Thought Suppression: The Roles of Distractor Type and Cognitive Load

• Main Author: 趙化如
• Other Authors: 孫蒨如
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 1999
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/21871173403742133635

碩士 === 中原大學 === 心理學系 === 87 === Thought suppression refers to "an attempt to keep an wanted thought or concept out of one''s consciousness". Most of people find suppression so difficulty that they need to try very hard to think something else again and again. Wegner (1992) proposed that there are two processes underlying this mental control: the operating process and the monitoring process. The former requires cognitive capacity, and the latter is an automatic process. Wegner suggested that when the individual only has very limited cognitive capacity, the monitoring process may supersede the operating process and as a result, induces the ironic effect. In the present study, we hypothesized that, by giving a focused distractor, subjects would be able to perform the operating process more efficiently even in the condition with limited cognitive capacity, and thus thought suppression could be achieved. We randomly assigned one hundred and twenty five subjects to a 3 (task: suppression-focused distractor vs. suppression-unfocused distractor vs. concentration) × 2 (cognitive load: high/low) × 3 (word type: target word vs. target-related word vs. target-unrelated word) design, with the last factor as a within variable. Subject were first asked to make an oral report about what come to their mind during the suppression/concentration processes and then do the Stroop test. The dependent measures were the frequency of target word reported and the reaction time during the Stroop test. The results indicated a main effect of cognitive load. Subjects in the high load condition generally had longer reaction time. We did not, however, found any other main effect or interaction. After comparing the frequency of target word reported by our subjects and by Wegner''s (1987) subjects, we found that the reported frequencies of our subjects were much less. Therefore, we conducted one complimentary experiment to collect more information. The result indicated that our subjects performed "thought suppression" easily. In other words, subjects could stop whatever they were thinking almost right away. We speculate that the result might be due to the culture differences and the education system employed. Further implications were also discussed.