Overthinking, a phenomenon that involves excessive cognitive processing, is a key topic in social psychology. One type of overthinking that has received significant attention is the tendency to focus on self-reflection. This involves a high level of introspection and analysis of one's thoughts and behaviors, which can be beneficial for personal growth and development. However, when this behavior becomes excessive, it can have negative consequences for individuals and their social interactions.
When individuals excessively focus on self-reflection, they may become preoccupied with the opinions of others and how they are perceived by them. This can lead to a heightened sense of self-consciousness and self-doubt, which can negatively impact their ability to engage in genuine communication and form meaningful relationships.
Furthermore, overthinking can also lead to a tendency to make assumptions about what others are thinking or feeling, even when there is little evidence to support these assumptions. This can lead to misinterpretation of social cues and further exacerbate social anxiety.
Self-referential is social
Self-referential processing refers to the cognitive process of relating information to the self, and has been found to activate the medial prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex in neuroimaging studies.
Numerous studies have investigated self-referential processing and found which brain regions correlate with it. Gusnard et al., 2001; Kelley et al., 2002; Fossati et al., 2003; Phan et al., 2004; Ochsner and Gross, 2005; Johnson et al., 2006; Schmitz and Johnson, 2006; van der Meer et al., 2010; Northoff et al., 2006.
For example, Kross and colleagues (2009) conducted a study examining the neural correlates during the recall of negative autobiographical memories. In the study, healthy participants were asked to adopt different thought processing strategies during fMRI scans. The strategies included the repetitive and negatively toned style of self-referential processing.
The results of the study indicated that self-referential processing is associated with increased neural activity in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex and medial prefrontal cortex, which are both involved in assessing personal relevance and significance in social contexts (Fenna M. Krienen, Pei-Chi Tu and Randy L. Buckner, 2010).
Of course, there is still much more research to be done, but it is already confirmed that self-referential processing is associated with social perception and manifests itself at the level of brain biology. Specifically, the mechanisms by which we comprehend our own social status and determine someone else's are closely related. The notion that self-referential processing is a means of assessing one's social status is not a mere speculation but a substantiated fact.
For many of us, this was obvious even without research. We know that in our thoughts, we constantly refer to our actions and our appearance in the context of what rules are accepted in society, and in the context of our relationships with specific people. But for science, this is very important, since we can now extend everything that we know about social reflection to self-reflection and vice versa.
In particular, this means that the capacity for self-reflection has developed in humans as a means of monitoring and regulating their own behavior in social contexts.
This ability to self-monitor has been shown to provide advantages in a variety of social situations, including social learning, cooperation, and competition.
Social learning is a process by which individuals acquire knowledge and skills through observation and interaction with others in their social environment. Self-reflection is thought to play a crucial role in this process, as it enables individuals to monitor their own behavior and adjust it in response to social feedback. Through this process, individuals can learn from their own experiences and those of others, and adapt their behavior to fit the expectations and norms of their social group.
Similarly, self-reflection is also thought to support cooperation in social groups by enabling individuals to regulate their own behavior in ways that promote social harmony and avoid conflict. By monitoring their own thoughts, feelings, and behavior, individuals can identify areas of potential conflict and take steps to resolve them proactively. This can help to build and maintain positive social relationships, which in turn can enhance individual well-being and success.
Finally, the capacity for self-reflection is also thought to have evolved as a mechanism for social competition. By monitoring their own behavior and that of others, individuals can identify opportunities for social advancement and take strategic action to achieve their goals. This can include seeking out social feedback and guidance, as well as adjusting their behavior to better fit the expectations and norms of their social environment.
Rumination
Now we should refer to the term rumination. Rumination is a type of self-referential processing that involves repetitive thinking about one's negative thoughts, emotions, and experiences.
As previously mentioned, self-referential processing involves determining one's social status, as well as confirming or modifying this status. Individuals engage in self-referential processing to evaluate their social position in society and to compare themselves with others. Through this process, they gain insight into their strengths and weaknesses, identify opportunities for growth, and develop a sense of identity. Self-referential processing can also involve evaluating one's past experiences, behaviors, and decisions, and considering alternative courses of action. The ultimate goal of self-referential processing is to improve one's personal and social functioning and enhance overall well-being.
In contrast to that, rumination is a distinct cognitive process that is characterized by repetitive and intrusive thinking about negative past events, emotions, or problems, without leading to any concrete or constructive outcome. Unlike healthy self-referential processing, which aims to enhance personal and social functioning, rumination is a cognitive strategy that can lead to increased distress and decreased well-being. The repetitive nature of rumination creates a "looping" effect that can result in feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and exhaustion, as individuals are unable to break free from their negative thought patterns.
As we see now, social causes play a major role in rumination. The following social causes have been identified as potential triggers of rumination:
Social Comparison: Comparing oneself to others and feeling inferior or inadequate can trigger rumination. For example, individuals who perceive themselves as less successful or accomplished than their peers may dwell on these feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt.
Interpersonal Conflict: Conflict or tension in relationships with family, friends, or coworkers can lead to rumination. Replaying past conversations or situations and obsessing over potential negative outcomes can be a common response to interpersonal stressors.
Social Isolation: Loneliness and social isolation can also contribute to rumination. When someone feels disconnected from others, they may be more likely to dwell on negative thoughts and feelings.
Discrimination and Marginalization: Individuals who experience discrimination or marginalization due to their race, gender, sexuality, or other factors may be more likely to ruminate. Negative experiences and the feeling of being undervalued or marginalized can lead to negative self-talk and rumination.
Social Media and Information Overload: Social media and the constant stream of information available through technology can also contribute to rumination. Seeing other people's seemingly perfect lives or being bombarded with negative news can lead to a sense of overwhelm and rumination.
As you can see, the causes of rumination tend to be negative.
Rumination is a cognitive process characterized by the repetitive and passive thinking about a particular topic or problem without making progress towards a solution. Social causes of rumination are often negative, as they involve emotionally distressing or challenging situations that can trigger strong negative emotions such as anger, sadness, or shame. Examples of social causes of rumination include past social rejections, conflicts with friends, and experiences of discrimination or social injustice. These issues can be overwhelming and challenging to resolve, leading individuals to feel helpless and stuck in their thoughts.
Cultural differences
An essential inquiry regarding rumination centers around the degree to which the probability of engaging in rumination is affected by the way we perceive social events, particularly those that involve ourselves directly and prompt self-reflection. It is imperative to examine how our subjective interpretation of such events influences our tendency to ruminate.
Examining cross-cultural differences in rumination provides a way to investigate the extent to which social perception influences this cognitive process. A comparison between Eastern and Western cultures, in particular, sheds light on potential differences in social perception that may impact rumination. For instance, Eastern cultures tend to emphasize the interconnectedness between individuals and the environment, whereas Western cultures often emphasize individualism and independence. These cultural differences may affect how individuals appraise and ruminate on social events, with implications for mental health outcomes.
Many studies have shown that cultural differences influence the interpretation and response to negative emotions. A growing body of research has demonstrated that individuals from different cultures may experience, express, and regulate negative emotions in distinct ways. (e.g., Boiger, Mesquita, Uchida, & Barrett, 2013; Eid & Diener, 2001; Mesquita, De Leersnyder, & Albert, 2014; Mesquita & Delvaux, 2013).
An examination of cultural differences in information processing can shed light on the mechanisms underlying cultural differences in emotional processing. Nisbett et al. (2001) provides a useful framework for understanding these differences. According to this perspective, Easterners tend to engage in a holistic style of processing, attending to the entire context during information processing and assigning causality to the context itself. Holistic thinkers also rely less on categories and formal logic and focus more on the relationships between the parts and the whole. In contrast, Westerners tend to use an analytic style of processing, focusing attention on objects rather than contexts, emphasizing the categories to which objects belong, and using rules and formal logic to understand an object's behavior.
Nisbett et al. (2001) suggested that these ways of thinking affect what people pay attention to, how they understand cause and effect, and how they believe knowledge can be gained. Different systems of thought can lead to the development of certain cognitive skills at the expense of others. Evidence shows that these differences do impact what people focus on, how they handle contradictions, and how they explain behavior. For example, some research has shown that people from different cultures may attend to different things (e.g., Masuda & Nisbett, 2001), deal with contradictions in different ways, and explain behavior differently based on their cultural background (Morris, Nisbett, & Peng, 1995).
It is clear that differences in ways of thinking can affect how people perceive negative experiences.
Positive versus negative in different cultures
One important aspect of the holistic way of thinking is the ability to accept contradiction (De Vaus J, Hornsey MJ, Kuppens P, Bastian B., 2018). In a classic study by Peng and Nisbett (1999), Chinese and American participants were presented with two apparently contradictory arguments. When given only one argument, both groups agreed on which statement seemed more plausible. However, when given both statements together, a different pattern emerged. Americans continued to distinguish between the more and less plausible argument, while Chinese participants' ratings showed a compromise approach. This suggests that the Chinese participants believed both statements could be somewhat true.
According to research, cultural differences in how people handle contradictions can influence how they experience emotions. People from holistic cultures, who are more likely to experience their positive and negative emotions as covarying (Bagozzi, Wong, & Yi, 1999; Miyamoto & Ryff, 2011; Sims et al., 2015), tend to have more mixed emotional experiences compared to people from analytic cultures (Bagozzi, Wong, & Yi, 1999; Miyamoto & Ryff, 2011; Sims et al., 2015). Those who have a dialectical perspective, which accepts change and contradiction, also report a higher co-occurrence of positive and negative emotions (Grossmann, Huynh, & Ellsworth, 2016; Hui, Fok, & Bond, 2009; Spencer-Rodgers, Peng, & Wang, 2010). Additionally, people from holistic cultures show more mixed emotional responses to pleasant experiences than people from analytic cultures (Leu et al., 2010; Miyamoto, Uchida, & Ellsworth, 2010). Studies have found that the structure of happiness and unhappiness across cultures also reflects this dialectical influence on the co-existence of pleasant and unpleasant emotions (Schimmack, Oishi, & Diener, 2002; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009).
The analytic way of thinking is different from the holistic way of thinking. People with an analytic way of thinking tend to understand things by breaking them down into smaller parts and categorizing them based on their unique features (Bagozzi et al., 1999). This type of thinking is associated with negative correlations between positive and negative emotions (Scollon et al., 2005) and a focus on resolving contradictions (Goetz et al., 2008). Therefore, for people with an analytic way of thinking, emotions of opposing valence are understood as separate and opposite from one another.
According to our argument, acceptance of contradiction and the perception that positive and negative emotions can coexist lead to more adaptive responses to negative emotions for two reasons.
Benefits of Embracing Negative Emotions
There is substantial evidence indicating that cultures tend to value emotions in different ways. In Western cultures, positive emotions are highly valued, whereas negative emotions are viewed as undesirable (Bastian et al., 2012; Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis, 1998). However, from a holistic perspective, negative emotions are not necessarily seen as harmful, but instead can lead to positive outcomes. Chinese individuals, for instance, tend to associate experiences of failure with thoughts of self-improvement and success more often than Americans (Zhang & Cross, 2011). Happiness is less emphasized and valued in holistic cultural contexts (Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Joshanloo & Weijers, 2014; Sims et al., 2015), and being too happy is perceived as potentially harmful (Uchida & Kitayama, 2009).
Cultural differences in how positive and negative emotions are understood are supported by evidence in feedback and self-improvement research. For example, Uchida and Kitayama (2009) found that when asked to write about happiness and unhappiness, Americans were more likely to focus on anger and aggression when writing about unhappiness, while Japanese respondents were more likely to focus on transcendental reappraisal and self-improvement. Induced negative self-reflection following recall of interpersonal rejection or achievement failure promotes greater distress but more insight in East Asian compared with European American participants (Tsai & Lau, 2013). Similarly, achievement motivation is associated with self-critical views in East Asians but with positivity and optimism in Westerners (Heine, Kitayama, & Lehman, 2001). This holistic way of thinking about negative emotion has also been associated with a greater likelihood of Japanese accepting negative feedback (Heine et al., 2001), making use of experiences of failure and self-criticism, and affirming the highly valued ethic of self-improvement (Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997). Regardless of culture, individuals high in dialecticism prefer negative self-verifying feedback compared with those lower in dialecticism (Chen, English, & Peng, 2006).
Research has shown that negative emotions are devalued in analytic cultures. Yip and Kelly (2008) conducted a study where American students were asked to talk about their emotions in response to a video designed to elicit negative emotions. They rated themselves as more neurotic than students who had been asked to talk about their previous day's activities. This finding suggests that even simply talking about negative emotions can lead people in the United States to feel anxious and unstable.
In line with this, members of analytic cultures tend to find embarrassment, social anxiety, and shyness to be more aversive than members of holistic cultures. These negative emotions have a greater negative impact on the quality of life of those in analytic cultures (Essau et al., 2011; Singelis, Bond, Sharkey, & Lai, 1999).
In addition, research has shown that Japanese children experience more shame and guilt than American children. However, these emotions are less likely to lead to anger or blame among Japanese children compared to their American counterparts (Bear, Uribe-Zarain, Manning, & Shiomi, 2009). This finding may be due to the fact that in Japan, negative emotions are viewed as an opportunity for growth and self-improvement, whereas in the US, they may be seen as a sign of weakness or vulnerability.
Interestingly, the benefit of valuing negative emotions can be seen in physical as well as psychological outcomes. For example, the tendency to value negative emotion (measured as an individual difference) reduces the negative impact of negative emotion on incidence of health conditions, incidence of health complaints, hand grip strength, and momentary physical well-being (Luong, Wrzus, Wagner, & Riediger, 2016). Furthermore, the experience of negative emotion has been shown to predict higher levels of pro-inflammatory biomarkers in Americans, whereas there was no relationship among Japanese adults (Miyamoto et al., 2013).
A noteworthy observation is that valuing negative emotions not only impacts psychological well-being but also has physical health benefits. Studies have shown that individuals who value negative emotions (measured as an individual difference) experience a reduction in the negative impact of negative emotions on their health, such as the incidence of health conditions and complaints, hand grip strength, and momentary physical well-being (Luong, Wrzus, Wagner, & Riediger, 2016). This highlights the importance of accepting and valuing negative emotions as an integral part of emotional well-being.
Additionally, research has found that the experience of negative emotions predicts higher levels of pro-inflammatory biomarkers in Americans, whereas there was no such relationship among Japanese adults (Miyamoto et al., 2013). This suggests that differences in the perception and value of negative emotions may have an impact on physical health outcomes.
This too shall pass
In holistic thinking, change is a fundamental aspect of the world, and concepts are viewed as dynamic rather than fixed as in analytic thinking (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Alter and Kwan (2009) found that participants primed with Eastern symbols were more likely to predict change in stock market trends and weather patterns. Holistic thinking also involves a different understanding of positive and negative emotions; negative emotions are seen as transient and likely to be followed by positive emotions, whereas analytic thinking views emotions as discrete and likely to persist. This is reflected in the way Chinese and American participants describe their lifetime happiness, with Chinese participants seeing nonlinear patterns and Americans seeing linear patterns (Ji, Nisbett, & Su, 2001).
Leu and colleagues (2010) conducted a study that aimed to investigate how East Asian and Western participants differ in their perception of emotions in others. The participants were shown standardized scenarios depicting protagonists in either positive, negative, or mixed situations. They were then asked to identify the emotions that the protagonist was feeling. The results of the study showed that East Asian participants were more likely than Western participants to presume neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feelings within the protagonist, regardless of the valence of the situation. The authors suggested that this may be due to the holistic worldview of East Asians, which emphasizes the interconnectedness and changeability of all things. Therefore, East Asians may be more likely to defer assigning positive or negative valence to emotional experiences in general because they anticipate that the situation may change. This is consistent with the idea that emotions are viewed as active and changeable in holistic cultures, and highlights a potential difference in how emotions are perceived and experienced across cultures.
A holistic way of thinking can enhance an individual's ability to regulate emotions effectively. This is because the holistic view acknowledges that emotions are dynamic and can change over time. As a result, individuals who hold this perspective tend to perceive themselves as more capable of modifying their unwanted emotions, which in turn reduces the perceived need to resist them.
Cultural Differences and Rumination
Rumination has been defined as the process of repeatedly focusing on one’s negative experiences, feelings, and thoughts (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991). It occurs when people experience difficulties in deriving meaning from unpleasant situations and persist in their efforts to find reasons for their pain and distress. This tendency is often characterized by questions such as “why me?” or “why did it happen?” which can become all-consuming and difficult to disengage from. As a result, rumination has been associated with an inability to cope effectively with negative emotions and a heightened risk for depression and anxiety (Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008). Individuals who ruminate often find that their attempts to think through their distress only exacerbate their negative feelings.
Our study examines how different cultural groups are affected by rumination, which is when people get stuck thinking about unpleasant experiences. Research shows that European Americans tend to experience worse outcomes from rumination than East Asians, even though East Asians report ruminating more often. For instance, European American college students ruminate less than Asian Americans, but their levels of rumination are about twice as likely to predict symptoms of anxiety and depression and lower life satisfaction (Chang, Tsai, & Sanna, 2010). In addition, when faced with the death of a spouse or child, Americans are more likely than Chinese to experience prolonged distress and rumination, despite Chinese participants having higher initial levels of distress (Bonanno, Papa, Lalande, Zhang, & Noll, 2005).
To understand how people from different cultures react to negative events, it is helpful to consider two categories: brooding and reflecting. Reflection involves purposefully thinking about the nature of mental content, which can lead to cognitive problem solving to decrease negative mood. Brooding, on the other hand, involves analyzing thoughts permeated by low mood, often asking questions like "why me?" or "why do I always react this way?" and is aimed at resolving painful self-discrepancies and negative self-evaluation. Reflection is focused on appraising the nature or process of thoughts and emotions, while brooding is a response to the belief that negative emotions are self-relevant. Studies have found cultural differences in how people tend to respond to negative events, with some cultures engaging in more brooding than others.
Cultural differences in thinking styles can explain why some people engage in reflection, while others engage in brooding, and whether rumination is adaptive or not. Cultural dimensions of holistic versus analytic thinking can offer insights into these processes. Holistic thinkers are less likely to get "stuck" in negative emotional content and engage in brooding. This is because they perceive negative emotions as less concerning and more likely to change. Therefore, they have less to worry about when it comes to negative emotions. Additionally, the greater self-efficacy and flexibility of holistic thinkers in regulating emotions encourages more adaptive reflection and less brooding.
Holistic thinkers tend to be less affected by negative emotional experiences due to their tendency to view them as less threatening and more likely to change. This is because they see the causes and consequences of their emotions in a broader context, rather than solely in relation to themselves. As a result, they are less likely to engage in unhelpful self-reflection and rumination, such as asking "why me?" when experiencing negative emotions. Holistic thinking allows individuals to take a self-distanced perspective on distressing events, while analytic thinking may lead to increased repetitive thinking and threats to self-esteem.
Conclusion
Holistic thinkers tend to approach negative emotion differently from analytic thinkers. They tend to accept and explore negative emotions, rather than avoiding them out of fear. This approach enables them to be more flexible in choosing how to regulate their emotions based on the situation. This illustrates how this set of responses can influence the outcomes of two commonly used emotion regulation strategies - suppression and rumination - and why these strategies are more effective for holistic thinkers compared to analytic thinkers.
It is important to note that the ability of holistic cultures to cope with negative emotions does not necessarily mean that they are able to suppress or reduce the intensity of those emotions. Our analysis suggests that people who respond well to negative emotions may not necessarily experience less of them, but they are less likely to develop mental health problems. Even though members of holistic cultures may have better emotional regulation skills, it does not mean they will experience fewer negative emotions over time. In fact, their ability to manage negative emotions effectively may lead to a higher likelihood of experiencing negative emotions, as they are less afraid of them and less inclined to avoid them.
Increased exposure to negative emotions may be beneficial for individuals, as it can help extinguish fear responses and is considered one of the most effective therapeutic procedures for psychological disorders. Gloster et al. (2012) described increasing exposure to negative emotions to extinguish fear responses as one of the most effective therapeutic procedures in psychology. Exposure to negative emotional states is the basis of standard treatment for anxiety disorders (Barlow, 2002), promotes psychological flexibility (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010), and allows for the development of adaptive behaviors in the face of aversive stimuli (Gloster et al., 2011). Conversely, avoiding negative emotions leads to increased psychological vulnerability (Kashdan et al., 2006) and the possibility of developing depression (Mellick et al., 2016).
Don’t miss out! Use promo code INNERJOURNEY to enjoy your first lesson of our psychology course for FREE. Start your journey to self-discovery today!