Suppression
By: Simar Goyal, '17
(CHAOS 2016 EDITION)
(CHAOS 2016 EDITION)
Have you ever tried to stop thinking about something, but then found it impossible? Suppression is a popular method of mind control in which someone consciously tries to remove thoughts of something from their mind. However, in the process of trying to govern their minds, people actually surrender control. Professor Daniel Wegner, a pioneer in suppression research, coined the term “rebound effect” to describe how those who attempt suppression are actually more susceptible to unwanted intrusive thoughts. The increased return of these supposedly suppressed thoughts can lead to obsession which eventually can contribute to mental disorders such as OCD, PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Even Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis observed that his subjects would blurt out things they were trying to suppress.
Suppression can be linked to behaviors such as smoking, self-harm, and depressing thoughts, which have all been linked to the rebound effect. Wegner created the Ironic Processes theory to explain the increased return of suppressed thoughts. It states that there is an unconscious and automatic monitoring process to check if suppression is working. If the thought is found, the conscious operating process is called upon. In essence, a person consciously attempts suppression, but unconscious monitoring continually triggers these thoughts,
If someone told you to think of anything besides a white bear, what is the first thought that comes to mind? In one study conducted by Professor Wegner in 1987, participants were left alone in a room for five minutes and asked to voice any thoughts they had on a tape recorder. Afterwards, the experimenter returned and told one group of participants “try not to think of a white bear” while telling the other group “try to think of a white bear”. Whenever a white bear appeared in a person’s thoughts, they were supposed to ring a bell. The results demonstrated those trying to suppress their thoughts rang the bell almost twice as many times as those in the control group.
The art of suppression can actually be improved upon through practice, abiding by the cliche of, ‘practice makes perfect’. Another study conducted by Wegner in 1995 discusses the suppression of past relationships. A “hot flame” is characterized as someone from the past who still intrudes your thoughts, while a “cold flame” represents someone from the past you have no interest in rekindling a relationship with. Studies demonstrate suppression of cold flames being more difficult than that of hot flames. Since hot flames infiltrated thoughts more generally, people had more practice suppressing them.
Thus, there are many effects that occur within our minds that we aren’t even aware of without close study. Once efforts are made to recognize these effects and to combat inconvenient tendencies, one’s ability to suppress certain thoughts can improve. The inability to suppress is linked to many mental disorders where people cannot control the sub-conscious enough to fight certain triggers. As psychological tendencies continue to be studied in this manner, we can progress in understanding and improving the control center of our bodies.
Suppression can be linked to behaviors such as smoking, self-harm, and depressing thoughts, which have all been linked to the rebound effect. Wegner created the Ironic Processes theory to explain the increased return of suppressed thoughts. It states that there is an unconscious and automatic monitoring process to check if suppression is working. If the thought is found, the conscious operating process is called upon. In essence, a person consciously attempts suppression, but unconscious monitoring continually triggers these thoughts,
If someone told you to think of anything besides a white bear, what is the first thought that comes to mind? In one study conducted by Professor Wegner in 1987, participants were left alone in a room for five minutes and asked to voice any thoughts they had on a tape recorder. Afterwards, the experimenter returned and told one group of participants “try not to think of a white bear” while telling the other group “try to think of a white bear”. Whenever a white bear appeared in a person’s thoughts, they were supposed to ring a bell. The results demonstrated those trying to suppress their thoughts rang the bell almost twice as many times as those in the control group.
The art of suppression can actually be improved upon through practice, abiding by the cliche of, ‘practice makes perfect’. Another study conducted by Wegner in 1995 discusses the suppression of past relationships. A “hot flame” is characterized as someone from the past who still intrudes your thoughts, while a “cold flame” represents someone from the past you have no interest in rekindling a relationship with. Studies demonstrate suppression of cold flames being more difficult than that of hot flames. Since hot flames infiltrated thoughts more generally, people had more practice suppressing them.
Thus, there are many effects that occur within our minds that we aren’t even aware of without close study. Once efforts are made to recognize these effects and to combat inconvenient tendencies, one’s ability to suppress certain thoughts can improve. The inability to suppress is linked to many mental disorders where people cannot control the sub-conscious enough to fight certain triggers. As psychological tendencies continue to be studied in this manner, we can progress in understanding and improving the control center of our bodies.
Works Cited:
Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(1), 5.
Dean, J. (2009, May 22). Why Thought Suppression is Counter-Productive - PsyBlog. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/05/why-thought-suppression-is-counter-productive.php
Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(1), 5.
Dean, J. (2009, May 22). Why Thought Suppression is Counter-Productive - PsyBlog. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/05/why-thought-suppression-is-counter-productive.php