I am what I am: The role of essentialist beliefs and neurodivergent identification on individuals' self-efficacy.

Essentialism is the belief that members of particular categories (e.g., social and cultural) are united by an innate underlying essence. While such beliefs have been associated with negative outcomes such as stereotyping, discrimination, and prejudice, minority group members can sometimes use essentialist beliefs to validate their identities. Here, we focus on people who identify as "neurodivergent"-individuals whose brains differ from typical neurology (such as those with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, etc.). We examined whether endorsing essentialist beliefs about neurodivergence serves a protective function among 316 neurodivergent-identifying individuals. As expected, endorsing essentialist beliefs was related to higher self-efficacy. This was especially true of people who highly identified as neurodivergent. These results illuminate how essentialist beliefs may empower a group that is often negatively stereotyped. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Learning the rules of the game: The role of generic "you" and "we" in shaping children's interpretations of norms.

A critical skill of childhood is learning social norms. We examine whether the generic pronouns "you" and "we," which frame information as applying to people in general rather than to a specific individual, facilitate this process. In one pre-registered experiment conducted online between 2020 and 2021, children 4- to 9-year-old primarily living in the midwestern U.S. (N = 146, 75 girls, 71 boys, Mage  = 7.14, SD = 1.69, 82% White) interpreted actions described with generic pronouns (vs. "I") as normatively correct and selected the speaker who used generic pronouns as the rule-follower, particularly when generic pronouns were presented first. There were no significant effects of age. These results illustrate how generic pronouns influence how children discern unfamiliar norms and form interpersonal judgments.

How Spanish speakers express norms using generic person markers.

Language is one powerful vehicle for transmitting norms-a universal feature of society. In English, people use "you" generically (e.g., "You win some you lose some") to express and interpret norms. Here, we examine how norms are conveyed and interpreted in Spanish, a language that-unlike English-has two forms of you (i.e., formal, informal), distinct generic person markers, and pro-drop, allowing for an examination of underlying conceptual tendencies in how the structure of language facilitates the transmission of norms. In Study 1a-b (N = 838) Spanish speakers used informal generic-you and the generic person marker "se" (but not formal-you) to express norms (vs. preferences). In Study 2 (N = 300), formal you, informal you, and impersonal "se" had persuasive force over personal endorsements (e.g., "I"), informing Spanish speaker's interpretation of unfamiliar norms. Our findings add to a growing literature on how subtle linguistic shifts reflect and influence cognitive processes.

"You" speaks to me: Effects of generic-you in creating resonance between people and ideas.

Creating resonance between people and ideas is a central goal of communication. Historically, attempts to understand the factors that promote resonance have focused on altering the content of a message. Here we identify an additional route to evoking resonance that is embedded in the structure of language: the generic use of the word "you" (e.g., "You can't understand someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes"). Using crowd-sourced data from the Amazon Kindle application, we demonstrate that passages that people highlighted-collectively, over a quarter of a million times-were substantially more likely to contain generic-you compared to yoked passages that they did not highlight. We also demonstrate in four experiments (n = 1,900) that ideas expressed with generic-you increased resonance. These findings illustrate how a subtle shift in language establishes a powerful sense of connection between people and ideas.

When chatting about negative experiences helps-and when it hurts: Distinguishing adaptive versus maladaptive social support in computer-mediated communication.

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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Lessons learned: Young children's use of generic-you to make meaning from negative experiences.

Learning from negative experiences is an essential challenge of childhood. How do children derive meaning from such events? For adults, one way is to move beyond the specifics of a situation by framing it as exemplifying a more general phenomenon. Here we examine whether children are able to make meaning in this way through their use of generic-you, a linguistic device in which people shift from the here and now to refer to people in general. Participants (N = 89, aged 4-10 years) listened to 2 stories depicting common conflicts and were asked to discuss what lessons the character could learn (Lessons Learned condition) and how the character felt (Relive condition). In the Lessons Learned condition, children were more likely to produce generic-you than in the Relive condition. These findings suggest that young children can make meaning from negative experiences by transcending the immediate context of an event to cast it as normative and general. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

That's how "you" do it: Generic you expresses norms during early childhood.

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.

Third-Person Self-Talk Reduces Ebola Worry and Risk Perception by Enhancing Rational Thinking.

BACKGROUND: During the fall of 2014, the threat of an Ebola outbreak gripped the United States (Poll, 8-12 October 2014; see Harvard School of Public Health & SSRS, 2014), creating a unique opportunity to advance basic knowledge concerning how emotion regulation works in consequential contexts and translate existing research in this area to inform public health and policy. METHOD: We addressed these issues by examining whether third-person self-talk, a simple technique that promotes emotion regulation, could nudge people into reasoning about Ebola more rationally. In all, 1,257 people from across the United States were asked to write about their feelings about Ebola using their name or I (i.e. third-person self-talk vs. first-person self-talk) as concerns about Ebola swelled (24 October 2014-26 October 2014). RESULTS: Third-person self-talk led participants who scored high on Ebola worry at baseline to generate more fact-based reasons not to worry about Ebola, which predicted reductions in their Ebola worry and risk perception. These findings held when controlling for several theoretically relevant covariates, highlighting their robustness. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate how a simple linguistic technique can enhance rational thinking and quell worry about a pressing public health threat.

How "you" makes meaning.

"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.

Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence.

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.