Thought suppression

Last updated

Thought suppression is a type of motivated forgetting when an individual consciously attempts to stop thinking about a particular thought. [1] [2] It is often associated with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). [3] OCD is when a person will repeatedly (usually unsuccessfully) attempt to prevent or "neutralize" intrusive distressing thoughts centered on one or more obsessions. It is also thought to be a cause of memory inhibition, as shown by research using the think/no think paradigm. [4] Thought suppression is relevant to both mental and behavioral levels, possibly leading to ironic effects that are contrary to intention. Ironic process theory [5] is one cognitive model that can explain the paradoxical effect.


When an individual tries to suppress thoughts under a high cognitive load, the frequency of those thoughts increases and becomes more accessible than before. [6] [7] Evidence shows that people can prevent their thoughts from being translated into behavior when self-monitoring is high; this does not apply to automatic behaviors though, and may result in latent, unconscious actions. [8] This phenomenon is made paradoxically worse by increasing the amount of distractions a person has, although the experiments in this area can be criticized for using impersonal concurrent tasks, which may or may not properly reflect natural processes or individual differences.

Empirical work, 1980s

In order for thought suppression and its effectiveness to be studied, researchers have had to find methods of recording the processes going on in the mind. One experiment designed with this purpose was performed by Wegner, Schneider, Carter & White. [9] They asked participants to avoid thinking of a specific target (e.g. a white bear) for five minutes, but if they did, they were told then to ring a bell. After this, participants were told that for the next five minutes they were to think about the target. There was evidence that unwanted thoughts occurred more frequently in those who used thought suppression compared to those who were not. Furthermore, there was also evidence that during the second stage, those who had used thought suppression had a higher frequency of target thoughts than did those who hadn't used thought suppression; later coined the rebound effect. [10] This effect has been replicated and can even be done with implausible targets, such as the thought of a "green rabbit". [11] From these implications, Wegner [5] eventually developed the "ironic process theory".

Improved methodology, 1990s

To better elucidate the findings of thought suppression, several studies have changed the target thought. Roemer and Borkovec [10] found that participants who suppressed anxious or depressing thoughts showed a significant rebound effect. Furthermore, Wenzlaff, Wegner, & Roper [12] demonstrated that anxious or depressed subjects were less likely to suppress negative, unwanted thoughts. Despite Rassin, Merkelbach and Muris [13] reporting that this finding is moderately robust in the literature, some studies were unable to replicate results. [14] [15] [16] However, this may be explained by a consideration of individual differences.

Recent research found that for individuals with low anxiety and high desirability traits (repressors), suppressed anxious autobiographical events initially intruded fewer times than in other groups (low, high, and high defensive anxious groups), but intruded more often after one week. [17] [ clarification needed ] This difference in coping style may account for the disparities within the literature. That said, the problem remains that the cause of the paradoxical effect may be in the thought tapping measures used (e.g. bell ringing). Evidence from Brown (1990) that showed participants were very sensitive to frequency information prompted Clarke, Ball and Pape to obtain participants' aposterio estimates of the number of intrusive target thoughts and found the same pattern of paradoxical results. [11] However, even though such a method appears to overcome the problem, it and all the other methodologies use self-report as the primary form of data-collection. This may be problematic because of response distortion or inaccuracy in self-reporting.[ citation needed ]

Behavioral domain

Thought suppression also has the capability to change human behavior. Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, and Jetten found that when people were asked not to think about the stereotypes of a certain group (e.g. a "skinhead"), their written descriptions about a group member's typical day contained less stereotypical thoughts. [8] However, when they were told they were going to meet an individual they had just written about, those in the suppression group sat significantly farther away from the "skinhead" (just by virtue of his clothes being present). These results show that even though there may have been an initial enhancement of the stereotype, participants were able to prevent this from being communicated in their writing; this was not true for their behavior though.

Further experiments have documented similar findings. [18] In one study from 1993, when participants were given cognitively demanding concurrent tasks, the results showed a paradoxical higher frequency of target thoughts than controls. [6] [19] However other controlled studies have not shown such effects. For example, Wenzlaff and Bates found that subjects concentrating on a positive task experienced neither paradoxical effects nor rebound effects—even when challenged with cognitive load. [7] Wenzlaff and Bates also note that the beneficiality of concentration in their study participants was optimized when the subjects employed positive thoughts. [7]

Some studies have shown that when test subjects are under what Wegner refers to as a "cognitive load" (for instance, using multiple external distractions to try to suppress a target thought), the effectiveness of thought suppression appears to be reduced. However, in other studies in which focused distraction is used, long term effectiveness may improve. That is, successful suppression may involve less distractors. For example, in 1987 Wegner, Schneider, Carter & White found that a single, pre-determined distracter (e.g., a red Volkswagen) was sufficient to eliminate the paradoxical effect post-testing. [9] Evidence from Bowers and Woody in 1996 [20] is supportive of the finding that hypnotized individuals produce no paradoxical effects. This rests on the assumption that deliberate "distracter activity" is bypassed in such an activity.

Cognitive dynamics

When the cognitive load is increased, thought suppression typically becomes less effective. For example, in the white bear experiment, many general distractions in the environment (for instance a lamp, a light bulb, a desk etc.) might later serve as reminders of the object being suppressed (these are also referred to as "free distraction"). Some studies, however, are unable to find this effect for emotional thoughts in hypnotized individuals when one focused distraction is provided. In an attempt to account for these findings, a number of theorists have produced cognitive models of thought suppression. Wegner suggested in 1989 that individuals distract themselves using environmental items. Later, these items become retrieval cues for the thought attempting to be suppressed [10] (i.e. "environmental cueing theory"). This iterative process leaves the individual surrounded by retrieval cues, ultimately causing the rebound effect. Wegner hypothesized that multiple retrieval cues not being forged explains, in part, the effectiveness of focused distraction (i.e., a reduction of mental load). This is because there may be an ideal balance between the two processes; if the cognitive demand that isn't too heavy, then the monitoring processes won't supersede it.

Individual differences may also play a role in regards to the ironic thought process. [17]

Thought suppression has been seen as a form of "experiential avoidance". Experiential avoidance is when an individual attempts to suppress, change, or control unwanted internal experiences (thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, memories, etc.). [21] [22] This line of thinking supports relational frame theory.

Other methodologies

Thought suppression has been shown to be a cause of inhibition in several ways. Two commonly-used methods to study this relationship are the list method and the item method. [4] In this list method, participants study two lists of words, one after the other. After studying the first list, some participants are told to forget everything that they have just learned, while others are not given this instruction. After studying both lists, participants are asked to recall the words on both lists. These experiments typically find that participants who were told to forget the first list do not remember as many words from that list, suggesting that they have been suppressed due to the instruction to forget. [11] [23] In the item method, participants study individual words rather than lists. After each word is shown, participants are told to either remember or forget the word. As in experiments using the list method, the words followed by the instruction to forget are more poorly remembered. [4] Some researchers believe that these two methods result in different types of forgetting. According to these researchers, the list method results in inhibition of the forgotten words, [24] but the item method results in some words being remembered better than the others, without a specific relation to forgetting. [23]

Think/no think paradigm

A paradigm from 2009 to study how suppression relates to inhibition is the think/no think paradigm. [25] In these experiments, participants study pairs of words. An example of a possible word pair is roach-ordeal. [26] After all the word pairs are learned, the participants see the first word of the pair and are either told to think about the second word (think phase) or not to think about the second word (no think phase). The no think phase is when suppression occurs. Some pairs were never presented after the initial study portion of the study, and these trials serve as the control group. At the end of the experiment, the participants try to remember all of the word pairs based on the first word. Studies could also use the "independent probe" method, which gives the category and first letter of the second word of the pair. [4] Typically, regardless of the method used, results show that the no-think trials result in worse memory than the think trials, which supports the idea that suppression leads to inhibition in memory. [4] [27] [26] Although this methodology was first done using word pairs, experiments have been conducted using pictures [28] and autobiographical memories [29] as stimuli, with the same results.

Research has also shown that doing difficult counting tasks at the same time as a think/no think task leads to less forgetting in the no think condition, which suggests that suppression takes active mental energy to be successful. [30] Furthermore, the most forgetting during the no think phase occurs when there is a medium amount of brain activation while learning the words. The words are never learned if there is too little activation, and the association between the two words is too strong to be suppressed during the no think phase if there is too much activation. However, with medium activation, the word pairs are learned but able to be suppressed during the no think phase. [31]

fMRI studies have shown two distinct patterns of brain activity during suppression tasks. The first is that there is less activity in the hippocampus, the brain area responsible for forming memories. [32] The second is an increase of brain activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, especially in cases where suppression is harder. Researchers think that this region works to prevent memory formation by preventing the hippocampus from working. [27]

This methodology can also be used to study thought substitution by adding an instruction during the no think phase for participants to think of a different word rather than the word being suppressed. This research shows that thought substitution can lead to increased levels of forgetting compared to suppression without a thought substitution instruction. [33] This research also suggests that thought substitution, while used as a suppression strategy during the no think phase, may work differently than suppression. Some researchers argue that thinking of something different during the no think phase forms a new association with the first word than the original word pair, which results in interference when using this strategy, which is different than the inhibition that results from simply not thinking about something. [34]

Dream influence

Dreams occur mainly during the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and are composed of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations. Although more research needs to be done on this subject, dreams are said to be linked to the unconscious mind. Thought suppression has an influence on the subject matter of the unconscious mind and by trying to restrain particular thoughts, there is a high chance of them showing up in one's dreams.

Ironic control theory

Ironic control theory, also known as "ironic process theory", states that thought suppression "leads to an increased occurrence of the suppressed content in waking states". [35] The irony lies in the fact that although people try not to think about a particular subject, there is a high probability that it will appear in one's dreams regardless. There is a difference for individuals who have a higher tendency of suppression; they are more prone to psychopathological responses such as "intrusive thoughts, including depression, anxiety and obsessional thinking". [36] Due to these individuals having higher instances of thought suppression, they experience dream rebound more often.

Cognitive load also plays a role in ironic control theory. Studies have shown that a greater cognitive load results in an increased possibility of dream rebound occurring. In other words, when one tries to retain a heavy load of information before going to sleep, there is a high chance of that information manifesting itself within the dream. [37] There is a greater degree of dream rebound in those with a higher cognitive load opposed to those whose load was absent. With the enhancement of a high cognitive load, ironic control theory states thought suppression is more likely to occur and lead to dream rebound.

Dream rebound

Dream rebound is when suppressed thoughts manifest themselves in one's dreams. [38] Self-control is a form of thought suppression and when one dreams, that suppressed item has a higher chance of appearing in the dream. For example, when an individual is attempting to quit smoking, they may dream about themselves smoking a cigarette. [38] Emotion suppression has also been found to trigger dream rebound. Recurrence of emotional experiences act as presleep suggestions, ultimately leading to the suppressed thoughts presenting themselves within the dream. [38] One effecting factor of dream rebound is the changes in the prefrontal lobes during rapid-eye movement sleep. Suppressed thoughts are more accessible during REM sleep, as a result of operating processes having a diminished effectiveness. This leads to presleep thoughts becoming more available "with an increased activity of searching for these suppressed thought[s]". [36] There are other hypotheses regarding REM sleep and dream rebound. For instance, weak semantic associations, post REM sleep, are more accessible than any other time due to weak ironic monitoring processes becoming stronger. [38] More research is needed to further understand what exactly causes dream rebound.

See also

Related Research Articles


Forgetting or disremembering is the apparent loss or modification of information already encoded and stored in an individual's short or long-term memory. It is a spontaneous or gradual process in which old memories are unable to be recalled from memory storage. Problems with remembering, learning and retaining new information are a few of the most common complaints of older adults. Studies show that retention improves with increased rehearsal. This improvement occurs because rehearsal helps to transfer information into long-term memory.

Cognition Act or process of knowing

Cognition refers to "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses". It encompasses many aspects of intellectual functions and processes such as: attention, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language. Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and generate new knowledge.

Recall in memory refers to the mental process of retrieval of information from the past. Along with encoding and storage, it is one of the three core processes of memory. There are three main types of recall: free recall, cued recall and serial recall. Psychologists test these forms of recall as a way to study the memory processes of humans and animals. Two main theories of the process of recall are the two-stage theory and the theory of encoding specificity.

The Decay theory is a theory that proposes that memory fades due to the mere passage of time. Information is therefore less available for later retrieval as time passes and memory, as well as memory strength, wears away. When an individual learns something new, a neurochemical "memory trace" is created. However, over time this trace slowly disintegrates. Actively rehearsing information is believed to be a major factor counteracting this temporal decline. It is widely believed that neurons die off gradually as we age, yet some older memories can be stronger than most recent memories. Thus, decay theory mostly affects the short-term memory system, meaning that older memories are often more resistant to shocks or physical attacks on the brain. It is also thought that the passage of time alone cannot cause forgetting, and that decay theory must also take into account some processes that occur as more time passes.


Subvocalization, or silent speech, is the internal speech typically made when reading; it provides the sound of the word as it is read. This is a natural process when reading, and it helps the mind to access meanings to comprehend and remember what is read, potentially reducing cognitive load.

In psychology, memory inhibition is the ability not to remember irrelevant information. The scientific concept of memory inhibition should not be confused with everyday uses of the word "inhibition". Scientifically speaking, memory inhibition is a type of cognitive inhibition, which is the stopping or overriding of a mental process, in whole or in part, with or without intention.

Mind-wandering is the experience of thoughts not remaining on a single topic for a long period of time, particularly when people are engaged in an attention-demanding task.

A source-monitoring error is a type of memory error where the source of a memory is incorrectly attributed to some specific recollected experience. For example, individuals may learn about a current event from a friend, but later report having learned about it on the local news, thus reflecting an incorrect source attribution. This error occurs when normal perceptual and reflective processes are disrupted, either by limited encoding of source information or by disruption to the judgment processes used in source-monitoring. Depression, high stress levels and damage to relevant brain areas are examples of factors that can cause such disruption and hence source-monitoring errors.

Daniel Merton Wegner was an American social psychologist. He was a professor of psychology at Harvard University and a fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was known for applying experimental psychology to the topics of mental control and conscious will, and for originating the study of transactive memory and action identification. In The Illusion of Conscious Will and other works, he argued that the human sense of free will is an illusion.

Distancing is a concept arising from the work of developmental psychologists Heinz Werner and Bernard Kaplan. Distancing describes the process by which psychologists help a person establish their own individuality through understanding their separateness from everything around them. This understanding of one's identity is considered an essential phase in coming to terms with symbols, which in turn forms the foundation for full cognition and language. Recently, work has been done in psychological distancing in terms of development, personality and behavior.

Articulatory suppression is the process of inhibiting memory performance by speaking while being presented with an item to remember. Most research demonstrates articulatory suppression by requiring an individual to repeatedly say an irrelevant speech sound out loud while being presented with a list of words to recall shortly after. The individual experiences four stages when repeating the irrelevant sound: the intention to speak, programming the speech, articulating the sound or word, and receiving auditory feedback.

Ironic process theory, ironic rebound, or the white bear problem refers to the psychological process whereby deliberate attempts to suppress certain thoughts make them more likely to surface. An example is how when someone is actively trying not to think of a white bear they may actually be more likely to imagine one.

"Try to pose for yourself this task: not to think of a polar bear, and you will see that the cursed thing will come to mind every minute."
— Fyodor Dostoevsky, Winter Notes on Summer Impressions, 1863

In psychology, context-dependent memory is the improved recall of specific episodes or information when the context present at encoding and retrieval are the same. In a simpler manner, "when events are represented in memory, contextual information is stored along with memory targets; the context can therefore cue memories containing that contextual information". One particularly common example of context-dependence at work occurs when an individual has lost an item in an unknown location. Typically, people try to systematically "retrace their steps" to determine all of the possible places where the item might be located. Based on the role that context plays in determining recall, it is not at all surprising that individuals often quite easily discover the lost item upon returning to the correct context. This concept is heavily related to the encoding specificity principle.

Emotion can have a powerful effect on humans and animals. Numerous studies have shown that the most vivid autobiographical memories tend to be of emotional events, which are likely to be recalled more often and with more clarity and detail than neutral events.

Motivated forgetting is a theorized psychological behavior in which people may forget unwanted memories, either consciously or unconsciously. It is an example of defence mechanism, since these are unconscious or conscious coping techniques used to reduce anxiety arising from unacceptable or potentially harmful impulses thus it can be a defence mechanism in some ways. Defence mechanisms are not to be confused with conscious coping strategies.

In psychology, the misattribution of memory or source misattribution is the misidentification of the origin of a memory by the person making the memory recall. Misattribution is likely to occur when individuals are unable to monitor and control the influence of their attitudes, toward their judgments, at the time of retrieval. Misattribution is divided into three components: cryptomnesia, false memories, and source confusion. It was originally noted as one of Daniel Schacter's seven sins of memory.

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) is a memory phenomenon where remembering causes forgetting of other information in memory. The phenomenon was first demonstrated in 1994, although the concept of RIF has been previously discussed in the context of retrieval inhibition.

Automatic and controlled processes (ACP) are the two categories of cognitive processing. All cognitive processes fall into one or both of those two categories. The amounts of "processing power", attention, and effort a process requires is the primary factor used to determine whether it's a controlled or an automatic process. An automatic process is capable of occurring without the need for attention, and the awareness of the initiation or operation of the process, and without drawing upon general processing resources or interfering with other concurrent thought processes. Put simply, an automatic process is unintentional, involuntary, effortless, and occurring outside awareness. Controlled processes are defined as a process that is under the flexible, intentional control of the individual, that he or she is consciously aware of, and that are effortful and constrained by the amount of attentional resources available at the moment.

Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. was a Psychology professor and researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His research interests are in the fields of experimental psycholinguistics and cognitive science. His work concerns a range of theoretical issues, ranging from questions about the role of embodied experience in thought and language, to looking at people's use and understanding of figurative language. Raymond Gibbs's research is especially focused on bodily experience and linguistic meaning. Much of his research is motivated by theories of meaning in philosophy, linguistics, and comparative literature.

Control in the context of psychology generally refers to how a person regulates themselves or wishes to regulate their environment. There are several identified types of control -Perceived Control, cognitive control, emotional control, motivational control, control desire, inhibitory control, social control, ego control, and effortful control.


  1. Anderson, Michael C.; Huddleston, Ean (2012). True and False Recovered Memories. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. 58. Springer, New York, NY. pp. 53–120. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1195-6_3. ISBN   9781461411949. PMID   22303764.
  2. Wegner, Daniel M. (1989). White bears and other unwanted thoughts: Suppression, obsession, and the psychology of mental control. London: The Guilford Press.
  3. Purdon, C. (2004). Empirical investigations of thought suppression in OCD. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 35(2), 121-136. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from the PsycINFO database.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Kuhl, Brice A.; Wagner, Anthony D. (2009). Handbook of Neuroscience for the Behavioral Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9780470478509.neubb001031. ISBN   9780470478509.
  5. 1 2 Wegner, D.M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52.
  6. 1 2 Wegner, D.M., Erber, R. & Zanakos, S. (1993) Ironic processes in the mental control of mood and mood-related thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1093-1104.
  7. 1 2 3 Wenzlaff, R.M., Bates, D.E. (October 2000). The Relative Efficacy of Concentration and Suppression Strategies of Mental Control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26;1200-1212.
  8. 1 2 Macrae, C.N., Bodenhausen, G.V., Milne, A.B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808–817.
  9. 1 2 Wegner, D.M., Schneider, D.J., Carter, S.R., & White, T.L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thoughts suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5–13.
  10. 1 2 3 Roemer, E., & Borkovec, T.D. (1994). Effects of suppressing thoughts about emotional material. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 467–474.
  11. 1 2 3 Clark, D. M., Ball, S., & Pape, D. (1991). An experimental investigation of thought suppression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29, 253–257
  12. Wenzlaff, R.M., Wegner, D.M., & Roper, D. (1988). Depression and mental control: The resurgence of unwanted negative thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 882–892.
  13. Rassin, E., Merckelbach, H., & Muris, P. (2000). Paradoxical and less paradoxical effects of thought suppression: a critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(8), 973–995
  14. Smári, J., Sigurjónsdóttir, H., & Sæmundsdóttir, I. (1994). Thought suppression and obsession-compulsion. Psychological Reports, 75, 227–235.
  15. Kelly, A.E., & Kahn, J.H. (1994). Effects of suppression of personal intrusive thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 998–1006.
  16. Wegner, D.M., Quillian, F., & Houston, C. (1996). Memories out of order: Thought suppression and the disassembly of remembered experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 680–691.
  17. 1 2 Geraerts, E., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., & Smeets, E. (2006). Long term consequences of suppression of intrusive anxious thoughts and repressive coping. Behaviour Research and Therapy 44, 1451-1460.
  18. Cioffi, D., & Holloway, J. (1993). Delayed costs of suppressed pain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 274–282.
  19. Wegner, D.M., & Erber, R. (1992). The hyperaccessibility of suppressed thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 903–912.
  20. Bowers, K.S., & Woody, E.Z. (1996). Hypnotic amnesia and the paradox of intentional forgetting. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 381–390.
  21. Hayes, S.C., Wilson, K.G., e.a. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: a functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical psychology, 64, 1152-1168.
  22. Kashdan, T.B., Barrios, V., Forsyth, J.P., & Steger, M.F. (2006). Experiential avoidance as a generalized psychological vulnerability: Comparisons with coping and emotion regulation strategies. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1301-1320.
  23. 1 2 Basden, Barbara H.; Basden, David R.; Gargano, Gary J. (1993). "Directed forgetting in implicit and explicit memory tests: A comparison of methods". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 19 (3): 603–616. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.603.
  24. Geiselman, Ralph E.; Bjork, Robert A.; Fishman, Deborah L. (1983). "Disrupted retrieval in directed forgetting: A link with posthypnotic amnesia". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 112 (1): 58–72. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1037/0096-3445.112.1.58.
  25. Kuhl, Brice A.; Wagner, Anthony D. (2009). Handbook of Neuroscience for the Behavioral Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9780470478509.neubb001031. ISBN   9780470478509.
  26. 1 2 Anderson, Michael C.; Green, Collin (2001). "Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control". Nature. 410 (6826): 366–369. doi:10.1038/35066572. ISSN   1476-4687. PMID   11268212.
  27. 1 2 L., Schwartz, Bennett (2018). Memory : foundations and applications (Third ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. ISBN   9781506326535. OCLC   962303793.
  28. Küpper, Charlotte S.; Benoit, Roland G.; Dalgleish, Tim; Anderson, Michael C. (2014). "Direct suppression as a mechanism for controlling unpleasant memories in daily life". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 143 (4): 1443–1449. doi:10.1037/a0036518. PMC   4113301 . PMID   24749897.
  29. Noreen, Saima; MacLeod, Malcolm D. (2013). "It's all in the detail: Intentional forgetting of autobiographical memories using the autobiographical think/no-think task". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 39 (2): 375–393. doi:10.1037/a0028888. PMID   22686849.
  30. Noreen, Saima; Fockert, Jan W. de (2017-02-20). "The Role of Cognitive Load in Intentional Forgetting Using the Think/No-Think Task". Experimental Psychology. 64 (1): 14–26. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000347. hdl:2086/14136. PMID   28219259.
  31. Detre, Greg J.; Natarajan, Annamalai; Gershman, Samuel J.; Norman, Kenneth A. (2013). "Moderate levels of activation lead to forgetting in the think/no-think paradigm". Neuropsychologia. 51 (12): 2371–2388. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.02.017. PMC   3702674 . PMID   23499722.
  32. Anderson, Michael C.; Ochsner, Kevin N.; Kuhl, Brice; Cooper, Jeffrey; Robertson, Elaine; Gabrieli, Susan W.; Glover, Gary H.; Gabrieli, John D. E. (2004-01-09). "Neural Systems Underlying the Suppression of Unwanted Memories". Science. 303 (5655): 232–235. doi:10.1126/science.1089504. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   14716015.
  33. Hertel, Paula T.; Calcaterra, Gina (2005-06-01). "Intentional forgetting benefits from thought substitution". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 12 (3): 484–489. doi: 10.3758/bf03193792 . ISSN   1069-9384. PMID   16235633.
  34. Racsmány, Mihály; Conway, Martin A.; Keresztes, Attila; Krajcsi, Attila (2012-02-01). "Inhibition and interference in the think/no-think task". Memory & Cognition. 40 (2): 168–176. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0144-6. ISSN   0090-502X. PMID   21987123.
  35. Kroner-Borowik, T., Gosch, S., Hansen, K., Borowik, B., Schredl, M., & Steil, R. (2013). The effects of suppressing intrusive thoughts on dream content, dream distress and psychological parameters . Journal of Sleep Research, 22(5), 600-604. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from the PsycINFO database.
  36. 1 2 Taylor, F., & Bryant, R. A. (2007). The tendency to suppress, inhibiting thoughts, and dream rebound. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(1), 163-168. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from the PsycINFO database.
  37. Bryant, R., Wyzenbeek, M., & Weinstein, J. (2009). Dream rebound of suppressed emotional thoughts; The influence of cognitive load. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 515-522. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from the PsycINFO database.
  38. 1 2 3 4 Wegner, D., Wenzlaff, R., & Kozak, M. (2004). Dream rebound: The return of suppressed thought and dream. Psychological Science, 15(4), 232-236. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from the PsycINFO database.

Commons-logo.svg Media related to Thought suppression at Wikimedia Commons