Examine the evidence for and against the thought

Treat the thought as a hypothesis and find the actual evidence on both sides.

Why it works

Automatic thoughts feel self-evidently true because they are retrieved from memory rather than constructed by reasoning — and memory selectively surfaces information consistent with the thought’s conclusion. Deliberately listing evidence against the thought counteracts that confirmation bias by requiring the mind to search for disconfirming instances, which reduces the subjective credibility of the distorted interpretation.

How to do it

1. Draw two columns: "Evidence that supports this thought" and "Evidence that contradicts this thought."
2. Fill both columns as honestly as you can — the supporting column first so you are not dismissing the thought prematurely.
3. Rate the believability of the original thought after reviewing both columns (0–100).

Evidence

Evidence examination is the central technique of cognitive restructuring and is well validated within the CBT evidence base. Meta-analyses of CBT for depression and anxiety consistently show medium-to-large effects (d = 0.7–1.2), with cognitive restructuring techniques rated as key active components. (rct)

Effect sizes are for CBT as a package; isolating the evidence-examination step’s contribution is methodologically difficult in dismantling studies.

Sources

• Butler et al. (2006), efficacy of CBT meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin

Common mistake

Filling the "against" column only with wishful thinking ("things might work out") rather than actual past evidence ("last time I prepared, I performed well"), which does not shift the thought’s credibility.