Cited by 198Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMind wandering and attention

A comparison of thought suppression to an acceptance-based technique in the management of personal intrusive thoughts: A controlled evaluation

Marcks, Brook A., Woods, Douglas W.·2005·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Research suggests that suppressing unwanted thoughts is not possible, leads to a subsequent increase in frequency of the suppressed thoughts, and results in higher levels of distress. Because thought suppression may have negative effects, an alternative, acceptance-based approach has been proposed. The current paper reports the outcomes of two studies. Study I examined the relationships between two naturally occurring strategies of thought management (thought suppression and acceptance), symptoms of psychopathology, and experiences with personally relevant intrusive thoughts. Results showed that those who naturally suppress personally relevant intrusive thoughts have more, are more distressed by, and have a greater "urge to do something" about the thoughts, while those who are naturally more accepting of their intrusive thoughts are less obsessional, have lower levels of depression, and are less anxious. Study II compared three groups (thought suppression, acceptance, and monitor-only groups) on the frequency and distress associated with experiencing personally relevant intrusive thoughts. Results revealed that those instructed to suppress their personal intrusive thoughts were unable to do so and experienced an increased level of distress after suppression, whereas those instructed to use an acceptance-based strategy experienced a decrease in discomfort level (but not thought frequency) after having used such a strategy. These data offer initial evidence that acceptance may…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2004.03.005

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marcks, B. A., & Woods, D. W.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
Corresponding author
Woods, Douglas W.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-04
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
433-445
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052430645
Cited by
198
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 16
FWCI
7.98
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
Keywords
thought suppression, intrusive thoughts, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, depression, anxiety, distress, cognitive behavioral therapy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Psychometrics, Repression, Psychology, Thinking, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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