Wilfrid Laurier University
Wilfrid Laurier University
Scholars Commons @ Laurier
Scholars Commons @ Laurier
Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive)
2021
HOW DO YOU TALK TO YOURSELF? – THE EFFECTS OF
HOW DO YOU TALK TO YOURSELF? – THE EFFECTS OF
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-
TALK
TALK
Sonya M. Bisol
biso8070@mylaurier.ca
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd
Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons, Personality and Social Contexts Commons, and the Social
Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation
Recommended Citation
Bisol, Sonya M., “HOW DO YOU TALK TO YOURSELF? – THE EFFECTS OF PRONOUN USAGE AND
INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK” (2021). Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). 2364.
https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/2364
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @
Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Running head: PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
i
HOW DO YOU TALK TO YOURSELF? –
THE EFFECTS OF PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES
OF SELF-TALK
by
Sonya M. Bisol
Bachelor of Arts, Wilfrid Laurier University, 2019
THESIS
Submitted to the Department of Psychology
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
Master of Arts
Wilfrid Laurier University
© Sonya M. Bisol 2021
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
ii
Abstract
Self-talk is defined as an inner voice that addresses the self, usually silently but sometimes aloud,
with content that is self-relevant. In two studies, this work investigates the pronouns people use
within their self-talk, classified by a newly developed pronoun coding scheme, and the
interpersonal qualities of self-talk, characterized by an interpersonal framework. For each study
we also explore how pronoun usage and interpersonal self-talk styles relate to each other, and to
other important variables that pertain to the possible causes and effects of self-talk. In our first
study, 131 participants completed a structured interview in which they provided three examples
of their habitual self-talk and one of their ideal self-talk, and rated the interpersonal style of each.
Compared to their typical self-talk, people’s ideal self-talk showed a preference toward more
second-person language and a more dominant and affiliative interpersonal self-talk style.
Furthermore, greater habitual use of second-person pronouns, especially with the use of
imperatives, tended to co-occur with more dominant, less passive, self-talk. In our second study,
222 participants used a diary-like method to provide instances of their self-talk about a negative
and positive event for 14 days, and rated the interpersonal style of each. The frequency of
pronoun usage did not differ across event type. Second-person pronouns, especially with
imperatives, tended to be associated with a more dominant self-talk style, and first-person
pronouns with a less dominant self-talk style. Path analyses, performed separately for negative
and positive events, controlled for event intensity and used second- versus first-person pronoun
usage and self-talk dominance and affiliation as simultaneous predictors of negative and positive
affect. Although not always statistically significant in these path analyses, there was a tendency
for second-person language to be associated with dampened subsequent affect. In the path
analysis predicting negative events, self-talk affiliation was associated with lower subsequent
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
iii
negative affect and higher positive affect. In the path analysis predicting positive events, self-talk
affiliation was again associated with lower negative affect, whereas dominance was associated
with higher positive affect. Using hierarchical cluster analysis, a five-cluster solution showed
that a high proportion of participants tended to stick to one habitual pronoun style, and this style
was not affected by negative versus positive events. Together, these results have important
implications because they demonstrate that both pronoun usage and the interpersonal style of
self-talk should be considered when studying the way in which people talk to themselves.
Keywords: Self-Talk, Pronoun Usage, Interpersonal Theory, Self-Distancing
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
iv
Acknowledgements
I first want to extend my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Pamela Sadler, for her
mentorship, unwavering support, and dedication to training me as a researcher.
I also want to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Erik Woody for his dedication,
guidance, and brilliance throughout the entire process of my master’s degree.
Thank you to Dr. Roger Buehler and Dr. Justin Cavallo for the countless hours spent
reading my thesis and for providing very insightful feedback.
Thank you all for helping me develop as a researcher and for supporting my future career
goals. I am eternally grateful.
Lastly, thank you to my friends and family for your encouragement and endless support. I
would not be where I am today without you.
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
v
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………..ii
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………iv
List of Tables…………………………………………………………….…………….…….…….x
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………xiii
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….….…..1
What is self-talk? …………………………………………………………………………1
Recent Research on Self-Talk………………………………………………………..…….3
Shifting the Focus Toward Style …………………………………………………………..5
Personal Pronoun Use…………………………………………………………………..…6
Interpersonal Qualities of Self-talk……………………………………………………..…9
Interpersonal Theory as a Framework for Self-Talk Style……………………………… 10
Why would interpersonal qualities of self-talk be important?…………………………………….11
Methods for Studying Self-Talk………….………………………………………………12
Self-Report Measures…………………………………………………………………….13
Other Methods for Collecting Samples of Self-Talk…..…………………………………14
Research Questions….……………………………………………………………………15
Study 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………….…17
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………17
Method……………………………………………………………………..……………………19
Participants……………………………………………………………………………….19
Measures………………………………………………………………………………….19
Procedure…………………………………………………………………………………20
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
vi
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………22
Capturing the Variety of Ways in Which People Spontaneously Address Themselves….22
Coding of Pronoun Use…………………………………………………………..22
Inter-Rater Reliability of the Coding of Pronoun Usage…………………………23
Frequencies of Pronoun Usage…………………………………………………..24
Evaluating the Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………….27
First Hypothesis: Comparing Pronoun Usage in Habitual and Ideal Self-Talk………….27
Second Hypothesis: Relating Dominance to Pronoun Usage in Habitual Self-Talk……..29
Third Hypothesis: Comparing Habitual and Ideal Self-Talk Styles in Terms of
Dominance and Affiliation.………………………………………………………………32
Fourth Hypothesis: Relation of Wish to Change Self-Talk with Dominance, Affiliation,
and Person Perspective….……………………………………………………………….33
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..33
Limitations and Future Directions…………………………………….…………………38
Study 2……………..……………………………………………………………………………41
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………41
Self-criticism and Self-reassurance………………………………………………………41
Positive Events……………………………………………………………………………42
Research Aims and Hypotheses…………….……………………………………………43
Method…………………………………………………………………………………………..45
Participants……………………………………………………………………………….45
Measures………………………………………………………………………………….46
Procedure…………………………………………………………………………………49
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
vii
Participant Ratings of Self-Talk Interpersonal Style…………………………………….50
Observer Ratings of Self-Talk Interpersonal Style……………………………………….50
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………51
Coding of Pronoun Use……………………………………..……………………………51
Inter-Rater Reliability of the Coding of Pronoun Usage…………………………………52
Frequencies of Pronoun Usage…………………………………………………………..53
Evaluating the Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………….55
Strategy for Handling the Multi-Occasion Data………………………………………….55
The First Hypothesis and Correlations Among the Personal-Pronoun Variables………..57
Descriptive Statistics for the Other Variables and Differences on Them Between
Negative and Positive Events…………………………………………………………….59
Second Hypothesis: The Relation of Pronoun Usage to Dominance and
Affiliation…………………………………………………………………………………59
Third Hypothesis: The Relation of Pronoun Usage to Self-Criticism and
Self-Reassurance..…………………..……………………………………………………60
Fourth and Fifth Hypotheses: The Relation of Pronoun Usage and Interpersonal Style of
Self-Talk to Subsequent Affect………………………..…………………………………61
Cluster Analysis………………………………………………………………………………….64
Rationale and Method of Analysis……………………………………………………….64
The Five-Cluster Solution: Nature and Correlates……………………………………….66
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………….68
Capturing the Varieties of Personal Pronoun Use in Self-Talk………………………….69
Personal Pronoun Usage in Negative and Positive Events………………..……………..70
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
viii
Relation of Personal Pronoun Usage to Interpersonal Style of Self-Talk……………….70
Relation of Personal Pronoun Usage to Self-Criticism and Self-Reassurance…………..71
Relation of Personal Pronoun Usage to Affect…………………………………………..72
Implications of the Cluster Analysis……………………………………………………..74
Limitations and Future Directions……………………………………………………….76
General Discussion……………………..……………………………………………………….77
What are the main accomplishments of this research?………………………………………………77
What questions remain to be answered for future research?………………………………………80
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….………82
Tables………….…………………..……………………………………………………….…….83
Figures……………………………………………………………………..……………………109
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………..……117
Appendix A..……………………………………………………..……………..………117
Appendix B..……………………………………………………..……………………..118
Appendix C..……………………………………………………..……………………..132
Appendix D..……………………………………………………..……………………..143
Appendix E..……………………………………………………..…………..…………148
Appendix F..……………………………………………………..………………………149
Appendix G.……………………………………………………..………………………150
Appendix H.……………………………………………………..………………………153
Appendix I..……………………………………………………..………………………154
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
ix
References…………………………………………………………………………………….159
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
x
List of Tables
Table 1. Self-Referent Pronoun Coding Categories with Examples from Dataset (Study 1).
Table 2. Uses of First-Person Perspective in Habitual Self-Talk Statements: Overall Frequencies
and Consistent Use by Individuals (Study 1).
Table 3. Uses of Second-Person Perspective in Habitual Self-Talk Statements: Overall
Frequencies and Consistent Use by Individuals (Study 1).
Table 4. Three Main Types of Habitual Self-Talk: Overall Frequencies and Consistent Use by
Individuals (Study 1).
Table 5. Pronoun Use in the Four Self-Talk Statements: Overall Frequencies and Proportions
(Study 1).
Table 6. Correlations of Habitual Use of First Person and Second Person with Dominance and
Friendliness (Study 1).
Table 7. Correlations of Two Kinds of Second-Person Perspective with Dominance and
Friendliness (Study 1).
Table 8. Comparisons of Means for Ideal versus Habitual Self-Talk for Two Kinds of Second-
Person Perspective (Study 1).
Table 9. Correlations among Different Self-Talk Perspectives in Habitual Self-Talk (Study 1).
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
xi
Table 10. Comparisons of Means for Ideal versus Habitual Self-Talk for Dominance and
Friendliness (Study 1).
Table 11. Correlations of Desire to Change Self-Talk with Dominance, Friendliness, and
Personal Pronoun Use (Study 1).
Table 12. Uses of Third-Person Perspective and No Person Perspective Used in Self-Talk
Statements: Overall Frequencies for Negative and Positive Events (Study 2).
Table 13. Uses of First-Person Perspective in Self-Talk Statements: Overall Frequencies for
Negative and Positive Events (Study 2).
Table 14. Uses of Second-Person Perspective in Self-Talk Statements: Overall Frequencies for
Negative and Positive Events (Study 2).
Table 15. Three Main Types of Self-Talk: Overall Frequencies for Negative and Positive Events
(Study 2).
Table 16. Uses of Mixed First- and Second-Person Perspective With and Without Imperatives in
Self-Talk Statements: Overall Frequencies for Negative and Positive Events (Study 2).
Table 17. Use of Five Kinds of Personal Pronouns: Descriptive Statistics and Comparisons of
Means for Negative and Positive Events (Study 2).
Table 18. Correlations of the Use of Five Kinds of Personal Pronouns in Self-Talk about
Negative and Positive Events (Study 2).
Table 19. Correlations across Negative and Positive Events for Use of Five Kinds of Personal
Pronouns (Study 2).
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
xii
Table 20. Dominance, Affiliation, Event Intensity, and Affect Ratings: Descriptive Statistics and
Comparisons of Means for Negative and Positive Events (Study 2).
Table 21. Correlations of Personal-Pronoun Usage with Self-Reported and Observer-Rated
Dominance and Affiliation (Study 2).
Table 22. Correlations of Personal-Pronoun Usage with Average Self-Criticism, Self-
Reassurance, and Post-Self-Talk Affect (Study 2).
Table 23. Profiles of Personal-Pronoun Usage for Five Clustersa (Study 2).
Table 24. Dominance and Affiliation of Self-Talk for Five Personal-Pronoun Clusters1 (Study 2).
Table 25. Self-Criticism, Self-Reassurance, and Post-Self-Talk Affect for Five Personal-Pronoun
Clusters1 (Study 2).
PRONOUN USAGE AND INTERPERSONAL QUALITIES OF SELF-TALK
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Interpersonal Circumplex.
Figure 2. Scatterplot of Habitual and Ideal Self-Talk on the Dimensions of Dominance and
Friendliness.
Figure 3. Histograms of Proportions of First-Person Singular Alone and First- and Second-
Person Together for Negative and Positive.
Figure 4. Path Diagram for Structural Equation Model.
Figure 5. Path Diagram for Negative Events.
Figure 6. Path Diagram for Positive Events.
Figure 7. Size of Largest Cluster as a Function of Number of Clusters.
Figure 8. Plot of Five Clusters across Ten Self-Talk Variables.
Bisol 1
How Do You Talk to Yourself? –
The Effects of Pronoun Usage and Interpersonal Qualities of Self-Talk
Engaging in self-talk is a very common activity (Winsler, Feder, Way, & Manfra, 2006),
and the phenomenon has attracted much recent attention from psychologists. In this introduction,
we first address definitional and conceptual issues regarding what exactly self-talk is. We then
review some of the recent research on self-talk, which cuts across a range of areas in psychology,
including sports, organizational, clinical, and social. We point out that most research to date has
focused on the semantic or propositional content, with much less attention to its style or tone. We
then argue the stylistic aspects of self-talk are an important feature worthy of greater attention.
This thesis focuses on two stylistic features of self-talk—how people use pronouns to refer to
themselves (e.g., “I” vs. “you”), and the interpersonal qualities of self-talk (e.g., how friendly vs.
hostile). We address relevant conceptual and theoretical perspectives that can be used to address
these two major stylistic features. Next, we review various methods for sampling and studying
self-talk. Finally, the research objectives of the thesis are laid out in brief. These include a
thorough examination of individual differences in the types of pronouns used in self-talk, the
characterization of interpersonal qualities of self-talk in terms of the Interpersonal Circumplex,
and the investigation of the relation between these two aspects of self-talk.
What is self-talk?
“Such as are your habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of your mind;
for the soul is dyed by the thoughts.” – Marcus Aurelius
The phenomenon of talking to oneself internally has long been of interest. There are
many different ways in which people have been interested in self-talk. For example, dating back
Bisol 2
to the great Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius, talking to oneself was a method used to
contemplate the religion and the philosophy of life (Aurelius, 167 A.C.E, translation by Gessner,
1559). Similarly, the concept of engaging in inner dialogue (an internal conversation with at least
two versions of the self) had been theorized about by other philosophers such as Thomas
Aquinas and Saint Augustine, and by poets and writers (Jaynes, 1976; Mead, 1934/1962).
However, this was not formally reintroduced until the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st
century (Hackfort & Schwenkmezger, 1993; Hermans & Kempen, 1993; Markova, 2005). Self-
talk was then coined as inner and private speech within the developmental literature to identify
the link between speaking and thinking (Vygotsky, 1962). There is also interest in mechanisms
that support the concept of self-talk such as working memory, verbal rehearsal, and phonological
loop – which classify the internal verbal storage and “inner ear” that people use to detect their
cognitions (Baddeley, 1986; MacKay, 1992).
There is widespread agreement that self-talk is a substantial component of our inner lives.
Interestingly some researchers such as Heavey and Hurlburt (2008) indicate that at least 25% of
our conscious waking life consists of engaging in some form of inner speech. One study showed
that 96% of adult participants reported engaging in an internal dialogue (Winsler, Feder, Way, &
Manfra, 2006). In addition, other work has confirmed that self-talk is a central component of a
person’s self-regulatory thoughts and behaviours (Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005; Fuson, 1979).
The concept of self-talk has attracted a lot of interest within non-academic populations.
Many researchers have written self-help books intended for the general public to help individuals
improve their self-talk. A few examples of these books include, “Unfu*k Yourself” (Bishop,
2017), “Negative Self-Talk and How to Change it” (Helmstetter, 2019), and “What to Say When
You Talk to Your Self” (Helmstetter, 1986). These books, and others similar in nature, are of
Bisol 3
interest because they encourage individuals to take charge of their life, reduce their negative self-
talk, and combat personal fears or self-created limitations. These beneficial changes could lead to
a more functional ability to overcome life stressors and pursue goals that can lead to a person’s
desired success (Bishop, 2017; Helmstetter, 2019).
Self-talk can be defined in various ways. For the purposes of this thesis, we will adopt the
following working definition by Price (2015): “During self-talk, an inner voice addresses the
self, usually silently but sometimes aloud, with content that is self-relevant”. We also recognize
that self-talk can be classified as an inner dialogue or internalized interaction with the self.
Similar to engaging in a dialogue or conversation with another person, this interaction would be
replicated with the self, hence, an internalized interaction.
Recent Research on Self-Talk
Researchers have long investigated self-talk in several separate psychology domains:
sports, organizational, clinical, and social. By reviewing some of this work, we will illuminate
the main insights about self-talk that have emerged from these very different areas of study.
To begin, sports psychologists have identified how self-talk can be used as a strategy
(strategic self-talk) to improve athletic performance (for reviews, see Hardy, 2006; Latinjak,
Hatzigeorgiadis, Comoutos, & Hardy, 2019). For example, instructional self-talk (“aim before
you shoot”) is more useful compared to motivational self-talk (“you can do this”) when
organizing behaviour, and assisting in the execution of precise demands or techniques.
Meanwhile, motivational self-talk increases athletic performance by inspiring greater effort and
positive mood (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996; Hatzigeorgiadis, Galanis, Zourbanos, &
Theodorakis, 2014; Hatzigeorgiadis, Theodorakis, & Zourbanos, 2004; Theodorakis, Weinberg,
Natsis, Douma, & Kazakas, 2000).
Bisol 4
Organizational psychologists have also explored how self-talk can be used as an effective
tool for leadership in business. For example, constructive self-talk (e.g., positive, motivational)
leads to being a more effective leader compared to using dysfunctional (e.g., negative and
discouraging) self-talk (Rogelberg, Justice, Braddy, Shanock, Baran, Beck, Long et al., 2013).
Similarly, if a leader is aware of their self-talk, reflects on it, and implements actions to improve
it, they will be a more favourable leader to their mentees and will have more success at
empowering their mentees (Cutton & Culp, 2020). Self-talk is also of interest in organizational
literature because if a person can control their self-talk, as opposed to not managing it, this can
help improve their intrinsic job satisfaction (Vijayabanu, Therasa, AkshaySundaram,
MariaBonaparte, & SaiVidhya, 2017).
In addition, psychotherapy and counselling (clinical) researchers have been attracted to
the concept of self-talk, specifically as a tool for change. Individuals with mental illnesses, often
engage in self-talk that is maladaptive, negative, and dysfunctional, which can then lead to
decreased motivation, interference with daily functioning, and threatened self-efficacy (Beck,
1963). Thus, one of the anchors of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and other psychotherapies is to
focus on reframing the maladaptive and emotion-driven nature of self-talk to pursue a more
positive, constructive, and rational self-talk style (Beck, 1963; Zastrow, 1988). This method is
widely used to help treat disorders such as depression, social anxiety, schizophrenia, and body
dysmorphia – which suggests that many psychologists and psychotherapists believe that what
you tell yourself plays a crucial role in your mental health and daily functioning (Beck, 1996;
Kelly & Carter, 2013; Kendall & Hollon, 1989; Lam & Cheng, 1998; Meichenbaum, 1997;
Rosen, Reiter, & Orosan, 1995).
Bisol 5
To add, social psychologists have expressed great interest in studying self-talk –
particularly, the frequency and function of it. For example, negative or stressful events are
associated with an increase in the frequency of self-talk (Brinthaupt, 2019). Other work studying
University students found that the most frequent type of self-talk was self-regulatory in function,
including problem solving, thinking, and planning (Morin, Duhnych, & Racy, 2018). These
findings and several other studies have indicated that self-talk can often be used as a tool to
accomplish tasks, self-regulate, and help manage emotions (Depape, Hakim-Larson, Voelker,
Page, & Jackson, 2006; Kross et al., 2014; Morin, 2005). Interestingly, researchers have also
discovered that different social situations can pull for different self-talk styles – therefore
highlighting the social component of inner speech (Oliver, Markland, Hardy, & Petherick, 2008).
Shifting the Focus Toward Style
Together, this research that investigates self-talk in sports, organizational, clinical, and
social psychology, primarily focuses on what people say to themselves, that is, the overt, sematic
content of a person’s self-talk. In contrast, the present work will focus more on how they speak
to themselves – that is the style and tone of their self-talk. For example, consider a supervisor
who must give a student some corrective feedback (e.g., their work needs improvement); there
are different ways to do that. The supervisor could deliver the message in language suggesting a
hostile and demeaning tone or alternatively in language suggesting a supportive and encouraging
tone. Even if the propositional content of the feedback is the same, the way in which it is
expressed would change the impact. This would be of similar nature when talking to the self –
hence, highlighting the importance of the tone and style of self-talk.
The manner and style of self-talk is better assessed when studying spontaneous self-talk
compared to deliberated or planned self-talk. This is because spontaneous self-talk promotes the
Bisol 6
natural tone and self-talk style that a person would habitually engage in, as opposed to having it
altered by consciously thinking about it. However, there is little work to date that has explored
spontaneous self-talk. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate the spontaneous
individual differences of the style, manner, and tone within a person’s inner dialogue. The goal is
not so much what people say to themselves, but how they say it to themselves.
If you consider the two important ways in which people address themselves, one is what
you call yourself (e.g., “I”, “you”), and the second is how you address yourself, specifically the
interpersonal tone of your self-talk. Consequently, there are two aims of this research that
address these variations: one, the types of pronouns people use when referring to themselves and
two, the interpersonal quality of their self-talk.
Personal Pronoun Use
Self-talk has some qualities of an interpersonal interaction in that, in a sense, there are
both a speaker and a listener. Thus, in self-talk people need a way of addressing themselves, for
which they use personal pronouns. How people use pronouns to refer to themselves within their
self-talk is a linguistic mechanism that provides a perspective for addressing the self (Orvell,
Ayduk, Moser, Gelman, & Kross, 2019; Shi, Zhou, Liu, Zhang, & Han, 2011). For the purposes
of this thesis, we will identify the pronouns in which people use within their self-talk, as
perspectives. There are a variety of different pronouns that people may use to refer to themselves
in their self-talk. Specifically, a first-person perspective would involve talking to yourself using
pronouns such as “I” and “we”. An example of a first-person perspective statement would be, “I
need to clean my room today”. A second-person perspective would use pronouns such as “you”,
or “your” – for example, “you need to clean your room today”. Lastly, a third-person perspective
would involve talking about yourself as if you are talking about another person. Pronouns used
Bisol 7
for a third-person perspective could be “his” or “hers” – for example, “she needs to clean her
room today”.
Not much is known about how people spontaneously use pronouns within their self-talk.
For example, some researchers have argued that people engage in an inner dialogue between two
versions of the self – you talk to yourself as if you were talking to someone else, and you listen
to yourself as if it were coming from someone else. Researchers have termed this an inner
dialogue or intrapersonal communication since the person is communicating with two versions of
the self (Hermans, 1996; Hermans, Kempen, & Van Loon, 1992). It is possible that individuals
who talk to themselves as if they are having a dialogue between two parties may switch between
using pronouns such as “I” or “you”. Other individuals may be more consistent with their
pronoun usage when engaging in self-talk.
The kinds of pronouns people use may have important implications. For example,
different pronouns may orient people to adopt different psychological perspectives on their
experience. Specifically, the use of second- or third-person pronouns have been shown to
promote a self-distancing perspective which is when the person views themselves as an observer,
or as a “fly on the wall” (Ayduk & Kross, 2010). This is also termed as an observer perspective.
The use of first-person pronouns is associated with a self-immersed perspective, which is when a
person thinks of events as happening to them through their own eyes. This has also been
classified as a field perspective (Ayduk & Kross, 2010).
Research examining the effects of self-distanced versus self-immersed perspectives has
yielded inconsistent results. Emphasizing positive effects of self-distancing, some social
psychology researchers have argued that using second-person language, which evokes a self-
distancing perspective, is more beneficial because it can allow a person to take a step back from
Bisol 8
the problem at hand and view the event without rumination (Gruber, Allison, Harvey, &
Johnson, 2009; Kross & Ayduk, 2011). Self-distancing has been shown to lead to better
regulation of thoughts, feelings, and behaviour under social stress, compared to a first-person
perspective of self-talk (Dolcos & Albrracin, 2014; Kross et el., 2014). Other work has suggested
that self-distancing can promote less emotional reactivity to anxiety or anger-provoking events
(Kross & Ayduk, 2009; White, Kross, & Duckworth, 2015).
Another possibly beneficial aspect of second-person language is the use of imperatives.
An imperative is a command, request, rule, guide or obligatory act or duty that does not
explicitly state the doer of the action—e.g., “Go do this now.” Interestingly, some work has
indicated that participants are more likely to use second-person language and imperatives
(commands) within their self-talk when they are in situations that require conscious self-
guidance, such as in behaviour regulation (Zell, Warriner, & Albarracin, 2012). This work
suggests that the use of imperatives may be a valuable component of self-talk; however, there is
limited work that supports this idea.
Work by some sports psychologists has also shown that second-person pronouns (“you
can do this”) may be more effective than first-person pronouns (“I can do this”) for making
autonomous decisions involving self-regulation in physical activity (Hardy, Gammage, & Hall,
2001; Latinjak et al., 2014) and for fostering improved athletic performance (Hardy, Thomas, &
Blanchfield, 2019). Interestingly, other work has also shown that “we” statements (“we can do
this”) over “I” statements (“I can do this”) are more effective in sports performance (Son,
Jackson, Grove, & Feltz, 2011).
In contrast to the foregoing work suggesting benefits for self-distancing, other research
suggests important limitations of this type of perspective. Some research findings suggest that a
Bisol 9
self-immersed or first-person perspective can be more beneficial than distanced perspectives. In
some cases, a self-distancing perspective can be problematic because it can be used as a
maladaptive avoidance strategy (Holmes, Coughtrey, & Connor, 2008; Holmes & Matthew,
2010). A self-distancing perspective has been found to be more common within those who have
experienced trauma (Kenny & Brynant, 2007), anxiety disorders such as social phobia (Clark &
Wells, 1995), and depression (Kuyken & Howell, 2006). Individuals with these disorders may
apply a self-distancing perspective to intrusive imagery or other problematic thoughts to reduce
the distress at hand. Although this approach may be useful for immediate consequences, research
has shown that this strategy has not been associated with better long-term outcomes (Holmes,
Coughtrey, & Connor, 2008).
In summary, although some research has provided evidence to support the benefits of
self-distancing (e.g., you, your), other research has highlighted the possible importance of a self-
immersed perspective (e.g., I, our). However, there is little work that has examined pronoun-
usage in everyday life, and further research is needed to explore these differences in self-talk and
their effects.
Interpersonal Qualities of Self-talk
We next move onto the second aim of this research, which is to examine the interpersonal
style of individuals’ self-talk. However, before we can explore this question, we need to know
why self-talk would come to have interpersonal qualities. One possible explanation stems from
Vygotsky’s idea that self-talk is developed by the internalizations of what other people say to
you. Vygotsky’s theory of self-regulation identifies two things. One, that children acquire their
thinking and knowledge from their cultural surroundings and two, culture molds children’s
minds on both what to think and how to think (Vygotsky, 1934, 1987). The external
Bisol 10
conversations and interactions that children have with their primary adult role models (e.g.,
parents, teachers, relatives) are then internalized to develop their own self-talk, hence,
highlighting the interpersonal quality of self-talk.
Work on what has been called the society of mind (Hermans 1996; Hermans et al., 1992)
provides a rationale for why later in life interactions with others may continue to shape one’s
self-talk. In particular, interpersonal interactions from society (e.g., family members, friends,
bosses) can influence not only the thoughts that people have, but precisely the tone and manner
of how they communicate with themselves (Hermans 1996; Hermans et al., 1992).
Interpersonal Theory as a Framework for Self-Talk Style
Given that self-talk does have an interpersonal quality, it is reasonable to use an
established interpersonal framework as a foundation for exploring the interpersonal style of self-
talk. This framework is known as the Interpersonal Theory and it has been widely used to
understand a variety personality and behaviour types within an interpersonal context (Carson,
1969; Kiesler, 1983, 1996; Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1979, 1982). The interpersonal theory is
conceptualized by an interpersonal circle or circumplex (IPC; Kiesler, 1983; Wiggins, 2003)
which is comprised of two dimensions. The vertical dimension attributes a person’s level of
dominance (agency), and it ranges from dominant to submissive. The horizontal dimension
evaluates a person’s level of affiliation (friendliness) and ranges from friendly to hostile.
The IPC, consisting of these two dimensions, can be segmented into octants (e.g.,
Kiesler, 1996; Wiggins, 2003), as shown in Figure 1. Each octant may be designated with a two-
letter name that begins with PA at the top of the circle and then progresses counter-clockwise to
BC, DE, FG etc. Each of the octants represents a combination of both dominance and
friendliness dimensions which allow a wide range of possible behaviours to be encompassed
Bisol 11
within the circumplex. For instance, the lower right octant, JK, would characterize someone who
is submissive and friendly. More specifically, these octants correspond with adjectives that
describe that type of behaviour. For example, JK would represent a person who is
nonjudgmental, lenient, tolerant, undemanding, and apologetic.
Recent research has demonstrated that the interpersonal circumplex can be applied
sensibly and successfully to capture individual differences in self-talk style. Price (2015)
developed a new self-report measure called the Interpersonal Self-Talk Scale (IPSTS) to
uniquely measure the distinct interpersonal qualities of self-talk. This measure was created based
on well-known interpersonal measures such as the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R;
Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988). The octant subscales of the IPSTS displayed good internal
consistency reliability and excellent circumplex structure across two samples, and were shown to
measure characteristics that, although related to interpersonal style toward others, are reasonably
distinct from it (Lefebvre, Sadler, Hall, & Woody, 2021).
Why would interpersonal qualities of self-talk be important?
A considerable body of research shows that one’s interpersonal style has important
effects on the behaviour of the other person it is directed towards (Kiesler, 1996; Sadler, Ethier,
& Woody, 2011). Similarly, work suggests that patterns of self-talk have an important impact on
one’s own psychological functioning (Ayduk & Kross, 2010; Depape et al., 2006; Kross et al.,
2014). The qualities of internal voices could possibly be a contributor to the development of
clinical disorders such as anxiety, depression, or anorexia (Aya, Ulusoy, & Cardi, 2019; Beck,
1996; Meichenbaum, 1997). For example, individuals with clinical disorders tend to talk to
themselves using a harsh and critical voice (which would be classified on the hostile end of the
friendliness dimension of the interpersonal circumplex). Researchers have suggested that if such
