Cognitive Distortions: A Deeper Dive into Negatively Biased Thinking Patterns

Have you ever caught yourself in a tornado of negative self talk? Cognitive distortions, also known as unhelpful thinking patterns, are negatively biased errors in our thoughts. These thinking patterns can become habitual, leading to negative emotional states, which further reinforce negative thoughts (Rnic et al., 2016). The outcome? A vicious cycle of negativity. 

Cognitive distortions were first described by psychiatrist Aaron Beck. He noticed that many patients he treated, especially those with depression, frequently verbalized negative thoughts that lacked validity (Chand et al., 2023). This led him to challenge the view that depression was simply a mood disorder. Instead, he started viewing depression through a cognitive lens, and published Cognitive Therapy for Depression (Beck et al., 1979). Stemming from his insightful observations and research work, Beck would go on to create Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT; David et al., 2018). Although cognitive distortions were initially identified in depression, psychologists have since observed these patterns transdiagnostically, meaning that they occur as part of many different mental health conditions. It is also important to note that everyone experiences these negative thinking patterns sometimes – they are not necessarily a sign of a mental health condition. That being said, cognitive distortions can be a predisposing or maintaining factor for mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression (Pike et al., 2021). If these thinking patterns become prevalent or start to interfere with daily living, it is important to seek professional help. 

Now that we’ve set the stage, let’s jump into some specifics. Here we will discuss 10 common cognitive distortions, along with examples, why they occur, and ways to challenge them:  

  1. Catastrophizing

“This term didn’t go as well as I planned. I’m never going to graduate or get a job and I’ll never be successful.” 

“If I don’t get into this program, my life is over.” 

“This is the most unbearable pain I’ve ever felt. I can’t get through this.” 

Catastrophizing is commonly described as “making mountains out of mole hills.” It involves focusing on the worst possible outcome, even if it is highly unlikely, and making negatively biased predictions about the future based on little to no evidence (Rnic et al., 2016). Viewing a merely uncomfortable situation as impossible or unmanageable is also classified as catastrophizing (Chand et al., 2023). One example can occur when experiencing pain (Petrini & Ardent-Nielsen, 2020). For some people experiencing acute or chronic pain, the sensation leads to an extreme fear of experiencing more discomfort or reinjury. In turn, this leads to avoidance and fear of physically moving or touching the affected area. Over time, this leads to more impaired functioning and physical weakness, which increases negative moods, feelings of helplessness, and overall pain sensitivity. People prone to catastrophizing often think it will reduce their negative emotions by preparing them for the worst case scenario. Paradoxically, catastrophizing actually increases attention and focus on negative stimuli, and the cycle continues (Petrini & Ardent-Nielsen, 2020). When you catch yourself catastrophizing, try asking yourself, “what is the worst that can happen?” and “what could I do to problem-solve or cope if that situation happens?”  

  1. All-or-nothing Thinking  

“My entire presentation was a disaster because I stuttered [a few times].” 

“I couldn’t come up with a good answer for one of the questions on my job application. It’s a waste of time to apply.” 

Thinking “I am a terrible baker” after you burn one batch of cookies, despite the several batches that turned out fine earlier. 

Also called black-and-white or dichotomous thinking, this bias involves thinking in extremes, without accounting for “gray area” (e.g., good vs. bad with no in-between). This thinking is very common in people who identify as perfectionists, whereby situations that are not absolutely perfect are classified as a total failure (Kelly, 2015). Many decisions we make in our daily lives involve making dichotomous choices: like “yes or no” or “right or wrong.” These categorizations can help us understand the situations that unfold around us and make decisions. For example, “should I turn left at this light?…yes”, “2+2=5?… wrong” (Bonfá‐Araujo et al., 2021). However, using this type of thinking in certain situations can be problematic, especially when events can be approached from multiple perspectives. Not everything is dichotomous. Maybe your presentation could have gone better, but that does not mean it was a failure. Could you have avoided cutting that person off in traffic? Yes, but that does not mean you are a bad person. To help address all-or-nothing thinking, try reframing the outcome on a continuum.     

  1. Overgeneralizing

“I got rejected from that job. I’ll never find employment.” 

“I got a lousy mark on that test. I’ve always sucked at math.” 

Thinking “nothing good ever happens to me” after you learn another student won the scholarship you were competing for. 

Overgeneralization is similar to all-or-nothing thinking. Like all-or-nothing thoughts, overgeneralizing occurs because of our natural desire to take mental shortcuts, which helps us make decisions more efficiently (CBT Los Angeles, 2024). One key difference from all-or-nothing thinking is that overgeneralization assumes a single case can be generalized to future events. Another key distinction is that overgeneralization tends to include polarizing words such as “always” or “never.” Overgeneralizations commonly underlie anxiety disorders. These thoughts are often used as a safety precaution to “prepare” ourselves for a situation that may cause distress similar to something we have experienced before (Laufer et al., 2016). When an association is made between a stimulus (e.g., a stage) and an aversive outcome (e.g., forgetting your choreography in front of an audience), stimuli that only somewhat resemble the original scene (e.g., a theatre or concert hall)  elicit a similar anxiety response (Laufer et al., 2016). The issue arises when these thoughts cause avoidance behaviours, despite little or no evidence to back these thoughts. If you notice yourself overgeneralizing, try to think of times that the generalization doesn’t hold true (e.g., have I ever found a job before?). 

  1. “Should” Statements 

“I shouldn’t have yelled at my kids.” 

“I should have started this project sooner.” 

Thinking “I should be over this by now” after the loss of a close friend. 

Should statements involve terms like “should,” “ought to,” and “must.” They involve rigidly focusing on what you “should” do or “should have” done, discounting actual reality (Chand et al., 2023). These thoughts are self-critical, and lead to negative feelings like guilt, shame, and additional anxiety when expectations are not met. For example, when thinking “I must ace this test,” you will likely feel anxious. When you try to convince yourself “I shouldn’t be anxious,” this can lead to a secondary symptom: anxiety about being anxious (Ellis, 1980). This is yet another example of the cyclic nature of cognitive distortions. “Should” statements often lead to additional biased thoughts. If you begin with a statement like “I must not make a mistake in this assignment,” you are likely to draw several more negatively biased conclusions such as “If I make a mistake, I am a bad student” or “I’ll surely fail this class if I answer some of the questions wrong” (Ellis, 1980). Research has shown that these statements are significantly correlated with depression and the maintenance of depressive symptoms when compared to other types of cognitive distortions (Blake et al., 2016). One way to combat these “should” or “must” statements is to first catch yourself having the thought, and then replace it with softer language, such as “I would like to,” “I want to,” “it would be nice if,” or “I could” (Burns, 1999).  

  1. Mind Reading 

“My manager dislikes me because he gave me feedback.” 

“I know my friend is mad at me because she didn’t talk to me at lunch.” 

“My parents think I’m lazy because I missed an assignment.” 

Mind reading assumes that you know what other people are thinking, or relatedly, how the people around you view you, despite little or no evidence (Chand et al., 2023). Studies show that this thinking bias is one of the strongest predictors of anxiety in children and adolescents (Maric et al, 2010). Individuals who struggle with this bias often struggle to weigh evidence, attributing negative conclusions as much more important than positive ones, if not discounting them all together. Interestingly, research has shown that people who frequently jump to conclusions often feel that they have done substantial research and/or cost-benefit analysis to inform their decisions (Hillman et al., 2024). Those who jump to conclusions have also been shown to generate fewer hypotheses about a situation and choose to believe their initial inaccurate predictions after being given alternatives. Therefore, an important factor in addressing mind reading involves evaluating evidence and considering alternative explanations with an open mind (Hillman et al., 2024). Of course, it’s possible that your friend is upset with you and that’s why she didn’t sit with you at lunch. However, it’s also possible she had an appointment over the lunch hour, had already made plans to sit with someone else or had a project she had to finish.  

  1. Disqualifying the Positive 

“My performance evaluation was only good because my manager caught me on a good day.” 

“I got an A+ on this assignment because it was easy. Everyone in the class did well.” 

“A stranger complimented my outfit, but they were probably just trying to be nice.” 

Disqualifying the positive involves acknowledging, but downplaying or discounting, positive outcomes. You may notice that you’re disqualifying the positive when you observe yourself making a positive statement followed by “but” or “however.”  Minimizing the positive commonly manifests as attributing positive outcomes to luck instead of hard work or capability (Burns, 1980). Minimization of success is strongly linked to poor self-esteem. Therefore, it is vital to focus on making internal (rather than external) attributions for achievements in order to weaken this bias’s negative impact (Dobson, 2008). You may think your manager only catches you on good days, but this is unlikely; if your manager catches you on “good days,” it’s most likely because the majority of your working days are good because you are a good employee. Luck only goes so far.  

  1. Personalization

“It’s my fault that my child is getting bullied at school.” 

“My mom looks annoyed. I must have done something wrong.” 

“That client was in a bad mood. I clearly set them off.” 

Personalization assumes you are responsible for a negative outcome without any logical reason to believe you are to blame (Chand et al., 2023). Personalization involves concluding that an internal event (e.g., “I got into the car when my mom picked me up from school”) causes an external event (e.g., “my mom had an angry expression on her face”) (Franceschi, 2010). In reality, the internal event is completely unrelated to the external event, but, using the example above, the individual comes to the faulty conclusion that their mom is upset with them. This is known as a post-hoc fallacy; an error where someone assumes since one event followed another, the first must have caused the second (Franceschi, 2010). Personalization can work as an adaptive mechanism in many cases: it may be used to avoid retaliation and backlash from others, which could occur if you directly blame another person; it can also offer some illusion of control, because negative events that are perceived as your own fault are viewed as controllable (Rosenfield, 2004). Recognizing that you can’t control others and aren’t responsible for others’ feelings are ways to keep personalization at bay.  

  1. Emotional Reasoning 

“I’m nervous about this performance. That means I’m going to perform horribly.” 

“That interaction was awkward. Clearly, I’m socially awkward.” 

“I’m jealous of that girl my boyfriend hangs out with. That must mean he’s cheating on me” 

Emotional reasoning tends to take the form of “I feel ____, therefore it must be true.” It refers to the use of emotional states to form conclusions about oneself, others, or situations, whilst disregarding objective evidence (Chand et al., 2023). Like most cognitive errors, this type of bias served an evolutionary purpose. This fast-track affect helped our ancestors make quick decisions when under threat, increasing the probability of erring on the side of caution, and therefore increasing the likelihood of survival (Rosenfield, 2004). Interestingly, emotional reasoning can occur even when the emotion is not generated by the situation at hand (Gangemi et al., 2021). Let’s say you generally don’t feel nervous about performing, but you narrowly avoided a car accident on the way to your recital. You may conclude that the anxious feelings you are experiencing are due to being nervous about performing, when in reality, you are on edge because you just avoided a car crash. For some individuals who chronically experience emotions such as guilt, anxiety, sadness, or fear, emotional information becomes an overpowering inner voice that maintains negative beliefs (Gangemi et al., 2021). To address this type of thinking, it is essential to remember “feelings are not facts”. 

  1. Labelling

“I’m such an idiot.” 

“I didn’t study hard enough for that exam because I’m lazy and incompetent.” 

“He forgot it was his turn to pick the kids up from school – he’s a terrible parent.” 

Labelling involves ascribing inaccurate and cynical descriptors to yourself or another person after a negative situation (Rnic et al., 2016). This bias is particularly prevalent in individuals with depression and has become common when people interact with one another on social media (Bollen et al., 2021; Wang et al, 2023). Labels are biased because humans and human interactions are far too complex to sum up using such a simple descriptor (Burns, 1980). To challenge this type of distortion, you can use the framework “identify, reflect, and reconstruct” (Yuan et al., 2024). First, identify the label you are using: What word was used? Is it being directed at myself or someone else? Next, reflect on the situation: What does this label truly mean? Is it accurate? How does it impact me or the individual it was directed at? Finally, reconstruct: Beyond this label, what are other reasons this situation might have happened?  What is the evidence for and against this label? Are there other descriptors I can use for the situation? What would using the label really mean? Such frameworks can be used and applied to nearly every cognitive distortion. Although the process may seem time consuming, it gets easier with practice, and it will pay off in the long run.  

  1. Mental Filter 

Focusing exclusively on the few things you got wrong on a test despite the excellent mark you received. 

Fixating on minor criticisms received on a performance review, even though the feedback overall was positive. 

Dwelling on the one silent moment in a conversation and concluding the entire conversation was awkward and ignoring the other parts where everyone was interested and engaged. 

Mental filtering, also known as selective abstraction, is the opposite of seeing through rose-coloured glasses. It involves focusing exclusively on negative or upsetting aspects of an event, while ignoring the rest (Chand et al, 2023). Mental filtering is more commonly associated with depression than with anxiety (Maric et al., 2010). Consistent with Beck’s theory of depression, depressed individuals tend to view negative feedback as more important than positive feedback (Blake et al., 2016). Fixating exclusively on the negative aspects of an event can lead to confirmation bias, where only the unfavourable aspects of an event are remembered (Doyle, 2025). This process reinforces negative beliefs and can lead to negative appraisal of future events. To counteract this unhelpful thinking pattern, consider actively practicing gratitude and writing down positive experiences throughout your day. These small changes are clinically proven to increase positive emotions, combat symptoms of anxiety and depression, and improve overall well-being (Dinz et al., 2023). 

If you are struggling with negative thinking biases or would like to learn more strategies to cope with negative thoughts using CBT, registered Psychologists and Psychotherapists are available to help.  

Authors: Ella Crawford B.Sc. (Hons) and Dr. Erin Fallis, C.Psych.

References 

  1. Blake, E., Dobson, K. S., Sheptycki, A. R., & Drapeau, M. (2016). The relationship between depression severity and cognitive errors. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 70(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2016.70.2.203  
  2. Bollen, J., ten Thij, M., Breithaupt, F., Barron, A. T., Rutter, L. A., Lorenzo-Luaces, L., & Scheffer, M. (2021). Historical Language Records reveal a surge of cognitive distortions in recent decades. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(30). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102061118  
  3.  Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: the new mood therapy. Morrow. 
  4.  Bonfá‐Araujo, B., Oshio, A., & Hauck‐Filho, N. (2021). Seeing Things in Black-and-White: A Scoping Review on Dichotomous Thinking Style. Japanese Psychological Research, 64(4), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12328  
  5. Chand, S. P., Huecker, M. R., & Kuckel, D. P. (2023, May 23). Cognitive behavior therapy. StatPearls [Internet]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470241/  
  6. David, D., Cristea, I., & Hofmann, S. G. (2018). Why cognitive behavioral therapy is the current gold standard of psychotherapy. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00004  
  7. Diniz, G., Korkes, L., Tristão, L. S., Pelegrini, R., Bellodi, P. L., & Bernardo, W. M. (2023). The effects of gratitude interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Einstein (São Paulo), 21. https://doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2023rw0371  
  8. Doyle, D. J. (2025). Cognitive distortions as sources of pathological thinking. Authorea. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176194042.29745582/v1  
  9. Ellis, A. (1980). Rational-emotive therapy and cognitive behavior therapy: Similarities and differences. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01178210  
  10. Franceschi, P. (2010). Théorie des distorsions cognitives : La personnalisation. Journal de Thérapie Comportementale et Cognitive, 20(2), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcc.2010.06.006  
  11. Gangemi, A., Dahò, M., & Mancini, F. (2021). Emotional reasoning and psychopathology. Brain Sciences, 11(4), 471. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11040471  
  12. Hillman, J. G., Burrows, B., Jessen, D., & Hauser, D. J. (2024). Jumping to fixations: Jumping to conclusions is associated with less hypothesis generation and more fixation. Thinking & Reasoning, 31(3), 398–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2024.2443149  
  13. Kelly J. D., 4th (2015). Your Best Life: Perfectionism–The Bane of Happiness. Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 473(10), 3108–3111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4279-9 
  14. Laufer, O., Israeli, D., & Paz, R. (2016). Behavioral and neural mechanisms of overgeneralization in anxiety. Current Biology, 26(6), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.01.023  
  15. Maric, M., Heyne, D. A., van Widenfelt, B. M., & Westenberg, P. M. (2010). Distorted cognitive processing in youth: The structure of negative cognitive errors and their associations with anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9285-3  
  16. Petrini, L., & Arendt-Nielsen, L. (2020). Understanding pain catastrophizing: Putting pieces together. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.603420  
  17.  Pike, A. C., Serfaty, J. R., & Robinson, O. J. (2021). The development and Psychometric Properties of a self-report catastrophizing questionnaire. Royal Society Open Science, 8(1), 201362. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201362  
  18.  Rnic, K., Dozois, D. J., & Martin, R. A. (2016). Cognitive distortions, humor styles, and Depression. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(3), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i3.1118  
  19. Rosenfield, B. M. (2004). Relationship between cognitive distortions and psychological disorders across diagnostic axes. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Digital Commons. https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/psychology_dissertations/119/  
  20. Wang, B., Zhao, Y., Lu, X., & Qin, B. (2023). Cognitive distortion based explainable depression detection and Analysis Technologies for the adolescent internet users on social media. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1045777  
  21. Yuan, K., Liang, Y., & Tang, X. (2024). Design research on cognitive dissonance in the context of labeling effects. Proceedings of the 2024 4th International Conference on Computational Modeling, Simulation and Data Analysis, 903–913. https://doi.org/10.1145/3727993.3728142