Schizotypal Tendencies Are Positively Associated With Self-Talk Frequency

Abstract

Theory and research suggest that schizotypy is a personality construct characterized by self-regulatory problems and that self-talk serves a variety of self-regulatory functions. In this study, undergraduates (N = 379) completed multidimensional measures of schizotypy and self-talk. Results provided strong support for a greater self-regulatory focus hypothesis, with positive and disorganized schizotypy factors positively and significantly correlated with self-talk factors, but negative schizotypy factors unrelated to self-talk frequency. We discuss implications of these findings for schizotypy and self-talk theory and research.

Keywords

Self-regulation self-perceptions personality theory mental disorders communication

Introduction

Schizotypy is a personality construct characterized by unusual sensations, thought disturbances, and socially aloof behavior. More specifically, current models of schizotypy define it as a multidimensional construct with “positive” (thought disruptions, suspiciousness/paranoia, and perceptual anomalies), “negative” (speech impairments, diminished reactivity, and diminished affect), and “disorganized” (situational confusion, disruptions of current behavior) facets (Kwapil, Gross, Silvia, Raulin, & Barrantes-Vidal, 2018). Research (e.g., Venables & Rector, 2000) shows that the schizotypy dimensions are only moderately intercorrelated and show differential relations with different correlates and outcomes (e.g., Kwapil, Gross, Silvia, & Barrantes-Vidal, 2013).

There is a great deal of recent research on individual differences in emotional and social functioning associated with schizotypy. Individuals who are high in schizotypy show elevated levels of negative affect and reduced levels of positive affect (e.g., Horan, Jack, Clark, & Green, 2008), as well as deficits in social competence and socially expressive behavior (e.g., Kwapil, Brown, Silvia, Myin-Germeys, & Barrantes-Vidal, 2012) and social anhedonia or loss of interest in social activities (e.g., Horan, Brown, & Blanchard, 2007).

Theorists and researchers have long considered schizophrenia to be a disorder of the self, and schizotypal individuals report anomalies of self-experience and a variety of self-related impairments (Parnas, 2003; Sass, Borda, Madeira, Pienkos, & Nelson, 2018). Schizotypal experiences might affect how people think about and assess themselves. For example, according to classic theories of reflected appraisal (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934), having unusual or disruptive experiences may cause people to wonder or worry about what other people (e.g., strangers, significant others) think of them. The confusions and difficulties encountered by those with schizotypal tendencies could influence their self-evaluations and associated reactions. If this is the case, then research on self-talk offers some intriguing suggestions for possible relations between schizotypy and intrapersonal communication facets.

Self-talk frequency

Self-talk refers to the phenomenon of carrying on an intrapersonal conversation either silently (inner speech) or aloud (private speech). There is a long history of research on the nature and functions of self-talk, particularly in personality, clinical, and sport and exercise psychology (Fernyhough, 2016). Self-talk serves important cognitive and self-regulatory functions (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1998; Morin, 2005; Winsler, Fernyhough, & Montero, 2009). A large research literature also highlights the role of self-talk in depression, anxiety, and other forms of dysfunction (e.g., Kendall, Howard, & Hays, 1989; Shi, Brinthaupt, & McCree, 2017).

The Self-Talk Scale (STS; Brinthaupt, Hein, & Kramer, 2009) is a measure of the frequency with which individuals talk to themselves under a variety of circumstances. It takes a functional approach to measuring self-talk by assessing how often people talk to themselves in response to specific events. The STS subscales include self-criticism, self-reinforcement, self-management, and social-assessment. Researchers have examined the relationship between self-talk frequency and a variety of cognitive, affective, and behavioral variables (e.g., Ren, Wang, & Jarrold, 2016). Reichl, Schneider, and Spinath (2013) found that loneliness and need to belong scores among a German sample were positively associated with self-talk frequency.

Brinthaupt et al. (2009, Study 5) showed that frequent self-talkers reported higher levels of obsessive-compulsive tendencies (i.e., checking behaviors and impaired control over mental activities) compared to infrequent self-talkers. Shi et al. (2017) found that self-critical and social-assessing self-talk increased the anxiety levels of public speakers and hurt their actual speech performance. However, no research has examined the relationship between schizotypal tendencies and the different functions served by self-talk.

Possible relationships between schizotypy and self-talk

In this study, we assessed two hypotheses about the possible schizotypy and self-talk relationship. First, as negative schizotypal tendencies increase, self-talk frequency should decrease (H1). There is reason to think that individuals who score high in negative schizotypy will show deficits in self-talk frequency. For example, research has found that schizotypal tendencies are associated with deficits in self-regulatory activity (Debbané et al., 2014), and problems with communicative and expressive behaviors (Aguirre, Sergi, & Levy, 2008; Cohen, Mohr, Ettinger, Chan, & Park, 2015). Finally, Tsakanikos and Claridge (2005) reported evidence that verbal fluency scores (assessed via a word-generation task) were negatively associated with the Introvertive Anhedonia facet of negative schizotypy. According to this self-regulatory deficit hypothesis, interpersonal and emotional deficits may parallel or reflect intrapersonal deficits, which in turn suggests that negative schizotypy scores will be inversely associated with reports of self-talk frequency.

On the other hand, positive and disorganized schizotypal tendencies should correlate positively with self-talk frequency (H2). There is reason to think that people who score high on these schizotypy characteristics will also score high in self-talk frequency. For example, research (e.g., Brinthaupt et al., 2009; Reichl et al., 2013; Ren et al., 2016; Shi et al., 2017) has shown that certain kinds of self-talk relate positively to other maladaptive cognitive or affective variables. In addition, individuals with the unusual or anomalous experiences reflected by the positive and disorganized schizotypal tendencies might use self-talk as a way to manage or compensate for their cognitive, perceptual, and interpersonal disruptions through greater self-regulatory focus. Tsakanikos and Claridge (2005) found that verbal fluency scores were positively associated with the unusual experience facet of positive schizotypy. According to this greater self-regulatory focus hypothesis, higher positive and disorganized schizotypy scores should be associated with an increased need for self-regulation, as reflected by more frequent self-talk.

Method

Participants

Students (N = 379, 266 women, 108 men, 4 alternate identification, and 1 missing) completed measures as part of a General Psychology pretesting data collection at a large public southeastern U.S. university. Students were primarily freshman (61%) or sophomore (23%) and Caucasian (54%; 30% African-American, 6% Asian-American, 4% Hispanic, and 6% other). Average age of the participants was 19.46 years (SD = 3.35). We expected to find moderate effect sizes (i.e., .30), which is similar to prior self-talk correlational research (e.g., Ren et al., 2016). The power of the obtained sample size was sufficient to detect the expected effect.

Measures and procedure

Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire – Brief Revised Updated (SPQ-BRU; Davidson, Hoffman, & Spaulding, 2016). The SPQ-BRU measures a variety of cognitive and interpersonal experiences associated with schizotypy. In their revision of Cohen et al.’s (2010) SPQ-BR, Davidson et al. converted items from third-person (“you”) to first-person (“I”). They report data that supports improved psychometric properties of the SPQ-BRU over the SPQ-BR. The SPQ-BRU consists of 32 items, which are rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).

The SPQ-BRU provides nine subordinate schizotypy subscales (see Table 1). The measure also gives three superordinate schizotypy subscales: Cognitive-Perceptual (i.e., “Positive”), Interpersonal (i.e., “Negative”), and Disorganized. Scores for the subordinate and superordinate subscales are created by summing the items, with higher scores denoting higher schizotypal tendencies. Alpha coefficients for the current sample were acceptable, with subordinate scales ranging from .60 (Constricted Affect) through .88 (Eccentric Behavior). Internal consistencies for the Cognitive-Perceptual (r = .83), Interpersonal (r = .87), and Disorganized (r = .84) superordinate scales were also acceptable.

Table 1.

Correlations Among STS Factors and SPQ-BRU Subordinate and Superordinate Subscales.

SPQ-BRU subscale	Total STS	STS factor
SPQ-BRU subscale	Total STS	Self-criticism	Self-reinforcement	Self-management	Social-assessment
Subordinate
Ideas of reference (CP)	.377***	.399***	.225***	.317***	.354***
Suspiciousness (CP)	.356***	.339***	.226***	.318***	.341***
No close friends (IP)	.078	.075	.004	.089	.105*
Constricted affect (IP)	.084	.137**	–.027	.088	.093
Eccentric behavior (DO)	.293***	.328***	.123*	.294***	.268***
Social anxiety (IP)	.235***	.287***	.028	.225***	.269***
Magical thinking (CP)	.209***	.208***	.174***	.157**	.177***
Odd speech (DO)	.246***	.274***	.087	.272***	.221***
Unusual perceptions (CP)	.342***	.345***	.185***	.325***	.323***
Superordinate
Cognitive-perceptual	.440***	.442***	.279***	.383***	.409***
Interpersonal	.167***	.206***	.004	.168***	.196***
Disorganized	.331***	.369***	.129*	.347***	.300***

Note. N = 379; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. CP: Cognitive-perceptual; IP: interpersonal; DO: disorganized; STS: Self-Talk Scale; SPQ-BRU: Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire – Brief Revised Updated.

Descriptive statistics for the nine subordinate subscales were as follows: Ideas of Reference (M = 9.13, SD = 2.78; range: 3–15); Odd or Eccentric Behavior (M = 10.48, SD = 4.23; range: 4–20); Constricted Affect (M = 7.69, SD = 2.55; range: 3–15); Odd Speech (M = 12.93, SD = 4.01; range: 4–20); Excessive Social Anxiety (M = 9.33, SD = 3.28; range: 3–15); No Close Friends (M = 7.40, SD = 3.20; range: 3–15); Suspiciousness (M = 8.02, SD = 2.94; range: 3–15); Unusual Perceptual Experiences (M = 7.80, SD = 3.31; range: 4–18); and Odd Beliefs/Magical Thinking (M = 7.33, SD = 3.36; range: 4–18). Statistics for the three subordinate scales were as follows: Cognitive-Perceptual (M = 32.28, SD = 8.93; range: 14–57); Interpersonal (M = 24.41, SD = 7.42; range: 10–42); and Disorganized (M = 23.41, SD = 6.73; range: 8–40). In addition, the scores on these measures showed general normal distributions with skewness and kurtosis values within acceptable ranges.

Self-Talk Scale (STS; Brinthaupt et al., 2009). The STS is a measure of individual differences in self-talk frequency, specifically how often people talk to themselves (silently or aloud) under certain self-regulatory circumstances. The measure consists of 16 items rated on a five-point frequency scale (1 = never, 5 = very often). Respondents rate the items using a common stem of “I talk to myself when …” The STS has four subscales: self-criticism, self-reinforcement, self-management, and social assessment.

The STS has a structure consisting of one higher order factor (total Self-Talk) and the four primary factors (subscales), along with acceptable test–retest stability and internal consistency (Brinthaupt et al., 2009) and appropriate use of the response format (Brinthaupt & Kang, 2014). Brinthaupt, Benson, Kang, and Moore (2015) showed the STS scores accurately predicted future self-talk behavior as well as self-talk measured through experience sampling procedures. STS scores are also distinct from potentially related constructs, such as self-esteem, socially desirable responding, and public self-consciousness (Brinthaupt et al., 2009). Higher STS scores indicate a greater frequency of talking to oneself. Alphas coefficients for the current sample were acceptable for the total STS (r = .94) and the subscales (ranging from .81 to .89).

Students completed the measures as part of a pretesting survey that included a large number of demographic items and other measures unrelated to the current study. Data collection occurred in the second week of the academic term. Students participated in groups of 5–30 and received course research credit for their participation (see Brinthaupt & Pennington, 2005, for more details about the pretesting process). Participants completed the SPQ-BRU and STS in counterbalanced order.

Descriptive statistics

Examination of the individual item, subscale, and total scores indicated that values for the SPQ-BRU and STS were similar to normative data provided by Cohen (n.d.), Davidson et al. (2016), and Brinthaupt and Kang (2014).

Correlational analysis

Table 1 reports the zero-order correlations among the SPQ-BRU and STS scores. The superordinate schizotypy scores were moderately intercorrelated, with the Cognitive-Perceptual scale positively related to the Interpersonal (r = .40, p < .001) and Disorganized (r = .53, p < .001) scales and the Interpersonal scale positively related to the Disorganized scale (r = .40, p < .001). As the table indicates, most of the schizotypy subscales were positively and significantly correlated with the STS factors, with many of these relationships reflecting moderate effect sizes.

Self-reinforcing self-talk scores showed the weakest relationship with schizotypy scores. The SPQ-BRU No Close Friends and Constricted Affect subordinate scales were weakly related to the STS factors. Among the superordinate SPQ-BRU factors, the Interpersonal scale showed the weakest relationship with self-talk frequency. The Cognitive-Perceptual superordinate schizotypy factor showed particularly strong correlations and effect sizes with total and subscale self-talk scores. Within this factor, the Ideas of Reference and Suspiciousness subordinate factors showed stronger relationships with self-talk frequency compared to the Magical Thinking factor.

Regression analyses

We next examined the relative contribution of the different SPQ-BRU factors in predicting STS scores. We calculated simple linear regressions to predict total and subscale STS scores with the three SPQ-BRU superordinate factors. These analyses (see Table 2) indicated that the cognitive-perceptual (or “positive”) schizotypy factor contributed most strongly to the prediction of total and subscale self-talk frequency. The disorganized factor significantly and positively predicted total, self-critical, self-managing, and social-assessing self-talk, but not self-reinforcing self-talk. Although the direction of the relationship was in the predicted direction, the interpersonal (or “negative”) schizotypy factor contributed little to the prediction of total and subscale self-talk frequency.

Table 2.

Summary of Simple Regression Analyses for SPQ-BRU Superordinate Factors Predicting STS Total and Subscale Scores (N = 379).

SPQ-BRU variable	Total			STS
	Total			Self-criticism			Self-reinforcement			Self-management			Social-assessment
	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B
Cognitive-perceptual	.613	0.09	.379***	.167	0.03	.344***	.157	0.03	.324***	.121	0.02	.284***	.167	0.03	.343***
Interpersonal	–.081	0.10	–.042	–.003	0.03	–.005	–.074	0.03	–.127*	–.014	0.03	–.026	.009	0.03	.016
Disorganized	.316	0.12	.147**	.122	0.03	.188***	.005	0.04	.007	.117	0.03	.207***	.073	0.04	.112*
R ²	.208			.221			.091			.176			.177
F	32.76***			35.39***			12.51***			26.71***			26.88***

Note. SPQ-BRU: Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire – Brief Revised Updated; STS: Self-Talk Scale. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

The social anxiety facet appears to be less consistent with conceptualizations of negative schizotypy (see Gross, Mellin, Silvia, Barrantes-Vidal, & Kwapil, 2014). Thus, we created a new interpersonal superordinate factor that removed the social anxiety facet. The results of regression analyses using this revised negative schizotypy factor did not differ from the previously reported analyses.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among schizotypal and self-talk tendencies. Research (e.g., Tod, Hardy, & Oliver, 2011; Winsler et al., 2009) has supported the idea that self-talk serves a wide variety of self-regulatory functions. The current results provided support for the greater self-regulatory focus hypothesis, that higher positive and disorganized schizotypy scores would be associated with more frequent self-reported self-talk.

Because this was a correlational study, we are unable to determine the degree to which schizotypal tendencies cause or are caused by more frequent self-talk. If schizotypal tendencies increase social and emotional difficulties and disturbances, then individuals with those tendencies should have a greater need to monitor, regulate, or address those disturbances. Increases in self-talk should reflect this increased need for self-regulation. It is also possible that excessive self-talk frequency will predispose a person toward schizotypal symptoms. For instance, more frequent self-talk, particularly if it is noticeable by others, should have negative effects on a person’s social interactions.

As Cohen, Mohr, Ettinger, Chan, and Park (2015) put it, “anomalous subjective emotional experiences are closely tied to schizotypy” (p. S428). Perhaps self-talk serves as a way to compensate for these experiences and the social competence and expressiveness deficits shown by individuals with high schizotypy scores. For example, we expect that people who have a negative or uncomfortable social, cognitive, or perceptual experience will engage in self-talk (and other self-regulatory efforts) as they try to process or understand that experience. If individuals with high schizotypy scores have more of these negative cognitive and emotional experiences, then they should have a greater need to use self-talk to process or regulate the effects of those experiences. In addition, the observed relations might reflect direct manifestations of the trait dimensions of schizotypy. For example, it is possible that self-critical self-talk is a form of ruminative self-dialogue that actually leads to more emotion dysregulation. Future research that examines whether self-talk serves as a compensatory self-regulatory mechanism or is a manifestation of the schizotypal trait would be an important next step.

The results are partially consistent with the findings of Tsakanikos and Claridge (2005), who found that one aspect of negative schizotypy was associated with decreased verbal fluency, whereas one facet of positive schizotypy was associated with greater verbal fluency. At least when it comes to intrapersonal communication, it seems that greater fluency characterizes both negative and positive schizotypy scores.

Implications for future research

Although research shows that self-talk serves a variety of self-regulatory functions, the ways that self-talk serves these functions is still unclear. Self-regulatory threats (e.g., having anomalous social or personal experiences) may cause increased levels of self-talk (e.g., attempting to explain or understand those anomalous experiences). High levels of self-talk could also cause greater difficulties in understanding one’s interpersonal and intrapersonal experiences. Research comparing the experiences (such as the occurrence of positive or negative events) and the resulting self-talk of schizotypal to control participants would help to clarify the self-talk and self-regulation relationship.

The SPQ-BRU is a measure of schizotypal personality traits, rather than schizotypy per se. As Gross et al. (2014) noted, the SPQ cognitive-perceptual factor is a good measure of positive schizotypy. However, the interpersonal factor does not capture other aspects of negative schizotypy (e.g., speech impairments and diminished reactivity and affect). Thus, the use of other standardized, multidimensional measures of schizotypy (such as the Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale; Kwapil et al., 2018) would be important to establish the robustness and generality of the relationships found in this study. Given the magnitude and consistency of the current results, further explorations of the self-talk and schizotypy relationship in the general (nonclinical) population might provide additional insights into the everyday functions served by self-talk.

Future research can examine the occurrence of interpersonal and intrapersonal anomalies and assess whether those high and low in schizotypal tendencies respond differently to specific social interactions and behavioral outcomes. Although research shows that the STS is an ecologically valid measure (Brinthaupt et al., 2015), self-talk data collected via experience-sampling methods might also provide a stronger test of the current research questions. In addition, there is very little research into how other people (such as strangers or significant others) react to another person’s schizotypal experiences. Exploring the interpersonal experiences of those with schizotypal tendencies, and the perceptions and behavior of other people toward such individuals, would permit a systematic assessment of the reflected appraisal idea (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934).

Conclusion

This study provides important information about the relationships among schizotypal tendencies and self-talk patterns. Individuals with high levels of both positive and disorganized schizotypy report engaging in more frequent self-talk than those with low scores on these factors. Negative schizotypy was unrelated to self-talk frequency. These results highlight the need for further explorations of the nature of the schizotypy/self-talk relationship and identifying other variables that might be associated with high scores on both schizotypy and self-talk frequency.

Footnotes

Article Notes

References

Aguirre, F., Sergi, M.J., & Levy, C.A. (2008). Emotional intelligence and social functioning in persons with schizotypy. Schizophrenia Research, 104(1), 255–264.

Brinthaupt

T. M.

Benson

Kang

Moore

(2015). Assessing the accuracy of self-reported self-talk. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognitive Science, 6, 570. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00570

Brinthaupt

T. M.

Hein

M. B.

Kramer

T. E.

(2009). The Self-Talk Scale: Development, factor analysis, and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 82–92.

Brinthaupt

T. M.

Kang

(2014). Many-faceted Rasch calibration: An example using the Self-Talk Scale. Assessment, 21(2), 157–165. doi: 10.1177/1073191112446653

Brinthaupt

T. M.

Pennington

J. T.

(2005). Development of a departmental data archive for teaching and research. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 257–259.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

(1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen

A. S.

(n.d). SPQ-BRU normative data. Retrieved from https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/asap/schizotypal-personality-questionnaire-brief-revised/spq-br-normative-data/

Cohen, A. S., Matthews, R. A., Najolia, G. M., & Brown, L. A. (2010). Toward a more psychometrically sound brief measure of schizotypal traits: Introducing the SPQ-Brief Revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24(4), 516–537.

Cohen

A. S.

Mohr

Ettinger

Chan

R. C.

Park

(2015). Schizotypy as an organizing framework for social and affective sciences. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 41(suppl_2), S427–S435. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbu195

10.

Cooley

C. H.

(1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Scribner.

11.

Davidson

C. A.

Hoffman

Spaulding

W. D.

(2016). Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire – Brief Revised (Updated): An update of norms, factor structure, and item content in a large non-clinical young adult sample. Psychiatry Research, 238, 345–355.

12.

Debbané, M., Vrtiška, P., Lazouret, M., Badoud, D., Sander, D., & Eliez, S. (2014). Self-reflection and positive schizotypy in the adolescent brain. Schizophrenia Research, 152(1), 65–72.

13.

Fernyhough

(2016). The voices within: The history and science of how we talk to ourselves. New York, NY: Basic Books.

14.

Gross

G. M.

Mellin

Silvia

P. J.

Barrantes-Vidal

Kwapil

T. R.

(2014). Comparing the factor structure of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales and the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(4), 397–405.

15.

Horan

W. P.

Brown

S. A.

Blanchard

J. J.

(2007). Social anhedonia and schizotypy: The contribution of individual differences in affective traits, stress, and coping. PsychiatryResearch, 149(1), 147–156. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2006.06.002

16.

Horan

W. P. B.

Jack

Clark

L. A.

Green

M. F.

(2008). Affective traits in schizophrenia and schizotypy. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 34, 856–874. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbn083

17.

Kendall

P. C.

Howard

B. L.

Hays

R. C.

(1989). Self-referent speech and psychopathology: The balance of positive and negative thinking. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 13, 583–598. doi:10.1007/BF01176069

18.

Kwapil

T. R.

Brown

L. H.

Silvia

P. J.

Myin-Germeys

Barrantes-Vidal

(2012). The expression of positive and negative schizotypy in daily life: An experience sampling study. Psychological Medicine, 42(12), 2555–2566. doi:10.1017/S0033291712000827

19.

Kwapil

T. R.

Gross

G. M.

Silvia

P. J.

Barrantes-Vidal

(2013). Prediction of psychopathology and functional impairment by positive and negative schizotypy in the Chapmans’ ten-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(3), 807–815. doi:10.1037/a0033759.supp

20.

Kwapil

T. R.

Gross

G. M.

Silvia

P. J.

Raulin

M. L.

Barrantes-Vidal

(2018). Development and psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale: A new measure for assessing positive, negative, and disorganized schizotypy. Schizophrenia Research, 193, 209–217.

21.

Mead

G. H.

(1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Morin

(2005). Possible links between self-awareness and inner speech: Theoretical background, underlying mechanisms, and empirical evidence. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12(4–5), 115–134.

23.

Parnas

(2003). Self and schizophrenia: A phenomenological perspective. In Kircher

David

(Eds.), The self in neuroscience and psychiatry (pp. 127–141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Reichl

Schneider

J. F.

Spinath

F. M.

(2013). Relation of self-talk frequency to loneliness, need to belong, and health in German adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 241–245. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.003

25.

Ren

Wang

Jarrold

(2016). Individual differences in frequency of inner speech: Differential relations with cognitive and non-cognitive factors. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognitive Science, 7, 1675. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01675

26.

Sass

Borda

J. P.

Madeira

Pienkos

Nelson

(2018). Varieties of self disorder: A bio-pheno-social model of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 44(4), 720–727.

27.

Shi

Brinthaupt

T. M.

McCree

(2017). Understanding the influence of self-critical, self-managing, and social-assessing self-talk on performance outcomes in a public speaking context. Imagination, Cognition, & Personality, 36(4), 356–378. doi:10.1177/0276236617708740

28.

Tod, D., Hardy, J., & Oliver, E. (2011). Effects of self-talk: A systematic review. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(5), 666–687.

29.

Tsakanikos

Claridge

(2005). More words, less words: Verbal fluency as a function of “positive” and “negative” schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(4), 705–713. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.019

30.

Venables

P. H.

Rector

N. A.

(2000). The content and structure of schizotypy: A study using confirmatory factor analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26(3), 587–602. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033480

31.

Winsler

Fernyhough

Montero

(Eds.). (2009). Private speech, executive functioning, and the development of verbal self-regulation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.