Effective strategies and techniques for moderate to intense anxiety:

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)

Stephen Porges, psychiatry professor and researcher, on the polyvagal theory he developed to understand our reactions to trauma:

[Paraphrased] Polyvagal theory articulates three branches of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) that evolved from primitive vertebrates to mammals. First, there is a system known as ‘freeze’, which involves death feigning or immobilisation. Second, the ANS has a ‘fight or flight’ system, which is a mobilisation system. And third, with mammals, there is what Porges calls, a social engagement system (SES), which can detect features of safety, and actually communicate them to another. The SES may also be referred to by some as ‘rest and digest’, which Porges theory suggests is a function of the Vagus Nerve – the tenth cranial nerve, a very long and wandering nerve that begins at the medulla oblongata. When an individual experiences feelings of safety (within an SES state), the autonomic nervous system can support health restoration. In terms of dealing with a life threat, an ordinary person will most likely go into a feigning death, dissociative state of ‘freeze’.

Polyvagal theory in psychotherapy offers emotional co-regulation as an interactive process between therapist and client which engages the social engagement system of both therapist and client. Social engagement provides experiences of safety, trust, mutuality and reciprocity in which we are open to receiving another person, just as they are.

The following extract has been retrived from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/02/stephen-porges-interview-survivors-are-blamed-polyvagal-theory-fight-flight-psychiatry-ace

Polyvagal theory has made inroads into medical and psycho-therapeutic treatment, but how should it inform how people treat each other?

“When we become a polyvagal-informed society, we’re functionally capable of listening to and witnessing other people’s experiences, we don’t evaluate them. Listening is part of co-regulation: we become connected to others and this is what I call our biological imperative. So when you become polyvagal-informed you have a better understanding of your evolutionary heritage as a mammal. We become aware of how our physiological state is manifested, in people’s voices and in their facial expression, posture and basic muscle tone. If there’s exuberance coming from the upper part of a person’s face, and their voice has intonation modulation or what’s called prosody, we become attracted to the person. We like to talk to them – it’s part of our co-regulation.

So when we become polyvagal-informed, we start understanding not only the other person’s response but also our responsibility to smile and have inflection in our voice, to help the person we’re talking to help their body feel safe.”

Clink on the link below to hear Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, one of the world’s leading experts on developmental trauma, explain how our long-term health and happiness can be compromised by prior exposure to violence, emotional abuse, and other forms of traumatic stress.

https://youtu.be/53RX2ESIqsM

Social psychological models of behaviour attempt to explain why individuals act the way they do in various social contexts. These models integrate individual, interpersonal, and societal factors to provide insights into behaviour. Here’s an overview of some key models:

1. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) proposes that behaviour is influenced by:

– Attitudes toward the behaviour

– Subjective norms (perceptions of others’ approval)

– Perceived behavioural control (i.e., confidence in one’s ability to perform the behaviour [self-efficacy])

2. Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) suggests that behaviour is the result of:

– Reciprocal interaction between personal factors (beliefs, attitudes), environmental factors (social norms), and behaviour itself

– Concepts like self-efficacy (belief in one’s ability) play a major role.

3. Health Belief Model (HBM), designed to predict health-related behaviours. Behaviour is driven by factors such as perceived:

– Susceptibility (risk of harm)

– Severity (consequences of harm)

– Benefits (advantages of action)

– Barriers (obstacles to action)

4. Cognitive Dissonance Theory explains how people strive for consistency between their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. When inconsistency arises, they feel dissonance (mental discomfort) and are motivated to reduce it by changing their attitudes or actions.

5. Social Identity Theory examines how individuals define themselves within social groups. Behaviour is influenced by group membership, including in-group favouritism and out-group bias.

6. Attribution Theory focuses on how people explain their own and others’ behaviours. Explains behaviour as being attributed either to internal (dispositional) or external (situational) factors. For example, it is common for people to attribute negative outcomes in their life to external factors rather than internal factors.

7. Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) explains how people process persuasive messages and what determines whether those messages will change attitudes or behaviour. It’s often applied in areas like marketing, communication, and public health campaigns. The ELM identifies two primary routes through which persuasion can occur:

– Central Route; this route involves deep, thoughtful consideration of the content and logic of a message. People are more likely to take the central route when they are motivated to process the message (e.g., the topic is personally relevant or important to them) and they can understand and evaluate the arguments (e.g., they aren’t distracted, and they have enough knowledge about the subject). Persuasion through the central route tends to result in long-lasting attitude change that is resistant to counterarguments. Example: A person researching the pros and cons of electric cars before deciding to buy one.

– Peripheral Route, which relies on superficial cues or heuristics (mental shortcuts) rather than the message’s content. People are more likely to take the peripheral route when they are not highly motivated or lack the ability to process the message deeply, and when they focus on external factors like the attractiveness or credibility of the speaker, emotional appeals, or catchy slogans. Persuasion through this route tends to result in temporary attitude change that is less resistant to counterarguments. Example: A person choosing a product because their favourite celebrity endorsed it.

8. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) emphasizes intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It emphasizes the role of intrinsic motivation—doing something for its inherent satisfaction—over extrinsic motivation, which is driven by external rewards or pressures. It suggests that behaviour is influenced by the need for:

– Autonomy (control over one’s actions); When people perceive they have a choice and are acting in alignment with their values, their motivation and satisfaction increase.

– Competence; Refers to the need to feel effective, capable, and successful in achieving desired outcomes. People are motivated when tasks challenge them at an appropriate level and provide opportunities for growth and mastery. Example: A gamer progressing through increasingly difficult levels, gaining skills and confidence along the way.

– Relatedness; Refers to the need to feel connected to others and experience a sense of belonging. Supportive relationships and positive social interactions enhance motivation and well-being. Example: Employees feeling a bond with their colleagues in a collaborative work environment.

9. Social Learning Theory proposes that behaviour is learned through observation and imitation. Role models and reinforcement play a key role in shaping actions.

10. Transtheoretical Model (Stages of Change) explains behaviour change as a process occurring in stages: precontemplation, contemplation (ambivalence), preparation, action, and maintenance

These models provide frameworks to understand behaviours in contexts like health, decision-making, group dynamics, and social influence.