Cognitive distortions are habitual errors in how we interpret events, first described by the psychiatrist Aaron Beck in the early 1960s. The standard list comes from David Burns’s Feeling Good (1980) and names ten: all-or-nothing thinking, overgeneralization, mental filter, disqualifying the positive, jumping to conclusions (mind reading and fortune telling), magnification or minimization, emotional reasoning, should statements, labeling, and personalization.

The argument of this page is that each item on that list is best understood as a learned threat prediction: a shortcut for guessing what will go wrong, usually learned somewhere it once made sense. Naming the shortcut helps, and the research behind doing so is real, though more modest than pop psychology suggests. But for people living with trauma or panic, the order often runs the other way from the textbook diagram. The body sounds the alarm first, and the distorted thought is the mind’s explanation for a feeling that has already arrived. That changes what therapy has to work on.

The ten cognitive distortions, with examples

Burns wrote Feeling Good for general readers, with a preface by Beck.¹ Here are his ten, in his order, with everyday examples.

1. All-or-nothing thinking. Seeing yourself or a situation in only two categories. One mistake on a project makes the whole project, or the whole person, a failure.
2. Overgeneralization. Treating a single bad event as a never-ending pattern, often signaled by “always” and “never.” One rejected application becomes “I never get anything.”
3. Mental filter. Picking out one negative detail and dwelling on it until it colors everything else, like the single critical comment in an otherwise good review.
4. Disqualifying the positive. Turning good experiences into ones that “don’t count.” The compliment was only politeness; the success was luck.
5. Jumping to conclusions. Reaching a negative conclusion without the facts to support it. Burns splits it in two: mind reading (“She didn’t text back, so she’s annoyed with me”) and the fortune teller error (“I’m going to freeze in that interview”).
6. Magnification or minimization. Inflating the importance of your mistakes and shrinking your strengths. The inflating half is what most people call catastrophizing: a typo in an email becomes a lost job.
7. Emotional reasoning. Taking a feeling as evidence. “I feel stupid, so I must be stupid.” “I feel afraid, so something must be wrong.”
8. Should statements. Running your life on “shoulds,” “musts” and “oughts.” In Burns’s account, should statements aimed at yourself produce guilt, and aimed at other people they produce anger, frustration and resentment.
9. Labeling and mislabeling. Replacing a description of an event with a global verdict on a person: “I’m a loser” instead of “I lost this one.”
10. Personalization. Holding yourself responsible for an outcome you did not mainly control, such as a child’s bad grade or a partner’s mood.

Lists vary. Beck’s early papers described a shorter set of logical errors, and some newer instruments run longer. The Cognitive Distortions Questionnaire (CD-Quest), developed by Irismar de Oliveira, has fifteen items, adding “what if” statements, unfair comparisons, and blaming of self or others.² So “what if” thinking, which often turns up on popular lists, comes from these longer inventories rather than from Burns. Of Burns’s ten, emotional reasoning is the one that matters most for the argument below.

Where the list came from: Beck, Ellis and Burns

In 1963 Beck published “Thinking and Depression” in the Archives of General Psychiatry. The paper pushed against what he called the widely held view that depression is an affective disorder “pure and simple,” with any trouble in thinking merely a result of the mood.³ From what his patients reported, Beck described recurring errors, including arbitrary inference (a conclusion drawn without evidence), selective abstraction (judging a whole situation by one detail), overgeneralization, and magnification and minimization.

Albert Ellis was making a parallel argument at the same time. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy (1962), a key early text of what is now rational emotive behavior therapy, went after rigid demands on oneself and others, the same “musts” that reappear in Burns’s should statements.⁴ The full treatment manual arrived in 1979: Cognitive Therapy of Depression, by Beck, A. John Rush, Brian Shaw and Gary Emery, which laid out the structured method of catching automatic thoughts and testing them.⁵ Burns’s book a year later put that method in the hands of readers without a therapist.¹

Two later findings are worth knowing before you treat the list as a diagnostic menu. First, the categories overlap. When Covin and colleagues built the Cognitive Distortions Scale, which rates ten distortions across interpersonal and achievement situations, the items formed a single factor rather than splitting into separate types, and a Turkish study of clinical and non-clinical samples found the same.^{6, 7} In adults with social anxiety disorder, the 15-item CD-Quest also fit a single factor.² On these self-report scales, at least, the ten names behave more like facets of one general tendency than like ten separate mechanisms, which makes them more useful as a teaching tool than as a diagnostic menu.

Second, “distortion” does not mean that people without depression see the world accurately. The theory of depressive realism held that depressed people judge their own control more accurately than other people do. A meta-analysis of 75 studies found the effect was tiny (d = −0.07) and that both depressed and nondepressed people showed a positive bias, larger in the nondepressed. A preregistered replication in 2022 found no evidence of it.^{8, 9} Everyone’s predictions are biased. The clinical question is which biases are costing you.

Why minds distort: learned threat predictions

The useful question about any distortion is not “Why am I so irrational?” but “What is this predicting, and where did I learn to predict it?” Mind reading predicts rejection. Fortune telling predicts failure. Catastrophizing predicts that a small loss will cascade. Should statements predict punishment if the standard slips, which fits Burns’s own description of them as motivating yourself as if you had to be whipped first.

There is a reasonable evolutionary account of why minds lean this way. The evolutionary psychiatrist Randolph Nesse calls it the smoke detector principle: when a false alarm is cheap and a missed threat is costly, a well-designed defense system will produce many false alarms.¹⁰ Error management theory, which Martie Haselton first set out with David Buss and later extended with Daniel Nettle, makes the same point about judgment under uncertainty. If the costs of the two kinds of error have been lopsided over evolutionary history, selection should favor a bias toward the cheaper mistake.¹¹ Mistaking a stick for a snake costs a startle; the reverse can cost a life. Across a wide range of findings, bad events, feedback and impressions also carry more weight than equally good ones, a pattern Roy Baumeister and colleagues summarized as “bad is stronger than good.”¹²

Evolution explains the tilt. Learning explains the specific content. Beck’s model holds that automatic thoughts grow out of deeper beliefs, or schemas, formed largely through earlier experience.⁵ A child whose safety depended on reading a parent’s mood before it turned had good reason to become an expert mind reader, and the habit can outlive the household that required it. That is why it helps to read this list alongside attachment theory and the relationship patterns it describes. Once a prediction is in place, confirmation bias, the tendency to seek and interpret evidence in ways that favor what we already believe, keeps it running.¹³

Worry is fortune telling on a loop. In generalized anxiety disorder, the defining feature is excessive worry about a number of events or activities, worry that is hard to control and present more days than not for at least six months.¹⁴ It often takes the form of “what if” questions, each answer generating the next. Treating that chain as a series of predictions to test, rather than as a character flaw, is a large part of anxiety and panic treatment.

What the brain science does and does not say

Popular writing on this topic often explains distortions with brain shorthand that does not hold up. Four corrections are worth making.

The reticular activating system does not filter your beliefs. A widely repeated self-help claim says the reticular activating system screens out evidence that contradicts what you believe about yourself. The reticular activating system is a brainstem network that regulates arousal and wakefulness. Giuseppe Moruzzi and Horace Magoun described it in 1949 after finding that stimulating the brainstem reticular formation in cats produced the activated EEG pattern of an alert brain.¹⁵ Nothing in that line of research concerns sorting evidence for and against a belief. Confirmation bias is real, but it is a psychological finding about how people search for and weigh information, not the job description of a brainstem arousal system.¹³

The amygdala is not a danger button. A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies found that the amygdala responds to both positive and negative stimuli, with a preference for emotional faces.¹⁶ It is involved in registering emotional significance generally, so “negativity bias equals amygdala activation” is too neat.

“The thinking brain calms the feeling brain” is half right. A 2014 meta-analysis of 48 neuroimaging studies of cognitive reappraisal, deliberately reinterpreting something to change how it feels, found that reappraisal consistently engaged frontal and parietal control regions and lateral temporal cortex and modulated activity in the amygdala. Most of the studies asked people to turn negative feelings down.¹⁷ The authors read this as control systems changing the meaning of the stimulus, which then changes the emotional response. So reinterpretation does change emotional responding, at least in the scanner. What the cartoon leaves out is traffic in the other direction, the subject of the next section.

You do not delete the old pathway. Talk of “rewiring” suggests that challenging a thought erases the old circuit and replaces it. Extinction research says otherwise. Mark Bouton’s review of the conditioning literature concludes that extinction does not destroy the original learning; it adds new, context-dependent learning that competes with it.¹⁸ Michelle Craske and colleagues built an approach to exposure therapy on that point, aimed at making the new learning stronger and easier to retrieve across settings, because fear often returns after otherwise successful treatment.¹⁹ This is why an old prediction can reappear in a new place, and why neuroplasticity is slow, specific and dependent on practice.

When the feeling comes first

Burns put emotional reasoning on his list as one error among ten. Later research suggests it may be the hinge for anxiety and trauma. In a 1995 study, Arnoud Arntz and colleagues gave short scenarios to 162 anxiety patients (people with spider phobia, panic disorder, social phobia and other anxiety disorders) and 24 controls. The scenarios varied whether the situation was objectively safe or dangerous, and whether the person in it responded with anxiety. Controls judged danger from the objective facts. The patients judged danger from the facts and also from the anxiety: if I feel anxious, there must be danger.²⁰

Iris Engelhard and colleagues used a similar design with Vietnam combat veterans. Veterans with chronic PTSD inferred danger from the presence of anxiety or intrusive memories as well as from the objective facts, while veterans without PTSD went by the objective information. Much of the effect ran through a sense that the reaction was uncontrollable.²¹

Cognitive therapy’s own models put a body state early in the sequence too. In David Clark’s 1986 account of panic, the spiral usually starts with a body sensation, often an ordinary part of anxiety such as a racing heart or breathlessness. The person reads it as a catastrophe in progress (a heart attack, losing control, going mad), the misreading drives more arousal, and the loop escalates into an attack.²² In Anke Ehlers and Clark’s model of PTSD, the disorder persists when the trauma is processed in a way that produces a sense of serious, current threat. Part of that comes from negative appraisals, and part from how the memory itself is stored: poorly elaborated, poorly placed in context, and strongly primed for perceptual cues.²³ A smell or a tone of voice can set off the alarm, sometimes before the person has noticed what triggered it. The thought that follows, “I’m not safe,” is the mind writing a caption for a state that is already underway.

Research on interoception, the sensing of the body’s internal state, points the same way. Martin Paulus and Murray Stein’s review describes anxiety and depression as altered interoceptive states, in which noisy, amplified signals from the body combine with self-referential beliefs about what those signals mean.²⁴ Lisa Feldman Barrett’s theory of constructed emotion goes further, proposing that the brain builds emotions by predicting and categorizing bodily sensations on the basis of past experience.²⁵ That is a theory, and a contested one, but it fits what clinicians see: a body that learned danger keeps generating evidence for it. The post on what emotions are and how the body carries them covers that debate in more detail.

None of this throws out cognitive work. It changes what “challenging a thought” has to mean. If the evidence a person is weighing is their own pounding heart, a worksheet that asks “Where is the proof?” answers the wrong question. To the person, the proof is in the chest.

Challenging distortions: what the evidence supports

The classic tool is a written thought record. Burns’s version, the triple-column technique, has you write the automatic thought, name the distortion in it, and then write a more realistic response.¹ Ellis’s A-B-C model tracks the activating event, the belief about it, and the emotional or behavioral consequence.⁴

Cognitive behavioral therapy, the family of treatments built on this method, has one of the largest evidence bases in psychotherapy. A 2012 review identified 269 meta-analyses and found the strongest support for anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, bulimia, anger problems and general stress.²⁶ How large the effect looks depends on the comparison. Pim Cuijpers and colleagues pooled 144 trials of CBT for depression, generalized anxiety, panic and social anxiety and found large effects against waiting-list controls but small to moderate effects against usual care or pill placebo. Only 17.4 percent of the trials were rated high quality, and correcting for publication bias shrank the effects for depression and generalized anxiety.²⁷

The harder question is whether arguing with thoughts is the active ingredient. In a 1996 trial, Neil Jacobson and colleagues randomly assigned 150 depressed outpatients to the behavioral activation component of cognitive therapy alone, behavioral activation plus work on automatic thoughts, or the full treatment. The full package did no better than either part, and behavioral activation alone changed negative thinking as much as cognitive therapy did.²⁸ A larger 2006 trial found that among more severely depressed patients, behavioral activation did as well as antidepressant medication, and both did better than cognitive therapy.²⁹ A 2007 review concluded there was little evidence that specific cognitive techniques add to the effect of CBT, or that cognitive change causes the improvement.³⁰ Robert DeRubeis’s group has argued the other side: cognitive procedures do relieve depression, and cognitive change, however it is reached, contributes to recovery.³¹ In one of their studies, many patients improved suddenly between two sessions, and the sessions just before those sudden gains showed substantial cognitive change.³²

A third line of work asks whether the point is to change what you believe or how you relate to the thought. John Teasdale and colleagues found that both cognitive therapy and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, where they reduced depressive relapse, increased metacognitive awareness, the capacity to experience negative thoughts as mental events rather than as facts about the self. Their conclusion was that these therapies may prevent relapse by changing the relationship to negative thoughts rather than belief in their content.³³ Acceptance and commitment therapy builds on that idea with defusion: instead of “I am a failure,” you say “I’m having the thought that I’m a failure.”³⁴ A meta-analysis of 66 laboratory component studies found positive effects for defusion and acceptance against inactive comparisons,³⁵ and in a five-day study of a personally relevant negative thought, defusion lowered believability and discomfort more than a brief restructuring technique did.³⁶ These are short-term studies, not treatment trials, but they point toward the same shift that mindfulness practice trains.

Dialectical behavior therapy offers two skills that bridge thought and body. Check the Facts asks whether an emotional reaction is justified by the actual situation, separating interpretations from facts. Opposite Action is for when it is not, or when acting on the emotion would not help: you act against the emotion’s urge, approaching instead of avoiding, for instance.³⁷ Neither skill asks you to argue yourself out of a feeling. Both treat the feeling as information to check and the body as something you can act with. The DBT skills page describes how the skills are taught.

For trauma, the evidence does not support the idea that cognitive tools fail and body-based methods must come first. A 2020 systematic review of 114 randomized trials found robust evidence for trauma-focused CBT and for EMDR, and named cognitive processing therapy, cognitive therapy for PTSD and prolonged exposure as the trauma-focused CBT protocols with the strongest evidence.³⁸ Cognitive processing therapy, first tested by Patricia Resick with sexual assault survivors, combines education, exposure to the memory and cognitive work.³⁹ In small early trials of Ehlers and Clark’s cognitive therapy for PTSD, good outcomes went with larger changes in post-traumatic thinking.⁴⁰ The practice of requiring a stabilization phase before trauma work, which some treatment guidelines for complex PTSD recommend, has also been challenged. A group of trauma researchers led by Ad de Jongh concluded that there is no rigorous evidence that such a phase is necessary, or that adults with complex PTSD fail to respond to front-line trauma-focused treatment.⁴¹ That is a critique of the guidelines rather than a settled verdict, and clinicians still disagree about it. The lesson is not that the body is irrelevant. It is that the effective trauma therapies, cognitive ones included, work on the memory and the alarm it carries, not only on the sentence written on the worksheet.

What this looks like in therapy

In practice, work on distortions usually starts with the sequence rather than the argument. What happened? What did you notice in your body? What did the thought say, and what did you do next? For many people with anxiety, the honest answer is that the chest tightened before any words showed up. Mapping that order is already a change, because the thought stops looking like a verdict and starts looking like a reaction.

From there the work branches. When a thought shows up while someone is calm enough to examine it, classic restructuring and behavioral experiments fit well: write the prediction down, test it, and record what actually happened. When the thought rides on a surge of arousal, the first task is usually to notice the surge, let it settle, and name the thought as the alarm’s caption rather than a fact, then test the prediction once the body has come down. With depression, activity often comes before argument, which is consistent with the behavioral activation trials above; you do not have to believe the day will be worth it before you get up and find out. In depression treatment and anxiety treatment alike, the aim is a person who can catch the prediction, feel the alarm without obeying it, and act on what is actually in front of them.

Two cautions from clinical work. A thought record can become one more way to grade yourself, with “I’m doing CBT wrong” added to the list of failures; when that happens, it is often worth switching to defusion or a more curious stance rather than gathering more evidence. And for trauma survivors, a distortion is often a protection that once worked. Mind reading kept a child out of trouble. Catastrophizing kept someone ready. Therapy tends to go better when it acknowledges what the prediction was for before asking it to stand down.

If these patterns are running your days, a therapist can help you sort out which predictions are worth testing and what your body has been signaling. You can read more about our approach to anxiety and panic in Hoover, or contact Taproot Therapy Collective with a question or to set up a first appointment.

References

1. Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. William Morrow.
2. Kaplan, S. C., Morrison, A. S., Goldin, P. R., Olino, T. M., Heimberg, R. G., & Gross, J. J. (2017). The Cognitive Distortions Questionnaire (CD-Quest): Validation in a sample of adults with social anxiety disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 41(4), 576–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-017-9838-9
3. Beck, A. T. (1963). Thinking and depression: I. Idiosyncratic content and cognitive distortions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9(4), 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1963.01720160014002
4. Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. Lyle Stuart.
5. Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. Guilford Press.
6. Covin, R., Dozois, D. J. A., Ogniewicz, A., & Seeds, P. M. (2011). Measuring cognitive errors: Initial development of the Cognitive Distortions Scale (CDS). International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 4(3), 297–322. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijct.2011.4.3.297
7. Özdel, K., Taymur, I., Guriz, S. O., Tulaci, R. G., Kuru, E., & Turkcapar, M. H. (2014). Measuring cognitive errors using the Cognitive Distortions Scale (CDS): Psychometric properties in clinical and non-clinical samples. PLoS ONE, 9(8), e105956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105956
8. Moore, M. T., & Fresco, D. M. (2012). Depressive realism: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(6), 496–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.05.004
9. Dev, A. S., Moore, D. A., Johnson, S. L., & Garrett, K. T. (2022). Sadder ≠ wiser: Depressive realism is not robust to replication. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), Article 38529. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.38529
10. Nesse, R. M. (2005). Natural selection and the regulation of defenses: A signal detection analysis of the smoke detector principle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(1), 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.002
11. Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D. (2006). The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_3
12. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
13. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
14. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
15. Moruzzi, G., & Magoun, H. W. (1949). Brain stem reticular formation and activation of the EEG. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1(1–4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(49)90219-9
16. Sergerie, K., Chochol, C., & Armony, J. L. (2008). The role of the amygdala in emotional processing: A quantitative meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(4), 811–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.12.002
17. Buhle, J. T., Silvers, J. A., Wager, T. D., Lopez, R., Onyemekwu, C., Kober, H., Weber, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Cognitive reappraisal of emotion: A meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 24(11), 2981–2990. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht154
18. Bouton, M. E. (2004). Context and behavioral processes in extinction. Learning & Memory, 11(5), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.78804
19. Craske, M. G., Treanor, M., Conway, C. C., Zbozinek, T., & Vervliet, B. (2014). Maximizing exposure therapy: An inhibitory learning approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 58, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.04.006
20. Arntz, A., Rauner, M., & van den Hout, M. (1995). “If I feel anxious, there must be danger”: Ex-consequentia reasoning in inferring danger in anxiety disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(8), 917–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(95)00032-S
21. Engelhard, I. M., Macklin, M. L., McNally, R. J., van den Hout, M. A., & Arntz, A. (2001). Emotion- and intrusion-based reasoning in Vietnam veterans with and without chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39(11), 1339–1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00101-7
22. Clark, D. M. (1986). A cognitive approach to panic. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24(4), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(86)90011-2
23. Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(4), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00123-0
24. Paulus, M. P., & Stein, M. B. (2010). Interoception in anxiety and depression. Brain Structure and Function, 214(5–6), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-010-0258-9
25. Barrett, L. F. (2017). The theory of constructed emotion: An active inference account of interoception and categorization. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw154
26. Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(5), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1
27. Cuijpers, P., Cristea, I. A., Karyotaki, E., Reijnders, M., & Huibers, M. J. H. (2016). How effective are cognitive behavior therapies for major depression and anxiety disorders? A meta-analytic update of the evidence. World Psychiatry, 15(3), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20346
28. Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K. S., Truax, P. A., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K., Gollan, J. K., Gortner, E., & Prince, S. E. (1996). A component analysis of cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(2), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.2.295
29. Dimidjian, S., Hollon, S. D., Dobson, K. S., Schmaling, K. B., Kohlenberg, R. J., Addis, M. E., Gallop, R., McGlinchey, J. B., Markley, D. K., Gollan, J. K., Atkins, D. C., Dunner, D. L., & Jacobson, N. S. (2006). Randomized trial of behavioral activation, cognitive therapy, and antidepressant medication in the acute treatment of adults with major depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(4), 658–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.4.658
30. Longmore, R. J., & Worrell, M. (2007). Do we need to challenge thoughts in cognitive behavior therapy? Clinical Psychology Review, 27(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.08.001
31. Lorenzo-Luaces, L., German, R. E., & DeRubeis, R. J. (2015). It’s complicated: The relation between cognitive change procedures, cognitive change, and symptom change in cognitive therapy for depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 41, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.12.003
32. Tang, T. Z., & DeRubeis, R. J. (1999). Sudden gains and critical sessions in cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 894–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.6.894
33. Teasdale, J. D., Moore, R. G., Hayhurst, H., Pope, M., Williams, S., & Segal, Z. V. (2002). Metacognitive awareness and prevention of relapse in depression: Empirical evidence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(2), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.2.275
34. Hayes, S. C., & Smith, S. (2005). Get out of your mind and into your life: The new acceptance and commitment therapy. New Harbinger.
35. Levin, M. E., Hildebrandt, M. J., Lillis, J., & Hayes, S. C. (2012). The impact of treatment components suggested by the psychological flexibility model: A meta-analysis of laboratory-based component studies. Behavior Therapy, 43(4), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2012.05.003
36. Larsson, A., Hooper, N., Osborne, L. A., Bennett, P., & McHugh, L. (2016). Using brief cognitive restructuring and cognitive defusion techniques to cope with negative thoughts. Behavior Modification, 40(3), 452–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445515621488
37. Linehan, M. M. (2014). DBT skills training manual (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
38. Lewis, C., Roberts, N. P., Andrew, M., Starling, E., & Bisson, J. I. (2020). Psychological therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 11(1), Article 1729633. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1729633
39. Resick, P. A., & Schnicke, M. K. (1992). Cognitive processing therapy for sexual assault victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(5), 748–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.60.5.748
40. Ehlers, A., Clark, D. M., Hackmann, A., McManus, F., & Fennell, M. (2005). Cognitive therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder: Development and evaluation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(4), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.03.006
41. De Jongh, A., Resick, P. A., Zoellner, L. A., van Minnen, A., Lee, C. W., Monson, C. M., Foa, E. B., Wheeler, K., ten Broeke, E., Feeny, N., Rauch, S. A. M., Chard, K. M., Mueser, K. T., Sloan, D. M., van der Gaag, M., Rothbaum, B. O., Neuner, F., de Roos, C., Hehenkamp, L. M. J., … Bicanic, I. A. E. (2016). Critical analysis of the current treatment guidelines for complex PTSD in adults. Depression and Anxiety, 33(5), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22469