The effectiveness and adaptiveness of suppressing unwanted thoughts

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.