In Part 1, we examined the structural barriers that can discourage students from raising ethical concerns about the use of animals in university courses.
Some of these barriers included the weight of hierarchy, entrenched cultural norms and the subtle but powerful influence of peers.
These forces are real, and they are difficult. But as the saying also goes, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.” Often, the most formidable barriers can take shape in our own minds. Thoughts like “I shouldn’t speak up” or “If I say something, I’ll fail” can feel every bit as binding as formal policies.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) – also referred to as the ‘grandparent’ of many modern therapies (McLeod, 2019) – reminds us that thought distortions or ‘thinking traps’ can magnify fear, keep us silent and hold us back.
The encouraging part is this: once we learn to notice these thinking traps, we can begin to loosen their grip on us. In this article, we’ll turn our attention to some common thinking traps that arise when we, as students, confront ethical dilemmas – and explore practical ways to counter them.
Thinking trap #1: Catastrophic thinking (“If I speak up, I’ll fail or be labelled as unfit.”)
It is understandable to fear failing or being judged harshly when we speak up, especially under institutional pressure. Yet this can also be an example of catastrophic thinking – the tendency to presume the worst-case scenario, while overlooking other possibilities or other more likely outcomes (Mueller et al., 2010). By fixating on the most extreme possibility, we risk silencing ourselves, even when evidence may not support our fears.
“Thoughts convince me the worst will happen, but reality can tell another story.” Some steps to help counter catastrophic thinking:
- Start small, seek allies – This might mean sharing your concerns with one or two trusted classmates, which can help ease feelings of isolation and reveal that others may also share similar reservations.
- Build collective strength – When voices are joined, the fear of personal failure or being singled out becomes less convincing. Catastrophic predictions lose power when we realise responsibility and courage can be shared.
- Frame concerns as constructive questions – For example: “Could we trial simulation models?” or “Might ethically sourced cadavers achieve the same learning outcomes?” By linking concerns to solutions, we can help shift the narrative from resistance into constructive change.
Thinking trap #2: Emotional reasoning (“I’m the only one who feels this way.”)
Facing an ethical dilemma can feel deeply isolating – as though we are the only ones holding these concerns. Yet this might also be an example of emotional reasoning: the tendency to assume that because we feel alone, we must actually be alone. Emotional reasoning is a cognitive distortion where emotions are mistaken for facts – where if something feels true, we may believe it to be true, even without evidence (Kennerley et al., 2017). Left unchecked, it can shape our judgments in painful ways, convincing us that something negative is bound to happen simply because we feel anxious (Berle et al., 2016).
“A lonely feeling does not mean I stand alone.” Some steps to help counter emotional reasoning:
- Reality-check your thoughts – For example, ask: “What evidence do I have that no one else feels this way? What evidence suggests others might?”
- Engage student representation channels – This might include committees, councils or feedback forums. When concerns are voiced in settings like these, they might reveal that others carry similar discomfort, thus validating that our feelings are not isolated.
- Seek out allies – This might include classmates, student groups or advocacy organisations. Finding even one person who shares our perspective can help counter the illusion of being ‘the only one.’
Thinking trap #3: All-or-nothing thinking (“There’s nothing I can do. The system is too big.”)
It’s understandable to feel powerless, small, and alone. Yet believing there is nothing we can do is itself a distortion. Such statements can reflect all-or-nothing thinking – the belief that unless we can change everything, there’s no point acting at all. Also called black-and-white or dichotomous thinking, it frames situations in absolutes, leaving no space for nuance, progress or middle ground (Patel et al., 2024). This polarised mindset can fuel anxiety and hopelessness (Wegerer, 2024), preventing us from noticing small wins or gradual shifts.
“The trap of thinking in absolutes hides the grey areas where change truly happens.” Some steps to help counter all-or-nothing thinking:
- Draw on support structures – This might involve approaching university support services or advocacy offices for confidential guidance.
- Take small, deliberate steps – Whether it’s learning your rights or joining a student society, these actions chip away at the all-or-nothing mindset and remind us that meaningful change often begins with small beginnings.
Other thinking traps that can hinder action when facing an ethical dilemma
Several other cognitive distortions or thinking traps highlighted by Silva (2024) include the following:
- Mind-reading – assuming we know what others are thinking, without evidence. For example: “The lecturer will see me as difficult.”
- Overgeneralisation – drawing sweeping conclusions from a single event. For example: “If one student was ignored, all of us will be.”
The antidote is not to eliminate these thinking traps altogether, but to notice them, name them, and gently test them against reality. By recognising distortions for what they are – habitual ways of thinking rather than facts – we create space for clearer judgment and open up new pathways for change.
Closing reflection: Changing our inner script
Cognitive distortions or thinking traps thrive in silence – but naming them exposes their limits. Our fears may feel real, yet they are not always accurate. Speaking up is not an act of defiance, but an act of conscience. Each time we challenge a thinking trap, we also take a step toward more humane and ethical education
References
Berle, D., Moulds, M. L., Starcevic, V., Milicevic, D., Hannan, A., Dale, E., Viswasam, K., & Brakoulias, V. (2016). Does emotional reasoning change during cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety? Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 45(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2015.1115892
Kennerley, H., Kirk, J., & Westbrook, D. (2017). An Introduction to Cognitive Behaviour Therapy: Skills & Applications (Three). SAGE.
McLeod, J. (2019). An Introduction to Counselling and Psychotherapy : Theory, Research and Practice. McGraw-Hill Education. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/monash/detail.action?docID=6212192
Mueller, M., Kennerley, H., McManus, F., & Westbrook, D. (2010). Oxford Guide to Surviving as a CBT Therapist. Oxford University Press.
Patel, D. N., Pathapati, R., Hand, C., Varma, A., Ramtin, S., & Ring, D. (2024). Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Reduces Unhelpful Thinking Among People with Musculoskeletal Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis. Chronic Stress, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/24705470241304252
Silva, S. (2024). How to Identify Cognitive Distortions: Examples and Meaning. PsychCentral. https://psychcentral.com/lib/cognitive-distortions-negative-thinking
Wegerer, M. (2024). Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Perfectionism: An Overview of the State of Research and Practical Therapeutical Procedures. Verhaltenstherapie, 34(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1159/000532044
Guest Post by Dr Tani Khara
Dr Khara is the research director and a mental health coach at Sentient Professional Wellbeing.