White Bears, Mindfulness and Ironic Process Theory
What do a white bear, mindfulness, and a theory called Ironic Process Theory have to do with each other?
Let us start by doing an experiment. Sit down, close your eyes, and for the next two minutes, imagine a “white bear.” Ready! Now, for the next two minutes, you can think about anything except a “white bear”. What happens when you do this?
And the next exercise. Sit down, and for the next two minutes, just do not think, especially about a “white bear”. Ready! Again, what happens here when you try to do this?
Usually, what happens is that in the second and third exercise, the thought of the “white bear” keeps coming up. Unbecomingly it seems that the harder we try to suppress the thought of a “white bear” frustratingly, it just keeps coming up.
This was eloquently captured by Fyodor Dostoevsky, a prolific Russian novelist on the human condition most known for his novels such as Notes from the Underground (1864), Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), The Possessed (1872) and The Brothers Karamazov (1880). Below is a video outlining his life, what he wrote about and his philosophical and psychological outlook on the human condition.
But for our purposes we will be looking at something he wrote in “Winter Notes on Summer Impressions.” Similarly to what we tried in the beginning, he points out,
“Try and set yourself the problem of not thinking about a polar bear, and you will see that the damned animal will be constantly in your thoughts.” (Dostoyevsky, 1985, p. 62)
This is precisely how the mind works, and what prompted Daniel Wegner and colleagues in 1987 to directly study this phenomenon for the first time, the “Paradoxical Effects of Thought Suppression.” They opened the study with the following paragraph,
“It is sometimes tempting to wish one’s thoughts away. Unpleasant thoughts, ideas that are inappropriate to the moment, or images that may instigate unwanted behaviors each can become the focus of a desire for avoidance. Whether one is trying not to think of a traumatic event, however, or is merely attempting to avoid the thought of food while on a diet, it seems that thought suppression is not easy. It is said, for instance, that when the young Dostoyevsky challenged his brother not to think of a white bear, the child was perplexed for a long while.” (Wegner et al., 1987, p. 5)
Taking Dostoyevsky’s challenge, Wegner et al. (1987) ran a series of experiments similar to what we did at the start of the article to see what happens when we try to suppress thoughts.
To do this, they set up two groups where one group was told to first “try to think of a white bear” (expression phase) for 5 minutes and subsequently to “try not to think of a white bear” (suppression phase) for the following 5 minutes. The other group was given the opposite sequence to first “try not to think of a white bear” (suppression phase) and then to “think of a white bear” (expression phase) for 5-minute periods. While doing this, participants were asked to verbalise their stream of consciousness and ring a bell whenever the white bear came to mind (Wegner et al., 1987).
What Wegner et al. (1987) found was that even if instructed not to think of a white bear, participants struggled with this and still reported having thoughts of a white bear on average more than once per minute when asked not to think of it. You might be saying to yourself that this was bound to happen.
However, what is interesting is what happened to those participants who, first, were instructed “not to think of a white bear” (suppression phase) for the first 5 minutes, and after instructed to “think of a white bear” (expression phase). In this instance, Wegner and colleagues observed how, compared to the previous group, who started with “thinking of a white bear” (expression phase), the second group reported more instances of a white bear in the expression phase when this was superseded with a suppression stage.
Wegner et al. (1987) argued that overall, this was indicative of an antagonistic or inverse relationship suggestive of a rebound effect.
What does this mean? That the effort to suppress a thought might actually lead to an increase in the frequency of that thought once suppression is no longer required. In other words, trying not to think about something (even something trivial like a white bear) can make you more likely to think about it later on. However, Wegner et al. (1987) did not stop there.
They did a second experiment in which they included a third group. This group was told to start by “trying not to think of a white bear” (suppression phase). However, they included an extra instruction asking participants to focus on “the thought of a red Volkswagen” in this phase and, whenever the thought of a “white bear” came up, to return to focusing on “the thought of a red Volkswagen.” Wegner and colleagues called this the “focused distraction condition.” If you think about this, we can also say that there are parallels here to what is done in meditation.
What Wegner et al. (1987) found was quite curious, that the “focused distraction” (focusing on a red Volkswagen) did not help in reducing the thoughts of a “white bear” in the suppression phase compared to other groups. However, they noted that these participants did not show the rebound effect when it came to the expression phase (think of a white bear).
What does this mean? That focusing on the red Volkswagen in the suppression helped with reducing the likelihood of thinking of a white bear once suppression was no longer required. Here again, we can see parallels with meditation. Why? If you think about this, it also seems to be the case with meditation that the more we allow thoughts to be without engaging with them in the long term, this seems to help settle the mind.
The ironic process theory
So why does this happen? Wegner et al. (1987) pointed out how,
“To suppress a thought requires that one (a) plan to suppress a thought and (b) carry out that plan by suppressing all manifestations of the thought, including the original plan. Thought suppression thus seems to entail a state of knowing and not knowing at once.” (p. 5)
And this is a paradoxical state to know and not know something simultaneously.
So, the white bear keeps popping in mind because when we set ourselves up the task to try not to think of something, we also need to check if we are thinking about it. So, a part of our mind is trying to avoid that thought, but at the same time, another part of our mind checks in periodically to see if we are thinking of a white bear and, in doing so, brings it to mind. This process is automatic. It is how the mind works, and over a number of years and multiple studies, it came to be known as, “The Ironic Process Theory” of thought control, that the more we try not to think about something, the more likely it is to come to mind (Wegner, 1994). Following is a helpful video explaining the ironic process theory.
This is why it is called ironic process theory. Because it is ironic that not to think about something, you actually need to think if you are not thinking about it, and when you do so, you are thinking about it. In fact, Wegner (1994) opens the theory by saying,
“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. Indeed, our attempts at mental control fall short so often that we may stop to wonder—along with Poe—whether there is some part of our minds, an imp of the perverse, that ironically strives to compel our errors. The theory of ironic processes of mental control makes precisely this claim.” (p. 34)
Ironic process theory and mindfulness
So, what can these findings and theory tell us about mindfulness meditation?
Primarily, this highlights something, first, that thoughts are bound to come up in meditation and, second, that trying to block thoughts or setting ourselves the task of not thinking in meditation can actually make things worse. As Wegner and colleagues found in their experiments and what the ironic process theory tells us, that the more we try to suppress thoughts, the more they are bound to arise. This is because, through his theory, Wegner demonstrates that setting yourself the task of not thinking in meditation requires you also to think if you are not thinking.
I have often experienced this first-hand in my practice, where the more I try not to think, the more the mind seems to wander away, which then leads me to become frustrated. Consequently, I unknowingly start trying to block the frustration, which leads to more frustration and thoughts—a vicious cycle.
This is why in mindfulness meditation, the objective is not to make the mind go blank, or have no thoughts or stop thinking. This is counterproductive as it just will fuel more thoughts. The “objective” is to allow the thoughts to be, to just let them be, and whenever we notice getting lost in the thoughts getting carried away by them, to notice this as a matter of fact and return to watching the arising and passing of thoughts.
However, sometimes, there is the perception that meditation is about having no thoughts. I encounter many individuals who come to meditation with this impression because they are seeking “mental peace”, and to achieve this, they believe one has to stop thoughts. By doing this, we will just be entering into conflict with the mind. As we saw from the ironic process theory, this will not work, and this ironic process is one of the processes that can make anxious or depressogenic thinking worse (Becker et al., 1998; Beevers et al., 1999; Koster et al., 2003; Szasz, 2009).
So, counterintuitively, this is not what we do in mindfulness practice, and the ironic process theory seems to support this. What we do in mindfulness practice is having a point of reference, which we call an anchor on which we rest attention, while at the same time not trying to stop thoughts or thinking, but to notice moments when an arising thought captures our attention and find ourselves thinking, noticing this without judgement and returning attention to our anchor. This reminds me of the Tibetan word for meditation, “gom or ghom”, which broadly means “to become familiar with the mind and how the mind moves”. While in Pali, the word used for meditation is “Bhavana”, which broadly means “to actively cultivate”. Lama Surya Das (2011) writes:
“In Tibetan, the word for meditation is gom, which literally means “familiarisation” or “getting used to,” and, in this sense, meditation is a means by which we familiarise ourselves with our mind. The common Pali term for meditation is bhavana, meaning “to cultivate, to develop, to bring into being.” So we might then think of meditation as the active cultivation of mind leading to clear awareness, tranquillity, and wisdom. This requires conscious effort.” (para. 4)
So, to become familiar friends with the mind and how it moves, not to “control” it, as trying to suppress or control thought can backfire.
And the ironic process theory and Wegner et al. (1987) experiments seem to lend support to this as what was helpful in avoiding this rebound effect was not trying to stop thoughts of a white bear but noticing those moments and returning to the red Volkswagen. Precisely the process that we are engaging in in meditation practice, which, in time and with diligent practice, leads to a sense of calm because we are no longer struggling with our thoughts. The following video by Professor Russ Curtis might help visualise this.
In fact, Micallef (2023) argues that ultimately, mindfulness meditation and mindfulness-based interventions,
“All emphasise either directly or indirectly a systematic, sustained training of the faculty of attention (for both teacher and participant) primarily directed towards the cultivation of mindfulness as a quality of awareness as a central pedagogical component.” (ibid. p. 87)
Further arguing that this seems to be the case across contemplative traditions writing,
“Such emphasis on the systemic, sustained training of one’s faculty of attention directly or indirectly towards the cultivation of mindfulness as a quality of awareness also seems to be a common pedagogical component linking the different contemplative practices across traditions.” (ibid. p. 87)
Further, this paradoxical effect is not only limited to thoughts but also to other domains like relaxation and mood (Wegner, 1994). So again, as per the purpose of meditation practice, this shows that trying to relax or control our mood during mindfulness practice will technically backfire.
Mindfulness is not about trying to relax or controlling mood, but about bringing about a balanced acknowledging awareness towards our present experience, whatever it is, without grasping onto something, wanting to make it last or suppressing the unpleasant because we do not like it. As Bishop et al. (2004) pointed out, mindfulness has been broadly conceptualised,
“As a kind of nonelaborative, non-judgmental, present-centered awareness in which each thought, feeling, or sensation that arises in the attentional field is acknowledged and accepted as it is.” (ibid. p.232)
And beyond all the pleasantries theories and chatter about mindfulness, cultivating mindfulness as a quality of awareness is not an easy thing to do because probably, we all would like enjoyable, pleasant things and moments to last and to avoid unpleasant things and moments and for them to go away. This including myself, and from personal experience, although I have found mindfulness practice helpful, it is one of the most difficult things to practice in this capitalist consumerist post-modern world we live in. Would like to hear your comments about this.
Thank you for reading this article from Now About Meditation. If you enjoyed this or think it could be helpful to someone, please do share or forward it to a friend or two, or share it on social media. 😊 It is freely available for anyone to read. 😊
If you enjoyed reading this and want to support my work, why not subscribe? 📚 Never miss a post – it's free! If you're feeling extra awesome, you can become a paid subscriber to the publication. No need for Substack, just your email address. Your support means a lot and keeps me going. 😊 Thank you! 😊
References
Becker, E. S., Rinnck, M., Roth, W. T., & Margraf, J. (1998). Don’t worry and beware of white bears: Thought suppression in anxiety patients. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 12(1), 39-55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6185(97)00048-0
Beevers, C. G., Wenzlaff, R. M., Hayes, A. M., & Scott, W. D. (1999). Depression and the ironic effects of thought suppression: Therapeutic strategies for improving mental control. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(2), 133-148. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.6.2.133
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., . . . Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230-241. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph077
Das Surya, L. (2016). The heart of meditation [epub]. In J. D. Oliver (Ed.), Commit to sit: Tools for cultivating a meditation practice from the pages of Tricycle (p. 10%). Carlsbad: Hay House Inc.
Dostoyevsky, F. (1985). Winter notes on summer impressions. (K. FitzLyon, Trans.) London: Quartet Books.
Koster, E. H., Rassin, E., Crombez, G., & Naring, G. W. (2003). The paradoxical effects of suppressing anxious thoughts during imminent threat. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(9), 1113-1120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00144-Xv
Micallef, C. (2023). The adverse effects of mindfulness: A narrative review, emergent findings, and a proposed definition [Doctoral dissertation, University of Aberdeen] Primo. Retrieved from https://abdn.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/delivery/44ABE_INST:44ABE_VU1/12213274180005941
Szasz, P. L. (2009). Thoughts suppression depressive rumination and depression: A mediation analysis. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioural Psychotherapies, 9(2), 199-209.
Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic process of mental control. Psychological Review, 101(1), 34-52.
Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 5-13.