Two Science-backed Ways to Ease a Worried Mind.

Hello readers! A few of the cognitive styles below were mentioned in my last post. As humans, we have a tendency to forget things so a bit of revision can be useful.

Many people have cognitive processes that result in overall unhelpful thinking styles that they tend to apply globally across situations and which may result in emotional distress (such as depression or anxiety) or unhelpful behaviours (such as anger or avoidance). Some of the most problematic thinking styles are listed in the extract below.

Mental Filter: This thinking styles involves a “filtering in” and “filtering out” process – a sort of “tunnel vision”, focusing on only one part of a situation and ignoring the rest. Usually this means looking at the negative parts of a situation and forgetting the positive parts, and the whole picture is coloured by what may be a single negative detail.

Jumping to Conclusions: I’m sure you’ve heard people say on television, “Don’t jump to conclusions” or “The truth is we just don’t know yet”. We jump to conclusions when we assume that we know what someone else is thinking (mind reading) and when we make predictions about what is going to happen in the future (predictive thinking).

Personalisation: This involves blaming yourself for everything that goes wrong or could go wrong, even when you may only be partly responsible or not responsible at all. You might be taking 100% responsibility for the occurrence of external events.

Catastrophising: Catastrophising occurs when we “blow things out of proportion” and we view the situation as terrible, awful, dreadful, and horrible, even though the reality is that the problem itself is quite small. A helpful restructuring of this cognition is to ask yourself if the situation will still be awful, terrible, or dreadful in a month. There may be ongoing consequences or stress involved if you lose a job or a relationship ends, so validate the experience you are having but also take a look at the big picture. What’s the worst that could happen? Why is the worst so “bad”? And if you are being realistic about the issue, reach out for some help if you can.

Black & White Thinking: This thinking style involves seeing only one extreme or the other. You are either wrong or right, good or bad and so on. There are no in-betweens or shades of grey.

Should-ing and Must-ing: Sometimes by saying “I should…” or “I must…” you can put unreasonable demands or pressure on yourself and others. Although these statements are not always unhelpful (e.g. “I should not get drunk and drive home”), they can sometimes create unrealistic expectations.

Overgeneralisation: When we overgeneralise, we take one instance in the past or present, and impose it on all current or future situations. If we say “You always…” or “Everyone…”, or “I never…” then we are probably overgeneralising.

Labelling: We label ourselves and others when we make global statements based on behaviour in specific situations. We might use this label even though there are many more examples that aren’t consistent with that label.

Emotional Reasoning: This thinking style involves basing your view of situations or yourself on the way you are feeling. For example, the only evidence that something bad is going to happen is that you feel like something bad is going to happen. I live with anxiety and it can be debilitating at times. I use my “wiser thinking” or “rational thinking” to evaluate whether I am operating from an emotional mindset. You might ask yourself: “What’s the evidence?”, “Does the past necessarily predict the future?”, “Am I angry or fearful right now because that might be clouding my judgement?”. It can be helpful to talk to someone who isn’t caught in your emotional headspace, or perhaps wait for the emotion to subside to think about the situation again.

Magnification and Minimisation: In this thinking style, you magnify the positive attributes of other people and minimise your own positive attributes. It’s as though you’re explaining away your own positive characteristics.

(CCI, 2008)

Historical Context

Historically, mental illness and addiction have been misunderstood and stigmatized. For much of history, these conditions were seen as moral failings or character flaws rather than medical issues. This has led to a persistent stigma that continues to influence societal attitudes.

Lack of Awareness and Education

There is still a significant lack of awareness and education about mental health and addiction. Many people do not understand that these conditions are medical issues that require treatment, just like physical illnesses. This lack of understanding contributes to negative attitudes and discrimination.

Media Representation

Media often portrays mental illness and addiction in a negative light, reinforcing stereotypes and misconceptions. These portrayals can shape public perception and contribute to the stigma surrounding these conditions.

Criminalization

Addiction, in particular, has been heavily criminalised. This has led to a perception of addiction as a criminal issue rather than a health issue, further entrenching stigma and discrimination.

Internalised Stigma

Individuals with mental illness or addiction often internalise the stigma they experience, leading to feelings of shame and low self-worth. This can prevent them from seeking help and support, perpetuating the cycle of stigma and discrimination.

Healthcare System

Even within the healthcare system, biases and stigma can affect the quality of care provided to individuals with mental illness or addiction. This can lead to inadequate treatment and support, further exacerbating the issue.

Social and Cultural Factors

Social and cultural factors also play a role in how mental illness and addiction are perceived. Different cultures have varying attitudes towards these conditions, which can influence how they are treated and supported.

The differential treatment of treatment-resistant substance use disorder (SUD) and treatment-resistant cancer by society can be attributed to several factors:

1. Perception of Control

Substance use disorders are often perceived as a result of personal choices or moral failings, whereas cancer is seen as an uncontrollable disease. This perception leads to stigma and blame towards individuals with SUD, while those with cancer are more likely to receive sympathy and support.

2. Historical Stigma

Historically, substance use has been stigmatised and criminalised, leading to a societal view that addiction is a choice rather than a medical condition. In contrast, cancer has been recognized as a medical condition requiring treatment and compassion.

3. Media Representation

Media often portrays substance use in a negative light, emphasising criminality and moral failure. Cancer, on the other hand, is often depicted with empathy and urgency, highlighting the need for medical intervention and support.

4. Healthcare System

The healthcare system has historically been more equipped to handle cancer treatment, with extensive research, funding, and specialized care. SUD treatment has lagged behind, with fewer resources and less comprehensive care options.

5. Complexity of Treatment

Treatment-resistant SUD involves complex psychological, social, and biological factors, making it challenging to treat effectively. Cancer treatment resistance, while also complex, has seen significant advancements in research and technology, leading to more effective treatments.

6. Social and Cultural Factors

Cultural attitudes towards substance use and addiction vary widely, with some societies viewing it as a personal failing. Cancer is generally viewed more universally as a disease that requires medical intervention.

REFERENCES

Substance Use Disorder and Stigma

Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. (2024). Initiatives and programs. Retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/initiatives-and-programs

Morrison, A. P., Birchwood, M., Pyle, M., Flach, C., Stewart, S. L. K., Byrne, R., Patterson, P., Jones, P. B., Fowler, D., & Gumley, A. I. (2013). Impact of cognitive therapy on internalised stigma in people with at-risk mental states. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 203(2), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112110

Wood, L., Byrne, R., Burke, E., Enache, G., & Morrison, A. P. (2017). The impact of stigma on emotional distress and recovery from psychosis: The mediatory role of internalised shame and self-esteem. Retrieved from https://repository.essex.ac.uk/21927/1/woodpr2017.pdf

Cancer Treatment and Stigma

American Cancer Society. (2023). Cancer treatment and survivorship. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects.html

National Cancer Institute. (2022). Cancer treatment (PDQ)–Patient version. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/types/treatment-pdq/patient/cancer-treatment-pdq

World Health Organization. (2021). Cancer treatment and palliative care. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/cancer-treatment-palliative-care/en/

Gossiping is a universal social behaviour that involves the giving and receiving of information about others, generally perceived as having a negative effect on social groups and it is commonly sensationalistic in manner. The psychology of gossiping encompasses various aspects of human behaviour, including social interaction, communication, and interpersonal relationships.

Gossiping serves several psychological functions, such as forming and maintaining social bonds, establishing group norms, and conveying social information. Understanding the psychology of gossiping requires an examination of the underlying motivations, cognitive processes, and social dynamics involved in this behaviour.

One of the primary psychological functions of gossiping is its role in social bonding. According to evolutionary psychologists, gossiping may have evolved as a mechanism for monitoring and regulating social relationships within groups. By sharing information about others, individuals can establish and reinforce alliances, as well as identify potential threats or allies within their social networks. Gossiping also serves as a form of social currency, allowing individuals to exchange information and build rapport with others.

Furthermore, gossiping can be driven by intrinsic motivations related to curiosity and entertainment. People are naturally drawn to stories about others, particularly those involving conflict, romance, or scandal. This inclination toward sensationalistic narratives reflects the human tendency to seek novelty and emotional arousal through storytelling. From a psychological perspective, gossiping can be seen as a means of satisfying these innate cognitive and emotional needs.

In addition to its role in social bonding and entertainment, gossiping serves as a mechanism for transmitting social information and enforcing group norms. Through gossip, individuals communicate expectations and judgements regarding behaviour, values, and social roles within their communities. Gossip can function as a form of informal social control by publicly sanctioning or condemning certain behaviours, thereby influencing the conduct of group members.

The psychology of gossiping involves considerations of ethical and moral implications. While gossip can facilitate social cohesion and information sharing, it can also lead to negative consequences such as reputational damage, interpersonal conflict, disharmony, and breaches of privacy. Understanding the psychological mechanisms underlying gossiping can shed light on the ethical dilemmas associated with this behaviour and inform strategies for promoting responsible communication within social contexts.

Gossiping can indeed be malicious, as it involves spreading rumors or information about others that may be harmful, untrue, or damaging to their reputation. Malicious gossip can have serious consequences for the individuals involved, leading to damaged relationships, loss of trust, and even psychological harm. It is important to understand the impact of malicious gossip and the ethical considerations surrounding the spread of such information.

Malicious gossip is often driven by negative intentions, such as jealousy, resentment, or a desire to harm someone’s reputation. It can take various forms, including spreading false information about an individual’s personal life, career, or character. In some cases, malicious gossip may be used as a tool for bullying or manipulation, with the intent to undermine someone’s social standing or credibility.

The effects of malicious gossip can be far-reaching. It can lead to strained relationships, social ostracism, and damage to one’s professional reputation. In extreme cases, it can even result in legal action if the spread of false information causes tangible harm to an individual’s livelihood or well-being.

In summary, the psychology of gossiping encompasses various psychological functions, including its role in social bonding, entertainment, information transmission, and norm enforcement. By examining the underlying motivations, cognitive processes, and social dynamics involved in gossiping, researchers can gain insights into the complexities of human social behavior and interpersonal communication.

References:

Adler, R., & Proctor II, R. F. (2014). Looking out/looking in (14th ed.). Cengage Learning. (Print)

Dunbar, R.I.M. “Gossip in Evolutionary Perspective.” Review of General Psychology (Print)

Foster E.K., & Campbell W.K. “The Psychology of Gossip: A Review.” Social Psychological Review (Print)

Kniffin K.M., & Wilson D.S. “Evolutionary Perspectives on Gossip.” Social Psychology Quarterly (Print)

Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. (Print)

Manning, J., & Levine, L. J. (2016). The psychology of social media: Why we like, share, comment and keep coming back. Routledge. (Print)

Robbins M.L., & Karan A. “Gossip: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology (Print)

Salmivalli, C., & Graham-Kevan, N. (Eds.). (2019). Intimate partner violence: New perspectives in research and practice. Routledge. (Print)

Smith, P., & Steffgen, G. (Eds.). (2013). Cyberbullying through the new media: Findings from an international network. Psychology Press. (Print)

Sommerfeld R.D., & Jordan J.J. “The Evolutionary Foundations of Gossip.” Biological Theory (Print)