Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10.4 Thinking Errors Faulty Conclusions and CTT For Trauma-Related Guilt
10.4 Thinking Errors Faulty Conclusions and CTT For Trauma-Related Guilt
Handout 10.4: Thinking Errors, Faulty Conclusions, and Cognitive Therapy for Trauma-Related Guilt
by Edward S. Kubany, Ph.D., ABPP
There is growing recognition that trauma survivors explanations of their involvement in trauma may contribute to posttrauma symptomatology and interfere with the process of recovery (1,2,3). These explanations often revolve around cognitive aspects of guilt, which is conceptualized as an unpleasant feeling accompanied by a set of interrelated beliefs about ones role in a negative event (2,4,5). My colleagues and I have identified four cognitive dimensions or components of guilt, which include (a) perceived responsibility for causing a negative outcome, (b) perceived lack of justification for actions taken, (c) perceived violation of values, and (d) a belief that one knew what was going to happen before the outcome was observed. Several investigators have noted that trauma survivors tend to distort or exaggerate the importance of their roles in trauma (2,3,6), and trauma survivors repeatedly draw four kinds of faulty conclusionseach of which involves distortion of a cognitive component of guilt (2). First, many trauma survivors exaggerate the degree to which they were responsible for causing trauma-related outcomes. Second, many survivors think that their actions were less justified than would be indicated by objective analyses of the facts. Third, many survivors conclude that they are guilty of wrongdoing even though their intentions were consistent with their values. Fourth, trauma survivors often conclude that they knew what was going to happen before it was possible to know.
THINKING ERRORS THAT LEAD TO FAULTY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ONES ROLE IN TRAUMA
We have identified fifteen thinking errors that can lead trauma survivors to draw faulty conclusions about how justified, responsible, and guilty of wrongdoing they were when the trauma occurred. Helping clients correct these thinking errors is a major focus of our structured cognitive therapy approach for treating trauma-related guilt (2,7). The fifteen thinking areas are discussed in considerable detail elsewhere (2) and will be described briefly in this article. Four of the thinking errors may contribute to faulty conclusions about causal responsibility; seven of them may contribute to faulty conclusions about justifi ability for actions taken; three of them may contribute to faulty conclusions about wrongdoing; and one of the thinking errors may contribute to all of the faulty conclusions.
193
194
9. Tendency to overlook benefits associated with actions taken. Sometimes, trauma survivors maintain important values by their actions during trauma and fail to realize that, had they acted otherwise, these values would have been invalidated or violated to some degree. For example, some battered women who refuse to press charges against their partners confirm or validate values (held at the time) that they should turn the other cheek and could change their partner if they would just try harder. 10. Failure to compare available options in terms of their perceived probabilities of success before outcomes were known. Sometimes, unselected courses of action that seemed to be poor choices when the trauma occurred are recalled as less likely to produce negative outcomes than actions taken. Instead of judging their reasons for acting as they did based on the quality or soundness of their decision making (before outcomes were known), some survivors judge their actions solely on the basis of the outcome. It is important for clients to know that even good decisions can (and occasionally will) turn out badly (because of laws of probability). 11. Failure to realize that acting on speculative hunches rarely pays off and occurrence of a low-probability event is not evidence that one should have bet on this outcome before it occurred. Trauma survivors occasionally say, in retrospect, that they should have acted on hunches, intuition, premonitions, or gut feelingswhich, if acted upon, might have prevented or avoided a tragic outcome. However, people do not ordinarily act on speculative hunches because they are typically long-shot predictions, which experience has shown tend not to be borne out. Furthermore, occurrence of a lowprobability outcome that was predicted by a hunch (e.g., If I trade places with him, maybe something bad will happen) is not evidence that one should have acted on the hunch.
have been afraid. Similarly, children who are touched in certain ways by adults do not have conscious control over their autonomic nervous system. 14. Failure to recognize that when all available options have negative outcomes, the least bad choice is a highly moral choice. During traumatic events, individuals often confront situations in which all available courses of action have unfavorable consequences. Something bad is likely to happen whether a sexual assault victim fights back or does not resist, whether an incested child discloses the abuse or suffers in silence, or whether a soldier in battle shoots to kill or fires over the heads of the enemy. In all of these lose-lose or catch-22 situations, no unambiguously good choices are available, and the least bad choice reflects sound moral judgment by validating an individuals most important values. For example, by shooting to kill, the soldier may validate his values about the importance of his life and his buddies lives, and his beliefs about himself as a patriotic and loyal citizen.
REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. Frazier, P. A., & Schauben, L. (1994). Causal attributions and recovery from rape and other stressful life events. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 1-14. Kubany, E. S., & Manke, F. P. (1995). Cognitive therapy for trauma-related guilt: Conceptual bases and treatment outlines. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 2, 23-61. Resick, P. A. (1993). Cognitive processing for rape victims. Newbury Park: Sage. Kubany, E. S., Abueg, F. R., Brennan, J. M., Owens, J. A., Kaplan, A., & Watson, S. (1995). Initial examination of a multidimensional model of trauma-related guilt: Applications to combat veterans and battered women. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 17, 353-376. Kubany, E. S., Haynes, S. N., Abueg, F. R., Manke, F. P., Brennan, J. M., & Stahura, C. (1996). Development and validation of the Trauma-Related Guilt Inventory (TRGI). Psychological Assessment, 8, 428-444. Miller, D., & Porter, C. (1983). Self-blame in victims of violence. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 139-152. Kubany, E. S. (1997). Application of cognitive therapy for trauma-related guilt (CT-TRG) with a Vietnam veteran troubled by multiple sources of guilt. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 3, 213-244. Kubany, E. S. (1994). A cognitive model of guilt typology in combat-related PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7, 3-19. Hawkins, S. A., & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311-327.
5.
6. 7.
8. 9.
10. Rando, T. A. (Ed.). (1986). Parental loss of a child. Champaign, IL: Research Press. 11. Pitman, R. K., Altman, B., Greenwald, E., Longpre, R. E., Macklin, M. L., Poir, R. E., & Steketee, G. S. (1991). Psychiatric complications during flooding therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 52, 17-20. 12. Kubany, E. S., Abueg, F. R., Kilauano, W., Manke, F. P., & Kaplan, A. (1997). Development and validation of the Sources of Trauma-Related Guilt Survey War-Zone Version. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10, 235-258. 13. Kubany, E. S. (1996). Cognitive therapy for trauma-related guilt. Audiotape distributed by the National Center for PTSD, Palo Alto, CA.
Published in National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Clinical Quarterly (1997, 8, 6-8). Reprinted in Trauma Response (1998, 4, 20-21). This article is in the public domain.
198