Awareness, vigilance, and suppression are three distinct cognitive states that are frequently conflated in both popular discourse and applied leadership practice. This conflation produces predictable errors, most notably the overcorrection from directed attention into thought suppression, which triggers the paradoxical effects described by Ironic Process Theory. This article examines three cognitive mechanisms: Red Car Theory as an attentional priming heuristic, Ironic Process Theory as a suppression trap, and the Contrastive Inquiry Method as a generative alternative, and introduces the AVS Framework as an original conceptual tool for distinguishing among these states. The AVS Framework positions awareness, vigilance, and suppression as adjacent but non-identical processes with different mechanisms and different outcomes. Implications for cognitive discipline, epistemic practice, and leadership development within the Reasoned Leadership framework are discussed.
Keywords: awareness, vigilance, suppression, Contrastive Inquiry, Ironic Process Theory, attentional priming, AVS Framework, Reasoned Leadership, epistemic rigidity
Introduction
Awareness is not vigilance, and vigilance is not suppression. These distinctions seem obvious until you watch a practitioner collapse all three into a single cognitive posture and then wonder why their attempts at disciplined thinking produce the opposite of what they intended. However, the confusion is understandable. All three states involve a relationship between a thought, a stimulus, or a category of information and the cognitive system processing it. Moreover, all three involve some degree of directed mental energy. However, the similarity ends there, and the consequences of treating them as equivalent are significant enough to warrant formal examination. This article introduces the AVS Framework, a conceptual tool developed within the Reasoned Leadership tradition to distinguish awareness, vigilance, and suppression as operationally distinct cognitive states, and to position the Contrastive Inquiry Method as the appropriate generative alternative to the suppression trap most practitioners unknowingly enter.
Three Mechanisms and a Single Metaphor
To make the distinctions tractable, a consistent metaphor is useful throughout this article. Consider a person who has recently purchased a red car. This is the scenario at the center of Red Car Theory, a widely used heuristic in coaching and personal development contexts that illustrates how deliberate attentional focus shifts what a person notices. Before purchasing the red car, red cars existed in the environment at the same frequency they always had. After the purchase, the new owner begins noticing them everywhere. The observation is accurate. The mechanism behind it is attentional priming, a well-documented phenomenon in cognitive science whereby prior experience and goal states shape the salience hierarchy of incoming sensory information (Kristjánsson & Ásgeirsson, 2019). The Reticular Activating System amplifies what the cognitive system has already designated as significant, and deliberate focus is one input into that designation process.
Red Car Theory draws a motivational lesson from this mechanism. If you direct your attention toward opportunity, toward capability, toward possibility, you will begin noticing what was previously invisible. That lesson has genuine utility. The problem, as Epistemic Rigidity Theory identifies (Robertson, 2024), is that the same mechanism operates with equal efficiency when the framework directing attention is distorted. The person who has decided the market has no demand for their idea will also begin seeing evidence for that conclusion everywhere. The leader who has categorized their team as underperforming will catalog every missed deadline while filtering out contradictory data. The point is that attentional priming is value-neutral. It amplifies whatever the cognitive framework has prioritized, regardless of whether that framework reflects reality or accumulated bias.
This is the first distinction the AVS Framework requires. Red Car Theory describes awareness, the passive but primed readiness to notice a designated category of thing as it naturally appears in the environment. The new owner is not hunting for red cars. They are simply more receptive to them because the purchase has raised the salience of that category in their cognitive hierarchy. Awareness is observational. It does not require effort in the moment. It is the product of prior framing, now operating automatically.
The Suppression Trap
Now consider what happens when the new owner decides, for whatever reason, that they need to stop noticing red cars. Perhaps they regret the purchase. Perhaps a red car was involved in a difficult experience. Or, perhaps, they just want to go back to the way it was before. For any number of reasons, they decide that noticing red cars is no longer desirable, and they actively attempt to suppress the thought.
This is where Ironic Process Theory enters. Wegner (1994) demonstrated that attempts to suppress a specific thought paradoxically increase its frequency and accessibility. The mechanism involves two simultaneous processes. The operating process actively redirects attention away from the suppressed content. The monitoring process checks whether the suppression is working by scanning for the suppressed content. The monitoring process is less cognitively demanding than the operating process and therefore more durable under conditions of fatigue, stress, or cognitive load. When the operating process weakens, the monitoring process dominates, and the suppressed content floods awareness with greater intensity than if no suppression had been attempted.
This is the suppression trap. It is important to understand that it is not a failure of willpower. It is the predictable outcome of a cognitive architecture in which monitoring for an unwanted thought requires activating its representation.
Indeed, vigilance occupies the space between awareness and suppression, and it is the most consequential state in the AVS Framework precisely because it feels like discipline while functioning as its precursor. Where awareness is passive and automatic, vigilance is active and sustained. The owner who shifts from awareness of red cars to vigilance about red cars is no longer simply noticing them as they appear. They are actively scanning for them.
Mechanistically, vigilance shares the same monitoring architecture that underlies the suppression trap. It allocates ongoing cognitive resources to the target category and, under conditions of stress or cognitive load, increasingly resembles the ironic monitoring process described by Wegner (1994). The distinction between vigilance and suppression is therefore one of degree and intention rather than kind. Vigilance monitors for a desired category. Suppression monitors to confirm the absence of an unwanted one. However, both activate the target representation as a byproduct of the monitoring function itself. Hence, both become self-defeating when the operating process fatigues.
This escalation pattern is the pendulum problem practitioners describe when they attempt to apply attentional discipline without the conceptual vocabulary to distinguish these states. They begin with awareness, which works well. Positive outcomes reinforce the behavior. They escalate to vigilance, mistaking intensity for effectiveness. Unfortunately, vigilance produces diminishing returns and occasional overcorrection. However, they attempt to correct the overcorrection through suppression, activate the ironic monitoring cycle, and then find themselves preoccupied with precisely what they were attempting to eliminate in the first place.
Contrastive Inquiry as the Generative Alternative
The resolution to this progression is not a more disciplined form of suppression or a more relaxed form of vigilance. It is a fundamentally different cognitive operation. The Contrastive Inquiry Method describes a structured practice of generating substantive alternative hypotheses before committing to a conclusion (Robertson, 2025). The minimal protocol is direct: generate a hypothesis that genuinely contradicts your initial conclusion, then evaluate both against available evidence before deciding. Rather than asking only what confirms an initial interpretation, Contrastive Inquiry requires producing a hypothesis that genuinely contradicts it and evaluating both against available evidence.
Returning to the metaphor, Contrastive Inquiry does not ask the red car owner to stop noticing red cars, nor does it ask them to scan more intensively for red cars. Instead, it asks a different question entirely. Aside from red, what other colors are there? More precisely, it asks whether the red car in front of them might be a custom paint job, a category that did not exist in the original frame and therefore could not be produced by simple observation or monitoring.
This is the critical distinction between Contrastive Inquiry and both awareness and vigilance. Awareness notices what the primed framework designates as salient. Vigilance monitors for it actively. Contrastive Inquiry generates options that the existing framework may not have included. It is neither observation nor monitoring. It is invention, the deliberate production of alternative possibilities before the cognitive system commits to a conclusion.
This generative function is what makes Contrastive Inquiry resistant to the suppression trap. The ironic monitoring process activates when the goal is to exclude a thought. Contrastive Inquiry has no exclusionary goal. The question is not “I must not conclude this” but “What else could explain this?” The cognitive architecture required for that question is fundamentally different, and it does not produce the paradoxical rebound that Wegner (1994) described. For Contrastive Inquiry to function, suppression is not only unnecessary but operationally incompatible. The method requires keeping multiple hypotheses active simultaneously, which is the cognitive opposite of the suppression posture.
The AVS Framework
The AVS Framework formalizes the distinctions developed above into three operationally defined states for use in cognitive discipline and leadership development contexts. To illustrate each state concretely, consider a leader conducting a performance review of an employee they have tentatively categorized as “disengaged.”
Awareness is the baseline state of attentional priming. It is passive in the moment and automatic in operation, the product of prior framing that raises the salience of designated categories in the cognitive hierarchy. The leader in awareness notices behaviors consistent with disengagement when they arise naturally in the review conversation, missed deadlines, reduced output, minimal voluntary contribution, because their prior assessment has primed those signals for recognition and monitoring.
Indeed, awareness is valuable when the framework directing it has been examined and validated. However, it is dangerous when it operates on distorted or unexamined prior frameworks. This is because it will amplify whatever the framework has prioritized with equal efficiency, regardless of accuracy.
Vigilance is active monitoring for a designated category. It feels like disciplined awareness, but differs mechanistically in that it allocates ongoing cognitive resources to the target category and shares the monitoring architecture underlying the suppression trap. The leader in vigilance is no longer simply noticing disengagement signals as they arise. They are actively scanning for them, cataloging, confirming evidence, and interpreting ambiguous behavior through the lens of the prior assessment. Yes, vigilance is appropriate in genuinely time-sensitive detection contexts. However, in epistemic and leadership practice, it tends to produce confirmation-driven observation and increases vulnerability to the ironic rebound effect when contradictory evidence eventually demands attention.
Suppression is the active attempt to exclude a thought or category from awareness. The leader who has received feedback that their disengagement assessment may be unfair and then tries to stop thinking about it to conduct a neutral review has entered the suppression state. The ironic monitoring process activates to verify that the suppressed assessment is not influencing the review, which requires activating the assessment to check for its presence, thereby making it more, rather than less, influential. Suppression should be recognized as a diagnostic indicator that the practitioner has lost their epistemic footing and needs to return to the generative operations of Contrastive Inquiry rather than escalating the exclusionary effort.
The AVS Framework does not position these three states as a hierarchy in which one is always preferable. Awareness is the appropriate default for daily cognitive operation. Vigilance has legitimate applications in specific, bounded detection contexts. However, suppression is rarely productive in epistemic practice and functions primarily as a warning signal. Nonetheless, the framework’s primary contribution is the identification of vigilance as the transition state most practitioners fail to recognize, the point at which directed attention begins its progression toward the suppression trap.
Implications for Reasoned Leadership
The AVS Framework has direct application within the Reasoned Leadership and Reasoned Development context, particularly in relation to Epistemic Rigidity Theory and the Contrastive Inquiry Method. Epistemic rigidity is the product of multiple interacting cognitive biases that reinforce one another into a system resistant to genuine updating (Robertson, 2024). The AVS Framework adds a procedural dimension to that diagnosis by identifying the attentional mechanism through which rigidity is maintained and escalated.
A practitioner exhibiting epistemic rigidity is, in AVS terms, operating from awareness primed by distorted prior frameworks, escalating to vigilance as they scan for confirming evidence, and occasionally attempting suppression when contradictory evidence becomes too intrusive to ignore. Each stage reinforces the rigidity through a different attentional mechanism. The AVS Framework simply makes those mechanisms visible and nameable, which is the precondition for intervening in them.
Granted, the appropriate intervention at each stage differs. At the awareness stage, the intervention targets the framework itself through the bias identification and disorientation processes described in the 3B Behavior Modification Model (Robertson, 2025). At the vigilance stage, the intervention redirects cognitive resources from monitoring toward generation through Contrastive Inquiry practice. At the suppression stage, the intervention must first address the ironic monitoring cycle before any productive epistemic work is possible, because the practitioner’s cognitive architecture is currently organized around exclusion rather than inquiry.
Reasoned Leadership practitioners who internalize the AVS Framework develop the diagnostic vocabulary to recognize which attentional state they are operating from at any given moment and to select the appropriate corrective operation accordingly. This is cognitive architecture management, applied with the same deliberateness that the Reasoned Leadership framework brings to bias identification, behavioral change, and organizational epistemic culture.
Conclusion
Awareness, vigilance, and suppression are not points on a single continuum of attentional intensity. They are distinct cognitive states with distinct mechanisms, outcomes, and intervention requirements. The conflation of these states produces a predictable class of errors in applied cognitive practice, most notably the escalation from productive directed attention into the suppression trap described by Wegner (1994). The AVS Framework provides a conceptual structure for distinguishing these states, identifying vigilance as the critical transition point most practitioners fail to recognize, and positioning the Contrastive Inquiry Method as the appropriate generative alternative to both vigilance and suppression. The question is not how intensely you are focusing. The question is which cognitive operation your attentional posture is executing.
References
Kristjánsson, Á., & Ásgeirsson, Á. G. (2019). Attentional priming: Recent insights and current controversies. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.11.013
Robertson, D. M. (2024, June 26). Epistemic rigidity: A theoretical framework for understanding cognitive barriers to knowledge advancement. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5875142
Robertson, David M (February 18, 2025). The 3B Behavior Modification Model: A Framework for Understanding and Reshaping Bias-Driven Behavior. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5875502 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5875502
Robertson, D. (2025, February 3). Unlocking understanding with the Contrastive Inquiry Method. The Journal of Leaderology and Applied Leadership. https://jala.nlainfo.org/unlocking-understanding-with-the-contrastive-inquiry-method/
Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101(2), 163–176.
Author(s): Dr. David M Robertson
Board Insights | Open Source | ORCID iD
Published Online: 18 May 2026 – All Rights Reserved.
APA Citation: Robertson, D. M. (2026, May 18). The AVS Framework for Directed Attention in Reasoned Leadership. The Journal of Leaderology and Applied Leadership. https://jala.nlainfo.org/the-avs-framework/