Asking ‘why’ from a distance facilitates emotional processing: A reanalysis of Wimalaweera and Moulds (2008)

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.     

Defensive physiological reactions to rejection: the effect of self-esteem and attentional control on startle responses

We examined the hypothesis that rejection automatically elicits defensive physiological reactions in people with low self-esteem (SE) but that attentional control moderates this effect. Undergraduates (N= 67) completed questionnaire measures of SE and attentional control. Their eye-blink responses to startle probes were measured while they viewed paintings related to rejection and acceptance themes. The stimuli also included positive-, negative-, and neutral-valence control paintings unrelated to rejection. As predicted, compared with people high in SE, those low in SE showed stronger startle eye-blink responses to paintings related to rejection, but not to negative paintings. Paintings related to acceptance did not attenuate their physiological reactivity. Furthermore, attentional control moderated their sensitivity to rejection, such that low SE was related to greater eye-blink responses to rejection only among individuals who were low in attentional control. Implications of the role of attentional control as a top-down process regulating emotional reactivity in people with low SE are discussed.     

When asking "why" does not hurt. Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions

Two experiments examined the psychological operations that enable individuals to process negative emotions and experiences without increasing negative affect. In Study 1, type of self-perspective (self-immersed vs. self-distanced) and type of emotional focus (what vs. why) were experimentally manipulated following the recall of an anger-eliciting interpersonal experience. A why focus on emotions from a self-distanced perspective (distanced-why strategy) was expected to enable "cool," reflective processing of emotions, in which individuals can focus on their experience without reactivating excessive "hot" negative affect. Findings were consistent with this hypothesis. Study 2 replicated these findings and furthermore demonstrated that (a) the degree to which individuals construe their recalled experience in abstract versus concrete terms mediates the effect of the distanced-why strategy and (b) the status of the recalled experience (resolved vs. unresolved) does not moderate the effectiveness of the distanced-why strategy. These findings help disentangle the mechanisms that may allow adaptive working through from those that lead to rumination.