When Asking ''Why'' Does Not Hurt
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article When Asking ‘‘Why’’ Does Not Hurt Distinguishing Rumination From Reflective Processing of Negative Emotions Ethan Kross,1 Ozlem Ayduk,2 and Walter Mischel1 1Columbia University and 2University of California, Berkeley ABSTRACT—Two experiments examined the psychological negative emotions is an essential component in the treatment of operations that enable individuals to process negative anxiety-related disorders (e.g., Foa & Kozak, 1986). In addition, emotions and experiences without increasing negative af- the expression and analysis of one’s emotions about unpleasant fect. In Study 1, type of self-perspective (self-immersed vs. experiences has been associated with diverse physical and self-distanced) and type of emotional focus (what vs. why) mental health benefits (e.g., Giese-Davis & Spiegel, 2002; were experimentally manipulated following the recall of Pennebaker, Mayne, & Francis, 1997; Stanton et al., 2000). an anger-eliciting interpersonal experience. A why focus However, efforts to constructively analyze emotions such as on emotions from a self-distanced perspective (distanced- anger or sadness can easily become hazardous by entangling why strategy) was expected to enable ‘‘cool,’’ reflective individuals in rumination that further increases negative affect processing of emotions, in which individuals can focus on (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991; Teasdale, 1988). In this vein, their experience without reactivating excessive ‘‘hot’’ experimental studies have shown that focusing on one’s negative negative affect. Findings were consistent with this hy- feelings, and their causes and consequences, increases and pothesis. Study 2 replicated these findings and further- prolongs negative affect (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000; Rusting more demonstrated that (a) the degree to which indi- & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998). viduals construe their recalled experience in abstract The question then is, how can individuals face negative versus concrete terms mediates the effect of the distanced- emotions without becoming overwhelmed by them? We ad- why strategy and (b) the status of the recalled experience dressed this question in two studies, which were guided by the (resolved vs. unresolved) does not moderate the effective- hot/cool systems model of self-regulation (Metcalfe & Mischel, ness of the distanced-why strategy. These findings help 1999)—a broad model of effortful control that draws extensively disentangle the mechanisms that may allow adaptive from the literature on the mechanisms enabling delay of grati- working through from those that lead to rumination. fication (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989) and is consistent with diverse findings and theorizing on self-regulation (e.g., Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997; Gross, 2001; Lieberman, Gaunt, A fundamental assumption in theory, research, and clinical Gilbert, & Trope, 2002; Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Trope & practice on emotion regulation is that it is helpful to process and Liberman, 2003). In this model, stimuli can be mentally rep- work through negative emotions (e.g., Greenberg, 2002; Pen- resented either in terms of their concrete, emotionally arousing, nebaker & Graybeal, 2001; Rachman, 1981; Stanton, Kirk, ‘‘hot’’ features or in terms of their abstract, informational, ‘‘cool’’ Cameron, & Danoff-Burg, 2000). For example, confronting features. These representations are connected to two closely interacting but distinctive regulatory systems: Hot representa- tions, on the one hand, elicit reflexive processing that is pre- Address correspondence to Ozlem Ayduk, Department of Psychology, dominantly under stimulus control, leading to automatic 3210 Tolman Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, approach and avoidance behaviors. Cool representations, on the e-mail: [email protected], or to Ethan Kross, Depart- other hand, enable cognitively driven, reflective processing that ment of Psychology, 406 Schermerhorn Hall, Columbia University, 1190 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY 10027, e-mail: ekross@psych. is more effortful and is instrumental in inhibiting automatic columbia.edu. responses activated by hot representations. Volume 16—Number 9 Copyright r 2005 American Psychological Society 709 Dynamics of Emotional Processing In this model, negative emotional experiences can be men- fulness in enabling reflective processing should depend criti- tally represented either in concrete, hot or in more abstract, cool cally on the type of emotional focus people adopt while focusing terms. Whereas the former type of representation should serve to on their past experiences and feelings. We distinguished be- increase the intensity of felt emotions and activate automatic tween two types of emotional focus—a focus on what emotions defensive scripts (i.e., avoidance, blame, intellectualization), were being felt versus a focus on why one was experiencing those the latter should allow one to contemplate emotional experi- emotions. Although conceptually distinct, these two types of ences without activating intense levels of affect. Therefore, a key emotional focus are often merged in studies of emotional to preventing rumination should involve representing events processing (Stanton et al., 2000) and rumination (e.g., Rusting & that activate strong negative emotions more abstractly, so that Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998). However, it seems necessary to dis- they can be processed in a more cool, reflective mode. We ex- tinguish between them because they may exert opposite effects amined two variables that may influence the ability to mentally on the types of mental representations that become activated represent emotional experiences in this manner: type of self- (Mischel, 1974; Trope & Liberman, 2003; Watkins & Teasdale, perspective (self-immersed vs. self-distanced), which concerns 2001), thus affecting the ability to maintain a self-distanced the psychological vantage point people adopt while focusing on perspective. their emotions and experiences, and type of emotional focus Specifically, a what focus is likely to activate relatively con- (what vs. why), which concerns the content of people’s thoughts crete and descriptive representations of the specific emotions about their experiences and emotions. experienced (e.g., ‘‘I felt enraged, violated, abandoned’’) that are likely to re-immerse the individual in the recalled negative TYPE OF SELF-PERSPECTIVE: SELF-IMMERSED experience, making it difficult to maintain a self-distanced VERSUS SELF-DISTANCED perspective. Consequently, we expected that a what focus should lead to heightened levels of negative affect regardless of whether When people focus on past emotional experiences, they typi- the individual initially adopts a self-immersed or a self-dis- cally do so from a self-immersed, or egocentric, perspective, in tanced perspective. which self-relevant events and emotions are experienced in the In contrast, we predicted that the form that a why focus takes first person (Nigro & Neisser, 1983). Both while events take should depend on the type of self-perspective one adopts. When place in real time and while people are working through past the self is immersed in a negative experience and predisposed experiences, a self-immersed perspective is likely to direct to focus on the concrete, descriptive features of that experi- people to focus selectively on the concrete features of their ence and the feelings it arouses (McIsaac & Eich, 2004), it experiences (e.g., the specific chain of events and emotions felt), should be relatively difficult to reason abstractly. Thus, focusing leading them to ‘‘relive’’ the experiences and increasing their on the why from this self-immersed perspective should lead to negative arousal (McIsaac & Eich, 2004; Robinson & Swanson, concrete representations of reasons (e.g., ‘‘because he said I 1993). Negative arousal, in turn, makes cognitive analysis of made no sense’’) and superficial attributions of blame (e.g., one’s emotions difficult (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). ‘‘because my partner was being horrible’’), which, in turn, should However, in working through negative experiences, the self lead to increased negative affect. However, when the self is can also be ‘‘distanced,’’ and individuals can process their distanced, a why focus should further facilitate the activation of negative feelings and experiences from an ego-decentered, relatively abstract representations of the reasons underlying the third-person perspective (e.g., James, 1890; Libby & Eibach, negative experience (e.g., ‘‘because we had a difference in 2002; Nigro & Neisser, 1983; Robinson & Swanson, 1993). This opinion’’). Such abstract construals should enable the individual self-distanced perspective should reduce the negative arousal to focus on his or her negative emotions, but without increasing that typically occurs when people attempt to work through negative arousal. Thus, we expected the adoption of a why focus negative emotions, allowing them to process their experiences from a self-distanced perspective to facilitate reflective process- more reflectively. These expectations are consistent with work ing of emotions and decrease negative affect. on mindfulness and meditation (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn et al., 1992), and are reflected in therapeutic THE PRESENT STUDIES techniques that encourage people to consider negative feelings and experiences from diverse perspectives (e.g., Arriaga & On the basis of this conceptualization, we hypothesized that Rusbult, 1998; Linehan, 1993; Teasdale et al., 2000). reflective processing