Evidence for Working through negative experiences #

Every substantive claim on the Working through negative experiences page is checked against current research. Here is each claim, how well today’s evidence supports it, and the sources. The full, de-duplicated source list lives on the references page.

Supported · strong evidence — Recalling an emotional memory reactivates the feelings stored with it, so remembering a bad experience brings back some of its emotional charge rather than just the facts.

That autobiographical and emotional memories re-evoke affect on retrieval is a well-established finding in emotion and memory research; Kross & Ayduk’s self-distancing programme is built on the observation that recalling negative events reinstates emotional reactivity, and emotion-regulation reviews treat this as standard.

Sources: Kross & Ayduk (2017), Self-Distancing: Theory, Research, and Current Directions, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology — https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.10.002 · Gross (2015), Emotion Regulation: Current Status and Future Prospects, Psychological Inquiry — https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781 · full reference ›

Supported · strong evidence — Recalling a painful experience from a self-distanced, observer perspective reduces the emotional pain felt in the moment compared with reliving it immersed in your own point of view.

Across many experiments reviewed by Kross & Ayduk, adopting a distanced (observer/‘fly on the wall’) perspective when reflecting on negative events lowered emotional reactivity and self-reported distress relative to a self-immersed perspective; the effect is robust and has been replicated by multiple labs.

Sources: Kross & Ayduk (2017), Self-Distancing: Theory, Research, and Current Directions, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology — https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.10.002 · Kross, Ayduk & Mischel (2005), When Asking ‘Why’ Does Not Hurt: Distinguishing Rumination From Reflective Processing of Negative Emotions, Psychological Science — https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01600.x · full reference ›

Supported · moderate evidence — Self-distanced reflection produces fewer subsequent intrusive thoughts and less emotional reactivity when the event is later brought to mind, compared with self-immersed reflection.

Kross & Ayduk and colleagues report that distanced analysis of negative events leads to lower recurrence of intrusive thoughts and reduced reactivity over time; the finding is well supported within this programme and consistent with rumination research, though effect sizes vary by population and event type.

Sources: Kross & Ayduk (2017), Self-Distancing: Theory, Research, and Current Directions, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology — https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.10.002 · Ayduk & Kross (2010), From a Distance: Implications of Spontaneous Self-Distancing for Adaptive Self-Reflection, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019205 · full reference ›

Supported · moderate evidence — Analysing a negative experience from a distance yields more insight and constructive understanding (‘working through’) rather than mere re-narration of the feeling, which characterises rumination.

Kross, Ayduk & Mischel distinguish reflective ‘why’ processing under distance (which promotes insight and recasting) from immersed rumination (which recounts the emotion); distanced participants produced more reconstrual and insight-focused narratives. Well supported within the self-distancing literature.

Sources: Kross, Ayduk & Mischel (2005), When Asking ‘Why’ Does Not Hurt, Psychological Science — https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01600.x · Kross & Ayduk (2017), Self-Distancing: Theory, Research, and Current Directions, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology — https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.10.002 · full reference ›

Supported · moderate evidence — Distancing oneself by using one’s own name or non-first-person language (‘what does she need to do?’) helps regulate emotion and take heat out of a distressing situation.

Kross et al. (2014) showed that referring to oneself in the third person / by name during self-talk reduced distress and improved appraisals and performance under stress, with corresponding shifts in neural markers of emotional reactivity; a well-cited demonstration of linguistic self-distancing, though a relatively young line.

Sources: Kross et al. (2014), Self-Talk as a Regulatory Mechanism: How You Do It Matters, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035173 · full reference ›

Supported · strong evidence — Cognitive reappraisal — changing how you interpret an event — reduces negative emotional response and is generally more effective and less costly than trying to suppress the feeling.

Meta-analytic evidence (Webb, Miles & Sheeran, 2012, 306 studies) finds reappraisal reliably down-regulates negative emotion, whereas expressive suppression is weak or counterproductive for experience; this is one of the most robust findings in emotion regulation, though reappraisal’s benefit is context-dependent.

Sources: Webb, Miles & Sheeran (2012), Dealing With Feeling: A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Strategies Derived From the Process Model of Emotion Regulation, Psychological Bulletin — https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600 · full reference ›

Supported · strong evidence — Avoiding a feared situation maintains and strengthens the fear, because avoidance prevents disconfirming the expected danger; controlled gradual exposure is what reduces it.

Avoidance as a maintaining factor and exposure as the active ingredient in reducing fear are core, strongly supported principles of anxiety research and inhibitory-learning models of exposure; Craske et al. summarise the mechanism (violation of threat expectancies through approach).

Sources: Craske et al. (2014), Maximizing exposure therapy: An inhibitory learning approach, Behaviour Research and Therapy — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.04.006 · Hofmann et al. (2012), The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses, Cognitive Therapy and Research — https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1 · full reference ›

Supported · strong evidence — Graded exposure, including imaginal exposure done in steps before facing the real situation, is an effective evidence-based way to reduce fear and treat phobias.

Exposure-based therapy, including graded in-vivo and imaginal exposure, is the first-line, well-evidenced treatment for specific phobias and anxiety disorders; meta-analyses (e.g. Wechsler et al. on VR vs in-vivo, and broad CBT/exposure reviews) confirm large reductions in fear, with in-vivo exposure the benchmark.

Sources: Wechsler, Kümpers & Mühlberger (2019), Inferiority or Even Superiority of Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy in Phobias? A Systematic Review and Quantitative Meta-Analysis, Frontiers in Psychology — https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01758 · Hofmann et al. (2012), The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses, Cognitive Therapy and Research — https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1 · full reference ›

Supported · moderate evidence — Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) techniques such as the ‘dissociation movie’ lack sound evidence of effectiveness and should not be relied upon as a method for changing emotional responses.

Sturt et al.’s systematic review of NLP for health-related outcomes found insufficient evidence to support its effectiveness, and earlier reviews (Sharpley; Witkowski) reached similarly negative conclusions on NLP’s specific claims. The debunk is well supported; strength is moderate because the literature is mostly small/low-quality studies and reviews rather than large definitive trials.

Sources: Sturt et al. (2012), Neurolinguistic programming: a systematic review of the effects on health outcomes, British Journal of General Practice — https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X658287 · Witkowski (2010), Thirty-Five Years of Research on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP Research Data Base. State of the Art or Pseudoscientific Decoration?, Polish Psychological Bulletin — https://doi.org/10.2478/v10059-010-0008-0 · full reference ›