|
People often find themselves doing exactly what they told
themselves not to do. The very intention to suppress a response has the
paradoxical effect of producing it. In the "Tell-Tale Heart," Edgar
Allan Poe described this phenomenon poetically, and labeled it: the Imp of the Perverse.
Consider the challenge:
Try not to scratch your nose. Continue reading, but be aware that even letting your
nose itch would indicate a lack of personal control. So try not to even think about your
nose, and see if you can read to the end of this article without once scratching your nose
or the area near it.
The intention to not let your nose itch - especially if you take it
seriously - often has the perverse consequence of producing nose itching. There are
two interesting cognitive interoperations of this phenomenon:
- Negative Suggestion: Negative representations are
defined in terms of positive representations [their opposite], but positive
representations are defined directly. For example, the statement: "It is not
raining" requires a representation of: "It is raining." Likewise,
the statement: "Chester is not a pedophile." requires the audience to comprehend
the assertion: "Chester is a pedophile," and then reject it. But the association
between Chester and child molestation now has a representation in the audience's
mind. To understand the instruction: "Don’t let your nose itch!" the
reader must refer to an internal representation of an itchy nose - which causes the nose
to itch.
|
- Ironic process1: To determine if you
are successful in having a nose that is not itching, you must compare the current
sensations with what they would be if your nose was itching. According to this
interpretation, it is checking to make sure you are successful that causes the nose to
itch. Ironic, isn't it?
|
The PIG says:
"Always frame intentions in
terms of what you want - not what you don't want!"
Reactance
Humans hate
restrictions - especially of those freedoms they already have. Reactance refers to the
motivation to react or rebel against restriction. In one study, two-year old boys
accompanied their mothers into a room containing equally attractive toys. The toys were
arranged so that one stood in front of a transparent Plexiglas barrier, and the other
stood out of reach behind the barrier. The boys showed a strong preference for the toy
they couldn't have. Their inability to get the toy behind the barrier caused many boys to
tantrum, which was not relieved by giving the child the equally attractive toy.
Once an object [such as chocolate, alcohol, etc.] is forbidden there is an emotional
reaction to the restriction, which, perversely, enhances the desire
for the forbidden object.
This
version of counter-regulatory motivation is called: Reactance.
The motivation to stay with the plan is
state-dependent, and so rises
and falls according to local conditions. However, reactance is intrinsic to
the task, and so is always present. Whenever local conditions are
insufficient to support the motivation to stay with the plan, even for a
moment, reactance is there to motivate a first lapse.
Studying counter-regulatory motivation is difficult, because people hide
their perverse nature when they think they are being observed. Consequently, a
deceptive methodology has been developed2 to study it. Dieters [restrained
eaters] and non-dieters are told that they are participating in a taste preference study.
After sampling a variety of foods [the pre-load] and offering their critique, they are
"thanked" for their participation with a free lunch. The lunch is offered buffet
style, and each participant can consume as much as desired. Unbeknownst to the
participants, behind one-way mirrors are research staff observing them and calculating how
many calories each subject consumes. The effect of low calorie and high calorie pre-loads
on subsequent eating are compared.
When the pre-load was low calorie, dieters consumed fewer calories during the buffet
than did non-dieters - after all, they were on a diet. However, when the pre-load was high
calorie, dieters consumed significantly more calories during the buffet than those who
were not dieting!
Interpretation of these results: After consuming the high calorie pre-load, the
restriction was temporarily removed, for example: "I have already broken my diet -
I'll start back tomorrow." The idea that there will be a restriction in the future
paradoxically enhances the motivation to act counter to the restriction - "to get it
while I can." The urgency to take advantage of the apparently limited opportunity
often produces extreme and bizarre behavior once a lapse as occurred. Other
processes that can turn a first lapse into a destructive relapse are described in
The Soul Illusion.
Internal Attribution: The Insult Is
the Injury
Addicted individuals interpret their
repeated relapses as proof of personal weakness. The belief that the cause of the
failure is within is an internal attribution for failure - for
example "I do not have what it takes to be successful."
The lapser may also believe "The fact that I failed in the past means that I
will fail in the future." This is a stable attribution for failure,
for example, "I am weak, and the same weaknesses that caused me to fail in
the past, will cause me to fail in the future."
As seen in the restrained eaters research, the very intention to restrict eating
produces counter-regulatory motivation. Once the first lapse occurs other lawful
processes are triggered, which produce a full blown relapse. People relapse
because the deck is stacked against them. Escaping an addictive disorder is much
more difficult than most people realize. This formidable task is complicated by factors
such as perceptual illusions and counter-regulatory motivation. A task such as this
is worthy of respect. Accepting the internal, stable attribution [the problem is
within me and it is not going to change] is not only wrong headed, but sets one up for
failure.
Consider the following study which demonstrates how internal attribution and
counter-regulatory motivation can work together to affect one's self-perception.
Teen-aged boys were told that a book was too sexually explicit to be read by those under
21. This restriction had the effect of dramatically increasing their desire to read the
book. The experimenters knew that the attractiveness of the book was enhanced because
the book was forbidden. But the boys had a different
perspective; they attributed their motivation to read the book to a personal weakness - to
be attracted to lewd content. Forbidding the book had the perverse consequence of causing
the subjects to believe that they were perverse.
Back to the top
Footnotes:
1. D. Wegner. Psychol Rev, 1994, 101, 34-52
2. Polivy & Herman, 1985, Amer Psychol, 40, 193-201 |
|
In the factory we make cosmetics. In the store we sell hope.
- Charles Revson
The education of the will is the object of our existence.
- Emerson
The mistake was not forbidding the serpent; then Adam would have eaten the serpent
- G. B. Shaw
A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything.
- Nietzsche
Jill: You think I am stupid.
Jack: I don't think you are stupid.
Jill: I must be stupid to think you think I am stupid when you don't.
- R. D. Laing
What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing.
- Aristotle
I've found that the best way to deal with those who insist upon asking,
"Notice anything different?" is to hazard, "You've had a sex change
operation?"
- Strange de Jim
|
