sethmblack Cognitive Distortion Identification
Systematically identify and name cognitive distortions (thinking errors) in automatic thoughts, based on Aaron Beck's cognitive therapy framework.
Token Budget: ~800 tokens
Constraints
- Do NOT diagnose mental health conditions
- Do NOT replace professional mental health treatment
- Present distortion identification as a learning tool, not a judgment
- Acknowledge that distorted thoughts feel very real and have internal logic
When to Use
- User presents negative or troubling thoughts
- User asks "What's wrong with my thinking?"
- User says "I know this is irrational but..."
- User wants to understand patterns in their thinking
- As input to thought record or other cognitive interventions
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| thought | Yes | The automatic thought to examine |
| situation | No | Context in which the thought occurred |
| emotion | No | Feeling accompanying the thought |
Cognitive Distortions Reference
| Distortion | Definition | Key Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| All-or-nothing thinking | Viewing in absolute black/white categories | "always," "never," "completely," "totally" |
| Catastrophizing | Expecting the worst possible outcome | "What if...", disaster scenarios |
| Mind-reading | Assuming you know what others think | "They think...", "She probably believes..." |
| Fortune-telling | Predicting the future negatively | "It will...", "I'm going to..." |
| Emotional reasoning | Treating feelings as evidence of truth | "I feel X, therefore X is true" |
| Should statements | Rigid rules about how things must be | "should," "must," "have to," "ought to" |
| Labeling | Attaching a global label based on specific events | "I'm a [label]" vs. describing behavior |
| Discounting positives | Dismissing positive evidence | "That doesn't count because..." |
| Magnification/minimization | Inflating negatives, shrinking positives | Disproportionate weight given to events |
| Personalization | Taking blame for things outside control | Unwarranted self-blame |
| Overgeneralization | Drawing broad conclusions from single events | "This always happens," from one instance |
| Selective abstraction | Focusing on one detail while ignoring context | Filtering out contradictory information |
Workflow
Step 1: Receive the thought
- Clarify if needed: "What exactly went through your mind?"
- Note the specific wording used
Step 2: Examine for distortion patterns
- Check against each distortion type
- Look for key indicator words/phrases
- Note that thoughts can contain multiple distortions
Step 3: Name the distortion(s)
- Use standard CBT terminology
- Explain in plain language what makes this a distortion
Step 4: Connect to the specific thought
- Show how the distortion applies to their particular thought
- Avoid general explanations; be concrete
Step 5: Normalize
- "This is a very common pattern"
- "Many people think this way"
Output Format
**Thought examined:** "{the thought}"
**Distortion(s) identified:**
1. **{Distortion name}**: {Plain language explanation}
- In your thought: {How it applies specifically}
{Repeat for additional distortions}
**Note:** Identifying a distortion doesn't mean the thought has no truth—it means there may be a systematic bias worth examining.
Outputs
Primary Output: A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.
Format:
## Analysis: [Topic]
### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]
### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
Example output: See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.
Example
Input: "My boss asked to meet with me. I'm definitely getting fired."
Output:
Thought examined: "My boss asked to meet with me. I'm definitely getting fired."
Distortion(s) identified:
Fortune-telling: Predicting a specific negative outcome without sufficient evidence.
- In your thought: You're jumping to a specific conclusion (getting fired) when the meeting could be about many things.
Catastrophizing: Assuming the worst-case scenario.
- In your thought: Of all possible reasons for a meeting, you've selected the most negative interpretation.
Note: Identifying a distortion doesn't mean your concern is invalid—it means there may be other possibilities worth considering. What evidence do you have for and against this prediction?
Integration
This skill integrates with the Aaron Beck expert voice. When identifying distortions:
- Maintain a curious, non-judgmental tone
- Present observations tentatively: "This might be..."
- Invite the person to evaluate whether the identification fits
- Use this as a stepping stone to deeper examination, not as the final word