Daniel Wegner introduced the concept of “ironic processes” as follows:
“It sometimes seems that our desires to control our minds are met by an inordinate measure of failure. Whether we want to stop a worry, concentrate on a task, go to sleep, escape a bad mood, distract ourselves from pain, be humble, relax, avoid prejudice, or serve yet other mental goals, we find ourselves faltering again and again.” [1]
In previous work, Wegner and his colleagues asked their participants to consciously avoid thinking about white bears. [2] Naturally, the poor participants were inundated with images of the very things they were supposed to avoid.
In an interesting application of ironic processes, James Erskine asked his 134 participants to first avoid thinking about chocolate, and then gave them an opportunity to eat chocolate. Wegner would not be surprised to learn that the group that avoided thinking about chocolate ate significantly more chocolate than those who were asked to avoid thinking about non-chocolate topics.[3]
Erskine’s article is appearing in this month’s Appetite. Incidentally, this looks like a very interesting journal for anyone interested in food and eating behavior. When time permits, I’d love to explore the “Attitudes to Chocolate Questionnaire” article appearing in the same issue.
This study has some interesting implications for dieters. If we exercise self-control by consciously striving to avoid thinking about fattening foods, we might experience a rebound effect when those foods become available. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Jenny Craig advocates that we stop labeling foods as “good” or “bad.”
So if I want to stop eating chocolate, I should avoid avoiding thinking about chocolate….okay, now I’m getting confused. Maybe I should just avoid thinking about white bears for awhile. Should you choose to indulge, Mr. F (who worked for Nestle and Mars), strongly recommends Ethel M, the brainchild of Mars Inc.’s Forrest Mars, Senior.
1. Wegner, D.M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34-52.
2. Wegner, D.M. (1989). White bears and other unwanted thoughts. New York: Viking/Penguin.
3. Erskine, J.A.K. (2007). Resistance can be futile: Investigating behavioural rebound. Appetite. [epub ahead of print].
5 Comments
KatyL · November 2, 2007 at 5:55 pm
It seems like this theory would apply to most addictions or negative behavior people want to avoid. Humans seem to want what they can’t have! I know from my own experience with eating disorders that the foods-things we avoid can become obsessions if you try to deprive yourself to an extreme… So eat chocolate if you crave it 🙂 it’s good for ya!
Laura Freberg · November 3, 2007 at 10:18 am
Katy–great point about how this would apply to any self-control issue. I hope this is helpful to substance abuse counselors. I can’t help but imagine that if a person were constantly concentrating on abstaining from his/her drug of choice, that the same rebound effect would occur whenever the drug is available. How we protect people from this is a whole different question, and I think we need much more research in this direction.
L.Brightwell · November 4, 2007 at 9:53 pm
It’s funny that you have mentioned this idea that making an attempt at not thinking about something only makes us desire it that much more when it is in front of us. When looking at this process I would most definitely apply it to ideas surrounding food but you made mention of a lot of other aspects of our lives both positive and negative that fall pray to this system. I believe that most things in moderation are okay as long as we practice control. Although from time to time a little chocolate overload is needed. Most recently instances in my life stand out that fall completely under this category, sweets included thanks to Halloween but I am learning to partake in moderation and try to focus my attention on other positive things.
kbushman · November 6, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I think that this concept applies to almost anything in life. I remember when I was younger, my parents told me I couldn’t do certain things like watch certain tv shows or go on the internet, but the more they restricted those things, the more I thought about them and longed to do them. Making something seem untouchable and “off limits” I think drives the human mind to desire them even more. Sadly, I think this idea can even be applied to the art of dating. I know guys who love going after girls who have boyfriends just because they are supposedly “off limits”. Sick, I know, but it definately goes along with this idea of ironic processes. For the most part, I think we should keep most everything on a level playing field, with everything is reach, because if we put too much emphasis on NOT doing something, or labeling something as “restricted”, it backfires and messes with us even more.
reggie · March 14, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I thought the study was interesting. But maybe it’s not just chocolate that we can crave, it can be almost any food. If we not think about eating any food in particular, we would probably have the same outcome. It looks like the “forbidden fruit” can be irresistable. As for me, I eat like a pig and I can eat a whole lot!
Comments are closed.