The words can harm scale: Measuring beliefs about harmful speech

People differ in their belief that speech can cause lasting psychological harm. We present the ten-item Words Can Harm Scale (WCHS) as a valid and reliable measure of this belief. Items assess attitudes about harmful speech (e.g., “Vulnerable people should not be exposed to certain kinds of speech, as this might harm them”) and written words (e.g., “I could be left emotionally scarred by something I read”). In a representative sample of U.S. adults ( N = 956), the WCHS demonstrated strong internal consistency (α = 0.92) and robust two-week test-retest reliability ( r = 0.80). People higher in the belief that words can harm tended to be younger, female, non-White, and politically liberal. People with higher WCHS scores rated themselves as higher in intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and the belief in the importance of silencing others. They were also more likely to support political correctness and endorse trigger warnings and safe spaces. People who believed that words can harm had worse mental health: they reported being more anxious and depressed, less resilient, and having more difficulties in emotion regulation. The WCHS is a reliable tool for measuring beliefs about the harmfulness of words—a divisive issue within modern cultural discourse.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Personality and Individual Differences
Published
2026-03-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2026.113785
Primary Topic
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The words can harm scale: Measuring beliefs about harmful speech

Kurt Gray, Payton J. Jones, Samuel Pratt, Benjamin W. Bellet et al.
Personality and Individual Differences
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
article

The words can harm scale: Measuring beliefs about harmful speech

Kurt Gray, Payton J. Jones, Samuel Pratt, Benjamin W. Bellet, Richard J. McNally
article en

Abstract

People differ in their belief that speech can cause lasting psychological harm. We present the ten-item Words Can Harm Scale (WCHS) as a valid and reliable measure of this belief. Items assess attitudes about harmful speech (e.g., “Vulnerable people should not be exposed to certain kinds of speech, as this might harm them”) and written words (e.g., “I could be left emotionally scarred by something I read”). In a representative sample of U.S. adults ( N = 956), the WCHS demonstrated strong internal consistency (α = 0.92) and robust two-week test-retest reliability ( r = 0.80). People higher in the belief that words can harm tended to be younger, female, non-White, and politically liberal. People with higher WCHS scores rated themselves as higher in intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and the belief in the importance of silencing others. They were also more likely to support political correctness and endorse trigger warnings and safe spaces. People who believed that words can harm had worse mental health: they reported being more anxious and depressed, less resilient, and having more difficulties in emotion regulation. The WCHS is a reliable tool for measuring beliefs about the harmfulness of words—a divisive issue within modern cultural discourse.

Personality and Individual DifferencesVol. 257
Harvard University (US), University of California, Los Angeles (US), Massachusetts Mental Health Center (US), The Ohio State University (US)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.