Self-image
Your own images of who you already are on a good day and who you are becoming.
The thinking behind
your neuro identity.
A practice: decide who you’re becoming, keep it in view, and practise it.
What follows is the published research behind Frame, and where each finding stops.
What we mean by
Identity Reprogramming.
Identity Reprogramming is our name for a practice, not a claim about your brain. Nobody has shown that a desktop image changes neural wiring, and we will not say it does.
- Your neuro identity
Henry’s term for the self-image, beliefs, language and habits you carry. The framework treats them as things you can notice and practise, not fixed facts about you.
- Choose
Decide who you’re becoming. Build identity asks about the life you want, the person who lives it and the evidence already present.
- Keep it in view
Your images and chosen words move through your day on the screen you already look at, in a rhythm you set.
- Practise
Write your own if-then lines for the moments that count. The practice is yours; Frame gives it a place.
Identity Reprogramming and neuro identity come from Henry Reith’s Absolutely Awesome Framework. They are philosophy and method, not published findings. The research below explains which parts of the practice have evidence behind them, and where that evidence stops.
Why a changing
screen gets noticed.
The research
People tend to stop noticing what never changes. And once you’ve decided what matters, you start noticing it more. Andrew Huberman explains this as the reticular activating system at work.
Rankin and colleagues, 2009Ideas worth
putting into practice.
Each study contributed an idea to Frame. None tested this app, a Mac wallpaper or the effect of seeing personal images throughout the day.
Possible selves in an educational setting
Frame begins with who you’re becoming, then asks for qualities, evidence already present and ordinary actions that belong to that life.
The research
In a study with eighth-grade students, an intervention connecting possible future selves with practical strategies improved academic outcomes. That school setting matters when interpreting the findings.
A multicomponent programme for low-income eighth graders, not adults using desktop images. The effect isn’t attributed to imagery alone.
Oyserman, Bybee and Terry, 2006What was studied
264 students, 141 in the intervention group and 123 in the control group, followed over two years.
Connecting it to yourself
Frame starts from images you chose and words you wrote yourself.
The research
Information you connect to yourself tends to be remembered better. Psychologists call it the self-reference effect.
The studies measured memory for words in the lab, not images, motivation or behaviour. Frame hasn’t been tested.
Symons and Johnson, 1997What was studied
A meta-analysis of self-reference memory studies, building on Rogers, Kuiper and Kirker, 1977.
Imagining the process, not only the result
Frame asks for the ordinary Tuesday, the practice and the next response when something gets in the way, alongside the outcome you want.
The research
In a study of students preparing for an exam, imagining the process improved studying and grades. The participants actively rehearsed studying; they weren’t simply looking at pictures.
College freshmen actively simulated exam preparation for five to seven days. It isn’t evidence about passively viewing images.
Pham and Taylor, 1999What was studied
Students compared imagining the steps of studying against imagining the desired grade, over five to seven days before an exam.
Mental simulation across many experiments
Frame treats imagining your future self as something worth doing actively: questions to answer, a practice to picture, words you write yourself.
The research
A meta-analysis found a positive average behavioural effect of active mental simulation across varied experiments.
Varied tasks and interventions, not passive wallpaper viewing, founder identity change or Frame efficacy. The effect size isn’t a percentage improvement.
Cole and colleagues, 2021What was studied
123 experiments in which people actively imagined performing a behaviour, across many kinds of task.
The limit of idealised fantasies
Frame makes room for possibility while also asking about present evidence, practice and obstacles. The collection need not be a gallery of finished outcomes.
The research
Experimentally induced idealised positive fantasies reduced energisation in four experiments.
Specific fantasy tasks and physiological or behavioural indicators. Neither vision boards nor Frame were tested, and no energy effect is attributed to Frame.
Kappes and Oettingen, 2011What was studied
Four experiments examined positive fantasies about an idealised future across different wishes and measures of energisation.
If-then plans across many settings
Frame lets you write your own optional if-then line for a moment that may get difficult, and choose whether it appears with your images.
The research
A review of 642 independent tests found benefits from forming implementation intentions: plans that connect a situation with a response. Results varied with the outcome and how the plan was made. Reported effects ranged from d = 0.27 to d = 0.66 across cognitive, affective and behavioural outcomes.
Reported effect-size range (d = 0.27 to d = 0.66) across outcomes, not a confidence interval, percentage uplift or a Frame result. The range combines different outcomes and settings. It isn’t a confidence interval, a percentage uplift or a result measured in Frame. Forming your own if-then plan is different from simply displaying words.
Sheeran, Listrom and Gollwitzer, published online 2024What was studied
A meta-analysis covering 642 independent tests of implementation intentions, published online 2024.
Why it has to
feel like yours.
Chase Hughes argues a vision board needs focus, emotion, change and repetition, and that the emotion has to keep coming back. That framing is his. These are the published findings closest to it. None of them tested Frame.
Words you come up with yourself
Every pack line opens for editing, so the words on your desktop end up yours.
The research
Words you come up with yourself tend to stick better than words you only read. The generation effect held across five experiments and several kinds of memory test.
Memory for studied words in the lab. Editing a ready-made line is a looser case than generating it.
Slamecka and Graf, 1978What was studied
Five experiments compared words people generated with the same words read. A later review of 86 studies found the effect widely, with a lot of variation between studies (Bertsch and colleagues, 2007).
The pleasure of rediscovery
Notes from past you let you write something now and find it weeks or months later.
The research
People underestimate how much they’ll enjoy rediscovering ordinary moments from their past.
About predicted and felt curiosity and pleasure, using records of everyday experiences. Not goals, habits or discipline.
Zhang and colleagues, 2014What was studied
Four studies, including a time-capsule study: people predicted how interesting their records would be to rediscover, then found out.
Fresh starts
The 30-day test is a natural point to look again, starting with what you wrote on day one.
The research
New weeks, months and birthdays are moments people are more likely to start on goals. Researchers call it the fresh start effect.
A pattern around calendar landmarks in archival data, not the effect of a reminder. Frame wasn’t tested.
Dai, Milkman and Riis, 2014What was studied
Three archival field studies: Google searches for “diet”, gym visits and commitments to pursue goals.
When your surroundings change
Frame changes through the day, so your desktop never settles into one fixed scene.
The research
In a field experiment with 800 households, a behaviour-change intervention worked better for people who had recently moved house.
Self-reported sustainable behaviours eight weeks later, after a major life change. A changing desktop is not a house move. Linking the two is our interpretation.
Verplanken and Roy, 2016What was studied
800 participants, half recently relocated, received either an intervention promoting sustainable behaviours or none.
Meeting your future self
Frame starts with who you’re becoming, in your own images.
The research
In four studies, people who met age-progressed images of themselves put more money towards the future.
Virtual-reality renderings and saving decisions in the lab. Not a vision board, identity change or Frame.
Hershfield and colleagues, 2011What was studied
Participants interacted with realistic renderings of their future selves, then made saving decisions.
Identity is the
place we begin.
The Absolutely Awesome Framework holds that identity precedes outcome. That is Henry’s philosophy, not a published finding. Frame gives it a practical form through reflection, personal images and words.
A conceptual map of Henry’s identity model and how its ideas appear in Frame.
Beliefs
Notice the evidence already present in your life, alongside what you aspire to.
Language
A Frame line and optional if-then lines, written in your words.
Habits
Your chosen actions remain yours to practise. Frame gives reminders a place in your daily rhythm.
The framework also names five things that surround identity: safety to skip or revisit a question, energy in noticing what supports engagement, meaning supplied by the owner rather than inferred, inquiry that returns to the ordinary day, and value in the people and purpose behind what you’re building. These are personal interpretations, not measured effects of the product.
Frame is an invitation
to experiment.
Frame is in development. We have not established that using it changes identity, improves motivation or produces particular life outcomes.
What it does is concrete: it helps you gather meaningful images, write your own words and choose how they appear through your day. You decide whether that practice belongs in your life.