Cognitive Constructs Often Found in First Responders: A Guide to First Responder Mental Health
- Dr. Gregory C. Lemich, PhD, LPC
- Jul 6
- 6 min read
By Gregory C. Lemich, PhD, LPC The Lemich Clinic
From day one, first responders are trained to think and act differently. According to the National Training and Education Division (NTED) of the Department of Homeland Security, first responders are proficient in, “preventing, protecting, responding to, and recovering from manmade and natural catastrophic events.” (National Training and Education Division, N.D.). To effectively handle these catastrophes, first responders must develop a specialized cognitive process. This process is derived from multiple constructs often counterintuitive to natural human functioning and development. This paper will shed light on these constructs and how they differ from civilian functioning.
When observing these constructs, be mindful that each first responder is an individual. That the constructs stated describe a broad deviation from civilian averages and are not a representation of all first responders. There is also a myriad of factors that influence how much a person embodies these cognitive constructs. This variation results in a continuum of processes with varying levels of quantity and quality. Some of these factors include gender, age, education, experiences, and role. Overall, cultural awareness means using information as a reference point while recognizing personal differences (Hays, 2014, ACA, 2014).
Compartmentalized Thinking and First Responder Wellness
In its foundation, compartmentalization is a defense technique to separate thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid pain or contradiction. When conflicting compartments collide, it is known as cognitive dissonance. This collision is often considered psychologically painful because it causes the participant to forcibly modify their beliefs (Ma, 2026). In the first responder world, this compartmentalization is most visible between professional and civilian life.
The first responder world has extensive suffering and strife including violence, sorrow, loss and death. Though these are accepted features of the profession, they are not desired features in civilian life. To avoid contamination, many first responders compartmentalize pain. This technique may include discussing occupational pain only in occupational settings. Reasons for such are innumerable. Some responders use civilian life as escapism. Others attempt a cognitive distancing, pretending their profession is a different reality than their civilian one. Some see the profession as too traumatic to encroach on civilian minds. In each, compartmentalization separates the occupation from civilian life.
Reverse compartmentalization applies as well, distancing civilian life from the job. It is easier to think critically when not mentally distracted. The immediate benefits are evident as it positively allows the first responder to focus on their task at hand (First responder peer, N.D.). Though notable, the application in absolute is more theoretical than practical.
Compartmentalizing becomes more myth than reality. The brain does not have walls, and every action has the potential to influence every other. Though certain neurological pathways may not converge in the short term, their eventual collision is inevitable. Because of this, first responders who attempt to separate emotion from occupation, and distance positivity from pain, may suffer from burnout, depression, PTSD, and failed relationships (First responder peer, N.D.).
Because of this, it is advisable to have a healthy separation between occupation and civilian life while keeping a semi-permeable barrier. This is done through sharing impactful experiences when safe and remembering benevolence is the heart of first responder occupations.
The Power of a Peer Support Program for First Responders
Unpacking these compartments safely requires a trusted audience. Because first responders find it easiest to talk to those who have walked in their shoes, utilizing a specialized Peer Support Program allows personnel to process cumulative occupational trauma with trained peers without fear of professional stigma.
Concrete Thinking in Public Safety Mental Health Services
In its purest form, concrete thinking is a literal interpretation of the world. In a practical sense, it is a focus on the tangible, the immediately observable, and what is directly experienced. The opposite of concrete thinking is abstract or symbolic thinking. For example, a picture of red roses could be described as (a) Cupid’s arrow, (b) a declaration of love, (c) a bouquet of flowers, or (d) a plant. All four options are correct, yet they distinctively go from highly abstract to highly concrete (Science Insights, 2026).
Propensity towards concrete thinking allows the first responder to examine perceptible events, identify tangible problems, and plan practical solutions. For example, when a car accident is perceived, concrete thinking leads to tangible problems such as:
(a) a person is trapped,
(b) the car is leaking flammable liquid,
(c) the car is in the middle of a busy highway,
(d) the driver has a gun.
From each of these concrete problems, a practical solution applies. If the responder observed the same accident through an abstract lens, they might only see only intangible problems. Examples of such abstract problems could include (a) why was the person driving so fast, (b) should the speed limit change, (c) do accidents occur in this area frequently, or (d) why do people have to get hurt so often? (Science Insights, 2026). Though each abstract question has its merit, each is likely best pondered after the concrete concerns are resolved.
Both concrete and abstract thinking are vital for adult human thought. Humans begin life with just concrete thinking and develop abstract thinking through brain growth. This development allows vital concepts to emerge that allows important advancements through life. Without an appropriate balance of concrete and abstract thinking, struggles often emerge with empathy, creativity, and flexibility (Raju, 2019).
To aid health, responders should evaluate when concrete or abstract thinking is more appropriate. In general, civilian life and non-critical life relies on abstract thought while critical catastrophe solving takes concrete.
Categorical Thinking: Safeguarding Confidential Mental Health for First Responders
When decisions resolve into few classifications it is termed categorical or, “all or nothing” thinking. This is defined as the process of placing thoughts or items into distinct, binary groups. This construct is highly efficient during catastrophes as it allows the first responder to assess and respond quickly. Efficiency rises because fewer complex decisions must be made (Murphy, 2018).
The primary method of categorical thinking is danger assessment. During an event, the first responder must assess if a person, item, or location is dangerous or not. They often place items into one of two categories:
Fine, okay, neutral
Bad, death, critical
By simplifying the situation into two options, neutral or critical, they act quickly and decisively. Though this method greatly aids response time, it hinders other aspects of life.
First responders are prone to using categorical thinking in their own health and relationships as well. A police officer with a painful arm might ignore care if he can still fire his weapon and drive. In mental health, it is common for first responders to not seek help for depression, anxiety, and trauma if their home, family, and occupation are not immediately at risk. In both situations, the responder has categorized the pain as fine and not critical.
In addition to under-evaluating concerns, over-evaluating is equally present. In civilian life, the responder may act as if the situation is critical when their Sunday church shirt has a stain or if the family is five minutes late for a dinner reservation. When problems are fine or critical, and fine is not an answer, the only other solution is critical.
To aid this process, categorical thinking should be evaluated circumstantially for its value. Situations of mortality should result in a categorical answer. This simplistic nature, however, cannot be applied to questions like, “how should I raise my child” or “what makes a healthy marriage?” Questions of this nuance require greater complexity and engagement.
Summary: Implementing Proactive First Responder Health and Wellness Programs
First responders develop a complex set of cognitive constructs which are counterintuitive to standard adult civilian life. They must create a separate part of themselves, unique from their civilian self. This self must be grounded in the tangible and see what is present and concrete. They must be able to assess and determine what is harmful and safe. Finally, they must engage danger.
These are not natural steps in human development, but they are steps needed to establish effective first responders. Therefore, individuals must nurture both sides of themselves, the first responder side and the civilian side.
Access 24/7 Confidential Responder Health Support
If your public safety agency is ready to address these cognitive constructs through specialized first responder health and wellness programs, partner with an ecosystem designed to protect those on the front lines:
Comprehensive Peer Frameworks: Build internal resilience with structured Peer Support Program Training and Certification through Responder Health University.
Immediate Crisis Intervention: Give your personnel access to our anonymous, secure 24/7 Peer Advocate Hotline to ensure their privacy and duty status are entirely protected.
Author Note
We have no conflict of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gregory Lemich, The Lemich Clinic, 5205 Colley Ave, Norfolk, VA, 23508, United States. Email: gregory@lemichclinic.org
References
ACA. (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics. American Counseling Association.
First responder peer. (N.D.). Compartmentalizing in first responders. * Hays, D. (2014). Developing multicultural counseling competencies: A systems approach. Merrill.
Ma, L. (2026, April, 28). Compartmentalization. Psychology Today.
Murphy, T. (2018). Categorical Thinking. Psychology Fanatic.
National Training and Education Division (N.D.). Who we are. FEMA.
Raju, L. (2019, Aug 30). Concrete thinking: Building block, stumbling block, or both? Healthline.
Science Insights. (2026, March 12). What Is concrete thinking? Definition and examples.
Comments