Executive functions involved in thought suppression: An attempt to integrate research in two paradigms

IF 2.1 3区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL

Consciousness and Cognition Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2024.103765

{"title":"Executive functions involved in thought suppression: An attempt to integrate research in two paradigms","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.concog.2024.103765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There are two main thought suppression research paradigms: the White Bear and Think/No-Think paradigms. In Think/No-Think research, thought suppression is effective and is considered to be mediated by prepotent response inhibition. Conversely, in White Bear studies, thought suppression is counterproductive and appears to engage resistance to proactive interference. However, findings regarding the involvement of these executive functions in each task are mixed. In the current study, two thought suppression procedures were compared. Using Friedman and Miyake’s inhibitory functions model (2004) it was investigated whether the differences between thought suppression tasks can be explained by involvement of different executive functions. The results showed that the suppression phases of both procedures were correlated, but the outcomes of suppression were unrelated. There was no evidence supporting the involvement of the examined executive functions in either thought suppression task. Commonalities and discrepancies of the two tasks are discussed along with their external validity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51358,"journal":{"name":"Consciousness and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Consciousness and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810024001326","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are two main thought suppression research paradigms: the White Bear and Think/No-Think paradigms. In Think/No-Think research, thought suppression is effective and is considered to be mediated by prepotent response inhibition. Conversely, in White Bear studies, thought suppression is counterproductive and appears to engage resistance to proactive interference. However, findings regarding the involvement of these executive functions in each task are mixed. In the current study, two thought suppression procedures were compared. Using Friedman and Miyake’s inhibitory functions model (2004) it was investigated whether the differences between thought suppression tasks can be explained by involvement of different executive functions. The results showed that the suppression phases of both procedures were correlated, but the outcomes of suppression were unrelated. There was no evidence supporting the involvement of the examined executive functions in either thought suppression task. Commonalities and discrepancies of the two tasks are discussed along with their external validity.

查看原文本刊更多论文

思维抑制所涉及的执行功能：尝试整合两种范式的研究。

有两种主要的思维抑制研究范式："白熊 "范式和 "思考/不思考 "范式。在 "思考/不思考 "研究中，思维抑制是有效的，并被认为是以先期反应抑制为中介的。相反，在 "白熊 "研究中，思维抑制会适得其反，似乎会对主动干扰产生抵触情绪。然而，关于这些执行功能在每项任务中的参与情况，研究结果不一。在本研究中，我们对两种思维抑制程序进行了比较。利用弗里德曼和三宅的抑制功能模型（2004 年），研究了思维抑制任务之间的差异是否可以用不同执行功能的参与来解释。结果表明，两种程序的抑制阶段是相关的，但抑制的结果是不相关的。没有证据支持所研究的执行功能参与了这两种思维抑制任务。本文讨论了这两项任务的共性和差异，以及它们的外部有效性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Consciousness and Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

8.30%

发文量

123

期刊介绍： Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal provides a forum for a natural-science approach to the issues of consciousness, voluntary control, and self. The journal features empirical research (in the form of regular articles and short reports) and theoretical articles. Integrative theoretical and critical literature reviews, and tutorial reviews are also published. The journal aims to be both scientifically rigorous and open to novel contributions.