When asking "why" does not hurt: Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions
Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking "why" does not hurt: Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions.
Supports the claim that a self-distanced 'why' focus reduced negative affect on recall compared with immersed recall, replicated in a second study. Laboratory recall tasks, short-term outcomes.
Who was studied
Participants in two experiments who recalled an anger-eliciting interpersonal experience.
Design
Experiment
Level of evidence
Controlled studies: randomised or experimental designs, and syntheses of correlational work.
Claims that rest on it
Each claim states what the site asserts, at what strength, and with what caveat.
EmpiricalLevel BConfidence MODERATE
Reflecting on an anger-eliciting experience from a self-distanced perspective reduced negative affect compared with immersed recall, in two experiments.
Scope
Recall of everyday negative interpersonal experiences in laboratory settings.
Caveat
Outcomes are short-term, effects depend on the person and experience, and recent or severe trauma requires professional support.
Last reviewed · Review due · self-distancing-reduces-reactivity
Sources
Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking "why" does not hurt: Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01600.x
Level BExperiment
Supports the claim that a self-distanced 'why' focus reduced negative affect on recall compared with immersed recall, replicated in a second study. Laboratory recall tasks, short-term outcomes.
Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. (2011). Making meaning out of negative experiences by self-distancing. doi:10.1177/0963721411408883
Level DReview
Supports the claim that self-distancing is associated with adaptive self-reflection across several levels of analysis. A brief review by the authors of much of the primary research.
EmpiricalLevel DConfidence MODERATE
Repetitive thought is not uniformly harmful: abstract, evaluative forms tend to be unconstructive, while concrete, process-focused forms can support problem solving and recovery.
Scope
Reviewed studies of repetitive thought and laboratory studies of construal level.
Caveat
The specific advice to switch to concrete next steps has not been tested as a stand-alone intervention here.
Last reviewed · Review due · concrete-repetitive-thought
Supports the claim that the consequences of repetitive thought depend on valence, context and level of construal, with abstract processing tending to be unconstructive. Narrative review; the advice built on it has not been trialled as such.
Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking "why" does not hurt: Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01600.x
Level BExperiment
Supports the claim that a self-distanced 'why' focus reduced negative affect on recall compared with immersed recall, replicated in a second study. Laboratory recall tasks, short-term outcomes.