Cognitive Restructuring

KNOWING YOUR ABCs

In the previous session we talked about how your thinking can create stress. In this session we�ll talk about how your thinking can eliminate it. Consider this statement: Things upset me. We all cling to this idea but, in point of fact, we upset ourselves. People and situations aren�t aggravating; it�s what we think about these people and situations that is aggravating. Once you open your mind to the possibility that you upset yourself - you can make dramatic advances in personal growth. Accepting the responsibility for creating your stress puts you in control of your stress. To put it another way: You relinquish control of your life to the degree to which you believe that outside forces are to blame for your stress.

Now consider this premise: I upset myself. When you are prepared to take responsibility for making yourself upset; you start to change the way you see the world. You begin to restructure your cognition. You no longer see your angry boss as just another button pusher. You no longer see a traffic jam as just one more strike against you in an already bad day. You no longer see a computer crash as having anything to do with your otherwise good day. By understanding and practicing cognitive restructuring techniques you will learn to disable your own hot buttons. You will no longer be a pawn on the stress-board of life. You�ll see how simply changing your thinking can produce dramatically different behaviors. Behaviors that will empower you to be more productive, communicate more effectively and feel better personally.

In order to change your thinking about stress, it helps to know how stressful events unfold. The pattern works like this: First comes the event that triggers stress. Let�s say you are under a deadline at work and your computer printer suddenly jams. Next comes your thought about the problem: "This stupid printer is always breaking down at the worst possible times." And finally comes your reaction: you get angry, frustrated, upset.

Author, Dr. Albert Ellis developed a simple way of remembering this stressful sequence using the equation A+B=C. In this equation, "A" stands for the Activating event - which is any event that leads to stress. B stands for your Belief, your "perception" or better yet, your interpretation of what just happened. C stands for the Consequence of A+B. It�s your reaction. The Activating Event plus Belief equals the Consequence. A+B=C.

This equation is telling us that: what we think about a situation determines how we feel. Negative, irrational thoughts will cause us to feel one way and pragmatic, rational thoughts will cause us to feel another way. In other words, the situation plus our thoughts about that situation equals our experience. Since we are thinking all the time, our thoughts can be a major influence on our experience. Situation + thoughts = experience. Same situation + different thoughts = different experience. Applying this model to your understanding of stress can have dramatic results.

Let�s say you get a flat tire on the way to work. That�s A (The Activating event). You get out of the car and see the flat tire and think: This is the worst thing that could have happened. I�ll never get this tire fixed. I�ll be late for work and I�ll probably get fired! That�s your B (your Belief). As the result of the flat tire plus your beliefs about it you feel upset and frustrated. That�s the C (for Consequence).

But you can take the exact same situation, apply different thoughts and have an entirely different experience. Let�s say your "A" is exactly the same: A flat tire on the way to work. This time you get out of the car and say: I got a flat tire - no big deal. I can change it myself - or I can get someone to help me. I�ll be back on the road in less than an hour. I�ll call my boss and explain what happened. He�ll understand. Everybody gets a flat tire now and then. By changing your thoughts at B you change your experience at C. You feel much less stressed and more able to cope with the situation.

Let�s take a look at a few examples of the ABC sequence in action. How many of you have ever had your computer crash - and then had to redo everything you were working on?  Anybody? Was it stressful? Tell us about it. So here�s your A; the activating event is a Computer crash.

Now, tell us if you can, what were your thoughts at the time? (If the person doesn�t remember what his or her thoughts were, here are the kinds of thoughts you�re looking for: "This is terrible. This computer is always crashing. It never works right. It will take forever to restore this document. Why does this stuff always happen to me?") So these are the thoughts that occurred to you at B. Is there anything else you want to add?

Now let�s find out how this event made you feel. (Frustrated, upset, annoyed, angry, depressed?) Are these feelings the result of A, the computer crash or B, your thoughts about the computer crash?

They�re primarily the result of B: your thoughts about the computer crash. However, since you wouldn�t have had these thoughts if the computer hadn�t crashed - we say your feelings of frustration (or C) are the result of A plus B. Now let me ask you: When this happened, how quickly did you go from point A to point C? Were you aware of any B stage at all?

Most people are NOT aware of the B stage, in fact most people think this stage doesn�t exist. They go so quickly from A to C they don�t notice the thoughts that contribute to and cause their stress. Since you are not usually aware of these thoughts you see your stress as the inevitable result of what happened to you at A. Does anybody have any ideas how to make a computer crash less stressful?

Sure, you could save more frequently or purchase a battery backup. These are things that could help you avoid the A. But, assuming you couldn�t avoid the A what could you think at B to change the outcome at C. Any ideas?

Here are three examples of the kinds of irrational thinking that goes on at B and some possible counter arguments to this irrational thinking. 1. "This is the worst thing that could have happened" Counter argument: "How terrible is it? Getting a root canal is terrible. Is this as terrible as that? No? OK, let�s say it�s inconvenient - it�s annoying but it�s definitely not terrible. 2. "It�s going to take forever to restore this document." (Or fix this broken equipment.) Counter argument: "Forever is a very long time. Is it really going to take forever? How long exactly? 20 minutes? 30 minutes? That�s not even close to forever." 3. " Why does this always happen to me? It�s not fair!" Counter argument: "Am I the only one whose computer crashes? Of course not. This stuff happens to everybody. And if it does happen to me a little more often than somebody else, sometimes life simply isn�t fair."

One last thought: Were you ever surprised by how much of the document you were able to remember after the computer crashed? The next time remind yourself of this fact at point B and your Consequence will be entirely different.

Keep in mind, no one is asking you to make up a fairy tale at point B. That is the difference between cognitive restructuring and positive thinking. You�re not trying to put a positive spin on negative events, you�re just trying to clarify your distorted thinking. You need to be aware that your cloudy, muddled, inaccurate thinking may be contributing to, if not causing, your feelings of stress. Once you understand this simple fact you will radically reduce the stressful consequences you experience at C.

In the video SHORT CIRCUITING STRESS you�ll see how various people - including George Bailey from the classic film It�s A Wonderful Life - learn how to change their thinking at B and as a result, live less stressful lives. In addition, you�ll learn five specific techniques you can use at point B to keep your thinking rational and clear.

Does anyone have any questions about the video? Or would anyone like to comment on the five techniques discussed in the video: 1. Find the good in a bad situation. 2. Control your inner dialogue. 3. Avoid the blame game. 4. Shift your focus forward. 5. Keep your stress in perspective. These are all examples of cognitive restructuring techniques. They help you reorganize the way you see the world.

Now that you know the ABC�s of Cognitive Restructuring, it�s time to introduce you to the letter D. It�s one thing to recognize that your thinking is irrational and unproductive but it is another thing to actually change your thinking around. That�s where the letter D, for Dispute, comes in.

If you are going to practice cognitive restructuring you have to get in the habit of learning to dispute your irrational beliefs. Certain irrational beliefs are easy to dispute. For example, when you say to yourself: "I can�t stand it when he does that." Or, "this is the worst possible thing that could have happened," these remarks are relatively easy to dispute. The very fact that you are alive and able to utter these remarks proves that 1. You could stand it and 2. It isn�t the worst thing that could have happened or you wouldn�t be here to talk about it.

Irrational beliefs like these just don�t hold water. They are unscientific, over-simplistic, vastly exaggerated, often inflammatory and usually can�t be proven. Disputing them requires you to examine your irrational beliefs and expose them for what they truly are: fraudulent expressions of frustration, based on a kernel of truth, and blown out of all proportion.

So, for example, when you say to yourself: "My boss is a total jerk. She always gives me assignments at the last minute," you are undoubtedly distorting the truth. Let�s analyze these remarks and see how they stand up to a careful examination. If your boss were a total jerk this would mean that she had never done anything nice - for you or anyone else, ever. So when you consider this statement more carefully you remember at least one occasion when your boss did give you a raise, or let you go home early, or even complimented your work.

We�re not trying to turn your boss into a saint. We simply want you to take her at face value. And even if she only has one good trait - that still prevents her from being a total jerk. Therefore, it may be perfectly accurate (and thus OK) for you to say: "Sometimes my boss can be difficult to work for," but it�s inaccurate to say: "She�s a total jerk." Your accurate assessment of her will most likely be much easier to take emotionally, than an inaccurate, irrational assessment.

Now let�s dispute the statement: "She always gives me assignments at the last minute." This is another irrational interpretation that makes your situation seem worse than it really is. While she has done this before, she doesn�t always do this. In fact, she hasn�t done it for over two weeks. Remember, the words always and never are a tip-off that you�re thinking irrationally. Remarks like: "He always interrupts. She never comes in on time," just don�t hold water. People rarely do things the same way every time. And when your remarks don�t reflect the exact truth, they make you unnecessarily upset. So when your internal dialogue includes the words never or always, dispute it: "She doesn�t always give me assignments at the last minute. In fact, the last time she did it was over two weeks ago."

DISCUSSION: Ten Job-Related Irrational Beliefs Let�s take a look at this list of ten job-related irrational beliefs and we�ll attempt to dispute each one. Consider the following statements in the same way an objective scientist would observe an experiment before arriving at any conclusions. We need to decide: How accurate are these remarks? Can they be proven? Are they true in every case or in just some cases?

(Note to the trainer: The following remarks are assumed to be exaggerations of the truth and the disputes on pages 15-16 reflect this. Of course, there could be certain rare cases where some of these remarks were actually true - in which case no dispute would be necessary.)

1. He never returns my calls.
2. She is always late.
3. These meetings go on forever.
4. I�ll never get a raise.
5. My boss is a total idiot.
6. I hate everything about this job.
7. Management never listens.
8. Conditions will never get any better.
9. My co-worker is of absolutely no use at all.
10. If I make another mistake I�ll probably get fired.

Let�s practice disputing each one of these irrational statements. (Let people attempt to dispute these remarks themselves. There are many ways to dispute these irrational remarks so our suggestions - which follow below in parentheses - are not the only way. Please note: If you are addressing a non-working audience - this list can easily be adapted to fit your specific needs. For example, if you are working with college students you can change #3 on the list to "these lectures go on forever" and #4 to "I�ll never graduate" and #5 to "My roommate is a total idiot," etc. If you have any trouble converting this list to meet your needs, call us and we�ll help you create a customized top-ten list for your particular audience.)

1. He never returns my phone calls. (He hasn�t returned my last phone call but he usually gets around to returning my calls eventually.)
2. She is always late. (She has been late before and she is late again today - but she hasn�t been late in several weeks.)
3. These meetings go on forever. (These meetings do occasionally seem to last longer than they need to. But actually the last two meetings ended on time.)
4. I�ll never get a raise. (It�s been a while since my last raise but nobody else has gotten one lately either.)
5. My boss is a total idiot. (He often annoys me with his last minute requests but he certainly isn�t a total idiot. Sometimes he can be nice.)
6. I hate everything about this job. (Some things about this job are difficult to take but I need the money right now and no job is perfect.)
7. Management never listens. (It seems like management isn�t listening to us now but they have in the past. We got casual Fridays instituted as the result of management listening.)
8. Conditions will never get any better. (Conditions are not as good as they could be but, let�s face it, they could be worse. We just have to keep after management to make improvements.)
9. My co-worker is of absolutely no use at all. (I wish my co-worker were more helpful. If it starts to reflect on my work, I�ll approach my supervisor about it.)
10. If I make another mistake I�ll probably get fired. (With downsizing going on it feels like every move I make is being scrutinized. I can�t let myself get too stressed about it however, or my anxiety could make things worse.)

Another way to dispute an irrational remark is to find the underlying must statement and reword it. As we pointed out in the last session, a must statement is an unwritten rule that governs our behavior even though we�re often not aware of it. According to Dr. Ellis, must statements fall into three categories: 1. The musts directed at oneself. I must do things perfectly. I must be successful. I must be well loved. 2. The musts directed at others. Other people must do their jobs as well as I do. Other people must behave up to my standards. Other people must always treat me well. 3. The musts directed against organizations, the environment or world conditions. Recessions must not happen. My company must give me what I want. Conditions must always be to my liking. Life must never be too hard.

When we hear these must statements for the first time, they sound a bit silly, even ludicrous. That�s because we almost never think in these terms. We�re much more likely to disguise our irrational beliefs in the form of statements (like those on our list) that don�t sound so unreasonable. But a belief like: he never returns my phone calls wouldn�t really get you all riled up unless you also believed the must statement that people must behave up to my standards. So let�s look at this list again and see if we can find the underlying must statements associated with each irrational belief.

DISCUSSION: 10 Irrational Beliefs & Underlying Must Statements (This overhead combines the previous list of ten irrational beliefs along with an added list of must statements. See if your audience can associate one or more must statements from the overhead for each of the ten irrational thoughts listed. You�ll find some examples of how to do this below. Must statements can be used more than once.)

1. He never returns my phone calls: People must always behave up to my standards.
2. She is always late: People must do their jobs as well as I do.
3. These meetings go on forever: Conditions must always be to my liking.
4. I�ll never get a raise: My company must give me what I want.
5. My boss is a total jerk: Other people must always treat me well.
6. I hate everything about this job: Things must never be too hard.
7. Management never listens: My company must give me what I want.
8. Conditions will never get any better: Things must never be too hard.
9. My co-worker is of absolutely no use at all: Other people must do their jobs as well as I do.
10. If I make a mistake I�ll probably get fired: Conditions must always be to my liking.

Must statements sound so illogical it�s hard to believe we really take these statements seriously. But rest assured, we do. Therefore, you need to look beneath the surface of your fairly reasonable sounding irrational remarks in order to find the unreasonable sounding must statement. Once you make the connection between your irrational beliefs and an underlying must statement you can change your must statement to make it sound less dictatorial. This is easily accomplished by rewording it into a preference statement. A preference statement, as you shall soon see, is a more flexible position that won�t upset you as much if your wish is not met.

For example, When you say to yourself, "My vendor never returns my phone calls;" the underlying MUST statement is: "People must always return my calls immediately." This must statement makes you miserable because it doesn�t allow you any wiggle room if your wish isn�t fulfilled. If your vendor doesn�t call you right back, your must statement essentially requires you to become upset with him. A preference statement takes the DEMAND out of a MUST statement. It gives you a lot more flexibility. So in this case you might say, "I would prefer it if my vendor returned my calls more promptly, but his prices are the lowest I�ve seen by far. It�s worth putting up with a little inconvenience to get the best price." Or, we could reword this must statement for any situation by saying: "I would prefer it if people always got right back to me, but I won�t take it personally if they don�t."

As Dr. Ellis points out, a preference statement always implies a "but" that keeps your thinking rational and clear. Let�s say you�re upset because your two bosses give you conflicting assignments. Your irrational thoughts might be: "Those two are always doing this to me. It drives me crazy. All they care about is their own work, and they don�t even bother to ask me if I already have something to do!"

In this situation, your preference statement might go like this: "I would prefer it if they didn�t give me conflicting assignments but I understand that they�re busy. They don�t always have time to convene before bringing work to me. I need to make more of an effort to let them know what assignments I�m already working on when they give me something new."

Let�s take another example. The copier in your department frequently breaks down. You miss an important deadline because it malfunctions at an inopportune time. Your irrational thoughts are: "This copier is always breaking down. I can never get my assignments in on time because of this stupid copier. My boss is too darn cheap to replace it!"

Your preference statement could be: "I would prefer it if we had a brand new copier that worked perfectly, but I realize that copiers are expensive. The next time I have an important copying job, I won�t wait until the last minute to do it."

With a preference statement you acknowledge that you�d PREFER the world to operate a certain way BUT you accept the fact that it doesn�t always. MUST statements don�t acknowledge reality. After all, the world is an unpredictable and sometimes, unfair place: People won�t always behave to your liking and conditions won�t always be favorable to you. Preference statements are the perfect interface between you - your beliefs - and how the world really operates.

OPTIONAL EXERCISE: (Allow at least five minutes for this exercise. If you don�t have the time for this exercise, continue below at the paragraph which begins: So let�s review�) For the remainder of this session we�re going to give you the chance to practice your cognitive skills by allowing you to play the role of a rational customer service representative handling an irrational customer. To do this, we�re going to put you into groups of two and give everyone the chance to play both roles.

OK, time is up. How did it go? In this exercise, for the customer, what was the A, or activating event? (The faulty product.) And what was the A for the customer service person? (The angry customer.) What was the customer�s belief or B? (I got ripped off! This company makes lousy products. There�s no such thing as quality anymore!) What was the B for the customer service representative? (If the interaction upset him it would probably be something like: People should always be polite. People must treat me with the respect I deserve.) And what was the stressful consequence or C for the customer? (Frustration, anger.) And for the customer service rep? (Annoyance, sadness.)

How many customer service reps were able to handle the irrational customer and still remain calm? What did you say to yourself in order to keep yourself from becoming upset?

Keep in mind, we designed this exercise to simulate a real life situation - where the customer service person would feel threatened and attacked. How would you feel, in any other situation, if someone blamed you for something that you had nothing to do with? Wouldn�t you feel like attacking back? But a good number of you said you didn�t feel this way. Why?

This exercise shows that your response to an activating event is not automatic. Even if you were only acting out the part! Under certain circumstances you don�t have to lash out at someone when someone lashes out at you. You can decide not to get upset! Mentally, you can short-circuit the connection between your thoughts and your emotions. Even though this exercise recreated the exact same conditions you would experience in a heated argument - some of you weren�t bothered by it! That�s because A doesn�t always equal C! That�s because annoying events don�t always have to make you annoyed! That�s because frustrating things don�t always bother you unless you let them! You short-circuited your anger response in this exercise and you can do it in real life, too.

Before you leave, I want you to think of an actual time, when you were really upset, and a rational customer service representative, technical support person or even a hotel concierge or stewardess skillfully defused your anger. Even though you may have behaved poorly, blamed this person for something they didn�t do, and tried your best to get this person upset, he or she just didn�t take the bait. This person simply remained calm, didn�t take anything you said personally, didn�t try to put the blame back on you and addressed your concerns and did something about them.

I want you to leave today with this image locked firmly in your mind. Because you can be this person, too. You now have the ability and the skills to model this behavior in every stressful episode you encounter from this moment forward. You need to understand that you can treat every single interaction like the one you just enacted. You can choose how you want to respond in stressful situations. You are in control of your own stress.

So let�s review. In this session we have focused on the equation A+B=C and how you can short-circuit the sequence of stress at point B. We have shown you how to dispute your irrational self-talk by checking to see how accurate it is. We have shown you how to change your demanding MUST statements into more practical preference statements.

There are many other cognitive tools, some of which you may already be using and don�t even know it. (We showed you some of these in the video Short Circuiting Stress, like Finding the Good in a Bad Situation, and Keeping Your Stress in Perspective.) Almost any mental technique that helps keep your stress in check, from using humor to counting to ten before you get angry can be considered a form of cognitive restructuring.

The point is to find a method that works best for you and to use it at every opportunity that arises. When you do encounter stressors, you want to keep your thinking as fluid as possible. Rigid, absolutist, dictatorial thinking simply pours fuel on the fires of your distress. But flexible, objective, rational thinking douses the flames and helps you keep your stress in perspective. By becoming aware of how your stress proceeds from point A to point B to point C - and remembering D for disputing you�ll have the ability to control your emotional reactions by controlling the very thoughts that you think.

In the next session we�ll talk about how you can use cognitive techniques to conquer such strong emotions as anger, frustration, fear, and depression. In the final session we�ll introduce you to some new techniques that will enhance your cognitive restructuring skills. See you at the next session.