The Psychology of Gossiping – in a snapshot

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)

Addiction fundamentally alters the brain’s reward and decision-making systems through well-documented neurobiological mechanisms. When substances like drugs (including alcohol and nicotine) are consumed, they trigger massive releases of dopamine in the brain’s reward circuit, particularly in areas like the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area. With repeated exposure, the brain adapts by reducing natural dopamine production and decreasing the number of dopamine receptors, creating tolerance and requiring increasingly larger amounts of the substance to achieve the same effect. This neuroadaptation hijacks the brain’s natural reward system, making everyday activities less rewarding while the addictive substance becomes disproportionately important.

Over time, addiction also impairs the prefrontal cortex, the brain region responsible for executive functions like decision-making, impulse control, and weighing long-term consequences. This creates a neurological double-bind: the midbrain structures driving craving and drug-seeking behaviour become hyperactive, while the prefrontal systems that would normally regulate these impulses become weakened. Chronic substance use also disrupts stress response systems, making individuals more vulnerable to relapse during difficult periods. These changes help explain why addiction is recognised as a chronic brain disease rather than simply a matter of willpower – the neuroplastic changes can persist long after substance use stops, though the brain does have remarkable capacity for recovery with sustained abstinence and appropriate treatment.

The Challenge of Stopping

The challenge of stopping stems from the profound neurobiological changes addiction creates in the brain’s fundamental survival systems. The brain essentially learns to treat the addictive substance as necessary for survival, similar to food or water. When someone tries to quit, they face intense physical withdrawal symptoms as their neurochemistry struggles to return to homeostasis, combined with psychological cravings that can persist for months or years. The damaged prefrontal cortex makes it extremely difficult to override these powerful urges with rational decision-making, while stress, environmental cues, and emotional states can trigger automatic drug-seeking responses that feel almost involuntary. This creates a cycle where attempts to quit often lead to temporary success followed by relapse, which many interpret as personal failure rather than recognising it as part of the neurological reality of the condition.

Addiction appears progressive because tolerance drives escalating use over time, while the brain’s reward system becomes increasingly dysregulated. What begins as recreational use gradually shifts to compulsive use as natural dopamine production diminishes and neural pathways become more deeply entrenched. The condition typically follows a predictable pattern: initial experimentation leads to regular use, then to use despite negative consequences, and finally to compulsive use where the person continues despite severe impairment in major life areas. Additionally, chronic substance use often damages the brain regions responsible for insight and self-awareness, making it harder for individuals to recognise the severity of their condition. The progressive nature is also influenced by external factors – as addiction advances, people often lose social supports, employment, and housing, creating additional stressors that fuel continued use and make recovery more challenging.

Understanding addiction when you’re not “addicted” to alcohol or other drugs

The difficulty in understanding addiction, even among people with their own compulsive behaviors, stems from several key differences in how these conditions manifest and are perceived. While behaviors like sugar consumption, social media use, or shopping can indeed activate similar dopamine pathways, they typically don’t create the same level of neurobiological hijacking that occurs with substances like alcohol, opioids, or stimulants. Addictive drugs often produce dopamine surges 2-10 times greater than natural rewards, creating more profound and lasting changes to brain structure and function. Additionally, many behavioral compulsions allow people to maintain relatively normal functioning in major life areas, whereas substance addiction typically leads to progressive deterioration across multiple domains – relationships, work, health, and legal standing.

The social and cognitive factors also create barriers to understanding. Most people can relate to losing control occasionally – eating too much dessert or spending too much time scrolling their phone – but these experiences usually involve temporary lapses that can be corrected relatively easily through willpower or environmental changes. This creates a false sense of equivalency where people think “I can stop eating cookies when I want to, so why can’t they just stop drinking?” They don’t grasp that addiction involves a qualitatively different level of brain change where the substance has become neurobiologically essential, not just psychologically preferred. There’s also often a moral lens applied to addiction that doesn’t exist for other compulsive behaviours – society tends to view overconsumption of legal, socially acceptable things as personal quirks or minor character flaws, while addiction to illegal substances or excessive alcohol use carries heavy stigma and assumptions about moral failing, making it harder to see as a medical condition requiring treatment rather than simply better self-control.

A Word On Nicotine (Tobacco Products)

Yes, nicotine absolutely does release large amounts of dopamine, making it highly addictive despite being legal and socially accepted in many contexts. Nicotine causes an increase in dopamine levels in the brain’s reward pathways, creating feelings of satisfaction and pleasure.Research shows that nicotine, like opioids and cocaine, can cause dopamine to flood the reward pathway up to 10 times more than natural rewards.

This helps explain why nicotine addiction can be so powerful and difficult to overcome, even though people often view smoking or vaping as less serious than other forms of substance addiction. Repeated activation of dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area by nicotine leads not only to reinforcement but also to craving and lack of self-control over intake. The addiction develops through the same basic mechanisms as other substances – as people continue to smoke, the number of nicotine receptors in the brain increases, requiring more of the substance to achieve the same dopamine response.

What makes nicotine particularly insidious is its legal status and social acceptance, which can make people underestimate its addictive potential. The rapid delivery of nicotine to the brain (within 10-20 seconds when smoked) creates an almost immediate reward that strongly reinforces the behaviour. This is why many people who successfully quit other substances still struggle with nicotine, and why nicotine addiction often serves as a gateway that primes the brain’s reward system for addiction to other substances.

Inattentional Blindness is the failure to notice an unexpected object in a visual display.

Cognitive Psychology is an approach to understanding human cognition by observing behaviour of people performing cognitive tasks. It is concerned with the internal processes involved in making sense of our environment, and deciding what behaviour to be appropriate. These processes include attention, perception, learning, memory, language, problem-solving, reasoning, and thinking.

The most famous experiment that shows evidence for inattentional blindness is the Simons and Chabris (1999) experiment where an audience or viewer watches a group of people pass a ball to one another wearing either black or white, and a woman dressed as a gorilla enters the frame for 9 seconds, then walks off. Results reported that 50% of the observers did not notice the gorilla enter the frame. In all honesty, when I saw the video for the first time at university, I did not see the gorilla enter the frame either.

In reality, we are often aware of changes in our visual environment because we detect motion cues accompanying the change. This information suggests that our ability to detect visual changes is not only due to the detection of movement. An obvious explanation of the gorilla experiment findings is that the visual representations we form in our mind are sparse and incomplete because they depend on our limited attentional focus. Simons and Rensick (2005) point out that there are other explanations, such as: detailed and complete representations may exist initially but may either decay rapidly or be overwritten by a subsequent stimulus. It needs to be said that in the gorilla experiment, the observers are instructed to count how many times the ball passes, so really, our attention is deliberately compromised. The real-life implications of inattentional blindness reveals the role of selective attention in human perception. Inattentional blindness represents a consequence of this critical process that allows us to remain focused on important aspects of our world without distraction from seemingly irrelevant objects and events.

Being present, in the moment (mindfulness) can help aid our attention. Distractions such as using our mobile phones, advertising material, other people, “multi-tasking” and internal emotional states all contribute to our lack of focus and attention. Think of a magician’s ability to manipulate their audiences attention in order to prevent them from seeing how a trick is performed. There are also safety implications, as you would know … if you’ve been paying attention, haha.

Just food for thought, my readers, and friends 🙂