It’s eight o’clock and you tell yourself that it’s finally time to get some work done. The minutes pass and you can’t seem to concentrate. Work builds up and so does your anxiety as you consistently question why you simply can’t focus on finishing this one assignment. Before you know it, hours have passed by and all of your work remains unfinished. This situation is one we are all too familiar with.
So why do we consistently struggle to focus? The idea of ironic process theory, also called the white bears, was brought up by David Wegner in 1987 when he observed that thinking about not doing something, otherwise known as thought suppression, causes us to do or think that exact thing. In his research, Wegner asked participants not to think of a white bear (after reading the title of this article all you could probably think about were white bears. That’s ironic process theory at work). From this experiment, he observed that actively trying to suppress a thought only makes us think of that thought even more, or that trying to suppress an action makes us more likely to do that action.
Wegner split this ironic process of thought suppression into two key processes: the operating and the monitoring. The operating process requires mental effort and is responsible for actively searching for anything in our brain, such as memories and thoughts, or anything in the outside world except the thing we want to suppress. This is where distractions come into play. If we find ourselves thinking about eating a snack when we really shouldn’t, then the operating process actively searches for tasks we can do to avoid or slow down thinking about snacking. So, then what part of our brain do we need to distract ourselves from? Wegner suggests that in the background of all of our active thought, we have an unconscious or autonomous process that scrolls through the brain looking for the one thing we are trying to suppress.This is the monitoring process, the reason we often fail in avoiding or suppressing thoughts. But if we have an operating process trying to distract us from the very thing we are trying to suppress, why do we still end up defaulting to this monitoring process?
A large mental load can force the operating process to work less efficiently, since it takes more energy to function. Thus, an increase of anxiety or stress can force the brain to fall back on the monitoring process and ruminate on the suppressed thought. Scientists have linked this default process to mental illnesses such as anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since recurring instances of thinking about certain topics are associated with these conditions. Furthermore, failure to suppress thoughts can consistently disrupt everyday life. Anxiety about not being able to fall asleep can force one to stay awake even longer; trying to diet and not think about desired foods can end up with a person eating those foods more and more.
A 2010 study by the division of mental health at St. George’s University of London revealed the effects of ironic process theory at work, in addition to rebound behavior after trying to actively suppress a thought. The experiment, titled I suppress therefore I smoke: Effects of thought suppression on smoking behavior, aimed to observe how three groups of smokers reacted to being told to suppress their thoughts, actively think about smoking, or do neither. The experiment took place over three weeks where participants had to keep a diary of how many times per day they smoked. During the first and third weeks of the experiment participants recorded only their intake. However, during the second week, participants in one group were told to actively suppress any thoughts of smoking, while the other group was told to actively think about smoking. The control group was only told to continue monitoring the number of times per day they smoked. The results of the experiment demonstrated the concept of ironic process theory and revealed that after actively trying to suppress a thought, the user does more of what they are trying not to do. This is also called rebound behavior. The group that was told to actively suppress thoughts of smoking ended up smoking significantly more in the third week, whereas the other two groups did not vary in the amount of smoking they did. It is important to recognize that this ‘rebound effect’ doesn’t always occur if the individual has no desire towards the suppressed thought in the first place. However, it should be noted that simply thinking of a behavior does not lead to an increase in that behavior, whereas suppressing it does.
So what is the solution to this ironic process, or how can it at least be avoided or controlled? This study from 2010 says that simply thinking more about the action, rather than suppressing it, doesn’t lead to a greater increase in the behavior. In short, it is beneficial to avoid thought suppression when one is trying to control a behavior. As for undesired thoughts, scientists have hypothesized that the best way to cope is by using mindfulness meditation to accept something rather than suppress it. Another mechanism that scientists have found to help restore the operating process are breathing exercises to try to reduce stress.
In conclusion, researchers have found that the more you attempt to suppress a thought or action, the more likely you are to engage in the ironic process of thinking that thought or completing that action. The reason? The anxiety of trying to suppress said action or thought leads to the weakness of the operating process that is trying to distract your mind. This ultimately causes the brain to fall back on its autonomous monitoring process which searches for the one thing you are trying to suppress. The result? The autonomous process takes over and may create a “rebound behavior,” forcing you to engage in that thought or action more than if you weren’t trying so hard to suppress it.
Bibliography
Henderson, Rob. Seeking Success and Patrolling Failure. Psychology Today. February 13, 2017.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201702/seeking-success-and-patrolling-failure
Wegner, M David. Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological review, 101(1), 34. (1994).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3a24/580a431c3e240e4d1d7eeb8469d89407dd6c.pdf
Erskine, A K James and Georgiou, J George. Thoughts on Suppression. The Psychologist, Vol.
24. November, 2011 https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-24/edition-11/thoughts-suppression
Erskine, James & Georgiou, George & Kvavilashvili, Lia. I Suppress, Therefore I Smoke:
Effects of Thought Suppression on Smoking Behavior. Psychological science. 21. (2010)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45366497_I_Suppress_Therefore_I_Smoke_Eff