A further experimental investigation of thought suppression
Abstract
It has often been suggested that attempts to suppress a thought will lead to an immediate and/or delayed increase in its occurrence. In a recent experiment (Clark, Ball & Pape, Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29, 253-257, 1991) we obtained a delayed (rebound) effect but failed to demonstrate an immediate enhancement effect. Lavey and van den Hout (Behavioural Psychotherapy, 18, 251-258, 1991) have suggested immediate enhancement might be observed only if subjects are instructed not to use distraction while suppressing. The present experiment tested this hypothesis. An immediate enhancement effect was not obtained but the delayed (rebound) effect was twice replicated and an artifactual explanation of this effect was discounted.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research on thought suppression reveals that asking subjects to avoid specific thoughts can increase the frequency of these thoughts.
“Research on thought suppression reveals that asking subjects to avoid specific thoughts can increase the frequency of these thoughts (18-20) .”
From Aceptación de miedos a la recaída en pacientes con cáncer de mama: efectos de una intervención abreviada basada en la ACT (2016) · cites this paper as [18]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 5 · Cited by 108
- Authors
- Clark, D. M., Winton, E., & Thynn, L.
- Affiliations
- Warneford Hospital (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Clark, David M.
- ORCID
- Clark, David M.
- Venue
- Behaviour Research and Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1993-02
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 207-210
- ISSN
- 0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969855215
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 7.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
- Keywords
- thought suppression, rebound effect, distraction, cognitive control
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention, Behavior Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Repression, Psychology, Thinking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
