The Empathy of the Intolerant

The Wall Street Journali ^ | April 22, 2026 6:15 am ET | Rob Henderson

[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

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Link to Grok Aricle Summary

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:

• “Vulnerable people should not be exposed to certain kinds of speech, as this might harm them.” (attitudes toward harmful speech)
• “I could be left emotionally scarred by something I read.” (personal vulnerability to written words)

The items cover two broad aspects: beliefs about the harm potential of speech/words to others and to oneself.

Methods

• Sample: Representative U.S. adult sample (N = 956).

• Additional analyses: Two-week test-retest reliability subsample.

• Procedures included scale development (item generation, refinement), exploratory/confirmatory factor analysis, and extensive validation against demographics, personality traits, attitudes, and mental health measures.

• All data, materials, and code are openly available on OSF.

Key Results

• Reliability: Excellent internal consistency (α = 0.92) and strong test-retest reliability (r = 0.80 over two weeks).

• Factor structure: The scale is unidimensional (measures a single underlying construct).

• Demographic correlates:
  • Higher WCHS scores among younger people, women, non-White participants, and those identifying as politically liberal.

• Personality and attitudinal correlates:
  • Positive associations with self-reported intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and belief that it is important to silence others.

  • Stronger endorsement of political correctness, trigger warnings, and safe spaces.

• Mental health correlates:
  • Higher belief that “words can harm” was associated with worse mental health: greater anxiety and depression symptoms, lower resilience, and more difficulties in emotion regulation.

Discussion and ImplicationsThe authors position the WCHS as a useful tool for researchers studying moral psychology, free speech debates, and cultural conflicts around language and emotional safety. They note that believing words are highly harmful aligns with certain progressive attitudes and policies but also correlates with poorer personal mental health outcomes. Limitations include the cross-sectional design (causality unclear) and reliance on self-report. Future work could explore longitudinal effects, cross-cultural differences, or experimental applications of the scale.

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!

[lightman]

[Celtic Conservative]

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

[Deaf Smith]

So what are the 10-items of the Words Can Harm Scale so I will know if I am using them properly on the blue hairs with nose rings?

Is Tard one of them?

[Deaf Smith]

One word of the WCHS will be Trump.

*I am not going to download a pdf research paper on my phone to find out.

[SunkenCiv]

• Trans woman, partner accused of kidnapping her 10-year-old child for possible gender reassignment surgery in Cuba [04/22/2026]
  • Newfoundland's only university advertises five professor jobs that BAN straight white men from applying [04/22/2026]
  • Taking a Life to Save an Organ [04/22/2026]
• America Reads the Bible | President Donald J. Trump | 2 Chronicles 7:11-22 [3 min Youtube video and transcript] [04/22/2026]
  • America Reads the Bible | President Donald J. Trump | 2 Chronicles 7:11-22 [04/22/2026]
• Trump's Overlooked Effort to Reduce Legal Immigration [04/22/2026]
  • Make DC Square Again. Retrocession Was Never Constitutional [04/22/2026]
• Indiana Fever Struggle To Sell Out Season Opener By Charging Outrageous Prices For WNBA Tickets [04/22/2026]
  • Michelle Obama gushes over Dream's Angel Reese during podcast appearance [barf alert] [04/22/2026]
• Snapchat owner cuts 16% of global staff in latest round of job cuts [04/22/2026]
  • Anybody notice Amazon's new return policy? [04/22/2026]
• 'Storage Wars' Darrell Sheets Dead at 67 [04/22/2026]
  • 'Storage Wars' star Darrell Sheets dead at 67 [04/22/2026]
• David Wilcock's final message: What he said just two days before his tragic death (Boulder county, Colorado) [04/22/2026]
  • NASA nuclear engineer found dead in burned Tesla after vanishing from his Alabama home last year [04/22/2026]
  • One Ad Ruined Jaguar's Image... Now They Want Men Back [04/22/2026]
• Thieves destroy nearly 75 Detroit fire hydrants to steal metal parts, putting lives at risk [04/22/2026]
  • DoorDasher EXPLODES Over Wrong Address... Then Crosses the Line [04/22/2026]
• Trump Nears Marijuana Reclassification Move [04/22/2026]

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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.

[Deaf Smith]

So what are the ‘10-item’?
Did I get two correct; Tard & Trump?

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[Deaf Smith]

Okay; Not ten words but 10 statements of a test to evaluate how crazy someone is.

[Adder]

Oh good grief...

WCHS = We Cry [and] Horribly Suffer

[jimfr]

Matthew 5:22 Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,(idiot or fool)’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
That should be enough of a reason.

[WhattheDickens?]

Ping

[combat_boots]

Words can harm. My life is living proof.

All I’ll say.