Cited by 39Behavioral and Psychological StudiesMemory Processes and InfluencesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The derived generalization of thought suppression

Open access
Hooper, N., Saunders, J., McHugh, L.·2010·Learning & Behavior

Abstract

Thought suppression appears to be a relatively ineffective and even counterproductive strategy for dealing with unwanted thoughts. However, the psychological processes responsible for unsuccessful suppression are still underspecified. One process that may be implicated is derived stimulus relations, which may underlie the formation of unintentional relations that act to hamper suppression attempts. To test this prediction, participants were trained and tested for the formation of three derived equivalence relations using a match-to-sample procedure. Subsequently, they were instructed to suppress all thoughts of a particular target word that was a member of one of the three relations and were also allowed to selectively remove words that appeared on a computer screen in front of them by pressing the space bar. Results showed, as predicted, that participants not only removed the to-be-suppressed stimulus, but also removed words in derived relations with that stimulus, thus showing transformation of suppression/interference functions via derived equivalence. The theoretical implications of this demonstration, including its potential as a model for a key psychological process involved in unsuccessful thought suppression, are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/lb.38.2.160

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Hooper, N., Saunders, J., & McHugh, L.
Affiliations
Swansea University (GB)
Corresponding author
Hooper, N.
Venue
Learning & Behavior
Published
2010-04-16
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
160-168
ISSN
  • 1543-4494 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-4508
OpenAlex
W2081837182
Cited by
39
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
7.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning & Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
thought suppression, derived stimulus relations, intrusive thoughts, matching-to-sample, stimulus equivalence, cognitive control
MeSH terms
Attention, Awareness, Generalization, Psychological, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Memory, Short-Term, Paired-Associate Learning, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Semantics, Thinking, Transfer, Psychology, Intention

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