SELF-TALK.REGULATION.AND SOCIAL ANXIETY 313 2010).In the current conet.we reasoned that focusingn the nts of the Summary and Discussion e that t pri study 5 was to test this hypoherh A sec ing how lan was to u we examined the rla First they demonstrate that non-fir erson lang e use dur oidanc that is.avoiding nitions that give rise to anxiet inospctionpromotcssCf-rguionnd onditions a number of re rche Second demo ny et also for thei cy to engage in postevent proc essing.This han Nolen-Hock etal)and physical perspectiv takin (c.g..Eyal ctive takin e i alter any of the rch tha on-first-person lan use c nces au s larger samples of men is ne ded,however.to confirm thi this proces nhe he final goal of this study was to examine the reliability of ou Studies 4 and 5 Overview raethato-rero otes self-regulation under social stress.However,they do no modified ersion of th ss how t ici we asked them to rat th Study 4 Study 4 had three goals.Its first goal was to examine how am o anguage use on challenge-threat appraisals ve taking alon at( n people per eipants deliver bec ewe felt that asking par cribe in writing how they 心 Spencer.Zanna. ple to focus relatively less on the concrete emotionally aro Method 2010a:Kro an,8%African American,and 6%other)who receiv course creditor$20 for participating in this two-session study. processing, F(1, 82)
5.12, p
.026, p 2
.059, remained significant when controlling for performance. Summary and Discussion In sum, participants who used non-first-person pronouns and their own name during introspection performed better on the speech task, experienced less global negative affect and shame after delivering their speech, and engaged in less postevent pro￾cessing. These findings extend the Study 2 results in three ways. First, they demonstrate that non-first-person language use dur￾ing introspection promotes self-regulation under conditions that are well known to arouse both psychological and physiological stress—an anxiety-provoking public-speaking challenge. Second, they demonstrate that language use during self-reflection has im￾plications not simply for how people think and feel in the moment but also for their tendency to engage in postevent processing. This finding is particularly noteworthy given the role that postevent processing plays as a risk factor for poor psychological (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008) and physical (Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006) health, and its prevalence in social phobia (e.g., Brozovich & Heimberg, 2008). Finally, controlling for gender did not alter any of the results we observed. This suggests that the benefits associated with language use as a tool for promoting self-regulation may extend to both genders. Future research that includes larger samples of men is needed, however, to confirm this finding. Studies 4 and 5 Overview The aforementioned studies demonstrate that non-first-person language use during introspection is a form of self-distancing that promotes self-regulation under social stress. However, they do not address how this process influences people’s appraisals of future anxiety-provoking events. Studies 4 and 5 addressed this issue. Study 4 Study 4 had three goals. Its first goal was to examine how language use during introspection influences people’s appraisals of future stressors. In particular, it sought to examine the effect of language use on challenge-threat appraisals. People naturally appraise future stressors along a challenge– threat continuum (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996; also see Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Challenge appraisals occur when people per￾ceive their ability to cope (i.e., their resources) with a situation as exceeding the demands of the situation; threat appraisals occur when people perceive the demands of the situation as exceeding their ability to cope (e.g., Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In the current study, we hypothesized that non-first-person lan￾guage use would lead people to appraise future stressors in more challenging and less threatening terms. This prediction was moti￾vated by research indicating that visual self-distancing leads peo￾ple to focus relatively less on the concrete, emotionally arousing aspects of negative past experiences and relatively more on recon￾struing their experiences in ways that provide insight and closure (for review, see Ayduk & Kross, 2010a; Kross, 2009; Kross & Ayduk, 2011; cf. Fujita et al., 2006; Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010). In the current context, we reasoned that focusing on the concrete, emotionally arousing aspects of a future stressful expe￾rience are precisely those elements of the situation that should lead a person to conclude that the demands of the situation outweigh his or her ability to cope—i.e., less challenge and more threat. The primary goal of Study 5 was to test this hypothesis. A secondary goal was to rule out two alternative predictions concerning how language use influences the way people cogni￾tively represent future stressors. First, we examined the relation￾ship between language use during introspection and cognitive avoidance—that is, avoiding cognitions that give rise to anxiety. We focused on this relationship because a number of researchers have speculated that self-distancing blunts emotional reactions via a cognitive avoidance mechanism (e.g., Kenny & Bryant, 2007; Kenny et al., 2009; Kuyken & Moulds, 2009). Another possibility is that non-first-person language use en￾hances people’s tendency to imagine how they appear from the perspective of the audience evaluating them. This prediction is motivated by research indicating that psychological-distancing manipulations can enhance perspective taking (e.g., Eyal & Epley, 2010; Schultz & Heimberg, 2008). Although there is conflicting evidence on whether such perspective taking is helpful (e.g., Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008) or harmful (e.g., Schultz & Heimberg, 2008), we nevertheless examined whether non-first-person language use enhances au￾dience perspective taking to examine the role that this process plays in the phenomenon at hand. The final goal of this study was to examine the reliability of our failure to observe an effect of language use on anticipatory anxiety in Study 2. As noted previously, this null effect was unexpected. Thus, we measured anticipatory anxiety again in this study to examine whether it would replicate. We examined these issues using a modified version of the speech task paradigm used in Study 3. Specifically, we replicated the Study 3 procedure with the following exceptions. After par￾ticipants reflected on their feelings, we asked them to rate the extent to which they appraised the upcoming speech task as a challenge or threat, and their current level of anticipatory anxiety. We then asked participants to describe in writing the stream of thoughts that flowed through their mind during the reflection period and coded these essays for challenge–threat appraisals, avoidance, and audience perspective taking. After participants completed the writing task, they were in￾formed that the study was over and debriefed. We did not have participants deliver their speech because we felt that asking par￾ticipants to answer each of the aforementioned questions and then describe in writing how they thought about their experience would compromise the downstream effects of the manipulations, muddy￾ing the conclusions we could draw about outcomes that were measured subsequently (for similar argument, see Ellsworth & Gonzalez, 2003; Kassam & Mendes, 2013; Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005). Method Participants. Participants were 97 undergraduates (66 fe￾males; Mage
20.39 years, SDage
5.16; 51% White, 35% Asian American, 8% African American, and 6% other) who received course credit or $20 for participating in this two-session study. 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. SELF-TALK, REGULATION, AND SOCIAL ANXIETY 313