Loading page…
Loading page…
Cognitive Restructuring Lesson 2 of 10
Examine a thought by collecting facts that support it and facts that do not. Use both sides to write a balanced view and reassess your belief.
Goal: Run the table on one starred thought (from CR1) every other day for two weeks.
Time per table: ~10–12 minutes.
Write the raw sentence at the top (e.g., “They all think I’m incompetent”).
Stick with the original wording. Don’t soften it yet.
Rate how much you believe the thought right now (0–100%).
You’ll re-rate at the end to track impact.
List only facts. Events a camera could verify that support the thought.
Feelings and predictions aren’t facts. Skip them.
Write factual data that doesn’t fit or directly contradicts the thought.
Ask a trusted friend for overlooked positives if needed.
Look at both sides. Circle the three strongest items on each side.
Strength matters more than length.
In one sentence, write a 70% believable alternative.
Example: “Some teammates questioned my idea, but others valued my input, so my competence is mixed, not zero.”
Aim for realistic. Not overly positive.
Score belief in the new statement (0–100%) and note any emotional shift.
Notice any change in belief or emotion. A fixed percentage change is not required for the exercise to be useful.
0/10 lessons completed
Next up: Socratic Questions Script
Once you’ve tagged a hot automatic thought with its distortion (CR1), the next move is to test it. The Evidence For / Evidence Against Table treats each thought like a court case: you gather objective facts that support the statement and facts that contradict it. Seeing both columns side-by-side calms the limbic system, boosts cognitive flexibility, and often shrinks the thought’s credibility from “absolute truth” to “one possibility.”
I can’t find any evidence against What now?
Ask: “If a friend challenged this thought, what would they say?” or widen the time frame (“ever” vs “this week”). Objectivity grows with practice.
The thought still feels 100 % true!
Strong emotions can glue belief. Try pairing the table with a short grounding skill (SM8) first, then return when arousal drops below 6/10.
Isn’t this just positive thinking?
No. Columns must contain verifiable facts. You’re not sugar-coating; you’re recalibrating to reality.
How does this differ from CR3 (Socratic Questions)?
CR2 compiles data; CR3 probes logic. Many people alternate the two for stubborn thoughts.
This lesson is an educational practice resource, not a substitute for professional assessment, diagnosis, or treatment. Discuss behavioral health questions or concerns with a qualified healthcare professional.
These resources explain the background approach. They do not validate this worksheet as a standalone treatment or its suggested practice schedule.
Spot thinking traps as they show up. Naming distortions helps you challenge them more effectively.
Look at what supports a thought and what challenges it. Weigh both sides before drawing a conclusion.
Question your thoughts like a curious detective. Asking the right questions can shift your perspective.
After you spot a distortion, build a more realistic and helpful thought to take its place.
Talk to yourself like you would talk to a friend. Replace harsh self-talk with fairness and compassion.
Challenge all-or-nothing beliefs by placing thoughts on a scale. Most things aren’t black and white.
Put your thought on the stand. Present the case, weigh the facts, and reach a verdict.
Keep a running list of wins, no matter how small. Real-life evidence that counters negative beliefs.
Keep asking “If that’s true, what does it mean about me?” Dig deep to uncover the beliefs behind your thoughts.
Test your beliefs in the real world. Design a simple experiment to gather your own data.
Evidence For / Evidence Against Table
Share a thought, ask a question, or tell us about your experience.
Your comment will be public here and in Community.
Loading comments…
