ABCDE model of emotion regulation

What really determines the outcome of your emotions and behavior (C, Consequence) is not the triggering event that has occurred (A, Activating event), but your inherent belief in this matter (B, Belief)； By refuting unreasonable beliefs (D, Disputation), more appropriate cognitive models and action plans (E, Effect) can be finally established.

Let’s talk about a consulting case I just received last week. A girl worked in an operation position and worked on the 618 plan for three nights. During the meeting, the leader pointed out two data errors in public. After the meeting, she squatted in the fire escape and cried for two hours. She even wrote her resignation letter. She felt, “My ability is too poor. The leader must have wanted to fire me a long time ago. I can’t survive in this industry.” You see, in her cognition, it was the fact that "the plan was wrong" that directly led to her wanting to resign, but in fact there was an inherent belief that she was not aware of: "I can't make any mistakes in the work I do, and being given advice by the leader is a denial of my entire being."

Nowadays, many people are criticizing this model on social platforms, saying that it is a "variant of victim guilt theory" and "a mental PUA tool" - "Can't I still be angry when I am bullied? Do I still have to blame myself for my wrong thinking? ”Even many counselors from the humanistic school will question: Will overemphasis on cognitive adjustment deny the rationality of the emotion itself and turn it into another form of self-suppression?

These doubts are actually all due to the wrong method. I have been using this model in individual consultations for almost 7 years, and I have seen too many people turn the "Refutation (D)" link into a self-attack: Being laid off was already uncomfortable, but after learning the model, they scolded themselves, "How could I have such stupid thoughts as 'I can't find a job in my life'?" I’m so useless”, which completely misses the point of the model.

The essence of D is not to let you deny your emotions at all. It is right to be angry when you are stepped on new shoes, it is right to be scolded for your plan, and it is natural to be sad when you are laid off. To put it bluntly, the process of refuting is to separate "facts" from "your imagination": the leader's point out that the two data errors are facts, but "the leader wants to fire me" is just imagination. ； It is a fact that the entire business line will be laid off and you will be laid off, but "I am so incompetent that no one wants me" is just a myth. When refuting, speak with concrete evidence, just like when you scolded your best friend for being a scumbag. Just list the evidence objectively: "I got two department performance A's last year, and the activity conversion rate last month was still the first in the department. It's just that I didn't check the data this time when I was rushing to the plan. Once I change it, it's over." This is an effective refutation.

I myself overslept before catching the high-speed train. Standing at the door of the high-speed rail station, I was so angry that I almost dropped my phone. I subconsciously took out a memo and wrote three lines: A: I was 10 minutes late and failed to catch the high-speed train, and B: "Why am I so stupid? I will definitely miss today's meeting, leader." You're going to scold me to death." When I was on D, I searched 12306 and found that there was still a ticket left for 40 minutes later. The replacement ticket would arrive at most half an hour later. I sent a message to the colleague in advance. The other party said that they would also be arriving 20 minutes late, so it wouldn't affect me at all. Finally, I bought a glass of iced Americano in the waiting room, and finished reading the industry report I hadn’t read last week. In the past, I might have stood at the door emo for half an hour and missed the next bus.

Speaking of which, this model is particularly similar to when you are looking for hidden clues when playing a puzzle game. You initially thought that the bad ending was triggered by the broken key picked up at the door (A), but in fact, what really determines the direction of the plot is the old note that you did not read carefully (B) that was stuffed in your backpack for a long time. If you don’t take out the note and break it into pieces, you will still end up in the same dead end next time you encounter the same key.

I taught this method to my cousin who was studying for a master's degree a while ago. She used to hide in the dormitory and cry for a long time every time she received revision opinions from her tutor. She felt that the tutor was deliberately targeting her. Now when she receives the comments, her first reaction is to split them up: which are objective experimental data issues and which are her own imagination of "the tutor hates me". Last month, she passed the revised manuscript in one go and got a quota to participate in a provincial project. She said that now she will no longer waste two or three hours on meaningless emotional internal consumption.

Of course, this model does not apply to every situation. If you encounter someone who is obviously bullying, you should scold and call the police if you need to. The emotion itself is never wrong. This model never asks you to endure, nor does it force you to be a temperless "optimistic fool". It just leaves you with an extra 30-second pause button when you are dragged away by your emotions and you know it is not necessary but you just can't slow down. After all, what determines how you live is never the bad things that have happened, but how you look at them.