Thought suppression
Encyclopedia
Thought suppression is the process of deliberately trying to stop thinking about certain thoughts (Wegner, 1989). It is often associated with obsessive–compulsive disorder, in which a sufferer will repeatedly (usually unsuccessfully) attempt to prevent or "neutralize" intrusive distressing thoughts centered around one or more obsessions
. It is also related to work on memory inhibition
.
Thought suppression is different from Freud's (1955) concept of repression
, which is unconscious
and automatic
and has relatively little empirical support (see Eysenck
, 1985; Holmes, 1990 for a review). Over thirty-five experiments to date have found evidence for thought suppression and its effectiveness. It can produce paradoxical effects for personally irrelevant and relevant thoughts at both a mental and a behavioral level.
, Schneider
, Carter & White (1987) was to ask people not to think of a target (e.g. "white bear") for five minutes but if they did to ring a bell. After this, participants were told to think about the target for five minutes more. Compared to those who had not used suppression there was evidence for unwanted thoughts being immediately enhanced during suppression and, furthermore, a higher frequency of target thoughts during the second stage, dubbed the rebound effect (Wegner, 1989). This effect has been replicated with different targets (Lavy & Van den Hout, 1990) and even implausible targets like "green rabbit" (Clark, Ball, & Pape, 1991). As a result, Wegner (1994) suggested the "Ironic Process Theory
" where two sometimes opposing mechanisms may be at work; one trying to think of something else (for example, something other than the bear) and the other, checking in sporadically to see if the thought in question has stopped.
While there is some good evidence for thought suppression causing increased immediate and/or delayed target thoughts, several critical points can be raised. Firstly, typical thought suppression may not involve simple targets like colored animals but socially more complex and personal thoughts. Secondly, the time frame used in these studies is only representative of thought suppression in short spaces of time, which may not accurately mirror typical human behavior where longer term suppression (like trying not to think about a recent ex-partner) may be manifest. Thirdly, the paradoxical effects could be elicited by the act of ringing the bell alone. Therefore, although there is good laboratory evidence for the poor effectiveness of thought suppression, confidently projecting such findings onto naturalistic behaviors is conceivably problematic.
.
Recent research by Geraerts, Merckelbach, Jelicic, & Smeets (2006) found that for individuals with low anxiety and high desirability traits (repressors) suppressed anxious autobiographical events intruded fewer times than in other (low, high and high defensive anxious) groups initially but showed more intrusions after one week. This difference in coping style may account for the disparities within the literature. That said, the problem remains that the cause of the paradox
ical effect may be in the thought tapping measures used (e.g. bell ringing). Evidence from Brown (1990) that showed participants were very sensitive to frequency information prompted Clarke, Ball and Pape (1991) to obtain participants' aposterio estimates of the number of intrusive target thoughts and found the same pattern of paradoxical results. However, even though such a method appears to overcome the problem, it and all the other methodologies use self-report as the primary form of data-collection. This may be problematic because of response distortion, where participants may lower their reported frequencies so as to avoid the risk of being pejoratively labelled.
Further experiments have documented similar findings (e.g. Cioffi and Holloway, 1993; Wegner, Shortt, Blake, and Page, 1990). In other experiments, participants were given cognitively demanding concurrent tasks and the results showed a paradoxical higher frequency of target thoughts than controls (Wegner & Erber, 1992; Wegner, Erber & Zanakos, 1993). However, such tasks are personally irrelevant and this may be problematic as naturalistic distractor activity is likely to employ personally relevant tasks (e.g. phoning a friend when trying not to think of an ex-partner). Another criticism has been that all these experiments may not be accounting for the plausible strategy of naturalistic thought suppression to find distractors.
Some studies have shown that when test subjects are under what Wegner refers to as a "cognitive load" (for instance, using multiple external distractions to try to suppress a target thought), the effectiveness of thought suppression appears to be reduced. However, in other studies in which focused distraction is used, long term effectiveness may improve. That is, successful suppression may involve less distractors. For example, Wegner, Schneider, Carter & White (1987) found that a single, pre-determined distracter (e.g., a red Volkswagen) was sufficient to eliminate the paradoxical effect post-testing. Evidence from Bowers and Woody (1996) is supportive of the finding that hypnotized individuals produce no paradoxical effects. This rests on the assumption that deliberate "distracter activity" is bypassed in such an activity. However, it may be also be that in real life, the functions of natural thought suppression in wake of unpleasant or threatening thoughts, isn't similar to how multiple or single distracters are used during experimental conditions in which participants are deliberately being instructed, under time constraints, and responding to investigator expectations.
Wegner also proposes that increased cognitive load may overtax conscious effort at effective control, allowing the greater influence of the ironic thought process. However, while his theories may explain why suppression leads to increased frequency of intrusive thoughts, they cannot do so in a way that is completely satisfactory as some studies do not find supportive evidence. As recent research suggests (e.g. Geraerts et al., in press) there may be an important role of individual differences that may be able to account for this, however.
Recently thought suppression is been seen as a form of "experiential avoidance
". Experiential avoidance refers to attempts to suppress, change or control unwanted internal experiences (thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, memories, etc.) (Hayes ea, 1996; Kashdan ea, 2006). This line of thinking supports on Relational Frame Theory
.
. Under experimental conditions, the use of more focused distraction (or less cognitive load) suggests that thought suppression, and specifically its aftermath (i.e. the "rebound effect") can be accomplished.
Daniel Wegner
's (1994) "Ironic process theory
" represents one cognitive model which attempts to explain these results. However, given the mixed evidence and commensurate with the latest research, it is suggested that such a model needs to account for individual differences, as well as possible neurobiologic dynamics (see, for instance, obsessive–compulsive disorder), to be considered robust.
In conclusion, thought suppression is a real phenomenon with observable effects, and direct attempts to suppress unwanted thoughts---particularly when involving multiple environmental objects, or other distracters (i.e. extra cognitive loads)---have been shown largely ineffective or difficult to achieve under certain test conditions. Other studies, however, have not shown paradoxical, or 'rebound' effects from such suppression attempts. Also, focused distraction appears to mitigate the potentially undesirable effects of suppression.
Fixation (psychology)
Fixation: 'concept originated by Sigmund Freud to denote the persistence of anachronistic sexual traits'. Subsequently '"Fixation" acquired a broader connotation...
. It is also related to work on memory inhibition
Memory inhibition
In psychology, memory inhibition is the ability not to remember irrelevant information. Memory inhibition is a critical component of an effective memory system. For example, imagine if, when a person tried to remember where he had parked his car, every place he had ever parked his car came to mind;...
.
Thought suppression is different from Freud's (1955) concept of repression
Psychological repression
Psychological repression, also psychic repression or simply repression, is the psychological attempt by an individual to repel one's own desires and impulses towards pleasurable instincts by excluding the desire from one's consciousness and holding or subduing it in the unconscious...
, which is unconscious
Unconscious mind
The unconscious mind is a term coined by the 18th century German romantic philosopher Friedrich Schelling and later introduced into English by the poet and essayist Samuel Taylor Coleridge...
and automatic
Automatic
- Technology :* Automatic transmission, or a car with an automatic transmission* Automatic firearm* Automatic watch* Automatic , a defunct American automobile company- Albums :* Automatic * Automatic...
and has relatively little empirical support (see Eysenck
Eysenck
Eysenck is a surname, and may refer to*Hans Jürgen Eysenck , psychology professor*Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, a psychological test developed by Hans Eysenck*Michael Eysenck , psychology professor, son of Hans...
, 1985; Holmes, 1990 for a review). Over thirty-five experiments to date have found evidence for thought suppression and its effectiveness. It can produce paradoxical effects for personally irrelevant and relevant thoughts at both a mental and a behavioral level.
Empirical work
In order for thought suppression and its effectiveness to be studied researchers have had to find ways of tapping the processes going on in the mind so that they may be described. One such paradigm by WegnerDaniel Wegner
Daniel M. Wegner is an American social psychologist. He is a professor of psychology at Harvard University and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science...
, Schneider
David J. Schneider
David J. Schneider is an American psychologist. He is a professor of psychology and the director of the cognitive sciences program at Rice University.-Career and work:...
, Carter & White (1987) was to ask people not to think of a target (e.g. "white bear") for five minutes but if they did to ring a bell. After this, participants were told to think about the target for five minutes more. Compared to those who had not used suppression there was evidence for unwanted thoughts being immediately enhanced during suppression and, furthermore, a higher frequency of target thoughts during the second stage, dubbed the rebound effect (Wegner, 1989). This effect has been replicated with different targets (Lavy & Van den Hout, 1990) and even implausible targets like "green rabbit" (Clark, Ball, & Pape, 1991). As a result, Wegner (1994) suggested the "Ironic Process Theory
Ironic Process Theory
Ironic processing is the psychological process whereby an individual's deliberate attempts to suppress or avoid certain thoughts render those thoughts more persistent.-Mechanisms:...
" where two sometimes opposing mechanisms may be at work; one trying to think of something else (for example, something other than the bear) and the other, checking in sporadically to see if the thought in question has stopped.
While there is some good evidence for thought suppression causing increased immediate and/or delayed target thoughts, several critical points can be raised. Firstly, typical thought suppression may not involve simple targets like colored animals but socially more complex and personal thoughts. Secondly, the time frame used in these studies is only representative of thought suppression in short spaces of time, which may not accurately mirror typical human behavior where longer term suppression (like trying not to think about a recent ex-partner) may be manifest. Thirdly, the paradoxical effects could be elicited by the act of ringing the bell alone. Therefore, although there is good laboratory evidence for the poor effectiveness of thought suppression, confidently projecting such findings onto naturalistic behaviors is conceivably problematic.
Improved methodology
To better elucidate the findings of thought suppression, several studies have changed the target thought from a personally irrelevant to relevant one. Roemer and Borkovec (1994) found that participants who suppressed anxious or depressing personal thoughts showed a significant rebound effect compared to those who expressed the thoughts from the outset. Furthermore, Wenzlaff, Wegner, & Roper (1988) demonstrated that anxious or depressed subjects were less able to suppress negative unwanted thoughts. Despite Rassin, Merkelbach and Muris (2000) reporting that this finding is moderately robust in the literature some studies were unable to replicate results (e.g. Smári, Sigurjónsdóttir, & Sæmundsdóttir, 1994; Kelly & Kahn, 1994; Wegner, Quillian, & Houston, 1996). However, this may be explained by a consideration of individual differencesIndividual differences psychology
The science of psychology studies people at three levels of focus captured by the well-known quotation: “Every man is in certain respects like all other men, like some other men, like no other man" ....
.
Recent research by Geraerts, Merckelbach, Jelicic, & Smeets (2006) found that for individuals with low anxiety and high desirability traits (repressors) suppressed anxious autobiographical events intruded fewer times than in other (low, high and high defensive anxious) groups initially but showed more intrusions after one week. This difference in coping style may account for the disparities within the literature. That said, the problem remains that the cause of the paradox
Paradox
Similar to Circular reasoning, A paradox is a seemingly true statement or group of statements that lead to a contradiction or a situation which seems to defy logic or intuition...
ical effect may be in the thought tapping measures used (e.g. bell ringing). Evidence from Brown (1990) that showed participants were very sensitive to frequency information prompted Clarke, Ball and Pape (1991) to obtain participants' aposterio estimates of the number of intrusive target thoughts and found the same pattern of paradoxical results. However, even though such a method appears to overcome the problem, it and all the other methodologies use self-report as the primary form of data-collection. This may be problematic because of response distortion, where participants may lower their reported frequencies so as to avoid the risk of being pejoratively labelled.
Behavioral domain
A reaction to this has been to explore the effects of thought suppression using more reliable measures, like behavior. Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, and Jetten (1994) found that when asked not to think about the stereotype of a certain group (e.g. a "skinhead"), individuals' written descriptions of a group member's typical day contained less stereotypical thoughts than that of controls. However, when told they were going to meet such an individual, those in the suppression condition sat significantly further away from the seat the "skinhead" had evidently occupied moments earlier (by virtue of his clothes being present). These results show that even though there may have been an initial enhancement of the stereotype, participants were able to prevent this being communicated in writing but not in their behavior.Further experiments have documented similar findings (e.g. Cioffi and Holloway, 1993; Wegner, Shortt, Blake, and Page, 1990). In other experiments, participants were given cognitively demanding concurrent tasks and the results showed a paradoxical higher frequency of target thoughts than controls (Wegner & Erber, 1992; Wegner, Erber & Zanakos, 1993). However, such tasks are personally irrelevant and this may be problematic as naturalistic distractor activity is likely to employ personally relevant tasks (e.g. phoning a friend when trying not to think of an ex-partner). Another criticism has been that all these experiments may not be accounting for the plausible strategy of naturalistic thought suppression to find distractors.
Some studies have shown that when test subjects are under what Wegner refers to as a "cognitive load" (for instance, using multiple external distractions to try to suppress a target thought), the effectiveness of thought suppression appears to be reduced. However, in other studies in which focused distraction is used, long term effectiveness may improve. That is, successful suppression may involve less distractors. For example, Wegner, Schneider, Carter & White (1987) found that a single, pre-determined distracter (e.g., a red Volkswagen) was sufficient to eliminate the paradoxical effect post-testing. Evidence from Bowers and Woody (1996) is supportive of the finding that hypnotized individuals produce no paradoxical effects. This rests on the assumption that deliberate "distracter activity" is bypassed in such an activity. However, it may be also be that in real life, the functions of natural thought suppression in wake of unpleasant or threatening thoughts, isn't similar to how multiple or single distracters are used during experimental conditions in which participants are deliberately being instructed, under time constraints, and responding to investigator expectations.
Cognitive dynamics
Thought suppression is typically ineffective with activities causing an increase in the to-be-suppressed thought, which is exacerbated when the cognitive load is increased. For example in the white bear experiment, many general distractions in the environment (for instance a lamp, a light bulb, a desk etc.), might later serve as reminders of the object being suppressed. (These are also referred to as "free distraction"). However, studies are unable to find this effect for emotional thoughts in hypnotized individuals, when one focused distraction is provided. In an attempt to account for these findings a number of theorists have produced cognitive models of thought suppression. The first of these provided by Wegner (1989) suggests that individuals distract themselves using environmental items which then become retrieval cues for the thought causing the search for a new distracter (i.e. "environmental cueing theory"). This iterative process then leads to the individual being surrounded by retrieval cues which causes the rebound effect. Certainly the evidence for the free use of multiple distracters is supportive but it cannot explain the initial thought enhancement, or the single distracter results. Wegner hypothesizes that multiple retrieval cues not being forged explains, in part, the effectiveness of focused distraction (i.e., a reduction of mental load). This is because there may be an ideal balance between the two processes with the cognitive demand not being too great as to let the monitoring process supersede it.Wegner also proposes that increased cognitive load may overtax conscious effort at effective control, allowing the greater influence of the ironic thought process. However, while his theories may explain why suppression leads to increased frequency of intrusive thoughts, they cannot do so in a way that is completely satisfactory as some studies do not find supportive evidence. As recent research suggests (e.g. Geraerts et al., in press) there may be an important role of individual differences that may be able to account for this, however.
Recently thought suppression is been seen as a form of "experiential avoidance
Experiential avoidance
Experiential avoidance has been broadly defined as attempts to avoid thoughts, feelings, memories, physical sensations, and other internal experiences—even when doing so creates harm in the long-run...
". Experiential avoidance refers to attempts to suppress, change or control unwanted internal experiences (thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, memories, etc.) (Hayes ea, 1996; Kashdan ea, 2006). This line of thinking supports on Relational Frame Theory
Relational frame theory
Relational frame theory, or RFT, is a psychological theory of human language and cognition. It was developed largely through the efforts of Steven C...
.
Summary
As time has progressed, experiments have become more elaborate and better able to extend their findings to thought suppression in its various guises. The results of these studies have demonstrated that trying to suppress impersonal and, sometimes, personal thoughts under cognitive load is often ineffective, as the frequency of those thoughts increases during suppression and after it. Importantly, while the evidence shows that we can control these thoughts from being translated into behavior when self-monitoring is high such control is not observable in normal, automatic behaviors (e.g. skinhead scenario). In addition, this phenomenon is made paradoxically worse by increasing the amount of distractions a person has, although the experiments in this area can be criticized for using impersonal concurrent tasks which may not properly reflect natural processes or individual differencesIndividual differences psychology
The science of psychology studies people at three levels of focus captured by the well-known quotation: “Every man is in certain respects like all other men, like some other men, like no other man" ....
. Under experimental conditions, the use of more focused distraction (or less cognitive load) suggests that thought suppression, and specifically its aftermath (i.e. the "rebound effect") can be accomplished.
Daniel Wegner
Daniel Wegner
Daniel M. Wegner is an American social psychologist. He is a professor of psychology at Harvard University and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science...
's (1994) "Ironic process theory
Ironic Process Theory
Ironic processing is the psychological process whereby an individual's deliberate attempts to suppress or avoid certain thoughts render those thoughts more persistent.-Mechanisms:...
" represents one cognitive model which attempts to explain these results. However, given the mixed evidence and commensurate with the latest research, it is suggested that such a model needs to account for individual differences, as well as possible neurobiologic dynamics (see, for instance, obsessive–compulsive disorder), to be considered robust.
In conclusion, thought suppression is a real phenomenon with observable effects, and direct attempts to suppress unwanted thoughts---particularly when involving multiple environmental objects, or other distracters (i.e. extra cognitive loads)---have been shown largely ineffective or difficult to achieve under certain test conditions. Other studies, however, have not shown paradoxical, or 'rebound' effects from such suppression attempts. Also, focused distraction appears to mitigate the potentially undesirable effects of suppression.
See also
- Experiential avoidanceExperiential avoidanceExperiential avoidance has been broadly defined as attempts to avoid thoughts, feelings, memories, physical sensations, and other internal experiences—even when doing so creates harm in the long-run...
- Self-censorshipSelf-censorshipSelf-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own work , out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities of others, without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority...
- The GameThe Game (mind game)The Game is a mental game where the objective is to avoid thinking about The Game itself. Thinking about The Game constitutes a loss, which, according to the rules of The Game, must be announced each time it occurs. It is impossible to win most versions of The Game; players can only attempt to...
- TriggerTrauma triggerA trauma trigger is an experience that triggers a traumatic memory in someone who has experienced trauma. A trigger is thus a troubling reminder of a traumatic event, although the trigger itself need not be frightening or traumatic....
- TraumaTraumaTrauma can refer to:-In psychology and medicine:* Trauma , an often serious and body-altering physical injury, such as the removal of a limb...
External links
- Wegner's Mental Control Laboratory This site links to many of Wegner's thought suppression studies.