004). Finally, prior research indicates that people often perseverate over their performance in social-anxiety-provoking tasks, which fuels social anxiety—a process that is often referred to as postevent processing (Brozovich & Heimberg, 2008; also see Nolen￾Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008). Therefore, Study 3 included multiple measures of postevent processing to examine whether the experimental manipulations influenced this variable. To the extent that reflecting on the self using non-first-person pronouns and one’s own name enhances people’s ability to regu￾late their social anxiety, we predicted that participants who en￾gaged in this process should also display less postevent processing. Method Participants. Participants were 89 undergraduates (60 fe￾males; Mage
19.01 years, SDage
1.04; 73.0% White, 12.4% Asian American, 6.7% African American, and 7.9% other) who received course credit or $20 for their participation. Procedure and materials. Phase 1: Trait social anxiety. We assessed trait social anxiety using two measures to enhance reliability: the BFNE (
.88; M
36.02, SD
8.13) and the 17-item Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN; Connor et al., 2000; scale: 0
not at all, 4
extremely;
.88; M
21.19, SD
9.91).5 Sample items for the SPIN include, “I am bothered by blushing in front of other people,” and “Parties and social events scare me.” Both measures were admin￾istered approximately 4 days before the experiment (Mdays
3.66, SDdays
1.76). Scores on the BFNE and SPIN were standardized and collapsed to form a single trait social anxiety index (
.69). Phase 2: Baseline affect. After providing informed consent, participants rated how they felt “right now” (1
very negative, 7
very positive; M
4.93, SD
1.07). Phase 3: Stress induction. We induced social stress using a modified version of the Trier Social Stress Task (TSST; Kirsch￾baum, Pirke, & Hellhammer, 1993). This task involves having participants deliver a public speech in front of an evaluative audience without receiving sufficient time to prepare; it is one of the most powerful ways of inducing stress in the laboratory among humans (Dickerson, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2004; Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004). Following established procedures (Kirschbaum et al., 1993), the experimenter told participants that they would have to give a speech on why they are qualified for their “dream” job to a panel of interviewers trained to evaluate speech performance. They were also told that their performance would be videotaped. 5 Due to a protocol error, SPIN Item 17 was not administered. We replaced this missing value with each participant’s mean rating of the first 16 items. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 310 KROSS ET AL.