Anger-Eliciting Memories To Reflect or Distract?: A Comparison of Self-Distanced, Self-Immersed, and Distraction Strategies for Processing Anger-Eliciting Memories Davor Zink, Wendy Wolfe, Vann Scott, Adele Stevens . Introduction Method Implicit: # angry words Explicit: PANAS anger items Immersed/ Distanced rating Session 1 Session 2 Immersed 2.2 (1.5) 2.3 (1.8) 5.5 (2.4) 3.3 (1.8) Distraction 1.9 (1) 1.9 (1.1) 5.2 (2.8) 3.5 (2) 3.6 (2) Distanced 2 (1.4) 5.2 (2.6) 3.6 (1.9) There is a general perception in theory, research, and clinical practice that analyzing and processing negative emotions is helpful in order to cope with these emotions in a positive way. However, analyzing negative emotions such as anger or sadness and past events that evoked these emotions can often be onerous for the individual because he or she can easily engage in rumination that further increases and prolongs the negative affect associated with the negative emotions. While distraction is a helpful technique for reducing aversive emotions, it is of limited long-term benefit. How can one reflect on distressing events in such a way that productive insights are gained, while avoiding counter-productive rumination? In a recent proposal, Kross, Ayduk, and Mischel (2005) stated that analyzing negative emotions can be beneficial for people, depending on the type of self perspective they adopt. They found that when participants recalled an angry interpersonal memory, adopting a distanced-why perspective yielded greater levels of insight and closure, and less intense feelings of anger, than adopting an immersed-why perspective. In 2008, Ayduk and Kross extended their original study by monitoring participants’ blood pressure to investigate whether adopting a distanced perspective had a positive effect on physiological stress. Results showed that participants in the distanced group reported significantly lower levels of mean arterial blood pressure reactivity than those in the immersed group. In a separate study, Kross and Ayduk (2008) also discovered that while both distanced processing and distraction protected participants from feelings of depression after contemplating a sad memory, mood buffering was limited to the distanced processing group in follow up sessions one day and one week later. The purpose of the present study was to further asses the efficacy of adopting a self-distanced perspective as a therapeutic tool for dealing with anger-eliciting events. However, we compared the efficacy of the distanced perspective to both an immersed perspective and to a distraction condition. To further evaluate efficacy, we investigated the lasting effects of adopting the various cognitive perspectives using both implicit and explicit measures of anger, as well as physiological assessment of skin conductance and respiration. We hypothesized that participants in the distanced and distraction conditions would show less emotional (and physiological) reactivity to the anger-eliciting memory, as compared to participants in the immersed condition. In addition, we hypothesized that only participants in the distanced condition would show lasting benefits (less emotional and physiological reactivity) one day later. The results presented below are preliminary, as this research investigation is ongoing. Participants were randomly assigned to condition: immersed (N=28), distanced (N=29), and distraction (N=39). After physiological sensors were attached to participants, procedural instructions were provided using tape recorded and computer prompts. Skin conductance and respiration were assessed throughout both sessions using Thought Technology hardware and Biograph Infiniti software. Questionnaire data was collected using Survey Monkey. In both sessions, a 5-min baseline and 5-min recovery period preceded and terminated the study. Session One: Participants were instructed to retrieve a memory of an interpersonal experience that elicited feelings of intense anger and/or hostility. Participants in the immersed perspective were asked to visualize the memory as if it was reoccurring, whereas participants in the distanced condition were asked to visualize the memory as if they were watching it from a bystander’s perspective. After taking as long as was needed to do so, participants in both conditions were asked to reflect on why the event occurred. After recalling the anger-eliciting event, participants in the distraction condition were asked to contemplate a series of neutral statements presented on a computer screen. Next, all participants wrote a description of what went through their mind when they reflected on the angry memory and completed measures of implicit anger (a word completion task in which 7 words were embedded that could be completed as an anger word or neutral word – i.e., “insult” or “insure”), explicit anger (sum of PANAS items “hostile”, “irritable”, and the added item “angry”), rumination (the SMRI), and alexithymia (the TAS). Participants also rated the degree they felt immersed in, or distanced from, the memory during the recall task (immersed = 1; distanced = 7). Session Two: Participants attended a second session of the experiment the following day. In that session, they were asked to retrieve the same anger-eliciting memory, but were not prompted to adopt any particular perspective in doing so. The rest of the procedure was the same as in session one. However, in session one [Wilks’ Lambda: F(6,140) = 1.79, p = .1] and session two [Wilks’ Lambda: F(4,140) = 2.32, p = .06], an almost significant effect of condition on skin conductance emerged. As these are preliminary findings, the skin conductance trends, by condition, are graphed below. Discussion Results Although these results are preliminary, the data are surprising and contrary to our hypotheses. Despite indicating comparable (even slightly higher) levels of anger on self-report measures, immersed participants actually showed the greatest, and most lasting, mood buffering (as assessed via skin conductance reactivity) upon recalling an angry memory from the past. Both distanced processing and distraction seemed associated with a more temporary suppression of reactivity. While no noteworthy trend emerged for the respiration data, research on virtual reality as a treatment for phobia has found that respiration, and other physiological correlates of the behavioral activation system, is not as sensitive as skin conductance for measuring reactivity during tasks in which behavioral activation is not appropriate or possible (Wilhelm et al., 2005). Although an interpretation of marginally significant findings is cautioned, these findings are consistent with the exposure therapy notion that greater immersion is associated with better resolution of negative affect. Results of Mood Measures. Data from both sessions were analyzed using one-way ANOVA’s. In both session one and session two, there were no significant differences between the conditions on the dependent mood measures. As can be seen from the summary data presented in the table, there is a trend such that, in both sessions, participants in the immersed condition reported being slightly more immersed in the memory, and seemed to indicate slightly greater experiences of anger, compared to participants in the other two conditions. Results of Physiological Measures. GLM Mixed Model analyses were used to analyze the effect of condition on skin conductance and respiration during session one and session two of the experiment, with condition as a between subject variable and change in skin conductance or respiration from baseline across the different stages of the experiment as a within subject variable. In both sessions, condition was not significantly associated with a differential change in respiration. Participants Thus far, 96 Armstrong Atlantic State University undergraduate students have participated in the study for course credit (70% female, 48% Caucasian, average age 23 years). Due to problems with the physiological assessment equipment, data for the skin conductance and respiration variables was only available for 78 participants in session one and 71 participants in session two. For further information, contact wendy.wolfe@armstrong.edu