Search

Although recent experimental work indicates that self-distancing facilitates adaptive self-reflection, it remains unclear (a) whether spontaneous self-distancing leads to similar adaptive outcomes, (b) how spontaneous self-distancing relates to avoidance, and (c) how this strategy impacts interpersonal behavior. Three studies examined these issues demonstrating that the more participants spontaneously selfdistanced while reflecting on negative memories, the less emotional (Studies 1-3) and cardiovascular (Study 2) reactivity they displayed in the short term. Spontaneous self-distancing was also associated with lower emotional reactivity and intrusive ideation over time (Study 1). The negative association between spontaneous self-distancing and emotional reactivity was mediated by how participants construed their experience (i.e., less recounting relative to reconstruing) rather than avoidance (Studies I-2). In addition, spontaneous self-distancing was associated with more problem-solving behavior and less reciprocation of negativity during conflicts among couples in ongoing relationships (Study 3). Although spontaneous self-distancing was empirically related to trait rumination, it explained unique variance in predicting key outcomes. Keywords: psychological distance, self-distancing, rumination, avoidance, conflict behavior DOI: 10.1037/a0019205

Wimalaweera and Moulds [Wimalaweera, S. W., & Moulds, M. L. (2008). Processing memories of anger-eliciting events: the effect of asking 'why' from a distance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 402-409] reported a failure to replicate previous findings demonstrating the effectiveness of analyzing anger-related experiences from a self-distanced perspective for reducing negative affect in the short-term (Ayduk, O., & Kross, E. (2008). [Enhancing the pace of recovery: self-distanced-analysis of negative experiences reduces blood pressure reactivity. Psychological Science, 9(3), 229-231 ; Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking 'why' does not hurt. Psychological Science, 16, 709-715.] and facilitating adaptive emotional processing over time [Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. (2008). Facilitating adaptive emotional analysis: distinguishing distanced-analysis of depressive experiences from immersed-analysis and distraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin]. A reanalysis of their data that takes into account effect sizes and participants' scores on the avoidance subscale of the Impact of Events Scale, which were not reported in the original write-up, contradict this and a number of other conclusions reported in their article. In this article, we review the key findings that emerged from this reanalysis. Keywords: Rumination Emotional processing Psychological distance Autobiographical memory Avoidance

Two studies examined the psychological processes that facilitate adaptive emotional analysis. In Study 1, participants recalled a depression experience and then analyzed their feelings from either a self-immersed (immersed-analysis) or self-distanced (distanced-analysis) perspective. Participants in the distanced-analysis group focused less on recounting their experience and more on reconstruing it, which in turn led to lower levels of depressed affect. Furthermore, comparisons to a distraction group indicated that distanced-analysis was as effective as distraction in reducing depressed affect relative to the immersed-analysis group. Study 2 replicated these findings and showed that both 1 day and 7 days after the experimental manipulations, participants in the distanced-analysis group remained buffered against depressed affect and reported experiencing fewer recurring thoughts about their depression experience over time compared to both the immersed-analysis and distraction groups. Keywords: psychological distance; rumination; emotion regulation; depression; emotional processing; autobiographical memory

Emotions such as anger, gratitude, envy, and pride can be thought of as tools: They tend to serve context-specific functions in daily life. Prior work has shown that people can use emotions as tools in laboratory contexts, yet it is unclear whether people do use emotions as tools in daily life by intentionally trying to feel or express emotions that could yield context-specific beneficial outcomes. We examined this issue in 6 studies (total N = 1,409) in which participants (a) identified scenarios where specific emotions typically function as tools, (b) recalled episodes of emotional tool use, and (c) reported on emotional tool use in daily life via experience-sampling under experimental instructions. We found that people regularly used emotions as tools in daily life, but that people used positive emotions as tools much more frequently than negative emotions. Yet, when people used positive emotions as tools, this led to less beneficial outcomes than when participants felt positive emotions reactively—in part because using positive emotions as tools felt inauthentic—whereas using negative emotions as tools led to more beneficial outcomes than feeling negative emotions reactively. These findings point to a fascinating paradox: Although people are more willing to use positive (vs. negative) emotions as tools, these choices may not lead people to garner maximal possible benefits of positive emotions, while preventing people from capitalizing on the benefits of using negative emotions as tools. We discuss implications of this work for incorporating emotional tool use into theories of emotion regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]