Down the white bear hole: What does the white bear task measure?

Thought suppression as a way of coping with unwanted cognitions is often considered maladaptive. One of the reasons for this negative evaluation lies in studies employing the white bear task, which suggest paradoxical effects of suppression. While these findings are widely recognized, their replicability remains limited. Furthermore, the dominant explanation for these paradoxical effects-ironic process theory-lacks robust empirical support, and the white bear task itself appears susceptible to methodological issues. The present study examined the methodological validity and theoretical underpinnings of the white bear task. Factors unrelated to the experimental manipulation that may affect task outcomes were explored, potentially indicating a substantial role of motivational variables in target thought occurrences. At the same time, ironic process theory failed to explain the obtained results, as the postulated hyperaccessibility of suppressed thoughts was not observed; moreover, content accessibility measures were unrelated to reported target thought frequency. No paradoxical effects were found. Instead, suppression was effective during the suppression phase, and Bayesian analysis yielded strong evidence in favor of the absence of the rebound effect. Additionally, the findings highlighted the need to include a preliminary phase in the procedure, which was often lacking in the previous studies. In sum, the results of the present study did not support ironic process theory, and the outcomes of the white bear task were better accounted for by motivational factors.