THE IMP OF THE PERVERSE

People often end up doing exactly what they told themselves not to do. The intention to suppress a response has the perverse effect of strengthening the response. Edgar Allan Poe described this phenomenon in, “The Telltale Heart,” and labeled it: the Imp of the Perverse.

To appreciate this phenomenon directly, here is an experiential invitation for you: Try not to scratch your nose. Continue reading, but be aware that scratching your nose after intending not to would indicate a lack of personal control. So try not to let your nose itch - in fact it would be best not to even think about your nose. See if you can make it to the end of this article without giving in to the urge to scratch your nose.

The very act of trying to prevent your nose from itching may, perversely, create an itch that would not exist except for the intention not have it. The greater the motivation to prevent the itch the more likely the nose will itch. Two interpretations of this perverse phenomenon:

Negative Suggestion: Negative representations are defined in terms of positive representations [their opposite], but positive representations are defined directly. To interpret the statement, “It is not raining” one must bring to consciousness the image “it is raining,” and then negate it. For such neutral concepts there is little motivational effect of negative suggestion. The assertion in an employee recommendation that "Chester is not a pedophile" may evoke an image of Chester as a pedophile in the mind of the reader. To understand the instruction: "Don’t let your nose itch!" the reader must access a representation of an itchy nose - which causes the nose to itch.

Ironic process: To determine if you are successful at 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 at preventing your nose from itching that causes the nose to itch. Ironic, isn't it?

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 fof 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 led many boys to tantrum, which was not relieved by giving the child the equally attractive toy. A general rule of thumb: Once an object is forbidden its desirability increases.

Counter Regulatory Consequences of Restraint

Your motivation to adhere to your commitments will rise and fall according to local conditions. You may be highly motivated during the first few days after making the decision to abstain from an indulgence. However, after the initial glow of heroism wanes you may experience the perverse motivation to behave counter to your stated intention. This counter regulatory motivation is distinct from the desire for the indulgence itself.

A large body of research focused on restrained eating [weight-loss dieting] shows that the very intention to restrict eating produces counter-regulatory motivation. The clever research design: dieters and non dieters are asked to participate in a taste test that involves consuming many calories during a taste test, and are then offered access to a buffet to thank them for their participation. Non dieters eat little at the buffet [they are already full], but dieters massively overeat, because they have broken their diet and so are released from the chains of restraint.

Attribution Theory: The Insult is the Injury

Overcoming an addictive disorder is very difficult, and the most popular outcome of treatment is relapse. Nevertheless, most participants interpret their relapse as proof of personal weakness. The technical term for the belief that the cause of the failure is within the self is: internal attribution for failure, and include explanations of failure that appeal to motivation, intelligence, character, or disease. The individual may also believe "The fact that I failed in the past means that I will fail in the future." The idea that the same inadequacy that caused me to fail in the past, will cause me to fail in the future is an example of a stable attribution for failure.

Internal, stable attributions for failure are not compatible with independence. If you believe that the cause of previous relapses is that you are fundamentally inadequate or diseased, and this is a stable characteristic, then the self-determination approach advocated here is not for you.

This misattribution is based on a lack of respect for the nature of the task. If you have internal stable attributions for failure, take some time to consider this statement: "It shouldn't be that difficult to adhere to a serious commitment like controlling my drinking or food intake, so my history of relapse must mean that I am somehow defective"

Attribution and Self Image

The following study demonstrates how internal attribution and counter-regulatory motivation work together to affect one's self-perception: Teen-aged boys were told that a book was too sexually explicit to beread by those under 21.This restriction had the effect of dramatically increasing their desire to read the book. The experimenters knew that the attractiveness ofbook 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 boohad the perverse consequence of causing the subjects to believe that they were perverse.