Sam Pratt
@sampratt99
Followers
607
Following
504
Media
109
Statuses
396
Psychology PhD student @UCLA 🐻 learning about morality, politics, and consciousness
Los Angeles, California
Joined May 2019
New paper in early publication at Annual Review of Psychology: @kurtjgray and I review how the mind makes sense of morality. We argue that morality is fundamentally tied to perceptions of harm/victimhood/suffering and discuss how to understand and bridge moral/political divides
6
39
157
Excited to share our new PNAS paper. It took a whole platoon to make this project a reality, but Bear Goldstein did amazing work. He used fNIRS to scan business execs’ brains in the field and could predict which ones were overwhelmed at work.
2
5
19
Echoing @jayvanbavel recommendation to buy @kurtjgray superb new book showcasing how humans share a moral mind primed to mitigate threats and that political conflict happens because of disagreements about which harms are most real, which I reviewed for @BooksinFive below! 1/5
1
4
9
New post about the signals that trigger warnings and safe spaces send to students in SPSP blog 👇
1
0
1
A new scale provides a tool for studying the belief that words can cause psychological harm. 🤬 led by lab alum 👴 @sampratt99
✍️ New Preprint: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..." but can words really harm? We created the Words Can Harm Scale (WCHS) to measure the belief that speech can cause lasting psychological harm. You can take the online assessment here: https://t.co/7lEWgN06Hx
0
3
10
1
0
1
Introducing the Words Can Harm Scale: a measure of the belief that words can cause psychological harm. Preprint and online assessment in next tweet!
2
0
8
You can read the full preprint here: https://t.co/frCU6Fb87y Thanks to co-authors @paytonjjones @BenjaminBellet2 Richard McNally @kurtjgray
osf.io
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...
0
0
1
The belief that words can harm was consistently related to poorer psychological well-being, including: -Anxiety -Depression -Difficulties in emotion regulation -Anxiety sensitivity -Lower resilience -Belief that the self and others are vulnerable to trauma
1
0
1
The WCHS was correlated with: -Intellectual humility -Empathy -Support for trigger warnings/safe spaces -Concern for political correctness -Tendency for interpersonal victimhood -Moral grandstanding -Left-wing authoritarianism -Belief in the importance of silencing others
1
0
1
Who scores higher on the Words Can Harm Scale? In our sample (N = 956), the belief was more common among: - Younger people - Women - Non-White participants - Political liberals
1
0
2
✍️ New Preprint: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..." but can words really harm? We created the Words Can Harm Scale (WCHS) to measure the belief that speech can cause lasting psychological harm. You can take the online assessment here: https://t.co/7lEWgN06Hx
1
2
6
We've officially moved the @DeepBeliefsLab to Ohio State! We have a new Substack post to celebrate. And contrary to popular belief, the @thesummeritp reference in the title was not my doing!
New semester, new lab members, new University! We're glad to be settling in and posting on our Substack again about what this chaotic summer taught @kurtjgray . (new post linked below 🍎🤓)
0
1
4
People often rely on their own judgment over the "wisdom of the crowds" when making tough decisions (e.g., "which school should I attend?") A new study found that across 12 countries, most participants went with their gut even when given the option to consult others.
2
0
6
New study finds that as birth rates have declined, we've started spending more on pets. And across several studies, dog lovers often prioritized dogs over people in moral dilemmas 🐶 > 🙍
Study 1: National spending on pets is strongly negatively correlated with the birth rate (r = -.93; controlling for GDP). This replicated at the county level. Less babies born = more 💸 spent on pets, which may suggest a caregiving trade-off.
0
0
4
