We tend to think that our thoughts are the ones that modify our perceptions regarding the world around us. But in reality, our minds have systematic judgment errors known as cognitive distortions. These types of thoughts distort reality, affect our feelings, and alter our actions, usually unconsciously. First described by Aaron T. Beck and more popularised by David Burns, cognitive distortions are the foundation of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and have been extensively researched within depression, anxiety, and stress disorders.
In normal life, cognitive distortions can surface subtly—jumping to conclusions during communication, catastrophizing after a mistake, or dismissing positive feedback. Unless argued against, they will amplify negative sentiments and hinder personal development. This article discusses ten of the most common cognitive distortions, how they occur in normal situations, the psychology involved, and how to overcome them.
Read More: Understanding Our Mental Traps: How Biases Lead to Distorted Thinking
All-or-Nothing Thinking: The Black-and-White Trap
All-or-nothing thinking, also known as dichotomous thinking, occurs when people view situations in extremes. There’s no middle ground—only success or failure, perfect or terrible. For example, a college student who receives a B+ on a test might think, “I’m a total failure,” disregarding the objectively strong grade. This type of cognition is common to perfectionists and depressives.
Hollon and Kendall (1980) concluded that people with depressive symptoms tend to think in a black-and-white fashion, leading to harsh criticism of themselves and extravagant expectations. To fight this distortion, practice continuum thinking. Instead of labelling outcomes as success or failure, think of them in terms of a 1 to 10 scale. Reframing “I’m a failure” to “This didn’t work out as well as I would have liked, but I still did reasonably well” encourages a more balanced view and fewer emotional extremes.
Read More: How to Shift from All-or-Nothing Thinking to a Balanced Mindset
Overgeneralization: Making Broad Conclusions from Narrow Evidence
Overgeneralization involves taking a single negative experience and assuming its continuous occurrence. For instance, someone who is rejected after a job interview might conclude, “I’ll never get a job,” or “No one wants me.” Such a distortion maintains hopelessness and reduced motivation. Alloy and Abramson (1979) illustrated that depressed persons often give evidence of “depressive realism,” wherein they overgeneralize adverse consequences and anticipate future events as also being negative.
While the term initially described correct pessimism, later research showed that overgeneralized failure is often wrong and adaptive. One good technique is the maintenance of a counterexample journal. For every general negative belief, record situations where the contrary happened. If you tend to think, “I always screw up presentations,” think about times you were complimented or felt good. This counteracts the distorted account with reality.
Mental Filtering: Seeing Only the Negative
Mental filtering is where an individual focuses on only the negative part of an experience and ignores the positive parts. Take a case of an employee being praised by his supervisor but focusing on a thought to do better, thinking, “I can’t do anything right.” Beck et al. (1979) found that depressives tend to feed their experiences via a negative filter, which reinforces self-critical schemata.
Selective attention and its resulting amplification of feelings of inadequacy contribute to self-downing. To counteract this, practice balanced reflection. Make it a habit to write down at least three positives from every difficult interaction. For example, after a difficult work meeting, note what you did well, even if one thing did not go well. Practice daily gratitude journaling also helps increase the capacity to view the good in the bad.
Disqualifying the Positive: Downplaying Achievements
Disqualifying the positive is when people deny positive input or achievement, prone to believe that they “don’t count.” Someone who receives compliments about their appearance may feel, “They’re just being polite,” or a worker who is promoted on the job may say, “They must have been short-staffed.” David Burns (1980) noted that discounting the positive sustains low self-esteem by rejecting evidence contrary to one’s beliefs about oneself.
Such people find it hard to internalise good stuff, typically because they feel worthless. As a corrective to this, intentionally accept compliments and achievements. Instead of brushing praise aside, try saying “Thank you” and dropping it. Ponder what tangible steps you took to bring about a desired outcome, helping you build ownership of achievement rather than rejecting it.
Read More: Cognitive Biases That Secretly Control Your Decisions – And How to Outsmart Them
Jumping to Conclusions: Assuming Without Evidence
Jumping to conclusions has two common subtypes: mind reading (assuming you know what other people are thinking) and fortune telling (predicting bad things will happen). For instance, you may assume a co-worker is annoyed with you since they didn’t smile, or that the date will be terrible before it’s even finished. Experiments by Hirsch and Mathews (2000) proved that worried individuals are more likely to process ambiguous stimuli negatively, thus reinforcing worry and avoidance.
These assumptions are automatic and prevent us from experiencing reality completely. A practical strategy is to ask yourself, “What’s the evidence?” Substitute curiosity for assumptions. Instead of assuming your friend is upset because they didn’t respond, consider alternative explanations—they might be preoccupied or distracted. Also, try to forecast best-case and most-likely outcomes rather than jumping to worst-case thinking automatically.
Catastrophizing: Imagining the Worst
Catastrophizing is when we blow things out of proportion and consider the worst possible outcome. When you forget to send an email, you might think, “I’ll be fired and never have another job.” This distortion has its link with high anxiety. Garnefski and Kraaij (2006) found that individuals who catastrophize habitually are more emotionally disturbed and possess poorer problem-solving skills.
Catastrophic thinking unnecessarily activates the threat network of the brain, putting the body in an overstated state of arousal. To cope, try the “Then What?” approach. Ask yourself, “If this happens, then what?” Follow the chain to its logical (and more likely less scary) end. You may discover that the feared outcome is manageable or unlikely. Pair this with grounding skills like slow breathing to calm your nervous system.
Emotional Reasoning: Blurring Feelings and Facts
Emotional reasoning makes us think that what we feel must be real. If you feel reckless, you think you’re reckless. If you feel scared, you think something negative is occurring. Beck’s cognitive theory (1976) emphasised the way emotional reasoning produces distorted beliefs and dysfunctional behaviours. Distortion is prevalent in mood disorders, where there is overwhelming emotion over rational thinking.
As a countermeasure, remember: “Feelings are not facts.” Maintain a mood-thought journal-mark what emotion you’re feeling, the thought underneath it, and then judge its accuracy. This builds emotional intelligence and prevents judgments from happening out of fleeting states.
Should Statements: Enforcing Stricter Expectations
Should statements pertain to making unrealistic or inflexible demands for oneself or others. For instance, “I should always work efficiently,” or “He should know what I need without my having to tell him.” Such statements give rise to feelings of guilt, frustration, or disappointment. Albert Ellis (1962) used the term “musturbation” to refer to the tension that these sentences generate. We feel guilty or embarrassed when we transgress our own “shoulds.”
We feel angry or resentful when other people transgress against us. The trick is to substitute “should” with more adaptive phrasing. Use, “I’d like to be more productive,” or “It would be better if he got it.” This change lessens self-pressure and supports more gracious, realistic expectations.
Labelling: Reducing a Person to One Trait
Labelling goes beyond describing behaviour—it defines the entire person. After a mistake, someone might think, “I’m a failure,” instead of, “I made a mistake.” Similarly, calling someone else a “jerk” after a disagreement ignores their complexity. Rosenberg (1965) emphasised how global self-labels erode self-esteem and hinder growth. When individuals internalise labels, they are less likely to envision themselves as improvable or changeable. Rather, focus on specific behaviour, not identity. Change “I’m an idiot” to “I messed up on that task, but I can fix it.” That encourages reflection without the shame.
Personalisation: Self-Blame for Things Beyond Your Control
Personalisation is self-blame for things that you have no control over. So, for example, if a school kid is doing poorly, a parent might say, “I’m a bad parent.” Or when a friend is upset, you assume it’s your fault. This way of thinking is common among caregivers, teachers, and empathisers. Beck et al(1979) found that individualising leads to excessive guilt and has been associated with depressive symptoms, particularly in the over-responsible.
To handle this, use the pie chart method. Draw a circle and divide it among all the potential factors that could have played a role apart from yourself. The realisation that a great many things count deactivates excessive guilt and promotes a saner sense of responsibility.
Read More: “This is your Fault!”, Understanding the Psychology of Blame Games
The Broader Impact of Cognitive Distortions
Cognitive distortions are not separate exceptions—they are interaction styles that tint our world view. Over time, they can have a profound impact on mental health, with contributions to:
1. Depression: With self-blame thinking, hopelessness, and disqualifying the positive.
2. Anxiety: With catastrophizing, fortune-telling, and emotional reasoning.
3. Low self-esteem: Fueled by labelling, personalisation, and strict expectations.
These distorted patterns also affect relationships, work productivity, and physical health through enhanced stress and reduced emotional resilience. In psychotherapy, especially in CBT and mindfulness therapies, learning how to fight such distortions is generally the core of recovery.
Read More: Mindfulness Meditation has a Positive Effect on Mental Health
Applications in Everyday Life and Real-Life Illustrations
These types of thinking are usually insidious but ubiquitous in everyday life. A student might avoid sending in internship requests after a single rejection (overgeneralization), or a boss might interpret silence in a meeting as disapproval (mind reading). A partner might perceive a fight as destroying the relationship (catastrophizing) or dismiss a nice thing from a friend as not genuine (disqualifying the positive). By having the ability to identify and overcome these distortions, people can better communicate, diffuse conflict, and make decisions based on reality rather than fear-based or assumption-based decisions.
Read More: How To Deal with Rejection? Insights from Expert
Conclusion: Taking Back Your Mind from Distorted Thinking
Cognitive distortions are our mental background scripts that taint our views of the world. They often occur as defence mechanisms but turn out to be more damage than benefit. With recognition of these patterns, resisting their assumptions, and creating more even thinking, we can see enormous improvement in both our mental health and everyday living. Change does not involve perfect thinking—it involves good enough thinking. If we sit down and say to ourselves, “Is this true?” or “Is there another way to view this?” we regain the power to respond, not react. That’s where change begins.
FAQS
1. How often does a person experience cognitive distortions?
A person experiences cognitive distortions depending upon the social, environmental and mental health factors, on a usual or daily basis, with some people experiencing the same due to low mood and others due to the changes in their surroundings that may directly or indirectly affect them.
2. Why do we feel there is an absenteeism surrounding the of discussions cognitive distortions in daily life?
Because these thoughts are subtle, the experiences tend to vary from person to person. Also, a lack of awareness and education regarding the same make the people normalise these types of thoughts.
References +
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108(4), 441–485.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. Guilford Press.
Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. William Morrow.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. Lyle Stuart.
Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2006). Relationships between cognitive emotion regulation strategies and depressive symptoms: A comparative study of five specific samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(8), 1659–1669.
Hirsch, C. R., & Mathews, A. (2000). Impaired positive inferential bias in social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(4), 705–712.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
