My target article integrating the literatures on the effects of suppressing behaviors in various realms was intended to stimulate discussion of the commonalities that appear to characterize disparate attempts to inhibit behavior as well as to raise the question of identifying the mechanism or mechanisms that underlie these effects, so that we might begin to help individuals to avoid the pitfalls that may accompany self-regulation attempts. The commentaries appear to take up this challenge in what I see as two ways. Some suggest additional literatures that should be considered in this discussion, either as alternative explanations or as additional examples. A second group extends the debate to a consideration of mechanisms for overcoming the negative effects of inhibition to foster successful self-change (and, naturally, several articles do both of these). There is much to think about presented in each of these concise comments. I attempt to summarize briefly my own responses to each article, but the reader is likely to find much more to ponder in a careful consideration of each commentary. To begin with the most critical articles, Wright questions the logic and examples in my argument, although he does not offer a clear alternative, so responding to his comments is difficult. I must point out, however, that my examples were not meant to be exhaustive, as a complete analysis would require book-length exposition; nor are dieters, smokers, and drug addicts special cases, as they make up a large percentage of individuals attempting to restrain their behavior. Millions of North Americans spend billions of dollars on dieting alone, often to no good effect, as a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (Kassirer & Angell, 1998) pointed out. Wright does reiterate my suggestion that a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the effects of behavioral suppression in various realms would be useful and informative, and he points out that this might help to delimit the conditions under which inhibition should be avoided. He also makes some important and interesting points. He outlines a comprehensive plan for doing the cost-benefit analysis of the effects of restraint and argues cogently that not all negative effects can be expected in every instance of suppression. In some ways he echoes Tice and Ciarocco's argument that we must consider diverse types of urges in different manners: Trying not to urinate inappropriately is likely to produce more and longer lasting cognitive disruption than trying not to pull one's sibling's hair. Wright oversimplifies my position on motivation, however, missing the important interaction of multiple influences, and setting up a straw man position that the urge to restrain behavior must be of equal strength to the motive to perform it. Unfortunately, he does not have the space to develop his counterproposal concerning a central nervous system mechanism controlling motivation/desire in this commentary, so I cannot integrate or refute this view in this space. Similarly, Forgas and Vargas overstate my position (and possibly their own). My article was not meant to be an exhaustive consideration of the vast emotion literature, but their point that cognitions are important mediators of emotional experience is clearly indisputable. Equally indisputable, however, is that behavior can and does influence emotion. In vivo desensitization or graduated exposure, a behavioral treatment for severe fears, is predicated on the incompatibility of relaxing one's body (a behavior) with feeling fearful (an emotion; Todd & Bogart, 1994). In addition, Lewinsohn's (e.g., Brown & Lewinsohn, 1984) work indicates that getting depressed patients to do activities wherein they will receive positive reinforcements alleviates their depressed affect, another example of behavior influencing mood. The related social skills approach to treating depression also relies on teaching patients better interpersonal responses (behaviors) to reduce their depressed mood (e.g., Gotlib & Colby, 1987; Nezu, Nezu, & Perri, 1989). Cognition and behavior both influence not only affect, but each other, so the message from Forgas and Vargas seems to me to be that we must integrate the cognitive affect infusion model and functionalist behavioral positions to under-
Read full abstract
Oct 1, 2012
송수희 
Open Access
