Prior research indicates that Facebook usage predicts declines in subjective well-being over time. How does this come about? We examined this issue in 2 studies using experimental and field methods. In Study 1, cueing people in the laboratory to use Facebook passively (rather than actively) led to declines in affective well-being over time. Study 2 replicated these findings in the field using experience-sampling techniques. It also demonstrated how passive Facebook usage leads to declines in affective well-being: by increasing envy. Critically, the relationship between passive Facebook usage and changes in affective well-being remained significant when controlling for active Facebook use, non-Facebook online social network usage, and direct social interactions, highlighting the specificity of this result. These findings demonstrate that passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being.

"You" is one of the most common words in the English language. Although it typically refers to the person addressed ("How are you?"), "you" is also used to make timeless statements about people in general ("You win some, you lose some."). Here, we demonstrate that this ubiquitous but understudied linguistic device, known as "generic-you," has important implications for how people derive meaning from experience. Across six experiments, we found that generic-you is used to express norms in both ordinary and emotional contexts and that producing generic-you when reflecting on negative experiences allows people to "normalize" their experience by extending it beyond the self. In this way, a simple linguistic device serves a powerful meaning-making function.

According to common sense, successful self-control requires “willpower.” Psychology often models willpower as the effortful inhibition of temptation impulses—a process theorized to require sufficient motivation and resources. This article challenges the centrality of willpower in self-control. Instead, successful self-control relies on a variety of strategies beyond effortful inhibition: diminishing the influence of immediately available rewards and bolstering motivation toward more abstract, distant rewards. Furthermore, self-control is better conceived as a “toolbox” of strategies; success entails finding the tools that work best for a given individual at a given time. In other words, improving self-control is not about becoming stronger, but rather about becoming smarter. This approach has policy implications and suggests priorities for research.

Prior research indicates that psychological distance facilitates emotion regulation. Here, we propose that the ability to transcend one’s immersed perspective may be hidden in plain sight, within the very structure of language. We review evidence regarding two linguistic mechanisms, distanced self-talk and generic “you,” that promote emotion regulation by allowing speakers to shift from an immersed to a more distanced perspective through the words they use to reflect on the self (e.g., shifting from “I” to their own name or other non-first-person-singular pronouns). We conclude by suggesting that these linguistic shifts occur relatively seamlessly and thus may provide a less effortful route to emotion regulation.

Does talking to others about negative experiences improve the way people feel? Although some work suggests that the answer to this question is “yes,” other work reveals the opposite. Here we attempt to shed light on this puzzle by examining how people can talk to others about their negative experiences constructively via computer-mediated communication, a platform that people increasingly use to provide and receive social support. Drawing from prior research on meaning-making and self-reflection, we predicted that cueing participants to reconstrue their experience in ways that lead them to focus on it from a broader perspective during a conversation would buffer them against negative affect and enhance their sense of closure compared with cueing them to recount the emotionally arousing details concerning what happened. Results supported this prediction. Content analyses additionally revealed that participants in the reconstrue condition used the word “you” generically (e.g., you cannot always get what you want) more than participants in the recount condition, identifying a linguistic mechanism that supports reconstrual. These findings highlight the psychological processes that distinguish adaptive versus maladaptive ways of talking about negative experiences, particularly in the context of computer-mediated support interactions.

These results demonstrate how a simple linguistic technique can enhance rational thinking and quell worry about a pressing public health threat.

Prior research indicates that children construe norms as general and construe preferences as individual. The current studies tested whether this expectation is built into how children interpret and use language. We focused on the pronoun you, which is ambiguous between a canonical interpretation (referring to the addressee) and a generic interpretation (referring to people in general). In Study 1, children (N=132, ages 3-10years) were asked a series of questions containing "you," referring to either descriptive norms (e.g., "What do you do with bikes?") or preferences (e.g., "What do you like to do with bikes?"). In Study 2, parents conversed with their children (N=28, ages 2-4years) about prescriptive norms (e.g., "What should you do with books?") and preferences (e.g., "What do you like about books?"). In both studies, children's choice of pronoun in their answer revealed whether they interpreted you in the questions as generic or canonical. Results indicated that children more often interpreted you as generic in the normative contexts (i.e., responded with generic you, e.g., "You read them") and as canonical in the preference contexts (i.e., responded with I, e.g., "I read them"). This pattern emerged by early preschool, providing the first evidence that the distinction between norms and preferences directs young children's interpretation and use of everyday language.

Research indicates that a subtle shift in language—silently referring to oneself using one’s own name and non–first-person-singular pronouns (i.e., distanced self-talk)—promotes emotion regulation. Yet it remains unclear whether the efficacy of distanced self-talk depends on the intensity of the negative experience reflected on and whether the benefits extend to emotionally vulnerable individuals. Two high-powered experiments addressed these issues. Distanced as opposed to immersed self-talk reduced emotional reactivity when people reflected on negative experiences that varied in their emotional intensity. These findings held when participants focused on future and past autobiographical events and when they scored high on individual difference measures of emotional vulnerability. The results also generalized across various types of negative events. These findings illuminate the functionality of language for allowing people to regulate their emotions when reflecting on negative experiences across the spectrum of emotional intensity and highlight the need for future research to examine the clinical implications of this technique.