chapters

The Imp of the Perverse

God’s error was forbidding the apple.
If He would have forbidden the serpent,
then Adam would have eaten the serpent.

–George Bernard Shaw

People often end up doing exactly what they tell themselves not to do. The intention to suppress a response has the perverse effect of making that response more likely. Edgar Allan Poe named the phenomenon: the Imp of the Perverse.

Thought Experiment: Negative Suggestion.

Try not to scratch your nose. Continue reading, but be aware that even letting your nose itch would indicate personal weakness. So try not to even think about your nose, and see if you can read to the end of this chapter without once touching your face in the area around your nose.

Trying to prevent your nose from itching perversely evokes the very reaction you are trying to prevent. Like trying not to look self-conscious in a social situation, the more seriously you take the suggestion the greater is the effect. Two interpretations of this perverse reaction:

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 was easily available to the child while the other stood behind a transparent Plexiglas barrier, out of reach. Naturally, the little boys wanted the one they could not have. Reactance is one explanation for the observation that: Forbidding something increases its desirability.

Never frame your intentions as a negative

Consider Ernest Hasselbring's [the problem-drinker's] conflict: Intoxication produces both pleasure and pain. This predicament is called an Approach-Avoidance Conflict: The incentive [alcohol] motivates both approach and avoidance behavior.

As Hasselbring's therapist, I'd rather he frame the conflict in terms of the costs and benefits of sobriety. It is understandable that he frames the challenge as he does — that is, the goal is to not drink alcohol. From this perspective, drinking alcohol is the focus . The goal — not drinking — is derivative and abstract, and so drinking alcohol is what occupies his consciousness. This way of framing the challenge has the perverse effect of suggesting the very reaction you are trying to diminish.

The focus on not drinking makes alcohol the star of this story. But alcohol is just an inert substance; it has no say in the matter. The story is about Hasselbring and his choices. His story is rich and complex; its purpose and meaning includes much more than "not drinking." Becoming free of dependence on alcohol makes it possible for him to lead a life he would judge as more worthwhile. As Nietzsche puts it, "It is not free from what, it is free for what."

Nevertheless, we have to appreciate that there is a natural tendency to frame the challenge in terms of the problem. When you are in pain, the focus of your attention is escaping from it. If using the incentive causes pain, then not using it is the obvious solution.

Attribution Theory

The belief that the cause of the failure is within the self is called an internal attribution for failure. Explanations for failure that appeal to internal causes— such as low motivation or intelligence, a disease or character defect— are examples of internal attribution for failure.  Attributing failure to external causes— such as luck or task difficulty— would be an external attribution for failure.

Other dimensions of Attribution Theory:

If you believe that you are intrinsically defective and powerless to change, then turning responsibility for change over to an external agent is the only alternative. However, internal, stable, and global attributions for failure are often the result of sloppy thinking in which conclusions go well beyond the data that supports them. 

Attribution and Self Image

Consider the following study, which demonstrates how internal attribution and counter-regulatory motivation can work together to influence one's appraisal of oneself: 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. However, ignorant of the principle of reactance, the boys attributed their counter-regulatory motivation to a personal trait to be attracted to lewd content. Forbidding the book had the perverse consequence of causing the subjects to believe that they were perverse.

 

Ruminative Self Focus > >

^ Back to Top