Understanding self-harm, self-injury, and self-destruction

There have been various theories and models proposed over time to help us understand why individuals use alcohol and other drugs, and why some people become dependent or ‘addicted’ but not others. The following are several models or theories of addiction. They reflect the political, medical, spiritual, and social forces of those times in history.

The Moral Model

Alcohol and tobacco was introduced in the Western countries during the 1500’s. The widespread use and misuse of chemical substances resulted in a range of social problems and it was thought by some that substance use was “problematic” and “morally wrong” (Lassiter & Spivey, 2018). The moral model viewed AOD dependency as a moral and personal weakness that involved a lack of self-control, and was often viewed as a potential danger to society (Stevens & Smith, 2014).

The moral model considered addiction a “sin” and a result of free, yet irresponsible, choice. Therefore, many politically conservative groups, religious groups, and legal systems tended to punish the individual who uses AOD. The moral model or attitude towards addiction can still be seen today in certain cultures. Those who still believe addiction is morally “wrong” tend to perceive the most appropriate way to treat the individuals who use AOD are through legal sanctions, such as imprisonment and fines. For example, in many countries, drivers who are caught under the influence of alcohol or other drugs are not considered for treatment programs but instead receive court sentences as punishments (Fisher & Harrison, 2017).

This model has been rejected by alcohol and other drugs professionals as unscientific and contributes to the stigma surrounding addiction and substance use (White, 1991, cited in Fisher & Harrison, 2017).

The Disease Model

This model takes up the medical viewpoint and proposes addiction as a disease or illness that an individual has. It proposed that addiction is a disease that is progressive and chronic whereby the individual holds no control as long as the substance use continues. In other words, their addiction will continue to deteriorate with the continuous AOD (Thombs & Osborn, 2019). It also proposes that individuals who uses AOD can never be cured from addiction, though it can be readily treated through sustained abstinence such as self-help fellowships and treatment community. 

In the 1940s, Jellinek proposed a disease model in relation to alcoholism, arguing that it is a disease caused by a physiological deficit in an individual, making the person permanently unable to tolerate the effects of alcohol (Stevens & Smith, 2014). Jellinek identified signs and symptoms and clustered them into stages of alcoholism, as well as progression of the disease, which form the basis of 12-step or Anon-type programs (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous; Stevens & Smith, 2014). 

Under the disease model, treatment requires complete abstinence. Once an individual has accepted the reality of their addiction and ceased substance use, they are labelled as being in recovery, but are never ‘cured’ (e.g., “Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic”; Thombs & Osborn, 2019). Whilst originally applied to alcohol dependency, it has now been generalised to other substances and many traditional substance use treatment models are based on this model (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020; Stevens & Smith, 2014).

The disease model offered an alternative to the moral theory, helping to remove the moral stigma attached to addiction and replacing it with an emphasis on treatment of an illness (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020). Disease theory helped to explain how some people experience the physiological effects of addiction such as dependence, tolerance, and withdrawal more than others, and how these mechanisms are caused by a biochemical abnormality in an individual which increases their likelihood of developing a dependency (DiClemente, 2018). 

While the disease model was well received by a range of professionals, many criticised it because research did not find that the progressive, irreversible progression of addiction through stages always occurs as predicted (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020). Additionally, many in the AOD field argued that the model did not address the complex interrelated factors that accompany dependency (Stevens & Smith, 2014). Finally, some professionals argued that the concept of addiction being a disease may also convey the impression to some individuals that they are powerless over their dependency and/or not responsible for the consequences of destructive addictive behaviours, which can be counteractive to treatment (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020).

Genetic and Neurobiological Theories

These theories suggest that some people may be genetically predisposed to develop drug dependency. For example, individuals usually begin substance use on an experimental basis. They then continue using because there is some reinforcement for doing so (e.g., a reduction of pain, experience of euphoria, social recognition, and/or acceptance, etc.). Some people may continue to use substances in a controlled or recreational manner with limited consequences while others progress to non-medical use and eventually develop a dependency. Why? Genetic and neurobiological theories propose that this is the result of a genetic predisposition to drug dependency (Fisher & Harrison, 2017). 

Factors being considered by researchers in the genetic transmission of dependency on alcohol include neurobiological features such as an imbalance in the brain’s production of ‘feel good’ neurotransmitters or in the metabolism of ethanol, which is the key component of alcohol (Stevens & Smith, 2014). Other researchers explored genetic differences in temperament and personality traits which they argued may lead to certain individuals becoming more vulnerable in the face of challenging environmental circumstances, leading to AOD use (Stevens & Smith, 2014). Genetic predispositions such as these may explain why some individuals develop dependency on AOD while others in similar situations do not.

The Psycho-dynamic Model

This model proposes that substance use may be due to an unintentional response to some difficulties that an individual experienced in their childhood. This explanation is based on the theory that was put forward by Sigmund Freud, whereby the problems of whether we are able to cope with difficulties as adults are linked to our childhood experience. Many counselling approaches today are based on this theory which aim to seek understanding of people’s unconscious motivations and to enhance how they view themselves (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020).

The Psycho-dynamtic model also believes that AOD use is often secondary to a primary psychological issue. In other words, alcohol and other drugs is a symptom rather than a disorder, and AOD use is a means to temporarily relieve or numb emotional pain. For example, an individual suffering from depression might self-medicate with stimulants to relieve the enervating effects of depression or manage their anxiety by using benzodiazepines (Fisher & Harrison, 2017). 

There is evidence to support this model, whereby childhood traumatic events are associated with mental health problems and substance use disorders. Wu et al. (2010) conducted a study among 402 adults who were receiving substance use disorder treatments. They revealed that almost all (95%) of the participants experienced one or more childhood traumatic events, and 65.9% of them experienced emotional abuse and neglect from their childhood. The authors also reported that the higher the number of childhood traumatic events experienced, the higher the risk of substance use disorders and mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. 

Personality Traits

Some theorists suggest that certain individuals have certain personality traits that are linked to AOD dependency. For example, dependency on alcohol has been associated with traits such as developmental immaturity, impulsivity, high reactivity and emotionality, impatience, intolerance, and inability to express emotions (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020).

Social Learning Model

This model suggests that social learning processes such as observing other peoples behaviours (i.e., modelling) and cultural norms are important in the process of learning behaviours. Albert Bandura proposed Social Learning Theory which would argue that substance use is initiated by environmental stressors or modelling people around you with “perceived status”. For example, a child observes their parents use alcohol in social situations and the child is therefore more likely to perceive that AOD use for social situations is appropriate (Harrison & Fisher, 2017); the association between socialisation and alcohol has been established.

The social learning model also recognises the influence of cognitive processes such as coping, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancies. Some researchers are currently focusing on how an individuals expectation of the effects of drugs influence the pattern of AOD use and resulting dependency. Russell (1976, cited in Wise & Koob, 2013) suggested that dependency on substance is not only chemical (biological) but also behavioural and social in nature. 

It has also been suggested that substance use occurs when an individual thinks substance use is a coping mechanism. This can be learned from television and film, social medial, peer influence, or messages from caregivers during childhood. The individual hopes the AOD use will relieve from them from stress (Stevens & Smith, 2014). 

Socio-cultural Model

Different from the previous models, the socio-cultural model perceives substance use as an issue of society as a whole instead of focusing only on the individual. People tend to overestimate the influence of internal and psychological factors while underestimating the external and environmental factors, even among some alcohol and other drugs workers (Gladwell, 2000, cited in Lewis, Dana, & Blevins, 2015). Thus, this model highlights the importance of how society shapes substance use behaviours, such as cultural attitudes, peer pressures, family structures, economic factors, and more (Bobo & Husten, 2000). For example, Coffelt et al. (2006) found that parents’ alcohol use are associated with their children’s drinking behaviour, whereby when the adult’s alcohol problems increased, the likelihood of their adolescent child’s alcohol use increased. 

The Biopsychosocial Model

Substance use behaviour cannot be explained or understood scientifically or spiritually based on a single variable, antecedent, or “cause”. Biological, psychological, learning, social and cultural context all contributes to explaining why addiction develops and maintains. The interactions between these factors are presented in The Biopsychosocial Model – arguably the most commonly used model to explain addiction today. The model suggests that substance use and the progression of substance dependency can be explained by recognising that the body and mind are connected within a social and cultural context (Skewes & Gonzalez, 2013).

The model allows any combination of biological, psychological, social and cultural factors to contribute to AOD misuse and dependency, rather than a single dominating factor. This is much more holistic and integrative when attempting to understand the determinant of addiction (Stevens & Smith, 2014).

References:

1. Bobo, J. K., & Husten, C. (2000). Sociocultural influences on smoking and drinking. Alcohol Research and Health, 24(4), 225-232. 
2. Capuzzi, D., & Stauffer, M. D., Sharpe, C. W. (2020). History and etiological models of addiction. In D. Capuzzi, & M. D. Stauffer (Eds.), Foundations of addictions counseling (pp. 1-22). Pearson Education.
3. Coffelt, N. L., Forehand, R., Olson, A. L., Jones, D. J., Gaffney, C. A., Zens, M. S. (2006). A longitudinal examination of the link between parent alcohol problems and youth drinking: The moderating roles of parent and child gender. Addictive Behaviours, 31, 4, 593-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.034 
4. DiClemente, C. C. (2018). Addiction and change: How addictions develop and addicted people recover. The Guilford Press.
5. Fisher, G. L., & Harrison, T. C. (2017). Substance abuse: Information for school counsellors, social workers, therapists, and counsellors. Pearson Education. 
6. Lassiter, P. S., & Spivey, M. S. (2018). Historical perspectives and the moral model. In P. S. Lassiter, & J. R. Culbreth (Eds.), Theory and practice of addiction counselling. (pp. 27-46). Sage Publications. 
7. Lewis, J. A., Dana, R. Q., & Blevins, G. A. (2015). Substance abuse counselling. Cengage Learning.
8. Skewes, M. C., & Gonzalez, V. M. (2013). The biopsychosocial model of addiction. In P. M. Miller, A. W. Blume, D. J. Kavanagh, K. M. Kampman, M. E. Bates, M. E. Larimer, N. M. Petry, P. D. Witte, S. A. Ball (Eds.), Principles of addiction: Comprehensive addictive behaviours and disorders (pp. 61-70). Academic Press.
9. Stevens, P., & Smith, R. L. (2014). Substance abuse counselling: Theory and practice. Pearson Education. 
10. Teesson, M., Hall, W., Proudfoot, & Degenhardt, L. (2012). Addictions. Taylor & Francis Group.
11. Thombs, D. L., & Osborn, C. J. (2019). Introduction to addictive behaviours. The Guilford Press. 
12. Wise, R. A., & Koob, G. F. (2013). The development and maintainance of drug addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology, 39, 254-262.
13. Wu, N. S., Schairer. L. C., Dellor, E., & Grella, C. (2010). Childhood trauma and health outcomes in adults with comorbid substance abuse and mental health disorders. Addictive Behaviors, 35(1). 68-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.09.003 

Across Australian Demographics in Today’s Climate: A Review of Current Statistics and Research | webbtherapy.org | 2025–2026

Introduction

Australia is navigating one of the most psychologically challenging periods in its modern history. Converging social, economic, and political forces — including a cost-of-living crisis, housing unaffordability, the lingering aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, and growing climate anxiety — are placing significant strain on the mental health of people across all age groups and demographics.

According to the National Mental Health Commission’s National Report Card 2024, approximately 3.8 million Australians aged 16 and over — nearly one in five — experienced a mental disorder in the past year, with anxiety and depression the most prevalent conditions (NMHC, 2025). This document draws on the most current Australian research and data to provide a demographic overview of the psychological and emotional issues affecting Australians today.

1. Children & Adolescents (Ages 12–17)

Young Australians are experiencing rising rates of psychological distress at a level that represents a genuine public health emergency. Multiple intersecting pressures — financial insecurity in the home, climate anxiety, social media use, and disruptions to schooling and socialisation — are placing extraordinary demands on developing minds.

Key Statistics

Psychological distress: A 2025 headspace survey of over 3,000 young Australians found that nearly half (49%) were experiencing high or very high levels of psychological distress. Among 12–14 year-olds, the rate was 31%, rising to 65% among 18–25 year-olds (headspace, 2025).

Financial stress: The Mission Australia Youth Survey 2025 found that 64% of young people aged 14–19 identified cost of living as Australia’s most pressing national issue — the highest level since the question was first asked in 2010, and up from 56% in 2024 and 31% in 2023 (Mission Australia, 2025).

Mental health concerns: Two in five young people (39%) reported stress related to their own mental health and wellbeing, and nearly one in five (19%) reported experiencing high psychological distress in the weeks prior to being surveyed (Mission Australia, 2025).

Gender differences: The ABS National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing (2020–22) found that 34.2% of females aged 16–24 reported high or very high psychological distress, compared with 18% of males in the same age group (ABS, 2023).

At-risk subgroups: Distress rates are especially elevated among LGBTIQA+ young people (77%) and First Nations young people (59%) (headspace, 2025).

Contributing Factors

The National Mental Health Commission (2025) identifies multiple drivers of deteriorating youth mental health, including increased financial insecurity, concerns about climate change, shifting social connection patterns — particularly the move to digital interaction over in-person connection — changes in sleep, screen time, and nutrition, and the disproportionate socioeconomic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people’s lives.

2. Young Adults (Ages 18–35)

Young adults are among the most psychologically vulnerable groups in Australia at present. They face a unique confluence of pressures: the transition to independent adulthood, entry into an unaffordable housing market, tertiary education debt, precarious employment, and an uncertain political and economic landscape.

Key Statistics

Prevalence: Young adults aged 18–34 report the highest rates of mental health symptoms of any adult age group, with approximately 45% experiencing symptoms in 2025, up from 40% in 2023 (NMHC/AIHW, 2025).

Cost-of-living and mental health: A 2025 Compare the Market survey found that 72% of Gen Z respondents said cost-of-living pressures had worsened or triggered anxiety and depression, impacting their health, sleep and relationships — the highest rate of any age cohort (SBS Insight, 2025).

Housing stress: Australia’s Rental Affordability Index labels all major cities and regional areas as ‘critically unaffordable’ for people on lower incomes. A 2025 longitudinal study tracking more than 10,000 Australian renters found mental health declines sharply once housing costs exceed 30% of income (The Conversation, 2025).

Loneliness: Recent data suggests that 1 in 4 Australian men aged 15–34 report feeling lonely most days (Psychology NSW, 2025).

Emerging Concerns

Social comparison via social media, economic precarity*, and the perceived impossibility of home-ownership are contributing to a pervasive sense of hopelessness and deferred life milestones. Many young adults report anxiety about the future as a core psychological preoccupation.

*Precarity definition: the condition of existence without predictability or security, characterised by instability in employment, income, and social safety nets.

3. Men (All Ages)

Men represent a persistently underserved demographic in mental health. Cultural norms around masculinity continue to suppress help-seeking, while suicide rates among men remain disproportionately high across all age groups. In 2024, men accounted for 76.5% of all suicide deaths in Australia — a ratio that has remained largely unchanged for decades (ABS, 2025; AMHF, 2025).

Key Statistics

Suicide: 3,307 Australians died by suicide in 2024, of whom 2,529 (76.5%) were male. The age-standardised suicide rate for men was 18.7 per 100,000, compared with 5.5 per 100,000 for women. Men aged 40–44 accounted for the largest proportion of male suicide deaths (10.5%) (ABS, 2025; Life in Mind, 2025).

Working-age men: The number of suicides in men of working age (25–64) reached a record high in 2024 (AMHF, 2025), with males aged 60–64 experiencing an 18% increase in age-specific suicide rates from 2023 to 2024 (ABS, 2025).

Help-seeking gap: While men are 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide than women, they make up less than 40% of people seeking mental health support. Research indicates that 1 in 8 Australian men experience depression or anxiety, but fewer than half receive treatment (Psychology NSW, 2025).

High-risk occupations: Suicide rates among male construction workers are approximately double those of other male workers, with an age-standardised rate of 26.6 per 100,000 compared to 13.2 for other male workers (Lancet Regional Health, 2024).

Somatic presentation: Men are more likely to present with physical symptoms of depression and anxiety — chronic headaches, fatigue, back pain — rather than emotional ones, often delaying diagnosis and intervention (Psychology NSW, 2025).

4. Women (All Ages)

Women consistently report higher rates of psychological distress, anxiety, and depression than men. Additional psychological burdens arise from gendered experiences including domestic labour, caregiving, family violence, reproductive health, and workplace inequity.

Key Statistics

Distress rates: In the 2022 National Health Survey, women aged 18 and over were more likely to report high or very high psychological distress than men. Among young women aged 18–25, the rate was 34.2% — the highest of any adult demographic (ABS, 2023; Dharmayani & Mihrshahi, 2025).

Financial stress: 56.6% of millennial women surveyed in 2025 reported that cost-of-living pressures had worsened or triggered anxiety and depression (SBS Insight, 2025). Single mothers and women in casual employment are particularly vulnerable to financial-related mental health impacts.

Suicide: Women aged 25–29 had the highest age-specific female suicide rate (9.8 per 100,000) and accounted for the largest proportion of female suicide deaths (12.3%) in 2024 (Life in Mind, 2025).

Income and distress: Research from Dharmayani and Mihrshahi (2025), using Australian National Health Survey data, found that psychological distress increased as personal weekly income decreased, confirming income insecurity as a significant driver of poor mental health among women.

5. Older Adults (Ages 65+)

Older Australians face a distinct set of psychological challenges shaped by major life transitions — retirement, bereavement, declining health, loss of independence, and changing living arrangements. These experiences, when compounded by social isolation, can have profound effects on mental health.

Key Statistics

Loneliness and social isolation: According to the AIHW (2024), approximately 16% of Australians aged over 65 experience loneliness, and 11% are socially isolated. Research suggests loneliness may increase the risk of premature death to a degree comparable to smoking or obesity (Ausmed, 2026).

Depression in aged care: Approximately 52% of older adults in residential aged care experience depressive symptoms, while 8.2% of community-dwelling older adults experience depression (ScienceDirect, 2021).

Men aged 85+: Older men are at particularly elevated suicide risk. In 2024, males aged over 85 had the highest age-specific suicide rate of any group at 31.2 per 100,000 (Life in Mind, 2025).

Digital exclusion: Australians aged 65 and over remain the least digitally included age group, with an Australian Digital Inclusion Index score of 49.7 compared to the national average of 63.0 (NMHC, 2022). This digital exclusion compounds social isolation, particularly post-pandemic.

Contributing Factors

As identified by Engel and Mihalopoulos (2024) in the Medical Journal of Australia, the ‘loneliness epidemic’ represents a major public health concern in older age. Life transitions including retiring from work, loss of friends and partners, declining physical health, and the move to residential aged care all increase vulnerability to loneliness, depression, and anxiety.

6. Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experience significantly higher rates of psychological distress and suicide compared to non-Indigenous Australians. These outcomes must be understood within a broader cultural, historical, and social context that includes the ongoing impacts of colonisation, systemic racism, intergenerational trauma, and ongoing barriers to accessing culturally safe services. Mental health in this context is better understood through the framework of social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB), which encompasses connection to Country, family, kinship, community, and culture.

Key Statistics

Psychological distress: In 2022–23, approximately 30% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults experienced high or very high levels of psychological distress in the four weeks prior to interview (ABS, 2024; NMHC, 2025). This is more than double the general population rate of 14% (ABS, 2022).

The role of discrimination: Analysis of the Mayi Kuwayu study (2018–2021) found that 42% of First Nations people experienced high or very high psychological distress; among those experiencing everyday racial discrimination, the rate was 49%, compared with 32% for those who did not report such discrimination (ABS, 2024).

Suicide: In 2024, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had an age-standardised suicide rate of 33.9 per 100,000 — more than triple the non-Indigenous rate. This rate was 6.5% higher than in 2023. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, the rate was 55.1 per 100,000 (Life in Mind, 2025).

Anxiety: Anxiety was the most common mental or behavioural condition reported in the 2022–23 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey, affecting 21% of respondents aged two and over; it was 1.5 times more common among females (25%) than males (17%) (ABS, 2024).

Access to services: Around one in four First Nations people aged 15 and over (26%) would have liked to access mental health support but did not in the 12 months prior to survey, with access barriers particularly pronounced in remote areas (ABS, 2024).

7. LGBTIQA+ People

LGBTIQA+ Australians continue to experience disproportionately poor mental health outcomes compared to their heterosexual and cisgender peers. These outcomes are directly linked to experiences of stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and social exclusion — often described through the lens of minority stress theory. Progress in legal rights does not automatically translate to psychological safety or equitable mental healthcare.

Key Statistics

Mental disorders: People with a diverse sexual identity are three times more likely to be diagnosed with a mental disorder compared to heterosexual people (ABS, 2023).

Self-harm: Trans and gender-diverse Australians are twice as likely to engage in self-harm throughout their lifetime compared to cisgender Australians (ABS, 2023).

Psychological distress in youth: Among young people, LGBTIQA+ respondents reported a distress rate of 77% — significantly above the general youth population rate of 49% — in the Headspace 2025 survey.

Suicidality: Members of the LGBTQIA+ community report suicide attempts at rates up to 10 times higher than the general population (Lifeline, 2025).

Healthcare barriers: In the Private Lives 3 national survey, 57% of LGBTIQ respondents reported being treated unfairly in the past 12 months based on their sexual orientation, and 77.5% of trans and gender-diverse respondents reported being treated unfairly based on their gender identity. Only 43.4% of LGBTIQ respondents felt accepted when accessing health services (AMA, 2024).

Rural/regional compounding: Research published in 2025 found LGBTQ+ people in rural and regional communities experienced compounded psychological harm due to conservative social environments, limited peer connection, and inadequate access to inclusive services (Tandfonline, 2025).

8. Financial Stress as a Cross-Cutting Issue

Economic pressures represent one of the most significant cross-cutting determinants of psychological distress across all Australian demographics. The confluence of rising housing costs, elevated mortgage rates, rental stress, and a persistent cost-of-living gap is affecting people’s mental health in tangible and measurable ways.

Key Statistics

Financial stress prevalence: Close to 7 in 10 Australian households (69%) are dealing with significant financial stress, with 57% struggling to afford household essentials including groceries, utilities, and healthcare (Real Insurance, 2024).

Mental health impact: A 2025 Compare the Market survey found that nearly half of Australians (48.7%) said cost-of-living pressures had worsened or triggered anxiety and depression, affecting their health, sleep, and relationships (SBS Insight, 2025).

Housing stress: In 2024–25, an estimated 1.26 million low-income households were in financial housing stress, spending more than 30% of their disposable income on housing (AIHW, 2025). Almost half (44.5%) of households with a mortgage spent above this threshold (AIHW, 2025).

Skipping healthcare: Almost two-thirds of financially stressed Australians (65%) have skipped essential medical appointments — including mental health appointments — due to cost (Real Insurance, 2024).

Beyond Blue’s Clinical Spokesperson Dr Luke Martin has noted the bidirectional relationship between financial stress and mental health: financial hardship affects mood, cognition, sleep, and relationships, while poor mental health in turn impairs a person’s capacity to manage money and seek help — creating a cycle that is often difficult to escape without external support (HIA, 2026).

9. Summary of Key Themes by Demographic

• Children & Adolescents (12–17): Rising psychological distress (49% high/very high); financial stress at home; social media pressures; climate anxiety; loneliness; academic disruption. Elevated risk for LGBTIQA+ youth (77%) and First Nations youth (59%).
• Young Adults (18–35): Cost-of-living and housing affordability crisis driving anxiety and depression; loneliness; identity and purpose challenges; deferred life milestones; highest mental disorder rates of any adult cohort.
• Men (All Ages): Persistent help-seeking barriers; disproportionately high suicide rates (76.5% of deaths); somatic symptom presentation; high-risk occupations (construction); financial and work-related stress.
• Women (All Ages): Higher distress and anxiety rates; financial vulnerability; caregiving burden; family violence; cost-of-living impacts; elevated suicide risk in young women aged 25–29.
• Older Adults (65+): Loneliness and social isolation; depression; bereavement; loss of independence; digital exclusion; very high suicide risk in men aged 85+.
• Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples: Intergenerational trauma; systemic racism; high distress and suicide rates (33.9 per 100,000); cultural disconnection; access barriers to culturally safe care.
• LGBTIQA+ People: Minority stress; discrimination in healthcare; three-fold increase in mental disorder diagnoses; elevated self-harm and suicidality; rural/regional compounding factors.

Disclaimer

This document has been prepared for informational and professional development purposes. All statistics and research references were current as at April 2026. Data from some primary sources have been collected in prior years; readers are encouraged to consult primary sources for the most current figures. This document does not constitute clinical advice.

Well, hello and good morning, afternoon, and evening readers. I truly hope you’re swimming in the pleasantries of life rather than keeping your head above water in the unpleasant swamp. HOPE = Hold On Pain Ends. And there’s generally a learning or personal growth that comes after the storm of every painful experience, even if it’s simply greater empathy and compassion for others.

Today’s the day to learn or remember the fallacies of the human mind. I am not as smart as I look, haha. Have you heard of heuristics before? In cognitive psychology, a heuristic is a mental “shortcut” that allows people to solve problems and make judgments quickly and efficiently. They can be very helpful in many situations, but they can also lead to cognitive biases, errors in thinking, and even perhaps without the mental shortcut, our thinking is often filled to the brim with cognitive distortions, assumptions and fallacies (faults). Awareness raising is probably the first step to identify our own cognitive traps and also identify them in others. Cognitive errors are natural – we all have them. Below are some cognitive distortions/errors to be aware of when we reflect on our interactions with people, during personal reflection, and when making meaningful decisions or judgements.

• ALL-OR-NOTHING THINKING (aka. POLARISED THINKING, SPLITTING, and BLACK-AND-WHITE THINKING: is extreme thinking i.e., the error in a person’s thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism. Before you think “I must have really shitty thinking because I do this ALL the time”, give yourself a break. If you’re thinking in black and white, you probably internalised this from social media, television and movies, your family of origin and the broader society. Be mindful of using extreme, dichotomist terms, such as “failure”, “success”, “best”, “worst”, “freezing”, “boiling”, “everything”, and “nothing”. If you think “I’m a terrible person”, that is bullshit and inaccurate. You may have behaved terribly for a period of time towards yourself, to someone else, or towards some “thing”, but we cannot discount all the NON-terrible qualities about you. We must THINK in DIALECTICS i.e., the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives with reason and wisdom or in other words being able to have two contradictory viewpoints, where a greater truth emerges from their interplay. The truth is, if you think you’re a terrible person, there’s also virtuous person in there too.

• OVERGENERALISTION: The words “always”, “every” and “never” come into play here, and you have an unshakable “rule” or “conviction” about yourself, something, or someone, based on one or two incidences. Overgeneralising is “a cognitive distortion in which an individual views a single event as an invariable RULE, so that, for example, failure at accomplishing one task will predict an endless pattern of defeat in all tasks.” Coming into the present moment and being specific can be helpful if you are someone who overgeneralises. You may also want to ask yourself if what your saying is the really the truth. Is it really accurate or correct. There’s an assumption that because something has happened once or a few times that it’s like going to happen every time. Remember, the words “always”, “every”, and “never” frequently appear in this cognitive “trap”. I encourage you to look at the big picture and ask yourself if what you’re saying or thinking is accurate. Overgeneralisations tend to be vague and board statements e.g., “I always get every red light”. Perhaps this is part of our evolutionary negativity bias. We tend to notice the so-called “bad” and overlook the so-called “good”. If you find yourself using overgeneralisations that suggest a future prediction (e.g., “I’ll never get a partner) … use some humour – you may have big balls but neither one of them are crystal – VEEP. If there is some truth to unusually frequent and specific situations that are making your life unpleasant, validate them, talk to someone, and brainstorm some solutions. We humans have plenty of blind spots that others can see sometimes.

• MENTAL FILTER: is considered to be the opposite to OVERGENERALISATION the mental filter takes one small event and focuses on it exclusively, filtering out anything else that’s relevant. Filtering out the positive and focusing on the negative can have a detrimental impact on your mental well-being. Filtering out the so-called “negative” can also make one a bit hubris (excessive pride or self-confidence), arrogant, vain and conceited – and then you’re just a stone’s throw away from narcissism.

• PERSONALISATION AND BLAME: Personalization and blame is a cognitive distortion whereby you entirely blame yourself, or someone else, for a situation that in reality involved many factors that were out of your control. I think this is a symptom of our wounded ego, or simply just the ego. As human’s we are egocentric, like children, and we often think that circumstances in our environment are solely because of our influence. For example, your friend isn’t behaving like they usually do, so it must be because you have done something.

Again, personalisation is an egocentric error in cognition. “Of course it has to do with me”, we think. It makes sense that we personalise things. We are the star of our own show, our own narrative. If you personalise something, it means we’ve directly influenced it – we are the primary cause. This may elicit internal pain, shame or guilt, so what’s the pay-off? Personalisation is a cognitive error that offers us the illusion of control e.g., “If we caused it then we will learn how to not cause it again, and maybe even undo what we have caused”. If you think about it, personalising something is something children do. Remember, there are infinite variables in any situation to take full credit of the outcome. That being said, it is responsible and mature to reflect objectively on the influence of our behaviour and what we can learn about our shortcomings.

Blame deserves it’s own blog post but in short, it can be defined as a defence mechanism to protect the self from feeling some unwanted emotion or thinking something unacceptable in relation to the “self”. Blaming provides a way of devaluing others, an the pay-off or reinforcement the blamer receives is a sense of superiority. It protects our ego from feeling responsible for something, and protects us from feeling guilt or shame. Perfectionists are very good at blaming others, and themselves. Even if you genuinely think faulting someone or something is valid, remember that no one is perfect. Recognise that you are human and others are fallible humans. As they say in recovery, “there is a bit of bad in the best of us and a bit of good in the worst of us“. We may have internalised from society and culture that we couldn’t make mistakes (because we receive “punishment” for making mistakes) but we must move beyond that now. As adults, we need to get real. Validate your experience because it may be very disappointing when we don’t meet others or our own expectations. We must nurture and care for the wounded child. Lets attend and befriend to our shortcomings and accept we are not superhuman. Learn to expect you will make mistakes. Failure is kind of an illusion, isn’t it? Or maybe a social construct? “Failure” is really learning – replace ‘failure’ with the word ‘feedback’. Would a cat or dog blame them self for a “mistake”? In the minds of animals, there’s no such concept as failure or a mistake.

Here’s a link to website “simplypsychology” that discusses a theory called Attribution Theory, an idea about how people explain the causes of behaviour and events: Attribution Theory – Situational vs Dispositional | Simply Psychology