Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Journal Club

Rethinking the Role of Thought Suppression in Psychological Models and Treatment

Caitlin S.M. Cowan, Shiu F. Wong and Lillian Le
Journal of Neuroscience 22 November 2017, 37 (47) 11293-11295; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2511-17.2017
Caitlin S.M. Cowan
1APC Microbiome Institute, University College Cork, Cork T12 YT20, Ireland, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Caitlin S.M. Cowan
Shiu F. Wong
2School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052 New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lillian Le
2School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052 New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Wouldn't it be nice to forget our deepest fears and cast aside our regrets? Unfortunately, for many individuals, it is precisely these unpleasant details that always seem to resurface. The repeated, distressing intrusion of unwanted thoughts and memories is a common feature of many psychological disorders (Wenzlaff and Wegner, 2000). Controlling or suppressing such intrusive thoughts is a demanding cognitive process that typically involves top-down inhibition of the hippocampus, a region known for its role in memory regulation, by prefrontal “control” regions (particularly the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [dlPFC]) (Anderson et al., 2016). However, not all intrusions are equal. Psychologically distressing intrusions have an added affective component, meaning that their suppression requires individuals to regulate their negative emotional response in addition to controlling the intrusion per se. In a recent article in The Journal of Neuroscience, Gagnepain et al. (2017) sought to determine whether the cognitive and affective components of thought suppression are achieved through similar or distinct neural networks.

In that study, functional connectivity during a thought suppression task was assessed in healthy young adults (N = 24) using fMRI. First, participants learned associations between images of faces paired with neutral or aversive scenes. Next, in the scanner, participants were shown the face-cues at random. On half the trials, they were instructed to consciously recall the paired scene in detail; on the remaining trials, they were instructed to engage in thought suppression by blocking thoughts of the paired scene and instead blanking their mind while fixating on the face cue. Throughout the task, participants reported whether the paired scene came to mind during the trial. Finally, participants underwent an associative recognition test and rated the emotional valence of each of the original scenes.

Using dynamic causal modeling and Bayesian model selection, Gagnepain et al. (2017) identified the direction of communication between a network of brain regions that were differentially activated during thought suppression. The final model supported the hypothesis that suppression involves a top-down process driven by a frontoparietal network, including the dlPFC and other frontal regions. Furthermore, this inhibitory frontoparietal network downregulated both hippocampal and amygdalar activity in a manner suggesting parallel regulation of memories and associated emotional responses. The authors also observed individual differences in suppression ability that correlated with engagement of this neural “suppression network.” That is, effective suppressors, who reported low rates of intrusions, exhibited stronger coupling in the suppression network during the task (i.e., higher inverse correlation between activity in the frontoparietal regions and activity in the hippocampus and amygdala). These individuals also exhibited greater levels of affect suppression (i.e., diminished negative affect for suppressed aversive scenes in the test phase). In contrast, ineffective suppressors reported frequent intrusions during suppression trials, exhibited weaker coupling between regions in the suppression network, and rated aversive scenes as more negative after (attempted) suppression.

Based on these findings, the authors proposed that individual differences in thought suppression may reflect vulnerability to psychopathology and that training in effective thought suppression may enhance psychological treatment outcomes. This proposal, although appealing, first needs to be considered in the context of established psychological models that have long characterized thought suppression as a key maintaining factor across a range of disorders, notably obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

OCD is characterized by the presence of recurrent and persistent intrusive thoughts, images, or impulses that cause marked anxiety and distress (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Similarly, intrusive thoughts about an experienced trauma are a hallmark symptom of PTSD that causes significant psychological distress (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Cognitive-behavioral models suggest that this distress arises due to negative interpretations of intrusive thoughts as personally significant and dangerous (Fig. 1). For example, an individual with OCD may believe that having an intrusive thought (e.g., “I'm going to kill someone”) increases the likelihood of the action occurring, making the individual personally responsible for their thoughts and causing guilt and anxiety (Salkovskis, 1985). In PTSD, intrusive memories of the trauma often induce fear if the intrusion is interpreted as a signal that the individual is under current threat (Ehlers and Clark, 2000).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

A cognitive-behavioral model of thought suppression as a maintaining factor in psychopathology. It is proposed that intrusive thoughts and memories evoke negative emotional responses (sadness, anxiety, fear) due to negative appraisals or interpretations of the meaning of the intrusions. The use of thought suppression to regulate negative emotions may bring some initial, short-lasting relief but often has detrimental long-term effects. These include a paradoxical increase in the frequency of intrusive thoughts (rebound effects) and strengthening of negative appraisals when thought suppression fails (ineffective control). The results of Gagnepain et al. (2017) suggest that weak connectivity between the PFC and medial temporal lobe structures (hippocampus [HPC]; amygdala [AMYG]) may contribute to ineffective control and individual differences in vulnerability to this negative cycle of suppression.

It should be unsurprising that individuals who experience intrusive thoughts as highly distressing may attempt to suppress these thoughts as a strategy to regulate their negative emotional response. Unfortunately, it seems that thought suppression can lead to paradoxical increases in the frequency of intrusions and the intensity of associated distress, a phenomenon known as the rebound effect that is observed across a variety of clinical conditions (e.g., Purdon et al., 2005; Nickerson et al., 2016). In addition to the negative cycle created by rebound effects, failed attempts at thought suppression (i.e., ineffective control) can also exacerbate psychological symptoms by reinforcing negative interpretations of intrusions. Specifically, individuals fail to learn that intrusions are nonthreatening, preventing extinction of negative beliefs. In PTSD, suppression of trauma-related intrusions can further prevent elaborate processing of the trauma into memory, thus maintaining psychological symptoms (Foa and Kozak, 1986). Supporting this model, thought suppression is more frequent in clinical populations (Magee et al., 2012) and high thought suppression is predictive of increased symptom severity at later time points (e.g., Mayou et al., 2002; Wenzlaff and Luxton, 2003).

The findings of Gagnepain et al. (2017) suggest that some individuals, even in healthy populations, may be more vulnerable to the negative cycle depicted in Figure 1 due to underlying neurobiological differences that make them more likely to fail at thought suppression. There is some limited support for this hypothesis in the clinical literature. One study found that depressed women exhibit attenuated dlPFC activation during thought suppression compared with healthy women (Carew et al., 2013). Importantly, women at risk for depression (first-degree relative with depression) showed an intermediate dlPFC response, supporting the assertion that neurobiological differences signal risk rather than simply being consequences of the disorder. Although brain-imaging studies in OCD populations have produced inconsistent results (Menzies et al., 2008), there is some evidence for structural and functional changes in the suppression network in PTSD, including reduced volume of the hippocampus and anterior cingulate cortex, hyperactivity of the amygdala response to stress, and reduced prefrontal-amygdala connectivity (O'Doherty et al., 2015; Clausen et al., 2017). Unfortunately, most of these clinical imaging studies have examined neurobiological differences only after diagnosis, making it difficult to determine directionality of effects. The findings of Gagnepain et al. (2017) suggest that more research is warranted to specifically examine functional connectivity during thought suppression across different psychological disorders, particularly prospective studies to determine whether functional abnormalities precede and predict symptom onset.

Another critical consideration for future research will be to establish the specificity of the present findings to thought suppression. The suppression network overlaps with networks underlying other emotion regulation strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal, a key component of cognitive-behavioral therapies used to break the suppression cycle by addressing negative interpretations of thoughts (Blechert et al., 2015). Reappraisal also increases frontal activation (including in the dlPFC) and decreases amygdala activation (Buhle et al., 2014). In a direct comparison of suppression and reappraisal, both strategies activated the same prefrontal regions, but this response was faster during reappraisal and only reappraisal inhibited amygdala responses (Goldin et al., 2008). Therefore, individual differences in connectivity in the suppression network might reflect the use of different emotion regulation strategies, perhaps due to differing interpretations of the instructions. For instance, if participants focused on the instruction to “block thoughts … by blanking their mind,” this would likely elicit thought suppression in the traditional sense; whereas if they focused on the instruction to “fixate … on the face-cue,” this would likely elicit detailed examination of the cue in an objective manner more akin to reappraisal. Identifying precisely what is involved in effective thought suppression will be crucial to understanding whether it is possible to enhance performance in ineffective suppressors, and therefore whether thought suppression will be a useful therapeutic tool.

Finally, it will be important to determine whether the current findings apply under ecologically valid conditions relevant to individuals with psychological disorders. For example, high levels of stress are inherent to the experience of psychopathology (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). However, participants in the Gagnepain et al. (2017) experiments engaged in thought suppression in an artificial experimental environment free from any competing cognitive demands. This contrast is particularly important given evidence that intrusions occur more frequently under conditions of stress or high cognitive load (Wenzlaff and Wegner, 2000; Nixon et al., 2009). Another fundamental question is whether the benefits of successful thought suppression are enduring given that Gagnepain et al. (2017) only investigated short-term effects. Indeed, cognitive-behavioral models would predict that thought suppression leads to immediate relief from the distress associated with intrusions, but that these benefits are temporary and would diminish from overuse of this strategy (Fig. 1).

In conclusion, Gagnepain et al. (2017) demonstrated that suppression of intrusive memories and suppression of associated negative emotional responses are supported by parallel neural processes. Furthermore, they showed that engagement of these neural processes was related to individual differences in the effectiveness of both cognitive and emotional suppression, with interesting clinical implications. Their findings have led us to critically examine a priori beliefs around the negative impacts of thought suppression from a psychological perspective. Before incorporating this technique into psychological therapies, however, the mechanism of thought suppression should be clarified in future research.

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short reviews of recent JNeurosci articles, written exclusively by students or postdoctoral fellows, summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. If the authors of the highlighted article have written a response to the Journal Club, the response can be found by viewing the Journal Club at www.jneurosci.org. For more information on the format, review process, and purpose of Journal Club articles, please see http://jneurosci.org/content/preparing-manuscript#journalclub.

  • This work was supported through the Joint Programming Initiative - A Healthy Diet for Healthy Life (JPI-HDHL) project HEALTHMARK by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) 16/ERA-HDHL/3362. The APC Microbiome Institute was supported by SFI through the Irish Government's National Development Plan Grant 12/RC/2273. L.L. was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. We thank Ryan Carceller for assistance with the figure.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Caitlin S. M. Cowan, Laboratory of Neurogastroenterology, APC Microbiome Institute, Room 5.35, Biosciences Building, University College Cork, Cork, T12 YT20, Ireland. caitlin.cowan{at}ucc.ie

References

  1. ↵
    American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, Ed 5. Arlington, TX: American Psychiatric.
  2. ↵
    1. Anderson MC,
    2. Bunce JG,
    3. Barbas H
    (2016) Prefrontal-hippocampal pathways underlying inhibitory control over memory. Neurobiol Learn Mem 134:145–161. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2015.11.008 pmid:26642918
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Blechert J,
    2. Wilhelm FH,
    3. Williams H,
    4. Braams BR,
    5. Jou J,
    6. Gross JJ
    (2015) Reappraisal facilitates extinction in healthy and socially anxious individuals. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 46:141–150. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.10.001 pmid:25460260
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Buhle JT,
    2. Silvers JA,
    3. Wager TD,
    4. Lopez R,
    5. Onyemekwu C,
    6. Kober H,
    7. Weber J,
    8. Ochsner KN
    (2014) Cognitive reappraisal of emotion: a meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies. Cereb Cortex 24:2981–2990. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht154 pmid:23765157
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Carew CL,
    2. Milne AM,
    3. Tatham EL,
    4. MacQueen GM,
    5. Hall GB
    (2013) Neural systems underlying thought suppression in young women with, and at-risk, for depression. Behav Brain Res 257:13–24. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2013.09.016 pmid:24055881
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Clausen AN,
    2. Francisco AJ,
    3. Thelen J,
    4. Bruce J,
    5. Martin LE,
    6. McDowd J,
    7. Simmons WK,
    8. Aupperle RL
    (2017) PTSD and cognitive symptoms relate to inhibition-related prefrontal activation and functional connectivity. Depress Anxiety 34:427–436. doi:10.1002/da.22613 pmid:28370684
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Ehlers A,
    2. Clark DM
    (2000) A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behav Res Ther 38:319–345. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00123-0 pmid:10761279
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Foa EB,
    2. Kozak MJ
    (1986) Emotional processing of fear: exposure to corrective information. Psychol Bull 99:20–35. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.20 pmid:2871574
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Gagnepain P,
    2. Hulbert J,
    3. Anderson MC
    (2017) Parallel regulation of memory and emotion supports the suppression of intrusive memories. J Neurosci 37 : 6423–6441. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2732-16.2017 pmid:28559378
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Goldin PR,
    2. McRae K,
    3. Ramel W,
    4. Gross JJ
    (2008) The neural bases of emotion regulation: reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biol Psychiatry 63:577–586. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.031 pmid:17888411
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Magee JC,
    2. Harden KP,
    3. Teachman BA
    (2012) Psychopathology and thought suppression: a quantitative review. Clin Psychol Rev 32:189–201. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.01.001 pmid:22388007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Mayou RA,
    2. Ehlers A,
    3. Bryant B
    (2002) Posttraumatic stress disorder after motor vehicle accidents: 3-year follow-up of a prospective longitudinal study. Behav Res Ther 40:665–675. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00069-9 pmid:12051485
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Menzies L,
    2. Chamberlain SR,
    3. Laird AR,
    4. Thelen SM,
    5. Sahakian BJ,
    6. Bullmore ET
    (2008) Integrating evidence from neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies of obsessive-compulsive disorder: the orbitofronto-striatal model revisited. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 32:525–549. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.09.005 pmid:18061263
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Nickerson A,
    2. Garber B,
    3. Ahmed O,
    4. Asnaani A,
    5. Cheung J,
    6. Hofmann SG,
    7. Huynh L,
    8. Liddell B,
    9. Litz BT,
    10. Pajak R,
    11. Bryant RA
    (2016) Emotional suppression in torture survivors: relationship to posttraumatic stress symptoms and trauma-related negative affect. Psychiatry Res 242:233–239. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2016.05.048 pmid:27294797
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Nixon RD,
    2. Cain N,
    3. Nehmy T,
    4. Seymour M
    (2009) The influence of thought suppression and cognitive load on intrusions and memory processes following an analogue stressor. Behav Ther 40:368–379. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.004 pmid:19892082
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. O'Doherty DC,
    2. Chitty KM,
    3. Saddiqui S,
    4. Bennett MR,
    5. Lagopoulos J
    (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging measurement of structural volumes in posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatry Res 232:1–33. doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2015.01.002 pmid:25735885
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Purdon C,
    2. Rowa K,
    3. Antony MM
    (2005) Thought suppression and its effects on thought frequency, appraisal and mood state in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Behav Res Ther 43:93–108. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2003.11.007 pmid:15531355
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Salkovskis PM
    (1985) Obsessional-compulsive problems: a cognitive-behavioral analysis. Behav Res Ther 23:571–583. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(85)90105-6 pmid:4051930
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Wenzlaff RM,
    2. Luxton DD
    (2003) The role of thought suppression in depressive rumination. Cognit Ther Res 27:293–308. doi:10.1023/A:1023966400540
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Wenzlaff RM,
    2. Wegner DM
    (2000) Thought suppression. Annu Rev Psychol 51:59–91. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.59 pmid:10751965
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 37 (47)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 37, Issue 47
22 Nov 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Rethinking the Role of Thought Suppression in Psychological Models and Treatment
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Rethinking the Role of Thought Suppression in Psychological Models and Treatment
Caitlin S.M. Cowan, Shiu F. Wong, Lillian Le
Journal of Neuroscience 22 November 2017, 37 (47) 11293-11295; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2511-17.2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Rethinking the Role of Thought Suppression in Psychological Models and Treatment
Caitlin S.M. Cowan, Shiu F. Wong, Lillian Le
Journal of Neuroscience 22 November 2017, 37 (47) 11293-11295; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2511-17.2017
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Early Neural Development of Social Interaction Perception in the Superior Temporal Sulcus
  • Universal Coding for Uncertainty?
  • Beyond Motor Control: Diffusion MRI Reveals Associations between the Cerebello-VTA Pathway and Socio-affective Behaviors in Humans
Show more Journal Club
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.