Safetyism (cultures that treat safety as a sacred value): Students’ self-reported prevalence of cognitive distortions positively predicted their endorsement of safetyism beliefs; they saw the opposite for analytic thinking

Celniker, Jared, Megan Ringel, Karli Nelson, and Peter Ditto. 2021. “Correlates of “coddling”: Cognitive Distortions, Believing Words Can Harm, and Intuitive Thinking Predict Safetyism Beliefs” PsyArXiv. April 28. doi:10.31234/osf.io/5g7nc

Abstract: In their book, The Coddling of the American Mind, Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) contend that the rise of “safetyism” – cultures that treat safety as a sacred value – is hindering college students’ socioemotional development. One of their most controversial claims was that college students’ safetyism beliefs are rooted in and supported by cognitively distorted thinking (e.g., emotional reasoning). However, no empirical work has substantiated an association between cognitive distortions and safetyism beliefs. In a large (N = 786), ethnically and economically diverse sample of college students, we conducted the first examination of the relationship between these variables. Aligning with Lukianoff and Haidt’s assertions, we found that students’ self-reported prevalence of cognitive distortions positively predicted their endorsement of safetyism beliefs, even when controlling for other relevant demographic and psychological predictors. The belief that words can harm and intuitive thinking were also robust, positive predictors of safetyism beliefs. Considering our results, we argue that greater empirical scrutiny of safetyism-inspired practices (e.g., broad use of trigger warnings) is warranted before such customs become more widely adopted.