Cognitive Distortions II

As a reminder, cognitive distortions are negative and irrational thought patterns (Rnic et al., 2016; Shickel et al., 2020) that authors can take advantage of in their stories. Like everything else, cognitive distortions need to be used carefully and intelligently, and doing so requires understanding what they are. Last time, we looked at four specific cognitive distortions. Today, we’re going to look at four more: catastrophizing, personalization, labelling, and all or nothing thinking.

Catastrophizing

Catastrophizing involves assuming extremely negative possibilities are likely despite the lack of supporting evidence (Floyd et al. 2025, Rnic et al. 2016). For example, there are a lot of reasons someone may not answer a phone call. Assuming that they’re probably dead or hospitalized would be catastrophizing. It’s a possibility, yes, but is it really a likely one? Do you have any reason to suspect those possibilities are any more likely than the alternatives?
Characters who catastrophize may seem dramatic. However, since this requires an overreaction (treating the literal end of the world as the end of the world would not be catastrophizing), you can decide who is right and who is just catastrophizing. How likely are the possibilities? What evidence are the characters using? Also, they may not agree on what counts as compelling evidence or have different estimations for the likelihood of events. These disagreements could be shown in various ways. Perhaps there are different interpretations for an ancient prophecy, or perhaps the characters’ backgrounds influence their perception of the situation and what the villain is capable of. Remember, sometimes, bad things do happen, and in books, they tend to happen often. For example, the villain may not win in the end, but they could still come close enough to cause lasting damage.

Personalization

Personalization is, in a sense, egotistical, as it involves an assumption that negative outcomes occurred because of the self (Rnic et al., 2016). Maybe you picked the beach for your next vacation, and then it poured the entire time you were there. It would be nonsensical to blame yourself for that, as you could not possibly have predicted the weather (especially if you booked the trip months in advance). Or maybe you discovered your friend crying in the bathroom and wondered what you must have done to upset them. Essentially, you assign blame to yourself, ignoring other potential causes and the limited effect you can have on this world.
This can be a fun one to write because worlds of magic can make these assumptions true. Perhaps the character is right in believing they cause bad things to happen, or perhaps other people believe it’s true even when it’s not. As the author, you get to determine exactly which negative events (if any) happened because of the character. For characters who feel responsible but aren’t, you can also explore why they feel that way. Why do they assume bad things must be related to them? If another character tells them it’s not true, will they listen?

Labelling

Labelling involves applying a negative label to oneself after one instance of negative behavior (Rnic et al., 2016). In other words, a label that defines a negative pattern of behavior (such as lazy or careless) is applied even though a pattern can’t yet be established (like forgetting to take the trash out once or dropping a single plate while doing dishes).
Labelling can be shown either externally or internally. Characters may outwardly claim to be lazy or dumb after one failure, or these feelings may only show up in their thoughts, which could be explored if the story is from their POV. Other characters may also try to convince them that the label is wrong. You can decide if they’re trying in vain. You can also consider the consequences of labelling. If the character feels careless, for example, does that cause them to be more stressed in certain circumstances, which in turn makes them more careless?

All or Nothing Thinking

Engaging in all or nothing thinking involves treating a situation as having only two, opposing outcomes rather than accepting that there are a multitude of possibilities between them (Rnic et al., 2016). For example, a person may make a New Year’s resolution to exercise for 20 minutes every day. Then, in late January, they skip one day of exercise, decide they are a failure, and stop exercising for the rest of the year. In other words, it’s either “exercise every single day” or “never exercise.” It’s either Perfection or Quitting. No mistakes, no cheat days, no extenuating circumstances allowed.
There are many ways to utilize all or nothing thinking. A character may have very black and white morality and thus struggle with situations and people who are morally gray. Or, if a character adopts the “Perfection or Quitting” mentality, you can show how it limits their growth and explore why they feel this way. You can even demonstrate all or nothing thinking with cultures. Is there anything their society treats as “either-or” when that isn’t how their world works? On the other hand, you can also decide that some situations/ ideas truly are “either-or” and explore the consequences of that.

Including these cognitive distortions can add depth to your characters and drive conflict. Another thing to consider is how the characters in your story react to these cognitive distortions, both in themselves and others. What would they call these cognitive distortions? What would they do to address them? Is there any form of therapy available to help?
As a final note, cognitive distortions can be difficult to ignore. Just because a character is aware that they are being irrational does not mean they can simply stop thinking or feeling the way they do. For example, your character may understand rationally that all or nothing thinking is problematic yet still struggle with managing it. I have known about cognitive distortions for years, and I still find myself occasionally engaging in them.

References
Floyd, K., Ray, C. D., & Boumis, J. K. (2025). Cognitive distortions associated with loneliness: An exploratory study. Behavioral Sciences, 15(8), 1061. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081061
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
Shickel, B., Siegel, S., Heesacker, M., Benton, S., & Rashidi, P. (2020) Automatic detection and classification of cognitive distortions in mental health text, 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE), Cincinnati, OH, USA, 275-280, https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBE50027.2020.00052

Previous post : Cognitive Distortions I