Distorted thinking
When we're upset, we often process incoming information in a consistently biased and
distorted way that maintains our low mood, angry behaviour or anxious state. Some of the
common distortions (also known as thinking traps) found in emotional problems include:
• All-or-nothing thinking: seeing events in extreme terms that allows for no shades of
grey or middle ground, for example, ‘If I can't have her, then no one else will do.’
The antidote to this kind of thinking is balanced, non-extreme appraisals of a
situation that allow you more options to choose from, such as, ‘She would have been
the ideal partner but I'm sure that I can be happy with other women.’
• Magnification/minimisation: exaggerating the negative and reducing the positive, for
example, ‘I stumbled over a sentence and turned the talk into a disaster’ and ‘Some
people said they enjoyed the talk but what do they know?’ What is required from you
in tackling these distortions is a sense of proportion, such as thinking ‘Stumbling
over a sentence was just a hiccup and the rest of the talk proceeded smoothly’ and
‘Some people enjoyed the talk which indicates that it went reasonably well.’
• Personalisation: taking too much blame for events you're not totally responsible for,
like, ‘I made my wife have an affair.’ With this distortion, it's important to distinguish
between your actual and presumed responsibility for an event – you may have
contributed to marital discord by working long hours at the office but your wife
chose to have an affair to satisfy her needs.
• Emotional reasoning: you believe something is true because you feel it so strongly.
For example, ‘I feel like a failure, so I must be one.’ While feelings are important,
they're not facts or reflect objective reality; so it's important to examine evidence
dispassionately in order to arrive at an accurate assessment of the situation, with
thoughts such as ‘It's true that I've had some recent failures but they don't make me a
failure as a person. The part does not define the whole.’ As Gilbert observes: ‘When
we use feelings to do the work of our rational minds, we are liable to get into trouble’
(1997: 93).
• Mind-reading: the ability to know the thoughts of others without using the normal
means of communication, for example, ‘My boss doesn't say so, but I know he thinks
I'm an idiot.’ Often, negative thoughts such as these are in your mind and therefore
you imagine they must also be in the minds of others. Instead of mind-reading, ask
the other person or wait until you have firm evidence to support your beliefs. If you
did ask your boss and he denied thinking you were an idiot and you didn't believe
him, you've gone back to mind-reading!
• Labelling: you attach a global and negative label to yourself based on specific
behaviours, for example, ‘I failed to pass the exam, so that makes me a moron.’ Here
you're assuming your behaviour reflects your totality as a complex and fallible
(imperfect) human being. As Leahy succinctly asks: ‘Is it a behavior that fails or the
entire person?’ (1996: 99). If you want to use labels, then attach them to your
behaviour instead of yourself, for example, ‘I failed the exam but that certainly
•
•
•
•
•
doesn't make me a moron.’ Focusing on behaviour change (‘What can I do to help me
pass the exam at the second attempt?’) is more constructive than experiencing the
consequences of self-condemnation (‘As I'm a moron, there's no point whatsoever in
attempting the exam again and bringing more disgrace on myself’).
Discounting the positive: any positive experiences or qualities are disregarded, for
example, ‘People say the workshop was a success but they are just trying to make me
feel better because they know it was a failure.’ Discounting the positive will make
your life seem relentlessly one-sided and maintain your low mood. Including the
positive as well as the negative will lead to a more balanced assessment of your
present difficulties (for example, ‘Certainly the workshop had its flaws, but I very
much doubt that these people are all banding together to lie to me’).
Shoulds and musts: these are usually in the form of rigid rules of living that you
impose on yourself, others and/or life, for example, ‘I must never show any
weaknesses’; ‘You should always give me what I want’; ‘I must not have too much
pressure in my life.’ When these rules are not obeyed, you will often condemn
yourself (thinking, for example, ‘I'm spineless’), others (‘You bastard’) or life (‘I hate
this stinking world’). Rigid musts and shoulds make you subservient to a totalitarian
system of thinking. The alternative to rigid rules are flexible ones which allow you to
acknowledge and act in accordance with the reality that yourself, others and/or the
world rarely fit with how things must or should be.
Mental filter: focusing exclusively on one negative aspect of a situation and thereby
judging the whole situation by it, for example, ‘I knocked over a glass of wine and
the whole evening was a disaster because of it.’ Burns memorably likens mental
filtering to ‘the drop of ink that discolors the entire beaker of water’ (1981: 40).
Instead of dwelling on one aspect of the situation, stand back and view the whole
situation in an objective way, for example, ‘Spilling the wine did lead to some
embarrassment on my part and some irritation on theirs, but once that was over, we
all seemed to have had a pretty good time.’
Fortune-telling: believing you can predict the future in a consistently accurate way.
While you probably do make some accurate predictions such as ‘This new job is
going to entail a lot of hard work and responsibility’ others will be wide of the mark,
particularly when you're in a pessimistic or negative frame of mind, for example, ‘I
failed my driving test. I'll never be able to pass it.’ You may consider that your
predictions are accurate because you act in ways that make them come true. Say you
predict that you will be unable to give up smoking, and when you try to quit, you
start feeling irritable and moody – instead of tolerating these feelings as part of the
withdrawal symptoms, you conclude that you cannot cope with them and resume
smoking. One way to assess how good a fortune-teller you are is to write down some
of your predictions and review them objectively in a few months' time to determine
how accurate they are.
Overgeneralisation: drawing sweeping conclusions based on a single event or
insufficient information, for example, ‘Because my relationship has ended, I'll never
find anyone else and I will always be unhappy.’ Overgeneralisation can be brought
under control by examining what evidence you have for your sweeping conclusions
and advancing alternative arguments in the light of this review, such as ‘My
relationship has ended and it will be hard to find another partner if all I do is mope
about at home, but I'm more likely to find someone else and have some happiness if I
start to socialise again.’
• Catastrophising: always assuming the worst and, if it occurs, your inability to cope
with it, for example, ‘I'm sure my boyfriend is going to dump me because he doesn't
phone me as much as he used to. If he dumps me, I'll completely fall apart and never
get over the rejection.’ McKay, Davis and Fanning state that ‘there are no limits to an
active catastrophic imagination’ (2011: 30). Challenging catastrophising involves,
among other things, asking what is the probable outcome versus the possible
outcome? In the above example, the probable outcome might be that the person is not
going to be dumped, but nonetheless, the relationship is going through a difficult
period. On the other hand, the possible outcome might be rejection and therefore the
person needs to learn how to adapt constructively to this grim reality in order to
tolerate rejection and not fall apart (de-catastrophising). It's important that you learn
to play the odds more accurately: how many of your catastrophic predictions have
actually occurred? (possible answer: ‘One, but it wasn't as bad as I thought’). Next
time you catastrophise, remember the odds, that is, remember that it's highly unlikely
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
d
r
e
a
d
e
d
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
w
i
l
Distorted thinking
When we're upset, we often process incoming information in a consistently biased and
distorted way that maintains our low mood, angry behaviour or anxious state. Some of the
common distortions (also known as thinking traps) found in emotional problems include:
• All-or-nothing thinking: seeing events in extreme terms that allows for no shades of
grey or middle ground, for example, ‘If I can't have her, then no one else will do.’
The antidote to this kind of thinking is balanced, non-extreme appraisals of a
situation that allow you more options to choose from, such as, ‘She would have been
the ideal partner but I'm sure that I can be happy with other women.’
• Magnification/minimisation: exaggerating the negative and reducing the positive, for
example, ‘I stumbled over a sentence and turned the talk into a disaster’ and ‘Some
people said they enjoyed the talk but what do they know?’ What is required from you
in tackling these distortions is a sense of proportion, such as thinking ‘Stumbling
over a sentence was just a hiccup and the rest of the talk proceeded smoothly’ and
‘Some people enjoyed the talk which indicates that it went reasonably well.’
• Personalisation: taking too much blame for events you're not totally responsible for,
like, ‘I made my wife have an affair.’ With this distortion, it's important to distinguish
between your actual and presumed responsibility for an event – you may have
contributed to marital discord by working long hours at the office but your wife
chose to have an affair to satisfy her needs.
• Emotional reasoning: you believe something is true because you feel it so strongly.
For example, ‘I feel like a failure, so I must be one.’ While feelings are important,
they're not facts or reflect objective reality; so it's important to examine evidence
dispassionately in order to arrive at an accurate assessment of the situation, with
thoughts such as ‘It's true that I've had some recent failures but they don't make me a
failure as a person. The part does not define the whole.’ As Gilbert observes: ‘When
we use feelings to do the work of our rational minds, we are liable to get into trouble’
(1997: 93).
• Mind-reading: the ability to know the thoughts of others without using the normal
means of communication, for example, ‘My boss doesn't say so, but I know he thinks
I'm an idiot.’ Often, negative thoughts such as these are in your mind and therefore
you imagine they must also be in the minds of others. Instead of mind-reading, ask
the other person or wait until you have firm evidence to support your beliefs. If you
did ask your boss and he denied thinking you were an idiot and you didn't believe
him, you've gone back to mind-reading!
• Labelling: you attach a global and negative label to yourself based on specific
behaviours, for example, ‘I failed to pass the exam, so that makes me a moron.’ Here
you're assuming your behaviour reflects your totality as a complex and fallible
(imperfect) human being. As Leahy succinctly asks: ‘Is it a behavior that fails or the
entire person?’ (1996: 99). If you want to use labels, then attach them to your
behaviour instead of yourself, for example, ‘I failed the exam but that certainly
•
•
•
•
•
doesn't make me a moron.’ Focusing on behaviour change (‘What can I do to help me
pass the exam at the second attempt?’) is more constructive than experiencing the
consequences of self-condemnation (‘As I'm a moron, there's no point whatsoever in
attempting the exam again and bringing more disgrace on myself’).
Discounting the positive: any positive experiences or qualities are disregarded, for
example, ‘People say the workshop was a success but they are just trying to make me
feel better because they know it was a failure.’ Discounting the positive will make
your life seem relentlessly one-sided and maintain your low mood. Including the
positive as well as the negative will lead to a more balanced assessment of your
present difficulties (for example, ‘Certainly the workshop had its flaws, but I very
much doubt that these people are all banding together to lie to me’).
Shoulds and musts: these are usually in the form of rigid rules of living that you
impose on yourself, others and/or life, for example, ‘I must never show any
weaknesses’; ‘You should always give me what I want’; ‘I must not have too much
pressure in my life.’ When these rules are not obeyed, you will often condemn
yourself (thinking, for example, ‘I'm spineless’), others (‘You bastard’) or life (‘I hate
this stinking world’). Rigid musts and shoulds make you subservient to a totalitarian
system of thinking. The alternative to rigid rules are flexible ones which allow you to
acknowledge and act in accordance with the reality that yourself, others and/or the
world rarely fit with how things must or should be.
Mental filter: focusing exclusively on one negative aspect of a situation and thereby
judging the whole situation by it, for example, ‘I knocked over a glass of wine and
the whole evening was a disaster because of it.’ Burns memorably likens mental
filtering to ‘the drop of ink that discolors the entire beaker of water’ (1981: 40).
Instead of dwelling on one aspect of the situation, stand back and view the whole
situation in an objective way, for example, ‘Spilling the wine did lead to some
embarrassment on my part and some irritation on theirs, but once that was over, we
all seemed to have had a pretty good time.’
Fortune-telling: believing you can predict the future in a consistently accurate way.
While you probably do make some accurate predictions such as ‘This new job is
going to entail a lot of hard work and responsibility’ others will be wide of the mark,
particularly when you're in a pessimistic or negative frame of mind, for example, ‘I
failed my driving test. I'll never be able to pass it.’ You may consider that your
predictions are accurate because you act in ways that make them come true. Say you
predict that you will be unable to give up smoking, and when you try to quit, you
start feeling irritable and moody – instead of tolerating these feelings as part of the
withdrawal symptoms, you conclude that you cannot cope with them and resume
smoking. One way to assess how good a fortune-teller you are is to write down some
of your predictions and review them objectively in a few months' time to determine
how accurate they are.
Overgeneralisation: drawing sweeping conclusions based on a single event or
insufficient information, for example, ‘Because my relationship has ended, I'll never
find anyone else and I will always be unhappy.’ Overgeneralisation can be brought
under control by examining what evidence you have for your sweeping conclusions
and advancing alternative arguments in the light of this review, such as ‘My
relationship has ended and it will be hard to find another partner if all I do is mope
about at home, but I'm more likely to find someone else and have some happiness if I
start to socialise again.’
• Catastrophising: always assuming the worst and, if it occurs, your inability to cope
with it, for example, ‘I'm sure my boyfriend is going to dump me because he doesn't
phone me as much as he used to. If he dumps me, I'll completely fall apart and never
get over the rejection.’ McKay, Davis and Fanning state that ‘there are no limits to an
active catastrophic imagination’ (2011: 30). Challenging catastrophising involves,
among other things, asking what is the probable outcome versus the possible
outcome? In the above example, the probable outcome might be that the person is not
going to be dumped, but nonetheless, the relationship is going through a difficult
period. On the other hand, the possible outcome might be rejection and therefore the
person needs to learn how to adapt constructively to this grim reality in order to
tolerate rejection and not fall apart (de-catastrophising). It's important that you learn
to play the odds more accurately: how many of your catastrophic predictions have
actually occurred? (possible answer: ‘One, but it wasn't as bad as I thought’). Next
time you catastrophise, remember the odds, that is, remember that it's highly unlikely
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
d
r
e
a
d
e
d
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
w
i
l
Purchase answer to see full
attachment