How do clinicians understand clients who stay harshly self-judging, or harshly judging others, even when context clearly explains the behaviour

I’ve been working on a conceptual paper about a pattern I see often in therapy: some clients maintain very negative evaluations (of themselves or others) even when new information should soften the judgment.

I’m curious how clinicians here make sense of this.
In your experience:

• What drives that “the judgment doesn’t update” phenomenon?
• Do you see different forms (e.g., self-critical vs. other-critical; behavioural vs. moral)?
• What approaches actually help clients loosen these rigid evaluations?
• When does it not shift, no matter what context is offered?

If relevant, the paper explores this as evaluative rigidity driven by failure to integrate contextual cues, but I’m really interested in hearing how clinicians conceptualise it.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17794018