Resilience and Self-Talk: Pathways towards Regulating Positive and Negative Emotions
Zaviera Reyes & Seung Hee Yoo
Department of Social Psychology, San Francisco State University
BACKGROUND
METHODS
Stressful events are inherently highly
emotional (Lazarus, 1999). Experiencing
positive emotions despite stress is key to
achieving resilient outcomes (Troy & Mauss,
2011). Rather than conceptualizing resilience
as a trait, the following study examines
resilience as a positive outcome after
exposure to stress that is shaped by several
internal and external resources. Similarly, selftalk is a dynamic system (Hardy, Oliver, & Tod,
2009) that shares many of the same personal
and situational factors as resilience; yet, this
link remains untested. Self-talk is a cognitive
process that represents an individual’s beliefs
and thoughts about themselves, others and
their world (Calvete & Cardeñoso, 2002).
These self-evaluations put into words or
thoughts can encourage, berate or guide an
individual impacting their perception and
management of stressors leading to an
emotional experience that bolsters or hinders
resilience.
Amazon MTurk workers residing in the US
(n = 208, 57% = female, Mage = 35.6) completed
questionnaires including the 10-item CD-RISC
(Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007) to assess
resilience as a multidimensional construct.
Participants were instructed to list thoughts (up
to 10) concerning a recent very stressful event
(Mthghtlist = 5) then immediately following,
asked to rate their positive and negative affect.
Each thought was coded using the STiA which
can assess presence or absence and type of
self-talk (i.e., self-enhancing or self-critical).
Selected participant responses demonstrating
STiA coding and reflecting items from the three
dimensions of the self-report scale used to
assess self-talk (FSCRS; Gilbert, 2004) are listed
below:
HYPOTHESIS
•e.g., “I can get through anything”, “you are still
here and doing fine, you’ve got thisreassuring”
•e.g., “Good work, dumbasshated”, “This is too
hard, I can’t handle thisinadequate”
Partially supporting Hypothesis 2:
The STiA dimensions of self-critical
and
self-enhancing
statements
accounted for significant differences
in resilience in all but positive affect
following a stressor
A related sample t-test was implemented to
examine differences between users of selfenhancing (n=19) and self-critical (n=42)
self-talk in free response data coded with
the STiA (see figure 1). Self-enhance selftalk users reported significantly greater
resilience and self-efficacy and significantly
lower perceived general stress and negative
affect after recalling a stressful life event.
Supporting Hypothesis 3c-d: Reassuring
self-talk mediated the relationship between
positive affect after stress (figure 2a)
predicting resilience & negative affect after
stress (figure 2b) predicting resilience
Figure 2a
Reassuring
ST
b*= .61**
b*= .41**
Positive Affect
Following Stressor
b*= .35**(.09)
Resilience
Indirect effect = 2.01, SE = .37, 95% CI = (.14, .28)
R2 = 0.17, F (1, 206) = 41.02, p < .001
*p  .01, **p  .001
Note: Critical forms of self-talk not significantly correlated with positive affect
Figure 2b
b*= -.22**
Negative Affect
Following Stressor
RESULTS
Reassuring
ST
b*= -.33**(-.10)
b*= .43**
b*= .63**
Resilience
b*= -.40**
Inad. ST
b*= .47**
b*= -.39**
Hated ST
1. Resilience and individual differences in
self-reported or observed self-talk using the
Self-Talk in Action (STiA; Reyes et al., 2015)
coding scheme are related constructs and
share similar relationships with selfefficacy, the experience of pos/neg
emotions following the recall of a recent
highly stressful event and perceived stress
Indirect effect = -.12, SE = .04, 95% CI = (-.21, -.05);
R2 = 0.52, F (4, 203) = 55.13, p < .001
CONCLUSION
Supporting Hypothesis 3a: Reassuring
self-talk partially mediated the
relationship between self efficacy and
resilience
2. The STiA dimensions of self-enhancing and
self-critical self-talk will be associated with
differences in resilience, self-efficacy, the
experience of pos/neg affect following the
recall of a recent highly stressful event and
perceived stress
3. The relationship between self-efficacy(a),
perceived stress(b), positive affect(c)
despite a stressor, and negative affect(d)
despite a stressor contributing to resilience
is explained through the type of self-talk
(i.e., reassuring, inadequate, or hated) used
during stressful situations
The strongest relationship to resilience was the
use of reassuring self-talk during stressors which
was also positively and moderately correlated
with the STiA self-enhancing coding (see table 2)
Indirect effect = .16, SE = .04, 95% CI (.11, .22);
R2 = 0.63, F (4, 203) = 87.24, p < .001
Preacher & Hayes (2008) bootstrapped mediation analysis
Supporting Hypothesis 3b: Reassuring
self-talk & hated self-talk partially
mediated the relationship between
perceived stress and resilience
Supporting Hypothesis 1: Resilience and
individual differences in self-talk are
related constructs (see table 1)
Indirect effect[rs] = .29, SE = ., 95% CI (.11, .22);
Indirect effect[hs] = -.10, SE = .46, 95% CI (-.21, -.02)
R2 = 0.51, F (4, 203) = 53.92, p < .001
These results are in line with empirical work that
flexibility in enhancing or minimizing emotions
predicts one’s ability to respond to adversity. One
previously unexamined link that may explain this
relationship is self-talk. Together these results
suggest: (1) resilience and self-talk have a strong
relationship that influences the perception and
experience of emotions following a stressful
event, (2)
enhancing
self-talk
is
more
advantageous in reducing negative (but not in
cultivating positive) affect following a stressor,
(3) reassuring self-talk can assist both in the up
regulation of positive emotions and the down
regulation of negative emotions. Future work in
the authenticity and teachable nature of self-talk
to increase effective emotion regulation and
resilience are suggested.
Questions? Email [email protected]