The cup is too full, now be careful. The floor or desk wouldn’t be so bad, but just don’t spill it on the laptop. And then that’s exactly what happens: Exactly at the level of the computer, the cup starts to vibrate and a full gush of coffee pours into the notebook.
Another scene: A friend warns not to ask a certain mutual acquaintance about his work at a party. Because he had just received a termination notice and didn’t want to talk about it. But a little later, you’re horrified to hear this same acquaintance ask you: “So, how’s your job going?”
Many people will be familiar with something like this: situations in which exactly one thing happens to you that you really wanted to avoid. In psychology, such errors are known as ironic or paradoxical effects. The irony is that the desire to avoid a mistake perfidiously makes that mistake more likely. But how can that be?
The currently most influential attempt at an explanation comes from the US psychologist Daniel Wegner, who first investigated the phenomenon experimentally in the early 1990s. As part of his Ironic Process Theory (IPT), Wegner argues that ironic errors in certain situations are not a coincidence, but result from two error protection processes in our thinking apparatus interacting unfavorably with one another. In 2009 he summarized his research in the specialist magazine Science togetherunder the eloquent title “Guide to thinking, saying or doing exactly the worst thing at every opportunity”.
Wegner differentiates in his theoretical model between an executing and a monitoring instance. The so-called operator runs consciously and lets us carry out the correct actions. For example, he ensures that we hold the coffee cup steady or specifically choose a topic of conversation that does not offend our acquaintances. Wegner calls the second process a monitor. This constantly keeps the behavior to be avoided present in the background and looks for signs that we are getting too close to it. Is the coffee sloshing worryingly, is the conversation moving towards a taboo topic? Danger!
The request “Don’t shoot the goalkeeper!” often does the opposite
Normally, according to the theory, the two would work together to prevent errors. But when you are nervous, distracted, or otherwise stressed, the core assumption of IPT comes into play: Because the operator is running consciously, he is more susceptible to interference than the monitor. Anxiety or distractions could reduce the operator’s performance. In comparison, the unconscious monitor continues to work quite unhindered. As a result, what you absolutely want to prevent would suddenly become much more mentally present than what you actually planned to do.
Applied to the example of the dismissed acquaintance, this would mean: The friend’s suggestion that the other person definitely didn’t want to talk about his work caused (unnoticed) a certain amount of unrest; Maybe you’re also a person who feels uncomfortable at parties with lots of people, sometimes strangers. This nervousness weakens the operator – who could otherwise easily suggest dozens of harmless topics of conversation – and leaves us alone with the monitor; But he only offers one topic: work!
The predictions of IPT can be tested empirically. There are a whole series of studies in the area of motor skills, for example, that support the assumption that ironic errors should occur especially when mental capacity is limited in some way. In such studies the participants should: for example, keeping a pendulum steady or shoot at a goal – and receive instructions such as “don’t let the pendulum swing horizontally” or “don’t shoot at the goalkeeper”.
While a control group is allowed to carry out this task as is, a second group experiences a certain burden, for example through evaluation and time pressure, performance-related rewards or tasks that have to be carried out in parallel, such as counting backwards in steps of three. If you then compare the number of ironic mistakes, you can see that in the groups with additional stress, the pendulum swings more precisely in the “forbidden” direction and more shots are aimed at the keeper to be avoided – exactly as in theory predicted. Similar effects are also possible for darts– or Basketball shots documented.
Now one could object: the fact that people generally make more mistakes when under stress is really not surprising. But the crux lies in the details. Because the IPT predicts that ironic errors in particular increase under pressure – and not all conceivable errors. For example, the instruction “score a goal and do not aim at the goalkeeper” given in a stressful situation should primarily increase the risk of shots being aimed at the goalkeeper. According to Wegner’s theory, it would not be expected that hitting the crossbar or shots past the goal would systematically become more common. In fact, this assumption can also be largely confirmed, as Khelifa Bartura from the Faculty of Sports at the University of Oslo recently wrote in the journal International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology in a summary of 25 years of research.
And there is also supporting evidence for the immediate cause of ironic errors postulated by Wegner – the greater cognitive presence of the stimuli to be avoided. For example, penalty takers who make ironic mistakes look longer at the goalkeeper they are trying to avoid and shorter at the free area of the goal as people who do not make such mistakes. Something similar is also conceivable with the coffee cup example: the thought of pouring a hot drink into an expensive laptop worries us. The resulting weakened operator can no longer properly process all the other important stimuli – from the tilt of the cup to the “safe” areas of the table. The result: tunnel vision plus compromised motor skills equals coffee damage.
Happy people are less likely to make ironic mistakes
Of course, this is all greatly simplified and various questions remain. For example, most studies on motor skills used negative avoidance instructions (“shoot not on”). Could it be that ironic effects only occur after negatively formulated requests? A team led by Olaf Binsch from the University of Amsterdam investigated this and compared negatively and positively formulated instructions. Result: Positively formulated avoidance requests such as “shoot “past the goalkeeper” can lead to ironic errors. Based on their and other data, the researchers recommend in the journal International Journal of Sport Psychology, In practice it is better to avoid such instructions altogether – and instead better identify approach targets. So something like: “Shoot into the free area of the goal!”
But what is the general practical relevance of IPT? In fact, there are question marks here. Khelifa Bartura and his colleagues, for example, point out that the theory has been confirmed in many, but not all, studies. In the context of motor skills, it has only been tested in the laboratory and by non-professionals. Whether the findings can be transferred to the German Bundesliga, for example, still needs to be investigated. The same applies to everyday mishaps: How often slips of the tongue, mishaps or mistakes outside the laboratory can actually be attributed to ironic effects is unknown – and ultimately cannot be determined.
In addition, the ironic error effects are small and do not occur equally in all people. For example, if you are a more worried type, you already have a lower mental control capacity in the sense of IPT, even without external pressure. This includes information, that particularly neurotic people, who generally struggle more with bad moods and concerns, have a higher risk of ironic effects carry than happier natures.
In fact, this touches on an area in which Wegner’s IPT certainly has practical relevance: mental health. Even trying to avoid thoughts and feelings can sometimes backfire. In the case of unwanted obsessive thoughts, it can be more effective to accept them or consciously distract yourself from them instead of suppressing them. The underlying mechanisms However, they are much more complex here.
Nevertheless, Wegner’s findings have influenced more modern psychotherapy procedures, which, more than their predecessors, are aimed at helping those affected to overcome unpleasant thoughts and feelings accept, rather than trying to control or change them. One such approach is, for example, the so-called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, which, according to various studies, is very effective in various cases psychological and physical can show suffering. However, it remains to be seen whether such newer approaches help better than established procedures and for whom they are particularly suitable. Either way, it’s comforting to know: In order to master life’s small and larger challenges, it’s sometimes worth reducing your own control efforts.