cognitive and linguistic psychology and self talk

In “’I don’t’ versus ‘I can’t,” Patrick & Hagtvedt (2012) explore a single dimension of self-talk, namely how people phrase refusals. The implications of the investigation are to show how self-talk may influence goal-directed behaviors. Moreover, the research falls within the provinces of cognitive and linguistic sciences, particularly with regard to semantic framing. The authors also point out that the results of this and similar studies on the role of self-talk in mitigating behavior might be relevant to marketers. The Patrick & Hagtvedt (2012) study is about how language impacts self-talk as well as behavior; the study therefore reflects the theories and ethical principles of cognitive psychology.
One of the foundational principles guiding the Patrick & Hagtvedt (2012) research is the Whorf hypothesis, which is central to the filed of linguistics. Essentially, the Whorf hypothesis suggests that language actually frames reality, potentially more than the other way around. A review of literature also based on the Whorf hypothesis shows that language does influence perceptions, persuasions, perception of time, and health seeking behaviors (Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2012, p. 372). How a topic is framed in verbal or written media might, for example, influence how a reader or listener comprehends and later responds to the information. Based on prior research, the authors hypothesize that self-talk using the term “I don’t” will signify an “entrenched attitude rather than a temporary situation,” which in turn signifies a sense of personal power and control over one’s behavior (Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2012, p. 372). Likewise, the authors hypothesize that the phrase “I can’t” connotes “external focus,” or a sense of powerlessness similar to a type of learned helplessness (Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2012, p. 372). In fact, the Patrick & Hagtvedt (2012) study parallels a study mentioned by Newman (2016) describing the way language, especially word choice, can signal that a person is lying (p. 11).
The Patrick & Hagtvedt (2012) article falls under the rubric of cognitive psychology, which refers to “the study of internal mental processes, including the ways that people think, learn, remember, speak, perceive,” (Newman, 2016, p. 4). Cognitive psychology is concerned with how an individual’s thoughts or beliefs impact behaviors, social interactions, and perceptions of self and others. Moreover, Patrick & Hagtvedt (2012) do point out the many applied psychology benefits for health psychology as well as industrial-organizational psychology (Newman, 2016, p. 6). For example, the authors show how self-talk can lead to distinct choices regarding health and lifestyle decisions. Self-talk may also influence issues like employee motivation, and therefore may be of use to human resources managers (Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2012, p. 9).
Ethical issues related to the Patrick & Hagtvedt (2012) study include whether or not the authors interpret and discuss their results accurately, and whether there may have been any ethical issues with regards to how research subjects were considered or treated. Some of the ethical issues Newman (2016) covers, such as threat of physical harm, stress, or deception were not remotely areas of concern in the Patrick & Hagtvedt (2012) study. Informed consent was sought and given by study participants, and although it is not explicitly mentioned in the body of the report, it can be assumed the authors debriefed participants and ensured confidentiality would be maintained throughout the research.
The Patrick & Hagtvedt (2012) study conforms to the ethical principles of social science research, and falls under the rubric of cognitive psychology. In this study, the researchers examine the ways self-talk can have an influence on health-seeking behaviors and other goal-directed behaviors. Saying “I can’t” is fundamentally different from saying “I don’t,” the latter of which signals a sense of permanence and internal locus of control.



References

Newman, M. (2016). Research methods in psychology (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education
Patrick, V. M., & Hagtvedt, H. (2012).“I don’t” versus “I can’t”: When empowered refusal motivates goal-directed behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 371-381. doi:10.1086/663212