姑且将标题翻译为 认知扭曲对压力的影响

Cognitive distortions are habitual tendencies or patterns of thinking that cause people to make appraisals that are systematically biased in particular ways. When someone has a cognitive distortion that is present and influencing the way they make appraisals, their resulting appraisals will be correspondingly distorted, prejudiced or biased. The distorting influence of such "bad thinking habits" can be lessened by helping people to identify and become conscious of which cognitive distortions they tend to habitually make. Knowing that you are vulnerable to making a particular kind of thinking mistake makes it easier for you to avoid continuing to make that mistake in the present and in the future.
认知扭曲是人们习惯性的思维倾向或模式，导致在一些情况下做出带有偏见的评价、判断和解释。当一个人存在认知扭曲，影响了他们做判断的方式时，他们得出的结论将相应地被扭曲、带有偏见或成见。通过帮助人们识别并意识到那些他们倾向于习惯产生的认知扭曲，可以减少这种“不良思维习惯”的扭曲影响。知道自己容易出现某种特定的思维误区，可以让你更好地避免在今后继续犯同样的错误。

Dr. Beck has written extensively about the many different kinds of cognitive distortions that people commonly fall victim to. Explanations for ten of the more common distortions related to stress follow:
贝克博士详细阐述了人们常见的多种认知扭曲。接下来将解释与压力相关的十种较为常见的扭曲：

PS：Dr. Beck指亚伦·特姆金·贝克（Aaron Temkin Beck），被认为是认知疗法和认知行为疗法之父。贝克还开发了抑郁症及焦虑症的自我评估量表，特别是贝克抑郁量表（BDI）.

Catastrophizing occurs when people expect a disaster or the worst to occur, even though the available evidence does not support such an assessment. For example, catastrophization might be occurring if you think that going to a party where you know only a few people will necessarily be so awful that you won't be able to cope (and therefore will absolutely have a bad time). It's possible that the party might be difficult for you, but how could you really know until you got there? As a secondary example, catastrophization is probably occurring when someone thinks to themselves, "My boyfriend/girlfriend broke up with me, and it is the end of the world! Nobody will ever want a relationship with me again in the future!"
灾难化 是指人们预期会发生灾难或最坏的情况，即使现有的证据并不支持这样的判断。例如，如果你认为去一个只认识几个人的派对必然会非常糟糕，以至于到你应付不来（因此你肯定会过得不愉快），那么这可能就是灾难化思维。派对可能对你来说确实有难度，但在你真正去到那里之前，你怎么可能真正知道呢？第二个例子，当有人想到，“我对象和我分手了，这是世界末日！将来再也没人会想和我恋爱了！”时，很可能就是出现了灾难化思维。

Personalization occurs when you develop a habit of overestimating your personal responsibility for causing things to happen and start thinking that everything people say or do is somehow a reaction to you. With personalization, if something bad happens we assume it is our fault; that we caused it to happen. The opposite bias, Externalization, occurs when we habitually refuse to see our role in causing things to happen and end up taking no personal responsibility and instead, blame other people and situations for our problems. Personalization is occurring when someone thinks, "My relationship broke up so it must be all my fault." Similarly, externalization is occurring when someone thinks "My relationship broke up so it must be all my former partner's fault."
个人化 是指你养成了一种习惯: 高估自己对事情的个人责任，开始认为人们说的或做的一切都某种程度上是对你的反应。在个人化思维下，如果发生了不好的事情，我们会认为这是我们的错；是我们导致了这种情况的发生。与此相对的思维模式是外部化，即我们习惯性地拒绝认识到自己在事情发生中的作用，并最终走向不愿承担个人责任，而是将问题归咎于其他人和环境。例如，“我的关系破裂了，所以一定都是我的错。”，就是陷入了个人化。同样地，“我的关系破裂了，所以一定全是我前任的错。”，就是发生了外部化。

Filtering occurs when people focus on only one part of a situation and form conclusions based only on that partial consideration rather than looking at the entire situation and forming a more holistic opinion. Filtering commonly occurs when people habitually focus on negative aspects of life by picking out a single negative detail and dwelling on it, while ignoring the positive elements that are also present. For example, if someone tells you that you've done well on a task, but you discount this praise, thinking to yourself that it can't be true because other people did even better than you did, you're probably filtering. You may also be filtering if you get a number of positive and negative reviews for a work you've authored and only believe the negative ones.
过滤 是指只关注情境的一部分，并且仅基于这部分来形成片面结论，而不是全面观察整个情境并形成更全面的看法。当人们习惯性地只关注生活中的负面方面，挑出单一的负面细节并沉湎其中，并忽略同样存在的积极因素时，就可以说出现了过滤。例如，如果有人告诉你，任务做得很好，但你却忽视这种赞扬，自认为这不可能是真的，因为其他人做得比你更好，那么你可能出现了过滤。如果你创作的作品收到了多条正面和负面的评价，而你只相信那些负面的评价，你也可能出现了过滤。

Polarized thinking, sometimes known as splitting, describes a tendency some people have to view the world in stark, extreme black or white terms rather than to allow for the possibility of a gray area or a mixture of characteristics. For example people who engage in polarized thinking tend to view themselves (and others) as either a total success or a total failure. Because there is always someone who is willing to criticize, this tends to collapse into a tendency for polarized people to view themselves as a total failure. Polarized thinkers have difficulty with the notion of being "good enough" or a partial success. For them it is all or nothing, and if they make one mistake then they will have failed completely.
两级思维(也有翻译为二极管思维的,不过似乎会产生误解)，描述了一些人倾向于以极端、绝对的黑白思维认识世界，而不是承认存在灰色地带的可能。例如，那些两级思维的人喜欢将自己（和他人）看作是彻底成功的或彻底失败的。因为总有人喜欢批评人，这往往导致有两级思维的人将自己视为完全的失败者。两极化的人很难接受“足够好”或部分成功的概念。对他们来说，要么全有要么全无，如果他们犯了一个错误，那么他们就会彻底失败。

Overgeneralization describes the tendency to form a general conclusion based on only a few pieces of evidence. For example, overgeneralization is occurring when someone fails one math test and then concludes that she is lousy at math. There might be many reasons why the someone fails a math test, including poor teaching, a difficult textbook, or stress in the home. However, none of these potential causes are considered in the rush to form a conclusion to explain the failure. Worse, the formation of the overgeneralized conclusion will often cause the person to avoid math in the future, and potentially fail to learn an important skill that could be learned with a little perseverance. The rush to overgeneralize often involves a tendency to engage in filtering and personalization. That is, people who filter and only focus on negative outcomes while ignoring the positive information, and who blame themselves for a failure rather than considering how outside aspects of the situation may have affected it are likely to mistake their limited negative conclusion for a balanced picture of their entire situation. These people do not realize that by projecting that negative conclusion into the future, they are overgeneralizing, going beyond the actual facts and artificially limiting options for the future.
以偏概全 描述了人基于少数几个证据形成一般性结论的倾向。例如，有人在一次数学考试失败后，就得出自己在数学上很糟糕的结论，这就是以偏概全。数学考试失败可能有很多原因，包括教学质量不佳、知识难度大或家庭压力等。然而，由于急于得出能解释失败的原因与定论，这些潜在的原因都没有被考虑进去。更糟的是，形成这种过度概括的结论往往会导致这个人在未来避免接触数学，可能会错过一个通过一些毅力就能学会的重要技能。急于以偏概全通常涉及到过滤和自我归因的倾向。也就是说，那些过滤并只关注负面结果的人，忽略了积极信息的同时，在不考虑外部因素的情况下将失败归咎于自己，他们很可能会错误地将自己有限的负面结论当作整个情景的全局结论。他们没有意识到，将这种负面结论投射到未来的时候，他们正在以偏概全，超越了实际事实，并人为地限制了未来的选择。
PS: 个人觉得过滤和以偏概全很像,但有区别:过滤是仅关注当下的负面信息,忽略积极信息.以偏概全是不仅只看到了当下少数的负面信息,还以此拓展为对未来和一般性的认识.例如,过滤可能是只关注到了数学挂科,而看不到其他科目高分;以偏概全是只关注到了数学挂科,并且认为自己这辈子学不好数学了.个人观点,不确定是否正确.

Mind reading occurs when people make inferences about what other people are thinking based on their behavior. People who engage in mind reading assume that they know what other people are thinking without bothering to check whether their assumptions are correct. For example, when a friend walks by on the street without acknowledging them, they might think, "I've offended her, so she is ignoring me," when in reality, that friend is merely distracted and in no way feeling offended.
臆测他人心思(完全找不到对应中文翻译的词) 是指人们根据他人的行为来推断他人的想法。那些随意揣测他人想法的人认为: 他们知道其他人在想什么，而不去费心验证他们的假设是否正确。比如，当一个朋友在街上走过时没有注意到他们，他们可能会想：“我肯定哪里得罪她了，所以她才会无视我”，而实际上，那位朋友可能只是走神了，并没有感到被人得罪。

Control fallacies involve a bias of viewing yourself as either more or less in control of your situation than you really are. They are related to tendencies towards personalization and externalization. People who personalize situations generally also believe they have control over those situations that they probably don't have, and vice versa, people who reject the idea that they can exert control over situations are more likely to see themselves as passive victims of other people's efforts to control them, and, as a consequence, to externalize. Control fallacies can be quite easy to identify, or they can be subtle and hidden. A good example of a more difficult to identify control fallacy occurs when people come to believe that they are responsible for the happiness of other people they care about, for instance, when a spouse tries repeatedly to cheer up a depressive partner (who resists cheering up) and ends up feeling like a failure as a result. It is not really possible to cause someone else to feel happy, but if you have a control fallacy operating, you might knock yourself out trying to make it happen.
控制幻觉 是一种偏见，即人们觉得自己比实际情况要更能/更不能控制目前的局面。这与个体倾向于归因于自身（个性化）或外部（外部化）有关。通常，那些习惯于把事情归因自身的人也会相信他们能控制那些实际上他们可能无法控制的情境；反过来，那些拒绝相信自己能对情境施加影响的人更容易将自己视为他人控制企图下的无助受害者，结果往往是将责任归咎于外部。控制谬误有时很容易识别，有时则微妙且隐蔽。一个较难识别的控制幻觉的例子是，人们认为他们要为自己所关心的其他人的幸福负责，例如，有人反复尝试让抑郁的伴侣振作起来（但对方抗拒振作）并因此感到自己是个失败者。实际上，我们并不能真正使他人感到快乐，但如果你深陷控制幻觉，你可能会不惜一切代价试图做到这一点。

A Fallacy of Change occurs when someone believes that others will change their ways simply because that person wants them to, or because those other people "should" act differently. This fallacy occurs frequently in marriages and committed relationships when one partner goes into a relationship thinking that their partner has unacceptable flaws that will change over time. It can also happen within therapy relationships when a therapist buys into the common fantasy that patients can be made to change if only the therapist does his or her job properly. When the relationship partner's flaws do not disappear after a while, the other partner can feel betrayed, even though the "flawed" partner did nothing wrong by remaining the same. The feeling of betrayal in such a case is not caused by the partner who did not change, but rather by the collapse of the fallacy of change idea as it is confronted and overwhelmed by the reality of no change happening. Partners who feel betrayed that are aware of their fallacy of change can come to understand that no actual betrayal has occurred. Instead, they have the choice of either accepting their partner "as is" or finding some other means of coping. If the betrayed person in not aware of this style of thinking, he or she may instead blame the other partner in a process of externalization. When fallacies of change are in place, people blame, demand, withhold and bargain to try to achieve the desired changes in their partners. The strategy tends to backfire and make situations worse than they need to be. Usually the partners who are targets of a change fallacy feel attacked and pushed around and may become defensive and entrenched, rather than open to change.
变化谬误 发生在某人相信, 仅仅因为他们自己希望如此，或者认为其他人“应该”有所不同，其他人就会改变行为方式。这种谬误在婚姻和承诺关系中经常出现，当一方进入关系时，认为伴侣有无法接受的缺点，并期望这些缺点会随着时间的推移而改变。在治疗关系中也可能发生这种情况，当治疗师陷入一种普遍的幻想，认为只要治疗师做好自己的工作，就能使患者改变。当关系中伴侣的缺点一段时间后没有消失，另一方可能会感到被背叛，即使那个有“缺陷”的伴侣保持原样, 并没有做错任何事。在这种情况下，背叛的感觉不是由没有改变的伴侣造成的，而是由于变化谬误的观念在事实的无变化面前崩溃。在了解变化谬误之后, 伴侣可以意识到, 实际上并没有发生背叛。相反，他们可以选择要么接受伴侣的“现状”，要么找到其他应对的方法。如果感到被背叛的人没有意识到这种思维方式，TA可能会反过来责怪另一方，这是一种外部化的过程。当变化谬误存在时，人们会责备、要求、拒绝和讨价还价，试图在伴侣身上实现期望的改变。这种策略往往会适得其反，使情况变得更糟。通常成为变化谬误目标的伴侣会感到受到攻击和操纵，可能会变得更有防御性和固执，而不是对改变持开放态度。

Emotional Reasoning occurs when people make decisions on the basis of what feels good rather than on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence. In emotional reasoning, we let our feelings guide our interpretation of reality. For example, if we feel like a failure then we must actually be one. If we feel we are ugly then we must actually be ugly. It doesn't matter if a hundred people we trust tell us differently, we still conclude that the facts must be wrong when we are reasoning emotionally. Depressed people very commonly end up reasoning emotionally. They may engage in filtering and focus on one piece of bad news in a set of mostly positive news, decide that this bad news means that things are hopeless, and then conclude that because they feel hopeless that they must actually be hopeless. It doesn't matter if they actually have some power to influence their situation, because this fact will be overlooked as long as emotional reasoning holds sway.
情绪推理 出现在人们基于感觉而非基于系统性证据检查做出决定的情况。在情绪推理中，我们让感受引导我们对现实的解释。例如，如果我们觉得自己是失败者，那么我们一定就是失败者。如果我们觉得自己丑陋，那么我们一定就是丑陋的。即使有一百个我们信任的人告诉我们不是这样，当我们情绪化地推理时，我们仍然会得出”事实肯定是错的”这样的结论。抑郁的人经常会进行情绪推理。他们可能会开始过滤，专注于一组消息(其中大多是好消息)中的一条坏消息，笃定这条坏消息意味着事情是没有希望的，然后得出因为他们感到没有希望，他们就真的没有希望的结论。不管他们是否真的有能力影响自己的处境，只要情绪推理占据上风，事实就会被忽视。

It's not just depressed people who reason emotionally. Almost everyone does this sort of thing on a regular basis. People like to think that they are usually logical decision makers, but unfortunately, this is not generally the case. The way the human brain is wired, it is far easier to make a decision based on feeling than one based on facts. We do not tend to look for facts to support our conclusions; we just accept them because they feel right. For example, people frequently decide who to vote for on the basis of their feelings of pride or outrage or whether they'd like to have a beer with a particular politician, rather than on a politician's actual qualifications to hold office. Politicians harness this style of thinking by bombarding the airwaves with negative ads designed to cause people to form negative emotional impressions of opposition candidates every election cycle.
并不仅仅是抑郁的人会情绪化地推理。几乎每个人都会定期做这种事情。人们喜欢认为自己通常是逻辑决策者，但不幸的是，这通常并非如此。人类大脑的工作方式使得基于感觉做决定比基于事实更容易。我们不倾向于寻找支持我们结论的事实；我们只是接受它们, 因为感觉对了。例如，人们经常根据自己的自豪感或愤怒感，或者是否愿意和某位政治家一起喝啤酒来决定投票给谁，而不是根据政治家实际的资格来。政治家利用这种思维方式，每届选举周期都会通过负面广告轰炸广播，旨在让人们对反对派候选人产生负面的情绪印象。

正文到此结束

还有一些看到的补充材料，顺便搬过来：
另一种认知扭曲：永远是对的（Always Being Right.）

这种扭曲的特点是，错误是不可想象的．存在这种扭曲的人会不惜一切来证明自己的正确。他们认为正确往往比周围人的感受更重要，甚至是所爱之人。0 (0~1)

还有一种认知扭曲：感恩陷阱

根据一篇文章[2]的观点，感恩陷阱是“许多关系中难以捉摸的丑陋，一种欺骗性的‘善意’，其主要目的是让别人感到亏欠与愧疚”。
> 为了阐明这一点，让我们看一个综合例子，基于我与几位真实患者的经验。马克斯希望家人尊重并珍视他。他的策略是对妻子朱莉娅和孩子们“过分慷慨”：他给予他们他认为他们应该珍视的东西，而不考虑他们是否真的珍视，从不征求他们的意见——并经常贬低他们的建议。

> 他们住在他选择的高档住宅里，没有征求朱莉娅的意见。他给他们买设计师服装，带他们去只有他自己喜欢的冰钓之旅。他期望他们对他表示感激，而每当朱莉娅在罕见的情况下挑战他的决定时，他的回应总是包含类似于“毕竟我为你和孩子们做了这么多！”

> 朱莉娅很有魅力，但马克思每天都会侮辱她的外表，让她觉得自己丑陋和不安全。他期望她对他提出的“改进”外表的反馈表示感激，告诉她该穿什么衣服，头发应该怎么造型。朱莉娅感到困惑和内疚。她觉得自己应该对马克思的家和“美好生活”感恩不尽，但她并没有这种感觉。她变得越来越沮丧。

> 他们的孩子也受到了影响。无论他们做什么或说什么都无法偿还父亲为他们所承受的“节俭和牺牲”，因此他们也为了父亲的要求而牺牲了自己正在发展的兴趣。[2]
文章[2]分析后认为，这种问题的原因在于被滥用的利他主义。“利他主义教导像马克斯这样的人，任何为他人所做的行为都是好的，即使那些他人并不珍视。它也教导像朱莉娅这样的人，他们应该尊重这些行为并予以回报，而不考虑对他们生活或所珍视的事物可能产生的负面影响。”
文章提出的解决办法是，解除感恩陷阱并享受真诚的感激需要放弃任何利他主义义务观念的残余，在心中明确区分对你有益和对你无益的行为，并永远不将后者视为前者。需要明确将自己的需求摆在首位并不是利他主义在道德上宣传的“自私”。恰恰相反，滥用利他主义会导致，感恩陷阱的控制方利用被控者的善良和对伤害关系与感情的恐惧，作为武器和枷锁，阻碍真正有益的个人成长与发展，即使双方可能并没有意识到这一点。

==================================
[1] 网页链接
[2] 网页链接