Problem Identification
The rationale for the current research is that despite previous studies focusing on the significance of social distancing in promoting self-reflection, they have two limitations. The first limitation is based on the recalled aggressions instead of vivo provocations (Mischkowski et al., 2012). Even though recalling provocations may result in intense feelings, only a few may have the same intensity as vivo provocations at the required time when one is likely to engage in aggressive behavior (Mischkowski et al., 2012). This makes it unclear whether one may resolve to self-distancing after being provoked, if they may engage in the process, and whether the action may be helpful. Investigating this issue is crucial because many people have difficulty performing self-control, especially with intense emotions.
The second limitation is the fact that there is limited research on the area of self-distancing effects on the behavior of a person (Mischkowski et al., 2012). This focuses on the impact of self-distancing reflection in reducing aggressive behavior. It is essential to investigate this area as it creates an understanding of how the intrapsychic level is affected by the process, which can be extended to analyze interpersonal behavior (Mischkowski et al., 2012). Analyzing this helps identify the multiple ways to manage aggressive behaviors.
Aggression involves a series of behaviors that may result in harm to a person who is interested in avoiding its occurrence. It may result in interpersonal provocations whose outcomes may be catastrophic. Provocations may become harmful when a person focuses on the feelings after the provocation process (Kross & Ayduk, 2009). The process is anger rumination, where one tries to understand the feelings (Wilson & Gilbert, 2008). Reflection after provocations is assumed to be an effective tool in resolving negative feelings.
Research studies have increased their attention on understanding whether people can reflect negative emotions after provocation without resulting in rumination. According to Kross and Ayduk (2011), self-distancing is essential when reflecting on negative experiences without resulting in anger rumination. Research studies such as Ayduk and Kross (2010) and Grossmann and Kross (2010) argue that some people usually implement self-immersed perspectives during reflections after provocations. This process promotes negative feelings, and instead of promoting one’s feelings positively, it results in negative thoughts (Brennan & Baskin-Sommers, 2019).
However, when using a self-distancing perspective, a person uses a wider situation, making one not assume a victim role (Kross & Ayduk, 2011). This is crucial in constructing experiences in ways that promote resolutions. The current research hypothesizes that the individuals who use self-distancing have a lower score than those in control and self-immersed groups.
Methods
The study used two experiments; the first involved 94 college students, including demographics such as gender, where males and females were included, and race, where Black Americans, Asian Americans, and Caucasians were incorporated. The participants were informed that the study focuses on the effects of music on emotions, creativity, and solving problems.
The participants were assigned the task of solving anagram when listening to music (Mischkowski et al., 2012). They were provided with self-assessment Manikin to record their findings. They were provoked by loud music while analyzing complex anagrams.
The participants were required to communicate their answers loudly via intercom. However, once they expressed their outcome, the experimenter provoked them by interrupting them three times (Mischkowski et al., 2012). The participants were prompted by the experimenter, who used an impatient tone followed by a frustrated tone.
The second experiment involved 86 college students with the same demographic characteristics as experiment one. The participants were informed that the study focuses on the impact of music on creativity and team processes. They were also told they were competing with college students of the same sex. SAM valence subscale was used to record the results. Provocations were similar to experiment one and were used with three key changes (Mischkowski et al., 2012).
The first change was completing the anagram with a same-sex partner. The second change involved the creation of an illusion by drawing one piece of paper from a box randomly. The third change was receiving provocation comments through a partner instead of the experimenter.
Results
The findings of the current research support the hypothesis investigated by showing that individuals in self-distanced groups portrayed lower aggression levels than their counterparts in other groups (Mischkowski et al., 2012). This indicates that participants neutralized their feelings by self-distancing, effectively reducing the levels of aggression (Mischkowski et al., 2012). Self-distancing in the current research is a distraction, influencing the changing nature of emotions after provocations.
Discussion
Implication
The current research has a critical impact on society as it provides an understanding of how people can manage aggression through self-distancing. The study portrays the concept of social situation and aggression, where social interaction develops aggression through provocations (Aronson et al., 2022). The study portrays frustration-aggression theory, where people respond aggressively to frustrations they experience, such as provocations used in the current study (Aronson et al., 2022). The study has also shown that provocation and aggression are strongly linked, and people tend to get angry quickly when provoked.
Limitations
The first limitation of the current research is based on the question the research addresses. It does not focus on whether a person can self-distance when provoked and if it positively impacts reducing the levels of aggression. It mainly focused on how individuals can reduce aggression by using self-distancing as a distractor. The second limitation is the groups in which participants were distributed, considering that only those in the self-distanced group could regulate their emotions. This implies that the groups might have affected the self-regulation process, hence the need for manipulations in the self-distancing group.
References
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Sommers, S. R. (2022). Social psychology (11th ed.). Pearson.
Ayduk, O., & Kross, E. (2010). From a distance: Implications of spontaneous self-distancing for adaptive self-reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 809–829. Web.
Brennan, G. M., & Baskin-Sommers, A. R. (2019). Physical aggression is associated with heightened social reflection impulsivity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(5), 404–414. Web.
Grossmann, I., & Kross, E. (2010). The impact of culture on adaptive versus maladaptive self-reflection. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1150–1157. Web.
Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. (2011). Making meaning out of negative experiences by self-distancing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 187–191. Web.
Kross, E., & Ayduk, Ö. (2009). Boundary conditions and buffering effects: Does depressive symptomology moderate the effectiveness of self-distancing for facilitating adaptive emotional analysis?Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 923–927. Web.
Mischkowski, D., Kross, E., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Flies on the wall are less aggressive: Self-distancing “in the heat of the moment” reduces aggressive thoughts, angry feelings and aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1187–1191. Web.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). Explaining away: A model of affective adaptation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 370–386. Web.