We humans possess a remarkable ability – the power of cognition. Our minds can process information, analyse situations, and allow us to make informed decisions. However, like any other system, our minds are susceptible to glitches, often leading to distorted thinking patterns known as cognitive distortions. These mental traps can undermine our thoughts, emotions, and actions, impacting our overall well-being and decision-making process. In this blog post, we will explore the fascinating world of cognitive distortions, uncover their effects, and discover strategies to combat their influence.
Understanding Cognitive Distortions
Cognitive distortions, also known as thinking errors, refer to exaggerated or irrational thought patterns that lead to skewed perceptions of reality. They can manifest in various forms and affect our everyday interactions, self-perception, and experiences. Understanding these distortions is crucial, as they can impact our mental health, relationships, and overall quality of life.
Types of Cognitive Distortions
Even though there are many cognitive distortions that can be listed, here are a few I have identified as common:
All-or-Nothing Thinking: This distortion involves perceiving situations in extreme, black or white terms, with no shades of gray. It tends to oversimplify complex matters, leading to rigid thinking patterns and unrealistic expectations.
Overgeneralisation: This distortion involves making sweeping generalisations based on limited or isolated incidents. It often leads to negative conclusions about ourselves, others, or the world, based on a single negative experience.
Mental Filtering: Here, individuals tend to focus exclusively on negative aspects while ignoring positive ones. When filtering through filters of negativity, we fail to see the bigger picture and subject ourselves to perpetual dissatisfaction.
Emotional Reasoning: This distortion occurs when we base our beliefs on our emotional state rather than on objective evidence. We assume that our feelings accurately reflect the truth, regardless of contradictory information.
Catastrophising: Catastrophizing involves magnifying small problems or setbacks, assuming they are much worse than they are. It fuels anxieties and leads to a distorted perception of reality, often causing unnecessary distress.
Effects of Cognitive Distortions
Cognitive distortions, if left unchecked, can have detrimental effects on our mental and emotional well-being. They contribute to increased levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. Moreover, they can strain relationships, hinder personal growth, and impede sound decision-making.
Combating Cognitive Distortions
Recognising and challenging cognitive distortions is essential for personal growth and improved mental health. Here are a few strategies to help combat these thinking errors:
Awareness: Develop mindfulness and self-awareness to identify cognitive distortions as they arise. Take note of patterns and challenge the validity of your thoughts.
Cognitive Restructuring: Replace distorted thoughts with more realistic and balanced alternatives. Challenge your negative assumptions and find evidence to support them.
Seeking Perspective: Engage with trusted friends, family, or professionals who can provide constructive feedback and offer alternative viewpoints, helping you gain valuable perspective.
Thought Records: Maintain a journal or use a thought record to track cognitive distortions. Document the situation, thoughts, emotions, and evidence supporting or disputing your distortions.
Professional Help: If cognitive distortions persist and significantly impact your daily life, consider seeking therapy or counselling. Professionals can provide guidance and help you navigate these distortions more effectively.
Conclusion
Cognitive distortions are an inherent part of the human thought process, but we must learn to navigate them skillfully. By recognising these thinking errors and implementing strategies to address them, we can regain control over our thoughts and enhance our overall well-being. Remember, reframing distorted thoughts is not an overnight process but a continuous effort that gradually transforms the mind’s trickery into realistic perceptions of the world.
Cognitive patterns are the mental processes and strategies that individuals use to perceive, interpret, and process information from their surroundings. These patterns have a significant impact on how individuals think, reason, problem-solve, and make decisions. Understanding the different types of cognitive patterns can help us better understand ourselves and others, as well as improve our overall mental capabilities. In this blog post, we will explore some common types of cognitive patterns and their characteristics.
1. Analytical Pattern
The analytical pattern involves a systematic and logical approach to gathering and analysing information. Individuals with this pattern tend to focus on details, break down complex problems into smaller parts, and carefully consider various perspectives before making decisions. They excel in data analysis, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
2. Intuitive Pattern
Intuitive thinkers rely on their gut instincts and rely heavily on intuition to make quick decisions. They have a sharp sense of intuition that allows them to perceive patterns, make connections, and find creative solutions to problems. These individuals tend to trust their intuition and prefer a more holistic and intuitive approach to problem-solving.
3. Holistic Pattern
Individuals with a holistic pattern have a broad perspective and prefer to see the bigger picture. They focus on the overall context, relationships, and interconnections between various elements. These individuals excel in systems thinking, strategic planning, and understanding complex systems. They tend to be good at creating long-term plans and understanding cause-and-effect relationships.
4. Concrete Pattern
The concrete pattern involves a focus on tangible and real-life experiences. Individuals with this pattern prefer practical solutions and learn best through hands-on experiences. They may struggle with abstract concepts and prefer to have concrete examples and real-life applications to understand and solve problems. These individuals excel in hands-on professions and tend to be good at applying their knowledge in practical settings.
5. Abstract Pattern:
Individuals with an abstract pattern are adept at thinking conceptually and dealing with abstract and theoretical ideas. They engage in deep thinking and enjoy exploring complex concepts and hypothetical scenarios. These individuals excel in academic or research settings, where they can delve into abstract ideas and develop innovative theories.
6. Systematic Pattern
The systematic pattern involves a structured and methodical approach to problem-solving. Individuals with this pattern prefer step-by-step processes and carefully consider all the potential options before making decisions. They excel in organising information, creating routines, and following established procedures for given tasks.
Some Final Notes
It’s important to note that cognitive patterns are not fixed and can vary depending on the situation, context, and individual preferences. Many individuals may exhibit a combination of these patterns or shift between them based on the task at hand.
Understanding our own cognitive patterns can help us make better decisions, develop strengths in specific areas, and improve our problem-solving abilities. It also allows us to appreciate the diversity in cognitive patterns among individuals, fostering effective collaboration and teamwork. The awareness of different cognitive patterns can be particularly useful in educational settings, where educators can tailor their teaching approaches to accommodate diverse learning styles and preferences.
In conclusion, cognitive patterns play a crucial role in how we perceive and process information. By understanding the different types of cognitive patterns, we can enhance our own cognitive abilities and leverage them to our advantage. Moreover, acknowledging the cognitive patterns of others can lead to better communication, collaboration, and empathy, ultimately enriching our interactions and relationships.
According to the online Etymology dictionary (n.d.), the verb “esteem” originates from 14c Latin meaning “to value, determine the value of, appraise”. Based on this definition, to self-esteem is to self-appraise and to consequently establish one’s own self worth. Nevertheless, in psychological research, the concept of self-esteem is a much disputed one. It encompasses other key terms such as self concept (the awareness a person has about themselves), and self-efficacy in relation to the status quo (the way a person assesses their own abilities and skills; Mahendran, 2015). Is self-esteem a cognitive attitude or a relational phenomenon? Some of these terms will be explored further below, in order to analyse the psycholinguistics and psychodynamics of everyday self-appraisal, and how this reveals the way someone understands and relates to the world around them.
Self-esteem is an everyday psychological phenomenon that permeates all aspects of a person’s life. Psychologists have at times described this concept as one that encompasses all types of attitudes an individual has about themselves (Mahendran, 2015, p. 159). Now, in order to understand how this concept might influence everyday executive functions, it would be helpful to first elucidate what is meant in psychology by the word “attitude” in relation to “self”. According to Mahendran (2015), an attitude has three core components: the cognitive component encompasses the way in which an individual sees their own object, that is, themselves. The affective component explores the feelings an individual has towards their own object. And third, the behavioural component encompasses the general views an individual has about their own identity, and how this perceived identity shapes the person’s behaviour within the public environment. The following paragraphs will elaborate on the cognitive and relational aspects of self-appraisal as an attitude and behaviour. Furthermore, labelling theory proposes that the ‘self’ is socially constructed, and such construal determines what is labelled as ‘deviant’ or ‘criminal’, or ‘normal’ (Blackburn, 2005). This would suggest that by evaluating one’s understanding of the self-concept (including its historical biography), and its relations to the world around it (the episodic map); one can gain a more accurate understanding of what it means to self-esteem. Furthermore, Tafarodi and Milne (2002) cited in Mahendran (2015, p. 178) described self-esteem as having two main components: self-competence and self-liking. Based on this construct, it can be said that a person’s subjective definition of competency, and the mores shaping their milieu and SUPEREGO; contribute to what a person considers worthy, desirable, and acceptable. In correlation, James (1952) cited in Mahendran (2015, pp. 171-173) saw self-esteem as essentially having four components: the material self (the body and possessions), the social self (the personality presented to other people), the spiritual self (the stream of consciousness, and the observer of subjective experience); and the pure ego (a person’s individuality and self-concept in solitude). Furthermore, Branden (1988) cited in Mahendran (2015, p. 161) defined the term self-esteem as having two main feelings: “personal competence” and “personal worth”.
After the self-esteem political movements of the 1980s and 1990s, and after Baumeister cited in Mahendran (2015, p. 162) officially promoted self-esteem as being the key to health and happiness, more and more people began to get in touch with this aspect of themselves consciously. Moreover, the concept of self-esteem gained a collective status, and became a central focus of social psychology. It was realised that self-esteem has intricate environmental and socio-cultural factors which are not always in the control of an individual (that is, that self-esteem is at times a correlational phenomenon). All of this public attention to the subject led eventually to further concerns about whether collective self-esteem could be raised at all without first challenging the status quo. But why would this concept of self-love be relevant to forensic psychology? Branden (1988) cited in Mahendran (2015, pp. 160-161) described self-esteem as being the root of all psychological evils; including crime, mental health problems, social problems, poor wellbeing, and even suicide: “I cannot think of a single psychological problem […] that is not traceable, at least in part, to the problem of deficient self-esteem”. What this perspective suggests is that self-esteem should be considered a basic need in civil society, rather than a privilege of a selected few, or a future project. Moreover, Bull et al. (2012) explains that sexual offenders, for example, can often be motivated to offend by their low self-esteem (in psychoanalysis, the ID); and often rely on cognitive biases to self-justify their behaviours and autobiographical discourses (impaired or deficient SUPEREGO). In view of such evidence, it is not surprising therefore that at some point a self-esteem deficit was considered to be a security risk, and this is why in 1986 the Task Force for Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility was established in the US California State Department cited in Mahendran (2015, p. 162), which promoted the deterrence and desistance from crime through interventions designed to increase morality and self-esteem levels in individuals.
Furthermore, in psychoanalysisthe self is often referred to as a relational object, which has a personality that is presented to the outside world (the EGO; Eysenck, 2000); where identity is socially constructed (Mahendran, 2015, pp. 188-190). A culture’s social norms and definitions of what is termed as “desirable” and “acceptable” impact on a person’s SUPEREGO*, and therefore their process of self-identification, as well as their object-relations are shaped by the dynamics between ID, EGO, and SUPEREGO. Burkitt (2008) cited in The Open University (2019) reinforces this idea about the self being relational within the social sphere: “Our self-worth is dynamic; it changes as we move through the world with our individual biographies”. One of the most influential approaches to understanding self-esteem was proposed by Rogers (1951) cited in Mahendran (2015, p. 174), who understood ‘self-fulfilment’ as the gap between the actual self (who we are) and the ideal self (who we want to be). By the same token, James (1952) cited in Mahendran (2015, p. 171) proposed a model claiming that self-esteem could be developed by manifesting the potential of one’s actual self into the ideal self, finding this way congruence within. Subsequently, Rogers also posited how in order for a person to mind this gap between the actual and ideal selves, they would have to let go of societal expectations and stereotypes. What all the above mentioned suggests is that self-actualisation, also known as self-realization (the capacity to reach one’s current maximum potential) relies on the individual challenging the status quo (Mahendran, 2015, p. 175). Indeed, exposure to unrealistic media stereotypes, for instance, can influence individual and societal constructions of object identities and relations by setting manufactured personas as standards for what is desirable and competent (Kennedy, 2007). Blindly following or measuring oneself against such stereotypes can result in self-object dissatisfaction and therefore low self-esteem as a byproduct of the existing levels of inequalities, which reproduce all types of distortions related to the ontology of self-image presentation, and representation. Calogero (2013) cited in Mahendran (2015, pp. 192) proposed the system justification theory which sees activism as a healthy manifestation of self-love, because a person challenges the disproportionate general standards of what is considered nice. In other words, the way in which someone internalises the world around them- including the social, environmental, cultural, political and economic dimensions- influences self-esteem (Mahendran, 2015).
This would support the approach to understanding self-esteem as a cognitive attitude (e.g. internalisation of circumstances), and yet this would not be mutually exclusive with the idea of self-esteem as relational phenomena. Leary (2003) cited in Mahendran (2015, p. 180) proposed the sociometer theory, which posited that self-esteem levels can sometimes be attributed to external, rather than internal inputs. This theory highlights the importance of understanding object-relational dynamics. On the other hand, there are several cognitive biases which prevent people from maintaining a healthy level of self-esteem (Mahendran, 2015). For instance, an individual can make a fundamental attribution error if they assume that self-esteem is all about personal attitudes and has nothing to do with the milieu they live in (Mahendran, 2015, p. 180). This is why self-esteem should not be interpreted as belonging only to one single aspect of reality, but rather, it should be seen as a phenomenon that really permeates every aspect of a person’s life at all times; and is therefore subject to both, interoception and exteroception. Nevertheless, Pyszczynski et al. (2004) cited in Mahendran (2015, p. 181) proposed a somewhat nihilistic account of self-esteem where self-love is presumably used as a defence mechanism derived from denial about the brutal reality of death. What this suggests is that all approaches to understanding self-esteem have been a byproduct of the subconscious fear that the human individual has about the imminent probability of dying. Maslow’s and James’ models, for example, would be a byproduct of the subconscious need to distract the mind from the imminent reality of mortality. Consequently, Mruk (2006) cited in Mahendran (2015, p. 169) proposed a phenomenological definition of self-esteem which focused on the way in which a person tries to make sense of their day to day world, supporting the approach to understanding self-esteem as a cognitive attitude in relation to reality. He described it as a status which is lived, and which can be developed through time. This goes hand in hand with some of the approaches developed through humanistic psychology on the topic, such as the phenomenological accounts offered by Rogers, which focused on the holistic aspect of qualia (Mahendran, 2015, p. 174).
To summarise, there are several approaches to understanding self-esteem, and these are not always mutually exclusive. As it has been demonstrated, there are several different aspects that make and remake a person’s self-concept. Therefore, based on the above evidence, it can be said that self-esteem is both a cognitive and a relational phenomenon with direct relevance to forensic psychology when trying to understand the underlying causes of offence culture and offending behaviour.
References
Blackburn, R. (2005) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 87-110.
Bull, R., Cooke, C., Hatcher, R., Woodhams, J., Bilby, C. and Grant, T. (2012) Criminal Psychology: Beginners Guides, London, Oneworld Publications, pp. 186-207.
Eysenck, M. W. (2000) Psychology: A Student’s Handbook, East Sussex, Psychology Press Ltd., pp. 16-41.
Kennedy, B. M. (2007) ‘THINKING ONTOLOGIES OF THE MIND/BODY RELATIONAL’, in Kennedy, B. and Bell, D. (eds) CYBERCULTURES, 2nd edn, Oxon, Routledge, pp. 773-787.
Mahendran, K. (2015) ‘Self-esteem’, in Turner, J., Hewson, C., Mahendran, K. and Stevens, P. (eds), Living Psychology: From the Everyday to the Extraordinary, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 155-194.
