Recognizable questions
- Why does my mind immediately jump to the worst-case scenario when I’m uncertain?
- Why can a possible disaster sometimes feel like it is already happening?
- Why do I skip all the intermediate steps and go straight to the worst outcome?
- Why does something feel likely just because I think about it often?
- How can I distinguish between what is possible and what is probable?
- Why can uncertainty be so hard to tolerate?
- Does catastrophizing mean danger is never really there?
- How can I take a real risk seriously without making it bigger than the facts allow?
What is catastrophizing?
Catastrophizing means that you quickly magnify a possible negative event in your mind into something very serious or even the worst imaginable outcome. The American Psychological Association defines catastrophizing as exaggerating negative consequences or expecting the worst possible outcome to happen. It is not a psychiatric diagnosis, but a thinking pattern that can occur in people to varying degrees.
When catastrophizing, thinking may unfold like this:
Something uncertain
happens
↓
Something could
go wrong
↓
The worst will
probably happen
↓
How am I ever
supposed to survive this?So there is often an important shift between ‘This could happen’ and ‘This will probably happen.’ A possibility is not yet a prediction.
An example from everyday life
Your supervisor messages: ‘Can you come by this afternoon?’ Within a few minutes, the thinking might continue like this:
My boss wants to talk
↓
I’ve done something wrong
↓
I’m going to be fired
↓
I won’t be able to pay
my mortgage anymore
↓
I’ll lose my homeNone of those steps is impossible. But between the first message and the final conclusion, several assumptions have been made for which there is no evidence at that moment. An hour later, it may turn out that your supervisor simply wanted to ask whether you’d like to help with a new project.
So the problem was not that you considered a bad possibility. The problem was that one possible outcome turned in your mind into an entire chain that came to feel almost real.
Why can our brain do this?
Our brain tries to detect danger early. So it is not strange that we think about what could go wrong. But in catastrophizing, a possible danger gets so much attention that other, less serious outcomes fade into the background.
It can feel something like this:
‘What if...?’
↓
Another ‘what if...?’
↓
Even worse scenario
↓
More anxiety
↓
Scenario feels
more and more realThat anxiety can then start to feel like proof in itself: ‘If I’m this scared of it, it must be really serious.’ But the intensity of an emotion does not automatically tell you how likely an event is.
Possible is not the same as probable
Many things are possible. A plane can crash. A relationship can end. A medical test can deliver bad news. An employer can fire someone. An economic crisis can arise.
But to assess a risk properly, you need more than:
‘Can it happen?’
You also need:
How likely
is it?
↓
What facts
do I have?
↓
What other
outcomes are possible?Catastrophizing often makes mainly the possibility visible, while the probability recedes into the background.
Why does a disaster scenario start to feel more real?
When you mentally run through a scenario often, it becomes easier to picture it again. That does not automatically make it more likely.
Here, catastrophizing can overlap with the availability heuristic: events that come easily to mind can seem more likely than they really are.
Thinking a lot
about one scenario
↓
Scenario comes
to mind more easily
↓
Scenario feels
more familiar and closer
↓
‘Maybe this is
very likely after all’That is why it is helpful to distinguish between ‘I can easily imagine it’ and ‘I have good reasons to think this is likely to happen.’
Catastrophizing and uncertainty
Uncertainty can be hard to tolerate. Sometimes a terrible but clear answer feels almost easier than: ‘I still don’t know what’s going to happen.’
That can lead someone to keep thinking further ahead and further ahead: ‘What if this happens? And then what? And what if that goes wrong too?’
Uncertainty
↓
‘I want certainty’
↓
Working through
all possible dangers
↓
More scenarios
↓
More uncertaintyThat can give a temporary sense that you’re prepared, but it can also keep generating new worries. Intolerance of uncertainty is a related concept, but it is not the same thing. So the goal does not always have to be to find certainty. Sometimes the skill is instead: ‘I don’t know yet, and I don’t need the answer right now either.’
Catastrophizing does not mean danger is never real
Not every worry is catastrophizing. Sometimes there are actual indications that something may go wrong. For example, if a doctor finds an abnormality, concern is understandable. If someone really is at risk of losing their job, thinking about financial consequences is sensible.
The question is not: ‘Am I allowed to think about a bad outcome?’ The question is: ‘Am I distinguishing between what I know, what is possible, and what I am filling in myself?’
FACT
My doctor wants
additional tests
POSSIBILITY
Something may be
going on
CATASTROPHIC JUMP
‘I must have cancer
and am going to die’Taking a real risk seriously and catastrophizing are therefore not the same thing.
How can this occur in a religious setting?
Religions can contain messages about future hope and future threat. In itself, that does not have to be catastrophizing. A believer may genuinely believe in a future event.
Psychologically, it becomes interesting when present-day events are very quickly linked to the most severe possible prediction. That can happen within religions, but also around climate, war, economic collapse, illness, or politics.
The relevant question is always: ‘What step am I taking from the event I see now to the conclusion about what will happen next?’
How can this be recognizable among Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Armageddon is a future war in which God intervenes and that no one knows the exact day or hour. For an active Jehovah’s Witness, this expectation can actually be part of a hopeful view of the future, because within the faith Armageddon is connected with the end of wickedness and future peace.
At the same time, some current or former Witnesses may notice that news about war, earthquakes, or political unrest immediately triggers a chain of thoughts:
War on the news
↓
‘The world is
getting worse and worse’
↓
‘Maybe the
great tribulation is coming’
↓
Armageddon
↓
‘Am I safe?’Such a line of thought does not, by itself, prove that the religious expectation is true or false. From the psychology of catastrophizing, you can examine which intermediate steps you are taking and what evidence you have for each step.
Keeping fact and religious interpretation separate
That could look like this, for example:
FACT
A war has broken
out
↓
INTERPRETATION
‘Maybe this is
linked to prophecies’
↓
WHAT DO I KNOW FOR SURE?
I don’t know what
will happen nextThat distinction leaves room for both faith and careful thinking.
A thought is not a prediction
When a thought keeps coming back, it can start to feel important or true: ‘What if this happens?’
But thoughts are mental events. They can be accurate, inaccurate, likely, unlikely, or simply uncertain.
I think:
‘This is going wrong’
≠
Evidence:
‘This is going wrong’During intense anxiety, that difference can almost disappear. That is why it can help to rephrase the thought. Not: ‘I’m going to lose my job.’ But: ‘I am having the thought that I might lose my job.’
That creates a small distance between you and the prediction.
The worst-case scenario is not always the most likely one
Some people try to reassure themselves with: ‘Everything will be fine for sure.’ But that can also be too certain.
A more balanced approach is to place three possibilities side by side:
WORST
What is the worst
realistic outcome?
BEST
What could happen
that would be very favorable?
MOST LIKELY
Based on what I know now,
what seems most likely?That does not deny risk. It simply prevents the worst-case scenario from automatically taking up all the space.
And what if it really does go wrong?
Catastrophizing often includes not only ‘Something bad is happening’, but also ‘And then I won’t be able to do anything at all.’
That is why a second question can help: ‘What could I do then?’
Suppose you really do lose your job. That could be a major blow. After that, there may still be options: asking for information about the reason, looking into unemployment benefits, applying for jobs, adjusting expenses, asking for support, or finding new work.
The goal is not to make a serious event seem small. The goal is to prevent:
‘This would be very
difficult’
from turning into
‘This would be completely
unbearable’Fact, prediction and disaster scenario
When you notice your mind rushing ahead, first write down what you actually know.
FACT
My boss wants to talk
PREDICTION
Maybe it’s about
my performance
DISASTER SCENARIO
I get fired,
lose everything
and never recoverThen ask: Which facts support my prediction? Which facts argue against it? Which intermediate steps have I skipped? What is the worst realistic scenario? What is the best scenario? What is the most likely scenario right now? If something unpleasant does happen, what options would I have then?
The goal is not: ‘Nothing bad will happen.’ The goal is: ‘I don’t want to make my conclusion bigger than the information I have now.’
Questions to reflect on
- Which doom scenarios do I repeat regularly?
- What first event usually sets that chain in motion?
- Which intermediate steps do I skip in my mind?
- Do I distinguish between possible and probable?
- What facts do I actually have?
- Which parts of my scenario am I filling in myself?
- How often have my previous predictions come true exactly as I imagined them?
- Am I seeking information to truly assess the risk, or mainly to get certainty?
- What is the worst realistic scenario?
- What is the best realistic scenario?
- Based on the current facts, what is the most likely scenario?
- What could I do if a setback does happen after all?
- What do I know, what do I expect, and what am I filling in myself right now?
Summary
Catastrophizing is a thought pattern in which a possible negative event is quickly blown up into a very serious or worst-case outcome. It is not a psychiatric diagnosis and not a prediction.
The problem is not that you think about risks. Thinking ahead can be wise. The problem arises when:
Possible
↓
Probable
↓
Certain
↓
Unbearablethey almost imperceptibly merge into one another.
Catastrophizing can be strengthened by anxiety, repeated thinking about the same scenario, difficulty tolerating uncertainty, and the availability heuristic. A vivid scenario can therefore feel more likely without there being more evidence for it.
Even in a religious context, this mechanism can be relevant when a present event is quickly linked to the most serious possible future outcome. That in itself says nothing about whether the belief is true or false.
More realistic thinking therefore does not mean: ‘Everything will be fine.’ It means: ‘I take risks seriously, but I distinguish between what I know and what I fear.’
Sources and further reading
American Psychological Association – Catastrophize. Describes catastrophizing as exaggerating negative consequences or expecting the worst possible outcome to occur.
Aaron T. Beck – cognitive therapy. Within Beck’s cognitive approach, catastrophic thinking is described as a cognitive distortion in which threat and possible consequences are exaggerated.
David A. Clark & Aaron T. Beck – Cognitive Theory and Therapy of Anxiety and Depression: Convergence with Neurobiological Findings, 2010. On cognitive processes involved in anxiety and depression.
Emily J. Wilson, Maree J. Abbott & Alice R. Norton – The impact of psychological treatment on intolerance of uncertainty in generalized anxiety disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis, 2023. On intolerance of uncertainty as a process in generalized anxiety and worry.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – What is the war of Armageddon? Official explanation of the teaching about Armageddon, including that the exact day and hour are unknown.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Armageddon is good news! and information about war. Official sources in which Armageddon is linked from the perspective of faith to the end of evil and future peace.
Read also
Fear conditioning – How can certain triggers automatically start to evoke fear?
Availability heuristic – Why does something feel more likely when examples come easily to mind?
Cognitive dissonance – What happens when beliefs, behavior, and experiences clash with one another?
Need for control – Why do we sometimes try to gain more certainty than a situation can provide?
Intolerance of uncertainty – Why can “I don’t know yet” be so hard to tolerate?
Hypervigilance – Why does your alarm system sometimes stay on alert even when there’s no immediate danger?
