Abstract
This article investigates how persistent narratives from media, government, and Hollywood during the COVID-19 pandemic reshaped individuals’ core beliefs and automatic thoughts, as described in Mind over Mood: Change How You Feel by Changing the Way You Think by Dennis Greenberger and Christine Padesky (2015). It examines how these sources, including celebrity endorsements like Robert De Niro’s public health ads, influenced public perception, often deepening mistrust and polarization. By linking cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) principles to real-world examples, the article illustrates how repeated messaging transformed dissent into moral failings, fracturing social cohesion and amplifying division.
Intruduction
The COVID-19 pandemic was not only a public health crisis but also a psychological one, intensified by the relentless narratives propagated by media, government, and Hollywood. Historically, differences of opinion—whether political, social, or personal—were often met with tolerance or civil debate. However, during the pandemic, these differences became battlegrounds, with dissenters vilified and political figures demonized. This shift, this article argues, stems from changes in core beliefs and automatic thoughts, concepts central to Mind over Mood (Greenberger & Padesky, 2015). The book, a cornerstone of CBT, explains how thoughts, emotions, and behaviours are interconnected, with automatic thoughts driven by deep-seated core beliefs. When subjected to a barrage of pandemic-related narratives, these beliefs shifted, turning disagreements into indictments and fostering a polarized society.
This analysis explores how media outlets, government messaging, and Hollywood—including actors like Robert De Niro—shaped these psychological constructs. It details how repetition reinforced or altered beliefs, leading to automatic thoughts that fueled division, and proposes strategies to mitigate this impact.
Core Beliefs and Automatic Thoughts: A Framework from Mind over Mood
Understanding the Concepts
In Mind over Mood, Greenberger and Padesky (2015) define core beliefs as “fundamental ideas we hold about ourselves, other people, and the world” (p. 47). These beliefs act as filters through which we interpret experiences. For example, a belief that “people are generally good” might lead someone to view a government lockdown as a protective measure. Conversely, believing that “authority is manipulative” might frame the same lockdown as oppressive.
Automatic thoughts, meanwhile, are “the thoughts that pop into our minds in response to specific situations” (Greenberger & Padesky, 2015, p. 13). They are quick, often unconscious, and directly influenced by core beliefs. If someone believes “the media exaggerates threats,” their automatic thought upon hearing a COVID-19 report might be, “This is just fearmongering.”
The authors emphasize that core beliefs are not static; they can be reshaped by repeated experiences or messages (Greenberger & Padesky, 2015, p. 50). This malleability is key to understanding how pandemic narratives altered public psychology.
Pre-Pandemic Norms
Before COVID-19, disagreements rarely triggered such visceral, automatic thoughts. A conservative might disagree with a liberal on tax policy, but their core belief might remain, “We both want what’s best, just differently.” Automatic thoughts reflected this: “They’re wrong, but reasonable.” The pandemic disrupted this equilibrium, as narratives infiltrated and rewired these cognitive processes.
Media Narratives: Repetition and Reinforcement
The Divide in Coverage
Media coverage of COVID-19 was sharply divided along ideological lines. Conservative outlets, such as Fox News, often minimized the virus’s severity, framing it as a political tool or overhyped threat. Liberal outlets, like CNN, emphasized its danger, advocating for stringent measures. This polarization is supported by research showing that exposure to partisan news widened the divide in risk perception (Hart et al., 2020).
Greenberger and Padesky (2015) note, “When we hear the same message over and over, it can strengthen our core beliefs” (p. 51). For those consuming conservative media, repeated claims that the pandemic was exaggerated could solidify a core belief: “The media cannot be trusted.” Their automatic thoughts when encountering health warnings might then be, “They’re lying to control us.” Conversely, liberal media consumers might adopt the belief, “Science must guide us,” leading to thoughts like, “Deniers are endangering us all.”
Case Study: The “Plandemic” Conspiracy
The “Plandemic” video, a widely circulated conspiracy theory, exemplifies this dynamic. It alleged that the pandemic was orchestrated by elites for control (Plandemic, 2020). For viewers predisposed to distrust authority, repeated exposure reinforced a core belief: “Powerful forces manipulate us.” Automatic thoughts followed: “Masks and vaccines are tools of oppression.” Greenberger and Padesky (2015) explain that such reinforcement makes beliefs “feel like facts” (p. 53), entrenching polarization.
Government Narratives: Trust on Trial
Inconsistent Messaging
Government messaging, particularly in the U.S. under the Trump administration, was inconsistent. Trump’s claims that the virus would “disappear” or was “under control” clashed with scientific consensus (Trump, 2020). For supporters, this reinforced a core belief: “The government is competent; critics exaggerate.” Their automatic thoughts dismissed warnings: “This is just anti-Trump propaganda.” For detractors, it cemented a belief: “The government is reckless.” Their thoughts became, “They’re risking lives for politics.”
Greenberger and Padesky (2015) highlight that “core beliefs about authority shape how we respond to rules” (p. 48). This explains why trust in government dictated compliance with mandates, from masks to vaccines.
The Backlash Effect
The government’s push for unity—often framed as “follow the science”—backfired when perceived as authoritarian. For those with a belief that “authority overreaches,” mandates triggered thoughts like, “They’re stripping my freedom.” This resistance deepened division, as compliance became a litmus test for loyalty or rebellion.
Hollywood and Celebrity Influence: Amplifying the Divide
Robert De Niro and Public Health Ads
Hollywood contributed through celebrity endorsements, notably Robert De Niro’s advertisements. In a 2020 PSA, De Niro urged New Yorkers to “wear a mask” and stay home, calling it a matter of life and death (New York Governor’s Office, 2020). For those who trusted celebrities, this reinforced a belief: “Leaders care about us.” Automatic thoughts aligned: “He’s right; we must comply.”
However, for skeptics, De Niro’s involvement fueled a different narrative. A core belief that “Hollywood is elitist” led to thoughts like, “He’s just a puppet for the agenda.” Greenberger and Padesky (2015) note that “trust in the source affects how we process messages” (p. 62). De Niro’s high profile thus amplified both compliance and defiance.
Broader Hollywood Impact
Films and shows also subtly reinforced narratives. Documentaries questioning official accounts, or dramas depicting dystopian control, resonated with those skeptical of authority, strengthening beliefs that “the system deceives us.” Meanwhile, pro-science messaging in mainstream content bolstered trust among others, widening the psychological gap.
Social Media: Echo Chambers of Belief
Amplifying Misinformation
Social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook accelerated narrative spread. Algorithms prioritized emotionally charged content, creating echo chambers (Cinelli et al., 2021). A user seeing repeated anti-vaccine posts might adopt a belief: “Vaccines are dangerous.” Automatic thoughts followed: “I won’t risk it.” Greenberger and Padesky (2015) warn that “selective exposure hardens beliefs” (p. 54), a phenomenon starkly evident online.
The “Plandemic” Redux
The “Plandemic” theory thrived on social media, garnering millions of views before removal. Its repetition entrenched beliefs among believers, while debunking efforts reinforced trust in science among skeptics’ foes. This feedback loop exemplifies how social media turned core beliefs into battle lines.
Psychological Vulnerability: Stress and Susceptibility
The Role of Stress
The pandemic’s stress, fear, isolation, uncertainty made people more vulnerable to narrative influence. Greenberger and Padesky (2015) explain, “Negative emotions distort thinking” (p. 19). Research shows that stress increases reliance on biases like confirmation bias (Porcelli & Delgado, 2009). Thus, a fearful person might cling to a belief that “elites caused this,” finding comfort in conspiracy.
Seeking Certainty
Uncertainty drove many to extreme narratives offering simple answers. A belief that “someone’s to blame” yielded thoughts like, “This isn’t natural.” This psychological need amplified the impact of repeated messaging, polarizing society further.
Consequences: A Polarized Society
From Disagreement to Desks
Pew Research Center (2020) data reveal a surge in polarization, with Americans increasingly viewing opponents as threats, not just dissenters. Mask-wearing became a political symbol: believers thought, “Non-maskers are selfish,” while skeptics thought, “Maskers are sheep.” Greenberger and Padesky (2015) note that “challenged beliefs spark strong emotions” (p. 49), turning debates into rifts.
Fractured Relationships
Families split over vaccines, friends over politics. A belief that “dissenters are evil” led to thoughts like, “I can’t associate with them.” This demonization, fueled by narratives, eroded social bonds, leaving a legacy of mistrust.
Addressing the Divide: Solutions from CBT
Challenging Thoughts
Greenberger and Padesky (2015) advocate “testing automatic thoughts” (p. 75). Encouraging individuals to ask, “What’s the evidence?” could soften rigid beliefs. For example, a skeptic might reconsider dismissing vaccines if guided to weigh data objectively.
Media Literacy and Dialogue
Promoting media literacy—teaching people to question sources—aligns with CBT’s emphasis on evidence-based thinking. Open dialogue, where opposing views are aired respectfully, could weaken polarized beliefs, fostering empathy over enmity.
Professional Support
Therapists using CBT can help clients unpack beliefs formed during the pandemic, reducing their emotional charge. Greenberger and Padesky (2015) suggest “reframing thoughts to reduce distress” (p. 89), a tool to heal societal wounds.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed how narratives from media, government, and Hollywood—exemplified by figures like Robert De Niro—reshaped core beliefs and automatic thoughts, as detailed in Mind over Mood (Greenberger & Padesky, 2015). This psychological shift turned differences into divisions, polarizing millions. By applying CBT principles—challenging thoughts, fostering literacy, and encouraging dialogue—we can begin to mend this fracture, rebuilding a society where disagreement need not mean disdain.
References
- Greenberger, D., & Padesky, C. A. (2015). Mind over Mood: Change How You Feel by Changing the Way You Think. Guilford Press.
- Hart, P. S., et al. (2020). Polarization and mainstreaming effects of COVID-19 news exposure. Journal of Communication.
- Pew Research Center. (2020). America’s political polarization.
- Plandemic. (2020). [Video]. Retrieved from archived sources.
- Trump, D. J. (2020). Public statements on COVID-19. White House Archives.
- New York Governor’s Office. (2020). Robert De Niro PSA.
- Cinelli, M., et al. (2021). The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Scientific Reports.
- Porcelli, A. J., & Delgado, M. R. (2009). Acute stress modulates risk taking. Psychological Science.
marksdeepthoughts.ca 
Leave a comment