Sam Pratt
@sampratt99.bsky.social
Psychology PhD student at UCLA 🐻 learning about morality, politics, and consciousness
This work would not have been possible without my excellent co-authors Daniel Rosenfeld, Amelia Goranson, @janettphd.bsky.social, Paschal Sheeran, and @kurtjgray.bsky.social !
Full paper: doi.org/10.1177/0146...
Full paper: doi.org/10.1177/0146...
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
doi.org
November 5, 2025 at 7:31 PM
This work would not have been possible without my excellent co-authors Daniel Rosenfeld, Amelia Goranson, @janettphd.bsky.social, Paschal Sheeran, and @kurtjgray.bsky.social !
Full paper: doi.org/10.1177/0146...
Full paper: doi.org/10.1177/0146...
From vaccines 💉 to diets 🍎 , many health issues have become moral battlegrounds. These issues seem different on the surface, but we suggest that they each become moralized when seen as causing harm to other people.
November 5, 2025 at 7:31 PM
From vaccines 💉 to diets 🍎 , many health issues have become moral battlegrounds. These issues seem different on the surface, but we suggest that they each become moralized when seen as causing harm to other people.
Study 5:
In another version, we described sleep aids as preventing harm - reducing traffic deaths by improving sleep. Moralization flipped: people now saw using sleep aids as morally praiseworthy 👏 😊
In another version, we described sleep aids as preventing harm - reducing traffic deaths by improving sleep. Moralization flipped: people now saw using sleep aids as morally praiseworthy 👏 😊
November 5, 2025 at 7:31 PM
Study 5:
In another version, we described sleep aids as preventing harm - reducing traffic deaths by improving sleep. Moralization flipped: people now saw using sleep aids as morally praiseworthy 👏 😊
In another version, we described sleep aids as preventing harm - reducing traffic deaths by improving sleep. Moralization flipped: people now saw using sleep aids as morally praiseworthy 👏 😊
Study 5:
But can we turn a *morally neutral* behavior - using sleep aids 💊😴 - into a moral issue by describing it as harmful? Yes!
Participants moralized sleep aids more when we framed them as causing harm (increasing traffic deaths due to residual drowsiness) 😡
But can we turn a *morally neutral* behavior - using sleep aids 💊😴 - into a moral issue by describing it as harmful? Yes!
Participants moralized sleep aids more when we framed them as causing harm (increasing traffic deaths due to residual drowsiness) 😡
November 5, 2025 at 7:31 PM
Study 5:
But can we turn a *morally neutral* behavior - using sleep aids 💊😴 - into a moral issue by describing it as harmful? Yes!
Participants moralized sleep aids more when we framed them as causing harm (increasing traffic deaths due to residual drowsiness) 😡
But can we turn a *morally neutral* behavior - using sleep aids 💊😴 - into a moral issue by describing it as harmful? Yes!
Participants moralized sleep aids more when we framed them as causing harm (increasing traffic deaths due to residual drowsiness) 😡
Study 4:
Next we tested causality. Participants read about a health behavior (going to a crowded event while sick) that was described as either harmful or disgusting.
Framing it as harmful → seems immoral 😡
Framing it as disgusting → seems gross 🤢 but not immoral
Next we tested causality. Participants read about a health behavior (going to a crowded event while sick) that was described as either harmful or disgusting.
Framing it as harmful → seems immoral 😡
Framing it as disgusting → seems gross 🤢 but not immoral
November 5, 2025 at 7:31 PM
Study 4:
Next we tested causality. Participants read about a health behavior (going to a crowded event while sick) that was described as either harmful or disgusting.
Framing it as harmful → seems immoral 😡
Framing it as disgusting → seems gross 🤢 but not immoral
Next we tested causality. Participants read about a health behavior (going to a crowded event while sick) that was described as either harmful or disgusting.
Framing it as harmful → seems immoral 😡
Framing it as disgusting → seems gross 🤢 but not immoral
Studies 1-3:
We found that the more people viewed poor health as *interpersonally* harmful - causing others in one's life to suffer - they more they viewed all kinds of health behaviors as moral issues.
We found that the more people viewed poor health as *interpersonally* harmful - causing others in one's life to suffer - they more they viewed all kinds of health behaviors as moral issues.
November 5, 2025 at 7:31 PM
Studies 1-3:
We found that the more people viewed poor health as *interpersonally* harmful - causing others in one's life to suffer - they more they viewed all kinds of health behaviors as moral issues.
We found that the more people viewed poor health as *interpersonally* harmful - causing others in one's life to suffer - they more they viewed all kinds of health behaviors as moral issues.
We drew on the Theory of Dyadic Morality, which argues that we condemn acts to the extent they seem harmful.
But “harm” can mean many things. Is smoking wrong because it hurts you (personal harm), others (interpersonal harm), or society (collective harm)?
But “harm” can mean many things. Is smoking wrong because it hurts you (personal harm), others (interpersonal harm), or society (collective harm)?
November 5, 2025 at 7:31 PM
We drew on the Theory of Dyadic Morality, which argues that we condemn acts to the extent they seem harmful.
But “harm” can mean many things. Is smoking wrong because it hurts you (personal harm), others (interpersonal harm), or society (collective harm)?
But “harm” can mean many things. Is smoking wrong because it hurts you (personal harm), others (interpersonal harm), or society (collective harm)?
September 24, 2025 at 9:28 PM
You can read the full preprint here: doi.org/10.31234/osf...
Thanks to co-authors Payton Jones, Ben Bellet, Rich McNally, and @kurtjgray.bsky.social
Thanks to co-authors Payton Jones, Ben Bellet, Rich McNally, and @kurtjgray.bsky.social
OSF
For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Here are instructions for enabling JavaScript in your web browser.
doi.org
September 24, 2025 at 7:10 PM
You can read the full preprint here: doi.org/10.31234/osf...
Thanks to co-authors Payton Jones, Ben Bellet, Rich McNally, and @kurtjgray.bsky.social
Thanks to co-authors Payton Jones, Ben Bellet, Rich McNally, and @kurtjgray.bsky.social
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
-Anxiety
-Depression
-Difficulties in emotion regulation
-Anxiety sensitivity
-Lower resilience
-Belief that the self and others are vulnerable to trauma
September 24, 2025 at 7:10 PM
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
-Anxiety
-Depression
-Difficulties in emotion regulation
-Anxiety sensitivity
-Lower resilience
-Belief that the self and others are vulnerable to trauma
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
-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
September 24, 2025 at 7:10 PM
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
-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
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
- Younger people
- Women
- Non-White participants
- Political liberals
September 24, 2025 at 7:10 PM
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
- Younger people
- Women
- Non-White participants
- Political liberals
Open access paper here: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...
August 28, 2025 at 1:43 PM
Open access paper here: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...
Open access paper here: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
Moral Perceptions in Politics: Ideological Asymmetries in Perceived Moral Obligations and Stereotypical Perceptions Across Leftists and Rightists
In two studies conducted in Spain, we identified asymmetries in moral judgements, showing that leftist political topics and individuals were perceived as more moral than their rightist counterparts. ....
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
August 22, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Open access paper here: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
Open access paper here: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
August 22, 2025 at 1:45 PM
Open access paper here: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
I see this a lot in political psychology and wonder if there is a better way to conceptualize left-right differences. My first thought is a bottom-up approach where participants first tell us what they value. Curious to hear what approaches others are taking 👇
August 22, 2025 at 1:45 PM
I see this a lot in political psychology and wonder if there is a better way to conceptualize left-right differences. My first thought is a bottom-up approach where participants first tell us what they value. Curious to hear what approaches others are taking 👇
Bottom line: We should be careful not to project our liberal biases onto participants. It’s not enough to pick 6 “right-wing” issues and cite Jost when participants don’t necessarily treat those issues as right-wing.
August 22, 2025 at 1:45 PM
Bottom line: We should be careful not to project our liberal biases onto participants. It’s not enough to pick 6 “right-wing” issues and cite Jost when participants don’t necessarily treat those issues as right-wing.