When a case study is presented, there is often criticism regarding the representativeness of such studies. This criticism is commonly rebutted by the response that extreme cases reveal the true nature of the matter. Here, we scrutinize the concept of “extreme case” and conclude that cases should be selected on the basis of their theoretical or practical significance. No essential distinction exists between being representative and being extreme. Moreover, determining precisely whether a case is extreme or not is practically impossible. Case selection procedures that devote attention to the surrounding situations will enable researchers to discover theoretically significant cases. However, they should still leave room for serendipity.

Self-distancing refers to a process that allows individuals to take a step back from their experiences and reason objectively about them. Previous research has suggested that self-distancing is effective for emotion regulation and self-regulation. A cross-cultural investigation also indicated cultural differences in the ease of self-distancing and the degree of self-distancing on reflection. However, it has been still unclear which specific antecedents, varying across cultures, are associated with these cultural differences. In this article, we first present the theoretical framework of self-distancing, including its definition and mechanisms. Then, we provide an overview of previous research on the effects of self-distancing on emotion regulation, self-regulation, and behavior change. Finally, we discuss the possibility of future research on self-distancing, incorporating the perspective of cultural psychology.