What Are “Should Statements”?

Cognitive distortions are biased ways of thinking. A common type of cognitive distortion are “should statements” – a style of thinking that has been discussed in cognitive therapy, rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT), and related approaches. Understanding the nature of should-focused thinking can provide valuable insights into demanding standards, emotional, and rigid evaluations.

What are cognitive distortions?

Cognitive distortions, cognitive biases, or ‘unhelpful thinking styles’ are the characteristic ways our thoughts become biased. People constantly interpret and appraise the world around them, trying to make sense of what is happening. Sometimes, our minds take ‘mental shortcuts’, resulting in thoughts that are not completely accurate. Different mental shortcuts can result in different kinds of bias or distortions in our thinking.

Working with automatic thoughts and cognitive distortions is a core component of traditional cognitive therapy. Exploring the nature of different cognitive biases can help clients notice and re-evaluate distressing automatic thoughts.

What are “should statements”?

“Should” statements (sometimes referred to as, ‘necessitous thinking’, ‘self-commands’, and ‘injunctions’) are a key cognitive distortion or unhelpful thinking style. This cognitive bias is characterized by fixed rules or standards that are imposed the self, others, and the world. They often relate to the way things should operate, coupled with overestimations of how awful it would be if these expectations are not met. Terms such as “should”, “must”, and “ought to” often appear in this style of thinking.

Examples of should statements include:

• “I must get it right.”

• “I shouldn’t feel this way.”

• “She ought to be kinder toward me.”

• “The world has to be fair.”

Buying into “should” statements can lead to anxiety, guilt, shame, and anger.

The different types of should statements

Although should-focused thinking often appears similar on the surface, it can be directed toward different targets. Burns (2020) identifies four types of “should” statement:

Self-directed shoulds

These thoughts are self-imposed standards which lead to anxiety, guilt, and shame. They can involve rigid expectations about performance, competence, morality, or emotional control. Examples include:

• “I must get it right.”

• “I should have done that better.”

• “I shouldn’t feel this way.”

Other-directed shoulds

These are expectations of others which often lead to anger, conflict, or disappointment. These thoughts relate to how other people are supposed to behave, communicate, or respond. Examples include:

• “They should be grateful.”

• “She ought to be more considerate.”

• “He should treat me nicely.”

World-directed shoulds

These are expectations around how the world ought to work, which can lead to frustration and entitlement. Examples include:

• “The world should be fair.”

• “Things shouldn’t happen this way.”

Hidden shoulds

More implicit standards and expectations are sometimes revealed through emotional reactions. For example, a person may become highly frustrated after making a mistake, revealing the thought that mistakes should not occur.

Why do should statements matter clinically?

Should statements are associated with a range of psychological difficulties, and can contribute to emotional distress by promoting inflexible, unrealistic, or unhelpful standards and expectations.

Notably, Albert Ellis (1987) identified demanding thinking or “musturbation” as the primary irrational belief in emotional disorders and believed it played a central role in depressive thinking. Cognitive therapy, by contrast, views demanding thinking as common in depression but not necessarily fundamental.

Other clinical problems associated with “should” statements include:

• Anxiety disorders.

• Perfectionism.

• Problematic anger.

• Interpersonal difficulties.

Common characteristics of should-focused thinking

People who habitually utilize “should” statements may have blind spots when it comes to:

• Tolerating imperfection or unfairness.

• Striving and being excessively demanding toward themselves or others.

• Self-acceptance and self-compassion.

• Thinking flexibly or in shades of grey.

This can lead to a rigid style of thinking in which experiences are judged against fixed (and sometimes unrealistic) standards rather than according to context.

Why do people use should statements?

From a therapeutic perspective, it is helpful to understand that should statements are not arbitrary errors in thinking. Like many cognitive biases, they may have developed because they once served useful functions. From an evolutionary standpoint, necessitous thinking may have proved useful in securing resources, avoiding threats, and managing relationships and social hierarchies.

This perspective can help CBT therapists normalize should-focused thinking while also exploring whether it is accurate or helpful.

Five tips for working with should statements

The Psychology Tools "Should" Statements information handout outlines several helpful interventions therapists can use when working with should thoughts.

1. Teach clients to notice and label their thoughts

Metacognitive awareness, or decentering, is the ability to stand back and view a thought as a cognitive event - an interpretation rather than a fact. Clients can practice this by naming should statements as they arise. For example:

• “I’m using should statements again.”

• “I notice I’m having a must thought.”

2. Use cognitive restructuring

Clients can review the evidence supporting their should statements and reflect on whether these judgments are helpful or realistic. Useful questions include:

• “Is it really true that [should statement]?”

• “What evidence supports and conflicts with this expectation?

• “Is this truly an absolute necessity or just a preference?”

3. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis

Cost-benefit analysis can highlight the consequences of should-focused thinking. Questions might include:

• “What are the pros and cons of this expectation?”

• “Does this thought motivate or discourage you?”

• “What problems have come with viewing situations in this way?”

4. Soften rigid language

Clients can be encouraged to substitute words such as “should” or “must” with more flexible alternatives such as “prefer” or “wish”. For example:

• “I must get it right” might become “I’d prefer to get it right.”

• “He should be more thoughtful” might become “I’d like it if he were more thoughtful.”

• “The world should be fairer” might becomes “I wish the world were fairer.”

5. Test with behavioral experiments.

Some should statements imply that negative consequences will occur if the rule is not followed. Clients can be encouraged to experiment with not acting on their should statements and observing the consequences.

For example, a client who worries about punctuality (“I should always be on time or I’ll get into trouble”) may deliberately arrive five minutes late to a meeting and evaluate whether their feared outcomes occur.

Conclusion

“Should statements” are a well-known cognitive distortion that are associated with a range of emotional and interpersonal difficulties.

Whether through decentering, cognitive restructuring, or behavioral experiments, helping clients respond differently to these thoughts can become an important component of CBT.

Explore Psychology Tools comprehensive range of resources for more details.

Further Reading

• Beck, A. T. (1963). Thinking and depression: I. Idiosyncratic content and cognitive distortions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9, 324–333.

• Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Therapy of Depression. Guilford Press.

• Brown, G., & Beck, A. T. (1989). The role of imperatives in psychopathology: A reply to Ellis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 315–321.

• Branch, R., & Wilson, R. (2020). Cognitive Behavioural Therapy For Dummies (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

• Burns, D. D. (2020). Feeling Great: The Revolutionary New Treatment For Depression And Anxiety. PESI Publishing.

• Dryden, W. (2020). Awfulizing: Some conceptual and therapeutic considerations. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 38, 295–305.

• Ellis, A. (1987). A sadly neglected cognitive element in depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 121–146.

• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

• Egan, S. J., Wade, T. D., Shafran, R., & Antony, M. M. (2014). Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Of Perfectionism. Guilford Press.