Cited by 114Social Representations and IdentityNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Third-person self-talk facilitates emotion regulation without engaging cognitive control: Converging evidence from ERP and fMRI

Open access
Moser, Jason S., Dougherty, Adrienne, Mattson, Whitney I., Katz, Benjamin, Moran, Tim P., Guevarra, Darwin, Shablack, Holly, Ayduk, Ozlem +3 more·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Does silently talking to yourself in the third-person constitute a relatively effortless form of self control? We hypothesized that it does under the premise that third-person self-talk leads people to think about the self similar to how they think about others, which provides them with the psychological distance needed to facilitate self control. We tested this prediction by asking participants to reflect on feelings elicited by viewing aversive images (Study 1) and recalling negative autobiographical memories (Study 2) using either “I” or their name while measuring neural activity via ERPs (Study 1) and fMRI (Study 2). Study 1 demonstrated that third-person self-talk reduced an ERP marker of self-referential emotional reactivity (i.e., late positive potential) within the first second of viewing aversive images without enhancing an ERP marker of cognitive control (i.e., stimulus preceding negativity). Conceptually replicating these results, Study 2 demonstrated that third-person self-talk was linked with reduced levels of activation in an a priori defined fMRI marker of self-referential processing (i.e., medial prefrontal cortex) when participants reflected on negative memories without eliciting increased levels of activity in a priori defined fMRI markers of cognitive control. Together, these results suggest that third-person self-talk may constitute a relatively effortless form of self-control.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-04047-3

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • During the SC, participants could observe the mechanisms of their own behaviour as if it were the behaviour of someone else, which would have triggered psychological distance.

    “During the SC, participants could observe the mechanisms of their own behaviour as if it were the behaviour of someone else, which would have triggered psychological distance33.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [11]Hajcak, G., Weinberg, A., Macnamara, D. & Foti, D. In Oxford Handbook of ERP Components (eds SJ Luck & ES Kappenman) (Oxford University Press, 2012).
  2. [24]Ellsworth, P. C. & Scherer, K. R. In Handbook of affective sciences (eds M. R.J. Davidson, H. Goldsmith & K.R. Scherer) (Oxford University Press, 2003).
  3. [32]Kross E Berman MG Mischel W Smith EE Wager TD Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, United States of America 2011 108 6270 6275 10.1073/pnas.1102693108 PMC3076808 21444827 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moser, J. S., Dougherty, A., Mattson, W. I., Katz, B., Moran, T. P., Guevarra, D., Shablack, H., Ayduk, O., Jonides, J., Berman, M. G., & Kross, E.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
  • Moser, Jason S.
  • Kross, Ethan
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-07-03
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
4519-4519
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2725027191
Cited by
114
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
13.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation (348747)
  • University of Michigan (349798)
  • Michigan State University
  • National Institutes of Health (HD065879)
  • College of Engineering, Michigan State University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Representations and Identity
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
emotion regulation, cognitive control, self-control, psychological distance, self-referential processing, late positive potential, stimulus-preceding negativity, medial prefrontal cortex
MeSH terms
Self-Control, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Emotions, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review