scholarly journals Correlates of “Coddling”: Cognitive Distortions, Believing Words Can Harm, and Intuitive Thinking Predict Safetyism Beliefs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared Celniker ◽  
Megan Ringel ◽  
Karli Nelson ◽  
Peter Ditto

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.

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1338
Author(s):  
Gökçen Aydın ◽  
Nasibe Kandemir Özdinç ◽  
Meral Aksu

The purpose of the present study was to find out the relationship between cognitive distortions and forgiveness in romantic relationships of college students. The sample of the study was 340 college students who have a romantic relationship at a state university in Turkey. The purposeful sampling method was carried out in this correlational study. In order to collect data, three instruments were utilized: Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions Scale (ICDS), Heartland Forgiveness Scale and Demographic Data Form. The scales were put online to survey.metu.edu.tr and students having a romantic relationship were asked to complete the scale. In the present study, canonical correlation was conducted through SPSS 22 statistical package for data analysis in order to assess the relationship between two sets of variables: “Interpersonal Rejection”, “Unrealistic Relationship Expectation” and “Interpersonal Misperception” are the subscales of interpersonal cognitive distortions on one set and “Forgiveness of Self”, “Forgiveness of Others” and “Forgiveness of Situations” are the subscales of forgiveness on the other set. The study was significant because it might fill the gap in the literature and counseling field in terms of finding the relationship between two sets of variables to give a light to possible predictors in future research studying romantic relationships.


1990 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Scott Mizes ◽  
Glen D. Morgan ◽  
Jane Buder

Several recent conceptualizations of anger have emphasized the importance of cognitive mediating processes. While there have been a few investigations showing correlations between cognitive distortion and anger, they have suffered methodological shortcomings. Anger difficulties have also been related to social skills deficits. The association has been inferred mainly through assertion treatment studies which usually show improvement in anger difficulties. There have been few studies examining an a priori relationship between assertion deficits and anger. The current correlational study of college students examined the relationship between self-report measures of general cognitive distortion, assertion-specific cognitive distortion, assertion, and anger difficulties. General cognitive distortion, though not assertion or assertion-related cognitions, was found to be related to anger. Moreover, hypotheses regarding which general cognitive distortions would be related to anger were largely supported. Implications of these findings are discussed.


2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. A. Nielsen ◽  
Amanda Luthe ◽  
Elizabeth Rellinger

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha J. Simmons ◽  
Leslie Calderon ◽  
Quingnan Zhou ◽  
Stephanie Padilla ◽  
Sheila K. Grant

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elyse C. Corbett ◽  
Kathryn M. Rickard ◽  
Jennifer L. Matheson ◽  
Randall C. Swaim

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ling-Lun Chien ◽  
Marty Sapp ◽  
Jane P. Liu ◽  
Steve Bernfeld ◽  
Steffanie J. Scholze ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document