ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025
The effectiveness and adaptiveness of suppressing unwanted thoughts.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The status of thought suppression in contemporary psychology remains ambiguous. The literature contains claims both about its counterproductive consequences and about its potential utility. The aim of this article is to review and evaluate evidence concerning the effectiveness and adaptiveness of thought suppression across different research traditions. The first part of the paper examines effectiveness. Studies from the two main paradigms-the white bear and the think/no-think paradigms-are compared. Findings suggest that, in healthy populations, suppression can be effective, while paradoxical effects have not been convincingly demonstrated. The second part addresses adaptiveness. Questionnaire studies, clinical observations, and (quasi-)experimental research are discussed. This body of evidence indicates that thought suppression may be adaptive, depending on factors such as individual differences and context. Finally, potential desirable and undesirable suppression outcomes are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.