Ten Cognitive Distortions
Dr. David Burns wrote a book called "Feeling Good",
which covers the Cognitive Distortions.
All-Or-Nothing Thinking
Also known as black-and-white thinking,
polarized thinking, or dichotomous thinking, all-or-nothing thinking
is a type of cognitive distortion that involves viewing things in
absolute terms: all good or all bad, angelic or evil, perfection or
total failure. There is no in-between. Individuals who exhibit
all-or-nothing thinking may express thoughts like, "If I’m not
perfect, I have failed."
When confronting all-or-nothing thinking, patients are encouraged
to recognize that ideas like a successful person, a perfect partner,
a loyal friend, or a good parent are not all-or-nothing concepts.
Success, for example, is a process of trial and error,
ups and downs. And a loyal friend may still make mistakes
or let us down sometimes.
We can reframe all-or-nothing thinking by making room for the
"gray." We can give ourselves—and others—more flexibility in
meeting more nuanced definitions of successful, perfect, loyal, or
good. Even when we fall short, working toward improvement is a
valuable and rewarding journey.
Overgeneralization
In overgeneralization, individuals see patterns based on a
single event and assume that all future events will have the
same outcome. An example of this kind of cognitive distortion
might be, "Nothing good ever happens to me."
One way to combat this kind of thinking is changing our language. Instead of using phrases like "ever," "never," and "always," we can describe our experiences more specifically, recognizing that each day or situation brings unique circumstances. "I didn’t do well on that test, and I think I could do better on the next one."
Mental Filtering or Negative Filtering
Mental or negative filtering focuses entirely on negative examples
and experiences, filtering out anything positive. Individuals
who engage in negative filtering, may notice all of their failures
but not see any of their successes.
Exercises to combat negative filtering help individuals highlight neutral or positive events rather than solely focusing on the negative.
Discounting the Positive
Similar to negative filtering, discounting the positive involves invalidating or
"explaining away" good things that have happened. Instead of ignoring
the positives like negative filtering, individuals see the positives
but actively reject the positive aspects of a situation or person.
Some examples might be, "Well, that’ doesn’t count because I had help."
To combat this pattern, individuals are encouraged to give themselves (and others) some credit and recognize their role in bringing about a positive outcome.
Mind Reading and Fortune Telling
We engage in "mind reading" when we attribute thoughts, feelings, and
intentions to another person, regardless of the lack of evidence.
"They think I’m a loser."
In fortune telling, an individual predicts events will unfold in a particular way, often to avoid trying something difficult. "I’m going to fail the test anyway, so why study." "No one is going to hire me, so I have to stay in this job I don’t like." Fortune telling can prevent individuals from taking actions to shape their own lives in positive ways.
To confront these thought patterns, individuals are asked to check the facts and ask questions to challenge their initial assumptions. If we try something different, is it possible that the outcome could be different too? Are we sure that person thinks we’re a loser, or could they possibly be avoiding conversation because they’re shy?
Magnification or Minimization
Magnification cognitive distortions occur when an individual blows
things out of proportion. For example, someone might view a
small mistake as an epic failure.
Minimization occurs when we inappropriately shrink something—like an achievement - to make it seem less important. Some people may minimize their strengths and positive qualities and believe they are not "likable."
When bad things happen, individuals view them as proof of their failures. And when good things happen, they minimize their importance.
Emotional Reasoning
Emotional reasoning assumes that because we feel a certain
way, what we think at that moment must be true. This kind
of thinking gives emotions total control of a situation
rather than the facts of the situation.
Examples of emotional reasoning could be:
"I feel embarrassed by what happened, so I must be an idiot."
"I feel angry, so this person I’m talking to must not care about or respect me."
"I feel guilty, so I must be responsible for this situation."
While feelings are always valid and are "true" while we are experiencing them, feelings are not facts. Confronting emotional reasoning helps us analyze situations based on more information than just how we feel in the moment.
Should, Must, and Ought Statements
Framing thoughts with words like "should," "must," or "ought,"
can make individuals feel guilty, or like they have already failed.
These kinds of statements may apply an unrealistic set of rules
or standards to how we measure ourselves and our lives. Society
and culture, particularly social media, is full of explicit or
implied "shoulds."
Examples could be:
"I should be so much further in life at my age. I’m behind
and I’m never going to get on track."
"I should be able to wear a size 4."
"I should be doing more to help people."
To combat the shoulds, musts, and oughts, patients are encouraged to lean into self-compassion. While goal setting can be very useful, replace the unrealistic goals with more realistic ones and accept yourself as who you are, rather than who you think you should be. Give yourself some grace and flexibility.
Labeling
Labeling involves defining yourself or another person entirely
on one interaction or one behavior. Rather than seeing a behavior
as something the individual did which does not necessarily
define them. Often times we can view someone’s behavior as
who they are.
Examples could be:
"I missed an appointment. I’m completely useless."
"He was late to our dinner. He is completely unreliable."
Fact-checking and looking for evidence to the contrary are important ways to combat labeling. Have you remembered other appointments? Has he followed through on other commitments?
Personalization and Blame
With personalization and blame, individuals blame themselves,
or someone else, for a situation that, in reality, involves
many other factors. Good examples of personalization and blame are:
My child doesn’t have any friends since we moved to a new city. I have failed as a parent."
"My friend canceled our lunch at the last minute with no explanation. I must have made her mad."
Personalization can lead to unnecessary self-blaming and guilt when there are many other contributing factors.
Strategies for comforting personalization are to 1) check your control and 2) check your responsibility. What factors in this situation do you truly control? Are you solely responsible for someone else’s feelings or reactions? Who or what else could have played a part in this?
Reference:
Skyland Trail