This article is part of the series on cognitive distortions , systematic errors in thinking that affect all of us, not just athletes.
“I should wake up at 5:30.” “I should eat clean.” “I should train at least five times a week.” “I should be more disciplined.” Sound familiar? If you’re like most people who come to me for a consultation, you probably have a whole list of “shoulds” that you repeat in your head every day. And you’re probably convinced that these very “shoulds” make you more motivated, more organized, better.
I’ll tell you something that might surprise you: these very “shoulds” are one of the most insidious traps your mind falls into. Not because the goals behind them are bad. But because the way you formulate them turns every failure to comply into a personal catastrophe.
What Are “Should” Statements?
In David Burns’s classification (Burns, 1980), “Should Statements” occupy position #8 among the ten cognitive distortions. But the roots of this concept run deeper , they lead back to Albert Ellis and his Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), created as early as 1955.
Ellis introduced a brilliant term for this phenomenon , “musturbation” (from the English “must”). The wordplay is intentional and provocative: Ellis wanted to show that the obsession with “must,” “have to,” and “it’s mandatory” is as compulsive as it sounds. We literally masturbate with our “musts” , repeating them obsessively, extracting a brief sense of control from them, and then being left with emptiness and guilt (Ellis, 1962).
When you replace “I want” with “I should,” you turn the goal into a sentence and the failure into a crime.
When you say “I want to train five times,” you have a goal. When you say “I should train five times” , you have a law. And when you break a law, punishment follows. In this case , self-punishment: guilt, shame, anger at yourself, a sense of failure. The difference between the two formulations is just one word. But the difference in emotional impact is enormous.
The Three Forms of “Musturbation” According to Ellis
Ellis identified three main directions in which we point our irrational demands (Ellis & Harper, 1975). And each carries its specific form of suffering.
1. “Shoulds” Directed at Yourself
“I must perform perfectly.” “I should always be productive.” “I must not make mistakes.” This is the most common form and the most direct path to anxiety, guilt, and depression. When you place absolute demands on yourself and inevitably fail to meet them (because you’re human, not a robot), the result is self-flagellation.
2. “Shoulds” Directed at Others
“My coach should understand me.” “My partner should know what I need.” “My colleagues should be professional.” Here “should” becomes a weapon of disappointment and anger. You don’t merely have expectations , you have demands. And when the people around you don’t meet them (and they can’t, because they’re human too), you become frustrated, irritated, offended.
3. “Shoulds” Directed at the World and Conditions
“The weather should be suitable for training.” “Life shouldn’t be this hard.” “The system should be fair.” This is the form that leads to helplessness and chronic complaining. The world doesn’t owe you anything. But when you internally believe it does, every difficulty becomes a cosmic injustice.
“Shoulds” in Everyday Life
Before we get to sport, let’s see how deeply these “shoulds” penetrate our everyday lives. Because if you think the problem exists only in the training room, you’re mistaken.
- At work: “I should respond to emails immediately.” “I should be available at all times.” “I must not say ‘no’ to the boss.”
- In relationships: “I should be the perfect partner.” “She should know how I feel without me saying it.” “Couples who truly love each other shouldn’t fight.”
- In eating: “I should eat clean every day.” “I must not eat carbs after 6 PM.” “If I eat dessert, I should compensate with extra training.”
- In productivity: “I should be productive every day.” “I must not rest unless I’ve done enough.” “I should wake up at 5 AM to be successful.”
Do you notice the pattern? Every “should” is disguised as discipline. But beneath the surface lies something else , an absolute, rigid, uncompromising demand that allows no exceptions, context, or humanity.
“Shoulds” in Sport
If in everyday life “shoulds” are unpleasant, in sport they can be devastating. Because sport is an environment of high motivation, strong identification, and constant pressure for results. The perfect broth for “should statements.”
“Shoulds” Directed at Yourself
- “I should train 5 times a week, no matter what.”
- “I should improve my personal record at every competition.”
- “I shouldn’t feel pain during training.”
- “I should be motivated every day.”
- “I must not miss a workout.”
Do you know what the effect is? The athlete who believes they “should train 5 times” but due to injury, fatigue, or commitments only manages 3 times , doesn’t feel like they trained 3 times. They feel like they missed 2 times. The focus is entirely on the deficit. And from there , guilt, self-flagellation, and not infrequently , compensatory overloading that leads to injuries.
“Shoulds” Directed at Others
- “My coach should understand me and give me individual attention.”
- “My teammates should be as motivated as I am.”
- “My partner should support my training schedule without complaints.”
- “The referee should be absolutely objective.”
“Shoulds” Directed at Conditions
- “The weather should be nice on race day.”
- “The gym should be empty when I go.”
- “The course should be flat and convenient.”
- “Conditions should be ideal for me to perform well.”
The last one is especially harmful because it creates a perfect excuse system: if conditions aren’t “what they should be,” the athlete already has an explanation for poor performance. But conversely , if conditions aren’t ideal, anxiety rises because something “isn’t as it should be.”
The Difference Between “Should” and “Want”
Here we get to the core of the REBT approach. Ellis (1962) makes a fundamental distinction between two types of mental constructs:
Rational preference: “I would like to train five times a week. I’ll do what I can, but if I only manage three times, I’ll accept that and make the most of the workouts I have.”
Irrational demand: “I must train five times a week. Anything less is failure. If I don’t succeed, it means I’m not disciplined enough.”
Do you see the difference? Both start with the same goal. But the rational preference allows for flexibility, context, and humanity. The irrational demand is absolute, rigid, and merciless. The first leads to adaptive behavior. The second , to guilt, anxiety, and self-sabotage.
Beck (1976) describes the same phenomenon as “the tyranny of the shoulds” , a system of unconditional rules we apply to ourselves, others, and the world without realizing that we created these rules ourselves. Nobody handed them to us. They have no legal force. But we fulfill them with religious zeal.
How to Recognize the “Should” Distortion
The good news is that “should statements” are relatively easy to identify if you know where to look. Here are three signals:
1. Linguistic Markers
Watch for the words: “should,” “must,” “have to,” “ought to,” “it’s mandatory,” “necessarily,” “under all circumstances.” These words are red flags. I’m not saying they always indicate a cognitive distortion , sometimes you really should stop at a red light. But when you apply them to personal goals, performance, and self-worth , be careful.
2. The Emotional Reaction to Non-Compliance
When you don’t fulfill a “want,” you feel disappointment , a normal, healthy emotion. When you don’t fulfill a “should,” you feel guilt, shame, or anger at yourself , a disproportionate, destructive reaction. If your reaction to a missed workout feels like you’ve committed a crime, you’re probably working with a “should,” not a “want.”
3. The Question “Who Wrote This Rule?”
Next time you catch a “should” in your thoughts, stop and ask yourself: “Who actually wrote this rule? Where is it recorded? What law says I must train exactly five times, or that I must wake up at 5:30, or that I must eat perfectly?” The answer is almost always: nowhere. You made it up yourself. And that is simultaneously the problem and the solution , because if you made it up, you can change it.
Four Techniques for Dealing with the “Should” Distortion
1. Replace “Should” with “I Would Like” or “I Prefer” (REBT Technique)
This is the core intervention in REBT and is more powerful than it sounds. It’s not about semantic games , it’s about a fundamental change in your relationship with your goals. Here’s how it looks in practice:
- Instead of “I should train 5 times” -> “I would like to train 5 times. I’ll do what I can.”
- Instead of “I must not make mistakes” -> “I prefer not to make mistakes, but when I do , I’ll learn from them.”
- Instead of “I should be motivated” -> “I would like to be motivated, but I can train without motivation, relying on discipline.”
The goal is the same. The standard is the same. But the flexibility is fundamentally different. “I would like” admits that it might not happen , and that’s not a catastrophe. “Should” admits nothing.
2. Ellis’s ABCDE Model for Disputing
Ellis developed a structured method for working with irrational beliefs, called the ABCDE model (Ellis & Harper, 1975):
- A (Activating event) , The activating event: “I missed a workout.”
- B (Belief) , The belief: “I should have gone. I have no excuse. I’m undisciplined.”
- C (Consequence) , The emotional consequence: Guilt, anger at yourself, feeling down.
- D (Disputing) , Disputing: “Did I really have to? What law requires it? Can I be a valuable person and athlete even if I miss one workout? What were the circumstances?”
- E (Effective new belief) , New, rational belief: “I would have preferred not to miss workouts, but when it happens , it’s part of life. Tomorrow I’ll train. One missed workout doesn’t define me.”
Step D is key. Disputing is not positive thinking , it’s critical thinking. You’re not saying “Everything is fine” (that’s also a distortion). You’re saying: “Let me check whether my belief is true, useful, and logical.”
3. “The Friend Rule” , What Would You Say to a Friend?
This technique is as simple as it is powerful. When you catch yourself saying “I should have…,” ask yourself: “If my best friend came to me and said they feel guilty for missing a workout , what would I say?”
You know the answer. You’d say: “Don’t worry. Everyone misses workouts. What matters is that you keep going.” You would never tell a friend: “Yes, you’re right, you’re undisciplined, you should have gone, you have no excuse.”
So why do you say it to yourself? Because the “should” distortion creates a double standard , one for others (flexible, understanding, humane) and one for you (absolute, merciless, inhuman). The friend technique simply encourages you to apply to yourself the standard you already have for others.
4. Flexible Rules Instead of Absolute Ones
The solution isn’t to have no standards , that’s another extreme. The solution is to make them flexible. Windy Dryden (Dryden, 2009) proposes the formula of the “flexible rule”:
Absolute rule: “I should train 5 times a week.”
Flexible rule: “My goal is to train 5 times a week. I usually succeed. When I don’t, I’ll do what I can with the time I have, without punishing myself.”
The flexible rule preserves the standard but adds three elements: realism, adaptability, and self-compassion. You’re still striving for the goal. But you’re not destroying yourself when you don’t reach it.
Connection to Other Cognitive Distortions
“Should” statements rarely come alone. They usually work in tandem with other cognitive distortions:
- Black-and-white thinking: “Should” is already black-and-white by nature , either you comply or you don’t. There’s no middle ground. “I should have trained 5 times, I trained 4 , I failed.” Four workouts equal zero because they’re not five.
- Perfectionism: “Should” is the engine of clinical perfectionism. The perfectionist doesn’t simply want to be good , they feel they should be perfect. And anything less than perfect is unacceptable.
- Fear of failure: When “should” is absolute, failure isn’t just an unsuccessful attempt , it’s a violation of a fundamental law. Hence , the escalating fear of failure that paralyzes.
If you recognize these patterns in yourself, don’t be surprised. Cognitive distortions work as a network , one feeds another. That’s why working with them requires a systematic approach, not isolated interventions.
The Freedom of Choice
I’ll end with something I say to nearly every client who comes to me carrying a burden of “shoulds” on their back.
You don’t owe anyone anything. For anything (in the context of your personal development and goals). You choose. Every day, every workout, every decision , is a choice. Not an obligation. Not a sentence. Not a law.
When you turn “should” into “I choose,” something fundamental changes. You don’t lose motivation , on the contrary, your motivation transforms from fear into aspiration. You don’t become lazy , you become free. And from this freedom comes authentic discipline , not the discipline of a slave, but the discipline of a free person who knows why they do what they do.
You don’t “have to” be better. You choose to be better. And in that difference lies all the freedom.
If you recognize these patterns in your own thinking and want to work on them deliberately , you can book a psychological consultation. We use specific cognitive techniques from CBT and Rational Emotive Therapy (REBT), adapted for athletes and active people.
References:
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. International Universities Press.
Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy. William Morrow.
Dryden, W. (2009). Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy: Distinctive Features. Routledge.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. Lyle Stuart.
Ellis, A., & Harper, R. A. (1975). A New Guide to Rational Living. Wilshire Book Company.