Lecture 14 - Mental Control Flashcards
Mental control
- Goal pursuit: efforts to control external world
- Mental control: efforts to control internal world
- Goal pursuit often requires mental control
e. g., don’t think about chocolate cake, going to party, playing tennis, attractive guy/girl, if you do not want to be fat, do not think about pies
Mental control is how you control or suppress thoughts
Mental control as an ironic process
To suppress a thought, you have to make a plan to suppress the thought, then carry out the plan to suppress thoughts including the thoughts of the plan itself
Rebound effects in thought suppression
When you suppress a thought, there is often a rebound in which you think a lot about that suppressed thought afterwards
Paradoxical effects of thought suppression (experimental set up)
- Stream of consciousness task: verbalize thoughts for
next 5 minutes - Then, manipulate thought suppression
- “Try not to think of white bear…”
- “…ring bell every time you think or talk about white bear”
- Round 2: Then, express, “try to think of white bear” (and ring bell, etc.)
- Control cond. got rounds 1 and 2 in reverse order: express then suppress
So does it matter if you suppress then express or the other way around? I.e. does suppression lead to rebound.
Paradoxical effects of thought suppression (results)
The ones made to suppress then express showed a lot more instances of thinking about the bear in the express condition vs. the express then suppress condition
AFTER 5 MINS
The effect persisted (only in the suppress/express condition)
Why rebound effect?
- Attempts to distract involve thinking without focus
- Negative cueing:
- What am I doing?
- Trying not to think about the white bear
- I’ll think about light bulb…boring…
- Why am I doing this?
- Not thinking about the white bear
- Everything becomes associated (cog. linked) with
negative cue!
SO YOU CUE YOURSELF
Why rebound effect?
* When restriction is lifted, prior negative cueing
facilitates task of thinking about white bear
Can we attenuate the rebound effect?
If suppressing a thought creates negative cues, would the expression of a thought (a positive cue) eliminate this effect?
Does suppression increase
subsequent expression of
suppressed thought?
Experiment set up
- Stream of consciousness task
- Manipulate:
- Express thought then suppress thought (Ctrl)
- Suppress thought then express thought (Exp-1)
- Suppress thought then express thought, but…(Exp-2)
- “if you happen to think of a white bear…think of a red Volkswagen instead
G1 Control - express/suppress
G2 Suppress/express
G3 Suppress/express/Focused Distract (red volk)
Does suppression increase
subsequent expression of
suppressed thought?
Results
You see a replication of the rebound effect (in suppress/express condition)
In the suppress/express/focused distraction group you see less rebound
rebound was attenuated by the focused distraction positive cue.
Mental control
The idea of a two step process with a monitor and an operating system
- Thought suppress involves two cognitive processes:
1. “Monitor” on lookout for unwanted thought (automatic
process)
2. “Operating system” ready to step in with distractor, if monitor finds target (controlled process) - Monitor watches for potential lapses
- Signals operating system if lapses occur (ALERT!)
- Operating system brings distractors to mind until one is selected
- Once selected operating system turned off
- But monitor always on lookout for signs of unwanted thought
- Monitor makes person continually sensitive to unwanted thought because it is always on the lookout
Monitor as an ironic process
Idea
- Dual processes
- When capacity undermined (e.g., stress), the operating system is compromised, and thoughts being monitored no longer controlled
- Disrupting operating system should render “to-be suppressed” thoughts hyper-accessible (b/c monitor is
always on lookout for them)
SO you should get NO operating system but a functional monitir
Monitor as an ironic process
Experiment
- Stroop test
- Either while suppressing or concentrating on target
(i. e., to be suppressed thought, “house”)) - Target (i.e., to be suppressed) word should interfere with Stroop
- Cognitive load manipulation (rehearse 9-digit #)
- H: Suppression + load = hyperaccessibility
- b/c load disrupts OS (controlled distracter search)
The operationalization of hyperaccessibility is the interference on a Stroop task as measured by reaction time (increased)
Monitor as an ironic process
Results
In the high load condition, the RT increased as the operating system was suppressed due to the high load
High suppression + high load = hyperaccessibility of thoughts
Ironic processes and real life
- Secrets
- If we want to keep a secret, then we try not to think
about it (“if I think about it I may tell others”) - Suppression leads to obsession (hyper-accessibility)
- The more I suppress, the more I obsess
- The more I obsess, the more I see the secret as
something desirable… (it must be really good if I am going to all theis effort = increased liking)
Secret relationships
Wegner, Lane & Dimitri, JPSP
- Are we more attracted to things because they’re
secrets (suppressed)? - Old flames: secret vs. public
- Obsessive/intrusive thoughts?
- More obsessive thoughts about secret relationships
(more often on their minds) - Does secret lead to greater attraction?
Does secret lead to greater attraction? Playing Footsie
- Two opposite sex dyads playing a card game
- One team instructed to use their feet to communicate
- Manipulate “tip” for one dyad:
- keep your feet in contact with each other under the table throughout the game to help you communicate
- Public vs. private (secret) tip
DV
* Rate attractiveness of partner
RESULTS
* Those who played footsie in secret rated partner as more attractive than 1) those who played footsie in public and 2) those who did not play footsie
Hot/Cold flames
Some old flames we do not think about, some we do.
HOT FLAMES
* “He’s just popping through my mind every 5 min, but
I’m not saying anything about him because I don’t
really feel like crying and if I keep talking about him I
might shed a tear or two.”
* “I’m thinking about her right now. I haven’t thought
about her for a week or so. . . I don’t want to be
thinking about her. . . I don’t like this feeling.”
Is there a difference between the suppression of
neutral and emotional thoughts?
Hot/cold flame: Experimental set up
- Ps who a) still desired old flame or b) no longer
desired old flame - Then suppress:
G1: don’t think about the flame
G2: don’t think about the Statue of Liberty (control condition) - Then expression: think of the flame again
DV1: Measure talking about flame in final set
DV2: emotional reactivity (with Skin Conductance)
Is there a difference between the suppression of
neutral and emotional thoughts?
Hot/cold flame: Thoughts results
Whether told to suppress the hot flame, or think about the statue, in the HOT flame condition, the ptps talked about the hot flame a lot (because they were hot, emotive flames)
In the cold flame condition, there was a rebound! If to suppress the flame, the cold flame became hotter and the participants talked about them a lot
Is there a difference between the suppression of
neutral and emotional thoughts?
Hot/cold flame: Emotional reactivity results
The only group with increased emotional reactivity were the HOT flame group told to suppress the flame
So suppressing this made them more emotionally reactive
Are we able to deactivate
unwanted thoughts?
- Typically we are pursuing multiple goals, and often
these goals conflict - Tennis match vs. looming term paper
This is called an “approach-approach conflict”
- How do we stay focused?
- Learn to automatically inhibit alternative goals when
pursuing focal goal
“Goal shielding”
(Shah et al, JPSP)
Basic idea
- Identify three goals (“intelligent”) + importance
- Lexical decision task
You will be faster to ID a second word if you are primed by the first. I.e. Doctor primes for nurse
This task is used to measure the states of relationships
“Goal shielding”
(Shah et al, JPSP)
Set up
- Identify three goals (“intelligent”) + importance
- Lexical decision task
- Subliminally prime:
G1: goal
G2: control word (“house”) - measure RT to alternate goal words (“is this a personal attribute”?)
If you can shield one goal with another, then in the goal primed task, you will be slower to ID another goal as this goal has been suppressed
“Goal shielding”
(Shah et al, JPSP)
Results
On goal primed trial, participants were slower to identify the second goal vs. the RT when primed by control
This suggests goal shieling can happen
When we become aware of 1 goal, others become less accessible and so we may stay focused on the first goal
IN a second study the expressed commitment to a goal were positively related to the inhibition.
The more committed, the greater the effect of this shielding