Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/22/2026 6:15:50 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Many people now believe that words can cause lasting harm.
A new paper suggests a link between censoriousness and mental illness.
The Wall Street Journal article is paywalled, but here is a link to the original paper.
First comment is a summary of the paper.
Personality and Individual Differences.pdf
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Here's a detailed summary of the full paper based on the PDF you linked (which matches the article "The words can harm scale: Measuring beliefs about harmful speech" published in Personality and Individual Differences, July 2026).
Title and AuthorsThe words can harm scale: Measuring beliefs about harmful speech
Authors: Samuel Pratt, Payton J. Jones, Benjamin W. Bellet, Richard J. McNally, Kurt Gray
Journal: Personality and Individual Differences (Volume 257, July 2026), Article 113785
Abstract (Key Points)
People vary in how strongly they believe that speech (including written words) can cause lasting psychological harm.
The authors introduce the 10-item Words Can Harm Scale (WCHS) as a reliable and valid measure of this belief.
Higher scores on the scale are linked to being younger, female, non-White, and politically liberal; greater support for political correctness, trigger warnings, and safe spaces; higher self-reported empathy, intellectual humility, moral grandstanding, and belief in the importance of silencing others; and poorer mental health outcomes (more anxiety/depression, lower resilience, greater emotion regulation difficulties).
Purpose and BackgroundThe study addresses a culturally divisive topic: differing beliefs about whether words/speech can cause real, lasting emotional or psychological damage (similar to physical harm). Prior research lacked a dedicated, validated scale to quantify these individual differences. The WCHS was developed to fill this gap, enabling better study of attitudes toward free speech, emotional vulnerability, censorship, and related policies.
Scale Development and ItemsThe final scale consists of 10 items rated on a Likert-type scale.
Examples include:
Methods
The paper emphasizes that while the belief in harmful speech is sincerely held by many, measuring it reliably can help clarify its psychological and societal correlates.
Note: This summary draws from the full PDF content (methods, results, tables/figures on psychometrics and correlations, discussion). The scale shows strong psychometric properties and meaningful real-world associations. If you'd like me to zoom in on any specific section (e.g., exact item list, a particular table, or statistical details), let me know!
After 25 years in law enforcement words have very little effect on me. They don’t hurt you with their lips, they hurt you with their hands and feet. It’s best to keep an eye on those.
CC
Is Tard one of them?
*I am not going to download a pdf research paper on my phone to find out.
it goes to a web page. I just thought it would go to the pdf.
But it’s good to know how fastidious you are.
So what are the ‘10-item’?
Did I get two correct; Tard & Trump?
Bkmk
Okay; Not ten words but 10 statements of a test to evaluate how crazy someone is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.